cannabisnews.com: Home-Grown Trouble





Home-Grown Trouble
Posted by FoM on February 14, 2000 at 07:09:43 PT
By Teresa Stepzinski, Times-Union Staff Writer
Source: Florida Times-Union
Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in America -- generating billions annually to rank as the fourth largest cash crop in the nation, federal statistics indicate.It has deep roots in Georgia -- where authorities say it might be the biggest, albeit, illegal crop produced in the state.
The ongoing investigation into three high-ranking Coffee County sheriff's deputies charged with growing marijuana in a neighboring county has recently focused attention on the prevalence of the plant in Georgia.As growers prepare to plant their secret 2000 crop, state law enforcement authorities also are gearing up to find and destroy the marijuana before it reaches the streets.It is an annual battle, criminal justice experts say, mirroring Prohibition when revenuers scoured the Georgia countryside in search of illegal corn whiskey stills.Just as moonshine money once infiltrated rural economies, so too are pot profits."Marijuana growers basically are modern-day moonshiners," said Sharon Tracy, a Georgia Southern University criminal justice professor. ". . . A lot of people are growing marijuana for their own consumption, but some are doing it on a large scale to sell."Georgia authorities destroyed 32,022 cultivated marijuana plants with a potential street value of up to roughly $77 million last year, according to the Governor's Task Force on Drug Suppression.Those plants represent a fraction -- possibly only 25 percent -- of the generally high-quality marijuana grown statewide annually, task force officials say.Southeast Georgia, where the growing season can begin as early as February or March, historically has a high concentration of cultivated marijuana, state eradication statistics show.The region's growers usually can produce two crops a season if they avoid detection, said Bob Hardin, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation special agent in charge of the task force.Last year, 5,739 plants -- potentially worth up to about $14 million on the street -- were eradicated in nine Southeast Georgia counties, statistics show.Most of the plants had been found in Coffee and Bacon County, part of the Waycross Judicial Circuit that also includes Ware, Pierce, Brantley and Charlton counties.The sparsely populated rural circuit encompasses 3,370 square miles of rich farmland, thick woods and hard-to-get-to swampland."There are a lot of places out there where you can grow it out without much risk of someone running across it," said District Attorney Rick Currie, motioning to an area map.No one knows how many Southeast Georgians are growing marijuana. There is no way to pinpoint that information. Nor is there a centralized tracking system cataloging arrests or convictions statewide, authorities say.But the investigation into the Coffee deputies and unrelated past cases illustrate the diversity of the marijuana production in the region and statewide law enforcement efforts to stop it.State task forceHardin and Gary Nicholson, GBI assistant special agent in charge, have a daunting task. They coordinate Georgia's statewide war on marijuana growers and other drug traffickers.The unit includes narcotics officers and pilots from the GBI, the Georgia State Patrol and other state agencies including the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation and the National Guard.Formed in 1983, it is funded annually by federal grants.The officers use helicopters and small airplanes for aerial reconnaissance year-round. Agents fly daily during the growing season, and whenever requested by local law enforcement officers, Hardin said. Many Georgia growers start their crop in pots then transplant the seedlings outdoors in small secluded patches, Nicholson said.They favor commercial timberland, national forests, wildlife refuges and other secluded wooded or swampy areas. Growers rarely use their own property because it can be seized under drug forfeiture laws, he said."It's easy to hide marijuana in the woods, and very difficult to find it any other way besides from the air," Nicholson said.Risking everythingFew large indoor growing operations have been found in Southeast Georgia.But one of the biggest was discovered two years ago near Waycross because the grower loved his dog, investigators say.Andre Joseph Lemieux, 49, had renovated his sparsely furnished brick ranch house into an elaborate greenhouse nurturing 150 robust plants with a potential street value of $360,000. Ware County Sheriff Ronnie McQuaig said it was the largest indoor growing operation ever found in the county. "We found it because he had asked a couple guys to go over and feed his dog while he was in jail for driving under the influence," said Capt. Peggy Guinn, sheriff's department chief of detectives.Lemieux, who had no criminal history, remains in prison on a five-year term imposed after he pleaded guilty to manufacturing marijuana, state Department