Editorial: Politicians Are Too Scared to Talk About Drug Prohibition, So We Must Talk

David Borden, Executive Director

https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/borden12.jpg
David Borden
Each week, as many of you know, our editor Phil Smith compiles a list of the latest reports on police corruption relating to the drug laws: "This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories." Phil has been writing these for more than five years -- I won't let him stop -- and in all that time I can only remember a single week in which he was unable to find any relevant news articles. Whatever one thinks of the police, the bottom line is that the drug laws corrupt some of them, and so long as we have these drug laws they always will.

To the south, a court in the nation of Colombia dealt with the perpetrators of a particularly troubling incident of government corruption at a level I hope we never see here. In May 2006, a judge found, an Army colonel and 14 of his troops massacred 10 Colombian narcotics police, ambushing them outside the city of Cali as they prepared to seize 220 pounds of cocaine to which they had been pointed (rightly or wrongly) by an informant. Mexico may even have it worse right now. In 2006 and 2007 roughly 4,000 people have been murdered in drug trade violence, and police are among the many suspects. While police corruption and drug trade violence have certainly taken their toll on our country here in the north, we should by no means rule out the possibility that things could get even worse.

And so the US government should take a lesson from the experience of Colombia, both for their sakes and for ours. Colombia is fighting the drug war in the way it does, in part because they have been pushed into it by US diplomatic pressure. Colombian cognoscenti in significant number understand that it is prohibition which causes drug trade violence, and that Colombia would be better off with some form of drug legalization -- The understanding may fall short of an outright consensus, but it is an understanding that is widely held nonetheless. Many US policymakers privately understand this too, but for reasons both political and ideological they not only refuse to deal with it, but in many cases continue to actively push other countries in the wrong direction. To be fair, drug warrior politicians in Colombia presumably find the drug laws useful for political purposes as well.

The situation is a wrongful one, and should be changed. Colombia doesn't deserve to be torn apart by flawed drug policies that it didn't invent, and it is our users here who buy most of their product anyway and thereby make it possible. There are viable options for reducing the harms of substance that don't involve prohibition, and which therefore don't cause drug trade violence, don't cause corruption, don't place addicts into the hell we've all seen, and that could actually work. Just because we talk about making drugs legal doesn't mean we won't still offer treatment, that the addicted won't organize for self-help, that we can no longer seek to discourage drug use or do harm reduction for those who don't listen. The exact best regulation system or set of programs is hard to tell, and every possible scenario has both pros and cons. But they all have in common that they are preferable to prohibition for almost every important measure one can construct.

The victims of the drug laws -- in Colombia, here, everywhere -- don't deserve what is being done to them. Since our politicians are mostly too scared to talk about this, it is therefore up to us to press the case. Bit by bit, the public will hear our ideas, and eventually turn our way. It is only an unfortunate matter of how many lives get ruined in the meanwhile.

Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

Politicians too scared to talk about drug prohibition

No politician running for national office can advocate the re-legalization of
all drugs, thus ending the failed drug war and expect to get elected. Not now.
With Barack Obame we have hope that once elected, he will educate the public
about the disaster of the so-called war on drugs.

The drug war bureaucracy, with its multi-billion dollar budgets, has brainwashed
the public into believing that the re-legalization of drugs would be a disaster.
The real disaster is the never ending so-called war on drugs.

With Obama we have hope for change. With either Clinton or McCain we
have no hope. Just the continuation of the status quo.

HOPE?!

Sounds like poorly placed faith, in Obama. There have been no statements, by him, about it, made to the press. He is too scared. (chicken?!) But, I do admit, those that have the heart to bring it up,are quickly called "fringe" by the media.

What are you smoking?

Don't you know that Obama is just blowing smoke up your butt to get your vote. Both of the major parties are going to ignore this issue until they start losing elections because of it. It's time for Americans to stand up and vote for another party and send the incumbent parties a message that we aren't going to stand for the status quo anymore. Until this happens we are likely to get more of the same smoke blowing you are choking on right now.

YEs

I believe what the gentleman or lady right above me said is true. Obama doesnt look like he can do anything for us. What Ive noticed is that he is a good speaker, but his words are empty. He talks about NOTHING, just gets the people all patriotic. I can see right through him, and I can see that he is just another tool. The only candidates that can save our country and drug-laws are Dennis Kucinich and of course Ron Paul.

PeAcE

The only thing

that has gotten these politicians in the two dominance parties to moderate their positions at all about the war on drugs is seeing voters abandon the two parties for the Greens, Libertarians and Nader Independents. All of whom oppose the drug war. This is a direct threat to the political viability of the Democrats and Republicans. This is all that they understand. They have maintained the drug war BECAUSE they have thought that being demagogued as soft on crime would threaten their political viability. Now the pendulum is turning in the other direction.

I do not understand this universal attack on all politicians as being scared since we have great proofs of the opposite. Lots of elected politicians, at all levels, are coming out against the drug war. They need our encouragement and support. We need to use them to encourage those still on the fence. Rather than obsessing on what has not yet happened we need to focus more on our successes and use those successes to drive more success.

About Obama. I would love to believe his rhetoric but his record tells another story. His sponsorship of the 2005 Combat Meth Act is an atrocity. His ambiguous lawyer talk is no different from Bill Clinton's lying Jim Crow crap.

Cynthia McKinney

has joined the Green Party and is running for president.

McKinney has been an ardent and articulate opponent of the war on drugs.

In 1996 I gave up the idea of being able to vote for a winner since all of the major candidates hate my social justice values as embodied in opposition to the war on drugs. Since then I have supported Ralph Nader as a representation of my social justice, human rights, civil liberties based drug war abolitionist values. I would happily support McKinney for the same reasons.

As one of the posters above said "It's time for Americans to stand up and vote for another party and send the incumbent parties a message that we aren't going to stand for the status quo anymore."

The Democrats and Republicans ignore their party hack sycophants because the parties tell those puppets what to think. The two parties do not ignore the importance of Independents and third party people because they can't control what we think. They must instead pay attention to us.

Patriotism

To any U.S. politician, please feel free to use my suggested speech material:

I'm not soft on crime, I'm resolute against bad laws!

If it weren't for breaking the law, the United States of America would not exist.

In the eyes of the British king at the time, our founding forefathers were nothing more than filthy criminals. Historical events like the Boston Tea Party were crimes.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is equivalent to the unjust laws our founding forefathers fought against to establish a just rule of law.

Here are three main points to confirm that the CSA corrupts our rule of law:

1. The purpose of the CSA is to "protect the health and welfare of the American people", and yet I can legally shatter my health in a huge list of ways. In order to preserve freedom, the rule of law does not ban all possible health-destroying scenarios, nor does it ban anything else just for having a "high potential for abuse". The CSA sticks out like a sore thumb here?

2. Alcohol and tobacco clearly belong in the CSA. By not having them there, we have an inconsistent law amounting to an unfair double standard, creating an unfair rule of law.

3. The cost/benefit analysis clearly goes against the CSA. The cost in freedom, enormous taxpayer resources, and many shattered lives to various degrees is offset by what firmly-proven benefit?

When the rule of law is corrupt, patriotism declines (the rule of law should reflect a set of principles worth standing up for), and more people break the law, justifying that break by believing that if the rule of law is corrupt, why should it be followed?

While substance abuse is a problem worth addressing (though affecting a vast minority of the people who choose to use substances), it pales compared to the blatant abuse against freedom, firmly exercised in the name of the civil part of civil liberty by CSA proponents.

Full legalization supported by an effective system of abuse prevention and treatment is the healthy path, the right path to a much better America.

Thank you.

The drug war

is soft on crime.

In fact the war on drugs creates a $ 144-billion black market that is a subsidy program for crime.

1. It provides cash for the growth of drug gangs and and that entices under-employed and under-educated Americans to participate in the black market.

2. Drug war convictions relegate more and more citizens to the army of drug dealers needed for the continued growth of drug gangs.

And

3. The high demand for illegal guns by drug gangs on American city streets effectively subsidizes the cheap and easy to get proliferation of guns and gun violence on American streets.

