|
http://www.drugsense.org/html/modules.php?name=Wodclock
******************
Mark
"The War on Drugs was never, ever about drugs,
it's about bigotry. You can change the law,
but changing the prejudice and fear of bigots who hide
behind drug war rhetoric is a far more challenging task.
It's time to expose the Drug War and the bigots who
promote the ideology of "Zero Tolerance."
-- Steve Kubby, 1998 Libertarian candidate for
Governor of California
|
| |
| |
Mark writes ...
"The War on Drugs was never, ever about drugs,
it's about bigotry. You can change the law,
How is the war on drugs about bigotry? GIMME a break ...
If you don't enforce the laws then you're being bigoted because
you're not stopping the drug menace.
If you enforce the laws you're bigoted because you're putting
drug dealers in prison.
I flash on a quote from Jimmy Hendrix who said "Anyone can
complain about something. It takes much more to do something positive."
Mark's quote is from someone who likes to complain but doesn't
have any answers.
|
| |
| |
On 11-08-2004 22:45, in article
3f12b4fb.0408111245.43513257@posting.google.com, "GIMME"
<gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark writes ...
How is the war on drugs about bigotry? GIMME a break ...
OK, Here is a break...
"'There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are
Negroes,Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and
swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana can cause white women to
seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others... The
primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.'
---Excerpt from the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger, director at the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate in 1937."
Now do you get it?
Ej
|
| |
| |
Mark writes ...
How is the war on drugs about bigotry? GIMME a break ...
If you don't enforce the laws then you're being bigoted because
you're not stopping the drug menace.
I think you mean soft, that's the usual attack. Soft on drugs as opposed to
hard on drugs.
If you enforce the laws you're bigoted because you're putting
drug dealers in prison.
The drug dealers that drive the illicit trade are very rarely caught, even
when one is eliminated everyone in the chain just shuffles over to take up
the slack. Their biggest worry isn't the cops it's other drug gangs and
wanna be drug lords, that's why there is the violence which filters right
down to those selling on the streets.
I flash on a quote from Jimmy Hendrix who said "Anyone can
complain about something. It takes much more to do something positive."
What about you. Do you think the war on some drugs is "something positive"?
Mark's quote is from someone who likes to complain but doesn't
have any answers.
The answers to the drug menace aren't just a few shallow words of wisdom or
a simplistic strategy that will effect a perfect cure. A pragmatic policy
towards drug sale, use and abuse (a medical not criminal issue) would evolve
and there would be some mistakes. Unlike prohibition these mistakes could
(if the policy was pragmatic) be rectified and not simply dogmatically
compounded. War on some drugs has at it's core a vindictive hatred for those
who use the unapproved drugs and is still driven by bigotry. The paradox is
that war on some drugs drives a vast, lucrative illicit market that relies
on prohibition to feed it. It promotes violence, aquisitive crime,
disrespect for the law, public health issues, marginalisation and squalor.
What it absolutely does not do is curb drug use and abuse, protect children
(or anyone else) from drugs or make the streets safer. Prohibition costs
vast amounts and greedily eats into civil liberties yet it is at it's very
best ineffective, by any measure it just does not work! It swallows huge
amounts of public resources that could be much better spent.
The biggest problem by far with some drugs is their illicit nature and that
is why their prohibition needs to be abandoned. Unfortunately that would
mean the establishment admitting they've had it wrong for decades despite
increasing the "effort" year on year and would expose them, quite properly,
to claims of murder, violence, terror and human rights abuse.
|
| |
| |
johnny wrote:
The biggest problem by far with some drugs is their illicit nature and that
is why their prohibition needs to be abandoned. Unfortunately that would
mean the establishment admitting they've had it wrong for decades despite
increasing the "effort" year on year and would expose them, quite properly,
to claims of murder, violence, terror and human rights abuse.
all they need to do is look at their data ;
)
b--
citizen, patriot, stoner
Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com
Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org
"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc
|
| |
| |
brian bennett wrote:
johnny wrote:
all they need to do is look at their data ;
)
Well, there's one place to do that, even has data presented in pretty
pictures. :D
|
| |
| |
Johnny wrote:
brian bennett wrote:
Well, there's one place to do that, even has data presented in pretty
pictures. :D
i saw in my web logs that the ondcp has been by for a few visits -- i
wonder if they're learning anything
b--
citizen, patriot, stoner
Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com
Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org
"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc
|
| |
| |
brian bennett <shpoym@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:411CBB91.A1EC2BED@mindspring.com:
Johnny wrote:
i saw in my web logs that the ondcp has been by for a few visits -- i
wonder if they're learning anything
They're learning that you know what they have known for years.
|
| |
| |
http://www.drugsense.org/html/modules.php?name=Wodclock
"The War on Drugs was never, ever about drugs,
it's about bigotry. You can change the law,
but changing the prejudice and fear of bigots who hide
behind drug war rhetoric is a far more challenging task.
It's time to expose the Drug War and the bigots who
promote the ideology of "Zero Tolerance."
-- Steve Kubby, 1998 Libertarian candidate for
Governor of California
So, Steve, you might be on the Mark.
Of course I am not bigoted against ALL the Chinese that allowed opium
to be promulgated in their society during the 19th century, only to
find out that there population was getting strung out and
dysfunctional. Their "lasse faire" approach didn't bother ME. And that
is what one wing of your party centers upon: the ME concept!
And do I really care about all those colored people of America, I mean
People of Color, whose lives are so miserable that heroin and crack
are but two momentary releases to "the good life" as so many
libertarians enjoy because of the money? Not for a heartbeat, or two.
No bigotry here. Thanks for running. Keep it up.
==
Light travels faster than sound.
This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.
|
| |
| |
Manny Davis wrote:
brian bennett <shpoym@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:411CBB91.A1EC2BED@mindspring.com:
They're learning that you know what they have known for years.
and now everyone can.
b--
citizen, patriot, stoner
Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com
Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org
"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc
|
| |
| |
brian bennett wrote:
Manny Davis wrote:
and now everyone can.
But will they? Is it worth Joe Sixpack's time to learn the truth about
U.S. drug policy? Unless he is intellectually interested in the topic,
then no.
<quote>
A person purchasing a new car usually spends time learning about various
makes of cars and shopping for prices. The more effort spent in these
activities, the more one's knowledge about cars and their prices
increases. Because time is limited, and spending time searching for
information means that one cannot use that time for other purposes,
there is a limit on how much knowledge is worthwhile to gain. After some
amount of reading, talking to friends and acquaintances, and visiting
automobile dealers, a person finds that the extra benefit of another
hour spent on these activities is less than the value of that hour spent
in other pursuits. When one judges that this point has been reached, one
stops searching and makes a decision.
The amount of time people spend obtaining information differs from
product to product. They will spend less time learning about the bicycle
they give their child than they will learning about a new car, less time
deciding which brand of soup to buy than in deciding which house to
purchase, and less time deciding which brand of dog food is best for
Rover than in finding a college for their first-born. The larger the
purchase, the larger the potential benefit of a few hours spent learning
about the purchase.
The government has many policies that involve major sums of money. For
example, a major weapons system in the defense department can cost $50
billion. This amounts to about $200 for every person in the United
States, or $1000 for a family of five. Yet few people spend much time
studying these policies. A reason is that to understand them requires
many hours of study, and the probability that an understanding of them
will change them in any way is very small. Thus, for most citizens the
benefit of learning about a program that does not directly affect them
is small, the cost is large, and they end up not knowing much about the
program. Economists say that these poorly informed citizens are
rationally ignorant.
</quote>
http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/LogicOfChoice/RatIgnorance.html
And a google link:
http://tinylink.com/?JpgigbInFY
|
| |
| |
On 11 Aug 2004 13:45:54 -0700, gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com (GIMME)
wrote:
Mark writes ...
How is the war on drugs about bigotry? GIMME a break ...
If you don't enforce the laws then you're being bigoted because
you're not stopping the drug menace.
True, drugs can be a menace to the user. But it takes drug
prohibition to make them a menace to the community.
If you enforce the laws you're bigoted because you're putting
drug dealers in prison.
Lets put alcohol and tobacco dealers in prison. The drugs they
peddle are much more hazardous.
Dr P, PhD, MD
Board-certified:
American Board of Toxicology
American Board of Medical Toxicology.
And You ?
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:55:09 GMT, Len <len@sonic.net> wrote:
http://www.drugsense.org/html/modules.php?name=Wodclock
Of course I am not bigoted against ALL the Chinese that allowed opium
to be promulgated in their society during the 19th century, only to
find out that there population was getting strung out and
dysfunctional. Their "lasse faire" approach didn't bother ME. And that
is what one wing of your party centers upon: the ME concept!
Actually, this was more about the fact that the opium trade was
causing a net drain on Chinese silver...
Dr P
|
| |
| |
Manny Davis wrote:
brian bennett wrote:
But will they? Is it worth Joe Sixpack's time to learn the truth about
U.S. drug policy? Unless he is intellectually interested in the topic,
then no.
that is true of just about everything. however, the crux in the drugwar
issue that makes it of concern to everyone, is that the nation is
transfixed with fighting terrorism and has at its disposal all the
resources it could possibly desire. those resources are currently being
pissed into the wind
anyone who sees the data for himself will reach the same inescapable
conclusion. i've gathered the data, made the charts and provide anlysis
to dissect the drugwar completely.
if americans wish to fight terrorism, they simply *must* free up the
resources wasted on drugwar.
you can lead a horse to water -- and i have. the rest is up to the
legions of people who care. *everyone* needs to be told why they should
care.
that's how social changes always happen -- from the bottom up. there
seems to be no scarcity of people who care and the awareness is being
spread. one more terrorist attack and the end of the drugwar will be
*greatly* accelerated.
btw, you have made your point on more than one occasion that people
won't take the time to learn about things on their own that don't sem to
be of concern to them.
are you insinuating that trying to give people the resources they need
to make other people understand and care about the drugwar is a waste of
time? if so, what alternative do you wish to offer?
b
<quote>
A person purchasing a new car usually spends time learning about various
makes of cars and shopping for prices. The more effort spent in these
activities, the more one's knowledge about cars and their prices
increases. Because time is limited, and spending time searching for
information means that one cannot use that time for other purposes,
there is a limit on how much knowledge is worthwhile to gain. After some
amount of reading, talking to friends and acquaintances, and visiting
automobile dealers, a person finds that the extra benefit of another
hour spent on these activities is less than the value of that hour spent
in other pursuits. When one judges that this point has been reached, one
stops searching and makes a decision.
The amount of time people spend obtaining information differs from
product to product. They will spend less time learning about the bicycle
they give their child than they will learning about a new car, less time
deciding which brand of soup to buy than in deciding which house to
purchase, and less time deciding which brand of dog food is best for
Rover than in finding a college for their first-born. The larger the
purchase, the larger the potential benefit of a few hours spent learning
about the purchase.
The government has many policies that involve major sums of money. For
example, a major weapons system in the defense department can cost $50
billion. This amounts to about $200 for every person in the United
States, or $1000 for a family of five. Yet few people spend much time
studying these policies. A reason is that to understand them requires
many hours of study, and the probability that an understanding of them
will change them in any way is very small. Thus, for most citizens the
benefit of learning about a program that does not directly affect them
is small, the cost is large, and they end up not knowing much about the
program. Economists say that these poorly informed citizens are
rationally ignorant.
</quote>
http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/LogicOfChoice/RatIgnorance.html
And a google link:
http://tinylink.com/?JpgigbInFY
--
citizen, patriot, stoner
Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com
Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org
"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc
|
| |
| |
brian bennett <shpoym@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
btw, you have made your point on more than one occasion that people
won't take the time to learn about things on their own that don't sem
to be of concern to them.
are you insinuating that trying to give people the resources they need
to make other people understand and care about the drugwar is a waste
of time?
Certainly not a waste of time. I enjoy your site, and I have learned
quite a bit from it, and I am sure others have too. But I don't think it
will result in political change, which is what was implied in the thread.
There is simply too much at stake.
if so, what alternative do you wish to offer?
You wouldn't like it.
|
| |
| |
Manny Davis wrote:
brian bennett <shpoym@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
Certainly not a waste of time. I enjoy your site, and I have learned
quite a bit from it, and I am sure others have too. But I don't think it
will result in political change, which is what was implied in the thread.
it's a numbers game -- and we have the numbers already. we need only
look around, find each other and make a move -- and that is exactly what
is happening
There is simply too much at stake.
yes, everything that our nation supposedly represents is at stake.
if so, what alternative do you wish to offer?
You wouldn't like it.
true, if people can't let each other alone over what they do to
themselves, then your proposal certainly won't work. ;
)
b--
citizen, patriot, stoner
Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com
Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org
"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc
|
| |
| |
|
