A.P.: The Drug War Is a Disastrous Failure

Today the Associated Press distributed a story that takes a remarkably skeptical view of the war on drugs. A few highlights:

After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread....

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."...

[Richard Nixon's] first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

_ $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it. 

_ $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

  _ $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

_ $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

  _ $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses....

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."...

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the non-profit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

"I have been the director of media relations at the Drug Policy Alliance for ten years," says Tony Newman, "and this is one of the hardest hitting indictments against the drug war I've ever seen." I've been covering the war on drugs for more than 20 years, and I can't recall seeing a more skeptical treatment of current policy in a news story from a mainstream media outlet.

Still, the story implicitly favors a timid and probably inconsequential solution: shifting anti-drug money from interdiction and enforcement to "prevention and treatment." The fact that Kerlikowske and the president who appointed him (an admitted drug user, as A.P. notes) officially favor such a shift speaks volumes about its limitations. As I've argued before, moving money around in the anti-drug budget does not necessarily produce a more effective, or even less repressive, policy. The only effective way to address the prohibition-related problems highlighted by the article—such as corruption, black-market violence, and diversion of law enforcement resources—is by repealing prohibition.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

    Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

    FAIL.

  • Hyperion||

    Bwahahhahha, Calderon. Great job of running your country there, you know, the one that leads to all of your people trying to escape to the other side? What are you going to do if Obama succeeds here in his agenda to turn our country into a 3rd world crap hole, you know, like yours? No one will want to come here anymore, and you will be stuck with millions of angry citizens, instead of sending them here. Maybe the drug cartels you are helping to create along with our foolish drug war, will hang your corrupt ass up somewhere in public soon. We can only hope so.

  • ||

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the illegal immigration problem, it needs to do something about Americans' relative wealth and abundance of job opportunities.

    Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.
  • Hyperion||

    WIN!

  • Loperion||

    LOSE!

  • ||

    TIE!

  • Old Mexican||

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

    The solution would be to make it an unquenched thirst for legal drugs. There's no other solution out there, Felipito and Barraquito...

  • ||

    Barraquito

    Isn't that dish linked with Campylobacter pylori and Clostridium botulinum?

  • ||

    But the dead people look so young!

  • ||

    Ummm, if all drugs were legal, it would be a quenched thirst, since then you could cheaply buy all you wanted.

  • ||

    Yo, fuck Gatorade. (?)

  • ||

    What makes you think they wouldn't keep the black market prices? Competition might help but manufacturing and marketing might make things more expensive, among other things.

    Granted some drugs one can grow, but other require a certain degree of manufacturing. That with quality control (something that does not exist right now and results in many deaths) could make things pricey as well. If you can sue your drug dealer, they'll take measures such as insurance to protect their investment (in addition to the actual improvements required to get insurance). That costs money.

  • Zeb||

    Who are "they"?
    In a legal market, there will presumably be some competition which will keep prices low since most popular drugs are really very cheap and easy to produce for someone with the right equipment. I also do not think that is is very likely that drugs will be legalized without significant restrictions on marketing and advertising.

  • ||

    This administration is the best we've had for drug policy in decades.

    That doesn't make me happy, it makes me incredibly depressed.

  • Hyperion||

    The Obama administration? Why? WTF has he done or said about ending the drug war? I don't get it. Let this socialist administration have time and it's way, and you will be sent to 're-education' camp if they even suspect you of using a 'substance' they do not approve of, which could be almost anything. Or maybe, they will just take you out with a predator drone.

  • ||

    Remember that best does not mean good. Even Obama's despicable drug policies are (for the most part) better than the previous ones.

  • SIV||

    Even Obama's despicable drug policies are (for the most part) better than the previous ones.

    I suppose Obama's policies are better if you support the War on Drugs.

  • ||

    Yeah that was my basic point Valawe, thanks. I don't know why people would object to the notion that maybe he's not quite as bad as the four extreme dickheads the preceded him. Look at the last Dem in office even -- going after doctors for recommending.

  • SIV||

    WTF? Did any previous administration move to drug test everyone who goes to a doctor or coerce States into prosecuting people whose urine tests positive for marijuana with DUID?

    The fucking VEEP authored a bill in the Senate classifying glow sticks as drug paraphernalia.Obama might be the worst President for drug policy since Nixon.

  • matt||

    Obama has been no more helpful than any previous administration on drug policy since Carter. So far, he's done about as much harm as the rest did. And he's not stopping at already-prohibited drugs either: No president has ever signed more anti-tobacco legislation - yet the legislation is mostly aimed at the least harmful tobacco products. Meanwhile, the hypocrite I'm sure still lights up every now and then. He's in control of his drug of choice. Yet he wants to give us less choice for tobacco, less choice for liberty in almost every way. Bush 3. Obama is basically doing an about-face of his tear-jerking power-to-the-people stump speeches that turned him from a political-nobody into a president in a single campaign cycle.

    This is not the change that I, nor anyone in my straight-line-dem-ticket family, nor anyone else I know voted for.

    2012 will be the election where a third-party is finally elected or at least taken seriously.

  • ||

    I doubt that Obama has the privacy to score weed and smoke it any more.

  • matt||

    btw SIV: do you use that name because you like makers mark? if i were to ever get a tattoo thats the only one id possibly consider

  • ||

    The fact that the man announced an end to raids of medical marijuana clinics and is dialing back on the war on drugs rhetoric is, unfortunately, enough to make him better than Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, or Bush 2. I say that knowing fully that the execution is often out of line with the stated policy.

    It's not that I think he's doing a good job. It's just been that bad for that long.

  • Hyperion||

    Announced? Ok, just forget what I said about what he said. Who can believe anything that he says now? In my entire life, I have never seen any politician lie so much with video proof. That is saying a lot.

  • ||

    Agreed. Obama is simply paying lip service to Democrats who smoke pot.

  • ||

    Isn't that what Libertarians are accused of being, except they are more honest about wanting to keep the money they earn?

  • robc||

    Libertarians are accused of being republicans who smoke pot.

  • ||

    I suppose it depends on who is in power at the time.

  • matt||

    Also, liberals who shoot guns!

  • ||

    And liberals who support free markets. And liberals who oppose bailouts. And liberals who ...

    I could go on for a quite a while.

  • Bob #2||

    My response to that is, "No. I'm simply a Democrat who learned economics."

  • ||

    I like that one.

  • Robert||

    Between a combination of rhetorically incorrect and politically incorrect, and one of rhetorically correct and politically incorrect, the latter is better. And it is the best we've gotten in a while.

  • ||

    So, someone who beats his wife and admits it is not as good as someone who beats his wife and denies doing it and publicly condemns wife beating?

    Seriously?

  • Robert||

    Yes, seriously. Because the person who beats his wife and proclaims (not just "admits", "proclaims is the closer analogy) it is saying that wife beating is sometimes good.

  • ||

    Have you stopped beating your wife Robert?

  • Roger that||

    Robert calls his dick 'wife'?

  • --||

    You can check the obameter for exact statistics on false promises.

  • jasno||

    I'm beginning to think you guys don't live in California or Colorado.

    For some of us, the rules have definitely changed, and the legal climate is better than it has been since Harry J. Anslinger.

  • Nephilium||

    And if I announce free energy from Unicorns running on treadmills, that makes it so?

    He's continued the raids, and is keeping on with the drug war rhetoric...

    I really want an answer from one of our past three presidents to the question, "Would your life be better if you had been arrested for drug possession?"

    Nephilium... drunkard

  • BakedPenguin||

    I really want an answer from one of our past three presidents to the question, "Would your life be better if you had been arrested for drug possession?"

    QFT.

  • ||

    Bill Clinton never admitted to possessing illegal drugs in the United States.

  • ||

    Ahem, "I didn't inhale," and "I tried it but did't like it?"

    Would you like the Brooklyn or Verrazano Bridge, Tulpa? No checks, unless cashiers checks.

  • Number 2||

    He just quoted Clinton. He didn't say he actually believed Clinton.

  • ||

    Yeah well, I don't actually believe Paul Krugman's economic tripe either, but apparently he has all sorts of folks lining up to buy the Golden Gate bridge.

  • ||

    I can't believe someone actually interpreted me correctly. Call me a coprophile, but I appreciate you, Number 2.

  • ||

    technically speaking, one can smoke a drug without "possessing" it. if another person holds the joint, for example, as you "smoked but didn't inhale" you would never be guilty of "possession" ... again, technically speaking.

  • ||

    technically speaking, one can smoke a drug without "possessing" it.

    If that were technically true, then why the use of urine, blood, and hair test for evidence of recreational use, since one possesses their body and everything in it, technically speaking?

  • ||

    simple. recreational use does not necessarily equal possession

    and regardless of what you think about possession, in no state i have worked does the penal code allow charging somebody for something they have in their bloodstream as POSSESSION. if they are driving, then they can charged with driving under the influence, but not POSSESSION.

    iirc, california has a charge for having heroin in their system, but iirc it is not a possessory offfense, technically.

    it's not that complex.

  • ||

    it's not that complex.

    No. No, it's not.

    I was being overly pedantic, Officer.

  • ||

    don't worry. it doesn't make you a bad person. also note that testing hair etc. for recreational use only has CIVIL penalties (like not getting hired or getting fired by a company) NOT criminal penalties.

    a company can choose not to hire you because you use drugs recreationally.

    one instance where a state can prosecute you in a sense for recreatioanl use is if you are on probation or parole.

  • anon||

    In N.H. it's called "internal possession" when a minor has a B.A.C. over 0.02. But that's a rarity, and really more of a turn of phrase than an actual categorization.

  • ||

    we have something similar in WA state (minor possessing OR consuming) however you actually need physical possession of an alcohol container too, etc. why? because it's LEGAL in WA state (and most states) to provide liquor to a minor, as long as you are the parent. in some states, it has to be done in the home, etc.

  • ||

    Nah, fuck that question. But...how bout that drug-testing for politicians thing? Any progress on that?

  • SIV||

    The fact that the man announced an end to raids of medical marijuana clinics and is dialing back on the war on drugs rhetoric is, unfortunately, enough to make him better than Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, or Bush 2.

    So that offsets Obama proposing mandatory drug tests for the entire population of the United States? Are you fucking brain damaged?

  • ||

    Always follow the money trail. Who would most likely profit from the mandatory drug testing of the populance?

  • SIV||

    The "treatment" industry,public health Nazis,mental health professionals quacks, social services, the criminal justice system, "how to beat drug test" entrepreneurs ...

    More?

  • ||

    Lotta broken windows there. Government seems to the the biggest breaker of windows and the foremost glassier.

  • ||

    Man, I aint NEVER seen The Govt make a fucking window. Pretty sure the panes would be all uneven and distorted.

  • pedant||

    Glassier is an adjective, not a noun. The word you're looking for is glazier - one who works with glass. ;-)

  • ||

    Link to the mandatory drug testing under Obamacare?

  • SIV||

    "Encouraging drug screening at the primary care level."I can't find anything that says you can't refuse it or that refusal will count as a positive test. Physicians can seek reimbursement for screening patients.
    I may have overstated this but it still seems pretty insidious.Drug screening could be added to regular medical blood and urine tests. Mandatory reporting of medical test results is not without precedent in the public health sphere.

  • ||

    Mandatory reporting of medical test results is not without precedent in the public health sphere.

    No. No, it is not.

    Physicians can seek reimbursement for screening patients.

    Just like any other procedure or consultation. However, it would be more cost efficient to contract to independent labs specializing in drug testing. Indeed, an entrepreneur may wish to open up such a lab in lieu of this type of legislation. Private employers have been using their services for years.

    Drug screening could be added to regular medical blood and urine tests.

    I order a tox screen of every patient in pre-op before they go on the table. I nearly lost a patient on the table because they "neglected" to tell me that they had a little habit on the side, which was discovered after resuscitating the patient after the patient crashed after anesthesia induction. My liability is too high, and I learned the hard way in residency that patients often lie. I do support drug legalization of most recreational drugs; however, once you hire me to cut on you, I want to know everything that has been in your body. As illustrated by the aforementioned example, a life and my livelihood is on the line, every time.

  • ||

    I order a tox screen of every patient in pre-op before they go on the table. I nearly lost a patient on the table because they "neglected" to tell me that they had a little habit on the side

    What a dumbfuck. I mean, yeah, i can see why you don't wanna tell your doc about everything if you've got the sniffles....but, ummm, surgery? Yeah, time to get straight up and tell him whats what. Thank God that prohibition makes people stupid enough to NOT tell their surgeons what they've been taking.

    Mission Accomplished.

  • ||

    oh, and PS: You Rock Groovus

  • ||

    Announced? Have you noticed a marked discrepancy between what Obama says and what he does?

    Do you also consider your taxes not raised because Obama said he wouldn't, even though he actually did?

  • ||

    Anyone who doesn't base that consideration on just the amount of taxes they pay, should be dragged out and shot.

  • ||

    This administration is the best we've had for drug policy in decades.

    Cognitive dissonance or just incredile gullibility?
    From the AP article -

    Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.
  • SIV||

    I blame it on marijuana induced brain damage.

  • Dello||

    Obviously, we just need the right people in charge.

  • zooneedles||

    Problem is; if this "drug war" ever does end I'll probably lose my job as a probation officer due to a lack of clients as well my marijuana collective for the same reason, cough, cough.

  • ||

    That's your problem, not ours.

  • ||

    The idea of just letting people put whatever shit they want in their own bodies is so far beyond these people that it's incredibly depressing. Yet they have no problem with alcohol. Which means it's all propaganda and politicking. Which makes them either monstrously stupid or fucking reprehensible scum. Or both.

  • cynical||

    "Yet they have no problem with alcohol."

    I'm pretty sure the "regulate and rehabilitate" people have a problem with alcohol too, they just want to apply they the soft paternalism they're trying to bring to trans fats and salt to harder drugs as well.

  • Hyperion||

    I vote both.

  • ||

    We have a winner! Would you like to go for double Jeopardy, where the prizes can really count?

  • Hyperion||

    There is a rule somewhere the prohibits one from declaring a winner for agreeing with you. Not sure where, but it must be there somewhere. Maybe a geico commercial, no, it's progressive... did I just say progressive, I mean socialist.

  • ||

    Alcohol (and tobacco) are different because it's a traditional recreational drug in Euro-American culture, whereas cocaine, marijuana, etc are not. Thus, the feds were able to ban those before the groups using them became populous -- and inertia has carried the ban forward until now.

    Lord knows many of these people would favor trying to ban alcohol and tobacco if it was politically feasible. But alcohol prohibition was far more destructive than modern drug prohibition ever could hope to be.

  • SIV||

    juanita-lite

  • ||

    Idiot. I support drug legalization, I'm just more realistic about why it's not plausible right now.

  • SIV||

    Alcohol (and tobacco) are different because it's a traditional recreational drug in Euro-American culture, whereas cocaine, marijuana, etc are not.

    Cocksucker.I think you just quoted the past four or five drug Czars verbatim.

  • ||

    A stopped cock is right twice a day.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Actually, opium use was fairly common, especially in Britain. In America, it was largely racist anti-Chinese sentiment which led to the Harrison Act. In Britain, during the late Victorian era, the medicalization of substance use led to increasing restrictions, until opium was entirely controlled by the medical profession.

    A similar dynamic was at work with marijuana. Ironically, Queen Victoria was herself prescribed tincture of marijuana for menstrual pain.

  • ||

    Yeah, basically what we now know as "illegal drugs" just happen to be the ones preferred by undesirable races/ethnicities of yesteryear. But at this point, they've been illegal so long that most people just assume there must be something especially wrong about them.

    My point, back when I had one, was that comparing alcohol prohibition to marijuana or cocaine prohibition today is only good up to a point. Alcohol prohibition was so much more destructive because it went into effect at a time when society in general accepted its use.

  • ||

    Actually, opium use was fairly common, especially in Britain.

    Indeed it was!

  • ||

    Actually, opium use was fairly common, especially in Britain.

    It wasn't unknown in Baltimore either.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And in the 19th century, it was the only known method of stopping cholera and dysentery. Opium saved tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of lives. It wasn't called "God's Own Medicine" for nothing.

    That bit of history, of course, is not something that the drug warriors are keen on mentioning.

  • robc||

    Society in general accepts marijuana use too.

    When is the last time any couldnt get an elected/appointed government job because of pot use? Its been over 20 years, right?

  • --||

    In Vegas you can't even get a job as a bellhop in a casino without a clean hair test.

  • ||

    i think the reference was to PAST mj use.

  • robc||

    How does private sector hiring practices change what I said?

  • --||

    In Vegas you can't even get a job as a bellhop in a casino without a clean hair test.

  • ||

    A stopped cock is right twice a day.

    *Highfive*

  • Rice Bingham||

    But alcohol prohibition was far more destructive than modern drug prohibition ever could hope to be.

    Really! I mean, for real? Show your work please.

  • Rice Bingham||

    I,m talking about "destructive" in terms of $$$ wasted (adjusted for inflation, of course)and lives destroyed.

    And alcohol prohibition was worse... how exatly?

  • ||

    Read up on the gangster wars of the 1920s sometime. Far worse than anything we see today (though modern gang wars over drugs are destructive too).

  • ||

    Hang on. I think the sheer difference in the duration of the two screws your math. How can a few years EVER pack-in the amount of violence/destruction/costs that you can fit in 70+ years?

  • 20,000 dead Mexicans since '06||

    But alcohol prohibition was far more destructive than modern drug prohibition ever could hope to be.

    Speak for yourself Gringo.

  • Contemplationist||

    I used to think that.
    But I think the only reason alcohol is not prohibited is that prohibition failed AND was repealed. If they could do it again, they would. Notice how swifly nanny statism is gorging on the 'Progressive' movement. Smoking, fats, salt... nothing will be left

  • ||

    You are forgetting sex, a very popular mode of transmission of all sorts of little critters, not to mention in resulting the birth of a few more. Takes money to feed all those mouths. I predict China and it's policies on population control will be given serious consideration in the next five to ten years.

    Margaret Sanger, Paul Erlich and Oliver Wendell Holmes will be vindicated by Progressives yet, at least in their minds. Because limiting the number of children would be, ironically, for Teh Childrenz.

  • robc||

    I dont buy it. Considering the direction of population numbers, there isnt a need to pass China types laws in the western world.

  • ||

    robc, I was posting tounge-in-cheek; nurse, sarcasmometer transplant STAT!

  • ||

    Hey, its not like people can choose to not have sex.....wait, what?

  • ||

    The money vomit quote is at the end of the article:


    Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

    "Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

    "If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives — and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint — you realize the stakes are too high to let go."

    "It's for the chiillldddren!"

    I would like to know the ratio of children 'saved' by the war on drugs to the children traumatized in drug raids. Bet it's not even 1:3.

  • barfman||

    ***baaaarrrfffff***

  • The Mossy Spaniard||

    JaNap's comment is, unquestionably, the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard. And I know literally hundreds of people who would likely see no problem with it at all.
    (cocks gun)

  • Hyperion||

    I now cannot even think of Napolitano(which by the way, I do not like to do), without thinking of Elena Kagan. A poster on a some thread I was reading posted something like the following:

    When I was a kid visiting the freak show of a traveling circus, between the bearded lady and the fat woman, was the Janet Napolikagan. Now that there's funny, I don't care who you are.

  • ||

    I, for one, welcome our androgynous overlords.

  • Hyperion||

    I welcome our nanobot overlords, because you can't see how fugly they are before they invade your mind.

  • ||

    Can you see it then even? If i was a swarm of mindinvading nanobots, i would make sure to rewire their brain so they didn't even know i was there.

    And that's one of the reasons why I'm not allowed to be a swarm of nanobots. Dammit.

  • Hyperion||

    Or worse, the number of children accidentally shot in drug raids because they were mistaken for the family dog.

  • ||

    Fuck that shit. I am totally, absolutely, 100% goddam convinced tha at least half of the dysfunction we find in our inner cities are the direct result of the War on Drugs Minorities.*

    When we talk of the costs of this insane attempt at social engineering (which has failed every time, everywhere) we don't factor in the incalculable costs of downstream ruined lives (You want to trot out think of the children? When Daddy's in fucking jail for 5-20 how much do you think that helps the little ones?) or the lost productivity as young males are condemned to lifetime of menial employment.

    And the lying sack of shit in the White House thinks that legalizing marijuana, the most benign mind altering drug in common use** today, is worty only of mocking. That is one deep fucking thinker you progressives elected there. You should be so proud.

    * It started as a way to keep the darkies, slant-eyes and wetbacks down and remained true to its roots.

    ** E-cigarettes may be less harmful than reefer but are not in common use. In fact the puritans among us would rather people die from lung cancer and emphysema than allow a safe nicotine rush. Restore science to government my ass.

  • ||

    And the lying sack of shit in the White House thinks that legalizing marijuana, the most benign mind altering drug in common use** today, is worty(sic) only of mocking. That is one deep fucking thinker you progressives elected there. You should be so proud.

    * It started as a way to keep the darkies, slant-eyes and wetbacks down and remained true to its roots.

    Apparently his own drug use, of which he has freely admitted, has nary hindered his own professional ambitions. And he is a mulatto "darkie". But since he is a died-in -the-wool progressive, he gets a pass on his blatant hypocrisy.

  • Almanian||

    Here, here, J sub D!!

  • ||

    When we talk of the costs of this insane attempt at social engineering (which has failed every time, everywhere) we don't factor in the incalculable costs of downstream ruined lives (You want to trot out think of the children? When Daddy's in fucking jail for 5-20 how much do you think that helps the little ones?)

    QFT * 10^42

  • Some Guy||

    Too bad the reporter didn't follow up with, "So given that the trillion dollars spent has had no effect on use and has led to countless thousands of children murdered, you are in favor of repealing prohibition, right? For the children."

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Napolitano would pause and then repeat her previous answer.

  • ||

    Why aren't journalists allowed to bitchslap their interviewees?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    F'real.

  • SIV||

    a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

    As your former intern Taranto would say:

    BREAKING NEWS FROM 1977

  • ||

    That was me in 1977, absolutely certain that Americans were too smart to maintain marijuana prohibition past 1990.

    As I've since learned, Americans are a very stupid people. With age comes cynicism as well as wisdom.

  • Some Guy||

    And everyone else your age was thinking pretty much the same thing back then. Now they are those people who are upholding prohibition.

    You'd think that when the last 3 presidents are admitted drug users, that just might lead some people to realize the stupidity of the whole thing, but really it just makes them double down.

  • ||

    "Freedom for me but not for thee!"

  • The Prophet Muhammad||

    "Freedom for me but not for thee!"

    Hey! That was my line!

  • Robert||

    Don't you actually mean "double up" rather than "double down"? "Double down" would mean they're not taking any more cards after that one, which I don't think is at all guaranteed!

  • ||

    Pretty arbitrary really.

  • Robert||

    An increase is more often envisioned as an up rather than a down. "Double down" is just a term from blackjack applying only to that special circumstance, but I've noticed in recent years it has perversely been applied more and more in general contexts when "double up" was meant. It's one of those vexing things like "hone in" instead of "home in" or (in a few cases) "horn in".

  • ||

    Yes, but there is still a chance if enough people speak out. Without hope it'll never happen.

  • ||

    "Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

    It seems our three past Presidents didn't have any trouble being successful or productive (without rating their performance) after having used illegal drugs.

  • ||

    *Considers last three presidents*

    I may have to change my position on the WoD.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    ^^^Gold.^^^

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I have been hearing this same thing since around 1968; "Legalization is just around the corner!"

    This is just a no-starter for anyone in the Federal government. The last president to consider softening the Drug War was Carter and even then it was "decriminalization". How many Congresstheives will even admit to ending the Drug War? Five? Six? Take it beyond marijuana and that number goes to zero.

    It reminds me of the Federally-mandated 55MPH speed limit. The public hated this law by a huge margin, something like 85-15 but it took years before Congress finally got around to throwing the plebes a bone and begrudgingly began to get out of the speed limit business.

    I just can't see the Feds ever getting out of the busybody business.

    ... Hobbit

  • Hyperion||

    I just can't see the Feds ever getting out of the busybody business.

    Well, they won't until they are forced out of it. I am going to be an optimist, I see just that coming. Politics as usual is done. The old school political class cannot survive the impending technological and internet revolution. Will something worse and more insidious arise out of it and enslave us? Who knows, believe as you will, but politics as usual is on it's way out.

  • ||

    I'd rather deal with Skynet.

    Alternate Title: I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Have there been many bills introduced into state houses to legalize marijuana previously? What's more, it appears that a majority of California voters favor it.

    That's important not only in and of itself, but for the debate it's going to create. The drug war will be center stage. And the more people learn about the drug war, the more likely they are to realize what a horrible, useless waste it is. As far as the "jobs" issue, there are plenty of crimes that essentially aren't even worked on by cops because they're wasting time on consensual crimes, especially on drug cases.

    I understand your pessimism, but I really think the tide is slowly turning.

  • Robert||

    We managed to get legal pornography. We can do it with narcotics too.

  • David E. Gallaher||

    Jacob, Have you heard of the new book by Michelle Alexander, "The New Jim Crow"?
    It may finally get the "right" people (wink, nod) to acknowledge the extent of harm done.
    I'm reading the book now and it hits the spot.

  • Rich||

    "It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

    Cheer up! *Some* of these people may yet be able to lead productive lives.

  • Ted S.||

    Their work isn't misguided, it's evil.

    I'm sick of the self-styled "do-gooders" immediately resorting to the ad hominem of claiming that if you don't agree with them, you don't care about the children. I would argue that, by teaching children to demonize anybody who disagrees with them, they're the ones who show no regard for the children.

  • ||

    In the education arena, those who seek true reform, up to and including vouchers and privatization, are characterized as heartless bastards who want children to grow up ignorant and wild. Nevermind that this is happening NOW, in large numbers, within our collapsing public school systems. If I can get people to stop foaming at the mouth long enough, I point out that we share the same goal -- good education for as many as possible, ideally, for all -- but that we differ profoundly on the means for achieving the goal. The current approach isn't working yet. Wanting to change the approach isn't the same as wanting to harm children. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Holding our children prisoner in the public schools, on the other hand, can arguably be seen as abuse.

  • TP||

    ..are characterized as heartless bastards who want children to grow up ignorant and wild.

    Characterized by whom? The teacher unions? They are the heartless bastards that don't give a shit about about the children.

  • The Prophet Muhammad||

    We must fight the infidels no matter the cost. If the War on Drugs is failing it is only because we are not being brutal enough.

  • Hyperion||

    Hey Mohammad, right now, I am sodomizing your sister, while smoking a bong full of evil cannabis. What? You approve of that, and you want to watch? What, you would rather I sodomized your brother, and you want to join in? Oh yeah, well I am drawing a picture of your Muhammad being sodomized by a pig. fuckayou whales, fuckayou dolphiiins, fuckayou Musliiims! BTW, you are the biiiacth of Matt and Trey.

  • ||

    Mohammed doesn't just sodomize, he rapes. And he has a tiny penis, which infuriates him. That's why he conquered so many peoples. He's the Napoleon of penises.

  • Hyperion||

    Just wait until Hitlary and the Napolikagan get hold of him with their giant dildos, doh! But, then, I think most Muslims and liberals fantasize about this...

  • Enyap||

    Mohammed is Steve Smith?

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH NOT APPRECIATE BEING EQUATED WITH MOHAMMED! MOHAMMED RAPE LITTLE GIRLS, WHILE STEVE RAPE BIG STRAPPING MEN! NO SIMILARITY AT ALL! PLUS, STEVE NOT BLOW PEOPLE UP FOR POSTING PICTURES OF BIGFOOT! STEVE A DEIST, NOT SOME RELIGIOUS ASSHOLE! STEVE LIKE THOMAS JEFFERSON!

  • Hyperion||

    Dudes, are we talking about Steve Smith of the Carolina Panthers? I am not enlightened...

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    This Steve Smith, not the one you mention or this one.

  • ||

    Watch your asses, The Steve Smith still has Reason on its mind. From its blog:

    but insofar as Reason Mag decided this morning to interupt its usual defense of white, pot-smoking, gun-packing militiamen with a repeat of this canard, I had to respond.

  • alan||

    Nah, this Steve Smith is a Yeti rapist who enjoys collecting fingers as souvenirs, and occasionally he trolls here. He isn't known for having a great left hook just a fearsome grasp naturally built for forced penetration purposes.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    BTW, I think Warty is the one who kicked off the whole Smythe-as-Sasquatch meme. Which is pretty much proof that Warty's a genius.

  • Warty||

    I appreciate all compliments, but at least equal credit has to go to SugarFree. But I think I get credit for starting the all-caps rape meme.

    SugarFree digs through the archives for an answer.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Indeed. SugarFree gets mad props.

  • ||

    Amazingly enough, Muhammed (God's stenographer) and Jesus (God himself in human form for most Christians) didn't have a thing to say about reefer, 'shrooms, cocaine, peyote et al. You'd think an omniscient benevolent God would have given the Jews and Arabs a heads up, no?

    Some cynics have posited that this is because Muhammed and Jesus weren't divine or divinely inspired men, but merely products of their time.

  • ||

    The difference between the two, drug wise, is Jesus drank wine, indeed at The Last Supper, he analogized wine to his blood, saying "...And then he took the cup, again giving Him thanks and praise, and said unto his disciples, take this all of you and drink from it, this is the cup of my blood..." Muhammed, in the Hadith is described as receiving the gift of alcohol and promptly pouring it out on the ground. However, the Quran does not specifically state alcohol as haram.

    The Bible does specifically warn about overconsumption of potent potables, but does not expressly forbid them. Since intoxicants can take various forms and routes of administration, the case can be made that intoxicants are permissible provided moderation is exercised.

  • ||

    Yeah, the prospect of doing a strip tease for your sons (Noah) and/or impregnating your daughters (Lot) is enough to keep any Bible reader off the vino.

  • ||

    Both examples you cited were resultant from overconsumption of the vino Tulpa. :-)

    I am assuming when you have gotten tipsy in your lifetime (odds are you have at least once) did you you do a striptease with a lampshade on your head losing all sphincter control whilst boinking your relatives and giving them the gift of Tulpaseed(tm)? You wouldn't be from Arkansas or the Appalachian Country, by chance, if that is indeed case? I certainly wouldn't suggest that you are a relative of Steve Smith though. :-)

    I am also going to assume (again by the odds that you don't drink to foolishness or use drugs to the point of total obliteration) that you would agree that moderation is a rational approach to the use if any mind altering substances.

    Seems to me that the Christians and Jews are the more rational than the the more prohibitive Muslim culture (barring sects of Christianity that frown upon or prohibit drinking), though from a socio-religious POV, it may be a Hobson's Choice.

  • ||

    Maybe they're going by Pringles logic, ie, once you pop you can't stop. (Not referring to the Tulpaseed here)

  • ||

    Is a stopped pop correct twice a day?

  • ||

    It may well be that God is okay with reefer.

    There's a strong case that cannibis was used by the Hebrews in ancient times.

    One of the ingredients listed in the OT for mixing the holy annointing oils was kaneh bos (kaneh bosm is the plural spelling). Greeks translated kaneh bos to the word cane or sweet cane, which we see in English versions of the Bible. Scholars in the 1930's discovered the mistranslation and said that the proper translation for kaneh bos is the word cannibis.

    If kaneh bos is indeed cannibis, that means that the spirit of the Lord that filled the Hebrews when entering the tabernacle was really a cannibis high caused by inhaling smoke from oil lamps that had cannibis mixed in the oil.

    Relating this information to believers can lead to heated discussions, to put it mildly... LOL

  • Zeb||

    I would love it if this were true, but I think that if you are correct about the translation, they were probably still just using cannabis seed oil which is not mind altering.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Amazingly enough, Muhammed (God's stenographer) and Jesus (God himself in human form for most Christians) didn't have a thing to say about reefer, 'shrooms, cocaine, peyote et al. You'd think an omniscient benevolent God would have given the Jews and Arabs a heads up, no?


    Drug use, in itself, is not sinful.

  • Ernie the Bear||

    Drugs are "Darwin's Little Helpers", and I support anyone over, say, 16 being able to have as much of them as they can survive.

  • PIRS||

    +1

  • Hyperion||

    Drugs are "Darwin's Little Helpers"

    So is sending all liberals and socialist to Antarctica to live their dream life of zero carbon footprint, but, that is not legal yet either. As soon as it is, the other problems will go away more quickly.

  • ||

    "To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

    Yes. It's saying exactly that. Glad we agree on something.

  • Hyperion||

    To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous, Walters said.

    Well, yes, he is right, it has made difference, for the worse. A 'progressives' talking point, any change is good, no matter how bad it is. What a joke.

    It's saying all these people's work is misguided.

    Yes, agree again.

  • ||

    I like to think of the money blown on the various "wars" -- actual and virtual -- as bombing our own cities. That is to say, think of the money spent as equivalent to some group of people's lifetime earnings, and now imagine that their entire life's work and product have been erased. How big an American city -- or how many CITIES -- have been erased by expenditures in the name of the War on Drugs, not to mention how many real lives have literally been lost? If an enemy inflicted as much damage on us, we would seek to wipe them from the Earth. So why do we put up with it when our own "leaders" do it?

  • TP||

    I don't even think of it as a "War on Drugs". I consider it a "War on the American People".

  • ||

    War on ________________

    a) Sanity
    b) Liberty
    c) Youth
    d) Minorities
    e) Reality
    f) ALL OF THE ABOVE

  • ||

    War on the Laws of Supply and Demand.

  • alan||

    The Art-P.O.G.|5.14.10 @ 7:14PM|#

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

    Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

    FAIL.

    Washington DC, where the only correct answer, the one that wont land you in hot water with the political culture and the press, also happens to be the one that is impossible to achieve. Obama, Ready TO Be Useless From Day One.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I honestly wish I were a great writer of satire. I would be so inspired because you are absolutely right.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I'll also say I agree with Carkuff below.

  • alan||

    I'm really not so pessimistic about human cultures as I am about the current shape of our government and our economic well being. Twenty years from now, the choices of recreational inputs will be even greater, the music styles will give a greater array of range and variety, our beverages will be an awesome mix, Saki will mix with New Zima, and Kahlua will mix with everything else in between, and twenty years from now the Eastern European strippers of today will have mixed with other races given us an even more inspiring choice of lap dance partners.

    Oh, we will be much poorer, but other factors will make up for it. In the development of culture I'm always an optimist.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I agree with you that there's a lot to be excited about. Technology, the arts and many other human endeavors will continue to bring us a lot of cool stuff.

    Really, I guess I'm only pessimistic about where government policies will be during all this. It seems like government entitlement programs only snowball, never sunset, no matter how little positive effect they have on anything.

  • ||

    I think there is just no way around the fact that mankind or at least civilization, so called, is doomed by its own stupidity.

  • ||

    Includig the stupidity that posits that peace, prosperity and civilization require that a state have a monopoly on the administration of justice.

    If there is one phenomenon in the history of mankind that is the equivalent to beating one's head against the wall, it is the notion that we need to give the state a monopoly on the administration of justice.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If there is one phenomenon in the history of mankind that is the equivalent to beating one's head against the wall, it is the notion that we need to give the state a monopoly on the administration of justice.


    In the 19th and 20th centuries, the government did not have a monopoly on the administration of justice; the Ku Klux Klan also administered justice.

    How did that work out?

  • Binky||

    if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs ... and Obama has committed to doing just that.

    "Doing something" about the thirst for illegal drugs (and "doing just that") could mean legalization, right?

  • ||

    "Do something, do something",
    I love you, "do something",
    You're always a speech away....

  • ||

    Not on my dime Little Orphan Obama! Punjab!

  • Annie||

    The sun'll come out
    Tomorrow
    Bet your bottom dollar
    That tomorrow
    There'll be sun!
    Just thinkin' about
    Tomorrow
    Clears away the cobwebs,
    And the sorrow
    'Til there's none!
    When I'm stuck a day
    That's gray,
    And lonely,
    I just stick out my chin
    And Grin,
    And Say,
    Oh
    The sun'll come out
    Tomorrow
    So ya gotta hang on
    'Til tomorrow
    Come what may
    Tomorrow!
    Tomorrow!
    I love ya
    Tomorrow!
    You're always
    A day
    A way!

  • Paul||

    the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs.

