This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Statist Roots Of The Destructive War On Drugs
Submitted by Laurence Vance via The Future of Freedom Foundation,
Although many states have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes, some states have decriminalized the possession of certain amounts of marijuana, and four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, bipartisan support for the drug war throughout the United States continues unabated and unquestioned.
Why?
Why do so many Americans think that the property of other Americans should be confiscated, and that some of their fellow Americans should be fined, arrested, put on probation, subject to no-knock SWAT team raids, be treated as criminals, or locked in a cage for growing, manufacturing, processing, buying, selling, distributing, “trafficking in,” using, or possessing some substance the government doesn’t approve of?
Why do so many Americans support a war on drugs that:
- unnecessarily makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding Americans, clogs the judicial system with noncrimes, and expands the prison population with nonviolent offenders;
- violates the Constitution, the principle of federalism, and increases the size and scope of government;
- has utterly failed to prevent drug use, reduce drug abuse, or end drug overdoses;
- fosters violence, corrupts law enforcement, and militarizes the police;
- hinders legitimate pain management, hampers the treatment of debilitating diseases, and turns doctors into criminals;
- destroys personal and financial privacy, and negates personal responsibility and accountability;
- has been unsuccessful in keeping drugs out of the hands of addicts, teenagers, and convicts;
- assaults individual liberty, private property, and the free market; or
- wastes billions of taxpayer dollars and has financial and human costs that far exceed any of its supposed benefits?
I see a number of reasons that Americans in general support a government war on the mind-altering and mood-altering substances we refer to as drugs.
For some the reason is history. As far as many Americans are concerned, drugs have always been illegal and should therefore always remain so. It is simply unthinkable that it should be any other way. Yet, for the first half of our nation’s history there were no prohibitions against anyone’s possessing or using any drug.
For some the reason is society. The use of marijuana — for medical reasons or not — is still viewed negatively. And of course the use of other drugs such as cocaine, LSD, and heroin is disparaged even more. There is almost universal support for the drug war among all facets of society: engineers, teachers, preachers, physicians, clerks, accountants, secretaries, and housewives. But, of course, it doesn’t follow that because a majority of society supports something the power of government should be used against those who don’t.
For some the reason is political. The war on drugs enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, moderates, populists, progressives, centrists, Tea Partiers — they all generally support government prohibition of certain drugs. The drug war is never an issue in any congressional primary or general election. As long as their party or their political group supports the drug war, most Americans will follow suit. The decision to use drugs should be an ethical, religious, medical, or moral decision, not a political decision.
For some the reason is religion. Support for the drug war can be found across the religious spectrum, encompassing Christians and Jews, Protestants and Catholics, liberals and conservatives, fundamentalists and progressives, and Trinitarians and Unitarians. Yet, there is no ethical precept in any religion that should lead anyone to believe that it is the job of government to prohibit, prevent, regulate, restrict, or otherwise control any substance that any adult desires to ingest of his own free will.
For some the reason is morality. Because, some assert, it is immoral to alter one’s mind or mood with illegal drugs, the government should ban the use of these substances. Do drug warriors likewise believe that it is immoral to alter one’s mind or mood with alcohol? If not, then they are woefully inconsistent in their proscription; if so, then they are woefully inconsistent in their prescription.
Dangers and vices
For some the reason is safety. Because it can be dangerous to use illicit drugs, some think the government should ban them. Yet there is no question that smoking marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. Alcohol abuse is a factor in many drownings; home, pedestrian, car, and boating accidents; and fires. How many drug warriors propose that the government ban alcohol? There are plenty of things that are much more dangerous than using illicit drugs: skydiving, bungee jumping, coal mining, boxing, mountain climbing, cliff diving, drag racing — even crossing the street at a busy intersection. According to the Journal of Forensic Sciences, there are more than 28,000 chainsaw-related injuries annually in the United States. Shouldn’t governments across the country declare war on chainsaws?
For some the reason is vice. Using drugs is said to be a vice like gambling, profanity, drunkenness, using pornography, and prostitution. But as only the latter is actually banned outright by the government, arguments for government action against select drugs are extremely weak. And what about the vices of pride, envy, wrath, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust? Why don’t drug warriors advocate government action against them? Vices in 2014 are still as the 19th-century political philosopher Lysander Spooner explained:
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
For some the reason is health. The use of mind-altering and mood-altering substances is said to be unhealthy. The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” But even if drugs such as marijuana don’t provide benefits for certain diseases and medical conditions, they are certainly not nearly as deadly as the drugs administered by physicians that kill thousands of Americans every year, the drugs that cause thousands of hospital patients every year to have adverse reactions, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin that kill thousands every year. The most unhealthy drug is alcohol, which is a contributing factor in many cases of cancer, mental illness, fetal abnormalities, and cirrhosis of the liver. Alcohol abuse is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. There is no question that smoking marijuana is less dangerous than smoking tobacco. Common sense would dictate that it is tobacco that should be banned, not marijuana. And of course, the greatest health threat Americans face is obesity, not illegal drugs.
For some the reason is addiction. Certain drugs should be illegal, we are told, because they are addictive. The federal government says that marijuana “has a high potential for abuse.” But is that because it is addictive or because some people just want to get high? Legal drugs prescribed by physicians are certainly just as addictive as any drugs that are illegal. And of course, pornography, smoking, gambling, sex, shopping, and eating can be addictive. Drug warriors are very selective about which addictive behaviors deserve government action.
For some the reason is irrationality. Although every bad thing that could be said about drugs could also be said about alcohol, some drug warriors hold the irrational belief that drugs are just different from alcohol. Why? Because they just are.
For all, the reason is government. I believe the root of support for the drug war is simply this: trust in government. Unnecessary, irrational, and naive trust in government.
What’s so disturbing is that nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to intrude itself into the personal eating, drinking, or smoking habits of Americans or concern itself with the nature and quantity of any substance Americans want to ingest. The Constitution is supposed to be the foundation of American government. The federal government is not supposed to have the authority to do anything unless it is included in the limited, enumerated powers granted to it in the Constitution. Yet some of the ardent enthusiasts of the Constitution are some of the most rabid drug warriors.
The war on drugs is a war on individual liberty, private property, limited government, the Constitution, American taxpayers, personal responsibility, the free market, and a free society that has ruined more lives than drugs themselves.
Every facet of government that contributes in some way to the monstrous evil that is the war on drugs should be dismembered, root and branch, and cast to the four winds.
»
- 15800 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Every facet of government that contributes in some way to the monstrous evil that is the war on drugs should be dismembered, root and branch, and cast to the four winds.
Especially if it's the gov't itself (bankers) growing, promoting, and distributing the drugs. Invasion and "liberating" of Afghanistan comes to mind.
<<Especially if it's the gov't itself (bankers) growing, promoting, and distributing the drugs.>>
This should be reason number one on the list of Why the support. People think it's OK for government to lock up markets in monopoly of services, in the mistaken belief that the benefits somehow flow to them.
Should have been called 'War On Other Legal Drug Distribution Markets'. Guess that doesn't sloganise as well.
I place 100% of the blame on the people, most of whom are brainwashed sheep.
Half of them have an IQ below 100 and their vote counts just as much as yours.
"...Afghanistan comes to mind."
Mena, anyone?
More likely the City of London.
The Opium Wars in China in the 1850s comes to mind. The Brits needed foreign exchange to take home coveted Chinese goods, so they impoprted opium from India to China and fought wars for the right to sell it. What's happening today are just variants of that theme updated and modernized. No government is going to ignore $300 billion plus in illicit drug profits.
The 'War on Drugs' is a master psychological operation.
The state, by it's very behavior is essentially supportive of drugs in order to support the war against drugs (and just follow the money) would rather a society of dopers than people of spiritual or religious ilk, for the latter are essentially in competition with the state as to the recognition of a higher power and source of natural laws. (And I sure as hell ain't talkin' about the nut case religious right or crazy assed muzzies, either... those are men's perversions of the Good Word utilized, twisted in the quest for money, power, property and prestige..)
Hmmm....
Is the author ignorant, or afraid to mention another major cause of support in middle America?
Here, I'll help him out for his next article.
A very large part of Amurika sees the war on drugs as a chance to use the truncheon of state violence against negroes and browns; and I've been told that in so many words.
They don't see or don't care about the costs, corruption, waste, erosion of the Constitution - all they see is some hood rat getting his. And they absolutely revel in it.
Mena? Well of course, they have had terrible drug problems.
Where else have kids died by laying down on the railroad tracks, while in a marijuana induced coma?
I would question the entire premise of this article. I'd be surprised if even 30% of the American population still supported the War on Drugs.
There are good reasons why this "War" continues, but they don't have a single thing to do with popular support:
1) Illegal drugs are a wonderful source of black funding for certain three-letter intelligence agencies.
2) Police departments love the Asset Forfeitures. And since street cops directly pocket roughly 50% of cash seized in drug raids, the rank and file support the "War" as well. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/27/dea-sex-parties-your-tax-dollar...
3) Make something illegal and the profit potential increases exponentially. You think the Drug Mafia has any interest in legalization? Nope.
4) Politicians get a ton of money from the Drug Mafia. You can bet the drug lords own plenty of local, state, and national politicians.
5) A lot of drug money is laundered via State and Local municipal bonds, especially in hugely indebted states like California. No state politician wants to endanger that cash cow.
6) A lot of judges are on the drug payroll. They don't want to lose that source of graft.
I could go on and on but what's the point.
The banksters were able to skim the cream of the profits from making drugs illegal.
Drugs are bad
You forgot 'm'kay?'
Every last penny of US dollar cash used in the drug trade must, by definition, pass through the US banking system.
Not a penny of US dollars passes through the US Banking system which does not have a solid trail.
Go figure.
Peeps that are high are easy to exploit.
I don't know anyone who supports the repeal of all drug legislation, not even my wife.
Have you asked your neighbors and coworkers this question?
Ninety-nine percent of the people are control freaks - another created by nature bell curve distribution.
They should assort themselves by behaviors as a sane thing to do, but instead they are wired to force their behaviors on others.
It is a lousy article filled with a lot of BS and plain falsehoods. Americans strongly support medical marijuana in almost every demographic and even legalized marijuana enjoys a >50% approval rating in most polls the last year or two. Various drugs have been regulated or banned/outlawed in various fashions in US history depending upon the drug and the locale/time. Just look the history of opium in the 19th century. Ditto religion because there are certainly very strong religioius practices and taboos abou what should/should not be ingested or consumed in many religions.
You make some decent points and I'm surprised you left out legal pharma and the increasing number of privatized prisons which in some cases have perverted mandatory quotas that if not meet the local/state gov't has to pay the company penalty fees.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that many people with IQ's below 100 do not bother to vote.
Once every 5 years people with IQ,s below 100 get to be "special" and vote for new masters. Voting is the problem, the delegation of "rights" to "do gooder, caring, rightious" criminals with hordes of uniformed unthinking drones behind them to enforce their great ideas on how I should be "ruled"
Perhaps. I am more sure that anyone with an IQ above 140 perceives the fallacy that voting accomplishes anything other than the reinforcement of servility.
The line between "illegal" and "legal" is, obviously, the law. The law schedules drugs at certain levels weighing addictiveness, medical applications, etc. If you review the list of Schedule I drugs, you'll find: LSD, DMT, MDMA, marijuana, some morphines, among many others. Many "hard drugs" like meth, cocaine, etc. are actually schedule II. For drug to be under schedule I, it can have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
Marijuana has medical applications (epilepsy, glaucoma, MS, etc). LSD has medical applications (PTSD, other psych conditions). DMT has medical applications (PTSD, other psych conditions). There's really no debating this. For instance, LSD was used effectively to treat WWII vets with PTSD, sometime curing it in one session. Furthermore, if you were to consider "potential for abuse" on a spectrum, marijuana, LSD and DMT would be at the low end. It boggles the mind that the DEA conders cocaine and meth to actually be less harmful that marijuana. Anyone who has tried LSD and DMT will tell you that they are absolutely not addictive. Far from it. Marijuana is a mixed bag, but statistically nowhere near alcohol or nicotine in terms of addictiveness.
The reason I'm mentioning all of this is that the law is fundamentally flawed and has been for quite some time. It is not even close to reflecting reality. In fact, the campaign against LSD and marijuana was completely borne out of personal prejudice and corruption of various officials other the course of many, many years.
This issue, from a scientific standpoint, it very clean cut. The law is wrong. Blatantly wrong. Not even debateable, really. But it has stood for decades. Therein lies the problem with our legal system. Obviously horrible, silly, rediculous laws remain entact because money drives politics, not logic and reason. The situation we find ourselves in is a byproduct of a generally defunct legal system which refuses to periodically (and most importantly, independently) review the efficacy of laws.
Obvoiusly there is a law for unis, and a law for weins, and they AINT the same law.
What's even more absurd is that some of these schedule one drugs that are actually quite harmless are actually ENDOGENOUSLY produced, making your body a walking, talking drug lab. Two in particular that I can think of are DMT and GHB, both basically harmless.
And that's not even touching on the insanity of the analog act!
Hah, great point!
The only good thing about any law(s) is every single one of them can be repealed.
In my opinion, laws are 9 times out of 10 sold to the public as good deeds, almost personal charitable acts, to be a benefit to society as a whole, of resolving some great complex issue through long meditation & agreement on the pros & cons of "doing something". When in reality the nucleus of almost every law is someone or some thing wanting to infringe on the other members in society and use the enforcement power of the state to do it because they themselves are too weak or too timid to do it themselves.
Of course if they can profit from it financially while massaging their egos, so much the better.
But they really don't give a tinkers damn about someone elses rights or liberties or else they wouldn't be proposing future laws outside of repealing most. And everyone should note, a very solid case can be made that people acting under "the cloak of law" have caused more death & destruction than so-called outlaws and criminals.
The road to hell is paved with laws premised on good intentions.
You have to mask your desire to control others.
Yes, if the premise of good intentions were revealed as false, all their control & authoritah would be lost. This thought alone is enough to give statists everywhere sweat dripping nightmares.
So the lies must be carried Forward! as the truth, forever. Even when confronted with the reality of what they have done they can curtly say "That was not our intent!"
Now if that were true, the next thing out of their mouth would be how they are going to repeal/modify/address the last action they took (as they have just admitted this new reality was not their intent).
But they don't, revealing the double lie.
This is an increasingly well known and accepted fact. Gov./CIA/military/various of the political families are deeply involved in the drug trade. In some cases in Britain fortunes were based on the opium trade (and silver theft) in China.,and just did not lok back.
But why stop when you can collect all the way up and down the chains of production/distribution/persecution/court time and then incarcerate your end user as an unpaid slave in your private prison? It is win win, skim all over this industry.
USA has absolutely no interest in stopping drug trade.
In a recent book “Chasing the Scream” By Johann Hari http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426997673&sr=1-1&keywords=The+War+on+Drugs+-+Johann+Hari describes how early last century all manner of drugs were freely available from pharmacies (with some adverse effects of course) and an “experiment” in England where addicts were treated with free drugs of their choice and continued to be high performing people in society. This was shut down by “Washington”. The criminalisation of drug use can be traced back to the almost single handed efforts of Harry Aslinger who hounded Billy Holiday to death.
Criminalisation means that those who deal in drugs must resort to violence and corruption to be succesful. The example is the violence associated with alcohol during it's prohibition.
Mike Ruppert (RIP) an LA cop assigned undercover in Miami (vice) discovered CIA involvement in the drug trade became a whistleblower and wrote it up in a book Crossing the Rubicon. http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empire/dp/0865715408/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428188512&sr=1-1&keywords=crossing+the+rubicon+by+michael+ruppert
More here http://www.amazon.com/Dope-Inc-Drove-Henry-Kissinger/dp/0943235022/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428188567&sr=1-2&keywords=dope+inc
You forgot the biggest and number 1 reason: Economic, Pushers aren't the only ones making a bundle in this war just like any other war.
What a farce that states are now legalizing dope. I think of all those pulled over and jailed, detained, lives ruined and now-
"Hey, its ok to smoke dope" What a fucked up culture.
What's even more fucked up is you just got passed in the fast lane, eat my dust SUCKER!
What is messed up is that, over the last 80 years, despite the fact that taxpayers have given DEA countless billions of dollars, DEA has apparently avoided conducting any scientific studies to determine whether cannabis is ACTUALLY dangerous, and yet the DEA has been telling citizens that cannabis is MORE dangerous than alcohol or tobacco or sugar.
DEA: "We aren't scientists. However, we ARE the Spanish Inquisition. And that entitlement, with its power and its free goodies and its being overpaid for make-work is REALLY comfortable. It's good to be the King."
I AM noticing that the re-legalization of cannabis (which many of the Founding Fathers cultivated) is apparently being pushed by the Baby Boomers. So the Baby Boomers ARE doing SOMETHING worthwhile.
Give it a couple years, the state will be dealing dope out of police cars. And tell us it's " for the children" .
Gambling, oh the horror, is now encouraged by the states. First lottery. But that's not enough. Casinos everywhere.
They will be looking for new revenue sources.
Narcotics money still funds the shadow government.
We'd be broke as a nation without the cash flow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiqMAf0Wc1U
Yes, Russia is *still* ready for war – even nuclear war
http://thesaker.is/yes-russia-is-still-ready-for-war-even-nuclear-war/
In a nuclear war, both Russia and the USA would lose 20-50 million people. Now take a guess, which country is more capable of loosing anywhere between 1/5 to 1/2 of its population and then survive the nuclear winter and radioactive fallout?
Shadow government???
Ever heard of John Deutch? There is nothing shadow about the drug trade, it is the government.
The auditors know what public companies are laundering dirty money.
KPMG, E&Y, Deloitte, and PwC are so fucked.
We ARE "broke as a nation".
What "Constitution"?
Look putting negroes in for profit prisons is profitable and fun.
I mean I get a gun and a badge and the right to peel caps.
Love the Drug War.
What is wrong with putting negros in jail?
It is good to put negroes in jail!
(sarc :^) I agree, as long as the definition of "negroes" is "anyone who doesn't do exactly what I tell them to do - and like it". (sarc :^)
If we didn't put large numbers of young black men in prison, or somehow segregate them from the general public, they would commit so many horrific crimes that terrified non-blacks would shoot any black person on sight while police looked the other way.
Funny how even its opponents accept at face value that the "War on Drugs" is actually a war on drugs.
If you think the War on Young Black Men is racist, remember that in the 1980s it was the Congressional Black Caucus that pushed for laws giving life sentences to anyone possessing a few grams of crack cocaine, saying in effect "We can't control our young men, please lock them up for us!"
Could you strive for a more narrow minded view. I try to follow your logic to arrive at some opinion but I just can't (hold on while I light a doobie maybe that will help)......
Your point is???????
I don't remember that thing about the Congressional Black Caucus.
For anyone with religious/moral reservations about drugs, take a peek at this:
http://www.philosopherspage.com/#/psychoactive-plants-in-the-bible/
Moses had a lengthy philosophical discussion with a flaming shrub. It's a safe bet he was on something at the time.
Hungry enough to eat one of those magic mushrooms huh?
yea, he was on a mountain. Mt. Sinai high. John Denver wrote a song about it.
Far as I can see all "christians" who "buy" virgin birth. Who right about now are worshipping golden bunnies as a symbol of a zombie resurrectiion...they are all on drugs. Mind candy. Guiilt bribery and fairy tales from birth.
Yup I get it. There is a "man" up "there" who watches my every thought and rains hell fire on my every misdeed. But he is a forgiving guy.
Christians like Jamie Dimon. Or that idiot who is asking his "flock" to chip in for his new jet.....Yup I got it.
If there is one thing government is good at that is destroying value. With one exception, the drug trade. It is the the one single trade that government policies are actually creating value, and the used as a pretty broad excuse for restricting every one's rights.
Look, just register the addicts and let them have what they want from a clinic, they have enough troubles as it is. Execute illegal trafficers. Destroy demand, make supply too risky. Costs go up, demand goes down, that's it.
In many ways you are right. Britain gave medical treatment to heroin users decades ago. Vancouver, B.C. Canada has had "legal injection sites" for years. Much as the Feds try to stop it all the evidence points in favour of it. Addicts in Vancouver can use their drug of choice under medical supervision, in safety, with clean needles and access to services. Has cut down on overdoses and HIV...Hep C.
But the Feds here keep trying everything to shut them down.
The new, improved War on Drugs!: The war on TERROR is a war on individual liberty, private property, limited government, the Constitution, American taxpayers, personal responsibility, the free market, and a free society that has ruined more lives than TERROR itself.
CORRECT, Normalcy Bias!
The "War on (some) Terrorists" is taking over from the previous "War on (some) Drugs." "New & improved" in the sense of becoming orders of magnitude worse!
Americans would benefit most by the eimination of the legal drug called sugar. But I guess the government would be treading on some powerful toes.
Since half the gvt lives off of that and cocaine, toes are stepped on.
if we went back to sugar that would be an improvement from HFCS and its kin
Absolutely !!! I'm right with you in seeking to ban ALL plants immediately.
Want some of my medication? Nurse says it's time.
I got a blue pill you can smoke? Trade ya. Im bored. You got reds?
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution says:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
The DC US calls their drug laws and enforcement a "war," but it is really treason according to the very instrument they take an oath to abide by and defend.
I am Witness One.
The banksters need to repay us.
The guillotines are not just for the banksters.
If cannabis is not harmful then go ahead and give it to your kids. In the meantime it is better to acknowledge that those needing cannabis have an addiction and more importantly need help.
We can all moan and groan about our rights but the reality is that the need for cannabis is just a sign that the human being taking it is unfulfilled or can't cope with life.
Go ahead and junk me but in my book anyone taking any sort of drug (including big pharma's feel good drugs) is a junkie.
That's so stupid you must of been one of those kids, never to enjoy the natural fruits of life because of paranoia.
There's plenty to enjoy in life without the need to resort to cannabis and other drugs.
I for one have seen where the cannabis users from my school days have ended up and it ain't a pretty conclusion. And no number of arguments can overcome that reality.
Explain why in the human immune system there are CBD receptors.
Marijuana is a naturally occurring plant full of CBD's. Your government that is waging war on a plant also espouses its benefits and even has a patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL...
Also see...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2768535/
So yeah, junkies the lot of them...
"...If cannabis is not harmful then go ahead and give it to your kids."
If Acohol is not harmful then go ahead and give it to your kids.
Fixed for you.
Me having a scotch at night, I'm fine with.
Giving it to a 5 year old I'm not.
Me having a joint at night, I'm fine with
Giving it to a 5 year old I'm not.
"in my book anyone taking any sort of drug is a junkie.?"
Fine with me, I don't give a rats ass what you think Statist.
IT AIN'T YOUR BUSINESS.
(And I don't go to your church either.)
For your information I didn't give alcohol to my children when they were young. They do drink now as adults but only sparingly and intermittently.
And as for church....it is obvious you don't go to one anyway so why even mention it?
Keep having your joints if that is what fulfills you (at least for the moment) because it sounds like you are pretty empty on the inside.
Ah , the last resort of one who has no argument that can be defended.
Game , set , and match. :-)
You remind me of certain Jewish people who when cornered retort with, "you are anti-semite."
If you want to smoke my friend go ahead and smoke but that does not overcome the fact that you are an addict and probably unfulfilled.
As I said elsewhere, I know who took cannabis when I was in high school and I know all too well where they are today with their lives, jobs and families. An overwhelming fail. And that is a pity because a lot of them had real potential.
You're talking to someone who is 100% clean. Your ad hominem merely reinforces your inability to advance your argument.
As for the unfulfilled . . .
Thanks for the laugh.
took cannabis. LOL
"Hey guys, meet me out back, we are gonna take pot." "Huh? Where are you taking it?"
You sound like an asshole control freak now fuck off.
Whole lotta musicians. Actually quite a few engineering students and philosphy students as well. Pretty much across the spectrum. As with alcohol some abused and ruinded thier lives. Your commentis broad brush ignorance.
First and foremost, everything is not for everybody.
"Professional Moralists love to wallow in an Orgy of Righteousness Indignation."
Audous Huxley
P.S. I too believe meth is evil.
btw, hemp is illegal because Dupont had just came up with synthetic rope and got Laguardia to outlaw it so they could monopolize the market...
Peter Pan I 100% agree with you that nobody NEEDS drugs in any form to enjoy life. However what you seem to be proposing is that YOU have a right to decide for ME that I am not allowed to use any substance that YOU dont approve of and that if I do YOU have the right to kick down MY door , beat ME up, throw ME in a cage and kill me if I resist YOUR violence . You seem to be a Christian man so since when did YOU become the God of judgement over MY voluntary choices, decissions and actions that do no harm to others ? Do you not agree that it is this attitude of intollerance of others and thus trying to control the behavior and beliefs of others that leads to so much conflict (war) and suffering in the world ? Are humillity and acceptance no longer Christian values i.e I am the captain of MY ship not YOURS ?
Peter Pan I 100% agree with you that nobody NEEDS drugs in any form to enjoy life. However what you seem to be proposing is that YOU have a right to decide for ME that I am not allowed to use any substance that YOU dont approve of and that if I do YOU have the right to kick down MY door , beat ME up, throw ME in a cage and kill me if I resist YOUR violence . You seem to be a Christian man so since when did YOU become the God of judgement over MY voluntary choices, decissions and actions that do no harm to others ? Do you not agree that it is this attitude of intollerance of others and thus trying to control the behavior and beliefs of others that leads to so much conflict (war) and suffering in the world ? Are humillity and acceptance no longer Christian values i.e I am the captain of MY ship not YOURS ?
Looks like negative rates negged you. Asshole!
Reality is for people who can't handle drugs. I am a recovering alky, coming up on 20 yrs sober. My sponsor made me quit weed too. I'll accept that he was right given I was in early recovery. Now, I enjoy a little weed and don't drink. Weed is one of those drugs like alcohol. Some can do it and be cool, others it takes over. I have indeed had a few friends who were weed addicted and they really don't go far in life. otoh, I've known a lot of alkies. Booze is way more addictive than weed. Trust me, I know. I don't want to see meth/crack legalized. That shit is just evil.
ALL use is ABUSE. There is no need for any "drugs" of any sort . . . ever.
Why didn't you just say that?
Because then your position would be seen for the absurdity that it is.
"We can all moan and groan about our rights but the reality is that the need for cannabis is just a sign that the human being taking it is unfulfilled or can't cope with life."
I'd say the majority of all consumption in America has to do with what you singled out about marijuana. You could include arguing on a blog with people you've never seen, as well.
Are you taking that Christian going to church drug? That's a mainline $500/day habit if I ever saw one.
I loved when Bush came out and said, "We are losing the war against drugs."
You know what that implies?
There's a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it.
(Bill Hicks, 1990)
Crackdown: Colorado’s marijuana regulator issues threats 2 weeks before Cannabis Cup, 4/20
The 78'ish year old tax preparer at HR&Block summed it up in a couple of sentences:
"The government just keeps getting bigger. Where do they think the money is going to come from?"
She told me a lot of people are very angry with Obamacare (tax). I replied in such cycles the rich escape large shares of taxation and the poor have nothing to tax it is the middle class. As that money runs out and GRC is China it can't be printed so people on benefits will see them to continue to be cut.
States legalizing dope will slow the decline of state benefit cuts for a time with a side benefit to the people of this wasteful war on drugs. I say legalize it all and if you show up at the ER with drugs in your system you foot the bill which cant be discharged in bankruptcy.
No drugs except for what the corporate pharmaceutical pimps and their MD/DO prostitutes can make a killing on.
One interesting journey is to follow insulin patents. Insulin patent was sold for $1 by Banting and Best. That was in 1921. THEY chose to alleviate suffering and it has been fucked up ever since. Every friggin drug company has been "tweaking" the recipe or delivery method ever since to keep their patents rolling along. So what was meant as a gift has become a manipulated profit centre. This patent by Banting and Best was essentially gifted to the world almost 100 years ago.
And to boot the partners in crime manufacture the fructose and garbage that take insulin usage to historical needs. So tweak the patent or delivery method (why do you think your TV set is covered by insulin testing and delivery ads?) at the same time the other part of your portfolio is producing diabetes inducing diets on every grocery item you buy?
And anyone here complains about illegal drugs. My little plants for herbal use? C',mon.
And I dug this up.
SINCE FRIGGIN 1923 Eli Lily has played with the patent for insulin. 1923.
Mind look at Board memberships/large shareholders and start connecting the dots on high fructrose corn syrup and sugar in everything diets.
People are just so stupid.
And YES give me the down votes folks...the mainline drug in USA? Name your flavour of Church?
Mainline drug elsewhere? Name your beheader.
These are the drugs that kill BAR none. And they are administered at birth. And every day regardless of any natural need.
Legalize all of it. Let people who seek treatment get it. Withhold Medicare for self induced illness as a result of its use and give a life sentence to hard labor for those that introduce children to hard drugs. Let natural selection select.
Hard drugs like Ridlin??
Ritalin?
Consequences are a nature's self correctors. The delusion of sheeple is that their masters will create rules which benefit the sheeple. Eve wanted the forbidden fruit. Fools want the forbidden drugs. Do we have rules which forbid us from jumping off cliffs? Do we have rules which say do not run in front of cars? If the foolish self-destruct, does not mankind improve?
The Peter Principle, "What happens if social workers end poverty?" What happens if the government/judge/police/lawyer/rehabilitator industrial complex ends drug use? What happens if we doubt government to protect us?
There is no free lunch. There is no free government. There is no freedom from consequences. The price of government is too high.
The war on drugs would have been over if they had done it properly, caught dealing drugs, roadside execution, caught using drugs, roadside execution, fail daily compulsory workplace drug test, cubicle side execution.
Pretty easy stuff, just needs an executive order and away we go.
Rootin for Putin: The war on drugs would have been over if they had done it properly, caught dealing drugs, roadside execution, caught using drugs, roadside execution, fail daily compulsory workplace drug test, cubicle side execution.
Pretty easy stuff, just needs an executive order and away we go.
Whole lotta stupid there. Let's hammer the little people sellin'
Let's gloss right over the POWERS that PROTECT the crop and transport it and launder the money at the top. In this day and age "we" have the tech to grind this to a halt in 6 months... but yea, keep hammering the end user and not the PRODUCERS!
So fucking myopic.
It's always been about hammering the little people aka goyim, where have you been?
The JWO wants us to debate each and every issue when in reality it's all just one issue, who is making the rules (and printing the money to do it)? Hint: They love Israel. Guess who controls the crops and laws to get the drugs here, despite all the 'war' against dope for the lasat few decades? Guess who dreamt up the NSA or organizations like the NAACP? Pretty simple if you take the blinders off, JWO all the way.
I assumed (hoped) that was untagged sarcasm.
You know how China solved the opium problem unleashed on it by Britain? Packed all the dopeheads who refused to get clean off to labour camps. You better believe most of them cleaned up pretty damn quick.
If DC had been serious about solving the drug problem, and not creating a busy-work scheme for big men with guns, they would have done the same.
Yes, Maoist China is a model worth following!
That is hilarious. As if the average junkie is just gonna "clean-up" because of a threat to be sent away.
You alost always advocate for extremely violent solutions for everything. You either have real issues or have a really warped sense of morality and justice.
Those are rarely mutually exclusive.
Please bear in mind that EVERYTHING was legal until the Government got involved......
the war on drugs was the product of the silent majority who elected nixon to office. the nixon campaign successfully derided the antiwar democrats as a bunch of drug addled "effete intellectual snobs" and the black civil rights movement as "uppity"and dangerous given the recent riots. running on a domestic platform of law and order nixon, with the support of the silent majority(later rebranded as the christian right),began the campaign to criminalize as many black and hispanic men as possible and marginalize any intellectual discourse that did not fit the "norm".
it was the silent majority(appropriately named for sheeple), today's republican party who unleashed .gov on the bill of rights.
it goes without saying the democrats went along with the agenda for political expediency moving so far right in the last thirty years that they look like conservative republicans.
there are many more dumb people than smart people in any society. the problem with a democracy is the dumb people rule at the expense of everyone in the end.
Case in point - go look at the self-reported rates of various types of drug usage by the US Army in Vietnam for marijuana and heroin especially. It was a huge issue especially later in the war and some units weren't able be combat effective due to the limited numbers of troops who weren't hardcore drug users.
It was theorized that there would be a mass epidemic of drug utilization by these vets when they returned to the US but if you look by and large it never materialized through the numerous studies done on the topic that tracked illegal drug utilization through the 90s. Sure there were Vietnam vets who came back and were heroin junkies but for the most part that didn't happen. Soldiers used it in Vietnam while they were there and by and large most who used it quit when they returned home.
The war on drugs preceded Nixon by decades.
You want to see the BEHIND THE SCENES action on the 'War On Drugs" ?
NYSE Chairman Richard Grasso Embracing A FARC Commander
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0202/S00069.htm
Hit this link to see the picture, it's beautiful.
<SNIP>
A Real World Example:
NYSE's Richard Grasso and the Ultimate New Business "Cold Call"
Lest you think that my comment about the New York Stock Exchange is too strong, let's look at one event that occurred before our "war on drugs" went into high gear through Plan Colombia, banging heads over narco dollar market share in Latin America.
In late June 1999, numerous news services, including Associated Press, reported that Richard Grasso, Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange flew to Colombia to meet with a spokesperson for Raul Reyes of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), the supposed "narco terrorists" with whom we are now at war.
The purpose of the trip was "to bring a message of cooperation from U.S. financial services" and to discuss foreign investment and the future role of U.S. businesses in Colombia.
Some reading in between the lines said to me that Grasso's mission related to the continued circulation of cocaine capital through the US financial system. FARC, the Colombian rebels, were circulating their profits back into local development without the assistance of the American banking and investment system. Worse yet for the outlook for the US stock market's strength from $500 billion - $1 trillion in annual money laundering - FARC was calling for the decriminalization of cocaine.
</SNIP>
When you don't have neurological freedoms, the freedom to do what you please with your own brain, do any of your other freedoms really matter? Why should any institution, legal or medical, decide what neurons you can and cannot agonize directly through chemical ingestion? Frankly, drugs are illegal because synaptic potentiation without direct cause outside the nervous system disrupts habituated patterns of thoughts and behaviors instituted by juridic-political systems; users expend energy that may otherwise be employed in profitable activity for the capitalist class; and hallucination reveals what religious belief really is, hallucination. LSD makes people who have never done it insane because it is very dangerous, it is just a set of power-exercising institutions for whom LSD is dangerous rather than the user.
"LSD makes people who have never done it insane because it is very dangerous,"
Even prohibitionists wouldn't try to use such a logic failure as that statement.
If that were true then, there would be no second time LSD users but there would be an abundance of insane folks running around.
Actually an LSD episode is much more real than a BELIEF in anything. A large proportion of " reality " is, afterall, subjective. The psycho active part of LSD is about removing the pre-conceptions of reality your brain creates to cope. All stimuli come in without the ability to filter and process. Throw in your personal fears/neurosis's and you get different types of "trips".
"'Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?' said Dr. Ferris. 'We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.'"
Ayn Rand ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
Taliban took over Trashcanistan, poppy production throttled by 90%.
USA goes in there and protects the Poppy fields, production is the highest ever measured. Surpasses all previous years of production. Go USA, USA, USA. Keep the banks afloat.
Now back in USSA, Homey Claus and Jose' and Hose-B try sellin' same shit on the streets and it's all about the WOD. What a scam. Job security for the LEO's here in the States.
Just ask yourself how the drugs get transported from Central Asia to USA?
Camel?
Nope,
Mule?
Nope
Boat?
Rarely.....
Just ask.
And that's all you need to know.
The sweet smell of formaldehyde . . . .
DEBT SLAVERY BACKED UP BY
WARS BASED UPON DECEITS!
The "War on (some) Drugs" was one of the many historical phases of the development of social pyramid systems based upon backing up lies with violence, which became integrated systems of legalized lies backed by legalized violence. However, in my view, the arguments against "statism" tend to typically be too superficial, and therefore, the list of reasons given in the article above are too superficial.
The BASICS are that natural selection made the human systems of artificial selection. In order to understand the various phases of FAKE WARS, one has to understand the deeper levels of REAL WARS. The oldest book on the Art of War starts by saying "success in war is based on deceits," and ends by saying that "spies are the most important soldiers." Those ideas apply to class warfare inside of a society just as much as to warfare between different societies. Indeed, "as above, so below" & "as within, so without" applies throughout all the levels of the various social toroidal vortices, (where the lies are different at every level.)
Governments are the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. In that context, I AGREED with the assertion made in the article above that: "... the root of support for the drug war is simply this: trust in government. Unnecessary, irrational, and naive trust in government." HOWEVER, while statism tends to be the spurious levels of rationalizations and justifications for the ways that governments operate as organized crime gangs, which are effectively controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, those who criticize that kind of statism tend to not look deeper, beyond those political problems, to the chronic political problems inherent in the nature of life. Governments are self-justifying due to the history of warfare being a kind of free market in murder.
Those systems are rationalized in various ways by those who were able to dominate the political processes by applying the methods of organized crime in order to control the uses of governmental powers, which effectively privatize those powers. Their degrees of personal benefits thereby obtained enable them to become more socially successful, and therefore, even more able to drive those vicious spirals, of backing up legalized lies with legalized violence.
In general, the War on (some) Drugs should be understood within the overall context of understanding warfare generally. I find that the vast majority of people dismally fail to do that, and I would include the article above in that category. It was another typical example of being correct on the shallow levels at which it was presented, while it failed to penetrate into deeper levels. To me, that article above was another example of the kinds of presentations made by mainstream morons and reactionary revolutionaries, which are the kinds of controlled opposition groups that dominate the campaign to end the war on drugs, as well as all other similar campaigns, that continue to rely upon false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible ideals, throughout their analysis, into their bogus "solutions," due the silly ways that they failed to understand those problems enough.
It is NOT possible to stop warfare. It is ONLY possible to change the dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies operating robberies. Hence, the only way to "end the war on drugs" (or end any other similar sort of FAKE WAR) would be to develop better forms of warfare, which were able to operate better forms of death controls. Of course, that view is diametrically opposite to the history of successful warfare being based on deceits and treacheries, which is why the so-called War on Drugs illustrates its paradoxical final failures due to too much success based on being able to back up lies with violence, where no amount of violence can ever stop those lies from still being false. Therefore, the war on drugs, is headed towards a series of psychotic breakdowns, due to the basic issue that BACKING UP LIES WITH VIOLENCE NEVER MAKES THOSE LIES STOP BEING FALSE, but nevertheless, can continue to control civilization in each short-term increment, thereby driving society towards becoming more psychotically insane, the more successfully that those lies were able to be backed up with violence, DRIVING VICIOUS SPIRALS OF GREATER CONTRADICTIONS, DUE TO SOCIAL SUCCESSES BASED ON THE ABILITY TO BACK UP LIES WITH VIOLENCE, IN WHICH EVERYTHING WAS NECESSARILY BASED ON SYSTEMS OF ORGANIZED LIES OPERATING ROBBERIES.
About 75% of the alleged War on Drugs was the War on Marijuana. Hemp is the single best plant on the planet for people, for food, fiber, fun and medicine. THEREFORE, it made excellent propaganda to re-brand hemp as "marijuana which is almost as bad as murder," and then back up those huge lies with lots of violence for decade after decade. Thus, the "War on Drugs" segued from slavery and racism, while now that is segueing into the "War on Terror."
In general, there is almost nothing but organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition. In my opinion, the article above was yet another manifestation of the ways that controlled opposition groups present their superficial points of view. That was demonstrated by the ways in concluded by an appeal to impossible ideals as the bogus "solutions" to the problems: "Every facet of government that contributes in some way to the monstrous evil that is the war on drugs should be dismembered, root and branch, and cast to the four winds."
The only realistic resolutions to the problems of warfare based on the maximum possible deceits and treacheries would be to develop better forms of warfare, that were able to operate better death controls. Governments exist because organized crime exists. It is just as impossible to abolish government as it is to abolish organized crime. Indeed, the FAKE WARS were deliberately designed to enable organized crime to flourish, BECAUSE governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. That applies to the War on Drugs just as much as it does to all of the other supposed campaigns to "End War" in general.
The deeper levels of the grand paradoxes we face are the reasons how and why natural selection was internalized as human intelligence, which then developed warfare as the oldest form of social science and social engineering, whose successes were based upon backing up deceits with destruction, which then became the foundation for developing political economies in which financial successes were based upon enforcing frauds. The article above was written without recognizing and addressing those grand paradoxes!
While I AGREE that "... the root ... is ... irrational, and naive trust in government," any superior solutions to that problem would require enough of those people understanding better that, as citizens, they were necessarily members of an organized crime gang, called their country, in order that they then might be able to develop better dynamic equilibria between the various dominant organized crime gangs, which have been controlling governments. HOWEVER, after studying these issues for several decades, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that our society is too terminally sick and insane to recover from drowning under the deluge of the biggest bullies' bullshit about almost everything! As the "War on Drugs" seems to be winding DOWN, the "War on Terror" is winding UP. WAR ON TERROR is becoming many orders of magnitude more dangerous than the WAR ON DRUGS! Both are fundamentally similar. Both were deliberately designed to be self-fulfilling prophesies, started by the ruling classes, in order to maintain the established social pyramid systems.
That those situations continue to get worse, faster, at an exponentially accelerating rate, continues to motivate me (despite that I appear to be practically wasting my time when I do so). That is why I have developed and promote the Radical Marijuana position with respect to the War on Drugs being mostly the War on Marijuana. From my point of view, the mainstream morons and reactionary revolutionaries that campaign to "End the Drug War" are controlled opposition groups which are not much better than the established systems that they appear to protest against, due to the degree to which they stay within the same frame of reference of false fundamental dichotomies, and therefore, promote bogus "solutions" based on impossible ideals, that therefore continue to backfire badly, and actually cause the opposite to happen in the real world.
The Radical Marijuana position is based upon more Radical Hemp Truths, which are then embedded in bigger and bigger contexts of more Radical Truths about everything else. Therefore, I ask: WHAT ARE THE REAL ROOTS OF THE STATIST ROOTS?
The article above is superficially correct regarding that there is too much "irrational, and naive trust in government!" However, there is nothing in that presentation which goes beyond what the typical Black Sheeple promote as their bogus solutions to the Zombie Sheeple. The article above stays inside of the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories too much! It continues to take for granted various DUALITIES, instead of starting to use better UNITARY MECHANISMS, and so, it continues to understand the deeper mechanisms backwards, and it wants to continue to do so. Therefore, its bogus "solutions" are still based on the bullies' bullshit, and therefore, it ends by promoting bullshit "solutions" which are backwards.
I REPEAT: the established systems are almost nothing but a core of organized crime, surrounded by layers of controlled opposition groups. The article above continues to operate inside of that overall frame of reference, as do almost all other controlled opposition groups regarding almost every issue, all of which continue to tend to promote bullshit "solutions" that cause the opposite to happen in the real world, because they understand everything backwards, because they stay within the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, which has been built into the dominant natural languages and philosophy of science, so that almost everyone thinks and communicates in ways which are almost totally based on believing in the same old bullshit.
Indeed, at the present time it is hard to imagine now it would be possible for any genuine opposition to become publicly significant without ending up becoming controlled, which is understandable after one recognizes that the established systems are based upon the principles and methods of organized crime, which have been developing their techniques to control their opposition for thousands of years ...
Can I get an AMEN for brother Radical!
You swiped the words right out from under my fingers brother! I always enjoy his thoughts and words he brings here.
Thanks, although, personally, I struggle to try to avoid indulging in too much DelusionalGrandeur. Hah!
"the history of warfare being a kind of free market in murder."
Seems more like a carefully planned and controlled series of mass murders to me.
This idea you have of death controls being the central issue is one of the things I don't understand about what you are saying. If we rid ourselves of psychopaths and their construct, government, our lives would not revolve around death in the first place.
Are you sure? I know of no historical evidence.
PoasterToaster:
I have been developing my ideas about artificial selection, which has death control systems as their central feature, for several decades.
I have attempted to answer your question several times previously in replies I have posted on Zero Hedge, when asked that before. However, I do not feel like doing that again more thorougly here, now. However, anyone who was curious enough could skim through my bla, bla, blah collected in this thread: Some Monetary System articles.
I agree with you that the history of warfare was "a carefully planned and controlled series of mass murders " (Or, as organized crime manifested on larger and larger scales.) What I meant by that being a kind of "free market" is that there are no rules other than who survives through those conflicts, by doing whatever they do. Since the history of warfare selected for its successes to be based on deceits and treacheries, that history favoured the development of a society dominated by psychopaths, who had less capacity for compassion than most other people had. In general, I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the consequences of civilizations being based on the real history of warfare. In my view, that has resulted in society being almost totally dominated by professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, which makes any saner discussions of death controls practically impossible.
Briefly, AFTER there is life, then the limits to that life direct its future evolution. There must be life FIRST, or else there is no death. However, AFTER there is life, then what matters are all the factors that limit that life, throughout all of the phases of the life cycle. Metaphorically, the same notions apply to the rise and fall of social organizations, such as churches, countries or corporations, etc. ...
The ways that I think about "death controls" are radically different than what most people tend to presume. For instance, I regard what we call "birth controls" as actually being forms of death controls, which have been euphemistically camouflaged. Indeed, I tend to dislike all of the ways that our society indulges in various euphemistical language, that tends to reverse the meanings of words. For instance, both euthanasia and eugenics have become the opposite of what they were alleged to be, because of the ways that language has been developed in ways that have pretty well inverted and perverting the meaning of most of the most important words.
When it comes to drugs in general, I believe in the general principle of INFORMED CONSENT, which would be based upon people knowing the risks regarding drug use. The more dangerous the drugs, then the more should be done to make sure that there is full INFORMED CONSENT, so that people can make the best "free choice" regarding their own drug uses. However, the established systems are pretty well the opposite, by absolutely defining some drug use as axiomatically evil, while simultaneously disregarding the dangers from other drugs. After all, the established systems work by the ruling classes waging war against the consciousness of those they rule over.
The current regimes of drug laws are designed to keep people ignorant and afraid, so that they tend to make the worst choices. Similarly, when it comes to death controls, and they ways that those back up the debt controls, and the ways that the ruling classes attempt to monopolize those, while perversely privatizing the benefits from doing so, have made the actual death control systems work as badly as they could possibly be made to operate, from any overall perspective, since those ways were selected to be socially successful by originally becoming the most deceitful and treacherous ways possible.
But nevertheless, what I continue to assert is that, BY DEFINITION, after there is life, then there must come death as a package deal, and therefore, there must be some death control systems. I would like to see the development of greater use of information, enabling higher consciousness, with respect to the death control systems. However, such an ideal is pretty well totally opposite to the long history of successful warfare based on deceits, surrounded by controlled opposition that also operates inside of the same deceitful frame of reference regarding death controls.
At the present time, I do NOT actually expect better death controls to emerge easily, in any linear ways. Rather, I expect the runaway debt insanities to provoke death insanities, after which there may emerge some survivors who have learned better through those events. In general, I promote attempting to develop more realistic ideals, which would include attitudes towards drugs, as well as towards death control systems.
Basically, what I claim is that there MUST necessarily be some death control systems. Theoretically, we could accept and face that better, and then, perhaps be able to develop better death control systems. HOWEVER, the existing systems are based on the history of the most successful death control systems being done through the maximum possible deceits. SIMILARLY, I regard all human realities as necessarily being systems of organized lies operating robberies.
My approach towards death controls is based upon attempting to understand the grand paradoxes regarding how and why natural selection drove human systems to become what they are now, namely, almost nothing but organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition. That includes every facet of every sociopolitical system, from drugs to death controls, which has resulted in greater and greater contradictions regarding how everything gets done through the increasingly demented dances between the core organized crime (governments & banksters, etc.) as surrounded by controlled opposition groups, which promote the same impossible ideals that the core organized crime gangs originally promoted, because attempting to implement impossible ideals actually makes the opposite happen in the real world.
In particular, attempting to have no war, or no death controls, guarantees that instead we end up with the potential building to develop way worse wars, doing the most insane death controls. However, since the history of successful warfare was based on being the best at deceits and treacheries, which became the basis for building an economy upon enforcing frauds, what I am recommending appears to be practically impossible, within the foreseeable future ... While impossible ideals backfiring badly to drive debt insanities to provoke death insanities is extremely probable.
In general, what I find is way too typical is that those who reveal how deceitful the existing systems are almost never propose better death control systems. Instead, they switch gears from a relatively good analysis of what is wrong, to then promote "solutions" based on impossible ideals, that no death controls at all should exist, or at least none that human beings are conscious of operating. It is totally typical for those who criticize the established systems relatively well, to then nevertheless switch gears to promote solutions based on their favourite old-fashioned religions or ideologies, which rely upon nothing much more than some magical words or phrases, that are presented as a kind of transcendental poetry.
By and large, most of the professional liars and hypocrites that make their living from some aspect of the on-going drug wars are like that. Similarly the same phenomena, only much worse, manifest through the death controls. There ends up being an on-going surreal result whereby the organized crime gets worse and worse, while its opposition continues to be controlled in ways that prevents any better realistic solutions, because the only things that tend to happen are criticism of the ways that the established systems are based on lies, followed by bogus "solutions" based on returning to even bigger lies.
One of the grand paradoxes that we are developing could be referred to as the development of an oxymoronic "scientific dictatorship." Typically, with respect to drug policies, that manifests as promoting a more scientific, evidence based set of drug policies, which deliberately do not do that with respect to government itself! Similarly, with respect to death controls, the fundamentals should be based on understanding the history of warfare, and NOT accept that there are any groups of human beings who do not live by being entropic pumps of energy flows, which means that all groups are similarly based on organized lies operating robberies.
That is why I emphasized in my comment above that I AGREED with one of the roots of the problems being that too many people trusted governments too much. I feel it is vital to develop more critical thinking, that axiomatically approaches all governments as being necessarily forms of organized crime, but which also accepts that there must be some form of organized crime, in order for any human beings to continue living as entropic pumps of energy flows.
It is noteworthy, regarding the concept of "death controls," that one of the most abstract ways that we misunderstand things backward was that an arbitrary minus sign was inserted into the entropy equations of thermodynamics and information theory. The dominant natural languages and philosophy of science are as backward and absurd as they can possibly be, due to the long history of social successes based on deceits and frauds. Some of the results are that the "solutions" promoted by the controlled opposition are pretty well totally backwards and absurd too!
I prefer to penetrate into the deeper levels of how and why there MUST be some systems of death controls, (or for that matter, drug controls). That approach tends to face more seriously how the only genuine solutions to the real problems would have to be better organized crime, operating better death controls. However, by and large, the currently manifesting social situations are that the dominate forms of organized crime misrepresent themselves as being the government, or the banksters that control those governments, as somehow being the "good guys." At the same time, the controlled opposition groups promote the view that there should be NO organized crime, which is the same as saying that human beings should NOT live as entropic pumps of energy flows.
What I am recommending, both with respect to drugs, as well as to death controls, goes through a series of intellectual scientific revolutions, which includes deeper levels of appreciating how the concept of entropy itself was inverted, and perverted. I regard almost all of the controlled opposition groups as being profoundly mistaken, due to the degree that the continue to stay within the biggest bullies' bullshit world view. The controlled opposition too much continues to take for granted the magnitude of the huge lies told about drugs, and similarly about death controls.
It may be said that the "real enemy" is the way that we think, and the language that we use to communicate with each other. By and large, I find that the controlled opposition groups are still stuck too much inside of taking for granted the biggest bullies' bullshit world view. I have been attempting to develop a use of the English language that would be better able to state more radical truths. However, obviously, those radical truths are necessarily profoundly paradoxical! One of the ways that works is with regard to the oxymoronic kind of scientific dictatorship that has been developing.
I believe it is necessary to go through a creative synthesis of post-modernizing science, with ancient mysticism, in order to be able to confront the paradoxical ways that a scientific dictatorship is NOT genuinely scientific. The basic problem is that when one is scientific about human beings and human civilizations, one necessarily ends up perceiving that entropic pumps of energy flows match the principles and methods of organized crime.
The deeper levels of those problems are that the most successful forms of organized crime are able to pretend that they are not, while they surrounded themselves with controlled opposition groups that agree to also pretend that human realities are anything else, or could be anything else. The themes presented by controlled opposition groups continue to be relatively good analysis of the problems, then followed by old-fashioned bullshit "solutions" based on false fundamental dichotomies and impossible ideals, which can be observed in the forms of various sorts of religions and ideologies, which were historically developed as the controlled opposition.
What I always tend to emphasize is that there have been a series of profound paradigm shifts in physical sciences, while nothing like that has happened in political science. I therefore assert that we should go through even more profound paradigm shifts in the ways that we perceive political problems. However, at the present time, politics is almost totally dominated by religions and ideologies that are hundreds or thousands of years old. Given those social facts, the most typical things one can observe are the ways that the various controlled opposition groups present a relatively rational analysis of the problems, BUT, then switch gears to promote their preferred sets of solutions, as based on their own preferred old-fashioned religions or ideologies, which amount to nothing more than nostalgic nonsense.
In my view, to cope with the paradoxical developments of the runaway perverse "scientific dictatorship" we should develop better genuine science, which would require a much more profound series of intellectual scientific revolutions, which would then apply to every political issue, from drugs to death controls. While I believe that those things are theoretically possible, they appear to be politically impossible at the present time, since there is almost nothing but the core systems of organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition groups, neither of which are willing and able to go through the kinds of profound paradigm shifts regarding political problems which would be necessary to then promote genuine solutions which continue to be consistent with better analysis.
There are no groups of people preventing paradigm shifts. There are just multitudes of individuals resisting in individual ways. Everything that is happening is everyone's responsibility. THAT realization is the fundamental paradigm shift that needs to happen. Blame is just a symptom of the illusion of separateness. BTW, that information is a few miilinea old. Religion and its bastard child (government in its current iteration) are the warped, fear based interpretations of that info resulting from us not making that shift.
I agree, juangrande!
Informed Consent in terms of education is the most important factor to adhere to with regard to drugs IMO. Armed with a thorough knowledge of pharmachology/drugs & behaviour, people would not OD or over-consume to the point of chronic abuse and disease. Knowledge is always key to everything so I believe in a certain amount of Nanny State advisory messaging to the public when it comes to illicit/prescription drug consumption that the public engages in. A hands-off approach only works so well and then one is faced with synthetic drug proliferation where the side effects are not commonly understood by cohorts of users. Cocaine is a neurotoxin so I would never advocate doing that sort of drug because it damages the brain and I have tons of empirical research that empirically backs that claim.
I grew up in the late 60s and early 70s. We didn't trust government then and we don't trust government now. In fact we never trusted government. The government is evil bitchez. Q99X2 fun fact: the government has killed more people than I have seen in my entire lifetime.
Sometimes people now and then will say to me, "did you see her or him or them," and I'll think to myself if I didn't see them, "they were probably some of the ones the government killed," but I'll just reply back 'no I didn't see them."
An adult is not allowed to buy more that 2 small packs of paracetamol at the same time.
When you can go back into the same shop and buy another two packs from the same check out person minutes later.. I have done that because the family was unwell and we all needed some painkillers and we didn't want to infect other people!
Seems that isn't a reasonable thing to think, instead, every time you buy paracetamol you are thought of as about to commit suicide by a really awful way compared to jumping off a building or bridge that you consider is too quick a death
= stupid nanny state laws
We should ban bridges, access to tall buildings, oh wait, there is the car....
Without question the aledged war on drugs was a joke from day one. When Hillary was heading the State Department, she stated that 90% of the worlds heroine came out of Khandahar Province in Afghanistan. OK, so we have the greatest standing Army sitting there, why not burn down the poppy fields and teach these people to grow corn and soy beans? The reason is pretty simple. Some group, cartel and perhaps even the C.I.A. of Air America fame are making a shit load of money selling death to the worlds users. Hey, if you want to kill yourself go ahead, it's your life. But please governments of the world ( especially the U.S. ) stop the phoney tears of sorrow for those under the influence, because when it comes to making billions, someone is laughing all the way to the banks and it doesn't leave all that much to the imagination as to who is raking it in. The fucking world would probably come to a grinding halt if the heroine ever stopped flowing and just think of all those black op's that could no longer be funded. Boo Hoo.
I get your point but you can't grow corn and soybeans there for several reasons including the soil, rainfall amounts and disperion, etc. Also wouldn't be remotely effective from a price point on the world markets against mass-produced corn/soybeans from the agrobusiness farms globally either even if they had a way to get it to market somewhat efficiently.
Their soil might not be the best, buy if you can grow fields of poppies, they can find another crop more conducive to the geography. Forget selling your food stuff to the world, just feed you own and if all else fails, resort to hydroponics. Other than our being there to protect the heroine trade, someone has to keep a watch over the trillions in rare earth metals the country has according to a Pentagone white paper that came out three years ago.
And in the states where pot is decriminalized, they maintain severe penalties for growing it or selling it. So smoking it is just about o.k. and many more people are comfortable doing it. But someone in the "criminal"underground must supply it. So these decrim laws are great for keeping the busts rolling and the prisons full.
We grew dope for some folks...
The root of this lays with Nixon and expanded by Reagan.
Life seemed to me so much better pre both of these.
The roots were obviously the Pure Food and Drug Act and the creation of the FDA by early progressives. There's no other way to read that history really...is there? Nixon and Reagan simply fall into the continuity of that progressive agenda.
look much earlier.
It is natural for any government to want to control everything. This government is no different. The founders gave up our freedom when the Articles were dropped and a Constitution was adopted that created a strong central government. Now the Constitution has many things going for it but history documents no constitution ever survived once a government was powerful enough and the people weak enough.
We now live under a fascist/socialist hybrid system that only mentions the constitution when it serves the system. There is no unity, no cohesiveness and no goals. There is only arrogance, apathy and greed. A common ideological union no longer exists. Religion, a supposed constitutional right is now openly scoffed at, Freedom of speech is now circumvented by the hate crime laws, Freedom from search and seizure is long gone, the right to bear arms is now a privilege granted by government, penal slavery is back with private prisons, property rights are a thing of the past with the advent of the EPA and property taxes and bold faced robbery on the highways by those with a badge. Your earnings are stolen by the likes of an inflating Fed and the IRS and other bureaucracies within the state. Your children are propagandized against you in the state run education centers. Then they are indentured to the government for life via student loans, money created from nothing.
The war on drugs, like the war on poverty and the war on crime is really a war on the People and their lives. It simply creates more power for the state to take more and more freedom. Globalization and trade treaties removed the independence of the people by exporting the job base forcing the People to dependence on the state which makes control of them much easier.
Yes, the idea of self government has been a complete failure, not because it's impossible but because of a lazy, selfish and a pathetically irresponsible People.
Liberty is not attacked because of drugs, drugs are illegal because of the attack on liberty.
Financial privacy is not pressured because of drugs, drugs are illegal because they want to attack privacy.
it's liberty which is the core of the attack.
Has everyone forgotten the millionaires made by the government's exclusive campaign on alcohol after WWI? Those folks became the government's friends as such actions made them far more money than they ever could have made without the government's "help". One has to figure that the mythical "war" on drugs, where the government or its agencies are known participants on both sides of the transaction, has been arranged to provide both cover for the internal operations as well as additional supply controls for the government's friends. All-in-all, it is an archetypal corruption operation, putting the government more in the position we would expect of the Mafia rather than the traditional US government. However, I wouldn't be the first to note that the current administration is not the traditional US government.
The ones most for the war on drugs are the ones in most need of some drugs :)
The war on drugs should instead be worded, monopoly on drugs.
Just say no to financial drugs like deregulation of Glass-Steagall, Mrs.
Reagan.
NOTE: In 1979 Ronald & Nancy Reagan came to Ottawa CANADA and visited my high school to deliver their anti-marijuana "Just Say No To Drugs" speech. It was one year after I graduated, luckily.
;)
p.s. right around that time all the bikers in our area got black t-shirts that said "Just Say No To Drugs" on the back of the shirt.