Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

DrugReporter

What Darwin Could Tell Us About the "War on Drugs"

By Sanho Tree, MinuteMan Media. Posted December 27, 2007.


Although it may seem counterintuitive, the "law and order" response by our politicians only intensifies the problem.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

With every passing year the drug problem seems to get worse. The U.S. government responds by pumping billions more dollars into the war on drugs. Federal spending for this "war without end" is more than twenty times what it was in 1980 and still the drug traffickers appear to be winning. Despite more than six billion dollars spent on "Plan Colombia" alone, cocaine production has actually increased in that country. Now the Bush Administration is asking for $1.4 billion more to aid the Mexican government's drug crackdown through the "Merida Initiative."

Although it may seem counterintuitive, the "law and order" response by our politicians only intensifies the problem. Instead, they might turn to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to glean insight as to why these "common sense" reactionary solutions often are counterproductive.

As illegal drugs become easier to obtain and more potent, politicians respond in a knee-jerk manner by ramping up law enforcement. After all, drugs are bad so why not escalate the war against drugs? Politicians get to look tough in front of voters, the drug war bureaucracy is delighted with ever expanding budgets, and lots of low-level bad guys get locked up. Everyone wins - including, unfortunately, the major drug traffickers.

As politicians intensified the drug war decade after decade, an unintended consequence began to appear. These "get tough" policies have caused the drug economy to evolve under Darwinian principles (i.e., survival of the fittest). Indeed, the drug war has stimulated this economy to grow and innovate at a frightening pace.

By escalating the drug war, the kinds of people the police typically capture are the ones who are dumb enough to get caught. These criminal networks are occasionally taken down when people within the organization get careless. Thus, law enforcement tends to apprehend the most inept and least efficient traffickers. The common street expression puts it best: "the dealer who uses, loses." Conversely, the kinds of people law enforcement tends to miss are the most cunning, innovative and efficient traffickers.

It's as though we have had a decades-long unintended policy of artificial selection. Just as public health professionals warn against the overuse of antibiotics because it can lead to drug resistant strains of bacteria, our overuse of law enforcement has thinned out the trafficking herd so that the weak and inefficient traffickers get captured or killed and only the most proficient dealers survive and prosper. Indeed, U.S. drug war policies have selectively bred "super-traffickers."

Politicians cannot hope to win a war on drugs when their policies ensure that only the most efficient trafficking networks survive. Not only do they survive, but they thrive because law enforcement has destroyed the competition for them by picking off the unfit traffickers and letting the most evolved ones take over the lucrative trafficking space. The destruction of the Medellin and Cali cartels, for instance, only created a vacuum for hundreds of smaller (and more efficient) operations. Now the police cannot even count the number of smaller cartels that have taken over - much less try to infiltrate and disrupt them.

Moreover, the police have constricted the supply of drugs on the street while the demand remains constant thus driving up prices and profits for the remaining dealers. Increasing drug interdiction creates an unintended price support for drug dealers which, in turn, lures more participants into the drug economy. Of all the laws that Congress can pass or repeal, the law of supply and demand is apparently not one of them.

A public health approach to dealing with illicit drugs should take precedence over "law and order" approaches. Treatment and prevention must take priority over interdiction and eradication because drugs are a demand-driven problem. Politicians, however, continue to devote most drug funding toward cutting the supply. The proposed aid package for the notoriously corrupt Mexican drug war establishment would be better spent on providing treatment for addicts in the United States. Over reliance on politically expedient "get tough" policies will only continue an endless spiral of drug trafficking evolution.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: plan colombia, drug war, stupidity

Sanho Tree is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC and directs its Drug Policy Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wrong Paradigm
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 27, 2007 1:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Darwinian selection operating at the level of the effects of policy on public health and safety harsh drug laws should be eliminated, but that's not the driving force. It's survival of the fittest in elections that accounts for these policies, and being 'tough on crime' gets votes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wrong Paradigm Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Wrong Paradigm Posted by: Bobb
Interesting
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 27, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hadn't thought much about the Darwinian thing, even though it was right in front of me whenever I watched "Cops."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the dealers make peanuts compared to those who make billions from our insecurities
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 27, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Membership of the Company is drawn from the Security Industry in its widest sense and includes leading security professionals from the industrial and retail sectors, serving and retired members of the police and armed services, security consultants, academics, heads of security for corporate businesses, investigators and electronic surveillance companies.

Heaven forbid that drugs should be decriminalized or that the phoney war on terror should be called off.

Law is used for criminal purposes by the partners in the US/UK "special relationship". This benefits the monarchists on both sides of the Atlantic. Drug-related crime is not what we should be afraid of. It is the "haves" and the "have-mores" who pose the greatest threat, largely because they themselves are frightened of getting their just desserts. The punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering (while the condemned person was alive) was only abolished in the 19th century.

Things don't have to be this way. The provision of universal health care, secure possession of one's primary residence and enlightened education could increase everyone's happiness and well-being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I love you too, Pirate! Posted by: Suzon
» RE: I love you too, Pirate! Posted by: richholland
Don't forget about the deep politics of drug trade
Posted by: s.duplantier on Dec 27, 2007 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we should be thinking here of co-evolution in the drug industry. U. S. government involvement in the drug trade is certainly a factor.

The work of Gary Webb, Peter Dale Scott and other brave investigators shows additional reasons why the illegal drug industry is so huge and so successful: the involvement of operatives of the U.S. government.

So maybe the super-traffickers have evolved because of the added fitness boost of help by clandestine U.S. policies and other "black ops."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Darwin and drugs, for real
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 27, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans get drunk and take drugs because "it feels good". Those humans for whom drinking feels way too good, (Mick Jagger) reproduce like rabbits. Those humans for whom drinking doesn't feel that good go on to have brilliant careers and become scientists and monks, but they never find the time to reproduce until they're over 40. Sometimes they have one child. Over many generations, those people for whom drinking and toking on the weed doesn't feel good are bred out of the gene pool.

I wish everyone a happy happy happy happy new year! May the bubbles in the champagne drive the alcohol right to your head, and may you and your boyfriend/girlfriend/acquaintance lock lips like a couple of animals!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Darwin and drugs, for real Posted by: morticia
» RE: Darwin and drugs, for real Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Old Sayings Come to Mind
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Dec 27, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One old saying comes to mind: For every problem there is a solution that is simple, easy, obvious and wrong.

Another is that: Americans can be depended upon to do the right thing . . . after they have exhausted all other possibilities

It would appear that both of these are exemplified by the war on drugs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Old Sayings Come to Mind Posted by: jroth420
Besides, the real reason for the "war on drugs"
Posted by: magistre on Dec 27, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that it is easy to "plant" drugs on innocent people- and no one believes them when they report it! So basically, "they" can arrest/convict whomever "they" want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"War On Drugs" has become more of an oxymoron much like "War on Terror"
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 27, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst part about it is the so-called "Libertarians" don't even want to tackle that problem but most direct their energy towards kissing Wall Street's ASS ! Now I'm not the kind who gives preference but we need to start connecting some dots here. For example, Cannabis is somehow "illegal" to grow yet tobacco is "legal" although tougher to grow in the current RIGGED "capitalism". People complain about Cannabis making people's minds go "high" yet FAIL to realize that tobacco, alcohol, fast food, petroleum-manufactured drugs such as Viagra, "diet" pills, Tylenol, etc ... DAMAGE the mind and/or body whether slowly or quickly. And name me one instance where marijuana has actually killed someone or even caused the death of another. You'll get plenty of that with alcohol and tobacco. A truly free market would put an end to Cannabis Prohibition in the first place rather than RIG the market just for a few wealthy/business elitists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poor Usage
Posted by: craigandrew on Dec 27, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If all drugs were legal we would see an evolution of corporate misbehavior and less individual misbehavior... what's the difference? Other than the illusionary concept of legality.

Darwin was not accurate enough.
The 5 Options
The Evolution of Selection Methods.
The Selection Process

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Poor Usage Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Poor Usage Posted by: craigandrew
Legalization is the only answer
Posted by: Democritus on Dec 27, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it: the war on drugs is over, and the drugs have won. People get addicted to tobacco and alcohol, and these drugs are legal. There are laws governing the use of these drugs that can be enforced. For example, it's not legal to smoke in certain restaurants, nor is it legal to smoke on a U.S. airline carrier. It is illegal to drive when drunk, and you have to be 21 years old to buy liquor or cigarettes. These are enforceable laws.

