The "War on Drugs"

[ezrydn]

Well,

It's been going on for over 30 years now. What's your take on it? We've spent over 1 Trillion bucks on it, put 1 in 4 Americans in prison and lost many of our civil rights. Take the poll and tell us if you agree or disagree. Then, take a moment and explain your position.

John

[mmurtha]

Originally Posted by ezrydn

Well,

It's been going on for over 30 years now. What's your take on it? We've spent over 1 Trillion bucks on it, put 1 in 4 Americans in prison and lost many of our civil rights. Take the poll and tell us if you agree or disagree. Then, take a moment and explain your position.

John

Dang John,

You stated everything I was going to in your post!

I voted it was a failure because we've lost many things because of what we've lost already. The problem isn't going away. Matter of fact, I think the drug problem escelated.

The way I see it is that we can't claim to be against it, but yet have our hands in it too now can we??

Lol the hands of the government are dirtied up in drugs amonst other things, and they make for a bad example. Besides, I don't like the idea of it being okay for a certain group and against the law for another.


Mary

[ezrydn]

Mary, et al,

It's a subject that many think is taboo to talk about. Sort of like, you're not patriotic if you disagree with the Prohibs. Somewhere in the past, Prohibs were able to connect "morality" to a plant. A far jump if you ask me but we still have to contend with it. To those who think the War is a good thing, and are into the "morality" angle, you either believe Genesis or you believe the Government. All three Prohibitions have been a failure. Three? Yes, three. The Garden of Eden (one plant, two people, one cop), in it's simplest form, proved failure. Same with Alcohol Prohibition and now, Drug Prohibition.

All failed due to one thing. Personal Choice. That can't be legislated away.

Today, we actually have TWO problems, not one. There is the "crime and violence" problem attached to Prohibition which must be delt with FIRST. That's why I'm a member of LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP - Cops Say). I'm the researcher for our Washington Lobbyist. LEAP's position is nothing less than "Legalize, Regulate and Control." Once this is achieved, we then target our second problem. The "social medical" problem. this should be handled by the medical community, not the DEA.

We did it once. We can do it again!

[Kurt]

I think the "war on drugs" has been a total disaster.

I'd make coke and pot legal. Regulate them. Tax them and use the taxes to offer treatment to anyone that requested it. Let the drug users pay for their treatment, and give them the best treatment available.

The medical profession should deal with drugs, not law enforcement. Doctors go to school to learn this stuff, not cops or prisons.

Take the money away from the drug dealers and use it to pay for the treatment, instead of the tax payers paying for it.

Use the money saved from having fewer people in prison to put real criminals away longer.

I've read it costs more to send a person to prison for a year than to send them to college and pay for all their books for four years. Plus, college graduates become tax payers. Use other revenue to create educational opportunities.

An interesting fact is that after prohibition, the use of two legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) have declined, while illegal drug usage has increased.

100 years ago, our supreme court (and population) considered drugs to be a vice, and not a crime. And, our illegal drug use was far less then. I say we go back to how things were in the first half the USA's history.

[ezrydn]

Kurt is absolutely right.

As the US entered the 20th Century, the US Pharmacopea had all of the banned substances of today readily available in corner drug stores. Cannabis, opium, cocaine, heroin extracts were all available without a doctor's Rx. You could even order through your friendly Sears Robuck catalog. Was there any "drug problem?" No. It was a problem "conflatulated" (sorry, I couldn't pass that one up) by our own government.

I was debating a Prohib the other day and he produced a story about the USCG bagging a 900 Kilo Cocaine bust. I asked him if, since all interdiction forces calculate they only capture 10% of the transit product, how did he feel about the 90% that got through? He wasn't a happy camper.

In the years we've been at this "war," prices have tumbled down, purity has skyrocketed and availability is just, available. While you can't buy ciggies and drinks in a school yard, you can find most any drug there. Ask any of the kids today. And this is again tied directly to "policy."

