something....This is simple fact and hardcore human nature.
On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always love this argument....I would much rather be smoking pot and paying
> taxes on it than pissing away billions of dollars to keep up this futile
> effort. Can you see the coffee houses all set up like Starbucks? They
> could be called "CannibusHuts" and equipped with drive thrus. Then we can
> be the United States of Americadam and follow the lead of the Dutch. The
> redlight district can be placed in Weiner's district so we will have Vegas
> on the West, and Weinerworld on the East. Everyone will be a little calmer
> and the men that like to venture out can get the fixes legally rather than
> compromising thier politcal stature and sending photos to strange women.
>
> S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > *"The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For
> > the first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against
> > any drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco
> > kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal
> > drugs in the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce
> > the demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking
> > marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the
> > cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not
> > drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United
> > States. The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More
> > people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by
> > physicians than from illegal drugs."
>
> > **The 40-Year War on Freedom
> > *by Laurence M. Vance, June 15, 2011
>
> > Although the U.S. government's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken
> > center stage for the better part of the last ten years, there is another
> > failed war that has been waged by the federal government for the past forty
> > years.
>
> > The war on drugs was declared by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.
>
> > Speaking at a press conference<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3047&st=&st1=>in the Briefing Room at the White House, Nixon announced his plan:
>
> > I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with
> > the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o'clock and was completed 2 hours
> > later. I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to
> > be made to the Nation: America's public enemy number one in the United
> > States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is
> > necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.
>
> > Nixon left no doubt as to the scope of his offensive:
>
> > This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources
> > of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they
> > are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine
> > different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is
> > now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational
> > program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.
>
> > He went on to say how "essential it was for the American people to be
> > alerted to this danger."
>
> > In a special message <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048> to the
> > Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control on the same day, Nixon
> > declared drug use to be a "menace," an "increasing grave threat," and a
> > "national emergency."
>
> > He also continued his military rhetoric:
>
> > I am transmitting legislation to the Congress to consolidate at the
> > highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America.
> > The problems of drug abuse must be faced on many fronts.
> > To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have
> > international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am
> > initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control
> > of narcotics traffic, and I am proposing a number of new steps for this
> > purpose.
> > The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 provides a
> > sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in
> > America.
>
> > Nixon then issued Executive Order No. 11599 establishing the Special Action
> > Office of Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the Executive Office of the
> > President. He also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, as
> > Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
>
> > Nixon's war on drugs really took off after the formation of the Drug
> > Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 and the declaration of an "all-out global
> > war on the drug menace."
>
> > This does not mean that the federal government didn't fight against drugs
> > before Nixon declared his war. To the contrary, the feds have waged war on
> > personal freedom via the drug war since the passage in 1905 of the first
> > federal anti-narcotics law aimed at ending the opium trade in the
> > Philippines.
>
> > This was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium
> > Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana
> > Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive
> > Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
>
> > And since the beginning of Nixon's war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
> > of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and
> > Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003,
> > and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.
>
> > And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, "Just Say No"
> > clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's television ad featuring
> > a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, "This is your brain on drugs."
>
> > The case against the drug war has been made so many times that, at the risk
> > of sounding like a broken record, I will limit myself to ten key points:
>
> > The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For the
> > first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against any
> > drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco kills
> > more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in
> > the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the
> > demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana
> > is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the cause of
> > our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse,
> > is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. The
> > war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More people in
> > America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians
> > than from illegal drugs.
>
> > To drug warriors, these things don't matter: Because taking drugs is bad
> > for one's health and morally corrupting, the state has the duty to regulate
> > and ban them.
>
> > But as true and important as these things are, the drug-warrior statists
> > are right about dismissing them for in the end they really don't matter. And
> > there are many other things that don't matter as well.
>
> > It doesn't matter if the drug war can or can't be "won." It doesn't matter
> > if drug addiction destroys or doesn't destroy lives and families. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't a gateway drug. It doesn't matter if the
> > majority of Americans support or don't support the drug war. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't beneficial for pain management. It doesn't
> > matter if fighting the drug war is or isn't a bipartisan issue. It doesn't
> > matter if cocaine and heroin are or aren't addictive. It doesn't matter if
> > drug use would or wouldn't increase if drugs were legalized. It doesn't
> > matter if advocates for drug decriminalization want or don't want to get
> > high. It doesn't matter if smoking crack is or isn't dangerous. It doesn't
> > matter if drug use is or isn't immoral. It doesn't matter if the war on
> > drugs is or isn't "worth it."
>
> > What matters is personal freedom, private property, personal
> > responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, free
> > markets, limited government, and the natural right to be left alone if one
> > is not aggressing against his someone and is doing "anything that's
> > peaceful."
>
> > Ending the war on drugs is not an esoteric issue of libertarians or a pet
> > issue of those who want to get high. Once the government claims control over
> > what a man smokes, snorts, sniffs, inhales, or otherwise ingests into his
> > body, there is no limit to its power. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so
> > eloquently said: "As soon as we surrender the principle that the state
> > should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of
> > life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest
> > detail." The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society.
>
> >http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106o.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment