We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

[MSimon]

Now see, we've had this discussion before. I pointed out how you alleged the whole thing was a "Wallet Extraction scheme" and I pointed out that you had previously said it was all "Racism" in action.

There is no reason it can't be both.

Why not a racist wallet extraction scheme?

What you are arguing is that a house can't be blue and large. It can only be blue or large.

Seriously. Where did you study rhetoric? From Democrats?

=====

It doesn't matter in any case. The latest nationwide poll FWIW shows support for pot legalization at 52%. Now is it actually 52%? Doubtful. What we do know is that the number has been increasing steadily for the last 30 years. And at some point it will get large enough to make a political difference. Not quite in 2010 (excepting Calif.). Very likely in 2012 and for sure by 2016.

As the socialists like to say: the correlation of forces is not in your favor. Now how do you use that knowledge to your best advantage to get the things that are possible like fiscal sobriety? My thesis is that the best thing to do that is to take the issue out of their hands by preempting them. What Hart calls a retreat in order to foil an attack. Let them punch empty air. You are not morally strong enough to do that. Nor is the Republican Party in general. It is not called the stupid party for nothing.

As to not letting the legalizers to slice away. You need to be able to do a spoiling attack. The problem is you have no moral basis that will convince those whose mind is not made up. I've been sharpening my skills on this subject for 30 years. I have seen the arguments for prohibition getting weaker over time.

I'm even willing to let you win the arguments on heroin and cocaine for now so I can focus on the weakest link. When the pot war goes down it will take a lot of the war on other drugs with it. Then it will be a mop up operation to clean out the remnants of a severely morally weakened enemy.

You now know my plan and the plan of the legalizers in general. Try to stop us. If you can.

Let me point out that is not my mind you have to change. You have to change the minds of the youth. And your fear mongering will not work because they live in a vast population of users and they know the extremes you try to use to scare the ignorant don't match their experience. By not studying the question in depth and detail you cede to me on the question of reality. A fatal error. And the same with Skipjack whose notions are totally fantastic. You both sound like geezers from another era. You know - stone age. A dumb way to argue. From my point of view ideal.

Reefer Madness used to be a good sell to the ignorant. Once ignorance is gone it is counter productive.

And you know - once youth figures out your view of Reefer is totally fantastic (takes about 3 seconds among the college educated where refer is very prevalent) they will begin to question your veracity on other drugs. A dumb way to argue. From my point of view ideal.

Something like 75% of the people say the drug war isn't working. All you have to do to make your case is to make it work with tools you can actually get. Better yet do it with the tools you now have. You could start with demanding more action against drug gangs. Of course you won't get it because it increases the number of innocents killed. Bad politics. People get outraged when a two year old gets killed in the crossfire. That makes politicians back off. At least that is the way it worked in my town. There has not been a major raid in 25 years in my town. They are not busting grow op stores here (we have two in a town of 150,000 - which ought to tell you something).

Now about fiscal sobriety - let us save $25 bn a year at the Federal level by zeroing out the Drug War.

[MSimon]

Let us now have some fun. Willie Nelson is a notorious pot smoker and now an icon in the South. Look at the local reaction to a bust of his band for reefer:

RALEIGH - North Carolina's singing senator has recorded a song is critical of the marijuana and alcohol charges filed against members of singer-songwriter Willie Nelson's band in January. (Click here to listen to song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTPsbNc3 ... r_embedded )

"It just looks like a special effort was made to go on that bus and cite them with marijuana," said state Sen. Charlie Albertson, D-Duplin.

The song, called "Leave the Man Alone," refers to the Jan. 28 citations issued to six members of Nelson's band on either possession of marijuana or possession of non-tax-paid alcohol. The band's bus was outside the Duplin County Events Center in Kenansville.

Nelson canceled the show that evening. His staff said the show was canceled because the musician's hand was hurting. But one woman who was at the canceled concert said practically no one believes that was the real reason.

"I don't think it was his hand at all," said Sylvia Hawes, 70, of Rose Hill. She said she believed the alcohol and marijuana charges prompted the cancellation.

"Nobody believes that here," said Hawes, who along with her two grandsons had gone to the concert. "I think Willie just did that (said it was because his hand was hurting) to save face. I think just as soon as he found out what had happened he told them to pull out of there. It was over."

Hawes said no one blames Nelson for pulling out of the concert. "They blame the law enforcement for coming in and trying to play cowboy," Hawes said.

Albertson, who is not seeking re-election to the Senate this year, said he doesn't know if he'd have recorded the song had he decided to run for another term. He said there was some concern that people might not like the song. But the reaction to the song has surprised him.