Another point that needs consideration is the medical aspect. When the Controlled Substances Act came into being, any and all scientific research on cannabis was halted and forbidden. Yet, today, we are seeing study after study surfacing that shows some amazing properties within the plant. The "get high" part is minimum, to say the least. And, since there is not one recorded death attrubuted to the "getting high" part, it's nothing I'm really concerned about. Expecially when one only has to think of an American Institution called "Happy Hour."

Election after election, state after state, the people are beginning to make their voice heard. The rest of the nation needs to get into this discussion as it truly affects each and every one of us.

[ezrydn]

An interesting recent occurance:

The Obama Transition Team ran a poll on Change.gov wherein they asked the public to submit their most pressing questions for the President Elect's staff to answer. The way they had it set up was one vote for each question. You couldn't continually vote for the same question by returning.

I'm not sure what they expected but they seemed to only have it open for a day and a half, maybe two. They said they were "overwhelmed by the response." I guess so. They had 978,947 votes on 10,303 questions from 20,468 people (they're still archived there for your perusal). Within the top voted 50 questions, 16 of them were Drug Policy related. And what's the #1 question, voted by the public, that the Transition Team has to respond to?

"Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"

Folks, one year ago we couldn't have had this discussion. It wasn't an "open" topic! However, the incoming President seems to have given "We, the People" a "voice." What will be interesting now is what will they do with it?

They say they'll open up the same opportunity next week. We don't know what day so you'll have to keep checking them. However, NOW is the time to be writing and rewriting your own question. Tune it. Refine it. Submit it. VOTE!

In The News: New Jersey Poised To Become Compassionate State #14

[ezrydn]

As some of you may have noticed, the Transition Team came out this week with responses to the questions asked. While our question made it to the No. 1 position in the poll, the Team elected to answer it "fourth." And then, with only a 12-word statement! Evidently, they think we'll settle for that. WRONG!

Round Two will be this week. A strategy has been figured out and should be adopted by all who think the War on Drugs time has come to see an ending to the waste and carnage.

When the 2nd Round opens, go in and input your own question. THEN, take the time to peruse the first 10 PAGES of questions. This will give you 10 questions per page over ten pages, or the first 100 questions.

All that are topic related, vote UP. All non-related topics, vote DOWN. We want to pack the top 100 spots with topical questions. The more questions the Team is faced with, the harder it will be to "brush us off" as they tried to do on the first round. Questions, over time, will enter that 1st ten pages so you need to return (hourly) and scan the first 10 pages for new questions that have entered the area. As they're new questions, you can vote them.

Obama's Transition Team has offered us a "game." Let's show them we know how to play it! I'll announce when the polling resumes so be ready.

[Kurt]

I think this is a bigger issue and needs more attention. What makes it even sadder is the that USA has more prisoners than any other country in the world, so it's hard to claim that we are truly the Land of the Free.

We need to let out the pot smokers and crackheads that never harmed anyone else, and whose only "crime" is what they chose to do to themselves.

The problem is, making drugs legal is poison to most/all politicians.

[kelvinbrown]

I would probably vote for... opps,

I live in D.C. so it will not matter.

Kelvin

[ezrydn]

While the idea of decriminalization is considered by some politicians as a "hot topic," they need to look at the recent Zogby poll where 76% of Americans polled said the War on (Some) Drugs was a failure and should be abolished for a more regulated market. It's not a "hot topic" for politicians. They've always been far behind the American Public's understanding of things. What's really sad is there is no "national referendum" ability within the Constitution.

Our Washington Lobbyist said yesterday that he NEVER mentions the word "legalize" to any on the Hill. He always asks if they'll "allow the States to decide." Good advice from someone "inside."

This is why you need to constantly feed factual information to your three representatives in Congress, One House and Two Senate. Keep writing them whenever a story surfaces in your own home newspaper. If legislators don't "know," it's because YOU haven't told them! Remember, all they hear on the hill is BS! Facts truly come from constituents.

However, right now, the "new guys" want to play a game, as noted in the post above. So, "Play It!" You now know how...even if you live in DC.

[MrsLolaCastle]

I can answer this question...seriously, I do not partake.

As a very wise man always says, "If they can not keep people out of the country, how do you think the authorities are going to stop the drugs from coming into the country?"

Now I'm gonna get back to my wine consumption. lol!

[ezrydn]

Lola,

Take it one step closer to the truth. If they can't keep them outta "Super Max" prisons, what hopes do the schools have when the providers are unlicensed and uncontrolled?

Since I'm far from being the "PC" type, "MERRY CHRISTMAS ONE AND ALL!"

[ezrydn]

I posted above where New Jersey was poised to be the 14th MMJ Compassionate State in January. The governor has said he'll sign it as soon as it hits his desk. Now, another state has lifted the banner: South Dakota. They, too, will hold a vote in January. In 13 years, we will have enjoined 15 states. Not bad work. But it's moving more quickly these days. Being active in the reform movement is picking up speed. People are stopping and considering, "Hey, it may just BE a true 'medicine'." Even when Obama said in his recent poll, he's not for "legalization," he simply stopped there. You see, he couldn't find ONE fact related to Prohibition he could honestly put his name to. So, he just balked.

State legislators saw this, too, and have seemingly decided to make the changes without him.

Here's the story on South Dakota: Drug WarRant :: View topic - South Dakota Safe Access

Here's the story on New Jersey: cannabisnews.com: Allow Marijuana for Medical Use in N.J.

[ezrydn]

Obama's "Open to Questions: Part Two" is now open for your voting and submissions. A strategy the reform movement is mounting is to vote down the first non-topic 100 questions. Then, do a topical search and vote up the first 100 questions.

Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team | Open for Questions

Takes ya about 15 minutes! And quickly, too. This was only open for 24 hours last time.

[ezrydn]

Over at Obama's "Open to Questions," they've deleted the #1 question so it's a stoss up. therefore I've been doing eh following:

Regualr questions: vote the fitst 100 down if not topic relatedl. Then, using he search feathre, I call up all the questions for "marijuana,""drug policy" and "phohibition." All these, I vote up

My thoughts is that if the transition team were to total up all questions in those three catagories and tallied all the votes they garnered, we'd have a new #1 question!

Seems everyone is concerned about banking, one facet of their life that they have no control over. Yet, they can control Prohibiton. Vote early and vote often (you can!)

[Siege]

The War on Drugs, by every measurable statistic, has been a complete failure.

Want to shoot yourself up into oblivion seven days a week? Smoke some pot with some friends after school? Do a line of coke off of a hooker's ****** while lamenting about your failure of a marriage? Go ahead. Seriously, why should anyone stop you. I might not agree, I might not like it, but I'm not about to walk up to you and take it away and say "Hey! You can't do that! That's a bad thing to do!"

We tried doing that in the twenties with alcohol. Remember what happened? People... still kept drinking and selling just as much alcohol, but now it was all on the black market. Giving rise to bad people like Al Capone and street thugs who literally had to take the law into their own hands (they found that guns worked best!) Luckily we learned from that big mistake and never tried it again... right?

Well, at least not with alcohol. I guess we kinda learned our lesson.

[ezrydn]

Like we say in LEAP, you can get over an addiction. You can never get away from a convictiion. Also, prisons are for people we're afraid of, not people we're mad at!

[ezrydn]

At Change.gov and Change.org, guess what the top questions are...again!

[kissamedeadly]

The war on drugs is just another way for the government to spend tax payers hard earned money on their pet projects. If they really wanted to end the war on drugs they would make all drugs legal, regulate the industry just like pharmasuticals and tax the .... out of the product. It has proven over and over again that you cannot legislate peoples morals. If people want to drugs and live that lifestyle, they are going to period. It has created a strain on our resources which could best be used elsewhere.