of Corrections records show. Prosecutors seized his house, pickup truck, shotgun, submersible pumps and other equipment under drug forfeiture laws."A lot of people don't realize the seriousness of it. It doesn't matter if you have one plant or 1,000. Cultivation is a felony crime. You can go to prison, lose your house, farm, car, everything," Nicholson said.Finding the plants and arresting the grower, authorities say, is only half the battle. Convicting them can be a war to win the hearts and minds of jurors, officials say."The public is pretty apathetic about marijuana," Tracy said. "As long as it's not hurting them, or they don't think that the grower is selling it to kids, most people are pretty tolerant of it."Although they may not grow it themselves, many residents of small rural counties such as Bacon sometimes empathize with growers, she said.Those communities tend to be close knit, she said. Residents often will know the grower or their kin. Merchants rely on local customers. Financial hardships wrought by drought or low crop prices ripple through the whole community.So, when a rural grower gets busted, prosecutors can have a hard row to hoe for a conviction."Unless you catch someone in the patch, it's circumstantial evidence," Currie said, "and those cases are always harder to successfully prosecute."Widespread impactMarijuana is cultivated in all 159 Georgia counties, law enforcement officials said.Premium pot can sell for up to $400 an ounce while a poor grade costs about $150 per ounce, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.In Georgia, the current price is about $200 an ounce and $2,400 per pound, Nicholson said.The state's legal crops don't come close to that even at top-dollar prices.The most recent per pound prices were $1.67 for tobacco; 46 cents for cotton; and 26 cents for in-shell peanuts. Corn had been selling for $2.10 a bushel, Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service data reveals.At those prices, some legitimate farmers are going to pot, Tracy says."Farmers with small acreages have to work very hard just to make ends meet. Sometimes, they just can't do it. So some will grow marijuana, just like folks made moonshine in the old days," Tracy said.In 1997, three Bacon County farmers charged with growing marijuana were featured in a network news documentary. They said growing pot was the only way they could make a living.Many county residents still bristle at the implication marijuana dominates their community and local economy. "No, not everybody is growing marijuana here," said Teddy Solomon, a longtime resident and veteran criminal defense lawyer. "Most farmers are hardworking honest people, and the very idea that dope money is supplementing local businesses is absolute bull."Published: February 14, 2000 © The Florida Times-Union CannabisNews Cannabis Archives:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #19 posted by Alexandre Oeming on February 15, 2000 at 08:43:24 PT:
The invitation remains open...
>No, thank you, I'm not going to enter that fray here. I don't want to get scolded (and rightly so) for posting off-topic again.In that case, come to talk.politics.drugs. That's what the usenet is for, after all.>Additionally, your invitation presumes theconclusion that there is no basis for considering marijuana intoxication to be an activity that should be prohibited, which leaves no room for debate.Come to t.p.d. and explain to me why you believe MJ use is an activity that should be prohibited, please. If your reasons are solid and logical enough, you should have no problem with holding your own, yes? After all, if you're not willing to debate the merits of your own position, how can you remain steadfast? I and many others (in t.p.d.) are willing to openly show why we believe MJ prohibition to be not only un-justifiable, but counter-productive in the WOsD. We welcome your views if you are only willing to share them.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Puritan on February 15, 2000 at 08:40:10 PT
Amused
Off topic indeed...the fundamental issue is whether cannabis should be legalized or not. Since your position is that we should continue to arrest individuals for its use, how do you justify your stand? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Amused on February 15, 2000 at 08:16:15 PT
Respectful declination
No, thank you, I'm not going to enter that fray here. I don't want to get scolded (and rightly so) for posting off-topic again. Additionally, your invitation presumes the conclusion that there is no basis for considering marijuana intoxication to be an activity that should be prohibited, which leaves no room for debate.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by Puritan on February 15, 2000 at 07:44:55 PT
Amused
Sir, would kindly outline your reasons for opposing the legalization of cannabis? It would be enlightening to understand why you support the incarceration of your fellow citizens for actions that that do very little harm to you or anyone else for that matter.Eagerly awaiting your reply....
