FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 22, 2010
CONTACT: Tom Angell - (202) 557-4979 or media//at//leap//dot//cc
Federal Drug Agency Bans Pro-Legalization Police Group From Conference
SAMHSA Doesn't Want Views Expressed at Treatment Event in Chicago
CHICAGO, IL -- A group of police officers, judges and prosecutors who support legalizing and regulating drugs is crying foul after a federal agency reneged on a contract that gave the law enforcers a booth to share their anti-prohibition views at a government-sponsored treatment conference in Chicago next week.
After accepting registration payment from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration initially told the police group that it was canceling its booth at the National Conference on Women, Addiction and Recovery because of overbooking and space concerns. However, Sharon Amatetti of SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment later informed LEAP that, in a decision rising all the way to SAMHSA Administrator Pamela Hyde's office, the group was actually being disinvited for its viewpoint.
"It's alarming that the federal government is trying to silence the voices of front-line police officers who just want to network and collaborate with treatment professionals to achieve our shared goal of preventing substance abuse through effective public policy," said Neill Franklin, a former narcotics cop with the Maryland State Police and Baltimore Police Department who is now executive director of LEAP. "Perhaps the administration was most concerned that LEAP's law enforcers planned to shine a spotlight on the fact that under President Obama, the White House's drug control budget maintains the same two-to-one funding ratio in favor of harsh enforcement tactics over effective public health approaches."
On a phone call with LEAP, Pamela Rodriguez of conference co-host TASC, Inc. of Illinois said that the police group wasn't welcome at the event because "our policy perspective and our policy objectives are different from you guys." She added, "It is the emphasis on prohibition vs. legalization that, for me at least, is the glaring dissonance with regard to our agenda."
SAMHSA has since refunded LEAP's money. The conference takes place July 26-28 at Chicago's Downtown Magnificent Mile Marriott Hotel.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and its 30,000 supporters represent police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. Info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.
# # #
Wow. :-( I wonder if this is something the ACLU would pick up on?
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU might jump in here -- but it is clear there is still a lot of work to be done to get folks to consider looking at issue based on what it is rather than what they want it to be...
ReplyDeleteJust keep moving forward. More and more people are moving toward legalization and regulation all the time.
This is another example of "they worship me with their mouths but their hearts are far from me!"
ReplyDeleteThese are the people who were like the vicious sociopaths of alcohol prohibition who said that imbibers should be "hung from their tongues;" the people who intentionally polluted alcohol with poison to "send a message." They engage in the same hypocrisy of the alcohol prohibition agents, they do the exact things they claim to hate: drink, violence, kill, abuse, pompous towards cops (to maintain undercover status), etc…
Those people claim to care about life, but their actions PROVE they do not. They claim to like science, but their actions PROVE they hate it.
Here is some simple logic that even a simpleton religious guy like myself can understand.
Ghandi preached non violence as a means to win. But how did he do that? He did use clubs to beat it in to his followers or the British?
What about Jesus? He gave some very stern warnings about sinning; murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander, greed, etc… So how did he go about trying to get people to not do those things?
Did he try to buy the services of prostitutes so he could get them alone and shame them in to repentance?
Did he try to work his way up to the top dogs of evil greed by taking advantage of more and more people?
Did he steal stuff to gain the acceptance of thieves so he could suddenly launch in to a sermon at some point and let them have it?
Did he engage in, or fake, stabbing or poisonings so he could win the acceptance of religious zealots who hated Rome, and thus be better able to bring his message to the zealots?
Read the first four books of the New Testament, they're not long; he did none of that. In fact he points out that he did what his father showed him, and he'll tell the prohibitionists they did the works of their father.
And as the Drug War Tree is being cut down, to be thrown in the fire along with its fruit, and all those who cling to it, those in charge of doing so will echo the words of the heartless, "we're only doing our jobs."
This reminds me of something that could only happen in China. It's dis-hearting to see this happening in my homeland where we claim to be the seat of democracy and human rights.
ReplyDeleteThe decision is more in line with the government of Hitler than any type of democracy. Justin Dolan, retired police detective.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments everyone. One thing I will say: I'm glad that LEAP waited until after we got our money back before issuing the press release. :-)
ReplyDeleteSo sorry this group is so blinded by Prohibition to let let us in David and everyone else at LEAP who had anything to do with Posting this....
ReplyDeleteJust shows you how afraid of us and our message they REALLY are! :D
Keep up the great work everyone!
Together we WILL end this War on People!
Love and a squish,
Alison Myrden
xx
Speaker for LEAP
Canada
That's disgusting, just goes to show how prohibitionists can't defend their position, so they have to ban other viewpoints to protect theirs.
ReplyDeletePolitics… Who needs ‘em? Well, it might just be everyone in this case. There are some intelligent and perceptive people making policy decisions in the US and at the UN (which is really the same thing). They know they have been defeated in their War on Drugs and must find the fact acutely embarrassing. As a rule, people don’t like losing fights or wars and, having done so, saving face becomes highest priority. Defeat has been indirectly admitted by the Obama administration: ‘We no longer call it the War on Drugs.’
ReplyDeleteThe Russians don’t seem to have got the message, though. I’m sure there are plenty of intelligent and perceptive people in the Kremlin, as well as the White House, but they don’t have the same experience of defeat as the Americans do. (They have their own, which is no less valuable.) They’ve gone into ‘moron mode’ in their approach to drugs, just like their counterparts in the West did some thirty-odd years ago. This is something the Russians are extraordinarily good at… And human rights.
The appointment of Yuri Fedotov to the UNODC Boss job is a cause for great celebration for those who are eager to change current international drug policies. Not only does it underline the Americans’ admission of defeat in one of their most ridiculous holy crusades (The War on Drugs) but it has finally set the stage for the repeal of the (US/)UN(/UK) (Axis) ‘Narcotics’ Conventions of 1961 and ’88, which in turn should lead to a number of other equally important and similarly obstructed measures.
Look around outside the box - you don't even really need to think, just open you eyes - and consider an internal dialogue:
ReplyDelete‘We’ve lost. What can we do?’
‘Blame it on the Russians.’
‘No-one’s going to buy it.’
‘Make ‘em beg for it.’
‘How so?’
‘Flood the country with heroin so that they have no choice but to demand responsibility for stopping it. That way we kill a whole bunch of birds with one stone:
1) we save face by distancing ourselves from defeat without even ever actually openly admitting defeat;
2) they take over, assuming the same position that caused our defeat, making the same mistakes until they’re forced - just as we have been - to come to terms with defeat; that way they take the blame and get called fools for repeating the mistakes which we can claim to have innocently made and they’re seen as idiots for repeating our mistakes; and the really, really good part is that we can then say, ‘Ah, yes, but you see, we’d already understood what we'd done wrong and started to embrace harm reduction before those idiots took over and made a mess of the good work we’d started to do, and we only let them because we’re such good, kind and trusting souls - always willing to give them enough rope to hang themselves - and they pressured us so hard to do so.';
3) when they’ve made such a mess of it that they’re crawling away on their knees, just like they did from Afghanistan twenty years ago, then we can waltz back in as heros, repealing the Conventions, replacing them with new ones to our liking, minimizing damage to our good selves, maximizing damage to them, thereby strengthening our position at the centre of the Axis. How’s that for a strategy?’
‘Let’s do it!’
Personally, I don’t believe the Americans are as stupid as one might be led to believe by a simple analysis of their holy crusades, particularly the War on Drugs. Once they’ve managed to pull off something like the plan outlined above, I’m sure they’ll take a more intelligent approach to the new and improved Axis ‘Narcotics’ Conventions. Having lived and worked in Russia and the ex-Soviet Union for several years, however, I’m afraid I can’t find the same confidence in the Russians’ capabilities. I don’t think I’m revealing anything other than the obvious here. It won’t be long before the Russians have dug a hole for themselves so deep that their infractions of human rights become intolerable and they’re forced to retire from their fantasy role as ‘saviour of traditional values’. As far as I can see, this is the only way the Axis is able to deal with the defeat it’s suffered. And it’s not a bad plan.
ReplyDeleteSo take heart those of you who await intelligence from our masters. I see light at the end of the long, long, dark and decaying tunnel which has caused such horrific pain and suffering.
MkkDdd - thank you so much for your detailed comments!
ReplyDeleteI worked in St. Petersburg, Russia for almost four months teaching English during the summer of 1998. Where did you work in Russia? I have lots of great memories - what an amazing and complex place that country is.
Actually, David, in a sense, I'm still there: I moved to Estonia in 1995, having lived and worked the five previous years in Russia, got married in '98 and am still living there now. The kids are Estonian/Russian/English and better off where we are now than they would be in England or America (I'm a dual UK/US citizen.) so I don't think I'll be moving West again.
ReplyDeleteHi MkkDdd, I have a few questions.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think there is already more than enough fodder out there to help the, um, leaders, save face? Here are but a few I can think of:
• We wish to take away the terrorists income.
• We wish to draw the addicts to us for treatment by removing the black market's overpriced and polluted drugs by offering drugs just above at-cost.
• We are devastated by pimp jerks who get runaways addicted to drugs then use them as prostitutes
• We wish to stop the spread of blood borne diseases
• We have gone bankrupt and wish to conserve our money for programs that work
• We care about our cops (and citizens) and don't want to endanger them over outrageously price-inflated plant products
• We wish to put drugs in the hands of responsible adults versus gangs and teenagers
• We wish to end overdose deaths via a prescription model
• (please help them out by adding more to the list)
• (reword what I've written so it sounds better)
None of these are new, however. Haven't they all been batted around for years, decades even?
I don't know much about Fedotov but it seems others in the reform community are not as optimistic as you are.
Personally I thought Obama would not turn on us so quickly. Obama really seemed like he had an air about him, kind of like something one reads in Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People; he would act like his ideas were others' ideas, to get them psyched, he would apologize for stuff that wasn't his fault, he would set positive goals and standards for others to live up to, etc… But it wasn't too long before he and his Sec. of State were saying all the tired Drug War lines. Clearly he abdicated his power to someone else.
…Flood the country with heroin so that they have no choice but to demand responsibility for stopping it. That way we kill a whole bunch of birds with one stone:
ReplyDelete1) we save face by distancing ourselves from defeat without even ever actually openly admitting defeat; …
I think you need to help me out here. Aren't they already flooded? I've heard, "Afghan heroin output has increased a staggering 5,000% since the U.S. invasion 7 years ago." Admittedly dated since we've been there, is it 10 years now? So the number could be higher.
Also, considering the trajectory they are on, "Flooding the country with heroin" would only increase the numbers of people transmitting blood borne diseases since they don't seem to have any needle exchange programs, right? Please correct me. Personally I'm tired that more and more people are being sent to prison, contracting AIDs, being sold by pimps, etc…
Please help me understand how we distance ourselves from this. If anything it seems that since we are occupying Afghanistan the pressure IS on US to do something about it, and it seems to me that is probably a large part of why we're there in the first place (vain attempt to stomp out all poppies militarily). So please help me understand better.
With regard to your point #2, I am not sure that's such great diplomacy. Since you are focused on how face can be saved; if all parties can do so, it seems better than us just trying to lay the blame at the feet of the Russians.
Also, "they take over, assuming the same position that caused our defeat, making the same mistakes until they’re forced - just as we have been - to come to terms with defeat" seems to imply that the U.S. has come to terms with defeat, and frankly I just don't see that or hear that. What am I missing?
#3, "when they’ve made such a mess of it that they’re crawling away on their knees…" based on every Drug Warrior comment I've heard, I just can't envision this. I can envision harsh countries shooting them dead, locking them in prison, and saying things like the last U.N. Drug Czar, "This struggle [25,000+ deaths in Mexico] is a blessing for the United States because the drought of cocaine generates low levels of addiction, high prices and doses that are less pure." In other words delusion as though there is a drought of cocaine; and cheering lots of death.
"… we can waltz back in as heros …" personally I can't say I have much faith in a plan that tries to exalt the U.S. as being the hero in the Drug War. Perhaps you think I'm being too negative?
Based on your next post that you "can’t find the same confidence in the Russians’ capabilities" and they too will "have dug a hole for themselves" I am not sure why you seem optimistic they will, as you say, "make the same mistakes until they’re forced - just as we have been - to come to terms with defeat."
ReplyDeleteThe "crush, kill, destroy" attitude coupled with the "drug users are dirty scum who deserve to suffer" seems endemic in the Drug Warrior mindset.
But assuming you are right in your 2:09 PM post, #3, when you do think this will happen? When year will they crawl on their knees to end prohibition?
You see, it seems to me that the main factor is how much war can be paid for. How much debt can one buy to fund this war? And here is why I am certain the U.S. will be on its knees long before Russia; best I can tell:
1) the U.S. borrows money from the Russians, but I am not exactly sure, I know we borrow from the Chinese
2) Russia is pretty well off since it sells fossil fuels to the world (or at least Europe) and rakes in money, so they can pay for lots of Drug War
3) Russia is sitting pretty NOT having to fund MASSIVELY EXPENSIVE Drug War, in the likes of Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico, etc… because we are doing that job (for free) for them (Am I wrong? Is Russia paying us to staunch the flow of drugs into Russia? Please correct me.)
4) The U.S. has, in nearly every state, already over-promised on retirement funds. Continued Drug War means more massive tax increases as well as more borrowing from foreign countries; but it probably means default. Over at the CAP website I am preparing a new section on this angle.
At this point I do not envision the U.S. being able to "save face" at the expense of the Russians and I can't really say I recommend it as a strategy either, but what do I know? The U.S. started this fight, the buck should stop here! As far as I'm concerned only a coward and jerk who picks a fight — and is clearly the looser — tries to blame it on someone else. But, I must say, I've witnessed that exact same thing happen many times, sorry to say. But on an individual level is far different from the world stage.
So to sum up my perspective. The reasons to save face have been known by all for decades, even to the Drug Warriors, but just listen to them. Watch the video where Neill Franklin and Paul Chabot are on a show John Stossel hosted; even though Mr. Kicking-the-Goads claims he does not like the "Drug War" nomenclature, he totally ignores himself and uses metaphors like "wave the white flag" and more. This is why people gnaw their tongues in agony at some future point in time, their forked tongues did them and everyone a disservice.
The Prohibition Industrial Complex cows politicians. My guess is this is due to blackmail files on their past drug use. But it's refreshing that so many politicians, and sports figures, have "come out" and "despised the shame" because this really defangs the blackmail angle.
Thank you for you assistance in answering my questions.
Good evening, Thinking Cap!
ReplyDeleteI've made a start on replying to your posts in response to my posts. I'll get on with it and post a bit more, perhaps even finish it tomorrow. Some of the later points you bring up are rather complicated and I'm falling asleep here, so bear with me for a while, please. In the meantime, see below:
"Don't you think there is already more than enough fodder out there to help the, um, leaders, save face?"
ReplyDeleteWell, yes and no. All of the points you make below do nothing to help anyone feel any better about our masters, or 'leaders' if you prefer, establishing a status quo which is detrimental to our welfare. Quite the opposite, in fact: the more obvious it becomes that our welfare has had little to do with their determination to maintain the status quo, the more difficult it becomes for them to admit they have never had very much interest in our welfare. The points you list below don't save face for the prohibitionists, but make them feel like a puppy who's done a poo-poo on the floor. All you're really doing for them by making such obvious points as those you list below is like rubbing a puppy's nose in its mess and saying, 'Bad boy!' I shouldn't think they like that. I know I wouldn't. Especially bearing in mind that they're supposed to be the all-seeing, all-knowing, wise and compassionate masters. They must feel like idiots indeed. I know I would.
"• (please help them out by adding more to the list)"
There are, of course, many more such points to add to this list. My personal favourite is human rights: prohibition is simply an extension of slavery. However you look at it, making someone do something they don’t want to do is bullying. Prohibiting people from doing something without any real reason is the same thing - bullying. Bullying supported by the law is slavery.
"• (reword what I've written so it sounds better)"
I can't see any need; what you've written and the way you've written it sounds and reads fine to me, and I couldn't agree more.
"None of these are new, however. Haven't they all been batted around for years, decades even?"
Absolutely, but that does nothing to help our masters save face and feel any better about making such a smelly mess by doing such big poos-poos on the floor (and our heads).
"Don't you think there is already more than enough fodder out there to help the, um, leaders, save face?"
ReplyDeleteWell, yes and no. All of the points you make below do nothing to help anyone feel any better about our masters, or 'leaders' if you prefer the term, establishing a status quo which is detrimental to our welfare. Quite the opposite, in fact: the more obvious it becomes that our welfare has had little to do with their determination to maintain the status quo, the more difficult it becomes for them to admit they have never had very much interest in our welfare. The points you list below don't save face for the prohibitionists, but make them feel like a puppy who's done a poo-poo on the floor. All you're really doing for them by making such obvious points as those you list below is like rubbing a puppy's nose in its mess and saying, 'Bad boy!' I shouldn't think they like that. I know I wouldn't. Especially bearing in mind that they're supposed to be the all-seeing, all-knowing, wise and compassionate masters. They must feel like idiots indeed. I know I would.
--snip--
"• (please help them out by adding more to the list)"
There are, of course, many more such points to add to this list. My personal favourite is human rights: prohibition is simply an extension of slavery. However you look at it, making someone do something they don’t want to do is bullying. Prohibiting people from doing something without any real reason is the same thing - bullying. Bullying supported by the law is slavery.
"• (reword what I've written so it sounds better)"
I can't see any need; what you've written and the way you've written it sounds and reads fine to me, and I couldn't agree more.
"None of these are new, however. Haven't they all been batted around for years, decades even?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, but that does nothing to help our masters save face and feel any better about making such a smelly mess by doing such big poos-poos on the floor (and our heads).
"I don't know much about Fedotov but it seems others in the reform community are not as optimistic as you are."
No, they're not (to put it mildly). I don't think most people in the reform community are taking a long view. Many are more concerned about immediate relief of the horrendous pain and suffering resulting directly from prohibition, which is quite understandable and, in many cases, the most important part of their job description. Also, and I hope this doesn't come over as too arrogant or conceited, but I must say I don't think many in the reform community enjoy an insider's view of the Russians' mentality and culture or the way they work with other mentalities and cultures. I do.
Yuri Fedotov, born 1950, in a nutshell: prior to appointment as head of the UNODC earlier this month, he was Russia's Ambassador to the UK (Court of St. James) in London. From 2002 until 2005 he was the Russian Federation's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Having graduated from the Moscow Institute of International Relations in 1971, he has held a variety of foreign service jobs at the UN and in other Soviet and Russian embassies. You would probably be fairly safe in assuming he will toe his masters' party line and use his skill and experience to mould the UNODC as closely as possible to their requirements (to put it mildly).
"Personally I thought Obama would not turn on us so quickly. Obama really seemed like he had an air about him, kind of like something one reads in Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People; he would act like his ideas were others' ideas, to get them psyched, he would apologize for stuff that wasn't his fault, he would set positive goals and standards for others to live up to, etc… But it wasn't too long before he and his Sec. of State were saying all the tired Drug War lines. Clearly he abdicated his power to someone else."
ReplyDeletePlease don't be offended by my cynisism here, but I really must say I don't believe any one person is capable of having much impact. I don't think the US President is able to make much real difference to this aspect of the status quo (The War on Drugs).
…Flood the country with heroin so that they have no choice but to demand responsibility for stopping it. That way we kill a whole bunch of birds with one stone:
ReplyDelete1) we save face by distancing ourselves from defeat without even ever actually openly admitting defeat; …
"I think you need to help me out here. Aren't they already flooded? I've heard, "Afghan heroin output has increased a staggering 5,000% since the U.S. invasion 7 years ago." Admittedly dated since we've been there, is it 10 years now? So the number could be higher."
Yes, quite - this is just the point: why is Russia now flooded with heroin? Until a couple of years ago the problem was controllable. Then NATO decided they'd stop eradication and the problem in Russia suddenly became uncontrollable. Why?
"Also, considering the trajectory they are on, "Flooding the country with heroin" would only increase the numbers of people transmitting blood borne diseases since they don't seem to have any needle exchange programs, right? Please correct me. Personally I'm tired that more and more people are being sent to prison, contracting AIDs, being sold by pimps, etc…"
ReplyDeleteYes, unless an eradicatin programme is in place in Afghanistan, Russian will be flooded with heroin. It will lead to all the negative consequences you point out. What do you think the Russians want to do about it? What have they been saying they want to do about it for the past couple of years? Why have they now been given the opportunity to do something about it?
"Please help me understand how we distance ourselves from this. If anything it seems that since we are occupying Afghanistan the pressure IS on US to do something about it, and it seems to me that is probably a large part of why we're there in the first place (vain attempt to stomp out all poppies militarily). So please help me understand better."
ReplyDeleteAlthough Antonio Maria Costa (the preceeding Executive Director of the UNODC) got his degree in Mathematical Economics from Moscow State University in 1967, he then went on to get his doctorate from the University of California (Berkeley) in 1971. He was very much the Americans' man with an insider's understanding of what was then America's most formidible rival - the Soviet Union.
Sorry, I've lost track of my train of thought here. I'll come back to it tomorrow. In the meantime, I'd suggest you look up Antonio Maria Costa on Wikipedia and look at his most recent comments about harm reduction.
Costa played his (US/UN/UK, New World Order, (Global Power) Axis, Americans', Prohibitionists' - whatever you want to call it - I prefer 'Axis' for the sake of brevity, because I believe it most accurately expresses the nature of power distribution.) hand like a loyal, grovelling toad. He would, wouldn't he? I should think, as the Boss of all those high-powered Axis organs, he would have been fairly well-paid to do so, wouldn't he? Just have a look at an overview of some of his attitudes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Maria_Costa.
ReplyDeleteIt probably wasn't really his fault. He's obviously an eminently intelligent man, so it must have been terribly difficult for him to pretend to believe in the senseless and intrinsicly unintelligent mentality required to support prohibition. Personally, I can relate to this, because I believe it's similar to a dilemma my father suffered: an intelligent coward. I blame money. (Matthew 6:19-21,24) But that's beside the point.
The point is, we can know he wasn't given much choice: witness, "Longer existing tensions reached a new peak after a meeting between the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa, and US Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), Robert Charles, on November 10, 2004. At the meeting the US government - the biggest donor of UNODC - threatened Costa to cut funding to UNODC unless he assured that UNODC would abstain from any involvement in or expression of support for harm reduction, including needle exchange programmes." (http://www.ungassondrugs.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=102). That was in 2004.
Since then, as I'm sure we're all aware, there has been more than enough rigourously controlled scientific enquiry to incontrovertibly demonstrate the effiacy of various harm reduction measures; from modest measures, like needle exchange and shooting galleries and their pilot schemes in most advanced nations (with the noteable exception of the US) to the full-blown, life-long, prescribed and supervised, twice-daily diamorphine injection programme which was finally given the legal go-ahead and implemented in Switzerland a couple of years ago. Anyone with any more than half a dozen brain cells to bang together at any one given time can be left with little doubt that effective harm reduction measures save lives and stop the spread of HIV and other dieases immediately after implementation with incresingly efficiacy as they become more entrenched.
ReplyDeleteNow more than ever, it would be very, very difficult to manipulate any data or rhetoric to demonstrate anything like a similar level of effiacy as a result of prohibition or interdiction. This must be becoming increasingly difficult for those, like Antonio Mario Costa, who was really only acting as the front man for other interests (the cowardly, grovelling toad), because it directly contradicts everything they've been pretending to know about and believe in. Talk about loss of face! 'Bad boy - you DON'T do poo-poos on the floor! Horrible, naughty boy!' I bet that makes 'em feel real good about themselves. Denial would probably be the most natural and comfortable reaction, for as long as it could possibly be maintained. Hey, who knows - we might all get hit by buses or blown up by madmen with weapons of mass destruction tomorrow, right? So if you can just hide from the truth for just one more day...Then maybe, just maybe...
How the hell are they going to get out of this hole they've so deeply and irrevocably dug themselves into? What a mess! Can you imagine what would happen if they just came out and said, 'Yes, you're right - we were wrong.'? Apart from the of face, which means loss of credibility and forced humility, there are more practical considerations, e.g. what the hell do you do with all those people in prison who've been unjustifiably imprisoned for drug infractions? Don't forget: a lot of psychopaths, socio-paths, murderers and rapists (to name but a few) have been sent to prison for drugs infractions just because the police couldn't get them on anything else. You want to review all those cases? Just consider the logistics. What are you going to do about asset forfeiture? A lot of people are going to say, 'OK, I'll forget about the jail time, but can I have some of the money you took off me back, please?' It's just not feasible, and you don't need a degree in Mathematical Economics from one of the strongest universities in the world to work that out.
ReplyDeleteDear MkkDdd, in your 1:15 PM post you raise a number of issues. Frankly I don't really care how they try to cover their wimpy butts. I will tell everyone right now, the more time they spend trying to save face instead of doing what's right, the more suffering they will ultimately face.
ReplyDeleteThere was a man who got his arm caught in a combine, and a fire started. His flesh was being burned and dripping on the ground. He didn't stop to worry about what he would look like without an arm, or his sleeve pinned with a safety pin to his shoulder, and consider the fashion implications. He took his pocketknife out and cut his own arm off.
As far as the people in prison, it is such an amazing shame they are in there for these pretend offenses I don't really care about the High Priests of Assigning Permanent Shame who will whine about letting people out who don't deserve to be there.
Others have said that ending the drug war will be like turning around a battle ship. I have written that getting the unrighteously imprisoned out of confinement will be that way, but as far as I'm concerned ending prohibition can be done on a dime, the mechanisms for harm reduction are already in place.
If this surprises you then you should do some searching for the various organizations who have spent YEARS researching the cases of people in prison on false offenses. People considered scum, dirt poor people, etc… Maybe you can tell me who deserves to be forgotten and rotting in a prison someplace on fake offenses?
I will not pretend I know how to handle every case, but I do know there are TONS of people who do. If all of this did fall in my lap, I would not reject it. I would request certain people I am familiar with to be my advisors on who DOES know the nitty gritty. Then we would delegate.
To the people who think they can hide behind the confusion and byzantine smoke screens they've created I say this, you can hide from and perhaps trick humans, but you can not hide from God. Even death will not keep God from bringing them to justice.
@ MkkDdd Please don't be offended by my cynisism here, but I really must say I don't believe any one person is capable of having much impact. I don't think the US President is able to make much real difference to this aspect of the status quo (The War on Drugs).
ReplyDeleteI too have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune, but hope springs up eternally. So here's some audacity of hope for you. Obama CAN make a difference. They don't call the office of president the bully pulpit for nothing.
It's quite possible he's just playing some political game, avoiding us like a cool kid in the high school corridor who doesn't want anyone to know he's friends with the computer nerds or the math nerds.
Certainly the environment is being trashed, and big pharma along with the insurance industry is robbing tons of people and even the whole US via drug prices, but I am still convinced the biggest sucking waste of money is this Drug War.
I don't think most people in the reform community are taking a long view. Many are more concerned about immediate relief of the horrendous pain and suffering resulting directly from prohibition,
ReplyDeleteBased on what I know, I'm not in agreement with the first part of that statement. Take the British Transform organization. They've been publishing for a while and even looked to the end of the Drug War and wrote about what the post-prohibition regulation models could be.
Ethan Nadelman (and others) have been at this a long time. And he just had a reward for one of his long term goals, get the NAACP on board; admittedly it was just Calif, and just marijuana, but…
I think that many have had a long term view. But I would also credit humans for being able to hold more than one view in their minds at a time, too. Just because someone is marching for the immediate repeal of evil marijuana laws, doesn't mean they haven't been working for decades, or have other visions of the future which require processes/companies in place which have not yet been founded.
Dear Mr. MkkDdd, your 8:28 and 8:31 posts leave me a bit confused; your beginning comments seem in stark contrast to the closing ones.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I think it must be admitted that while we can possibly change the minds of some people on the fence, and perhaps some prohibitionists, there will be prohibitionists who oppose us every step of the way.
In my own analysis of the prohibitionist beliefs, I think there are two groups who DO NOT EVER want prohibition to end:
1) Men (and Women) of Lawlessness
2) Thug Addicts
There are three other groups who think the Drug War can be won:
3) High Priests of Assigning Permanent Shame
4) Holier-Than-Thou-Congregation
5) False Prophets of Prohibition
I should also point out I believe individuals can be members of more than one group. But those are the main perspectives I can think of, for now.
The first two groups are so opposed to ending prohibition I am certain they will engage in outlandishly illegal activities so as to make it seem ending prohibition is a mistake. They will take off their uniforms and don masks and rob mmj stores, they will put drugs in unsuspecting people's food, they will pay others to commit other acts of violence and fraud, in an attempt to bring disrepute on ending prohibition. But like I wrote above, this doesn't mean all prohibs will act that way. Some can be rescued.
The advantage of meeting someone face to face is one can adjust what is said to them, and try to meet them where they are, with reasons they are ready for. One does not have this advantage when writing on the Internet. But the Internet has other advantages; for example search engines can direct people to essays they are likely ready to read.
ps. I decided to start a page specifically to list statements to use to Save Face While Ending the Drug War.
pps. you should go to the LEAP forums where it's easier to have a conversation.
Yes, I'm afraid I did leave my last posts rather disjointed and up in the air. I had hoped to get back to it tonight and tie them up, but circumstance hasn't allowed. I'll try to get to it tomorrow, but I'm afraid that might not be possible, either; in which case it's going to be a few days before I can come back to it. There is a thread to tie it all together, so I will try and tease it out to wrap everything up as soon as I can. Please bear with me.
ReplyDelete