[ezrydn]

Kissmedeadly,

Go over to LEAP - Cops Say and see what you think. It's the organization I'm the most active in as a lead researcher for our Washington Lobbyist (or should I say "Education Specialist."

After that, thake a look at Drug WarRant. That's the "happening" spot, always up to the minute in whats going on.

EZ

[Rogue]

The "war on drugs" is a money game pure and simple.

"Drugs" are not illegal in the USA if you get them from an "approved dealer."

"Approved dealers" being the big pharmaceutical companies that control much of the power in Washington.

Hell, they advertise drugs on the six o clock news that will spin you up worse than what you can get down on the street corner.

It's not about what drugs you're strung out on as much as who's.

The DEA is a "money generating machine."

A shirt-tail cousin was involved in a Cocaine raid in the late eighties in Wisconsin. He said when they broke down the door there was $285.000 on the coffee table in a neat pile. He said they had just finished counting it.

The DEA logged in $35.000 as evidence.

This is not the only story of this type I've come across.

Confiscated property auctions bring in additional millions as well

The "war on drugs" is good for business. No one in a position to do so wants to stop it.

Rogue

[ezrydn]

Rogue,

You've mentioned the obvious. What's fun is having a hand in dismantling this monster. You may not have noticed but we got 3 states in the last election and NJ and SD are voting in Jan/Feb. The dominoes are falling because all the big drug money isn't there any longer. Expect the police to begin taking property. That's about one of their last hopes. They can't put fuel in tier gas guzzler door pounders now, can they?

[ezrydn]

The El Paso Times ran a story about the City Council passing a bill that simply asked for a public debate on the drug war, as it stood with them and Juarez. The mayor vetoed it. Vetoed because he didn't want any discussion!

Is discussing a faliled war now considered "un-American?" Hell, at least, we can talk about it down here and most of the people I talk to are "policia." and, to a T, they agree with me.

Why can't America have such a dialogue? What are they afraid of?

[ezrydn]

As you may know, Obama was in Mexico City visiting Calderon yesterday. Obama was very impressed with the country. Guess, he, too, thought we only had dirt roads and donkeys. LOL

I fell asleep during the news but the next morning, when I asked my wife what had been said, she mentioned a curious comment that I'm striving to track down.

Someone said that "communication should be held with the cartels." Now, what that means or where it's headed is anyone's idea. But, definitely an out of the box Obama thought, don't ya think?

[ezrydn]

US TX: Editorial: Drug talks: Presidents Must Show Resolve

DRUG TALKS: PRESIDENTS MUST SHOW RESOLVE

We've obviously reached the stage where only the highest of government leaders -- presidents themselves -- can loosen the drug cartels' hold on the people of Mexico and the United States.

Little, if anything, else has worked going on four decades now.

It was good, then, that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama met with Mexico President Felipe Calderon on Monday and discussed what can be mutual plans to fight the cartels. What's left to see, however, is just how far these two powerful heads of state are willing to go.

We've already committed to send Mexico more than $1 billion in money and technology to fight the drug cartels. Mexico has sent its army into battle against these military-style gangs that now control entire cities, including Juarez. The money and technology aren't working and the army is not strong enough to take back control of cities.

U.S. citizens buy and use the illegal drugs, and sell sophisticated weaponry to the drug cartels.

Drug cartels produce the drugs and reap the billions and billions of dollars U.S. citizens pay to purchase the drugs.

There is no doubt the issue is complicated and the drug business is interwoven into both our societies. It's interwoven into manufacturing, usage and the business enterprises that knowingly or unknowingly have drug money in their systems.

Calderon has made fighting the cartels his chief initiative as president of Mexico. But his army has only pushed cartels around from one haven to another.

On our side, we've been fighting to keep our children and adults off illegal drugs since President Nixon officially declared the "war on drugs" in the 1970s. "Just say no" is a common phrase we use to educate against illegal drug use.

Now we need a "just say yes" when it comes to a mutual game plan orchestrated by two presidents.

How much do the two presidents want to end illegal drugs, the existence of the powerful drug cartels and the multitude of gangland-style killings that have the good people of Mexico hiding in fear and many people in the U.S. empowering the cartels by using their products?

How much?

And how far are they willing to go to stop it?

[ezrydn]

This is a "must read" article, professionally written by scientists.

Freedom of Medicine and Diet: Cocaine Prohibition: Water or Gasoline [for treating the flames of drug abuse]

Prepare for a bit of a surprise.

[ezrydn]

USSC drops another amendment right!

Herring Case decided yesterday on 4th Amendment rights. You've always heard "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?" Well, that only applies to citizens now. Police are "excluded." Yes, the "exclusionary rule" now falls to them for "not knowing."

FourthAmendment.com - Post details: SCOTUS: Herring decided today; watch out: if negligent, no exclusion?

Can you see what's happening before your very eyes? And no one has anything to say about it? That's sad because the "Land of the Free's" days are quickly becoming numbered.

[ezrydn]

Change.org (not .gov) are asking for input to "affect changes" and guess what the #1 question was? Yep.

Now, go over to www.change.org/ideas/v..._marijuana and put some good, wel-thoughtout dialogue in there. Leave your tie-dyed shirts at home and don a profession attitude in answering these questions. No more "Cheech & Chong" answers! Get away from using the Mexican word "marijuana" and get back to using "Hemp" and "Cannabis!"

Their basic question is how to implement such a change. They're looking for ideas. Not jokes! Put some thought into it as they say they'll start a national campaign on the feedback they get from us. Let's see how truthful they are as compared to their sister site.

[ezrydn]

See Book Announcement in "Off Topics" forum

[ezrydn]

Mexico is arming itself-- War is next! • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control

It's already here. Little fence and small river is all the protection you have.

[Reality Beckons]

Wow, I was expecting a lot of people to agree of its failure, but this just speaks volumes to its success, or lack thereof.

[ezrydn]

Many have the crippled eye of the ONDCP to view what they actually face in theform of action. They've believed all the dribble sor solong now, they actually they they have an answer to the problem. One that hasn't worked in over 70 years!

[ezrydn]

MAKING POLICY THAT MAKES SENSE

A new administration has been inaugurated into the corridors of power. A new cadre of public health elite has been, or soon will be, installed. So perhaps there is a new opportunity to embrace the rationality and first principles too long absent from public health policy.

The meaning of rationality is perhaps self-evident. In essence, it means decisions and actions make sense. If, for instance, evidence shows that sex education and the availability of barrier contraception can reduce unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections without encouraging sexual activity, and these are socially desirable -- then policies that advance these objectives are rational. Policies that impede them are, arguably, not.

The notion of first principles is less immediately transparent but equally fundamental. It means that a series of related decisions, actions or policies should all derive from a common guiding principle, or principles. So, for example, the principle that we should not drive after drinking wine, beer, vodka or gin -- all relate to the first principle that we should not drive after drinking alcohol.

Definitions dispatched, I would like to make the case that we are at best disrespectful, at worst altogether dismissive, of first principles in much of our public health policy -- and for that matter, much of our collective decision making. Examples abound.

As anyone else who has passed through the rites of medical education can attest, there is a wrestling match in every emergency department of every teaching hospital every day over the fate of potential admittees to the hospital. The emergency resident, responsible for immediate treatment only, is eager to admit every patient who cannot readily be sent home, and thus unclutter the perennially cluttered ER. The admitting resident, however, who assumes ( or delegates ) responsibility for the ongoing care of admitted patients is not only eager to deny such admissions, but actually earns kudos from fellow residents for being "a wall."

Where in all of this are the clearly elucidated, carefully vetted and universally accepted criteria for hospital admission? They don't exist. We often grapple with specific decisions while ignoring the underlying first principles on which they should be based.

There is much public opposition to the use of medical marijuana. Superficially, this is quite sensible. Why would anyone sanction the use of an illegal drug for purposes medical, or otherwise? But there is cocaine in every emergency department in the country ( we use it to treat severe nosebleeds ). There are narcotics, some of which are close cousins to heroin but even more potent.

Where, then, is any semblance of rationality or a first principle? Do we ban all potentially dangerous drugs? Clearly not. All drugs that are illicit for general use? Not that either. Do we, then, defer all such decisions to trained medical professionals, and trust that if they can decide when to administer cocaine, they should be able to decide when to administer cannabis? Apparently not that either.

On the vexing topic of physician-assisted dying, first principles are mowed down on a slippery slope of inconsistencies. Our policies favor the option of palliative care, even if the pursuit of palliation at times accelerates death. This all boils down to timeline: We can do what kills as it comforts if it kills too slowly to make the link obvious. If it kills a bit faster, it's taboo. If this makes sense to anyone, please explain it to me.

Perhaps the granddaddy of all inconsistencies is our approach to the whole topic of health care. Is it a right or a privilege? Rather than beat that topic into its submission of a first principle, we continue to debate all of the specific ramifications of failure to establish some general rules.

We all agree that the new arrival in an emergency department with a life-threatening gunshot wound gets treated without first ascertaining insurance status. This suggests that at least some extremes of health care are a right. What if the wound threatens limb, but not life? Do rights extend from the person to the appendage or even the digit? And, if so, is it only for bullet wounds, or does it extend to the more grisly of paper cuts? A quagmire, but one we cannot hope to escape without the consistent guidance of a first principle decision.

Connecting this simple sequence of clinical dots impels us to the concession that some health care is a de facto right, some a privilege: bullet wounds to one side of the line, paper cuts to the other. That, in turn, implies the inescapable providence of health care rationing. By refusing to acknowledge its providence, we don't escape it -- we simply acquiesce to it irrationally. Establishing first principles would allow for far more rational rationing of health care than currently prevails.

I am not advocating for any particular policy. I am advocating for an approach to generating policy, and for that matter, personal decisions. I believe progress of all varieties is forestalled by our willingness to assert positions not held accountable to the meanest standards of consistency and rationality: our tendency, if you will, to shoot first and debate gun control after.

There are innumerable hopes, aspirations and trepidations attendant upon the current transition in power. Into this volatile brew, I cast my own hope: Perhaps we might make collective decisions and public health policies that actually make sense.

MAP: The Media Awareness Project

[ezrydn]

The Epidemic That Wasn't

Some of you might remember back in the 80s and 90s, all the fearmongering about the onslaught of a new flood of "crack babies." Remember that? Where are they? They'd be in their late teens and twenties right about now so they should be showing up in public. HOWEVER.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/he...pagewanted=all

It was another ONDCP LIE! Your favorite government at work!

[ezrydn]

Reality,

What it really says is something I hear over and over. People don't think about it. If it's not directly affecting them or their family, they don't care. It doesn't matter that this phony war on the citizenry has eroded our basic rights. They don't stop to calculate the cost of their precious Prohibition on "some" drugs. They feel at ease throwing people in prison because they're mad at them and not simply fearful of them.

They go to church, sing their hymns, go through all the motions and then totally disagree with Genesis. God's Wrong!

People don't do the simple addition that would qualify them to a portion of understanding. There's a 6-part series being written right now that is totally on point. In a couple days, when it's finished, I'll post it here.

This "warfare" has now been going on for over 70 years. What's the payback? What have we obtained as a benefit? Who knows more about drugs, parents or kids? If parents knew, this foolishness would end.

Cancer killed my mother. Cannabis might have saved her. "Might!" We'll never know at the rate we're going. Alcohol killed my father. I'd much rather had him wrapped around a bong instead of a bottle.

There are four main informational sites I hit daily:
1. Drug WarRant = Drug WarRant
2. LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) = LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs
3. MAP (Media Awareness Project) = MAP: The Media Awareness Project
4. Cannabis News = Cannabis News - marijuana, hemp, and cannabis news

There are a bunch of others that are just as good and you'll find their links on these pages.

Like Nickelson said in "A Few Good Men," "You can't stand the truth!" This is the mindset of many both here and "out there." Knowledge is the wisdom of the future. Learn about it TODAY!

[ezrydn]

POLICE: Oops! Wrong house...again! We're sorry.

Video

Luckily, no one was killed this time. Traumatized for a long time? Sure, but who cares, we replaced the door and said we were sorry.

IS THAT ENOUGH? Will it be ENOUGH when it's your door that's "mistaken?"

POLICY, People! Plain and simple. It's Policy that's killing people, not drugs.

ADDITION: Since "morals" and "morality" have been topics discussed here, try this one out for size: http://spectrum.buffalo.edu/article.php?id=38805

[ezrydn]

This is a great writeup that deserves your attention. It's fact based and covers many areas. Although in 6 parts, it's still a bit lengthy so take it in chunks.

Part 1: Joe Biden's War-Intro HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Introduction
Part 2: South America HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 2 - South America
Part 3: Mexico HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 3 - Mexico
Part 4: Afghanistan HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 4 - Afghanistan
Part 5: Chicago HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 5 - Chicago
Part 6: Civil Liberties HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 6 - Civil Liberties

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by ezrydn

This is a great writeup that deserves your attention. It's fact based and covers many areas. Although in 6 parts, it's still a bit lengthy so take it in chunks.

Part 1: Joe Biden's War-Intro HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Introduction
Part 2: South America HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 2 - South America
Part 3: Mexico HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 3 - Mexico
Part 4: Afghanistan HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 4 - Afghanistan
Part 5: Chicago HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 5 - Chicago
Part 6: Civil Liberties HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s War - Part 6 - Civil Liberties

Hey John,

One problem...Joe Biden has admitted that his support of the war on drugs over the years is the biggest mistake he's made in his political career and that the war on drugs has been a big failure.

[ezrydn]

While the writer, which was not me, has his primary focus on ol' Joe, the entire story isn't about Joe. He's only mentioned a couple of times throughout the entire series. Plus, even with his apology, he is the reason we have an ONDCP commanded by a "drug tzar."

Yet, I'm glad to hear he's admitted his stupidity and complicity in the area of problem making.

[ezrydn]

From Sunday's Washington Post:

A bit hard of a read if you're snowed in on a Sunday Morning and have your favorite bud snuggled up to you.

washingtonpost.com

This is one of the reasons I have no regrets for what I've done or am doing. Who's next?

[ezrydn]

Anyone here ever read Radley Balko over at The Agitator? Radley has some of the best writings around. However, this has got to be his grand masterpiece.

The Agitator » Blog Archive » A Letter I’d Like To See (But Won’t)

[Kurt]

And it gets better...Seems 8-time gold medal swimmer Michael Phelps had a picture of him hitting a bong posted on the web. Phelps admitted that he took a hit and apologized for acting "young".

However, some hick sherrif says if he can prove Phelps smoked pot, he is going to prosecute Phelps. This is just a case of some redneck sherrif trying to get free publicity...Unbelievable.

Law enforcement looking into Michael Phelps incident | The Fabulous Forum | Los Angeles Times

[ezrydn]

Not to mention that this would be a defense lawyer's "dream come true" case. You can't equate it to murder so Mr. Sheriff is going after him for the "red light" he ran several years ago. I saw the photo but I don't remember if it was date stamped. Imagine the cost of even simply finding the room the pix was taken in. These are "elements" of a case that must be provided.

I'll bet Mr. Sheriff has already had a call to come in and have a friendly word with his local DA.

[ezrydn]

Good legal followup on the Phelps/Sheriff fiasco:

NORML Blog » Blog Archive » The Marijuana Case Against Michael Phelps

[ezrydn]

What do we know about Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske?

The reason I ask is he may be our new "Drug Tzar." Seattle is a Compassionate City in a Compassionate state. However, once he takes the oath of office, he's bound by the ONDCP Reauthorization Act to begin lying to the public.

Any personal knowledge out there on this guy? He's a friend of Norm Stamper, an executive officer with LEAP. That's all I know about him.

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by ezrydn

Not to mention that this would be a defense lawyer's "dream come true" case. You can't equate it to murder so Mr. Sheriff is going after him for the "red light" he ran several years ago. I saw the photo but I don't remember if it was date stamped. Imagine the cost of even simply finding the room the pix was taken in. These are "elements" of a case that must be provided.

I'll bet Mr. Sheriff has already had a call to come in and have a friendly word with his local DA.

I believe the sherrif has just made a number of arrests in the case...And, the idiot that owned the bong put it up for sale on ebay and he got arrested, too.

The whole situation is a joke...Well, it should be.

[ezrydn]

This is a nice read:

Former presidents blast drug repression efforts

Former presidents blast drug repression efforts - MSNBC Wire Services- msnbc.com

If you go to the organization's website and download their report, you'll find the following interesting statement:

Current drug repression policies are firmly rooted in prejudices, fears and ideological visions. The whole issue has become taboo which inhibits public debate. The association of drugs with crime blocks the circulation of information and segregates drug users in closed circles where they become even more exposed to organized crime.

Hence, breaking the taboo and acknowledging the failure of current policies and their consequences is the inescapable prerequisite for opening up the discussion about a new paradigm leading to safer, more efficient and humane drug policies.

World leaders are starting to get a hint. And on top of that, the meeting in Vienna where for years we've battled against needle exchanges to combat HIV, the new Obama rep is pushing for a positive approach to needle exchanges around the world. Small changes but changes just the same.

And hang in there, Granite Staters, your time's coming (#15 maybe?)!

[ezrydn]

If you're a Prohibitionist, I dare you to read the following essay. If you're a reformer, it's good "ammo."

VicesAreNotCrimes

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by ezrydn

If you're a Prohibitionist, I dare you to read the following essay. If you're a reformer, it's good "ammo."

VicesAreNotCrimes

I also used the "vices are not crimes" POV in my first post above.

...And while not scientific by any means, I find it interesting that the forum has voted 17-0 on this subject.

The real issue, I believe, is it is still political suicide for a candidate to suggest legalizing drugs. Unfortunately, we may need to wait yet another generation before this gets taken care of.

[ezrydn]

Kurt,

If you were following the reform movement, you'd know we're not interested in Beltway politics. There's no hope there. While Obama might bring slight change, that's not our "target of opportunity."

No, it's the States we're targeting. We have over a dozen Compassionate States to date and 12 more have legislation either pending or being introduced this year.

Washington won't budge until their forced to and we all know it. Therefore, by changing the states, we bring more pressure to bear on Washington. Sorry, no "instant satisfaction" here. We're after them, one bite at a time. And, as all can well see, it's working!

Our Washington Lobbyist also sees changes going on. He recently reported that while the Bush Admin had fought the needle exchange program through the UN repeatedly, the new Obama rep has approved of a needle exchange program within the UN drug charter. Little changes that many of you are not aware of.

And, to add a little levity to the topic, Sheriff Lott that's after the swimmer for "bong diving" has to figure out how to extradite someone from another state on a misdemeanor charge. I searched all day yesterday for anything that would show a misdemeanor extradition and couldn't find one response. And in Lott's area, it's a misdemeanor, not a felony.

So, the Beltway Boys and Girls can keep having their Gin and tonics, followed by a quick snort of coke and wait til all the states come to bear against them. Then, we'll see what their "political position" is. Any bets they change, too?

Oh, did you notice the date of the "Vice not crimes" writing? Interesting.