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Alexandre Oeming on February 15, 2000 at 07:43:57 PT:
An open invitation
>nor are the vast majority of people who do not believe there is some sort of fundamental right to get intoxicated by marijuana.There is no fundamental right to use MJ. Nevertheless, until a consenting adult MJ user infringes upon the rights and/or property of another person, *you* have no right to interfere with their life. There is NO justification for such repression. Sorry. "The law is the law" does not fly here.>Just as millions of people use marijuana, millions also oppose its use. They are not jack-booted thugs with sneering, pinched faces; they are your neighbors, your colleagues, your family.So are the users. Why do you feel the need to bring the jack-booted thugs down upon your neighbors, collegues, or family? Simply b/c you would rather they got drunk instead of high? (I realize that's an inference of your beliefs, but your logic behooves a belief that legal status=excuse for use or abuse) How about just letting free people live freely until they infringe upon another's life? Is it really that hard of a concept to comprehend?Bygones all around as i am commenting on something other than the article-at-hand. I would like to extend an open invitation for Amused to come and speak his/her mind more openly on this subject in the usenet newsgroup: talk.politics.drugs. It's really quite fascinating and we all might learn something ... we anti-prohibitionists have open minds, too. :)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Amused on February 15, 2000 at 05:45:12 PT
Apologies
You have my apologies, too, FoM. And so do you, kaptinemo. Getting into personal attacks is, as you said, non-productive and I shouldn't have done so. But I'm neither a police officer nor a Nazi. I'm a rational person who has, in point of fact, evaluated all of the evidence and has still come to a different conclusion than you. I suppose that's why I resent and react to being called names and accused of stupidity, venality, and blindness. I am subject to none of those, nor are the vast majority of people who do not believe there is some sort of fundamental right to get intoxicated by marijuana. And it was for that reason that I said you harm your cause, kaptinemo, when you demonize your opponents. Just as millions of people use marijuana, millions also oppose its use. They are not jack-booted thugs with sneering, pinched faces; they are your neighbors, your colleagues, your family. Vitriolic attacks may rally your supporters, but they will only further entrench your opponents.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on February 14, 2000 at 15:56:44 PT
No Problem!
No apologies needed kaptinemo. I have learned alot from yours and other people's comments and we haven't had problems with people who just lash out for whatever reasons. I don't know nor care to know because attacking a person is down right rude!I sure don't care when a person pats a person on the back because that's good but when you turn it around it is counter productive. You say good things and so do others and that's all I want. I don't agree with every comment I read here or anywhere but I know that people's minds are made up most times so why waste time trying to change the views of someone that more then likely you won't be able too? I don't mean in this thread but in general! Keep on Keepin' On!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on February 14, 2000 at 15:42:57 PT
My apologies to you, FoM
But *only* to you.I was wondering if we would ever hear anything from the disciples of DrugWarriorism. As someone who had been around intelligence types for decades, I knew that some of the opposition might be reading this site, in the best tradition of 'Know Your Enemy'. Because that's how they see us... all of us. We're the enemy. And they fired the first shots in the conflict. Not us.They probably were also hoping to get a laugh at all the inarticulate stoners they expected to see railing incoherently at their actions. It would have made their day to see babbling doobie-suckers raging in their impotence. I'm very glad to disappoint them. And through their actions, they did something they never should have done. They took a fence-sitter and made him an activist. Bad move, guys. Bad move. Make any more of us, and you will surely lose this fight.Friends, if my comments seem too sharply-edged, it is because of the nature of the treatment I have experienced courtesy of DrugWarriors. I've lost damn near everything because of them. They reduced me to penury. Since I can't (presently) return the favor, I do the next best thing: I remind them of their consciences. They don't like to be reminded of the fact that slavish devotion to a law does not guarantee protection from public censure when the law *itself* is found to violate civil rights. Just ask any elderly Southern Black man what it was like to be attacked by police using fire hoses and attack dogs in upholding THE LAW... which said he could not drink from a fountain labelled 'Whites, only'. They, too, were just 'doing their duty'. 'Following their orders.' And we all know the end of that particular story. Try to enforce those laws again, and the whole country would erupt in violence, with good reason. Those laws were plainly immoral. Almost all of the Jim Crow laws are gone, save for one odious, detestable hanger-on... the cannabis laws.Make no mistake: *our* civil rights as citizens of this country are at stake. Nothing less. Either stand up - or bend over.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on February 14, 2000 at 14:23:07 PT
Be Kind!
Hi everyone, Please don't attack anyone's comments. Please make comments on the article. We don't do that here and I would like to keep it that way and thanks everyone for making Cannabis News a nice place to visit!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by observer on February 14, 2000 at 13:14:30 PT
What they Let Slip ... 
``It is an annual battle, criminal justice experts say, mirroring Prohibition when revenuers scoured the Georgia countryside in search of illegal corn whiskey stills.''I believe the article says more than it intends to say... the drug "war" is indeed another Prohibition, and doomed to run a similar corrupting course. ``Convicting them can be a war to win the hearts and minds of jurors, officials say.''see: http://www.fija.org There's another way you can 'Just Say No' to the police state. One person is all it takes to prevent a conviction and "send a message" to statists.``"The public is pretty apathetic about marijuana," Tracy said. "As long as it's not hurting them, or they don't think that the grower is selling it to kids, most people are pretty tolerant of it." Although they may not grow it themselves, many residents of small rural counties such as Bacon sometimes empathize with growers, she said.''Yet another similarity with the disaster of alcohol Prohibition...
see: Fully Informed Jury Association
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on February 14, 2000 at 12:30:52 PT
Amusing? You find the DrugWar amusing?
To Amused: I was wondering when I would hear from this quarter. Just visiting, or do you make it a practice to look in on what your de facto opponents are saying?One thing I've learned about those who deride critics of the DrugWar; there is a tendency on their part to belittle those who disagree with them rather than dissuade by logical discourse the reason for for the disagreement. If you have spent any time at all reading my comments on this board, you would know I have always sought reasonable discourse rather than name-calling. Since you presume a logical base for your beliefs, let's have at it.vicious, single-note, oversimplified, rashly generalized rhetoric. So, to answer: A zealot? On the contrary. Unlike those who have that particularly virulent personality trait - like many DrugWarriors do indeed demonstrate - I *do* have an open mind. Because it requires an open mind to question a policy rather than blindly accept it as Gospel. (Is *that* what you would like me to do? Accept the DrugWarrior practices as if they came from the Burning Bush? If so, then who is the zealot?) Many of us here have listened, some for nearly a lifetime, to DrugWarrior rhetoric (by the way, their rhetoric is hardly original; Adolph Hitler first coined the phrase 'zero tolerance' in a 1935 speech inaugurating the first of the Anti-Jewish Laws.) The obvious dichotomy between stated goals of the DrugWar (the public weal) and the actual effects (1 million non-violent souls in prison, families destroyed, careers ruined, jobs lost, civil liberties emasculated, etc.)becomes glaringly obvious to an open mind. It caused many of us to actually research the basis of the American drug laws. And find them just as barren of any rational underpinnings as the child who when asked why he did something, simply says "Because!". (By the way, have *you*? Or do you just implement policy without any thought as to the morality of what you do? Are you 'just following orders'? Is your mind made up, and you are afraid you would just be confused with the facts?) Vicious? Who is more vicious, the man with a gun and a badge who threatens death (partly because he fears his own, which is certainly understandable) or the non-violent cannabis user who speaks his mind?Single note? Au contraire, I've brought up a lot of information to this board, offering it in hopes that people like you might take the time to question your own rationales for the DrugWar. If you've been here any length of time you would have known that.Oversimplified? Never. The matter at hand is far too complex to contain in so little space. Many of us here have done our homework with regards to the matter of the DrugWar; we've researched the plethora of resources available, in print and on the Web. Have you?Rashly generalized rhetoric? Let's see. Name the author of the famous quotation; "Drug dealers are all scum, and should be beheaded!" William Bennett, Darryl Gates, or Nancy Reagan? (Bennett said this. Gates said that all marijuana users should be taken out and shot.) Who is engaging in rashly generalized rhetoric, sir? To my use of 'hyperbole': are you telling me that incidents like the one I have described don't happen? Are you saying that police have not 'zealously' raided the wrong houses? They didn't 'zealously' shoot innocent people? Didn't brutalize them? Didn't terrorize their family members? Didn't harm their pets? Hadn't planned raids based upon the amount of stolen goods available, safe in the knowledge that the owners didn't have the cash to put up to prevent their sale, or to hire a lawyer? Police like you, in the 'heat of the moment' haven't told those who demanded the reason for these intrusions that they have no rights? You might want to get a lawyer before you answer that, friend. There is nothing funny about this DrugWar. Nothing amusing at all. And those who prosecute this Godawful exercise in nascent tyranny will one day have to answer for their actions - as they are at Rampart in LA.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Puritan on February 14, 2000 at 12:11:29 PT
Amused entertainment
It is hilarious that you find hundreds of thousands incarcerated for using cannabis amusing. Personally, I find that kaptinemo seriously understates the dangers of the drug wars to our liberties and rights. The comparison of prohibitionists to Nazis is appropiate.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by observer on February 14, 2000 at 12:10:47 PT
Compare for Yourself
> Anyone who has any doubts about the *real* philosophical underpinnings of the DrugWar should go to the following site. See how 'For your own good' eventually becomes 'Ziss vay to de chowers, Jew scum!'No hyperbole there at all there really, though it may seem shocking to all ze "Good" Americans who `just know' they are on the side of God and the angels by stealing from, killing and generally attempting to destroy drug users. For more on the quite extensive comparisons between Nazi law and attitudes and the current American "war" on (some) drug users, read _ Drug Warriors and their Prey_ by Richard L Miller (1996).``Degradation of victims goes beyond physical abuse of property and persons. "At two o’clock Tuesday morning, March 7, I was awakened and faced by two men with pistols, who had come into the house.... These two men were accompanied by two others in civilian clothes.... My wife asked them to turn about while she dressed, but they refused. She was compelled to remove her night gown at the point of a revolver and stand naked before the intruders. When she protested they said, ‘Don’t be theatrical’."82 In another nighttime raid, police rousted a couple from their residence. The woman was clad only in a tee shirt. She obviously had no weapon and could have been placed in a police vehicle if authorities were concerned about an escape attempt. Instead they kept her outdoors and repeatedly ordered her to raise her arms over her head, thereby exposing her buttocks and pubic area to onlookers.83 One of these raids occurred in the 1930s during the war on Jews. The other occurred in the 1980s during the war on drug users. Similarities in technique were due to similarities in purpose: not merely enforcing the law, but attacking the psyches of targeted victims.''(Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pg.49) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425/Cannabisnews/``Just as Nazi cinema reinforced anti-Jewish stereotypes, American movies and television reinforce false stereotypes about drug-users. In Germany, gratuitous anti-Semitic scenes were routine even in movies where the plot had nothing to do with that topic. Likewise, President Nixon bragged about convincing Hollywood producers to insert anti-drug user messages in dramas: "Appoximately 20 television programs throughout the country are going on this fall dealing with the drug problem one way or another. and dealing with it not in the way of a straight-out sermon but in terms of that subtle, far more effective, method of approach where a story is told and the individual -- and usually the young individual -- watching the program becomes interested in the story and, therefore, they get the message."115  Nixon met with forty-eight television producers, including representatives from programs such as "Dragnet," "Hawaii Five-O," "The Storefront Lawyers," "I Spy," "Zig Zag," "Felony Squad," "Silent Force," "The Name of the Game," "The FBI," "Dan August," "Dial Hot Line," and "Room 222." Nixon also got anti-drug themes introduced into "The Young Lawyers," "Mod Squad," "Marcus Welby, M.D.," and "Mat Lincoln." "Dragnet" producer Jack Webb began working on a series dramatizing federal drug squads.116  The practice of inserting anti-drug user messages into episodes of popular television programs continued into the 1990s, with even "Startrek: The Next Generation" including a scene where a bewildered adolescent asked how anyone could be crazy enough to use drugs. Drug users have long been a staple of police dramas. For years such programs have portrayed drug users as violent, irresponsible criminal deviants, in contrast to cool professional police officers, whose investigative techniques are inspired by devotion to civil liberties.''(Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pgs.22-23)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425/Cannabisnews/Also see http://www.waronsomedrugs.com/links.html for some Nazi Anti-Semetic vs. American Anti-Drug User posters image comparisons.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by puritan on February 14, 2000 at 12:05:40 PT
amused entertainment
