On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m_p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Apr 21, 6:03 pm, b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B1ackwater) wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:04:19 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=3D3D411739
>>
>> >By Dale Gieringer
>> >This article was published on 08.23.07.
>>
>> >While California tries to legalize medical marijuana, the war on pot
>> >rages on. Helicopters comb the forests for illegal gardens, drug
>> >squads raid suburban pot houses, and residents grapple with street
>> >dealers. Meanwhile, the United States is paying Mexico to combat
>> >violent marijuana-dealing gangs.
>>
>> Hey ... there's tons of PROFIT in fighting the 'drug war'.
>
>The author agrees: 'The major beneficiaries of this system are the
>drug cops and criminal dealers'.
>
>> Outright profit and kickbacks for corrupt officials, profit
>> for those who make all that drug-war-fighting stuff, profit
>> for govt/police budgets, profit for the for-profit prisons ...
>> and then there are the POLITICAL profits ranging from
>> suckering-in the soccermom vote to justifying messing in other
>> nations politics to substituting for those old "black op"
>> schemes for paying off friendly dictators and generals
>> (Reagans original reason) to being a great way to keep
>> minorities under the jackboot and much much more.
>>
>> And you think they're gonna END the 'drug war' ??? No, no ...
>> they'll just continue to ESCALATE it. So long as it PAYS,
>> it plays. If you're trying to reason your way out of it
>> then you're heading in the wrong direction entirely.
>> Follow the MONEY, follow the PROFITS.
>
>Following the money won't work as a political strategy by itself, but
>only in conjunction with a reasoned argument to those soccer moms and
>like thinkers as to why the drug war is not actually in their best
>interest. As the author says:
>
>'Like alcohol prohibition, these laws have proven counterproductive
>and should be
>repealed.
>
>'The laws against marijuana aren=92t based on scientific evidence.
>Repeated expert studies have recommended that marijuana be
>decriminalized. This was the conclusion of President Nixon=92s
>Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (1972), as well as California=92s
>own Research Advisory Panel (1990), which observed, =93An objective
>consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less
>damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes.=94
>
>'The laws against marijuana have done nothing to dampen its use.
>Marijuana was first outlawed in California in 1913, when its usage was
>virtually unknown. Since then, the number of users has skyrocketed
>into the millions, despite more than 1 million marijuana arrests. The
>passage of Proposition 215 hasn=92t reduced arrests. The number of
>marijuana prisoners in California is now 10 times greater than 25
>years ago.
>
>'Like alcohol prohibition, the laws against marijuana are a crime-
>creation program. On one hand, they criminalize millions of otherwise
>law-abiding citizens for their own personal choice of intoxicant. On
>the other, they create a lucrative black market for criminal dealers,
>growers and smugglers'
Be damned careful ... when you note "It hasn't worked", rather
a lot of peoples immediate thought is "That just means we aren't
being TOUGH enough". The USA *is* the land of the "bigger hammer"
philosophy after all.
Ever since the early 60s, the "marijuana isn't, or isn't very,
harmful" message and accompanying evidence has been thrown in
the faces of the drug warriors and their misled helpers. Hasn't
accomplished a single thing.
Nobody's interested in the science and 99.5% don't have enough
of a science education to even begin to evaluate what you're
saying. Sombody told 'em marijuana was really bad for people and
makes your lily white daughters bring home little black babies -
and dammit they're sticking with that "truth" Just Because.
Prejudices, propaganda, paranoia and old-wives tales ALWAYS
carry more weight than "science".
You'd do FAR better fighting paranoia with paranoia - tell
the soccermoms how THEIR kids are gonna be thrown into jail
and brutally infected with AIDS and/or never get a good job
and live off Mom forever ... all over a lousy joint no 'drug
war' has EVER been able to keep out of the kiddies hands.
Tell 'em how THEIR kids are gonna burn out their systems on
contaminated 3rd-rate methamphetamine and party pills brewed
in a filthy sink because the 'drug war' means they can't get
good quality stuff and forces them underground into a culture
of excess ... yet has NEVER managed to change their kiddies
minds about getting buzzed in the slightest. And, oh yea,
ONCE they're a burned-out embarassment, they'll live off
Mom forever ...
THEN get into the EXPENSE of a 'war' that seems to have had
NEGATIVE results the longer it's gone on. VAST expense. That
will strike a nerve when they're thinking about making their
mortgage payment.
THEN get into the "follow the money" angle a bit ... mention
how the drug warriors wind up being more SELF interested than
community-minded. How cops arrest THEIR kids just so the
owners of for-profit prisons and 'rehab' facilities can
make MO' MONEY. Make the 'war' sound like what it is, a
deliberate scam to steal THEIR money, control THEIR lives,
cause problems with THEIR kids.
But skip the science and 'free country' stuff - nobody's
interested in those things. I've checked.
|
