This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Can We Be Sure The War On Drugs Is Worth Fighting?
Did you know the war on drugs is founded on racist principles? Prof. Stephen Davies shows the historical thought process behind banning drugs. One of the main reasons drugs were banned initially is because people were concerned drug use would lead to interracial relationships. Can you imagine someone making that argument today? Yet it was a principle reason for some of the laws banning drugs that we still have. Other reasons for banning drugs included fear of conspiracies and the misguided notion that the government somehow has a right to the productivity of its citizens. All three of these reasons are truly absurd, but all three were historically used as arguments that contributed to the war on drugs. If these are the arguments on which the drug war is founded, can we be sure it's a war worth fighting for?
»
- 12924 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The War On Drugs, every bit as successful as The War On Poverty.
there is no greater misnomer than "the war on drugs". how could such a limp wristed response on the part the authorities ever be considered a war? zero tolerance should mean zero tolerance. they want war...let's start by exporting all the addicts to russian gulags (including all those smelly dope dependants). then fire up the cement mixers...we got some shiny new prisons to build.
Is Tyler relearning his principles or something? I'm confused, i.e. what kind of question is that?
Should a tiny unelected evil minority be allowed to shape the future of the species?
There is no war on drugs. Just a massive expansion of the totalitarian police state misnamed the war on drugs.
Story my late father once told me, make of it what you will.
My father was in the Phillipines both before and after WWII. Before the war there were thousands of opium addicts in Manila and opium dens operated freely. The Americans didn't much care although it was against the law. Who cared? Prohibition of drugs was a war you can't win.
Well the Japanese took control of Manila alll the addicts went into hiding. The Japanese were death on drugs in a way the happy go lucky Americans could never be. To everybody's surprise the Japanese posted proclaimations stating that to celebrate their victory there would be FREE opium for a month. People were skeptical at first but a few addicts went to the dens and, sure enough, FREE OPIUM. In a few days the dens were full of doped up opium smokers stoned out of their minds. Hey life in the Southeast Asia Cooperative Sphere was great. Who knew?
Then one day the Japanese Army surrounded the opium dens. They read a short proclaimation stating that people who could not or would not contribute to the empire had no place in their empire. Then the opium addicts were brought out one at a time and beheaded. From the Japanese point of view they weren't worth wasting a bullet on.
See the japanese didn't make war on drugs, they made war on the addicts. And it was over in one day. IN. ONE. DAY.
ob1 Do you think the Japanese would oblige by using same method you describe in DC ?( In one day)
I'm not the police, I'm not your parents. You wanna put that crap in your body, go right ahead. Just don't come bitchin' to me to pay for your rehab costs with my taxes or insurance money. Do something bad while you're high and don't bitch to me that you don't remember or you "weren't in your right mind" or should be excused because you're an addict.
On the other side of that coin, I also don't want to be paying for people to sit in jail under mandatory sentancing guidelines for being popped at a DUI checkpoint 2 tenths over the legal limit, having hurt noone, or popped holding a dime bag of pot (Is there still such a thing as a dime bag? Been a long time since I was plugged into that world). And for those who get popped for something obviously beyond the pale, but still having hurt noone or damaged property, slap an ankle bracelet on them (at their cost) and probation (also at their cost) and move on. Don't have the money? Put 'em to work picking up trash on the side of the road at minimum wage with all proceeds going to pay off the costs.
Of course, none of this will ever happen, since just punishment and paying an appropriate debt to society isn't the point any more (money flowing to the "judicial" and prison rackets is the point)
<-- War on Drug
<-- Drag on War
Must be bankster war if is last so long, like LBJ war on poverty, GWB war on terror, BHO war on sanity.
How will they fund ongoing CIA operations if they end the War on Drugs?
If only we could apply that strategy to politicians, bankers, and lawyers.
If you legalize narcotics, you'll also need to eliminate welfare for drug addicts.
Public assistance has changed the entire equation. We can legalize drigs when Americans are prepared to step over homeless heroin addicts in the streets...
Last time I checked (AD 2014) Americans were stepping over homeless heroin addicts. Nothing new here, move along...
jesus go to the south... I stepped over 13 on one block... then when i got to the next block i saw tuns of police and kids selling dope... So i went to the next block and started skateboardng with some healthy college kids...
Cops kicked us out... Fuck it I went and smoked a joint in the block over... fuck the police if theres a war on drugs then do something about it, otherwise stop stealing our money under the pretense of a war?
What war?
O did weed, i did weed, the person reading this did weed, so did their mother and teacher...
Get high and do kickflips (and frontside flips and backside flips and 360 flips too of course).
Cops don't care if your slinging dope for the most part, as long as you keep to the ghetto and away from the good neighborhoods and keep a low profile. Its called a "containment" policy. Every city is the same way. They send narcs to fuck with the low-hanging-fruit but most dealers can smell a narc. You see them counting change 3,4,5 in the morning, think extra large rubber-bands...
Pigs are bullies, the vast majority of the time (>95%) they only go after weak addicts and people that don't have the means or the will to defend themselves in court.
Remember justice are only for those who can pay for it....
i agree with you that "war on drugs" is a misnomer.
it's actually a war on people, as stefan molyneux of freedomain radio has eloquently pointed out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgb196MN3vo
It's actually a war on competition. (HSBC, Wells) The old saying is true, don't steal, the .gov hates competition.
does that include alcoholics? "prescribed" drugs? Caffeine addicts? how do we pay for this?
how about all the dangerous drugs knowingly manufactured by the real corporate drug dealers. They have done a world of damage
Indeed, Davey. Where do we draw the line? My inclination to just to legalize almost all of them.
"Caveat Emptor"
Take personal responsability.
personal responsibility, yes.
but why "almost" all of them? why are you willing to accept giving any power at all over your own life, to the dangerous criminals in government?
Agreed. Legalize them all but require LABELLING of all ingredients. You want to give your kid Cyanide and mercury vaccines? Great, have them, but label the damn thing so people like me can make the choice for ourselves.
oh dear. straight from the pro dope lobby handbook
Oh, so you're an idiot AND a hypocrite, is that it?
who is the bigger idiot - someone who's life is dependant on weed or someone who's life isn't. don't think i'm guilty of hypocrisy.
you seem unable to comprehend that the issue is not about drugs per se, it's about basic human liberty, about not infringing on others.
are we better off when some bureaucrats in washington get to decide what we can or cannot ingest into our own bodies, having jackbooted government thugs busting down peoples' doors and shoot people (often the wrong doors) in a witch hunt for "the devils weed", or are we better off running our own lives, making our own decisions?
the fact that you don't trust yourself to run your own life and feel someone else needs to watch over you and make decisions for you is a sad reflection on how little confidence you have in yourself. were you abandoned by your parents at an early age, perhaps?
it is not me that i'm worried about. like it or not your decisions impinge on others. you do not exist in a vacuum.
that's been one of the more reasonable statements you've made, thus far.
but, about that word you used, "impinge".
when someone does something that transgresses against your person or property, that is impinging.
but, if someone stays on their own property, in the privacy of their own home, and chooses to take some drugs, that is not "impinging" on you in any way.
in fact, *you* are the one that's impinging, if you feel you have the right to control what goes on in the privacy of your neighbor's home.
my neighbors are stoners. they are not good neighbors. they smoke it in their garden in the summer. my children are exposed. is that enough of an impingement for you or am i impinging on them?
sometimes when people live in close proximity to each other, things like this happen.
one neighbor across the street sometimes plays music too loud, the music comes on to my property, and it could be said they are infringing on my right to enjoy peace and quiet.
another down the street has an overly loud motorcycle that sometimes goes by.
i can see how pot smoke next door might be a minor annoyance, but it's not dangerous.
it's good to talk to people if you have concerns.
it would not occur to me to try to ban music, or ban motorcycles, or try to push for a law that criminalizes such people and puts them in jail. that would be an overreaction.
it might be only be a minor annoyance to another dope smoker. the law is already in place..cannabis has never been legal in the neighbor's lifetime.
so this neighbor doesn't work and claims housing and unemployment benefits paid for out of my taxes. the neighbor has young children. does his dependancy impinge on their lives? and does his benefit sucking impinge on my life?
Tyler went a trollin' and he did ride, uh huh.
Tyler went a trollin' and he did ride, uh huh.
Tyler went a trollin' and he did ride,
Sippin' down some Kool-Aid® on the side,
Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh.
You may want to consider this, or not, pendragon. What if you find yourself down on your luck? Never been there? That's too bad, 'cos if it's true, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
But if you did somehow find yourself in such a position, who would you look to for help? Your cohort? You might be surprised.
In short, you sound like a priveleged prick who's never known hardship- and you know what? I don't give a fuck about you- except to say you also don't know dick-all about dope, or why it's used.
welcome to the stoner circle jerk. if i was ever down on my luck i certainly would never turn to dope. would just be a continuation of the downward spiral. i can assure you i know plenty about dope.
You've chosen a housecat as your avatar. You seem to think you know all there is to know about "the stoner circle jerk". Yet it somehow is beyond your comprehension to realize those you call stoners are more aware, more articulate, and actually more informed than yourself.
In truth, you seem like a fan of Hannity. Dude makes me wanna puke.
you are clueless. for a stoner there is only their righteous herb, they see nothing else. need the evidence...it's all on this thread.
go ahead and puke...it will be your biggest achievement to date.
1.) no such notebook
2.) your close minded to ignore the text based on the name (even if you made it up)
3.) hows his idea bad?
4.) his idea would save trillions???
5.) get owned.
the tea and coffee shyte is the most oft quoted bs re dependancy. except the news is tea and coffee are harmless. well maybe too much coffee can lead to hyper tension. the US ireminds me of the last days of the roman empire. drug legalisation is the final nail in the coffin
How did you avoid being tried at Nuremberg, after WW2?
The 'War on Drugs' is a war on freedom and a war on the people, and nothing more. It is all about power, control and money. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence yeah.
It's about freedom of choice. Do you own your body, or does the government?
but why would you choose to pump it full of crap?
Freedom of choice.
With freedom comes responsibility and bearing any consequences of the voluntary choices you make.
Why do you feel compelled to make choices for others?
neither of you answered the question.
Because it should be mine to do with as I please. Are you telling me you never eat steaks, bacon, ribs, potato salad, chips, salt, coffee, butter, candy, soda pop, beer, wine or whisky? If you can say yes to that, we'll talk about having an empty life.
everything in moderation but not harmful drugs
When does a drug become harmful?
...to the drug companies? when it becomes illegal
avoid the answer by asking another question. depends on the drug. if we are talking about tea then never
I used to believe that shit, and not that long ago. But then I woke up and realized that the nanny state does far more harm than good, and on a lot of levels. Freedom entails responsibility and the risk of fucking up your life by smoking, using drugs, not wearing your seatbelt, getting shot, or whatever. Fuck this whole police state for safety bullshit.
why would any reasonable minded individual want to pump their body full of crap they will get addicted to?
.
Like television, talk radio, and politics?
well maybe for the weak minded.
to be fair you are the only one who's shown any honesty. for the rest it's just this bs concept of choice.
Yeah, just like all that bullshit pro-terrorist extremist propaganda about 'liberty' and 'freedom', real anti-American shit like that, right? How dare they!
Buncha damn freedom lovin', commie sympathizin' terrists.
Freedom & choice are not bullshit concepts.
Its how one reacts and uses (or abuses) those concepts.
Your burglar/addict example for instance, he forfeits his freedom (or his life if it happens to be my house) when he breaks in doesn't he? He knows he's "crossed a certain threshold for tolerance" he may not return from by his actions.
It was his freedom and his choice there too as well.
That's cold. Maybe he's going through hard times and needs some of your stuff.
I think everyone within this little sub-thread made excellent points. I don't see the reason for the polarized flags but I've (again) made the error of reading a US sociopolitical discussion expecting objective reasoning to feature prominently and to accommodate its own unstymied resolution of basic matters.
Oh well, next time for sure.
Why would anybody want a militarized, virtually unaccountable, virtually untouchable police state to try (and massively fail BTW) to prevent it?
I know we are talking about hallucinogens but this argument does extend to other pharmaceuticals. We had a patient with a severe CSF infection and chloramphenicol saved her life ( very dangerous antibiotic). She came back with another infection a few months later and insisted to have chloramphenicol again. Her physician refused saying it was inappropriate for the type of infection she had. She left AMA, went to Tijuana and got the chloramphenicol. Yes, she got the classic problem with that drug, aplastic anemia and died a year later. We all paid for her care.
Freedom should entail responsibility but where I sit it often doesn't and others often pay for the actions of stupid people. At least in this country. I'm sure in a third world country this scenario would never had happened.
Miffed;-)
They have poverty and downtroddennes in the 'third world,' but not such misfortunes as these.
Id rather pay for her care for a year than live with the consequences of a lifetime of her stupidity, followed by paying for the decade long slow decline of a natural death.
people have the right to make stupid mistakes, even if it kills them.
such is life.
about your comment of others often paying for actions of stupid people - you mean as in financially? assuming so, this is a simple market issue. everyone should be responsible for their own health care. if you mean in an insurance pool sense, then it's the insurance company's responsibility to adjust premiums correctly.
pendragon
Wait I thought you were fucking around, but you actually believe you have a right to tell other people what to do? (For their own good, of course!)
Here is a news article about how the Sunrise, Florida police make money selling dope. No joke, dude.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-sunrise-cops-money-selling-drugs-1006,0,4...
So much for coerced morality.
No, the premise of the question was not accepted, the question was:
"but why would you choose to pump it full of crap?"
Coke - toxic desolves teeth, used as rust remover.
Mcdonalds - causes cancer
Wendies - causes cancer
taco bell - causes cancer
arbies - causes cancer
pizza hut - causes cancer
dominoes pizza - causes cancer
ciggeretes causes cancer
Im going to stop but i could go on about how 99.9% of the foods on shelves inone way or another or chmically altered to... CAUSE CANCER.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Wifi, wimax, 3g 4g 5g, cell phones,...
Me cutting a flower and drinking it as tea (and getting fucking high) = not cancer
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
.
When you say "pump full of crap", do you mean things like HFCS and foods made from GMOs? I try to avoid those when possible.
As for getting high, I avoid crap like ditch weed as well. When it comes to sweet-smelling, grown in the good ol' USA Meigs County Mindfuck®, though, all I can say is "fuck yeah".
Why? Because it's fun.
I wouldnt have posted my comment if i read yours, you pretty much teach him whats up.
Just to add,, i am veagan only because of the cancer thats given to the americans which they call "food"
Do i do weed?
Fuck yes.. why not? how is my tea of weed unhealthy?
Learn to deduce the implied.
Freedom of choice,
Why do that?
Freedom of choice.
no offence bro but "harmful" is subjective, that is a fact. you know this. My dad did cocain 1,000 times,every time got very happy, had awesome family time, and preformed successfull surgeries on thousands. then died to a bear and tiger attack? Was the cocain unhealthy?
Idk why i gave you an example, common sense tells you harmfull drugs arnt harmfull in all context.
0 upvotes? gg
-1
Whether your neighbor choses to pump their body full of crap is not for YOU to decide.
Fuck, most Americans are ALREADY pumping their bodies full of crap ---- nutritionless, destructive refined carbohydrates, sugar, hydrogenated and synthetic fats, excessive levels of salt, etc. etc. Not to mention the manifest dangers of tobacco and alcohol. So where is your "War on Tobacco" (which kills FAR more Americans than have ever been killed by illegal drugs), or your "War on Fast Food", or your "War on Salt"? As for the "War on Alcohol", that one was already tried and went down in flames, but according to your "logic", we should illegalize tobacco and alcohol anyway, regardless of the historical precedents or inevitable failures of such efforts, right?
Not to mention another upside to the end of the 'War on Drugs'; we wouldn't need all of these cops, lawyers, judges, drug courts, jails and prisons, DEA, FBI and so on. There's a lot of $$ to be made on both sides of the equation. Just think how much freer we would be without all that shit.
it's just another addiction. the choice thing is bs. if my neighbor is a smack head he is likely funding his habit through crime =most probably theft and burglary. that impacts on me. most drug dependants are a waste of oxygen and a drain on society.
Ever ask yourself why drugs are so expensive? It's called a risk premium. In fact, you ever wonder how drugs just became so conveniently available starting in the 60s? That would be the CIA. You're being played and you can't even see it.
...like the US and energy sources. Like the US and debt? Should we just kill it? Or should we just put it in prison?
if my neighbor is a smack head he is likely funding his habit through crime =most probably theft and burglary.
One of the reasons the 'justice system' is so bad at enforcing victimful crimes like theft and burglary is that it is wasting vast resources on victimless crimes... like taking drugs.
The issue isn't the drug taking. I'm pretty sure Eric Clapton wasn't burgling when he was on smack. The issue is theft and burglay. Punish those.
You forgot the legal drugs prescribed by the tonnage to Americans every year Xanax etc, Ambien ( turns people into zombies) Lipitor. I remember the ban on Metabolife when a few people died using it highly inappropriately. Sort of hypocritical when you see the stats of liver failures from Tylenol used correctly. There are at least 200,000 hospital admissions due to drug reactions from properly used pharmaceuticals. There are FAR more drugged up Americans on legal than illegal drugs.
Miffed;-)
What part of "none of your business" don't you get?
You must have never tripped mushrooms and hiked in the woods on a sunny spring day. There is a point were one can justify the 'high' of anything based strictly on the intrinsic value of experience. And, yes many kinds of dope destroy lives...... But that is the individuals cross to bare not the gov.
I don't eat at McDonald's
You'll eat at McDonald's if Barry decides you'll eat at McDonald's.
..period!
You are very close.
It is about Freedom of Action; the right to act upon your choices is the heart of the argument of Man vs. State.
http://capitalism.org/tour/preamble5b.htm
All drugs should be legal.
Except fiat currency.
For the children!
If it would be homegrown fiat, that would be fine by me. ;-)
Why waste money on transportation when we could adopt the Singaporean model?
It's tough when the drug dealer is the CIA!
War AND Drugs !!!
Very profitable all around if you own both the war and the drugs!
Limits competition and keeps prices up. CIA makes out all around. Gets funding to take out business competitors and gets higher profitson the goods they import.
Air America - bringing guns in and drugs out for a half century all over the world.
< Did you know the war on drugs is founded on racist principles?
< Are you sick of the libtard argument that somehow every single thing is somehow RAYCYST?
Or the war on cancer
War on drugs is a great success. Between that and the war on terror we now live in a total police state, with the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world... Privatized dungeons are making money hand over fist. At the same time prohibition is keeping government entities in the tall clover, not to mention providing a major revenue stream to Wall Street.
What's not to like?
Sure.. it is effective as the government "War on Alcohol" (1930's), the "War On Crime". the "War on Poverty" and "War On Terror" and the War on Iraq the Taliban and Al Qaeda to name just a few.
The British invented the game with the opium war. There are so many spin off industries and untracked revenues from this racket the government simply can't keep out of it. Prohibition was another ingenious bridge between the state and organized crime where Lucky Luciano was sent by the CIA to establish a heroin trade in Italy and countless other ops.
Like dollar hegemony, the war on/with drugs is about revenue generated extraterritorially. It has the huge advantage of being mostly cash which is poorly tracked which finds its way into the hands of subcontractors doing illegal work fir the CIA or DEA.
I'm still waiting for that war on war
Fucking for virginity?
:)
War IS the drug.
Love is the Drug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlRmTKuEAG4
Love is the Drug - Prefer the Roxy Music original:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRRLTxIxNtM
Hey, the War on Drugs panned out real well for two top DEA guys from Oregon, who are now running a large Dope production.
Search for https://duckduckgo.com/?q=top+DEA+officers+from+Oregon+in+marijuanan+bus... for interesting results.
Bingo. You think the US would give a shit about Columbia or Afghanistan without the native agriculture there?
Thanks for the link, Kirk! I've passed that info on. As a potential client of such an enterprise, here's my feedback:
Any former-contraband sellers who decide to 'go legit' by hiring unendicted criminals, ex-government thugs, or bankster enablers, as far as I'm concerned will never see a penny of my business. Lets just say that I don't trust their friends.
I think current/ex-gov or current/ex-bankster should be a resume-killer. I don't care if "they were one of the GOOD apples, and they NEVER agreed with that part of their job." Tell it to the tribunal.
If the only way they can 'go legit' is by hiring fascists to consult, or to do anything else, then as far as I'm concerned they ain't 'legit'.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Cops Breaking Bad -- new TV series coming up?
Or does that hit too close to home (the truth)?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103759/
Ever see "Deep Cover" with Laurence Fishburn and Jeff Goldblum?
Depends on who you ask.
If you the donut-inhaling, uneducated, paranoid called "cops" if they enjoy the militarization and hyperinflation of SWAT teams across the US, they'll tell you they love the war on drugs and all the money funneled their way.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/07/14/there-are-over-50000-swat-team-r...
The tax-eater prosecutors love them too. Drugs have the least burden of proof of anything since possession is the violation itself. Politicians love them because they get to say their tough on crime. Even though the law is unjust.
Then the idiot class portion of the population thinks that the only thing holding most of the country back from shooting up or dropping acid is because there's a law against it. As if that stopped anyone before ever. .
I think that the for-profit private prison industry is pretty fond of the war on drugs too.
And all along I thought it was cause of people doing the happy feet.
Can't be having all that happy feet you know.
Hey and don't forget that the Fk face Nixon brought us the war and the loss of our world of freedom.
Yea the guy they fkn threw out. So we should be able to rescind the war due to Negligent implementation.
'Twould help if I knew what WINNING that war would look like.
No people using any drugs anywhere?
Certain drugs stamped out of existence?
All drugs tracked and under the control of the 'authorities'?
Drugs never to be used for pleasure again?
Drugs never to be used in crime again?
Ever notice that the Wars on Drugs/Terror/Poverty/Evil etc. tend to be a little short on what victory would look like? Or even defeat. Well, unless we each make up our own idea of victory, which I assume those dedicated to these wars must do.
If we can't use the war on drugs as the reason to buy Police departments across the country Abrams tanks, drones, fully automatic weapons, etc... what other excuse can we use to weapon up our law enforcement?
Terrorism: the other scaremongering white meat.
I just want to be able to buy my heroin and meth without so many damn middlemen.
I know, I just want to to buy my congressman without so many damn underagemen
The US knows that fighting drugs is worth it in Colombia but not in Afghanistan since a lot of that heroin goes to Russia which makes for an interesting topic for Western media to gloat over the high rates of HIV in Russia from the drug use, especially before the Sochi Olympics:
“The US together with the Colombian government eradicates 200,000 hectares of coca bushes a year. In Afghanistan, only 2,000 hectares of poppy fields are being eradicated – one 100th of that amount,” Ivanov pointed out.
And no Western media will report on the 4000% increase in Afghan heroin production since NATO invaded Afghanistan, much less the million dead:
Heroin production in Afghanistan increased 40 times since NATO began its ‘War on Terror’ in 2001, the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service stated, adding that more than 1million people have died from Afghan heroin since then.
“Afghan heroin has killed more than 1 million people worldwide since the ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ began and over a trillion dollars has been invested into transnational organized crime from drug sales,”Viktor Ivanov said at the conference on the drug situation in Afghanistan.
http://rt.com/news/afghanistan-heroin-production-increased-266/
My favorite was the "Northern Alliance" NATO backed to oust the Taliban. Do some background checks on those guys: they make the Hells Angels look like a bunch of girl scouts.
ALL the fuckin knuckle draggers over there make the HA look like Brownies, Christ I've seen film of them making AK47's by hand without electricity.
If Russia or even China cannot stop the heroin trade, shouldn't it just be legalized?
Coming soon...free ObamaSmack!
Using war to protect the drugs especially in afghanistan
How about a war on humanity? That'll cover it all.
that one's almost over
The thought was to open a new tax revenue & cling to Mr./Mrs. Munchies to hit the nearest food establishment. Allow me to explain.. The reason why the smoking ban took place, nicotine is known to suppress appetites.
The flaw in their new thinking to generate more food sales, someone is going to demand for a new Obama Choom smoking section to be installed. Next, second hand smoking buzz becomes a new attorney market.
That's RAYCISSS!
"One of the main reasons drugs were banned initially is because people were concerned drug use would lead to interracial relationships."
"Can you imagine someone making that argument today?"
Yes, I can imagine it.
http://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-blacks-attack-old-white-people...
http://newobserveronline.com/nonwhite-crime-apocalypse-envelops-new-york...
http://www.newnation.org/
http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
http://rense.com/general77/racedif.htm
Drinking laws have removed the lubricant of American business. Lose your license over two drinks? The alcohol limit should return to .15%. Speed limits need to be increased also. Lawyers, .gov and crony's are no fun and they are killing us faster than drunk drivers are.
Keeping you boarded up like cattle is the grand scheme. The exclusive prophecy of Agenda 21 is to control you from one vantage point.
Future Internet From Johnny Mnemonic
Oculus Rift Y Leap Motion
http://oculusrift.com/
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley.
(we hope)
Putting a number on sobriety has always been ludicrous to me. I've seen middle eastern men very drunk but only test at .08. I drew a legal blood alcohol on an alcoholic that was coherent and walked a straight line ( damn near passed out as he breathed) which incredibly came out as .40. Friday night with a full moon was always "guess the blood alcohol" day. We'd all put five bucks in the pot and pick a good trauma to bet. Turned out really to be luck rather than skill of observation.
Miffed;-)
I'm guessing you win most often by betting on a broken heart.
The purpose of any government intervention into the economy as an iniatory force is never the stated purpose which is instead just a ruse. The purpose is for persons and several groups of persons who do not add value to the economy to usurp unearned power and steal from those who do.
It is perfectly logical if you want to have a monopoly on approved drugs.
All wars are bankers wars - the war on drugs is no different.
HSBC wouldn't have much to launder, but for TWOD and the banking system would likely not have made it through 2008 if it wasn't for such laundering (HSBC is not exactly alone in this.
Then you have The US government helping out Mexican cartels.
FFS people, wake up!
It's all about money, MY MONEY! Do what ever you want. Just don't send me the bill to fix
anything you did to your self. I just dont like paying for your fun!
Is the power to regulate what one sells or ingests granted to the US government in the US Constitution?! No!
Therefore 'worth' is NOT the issue.
Taking the next step, article 3, section 3 states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort..." Therefore by declaring war against "them," the states and people of the US, they are, without a doubt, guilty of treason--from the local gun and badge thug on up to the top.
And amendments 9 and 10 make it also clear that what power was not enumerated, given, to the US, was left to the people and states.
"Ignorance of the Constitution and 'following orders' are no excuses."
A BIG FAT NO not worth fighting.
What about the banks laundering the money? As Dr. Engali said we cannot have a civil society without equal justice.
Personally I think it would cheaper to pay for rehab for drugs like heroin and crystal meth than the war on drugs.
As far as Pot I don't believe it's as harmful as claimed and certainly not anymore harmful than alocohal so if adults want to smoke it they should be free to do so.
Obama’s War on Pothttp://www.thenation.com/article/176920/blowing-smoke
Look at the damages this so called war on drugs has brought
DEA, U.S ATTORNEYS SECRETLY MET WITH DRUG CARTELS IN MEXICO TO OBTAIN INFO ON RIVALSWhen the US government stops the war on drugs there will be hundreds tousands of cops and byrocrats without job. And half-empty prisons, also less prison staff and prison procurement.
No way any US government can stop war on drugs, the government got addicted by this war. Just the like the war on terror. And what is worse the USA is forcing all this fucking policy on its allies in Europe and elsewhere. Fucking unbelievable.
What? The Raison d'être of governments is to steal your labour and time while simultaneously telling you that without their wise ruling hand you would be lost.
All drugs should be legal, so no, obviously not worth "fighting".
Let me help you decide:
Is a RAPE "worth comitting" ??
history has proven that the only way to
fight a war is while on drugs. the war on drugs
is worth fighting in that it is fought to acquire the drugs
that are being used to fight the war. replace or remove the
profits or high obtained from the drugs and no one
would have a decent reason to fight. such a fitting analogy
with even a literal correlation, the drugs and the hydrocarbons.
you might say the hydrocarbons are the heroin of the infrastructure.
the rare yet abundant spice of life that makes a people forget and lose it all?
.
in one of these posts someone hinted at a plot at population
control perhaps even mostly unconscious? behind a good part of the war for
more drugs and oil, not to mention the hiv connection having, i suspect,
more to do with needles and such rather than tongues and sex organs ....
nuclear station failure analogous to the hiv? ...
The cocaine and herion trade could be wiped out at the source countries but politically the will to do it does not exists. Also many in power here in the U.S. profit from its trade. Meth is harder to eliminate but huge efforts could be made by sending our military into Mexico to take care of ALL involved in its production and transportation. Once again, our politians have failed us.
The cocaine and herion trade could be wiped out at the source countries but politically the will to do it does not exists. Also many in power here in the U.S. profit from its trade. Meth is harder to eliminate but huge efforts could be made by sending our military into Mexico to take care of ALL involved in its production and transportation. Once again, our politians have failed us.
They do not need to be eliminated.
The cocaine and herion trade could be wiped out at the source countries but politically the will to do it does not exists. Also many in power here in the U.S. profit from its trade. Meth is harder to eliminate but huge efforts could be made by sending our military into Mexico to take care of ALL involved in its production and transportation. Once again, our politians have failed us.
"Did you know the war on drugs is founded on racist principles?"
Did you know that the term "racist" was dreamed up by one Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Trotsky)?
Curiously, he also wrote
We should turn Her (Russia) into a desert populated with white Niggers. We will impose upon them such a tyranny that was never dreamt by the most hideous despots of the East. The peculiar trait of that tyranny is that it will be enacted from the left rather than the right and it will be red rather than white in colour. Its colour will be red literally because we would spill such torrents of blood that they will pale all human losses of the capitalist wars and make (the survivors) shudder.
What peaceful and honest people those tribe members are.
REEFER MADNESS: "...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups, burglaries and deeds of maniacal insanity it causes each year, especially among the young, can only be conjectured... No one knows, when he places a marijuana cigarette to his lips, whether he will become a joyous reveller in a musical heaven, a mad insensate, a calm philosopher, or a murderer..."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigarette can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions." - quoting Floyd K. Baskette.
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster of marijuana he would drop dead of fright."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
REEFER MADNESS: "[Marijuana is taken by] musicians. And I'm not speaking about good musicians, but the jazz type..."
Harry J. Anslinger - America's 1st Drug Czar (FDR - JFK)
That's the REAL madness!
If someone thinks they have the right to tell you what drugs you can't take, its only the next step for them to decide they have the right to tell you what drugs you WILL HAVE TO TAKE.
How does one human being get the right to tell another human being what they can and can't do, so long as they take responsibility for their actions and don't knowingly hurt anyone else?
It's amazing, the Stockholm syndrome here in the US...
Government does not exists to protect people from their own stupidities....