It is hilarious that you find that hundreds of thousands incarcerated for using cannabis amusing. Personally, I feel that kaptinemo seriously understates what is happening in this country today in terms of loss of liberty and destruction of our rights. You, sir, are blind to the injustices that are happening right under your nose. The comparison of drug warriors to Nazis is appropiate.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by dada on February 14, 2000 at 11:56:10 PT
dfff
adad
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by observer on February 14, 2000 at 11:54:51 PT
`Seized', A Nicer name for Stealing
``Prosecutors seized his house, pickup truck, shotgun, submersible pumps and other equipment under drug forfeiture laws.''A more accurate way to put that would be:Using "drug" forfeiture laws as a pretext, armed police and prosecutors stole his house, pickup truck, shotgun, submersible pumps and other private property. Then it would also be in order to follow up with some historical information about the lobbying of police and prison industries in favor of harsher penalties and greater ability of the state to be able to "seize" (steal) the property of drug law victims. ``The DOJ's forfeiture proceeds in FY1999 swelled to about $600 million, up from $27 million in 1985.''http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1220/a07.html``Local law enforcement agencies fight to "federalize" their drug busts because if a U.S. Attorney "adopts" a forfeiture, 80% of the assets are returned to local police, whereas under many state laws, forfeited assets go to school funds, libraries, drug education or other programs. . .Law enforcement just loves asset-forfeiture laws; agencies have practically become self-financing through these abuses. And when the coppers of the nation stand in unison and say "We need this for law 'n' order," mighty few politicians are willing to go against them.''Drug War Takes Liberty As Casualty (2/2000)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n007/a05.html
here's one way you can take action against police states
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Amused on February 14, 2000 at 10:25:08 PT
Entertainment
Thank you, kaptinemo. There's nothing quite as amusing as a true zealot in full hyperbolic flower. I'm sure all the other monsters with sneering, pinched faces (although I'm not sure how one can see the faces through those masks) are equally entertained. And on a more serious note, however, you damage your own arguments by insisting on the use of such vicious, single-note, oversimplified, rashly generalized rhetoric. Not, mind you, that I expect you to change. That would take an open mind, something you have obviously long since surrendered to your cause.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Thomas on February 14, 2000 at 08:41:20 PT
Politicians Behind as Usual
"The public is pretty apathetic about marijuana," Tracy said. "As long as it's not hurting them, or they don't think that the grower is selling it to kids, most people are pretty tolerant of it."I think this statement could be applied to the American population across the board. Good thing we have our great politicians to hold the moral high ground while the rest of us wallo in sin.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on February 14, 2000 at 08:18:13 PT
But what happened to the dog?
No, I'm not being flip, just illustrating a point. Behind all the DrugWar statistics - and the excellent points brought up in this article - is something that usually gets missed - and for a damn good reason. We are regaled every day with DrugWarriors blathering about how much they have saved society by their efforts. But they don't dare show you the faces of those whose lives they've ruined in their crusade. Because you might find yourself looking at, not some slavering, wild-eyed monster with fangs, but someone who looks a lot like you.For example: MISTER McCaffrey has had to admit that the vast majority of us cannabis users (quite succesfully) hold down jobs. We do a lot more than that. We take care of our families. Pay our taxes. Support out communities. Lend a hand to an elderly neighbor and look in on him when he's a shut-in. Give to charities. Like the guy who was in jail and worried about his dog, we have animals that we care for.Hardly the actions of depraved individuals. But the antis cannot afford to show the very human faces of those whose lives they destroy.Nope, for real monsters, you only have to look into the sneering, pinched faces of the DrugWarriors, as they beat you with truncheons, terrorize your wife and children, shoot your dog, stomp your cat to death, inform you that you have no rights, haul you away to prison and sell everything you had. Is it any wonder why they often wear black masks in their raids, and put tape over their name plates and badges? Hitler and Himmler are smiling from Hell at their antics.Anyone who has any doubts about the *real* philosophical underpinnings of the DrugWar should go to the following site. See how 'For your own good' eventually becomes 'Ziss vay to de chowers, Jew scum!'
Statism's Dream Problem
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: