The drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of. FULL ARTICLE
|
 |
36 comments ↓
The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, the war on illiteracy, the war on just about everything – is a complete and abject failure. Why do we keep going to the government for these important things?
I’d be pretty happy with medical marijuana being legal in my state, but i agree that the entire drug war is archaic and should be abolished.
Amen
An absolutely correct opinion. But are the majority of people out there listening, observing, paying attention to anything but their current economic woes?
This article is full of crap. I have been in the medical profession since 1974, and I have seen the damage of drug abuse: both prescription and non-prescription. The ruined minds in psych wards, the overdoses, the fried brains, the gang violence, the spread of AIDS through needles. Meth, LSD, heroin, and the whole lot are not neutral to the human body. They destroy the human body. All drug laws should be enforced. Our national guard should be destroying drug labs in this country. The drug dealers and manufacturers and users are the true terrorists to our country and its youth. Quit whining about the war on drugs, get clean and help others get clean, get to rehab or help others get to rehab. Medical marijuna should be legal, but that is all.
I disagree on this issue, for the simple reason that we’re talking about people dealing commercially, and illegally, in some highly addictive and destructive drugs. Oh, and highly lucrative, too.
The War On Drugs comes to a boil when you start reading about the crime, destruction, violence, and corruption going on in the country directly to our south, Mexico. Manana.cocaina.mordida.gov has done a fair job of wrecking basic livability for citizens of Mexico, which is why a lot of them have fled to El Norte. Now, the phenomenon itself has also moved to el norte, public corruption(crooked vice cops dealing dope right out of the cop car, as one example), various lobbying groups trying to legitimize if not openly promote increased use of hallucinogens, narcotics, stimulants, and other substances which are usually referred to as ‘controlled substances’ with good reason.
The Prohibition is frequently referred to in reference to the War On Drugs, but it bears keeping in mind the social toll of the time that was the main focus of the Prohibition, as well as the lethal and unlawful practices that then followed. Oh, and don’t forget the Mob, because they profited immensely.
I think if you’re going to make an argument for the legalization/decriminalization of substance abuse, it should be made clearly and succinctly, but not in ignorant fashion either. The sale of addictive substances of any kind to the public should be actively questioned, regardless of your stance on the issue of enforcement. The mechanism of addiction should also be actively studied, and further explored, in the interest of helping those who have become thus addicted. Sobriety sucks, but it is the road to recovery for people that’ve spent years smoking dope, snorting/shooting/drinking/smoking etc. Chemical dependency is almost always bad, and there are therapies and treatments that can help, but there needs to be a lot of public support and recognition of the basic fact that dope dealers/independent chemists/whatever 0f various kinds, whether they wear t-shirts or neckties, are in it not to help the public, but rather to make money, and they don’t really care if you live or die as a result of using their product, kind of like tobacco companies or the liquor industry, but more cottage-industry. There’s other ways to make money besides poisoning the public, and the sooner that the commercial industrial pharmaceutical community and the unofficial pharmacists out there agree to ‘come to Deity’ on the issue, the sooner the police and hospitals and communities will be able to look forward to not having to deal with junkies and dealers and so forth and so on. Hold your breath for that, people tend not to be very altruistic, and if there’s an enterprise they can get involved in that’ll make em 20 bucks, they’ll do it whether it’s legal or not. Question is, do you want to live in a community full of dope-heads? Read about opium dens, and the struggles that countries like China have had in trying to curb drug use, and why they even undertook the effort to begin with. People on hard drugs don’t really live in this world, and the more pervasive the pattern of hard drug usage is, not just in the United States but worldwide, the more likely it is to cause widespread social problems and massive expense to society and taxpayers, even more than paying for supplemental enforcement and prevention and abatement efforts.
Gary, I don’t believe anything in the article stated anything about “neutrality’ to the human body. In fact, it’s my position that drug use – of almost all kinds – is harmful. So, is this article “full of crap” because you want to make decisions of what is good and what is not good for other people? Or, are you one of those that like high crime, and want to make sure certain people have really high profit margins because of black market activity?
There are a lot of people in both the medical and the pharmaceutical industries that have a huge financial incentive to keep competing drugs illegal. It keeps their products and prices much higher.
If other people disagree with you, would you like them arrested for acting in ways that you don’t approve of? What if they don’t like that? It seems like you want some military organization going around shooting people up to prevent drug use. That seems pretty fanatical – and sick – to me….
Terrorism, by definition, is using violence (on civilian populations) to further political goals. So, by that, your idea of using the national guard to deal with this issue is actually terrorism.
I believe the most important statement in my article is this:
“those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.”
As a modern college student, surrounded by people my age who either enjoy drugs or abhor them (or even between the two), I feel I have a pretty grounded opinion:
1. I personally wouldn’t care what people did in terms of drugs, but for the fact that a lot of them cause a lot of violence such as various gangs fight for territory and such. That an American citizen can’t be relatively safe from cross-fired bullets while doing something like walking in the park or shopping is absolutely unacceptable. That does not mean we should limit any freedoms whatsoever, though. I think we have a sort of good balance between the cops and citizens, though there are laws that could enable them to do shit that is absolutely crap, though I don’t know anyone who’s been affected by these (i.e. so-called patriot act)
2. Has anyone noticed that we (America) haven’t won a single war since WWII? It depends on your definition of win, but things like the 1st desert storm were basically tantamount to a pro-boxer versus a toddler. Seriously.
All in all, if we all have a problem with what the gov’t is up to, make some real noise and do something about it, instead of sitting on your hands.
For a long time I’ve held the opinion that behind the economy, the politics, and the morality of the United States is an oligarchy that shapes our world so it functions in their interest. I believe that oligarchy controls the drug trade. By keeping drugs illegal they are able to disrupt the communities of color so that most of their males, and many females too, spend their best years in prison and are thus not able to compete with the oligarchy. They also control the prices so that they can make huge profits. These would not be available in a free market. They also make big money by allowing people around the world to finance anti US fighting forces. This causes the US to create opposition forces with high prices for weapons, supplies, transportation etc which went directly to the oligarchy. Iraq is all about this. Thus, I conclude we will never have a free drug trade until we are rid of the oligarchy and I don’t believe that will ever happen.
I have something else to say on this topic, there’s plenty of police reports available to the public that bear out a couple of the points I tried to make in my previous posts. Seek and find…this drug stuff is no joke.
Jack, you do realize that there’s violence associated with the sale and production of drugs solely because they’re illegal, right? There’s no need for shooting if the prices are low and they’re available at WalMart.
Read The Underground Empire by James Mills if you want to find out what it is really all about.
On a side note, most of the drugs, high on the forbidden list, were available in your local drugstore around the turn of the last century. No doubt some people abused them, but I don’t remember reading much about drug addicts and violence at that time. I think the first time drug use got really brought to the public’s attention was Reefer Madness which came out in the 30’s or 40’s and was a downright silly film if you’ve ever watched it, but I guess it did the trick.
The Underground Empire really lays our what is going on, and it is no different now than it was when it was written. Only some of the names have changed due to old age and assassination. The profits for the “War on Drugs” is enormous, to the mobs and cartels, to the various interdiction agencies, to the politicians who push the “war” and to their masters, who profit on both sides of the fence.
I remember a cartoon in one of the magazines in the 60’s where a guy goes into his house, pulls the blinds, moves the furniture, rolls back the rug, opens the secret compartment in the floor, takes out the little box, rolls himself a joint, puts it all back in place, lights up and takes a drag, saying, “I don’t care much for the grass. It’s the ritual I dig.”
Half of our problem is the “forbidden fruit” syndrome. Same thing with prohibition. When booze was forbidden, it was the thing to know a “speak” and be able to give the pass and get a drink. This was so even for those who didn’t particularly like the stuff; “it was the ritual they dug.” When you could go to the drug store and get some cocaine from the pharmacist to stimulate your flagging appetite, it was no big deal, any more than stepping into a saloon if you felt like a drink, or walking by if you didn’t, or if you preferred sarsaparilla when you were thirsty in which case you stopped at the soda fountain at the local pharmacy, (where people could buy cocaine or laudanum or whatever if they wanted) which sold good sarsaparilla and ice cream sodas. Big deal!
Just wake up and grow up, America. This has gone on for far too long.
I’d like to see the war on drugs end, but it never will. As long as we have government, it never will. The word “Government” is used to cover up so much crime, not just the war on drugs. Government is mankind’s problem. Government is used to cover up so many things that we do need. There’s even the illusion that we need Government. Constitutional type government is BAD because it always includes everyone regardless of whether you want it or not. That makes government compulsory for everyone when a Constitutional government is supposed to be voluntary. There is no such thing as a voluntary governance- it’s always forced on you. Freedom of choice does not exist in a Constitutional government.
The Bill of Rights is complete fraud and I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. People believe anything..
I don’t know what other type of government there is, but a Constitutional government is not it.
“I don’t know what other type of government there is, but a Constitutional government is not it.”
I think you are looking at “the other type of government” right now. It is not Constitutional and it is not democratic.
The Constitution was written to provide a rule of law and by dividing the government into three branches made limitations so we would not wind up with a dictatorship or an Oligarchy in charge. The Declaration of Independence identified the inalienable Rights of Man and the Bill of Rights further enumerated them and forbade the government from ever taking them away.
Unfortunately, an Oligarchy of the wealthy and powerful have managed to gain control of all three branches of the government, so the checks and balances written into the Constitution no longer function. That is not the fault of the Constitution. It is the fault, really, of We the People who have allowed this to happen. Millions have recognized it, have bombarded their alleged representatives with calls to impeach and remove the miscreants, restore the Constitution. This is routinely ignored. I have yet to have any query regarding the Constitution answered by any of my alleged representatives. Totally ignored.
Probably the only thing that would make a change would be for several million people to descend on Washington, each carrying some feather pillows, a bucket of tar and a rail on their shoulder. Properly used, this would address the problem and we might get back the long lost “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” which right now seems to have “perished from the earth.”
These people haven’t followed the constitution in years…many, many, many years. And it keeps getting worse.
Yeah, I know. Perhaps someday the bread and circuses will lose their attraction and the people will rise up. I’m in my 70’s so don’t expect to see it myself, but I can always hope!
Steve Osborn said:
“I think you are looking at “the other type of government” right now. It is not Constitutional and it is not democratic.
The other type of government we had before the Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. That government did not generate enough revenue to pay the alleged war debts of the United States, so they created a Constitutional type government because of its potential for generating unlimited revenue- from people. Alexander Hamilton and Roger Sherman were opposed to the Bill of Rights because the constitution did not authorize the Federal government to interfere with the rights of the citizens of the several states. Before the Bill of Rights the Federal government didn’t have any citizens; after the Bill of Rights, it made claim to the rights of the citizens of the United States.
The reason they created the bill of rights is because they took out the enabling clause in the Constitution after the first draft. Subsequent drafts did not have the enabling clause. The enabling clause is recognition of every man’s rights. Any constitution must have some prior reference to establish its foundation- The foundation for the Constitution is alleged to be based upon the Bible; the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the right of habeas corpus, and the Articles of Confederation,. Accordingly, any and every Constitution thereafter must have an enabling clause. From that point onward no Constitution may diminish in any manner, those rights already established in the above six documents relative to the social compact to which it referred and to whom such was created by or for, other than by such powers, as enumerated for such causes, as might be demonstrated. In other words, the enabling clause was the bill of rights. So why did they take it out ? So they can have their war on drugs, war on terror, war on anything they want.
The bill of rights is a complete fraud because it is not authorized by the Constitution. They replaced the people’s rights with a pseudo-bill of rights.
If you read the Bill of Rights carefully, you will see that it does not grant the government any powers, it forbids the government from enacting laws etc. that interfere with the rights of man. (I’ll continue this later. Have to go to a meeting.)
Steve – great point. We have to keep in mind that the Constitution doesn’t apply to me, it doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t apply to any person at all.
The Constitution applies to the federal government.
It says what the federal government can do, and nothing more. The bill of rights list things that the feds cannot do….and the 10th amendment makes it clear that the government can only do those thing specifically authorized to the it in the constitution.
The constitution is there to be a set of limits on the power of government, and most of what it does today is far beyond those limits.
AMEN!
Steve Osborn said: “If you read the Bill of Rights carefully, you will see that it does not grant the government any powers, it forbids the government from enacting laws etc. that interfere with the rights of man.”
The prohibition interfering with the rights of man is the enabling clause. All laws of the United States have an enabling clause, however, those laws are null and void because the same said enabling clause is missing from its source: the Constitution.
The enabling clause is the stamp of approval by the people; without it, Congress can make no law. However, they do make laws [for the people] because of the ignorance of the people. Ignorance is the government’s greatest commodity.
Everyone thinks that Congress is a constitutional body however they are not because there’s no stamp of approval by the People –Congress cannot make any law for anyone. A Constitution without the people is not a Government of any kind.
Here’s the definition of Constitution, in part, from Black’s 4th Ed,:
“The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten… A character of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. ”
Did you read that… Its WHOLE AUTHORITY is derived from the GOVERNED.
I wholeheartedly agree with this topic. I am a 64 year-old grandmother who has seen the utter failure of our war on drugs. Michael, you are right…the govt wants to decide WHAT drugs we should buy legally. Most of these drugs are more harmful to the body than street drugs (except maybe meth and coke). However, the war on drugs is big business and a lot of money is sent to the local police agencies to help them fight it. They fail but it doesn’t matter so long as they get their money.
It appalls me that for using certain drugs, a person ends up in jail or prison, ends up with a felony conviction on their record and spends years incarcerated. Yet the first persons released due to over-crowding in our prisons are the truly violent criminals or worse, rapists and child molesters. MOST offend again with in one year (don’t know the exact statistics on this). Someone ends up battered, raped, molested or killed because the prison system lets them go since we must keep the drug user in jail! So stupid!!
No, I am not talking about drug users who rob and/steal to get money for their drugs nor am I talking about gang members nor am I talking about the vermin who push drugs on children. These people NEED to be off the streets but those who rob and steal wouldn’t need to do that if the govt (or whatever – I hate for the govt to be involved in anything since they mess it up) legalized the drugs and they were sold as alcohol is sold. Gangs would not be raking in millions in cash if the product they sell was legal as alcohol.
Our constitution was designed to allow each of us to be personally responsible with little intervention from the federal government. Gradually, our rights and liberties have been trampled on so badly that we even have to get a permit to pick mushrooms (the kind you eat)!! The govt can take your property (eminent domain), and micro-manage way too many areas of our lives. This has to stop and stop now.
I’ve got around a hundred articles posted on the Populist site alone, plus numerous others. I’v explained and analysed repeatedly the fact that the misnamed Patriot Act(and its subsequent incarnations and close cousins like the Military Commissiois act, etc) is illegal and unconstitutional. I’ve sent a lot of this to my alleged representatives. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. There is a way to amend the Constitution and that is spelled out in the document. However there is absolutely no way that the Constitution can be amended by executive or legislative fiat! None!
The Patriot Act is similar to the Enabling Acts that Hitler used to destroy the civil rights of the Germans under the Weimar Republic. Even much of the wording is the same. The Patriot Act was prepared long before 911, and was trotted out and voted upon almost immediately after. No one even had a chance to read it, just like the bail out bill, put on the floor after some heavy scare tactics about martial law if it didn’t pass, then voted on before anybody even read it. Of course it gave away the store.
We do not live under a Constitutional Government any more than the Germans did after the Nazis came to power. Our congress is a rubber stamp Reichstag just like Hitler had to legitimize his edicts. This has gon on so long now that nobody seems to notice anymore, except we old timers who lived through the depression and the war.
The rhetoric and spin has changed, but I see little actual change in the Obamanation from when we were being Bushwhacked. Millions can complain, then the Oligarchy does whatever it wants anyway, rubberstamped by the Legislature and the Executive.
Alisa, while I would take the position that you have the whole concept of how this government is supposed to be set up backwards – (hint: constitutions are written to limit government power, not the other way around) – I do find something that you’ve said to be far more important, and relevant to much of what I stand for:
“A character of government deriving its whole authority from the governed.”
I have never signed this “social contract” and this government rules over me by force, not by my consent. And, it’s immoral to think that I could sign a document and bind my children’s children’s children to follow what I’ve contracted for years and years before they ever lived.
So, while you make an important point, keep in mind that it also doesn’t matter about clauses, or conspiracies, or any other thing that you’re talking about here. I am not bound to this criminal government because I never gave my consent to them.
That is all.
Spoonerite:
It sounds like you’ve been reading the works of Lysander Spooner.
Point taken, however, I do believe that clauses do matter because it has made a great difference in my life. It has helped me to assert my rights with a lot more furvour and less compunction. It is in fact actual evidence that the Constitution does not apply to me, or anyone. State Constitutions have more validity, IF it has an enabling clause. Most states have removed the enabling clause from their Constitution without much ado from the people, again, via ignorance. By what right do our alleged legislator have to remove an enabling clause without the people’s knowledge?
Everywhere you go people talk as if the Constitution has some validity. It is worshiped with religious fervor by those without a clue as to what it means.
Another point is that any time the people VOTE or petition their representatives in Congress they are sanctioning a Government of the people, by the people, for the people, when in fact the people never sanctioned any government to act in their behalf in the first place, which is evidenced by the missing enabling clause.
The Constitution did not really stablish a democracy and the bill of rights, opposed by Madison(who wrote it) as not necessary, was only inserted in order to get the states to ratify it. And it did not stipulate any of the social laws imposd on the citizens since that time. All these laws are unconstitutional. The Bill f Rights simply stated explicit prohibitions of certain actions which the governments of the past had seriously abused. The only Constitutionally correct law passed in this respect was the Prohibition amendment, because it was recognzed that the government could not pass these type of social laws without first amending the Constitution. Since then no federal legislature has even pretended that it is acting in accordance with the Constitution. They simply pass social laws without bothering with this irksome practice. What is particularly offensive is that the members of the current oligarky controlling the U.S. government are the rich folks who are the major users of the most often abuses illegal drug, cocaine, with an estimated annual expenditure of $26 billion dollars, with all the MJ users a lousey $10 billion. Does anybody really believe some little MJ user making $5/hour is buying cocaine? But they are the ones in jail. The guy who claimed to be in the medical profession should look up the numbers on his fellow professionals. They are by far the largest users of illegal drugs (per capita) as well as the greatest abuse of legal drugs. But these guys are and will never be prosecuted because they have the power. So I say legalize at least MJ and prosecute cocaine users (ho,ho) and all this Bu—hit will end.
Uh, I do believe that there is a way to start the change. I know that you’ve all heard it before, but here it is again anyway:
Get rid of the Republican party. Wait, wait, I know the Democratic party is criminal also, but hear me out. If you wait until you can get them both at the same time, you will fail.
Shun the Republican Party over the next four years and ask everyone you know to do the same. Especially ask any Republican you know and explain why.
Once successful, change will come. The Republicans will be out of the picture and then if the Democrats have not changed sufficiently we can start the attack on them.
It would be insane to let the Republican PARTY back in. Since they are already the weakest party, there is where we should begin. While we are doing this, lets get a viable Independent Party going. If it’s not going to be the Populist Party lets look for common ground to form a Coalition of Independents.
There are a lot of good Republicans out there that would like to leave the current GOP. All they need is a viable alternative.
If we don’t try to do it – what will we have four years from now?
My understanding is that the Constitution was ratified by nine states without a bill of rights- Not sure exactly how they got the other states to ratify, because in the beginning all states were opposed to ratification and a bill of rights.
I would agree that the oligarky controlling the U.S. government are the rich folks. The rich folks are out of sight out of mind. They live in a different world from us regular folk. We have the federal government policing us daily – that’s what the rich pay them to do- police the masses – so they can stay rich.
Here a few quotes from the book Dynastic America and Those Who Own it by Henry Klein (1920) Politicians are controlled by the rich:
“This book proves that wealth is concentrated. History records that the decline of civilization in a nation begins with wealth concentration. ”
“The politics of this country is controlled by those of excessive fortune. In a democracy where candidates for office are selected by vote of the people, universal suffrage is considered the safeguard of republican institutions. Yet, under a republican form of government, excessive private fortunes have been permitted to develop until they threaten republican institutions themselves. ”
Here is just one example from the book:
“William McKinley was elected President in 1896, by the use of a campaign fund estimated in excess of $6,000,000. This sum was contributed by those who controlled industry and owned excessive wealth. Their chief aim was to continue a protective tariff so that foreign competition in business might be prohibited or restricted. It was during this “protective” period that industries grew into monopolies controlled by the few. The same amount of money was spend to re-elect McKinley in 1900, according to estimate. ”
“It is evident from the foregoing, that excessive private fortunes in the hands of the few, are used to elect “friendly” candidates to public office. “
Mr Backus, you make a really important point:
“…it did not stipulate any of the social laws imposd on the citizens since that time. All these laws are unconstitutional.”
All is the key word. I can hardly think of anything that this government does that actually does follow the constitution. When will we have enough of unlimited government?
“When will we have enough of unlimited government?”
There’s not much a government can do when the bankers control politics. The latest is that they (the bankers) want a global currency and a One World Government. Is that enough unlimited government for you?
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/594.html
When each individual understands their own human rights and that those rights apply to every individual human than we can see what we are doing to each other.
Leave a Comment