cannabisnews.com: This Is Kerry On Drugs










  This Is Kerry On Drugs

Posted by CN Staff on July 15, 2004 at 09:26:32 PT
By Dave Kopel and Mike Krause  
Source: Reason Magazine  

For those who oppose the federal government's disastrous war on drugs, there are many things to dislike about the Bush Administration, not the least of which is its shameless—and dangerous—use of the war on terror to prop up the failed drug war and the accompanying $18 billion dollar bureaucracy. And there is no indication that four more years of a Bush presidency will offer anything but more of the same.But anyone who thinks a vote for John Kerry means a vote for a more liberalized approach to drug policy should think again. Candidate Kerry's choice for Homeland Security Advisor, Rand Beers, is a seasoned drug warrior who has already shown his loyalty to the well being of the drug war, no matter how many lives it destroys, or how many narco- terrorists are enriched along the way.
There are currently several drug-warriors serving in decision making posts within the Bush Department of Homeland Security; ex-DEA administrator Asa Hutchinson is now Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. And another ex-DEA chief, Robert Bonner , is Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Beers' drug warrior credentials go way back. As he put it in a 2002 deposition, "I first began to work in the counter-narcotics area in 1988 when I was on the National Security Counsel staff." More recently, before he quit his Bush White House position as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism and joined the Kerry camp, he served in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations' as Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs; the top cop and chief apologist for America's war on drugs in Latin America. He is also one of the architects of "Plan Colombia," the multi-billion dollar militarization of the drug war in Colombia (which is now funded as part of the "Andean Counterdrug Initiative"). As Beers continued in his 2002 deposition, "There was a series of strategy developments dating back, in terms of my involvement, to a 1999 development of a regional strategy for the Andean region. I was involved in the development of that strategy, and I had bits and pieces to do with most of the further development from a variety of different positions." The effects of Beers' proud achievement are worth looking at closely. In 1996-'97, the Clinton Administration decertified Colombia as a "cooperating" nation in the drug war. To stave off trade sanctions against lawful industries and a loss of U.S. foreign aid, Colombia began U.S. backed coca-eradication efforts, including slashing and burning on the ground and aerial herbicide spraying of coca fields. In 2000-'01, the U.S. cranked up financial aid to $1.3 billion and sent more CIA and Special Forcers "trainers" and civilian "contractors" to assist in further eradication and interdiction efforts. It has thus far been a smashing success…at destroying the livelihoods of subsistence farmers, which bizarrely enough, Beers considers a victory in the war on drugs. In 2001, Colombian peasants claimed that the herbicides the U.S. was spraying made them sick; complaining of skin rashes and diarrhea. But Beers had his own theory as to why already poor Colombian farmers were complaining. "The individuals who are being affected by the spraying are being affected economically," he told reporters, "If the spraying is successful, it kills their incomes." In its "Global Illicit Drug Trends, 2003" the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime credits U.S. eradication efforts with a 37 percent decline in Colombian coca cultivation between 2000 and 2002. The same report says this reduction came after a five-fold increase in Colombian coca production between 1993 and 1999. At the same time as the 37 percent decline in Colombian coca cultivation, the UN report continues, "Combining the three source countries (Colombia, Bolivia and Peru) translates into an overall reduction of 22 percent of the area under cultivation between 1999 and 2002." In other words, a reduction of Colombian cultivation has led to increased cultivation in other areas. In its 2003 narcotics control report on Peru, where the U.S. is also underwriting forced coca eradication, the U.S. State Department claims, "According to U.S. Embassy reporting, coca farmers received approximately $126 million from buyers for their coca leaf output in 2002. This total is only a fraction of the size of the total cocaine economy in Peru, which may equal 1.2 to 2.4 billion dollars or more annually (or 2 to 4 percent of Peru's GDP). Nearly all of the wealth derived from the cocaine economy accrues to narcotics traffickers and other criminal elements." So while Beers was happily killing the crops (both licit and illicit) of Colombian farmers, narco-traffickers and the terrorists who feed off the drug trade continued to eat well, simply moving their operations elsewhere in response to eradication efforts. The 2003 narcotics control report continues about Bolivia: "The successful reduction of coca cultivation in the Chapare (down 15 percent) was offset by a 26 percent increase in theYungas resulting in an overall increase of 17 percent…" And in Peru: "Due to the potential for social unrest, forced eradication was limited to non-conflictive areas" which consisted of abandoned fields and parklands while "…the extensive presence of high-density coca cultivation in the Monzon and Apurimac/Ene river valleys remains a major concern." In the odd world of the drug warrior, this too is considered a victory. In 2001, General Peter Pace, then Commander of the U.S. Southern Command (the U.S. military wing of the drug war) called Plan Colombia "successful" because drug producers are moving their operations elsewhere in Latin America. We're just beginning to get a glimpse of the havoc this relocation of drug production can wreak on the civil and economic health of other Latin American countries, but Beers is ready to turn this, too, to political advantage. In November of 2001 Beers took his "at any cost" defense of American narco-policy to a new level by attempting (and failing) to connect Colombian coca and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Colombia's largest communist terrorist group, with al Qaida. Beers gave a sworn deposition in a lawsuit filed by Ecuadorian subsistence farmers in U.S. Federal Court against DynCorp—a private contractor carrying out aerial eradication in Colombia. (Arias, et al. vs. DynCorp , et al.) The Ecuadorians claimed that herbicide sprayed over Colombia had drifted across the border and damaged both their health and crops. Beers argued that the case shouldn't go to trial because the fumigation program is vital both to the national security of the U.S. and the war on terror in Colombia, claiming "It is believed that FARC terrorists have received training in Al Qaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan." The FARC—accurately listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department—have become wealthy and powerful off the Colombian drug trade through protection rackets for coca growers and traffickers, the production and distribution of narcotics and control of local coca base markets. Beers' theory seemed to be that starving coca growers also cuts off funding for the FARC. In a later supplemental declaration, Beers recanted the claim of FARC terrorists training in Afghanistan, "I wish to strike this sentence. At the time of my declaration, based on information available to me, I believed this statement to be true and correct. Based upon information made available to me subsequent to the filing of the declaration, I no longer believe this statement to be true and correct." Exactly what "information" Beers had available at the time of his false statements is a source of some mystery. "There doesn't seem to be any evidence of FARC going to Afghanistan to train," a U.S. intelligence official told UPI. "We have never briefed anyone on that and frankly, I doubt anyone has ever alleged that in a briefing to the State Department or anyone else." According to a veteran congressional staffer: "My first reaction was that Rand must have misspoke... But when I saw it was a proffer signed under oath, I couldn't believe he would do that. I have no idea why he would say that." The "starve an Andean peasant to save an American cokehead" policy Beers defends has done nothing to protect the national security of the U.S., but rather is creating new political instability and terrorist alliances that can only serve to help along narco-terrorism in the Andean Ridge. In Peru, the communist terrorist group Shining Path, mostly crushed by Peru during brutal civil war in the 1990's is reportedly making a comeback. Beers himself, while still serving in the State Department told a 2002 Senate, "In 2001 the Shining Path had a slight resurgence in areas like the Huallaga and Apurimac Valleys, where cocaine is cultivated and processed, indicating the remnants of the group are probably financing operations with drug profits form security and taxation services." A February 8, 2002 Stratfor intelligence brief reported that, thanks to an expanding alliance with Colombian drug traffickers and the FARC, "Shining Path is trying to re-build its numbers and weaponry by working in the heroin trade. Peru is poised to become one of the world's heroin producers. According to the 2002 State Department narcotics control report, "There have been multiple reports of border crossings by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) into Peru. In 2002 there was the first report of gunfire being exchanged between FARC forces and the Peruvian National Police. The 2002 report continues, "Organized coca growers (cocaleros) in Peru staged a number of large protests during 2002, which intimidated the GOP into signing agreements to temporarily suspend coca eradication in certain regions, as well as to include cocalero representatives in discussions on revising Peru's counternarcotics law." It also describes a new Peruvian political movement, Llapanchicc, formed in the Apurimac River Valley cocoa growing region to defend indigenous farmers against forced eradication policies. U.S. drug policy has managed to create the first Peruvian indigenous political movement with the defense of coca growing as its central plank. Bolivia, which over the past decade vigorously eradicated coca with over $1 billion in support from the U.S., was considered the lone Latin American success story by American drug warriors. Until 2002, that is, when the drug war changed the political face of Bolivia and Evo Morales, a Fidel Castro clone and the candidate from the Movement Towards Socialism (SAM) garnered 22 percent of the popular vote in the Presidential race with the backing of Bolivian coca growers, only 4 percent shy of the winner. In 2003, Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada resigned and fled to the U.S. amidst violent protest. While the civil unrest that led to his leaving was partly due to income taxes and a natural gas export plan, it was also partly due to what columnist Robert Novak called, "The backlash to U.S.-sponsored coca eradication in Bolivia..." In any event, what is undisputed is that coca cultivation is back on the rise in Bolivia, growing almost as quickly as anti-U.S. sentiment towards forced eradication policies. (Cultivation is up 17 percent in 2002 according to the 2003 State Dept. narcotics control report.) If policy makers were tasked with making a plan to ensure widespread instability, corruption, lawlessness and a steady flow of illegal wealth for narco-terrorists, they would be hard pressed to come up with a policy more successful than that already in place in Latin America. That American drug-warriors are already in place in the new Homeland Security department should be worrisome enough. After all, American style liberty and the bill of rights are generally viewed as pesky impediments to the drug war mission, and counter-terrorism as secondary to the well being of the bureaucracy. But that the presidential challenger intends to place at the top of the Homeland Security bureaucracy a key architect and defender of a failed, cruel, destructive war on some of the poorest people on this planet is especially depressing. Those trying to decide who to vote for based on what the next four years of drug policy may bring will find themselves in much the same position as a Colombian subsistence farmer—somewhere between a rock and a hard place. Rocky Mountain News columnist Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 10 books. Mike Kraus is a senior fellow at the Independence Institute. Note: Starve a peasant, feed a terrorist. Source: Reason Magazine (US)Author: Dave Kopel and Mike Krause Published: July 15, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Reason FoundationContact: letters reason.comWebsite: http://www.reason.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Colombia Drug War Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/colombia.htmJohn Kerry and Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18324.shtmlKerry: End Medical Marijuana Prosecutionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18114.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #33 posted by Zero_G on July 15, 2004 at 19:49:07 PT
MIRV's? + Latin America Policy
I was under the impression that multiple warhead ballistic missles were phased out in the Reagan era. The drug war and the concept of counter-insurgency are intertwined in Latin-America, and neither party has a good record. Not even Jimmy Carter, who at least tried to decriminalize pot. Contra aid did not start under Reagan. And Hugo Chavez is under an electoral attack, with Carter (according to Prof. James Petras, Binghamton University) helping to funnel money to the opposition under the guise of monitoring the election. Article at:http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PET407A.htmlArticle starts: On August 15, 2004, Venezuelan voters will decide on a referendum, which has the utmost world historic and strategic significance. What is at stake is nothing less than the future of the energy world, the relations between the US and Latin America (particularly Cuba), and the political and socio-economic fate of millions of Venezuela's urban and rural poor.If Chavez is defeated and if the Right takes power, it will privatize the state petroleum and gas company, selling it to US multinationals, withdraw from OPEC, raise its production and exports to the US, thus lowering Venezuelan revenues by half or more. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by mayan on July 15, 2004 at 18:14:20 PT
shrox...
Besides your well taken points, most military experts concede that China's entire navy couldn't take out one of our CSG's. Why do we have seven on their way there? We only have two left on the mainland...the Nimitz and the Eisenhower. The Eisenhower isn't even seaworthy as it's reactor is being refueled. Setting the stage...Something big is coming, says CIA director:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=22&art_id=qw1089863462314U232Washington Post calls Bush moves to postpone US elections “appropriate”:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/wash-15j.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by shrox on July 15, 2004 at 17:42:54 PT
Hey Mayan
Hey Mayan, I knew about the carriers, I was concerned they would be taken out with one MIRV, they are all within the footprint of on missile. How smart is that, placing them in a group? It is not as if they need a convoy, and one of the first rules in combat is don't bunch up! I think Bush is not a very good strategist, he does not wield power very gracefully, more of the clunky weight of a mace rather than a finesse of a Samurai sword...
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by RasAric on July 15, 2004 at 17:39:25 PT
Two finger puppets on the same hand
This little dog & pony act is getting old fast. Just when I thinks it's reached the bottom they stoop a bit lower. For a while now, our government has pandered to special interests; those of which have nothing to do with freedom...In fact quite to the contrary. They are further restricting our freedoms as each day passes.As a democracy it makes no sense to promote this bi-partisan style election.
When a current President plans on running for another term, I think we ought to have a candidate from each and every interested party. 
We should vote for a candidate and THAT candidate would run against the current president.This way we can comfortably vote our conscious first and if all else fails then have another opportunity to vote for the "lesser of two evils" .
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by mayan on July 15, 2004 at 17:14:23 PT
shrox...
There could very well be Martial Law by then. Why are we(U.S.) sending seven carrier strike groups(CSG's) to the coast of China? We have never placed seven in one place ever before! We have also recently sent at least one squadron of stealth bombers to South Korea. Shades of the pre-9/11 war games? The CSG's will arrive there just in time for the Democratic & Republican National Conventions later this month...conventions that, according to the RepubliCrats and corporate media, may be the target of a "terror attack". If we are expecting attacks from middle eastern terrorists then why are we sending the bulk of our Navy to China? A staged attack could mean the beginning of pre-emptive wars against Iran,Syria,Saudi Arabia...or North Korea. Is Bush going after the remainder of the the "axis of evil"?If Martial Law is declared, both the elections and Our Constitution will be suspended indefinitely. The facists will not tolerate dissent. They may see this as their chance to eliminate all who stand in the way of their long-range plans once and for all. I pray that I'm wrong but the sh*t may hit the fan real soon. Postponement of the November Election - by Michael C. Ruppert:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_election_delayed.shtmlThey did it once, they can do it again... 9/11 - ARE AMERICANS THE VICTIMS OF A HOAX?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on July 15, 2004 at 17:11:56 PT
Overeating Akin to Drug Abuse
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=97&ncid=751&e=8&u=/hsn/20040715/hl_hsn/studiesovereatingakintodrugabuse
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by E_Johnson on July 15, 2004 at 16:44:29 PT
Wolgaang are you saying....
"...violations under Clinton than under Reagan and Bush the Elder combined. Democrats are not our friends on this issue."So you are claiming that it was the Republicans who came up with 128 votes for Hinchey-Rohrabacher?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by WolfgangWylde on July 15, 2004 at 15:46:35 PT
More people were arrested for marijuana...
...violations under Clinton than under Reagan and Bush the Elder combined. Democrats are not our friends on this issue. Reason is a Libertarian magazine, and they're just calling a spade a spade. Sorry if it disrupts anyone's utopian idea that Kerry will be a friend to pot-smokers. If anything, he'll crack down harder to pander to the Right. Just like Clinton.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by goneposthole on July 15, 2004 at 15:39:19 PT
Democrats are playing dirty politics
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/articles/0702coverstory.htmlThe Arizona Democratic party sued to have Nader removed from the ballot. Kerry wants to win the election so he can be emperor.Party's over for Nader.
 
Why even bother with an election? Neither Kerry nor Bush are qualified to be a 'leader'. Look where George Bush is leading us. All Kerry represents is just more war party politics, just the Democrats version. Kerry will not be in favor of legalization of cannabis. I'd bet the new fall crop of cannabis that will be harvested, that's for sure. If you don't mind being disappointed, vote Bush or Kerry; if you get to vote. If not, what does it matter?Cannabis is one great plant in the plant kingdom, legal or not.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by shrox on July 15, 2004 at 15:25:51 PT
No November election
Two months ago on another forum I predicted that the election in November 2004 will be delayed. Bush will declare that the safety of the voters at the polls cannot be assured, or that the votes and ballots themselves are in jepordy and the count cannot be verified. Just watch.shrox
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by global_warming on July 15, 2004 at 14:58:32 PT
Election 2004
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=FB9713A8-8AF1-41CF-AB07E79E79EDE25E
John Kerry Addresses NAACP
VOA News
15 Jul 2004, 16:42 UTC
John Kerry 	
Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has criticized President Bush for refusing to speak to the country's oldest and largest civil rights group.Speaking Thursday at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, Mr. Kerry said a U.S. president needs to talk to all people. He said if elected president he will be a "uniter."President Bush declined to address the NAACP convention for a fourth year in a row, citing a scheduling conflict.White House spokesman Scott McCllellan said Thursday the president has great respect for the NAACP. But he says the group's current leadership has engaged in "hostile political rhetoric," and is not interested in "a constructive dialogue."He added that President Bush will continue to reach out to the African American community, including addressing the Urban League next week."George has some problems with speaking to Black Folks, after what he did to them folks down in Florida. The previous post about Barthwell the "female auntie Tom" nicely illustrates how greedy people cozy up to the man.I do not know if Kerry will be a better leader of our country, but I will vote for him, this is my way of "slapping" George Bush's face and the clowns he rode in with.-gw 
 Constitutional Crises
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by billos on July 15, 2004 at 14:43:22 PT
Yucko the Clown.............
could be the other choice and I would vote for him.Bush has GOT TO GO.................period
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 14:18:46 PT
AgaetisByrjun
That's ok. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by warhater on July 15, 2004 at 13:52:43 PT:
I hope E._Johnson is correct
I don't mean to put Kerry in a box with Clinton. I hope he will be able to see the wisdom of ending the drug war. I think it is general nonpartisan ignorance about drugs in the public keeps otherwise smart politicians from embracing drug reform. Bill Clinton is a case in point. During most of his first term he was hands off the drug issue. As 1996 approached and the anti-drug lobby started harassing him, and he rolled over. We he signed a bill that required the State to suspend drivers licenses of those convicted of a drug offense during his second term, that was the last straw for me.But I can understand why a candidate would not embrace drug reform. If I was a Kerry strategist, I would not advise him to make this a campaign issue. I would fear that the average American would fail to see the wisdom in it, and that the Republicans would paint him as "soft on drugs". The incorrect ideas have poisoned so much of the electorate so it is impossible to raise it as a campaign issue.It is refreshing that more people from both parties are seeing the drug war as failure. If we can keep this trend going politicians from all parties will have no choice but to deal with drug reform. The war mongers will fight us all the way. They will try to keep the old lies alive because the drug war lines their pockets. I think the truth will eventually become common knowledge. I just hope it happens during my lifetime. If I could walk to a park, sit on a log and smoke a nice joint without fear of some Gestapo officer ruining my life for my “crime” my faith in the US government would be restored.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by AgaetisByrjun on July 15, 2004 at 13:23:55 PT
FoM
Not sure if this is CN related, but it was a blast to see (sorry if it's off-topic or breaking rules: it's just that I've seen unrelated, unposted articles in threads before):http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?oldflok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20040715/1335391231.htm&sc=1110&flok=NW_5-L1&photoid=20040623SC105&floc=NW_1-TMemo Rips GOP Hopeful for 'Lewd' Actions
By KEN GUGGENHEIM WASHINGTON (AP) - A potential Republican candidate for the Senate seat from Illinois - where the party's nominee withdrew over sex club allegations - engaged in ``lewd and abusive behavior'' while she served as a top official in the White House drug policy office, an internal inquiry found last year. In front of her staff, Andrea Grubb Barthwell made repeated comments about the sexual orientation of a staff member and used a kaleidoscope to make sexually offensive gestures, according to the findings of a March 19, 2003, ``hostile workplace memorandum'' prepared by drug policy office staff. The Associated Press obtained the memorandum. In an interview Wednesday with the AP, Barthwell said the memorandum overstates what happened, but she said she was wrong for participating in ``inappropriate banter'' at a staff birthday party. ``As the senior person there it was my job to stop it before it got started and I didn't. I in fact joined in,'' she said. Barthwell said she has not decided whether to pursue the Senate seat, but she said the complaint should not be a factor in her candidacy. ``I think it's something that was in the past, something we dealt with and it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction,'' she said. Barthwell, a Chicago-area physician and a political unknown, resigned last week as deputy director for demand reduction in the Office of National Drug Control Policy to explore pursuing the nomination. Republicans have been scrambling for a candidate since Jack Ryan dropped out of the race last month over allegations in his divorce papers that he took his wife, ``Boston Public'' actress Jeri Ryan, to sex clubs before they split up. Former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, who considered running for the seat as a Republican, decided not to enter the race, GOP officials said Wednesday night. Dairy owner James Oberweis, who finished second behind Ryan in the primary, has been mentioned as a possible replacement candidate. At the drug policy office, Barthwell oversaw national efforts to prevent and treat drug abuse. She won bipartisan praise after being nominated by President Bush in 2001. The report says her staff had ``the highest regard for Dr. Barthwell's credentials and knowledge, but ... almost uniformly stated their fear and discomfort with what they consider to be unusual behavior patterns and displays of temper.'' The lewd and abusive behavior finding stemmed from a Dec. 19, 2002, staff gathering. Barthwell made comments about a staff member's sexual orientation after the staff member misspoke in an earlier conversation, the memorandum said. ``Dr. Barthwell made reference to this staff member sitting on men's laps. A kaleidoscope pointed upward was placed on a chair by Dr. Barthwell as the staff member was about to sit down,'' it said. ``Dr. Barthwell suggested that the staff member would want to cut the cake available for the gathering because the knife was 'long and hard' and he might 'enjoy handling it.' When the cake was cut, Dr. Barthwell referred to the pieces as 'most' or 'beefy' and she said to the staff member, 'I know you like it big and meaty.''' The staff member was not identified. In the interview, Barthwell said the staff member was engaged in the banter and didn't seem uncomfortable. ``Had he been the least bit uncomfortable at the time, I would have brought it to a stop,'' she said. ``Because he was an active participant, I didn't.'' The memorandum, though, said the staff member and at least one other person objected to her comments. It said the staff member felt the comments were ``lewd, derogatory and called into question his heterosexuality.'' The staff member didn't file the complaint; another colleague did. The matter was then referred to a fact-finder, in accordance with the drug policy office's long-standing procedures for resolving personnel issues such as sexual harassment or discrimination complaints. A fact-finder interviewed 26 people, including 13 within Barthwell's department, for the memorandum. Tom Riley, a spokesman for the drug office, said, ``The grievance was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.'' He declined to discuss specifics, citing privacy concerns. As a result of the grievance, everyone in the office was required to participate in sexual harassment training, Barthwell said. She said she was also asked to take an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission course ``to make sure that I had information available to me to prepare me to be a supervisor in the government workplace.'' John Fluharty, a gay Republican serving as an adviser to Barthwell, rejected any suggestion that she is insensitive. ``She is a decent, honorable woman who would be an asset in the United States Senate,'' he said. 07/15/04 13:35 
© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by phil_debowl on July 15, 2004 at 12:51:38 PT
kerry and bilderberg group
Has anyone else noticed the explosion in daily medication advertisements lately? Everything from aquiring an erection, to curbing memory loss and depression. I hate to make references to 1984, but come on here. We have "approved" medications that we're pretty blatently being told we need, and yet i can't smoke a little joint for my depression? I guess i might think about things too much in the process. Sorry for the off topic FOM. I'm voting for kerry just to get bush out, but this kinda worries me. Do a google for "bilderberg group". Edwards is a member, Kerry appointed Vernon Jordan, an investment banker and also a member, as his lead debate negotiator. It's members span both political parties. In fact, bush had a trip to italy at the same time the group had their yearly meeting this year. I just hope we're not being played by a larger entity.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by E_Johnson on July 15, 2004 at 12:36:42 PT
My opinion warhater
The split in Congress makes it pretty clear that the average Democratic legislator has long departed from Rand Beers land.Clinton's position was all about pandering to the Republicans for votes on other issues.His pernicious pandering influence is gone. Kerry is too upper class and restrained to get down in the mud and pander like Clinton.I think we will see that the Democrats will end up severely divided on this issue under Kerry and hence drug policy will be deprivileged and de-emphasized. Kerry will try to appoint noncontroversial people to the ONDCP who are too wishy washy to do anything significant, good or bad.But you know, I could be proven wrong. We shall see.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 12:29:41 PT
Just a Comment
I've been thinking why this article bothered me and it's because it is blaming Kerry by the title of the article for what Rand Beers did. Maybe if the title had been This is Rand Beers on Drugs I wouldn't have been upset by it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by warhater on July 15, 2004 at 12:03:30 PT:
Looking Foward
I will choose the lesser of two evils in November and vote for the Democrats, but I agree with the thrust of this Reason article. On average, Democrats are as bad as Republicans when it comes to the drug war. Bill Clinton's anti-drug policies were as Draconian as any of his Republican predecessors. It doesn't look like John Kerry will be any better. The fight for drug law reform is not a fight against any political party, it is fight against ignorance. As long as average Americans continue to believe the lies and nonsense about recreational drugs that the US government has spewed at them for decades we will have no reform.Like the war in Iraq, the drug war has been a costly life destroying folly. It the name of keeping our fellow citizens off of drugs, we have jailed them, stigmatized them, and taken away their jobs and their children. The benefits of the drug war have been intangible, but the harm it causes is obivious. In recent years many other developed countries have stepped away from the zero tolance approach and reaped the benefits of harm reduction. Because of rampant ignorance ingrained in the mind of average Americans, we have failed to embrace harm reduction. Those against this approach argue that any policy besides zero tolerance will lead to a drug promiscuous society. I would argue that we already have that. The statistics from the Netherlands prove that MJ legalization does not lead to increased use. Legalization is not going to make drug abuse any worse. What it will do is remove the stigma of criminality from those who actually need help with drug problems, and keep those who use but don't have a problem out of jail. This will make it more likely that abusers will seek treatment. It's a no-brainer. I say legalize or decriminalize everything, and then provide help where ever its needed. This will be less costly and more productive than what we do now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on July 15, 2004 at 11:56:51 PT:
The danger of self-seeking 'experts'
The problem common to so many pols is quite simple: they're just one person, incapable of doing all the research needed to make rational decisions themselves. So they are forced to depend upon a gaggle of 'experts' to inform them on policy issues.And what if those 'experts' (who are often, in the final analysis, as ignorant as those they serve) have their own agendas? What if those agendas are self-seeking and opportunistic? What if they are detrimental to all but a small group of beneficiaries? And that those beneficiaries gain at the expense of the rest of the country? What if, ultimately, those agendas, while not only pointless and expensive, are in the end destructive of lives? We are already suffering from such dysfunctional relationship: Oil company people deciding energy policy...which includes war. The DrugWar is, of course, another example: the few benefiting at the expense of every taxpayer. And the power of taxpayer dollars being used to kill innocent Americans and foreigners.This is the thrust of the article, as I read it. Mr. Beers has proven himself to be an opportunist; he was wrangling for Barry's job of ONDCP head right after Barry resigned. He's proven he'll do anything he has to in order to clamp back onto the that government sow's teat. Including giving bad advice to Mr. Kerry.Bad advice that has ramifications far beyond the immediate; ramifications that lead to international incidents...and innocent lives taken as matter of policy. Like Vicky and Charity Bowers. To such as Beers, they were 'acceptable collateral damage'.As would be the death of all those friendly to our cause who read these words. Given Mr. Beer's silence about the deaths of Ms. Bowers and her infant child, do you think he'd care if you were shot?That kind of 'advisor' who callously plays dice with human lives is no one I'd want near the levers and buttons of power. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 11:19:58 PT
Thanks EJ
I hope so. I think Kerry might be ok. He is a rich, northern, liberal, democrat. He would be the first since Kennedy I think. I also hope it's ok to think a rich, northern, liberal, democrat might be ok. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by E_Johnson on July 15, 2004 at 11:04:29 PT
This is my reading FoM
I think they want to put pressure on the Democrats to back away from Rand Beers before he gets the job.He's an expendable. Kerry is not.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 10:46:40 PT
Thank You cloud7
I'll be glad when we will finally have our next president and we can get on with it and get some laws changed. I sure hope it isn't Bush but I have accepted that it could be. I am looking forward to watching the DNC as much as I can. I won't watch the RNC unless they show the protesters because then it will be interesting to me. I'm so non political. LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by cloud7 on July 15, 2004 at 10:28:57 PT
more...
Bush is the antithesis of a "principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by cloud7 on July 15, 2004 at 10:26:08 PT
FoM
"~~~~~~~~~~" Leaning back?!Im pretty sure they're not pro-Bush. One of the articles on the front page is: Ten Reasons to Fire George W. Bush
And nine reasons why Kerry won't be much better
http://www.reason.com/links/links071304.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 10:16:37 PT
Goofing
I lean to the left. \Not to the right. /Actually I'm this way. ~~~~~~~~~~LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 10:13:13 PT
cloud7
I guess I always thought Reason.com was more for causes then politics I guess. I thought it leaned to a democratic way of thinking but it appears like it wants Bush and that surprises me. I know that National Review is a republican leaning magazine but I thought Reason was more for Democrats. See me and politics don't connect very well.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by cloud7 on July 15, 2004 at 10:07:54 PT
FoM
Here is their own description of the magazine, I think it is pretty accurate. "Reason is the monthly print magazine of “free minds and free markets.” It covers politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews.  Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity."In other words, libertarian leaning.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 10:00:50 PT
Just My Poor Spinning Head
I don't understand the title of the article. This is about Rand Beers not John Kerry's views on the drug war or am I missing something. Do they want Bush for 4 more years?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on July 15, 2004 at 09:54:42 PT
On the other hand
Rand Beers is not the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party's center of mass on this issue is shown by their voting patterns in Congress, which more and more have swung towards drug reform. I don't know if Kerry would let his drug policy be driven by Beers when it would go against the Democratic center and cause deep divisions and acrimony between Democrats.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on July 15, 2004 at 09:53:00 PT:
And, as usual, you read it here, first
Take a look a CNEWS Search;http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Rand+Beersand look through the pages and comments. Go to "Edit" in the upper left and do a "Find on this Page" for "Rand Beers".And you'll see the very same impressions voiced MONTHS before this article. One more proof that CNEWS is on the 'bleeding edge' of reform.One last thing, a glaring omission that the authors fail to make clear: Beers was the chief architect of the "Andean Initiative" which resulted in the deaths of American Veronica Bowers and her infant adopted daughter in a mistaken shootdown of a Christian missionary's light plane over the Amazon in April of 2001 by Peruvian air force craft...in conjunction with US intelligence and mercenary forces.The blood of innocents - some of whom were AMERICANS - is on Mr. Beer's hands. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on July 15, 2004 at 09:49:18 PT
What a great article
Investigative journalism! It's been so long since I've seen any I hardly recognized it! 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 15, 2004 at 09:41:57 PT

A Question
Is Reason.com a magazine for a political party? I mean is Reason.com a Republican leaning web site? I've noticed that they haven't been doing medical marijuana type articles for sometime. 
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment