2010:warmest year ever since records began

[MSimon]

He isn't proposing to ban Viagra, he is pointing out that being legal is not stopping criminals from selling FAKE Viagra, or even real Viagra through the black market. His point is that legalizing illegal narcotics would not make the criminals go away either.

Yes, yes, exactly. So what I am saying can be understood, if people are only trying :)
Thanks Diogenes!

How do you explain the relative lack of an alcohol black market after the end of alcohol prohibition in America? An unfathomable mystery to be sure.

Why don't we have kids pushing alcohol on kids in our schools any more?

"Inability of the prohibition law to enforce prohibition is causing an increase in the number of young boys and girls who become intoxicated," declared Judge H. C. Spicer of the juvenile court at Akron, Ohio, a short time ago when two boys, aged 15 and 16 years, respectively, were arraigned before him. "During the past two years," he added " there have been more intoxicated children brought into court than ever before."

"Statement by Hon. William Cabell Bruce, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionr ... ildren.htm

So we have evidence from alcohol prohibition that prohibition increases the access of kids to the forbidden substance.

We also know from current research that illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than beer. I guess the policy does have its good points. Since it is obviously failing it is a sign that not enough resources have been committed. Despite going from $100 million a year to $25 billion a year at the Federal level. That is an increase of 250X in 40 years. Still not enough. Do you think that another doubling or three will make things better?

Just as our lefty friends tell us that the reason the stimulus did not work was that it was not big enough.

I know that evidence will have no effect on those whose consideration of the subject is faith based. But perhaps there are lurkers.

[MSimon]

I do like D's idea of killing off at least the dealers.

Of course a little BOE thinking can easily tell you what the results will be. Drug prices will go up. Which will attract more dealers. Ultimately increasing the supply.

Did I mention that Conservatives get stupid economically when it comes to drugs? Yes I did.

====

So what do the police have to say about what taking ALL the dealers off the street in a certain area actually does? They say it takes about 7 days for things to return to "normal". And of course there are more blocks to clear than we have police. And that gives the burglars and thieves free reign while the police are "busy".

"Prohibition drives up the value of banned substances astronomically, creating lucrative markets and worldwide networks of organised crime. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that any disruption of these markets through drug-law enforcement seems to have the perverse effect of creating more financial opportunities for organised crime groups, and gun violence often ensues."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 55131.html

I could have told you that without a study. In fact I did.

Peter Moskos of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition takes a look at what the drug war means from a law enforcement perspective.

As a police officer, I responded when citizens called 911 to report drug dealing. Those calls didn't tell me much, though, because I already knew the drug corners. And what could I do? When a police car pulls up to a drug corner, the corner pulls back. Dealers, friends, addicts and lookouts walk slowly away.

I didn't chase them. If I did, they'd ditch the drugs. What would I do if I caught them? Charge them with felony running? A smart dealer doesn't hold drugs and money and guns. He's got workers for that. Besides, an anonymous call to police doesn't give the legal "probable cause" needed for a search. So I'd walk up, perhaps frisk for weapons and stand there until "my" corner was clear.

But soon enough I'd have to answer another 911 call for drugs. And when I left, the crew would reconvene. One of my partners put it succinctly: "We can't do anything. Drugs were here before I was born, and they're going to be here after I die. All they pay us to do is herd junkies."

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... nkies.html

I know: we can eliminate probable cause an institute summary execution.

=======

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes

Not only are my conservative friends incapable of economics when it comes to prohibition. It appears that they lack cultural awareness as well.

The play quoted above "A Man For All Seasons" should have informed my conservative friends. Evidently it is to them a backwater of culture that has no applicability to the problem at hand.

[MSimon]

And I think there is an important lesson here. If killing dealers really works why do the countries that do it have fresh crops of dealers every year? Aren't executions enough to deter the trade? Evidently not.

====

I think to be really effective we will have to assign a monitor to every person in the nation to prevent any one from using the illegal substances. We could do it. Well maybe not one person for every person. The block monitor system used in the USSR might be a good compromise with economics. Of course even with that smuggling was rampant in the USSR. But it is a start.

Maybe implanted chips with bodily fluid monitors could work. Just think of it. A drug free country at last.

[Diogenes]

The Simple fact is, the downward life spiral starts with that first encounter with a drug.

Is that what you read in a newspaper or do you have some evidence? You know a recent peer reviewed article. Maybe something by a respected practitioner in the field.


Actually I do. Testimony from Nardo, Chicago, Bushwacker, and O.G. (old gangster) among others. That's just how they roll.

And all you know are the failures. The people who successfully use drugs are silent. Why? Well that sh*t is illegal and can get you serious jail time. Best to keep your head down and let the stupids take the rap.

The problem with that theory is that in practice they end up dealing with some really stupid people, and those stupid people lead the cops right to the ones trying to be circumspect. Not only that, they will narc you out to save their own skin, portraying the circumspect ones as some kind of big wheeler dealer. Their antics have to be seen to be believed. I swear to God, I saw this one crack whore trying to do a drug deal with two cops in full uniform and with their cars, perhaps 100' away.

Here is what medical doctors and drug counselors know. Care to refute it? With cites?

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ecret.html

Watchutalkinbout? Them doctors is frontin for their dope deals. They's big time dope dealers. That Doctor thang is jus a cover.

You know what I see around here a lot? People steeped in phlogiston theory arguing plasma physics. The stuff being peddled is 20 year old drug war reefer madness propaganda. We have learned (a few of us) some things since then. And none of it matches the tired old rhetoric.

Even the NIDA has come around to the fact that drugs do not cause addiction (I beat them to it by two or three years). So why still spout your tired nostrums? I suppose it is a lot easier than learning something new. Faith is always easier than reason. Which is why God invented Death. It prunes stupid ideas. Over time.

Yes it does, but some stupid meme's never die, so even though the proponents die, new ones are created to take their place.

William Halsted - the father of modern surgery was a heroin addict. While he was slicing and dicing folks. How did he manage? Well for one he kept it a secret while he was alive.

Edison? A coke head.

I'm still waiting for an answer on this question: how can policing fix a genetic problem? Evidence please.

Policing isn't an attempt to fix a genetic problem, it's an attempt to try to prevent bigger problems from occurring due to some people's lack of an ability to control their urges. If some of them are motivated by genetics, the police really aren't concerned about it. Worrying about that stuff is above their pay grade.

I'm still trying to figure out how drugs make people that don't use them stupid. Pavlov's dogs. Utter the word drugs and the brain freezes. Very convenient for those interested in Power and Control.

You see it on the left too. Mention CO2 and reason takes a vacation. Very convenient for those interested in Power and Control.

Can you see why your Masters hold you in such contempt? So easily led by the ring in your nose. Some get a CO2 ring. Some get the drugs are the spawn of the devil ring. Everybody gets a ring. Almost. And then the Masters encourage a fight between the tribes with the different nose rings in order to rob you blind. And I must say they are doing a darn good job. They understand your psychology better than you do.

They are extremely clever. Who could believe that they could convince that many actors to seriously screw up their lives and their health and even die, just to give me the false impression that drugs are really really bad. It's DIABOLICAL!

I've actually been trying to find the news stories regarding the people that I know who died from this stuff, but I'm not having much luck so far. I think all the stories are in the local paper, but I'm not interested in purchasing a subscription. (the owners are Party supporting Democrats)
It probably wouldn't have any significance from your perspective anyway. If the list of Phillip K. Dick's dead and brain damaged friends didn't make an impression, then I'm pretty sure the deaths of some of my former acquaintances won't either.

And the most amusing thing is most people think they were born with rings. That they are natural. Well yes. It is true. It is natural. And so is being ruled. Liberty is more difficult. It requires removing the ring. A scary thought for most. "Who will love me if I don't have a ring?" Some one else without a ring.

I'm all for freedom, but there have to be limits on that as well i'm afraid. As Edmund Burke put it :

"On all things there must be a controlling influence...the less of it that comes from within, the more must come from without. "

[MSimon]

Ah D. So you have anecdotes from the criminal underworld.

Have anything from Chicago's Gold Coast? Anecdotally of course.

But as I suspected you have no evidence. Just stories. Unless you get the Gold Coast sample and a sample of all the strata in between the Gold Coast and the criminal underground you have exactly nothing.

We have something like 20 or 30 million illegal drug users in the US. About 800,000 a year get arrested. That leaves greater than 95% who are untouched by the system. Got any data on their demographics? Well you are not alone. No one else has reliable numbers either. Why? Well would you want to go on record with a stranger that you are a user?

[Diogenes]

Oh yes. Do let us regard this as a case of LYING rather than wrecking someone's life. I personally consider the life destruction as more serious than the lying.

Do you support the death penalty for attempted suicide?

No.

[MSimon]

I'm all for freedom, but there have to be limits on that as well i'm afraid. As Edmund Burke put it :

"On all things there must be a controlling influence...the less of it that comes from within, the more must come from without. "

Nice of old Eddie to lay the ground work for authoritarian government. Nice of you to support him.

I'm a bit more American though.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

Evidently you are not Constitutionally capable of Liberty. You are not alone. It scares the pants off most modern Americans. Especially conservatives. They live in fear of Liberty because some one might make a mistake.

I also like this one:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have - Thomas Jefferson

So tell me your plan for a drug free America. How much government will it take? If $25 bn at the Federal level is not enough (obviously) what do you think it will take to get the kind of country you want? $50 bn? $100 bn? $200 bn? Get with one of your police officer friends and work out a plan.

My police officer friends tell me it is a waste of money herding junkies.

And while you are at it you might as well clean up the whole intoxicant mess. So include tobacco and alcohol in your plans.

I can see a drug, alcohol, and tobacco free utopia coming:

“The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.” Billy Sunday on the Joys of Prohibition.

Pauline Sabin's concern over prohibition grew slowly. Initially she favored the Eighteenth Amendment, explaining later, "I felt I should approve of it because it would help my two sons. The word-pictures of the agitators carried me away. I thought a world without liquor would be a beautiful world.""

Gradually, however, intertwined motherly and political concerns caused her to change her mind. Her first cautious public criticism of prohibition came in 1926 when she defended Wadsworth's opposition to the law. By 1928 she had become more outspoken. The hypocrisy of politicians who would support resolutions for stricter enforcement and half an hour later be drinking cocktails disturbed her. The ineffectiveness of the law, the apparent decline of temperate drinking, and the growing prestige of bootleggers troubled her even more. Mothers, she explained, had believed that prohibition would eliminate the temptation of drinking from their children's lives, but found instead that "children are growing up with a total lack of respect for the Constitution and for the law.""

In later statements, she elaborated further on her objections to prohibition. With settlement workers reporting increasing drunkenness, she worried, "The young see the law broken at home and upon the street. Can we expect them to be lawful?"" Mrs. Sabin complained to the House Judiciary Committee: "In preprohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children.""

Chapter 7 - Hard Times, Hopeful Times from Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionr ... ildren.htm

It will be the women of this country and their concern for their children that will be your nemesis.

[Diogenes]

He isn't proposing to ban Viagra, he is pointing out that being legal is not stopping criminals from selling FAKE Viagra, or even real Viagra through the black market. His point is that legalizing illegal narcotics would not make the criminals go away either.

Yes, yes, exactly. So what I am saying can be understood, if people are only trying
Thanks Diogenes!

How do you explain the relative lack of an alcohol black market after the end of alcohol prohibition in America? An unfathomable mystery to be sure.

Ever hear of Nascar? It was derived from Moonshiners running their product to their customers while out running the revenuers. They still make and sell illegal moonshine in various places throughout the south. I used to have a contact for the stuff, but I don't know if he can still get it. His uncle makes it back in Tennessee.

Why don't we have kids pushing alcohol on kids in our schools any more?

The profit margins are now too low in most cases to bother with doing it illegally, but like I said, you can still get moonshine if you make the right contacts.

"Inability of the prohibition law to enforce prohibition is causing an increase in the number of young boys and girls who become intoxicated," declared Judge H. C. Spicer of the juvenile court at Akron, Ohio, a short time ago when two boys, aged 15 and 16 years, respectively, were arraigned before him. "During the past two years," he added " there have been more intoxicated children brought into court than ever before."

"Statement by Hon. William Cabell Bruce, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionr ... ildren.htm

So we have evidence from alcohol prohibition that prohibition increases the access of kids to the forbidden substance.

My mother tells me that my grandfather acquired a special dispensation from a doctor (with the acquiesced knowledge of the Sheriff) to produce a certain quantity of beer for my Uncle, because he had intestinal injuries from an accident he suffered when he was a little boy. For some reason, he couldn't drink milk, so the doctor prescribed some quantity of homemade beer for him daily. My mother also says that the doctor expected (under the table, mind you) a weekly quantity of the product for his own personal consumption. Of course, Grandpa made whiskey and moonshine too, and sold that for money.

Just thought the story might amuse you.

We also know from current research that illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than beer.

There you go again, repeating that ridiculous statement. A rock of crack costs (at least) $ 20.00, and a parent would beat the dog crap out of a kid that messed with their crack. (Do you have any idea how a crack fiend behaves?) Beer costs $ 1.00, and a parent that drinks it won't be able to notice one missing now and again.

I guess the policy does have its good points. Since it is obviously failing it is a sign that not enough resources have been committed. Despite going from $100 million a year to $25 billion a year at the Federal level. That is an increase of 250X in 40 years. Still not enough. Do you think that another doubling or three will make things better?

The problem is not a money problem, it's a divided electorate problem. The electorate makes the costs go up because they are not willing to solve this problem by killing the dealers. It's like our intelligence services. They spend a fortune on electronic eavesdropping, when what really works is personnel in the enemy camps. We are strong on gizmos, but weak on spies. Other, more successful intelligence organizations rely far more heavily on spies and infiltrators. We just can't seem to get that many people to work for us out of a love for our country, so we have to resort to bribery and huge expensive electronic crap. (satellites, etc.)
Same sort of problem in drug interdiction. A country like Malaysia just shoots the troublemakers, and solves the problem far more cheaply.

Just as our lefty friends tell us that the reason the stimulus did not work was that it was not big enough.

They are truly morons, and are never correct about anything. I would be worried if they agree with you on anything.

I know that evidence will have no effect on those whose consideration of the subject is faith based. But perhaps there are lurkers.

Yeah, I have faith in what i've seen with my own two eyes over what some theoretician social engineer writes up in a report.

[MSimon]

I recently read an article by the accociated press which claims that over 1 trillion dollars was spent on the War on Drugs since it was first conceived by President Nixon in 1971. How is that possible? Have we really added over a trillion dollars to our national debt to prosecute the war on drugs? What has that war gained us?

The answer is shocking. Despite over 1 trillion dollars spent drug use is exactly the same now as it was when the War on Drugs was declared. Every year the amount of money we spend increases.

Here is the headline from the article:

After 40 years and $1 trillion, the U.S. drug war has met none of its goals

So if a trillion spent over 40 years has give us a null result how much money do you think will be required to have a measurable effect? Say cutting drug consumption by 20%.

That is your other nemesis. Money.

From the article:

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

President Obama is promising to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Want to see a system that is in collapse? Don't miss this one:

From the beginning, lawmakers debated fiercely whether law enforcement - no matter how well funded and well trained - could ever defeat the drug problem.

"It's an ongoing tragedy that has cost us a trillion dollars. It has loaded our jails and it has destabilized countries like Mexico and Colombia,"

Then-Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who had his doubts, has since watched his worst fears come to pass.

"Look what happened. It's an ongoing tragedy that has cost us a trillion dollars. It has loaded our jails and it has destabilized countries like Mexico and Colombia," he said.

In 1970, proponents said beefed-up law enforcement could effectively seal the southern U.S. border and stop drugs from coming in. Since then, the U.S. used patrols, checkpoints, sniffer dogs, cameras, motion detectors, heat sensors, drone aircraft - and even put up more than 1,000 miles of steel beam, concrete walls and heavy mesh stretching from California to Texas.

None of that has stopped the drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year - almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

Mexico as a failed state right snug against our southern border. Terrific accomplishment. In fact the whole region from Colombia to Mexico is a string of failed States.

In fact the U.S. may already be a failed state:

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government."
- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

Just like alcohol prohibition. Only more discreet. No point in wising up the marks.

[Diogenes]

I do like D's idea of killing off at least the dealers.

Of course a little BOE thinking can easily tell you what the results will be. Drug prices will go up. Which will attract more dealers. Ultimately increasing the supply.

Did I mention that Conservatives get stupid economically when it comes to drugs? Yes I did.

====


Except we have real world examples from countries that use this methodology. Strangely enough, they don't seem to be having a problem with people rushing in to fill the vacuum.
I say experiment trumps theory.

So what do the police have to say about what taking ALL the dealers off the street in a certain area actually does? They say it takes about 7 days for things to return to "normal". And of course there are more blocks to clear than we have police. And that gives the burglars and thieves free reign while the police are "busy".

This overlooks the fact that the dealers are not summarily executed. They are just inconvenienced for awhile. Were they known to have been shot and killed, I would stand to reason that it might take a lot longer than 7 days to return things to the previous drug dealing condition. Especially in light of the fact that the roaches check in, but they don't check out. i.e. no more replacements from getting out of prison.

"Prohibition drives up the value of banned substances astronomically, creating lucrative markets and worldwide networks of organised crime. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that any disruption of these markets through drug-law enforcement seems to have the perverse effect of creating more financial opportunities for organised crime groups, and gun violence often ensues."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 55131.html

I could have told you that without a study. In fact I did.

Yes, it's self evident, but it's not linear, it's a parabola with an asymptote rising to infinity when the negative feedback is sufficient. A transistor maximizes heat in it's quiescent range. Turn it fully on or fully off, and the heat is minimized. Push the cost of dealing high enough, and the system shuts down completely. (maybe a little leakage current.)

Peter Moskos of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition takes a look at what the drug war means from a law enforcement perspective.

As a police officer, I responded when citizens called 911 to report drug dealing. Those calls didn't tell me much, though, because I already knew the drug corners. And what could I do? When a police car pulls up to a drug corner, the corner pulls back. Dealers, friends, addicts and lookouts walk slowly away.

I didn't chase them. If I did, they'd ditch the drugs. What would I do if I caught them? Charge them with felony running? A smart dealer doesn't hold drugs and money and guns. He's got workers for that. Besides, an anonymous call to police doesn't give the legal "probable cause" needed for a search. So I'd walk up, perhaps frisk for weapons and stand there until "my" corner was clear.

But soon enough I'd have to answer another 911 call for drugs. And when I left, the crew would reconvene. One of my partners put it succinctly: "We can't do anything. Drugs were here before I was born, and they're going to be here after I die. All they pay us to do is herd junkies."

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... nkies.html

I know: we can eliminate probable cause an institute summary execution.

No one is calling for that. That would be worse than the disease. I say give em a fair trial, and if found guilty, THEN execute them!

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!


A Very witty analogy, tarnished only by it's lack of fit to the discussed issues.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes

Not only are my conservative friends incapable of economics when it comes to prohibition. It appears that they lack cultural awareness as well.

The play quoted above "A Man For All Seasons" should have informed my conservative friends. Evidently it is to them a backwater of culture that has no applicability to the problem at hand.

How many experiments must we witness before you are willing to entertain the death of your theory? Your theory is a dead parrot. It's dead, it's not pinning for the Fjords of it's birth. It has shuffled off the mortal coil!




Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(The owner does not respond.)

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?

Owner: What do you mean "miss"?

Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Owner: We're closin' for lunch.

Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you
show...

(owner hits the cage)

Owner: There, he moved!

Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!

Owner: I never!!

Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!

Owner: I never, never did anything...

Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour
ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and
VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Owner: No no! 'E's pining!

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

(pause)

Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of parrots.

Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Owner: I got a slug.

(pause)

Mr. Praline: Pray, does it talk?

Owner: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Praline: Well.

(pause)

Owner: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

[MSimon]

As long as we are trading anecdotes I have one for you:

1stcav May 18, 2010 at 2:23PM

how is this for Goals met, and covert operations.
Some years back while stationed in Germany I watched a program on the armed forces network, I believe it was 20/20.
There was a pilot speaking on condition of anynomity. He said that he was paid by our government (CIA) to fly narcotics into the USA to different distribution sites. All this was done in order to inflate law inforcements records of drug seizures in order to receive more money for the war on drugs the upcomming year.

Now that is what i call a war on drugs. Our gov. fighting themselves.
Little history lesson. LSD, (AKA acid) was manufactured and produced by the US gov. in hopes that it would have some sort of tactical use in combat. Same goes for Extacy( mmda) was invented and produced by the us.gov. for use as another possible tacticle use, then switched to use as a merrige counseling drug. Can you say BACKFIRE.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... llion.html

D,

If that is true you are being played for a sucker. Or a tool.

i.e. they have gotten you to give your 100% support for total government waste. As I said - the big boys are much cleverer than you and they have your psychology down pat. They can steal as much from you as they want as long as they claim it is for fighting drugs.

I can't wait until you wake up. You are going to be really pissed. Because no one wants to be treated like a sucker a.k.a. the other guy's ATM.

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

You also might like this bit on our chief drug importation agency (the CIA).

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/n987sa.html

They have been importing heroin and various other drugs since 'Nam. The drugs imported depending what was available in the markets where the CIA operated. Now connect the dots to the Colby statement.

And just for amusement go back and read the transcripts of the Iran Contra hearings and see if you can figure out what the "kilos" in Ollie North's notebook were referring to. Rice? Beans? Also check out the testimony of Blandon.

[MSimon]

No one is calling for that. That would be worse than the disease. I say give em a fair trial, and if found guilty, THEN execute them!

We rack up 100,000 drug dealers a year - minimum. We execute about 100 people a year (roughly). One every 3 1/2 days. You are going to have to ramp that up to about 275 a day (1,000X). Good way to get rid of your enemies though. Just tell the police they are drug dealers and let the murder factory take its course. That also will strain our courts. Which is going to cost you. How much strain? How do you complete 275 murder trials a day? Do you realize how much expensive lawyer labor that will take to give each and every one a fair trial? And bailiffs. And court reporters. etc. Did I mention all the jails that will have to be built to house all the dealers awaiting trial? And how about prisons for all those awaiting execution or who are appealing their cases. It is going to cost you.

And just wait until word gets out about the few who were condemned on flimsy evidence. There will be an uproar and your grand scheme will be over.

Of course the most likely outcome is that the dealers will rat out each other to gain market share. That will put the murder rate up (it is all about market share - no rules). And we should see a corresponding increase in innocents murdered in the cross fire.

Let me tell you how it worked in my town of 150,000. The DEA, FBI, and the locals put down a whole gang. As predicted by the FBI in the local paper the murder rate went up and some kid was killed in the crossfire. It made headlines. For weeks. There have been no other major raids in our town since - for 25 years.

Think about that one: the cops know who the dealers are and don't go after them. More malfeasance.

My town is known for its Christian Conservatism. If you can't sell vigorous prosecution of the drug war here I doubt if you can sell it anywhere. Getting children killed to attempt to stem the flow of drugs is not a trade off most of the Christians in this town are willing to make. Which is another nemesis: public sentiment is turning against you.

Malfeasance, Murders, Mothers, Money. All working against you. Right now mothers are not the biggest factor. When they do become fully engaged the war will be over. Mothers ended alcohol prohibition.

Now since your fantasies of mass murder are unlikely to be realized do you have a plan B?

[MSimon]

esyrinphx May 18, 2010 at 1:36PM

These government programs are always more about headlines, jobs, and funneling money to special interests and never about results. The only way we will ever get to see sanity with this stuff is to vote for people who will slash budgets dramatically across the board.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... llion.html

Now there is a person who knows his government.

[Diogenes]

I'm all for freedom, but there have to be limits on that as well i'm afraid. As Edmund Burke put it :

"On all things there must be a controlling influence...the less of it that comes from within, the more must come from without. "

Nice of old Eddie to lay the ground work for authoritarian government. Nice of you to support him.

You need to read more of his writings before you assert stuff like that. He was big into "natural law" and he simply acknowledged that society simply cannot afford to put up with people who want to do evil.

Edmund Burke is considered to be the Father of Conservatism, he was very anti-socialist as his writings regarding the French revolution indicate.

I'm a bit more American though.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

You do know he was originally a British Subject, and spent a great deal of time in France? Thomas Jefferson was an idealist, given to lofty statements and high flying rhetoric. When they wanted a flowery piece of writing, they picked him because he could weave his magic with words, rather than the rest, who were more dry and functional.

I'm also pretty sure that his notions of Liberty and yours are not exactly the same thing. He believed that people should live through the toiling of the soil, and had disdain for the Urban mindset. But even so, he is right about this. A Libertarian America would be better than a Liberal America, but it would only be a transitory condition. Libertarianism carries it's own suicide pill as part of it's philosophy.

Evidently you are not Constitutionally capable of Liberty. You are not alone. It scares the pants off most modern Americans. Especially conservatives. They live in fear of Liberty because some one might make a mistake.

I do not regard drugs as an issue of liberty any more than I regard diseases as an issue of liberty. They are threats to society in general, and to people around the drug users or the disease spreaders specifically.

I also like this one:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have - Thomas Jefferson

So tell me your plan for a drug free America. How much government will it take? If $25 bn at the Federal level is not enough (obviously) what do you think it will take to get the kind of country you want? $50 bn? $100 bn? $200 bn? Get with one of your police officer friends and work out a plan.

As i've mentioned before, the problem is not one of money. Americans try to substitute money for EVERYTHING, but the coin of the realm cannot pay this debt. It is a problem of attitude, and it is likewise just another symptom that things are seriously out of wack. As i've mentioned, a good first step would be to execute the drug dealers. Beyond that, the government needs to stop making it easy and convenient to have babies on the government dime. Female parent headed households usually do not have a woman strong enough to raise a well adjusted child, so the government should stop distorting nature by subsidizing this crap.
Notify everyone, that *IF* the government pays your delivery charges, you will be reversibly sterilized, so you won't put the taxpayers into the position of having to pay for any more of your stupidity. By the same token, the father needs to be tracked down and sterilized.

Don't like them apples? Don't shake our tree!

I could go on about how interconnected a lot of these problems are, but we both know that wouldn't sway you in the least, so I think i'll just save myself the trouble.

My police officer friends tell me it is a waste of money herding junkies.

Herding junkies is indeed a waste of time. Preventing people from ever becoming Junkies, is not, but we aren't really trying to do that. We play these silly games because the electorate is more touchy feelie than it is analytical and resolved.

And while you are at it you might as well clean up the whole intoxicant mess. So include tobacco and alcohol in your plans.

Tobacco is slowly dying, and I expect it to mostly disappear in my lifetime. Alcohol is too heavily ingrained into human history, and society is perfectly willing to tolerate the death and destruction it causes because of what they regard as the positive benefits. It's not going anywhere.

I can see a drug, alcohol, and tobacco free utopia coming:

It wouldn't be a Utopia, it would just be less sucky than what we have now. Deaths and injuries from Alcohol, drugs, and Tobacco might disappear, or at least be substantially reduced, but this wouldn't solve all the problems of mankind. Why anyone would assert that it would can be explained by the agenda they are pushing.


Perhaps these deaths and injuries are a good thing? Would society be worse off if we didn't have these deaths and injuries?

“The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.” Billy Sunday on the Joys of Prohibition.

.

Yeah, i'd rather talk about Wayne Wheeler, a much more fascinating person, and one much more responsible for Alcohol prohibition than Billy Sunday. His Anti Saloon League was mostly responsible for Prohibition, and he was the primary mover and shaker of the whole organization. You might say he single handedly accomplished prohibition.

Apparently Wheeler acquired his dislike for other people drinking when as a small boy, his neighbor in a drunken rage, chased him down and stabbed him with a pitchfork. He recovered, but somehow he got the notion that alcohol was bad.

I still have yet to hear from you about how stupid the progressives were for pushing Women's suffrage? Yeah, I know, you'd rather talk about Billy Sunday.

Pauline Sabin's concern over prohibition grew slowly. Initially she favored the Eighteenth Amendment, explaining later, "I felt I should approve of it because it would help my two sons. The word-pictures of the agitators carried me away. I thought a world without liquor would be a beautiful world.""

Gradually, however, intertwined motherly and political concerns caused her to change her mind. Her first cautious public criticism of prohibition came in 1926 when she defended Wadsworth's opposition to the law. By 1928 she had become more outspoken. The hypocrisy of politicians who would support resolutions for stricter enforcement and half an hour later be drinking cocktails disturbed her. The ineffectiveness of the law, the apparent decline of temperate drinking, and the growing prestige of bootleggers troubled her even more. Mothers, she explained, had believed that prohibition would eliminate the temptation of drinking from their children's lives, but found instead that "children are growing up with a total lack of respect for the Constitution and for the law.""

It really was a foolish way to eliminate liquor consumption. It was an attempt to force a notion on the people from above and suddenly, rather than to give them time to adjust to the idea gradually. I think the way they are wiping out tobacco would have worked just as well for alcohol.

In later statements, she elaborated further on her objections to prohibition. With settlement workers reporting increasing drunkenness, she worried, "The young see the law broken at home and upon the street. Can we expect them to be lawful?"" Mrs. Sabin complained to the House Judiciary Committee: "In preprohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children.""

This is another variation of the argument, "Since we can't enforce the law, we should just declare the conduct legal! " I notice they never seem to try and apply this exact logic to murder, rape and robbery, just to laws they don't like.

Chapter 7 - Hard Times, Hopeful Times from Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig

http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionr ... ildren.htm

It will be the women of this country and their concern for their children that will be your nemesis.

Are you referring to the fact that Government subsidized Welfare babies grow up to be criminals and drug dealers because they don't have a respectable male role model in their life? If that is what you are referring to, then you are of course right. It is one of the areas that I have identified as playing a large role in narcotics distribution and addiction.

If only the government would stop interfering with society through their stupid social engineering efforts.

[Diogenes]

As long as we are trading anecdotes I have one for you:

1stcav May 18, 2010 at 2:23PM

how is this for Goals met, and covert operations.
Some years back while stationed in Germany I watched a program on the armed forces network, I believe it was 20/20.
There was a pilot speaking on condition of anynomity. He said that he was paid by our government (CIA) to fly narcotics into the USA to different distribution sites. All this was done in order to inflate law inforcements records of drug seizures in order to receive more money for the war on drugs the upcomming year.

Now that is what i call a war on drugs. Our gov. fighting themselves.
Little history lesson. LSD, (AKA acid) was manufactured and produced by the US gov. in hopes that it would have some sort of tactical use in combat. Same goes for Extacy( mmda) was invented and produced by the us.gov. for use as another possible tacticle use, then switched to use as a merrige counseling drug. Can you say BACKFIRE.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... llion.html

On a related note, the Germans invented Methamphetamines in the thinking that it would help their soldiers overcome fatigue, and be able to fight harder when the need was great. Unfortunately, Hitler got into the stash, and really screwed up the world. How much differently would the world have been had that one addict not been exposed to the stuff?

Think about it.

D,

If that is true you are being played for a sucker. Or a tool.

i.e. they have gotten you to give your 100% support for total government waste. As I said - the big boys are much cleverer than you and they have your psychology down pat. They can steal as much from you as they want as long as they claim it is for fighting drugs.

Yeah, this is far worse than "Do it for the children" excuse that they use for other idiot government spending. Actually, I think it's about the same. I do not doubt that a large portion of money spent on fighting the drug war is wasted. Government doesn't seem to know how to do anything efficiently, no matter what it is. It's the old problem of "other people's money."

I can't wait until you wake up. You are going to be really pissed. Because no one wants to be treated like a sucker a.k.a. the other guy's ATM.

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

You also might like this bit on our chief drug importation agency (the CIA).

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/n987sa.html

They have been importing heroin and various other drugs since 'Nam. The drugs imported depending what was available in the markets where the CIA operated. Now connect the dots to the Colby statement.

And just for amusement go back and read the transcripts of the Iran Contra hearings and see if you can figure out what the "kilos" in Ollie North's notebook were referring to. Rice? Beans? Also check out the testimony of Blandon.

Yes, the government often does stupid and contradictory things, like declaring tobacco to be a health hazard necessitating law suits against tobacco companies, while the Agriculture dept. is busy subsidizing tobacco growers.

For what it's worth, another anecdote related to what you mention above.

A friend of mine who was a Vietnam vet, (The same one that became a transvestite.) worked on helicopters during and after the war. He said that it was not uncommon to discover engines and other aircraft parts filled with heroin as they were shipped back from Vietnam.


As for Ollie North and the CIA, I regard their involvement with drugs to have been an acceptable trade off for the goals they were attempting to attain. As bad of a scourge as drugs are, the expansion of communism is far worse. If the demands of the task require putting up with a lesser evil to defeat a far greater evil, then I simply count that as the cost which must be paid. "The Butcher's Bill" so to speak.