The same reasoning should apply to marijuana and cocaine--as well as to steroids and human growth hormone. These substances can be regulated in the way alcohol and tobacco are regulated now. The drug dealers will be put out of business if the State controls the use of them. The price will also go down, and the tax on them can help pay for treatment given to addicts.

Why won't we go down this path to legalization? It's the culture, stupid. The pious hypocrites who run for office can stay in power if they demand more money for interdiction and less for treatment. All the while they can tell people how bad they are for using drugs. I say "phooey" to them. Let people do as they please, and guard only against behavior that might be harmful to others. Right now, it is more harmful to others to pretend we're still fighting a "war on drugs."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They knew; they know
Posted by: willymack on Dec 27, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saddadm's regime had NO nuclear capability, so they told some whoppers and got us into a phony, brutal "war" that they wanted all along, regardless of the facts. They either staged 911 or knew about 911 and allowed it to happen. They knew what inaction in the wake of Katrina would cause, and WANTED it to happen, for the benefit of a select few. They knew damn well they couldn't win a fair election, so they rigged TWO of them. Since they got away with it twice, they'll almost certainly try it again. They know the ONLY way to control us so they can work their evil with impunity is to hold an apocryphal "enemy" such as an arch "terrorist" like bin Laden or "drug lords" in front of us as an excuse to enact draconian measures and imprison anyone unwilling to go along with the program, or use the controlled press to make them disappear, while at the same time, profiting handsomely from all the above. Above all, they know an aroused citizenry can and will remove them from their lofty perch, IF they know the facts and become annoyed enough. Who are THEY? It's plain as the nose on your face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Partially correct
Posted by: Bobb on Dec 27, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Survival of the fittest" may apply to individuals who sell drugs but what is really going on here is Skinnerian behavior:
- punishment results in avoidance behavior: as punishment increases so do efforts to avoid it - which results in behavior such as killing police officers - you see very little of this happening to meter maids, who can't put you in prison for life.
- intermittent reinforcement is the strongest force shaping behavior: if selling drugs can sometimes make someone a lot of money that person will sell more and more drugs - kind of like the lottery.

And there is a non-Skinnerian cultural side to this too. All of those pro-drug advertisements with butterflies, amorous couples, slim dieters, etc. promote drugs. Let's face it, we have a culture that believes drugs are good and that we have a right to use them. The drug laws just prop up patented drugs and criminalize drugs that would be free or low cost - like marijuana and LSD - over more dangerous drugs that are profitable (don't you love the disclaimers that talk about side effects like blindness, death, paralysis, internal bleeding, dangerous erections, etc.?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Would Think....
Posted by: Libertine on Dec 27, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that this country would have learned something from the unmitigated fiasco that was Prohibition.

Prohibition only served to make people want to drink more and it helped the Mafia solidify its position in this country. Any time there is a product or service that large amounts of people want and can't get legally, organized crime steps in to fill that void. And as long as there are billions of dollars to be made filling that need, they will be willing to do so, regardless of the obstacles.

I'm sure that organized crime wants drugs to remain illegal, because when buyers have no other alternative for a seller, they can charge whatever they like and desperate users will pay. If drugs were legal, however, prices would fall as people would have more choices where to buy drugs, which would be subject to the same regulations as presently legal drugs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One Would Think.... Posted by: Lauren
What about impact of Plan Mexico (Tree calls it the Merida Initiative for some reason) on. . .
Posted by: mutualaid on Dec 27, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
activists?

That corrupt 'drug war' establishment is part of a corrupt and brutal "security" establishment in Mexico.

As more and more Mexicans organize against the ravages of corporate-managed 'free trade' and anti-democratic crony governments, those Mexican activists are targeted by the Mexican power structure. While penning an intriguing article, Tree doesn't mention Mexicans who would suffer at the hands of a u.s. taxpayer funded/trained/armed Mexican security establishment.