"I've sung this song for two church groups," Albertson said, adding that the song is being played on country radio stations in New Bern, Greenville and Smithfield.

from:

http://www.gastongazette.com/articles/s ... eneca.html

More on "Leave The Man Alone":

Charlie Albertson was so upset about the bust of one of Willie Nelson's tour buses and citations given to six people on the bus before a North Carolina show on Jan. 28 that he's written a song about it. "They should've let the man alone," the state senator sings. "Let him play and sing his songs." Albertson, who represents Duplin County where the bus raid took place at the Duplin Event Center in Kenansville and is not running for re-election, explains why he wrote the "Leave the Man Alone: "It just looks like a special effort was made to go on that bus and cite them with marijuana."

http://www.celebstoner.com/201003073889 ... alone.html

This is North Carolina not San Francisco. And from reactions I have read elsewhere I can tell you that the whole action made the locals VERY Unhappy. A whole town and people from the surrounding area made very unhappy at this action. More converts for prohibition? I doubt it.

How far is it from "Leave The Man Alone" sung in churches to leave us all alone? Not far at all.

Or how about this Hank Williams Jr. Song with the lyrics "we make our own whiskey and own smoke too". Not to mention the outlaw bikers in the video. and "North California and South Alabam" And you know what they do in North California don't you?

When the rednecks side with the hippies it is over. You have lost America.

[MSimon]

At a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting this week our Deputy Secretary of State for the Americas, Mr. Valenzuela was asked by the chairman about the murders of 16 school kids at a birthday party in Mexico. His response was ‘the murders were a sign of success’ of the policy of Mexican President Calderone. I did not believe my ears. After the hearing I asked 2 others if I had heard correctly. Yes. I reviewed the tape at home. Yup. Like body counts in Vietnam and Iraq, dead students are a sign of success. Who knew?

Is that going to gain converts to the drug war? Or the converse?

On Tuesday I attended a press conference in the Capitol. The IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) endorsed the Webb Commission bill. 17 of my colleagues in full dress uniforms stood behind four Senators asking the Congress for a speedy passage* of the bill. The IACP represents 20,000 Top Cops. It is the only major group to endorse the Webb bill. The rest are fighting it for all their worth.

I never thought the IACP would support this bill. I was wrong. On this occasion it is good to be wrong.

A serious defection. When the troops are leaving your army it will be hard to keep it in the field.

Last month in the hallway of the Heritage Foundation, I ran into Ron Brooks, chief lobbyist for the nation's 69,000 narcotics officers (one cop in 12 is a narcotics officer). He smugly stated that my organization only had a few thousand members vs his 59,000 strong organization. I countered that a solid poll had just shown that 22 percent of all active duty cops would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. This percentage meant about 225,00 cops feel like I do. Per the same poll, a majority of cops felt that marijuana should be just a ticket, not an arrest. I told him that he and the narcs favored prohibition because it was a big, overtime check and job security. He became upset and stormed off.

Even the narcs know it is just a wallet extraction scheme. Plus more defections among the troops.

Senator Pryor (D-AR) had the courage ( no other Senators attended the event) to call a hearing on the ‘Corruption of federal officers by the Mexican Drug Cartels.’ One witness stated that the polygraph exam was washing out 60% of the applicants. The audience was stunned at such a figure.

Then came the bad news. The Border Patrol only polygraphs 15% of applicants. The witnesses testified further that the Drug Cartels are hiring people who then apply to the Border Patrol. Why receive only one paycheck? And you wonder how drugs flow across the border like beer in a German bar?

So our border cops are corrupt. Way cool.

“So what numbers can you ‘hang your hat on?” asked Wooldridge. “In 2005 our federal government reported these sobering numbers: One – 110 million Americans had tried an illicit drug at least once. Two – 35,000,000 had used an illicit drug the previous year. More importantly, ask yourself what is the most crucial question for you and your children. Is it how much has drug use has gone up or down or how easy is it for your kids to buy drugs from marijuana to heroin. Of course it is drug availability which is the crucial question and that is why the Prohibition Crowd never, ever wants to discuss that aspect.

I have noted the same here. No one wants to talk about "illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than beer."

All quotes from:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... notes.html

So how is making war on 10% of all Americans going to work for you? Or the 1/3 of all Americas who are current and former users. That means just about every one in America has a relative who is vulnerable or was vulnerable to the police. Any place else it would be called a police state.

I can tell you that the cops busting one of my relatives in NJ has turned the whole family against the drug war. That is 30 or 50 of us from one bust.

[Diogenes]

Now see, we've had this discussion before. I pointed out how you alleged the whole thing was a "Wallet Extraction scheme" and I pointed out that you had previously said it was all "Racism" in action.

There is no reason it can't be both.

Why not a racist wallet extraction scheme?

What you are arguing is that a house can't be blue and large. It can only be blue or large.

Seriously. Where did you study rhetoric? From Democrats?

It's not so simple as you would suggest. Money making schemes cannot afford to be racist. As Walter Williams is fond of pointing out, Black dollars are just as valuable as white dollars, so the only color business cares about is green.


You would have us believe that a "Wallet Extraction scheme" can afford to throw away money to pursue non-profitable racial goals. Like I said, you need to do some fancy explaining to make sense of this, and the "Big Blue House" theory doesn't even start.

=====

It doesn't matter in any case. The latest nationwide poll FWIW shows support for pot legalization at 52%. Now is it actually 52%? Doubtful. What we do know is that the number has been increasing steadily for the last 30 years. And at some point it will get large enough to make a political difference. Not quite in 2010 (excepting Calif.). Very likely in 2012 and for sure by 2016.

As the socialists like to say: the correlation of forces is not in your favor. Now how do you use that knowledge to your best advantage to get the things that are possible like fiscal sobriety? My thesis is that the best thing to do that is to take the issue out of their hands by preempting them. What Hart calls a retreat in order to foil an attack. Let them punch empty air. You are not morally strong enough to do that. Nor is the Republican Party in general. It is not called the stupid party for nothing.

As to not letting the legalizers to slice away. You need to be able to do a spoiling attack. The problem is you have no moral basis that will convince those whose mind is not made up. I've been sharpening my skills on this subject for 30 years. I have seen the arguments for prohibition getting weaker over time.

That is one possible explanation. The other is that you have become so obsessed about your own position that you believe that because the arguments appear weaker to you, that they also appear weaker to others. The Slaves of Dogma often believes their own rhetoric.

I'm even willing to let you win the arguments on heroin and cocaine for now so I can focus on the weakest link. When the pot war goes down it will take a lot of the war on other drugs with it. Then it will be a mop up operation to clean out the remnants of a severely morally weakened enemy.

How big of you to offer me something beyond your power. Reminds me of Lincoln Freeing the slaves in territory he couldn't control, and keeping them oppressed in areas which he DID control.

Don't you find it interesting that your side might be surging during a collapse? I assure you, my side will surge on a rebuilding. You cannot suspend the laws of nature. (for very long.)

You now know my plan and the plan of the legalizers in general. Try to stop us. If you can.

I only wish I could stop you from going on and on about it. It is d@mned annoying to discover that no subject can be discussed without you pushing it into a conversation about DRUGS, which I have repeatedly said is a trivial issue in the overall scheme of things.

You are like the progessives, who won't stop harping on their one note samba. Incessant focusing on the silly to the detriment of the serious. I sometimes worry that you are becoming dangerously obsessed with this issue, and I often wonder if I should just stop discussing this so as to prevent you from stroking out or something.

Let me point out that is not my mind you have to change. You have to change the minds of the youth. And your fear mongering will not work because they live in a vast population of users and they know the extremes you try to use to scare the ignorant don't match their experience.

Oh, Yes! Let us defer to the good judgment of YOUTH! And CALIFORNIA Voters! Ha ha ha... You are actually suggesting that their ignorance is some kind of virtue?

By not studying the question in depth and detail you cede to me on the question of reality. A fatal error. And the same with Skipjack whose notions are totally fantastic. You both sound like geezers from another era. You know - stone age. A dumb way to argue. From my point of view ideal.

These statements remind me of something.... Wait a minute... it will come to me.....

Okay, Got it !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ-hYPAMFQ

Yeah, you're invincible!

Reefer Madness used to be a good sell to the ignorant. Once ignorance is gone it is counter productive.

And you know - once youth figures out your view of Reefer is totally fantastic (takes about 3 seconds among the college educated where refer is very prevalent) they will begin to question your veracity on other drugs. A dumb way to argue. From my point of view ideal.

If it were only as you have suggested, you would have a point. I have been arguing Crack, Meth, Heroin. You are the one that has been arguing Marijuana. I keep pointing this out, trying to set you straight, but you keep ignoring it. I'm beginning to think you are doing it on purpose. How many times do I have to tell you, *I* am talking about hard drugs, not wimpy marijuana.

Why do you keep bringing Marijuana (Knife) to a Crack/Meth/Heroin (Gun) fight?

Something like 75% of the people say the drug war isn't working. All you have to do to make your case is to make it work with tools you can actually get.

Well, to be fair, there are a lot of Ignorant and stupid people in the Nation today. 52% are stupid right off the bat. The other 23% cannot be faulted for being mislead because of propaganda put out by people such as yourself and your friends. Goebbels demonstrated that if you repeat something often enough, no matter how ridiculous, eventually the people will believe it.


I actually don't think it would take all that much to set your cause back to the stone age. I think Glenn Beck could do it by himself, or any other major media figure that can show the dark side of drug usage. If they were as incessant as you, and the "Gay agenda" crowd, it would eventually move the numbers.

Don't think that moving public opinion has anything to do with being right, or well reasoned. Unfortunately, the public behaves much like a big herd. That's how we are in the mess we're in now. Not thinking, but lack thereof.

Better yet do it with the tools you now have. You could start with demanding more action against drug gangs. Of course you won't get it because it increases the number of innocents killed. Bad politics. People get outraged when a two year old gets killed in the crossfire. That makes politicians back off. At least that is the way it worked in my town. There has not been a major raid in 25 years in my town. They are not busting grow op stores here (we have two in a town of 150,000 - which ought to tell you something).

Now about fiscal sobriety - let us save $25 bn a year at the Federal level by zeroing out the Drug War.

Yeah, that'll put a serious dent in out budget deficit! You would have us believe that we don't get anything for that 2.5% of our trillion dollar deficit. I'm quite certain that it puts a lot of bad people away regardless, and is therefore still worth it.

I'm willing to bet that it is far more effective, and far more within the mandate of what our government is SUPPOSED to do, than is the expenditures for most of the other 975 billion.

[MSimon]

It's not so simple as you would suggest. Money making schemes cannot afford to be racist.

Of course they can if they are run by criminals (those in the street and those in government). You are confusing black markets with legal markets. The Drug War was begun as a racist enterprise and has existed that way for 90+ years. See:

Drug War History

But in a way you are correct. The objects of the Drug War Racism are beginning to object. Finally.

This week the California NAACP endorsed a marijuana legalization initiative that will appear on the state's ballot in November, citing dramatic racial disparities in marijuana arrests. A report issued by the Drug Policy Alliance to coincide with the NAACP endorsement finds that blacks in California's 25 largest counties are two to four times as likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though survey data indicate they are no more likely to use the drug. The findings of the DPA study (PDF), which was led by Queens College sociologist Harry Levine, are similar to those of a 2008 study that Levine did for the New York Civil Liberties Union.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/01/calif ... ks-marijua

Follow the link for links to the cited articles. So I think the NAACP has made my point.

The question is: do you own your own body or is it the property of the collective? Because if you don't own your own body then it is reasonable for government to control what you eat (the Obama care BMI index requirements), what you smoke (tobacco), and anything else that that you might do to "harm" yourself.

Now I assume you object to the nanny state. But why? You have already accepted philosophically the nanny state. All that is left for you is to object to this or that particular nannyism. A rather weak position to argue from.

I personally object to ALL nanny state initiatives. Without reservation. A rather stronger position.

http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/11368.html

It is no coincidence that back when America had a much freer market, no Federal Reserve or persistent income tax, no Departments of Education or Health and Human Services, no national price controls, federal gun laws, and all the other things conservatives often claim they do not like, America also had no drug laws of significance. The freedom to control one’s own body was not seen as a federal issue, just as education and welfare weren’t. For the State to expropriate the means of consumption is socialistic, and burdened with all the same moral and practical problems as the worst socialist economic programs.

and

Yes, drugs can be very harmful. So can automobiles, cigarettes and high-fat diets—all of which kill more Americans every year than all illegal drugs combined. Back in the early 20th century—before the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, or the regulatory-welfare state—anyone could walk into a drug store and buy cocaine or heroin. “Heroin” itself was a brand name trademarked by the company that produced it, Bayer.

Once you let them get their nose under the tent there is no end to the trouble they will cause.

First they came after the druggies, but I did not stand up to them because I didn't use drugs. Then they came for the cigarette smokers, but I did not stand up to them because I didn't smoke tobacco. Then they came for the fat people....

If the government goes after alcohol you will have no grounds to stand on because alcohol does way more harm than illegal drugs.

And slowly step by step each new nannyism will lead to the next because you have accepted the premise.

[Diogenes]

Let us now have some fun. Willie Nelson is a notorious pot smoker and now an icon in the South. Look at the local reaction to a bust of his band for reefer:

RALEIGH - North Carolina's singing senator has recorded a song is critical of the marijuana and alcohol charges filed against members of singer-songwriter Willie Nelson's band in January. (Click here to listen to song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTPsbNc3 ... r_embedded )

"It just looks like a special effort was made to go on that bus and cite them with marijuana," said state Sen. Charlie Albertson, D-Duplin.

The song, called "Leave the Man Alone," refers to the Jan. 28 citations issued to six members of Nelson's band on either possession of marijuana or possession of non-tax-paid alcohol. The band's bus was outside the Duplin County Events Center in Kenansville.

Nelson canceled the show that evening. His staff said the show was canceled because the musician's hand was hurting. But one woman who was at the canceled concert said practically no one believes that was the real reason.

"I don't think it was his hand at all," said Sylvia Hawes, 70, of Rose Hill. She said she believed the alcohol and marijuana charges prompted the cancellation.

"Nobody believes that here," said Hawes, who along with her two grandsons had gone to the concert. "I think Willie just did that (said it was because his hand was hurting) to save face. I think just as soon as he found out what had happened he told them to pull out of there. It was over."

Hawes said no one blames Nelson for pulling out of the concert. "They blame the law enforcement for coming in and trying to play cowboy," Hawes said.

God forbid that we should have a set of laws that treats everyone equally, celebrities and common folk alike. Don't people understand that some people are better than others?

Albertson, who is not seeking re-election to the Senate this year, said he doesn't know if he'd have recorded the song had he decided to run for another term. He said there was some concern that people might not like the song. But the reaction to the song has surprised him.

"I've sung this song for two church groups," Albertson said, adding that the song is being played on country radio stations in New Bern, Greenville and Smithfield.

from:

http://www.gastongazette.com/articles/s ... eneca.html

More on "Leave The Man Alone":

Charlie Albertson was so upset about the bust of one of Willie Nelson's tour buses and citations given to six people on the bus before a North Carolina show on Jan. 28 that he's written a song about it. "They should've let the man alone," the state senator sings. "Let him play and sing his songs." Albertson, who represents Duplin County where the bus raid took place at the Duplin Event Center in Kenansville and is not running for re-election, explains why he wrote the "Leave the Man Alone: "It just looks like a special effort was made to go on that bus and cite them with marijuana."

http://www.celebstoner.com/201003073889 ... alone.html

This is North Carolina not San Francisco. And from reactions I have read elsewhere I can tell you that the whole action made the locals VERY Unhappy. A whole town and people from the surrounding area made very unhappy at this action. More converts for prohibition? I doubt it.

How far is it from "Leave The Man Alone" sung in churches to leave us all alone? Not far at all.

Or how about this Hank Williams Jr. Song with the lyrics "we make our own whiskey and own smoke too". Not to mention the outlaw bikers in the video. and "North California and South Alabam" And you know what they do in North California don't you?

When the rednecks side with the hippies it is over. You have lost America.

Yeah, America is looking more lost everyday. I hope that what comes after it can salvage the good parts of it while leaving the bad. We are now advocating the notion that a cult of personality can trumping the equal application of the laws. History has been down that path before, and is doing it again currently. In the past, that did not turn out so well.

[Diogenes]

At a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting this week our Deputy Secretary of State for the Americas, Mr. Valenzuela was asked by the chairman about the murders of 16 school kids at a birthday party in Mexico. His response was ‘the murders were a sign of success’ of the policy of Mexican President Calderone. I did not believe my ears. After the hearing I asked 2 others if I had heard correctly. Yes. I reviewed the tape at home. Yup. Like body counts in Vietnam and Iraq, dead students are a sign of success. Who knew?

Is that going to gain converts to the drug war? Or the converse?

You're absolutely right! When someone kills 3000 people, (er excuse me, I mean 16) we should roll over and let them have what they want so they don't hurt us anymore!

On Tuesday I attended a press conference in the Capitol. The IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) endorsed the Webb Commission bill. 17 of my colleagues in full dress uniforms stood behind four Senators asking the Congress for a speedy passage* of the bill. The IACP represents 20,000 Top Cops. It is the only major group to endorse the Webb bill. The rest are fighting it for all their worth.

I never thought the IACP would support this bill. I was wrong. On this occasion it is good to be wrong.

A serious defection. When the troops are leaving your army it will be hard to keep it in the field.

You are pointing to legislation coming from THIS congress as a positive thing? Are you trying to tell me they are idiots on everything else but this? Occam's razor would suggest they if they are morons on every other issue, then they are probably stupid on this one as well. They are probably just pandering for the Hippie/Redneck Coalition vote!
These, are of course, the Minds I want running MY country !

Last month in the hallway of the Heritage Foundation, I ran into Ron Brooks, chief lobbyist for the nation's 69,000 narcotics officers (one cop in 12 is a narcotics officer). He smugly stated that my organization only had a few thousand members vs his 59,000 strong organization. I countered that a solid poll had just shown that 22 percent of all active duty cops would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. This percentage meant about 225,00 cops feel like I do. Per the same poll, a majority of cops felt that marijuana should be just a ticket, not an arrest. I told him that he and the narcs favored prohibition because it was a big, overtime check and job security. He became upset and stormed off.

Even the narcs know it is just a wallet extraction scheme. Plus more defections among the troops.

Why are you pussyfooting around? Ask cops what they think about Crack. Tell people the truth. That you regard Crack and Marijuana as EQUALLY within your rights! Deception doesn't become you, but I understand why you have to use it.

I fully well know the majority of people I encounter are more Liberal/Libertarian than I am. I fully well know the people I am most likely to encounter are not going to agree with me, sometimes vehemently!

I make no attempts to hide my beliefs, or "finesse" them onto other people. I don't pretend to want one thing when in fact I want another. I don't care about peer pressure, I have the courage of my convictions, even on this nothing issue that you are obsessed with.

You pursue a course of covert incrementalism because you don't believe people would accept your eventual goal without being manipulated into it. The fact that you have to so consciously hide your intentions should tell anyone all they need to know about your goals. Social Engineering indeed!

Senator Pryor (D-AR) had the courage ( no other Senators attended the event) to call a hearing on the ‘Corruption of federal officers by the Mexican Drug Cartels.’ One witness stated that the polygraph exam was washing out 60% of the applicants. The audience was stunned at such a figure.

Then came the bad news. The Border Patrol only polygraphs 15% of applicants. The witnesses testified further that the Drug Cartels are hiring people who then apply to the Border Patrol. Why receive only one paycheck? And you wonder how drugs flow across the border like beer in a German bar?

So our border cops are corrupt. Way cool.

Yeah, they could even be on the Soviet Payroll! What a cause for celebration! We have traitors! Halleluia!

“So what numbers can you ‘hang your hat on?” asked Wooldridge. “In 2005 our federal government reported these sobering numbers: One – 110 million Americans had tried an illicit drug at least once. Two – 35,000,000 had used an illicit drug the previous year. More importantly, ask yourself what is the most crucial question for you and your children. Is it how much has drug use has gone up or down or how easy is it for your kids to buy drugs from marijuana to heroin. Of course it is drug availability which is the crucial question and that is why the Prohibition Crowd never, ever wants to discuss that aspect.

I have noted the same here. No one wants to talk about "illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than beer."

Okay, now I understand. You simply aren't reading what I write. (this has been the umpteenth time i've pointed this out, but you still keep repeating that crap line.) Perhaps if I write bigger, you might catch this piece of information.


A Rock of Crack costs $ 20.00.


A Beer costs $1.00.


A Crack fiend will beat the living hell out of a kid trying to steal his crack.

A parent won't even notice if a kid gets a beer out of the Fridge.

All quotes from:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... notes.html

So how is making war on 10% of all Americans going to work for you? Or the 1/3 of all Americas who are current and former users. That means just about every one in America has a relative who is vulnerable or was vulnerable to the police. Any place else it would be called a police state.

I can tell you that the cops busting one of my relatives in NJ has turned the whole family against the drug war. That is 30 or 50 of us from one bust.

Once the government turned the entire SOUTH against them. A stance on principal is not based on how many supporters or opponents you have. When people are doing wrong, they are not going to be happy when someone makes them stop.

[MSimon]

America lost? I don't think so. I am just trying to return the Nation to what it was before Progressives and Progressive Conservatives started strangling it. Back to 1913 is a start. You know. When Conservatives actually worked against the Progressive agenda instead of joining it.

God forbid that we should have a set of laws that treats everyone equally

I'm with you there. Parity for pot smokers and alcohol drinkers.

I think making illegal drugs as hard for kids to get as beer is a start.

I can't wait for Skippjack to pipe up about how unfair such a move would be for criminals.

http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/11368.html

Yes, drugs can be very harmful. So can automobiles, cigarettes and high-fat diets—all of which kill more Americans every year than all illegal drugs combined. Back in the early 20th century—before the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, or the regulatory-welfare state—anyone could walk into a drug store and buy cocaine or heroin. “Heroin” itself was a brand name trademarked by the company that produced it, Bayer.

And what was the opiate addiction rate that so scared the 1914 Congress? .25% And what is it now after 90+ years of fighting opiates? About the same. You do have to admit that dealing drugs is way more profitable for criminals than robbery. So there is that.

I think Compassionate Conservatism has its points. But being compassionate to the economic welfare of criminals is going too far.

[Diogenes]

It's not so simple as you would suggest. Money making schemes cannot afford to be racist.

Of course they can if they are run by criminals (those in the street and those in government). You are confusing black markets with legal markets. The Drug War was begun as a racist enterprise and has existed that way for 90+ years. See:

Drug War History

But in a way you are correct. The objects of the Drug War Racism are beginning to object. Finally.

This week the California NAACP endorsed a marijuana legalization initiative that will appear on the state's ballot in November, citing dramatic racial disparities in marijuana arrests. A report issued by the Drug Policy Alliance to coincide with the NAACP endorsement finds that blacks in California's 25 largest counties are two to four times as likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though survey data indicate they are no more likely to use the drug. The findings of the DPA study (PDF), which was led by Queens College sociologist Harry Levine, are similar to those of a 2008 study that Levine did for the New York Civil Liberties Union.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/01/calif ... ks-marijua

Follow the link for links to the cited articles. So I think the NAACP has made my point.

You ought to realize your argument is in trouble when it is being supported by the NAACP. Those Poverty Pimps and Race Hustlers wouldn't be agreeing with you unless you were wrong.

I noticed you conveniently ignored the reasons I cited why crime is concentrated in Black neighborhoods and why Crack is so much more deadly than powder.

The question is: do you own your own body or is it the property of the collective? Because if you don't own your own body then it is reasonable for government to control what you eat (the Obama care BMI index requirements), what you smoke (tobacco), and anything else that that you might do to "harm" yourself.

You own your body, but that does not give you the right to use it to shoot at other people. You own it with caveats. Putting drugs in your body causes damage to others. That's why they outlawed it. It isn't racism, it isn't a wallet extraction scheme, it's experience with the effects of narcotics on people.

Just using drugs, encourages others to use them as well. You cannot split the hair fine enough to find a place where you can drug yourself in isolation. You go to an island, by yourself, or with like minded people, and you prevent any influence from getting to innocents, and you have a point. You have just reached a condition where it's all your decision, and your decision alone, but that's not reality.

The reality is, people want to do their drugs, and live among others whom will be pulled into the same bad behavior because it looks like fun. THAT is the major injury of drugs!

Have no dependents, and keep it completely away from the next generation, and all your points are valid.

Now I assume you object to the nanny state. But why? You have already accepted philosophically the nanny state. All that is left for you is to object to this or that particular nannyism. A rather weak position to argue from.

I personally object to ALL nanny state initiatives. Without reservation. A rather stronger position.

http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/11368.html

It is no coincidence that back when America had a much freer market, no Federal Reserve or persistent income tax, no Departments of Education or Health and Human Services, no national price controls, federal gun laws, and all the other things conservatives often claim they do not like, America also had no drug laws of significance.

A friend of mine who reads this website points out to me that back during the Robber Baron era, we tried lassez faire in everything. We started scaling it back when we noticed that it was causing problems. We did this with economics, (Sherman Anti-Trust act, Interstate Commerce Act.) and we did it with drugs. It was necessary to address serious problems that were occuring.

The freedom to control one’s own body was not seen as a federal issue, just as education and welfare weren’t. For the State to expropriate the means of consumption is socialistic, and burdened with all the same moral and practical problems as the worst socialist economic programs.

and

Yes, drugs can be very harmful. So can automobiles, cigarettes and high-fat diets—all of which kill more Americans every year than all illegal drugs combined.

High fat diets don't infect other people. Cars kill people accidentally, and serve a useful purpose the vast majority of the time. Cigarettes DO encourage others to smoke, and KILL a huge number of people every year, and serve no beneficial purpose. Cigarettes are a drug

The only reason illegal drugs can't match the deaths caused by Cars and Cigarettes is because they are ILLEGAL. If they were legal, they would easily surpass deaths from all other causes.

Back in the early 20th century—before the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, or the regulatory-welfare state—anyone could walk into a drug store and buy cocaine or heroin. “Heroin” itself was a brand name trademarked by the company that produced it, Bayer.

Yeah, they used to sell asbestos and leaded paint too, but the more people learn about dangerous products, the faster they got banned.

Once you let them get their nose under the tent there is no end to the trouble they will cause.

First they came after the druggies, but I did not stand up to them because I didn't use drugs. Then they came for the cigarette smokers, but I did not stand up to them because I didn't smoke tobacco. Then they came for the fat people....

If the government goes after alcohol you will have no grounds to stand on because alcohol does way more harm than illegal drugs.

And slowly step by step each new nannyism will lead to the next because you have accepted the premise.

When being fat lures other people to be fat, and then they start robbing and stealing to buy fattening food, then you might have a point. Till then, it is a false analogy.


Alcohol and Cigarettes do a TREMENDOUS amount of damage, and they are legal. What you want to do is add a dozen more substances that will do MORE damage!

Yeah, that's gonna help things.

[MSimon]

You ought to realize your argument is in trouble when it is being supported by the NAACP.

I suppose we can discount Heisenberg then because he worked for the Nazis.

And you are going to love this. I'm raising money for firedoglake to help end the drug war.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... arted.html

As Churchill once said:

Winston Churchill. ... "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

OTOH I'm supported by Milton Friedman.

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

I'm of course surprised to find you supporting socialism. But Conservatives are funny that way.

And I have the support of William Buckley:

http://newamericamedia.org/2010/08/why- ... rm-law.php

And George Schultz and former NM R Governor Gary Johnson:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/just-say ... nitiatives

You see I believe prohibition is anti-liberty and unAmerican and I will make coalition with whoever is working to defeat it. What ever their views on anything else.

And now the bad news (for you):

Rasmussen has pot legalization at 51% nationally as of July.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/ ... -bias.html

What is important is not the specific results but the trajectory over the last 20 years.

As my former police detective friend says: pot prohibition has at most 5 more years to run nationally. If California passes its law. Oregon will be next (there are plans for 2011) and then....

Now had the Rs been smart they would have exempted users from the drug laws so that only dealers were affected. Eliminating most voters from the equation. At least for a while. But they are not called the stupid party for nothing.

Or if they were double smart they would have eliminated pot prohibition all together and focused on harder drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Or the drugs that are not quite so hard like cocaine and opiates.

[Diogenes]

You ought to realize your argument is in trouble when it is being supported by the NAACP.

I suppose we can discount Heisenberg then because he worked for the Nazis.

And you are going to love this. I'm raising money for firedoglake to help end the drug war.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... arted.html

As Churchill once said:

Winston Churchill. ... "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

OTOH I'm supported by Milton Friedman.

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

I'm of course surprised to find you supporting socialism. But Conservatives are funny that way.

And I have the support of William Buckley:

http://newamericamedia.org/2010/08/why- ... rm-law.php

And George Schultz and former NM R Governor Gary Johnson:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/just-say ... nitiatives

You see I believe prohibition is anti-liberty and unAmerican and I will make coalition with whoever is working to defeat it. What ever their views on anything else.

And now the bad news (for you):

Rasmussen has pot legalization at 51% nationally as of July.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/ ... -bias.html

What is important is not the specific results but the trajectory over the last 20 years.

As my former police detective friend says: pot prohibition has at most 5 more years to run nationally. If California passes its law. Oregon will be next (there are plans for 2011) and then....

Now had the Rs been smart they would have exempted users from the drug laws so that only dealers were affected. Eliminating most voters from the equation. At least for a while. But they are not called the stupid party for nothing.

Or if they were double smart they would have eliminated pot prohibition all together and focused on harder drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Or the drugs that are not quite so hard like cocaine and opiates.

You have the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. (Appeal to Authority) Your quantity of like minded thinkers is just proof that they agree with you, not that you (or they) are correct. If you get 300 million people to agree with you, that does not make you correct, merely a majority. I'd rather be correct.

[MSimon]

It don't matter who is correct. It matters who has the votes.

Once the policy changes then we will know who is correct. You know. Do the experiment. We have tried the prohibition experiment for 90+ years (a radical Progressive idea at its inception). It is time to do the conservative thing. Go back to the way things were before all this radical experimentation started.

Once we do the experiment we will see who is correct: the radicals or the conservatives.

If it doesn't work out we can always go back. A couple of years should tell.

[KitemanSA]

You have the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. (Appeal to Authority) Your quantity of like minded thinkers is just proof that they agree with you, not that you (or they) are correct. If you get 300 million people to agree with you, that does not make you correct, merely a majority. I'd rather be correct.

You have the fallacy of argumentum ad politetia. (Arguing from many faces... just like a politician) (made it up ) . You pulled the "most people agree with me" argument against me on this very issue.

I do agree with you, I'd rather you be correct too. Too bad your aren't

[Diogenes]

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast

At the same time, the U.S. government is cranking out much more "supply" than at any other time in the history of the United States. Thus, we are told by the U.S. government (and the Federal Reserve) that there are more "buyers" for U.S. Treasuries than at any time in history -- despite the fact those buyers have no money. But that is literally less than half of this farce.

This brings us to the final element of this charade: U.S. bond market "auctions." At the same time that the U.S. government reported the "economic miracle" of buyers-with-no-money buying more of something they don't want (at the highest prices), just so they can lose money, the U.S. government removed all "transparency" from these bond-auctions. Even bond traders with decades of experience report that they have no idea of who is actually buying these bonds. This is like an amateur magician who is so clumsy in performing his magic that he needs to turn out the lights while executing his tricks so that the audience doesn't immediately spot the ineptitude of his fraud.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/article ... 98740.html

[MSimon]

We now have two Pauls in Congress. Both libertarians as I understand it. Heh.

Audit the Fed.