Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Drug Czar to Milton Friedman: Drop Deader
The San Diego Union-Tribune's Chris Reed, fulfilled the dream of a lifetime by interviewing drug czar John Walters. The exchange, wonderfully rich in "libertarian griping," is invaluable. Here's a snippet:
I said to Walters that by any possible statistical reckoning of deaths, car wrecks, suicides, drownings, crimes of violence, etc., alcohol is vastly more destructive in the U.S. than all illegal drugs combined. I asked if he disputed this.
He didn't answer me directly even after I reposed the question. Basically, he said that while alcohol may be a big and destructive problem, the fact that alcohol is legal doesn't mean you don't try to reduce the use of other, illegal drugs. He said "the danger of marijuana today" is far greater than in the old days, thanks to its potency.
Did he in any way acknowledge the oddity of having a war on drugs that don't kill all that many people while tolerating drugs (alcohol, tobacco) which fill up graveyards 24-7?
Nope.
I said that many libertarians object to the drug war not just on the grounds that government shouldn't tell people what they can put in their bodies but on the grounds that the execution of the drug war routinely involves assaults on civil liberties. I cited past drug czars' eager touting of confiscation policies, in which a family could lose its only car without even a court hearing if one member were caught driving the car while in possession of pot. Did he see the drug war as diminishing civil liberties?
Walters offered a broad defense of asset-forfeiture tactics as being "designed to reduce the demand in a tangible way. ... I'm not going to say" that "laws sometimes aren't misapplied," but claims that civil liberties are a routine victim of the drug war are "great misrepresentations" and a "great mischaracterization."
He said the "magnitude of the injustice" suffered in some cases was exaggerated.
Read the full thing here, especially the parts where the drug czar says the Milton Friedman's age-old critique of the drug war is just wrong, and feel good about someone speaking truth to power, at least for a glorious few minutes.
And then cry for all the damage wrought by America's longest war, for all the people rotting in jail, for all the lives utterly ruined by idiot bureaucrats such as Walters.
|10.4.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I have a dream: Ron Paul takes the oath of office on January
21st, 2009, walks from the podium and signs an Executive Order that
totally dismantles the DEA and BATFE.
Then I wake up in a wet spot.
I love dreaming.
Jennifer|10.4.07 @ 3:41PM|#
He didn't answer me directly even after I reposed the
question.
The slimy little bastards NEVER do. Nor do they have enough
self-awareness to pose the question: if the cause I'm fighting for
is right, why is it endangered by the truth?
|10.4.07 @ 3:42PM|#
I don't think I can read the full article. I'm already mad
enough to toss my monitor through a fucking window.
Why doesn't Walters tell the families of the people that died in
botched raids how their lives were merely "great
misrepresentations" and a "great mischaracterization."
|10.4.07 @ 3:49PM|#
He's a czar.
What did Friedman ever do? Win a Nobel Prize? Be named by the
Washington Post as one of the greatest minds of the 20th
century?
Feh! Fiddlesticks on that!
tomwright|10.4.07 @ 3:50PM|#
When did the drug war start?
If a date can be agreed upon, since that date:
How many people has the drug war killed?
How much has it cost?
Put it on a t-shirt. "Americas Longest War"
Profits to NORML, November Coalition, etc....
/probably been done already, but what the heck...
Scooby|10.4.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Is that gin blossoms on his face, or just bad lighting in his official portrait?
|10.4.07 @ 3:53PM|#
The "magnitude of injustice" was exaggerated??
I have no qualms initiating acts of injustice against you, what is
really the crime is when you exaggerate the magnitude of the
injustice.
|10.4.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Say whatever you want about the War on Drugs, you libertarian
types, but at least we're trying to keep those dangerous substances
out of the hands of our children. Isn't it worth the effort? Why
are all you libertarians constantly defending the rights of drug
dealers? And another thing: Alcohol is legal.
Cocaine and meth are NOT. That's why they're so bad.
rrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip
Holy fuck, cognitive dissonance just split my brain wide open.
Sorry. That was hard to write.
Anybody got a joint?
|10.4.07 @ 3:57PM|#
The problem with welfare programs like the DEA or the ONDCP is
that the beneficiaries (the so called employees of those make-work
programs) are encouraged to develop antisocial, slothful and
self-destructive habits. After a few years, many beneficiaries are
afraid to look for real productive work, have a sense of
entitlement that others sould support them, and develop hostile
attitudes towards their neighbors.
The kindest thing one can do to the most antisocial of the bunch is
to cut them off from benefits cold-turkey. Unfortunately, in the
case of programs like the DEA and the ONDCP, the beneficiaries are
given weapons and training on how to use them. Furthermore, a gang
culture is encouraged wherein the welfare beneficiaries are sold a
myth that they are warriors protecting society. The gang culture
encouraged among welfare recipients like John Walters translates
into a proclivity toward criminality and difficulty in earning a
living through honest work. Thus, it is highly likely that should
the welfare checks from the U.S. treasury get cut off, one would
find many DEA agents taking up lives of crime and predating on the
citizenry in more dramatic and undeniable a manner.
It is a shame the guys like John Walters have chosen a life of
parasitism and dishonest predation and turned their backs on
civilized society. All that wasted potential...
dhex|10.4.07 @ 3:58PM|#
man is it possible to wish someone gets cancer inside of cancer? like a hard shell of cancer and then a soft, gooey nougat of cancer on the inside?
Dangerous Counter Argument|10.4.07 @ 3:58PM|#
wait alcohol is much more destructive than all other drugs combined? That's obviously because it's legal and readily accesible. If we make these drugs legal and readibly accessible we will see damage unlike anything ever seen.
|10.4.07 @ 3:58PM|#
"""He said the "magnitude of the injustice" suffered in some
cases was exaggerated."""
Come on people, you haven't learned to understand this
administration yet. Some cases are exaggerated like when the guy is
crying
injustice becuase he was busted with a joint.
If you ask Walters about Radley's work he would play dumb, and at
best say "that is not what I was referring to".
These guys are actively try to get you to think they are saying
something they are not. Such as we don't torture. Oh, but those so
called torture techniques are not really torture under our
definition.
To understand what Walters really means you would have to get him
to define every word he used.
The Bush admin does not work from the same dictionary as everyone
else. It's a requirement.
x,y|10.4.07 @ 3:58PM|#
I was just about to curse Radley for making my blood boil when I realized Nickie G authored this post. A pox on you overlord of the black leather jacket. I'm too pissed to concentrate at work now.
|10.4.07 @ 4:01PM|#
hell, TrickyVick, it's not just the Bush admin, it's every goddamn Russian Potentate we've had since these administrative agencies were created.
|10.4.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Last time I debated a DEA agent, he said that he was only trying to get the guys who made a profit off of drug dealing. I was flabbergasted. I knew there was a pinko commie streak in the DEA, but I didn't realize how fundamental it was to their thinking.
|10.4.07 @ 4:03PM|#
He said "the danger of marijuana today" is far greater than
in the old days, thanks to its potency.
Where do I get this stuff that's so much more potent than the
Hawaiian and Northern California sinsemilla I was smoking in the
'70s? That fuckin' lie pisses me off every time I hear it.
|10.4.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Clinton doubled the number of hemp arrests when he was in office, and he was a former pot head.
|10.4.07 @ 4:08PM|#
He said the "magnitude of the injustice" suffered in some
cases was exaggerated.
Fuck that lying piece of shit!
REMEMBER KATHRYN JOHNSTON!
Ask her relatives if "the magnitude of the injustice" was
exagerated?
|10.4.07 @ 4:10PM|#
And then cry for all the damage wrought by America's longest
war, for all the people rotting in jail, for all the lives utterly
ruined by idiot bureaucrats such as Walters.
Blaming bureaucrats such as Walters makes no sense. He's just doing
the job we've hired him for, and if it wasn't him it would be
somebody else.
The WoD is simply the way we control the poor people that our
dog-eat-dog system of economics produces. You gotta take the good
with the bad, I guess.
|10.4.07 @ 4:13PM|#
"""Where do I get this stuff that's so much more potent than the
Hawaiian and Northern California sinsemilla I was smoking in the
'70s?"""
The influx of Amsterdamish hydro? But that's a maybe at best. I'll
give you old school Tai, Panama Red, and Ozark skunk bud too. (I
think the latter was a hillbilly's attempt at replicating the North
CA sinse) But I have no idea what I'm talking about. At all.
John Walters|10.4.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Fuck that lying piece of shit!
REMEMBER KATHRYN JOHNSTON!
Ask her relatives if "the magnitude of the injustice" was
exagerated?
Not our fault. That woman died because of the drug
dealers, not because of the narcs.
|10.4.07 @ 4:18PM|#
I seem to remember that one primary arguemtn in favor of
outlawing marijuana back in the day was that Negro jazz musicians
(the gansta rappers of the 20's for the social conservatives of the
time) were seducing white women with the aid of marijuana smoke.
See all these misguided white women would go to jazz clubs instead
of staying home and working on heightening their womanly virtues,
listen to jaz, smoke some pot and lose all inhibitions, then the
Negro musicians would pollute them with their seed by
[pornographic fantasy born from repressed sexuality
redacted].
Yep, that's why Benedict Arnolds like John Walters want to throw
away the freedoms are ancestors fought so hard for.
But it's okay, he pins a flag on his lapel, which completely
negates his betrayal of his country.
|10.4.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Clinton doubled the number of hemp arrests when he was in office, and he was a former pot head.
As near as I can tell, today's drug war is driven by a bunch of old
boomer hippies who saw the error of their ways as much as anything
else.
Just one more reason to hate my generation.
|10.4.07 @ 4:21PM|#
And then cry for all the damage wrought by [...] idiot
bureaucrats such as Walters.
Not to defend Walters, but it's important to remember that without
the idiot, craven politicians who passed the laws, that positions
like Walters' wouldn't exist.
And as much as I enjoyed (really!) Scooby's cheap shot, "gin
blossoms" (Rosacea) is an heredity-linked condition that can be
exacerbated by alcohol consumption, but alcohol is neither the
root, nor only, cause of outbreaks.
Jennifer|10.4.07 @ 4:23PM|#
As near as I can tell, today's drug war is driven by a bunch
of old boomer hippies who saw the error of their ways as much as
anything else.
I don't know if it's "the error of their ways" so much as it is
snobbery: "Back in the day, I smoked a lot of pot with no ill
effects. But I'm special, you see. I can handle
it, whereas lesser folk can not. Therefore, now that I've outgrown
my pot-smoking phase I'll do my best to imprison (for their own
good) those who have done the same thing I did."
|10.4.07 @ 4:26PM|#
tarran-
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are
Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic
music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana
causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes,
entertainers, and any others." -- Harry J. Anslinger, first
commissioner of the United States Bureau of Narcotics
|10.4.07 @ 4:27PM|#
He said "the danger of marijuana today" is far greater than
in the old days, thanks to its potency.
Where do I get this stuff that's so much more potent than the
Hawaiian and Northern California sinsemilla I was smoking in the
'70s? That fuckin' lie pisses me off every time I hear
it.
I think this argument is borne more out of ignorance than outright
lies. I think that, up until recently, the DEA types thought the
different names for different strands of pot were nothing but slang
terms.
They simply discovered that pot has varying grades of potency, and
turned it into a "trend" toward more potent pot.
These people are as clueless as they are evil.
By the way, Czar and Tzar are Russian-ized versions of the word
"Caesar." Nothing more tyrannical than that. (Saw it on History
Channel's "Land of the Tzars" special. Great Show!)
|10.4.07 @ 4:31PM|#
So, boys and girls, I have three questioms -
1) What are the odds that John Walters will sit down to a lengthy,
1 on 1 interview with Chris Reed?
2) What are the odds that Chris Reed is being investigated as we
discuss this.
3) What are the odds that Chris Reed wwill get framed by the drug
warriors?
Bonus question - Do I sound paranoid or reasonably suspicious?
|10.4.07 @ 4:32PM|#
The criminal known as "B-Stupid" was sentenced to 25 years in
federal prison this week.
Ivory Harris was convicted of drug and firearms charges. The U.S.
attorney's office said Harris boasted about dealing drugs on his
MySpace page.
On top of the drug charges, Harris has also agreed to plead guilty
to a murder charge. Sentencing for that crime will take place in an
Orleans Parish court in a few weeks.
|10.4.07 @ 4:33PM|#
""""There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and
most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their
Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This
marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes,
entertainers, and any others.""""
I'll take Gene Krupa over Harry Anslinger any day.
|10.4.07 @ 4:36PM|#
you see, the reefer actually slows down the jazz musician's sense of time, allowing him to fit in those extra notes that shouldn't be there...
|10.4.07 @ 4:38PM|#
"""The drug war is driven by an establishment that has become
addicted to it."""
Warren wins.
We need to start a 12 step program for drug warriors.
|10.4.07 @ 4:39PM|#
He said "the danger of marijuana today" is far greater than
in the old days, thanks to its potency.
This is the bullshitiest bullshit what ever shit out of a bull.
Stronger means better. It means you smoke less. There is no such
thing as overdosing on marijuana. Every single thing about
marijuana being stronger makes is LESS of a danger. The drug
warriors greatly exaggerate "how much more potent MJ is today", and
it's total bullshit to begin with.
I can't believe they are allowed to open their mouth without
getting bitchslapped by every reporter they talk to.
|10.4.07 @ 4:44PM|#
But it's okay, he pins a flag on his lapel, which completely
negates his betrayal of his country.
Wow. You're right, I didn't notice that before. I retract all my
statements about Walters.
He's a really swell fellow!
|10.4.07 @ 4:48PM|#
"you see, the reefer actually slows down the jazz musician's
sense of time, allowing him to fit in those extra notes that
shouldn't be there..."
Man!
Paul|10.4.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Basically, he said that while alcohol may be a big and
destructive problem, the fact that alcohol is legal doesn't mean
you don't try to reduce the use of other, illegal drugs. He said
"the danger of marijuana today" is far greater than in the old
days, thanks to its potency.
I dunno, yeah maybe he dodged the question. To me, it sounds like
he didn't dodge the question. I could rephrase the above for
him:
"No, I don't dispute this, but who cares, that doesn't mean we
can't clean up the garbage caused by illegal drugs. Besides, the
potency of Marijuana is increasing and [catching up] to
alcohol."
Do I agree with his sentiment? Hell no, but by omission, he
answered the question: He doesn't dispute the assertion.
|10.4.07 @ 4:54PM|#
I also can't take credit for my last statement as it was
paraphrased from Reefer Madness: The Movie
Musical"
HILARIOUS!!
|10.4.07 @ 4:55PM|#
I think this argument is borne more out of ignorance than
outright lies. I think that, up until recently, the DEA types
thought the different names for different strands of pot were
nothing but slang terms.
Au contraire, mon ami....
I don't think the DEA is ignorant on this issue. As a matter of
fact, they are trying to exploit the ignorance of people regarding
the more potent pot that is available today. Hence the "This isn't
your father's pot" PSA's of recent vintage.
While the ads are seemingly directed to current pot smokers, the
real target is their parents. As most lay folks, even former pot
smokers, aren't well versed in pharmacology, they won't understand
that the higher potentcy pot only gets you high more quickly. The
DEA wants you to think it gets you higher than the pot of 20-30
years ago. It doesn't. The DEA knows this. The ad is intended to
alarm parents by making them believe "new pot" is more dangerous
than their "old pot".
Paul|10.4.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Clinton doubled the number of hemp arrests when he was in
office, and he was a former pot head.
jtuf, that's because being a drug warrior buys votes.
Clinton also presided over the beginnings of adding cigarettes to
the drug war, and now he's campaigning to fight our new front on
the drug war: obesity and substances which cause it (trans-fats;
soda etc.). Oh, largest steroid bust in history just
announced.
People like Chris Reed keep opening up their mouths about the
dangers of alcohol, and they're gonna reap the law of unintended
consequences: some over-active legislator will move to ban that, too.
The drig war isn't shrinking, or even being weakened. It's
expanding exponentially right in front of our faces.
|10.4.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Oh, largest steroid bust in history just
announced.
Put Standard Libertarian Disclaimer #4 here.
If you do steroids for muscle mass gain, you're an idiot!
|10.4.07 @ 5:47PM|#
If you do steroids for muscle mass gain, you're an
idiot!
The best part is that all the roid-heads said I was an idiot for
smoking pot, back when I was in High School.
I'm sure 5% of them died prematurely from heart attacks by now, and
100% now have tiny penises. Who's the idiot now, acne boy.
***Of course, they should have every right to put that poison in
their veins, but that doesn't mean I have to like them***
|10.4.07 @ 5:59PM|#
The Bonus bonus question is did J sub D and I just made that
list?
TrickyVic, Do you think the DEA monitors this site? In a free
country like ours?
***Of course, they should have every right to put that poison
in their veins, but that doesn't mean I have to like
them***
That's Standard Libertarian Disclaimer #4.
SIV|10.4.07 @ 6:05PM|#
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are
Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic
music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana
causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes,
entertainers, and any others." -- Harry J. Anslinger, first
commissioner of the United States Bureau of Narcotics
What a dumbass Anslinger, that's ECSTASY not mary jane.
|10.4.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Did anyone notice that Walter's didn't actually offer any
evidence to back up his points that "'magnitude of the injustice'
suffered in some cases was exaggerated" or that Friedman's critique
of the War On Drugs was wrong. All he does find new and better ways
to say "No, it isn't" to everyone on of Chris Reed's points:
The entire article reminds me of the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
|10.4.07 @ 6:35PM|#
Personally, I want to see the latest release of Reefer Madness with the Mike Nelson commentary track.
|10.4.07 @ 6:46PM|#
J sub D,
I thought #4 was, "No, libertarian does not mean
libertine."
*checks Libertarian handbook...*
Nope, you're right...
Paul|10.4.07 @ 7:06PM|#
I'm sure 5% of them died prematurely from heart attacks by
now, and 100% now have tiny penises. Who's the idiot now, acne
boy.
Yeah, but they still married that hawt cheerleader you were in love
with when you were in chess club.
|10.4.07 @ 7:11PM|#
I'm sure 5% of them died prematurely from heart attacks by
now, and 100% now have tiny penises. Who's the idiot now, acne
boy.
Yeah, but they still married that hawt cheerleader you were in love
with when you were in chess club.
Perhaps, but now that she's crapped out six kids, which she has to
back into the Geo once a month to pick up the family welfare check,
well... you get the idea.
|10.4.07 @ 7:12PM|#
...pack into the Geo...
Dammit, I've read too many joe posts today, his inconvenient errors
are starting to rub off...
Paul|10.4.07 @ 7:39PM|#
which she has to back into the Geo once a month to pick up
the family welfare check, well... you get the idea.
Nope, she's that overly coiffed real-estate agent in
business-professional attire and driving the H2.
|10.4.07 @ 8:22PM|#
I hate coming into a thread late. It's like sitting in the back
of the classroom among the note-passers and spit-ball
throwers.
What I wanted to say is that what I hate about the War on Drugs is
how it's funding terrrorists right here in the 'hood where the
Little Woman and I live. It's making it very difficult to be a
gentrifier and grow property values.
Besides, we don't like our neighbors having such a revolving door
relationship with the nearby jail.
|10.4.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Dunno...(this hairless ape scratches head)...sure seems like you
and this here Mr. Walters is tryn' to paint one of them thar
"left-liberal caricatures" that Mr. Sullum was dun talkin' on
yesterday in reference to Big 'toni.
This man sounds like a fine upstanding patriotic Amerikan to
me.
|10.4.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Yeah, but they still married that hawt cheerleader you were
in love with when you were in chess club.
Soon enough she'll have sagging breasts, stretch marks and a fat
ass. We can go at this all day...
Anonymo the Anonymous|10.4.07 @ 10:48PM|#
3) What are the odds that Chris Reed wwill get framed by the
drug warriors?
Bonus question - Do I sound paranoid or reasonably
suspicious?
You're unreasonably cautious. This should read:
3) What are the odds that Chris Reed wwill get
shot by the drug warriors?
|10.4.07 @ 10:59PM|#
Soon enough she'll have sagging breasts, stretch marks and a
fat ass.
Which will be removed with the plastic surgery she'll get as soon
as the family court rules thqt she can take her soon-to-be
ex-husband for everything he owns.
Then it's off to Aspen with the pool boy she's been fucking for the
last few years.
|10.4.07 @ 11:50PM|#
Interesting that there was more than one comment saying, more or
less, that Walters is "just doing his job." That is entirely
irrelevant to any of the criticism he so rightly received in the
article and in the comments. After all, I thought we were past
giving people a break for simply following orders. Obviously, that
a large percentage of the population is ignorant, stupid, foolish
or apathetic (or all of the above) enough to continue to support
the so-called "War on Drugs" (more a War on Freedom) is the cause
of its continued existence. That fact hardly absolves those charged
with its prosecution of responsibility for the morality of their
actions.
Walters, by freely accepting his position and seeking to carry out
its immoral mission, is by all rights a brutal thug and deserves
every bit of condemnation thoughtful people can heap on him without
any need for equivocation or qualification. It's times like these
that I almost wish I could believe in hell because he, and every
other so-called "War on Drugs" goon, would surely be destined to
rot in it.
|10.4.07 @ 11:57PM|#
tarran sez: were seducing white women
BINGO! Give that man a kewpie doll. The war cry of the early,
ignorant savages with tiny wee-wees was that some overly pigmented
males would use [opium|weed|cocaine] to seduce white
women.
That particular battle cry lost its luster in the last generation
or two, but fear not - the forces of intolerance found a new one.
C'mon, you already know what's coming...
fur den Kindern MEIN FUHRER
Oops, ah, I mean "for the children". We gotta do it for the
children.
Paul|10.5.07 @ 12:05AM|#
Soon enough she'll have sagging breasts, stretch marks and a
fat ass. We can go at this all day...
No, she has an eating disorder, plus a good plastic surgeon. Plus
she does high-impact
aerobics like, sixteen times a day.
I mean, it's no picnic. She bursts into tears at random times
during the day, her formerly steroid-using husband is an alcoholic
who's getting some from the 16 year old babysitter because she
"understands" him, and she's got a valium addiction. Other than
that, you're still missing out.
|10.5.07 @ 1:34AM|#
People who think the Democrats are better than Republicans when it comes to personal liberty have been smoking pot.
|10.5.07 @ 7:24AM|#
"What did Friedman ever do? Win a Nobel Prize? Be named by the
Washington Post as one of the greatest minds of the 20th
century?"
And to think the man was a heavy user of drugs. Go figure!
Ron Hardin|10.5.07 @ 7:54AM|#
There's some reason to suspect that the alcohol damage is also
vastly overhyped, perhaps undermining the comparison. There are
better reasons to stop the war on drugs, the chief one being a
systemic instability in the system built to wage it.
However, on alcohol, see the 1981 book by sociologist Joseph R.
Gusfield, _The Culture of Public Problems : Drinking-Driving and
the Symbolic Order_.
He has follow-on books generalizing it a little, about how the
route to political power is to invent a ``public problem'' and then
take ownership of it.
He writes very well for a sociologist. Which is to say it isn't
unreadable.
And a hat tip to my friend F.T.Grampp, on MADD, ``If it weren't for
the drunks, a lot of them wouldn't be mothers.''
Tom G|10.5.07 @ 8:12AM|#
Late to the thread, but to pick up on the "they seduce our white
women" idea, have you ever REALLY watched the movie Traffic?
Supposedly it's an anti-"drug war" movie but it not only portrays
most Mexicans (in the movie) badly, it has one of the most racist,
button-pushing scenes right out of anti-drug hysteria - the pretty
young white women kneeling in front of a huge dark black man....for
her next high.
Tell me again how "Traffic" is a message against the drug war.
M. Simon|10.5.07 @ 8:25AM|#
Uh, ladies and gentlemen go to the LEAP site and click on the 40
min video by Peter Crist given at a Rotary Club.
The politicians are only doing the will of the people and he is
right.
LEAP
|10.5.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Stipulating that the war on drugs is pretty much a waste of time and money, if you have a problem with it, you don't go to the "idiot bureaucrats" (good way to sway them to your side, btw) but rather to the people that ACTUALLY MAKE THE LAWS. He does his job which is to enforce the laws the legislature makes. He has no law making powers.
|10.5.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Supposedly it's an anti-"drug war" movie but it not only
portrays most Mexicans (in the movie) badly, it has one of the most
racist, button-pushing scenes right out of anti-drug hysteria - the
pretty young white women kneeling in front of a huge dark black
man....for her next high.
Which is used to support the premise that the drug war is an
ineffective waste. Nobody ever said it was a pro-drug
movie.
Joe Naborz|10.5.07 @ 1:31PM|#
tomwright | October 4, 2007, 3:50pm | #
When did the drug war start?
The drug war began when James Dobson became a speech writer for
Nixon. The Evangelicals had walked out of the Democratic Party to
join George Wallace and his American Independent Party. After
Wallace lost, Dobson's followers joined the Republican Party and
Nixon rewarded them with the Holy Crusade they longed for...the War
On Drugs.
Jim|10.5.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Did he in any way acknowledge the oddity of having a war on
drugs that don't kill all that many people while tolerating drugs
(alcohol, tobacco) which fill up graveyards 24-7?
You might acknowledge that one big reason why certain drugs don't
kill as many people as alchohol and tobacco as that they are
outlawed.
You have actually made a pretty good case for outlawing alcohol and
tobacco though.
|10.5.07 @ 3:38PM|#
He does his job which is to enforce the laws the legislature
makes.
We all know that - see my comment above. That doesn't let him off
the hook for being a willing part of it.
|10.5.07 @ 4:05PM|#
The drug war began when James Dobson became a speech writer
for Nixon.
Joe Naborz,
This is news to me. I couldn't find anything in a Google search. Do
you have a cite?
|10.5.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Jim,
Do you really think that because drugs are illegal, their
availablity is in any way diminished? That people who want to use
them can't get them?
And tell me, how did that alcohol prohibition work out the first
time?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245