Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Legalizing Drugs Will End the Violence

By Norm Stamper, AlterNet. Posted July 28, 2006.


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.
072806_story
How Legalizing Drugs Will End Violence

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Norm Stamper

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Back in the early 1960s, I often sneaked into Mexico at the San Diego-Tijuana border. Too young to cross legally, I'd coil up in the trunk of Charlie Romero's '54 Merc. My buddies and I would head straight for the notorious Blue Fox to guzzle Carta Blancas, shoot Cuervo Gold and take in the "adult entertainment" acts. It wasn't something I'd necessarily want my kid doing, but there was a certain innocence to it: tasting freedom, partaking of forbidden adult pleasures. The frontera of Mexico was a fun, safe place to visit.

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.


Digg!

Norm Stamper is former chief of the Seattle Police Department and an advisory board member of NORML and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). He is the author of "Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing" (Nation Books, 2005).

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
what a no brainer
Posted by: zedaker on Jul 28, 2006 1:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is so obvious it really does make you ask "why exactly are they still illegal?"

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
You'll have to shut down the CIA et al first.
Posted by: wli on Jul 28, 2006 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the French connection to the Golden Triangle to the Golden Crescent to the Contra crack connection, the CIA is there every time. Without a black market, there is no secrecy in fundraising for covert operations or money to skim off the top for the operatives involved. Legalization will never be allowed to happen so long as the CIA still exists.

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]

'round n' round n' round
Posted by: SBK on Jul 28, 2006 2:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the cops are saying it's time to legalize, it's clearly a policy to consider! The source of the drug war is corporate, look to the markets prohibition creates and you'll find who makes these policies. Just like credit card companies writing bankruptcy laws or oil companies making energy policy--prison corps, pharmaceutical companies, gun makers all benefit from this policy nightmare which is now nearly 30 years old! While they are nasty, the banditos and drug gangs are secondary thugs. The only way to change it is to make drug policy a voting issue, demand accountability for the millions of dollars we spend serving corporations who profit from death, torture and poverty!

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

unregulated
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 28, 2006 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drugs from Mexico are defacto unregulated which causes the same kind of problems as all the Bushies deregulation mania have caused only worse. Regulated legalization of drugs would drastically reduce the worst drug problems just as reregulation of the Bushie deregulation would drastically reduce the freaking greed caused by the Bushies's deregulation. Greed causes most drug problems and Greed causes most Bushie problems. In addition regulated legalization of drugs would allow us to close about half of the recently built US jails which are packed with drug "offenders".

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

» The fat cook syndrome Posted by: harris
» RE: The fat cook syndrome Posted by: harris
Tijuana -- circa 1960 -- Paradise ???
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jul 28, 2006 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No question: the harm done by the Drug War far exceeds any harm it prevents. Legalization would probably do more good than harm . But, we all know the vested interests we're up against: Police, pimps, lawyers, dealers, prision contractors, kingpins, the companies who sell helicopters to the DEA, etc. etc ad nausium.

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]

» "MORE or LESS CONSENSUAL??" Posted by: maribelle
» Feel Better Now ? Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: "MORE or LESS CONSENSUAL??" Posted by: ArtemInox
gimme a break
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Jul 28, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot believe the posts I've read on this topic. Trafficking in drugs could be stopped if there were the will to do so. The answer is NOT legalization, the answer is siezure of drug money laundering banks and imprisoning the bank officers who knew or ought to have known their banks were profiting from drug money laundering. Before he became governor of Massacheusetts, William Weld was Federal DA in Boston. During his tenure, First Boston was caught red handed in a money laundering scam. Federal charges were brought and indictment and conviction followed. Weld bragged that the 1/2million dollar fine was the largest such fine in US history. The sad fact is that was less than one days interest on First Boston's blood money. Weld's familywere heirs of the "White-Weld" fortune, made from their merchant bank which had sold out to Credit Suisse, a correspondent bank of First Boston. Weld's prosecution of First Boston was nothing but "damage control." Continental Illinois has also been caught red handed in drug money laundering. But there have been no siezures either of the drug money or of the bank. No bank officers have gone to prison. Going after even the top layer of thugs will never stop drug trafficking. Until the banking financeers who launder and conduit the money are imprisoned and their riches siezed, there is no commitment to stop trafficking in this poison.
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: 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: gimme a break Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
Ye Good Old Exploitation Days
Posted by: magmaybe on Jul 28, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to ask the author how "fun" and "safe" Tijuana circa 1960 was for the women providing the "adult entertainment." A barrel of laughs for them, I'm sure. While I too agree that the Drug War is an enormous, staggering mistake that is the direct cause of massive violence and senseless acts on all 'sides', I question the author's introduction to this issue by reminiscing about those good old days when he used to get wasted and exploit women. Helluva disconnect there, friend. There is/was plenty of horrific, deplorable violence in the sex industry *everywhere* - your wording would have us believe that only the kind of violence that prevents privileged, american male teenagers from partying in Tijuana (i.e. violence against *men*) is a problem. If you are truly concerned about violence, you should learn a bit more about the female sexual slavery crisis that is a worldwide issue. The overwhelming ignorance of this fact in your casual fuzzy description of what you call "adult entertainment" is nothing short of plain old ugly sexism.

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

» RE: Ye Good Old Exploitation Days Posted by: PismoBeach
» Oh Come ON Posted by: magmaybe
» RE: Don't make assumptions Posted by: Techubus
RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: COC on Jul 28, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I saw in the trailers, I think it grossly inaccurate, particularly with respect to the income tax. There are some scenes where the question is asked, "show me the law" referring to the income tax, another, where someone states the tax is unconstitutional because not apportioned. Wrong! The authority for the tax is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

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

» RE: America:Freedom to Fascism Posted by: DCostello
America is Number One! (in domestic drug demand, that is)
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 28, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recall alcohol prohibition? The American mafia got it's real start in the Prohibition days by controlling the illegal alcohol shipments (alcohol use actually rose during Prohibition), and usually it was high-proof (easier to transport).

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: water pipe bad Posted by: joebuck
Never a discussion...
Posted by: COC on Jul 28, 2006 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of why drugs are illegal in the first place. It is only concluded they are harmful, therefore they must be illegal. Johnny wants to experiment with drugs, but the gov't says, "No Johnny, drugs will screw up your life, they are bad for you, and to protect you and keep you from screwing up your life, we will make them illegal." Then, after Johnny goes out and tries some of the wicked for himself, the gov't throws Johnny in prison, where he will be saved from himself.

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

» RE: Never a discussion... Posted by: ConnecttheDots
RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: tap17x on Jul 28, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
False. I want smaller government. I want the gov out of the drug prohibition business and out of that part of the jail business. I want the gov out of bedrooms. I want the gov out of the marriage business. I want the gov out of the Iraq war business. I want the gov out of the unneccessary weapons business. The Republican party is largely responsible for big government.

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

Jack A. Cole states the problem simply.
Posted by: pure_genius on Jul 28, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his biting essay, "End Prohibition Now" he says,

"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]

RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: Rolomax on Jul 28, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really?

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]

RE: America:Freedom to Fascism
Posted by: meadowlake59 on Jul 28, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've been drinking your Bill O'Reilly Kool-Aid my friend. Liberals don't want a handout--they want a change in the way things are done. They want smaller government, an end to corruption (which the war has made into a multibillion dollar business), new ways of looking at old problems (thus, "liberal" thinking) instead of a retrenchment of the status quo (thus, "conservative"). The propaganda that you hear/read/see about liberals is all part of the conservative plan to scare you. If you are afraid--such as yellow/orange/red levels--you are more obedient to authority. They've got you hoodwinked into believing that any radical change in the appropriation of funds will mean the end of the democratic system. I've got a news alert for you buddy--there is no democratic system! The laws are writen and the legislators are in place to keep things just the way they are--a wider gulf between the haves and have-nots and a government that runs roughshod over a constitution. This is all led by a president who has declared himself "The Decider" and consolidated power within the executive branch. You want the power back? Then let 'em know this sucks and they are ALL out of office!!! Massive, sweeping change in government is the key. No more Republicans, no more Democrats (they have the same opportunity to be crooks as well). Total campaign reform. Demand action today!!! That's Democracy.

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

RE: Another angy re-pubtard
Posted by: marklar on Jul 28, 2006 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are so wrong. Here's something you don't know about government handouts.
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]

Legalize all drugs except those meant to be smoked
Posted by: xbj on Jul 28, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for legalizing drugs. I'm all for letting people smoke as long as they don't plant carcinogenic timebombs in the lungs and throughout the bodies of those around them.

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]

» humans are "meant"?!... Posted by: equidave
» RE: whatever buddy Posted by: Techubus
» RE: whatever buddy Posted by: xbj
» Can't smoke it? No prob, bob. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Search Lysander Spooner, abolitionist
Posted by: tclaverdure on Jul 28, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I encourage all alternet readers to search the name Lysander Spooner, a great american lawyer, abolitionist and activist.
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]

Stop The Sale Of Chemicals
Posted by: mite on Jul 28, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an X-cooker said to me years ago who worked for a international organization- "stop the sale of chemicals used to process the drugs in this world and your problem will begin to dry up". She also said follow the 'MONEY' and stop it; your problem will be reduced to a minor problem as people not wearing seat belts.
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
» Sorry, brother.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sorry, brother.... LOL Posted by: Techubus
Both sides profiting from status quo
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Jul 28, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no incentive to end the "War on Drugs," because both law enforcement and the drug cartels are profiting too much from the stalemate.

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

Make mangos illegal
Posted by: ghoster on Jul 28, 2006 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Make mangoe illegal and you would have a new black market in mangos, it all goes back to the saying; make laws prohibiting something and you create a new market and our government is all about marketing so now do you see the connection? Drugs fund the CIA and others, and confiscation laws fund the local Police and government, look at the USA Today on Wednesday of any week and see how much is confiscated in the US< it runs to pages of classified ads describing homes, farms, vehicles, and money all of which is used by the confiscating unit. Any wonder why this will never end? It is all about the benjamins.

[« 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
RE: A better idea
Posted by: Crazy H on Jul 28, 2006 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and the Repugnicans voted for a dope fiend... >;->

(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]

RE: A better idea
Posted by: MatthewSavage on Jul 28, 2006 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great idea! I think we should run with this. But it doesn't go far enough, in my opinion. While we're at it, we should start executing all people who speed. After all, they're recklessly endangering others by their selfish need to drive fast.

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
Troy
Posted by: Troymaples on Jul 28, 2006 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You apparently haven't seen the movie. If you had you would not still talking partisan politics. That's what the elitists want you to do. The problems in America need fixing by Americans, not Democrats or Republicans. They won't do it, they just want to continue the same pretend fight between the political parties in public view while they do their dirty work behind the scenes. WAKE-UP ! We have to rid ourselves of the one thing that allows them to keep control of both parties....THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. Go watch the movie again.

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

Thanks Norm, LEAP is a godsend.
Posted by: Lauren on Jul 28, 2006 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a recent story on a banned marijuana church, FYI. Someday we will be free...

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]

Prohibition is all it is
Posted by: marklar on Jul 28, 2006 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tobacco kills more people every year than all other drugs combined, far more. Booze and Tobacco lobbyists have been lying to ameircans for years about their products. NOne of the illegal drugs are as dangerous, but then, they have not been consumed on such a mass scale as tobacco and booze has - I may be wrong about that but I don't hink so.
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 -