Robert Jereski
Friends of Brad Will
http://www.friendsofbradwill.org/category/plan-mexico/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Darwinian What?
Posted by: aberdeen on Dec 27, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author's Darwinian theory leads a lot to be desired, which isn't surprising, considering the source, as Darwinian theory has long left a lot to be desired, particularly in the moral improvement department.

Based on the "logic" of this author's theory, we should stop funding law enforcement to go after murderers and rapists and instead, focus on curing murder and rape tendencies in our theoretically "advanced" species.

The problem with this Darwinian "logic" is that, after over 10,000 years of education and science and various moral updragging to the contrary, our species, including some of it's most educated members, seems to be more inclined to violence and addiction than ever before, here in the 21st Century days of "miracle and wonder" (to quote Paul Simon).

And, even if our science and education could cure our species bad habits, which is more than highly unlikely given the known historical track record, just who is supposed to protect little Johnny and little Amy from our sins in the meantime?

Not surprising that a modern "science" that ignores the overwhelming evidence of design and "education" system that ignores fundamental morality, doesn't have a reason, rhyme or rat's chance in hell of doing anything other than adding to the nuclear, biological and planetary pollution problem.

"Without a vision, the people perish" and as Jesus very clearly pointed out, without God's help, people will continue to become ever more violent, as WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, among others, quite obviously prove beyond all shadow of any doubt.

Just who is kidding who?

--Richard Aberdeen
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Darwinian What? Posted by: xenocyd
» RE: Darwinian What? Posted by: Democritus
» Just who is kidding who? Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Darwinian What? Posted by: Bobb
» RE: Darwinian What? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Darwinian What? Posted by: formaryjane
Problems are profitable.
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Dec 27, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question is, how bad do things have to get before all solutions are considered?

The REAL question for davos07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZYFAizYjcg

Cannabis is prohibited because it is more profitable to sell solutions that don't work than to fix the problems created by scarcity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Merida Initiative'?
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Dec 27, 2007 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shouldn't that be Mordida Initiative? ;-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 'Merida Initiative'? Posted by: mbep
Darwinism doesn't exist.
Posted by: Art on Dec 27, 2007 2:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darwin discribed how man, beast and plant have evolved. There is no moral lesson in it, no prescription how to behave.

Like in 'Social Darwinism' the use of the term Darwism leads tot no insight. It only leads to selfcongratulating cheers from the people who find themselves succesfull in society. In this mode of reasoning you could use the analogy with Darwins theories to defend not fighting crime at all bedause the criminals would only become smarter and more succesfull. This is nonsense. Criminal behaviour is something that disrupts civil society and should be adressed.

I do strongly agree that the war on drugs has much worse effects than drugs use itself. It is therefore much more useful to adress the problem of substance abuse (if it is a problem!) as a health issue.

But the use of the term Darwinism doesn't clarify anything and will not provide a solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Darwinism doesn't exist. Posted by: Sanho Tree
in darwin's lifetime
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Dec 27, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there was no war on drugs (there was a war of drugs in the form of the opium wars in china)...but as far as cannabis goes, dariwn's queen victoria used cannabis as a medicine, especially for "female problems"...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: in darwin's lifetime Posted by: Lauren
» RE: in darwin's lifetime Posted by: formaryjane
much more interesting framework: pyhrric defeat
Posted by: kenhymes on Dec 27, 2007 4:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a much more interesting and compelling explanation of how the drug war helps justify and entrench elites, and mroe generally sustains the economic and social system, read Craig Reinermann's book The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Prison. There is much to his argument that is not easily condensed, but the gist is that the failure of the drug war is crucial to its usefulness, hence the phrase "pyhrric defeat." The enforcement process makes money and power in itself, and the way in which it generates more law-breaking and escalates the problem serves as a powerful source of justification for the inequities of our culture. But don't listen to my poor summary, go and find the book at powells.com or at a university library.

Peace
Ken Hymes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone forgot about Big Tobackgo
Posted by: tokerdesigner on Dec 27, 2007 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article mixes everything together under "drugs", otherwise has some good points.
My bias in the following is that something is a "drug" only when used to excess and that means exist to use it moderately it should have a different name than "drug"-- such as "herb" for example. Now on to my story:

1. When I was in Berlin in the early 70's the best hashish was from Afghanistan-- a black kind with white mold on top known as "Schimmelafghan". The US got busy and destroyed the hashish business in Afghanistan, and today after various wars it produces more than 90% of the world's heroin.

2. Around 1980 there was a strong brown riefer from Colombia. A dealer would whisper, "Got dat bo!" The US got busy with Drug War commandos (flying guns down in the planes and cocaine back) and billions of bucks and today Colombia produces most of the cocaine.

3. Growhouses in the US began to produce a strong spicy green riefer; the Drug Enforcers used spy planes to detect electricity use and heat etc. and today we have meth labs instead.

The politicians who legislated this policy were mostly Democrats up till Nixon's southern strategy and Republicans since, and they got a lot of campaign money from the tobacco industry. Also the government (all levels) gets over $30 Bil. a year in tobacco taxes and spends most of it busting someone for riefer.

The problem, folks (a little folksy Limbaugh lingo there), is that a. Big Tobackgo controls the government, and b. Big Tobackgo doesn't want the cannabis alternative to be available. All these Darwinian drug problems stem from the fact that without legal cannabis those dangerous drugs (like tobacco itself) are easier to traffic in and easier to get than cannabis.

Big Tobackgo fears cannabis because (in descending order):

b. If legalized, millions might switch from tobacco to cannabis;

a. (worse) miniature non-overdose smoking methods, such as the one-hitter, minitoke, kiseru, midwakh etc. would be unamibiguously legal along with the cannabis, and millions of presentday hot-burning-overdose cigaret addicts might downscale their tobacco use 93% by substituting two tokes for an entire cigaret.

Big Pharma fears cannabis for two reasons, in deswcending order:

b. Marijuana may substitute for many profitable drugs as other commentators have mentioned above;

a. With a drastic decline in tobacco overdosing by smokers who switch to a mini-utensil, smoking-related diseases will decline and they'll lose major earnings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anthropology
Posted by: Racumin on Dec 27, 2007 8:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you heard of cultural evolution. It didn't go over so well and it completely misses the point.
A CIA plane used in flights to Guantanamo, among other places, just crashed in Mexico. It was loaded with Cocaine. Whether or not this particular story is true, it is well known down here in South America, that the U.S. government is in the drug business. It's a great way to fund illegal operations. So, of course they're never going to win the war on drugs. The war on drugs is really a war on the poor, especially minorities. Here's en example. A wealthy or upper middle class person gets caught with cocaine and gets a slap on the wrist. A poor black person has a gram of crack (a diluted form of cocain) and gets locked up. Hmmmm. Thats odd. It's like letting someone off for mass-murder and giving another person life for manslaughter, but that happens too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: anthropology Posted by: formaryjane
what if you legalize drugs????
Posted by: richholland on Dec 27, 2007 10:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
then the production will be by big corporations with marketing and corruptions.
To smoke pot is no crime in many westeuropean countries.
so grow your own weed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what if you legalize drugs???? Posted by: formaryjane
Good news.
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 28, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roger's site is back up so I can share some testimonials with you all. These are great stories, enjoy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

back to us
Posted by: formaryjane on Jan 1, 2008 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this whole thing is not about whether or not theres a corporate hand in it, cause we all know there is... if darwin had a say about marijuana, his opionion would only be logical right? evolution may be just an idea, but its a rational one.

1. marijuana never ruined anyones lives, but the government does when they arbitrarily arrest you for it, the reason weed is trouble in the first place is that to get it you are forced to asociate with the under world to get it.

2. people have been using marijuana for thousands of years, (I think the chinese had it around since about 3000 b.c.)

3. whether you use it for medical, religous, recreational, or just socially, for some reason federal government has the right to tell us no, illogical by multiple bills of right and further more the very constitution by which we claim to live.

4. the federal government can't tax dojo because everyone can grow it and legalization would cost the government billions in appropriated drug funds and steep fines.

5. they piss me off

6. legalization would allow independent thinkers to grow outside of public views

7. the use for medical purposes would take billions of dollars from "chemically altered drugs" such as the infamous government meth (methodones etc... doesn't the government call meth pure evil?) that cost anywhere from $80 to $500 for twenty pills whereas you could grow the most natural potent (whereas grown properly) and cost inneffective cure that helps treat radical diseases such as cancer, aids (final stages) etc.. to just helping insomnia and small headaches as well as making your body more aware of its own needs

8. legalization would decrease taxes and help untie the already insanely tangled web of the court systems leaving the courts free to clearly sentence killers, rapist, child molesters, meth chefs (motherfuckers from the bottom of my heart) and all other sorts of wierdos out there and free up the law enforcement to do something about the downfall of decent society. I mean what would you rather have off the streets, crack or weed?

9. the worst thing that can happen to someone stoned is that they'll empty their fridge quicker than planned.

10. they still piss me off

I could go on with this one forever but I'm not going to, its not just that they're trying to stop us from doing what we want but that they're taking a piece of human history away from everyone to mke a quick buck. there's more to this then just being selfish or wanting to be happy for a small period of time.

the order of evolution states that the strongest will in the end dominate over the weak, which is what the government is trying to punk us around by opening medical dispensaries and then turning around and saying "oh but you still can't do that"
time to decide who the weak are
cause I don't think its us.

if darwin knew what was going on today I believe he would be deeply confused.

thank you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Malaprops and conflation
Posted by: talkville on Jan 8, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best applied at the Species level, when applied in the social realm (social darwinism) pernicious and mis-guided and bizarre theorems and axiomatics ensue.

Darwinian mechanisms are not exactly equatable within social relations -- especially economic ones such as our current financial capitalist times. Although many people these days harbor wishes based on Darwin, there is no anointing of any particular individuals or groups - whether 'races', classes, cultures or otherwise that are somehow 'anointed' by Darwinian Theory as the 'most advanced' or 'superior' or anything else. Darwin is at the Species level (all humans are one of many); the so-called "war on drugs" (or "war on fill-in-the-blank") are at the level of social, political and economic conditions within this one species.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WAR ON CITIZENS POGRAM
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Jan 20, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A POGRAM IS WHEN A GOVERNMENT DECLARES WAR ON ITS CITIZENS... AS IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN AMERICA ON EVERY FRONT SINCE 1980.. AMERICA WITH 4% OF THE WORLD POPULATION HAS 25% OF ITS PRISONERS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyday a challenge
Posted by: Lauren on Jan 22, 2008 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.danvilleweekly.com
/square/index.php?i=3&t=151&d=#add_comments

- Pleasant Hill

Mary Piepho and Susan Bonilla have a big thing against a perfectly reasonable business operation, medical marijuana dispensaries. I believe it is religious discrimination.

They ignore the needs of sick and dying people and refuse to listen to my assertions regarding their religious prejudices. I am a Sufi, a kind of eastern religious leader. Marijuana is the sacrament of my church.

Today I dropped a copy of the Rasta Testimonial from my church, the THC Ministry, to Supervisor Piepho's office in Martinez. I had a second to talk to her in the hall.

Wow! Her obvious prejudice, hatred even of sweet little old Hippie mama me, was actually notable. Her words were also threatening, I looked around to see the sheriffs smirking at me.

I commented on it to a TV 7 reporter who gave me her card, (I was actually on FOXN last week, I am moving up.)

I would like to know what church Mary Piepho goes to. I need to talk to her minister about the discrimination she and Susan are visiting upon me and my people.

Because she is an elected official and she directs the Sheriffs office police forces to hurt and hunt us, and they do this based on the racial and religious prejudices that they share against us; I believe this fills the actual description of torture from the United Nations charter.

We could press charges, or we could file a class action suit against her and the county. Call me if you are interested in joining either of these actions.

Mary Piepho MUST be replaced. We need someone reasonable to run against her. If you are interested in any of these projects, or know someone who is, or are interested in joining the THC Ministry, please call me.

If you are into politics and want to see some major changes, I am in the phone book, give me a call.

Posted by Lauren Unruh, a resident of another community, 0 minutes ago

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement