On Apr 22, 1:10 pm, b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B1ackwater) wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@[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repealed.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",
I don't see those words in any text I posted. "Counterproductive" is a
much stronger statement and doesn't admit of the response "That just
means we aren't being TOUGH enough."
> 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.
I disagree; marijuana is decriminalized in a dozen states, and a poll
from a few years ago shows 41% sup****t for treating marijuana like
alcohol (i.e. legal but restricted).
> 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".
It's IMHO worth touching on briefly, as some may be at least a little
shaken in their certainty.
> You'd do FAR better fighting paranoia with paranoia
Not to quibble, but what you describe below is not "paranoia" but the
plain facts ... which I do make use of in discussion (but which don't
happen to have been used by the author of the article I posted).
> - 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.
I can't skip freedom ... consider it a personal quirk of mine.
|
