Opinions - War On Drugs parallel Iraq, vietnam (nice article)

[Heretic.Ape.]

WAR ON DRUGS RUNS PARALLEL TO IRAQ, VIETNAM WARS
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n754/a11.html?1042

President Nixon's declaration that drug abuse is "public enemy number one in the United States" in 1971 launched a "war on drugs" that has raged since the war in Vietnam.

Like the war in Vietnam then and in Iraq today, this war has proven to be much more complex than a simple "red versus blue" campaign. The soldiers are sworn law enforcement officers and organized crime members playing a dangerous game of "cops and robbers." The victims are varied, some helpless, destitute, or hardened criminals themselves, but all are civilians.

Like Iraq, there is another faction who would like to do away with the whole affair - drug policy "insurgents."

Leading the insurgency are advocacy groups such as the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, who challenge the Federal Government on judicial, legislative and executive fronts. This past year has beared mixed results for advocates, in part because of uncooperative executive and judicial branches at the federal and state levels but also at the advocacy level.

Since President Nixon ignored the findings of his own commission urging federal decriminalization of marijuana in 1971, twelve states have enacted medical marijuana laws, and many more localities have put the enforcement of marijuana prohibition as the lowest law enforcement priority. In April, Gov. Bill Richardson made medical marijuana into New Mexico law. Last week, Rhode Island's legislature rejected Gov. Donald Carcieri's veto of MPP's medical marijuana bill, solidifying the number of states in the union with medical marijuana laws. New York is waiting on its state senate and governor to take final action on a bill that passed the assembly by a 93-52 vote.

The list of losses are equally numerous. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its history of stretching the "interstate commerce" clause of the constitution.

Gonzales v. Raich allowed the federal government to further curtail state rights by rationalizing since medical marijuana could be transported and sold across state lines.

Despite California's medical marijuana law prohibiting it, the Federal government can shut down state sanctioned "cannabis clubs." This allows state medical marijuana patients and growers to be prosecuted under federal law.

Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell vetoed a MPP sponsored bill last week, citing conflicts with federal law and "family values" of voters. On Monday, the Supreme Court set a dangerous precedent for further constraining student speech by virtue of its content in its "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case ruling.

The judiciary's actions have cleared the way for executive agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency and local law enforcement departments to exercise excessive police powers and undue influence in public policy. Drug law enforcement has taken on a troubling para-military flare with officers in battle dress uniforms with guns drawn executing "no-knock" search warrants.

A hard nosed approach on crime may never draw the ire of the public, but a botched raid on and death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston should. Atlanta police suspected her apartment was being used to sell crack cocaine, obtained a warrant and plain clothes officers raided the house. Johnston, anticipating the raid as a home invasion, opened fire on the officers. They justifiably returned fire, but then went on to plant all the drugs that were found that day, whicn included three bags of marijuana. Officers J.R. Smith and Gregg Junnier pled guilty to a variety of charges relating to the incident in federal court. Like the war in Iraq, our "boots on the ground" have failed to speak the local language and only inflame violence not among Shiites or Shia, but Bloods, Crips and Banditos.

Not content to engage in mere enforcement, the DEA orchestrates and U.S. tax payers fund a variety of public relations campaigns demonizing drugs and drug users, as well as attempting to legitimize and further their bureaucratic interests. According to the DEA Web site, marijuana and its legalization advocates are endangering the country by blurring the lines between "fact and fiction." On its face, these Web sites are contrived and sometimes outright false, which is a fact that will not escape the critical eye.

Critiquing current drug policy and scrutinizing agencies such as the DEA is an important task for government reform. The unwise laws and mechanisms that enforce them conveniently demonstrate the heights of government corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, deliberate misinformation, and hypocrisy. President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been criticized since its inception and exposed some darker elements within his administration. Similarly, the war on drugs accomplishes the same things, regardless of partisanship of an administration in peace time. Although the war in Iraq rages on, popular discontent is being voiced and put at the forefront in presidential debates now and in those to come. Marijuana advocates should further prod latent public discontent and foster new energy towards an issue not unlike the war in Iraq.

Call it a "decapitation attack" because it is precisely what the war on drugs needs to bring it to a peaceful and ultimately beneficial conclusion that America deserves. Until federal prohibition is dealt with, state level campaigns will be subject to asymmetrical warfare like true insurgents, and their detractors can continue to propagate misinformation.

Citizens from all over the political spectrum can recognize the futility of the war on drugs and disharmony of their ideological beliefs and the government's conduct. Marijuana advocates need to focus on taking public discontent to its numerical and national heights. Dismantling the war on drugs will not only be a wise public policy course but also bring accountability back to an out of control federal government.

[Police Officer]

Talk about a slap in the face. Pretty much anyone knows a Veteran. I dare anyone to tell a Vietnam or Iraq Vet that the confilict there parallels the "war on drugs."

I haven't been seriously shocked or disgusted in a while, but this for sure did it for me.

[Felonious Skunk]

^^^^ By that do you mean the Vietnam/Iraq wars were/are for just causes but the "war on drugs" is a sham?

Just asking...

[Woodman]

It is my experience that most people who work for the government have an irrational tendency to vilify anyone who reveals embarrassing facts about their beloved institutions.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itd...de/goodsb1.htm

After sending 50,000+ Americans to their deaths in Vietnam (on the basis that we had to stop the spread of communism), the US bailed in 1975.

The Result:
Communism did NOT spread over all of South-East Asia.

...so it would seem that those 50,000 lives were lost for NOTHING!

Now, if that's the way that the US is willing to spend the life of your son or daughter, how much confidence do you think it warrants?

By the way, does anyone know what we are doing in Iraq?
Sure, "stop terrorism," and "establish a new democratic government," but what is our next goal in this effort?

...and what benchmarks do we have so that we know we are actually reaching those goals?

We NEED some sort of indicators to know that we are indeed moving ahead. So far, I don't see any, and no one can even tell me what they are. All I see is G. Bush on the TV telling me "We have to stay the course!"

What "COURSE" George?
What the fuck are you talking about?

[Felonious Skunk]

And it's bothersome when attempts are made to emotionally negate the disturbing facts depicted in the article by whipping out an image of some guy in a wheelchair waving a little American flag.

It's no secret that this country routinely fucks its war veterans in the ass. Once a soldier has served his often unsavory purpose, he can kiss Uncle Sam's, in fact.

From relabeling shell-shock as PTSD after WWII, to the toxic effects of Agent Orange (dioxin) exposure in Vietnam, to most recently the very real Gulf War Syndrome, the land of the free and home of the brave doesn't give two shits about troublesome vets but is obviously quite happy to use them for propaganda purposes on an as-needed basis.

And this is even before getting into the "drug war" casualties.

If one were to--as a purely intellectual exercise--anthropomorphize that entity known as the United States, the resulting image would be of a self-absorbed sociopath worthy of committment to a psychiatric institution for the safety of the global community.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Felonious Skunk

It's no secret that this country routinely fucks its war veterans in the ass. Once a soldier has served his often unsavory purpose, he can kiss Uncle Sam's ass, in fact.

From relabeling shell-shock as PTSD after WWII, to the toxic effects of Agent Orange (dioxin) exposure in Vietnam, to most recently the very real Gulf War Syndrome, the land of the free and home of the brave doesn't give two shits about troublesome vets but is obviously quite happy to use them for propaganda purposes on an as-needed basis.

Actually there are many dirty little secrets the US does want people to forget:

This is just one that proves this point:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...e=ReviewDetail

Hard to find info on it in websearch, you have to go to Amazon to get reference material.

...by the way, has anyone got info on those benchmarks that I requested on the war in Iraq?


...anyone?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for the link! Interesting stuff. FS

[Heretic.Ape.]

^ Benchmark, no. But I was discussing the war with someone whom I consider perhaps the only republican I've met worth listening to and she told me her thoughts on why we're stuck in a sticky predicament.
As we all know, the US went to war under false pretenses--you remember, the whole WMD's and all those people who thought (god know's why) that Saddam had something to do with Al Quada, blah, blah. Well we get in there and get hip deep in shit and realize it was all bullshit, so now what? The natural reaction is probably to say "whoops, my bad, we'll just leave now.." exit stage right. But, regardless of where the blame falls and who actually knew what, we're still in a shit situation. Think back to the Gulf war. What happened as soon as the US left? The people they had supposedly freed and who had helped them out, the Kurds or whatever, got massacred. Same thing back in Vietnam.
So the big worry now is that a lot of people remember what happened last time and remember the outrage, all the "how could the US just leave those people to be massacred like that after all that?!" But what can they really do? Noone really seems to know and nobody really seems to be proposing any stellar plans so things just keep going stumbling along like they are.
So that's what she said and it was the most reasonable thing i've heard anyone say so far. Any comments? I'm not nearly as up on the Iraq war as i ought to be right now because I've been taking a break from most news (other than drug war stuff).
h.a.

[lulz]

I think a more appropriate comparison is between BusCheney and Nixon pre-Watergate:

"This is a further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances," said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law."

It's worth noting that for impeachment proceedings to start, the Senate Judiciary Comittee has to agree on the matter. If you look back on the quote above, check out who makes the quote.

edit: source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nav=rss_nation

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

^ Benchmark, no. But I was discussing the war with someone whom I consider perhaps the only republican I've met worth listening to and she told me her thoughts on why we're stuck in a sticky predicament.
As we all know, the US went to war under false pretenses--you remember, the whole WMD's and all those people who thought (god know's why) that Saddam had something to do with Al Quada, blah, blah. Well we get in there and get hip deep in shit and realize it was all bullshit, so now what? The natural reaction is probably to say "whoops, my bad, we'll just leave now.." exit stage right. But, regardless of where the blame falls and who actually knew what, we're still in a shit situation. Think back to the Gulf war. What happened as soon as the US left? The people they had supposedly freed and who had helped them out, the Kurds or whatever, got massacred. Same thing back in Vietnam.
So the big worry now is that a lot of people remember what happened last time and remember the outrage, all the "how could the US just leave those people to be massacred like that after all that?!" But what can they really do? Noone really seems to know and nobody really seems to be proposing any stellar plans so things just keep going stumbling along like they are.
So that's what she said and it was the most reasonable thing i've heard anyone say so far. Any comments? I'm not nearly as up on the Iraq war as i ought to be right now because I've been taking a break from most news (other than drug war stuff).
h.a.

I'd say that what she said is the excuse everyone is giving for not doing anything. "Well we're in a problem with no good solutions soooooo lets do nothing at all that way nobody gets blamed for the shit that will happen and we can keep wasting money and getting people killed."

Sooner or later the US is going to have to pull out. The war is too expensive, the public (and hopefully soon Congress) is fed up with this shit, and the military is not equipped to handle it. When the US pulls out bad shit is gonna happen, but unless they have some super secret awesome plan they're not telling anyone they need to just grow a set and admit that it is time to leave.

[Woodman]

I'm still waiting for any defender of government policy to provide me with the benchmarks that I've asked for, THREE times, now!

Anyone...?

[Heretic.Ape.]

Originally Posted by Woodman

What "COURSE" George?
What the fuck are you talking about?

lol, I reckon the course is to continue with empty rhetoric and continuing one of two things depending on what your slant happens to be.
Either you chalk it all up to sheer incompitence and the course is pretty much trying to ride the hot air of rhetoric out of office to leave in the hands of the next joker like a hot potato.
Or if you're one of those bent more toward thinking there are alterior motive s at play (oil, stategic positioning for military forces, etc), then it's a matter of keeping the rhetoric going until a satisfactory puppet government is established at which point some evidence will be pulled out that "peace and democracy" have been established.
Either way no bench marks that sound good to johnny q public are going to turn up soon.

[Felonious Skunk]

^^^^ The buffoon is just adjusting the spin so his museum will be a little less of a sham.

[allyourbase]

were fighting on both sides in iraq. we send out our special forces dressed as "insurgents" to foment these "sectarian" problems. if you dont believe me...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...agedterror.htm
the idea is not to create all out war, or even civil war, but to keep a steady pace of violence. the people behind this horrorshow are the owners and operators of the military industrial complex, the more hardware they have to "replace" the better for them.... this war was not designed to be won, it was designed to be fought and drawn out.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Woodman

I'm still waiting for any defender of government policy to provide me with the benchmarks that I've asked for, THREE times, now!

Anyone...?

Relax, guy.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by allyourbase

were fighting on both sides in iraq. we send out our special forces dressed as "insurgents" to foment these "sectarian" problems.

I'm afraid you aren't going to convince anybody with links to prisonplanet, Alex Jones has negative credability with the general public.

But I have read similar accounts in a British newspaper, the Independent, some time ago quoting an un-named member of an American special ops unit talking about how they had run more than one operation using remote controlled explosives, and then implicated Muqtada Al Sadr afterwards.

Remember when that major mosque in Iraq got attacked? There was a huge bomb that exploded right when people were leaving the mosque after the service. It happened two years ago I think, I was in Sydney for the summer, and after a long night on the lash I caught a taxi home.

First thing the driver does is he turns off the radio, and looks me in the eyes through the mirror in the middle of the ceiling. He goes "you heard about the mosque bombing? It was the Americans".

At this point I promptly shit my pants, because I was born in America and I have an American accent.

It turned out alright in the end, but it was quite a story.

[Woodman]

Well, I'm still waiting for a defender-of-the-faith to step forward and provide this forum with some measure of reasoned discourse.