COMMENTS: 189
How Legalizing Drugs Will End the Violence
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Drugs headlines via email.
All that has changed.
From Tijuana to Matamoros, drug gang violence along the U.S.-Mexico border has taken the lives of thousands -- cops, soldiers, drug dealers, often their families, other innocent citizens from both sides of the border. Even a cardinal of the Catholic Church. Many others have gone missing and are presumed dead.
In the mid-'90s, the Arellano brothers' drug cartel ruled Tijuana, perched atop the hierarchy of Mexico's multibillion dollar illegal drug trafficking industry. Using cars, planes and trucks -- and an intimate knowledge of NAFTA -- the Arellanos transported hundreds of tons of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine into American cities.
They enlisted U.S. drug gangs. In 1993, in my last days as San Diego's assistant police chief, the local gang Calle Treinte was implicated in the Arellano-inspired killing of Cardinal Juan Jesus Posadas Ocampo. The Arellanos bribed officials on both sides of the border, spending over $75 million annually on the Mexican side alone, to grease their illicit trafficking.
And they enforced their rule not just with murder but with torture. If Steven Soderbergh's gritty 2000 film "Traffic" caused you to squirm in your seat, the real-life story of Mexican drug dealing is even more disquieting. The brothers once kidnapped a rival's wife and children. With videotape running, they tossed two of the kids off a bridge, then sent their competitor a copy of the tape, along with the severed head of his wife. Another double-crosser had his skull crushed in a compression vice. And who can forget the carne asada BBQs, where the Arellanos would roast entire families over flaming tires?
Just this week, the bodies of four men, three of them cops, were found wrapped in blankets in Rosarito Beach. Their heads showed up in Tijuana. Corruption of public officials, useful to sustain and grow illicit drug trafficking everywhere, has always run deep in Mexico. But with the country now having supplanted Colombia as the biggest supplier of illegal drugs to the United States, and with annual profits topping $65 billion a year, the numbers of federal, state and local cops on the take has never been greater.
Drug criminals have an unlimited supply of high-powered weapons at their disposal. Kingpins pay mules, usually impoverished, always expendable, to travel to the states to pick up a firearm or two at a gun show. Using the Brady Bill "loophole" (and congressional and presidential failure to extend the ban on assault rifles), all it takes is a phony stateside driver's license and a handful of cash to walk out with semi-automatic Uzis, AR-15s and AK-47s.
Last June in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas, Alejandro Dominguez was sworn in as the city's police chief. That same day, three dark Chevy Suburbans with tinted windows pulled up to his office. Moments later, Dominguez, a reluctant top cop who only took the job at the pleading of a terrified citizenry, was dead. Police recovered 35 to 40 casings from an AR-15 assault rifle.
Mexico's drug dealers, including the Zetas (elite military commandos assigned to fight drugs but who've gone over to the other side), are among the most organized, proficient and prolific killers in history.
The violence does not end with the capture or the killing of major players like the Arellano brothers. (Ramon was shot and killed by the federales in February of 2002; BenjamÃn was captured a month later. Francisco has been in prison for years.) As with the illicit drug scene in the United States, thousands of low-level drug-dealing wannabes are marking time -- waiting for today's kingpin to fall so they can move up.
And the violence grows, and grows.
Virtually every analysis of the Mexican "drug problem" points to the themes raised here: the inducements of big money and wide fame; the crushing poverty of those exploited by drug dealers; the entrepreneurial frenzy of expanding and protecting one's markets; the large, unquenchable American demand for drugs; and the complicity of many in law enforcement.
But something's missing from the analysis: the role of prohibition.
Illegal drugs are expensive precisely because they are illegal. The products themselves are worthless weeds -- cannabis (marijuana), poppies (heroin), coca (cocaine) -- or dirt-cheap pharmaceuticals and "precursors" used, for example, in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Yet today, marijuana is worth as much as gold, heroin more than uranium, cocaine somewhere in between. It is the U.S.'s prohibition of these drugs that has spawned an ever-expanding international industry of torture, murder and corruption. In other words, we are the source of Mexico's "drug problem."
The remedy is as obvious as it is urgent: legalization.
Regulated legalization of all drugs -- with stiffened penalties for driving impaired or furnishing to kids -- would bring an immediate halt to the violence. How? By (1) dramatically reducing the cost of these drugs, (2) shifting massive enforcement resources to prevention and treatment and (3) driving drug dealers out of business: no product, no profit, no incentive. In an ideal world, Mexico and the United States would move to repeal prohibition simultaneously (along with Canada). But even if we moved unilaterally, sweeping and lasting improvements to public safety (and public health) would be felt on both sides of the border. (Tragically and predictably, just as Mexico's parliament was about to reform its U.S.-modeled drug laws, the Bush administration stepped in, pressuring President Vicente Fox to abandon the enlightened position he'd championed for two years.)
With drugs stringently controlled and regulated by our own government, Mexico would once again become a safe, inviting place for American tourists -- and for its own citizens, who pay the steepest price of all for our insistence on waging an immoral, unwinnable war on drugs.
Stay up to date with the latest Drugs headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zedaker on Jul 28, 2006 1:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the answer is fascism (and no i'm not plugging a movie). drug laws (which in reality, are no more than tax stamp laws being abused) mark the beginning of the american fascist movement. they exist only so that the government may have a "war".
when i was in the navy i made the observation that in peacetime the enlisted forces become the enemy for the officers. without an outside enemy the fascists/authoritarians always turn on the their own.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: what a no brainer
Posted by: rinpochet
» RE: what a no brainer
Posted by: kablooie
» RE: what a no brainer
Posted by: bobjbax
» The answer is Jim Crow
Posted by: aahpat
» Completely true
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Completely true
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wli on Jul 28, 2006 2:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That said, legalization is the best course of action, and for even more reasons than just ending the violence involved with the illicit trade. The restrictions on the anaesthetics covered by these prohibitions severely degrade the quality of healthcare (raise your hand if you've been given an ineffective prescription painkiller), especially in poorer regions. A number of drugs not prohibited (alcohol, nicotine) are demonstrably more harmful than those prohibited. Last, but not least, look at all of the nonviolent petty drug offenders in prison.
Actually, take a much, much closer look at the prison situation, because nefarious things are ongoing there (frankly tantamount to ethnic cleansing). Look at what proportion of US exports are produced by prison labor. Look at felon disenfranchisement's effects on elections. Look at the corporate and other financial beneficiaries of mass imprisonment, esp. how many ex-CIA officials are on those boards of directors.
There is a lot riding on the continuation of the "War on Drugs." It will take a lot more than saying "legalization makes sense" to fix this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: FedererFan
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: FedererFan
» Wait... Shut down the CIA???? Are you NUTS???!?!?!?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SBK on Jul 28, 2006 2:52 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 28, 2006 3:57 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]
» Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: BJT
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: mazel
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: BJT
» The fat cook syndrome
Posted by: harris
» RE: The fat cook syndrome
Posted by: harris
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
» Unregulated != bad drugs
Posted by: BJT
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jul 28, 2006 5:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, making the Mexican border towns safe for sexual tourism and drunken frolics as they were a few decades ago -- I don't see that idea getting a lot of traction. Certainly not with Mexicans. Probably not with anyone who doesn't have a spring break and a few hundred bucks to blow and get blown with -- and has never actually done it before.
Personally, I think a man who can get actually off in a Tiajuana brothel with anything approaching pleasure is either blind, deaf, and has no sense of smell, or he's a budding criminal sociopath with no concience and no soul.