    The problem is, this is the very essence of government.

    There are pensions, salaries, retirements, employees and entire departments at stake. You're not cutting those. Ever. Evar.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    No kidding. This might be the biggest impetus for continuing the WoD.

  • Paul||

    There will be no legalization under Obama. Only massive welfare/rehab programs and redirection of funds to this purpose. But drugs will remain illegal.

  • Hyperion||

    Yep. If Obama had his way, everything would be illegal, except for him and his elitist friends you understand. But what good liberal could argue with that you know?

    BTW, can't resist, off topic, just got through watching Glenn Beck hand Bill O'Reilly his ass on Fox by arguing the Libertarian view on a topic regarding terrorism. Not sure how soon O'Reilly will want to try this again. It ended amicably. How many heated arguments do you see O'Reilly willingly end amicably of his own free will? The guy is one of the most annoying asses I have ever seen. He got his ass handed to him. I continuously get bashed for supporting Beck. I will continue to do so, so long as he continues to stand up for Libertarian principles. He has probably done more to promote the party than anyone, in recent history, yet Libertarians continue to bash him. I do not get this, I just do not get it.

    Come on, I know it is coming, get it over with.

  • ||

    Beck was pretty hostile to libertarianism until Obama took office. There were a lot of GOP conversions to the cause of limited govt on that fateful day.

    So yeah, I'll ally with him for now. But I don't trust him not to revert as soon as the GOP gets a little power back.

  • MlR||

    Beck began turning around 2006 and has been continuously limping in the right direction.

  • wayne||

    My problem with Beck is his constant call to prayer, it is just unhealthy and indicative of a mind just a bit unhinged.

  • ||

    I just can't stand to listen to Beck. He seems fake, or brainwashed, or SOMETHING that's more than a little off.

    Give me Judge N. any time.

  • ||

    He's an admitted recovering alcoholic who has had a number of years of sobriety. Sometimes folks in recovery have an evangelistic quality about them and they are usually very passionate people.

    Jamie Kelly, The Sultan of Swear, for example.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Excellent example, although I had no idea Kelly was in recovery. There are many reasons people have what you aptly describe as an exangelistic quality, and only half of them are bad.

  • ||

  • Hyperion||

    Tulpa,

    Can't challenge you on this one. But,nuff said, would appreciate any links you can provide about Beck when he expressed his anti-libertarian views. Would be nice to know before I continue to stick up for the guy... but, he did hand O'Reilly his ass, lol....

  • Rhywun||

    "inertia has carried the [drug] ban forward until now"

    QFT. There's just no other rational explanation for the current situation. The propaganda has been so incredibly successful that the most ridiculously banal utterances such as the one by Napolitano above ("This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life blah blah blah") go unquestioned.

    "Notice how swiftly nanny statism is gorging on the 'Progressive' movement."

    Sadly, I agree. They surely have liquor in their sights, too. Obamacare just makes it even more inevitable, as the grip on everything we ingest tightens.

    As for the article, it might be the most honest portrayal I've ever seen in the MSM. Dude, the AP just said the drug war is bogus! That's big news.

  • matt||

    So we can't keep drugs out of the hands of abusers/misusers, despite the blood sweat money and tears trying to keep it out of the hands of the responsible & irresponsible alike.

    Yet Obama seriously expects control to go the same way? All guns have been banned in chicago now, and the gun crime has gotten so bad that they called in the Nat'l Guard.

    I'm so angry for voting for him. Go sign some more anti-tobacco bills before going out back to light a cigarette, you hypocrite.

  • matt||

    oops should read:

    "...Obama seriously expects ^GUN^ control to go the same way..."

  • ||

    So we can't keep drugs out of the hands of abusers/misusers, despite the blood sweat money and tears trying to keep it out of the hands of the responsible & irresponsible alike.


    Are you kidding me? We cant even keep drugs out of prisons!

  • ||

    if god didn't intend for their to be drugs in prisons, he wouldn't have invented the handy rectal drug storage unit (tm) adjacent to the anus

  • ||

    The rectum, anatomically speaking, is superior to the anus. The only reason He invented that particular cavity, if you choose to subscribe to Creationism, is to excrete feces. Any other use of that orifice is devised by man, technically speaking.

  • ||

    clearly it was designed to hide drugs, do0d. cmon.

  • ||

    and fwiw, when i say "created" it says nothing about whether there is a good. if you want to say "evolved" to hide drugs, that would be the same point.

  • ||

    LOL, noted, posttton. I'm in the medical profession, so I'm nit-picky about stuff like that and just giving you a hard time. Your point that it is a handy place to stash contraband is accurate and is conceded, regardless of how it was developed.

  • ||

    Drug Warriors:

    "What we are doing isn't working. We need more money, people, and guns."

    OR

    "What we are doing is working very well, which is why you should give us more money, people, and guns."

    Sometimes I think that if ever there is a massive violent uprising in the USA, the drug war will be the cause of it, or at least one of the main causes.

  • ||

    Isn't that way it is with every single fucking government initiative? What we're doing isn't working. We need to do more of it and do it harder. Government never, never backtracks with respect to diminished liberty. Even the repeal of alcohol prohibition brought with it all sorts of controls as well as taxation that didn't exist before.

  • Robert||

    I don't have time to list ways gov't has backtracked on diminished liberty. It that weren't true, by now, thousands of yrs. into the existence of gov't, the law would prescribe every breath you take.

  • ||

    it's a falsehood (but a common platitude) that govt. never backtracks in this regards (or some say "voluntarily backtracks" thus leaving open judicial review stuff etc.)

    it is clearly true that govt. RARELY backtracks after it diminishes liberty, but hardly true that it NEVER does that.

  • Robert||

    No, actually in the long run it close to evens out. That can be inferred from the very reason I gave above.

    Almost every gov't edict from the past is now gone. We're living with just those most recently imposed. In fact, almost every gov't from the past is gone, entirely!

  • ||

    Airline price controls -- gone.

    Nixon's price controls -- gone.

    Conscription into the military -- gone.

    Constitutional ban on alcohol -- gone.

    Bans on pornography -- gone.

    Prohibition of "assault rifles" -- gone.

    Prohibition on owning gold -- gone.

    End of government supported slaveholding -- gone.

    We're making some progress in some areas, losing ground in others.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Absolutely right, prolefeed. And I can't help but thinking of "A Scanner Darkly" when I think of the future of the drug war(s).

  • ||

    nice examples, prolefeed.

  • Robert||

    And prolefeed's examples are just in the USA. If you expand the field to the whole world and the time scope to more centuries or even millennia, you see what I mean.

    Or you could narrow the focus to states or municipalities and get the same observation. In a many states of the US, for instance, hitchhiking used to be illegal. And even closer at hand, simple marijuana possession in many of the states where it's now just a civil offense used to be a felony.

  • ||

    we took warren zevon's advice... we sent lawyers, guns and money. the shit is still hitting the fan. prohibition hasn't worked. and even worse... it justified the existence of that many more lawyers!

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    That's one of my favorite songs of all time FWIW.

  • ||

    No doubt about it dude, one big money pit.

    lou
    www.total-anonymity.se.tc

  • TP||

    Starin' at the boob tube, turnin' on the big knob
    Tryin' to find some life in the waste land
    Fin'ly found a program, gonna deal with Mary Jane
    Ready for a trip into hate land
    Obnoxious Joe comes on the screen
    Along with his guest self-righteous Sam
    And one more guy who doesn't count
    His hair and clothes are too far out

    While pushin' back his glasses Sam is sayin' casually
    "I was elected by the masses"
    And with that in mind he starts to unwind
    A vicious attack on the finest of grasses

    Well it's evil, wicked, mean and nasty
    (Don't step on the grass, Sam)
    And it will ruin our fair country
    (Don't be such an ass, Sam)
    Well, it will hook your Sue and Johnny
    (You're so full of bull, Sam)
    All will pay that disagree with me
    (Please give up you already lost the fight, alright)

    Misinformation Sam and Joe
    Are feeding to the nation
    But the one who didn't count counted them out
    By exposing all their false quotations
    Faced by a very awkward situation
    This is all he'd say to save the day

    Well it's evil, wicked, mean and nasty
    (Don't step on the grass, Sam)
    And it will ruin our fair country
    (Don't be such an ass, Sam)
    Well, it will hook your Sue and Johnny
    (You're so full of bull, Sam)
    All will pay that disagree with me
    (Please give up you already lost the fight alright)

    You waste my coin Sam, all you can
    To jail my fellow man
    For smoking all the noble weed
    You need much more than him
    You've been telling lies so long
    Some believe they're true
    So they close their eyes to things
    You have no right to do
    Just as soon as you are gone
    Hope will start to climb
    Please don't stay around too long
    You're wasting precious time

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtRwa2mlH0k

  • Old Mexican||

    20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

    That is, the US bankrolled (by proxy and unwittingly, granted) the Colombian cartels so they could move and set up shop closer to their customer base. One of the very few instances where government interventionism actually helped a mrket flourish...

    Maybe if there was a war on appliances, everybody would have access to cheap french door refrigerators and state of the art dishwashers . . . A war on flat-screen TVs would be pretty cool, too.

  • ||

    One of the very few instances where government interventionism actually helped a mrket flourish...

    Hmmm, and to maintain and increase the WOD industry, when it has been demonstrated over and over that prohibition on a large scale doesn't work, might suggest a purposeful intended consequence, perhaps? The fall of liberty always needs a boogeyman of some kind, real or imagined.

    Seems like a tactic straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: demonize something (drugs, booze, prostitution, etc.) split the community opinion in your favor, then take action to insure the problem exits to maintain power through enforcement. Progressively add broken window shards and eggshells as needed. Let simmer for five to ten year, give or a year or two, then refrigerate. Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary proportionate to the size of target community. Serves up to the entire population. Additional assembly may be required.

  • ||

    exits == exists

  • ||

    Given the tens of thousands of murders, the untold trillions in opportunity costs sustained, the loss of liberty and the apotheosization of public sector parasites, one wonders how any person, with a straight face, can argue that it is the state's monopoly on the administration of justice that keeps us safe.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Everyone is tired of your one-trick talking point, Libertymike. And what "State" are we talking about here? because I count 50 states and one federal government who all "compete" when it comes to the administration of justice, not to include countless counties that also have many of their own rules and policies.

    So cram it.

  • ||

    Obama says that there are 57 states.

  • ||

    Maybe he's counting the states of the CSA. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

  • PIRS||

    He maybe assuming that Puerto Rico, The United States Virgin Islands, The District of Columbia, Guam, The Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa will all become states during his rule. But - that would still only be 56 .... Maybe he thinks California will split in 2.

  • ||

    No way -- all of those would be blue states. The GOP would never stand for it.

    Actually, he should have forced through a bunch of new blue state admissions while he had the 60 vote Senate majority. Another stupid act of negligence on his part.

  • Kolohe||

    You'd be surprised how relatively conservative Guam and CNMI are. And fwiw, the 'statehood' party in Puerto Rico is nominally a right of center party that normally aligns itself with the Republican party on 'national' issues.

  • ||

    Yeah, I'll be sure to remind you-when we meet at a re-education camp (don't fool yourself, pointing to all of your posts in which you have belittled my anti-state screeds, will not save you).

  • Zeb||

    Oh give it a fucking rest. He sort of said that once, he does not as a rule say that. There are plenty of real things to criticize Obama on. Stop bringing up stupid pointless shit that makes you look crazy.

  • ||

    This hardly constitutes a rebuttal of the point LM is making.

  • tarran||

    In libertymike's defense TAO,

    The states don't really compete with each other. The rules of jurisdiction coupled with the way funding is handled effectively mean that every piece of territory is effectively being controlled by the state or provintial courts with Federal agents allowed to move largely without let or hindrance through the land.

    At this point the institutions providing security have lost any vestiges of competition and behave like a cartel that lacks any accountability.

    Judges who are paid by taxes extracted by force face no risk of losing their job because people refuse to do business with them. Career police forces face no risk of having customers ditch them. The effect of the occasional election or relatively toothless civilian review board notwithstanding.

    If you were to add up the per capita cost of the various government services you think are appropriate, and subtract it from the taxes you actually pay, the number remaining would represent the amount you lost to government extortion. My bet is that you will find the amount far exceeds what you would lose to crime in the absence of a state. Please note that a state is not required for civilization to function as attested by the prosperity of colonial Pennsylvania during its anarchic period, the (not so) Wild West etc. There were non state institutions that did provide protection, judicial services, and investigated crimes. These institutions could be reconstituted today.

  • ||

    There is a lot of brainwashing which must be overcome, even for those who claim that they are friends of liberty.

    TAO is a good example. If he took the time to analyze his assertions above, he would be embarassed. He knows that if there were truly 50 states competing against the feds, then California would not permit the feds to conduct raids upon those who grow MJ. If there was a genuine competition, even amongst government units, the district of columbia could give the middle finger to the Supreme Court on gun control measures.

    If there was anything resembling competition in the area of administering justice amongst state units, one state, say Virginia, could order that all those arrested on federal gun charges within its borders, be immediately released.

    Or, how about taxes? Suppose the state of New Hampshire enacts legislation prohibiting the arrest and prosecution of any person for failure to file income taxes.

    Obviously, the proposition that there is real, true competition in the area of administering justice amongst state entities is nonsense.

  • ||

    but there are significant differences in criminal law between states, which makes our country pretty frigging unique compared with most.

    the US is unique in that (most) of its criminal law varies significantly based on what state you are in. now with creeping federal power, a heck of a lot more stuff is (at least theoretically) under federal jurisdiction as well, but still the VAST majority of crime (and by codifying crime, states exert significant authority as you referenced) is only punishable under state statutes.

    one example: age of consent. i used to work in a state where age of consent was 14. in some, it is 18. that is a SUBSTANTIAL difference in administration of justice, and in fact the fundamental elements of what constitutes a crime vs. a good time.

    you are correct in that the states don't compete against the feds, in that if its criminal federally, the state has no say. but the contrary is also true (as long as state criminal laws don't run afoul of the federal constitution).

    there are also significant differences in how (for example) self-defense is looked at.

    in my state, the burden is ON the state to disprove self-defense claims beyond a reasonable doubt.

    that is hugely different from many other states that have no such burden. and justice varies significantly based on differences like this.

  • ||

    in my state, the burden is ON the state to disprove self-defense claims beyond a reasonable doubt.

    What is the win/loss ratio of cases brought by the state in such cases?

  • ||

    i don't have a #, but the # wouldn't tell the whole story because the state will not choose to even PROSECUTE cases that they might prosecute in other states. so, under selection
    bias, we only see the theoretically strong cases. prosecutors don't want to lose, so they won't charge a case that they would charge in another jurisdiction, due to the higher burden

    i've gotten declines (and rightly so) on cases i have referred to the prosecutors office due to self-defense claims. in some of those declines the prosecutors explain "it would be difficult or nigh impossible to DISPROVE self defense beyond a reasonable doubt due to.. (for example, the suspect statement i took) so we decline).

    this is a concept that a lot of people miss when they look at court cases (the selection bias) that i bring up all the time. most incidents of any sort never make it to court. cops give a verbal warning, prosecutors decline to prosecute, etc. the only cases you SEE are those that GET to court and thus you think X about how these cases are handled w.o understanding that most cases of that sort don't even GET to court. operating under incomplete info.

    a cop in snohomish county was recently acquitted in a shooting her was charged with, and he had a self defense claim.

    here's another quirk of WA law. WHEN a person is found not guilty, a jury then has to answer a second decision... do they believe the person acted in self defense. IF they find that is true, the person gets the entire cost of the trial, lost wages, etc. REIMBURSED by the state. this creates a strong incentive for the state NOT to charge people who have decent self-defense claims... as it should be

    note in the instant case, the jury did NOT find that the cop acted in self defense.

    iow, they believed the state did not DISPROVE self defense beyond a reasonable doubt BUT they did not believe a self defense claim was established

    this is the distinction when there is or isn't an affirmative defense.

  • ||

    What matters is that there is no competition allowed within a defined geographic area.

    If you don't like the Democratic government's administration, you're not allowed to yank money and support and switch to the Republican or Libertarian party's administration. At best you can move to somewhere else with a marginally better monopoly on governance.

  • ||

    there are also state constitutional differences. for example, my state is very democratic and trust me many jurisdictions WITHIN the state have TRIED to impose various gun bans, etc. but due to our constitution, they can't do it and get hammered for it. one can choose (as i did) to live in a state with stronger constitutional protections than others

    my state ALSO has a right to privacy in our constitution, which many states do not. this means we have actual privacy protections vs. the federal govt. that does nto even mention privacy, merely unreasonable search and seizures.

    that's why cops are more limited in search scope in our state (a good thing) and etc

  • The Angry Optimist||

    libertymike, I am not as stupid as you assume I am, you arrogant ass. Just because the states have allowed themselves to be bought in the interest of money does not mean they have to administer justice that way.

  • ||

    TAO is an Objectivist. Most of them have quasi-blindly accepted Ayn Rand's statements that a certain form of minarchism is the only moral form of government, while ignoring the rest of her statements to use logic and reason to determine what is best.

  • Marc||

    "Quasi-blinded"? Nice hedge.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    If we want to get personal, maybe you can lay out your case for "moral" adultery again and how great it is.

    Otherwise, you can play hide and go fuck yourself.

    There is plenty of logic as to why I think anarchy is unworkable. Chief among them is this nonsense statement above:

    What matters is that there is no competition allowed within a defined geographic area.

    Even if you had your desired order of things, there would be no competition within a geographical area, even if that geographical area was your own house and land.

  • Tony||

    Who would you prefer administer it?

  • tarran||

    Whichever security company you decide to hire. And if you don't like their poor performance, you can fire them.

  • ||

    Does the person justice is administered against also get to fire the security company if they don't like their performance?

    What you're describing is quite similar to the administration of justice by the mafia. While there are serious problems, and always will be, with the way a state administers justice, that is NOT the direction we want to head in. The right direction for us to head in is to get people to be more vigilant about making the state administer justice fairly. It is the price of freedom you know.

  • ||

    Does the person justice is administered against also get to fire the security company if they don't like their performance?

    Of course not. When was the last time you could fire a police officer for giving you a ticket for speeding, even if only a 2 or three miles above the limit. Or running a red light when there is no one at an intersection and no accident had taken place? (That one is a true anecdote: I waited at an intersection, protected left turn for at least ten minutes. The song I was listening to was over ten minutes, a Tool song, the exact one escapes me at the moment).

    What you're describing is quite similar to the administration of justice by the mafia. While there are serious problems, and always will be, with the way a state administers justice, that is NOT the direction we want to head in. The right direction for us to head in is to get people to be more vigilant about making the state administer justice fairly. It is the price of freedom you know.

    In theory Tulpa, I agree with you. There are problems when a significant portion of the population does not trust the current system and it's actors of enforcement to mete out justice fairly (I really dislike vague terms), whether the rationale is of concerns of disproportionate enforcement of laws along racial, socioeconomic, or even politically ideological lines. Even more disturbing is when people generally agree that favorable justice is received by proxy of availability of monetary resources, i.e. "You get as much justice as you can afford." I see little difference between the hired goons of the mafia and hired goons of the state, be it local, state or federal enforcement. Each does have a price, in the form of either soft or hard monetary extortion, and both are dependent on the personal restraint of the actors involved. About the only difference I see is the mafia is honest about their source of corruption and the state proclaims moral authority by virtue of a shiny badge, yet will hide behind that badge and "sovereign immunity" when outcomes go awry. Either agent of justice is prone to overstep their bounds and not hold themselves to the same standard of conduct as those they agree to protect, either by direct contract (the mafia) or "sworn duty" (the cops). And there are only so many Radley Balkos in the world.

  • ||

    I wasn't trying to say that law enforcement should be subject to consent of the particular individual it is enforced against. Obviously that would make enforcement impossible.

    Just making it clear that the justice corporations beloved by anarchos are not consensual organizations either; they simply replace government coercion with some other sort of coercion.

    I see little difference between the hired goons of the mafia and hired goons of the state, be it local, state or federal enforcement.

    Are you taking cues from the Iran equivalencers yesterday? You have got to be kidding me. Police have been prosecuted by the state for abuse of their powers
    when the public outcry is big enough. Public outcry ain't gonna influence mafia enforcers one bit (except out of fear of the state cracking down on them in response, which we're not considering if we're talking about internal workings of the organization).

    The reason police aren't prosecuted, and prosecutors are able to get away with abuse, is because PEOPLE DON'T CARE. They don't want to hear bad news, and the modern press gives them what they want (with the added bonus of preserving govt access).

    THE PRICE OF FREEDOME IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE. Write it on the chalkboard 500 times.

    About the only difference I see is the mafia is honest about their source of corruption

    Nonsense. Mafia do not speak publicly about "business" any more than corrupt cops or prosecutors do.

  • ||

    Are you taking cues from the Iran equivalencers yesterday?

    No, Tulpa. You are aware of my consistent position on the state and its monopoly on the law enforcement. See also: Lord John Acton.

    The reason police aren't prosecuted, and prosecutors are able to get away with abuse, is because PEOPLE DON'T CARE.

    Bullshit Tulpa. Fear of reprisal by a gang that can make your life really, really difficult if they so choose is also a deterrent to reprisal. Much like the mafia. Also, see: Whistleblowers.

    It should also be noted the average citizen has been suckered into thinking the police are there to protect them, when at best, police are reactionary to violent crime and court cases have ruled that the police are not required to protect the public, such as Warren v. District of Columbia. But you knew that.

    Police have been prosecuted by the state for abuse of their powers
    when the public outcry is big enough.

    Sure, if they happen to be caught on tape. It would be nice if police POV cameras were regarded as standard issue, with a disinterested third party holding the recordings.

    Public outcry ain't gonna influence mafia enforcers one bit (except out of fear of the state cracking down on them in response, which we're not considering if we're talking about internal workings of the organization).

    Especially when the "sworn" goons with shiny badges are accepting graft from the "contract" goons. But that type of mutualism never happens because the "sworn" gang with the shiny badges would never do anything dishonest. Like redirecting the gains of assent seizures for personal gain. Moral equivalence, the anti-drug.

    Nonsense. Mafia do not speak publicly about "business" any more than corrupt cops or prosecutors do.

    From a media POV (barring the Dapper Don and a few other colorful mafia characters), you are correct. I should not have worded it that way. However, finding a member of the mafia or gang associate, if you know where to look, is not difficult to find.

  • ||

    "It should also be noted the average citizen has been suckered into thinking the police are there to protect them, when at best, police are reactionary to violent crime and court cases have ruled that the police are not required to protect the public, such as Warren v. District of Columbia. But you knew that."

    the police are not constitutionally required to protect any individual. that's what the case says. it does not mean that, and contrary to your claim of "at best" that they don't often do that. i suffered several smoke inhalation injuries and minor burns from pulling a bunch of people out of a burning building (people were jumping out 3rd story windows it was that bad). i wasn't CONSTITUTIONALLY required to do that, it doesn;'t follow that cops don't often do such stuff. they do.

    i have a partner that took a frigging bullet saving somebody's life (and the guy's life was saved)

    so, don't tell me "at best" police are reactionary to violent crime. in many cases, they stop inchoate offenses.

  • ||

    i suffered several smoke inhalation injuries and minor burns from pulling a bunch of people out of a burning building (people were jumping out 3rd story windows it was that bad).

    Your heroism is commended, posttton. However, civilians are capable of and have and do display such acts of heroism as well. The fact that you are a police officer with, I assume, first responder and disaster training I'm sure certainly helped. Again, your act of heroism is to be commended.

    i wasn't CONSTITUTIONALLY required to do that, it doesn;'t follow that cops don't often do such stuff. they do.

    Heroism is not Constitutionally required of any of its citizens. Again, you are to be commended for heroic duty. Again, there are plenty of cases where civilians have intervened heroically.

    i have a partner that took a frigging bullet saving somebody's life (and the guy's life was saved)

    I have excised bullets from the abdomens of a few patients and saved their lives. It is my job that I do it willingly. Like you and your partner do yours. You have described your job as a "great job" on another thread.

    so, don't tell me "at best" police are reactionary to violent crime. in many cases, they stop inchoate offenses.

    I do have to wonder how many cases where tensions and violence have been exacerbated by police presence as well. I am inclined to think, after reading your posts that you are one of the good ones. Have you investigated LEAP?

  • ||

    i think that, in general, the police are a calming influence. that may sound crazy to the cop-haters, but conduct this thought experiment

    for the next week in, oh let's say, chicago, the cops announce that there will be no police whatsoever in the city.

    do as you will

    do you think tension and violence would go up? hmmm...

    LEAP looks pretty cool.

    i recall the common sense attitude one of my former bosses (a small agency i worked when i was a young pup fresh out of college) expressed. "(poston), i don't give a flying fuck what people choose to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, and as far as i am concerned, it's not an issue in this town."

    nice.

  • tarran||

    Oh please...

    The Chicago police have systematically undermined pretty much every avenue for protection. Most people have not arranged for their own protection thanks to victim disarmament laws.

    By your argument, Saddam Hussein was a calming influence on Iraq, given the eruption that occurred after he was knocked out of power. And those of us arging that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant are, of course, utopian fools since obviously we need dictators who consciously model themselves after Stalin to keep society calm.

    And let me guess, when a guy who kills his parents is facing sentencing, you argue for leniency because after all, snif snif, the man's an orphan?

  • ||

    you can borrow the definition of chutzpah, but the point remains

    if cpd dissappeared for a week the predation that occurred in their absence would astound you

    whatever their faults, criminals would run amok in their absence, especially considering the fact that as a 2nd amendment violator, chicago has disarmed the law abiding

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The reason police aren't prosecuted, and prosecutors are able to get away with abuse, is because PEOPLE DON'T CARE. They don't want to hear bad news, and the modern press gives them what they want (with the added bonus of preserving govt access).


    Also a lack of high profile vigilante killings.

    A few high profile killings, similar to what happened to Theo Van Gogh, should grab some attention.

  • ||

    prosecutors can get away with abuse, because under the law, they have near complete and total immunity, far more than law enforcement (cops) do.

    about the worst thing that can happen to them is disbarment (civil sanction)

    criminally, they have little to worry about

  • tarran||

    Tulpa, the focus of non-monopoly security companies would in all likelihood be focused on crime prevention, or in stopping the crime as it is taking place rather than allowing it to happen and trying to figure out who did it, which is the current model popular with state security services.

    I should point out that there are non-coercive methods of enforcing judgements. From the Amish practice of "shunning", the Spanish practice of public shaming of debtors by following them around with signs describing their debts, to the Irish system of declaring people outlaw, this problem has been tackled with varying degrees of success in the past.

    It's really important to understand that the current system of government courts cum police with all the weapons was not adopted because it provided better service. It was adopted because nation states are really good at invading and conquering other territories. In fact, it's sad how of the 4 anarchic/polycentric judicial systems that I know of, 2 (Ireland, the Acadians (who fled their lands and became the ancestors of the Cajuns of the Gulf Coast) were ended with the British Army invading.

  • ||

    Tulpa, the focus of non-monopoly security companies would in all likelihood be focused on crime prevention

    I don't believe that. I know I'm using the Mafia/gang analogy a lot here, but those are prime examples of enforcement outside the govt, and they certainly are not focused primarily on preventing "crimes" against their organizations.

    It's really important to understand that the current system of government courts cum police with all the weapons was not adopted because it provided better service. It was adopted because nation states are really good at invading and conquering other territories.

    Utter nonsense. Police forces as we know them today didn't exist in Britain or America until the 19th century. No nation-states arose or invasions occurred to put them in place; they came about because the old systems were totally ineffective when dealing with the densely populated areas produced by the Industrial Revolution.

  • ||

    I also really love how anarchos point to rural, backwards cultures as examples of how their system would work.

    There are a lot of things specific to Amish society that make shunning a viable enforcement mechanism. And it certainly doesn't work against outsiders who commit crimes against them.

  • Eric Johnson||

    Not to mention that Amish justice doesn't work as well as some people think it does.

    Daughter reports father for child molestation to outside authorities. Mother takes daughter to Amish dentist to have all her teeth removed to "teach her not to talk to outsiders." Father is shunned by local community for the molestation until he says he's really, really sorry.

    I'm sure the Amish as a whole are wonderful people, but when it comes to them dealing with evil, I'm not convinced they are a shining example of the non-coercive implementation of justice.

  • ||

    Proof, please?

    Care to compare "Amish" justice with monopoly justice and its track record of mass murder, mayhem, brutality, corruption and incompetence?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    And when Security Company A shoots my brother, I guess I just get Security Company B to exact revenge on you and your company? Yes, America as a Hatfield-McCoy battleground sounds awesome.

  • ||

    Yes, America as a Hatfield-McCoy battleground sounds awesome.

    The DEA, SWAT, ATF and Drug Gangs and Cartels would agree with you.

  • ||

    Moral Equivalence. My Anti-Drug.

  • tarran||

    Historically, decentralized legal systems have focused on fines and social censure to administer justice.

    The use of punishments such as killing and amputations and imprisonment are the hallmark of monopoly legal systems.

    Hatfield-McCoy Feuds are the hallmark of cultures where feuding is viewed honorably, not ones with no strong monopoly judicial system. Tellingly, in many countries with a strong monopolistic judicial system where feuding and other "honor" crimes are a part of the culture (such as my birthplace Turkey), they continue anyway.

    It's culture that matters, not the existence of the state. The state can influence culture, occasionally in more peaceful directions, but usually in less peaceful directions. Look at what has happened in England, for example.

  • ||

    The use of punishments such as killing and amputations and imprisonment are the hallmark of monopoly legal systems.

    ... like the Mafia?

  • ||

    Or feudal Japan?

  • ||

    What Tulpa and TAO ignore is the horrible track record of monopoly justice. By any measure, it has been an abject failure. No amount of ad hominem attack upon those of us who recognize the chaos and disorder produced by monopoly justice is going to change the facts.

    It is the very lack of competition that has enabled the state to immunize its actors from prosecution and civil liability. It is the lack of competition that has enabled the "thin blue line" to prosper and thrive.

    What do we do with the Duke la crosse players? They were victimized by monopoly justice. In a perfectly competitive environment, the protective justice agency of the players would have prevented the state of North Carolina from prosecuting them. Better to have a competitive justice system where the protective agencies, armed to the teeth, would not hesitate to wreak awe and destruction on a state agency filled with parasites who do not mnake and produce anything but terror.

    That the price of freedom is eternal vigilance is better practiced without giving the state a monopoly on the administration of justice. If my protective justice agency is armed to the teeth, the chances are just a little bit less that I will be prosecuted on bogus charges like Ryan Fredericks or Tanya Craft.

    Futhermore, peace and prosperity are never better served by monopoly. Monopoly breeds incompetence, corruption and rent seeking. The very things that give us the profound chaos and disorder rampant in the socialist states of amerika.

  • ||

    Tulpa's repeated references to the Mafia are telling. The real Mafia is the federal mafia with its alphabet soup of parasites wreaking terror on the populace.

    Take the income tax. In a perfectly competitive environment, my protective agency would not permit the IRS to confiscate my property. My protective agency would not permit IRS agents to seize my bank accounts or other property.

    As matters now stand, a person is at the mercy of the federal mafia. The IRS CAN levy your bank account WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. The IRS can prosecute those brave patriots who choose not to buckle under to the income tax hoax. There are tens of thousands of people in federal prisons because they chose to stand up to the IRS.

    We have the Mafia alright, it is the state and its armed cowards.

  • ||

    Furthermore, as Solzhinitsyn said, "the higher the ends, the higher must be the means." By definition, monopoly is never the highest of means.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I have no idea if the system you are describing is the least bit feasible, LibertyMike. But hell, at least it's consistent (too consistent?).

  • ||

    It's consistent in the same way that a book full of blank pages is consistent. You can't have any contradictions if you don't say anything.

    Now, their prescriptions of how anarchocapitalism could lead to anything but a miserable shithole followed quickly by the rise of a tyranny unlike anything we've ever seen are pretty inconsistent and vague.

  • tarran||

    Given the Sicilian cultural tradition towards violent clan feuding, I hardly think the mafia is a counter example to my arguments. Don't know about feudal Japan though; haven't studied it.

  • ||

    What the hell is your argument then? The mafia is not a government organization. Unless there is some reason why organizations like the mafia could not exist in your anarchocapitalist society, then you have to account for them.

    Otherwise, your argument amounts to, if everyone was as non-coercive and moral as tarran, then it would be fine not to have a government enforcing justice. Well that's great, but you're not dealing with reality then.

  • Janet Napolitano||

    There is not a dimes worth of difference between LibertMike and The Angry Optimist. You are both domestic terrorist, and a danger to the public.

  • ||

    Hahahaha
    Nice one

  • PIRS||

    Off topic but important:

    First Greece, now Pakistan. The IMF is now going to bail out Pakistan. Apparently they think Pakistan might become a third world nation if it does not get aid.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64D6MC20100514

  • hmm||

    "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."...

    I don't care what "scheme" you are using as a metric. The policy has failed at every conceivable level and "scheme" possible.

  • ||

    Cali will pop in November. Nevada,New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington will soon follow. This bloc will suck people jobs and money from the other states which one by one will capitulate and fall in line with the New Weed Order. As a wise former president once said: "You're either weed us or you're against us."

  • ||

    LOL, I would have to agree with the Associated PRess.

    Lou
    www.total-anonymity.se.tc

  • Juanita Wayback Machine||

    Juanita|11.9.07 @ 11:37AM|#
    Marihuana has been proven by the experts to invariably lead to schizophrenia in most users, so perhaps the psychologists are just looking for future business.

  • Juanita Wayback Machine||

    Juanita|1.31.05 @ 11:46AM|#
    This just shows how we need stricter laws to prevent cloning. I don't think we should do this type of reasearch because I think it is f@#ked up.

  • Juanita Wayback Machine||

    Juanita|9.5.07 @ 9:06AM|#
    The drug war cannot be either lost or won. Regardless, it must be fought for moral reasons. Drugs steal the users soul, they are like most pleasures, things that God does not want us to do. That is why it must be fought no matter what the results.

  • TP||

    ...things that God does not want us to do

    Who's God? In some cultures "drugs" are used to enhance intimacy with God.

    So, fuck you, and your God. Go peddle your religion somewhere else.

  • Parker||

    Um, I think Juanita is being sarcastic/ironic. YMMV.

  • Zeb||

    And this is just someone quoting Juanita.

  • wayne||

    A.P.: The Drug War Is a Disastrous Failure

    In other breaking news, the sun will probably rise tomorrow and President Obama promises hope and change...

  • hmm||

    I hear he is going to stop the tide as well.

  • ||

    I only come here to get depressed when I'm feeling too happy. Have any of you guys read No Treason (by L. Spooner) lately?

  • J. Random Voter||

    This is just a load of transparent pot-head bullshit. This "Associated Press", if they even exist, would have us believe that the Government would spend $1 Trillion over four decades, for something that not only doesn't work, but might actually make the problem worse? There's no way the American public would put up with that level of incompetence, for that long! We're not morons, you know?

  • ||

    Urgent*** This just in from the Federal Department of DUHHH... Research NOW shows after 40 years of epic failure and trampling of the Constitution that the drug war is a bad idea and utter and complete failure or the highest magnitude.

    The Department of Redundency says it will study this report for the next 20 years to "make it all ok." Just you wait and see!

  • ||

    should be "department of redundancy dept."

  • ||

    Could you repeat that please?

  • .||

    This is what happens when Friday afternoon posts are allowed to stagnate aver the weekend.

  • .||

    aver
    Pronunciation: \ə-ˈvər\
    to allege or assert in pleading
    2 : to declare positively

  • .||

    What aver.

  • ||

    They are using the same "exit strategy" as the "War on Poverty"

  • hmm||

    Rhode Island just "Created or Saved" a shit ton of teaching jobs. By hiring back all the shitty teachers they fired.

  • ||

    Shouldn't there be a thread about this:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_.....-container

    I mean the cops were going after a real criminal for once it seems.
    Still something to talk about besides "nothing happened since Friday"

  • ||

    Shouldn't there be a thread about this:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_.....-container

    I mean the cops were going after a real criminal for once it seems.
    Still something to talk about besides "nothing happened since Friday"

  • Akbar||

    It's a trap!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement