Don't Forfeit War on Drugs

Don't Forfeit War on Drugs
Posted by FoM on October 12, 2001 at 08:04:35 PT
By Charles Grassley and Jon Kyl
Source: Washington Times
John Walters, President Bush's pick as the next drug czar, comes before the Senate amid a lot of loose talk in our country about the war on drugs. Much of what its critics say about U.S. anti-drug policy is wrong and is put out by people whose true agenda is drug legalization, not better drug-control policy.    Most Americans, when presented with the straightforward case for or against legalizing drugs, are very firm: They do not want these destructive substances legalized. Recognizing this, many legalization advocates have taken to disguising their arguments as something else. 
This lack of candor now passes itself off as concern that the war on drugs is the problem, and not the drugs themselves.   Supposedly, our efforts to keep kids off drugs are futile, and our only rational choice is some version of what is called "harm reduction." Stripped of its sheep's clothing, this would mean teaching American kids how to use drugs "responsibly," and promising treatment for those who fail to do so.   Call it what you will, this so-called harm-reduction strategy is really only harm redistribution. Imagine what such a national policy would mean in our homes, schools, neighborhoods, and on our streets: It would mean condoning drug use and it would increase drug use. It is de facto legalization.   The advocates of condone-but-contain try to argue that, since kids will use drugs anyway, if we would just "go with the flow" and provide treatment in the worst cases, the result will be less drug use, fewer people in jail, fewer needing treatment, less crime and better international cooperation. That's quite a collection of large promises to make and deliver on. They offer them while denouncing our present efforts as bad policies that have failed. But to make their case, they practice rhetorical sleight of hand and make promises they cannot keep but that others will have to pay for.   They want people to believe that our prisons are full of simple drug users who deserve treatment and not jail. In the first place, most people in prison for drug offenses are not there for use. They are there for dealing drugs. To empty our prisons of these dealers in response to wholesale and repeated misrepresentation of the facts does not serve the public interest. (As it happens, it does serve the users.)   Many users do get arrested, to be sure. Few of these, however, go to jail. Many are sent to treatment. Americans need to know that one of the most effective routes into treatment for addicts is the criminal justice system. Addicts only rarely enter treatment voluntarily. Our courts are among the most serious tools we have in separating users from dealers and seeking appropriate outcomes for each. Legalizers, however, hope to disguise this fact. A media sympathetic to their arguments doesn't point it out much, either. The result is that the criminal justice system is portrayed as useless in the difficult job of discouraging drug use.   This is the environment in which we find ourselves. And drug use in the last several years has been on the rise among our young people. This unwelcome fact, and the advent of a well-funded and disingenuous legalization lobby, are reasons we need a strong counter voice fighting for sensible policies.   Mr. Bush's nominee, Mr. Walters, is the right man for the job. He is a bright, articulate, forceful spokesman. It is just those qualities that have aroused the ire of the legalization lobby. They oppose his confirmation.   They misrepresent Mr. Walters' record and try to portray him as part of the problem. His sin? He believes in doing as much as we reasonably can to keep drugs out of this country. His detractors call this concern uncaring and one-sided. He does not believe, they say, in demand-reduction programs. Not true. What he does not believe in is harm-reduction programs. He opposes efforts to legalize drugs, under whatever false flag they fly. That makes legalization advocates unhappy.    Mr. Walters' fervent promotion of treatment for addicts when he served in the first Bush administration doesn't thrill them, either. It becomes tougher to demonize him as hard-hearted. Treatment funding when he was at the drug czar's office in the first Bush administration more than doubled.   What Mr. Walters recognizes, what the president understands and what Congress has consistently supported is that we need a strong policy that addresses the range of problems confronting this country on drug use. With well-funded legalization efforts misrepresenting the facts, we need a strong voice as drug czar now more than ever.   Mr. Walters is the last of President Bush's Cabinet appointees. His nomination has been before the Senate for months. It is time to move swiftly to confirm him in this critical job at this crucial moment. The only ones who profit from delaying and trying to block his confirmation are those who would like to teach our kids how to use drugs better. That is not what Americans want as national policy.Sen. Charles Grassley and Sen. Jon Kyl are from Iowa and Arizona, respectively.Source: Washington Times (DC)Author: Charles Grassley and Jon KylPublished: October 12, 2001Copyright: 2001 News World Communications, Inc.Website: letters washingtontimes.comRelated Articles:Drug Czar Nominee Rebuffs Criticisms's Choice as 'Drug Czar' Receives Heavy Fire Strike Raises Stakes for Next Drug Czar
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #25 posted by MDG on October 12, 2001 at 23:24:09 PT
Lehder's expensive furnace repairman...
The fact is, the repairman has to find some way of paying for that expensive Contractor's License. Consequently, he's going to charge twice as much as someone who's not a contractor. California even has the limit by which someone may be considered a "handyman" as low as $500, to discourage people from not paying the major bucks for licensing. Plus, you guessed it, higher charges for repair generate more revenue in taxes for the state. This is just another example of government getting involved in something that could be handled by a private group like the Underwriter's Laboratories does for electric equipment. Know what the penalty is for acting like you're a licensed contractor when you're not? You guessed it, a felony. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by FoM on October 12, 2001 at 21:04:00 PT
Oh Lehder that second link was so funny! Thanks for the laugh! I needed that. As far as the first link goes you ATE that! Just kidding but I have never had the nerve to eat wild mushrooms. I just know it would be the wrong kind so I pass even though I love fresh mushrooms.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Lehder on October 12, 2001 at 20:38:22 PT
toadstool thrift
that's the ticket, FoM. i was in the woods yesterday and found one of these - hericium abietis - half hidden under a rotting log. it's a beautiful thing, rarely seen, and i ate about 1/3 of it this morning for breakfast. i poured melted butter over it and put it in a hot oven 425 deg for 5 minutes. it was delicious. it's supposed to be even better in a cream sauce with a pinch of nutmeg. i had seen pictures of it many times, but never found one before. i had a good breakfast, a nice walk, some exercise and subverted the drug war just a wee bit. take a look: the slob who spent $7.50 for a plate full of grease at the village inn is stimulating the economy, paying a tax and supporting our multiple wars. we can do better than that. again, some may think that $7.50 doesn't amount to much. but listen to me - a couple of months ago 150,000 people gathered in seattle to educate the world about the drug war. maybe it did some little good, but it wasn't on tv. now if those 150,000 people each save $7.50 or more each day for a few months it would have a big effect. and if 15,000,000 people who oppose the drug war or are unhappy over any other public policies were to become very thrifty and vocal about it too, believe me, we could really have a powerful effect. i'd like to see something like this organized. george soros would appreciate it too.i also - really, it's true, i had quite a good walk - found a "stink horn" for the first time. i didn't eat this one, but i think it would make and excellent meal for george bush. actually, they grow in groups; i have enough for asa too. take alook at this thing, phallus impudicus: your money, friends, end the war.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by FoM on October 12, 2001 at 19:59:45 PT
We aren't spending money. There is nothing that I feel I really need. I got my new computer right before the 11th of September or I wouldn't have gotten it. I won't spend money particularly by credit card. If we need to use the credit card in the future for an emergency it will be there but barter if that's how it's spelled. I have this and you have that let's swap. That's the best way I think. Also we should learn to be content with what we have because it is a lot more then many people in the world. Most of us if we get hungry we can find something in the house to eat unless you are a bachelor! LOL! Little humor there. Most of us have heat and at least fans if we are hot or cold. Most of us can get treated if necessary in an emergency room. We really don't have much to complain about.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by Lehder on October 12, 2001 at 19:37:02 PT
thrift is a virtue
is it listed in william bennett's book? i wouldn't know, but it's still a virtue despite our president's urging today that we go out to "play" and "buy things" (all the while with the fbi admonishing us to be alert for attacks). every day we're exhorted to consume, buy, buy, stimulate the economy. don't. you think it may not make a difference, but it will, especially now. the 300+ billion $ surplus that bush was rubbing his hands over a few months ago has vanished. consumer spending is needed to stimulate the economy and thereby prop up the bush government. nothing will make americans question their leaders more than being out of work, out of cash and facing heavy credit card debts and mortgages. maybe it will cause people to think about our situation a little more - without having a climate change, depression or ww3. really, a dollar saved is more powerful today than a vote. by staying out of the stores and crowds you will stay out of harm's way too, away from the anthrax. any time that i delude myself into imagining i want some of that plastic crap from walmart, stuff that gets set down somewhere and soon forgotten about, i close my eyes and imagine that i already have it. you would be surprised how quickly i tire of it - for free. it's useless. i fixed some people's furnace today. the repairman they had was either incompetent or a liar and wanted to charge $685 for a big overhaul because of some special switch or other that could be found on on venus. it was nothing. it took 1 hour an inch of solder and some old wire and it works great now. it's more fun to figure out how to fix something than to hassle with blundering, high-priced nincompoops tracking dirt all over your place and sending exorbitant bills. trust me on this - i'm not trying to sell you anything. be a heretic, save your money, be thrifty, watch 'em sweat. if you're feeling really ambitious, quit your job. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 12, 2001 at 14:15:56 PT
Hello Nicholas 
I just wanted to thank you for commenting on Cannabis News. We have a very nice group of people here. Jump in anytime.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by freedom fighter on October 12, 2001 at 13:37:08 PT
posioned, i have to agree with
aocp.. While we try to be civilized about it, the sinators have been killing people. Since it is given that the congress passed the anti-terror bill, democracy died the mintue it passed. Now, you can try to be civilized and disagree, but understand this, you are now a terrorist in their eyes. And that is not very important.I know what is like when my fellow americans busted my family's door down. I know what is like to be terrorized by these monsters. I know what is like when these monsters tried to snitchized my only son. I know what is like when Tom and Rollie died. My family almost died that night for this just one plant I grew.And that is not very important. We have to be civilized and try to change the way they think?? Let there be no doubt as to the outcome of coming elections. These violent monsters are going to be sitting the same chairs they hold for years. I hold no illusion that Bush might just delcare dicatorship under devious means when the public do not even know.Under the system we have now, we are too far civilized. How many more human beings have to die becuz of these monsters?ff
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on October 12, 2001 at 13:33:58 PT:
Wow: reaction to this "oped" -- most likely written by their "communications director" and/or press secreatary as these two loads could not find the right end of a mouse to hold -- is really good. But I would also urge people to do the best they can in contacting their Senator -- don't bother with their congressman -- and expressing concern about the Walters nomination. Urge them to vote against Walters when it goes to the floor in the weeks ahead for a final vote. The Senate Judiciary Committee -- as they did with Hutchinson -- will approve him when they vote Thursday.
I know Cannabis News readers are savvy enough to know who their senator is, but if you need any assistance, let us know and we will be happy to assist in getting you that information. To follow is Keith Stroup, Executive Director for NORML take on the Walters nomination:"With the appointment of Governor Ridge to head our nation’s Office of Homeland Security, certainly a critical position at this time of national concern, the Bush administration's nomination of John Walters to head the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy also warrants close attention. We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to carefully question Mr. Walters regarding his position on marijuana policy and the priority he would give marijuana law enforcement in relation to other more serious tasks.We currently spend approximately $10 billion dollars annually in valuable law enforcement resources in a futile effort to arrest and jail the tens of millions of adult Americans who smoke marijuana responsibly, including seriously ill patients who use marijuana as a medicine. Surely, with the significant threat to our public safety presented by terrorism, these resources could be better focused on fighting serious and violent crime, including terrorism. We would also urge Mr. Walters, once confirmed, to review our nation’s drug enforcement priorities in order to make more resources available to Governor Ridge's critical and daunting task of protecting all Americans from domestic terror.”normlmedia
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Poisoned1550Days on October 12, 2001 at 13:01:58 PT
I understand Venting. Your point
is well made
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by observer on October 12, 2001 at 12:02:40 PT
''legalizing drugs''
Most Americans, when presented with the straightforward case for or against legalizing drugs, are very firm: They do not want these destructive substances legalized.Not when a push-poll asks it like that ... which of course, a dishonest prohibitionist knows very well. When asked, however, if people want non-violent adults to be jailed for the act of using cannabis in the privacy of their own homes, (surprise!) the results are very different.Now, why do you suppose these propagandists punched the "legalize" word so very much?whose true agenda is drug legalization,against legalizing drugs,destructive substances legalized.legalization advocates have taken to disguisingIt is de facto legalization.Legalizers, however, hope to disguise this fact.a well-funded and disingenuous legalization lobby,the legalization lobbyefforts to legalize drugs, under whatever false flag they fly.That makes legalization advocates unhappy.well-funded legalization efforts misrepresenting the facts
Why? Savvy propagandists know that lots of well-meaning dudes will fall right exactly plop smack slap-dab into their verbal trap. Instead of insisting that pot smokers NOT be locked up, the dude will say "Legalize, man!" When the "legalize" word is heard, instantly minds snap shut like steel traps. This is exactly the reason propagandists like to use the "legalize" word (see above), and are loathe to admit that pot smokers are jailed.Propagandists like Grassley and Kyl have managed to fool people into thinking that pot smokers are never jailed; and that "legalize" means 'advocate drugS for children.' This is the reason Grassley and Kyl emphasize "legalize" so much. Myself, I try not to help them out.  Do not ask that people be for "legalization." Instead, let people be against jailing marijuana users. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by freedom fighter on October 12, 2001 at 12:01:47 PT
Misrepresenation of Truth
These poleheads have committed High Treason. ff
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by observer on October 12, 2001 at 11:35:53 PT
Users, Charged as Dealers, Go to Jail
Prohibitionists are expert at using weasel-wording to evade the truth, aren't they?Many users do get arrested, to be sure. Few of these, however, go to jail.Under federal law the maximum sentence for simple possession of any quantity of drugs ( other than crack cocaine ) is one year, and the mandatory minimum sentences for selling do not kick in until 500 grams are involved ( five grams in the case of crack cocaine ). Most state laws are similar. There are not enough people involved with those quantities of drugs to account for our inmate population growing from 400,000 to over two million in under 30 years. The large majority of drug war prisoners are there for violating the drug conspiracy laws. In the 1980s a simple one-sentence change made conspiracy to commit a criminal act the equivalent of the act itself, with the same penalties. Conspiracy is much easier and certain; guilt is presumed; innocence is not. Hearsay testimony is allowed ( for the prosecution ), and its truth is presumed. It has been broadly defined by the Su-preme Court to make merely having knowledge of a drug crime and not reporting it to be conspiracy. The main reason for charging conspiracy rather than actually selling, possessing or using drugs, however, is that the conspiracy laws now allow imposition of those dreadful mandatory minimum sentences on users and the smallest of sellers. By definition, knowingly buying an illegal substance has always been a conspiracy between buyer and seller. But a buyer is now presumed to know that the seller is a dealer, and can be charged with conspiracy for all the drug sold by that dealer, and be subject to the same penalties. That goes for all of a dealer's customers.(Two myths of the drug war, Arthur Cannon, Fri, 09 Mar 2001, ) 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by observer on October 12, 2001 at 11:26:53 PT
Fails the Straight Face Test
They want people to believe that our prisons are full of simple drug users who deserve treatment and not jail. In the first place, most people in prison for drug offenses are not there for use.Oh .. I see ... that must be why prohibitionists squeal like stuck little piggies when it is suggested that drug users NOT be locked up?If no one is in jail for "use," then it should be no problem to formalize that into law ... drop all those laws that let police jail users? "No! No!" they squeal?Sorry, can't have it both ways.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by aocp on October 12, 2001 at 11:01:51 PT
Re: Poisoned
In our political system there is supposed to be an opportunity to disagree. Everyone is entitled to his opinion and if you want change you have to use the system. Wishing violence upon those who disagree is uncivilized and not very nice. (a) these people are attempting to stifle our ability to disagree(b) i have no illusions that no one is going to change these pile-o-filths' opinions on this issue, therefore i do not apologize for my remarks(c) further, i have less-than-no-influence as to whether these thugs get cancer or not, so i don't believe my wishing they contract it is an issuance of violence(d) i admit it is and should be beneath me, but as i've said before, i'm tired of playing fair. if below the belt is what they want, i'm game. my/your/our logic and case is airtight and all they want to do is run and hide while telling the countryside that i'm unamerican and/or a freaking terrorist. that pisses me off something fierce, so i vent by wishing nasty things upon them. sorry.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Morgan on October 12, 2001 at 09:49:58 PT
The hulking Drug War Gravy Train picks up speed, belching smoke, lumbering over the hill. It's once shiny steel frame, now rusted, dirty and dented from age and abuse has been covered and patched with soiled american flags in a last ditch attempt to keep it from falling apart. Inside the locomotive, fat white men in suits and ties have found new fuel for the furnace. The mangled bodies of the 9/11 6,000, still warm, are piled like cordwood, and are being tossed, one by one, into the fire, to keep the train moving, delivering gravy to the pig-troughs throughout the land. The sweating men know that to stop feeding the fire, means their own deaths, and they will in turn, become fuel for the fire. So they keep feeding the fire, using anything that will burn, long past caring who the fuel may be.***********************************************************
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Ethan Russo MD on October 12, 2001 at 09:43:39 PT:
Comparative Justice
Compare the punishment desired by these politicos to that meted out to a vehicular homicide perpetrator in my prior post. It is not pretty, and not defensible.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 12, 2001 at 09:29:31 PT
Another Anthrax Case Now in New York
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Poisoned1550Days on October 12, 2001 at 09:28:21 PT
In many European countries
there are far stricter Terrorism 
laws - easier to hold someone 
in jail - non jury trials, like
France. Most of these countries 
are far more tolerant of drug use.
I do not think anybody here would care
if harm reduction methodologies
were in force in the USA. Drug War
and Terrorism are two entirely 
seperate things.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Poisoned1550Days on October 12, 2001 at 09:24:01 PT
You should not wish illness upon people aocp
"I hope they
  both get cancer and do not have access to MMJ. Poetic
  justice."In our political system there is supposed
to be an opportunity to disagree. Everyone is
entitled to his opinion and if you want change
you have to use the system. Wishing violence
upon those who disagree is uncivilized and 
not very nice.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Doug on October 12, 2001 at 09:21:13 PT
Drug War = Terrorism
I'm sure other people have pointed this out, but it needs to be repeated. The similarity between the War and Drugs and Terrorism is closer than the relationship between the use of Drugs and Terrorism.This latter, of course, is the comparison always being made by the Drug Warriors and their supporters, such as the two Senators who "wrote" the above article. But if anybody thinks about it with an open mind, granted difficult to find especially in these times, what could be more like terrorism than having a black-clad SWAT team break down your door and threaten you with very large weapons. That seems almost a definition of terror. And of course a few innocent civilians -- too many names to list here -- get killed in the process.But of course these terrorist activities are performed by agents of the State, and so they couldn't really be terrorism. As long as we implicitly exclude state sponsored activites from inclusion with terrorism, we miss what is really happening. But of course that's the whole idea.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Lehder on October 12, 2001 at 09:20:00 PT
well, kaptinemo, i very much like your comment. marc emery is one person who has made practical application of the philosophy you express: giving large amounts of money - most of the money he makes - to activist organizations. but there's no one like him this side of the border. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by aocp on October 12, 2001 at 09:05:23 PT
These poor pathetic excuses for animate flotsam...
Sen. Charles Grassley and Sen. Jon Kyl are from Iowa and Arizona, respectively.And here i thought these guys were people with something better to do or a deadline that they just put off, but NO!!! They're the same old political whores that we've all come to know and loathe throughout the decades. I hope they both get cancer and do not have access to MMJ. Poetic justice.aocp out
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Dan B on October 12, 2001 at 09:05:12 PT
A Great Big Heap of Steaming Fertilizer
 . . . that's what this article is.Okay, let's go over this one more time:In the first place, most people in prison for drug offenses are not there for use. They are there for dealing drugs. To empty our prisons of these dealers in response to wholesale and repeated misrepresentation of the facts does not serve the public interest. Fine, let's assume (incorrectly) that most people in prison for drug charges are not there for use (although at least the author admits that some of them are). If, then, the goal is not to put drug users in jail, why are you threatening them with jail at all? If you want them to get "treatment," then why are you decreasing funding for treatment facilities and increasing funding for prisons? Furthermore, what scientific evidence does the author have that every who is arrested for using illegal drugs requires treatment? There is no such evidence; certainly none is presented here. The plain facts are that millions of Americans use illegal drugs every year (last time I checked it was somewhere between 14 and 20 million), maybe 5 to 10% are arrested, and most of those do not require "treatment." They simply need to be left alone. It is none of your damned business what these peope do on their own time.In addition, there would be no "drug dealers" if drugs were made legal. Let me put this another way: there would be no incentive to sell drugs on the black market if the market were made legal and regulated (provided, that is, that you don't inflate prices with taxes to a level that would provide incentive for a black market to develop). If the drugs are regulated, you have consistent purity, which translates into more consistent regulation of dosage, which translates into far fewer deaths due to hard drug usage. And you'd eliminate the link between the hard and soft drug markets if you at least legalized cannabis. As it stands now, nobody believes the government message about hard drugs because everyone knows the government lies about cannabis; nobody knows the correct dosage from one batch to the next because everything is unregulated; and criminals make all of the money that could be going into government coffers and legitimate businesses. Why? Because people like the authors of this article are too stupid to understand simple economics. Of course, the authors completely misrepresent harm reduction, not even going so far as to define what it means, instead labeling it with their own misdefinition: Teaching American kids how to use drugs "responsibly," and promising treatment for those who fail to do so". No, harm reduction is not a matter of teaching kids how to use drugs responsibly; it's a matter of teaching everyone the truth about all drugs, including all of the dangers inherent in using them, and then telling them that there are safer ways of using some drugs, but all drug use carries with it a certain element of physical risk. It's a matter of reinforcing the idea that it is better to stay away from all drugs (including those for which pharmaceuticals companies continually bombard us with advertisements), but that if drugs are used, there are ways to reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the negative side effects. Funny, by the way, that the author would have no objection to teaching kids how to use prescription drugs, and those kill 100,000 people each year when taken as prescribed.With regard to promising treatment to those who fail to use drugs responsibly, study after study (yes, even government study after government study) has shown that treatment is far more effective as a tool for curbing drug abuse than is law enforcement. The Rand Corporation (a government entity if ever there were one) puts the figure at about 14:1 in favor of treatment over law enforcement and interdiction (we actually lose money with interdiction policies). So the arguments made in this article are ridiculously fallacious and absurd.Bottom line: the above article is propaganda calculated to serve the givernment's interests at a time when the people are in their most vulnerable and (stupidly) trusting state. The people who wrote this article are guilty of treason, and they should be punished accordingly, along with all of the other treasonous agents of government terrorism (DEA, FBI, ATF, ONDCP, CIA, NSA, etc.).Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Carnivore!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Poisoned1550Days on October 12, 2001 at 09:04:30 PT
No treatment unless arrested?
The statement that addicts only
get treatment when arrested seems
to be more a function of the current system
than anything else. In a harm reduction model
the drug user has to interact with health 
care people who could explain the dangers 
and offer treatment every chance they had.
It is my opinion that when it comes to harmful
substances that the drug user will see the
errors of his ways once they are explained 
to him often enough in a rational civilized 
manner. Using prison to deter victimless
crime is barbarity.
   That is the real difference here. The
"supply/demand reducers" want to rely on barbarous
methods. The "harm reducers" want to rely 
on civilized methods.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on October 12, 2001 at 08:58:32 PT:
It's time to s**t or get off the commode
Ever since the tragic day of 9/11, our community has been of two minds about the inevitable response of the antis to try to make political hay out of the (as yet still unproven) terror/drugs connection.We knew they were going to do it. I had posted repeatedly the opportunistic conniving of one un-named DEA agent who had recommended that a (wholly unproven, but when have the facts ever prevented the DEA from acting contrary to good sense?) association between drug users and terrorists be fostered in the public's minds for purely political - and therefore, monetary - gain. And, lo! they have done precisely that. Their 'steel trap' minds could be counted upon doing nothing else; predictable as an Easter sunrise.Many in our camp were worried that if we spoke up, we'd be wrongly perceived by the public - with the hearty help of the anti's propaganda machine laying the groundwork for this perception - of using this tragedy for purely political gain. The very thing our opponnents are doing. Well, we don't have to worry anymore; the antis have taken the latest move in this 87 year long chess game.The question is, are we going to take this laying down?We've for the longest time been the gentlemen in this boxing match, ducking what blows we can and enduring the ones we couldn't with high-minded stoicism. While our opponent is a low-life street cur who relished and gloated over every bruise we've sustained and every drop of blood we've lost. The death of innocents is dismissed by such as they as being the 'price of doing business', 'collateral damage', the 'fortunes of war'; as one Ocean City policeman once said within my hearing: There are two kinds of civilians: a**holes and 'victims'. The implication was that the victims deserved to be so because they were inherently stupid in allowing themselves to be victims - thus qualifying them for a**hole status - and thus making there no difference in the eyes of police. There is no reasoning with these real-life Iagos; the only thing they respect is the ability to make their lives miserable.Which can only come from political activism.And that means money, folks. No getting around it.This is it. Previously, they've been very careful in the past concerning to refer to the Reform movement in very general - and dismissive - language. They are no longer so reserved. With this article, they've declared open season upon Reform organizations everywhere, in the hopes that their assault will bring the public around to their side and squelch debate in this country for good and all.If we don't start speaking up now, right now, you can bet it will get worse and worse, far more so than it is right now. The only way to have a voice politically in this country is to have organizations capable of giving truth for lie...and stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with the liars and throw those lies back in their faces. And that requires money.Is your freedom worth what you paid for that outrageously hyperinflated weed?
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment