Time for Media Control.

[Stubby]

Again you post evidence of exactly the opposite of your views.
And yet you don't see it.

The answer is in the first paragraph: illegal drugs. Imperial China tried the prohibition route and lost. The illegal drug suppliers (England, US etc) won then just as illegal drugs suppliers (cartels) are winning now in North America.

You have always asserted that what happened in China was the result of legalised drugs. You are wrong, just read your own evidence. China tried not one but 2 wars on drugs and lost.

The drug war is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

http://www.alternet.org/story/87702/i_w ... _a_failure



You have the highest incarceration rate in the world. You incarcerate a higher percentage of blacks than the South Africans during Apartheid.

This is you guys fighting the war on drugs:


And unfortunately you are taking us with you.

[MSimon]

Prohibition is a failed ideology.

Except for what would happen if we didn't have it.

http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm

Uh. In case you didn't notice we already have it. You just can't generally see it because it is illegal.

When opiates (including heroin) were generally over the counter (pre 1914) the opiate addiction rate in America was 1.3%.

In 2012 with opiates generally illegal (except for some medical purposes) the addiction rate is 1.3% All prohibition has done is to support criminals. It has done nothing to deter those who want opiates from getting them. Outside the need for some addicts to resort to crime or dealing to pay black market prices.

Prohibition because of its socialist nature (price supports for criminals) is going down. And because the Republicans are its last bastion of support, it will take them down too. Just as the demise of Alcohol Prohibition in 1932 hurt the Republicans for a generation.

America will become more socialist with the complicity of the Republicans. Proving once again that people get the government they deserve.

Most places that legalized (or decriminalized) have seen crime drop by 60%. This was true of the Marks Study in England (in the 70s IIRC) and in Portugal in the 2000 - 2012 era.

There are some things we can do to reduce the addiction rate. About 70% of female heroin users report being sexually molested in their youth. For male heroin users the number is 50%. The way to reduce heroin use for PTSD is to reduce assaults on children.

I can't wait until this becomes general knowledge (I'm doing my part) and the Democrats accuse the Republicans of using government to assault abused children. The Republicans will not win another Presidential election for decades.

Proving once again that people get the government they deserve.

Prohibition is in effect a price support system for criminals. I can't wait until the Ds accuse Republicans of supporting criminals. We are not there yet. But that day is coming. I intend to see to it.

And then there is the differential racial enforcement discussed by a former narcotics officer in this video:

http://youtu.be/HmgeCeGk--I

The Democrats will add provable racism to Republican crimes.

Of course you could head that off by starting a movement to demand that Prohibition be equally enforced among all the races. As the narcotics officer's supervisor said: "The gravy train will be over". Whites will not stand having 1/3rd of their male children in the criminal justice system.

So one way or another the failed ideology of prohibition is coming to an end. The only question is: will it take the Republicans with it? Given what I see from the Republican side these days I'd have to say yes. How many would want to be a part of a racist party that encourages abusing abused children?

And when all this becomes common currency how many would want to be a part of organized religions that not only let this happen but encouraged it? Religion will face another decline.

I look forward to it: Republicans and Religion going down together.

We are not there yet. And the Republicans may still have a change of heart. I don't expect it. Like the Pharaoh their hearts are hard. It will drown them.

Will the nation be the worse for it? Yes. But that is always the result of socialism.

[paperburn1]

[Diogenes]

Again you post evidence of exactly the opposite of your views.
And yet you don't see it.

The answer is in the first paragraph: illegal drugs. Imperial China tried the prohibition route and lost.

It is statements like this that cause me to ignore anything subsequent. It wasn't the prohibition of drugs that caused China's massive addiction, it was the LEGALIZATION of drugs, which caused China's massive addiction.


If we cannot even agree on what the facts are, I see no purpose in a discussion.

[Diogenes]

Prohibition is a failed ideology.

Except for what would happen if we didn't have it.

http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm

Uh. In case you didn't notice we already have it. You just can't generally see it because it is illegal.

That I should have to point out the difference between 2% and 50% to an engineer is just terrible.

[choff]

Again you post evidence of exactly the opposite of your views.
And yet you don't see it.

The answer is in the first paragraph: illegal drugs. Imperial China tried the prohibition route and lost. The illegal drug suppliers (England, US etc) won then just as illegal drugs suppliers (cartels) are winning now in North America.

You have always asserted that what happened in China was the result of legalised drugs. You are wrong, just read your own evidence. China tried not one but 2 wars on drugs and lost.

The drug war is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

http://www.alternet.org/story/87702/i_w ... _a_failure



You have the highest incarceration rate in the world. You incarcerate a higher percentage of blacks than the South Africans during Apartheid.

This is you guys fighting the war on drugs:


And unfortunately you are taking us with you.

Didn't the drug suppliers in China win because they had better guns.

[Stubby]

Again you post evidence of exactly the opposite of your views.
And yet you don't see it.

The answer is in the first paragraph: illegal drugs. Imperial China tried the prohibition route and lost.

It is statements like this that cause me to ignore anything subsequent. It wasn't the prohibition of drugs that caused China's massive addiction, it was the LEGALIZATION of drugs, which caused China's massive addiction.


If we cannot even agree on what the facts are, I see no purpose in a discussion.

You are such an ostrich.

[Stubby]

Didn't the drug suppliers in China win because they had better guns.

And what does that tell you about the war on drugs in North America?

It tells me that even if China had the massive weapons advantage we have now, they still would have lost their 2 wars on drugs.

We are losing the war. We have persnickety rules that handcuff us. And yet without these rules, our society as we know it would collapse.

[hanelyp]

Didn't the drug suppliers in China win because they had better guns.

And what does that tell you about the war on drugs in North America?

That we need to use our guns against the illicit drug suppliers more effectively?

China lost their war on drugs because they were outgunned.

We're doing poorly in our war on drugs because our effort is half hearted, with too many useful idiots blind to the societal harm of mind altering drugs. It doesn't help when the occupier of the white house is reputed to be a pot head, and his regime funnels guns into the hands to drug suppliers.

[Stubby]

China lost the war because the pushers had better funding, just like now.

[williatw]

That we need to use our guns against the illicit drug suppliers more effectively?
China lost their war on drugs because they were outgunned.

We're doing poorly in our war on drugs because our effort is half hearted, with too many useful idiots blind to the societal harm of mind altering drugs. It doesn't help when the occupier of the white house is reputed to be a pot head, and his regime funnels guns into the hands to drug suppliers.

Who thinks heroin/crack cocaine/crystal meth/opium are harmless "mind altering drugs"? For that matter who thinks hard liquor and nicotine are? Who are these many useful idiots that think they are? How many prez before Obama smoked pot (Bush jr and Clinton come to mind)? He has only been prez for 4yrs, the war on drugs has been going on for 4 decades, not like it was going great before he was elected. The corruption you alluded to predates Obama, guess that's what happens when you are selling an illegal, insanely overpriced product, endemic corruption is almost inevitable. Our "half hearted" efforts have given us the highest incarceration rates in the world...though I concede if only we let our gov mass execute people like Mao did that would probably work. Of course when he was done with the drug dealers/users, he went on to mass execute/starve 10's of millions more, either by direct intent or the incompetence of his agricultural policies.

[choff]

Sounds to me like the reason legalization is being opposed by presidents past and present is because of corruption. The future leaders break the law by using illegal drugs, this makes the practise of personally breaking other laws acceptible to these future leaders. As a result, they feel no guilt or remorse about punishing other people for doing the exact same thing they did. So the legalization movement gets hoisted on it's own petard.

[MSimon]

Didn't the drug suppliers in China win because they had better guns.

And what does that tell you about the war on drugs in North America?

That we need to use our guns against the illicit drug suppliers more effectively?

China lost their war on drugs because they were outgunned.

We're doing poorly in our war on drugs because our effort is half hearted, with too many useful idiots blind to the societal harm of mind altering drugs. It doesn't help when the occupier of the white house is reputed to be a pot head, and his regime funnels guns into the hands to drug suppliers.

China lost their war on drugs because of economics.

The more you interdict drugs the more they are worth on the black market. That encourages importers and dealers to get in the market. So the harder you fight the drug war the stronger your "enemy" gets.

You know - the right is usually good on economics but the economics of prohibition seems to elude them. It is a wonder.

All the British won was convenience. The drugs would still have come in.

In any case the Drug War will never be won in America as long as the US Government is importing drugs:

http://druglibrary.eu/library/books/McCoy/mccoy.pdf

And starting at 50:30 into this video and going for about 3 or 4 minutes

http://youtu.be/6CyuBuT_7I4

Police Officer Mike Ruppert details operations in which the CIA imported cocaine into America. Operation Watchtower was one such.

In April 1998, Celerino Castillo, a former top-level Drug Enforcement Agency operative, provided sensitive, first-hand testimony to the US Senate House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He told the Senators of his direct personal knowledge of massive CIA complicity in the drug trade.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id564.html

The folks here who think the purpose of the drug war is fighting drugs are dupes. It is heartbreaking to me to see such smart folks so easily fooled.


"Mike Ruppert drugs" is a good search term.

As is

"Celerino Castillo drugs"

The evidence is out there for anyone who cares to look.

[MSimon]

Sounds to me like the reason legalization is being opposed by presidents past and present is because of corruption. The future leaders break the law by using illegal drugs, this makes the practise of personally breaking other laws acceptible to these future leaders. As a result, they feel no guilt or remorse about punishing other people for doing the exact same thing they did. So the legalization movement gets hoisted on it's own petard.

Presidents Carter and Clinton have come out against the Drug War:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/12/demo ... hibitiion/

Now Clinton was up to his ears in CIA. That tells me that at least one faction of that organization has decided that the game is no longer worth the candle.

[MSimon]

Over two years later, the CIA admitted the reporter had been accurate when it was forced to disclose it had a "secret" arrangement with the US Justice Department. This agreement ensured that drug traffickers deemed to be "assets" or "contract employees" of the CIA would not be charged. The agreement had it roots in 1954, when the Justice Department agreed that the CIA, were free to decide if any illegal activities of its agents were subject to prosecution.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id564.html