I would love to see one day

I would love to see one day (but it's obviously not going to happen, at least not any time soon), a president say "I am opposed to the war on drugs. I believe it causes more harm than the drugs themselves. However, i respect the will of the people. If they believe we should continue the war on drugs, i will continue it". He's already president, so he doesn't have anything to worry about. If he believed it (and odds are, any president might secretly actually believe it. I mean, george bush used to use cocaine, he must have at least thought about it), why not just say it? Why not have the balls to just say it? Who cares, you're already president. Imagine what that would do.

It's the People that will make the change as it always has been

Most voters in mainstream middle-class America don't do drugs and will not care about the War on Drugs until they see how it has impacted, or could potentially impact, their lives and their families. As for those that do drugs, they correctly believe their chances of ever getting arrested are nearly zip. So preaching the right to do drugs and outrage over tiny percentage of drug users getting arrested - usually for careless reasons - will not win the day. Now if you don't care to reach out to mainstream middle-class America, then stay the course with more of the same (hemp rallies and such). Otherwise show me how my family and kids are in danger by this impotent war on drugs and show me how regulation and taxation over the drug market will increase safety for my family. We all know that drugs greatly impact all levels of society.

Misinformed

"Most voters in mainstream middle-class America don't do drugs"

Since alcohol is a drug, I disagree with your statement.

"how it has impacted, or could potentially impact, their lives and their families."

The WoD has at least a notable negative impact on crime (including prison overcrowding, gang violence, and judicial corruption), the economy, the environment, health care, illegal immigration, privacy, racism, terrorism, and above all freedom, all amounting to tremendous cost against the U.S. citizenry (tens of billions of taxpayer dollars annually) without a proven tremendous (if any) benefit to justify it.

If you can't see the danger in that, then how can you possibly call yourself a good citizen?

To naturally assert their individuality, teenagers like to say yes when adults say no. A reasonable number of them experiment with drugs (and that isn't changing by "impotency"). Because they are illegal, drugs are obtained underground where they can be tainted (perhaps with something fatal), and kids fearing punishment will avoid adult assistance in the event of an emergency (which could also be fatal). Hopefully, that won't happen to your kid(s).

Prohibitionists say that it's the drugs that give us the black market. We say it's prohibition. They have tried to remove the drugs, and failed miserably. With one swipe of a Congressional pen, repealing the Controlled Substances Act, the black market basically disappears instantly.

"We all know that drugs greatly impact all levels of society."

In their propaganda, the ONDCP cites a study comparing The Netherlands' effective legalization to our prohibition. The quote they cite needs no mention, because it's completely negated by the quote they chose to ignore, "We conclude now that Dutch use rates are comparable to that of the United States." In other words, legalization doesn't increase drug use.

People say drug use is harmful. I say drug abuse, like any abuse, is harmful. Prove that an instance of drug use, in and of itself, causes any harm at all.

Perhaps you can tell us how to effectively reach the mainstream middle-class, when high-powered information delivery systems (e.g. a certain popular cable provider) have in the past refused to run legalization ads, and the mainstream media essentially ignores our side of the subject, all while many communications professionals back the Partnership for a Drug Free America.

It is the people who will make the change, and once they are truly informed of the ridiculous degree of corruption that is the CSA, they will make the right choice of full legalization supported by an effective system of abuse prevention and treatment.

Let freedom reign.

Re: Misinformed

"The WoD has at least a notable negative impact on crime (including prison overcrowding, gang violence, and judicial corruption), the economy, the environment, health care, illegal immigration, privacy, racism, terrorism, and above all freedom, all amounting to tremendous cost against the U.S. citizenry (tens of billions of taxpayer dollars annually) without a proven tremendous (if any) benefit to justify it."

Okay, now explain how the WoD negatively impacts communities outside the innercity and third world. What stake do soccer moms have in ending the WoD beyond the tax dollar argument?

Re: Misinformed

"Perhaps you can tell us how to effectively reach the mainstream middle-class, when high-powered information delivery systems (e.g. a certain popular cable provider) have in the past refused to run legalization ads, and the mainstream media essentially ignores our side of the subject, all while many communications professionals back the Partnership for a Drug Free America."

It isn't the tools, its message. If you have a mainstream message that really resonates, it will spread quickly. Talking about freedom to use drugs, prison overcrowding and racism will not significantly influence mainstream America, which is more interested in how drug policies put their kids and families at risk rather than concerned about the rights of drug felons.

Connectivity

You are messing with me, right? If not, how did you even find this site?

Reply 1:

"crime (including prison overcrowding, gang violence, and judicial corruption), the economy, the environment, health care, illegal immigration, privacy, racism, terrorism, and above all freedom" effects everyone. Although I would love to, due to time and space constraints (I could write a book), I'm not going to elaborate on each one. Not to be a jerk, but please use your brain. It's all very sensible (and there's a lot of solid evidence out there to back it up).

What I will say is that drug use exists everywhere, not just the inner city and third world countries.

Sadly, soccer moms (and potentially you, if you're not one) don't get it until it's their son or daughter that finds tragedy due to an impotent "just say no"/"drug users are evil"-like policy.

"Full legalization supported by an effective system of abuse prevention and treatment" embraces freedom while giving teenagers a real education on drugs, the kind of education that can turn them off to certain substances entirely (before getting hooked on them), and potentially save their lives should they find drug experimentation irresistible (which many of them do). Since abnormal stress plays a strong role in substance abuse (just ask the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse), effective abuse prevention teaching people proper stress management can produce a very strong, positive impact on everyone's health and productivity.

Even with the not-so-great abuse prevention system in place today, tobacco use, despite its legal status, is reportedly declining.

Also, crime organizations are buying nice houses in soccer mom's nice neighborhood just to grow a lot of marijuana. They are also in our public national forests growing it (and protecting it with armed people and booby traps), potentially endangering any soccer mom who hikes there.

Soccer mom, like a wine connoisseur, may also be interested in having the freedom to safely purchase a high-quality strain of marijuana amongst a nice, wide selection at the local store.

Once you look at all of the facts (please, take the time to learn them), it's very clear that the Controlled Substances Act is a blatant abuse of the civil part of civil liberty, seriously corrupting the rule of law. Now please take a moment to answer my questions:

How can that corruption possibly be a good thing for any U.S. citizen (including soccer mom)?

How can ignoring that corruption be a good thing for any U.S. citizen (again, including soccer mom)?

Reply 2:

If one has a good message, that's all that matters? Everyone here wishes! That's like saying if I have a powerful bullet, that's all that matters. The gun is optional. Having a good message, and a good transport for that message are two different things. Both are critical. Nothing resonates if there is no conductor.

We have a good message, though I confess that consolidating it into "t-shirt form" (to be worn by soccer moms) is quite the challenge. Some of us are working on getting our message to the mainstream with varying degrees of success.

However, the lying prohibitionists still have a much larger "megaphone" and many are abusing the credibility of law enforcement to successfully convince soccer moms that supply reduction is right.

Still, however, our message is bypassing the mainstream media, being passed on through the Internet. The lying prohibitionists are being undermined. And since we have truth and freedom on our side, it's only a matter of time until the prohibitionist dam breaks (again - see alcohol prohibition).

Re: Connectivity

"crime (including prison overcrowding, gang violence, and judicial corruption), the economy, the environment, health care, illegal immigration, privacy, racism, terrorism, and above all freedom" effects everyone. Although I would love to, due to time and space constraints (I could write a book), I'm not going to elaborate on each one. Not to be a jerk, but please use your brain. It's all very sensible (and there's a lot of solid evidence out there to back it up).

What I will say is that drug use exists everywhere, not just the inner city and third world countries.

Sadly, soccer moms (and potentially you, if you're not one) don't get it until it's their son or daughter that finds tragedy due to an impotent "just say no"/"drug users are evil"-like policy."

Buddy, your sefl-righteous arrogant attitude isn't helping at all and you misquote alot. Please READ before spouting off. I agree with nearly everything you say about the damage the WoD is doing to the country and around the world. However, you talk about soccer moms not waking up until tragedy inflicts their children, but guess what, when they do they are more likely to support harsher prohibitionist policies. When was the last time you heard a parent that lost their kids to drugs speak out against the Drug War? Same with African American communities: Most of them are least likely to support legalization while suffering the most under the WoD. How is that possible if our message is so great? Where are the black community groups across the country protesting in front of city hall to repeal the CSA? Could it be because alcohol legalization has flooded their communities with liquor stores and drunken violence and that will only be compounded by widespread cocaine and marijuana sales? Go ahead and tell them they need to wake up and start using their brains. We have enough high-powered media tools, but our libertarian-laced "right to get high and screw everyone else" core message sucks and creating little Amsterdams in every neighborhood only really appeals to the college age crowd and bachelors, not to the over thirty crowd who are raising families. As for the argument that reformers lack the high-powered media tools, the marijuana legalization campaigns in Nevada have far outspent the ONDCP and other prohibitionist campaigns in media advertising and only 44% of voters supported us in a state that has legalized prostitution, 24 hour liquor stores, drive thru wedding chapels and gambling galore. That tells me that you still need to seriously address parent concerns even in a state like Nevada, something the prohibitionists excel at and we have been the worst at... for like the past 40 years.

Message

How about you provide our group here a positive solution instead of just criticizing us for our message? If you "agree with nearly everything" I say "about the damage", what would your message be to the soccer mom?

I'm not quoting you at all, except for the occasional cut and paste, so instead of attacking me for misquoting a lot, is it possible that, with all due respect, you haven't articulated your point very well? Again not to be a jerk, but breaking your post into paragraphs would help.

"How is that possible if our message is so great?"

Because our message has been (and still is, though improving with help from the Internet) heavily drowned out by prohibitionists (including all sorts of community leaders) who effectively teach us one simple thing:

Drug use and drug abuse are equal.

It's taught in schools, on television (in the news, advertisements, many shows/movies, etc.), other ads (subways, buses, etc.), and it's how our law is structured.

Our society has been inundated with this false message for roughly a century.

We are swimming upstream by challenging the majority of community leaders. They are preventing us from accessing the same powerful message delivery channels that they use.

"We have enough high-powered media tools"

Please list those tools, so we can discuss their efficacy.

We need to constantly debate these community leaders in the national spotlight. Certain members of our movement have proposed such a debate, supposedly accepted by the prohibitionists, and yet we still haven't had it.

"Could it be because alcohol legalization has flooded their communities with liquor stores and drunken violence and that will only be compounded by widespread cocaine and marijuana sales?"

Could it be that alcohol abuse is to blame for the damage, not alcohol use? Could it be that the abuse prevention part of "Full legalization supported by an effective system of abuse prevention and treatment" would help alleviate the abuse problem (for any substance), which is why I'm on this site constantly suggesting it (also emphasizing that the time to build that system is now)?

Part of our message is that drug use and drug abuse are well-proven not to be equal. Until we can overcome the inundated false equalization by community leaders, it makes convincing soccer mom perhaps nearly impossible.

"show me how my family and kids are in danger by this impotent war on drugs and show me how regulation and taxation over the drug market will increase safety for my family."

That's what I've been trying to do.

I'm corresponding with you here to help improve our message, to challenge my own beliefs and to try to improve my ability to articulate them.

You attack me for not reading, but your last response shows that you didn't read what I posted. That's evident by the fact that you didn't answer my questions in my last post regarding our corrupt rule of law.

Re: Message

"Because our message has been (and still is, though improving with help from the Internet) heavily drowned out by prohibitionists (including all sorts of community leaders)"

"Please list those tools, so we can discuss their efficacy."

"We need to constantly debate these community leaders in the national spotlight."

I don't see your argument carrying any weight. We can't even handle the state-wide spotlight yet. As two statewide campaigns have shown:

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/commercials

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/news

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/video

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/radio

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/opinion

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/media_endorsements

http://safercolorado.org/pressroom

"Could it be that alcohol abuse is to blame for the damage, not alcohol use?"

And our society is encouraging alcohol abuse by:

--flooding these communities with a high concentration of liquor and beer stores, especially in the inner cities, and allowing them to operate beyond regulatory capacity,

--allowing our communities to be saturated by alcohol ads,

--and allowing people to purchase alcohol in outstanding quantities and redistribute it to minors.

I remain to be convinced that teaching people stress management while allowing the "full legalization" machine that encourages the easy way out through alcohol use will achieve much. Nor should we be promoting and normalizing marijuana use in such a manner.

The goal of real reform should be to remove marijuana sales from residential areas and schools and keep it as low profile as possible.

--allowing only a few outlets for distribution in cities (with each monitored constantly by local or state govt officials)

--banning all public advertising,

--restricting the amount of marijuana that can be purchased and possessed down to a few grams (not ounces).

Re:

[im a different anonymous btw]

"Could it be because alcohol legalization has flooded their communities with liquor stores and drunken violence and that will only be compounded by widespread cocaine and marijuana sales?"

Drunken violence is probably the least of the violence, or at least the least significant violence. The violence produced by selling illegal drugs is much more severe.

and i want to add

[i'm different anonymous again]

The added violence produced by cocaine and marijuana sales will be very very small. Marijuana does not at all produce violence. Cocaine produces about the same amount of violence as alcohol, perhaps just a little more. However, the amount of people who use alcohol is so gigantic compared to the amount of people who use cocaine, that the overall violence created by intoxicated people will remain almost identical. Meanwhile, you're completely eradicating ALL violence from the illegal drug market, which, as i stated above, is by far the most severe.

The war on drugs

subsidizes crime on American streets and terrorism around the world while at the same time subverting American democratic institutions. All proven facts.

The war on drugs is soft on crime, promotes the growth of stateless terrorism and effectively destroys all of the electoral empowerment effects of the Voting Rights Act.

I do not see how this is a losing argument for any politician. I said so today on my blog:

Nader, McKinney, Paul and Gravel

The war on drugs gives alQaeda their most potent asymmetric weapon, heroin, that they are using to undermine western culture and western friendly nations like Pakistan. Even drug warrior, and Obama supporter, John Kerry spoke of this as the World Trade Center and Pentagon still smoldered in September of 2001.

"That's part of their revenge on the world," Kerry said. "Get as many people drugged out and screwed up as you can." 21 Sept. 2001 See my essay:Seeds of Insurrection in America's Field of Dreams

America's children and the children of the free world are being cynically used as cannon fodder in the war on terror and the drug warrior politicians are silent about it.

The war on drugs gives "aid and comfort" to America's foreign enemies while subsidizing America's domestic criminal enemies.

About how it impacts soccer moms

1. terrorism is largely funded by drugs
2. tax payer dollars are being wasted
3. Wealthy white people (ie soccer moms, their husbands, their kids, friends, and family) DO use drugs, just as frequently or even more so than other sectors of society. If they get arrested it is NOT because they are careless (even though it is true that police target minorities), it is because it is impossible to use drugs and not put yourself at risk of arrest. Plenty of white people do have legal problems due to drugs, and no legal problem is trivial.
5. Black market drugs are much more dangerous than legal drugs would be because they lack quality control.

However, i have to admit, it is true that in the end any soccer mom who doesn't use drugs will hardly give a shit about any of this. I mean, unless it's her immediate family that uses drugs or a very, very, very close friend, they won't care.

The only thing that might possibly persuade them is the realization of how much better, that is, WHAT AN INCREDIBLE hope for the future we can have if we legalize drugs. Tell them to imagine a country without racial and social disparities, where ghettos, the way we know them today, pretty much don't exist; a country where pretty much everyone, rich or poor, goes to college. People don't think it's possible. It is. The biggest reason that doesn't happen is the WoD. If soccer moms realized what a future we could have as a society, they'd want to legalize drugs.

Re: About how it impacts soccer moms

"Wealthy white people (ie soccer moms, their husbands, their kids, friends, and family) DO use drugs, just as frequently or even more so than other sectors of society. If they get arrested it is NOT because they are careless (even though it is true that police target minorities), it is because it is impossible to use drugs and not put yourself at risk of arrest. Plenty of white people do have legal problems due to drugs, and no legal problem is trivial."

No legal problem is trivial, but drug prohibition enforcement is not nearly as efficient as many people think it is. Even most of the big drug busts just happen to fall into the laps of law enforcement. Nationwide, no more than 3% of people that use marijuana every year are arrested annually and no more than 10% of these arrests are for felony level offenses. The vast majority of these people get arrested during traffic stops by the police, which in many towns and cities is by far the most common means of law enforcement coming into contact with drug users. Racial profiling or not, nearly all these arrests resulted from stops are triggered by computer check of license plate for previous warrants, expired vehicle registration/inspection, careless driving, and/or some vehicle defect (defective tail light) with the occupants subsequently consenting to a search or giving probable cause. In other words, as the numbers show, the vast majority of arrests are easily avoidable.

Soccer Moms

Should care as much as anyone that the drug war subsidizes the growth of the million addict drug sales force on American streets that today entices children of all American communities with money, popularity and intoxication.

Soccer Moms should care as much as anyone if their kids are induced into a patriotic war on terror that is exacerbated by the billions of narco-dollars funding stateless terrorist armies and groups around the world.

Soccer Moms should care as much as anyone about the high taxes we pay for a hundred billion dollar a year criminal justice system.

I know the soccer Moms in my community care about their kids adopting the baggy pants and anti-social prison culture based music on the streets today. A prison culture being spread by the high incarceration rates of the war on drugs.

Soccer Moms should care as much as anyone that Barack Obama is promising to treat suburban white kids in the same way that urban minority kids have been treated by the drug war for the past three dozen years.

Rural soccer Moms should care that as more prisons are located in their farm fields many urban families with members doing long stretches are gravitating to those rural communities to be nearer to their loved ones changing forever the complexion of those lilly white rural communities.

gun violence

Many of those soccer Moms have husbands working in police departments in cities across America.

The high demand for cheap and easy to get illegal hand guns is subsidized by drug gangsters who need lots of guns for their enforcement and self-regulatory needs. If the prohibition drug market did not require the volume of guns it does illegal guns would have a much lower demand. they would be riskier to deal in and thus cost more for all would-be criminals.

Fewer cops, (soccer Mom husbands), would be getting shot at without the war on drugs.
See my web page: Is peace officer mortality higher during prohibition policy enforcement?

"The homicide rate was high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect, as it was in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition was enforced to a stringent degree. After repeal of alcohol prohibition, the homicide rate dropped quickly and remained low during a period when drug prohibition, although in existence, was not vigorously enforced. And the homicide rate was lowest at the beginning of the sample, when neither alcohol nor drug prohibition existed at the federal level and only in a minor way at the state level." Jeffrey A. Miron, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Boston University, American Law and Economics Review, 1, Fall 1999

Police deaths by intentional gunfire

1918 104 officers shot to death.
1919 152 officers shot to death.
1920 142 officers shot to death.
1921 161 officers shot to death.
1922 156 officers shot to death.
1923 140 officers shot to death.
1924 163 officers shot to death.
1925 145 officers shot to death.
1926 160 officers shot to death.
1927 144 officers shot to death.
1928 151 officers shot to death.
1929 141 officers shot to death.
1930 172 officers shot to death.
1931 163 officers shot to death.
1932 156 officers shot to death.
1933 147 officers shot to death. (prohibition ended Jan.)
1934 131 officers shot to death.
1935 115 officers shot to death.
1936 86 officers shot to death.
1937 73 officers shot to death.
1938 87 officers shot to death.
1939 59 officers shot to death.
1940 51 officers shot to death.
1941 62 officers shot to death.
1942 46 officers shot to death.
1943 40 officers shot to death.

The police officer husbands of soccer Moms are cannon fodder for prohibition.

politics

sicntired The best way I've seen to bypass the cowardice of our political leaders is the message delivered on the program,The Wire.They suggest jury nullification by doing your duty as a juror and not convicting on any drug charge.You have to admit it's poetic.Turn the very system that oppresses us against itself.It's kinda like don't ask don't tell except it makes sense.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <b>

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, 2016 Drug War Killings, 2017 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Pill Testing, Safer Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Kratom, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psilocybin / Magic Mushrooms, Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School