COMMENTS: 35
The Relentless War on Drug Users Is Escalating Violence in the US: It's Time for Harm Reduction
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Drugs headlines via email.
Ethan Nadelmann is one of a handful of marvelously charismatic and motivating speakers within the liberal and progressive universe. He talks creatively and emphatically about race, class, gender, corruption, power, human rights, immigration and the devastating impact of prison-industrial complex on all aspects of society, all progressive touchstones. Yet relatively few people know who he is, or follow his efforts. Why? Because he has devoted his life to transforming America's attitudes and laws about drugs, which is no easy task, and often a thankless one.
There exists a complex, almost paradoxical attitude toward drug use and the ramifications of "drug war" repression among many progressives. Even Baby Boomers, many who successfully navigated a journey through their own drug experimentation as they came of age, often overreact to the possibilities of their own childrens' experimentations with drugs. And in the case of our last three presidents, all who used drugs, the consistent stance is to go out of their way to avoid any acknowledgement of any positive role that drugs play in our society, or even seriously consider a less destructive approach, which would be the legalization and regulation of drugs. President Obama, who has been quite honest about his personal drug use, nevertheless has been somewhat dismissive about even modest reforms concerning pot -- a drug far less dangerous than the alcohol and cigarettes, which pervade our society and generate billions of advertising dollars to maintain dependencies and widespread social use.
The way our country deals with illegal drug use -- a behavior that has been with humans since the beginning of time -- has truly become a civil rights and human rights issue in our midst, as millions are arrested each year in an overwhelmingly racist, and uniquely American crusade against personal choice and liberty. Hundreds of thousands are in jail on drug charges, even for simply smoking pot or possessing it in the wrong part of the country, or being tricked by cops, as young people frequently are in New York City. Meanwhile we can attribute much of the development of the surveillance state, the huge allocation of funds to combat issues of fear, the massive numbers of security personnel we have in our midst, mainly on two things -- 9/11 and the "war on drugs."
On the other hand, we are currently at the highest point of most the open debate about drug use in 30 years, and polls show that general acceptance among the people on the issues of cannabis is at an all-time high. Majorities in many parts of the country -- of course not the South -- are in favor of legalizing pot possession for personal use. Medical marijuana is now available in a patchwork of laws in 15 states. And perhaps most noteworthy, the media has suddenly changed course and drugs are no longer being demonized. News media narratives often now share the positive stories about pot, leaving the pot critics the last paragraph or comment in order to have a balanced story. The popular cable program Weeds is likely partially responsible for this shift.
Recently, and remarkably there was a cover story in Fortune, which made the case that pot was already legal in parts of the U.S., due to the massive medical pot business in California. That article had a special focus on Oakland, California, which many consider the pot capitol of the country. Another comprehensive article and video appeared in Newsweek called "Welcome to Potopia," about the remarkable successes of Richard Lee in Oakland, who has established Oaksterdam University to teach the responsible cultivation of cannabis, as part of his socially conscious mini pot empire (I wrote about and interviewed Lee here).
It is Lee who is causing consternation in California cannabis circles for his determination to place on the 2010 ballot a pot tax initiative, which would have the result of legalizing pot for the personal user, and bring billions of dollars into the California coffers, when the state is reeling from massive unemployment and an unprecedented budget gap. There is a worry that CA citizens aren't ready for a legal pot vote, and concern about a possible backlash. But the financially well-off Lee clearly has the resources to qualify for the ballot, which means that the entire pot establishment in California is going to have to get real and get behind the initiative, to make sure it doesn't show weakness in the overall drug reform effort.
Nadelmann's Conference
But back to the under-appreciated Nadelmann. Now don't feel sorry for Ethan -- he runs a highly polished national organization, with crack staff around the country and budgets well north of $5 million a year, and is without peer in the influence he wields on the issue. His main benefactor is multi-billionaire George Soros, who sits on his board and funded the origins of Nadelman's current group, The Drug Policy Alliance. And Nadelmann gets mainstream publicity with the best of them.
But yes, Nadelmann often seems to be swimming upstream. He presented this summer at the Campaign for America's Future Conference and gave hands down the best speech of the day. When it was over, people clapped politely and went on to discuss how to elect liberals to Congress, what's next with the Apollo Alliance, why Obama's economic advisors lacked any progressives, and any number of things, and probably quickly forgot Nadelmann's clarion call to make the drug war a progressive issue worthy of the key movements of our time for equality and social justice. (AlterNet printed the text of that speech by Nadelmann, which you can read here).
This weekend, Nadelmann's organization, the Drug Policy Alliance, is holding its bi-annual gathering in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where several hundred drug experts and activists from around the world are gathered to grapple with an often dizzying array of issues. Nadelmann set the tone of optimism and increasing confidence by saying "the wind is at our back. We are making progress like we have never seen before. There will be some some setbacks, and sometimes the wind will disappear, but this is our time and we have to move hard and fast."
Nadelmann's opening talk that was particularly instructive because it raised the issues, and contradictions that the drug reform movement faces in seeking success. Nadelmann drew on his vast knowledge of the history of alcohol prohibition as an apt analogy for some of our present dilemmas. Nadelmann reminded his audience that the 18th Amendment truly failed because it was so effective "in empowering organized crime, violence and corruption, overflowing jail cells, and creating criminals as role models for kids." Prohibition ended with the depression, when everyone was hurting for funds, and it ended with effective work from Women for the Appeal of Prohibition. But it was fundamentally the depression that created the conditions for the first time repeal of a constitutional amendment in U.S. history.
An obvious point of comparison is that today, the U.S, has had its most serious economic contraction since the "Great Depression," and many of the same conditions of enormous resources invested in the drug war, in jailing hundreds of thousands, and organized crime causing large-scale violence is part of the environment. But one big difference is that the violence is coming from Mexico, and spreading across the U.S. rapidly and dangerously.
The most powerful leverage pot legalization advocates have is the enormous amount of money being made by the Mexican drug cartels. The big bucks are made by growing pot over vast portions of federal land in the West, and selling it all across America. The result are brutal wars between competing cartels and with the Mexican government with unspeakable violence that has torn the fabric of Mexico asunder, leaving many with the feeling that the country could be turning into a narco-state. Nadelmann made this point by saying not only should we be considering the violence and warfare in Iraq, and Afghanistan but also in Mexico, where the violence has spread through Texas and the Southwest, where many drug cartel leaders migrate for more safety.
In considering addressing the ramifications of changing the mindset of Americans to more accept the safe use of drugs in their midst, requires leaders and elected officials to come to understand the fundamental principle of most of the drug reform efforts -- a concept called harm reduction -- where society's approach to dealing with drugs, like many things, should be about reducing the negative impact on the community and on individuals, as opposed to prohibition, which causes myriad problems and unintended consequences. In this case, the massive violence from Mexico -- Nadelmann say that some claim that as much as 60% of the money going into the cartels is from U.S. pot business -- is the root of the problem. Thus, and sometimes I am not clear why so many people do not understand this most fundamental concept: if pot was legal in the U.S, if prohibition were not the priority, but harm reduction and safe regulation took its place, the key source of revenue fueling the violence in Mexico and increasingly in the U.S. would be cut off. The cartels would be broken. Can we all think about this and what it means?
Stay up to date with the latest Drugs headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 14, 2009 4:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping emerged during the Prohibition era. Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger whom the government wished to search. It placed taps in the basement of his office building and on wires in the streets near his home. No physical entry into his office or home took place. Olmstead was convicted entirely on the basis of evidence from the wiretaps.
"In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Olmstead argued that the taps were a search conducted without a warrant and without probable cause, and that the evidence seized against him should have been excluded because it was illegally gathered. He also argued that his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself was violated.
"By a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected his arguments and upheld the government's power to wiretap without limit and without any Fourth Amendment restrictions, on the grounds that no actual physical intrusion had taken place.
"Olmstead's Fifth Amendment claim was also dismissed on the grounds that he had not been compelled to talk on the telephone, but had done so voluntarily. Thus the Court upheld the government's power to do by trickery and surreptitious means what it was not permitted to do honestly and openly. It wasn't until 1967, in a similar case involving gambling, that the Court overruled the Olmstead decision by an 8-1 margin and recognized that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping and electronic surveillance.
"Interestingly, these cases arose in the context of crimes like bootlegging and gambling. During the past twenty years, the majority of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping by both state and federal officials has been in cases involving drug dealing and gambling.
"Serious crimes of violence, such as homicide, assault, rape, robbery, and burglary, are rarely the target of electronic eavesdropping, which is not normally a useful tool in such cases.
"From the beginning, when wiretapping was virtually invented to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, to the late 1960s, when gambling was a major target, to the present, when the use and sale of drugs other than alcohol are the main target, these intrusive devices have been used mostly to enforce laws aimed at punishing and proscribing personal conduct that society deems immoral.
"Because such conduct essentially involves private activities among consenting adults who are all likely to want to keep those activities secret, they are harder to investigate and prosecute than crimes like robbery or burglary, in which an unwilling victim will probably aid any investigation...the invasion of privacy inherent in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping remains with us as part of the legacy of our attempts to criminalize personal conduct.
"The other major use of electronic eavesdropping has been to punish political dissent. For decades, former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used wiretaps and other electronic devices to spy on political figures and citizens not yet suspected of having committed a crime. He built vast dossiers on their political activities and personal lives. Special units of local police called 'Red Squads' did the same."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 14, 2009 4:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It Is Hard To Fool A Pot Smoker
Posted by: Erin
» RE: It Is Hard To Fool A Pot Smoker
Posted by: zowie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: misfire on Nov 14, 2009 6:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The other nite, a panel of pundits on MSNBC - supposedly the anti-Fox progressive cable news outlet - was discussing the U.S.'s obligations to the hordes of returning war vets, a huge portion of whom will be addicted to opioid and other "hard" drugs. Aside from providing "treatment" - the sadly non-descriptive term used in reference to the 12-step rehab industry - there was no mention of any serious move toward harm reduction.
Opioid dependence will no doubt be a sadly pandemic challenge facing thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of veterans. They will be introduced to these substances in the form of pain medications following combat injuries. Or, as the psychological effects of their war experiences become unbearable for many, they will turn in desperation to self-medication, and the presumably cheap and available Afghan heroin will do the trick for them - for awhile.
As a chronic pain patient myself, I count myself as incredibly fortunate that I have access to these pain meds, including the most demonized of them all, Oxycontin. As with most patients, I eventually found a dosage that I could maintain long-term and keep the pain at manageable levels. The amount required varies by patient, but mine is quite high - high enough that if (HYPOTHETICALLY - I WOULD NEVER CONSIDER THIS!)I sold my meds on the street, I'd never have to work again.
One of my docs once referred to my usage level as "incredibly high", and yet no one who knows me would ever guess I'm on them. Other than occasional mild drowsiness during the day, the only effects I feel are pain relief. The fact is that these drugs are some of the safest known, in terms of long-term physiological effects. I may be on them for the rest of my life, but no doctor has ever mentioned a serious risk to my health as a result.
Sorry, I'm out of time right now, but I hope to comment further after a bit. In a nutshell, however, my point is simple - give pain patients the meds they needs, for as long as THEY feel they need them. Addicted persons have a medical issue that should be treated medically, and one treatment option should be to GIVE THEM THE DRUGS THEY NEED to lead normal lives. Stop treating addicts like jews in Nazi Germany (no offense intended to jews or Germans or anyone else!). Repeal prohibition.
ALL the negative societal, medical and personal problems associated with these drugs are a DIRECT RESULT OF PROHIBITION. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Harm reduction? Umm, duh....!
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bcainx on Nov 14, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama08.htm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» With their Support of Drug Warrior Barack
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 14, 2009 7:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it was the violence of the organized crime (Al Capone, etc.) that really brought the message home to Mr. & Mrs. America during the Depression. That made it possible for politicians to repeal the 16th Amendment.
Today, it could be the violence by the Mexican Mafia that brings about an end to drug prohibition.
Most Americans don't want Cops & Robbers being played out in their streets. And if it the source of the problem is the law itself, then that's when that law gets repealed. The alternative is widespread disregard for that law, and a weakening of authority.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Violence may be the tipping point to end prohibition
Posted by: kbd
» that was then...this is now...
Posted by: Annapurna1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Nov 14, 2009 8:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It also creates a larger criminal population from people who are not violent or doing harm to others.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The laws create gangs
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: The laws create gangs
Posted by: lclark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: misfire on Nov 14, 2009 9:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Promising research has been done suggesting the possibility of drug formulations which could prevent or even reverse the development of tolerance to and/or physical dependence on opioid drugs, while preserving the drugs' analgesic (and other valuable!) effects. Try searching for "ultra low-dose naltrexone" (I think that's right) and "proglumide" (an obsolete stomach ulcer drug shown to have such effects in animal studies).
To get away from opioids and consider drugs generally - there is no question that the surface hasn't yet even been scratched as to the potential for development of new recreational drugs. Why would this be a good thing? One example - what if a drug could be created which would have the positive effects of alcohol (relaxation, euphoria, enhanced social interaction) without the negatives (toxicity, addiction, dangerous loss of inhibitions/coordination/etc. etc.)?
Research into these and other harm reduction strategies has great promise, but isn't happening. Research doesn't happen in the U.S. without funding by the government, and funding will never happen in the current political climate. Cuz people are idiots, basically! 8^)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 14, 2009 1:36 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sarcasm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joebanana on Nov 14, 2009 2:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: New American on Nov 14, 2009 6:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Nov 14, 2009 6:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason that prohibition of Cannabis has to end is the fact that hemp is both unique and essential -- valuable beyond the rightful jurisdiction of any court. Cannabis agriculture, manufacture ad trade are critical to addressing crises from climate change to food security.
Those are the arguments that Ethan has failed to deliver, and AlterNet has failed to report. For all the funding, talent and effort, we are falling short in amplifying a critically important message.
Cannabis is critical to human survival. Cannabis vs. climate change is not some pipe-dream, it's hard science. Why are these dimensions of the argument not being presented?
The ONLY beneficial agricultural resource that produces food and fuel from the same harvest. It is amazing to me that food security and nutrition have not figured into the Drug Policy Alliance rationale/strategy. If they had, then we would be harvesting hemp in the US, instead of importing it from Canada and China and Romania. and...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: DRUG POLICY IMPACTS FOOD SECURITY AND BIOFUELS PRODUCTION
Posted by: maremoto
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maremoto on Nov 14, 2009 6:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Among Bush's most important contributions to the neo-Malthusian cause while
in Congress was his role in the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources
and Population. The task force, which Bush helped found and then chaired,
churned out a steady stream of propaganda claiming that the world was
already seriously overpopulated; that there was a fixed limit to natural
resources and that this limit was rapidly being reached; and that the
environment and natural species were being sacrificed to human progress.
Bush's task force sought to accredit the idea that the human race was being
"down bred," or reduced in genetic qualities by the population growth among
blacks and other non-white and hence allegedly inferior races at a time
when the Anglo-Saxons were hardly able to prevent their numbers from
shrinking.
Comprised of over 20 Republican Congressmen, Bush's Task Force was a kind
of Malthusian vanguard organization which heard testimony from assorted
"race scientists," sponsored legislation and otherwise propagandized the
zero-growth outlook. In its 50-odd hearings during these years, the task
force provided a public forum to nearly every well-known zero-growth
fanatic, from Paul Ehrlich, founder of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), to
race scientist William Shockley, to the key zero-growth advocates infesting
the federal bureaucracy.
Giving a prestigious congressional platform to a discredited racist
charlatan like William Shockley in the year after the assassination of Dr.
Martin Luther King, points up the arrogance of Bush's commitment to
eugenics. Shockley, like his co-thinker Arthur Jensen, had caused a furor
during the 1960s by advancing his thesis, already repeatedly disproven,
that blacks were genetically inferior to whites in cognitive faculties and
intelligence. In the same year in which Bush invited him to appear before
the GOP task force, Shockley had written: "Our nobly intended welfare
programs may be encouraging dysgenics -- retrogressive evolution through
disproportionate reproduction of the genetically disadvantaged.... We fear
that 'fatuous beliefs' in the power of welfare money, unaided by eugenic
foresight, may contribute to a decline of human quality for all segments of
society."
Can somebody tell me what this has to do with the "war on drugs" and these results:
http://www.leap.cc/ (see report on the actual results of the "war on drugs" by scrolling bottom right of page; wont allow me to post link)
(mad laughter)
who's the sick puppy now?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bondwooley on Nov 15, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meth Rats
(satire)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Nov 15, 2009 9:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It divides and confuses social justice communities as it empowers and institutionalizes racism and police state para-militarism.
"Chaos and Instability" the fuel of authoritarian imposed anarchy
The Congressional Research Service put it best in 2004 in their report to congress: "Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy"
"The international traffic in illicit drugs contributes to terrorist risk through at least five mechanisms: supplying cash, creating chaos and instability, supporting corruption, providing “cover” and sustaining common infrastructures for illicit activity, and competing for law enforcement and intelligence attention. Of these, cash and chaos are likely to be the two most important."
Psychotically, the same report concludes:
"American drug policy is not, and should not be, driven entirely, or even primarily, by the need to reduce the contribution of drug abuse to our vulnerability to terrorist action. There are too many other goals to be served by the drug abuse control effort."
The admitted "chaos and instability" of the War on Drugs is more important than America's "vulnerability to terrorist action". There can be nothing about the War on Drugs that is more important than our national security.
The "chaos and instability" on America's streets, in Mexico, Colombia and Afghanistan are all the success of the War on Drugs.
I am convinced that no constitutional or democratic means will prevail against this U.S. government imposed authoritarian Jim Crow anarchy. Richard Nixon and the Dixie-crats of 1970 created the War on Drugs not to protect American pluralistic constitutional and democratic values, as enumerated in the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1971 26st Amendment, but to subvert and undermine them.
"[President Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." H.R. Haldeman's diary according to former Wall Street Journal reporter Dan Baum in his book "Smoke and Mirrors".
The War on Drugs was then and still is today that "system".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» One more conspiracy angle
Posted by: misfire
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ken_sailor on Nov 15, 2009 11:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're embarrassed about our drug use - not enough to stop using, but enough to scapegoat the people who supply us with drugs as well as those who openly love their drugs.
So we can no longer (openly) go after Jews for being Jewish, blacks for being black, the Irish for being Irish - so we instead go after known drug users and the drug industry.
Really, this is a civil rights issue - yes, the right to put whatever I want in my bloodstream. Let the government try and stop us and watch what happens: the underclass goes to jail and everything gets worse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bodhidude on Nov 15, 2009 11:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This brings up the question of what is being fought for. I'm very much in favor of decriminalizing the whole thing because punishing people for what they choose to put in their bodies is barbaric in my view. Arresting them for operating a motor vehicle is one thing but for getting high in their living room is another.
However there is quite a difference between pot which is a plant that I can grow in my garden and meth which is a chemically produced non naturally occurring substance. This doesn't even address what the true drugs are and who the true drug dealers are, the legal drug companies. Legal prescription drugs cause as much or more harm than things like pot which is a pretty harmless substance unless you try to drive a car at high speed or fly a plane. What the drug companies sell is considered medicine even though there are almost always a long list of harmful side effects. That this crap is considered medicine and a natural substance like pot is called a drug is insane.
We are dealing with a much wider problem and a serious degree of delusion around this issue. This will never change until we address this delusion and remove yes remove punishment and profit and control from the equation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: techcafe on Nov 15, 2009 2:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marc's crime? selling marijuana SEEDS (not actual plants) to Americans from his mail-order business... which btw, operated openly in Vancouver for many years and even remitted hundreds of thousands in taxes to the Canadian government. but when the DEA came calling, Canadian authorities arrested Marc, raided his business and shut him down, all at the behest of the US DEA. btw, the DEA have *permanent* satellite offices in Canada, which many Canadians would be very surprised to learn, that a *foreign* government agency is directly influencing domestic policy within Canada. as far as the United States is concerned, Canada has NO sovereignty over their own affairs. Canada may as well be a 51st State to the US, since the Canadian government is in lock-step with US government policy.
Marc will likely be extradited to the US very soon, early as tomorrow, and will be sent to a federal prison - for being a pot activist and distributing seeds.
the authoritarian DEA thugs are the REAL CRIMINALS - Marc Emery is just a political pawn in the cruel & asinine war on drugs.
if you'd care to help Marc, please go HERE to find out how.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mizobe on Nov 15, 2009 3:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rest of the world watched in horror as entire rainforests and their indigenous peoples, plants and animals were driven to extinction by the so-called ‘Coca Eradication’ doctrine which involved the aerial spraying of herbicides and dangerous bio-weapons of mass destruction by the USA. For every loser who was supposedly saved from the evils of drug addiction a thousand innocent third world peasants and farmers were killed or driven from their ancestral lands and way of life. By the end of the drug war nearly one quarter of all the world’s ten million prisoners were incarcerated in jails inside “the land of the free”. The majority of these were non-violent people of color who were not guilty of any real wrong-doing.
Having become the world’s only remaining super-power, the USA eventually collapsed as the entire free world turned against it’s absolute power and it’s draconian, morally corrupt ideologies...
Young people began voting in vast numbers. It soon became legal to do anything so long as it does no harm to the environment, people, their property, or to animals. Society became peaceful, luxurious, sane. The Prison Industrial Complex went the way of the Berlin Wall. The arts and sciences flourished as never before. Humanity had made giant strides forward...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nitestallion on Nov 15, 2009 4:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This system is based on English common law. The United States has NEVER had a justice system of its own. The one in place is designed for minority favoritism and that for a rich few is fine. That is why I call it the American Just Us system. Not only is it for an Elect few it has NEVER been ratified through congress and is not therefore Constitutionally Legal!
So it is not even a publicly supported justice system by popular vote! It is an Illegal Justice system that has been foisted on the Public by dint of being grandfathered in to position. A canonical system that has grown like a fungus throughout society by being fed the bovine excrement that is practiced in Courtrooms across this Continent comprising the United States and her neighbors.
In short what we have is an Illegal Justice system that is by dictionary definition a Criminal Justice system; which preys upon the populace at large with laws that insure its existence by demanding monies which are used to further that cause.
The question becomes what does one do when the Laws of the State have become detrimental and destructive of the People supposedly being SERVED by this system?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zowie on Nov 16, 2009 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, that's the problem. Freedom of speech is being eroded by fear mongering right nuts (Grassley) and they seem to have something to lose if drugs are even talked about. What they have to lose is money. Either from pay-o-la to right wing drug testing corporations campaign funds. It's all money and it's ALL corrupted. Thanks Harry!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alex-big-guy on Nov 17, 2009 2:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
buy hgh
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 21, 2009 9:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a month And when the boss calls you tell him that we are on a national strike' For a month, And when your employer turn's on his, News he will see he is not alone This is how we close down the government' After a week they, "Will get worried' And make all kinds of offers but you must prevail get enough food to last a month Get in touch with your military and let them no what your doing' And most of all tell your children because they must no why your doing this' They are our future. After two week's they will begin to make threats and tell you your breaking the law' Tell your postal workers why and also your local police those that have ham stay off the airway's you will give your possession away do this as long as you possibly can get some batteries together along with power converter's they sell them cheap at wallMart and they even have solar panel's you can hook together to make them more powerful moreover you will need this because the stores will be closed if there on a national strike you cannot buy food. And believe me our own military will see what kind of real evil That has called themselves "Our government is' After three week's you will see military trucks and police everywhere by now they will think they have to take you by force' And this is the key time that everyone must act on. We outnumber them ten to one, And that includes our military FBI CIA and Police' We are American's and we must stand up for what we believe' In. If these fuckers want a fight give it to them' Keep your Malissia's underground never be seen above ground if you can when in a large group they have satellite imaging to track with heat sensor readings to even go below ground to a certain degree' Once our own military sees how evil the one's who lied to them "Really are' Will cause a division, "For the side of freedom' That was once called the land of the free. We can do this without fighting and close our government down and make them leave These people need expelled from our country for Imprisoning us in our own homes, For this War' And the war on drugs' Auto loans and forced Insurance plan's They are listening on our phones even the spies will see I am right because one day it will be there turn in line, To be put in a glass cell and fed there animal waste threw a tube in your nose' And ever thing that glow's will be a crime" You To only be used for what these evil science geek's want' These people stole our Home's and for closure's on our land, We need to take our country back or one day there will be no such thing as a home. Remember the key is to no that every internet pathway is seen even mine.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gryphonisle on Nov 21, 2009 6:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big difference of course, is that today we could win the War On Drugs, it wouldn't cost a lot of real dollars and would lead to a wave of improvements in all sorts of behavioral issues, largely because with the technology available to track and monitor everyone in America, we could root out all sorts of evil. A dictatorship with malls, office parks, and little sensors that shock you when you misbehave, and send the info to some office where people are keeping track...
Or, we could be sensible, realize that our liberty, like the environment, is already under serious threat and may not recover anyway, and legalize drugs. All drugs.
Grade them according to strength, rate them according to their most negative effects, and establish where it's legal to use them, and when, and under what circumstances.
Then, change the laws to reflect the bad behavior people engage in while under the influence. No driving, of course. We have laws against various forms of violence, shouldn't it be a more serious offense if you commit that violence under the influence, and shouldn't the offense be even more serious if you are a repeat offender?
In other words, instead of banning drugs because SOME people do bad things under the influence, why not just make the bad behavior the crime, and the influence the qualifier for stiffer fines and penalties, and re-education? Take the excuse "I was drunk/high--I didn't know what I was doing" and make it the charge. Should a violent drunk be drinking? And if he can't drink, shouldn't he be given a realistic chance by having pot as an option?
And what causes addiction? European alcoholism programs essentially aim at getting the problem drinker to drink responsibly, while US groups, like AA aim for complete sobriety. Both have a fifty percent failure rate. Why don't we spend more money figuring out how we get addicted, and how to lessen the ties that bind the addict to his poison? In California, where pot is all but legal, studies are showing that pot use is rising. Is that a problem? Is it that more people are using or that more are admitting to using?
The Law isn't going to solve our problems, whether it's with Civil Rights or the Environment. At some point we have to get people to start behaving more rationally, or at least responsibly, and finding out why people become addicted and how to help them untangle themselves is the only moral way to legalize drugs, which itself is not a concept we can simply push back from year to year until the "right" time comes to deal with it. Like severely reducing, or ending carbon emissions, and possibly for the same sort of reasoning, we need to end the War On Drugs now.
Our Republic is not in the best of health as it is, the Drug War is doing nothing to help our condition. And, as bad off as we are, Mexico is downright diseased. If Mexico collapses under the burden of our War On Drugs, we'll have a world of hell that will make the worst hang over seem like a lark.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stacyhinjosa on Nov 23, 2009 1:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Are U.S. Pot Laws The Root Cause of Mexican Drug Violence?
GOP and Dems Agree: Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity Unjust and Needs Reform
Why Thousands Are Turning to a Psychedelic Plant from Africa for Release from Severe Addictions




