A Column That Deserves a Mention -- AJC's Cynthia Tucker Compares the Drug War with Prohibition
This column came out on December 30th, but it's still noteworthy. Cynthia Tucker, Editorial Page Editor with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, opined, "Decades Later, War on Drugs is Still a Loser."
Though Tucker doesn't directly come out for legalization, she suggestively asks, "Isn't it time to admit that this second Prohibition has been as big a failure as the last -- the one aimed at alcohol?" And one of the points she makes is that "thousands of criminals, many of them foreigners, have been enriched." The creation of profits for criminals is a key anti-prohibitionist argument.
ignorant spelling
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 8:31pmplease take my post down, when I learn to spell, you can run my posts again. Thanks.
Drug war going as planed
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 9:42pmRegarding Cynthia Tucker's thoughtful column: "War on drugs is
failing" (Dec. 30, TimesDaily) . I believe the so-called war on
drugs is going as planed. It's white people who are the unintended
victims--not blacks.
H. R. Haldeman, President Nixon's Chief of Staff, wrote in his diary:
"(President Nixon) emphasized that you have to face the fact that the
whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system
that recognizes this while not appearing to."
Our war on certain (politically selected) drugs has been an ideal
system of going after the blacks without appearing to do so.
Today's racists aren't using fire hoses or ax handles--they're using
the war on drugs.
The United States is the most incarcerated nation on the planet and
in history, thanks primarily to our counter-productive war on drugs,
which is actually a war on (politically selected) people.
And Black people are the (politically selected) people. White people
arrested and imprisoned in the drug war are just "collateral damage."
Kirk Muse
Not the first time for Tucker
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 1:27amThis isn't the first time that Cynthia Tucker has spoken out against the drug war.
From December 2, 2006:
http://www.uexpress.com/asiseeit/index.html?uc_full_date=20061202
Tucker et al.
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 1:43amI got a post while preparing for the WTO '99 that gave me a whole new insight into the drug wars' purposes. If you are developing a military-corporate reich that enslaves people and reduces them to the level of compliant functionaries who get shot when they complain, then the whole mess becomes a lot more easy to understand. This is what I got; that Kissinger and his murdering friends were going to countries and telling them if they did not accept the slow death economic stagflation plan they were offering (that is what IMF/World Bank policy creates), then he and his murdering friends will come in, start a civil war and kill them that way. One way or another, they wanted to see a one third reduction in population.
What is the problem with that?
US, the people to die; I am not a compliant functionary, but a human being who now has become doubly dangerous for the nazi status quo; I can think independently and I have a transcendent consciousness that can create it's own future independent of the pigs. DANGEROUS!!
WHY NOT HILLARY CLINTON? Because she is a crack slinging, bank scamming republican whore who hates unions and people like me.
Oh, you didn't hear. . .
1) Clinton stole $60 million from Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan; did it go bankrupt? was it crack money?
2) Airport in Mena Arkansas was being investigated for landing CIA drug flights when an Arkansas state trooper got sprayed in the face with anthrax when he got too close just like Mike Ruppert, now in Venezuala after having his office destroyed in Los Angeles.
The drug war is a murder program, nothing more and nothing less. See
January 2007 Z magazine on the six nation Condor murder networks in south america.
That's alot of collateral damage.
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 2:04amI think painting the war on drugs as primarily a black civil rights issue just belittles the drug market anarchy impacting families of other socio-economic backgrounds. Addiction and death does not know color or class.
Belittle what?
Comment posted by mlang52 on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 5:11pmBelittle a person because of the color of his skin, maybe! It does not really appear that you have done much research on the issue. The drug war is full of racism! (Anslinger started it) More whites use drugs than blacks. But, more blacks are in jail for it. I tend to believe the statement from the diary. The racists just figure out another way to come down on the blacks. The poor whites are right behind them! I am a WASP! So don't try to say I am just another black person screaming racism, when it does not exist. The numbers are out there that verfy its existance! And as long as we continue to fight a "drug war" in the hands of the DEA and their opposing criminals, there won't be any change! Addiction affects around 1.3% of the population, and has since the turn of the last century! Those people need help, not prison! And where does that put the other 12% or so, in addition, that say they use illicit drugs? NOT ADDICTED? And there is a thing called harm reduction, that, if put in place, might actually prevent hundreds of deaths. But we would rather continue, to fight, another failing war!
Re: Belittle what?
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 8:15pmEveryone should support ending the drug war. Black communities aren't only communities with drug problems. There are plenty of drug dealers in mostly white suburban high schools as anywhere else. But if you are a mother with children living in economically deprived community where drug dealers are selling drugs on the street corner and shooting each other up and killing innocent bystanders, you will be the first one in line telling police to round them all up just as a practical matter. BTW, ever wonder why black people don't get behind ending the drug war in large numbers. Have you ever seen their communities with the large numbers of liquor stores, rampant alcoholism and the associated violence? And they're saying "What will legalizing drugs look like?" Go ahead and cry racism but I tell you black community leaders are some of the most ardent supporters of the drug war.
supporters of the drug war
Comment posted by mlang52 on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 3:03pmYes, there are many people out there who want to support the war on drugs. Sort of like cutting off your noses to spite your face, if one looks at the damage it is causing. Most drug warriors want to continue the present stragtegy, no matter whether it works or not! And it is the dealers who are at war with each other and killing everybody. Take the drugs out of their hands and the same thing that happened with alcohol prohibition is most likely to happen. No profit means no dealers! And, no Al Copone type racket!
When you find away to stop people from drinking alcohol, I would like to know about that, too! Many addicts (alcoholics included) probably have untreated mental disease, as found in some studies.
Racism, practiced in any form, is still an abomination to this country. Keep finding ways to imprison the poor and take their lives away from them, and it will just keep them (and their children) poor. All, at the taxpayers expense, anyway!
Re: supporters of the drug war
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 5:25pmThe drug war affects everybody and saying this is only an poor inner-city minority issue just belittles all the victims of the drug war who do not fit in that demographic. Half the high school students in this country have tried illicit drugs. That's of great concern to parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. Why should a white middle-class "soccer mom" be concerned with ending the drug war if we keep saying it only impacts poor people and minorities? We need to clean up our rhetoric and reach out to everyone. To me, I think, the white soccer mom has the most at stake in ending the drug, because their kids are most likely to use drugs, especially marijuana.
high school students
Comment posted by mlang52 on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 6:09pmAsk any high school student! Most likely, you will find, that since the "drug war" is leaving the sales in the hands of criminals called dealers, the kids have easier access to them (than alcohol or cigarettes). Dealers don't card. Regulate the sales of drugs (have to be made legal first) and the dealers will lose their profit margin, and possibly, their job! Anyone under the age of 18 should not have access to booze or drugs. Their young brains need to develop free from this influence! Sad thing is, we can never eliminate this 100% That is where good parenting would come in. Tell your kids the truth about the dangers of drugs. And, have good examples of peoples' lives you know were ruined by drugs. And remember, kids can spot bull**** a mile off!
And the other thing. The rich have proven again and again that the court system favors those who can pay (for example public vs private defense lawyers)! The poor cannot buy their way out of most of their situations. But a $5,000 lawyer can really help a lot!
Re: Belittle what?
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 2:39am"Addiction affects around 1.3% of the population, and has since the turn of the last century!"
Interesting, what's your source?
source?
Comment posted by mlang52 on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 2:52pmFrom multipe studies done. But, the thing is, addicted to what? Ask any addictionologist and he will tell you >30% of the country is addicted (good for his business!) This was taken from LEAP infomation, directly. But, I don't know where they got it. It should be pretty accurate. But, I will look and see what studies were quoted. You could, probalbly, find it if you looked.






















it's been a much bigger failure than prohibition 1
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 8:27pmFor one thing it's gone on much longer, for another the international aspect of prohibiton 2 has been ghastly, and the amounts of money (i.e. power) involved, I would bet, dwarf those of prohibiton 1, even after adjusting for inflation.