Amsterdam costs more ... but easier on the Karma : the sex is more or less consensual, and the drugs venues reasonably safe -- they even sell legal switchblade knives there, just like the Tijauna of old.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tijuana -- circa 1960 -- Paradise ???
Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: Tijuana -- circa 1960 -- Paradise ???
Posted by: normstamper
» "MORE or LESS CONSENSUAL??"
Posted by: maribelle
» Feel Better Now ?
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: "MORE or LESS CONSENSUAL??"
Posted by: ArtemInox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Jul 28, 2006 5:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is common knowledge, first reported by San Jose Mercury News, that the CIA was responsible for introducing crack into the drug trade in LA in order to fund the Contras after Congress cut off government funding with the Boland Amendment.
Prosecutions stopped with "Freeway Willy," the no. 1 street hawker in LA. And that's as far up the "chain" that they went with investigations and prosecutions.
Although George H.W. Bush was implicated during his tenure as Pres. Reagan's VP, he has never been called to account for his complicity in the introduction of crack cocaine into this country.
Advocates of drug legalization are either dupes or witting fellow travellers of the thugs at the top of financial and government layers. Either that or they're drug users themselves.
TagsNOLA
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: peterharrell
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: pcushniesr
» The Mafia thanks you.
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: ankhet
» advocates of legalization...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: advocates of legalization...
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: bobjbax
» The money
Posted by: Bouvherd
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: PismoBeach
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: So you've never smoked or drank a beer in your life?
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magmaybe on Jul 28, 2006 6:58 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]
» RE: Ye Good Old Exploitation Days
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Ye Good Old Exploitation Days
Posted by: PismoBeach
» Oh Come ON
Posted by: magmaybe
» RE: Don't make assumptions
Posted by: Techubus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: COC on Jul 28, 2006 7:29 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]
» RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: DCostello
» RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: COC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 28, 2006 7:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, the illegal drugs, the pharmaceutical drugs, and the legal drugs are all mixed together in a country with the highest rate of drug use on the planet. Recently pbs ran this special on how much amphetamine is given to kids in this country (Adderal - Dexedrine -Ritalin etc.):
http://www.pbs.org/ Studies indicate these kids are predisposed to methamphetamine addiction - but Big Pharma does not want that little factoid to get out.
Take alcohol, tobacco and marijuana (legal in this country until 1937) - which ones are the killers? The greatest health risks? Tobacco and alcohol - more people die every year from taking aspirin then from marijuana - another little factoid. George Washington grew cannabis on his farm (hemp) and the drug and fiber products from the crop were an important part of the US economy and pharmacopia for many decades.
The money laundering schemes go on as well - the cash from drug sales in the US is apparently usually smuggled out of the country (easily) and then reinvested in the US via the typical cadre of investment banks, but taxed at the lower 'foreign capital investment' rates. It's a scheme a lot like that of petrodollar recycling from the Saudis, only a lot more shady - but then, the inner sanctums of Citigroup are unlikely to see much government oversight. Opium production in Afghanistan, cocaine production in Columbia, amphetamine production in US pharma factories - where does the money end up?
So why not legalize the drugs for personal use, have an honest ad campaign that details the health risks of drugs (including alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, kiddy amphetamines, pharmaceutical painkillers, etc.)? Just consider that more poeple have died from taking Celebrex and Vioxx as pain mediactions then from smoking cannabis, which is also an effective pain medication.
Drug legalization would undercut Big Pharma's (and the Arellanos) profit line, especially since there are no patents available on cannabis (not that they aren't trying). Then we'd have to empty the prisons of all the non-violent drug offenders (how much would that save us? Isn't ~50% of the US prison population in this category?). By the way, what's the drug most commonly associated with violence? No, not methamphetamine - it's alcohol (though meth users do tend to drink hard liquor).
Meanwhile, local undercover cops are busy targeting cannabis users for asset seizures - and now that same undercover DEA-style apparatus has been unleashed on anti-war groups and political dissidents of all kinds. The "War on Drugs" was a political move dreamed up the same right-wing freakshows that run the country today as a method of domestic political control.
The government should be honest about the effects of drugs: cannabis is not as bad as alcohol, but methamphetamine and heroin will really screw you up - and tobacco will likely kill you in time. That would also entail a lot of reform at the FDA, and a harsh examination of pharmaceutical practices in this country. If you want to lower the incidence of demand for drugs, you have to be honest with people - because we all know the government is lying through it's teeth on this one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and water my plants. Who's waiting for legalization? Oh- and if you are going to smoke marijuana, use a water pipe, aka 'BONG'. If our ex-President Bush Sr. can insist on his 'daily martini', then so can I.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)...excellent summary...
Posted by: picket
» RE: America (in domestic drug demand)... Hinchey-Rohrabacher
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)Look to Reagan & Meese
Posted by: davidt
» RE: water pipe bad
Posted by: joebuck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: COC on Jul 28, 2006 7:43 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]
» RE: Never a discussion...
Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tap17x on Jul 28, 2006 7:58 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pure_genius on Jul 28, 2006 8:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Those kids in the parking lot, none of whom were 21 years old, could and did sell me any kind of illegal drugs you can name but they often came up to me and said, "Hey Jack, we're thirsty--will you go into the liquor store and buy us some beer? We can't buy beer." They could get all the illegal the drugs they wanted but couldn't buy beer. How can that be?"
We all know the answer to this. When more and more middle class parents wake up and realize that ONDCP, Partnership for a Drug-Free America and a multitude of other organizations are not really trying to help kids, but simply use them as scapegoats, we can get on a path to change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rolomax on Jul 28, 2006 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that if I pay taxes, then I want it to be used to help ME if I need it. It won't happen, no matter how big or small the government is. That's the conservative created reality.
Who are you to say what someone will hear?
Unfortunately for you, I did notice your blaming liberals for the problems created by Bush and his conservative horde. How convenient.
It didn't work.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meadowlake59 on Jul 28, 2006 8:31 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marklar on Jul 28, 2006 9:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A group of citizens, called corporations, recieve 250,000,000.00 EACH YEAR in government subsidies, are given free hand to pollute without fear from environmental regulations, employ laborers under slave-like conditions, and even though their subsidies are paid to them to NOT grow a crop beyond a determined percentage, they grow as much of it as they want and reap record profits year after year. Now here's the rub, these people are not even US citizens, theyare all foreign owned and operated corporations who remove a mojortiy of the profits from our country - give up? It's the sugar industry.
Next time you see a woman with children without healtcare, education, a fair paying job, why don't you go over to her and just kick her in the stomach because the way you think is eqaul to such an act.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Jul 28, 2006 9:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, anyone driving under the influence would never be able to drive again. Ever. And if they did, then prison. Until we developed smart car ignitions that would make it impossible for them to drive. That's actually a far better solution, and I'd do that first. Anyone tampering with such a system and thereafter driving would get instant prison.
I'm also for outlawing all manufacture worldwide of anything meant to be smoked or all smoking paraphernalia, which are terrorist weapons used by suicide murderers. With the harshest of penalties on those who cross the law to produce distribute or sell such items.
Do that, and you'd solve most of the problems related to drug use. Especially health care.
And without the readily available distribution of smoking materials, smoking would decrease to about 1% of the total population worldwide intent on going through the hassle of growing their own. As long as they live alone, fine. If they smoke around their kids or relatives, prison.
Of course, like astute observers in other posts have pointed out, that would definitely crimp the black op income of the CIA and NSA and other organizations we don't even know the names of.
But what kind of world would my suggestion create?
A libertarian world where anyone could do pretty much whatever they wanted to regarding drugs, as long as they didn't do anything to threaten the lives of others (like drive, or poison other people with their smoking, or manufacture products, that when used as directed, kill people.)
As opposed to the world we have now, a nonsensical completely illogical world where SOME drugs that kill people and SOME industries that kill people are perfectly legal, while others that merely have the POTENTIAL to kill people are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and are sold and distributed to make money for black ops sections of the CIA and NSA and other intelligence agencies.
A society that seems hell-bent on killing people with their own bad habits, while profiting mightily off it, and at the same time poisoning the poor black population with drugs and filling up the prisons with those that undertake the only jobs available to them, dealing the CIA and NSA distributed drugs. Now THAT'S an ef'ed up world, but it does certainly benefit the elite that have figured it out and are fighting to keep it in place, doesn't it?
It really is time to sit down and take a logical look at what the real consequences of certain BEHAVIORS regarding drugs are (such as SMOKING) and the damage actually caused vs. the perceived cause.
So here's the conclusions:
1. Do not ever penalize the user unless they are harming other people.
2. End the supply worldwide of products designed to kill when used as directed (anything smoked and smoking paraphernalia.)
3. Legalize all other drugs.
4. Make it impossible for people under the influence to drive or operate heavy machinery. If they hack the systems in place to do so, then prison.
I think that just about covers everything. Of course, the tobacco giants who are REALLY behind the big push to legalize pot (and have held TRADEMARKED NAMES for various pot brands since 1970) will have something to say about it, I AM SURE.
Murderous lying bastards.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» humans are "meant"?!...
Posted by: equidave
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: bobjbax
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: aussidawg
» XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: whatever buddy
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: whatever buddy
Posted by: xbj
» Can't smoke it? No prob, bob.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tclaverdure on Jul 28, 2006 9:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.lysanderspooner.org is the site where you can read an essay he wrote in 1875 called Vices are Not Crimes. A vindication of moral liberty.
Its amazing we are still having this debate about whether vices are crimes 131 years after this essay was penned.
End prohibition, eliminate the drug trafficing gangs and start focusing on human social needs that are the source of our addictions to substances and ideas (like Dumbyas a terrorist fighting machine).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Search Lysander Spooner, abolitionist
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Search Lysander Spooner, abolitionist
Posted by: tclaverdure
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mite on Jul 28, 2006 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets look at the biggest drug problem; from chemicals put in our drinking water (chlorine, arsenic) bottled or not, chemicals in our food to make us eat more and destroy our immune system, vaccines, and our wonderful healthcare system that makes billions of dollars off our sickness. It is a war against us people and we are conditioned through our media to buy, buy, buy, and then given drugs by our doctors who are paid by the pharmaceutical company's. Think about it doctors are trained to give drugs and cut people open, not on health care of the individual.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stop The Sale Of Chemicals?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Stop The Sale Of Chemicals?
Posted by: mite
» Sorry, brother....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sorry, brother.... LOL
Posted by: Techubus
» I mean you DO realize pot will grow naturally in just about every climate, right??? nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Stop The Sale Of Chemicals..Hell, stop the rape of sanity
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Jul 28, 2006 11:51 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ghoster on Jul 28, 2006 12:12 PM
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]
» We'd shoot up vitamin C....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Jul 28, 2006 12:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(and btw - if they don't have a problem, then who are they executing?)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MatthewSavage on Jul 28, 2006 12:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Likewise, those who drive SUVs to go grocery shopping. After all, it is morally wrong to so foolishly damage the environment and waste our precious natural resources.
While we're at it, let's execute prostitutes. Their depravity can't be tolerated in this country. Though of course, we can't arrest the clients... they wouldn't be clients if the temptation wasn't there, obviously.
Anybody else care to expand this list here? I think it's the start of a new era of moral rectitude mandated by the government, because of course it has our best interests at heart and holds the moral high ground in all cases.
(Note to the clueless: I am kidding. I should think it's obvious, but with such posts as the one I'm responding to, you can never be too sure.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hmm...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: A better idea
Posted by: zoomorph
» A Simple Rule of Thumb on Laws Made...
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: A Simple Rule of Thumb on Laws Made...
Posted by: zoomorph
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Troymaples on Jul 28, 2006 12:36 PM
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lauren on Jul 28, 2006 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/comments/index.php?id=137087
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marklar on Jul 28, 2006 2:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Salvia Divinourm, or sage, now there's something to use to escape. Why isn't that illegal. Or Kratom?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Prohibition is all it is
Posted by: harris
» RE: Prohibition is all it is
Posted by: harris
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CovertRage on Jul 28, 2006 2:48 PM
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aussidawg on Jul 28, 2006 4:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people dictating our "morality" are the same ones that lie to us about science, lie to us about the effects of "drugs", lie to us about the country being founded by "Christians", defraud the American public to initiate war on a sovergn nation (and kill many American's sons or daughters in the process, not to mention civilian Iraqis), deprive natural medicines to people suffering in pain (physical and emotional, lie to our kids about sex(and try to do the same to unwitting adults) , impose their beliefs on unsuspecting teen women in order to dictate their behavior and health/well being, kill innocent civilians in soverign nations, torture, rob the poor to give to the rich, hold people in bondage for slavery, kill people of different beliefs, beat their children, lie about their own pasts, and foul our "nest" in the name of corporate profits. (This is just scratching the surface)
In the meantime, they are watching out for us by imprisoning us for an action that harms no one but possibly the person committing the act (and that is questionable at best.) They want what is "best" for us!
I hear "Christians" constantly talking of how they are being persecuted by the secular society, and how they are being denied "freedom of religion" by the rest of us non-Christian types. Perhaps this equation is backwards, and they are depriving us of our liberty and personal freedom (which, according to them was given to us by God.)
The War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on the Constitution are immoral, NOT moral. The very people that wish to dictate our morality are about as immoral as one can get. This is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the land of the self-rightous, home of the hypocrite.
This is about control, not God or Christ. Those who speak the loudest are the biggest of the hypocrites.The Christian Wrong-Just Say NO!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Addendum:
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kolmogorov on Jul 28, 2006 5:09 PM
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]
» RE: "assault weapons"
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: "assault weapons"
Posted by: J-
» RE: "assault weapons"
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: charlesjillian on Jul 28, 2006 5:23 PM
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]
» RE: Legalizing democracy will end the Jim Crow drug war
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 28, 2006 7:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Hicks
Whether you choose to do it with drugs, philosophy, meditation, religion, etc... squeegee your third fucking eye already!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Jul 28, 2006 10:07 PM
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]
» RE: Drug Stores
Posted by: AP
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rtdrury on Jul 29, 2006 1:00 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bobjbax on Jul 29, 2006 2:56 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]
» RE: Gosh! A New Idea!
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chacha55 on Jul 29, 2006 7:47 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]
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: chacha55
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: tclaverdure
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: chacha55
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» Hey, Chacha55...a request.
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: domlingus on Jul 29, 2006 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A further consideration overlooked by the pro drug lobby is even if drugs were legalised, how would users fund their habit? would they suddenly change their modus operandi of robbing, stealing and cheating, most of which involves violence?
Yet another factor overlooked by the advocates of legalisation is that the manufacture, and distribution of drugs would be confined to a few of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, a price increase would more than likely be the outcome, as evidenced in the early 1900's when despite the increased demand and use, a condition that normally leads to price reduction, the manufacturers actually increased the price.
Finally the old chestnut that organised crime, dealers etc would not profit, is yet another myth; alcohol and cigarettes are legal drugs, freely available, but there is a thriving black market in smuggling and counterfiet products; what would prevent a similar situation arising from legalising of drugs?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Legalising drugs will not stop the violence
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 9:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote about another component of this national dysfunction just today on my blog Bush White House: Saving lives sends wrong message relating to the fact that the government is opposing distribution of an anti-overdose drug, Narcan, because it will send the wrong message.
The drug war prohibition economics are "creating chaos and instability" on our border, around the world and on American streets. And the government knows it.
"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."
Does any of this sound familiar in these border security deliberations along the Mexican border? The above quote comes from the 2004 Congressional Research Service report to congress, "Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy".
The government has known, for years, that the $ 144 billion annual U.S. black market, that is created by the prohibition drug war policy, is "creating chaos and instability". Including that on the Mexican border today.
Their conclusion: "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."
Not even the threat of increasing terrorism and the chaos and instability on our borders is more important than maintaining the status quo of the drug war. Even stateless terrorism then becomes collateral damage of the drug war.
Worse even than the current situation is the fact that the DEA is expecting and planning for major escalations in cooperation between the Mexican/Central/South American gangs and terrorist armies with the heroin producing terrorist armies and drug gangs of Afghanistan in distributing into the U.S. in the future.
The 2006 US National Drug Threat Assessment of the Justice Department expects that: "Despite significant decreases in heroin production in most source countries other than Afghanistan, production in South America and Mexico—the main source countries for the United States—remains sufficient to meet most U.S. demand for the drug in the near term. Further sustained declines in South American white heroin production, however, may gradually stretch domestic heroin supplies in eastern markets; any heroin deficit is not likely to be filled by Mexican heroin and will most likely result in an increase in Southwest Asian white heroin trafficking in the United States."
"...Colombian and Dominican criminal groups quite likely
would strive to maintain control over domestic heroin distribution by purchasing Southwest Asian heroin from sources in Asia or Europe and distributing it in eastern drug markets."
Successful U.S. interdiction in Central and South America is succeeding only in bringing together South American gangsters and terrorists with Afghan gangsters and terrorists. this is the ballooning effect in zeppelin proportions. The US is creating super stateless terrorist armies of the future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JAXC on Jul 29, 2006 9:35 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]
» RE: Nixon
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Nixon_I Thought It Was the Money
Posted by: JAXC
» RE: Nixon_I Thought It Was the Money
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Nixon
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Nixon...Dead on
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jul 29, 2006 10:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With that, pot would finally be allowed to be relegated to a safety/health issue as alcohol has been since 1933. Clearer policy about other drugs would follow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Any progress on a DUI test for marijuana?
Posted by: digitalspy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 10:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Ira Glasser's column, Drug Busts=Jim Crow, in July 10 issue of The Nation. (A link that may or may not work http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/glasser)
"If you want to contemplate what this means, consider the state of Florida in the 2000 presidential election, where 200,000 black Floridians were barred from voting because of prior felonies in an election in which the presidency was determined by 537 disputed votes. If even one-third of these people had actually voted--say, 70,000--and if they voted in the usual proportions that blacks vote for the Democratic candidate--say, 80 percent, probably a low estimate--those 70,000 voters would have produced a 42,000 net gain for Al Gore."
When will the Democrats stop prosecuting richard Nixon's white right wing Jim Crow subversion of the Voting Rights Act?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 2:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution to control drug use growth is democratic institutions of regulation, taxation and licensing. The authoritarian institutions of prohibition permit too free a market for all of the best law enforcement efforts to overcome.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Promotes anarchy??!?!?!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Promotes anarchy??!?!?!
Posted by: aahpat
» yes.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: yes.
Posted by: Techubus
» I doubt you are going to have much choice if you live long enough.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 4:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government promises, in the 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment of the DOJ, that it will get even more insane in the future if success in interdiction increases in South America. In the Heroin section of the report they tell us:
"Further sustained declines in South American white heroin production, however, may gradually stretch domestic heroin supplies in eastern markets; any heroin deficit is not likely to be filled by Mexican heroin and will most likely result in an increase in Southwest Asian white heroin trafficking in the United States."
"...Colombian and Dominican criminal groups quite likely would strive to maintain control over domestic heroin distribution by purchasing Southwest Asian heroin from sources in Asia or Europe and distributing it in eastern drug markets."
Colombian groups includes FARC and the other terrorist armies. Southwest Asian heroin is Taliban and alQaida heroin most likely. So the government is warning the reader that if interdiction in Colombia is successful it will drive Colombian terrorists, who control U.S. distribution, to join forces with the Taliban and alQaida, who control Southwest Asia supply.
That's drug war success.
That is not even the most insane part of the drug money terror nexus. Since the mid 1990's alQaida has been preaching to its people that distributing heroin into the free societies in the west will destabilize western culture. Our politicians have known this for years.
"That's part of their revenge on the world," Kerry said. "Get as many people drugged out and screwed up as you can." U.S. Sen. John Kerry 21 Sept. 2001
"The crop will be opium and the farmer will be Osama bin Laden, the most wanted terrorist in the world. Bin Laden, accused by the United States of bombing two of their embassies in East Africa this summer and a string of other attacks, sees heroin as a powerful new weapon in his war against the West, capable of wreaking social havoc while generating huge profits, according to sources in eastern Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Dec 1998, Indian Times, Heroin In The Holy War
"Since the mid-1990s, the prevalence of lifetime heroin use increased for both youths and young adults. From 1995 to 2002, the rate among youths aged 12 to 17 increased from 0.1 to 0.4 percent; among young adults aged 18 to 25, the rate rose from 0.8 to 1.6 percent." 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
alQaida calls the campaign the "silent jihad".
It is no wonder addiction rates have sky-rocketed these past ten years. The veins of the children of the western world are the cannon fodder of the drug war on terror.
Finally there is the facilitation and spread of independent terrorism methods of operation preached by alQaida. The Madrid train bombings were a textbook example of how bin Laden tells sympathizers around the world to act independently from within the cover of the drug trade. The Madrid group recruited people in prison drug user populations. They sold drugs and traded within the black market for untraceable resources INSIDE the target nation. Hiding the bomb plot activities within the black market community the police could not see most of what was happening until it was too late. (There was an ongoing narcotics investigation of some of the group that was getting wind of the terror plot but it was not their crime of interest. They were drug cops.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Addendum
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Addendum
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Drug War Created World of Fear
Posted by: digitalspy
» RE: Drug War Created World of Fear
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Drug War Created World of Fear
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 29, 2006 5:57 PM
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]
» RE: eefer Madness
Posted by: aussidawg
» D.A.R.E This is a fun game... lets continue....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: D.A.R.E This is a fun game... lets continue....Okay:-)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: D.A.R.E This is a fun game... lets continue....Okay:-)
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Herman on Jul 30, 2006 3:13 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]
» Damn... I'm sure (given the no. of cops who have failed drug tests here in boston)...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Damn... I'm sure (given the no. of cops who have failed drug tests here in boston)...
Posted by: ArtemInox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dimitri on Jul 31, 2006 5:02 PM
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sleepingcobra1 on Aug 1, 2006 10:04 PM
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]
» RE: Total Controll and Taxation
Posted by: Sleepingcobra1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Peta de Aztlan on Aug 12, 2006 9:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to legalize drugs, work on drug prevention and treatment for addicts in order to combat drug addiction.
Peter S. Lopez ~aka Peta
Sacramento, California
CASA Progressive Recovery Group
CASA 12-Steps Program Blog
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phindrup on Aug 12, 2006 3:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too much drug money finds its way into the police/government circles for that sector to ever support legalisation.
However, sit down and map out the interests who legally make money out of drugs because of the way the law is.
Insurance, law enforcement, court system, prison operators/workers, retailers who sell new replacement items, just to give you a start.
Lives against $$$$'s? No contest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Sep 6, 2006 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sheesh...
Ian
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nurstat on Dec 26, 2006 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone with any common sense knows drugs do not KILL or do what the commercial says...THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ,,THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS>>ANY QUESTIONS???
YES>>>I have many questions....when are you going to STOP THE FRAUD AND THE LIES............Drugs that are pharmaceutically clean and made by pharmaceutical standards are not life threatening or harmful.......it is the drugs manufactured by clandestine labs that use a little from column A and a little from Column B to produce there wares that cause illness and death.....However this means nothing to all these politicians here in America....they will not HEAR nor will they listen....
Another BIG problem with DRUGS is they keep people in jail and that means many jobs for law enforcment and many dollars for drug enforcement that are paid for by US the taxpayer.........these POLICEMEN and ENFORCEMENT groups would be out of jobs and business if drugs were legal..
EVER WATCH "COPS"....and see the big bad sheriffs and policemen jump on a citizen who just bought and I quote "narcotics"....( a nickel bag of pot or a dime bag of cocaine)........The police on the show "COPS" make me tumble over in laughter (like the KEYSTONE COPS of old) ..their busting a low, low level dealer who is 15 years old and will not learn a thing from his ordeal or they are pouncing on some innocent hooker who just bought a nickel of crack and it takes about ten or fifteen big strapping , weight-lifting, officers to do it..instead of wasting OUR tax dollars on these antics (which make for good comedy).....why not use these officers and man power to clean up the streets and get rid of the sexual perverts who pray on our children??? Or the murderers who pray on society.........Why???? Because if drugs were legal about 70 % of our jails would be empty, we would not need to pay for extravagant surveillance equiptment and teams to catch $5.00 pot smokers....
Then we could use the monety and men to build schools, educate our kids and make education a priority...not marijuana or cocaine............As long as they get their way and as long as front organizations like "Partnership for a DRug-Free America" keep on telling their tales....WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!!!! You cannot legislate people's behavior...not years ago during prohibition nor today.........and as long as we allow some politician to control GOD's plants like the marijuana, poppy and coca we are all losing out....NO ONE has the right to control a plant that the GOOD LORD put on this earth!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zedaker on Jul 28, 2006 1:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the answer is fascism (and no i'm not plugging a movie). drug laws (which in reality, are no more than tax stamp laws being abused) mark the beginning of the american fascist movement. they exist only so that the government may have a "war".
when i was in the navy i made the observation that in peacetime the enlisted forces become the enemy for the officers. without an outside enemy the fascists/authoritarians always turn on the their own.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: what a no brainer
Posted by: rinpochet
» RE: what a no brainer
Posted by: kablooie
» RE: what a no brainer
Posted by: bobjbax
» The answer is Jim Crow
Posted by: aahpat
» Completely true
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Completely true
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wli on Jul 28, 2006 2:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That said, legalization is the best course of action, and for even more reasons than just ending the violence involved with the illicit trade. The restrictions on the anaesthetics covered by these prohibitions severely degrade the quality of healthcare (raise your hand if you've been given an ineffective prescription painkiller), especially in poorer regions. A number of drugs not prohibited (alcohol, nicotine) are demonstrably more harmful than those prohibited. Last, but not least, look at all of the nonviolent petty drug offenders in prison.
Actually, take a much, much closer look at the prison situation, because nefarious things are ongoing there (frankly tantamount to ethnic cleansing). Look at what proportion of US exports are produced by prison labor. Look at felon disenfranchisement's effects on elections. Look at the corporate and other financial beneficiaries of mass imprisonment, esp. how many ex-CIA officials are on those boards of directors.
There is a lot riding on the continuation of the "War on Drugs." It will take a lot more than saying "legalization makes sense" to fix this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: FedererFan
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: FedererFan
» Wait... Shut down the CIA???? Are you NUTS???!?!?!?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SBK on Jul 28, 2006 2:52 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 28, 2006 3:57 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]
» Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: BJT
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: mazel
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: BJT
» The fat cook syndrome
Posted by: harris
» RE: The fat cook syndrome
Posted by: harris
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Deregulation != blank check for greed
Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
» Unregulated != bad drugs
Posted by: BJT
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jul 28, 2006 5:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, making the Mexican border towns safe for sexual tourism and drunken frolics as they were a few decades ago -- I don't see that idea getting a lot of traction. Certainly not with Mexicans. Probably not with anyone who doesn't have a spring break and a few hundred bucks to blow and get blown with -- and has never actually done it before.
Personally, I think a man who can get actually off in a Tiajuana brothel with anything approaching pleasure is either blind, deaf, and has no sense of smell, or he's a budding criminal sociopath with no concience and no soul.
Amsterdam costs more ... but easier on the Karma : the sex is more or less consensual, and the drugs venues reasonably safe -- they even sell legal switchblade knives there, just like the Tijauna of old.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tijuana -- circa 1960 -- Paradise ???
Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: Tijuana -- circa 1960 -- Paradise ???
Posted by: normstamper
» "MORE or LESS CONSENSUAL??"
Posted by: maribelle
» Feel Better Now ?
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: "MORE or LESS CONSENSUAL??"
Posted by: ArtemInox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Jul 28, 2006 5:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is common knowledge, first reported by San Jose Mercury News, that the CIA was responsible for introducing crack into the drug trade in LA in order to fund the Contras after Congress cut off government funding with the Boland Amendment.
Prosecutions stopped with "Freeway Willy," the no. 1 street hawker in LA. And that's as far up the "chain" that they went with investigations and prosecutions.
Although George H.W. Bush was implicated during his tenure as Pres. Reagan's VP, he has never been called to account for his complicity in the introduction of crack cocaine into this country.
Advocates of drug legalization are either dupes or witting fellow travellers of the thugs at the top of financial and government layers. Either that or they're drug users themselves.
TagsNOLA
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: peterharrell
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: pcushniesr
» The Mafia thanks you.
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: ankhet
» advocates of legalization...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: advocates of legalization...
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: bobjbax
» The money
Posted by: Bouvherd
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: PismoBeach
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: So you've never smoked or drank a beer in your life?
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: gimme a break
Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magmaybe on Jul 28, 2006 6:58 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]
» RE: Ye Good Old Exploitation Days
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Ye Good Old Exploitation Days
Posted by: PismoBeach
» Oh Come ON
Posted by: magmaybe
» RE: Don't make assumptions
Posted by: Techubus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: COC on Jul 28, 2006 7:29 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]
» RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: DCostello
» RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: COC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 28, 2006 7:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, the illegal drugs, the pharmaceutical drugs, and the legal drugs are all mixed together in a country with the highest rate of drug use on the planet. Recently pbs ran this special on how much amphetamine is given to kids in this country (Adderal - Dexedrine -Ritalin etc.):
http://www.pbs.org/ Studies indicate these kids are predisposed to methamphetamine addiction - but Big Pharma does not want that little factoid to get out.
Take alcohol, tobacco and marijuana (legal in this country until 1937) - which ones are the killers? The greatest health risks? Tobacco and alcohol - more people die every year from taking aspirin then from marijuana - another little factoid. George Washington grew cannabis on his farm (hemp) and the drug and fiber products from the crop were an important part of the US economy and pharmacopia for many decades.
The money laundering schemes go on as well - the cash from drug sales in the US is apparently usually smuggled out of the country (easily) and then reinvested in the US via the typical cadre of investment banks, but taxed at the lower 'foreign capital investment' rates. It's a scheme a lot like that of petrodollar recycling from the Saudis, only a lot more shady - but then, the inner sanctums of Citigroup are unlikely to see much government oversight. Opium production in Afghanistan, cocaine production in Columbia, amphetamine production in US pharma factories - where does the money end up?
So why not legalize the drugs for personal use, have an honest ad campaign that details the health risks of drugs (including alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, kiddy amphetamines, pharmaceutical painkillers, etc.)? Just consider that more poeple have died from taking Celebrex and Vioxx as pain mediactions then from smoking cannabis, which is also an effective pain medication.
Drug legalization would undercut Big Pharma's (and the Arellanos) profit line, especially since there are no patents available on cannabis (not that they aren't trying). Then we'd have to empty the prisons of all the non-violent drug offenders (how much would that save us? Isn't ~50% of the US prison population in this category?). By the way, what's the drug most commonly associated with violence? No, not methamphetamine - it's alcohol (though meth users do tend to drink hard liquor).
Meanwhile, local undercover cops are busy targeting cannabis users for asset seizures - and now that same undercover DEA-style apparatus has been unleashed on anti-war groups and political dissidents of all kinds. The "War on Drugs" was a political move dreamed up the same right-wing freakshows that run the country today as a method of domestic political control.
The government should be honest about the effects of drugs: cannabis is not as bad as alcohol, but methamphetamine and heroin will really screw you up - and tobacco will likely kill you in time. That would also entail a lot of reform at the FDA, and a harsh examination of pharmaceutical practices in this country. If you want to lower the incidence of demand for drugs, you have to be honest with people - because we all know the government is lying through it's teeth on this one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and water my plants. Who's waiting for legalization? Oh- and if you are going to smoke marijuana, use a water pipe, aka 'BONG'. If our ex-President Bush Sr. can insist on his 'daily martini', then so can I.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)...excellent summary...
Posted by: picket
» RE: America (in domestic drug demand)... Hinchey-Rohrabacher
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)Look to Reagan & Meese
Posted by: davidt
» RE: water pipe bad
Posted by: joebuck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: COC on Jul 28, 2006 7:43 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]
» RE: Never a discussion...
Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tap17x on Jul 28, 2006 7:58 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pure_genius on Jul 28, 2006 8:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Those kids in the parking lot, none of whom were 21 years old, could and did sell me any kind of illegal drugs you can name but they often came up to me and said, "Hey Jack, we're thirsty--will you go into the liquor store and buy us some beer? We can't buy beer." They could get all the illegal the drugs they wanted but couldn't buy beer. How can that be?"
We all know the answer to this. When more and more middle class parents wake up and realize that ONDCP, Partnership for a Drug-Free America and a multitude of other organizations are not really trying to help kids, but simply use them as scapegoats, we can get on a path to change.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rolomax on Jul 28, 2006 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that if I pay taxes, then I want it to be used to help ME if I need it. It won't happen, no matter how big or small the government is. That's the conservative created reality.
Who are you to say what someone will hear?
Unfortunately for you, I did notice your blaming liberals for the problems created by Bush and his conservative horde. How convenient.
It didn't work.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meadowlake59 on Jul 28, 2006 8:31 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marklar on Jul 28, 2006 9:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A group of citizens, called corporations, recieve 250,000,000.00 EACH YEAR in government subsidies, are given free hand to pollute without fear from environmental regulations, employ laborers under slave-like conditions, and even though their subsidies are paid to them to NOT grow a crop beyond a determined percentage, they grow as much of it as they want and reap record profits year after year. Now here's the rub, these people are not even US citizens, theyare all foreign owned and operated corporations who remove a mojortiy of the profits from our country - give up? It's the sugar industry.
Next time you see a woman with children without healtcare, education, a fair paying job, why don't you go over to her and just kick her in the stomach because the way you think is eqaul to such an act.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Jul 28, 2006 9:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, anyone driving under the influence would never be able to drive again. Ever. And if they did, then prison. Until we developed smart car ignitions that would make it impossible for them to drive. That's actually a far better solution, and I'd do that first. Anyone tampering with such a system and thereafter driving would get instant prison.
I'm also for outlawing all manufacture worldwide of anything meant to be smoked or all smoking paraphernalia, which are terrorist weapons used by suicide murderers. With the harshest of penalties on those who cross the law to produce distribute or sell such items.
Do that, and you'd solve most of the problems related to drug use. Especially health care.
And without the readily available distribution of smoking materials, smoking would decrease to about 1% of the total population worldwide intent on going through the hassle of growing their own. As long as they live alone, fine. If they smoke around their kids or relatives, prison.
Of course, like astute observers in other posts have pointed out, that would definitely crimp the black op income of the CIA and NSA and other organizations we don't even know the names of.
But what kind of world would my suggestion create?
A libertarian world where anyone could do pretty much whatever they wanted to regarding drugs, as long as they didn't do anything to threaten the lives of others (like drive, or poison other people with their smoking, or manufacture products, that when used as directed, kill people.)
As opposed to the world we have now, a nonsensical completely illogical world where SOME drugs that kill people and SOME industries that kill people are perfectly legal, while others that merely have the POTENTIAL to kill people are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and are sold and distributed to make money for black ops sections of the CIA and NSA and other intelligence agencies.
A society that seems hell-bent on killing people with their own bad habits, while profiting mightily off it, and at the same time poisoning the poor black population with drugs and filling up the prisons with those that undertake the only jobs available to them, dealing the CIA and NSA distributed drugs. Now THAT'S an ef'ed up world, but it does certainly benefit the elite that have figured it out and are fighting to keep it in place, doesn't it?
It really is time to sit down and take a logical look at what the real consequences of certain BEHAVIORS regarding drugs are (such as SMOKING) and the damage actually caused vs. the perceived cause.
So here's the conclusions:
1. Do not ever penalize the user unless they are harming other people.
2. End the supply worldwide of products designed to kill when used as directed (anything smoked and smoking paraphernalia.)
3. Legalize all other drugs.
4. Make it impossible for people under the influence to drive or operate heavy machinery. If they hack the systems in place to do so, then prison.
I think that just about covers everything. Of course, the tobacco giants who are REALLY behind the big push to legalize pot (and have held TRADEMARKED NAMES for various pot brands since 1970) will have something to say about it, I AM SURE.
Murderous lying bastards.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» humans are "meant"?!...
Posted by: equidave
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: bobjbax
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj
» RE: Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: aussidawg
» XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: XBJ- I call question to your statements about Marijuana Smoke
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: whatever buddy
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: whatever buddy
Posted by: xbj
» Can't smoke it? No prob, bob.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tclaverdure on Jul 28, 2006 9:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.lysanderspooner.org is the site where you can read an essay he wrote in 1875 called Vices are Not Crimes. A vindication of moral liberty.
Its amazing we are still having this debate about whether vices are crimes 131 years after this essay was penned.
End prohibition, eliminate the drug trafficing gangs and start focusing on human social needs that are the source of our addictions to substances and ideas (like Dumbyas a terrorist fighting machine).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Search Lysander Spooner, abolitionist
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Search Lysander Spooner, abolitionist
Posted by: tclaverdure
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mite on Jul 28, 2006 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets look at the biggest drug problem; from chemicals put in our drinking water (chlorine, arsenic) bottled or not, chemicals in our food to make us eat more and destroy our immune system, vaccines, and our wonderful healthcare system that makes billions of dollars off our sickness. It is a war against us people and we are conditioned through our media to buy, buy, buy, and then given drugs by our doctors who are paid by the pharmaceutical company's. Think about it doctors are trained to give drugs and cut people open, not on health care of the individual.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stop The Sale Of Chemicals?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Stop The Sale Of Chemicals?
Posted by: mite
» Sorry, brother....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sorry, brother.... LOL
Posted by: Techubus
» I mean you DO realize pot will grow naturally in just about every climate, right??? nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Stop The Sale Of Chemicals..Hell, stop the rape of sanity
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Jul 28, 2006 11:51 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ghoster on Jul 28, 2006 12:12 PM
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]
» We'd shoot up vitamin C....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Jul 28, 2006 12:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(and btw - if they don't have a problem, then who are they executing?)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MatthewSavage on Jul 28, 2006 12:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Likewise, those who drive SUVs to go grocery shopping. After all, it is morally wrong to so foolishly damage the environment and waste our precious natural resources.
While we're at it, let's execute prostitutes. Their depravity can't be tolerated in this country. Though of course, we can't arrest the clients... they wouldn't be clients if the temptation wasn't there, obviously.
Anybody else care to expand this list here? I think it's the start of a new era of moral rectitude mandated by the government, because of course it has our best interests at heart and holds the moral high ground in all cases.
(Note to the clueless: I am kidding. I should think it's obvious, but with such posts as the one I'm responding to, you can never be too sure.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hmm...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: A better idea
Posted by: zoomorph
» A Simple Rule of Thumb on Laws Made...
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: A Simple Rule of Thumb on Laws Made...
Posted by: zoomorph
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Troymaples on Jul 28, 2006 12:36 PM
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lauren on Jul 28, 2006 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/comments/index.php?id=137087
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marklar on Jul 28, 2006 2:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Salvia Divinourm, or sage, now there's something to use to escape. Why isn't that illegal. Or Kratom?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Prohibition is all it is
Posted by: harris
» RE: Prohibition is all it is
Posted by: harris
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CovertRage on Jul 28, 2006 2:48 PM
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aussidawg on Jul 28, 2006 4:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people dictating our "morality" are the same ones that lie to us about science, lie to us about the effects of "drugs", lie to us about the country being founded by "Christians", defraud the American public to initiate war on a sovergn nation (and kill many American's sons or daughters in the process, not to mention civilian Iraqis), deprive natural medicines to people suffering in pain (physical and emotional, lie to our kids about sex(and try to do the same to unwitting adults) , impose their beliefs on unsuspecting teen women in order to dictate their behavior and health/well being, kill innocent civilians in soverign nations, torture, rob the poor to give to the rich, hold people in bondage for slavery, kill people of different beliefs, beat their children, lie about their own pasts, and foul our "nest" in the name of corporate profits. (This is just scratching the surface)
In the meantime, they are watching out for us by imprisoning us for an action that harms no one but possibly the person committing the act (and that is questionable at best.) They want what is "best" for us!
I hear "Christians" constantly talking of how they are being persecuted by the secular society, and how they are being denied "freedom of religion" by the rest of us non-Christian types. Perhaps this equation is backwards, and they are depriving us of our liberty and personal freedom (which, according to them was given to us by God.)
The War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on the Constitution are immoral, NOT moral. The very people that wish to dictate our morality are about as immoral as one can get. This is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the land of the self-rightous, home of the hypocrite.
This is about control, not God or Christ. Those who speak the loudest are the biggest of the hypocrites.The Christian Wrong-Just Say NO!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Addendum:
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kolmogorov on Jul 28, 2006 5:09 PM
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]
» RE: "assault weapons"
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: "assault weapons"
Posted by: J-
» RE: "assault weapons"
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: charlesjillian on Jul 28, 2006 5:23 PM
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]
» RE: Legalizing democracy will end the Jim Crow drug war
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 28, 2006 7:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Hicks
Whether you choose to do it with drugs, philosophy, meditation, religion, etc... squeegee your third fucking eye already!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Jul 28, 2006 10:07 PM
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]
» RE: Drug Stores
Posted by: AP
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rtdrury on Jul 29, 2006 1:00 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bobjbax on Jul 29, 2006 2:56 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]
» RE: Gosh! A New Idea!
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chacha55 on Jul 29, 2006 7:47 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]
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: chacha55
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: tclaverdure
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: chacha55
» RE: cartels aren't the only ones gettin' rich
Posted by: aussidawg
» Hey, Chacha55...a request.
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: domlingus on Jul 29, 2006 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A further consideration overlooked by the pro drug lobby is even if drugs were legalised, how would users fund their habit? would they suddenly change their modus operandi of robbing, stealing and cheating, most of which involves violence?
Yet another factor overlooked by the advocates of legalisation is that the manufacture, and distribution of drugs would be confined to a few of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, a price increase would more than likely be the outcome, as evidenced in the early 1900's when despite the increased demand and use, a condition that normally leads to price reduction, the manufacturers actually increased the price.
Finally the old chestnut that organised crime, dealers etc would not profit, is yet another myth; alcohol and cigarettes are legal drugs, freely available, but there is a thriving black market in smuggling and counterfiet products; what would prevent a similar situation arising from legalising of drugs?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Legalising drugs will not stop the violence
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 9:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote about another component of this national dysfunction just today on my blog Bush White House: Saving lives sends wrong message relating to the fact that the government is opposing distribution of an anti-overdose drug, Narcan, because it will send the wrong message.
The drug war prohibition economics are "creating chaos and instability" on our border, around the world and on American streets. And the government knows it.
"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."
Does any of this sound familiar in these border security deliberations along the Mexican border? The above quote comes from the 2004 Congressional Research Service report to congress, "Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy".
The government has known, for years, that the $ 144 billion annual U.S. black market, that is created by the prohibition drug war policy, is "creating chaos and instability". Including that on the Mexican border today.
Their conclusion: "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."
Not even the threat of increasing terrorism and the chaos and instability on our borders is more important than maintaining the status quo of the drug war. Even stateless terrorism then becomes collateral damage of the drug war.
Worse even than the current situation is the fact that the DEA is expecting and planning for major escalations in cooperation between the Mexican/Central/South American gangs and terrorist armies with the heroin producing terrorist armies and drug gangs of Afghanistan in distributing into the U.S. in the future.
The 2006 US National Drug Threat Assessment of the Justice Department expects that: "Despite significant decreases in heroin production in most source countries other than Afghanistan, production in South America and Mexico—the main source countries for the United States—remains sufficient to meet most U.S. demand for the drug in the near term. Further sustained declines in South American white heroin production, however, may gradually stretch domestic heroin supplies in eastern markets; any heroin deficit is not likely to be filled by Mexican heroin and will most likely result in an increase in Southwest Asian white heroin trafficking in the United States."
"...Colombian and Dominican criminal groups quite likely
would strive to maintain control over domestic heroin distribution by purchasing Southwest Asian heroin from sources in Asia or Europe and distributing it in eastern drug markets."
Successful U.S. interdiction in Central and South America is succeeding only in bringing together South American gangsters and terrorists with Afghan gangsters and terrorists. this is the ballooning effect in zeppelin proportions. The US is creating super stateless terrorist armies of the future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JAXC on Jul 29, 2006 9:35 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]
» RE: Nixon
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Nixon_I Thought It Was the Money
Posted by: JAXC
» RE: Nixon_I Thought It Was the Money
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Nixon
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Nixon...Dead on
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jul 29, 2006 10:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With that, pot would finally be allowed to be relegated to a safety/health issue as alcohol has been since 1933. Clearer policy about other drugs would follow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Any progress on a DUI test for marijuana?
Posted by: digitalspy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 10:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Ira Glasser's column, Drug Busts=Jim Crow, in July 10 issue of The Nation. (A link that may or may not work http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/glasser)
"If you want to contemplate what this means, consider the state of Florida in the 2000 presidential election, where 200,000 black Floridians were barred from voting because of prior felonies in an election in which the presidency was determined by 537 disputed votes. If even one-third of these people had actually voted--say, 70,000--and if they voted in the usual proportions that blacks vote for the Democratic candidate--say, 80 percent, probably a low estimate--those 70,000 voters would have produced a 42,000 net gain for Al Gore."
When will the Democrats stop prosecuting richard Nixon's white right wing Jim Crow subversion of the Voting Rights Act?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 2:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution to control drug use growth is democratic institutions of regulation, taxation and licensing. The authoritarian institutions of prohibition permit too free a market for all of the best law enforcement efforts to overcome.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Promotes anarchy??!?!?!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Promotes anarchy??!?!?!
Posted by: aahpat
» yes.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: yes.
Posted by: Techubus
» I doubt you are going to have much choice if you live long enough.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 29, 2006 4:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government promises, in the 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment of the DOJ, that it will get even more insane in the future if success in interdiction increases in South America. In the Heroin section of the report they tell us:
"Further sustained declines in South American white heroin production, however, may gradually stretch domestic heroin supplies in eastern markets; any heroin deficit is not likely to be filled by Mexican heroin and will most likely result in an increase in Southwest Asian white heroin trafficking in the United States."
"...Colombian and Dominican criminal groups quite likely would strive to maintain control over domestic heroin distribution by purchasing Southwest Asian heroin from sources in Asia or Europe and distributing it in eastern drug markets."
Colombian groups includes FARC and the other terrorist armies. Southwest Asian heroin is Taliban and alQaida heroin most likely. So the government is warning the reader that if interdiction in Colombia is successful it will drive Colombian terrorists, who control U.S. distribution, to join forces with the Taliban and alQaida, who control Southwest Asia supply.
That's drug war success.
That is not even the most insane part of the drug money terror nexus. Since the mid 1990's alQaida has been preaching to its people that distributing heroin into the free societies in the west will destabilize western culture. Our politicians have known this for years.
"That's part of their revenge on the world," Kerry said. "Get as many people drugged out and screwed up as you can." U.S. Sen. John Kerry 21 Sept. 2001
"The crop will be opium and the farmer will be Osama bin Laden, the most wanted terrorist in the world. Bin Laden, accused by the United States of bombing two of their embassies in East Africa this summer and a string of other attacks, sees heroin as a powerful new weapon in his war against the West, capable of wreaking social havoc while generating huge profits, according to sources in eastern Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Dec 1998, Indian Times, Heroin In The Holy War
"Since the mid-1990s, the prevalence of lifetime heroin use increased for both youths and young adults. From 1995 to 2002, the rate among youths aged 12 to 17 increased from 0.1 to 0.4 percent; among young adults aged 18 to 25, the rate rose from 0.8 to 1.6 percent." 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
alQaida calls the campaign the "silent jihad".
It is no wonder addiction rates have sky-rocketed these past ten years. The veins of the children of the western world are the cannon fodder of the drug war on terror.
Finally there is the facilitation and spread of independent terrorism methods of operation preached by alQaida. The Madrid train bombings were a textbook example of how bin Laden tells sympathizers around the world to act independently from within the cover of the drug trade. The Madrid group recruited people in prison drug user populations. They sold drugs and traded within the black market for untraceable resources INSIDE the target nation. Hiding the bomb plot activities within the black market community the police could not see most of what was happening until it was too late. (There was an ongoing narcotics investigation of some of the group that was getting wind of the terror plot but it was not their crime of interest. They were drug cops.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Addendum
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Addendum
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Addendum...Litmus test for nonconformity
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Drug War Created World of Fear
Posted by: digitalspy
» RE: Drug War Created World of Fear
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Drug War Created World of Fear
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 29, 2006 5:57 PM
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]
» RE: eefer Madness
Posted by: aussidawg
» D.A.R.E This is a fun game... lets continue....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: D.A.R.E This is a fun game... lets continue....Okay:-)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: D.A.R.E This is a fun game... lets continue....Okay:-)
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Herman on Jul 30, 2006 3:13 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]
» Damn... I'm sure (given the no. of cops who have failed drug tests here in boston)...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Damn... I'm sure (given the no. of cops who have failed drug tests here in boston)...
Posted by: ArtemInox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dimitri on Jul 31, 2006 5:02 PM
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sleepingcobra1 on Aug 1, 2006 10:04 PM
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]
» RE: Total Controll and Taxation
Posted by: Sleepingcobra1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Peta de Aztlan on Aug 12, 2006 9:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to legalize drugs, work on drug prevention and treatment for addicts in order to combat drug addiction.
Peter S. Lopez ~aka Peta
Sacramento, California
CASA Progressive Recovery Group
CASA 12-Steps Program Blog
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phindrup on Aug 12, 2006 3:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too much drug money finds its way into the police/government circles for that sector to ever support legalisation.
However, sit down and map out the interests who legally make money out of drugs because of the way the law is.
Insurance, law enforcement, court system, prison operators/workers, retailers who sell new replacement items, just to give you a start.
Lives against $$$$'s? No contest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Sep 6, 2006 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sheesh...
Ian
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nurstat on Dec 26, 2006 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone with any common sense knows drugs do not KILL or do what the commercial says...THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ,,THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS>>ANY QUESTIONS???
YES>>>I have many questions....when are you going to STOP THE FRAUD AND THE LIES............Drugs that are pharmaceutically clean and made by pharmaceutical standards are not life threatening or harmful.......it is the drugs manufactured by clandestine labs that use a little from column A and a little from Column B to produce there wares that cause illness and death.....However this means nothing to all these politicians here in America....they will not HEAR nor will they listen....
Another BIG problem with DRUGS is they keep people in jail and that means many jobs for law enforcment and many dollars for drug enforcement that are paid for by US the taxpayer.........these POLICEMEN and ENFORCEMENT groups would be out of jobs and business if drugs were legal..
EVER WATCH "COPS"....and see the big bad sheriffs and policemen jump on a citizen who just bought and I quote "narcotics"....( a nickel bag of pot or a dime bag of cocaine)........The police on the show "COPS" make me tumble over in laughter (like the KEYSTONE COPS of old) ..their busting a low, low level dealer who is 15 years old and will not learn a thing from his ordeal or they are pouncing on some innocent hooker who just bought a nickel of crack and it takes about ten or fifteen big strapping , weight-lifting, officers to do it..instead of wasting OUR tax dollars on these antics (which make for good comedy).....why not use these officers and man power to clean up the streets and get rid of the sexual perverts who pray on our children??? Or the murderers who pray on society.........Why???? Because if drugs were legal about 70 % of our jails would be empty, we would not need to pay for extravagant surveillance equiptment and teams to catch $5.00 pot smokers....
Then we could use the monety and men to build schools, educate our kids and make education a priority...not marijuana or cocaine............As long as they get their way and as long as front organizations like "Partnership for a DRug-Free America" keep on telling their tales....WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!!!! You cannot legislate people's behavior...not years ago during prohibition nor today.........and as long as we allow some politician to control GOD's plants like the marijuana, poppy and coca we are all losing out....NO ONE has the right to control a plant that the GOOD LORD put on this earth!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Why Thousands Are Turning to a Psychedelic Plant from Africa for Release from Severe Addictions
Bloodbath in Mexico: Drug Prohibition Is to Blame for Thousands of Mexican and Now American Deaths
If the NFL Were More Lenient About Pot, Would the Players Get Involved in Less Drunken Violence?




