Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

Authors

Prohibitionist love-fest (updated)

Our Drug Czar’s been in Sweden, hobnobbing with Queen Silvia and having a great time with a supportive audience at the World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD) World Forum Against Drugs.

Naturally, it’s a one-sided gathering of all the worst of the prohibition world. They’re overarching theme is to completely turn the definition of human rights upside down, by apparently saying that human rights means protecting children from the existence of a world where adults use drugs. It’s taking the old, tired “think of the children” mantra to new and even more frightening levels of unreality. In fact, the whole thing was framed around the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

They dragged out the old Drug Czar under Nixon, Robert L. DuPont (who bears a whole lot of responsibility for the current mess), who spewed a bunch of nonsense, such as:

Would anyone faithful to human rights conclude that adult child pornography readers’ right to privacy trumps children’s right to protection from sexual exploitation as contained in CRC Article 34? Of course not. Why should it be different for drug policy?

Yes, he went there.

Of course, Gil gave a speech. He couldn’t pass up this opportunity to promote his “third way” nonsense that he got from Mark Kleiman. (And yes, he used the “silver bullet of legalization” phrase again.)

He took this opportunity to roll out some new bit of nonsense called “Principles of Modern Drug Policy.”

Principles of Modern Drug Policy

The three United Nations drug control conventions are the foundation of the global effort to reduce drug use and its consequences. To implement the conventions in the 21st century, the United States commits itself to the following principles and encourages other nations to do the same:

  1. Ensure Balanced, Compassionate, and Humane Drug Policies. Modern drug policies must acknowledge that drug addiction is a chronic disease of the brain that can be prevented and treated. Public health and public safety initiatives are complementary and equally vital to achieving reductions in drug use and its consequences. The drug policy challenge facing the world today is not a choice between an enforcement-only “war on drugs” on the one hand and the extreme notion of drug legalization on the other. Rather, the challenge lies in combining cost-effective, evidence-based approaches that protect public health and safety.
  2. Integrate Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Support Services into Public Health Systems. Public health approaches, such as evidenced-based prevention, screening and brief interventions in healthcare settings, drug treatment programs, and recovery support services, are vital components of an effective drug control strategy. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that drug prevention, treatment, and recovery services are cost-effective ways to reduce drug use and its consequences.
  3. Protect Human Rights. Respect for human rights is an integral part of drug policy. Citizens, especially children, have the right to be safe from illegal drug use and associated crime, violence, and other consequences— whether in their family or the community. Drug-involved offenders who have contact with the criminal justice system deserve to be supervised with respect for their basic human rights and be provided with services to treat their underlying substance use disorder.
  4. Reduce Drug Use to Reduce Drug Consequences. The best way to reduce the substantial harms associated with drugs is to reduce drug use itself. Public health services for drug users, including HIV interventions for people who inject drugs, should be implemented in the context of comprehensive, recovery-oriented public health systems that also provide drug users access to treatment for addiction. Policies and programs such as injection rooms, drug distribution efforts, and drug legalization should be opposed because they tolerate drug use and allow the debilitating disease of addiction to continue untreated.
  5. Support and Expand Access to Medication-Assisted Therapies. Recent innovations in medication-assisted therapies have demonstrated increasing effectiveness in reducing drug use and its consequences. These medications should be further studied to identify new therapies and best practices in program implementation.
  6. Reform Criminal Justice Systems to Support both Public Health and Public Safety. Criminal justice systems play a vital role in breaking the cycle of drug use, crime, incarceration, and re-arrest. While individuals should be held responsible for breaking the law, the criminal justice system should help bring them into contact with treatment services if they are suffering from a substance use disorder. This includes providing treatment services in correctional facilities, providing alternatives to incarceration such as drug courts for non-violent drug- involved offenders, and using monitoring, drug testing, and other means to ensure recovery from illegal drug use.
  7. Disrupt Drug Trafficking. Transnational criminal organizations should be targeted with a focus on the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of drug traffickers, the seizure of illegal assets, disruption of drug production networks, control of precursor chemicals, and the eradication of illegal drug crops. International cooperation on information exchange, extradition, and training and technical assistance should be strengthened to eliminate safe harbors for transnational criminal organizations.
  8. Address the Drug Problem as a Shared Responsibility. Drug use, production, and trafficking are increasingly globalized problems and pose challenges to all of our nations. Because of the global nature of today’s drug markets, international cooperation is essential to protect public health and safety.
  9. Support the UN Drug Conventions: The three UN Drug Conventions are the foundation of our global drug control efforts and are effective in their current form. Efforts to renegotiate the Conventions should be opposed.
  10. Protect Citizens from Drugs: Drugs are illegal because their use is dangerous not only to users but to society as a whole. We are committed to protecting all citizens, including those in recovery, from the tragic consequences of illegal drug use.

That last one is particularly outrageous (though not particularly surprising) in that it specifically denies the existence of non-harmful use of currently illicit drugs when it comes to the Drug Czar’s view of drug policy. #10, along with #3 and #4 attempt to invent harm from the non-problematic recreational use of illicit drugs.

And of course, the harms of prohibition are almost entirely ignored.

Update: Check out the seriously deranged rantings of the Russian Drug Czar:

It is more than illustrative that the so-called Global Drug Politics Commission, which directly promotes drug legalization, last year hit upon the idea to present its definitely provocative and favoring drug legalization report on the 1st of June – on the International Children’s Day!

No doubt this large-scale and highly aggressive PR-campaign on drug propaganda is directly or indirectly related to enormous drug business income estimated by experts as 800 billion US dollars per year.

The mentioned report should be unambiguously regarded as a kind of a manifest of drug legalization supporters. […]

The objective of drug legalization supporters is to legalize transnational organized crime, a global criminal international, to make drug trafficking smooth and comfortable.[…]

Today we can see how powerful our antidrug front is. And we should pass to victories over drugs, to resolutely reject decadent moods and conciliation with the drug mafia’s initiatives.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

69 comments to Prohibitionist love-fest (updated)

  • christy

    They can’t hold the Prohibitionist conference in the United States without a large anti-drug war rally to counter it, so they have to go all the way to Sweden where nobody cares what goes on there.

  • darkcycle

    The Czar is pushing his kinder/gentler inquisition theme really really hard. He’s selling this like the guy on the “Buying a Cat (aka: Taking in the Terrier)” sketch by Monty Python.

    • Duncan20903

      Would we have laughed so much when watching MP in the past had we known that they were actually building a template for PP propaganda?

      • darkcycle

        I see we’re already abbreviating “Prohibitionist Parasites”. We seem to have cozied right up to that term.

  • Servetus

    The prohibs are using quotes around the phrase war on drugs, as if it’s a figment of someone’s imagination; belief makes it all go away. It’s like the Marx Brothers line, “…who are you going to believe, your own two eyes or what I tell you?

    The prohib claim that the best way to reduce the substantial harms associated with drugs is to reduce drug use itself is a loser’s pipe dream. Prohibs do not stop drug use. They don’t even reduce drug use. Drug use is fueled by the black market, and the black market is created by prohibition. It’s a self-replicating cycle. None of it will not go away as long as there is prohibition.

    International cooperation is essential to protect public health and safety.

    Yet, protecting public health and safety isn’t important enough to include providing health insurance to the 53-million Americans currently without it? Somehow, the alleged health problems of someone who smokes weed is a priority over someone needing big money for cancer treatment? Wow! We’re important. Or something.

    Efforts to renegotiate the Conventions should be opposed.

    With renegotiation out of the picture, total rejection of the three UN Drug Conventions is the only option left. That actually makes things simpler. Thanks, WFAD.

    • christy

      “Somehow, the alleged health problems of someone who smokes weed is a priority over someone needing big money for cancer treatment? Wow! We’re important. Or something.”

      Hate has a powerful grip.

      • kaptinemo

        Or you could say that prohibs don’t think very much of alcohol users; boozer’s lives are just not as valuable as an illicit drug user’s.

        We spend what’s comparatively a microscopic drop in the bucket to ‘prevent’ alcoholism, as opposed to the trillion dollars we’ve spent on prohibition of other drugs. Is an alcoholic’s life worth demonstrably less than an illicit drug user’s? From a fiscal point of view, it certainly looks like it is.

        What other conclusion could you reach, given the facts? In a very sick sense, the prohibs are ‘showering’ us with their ‘affection’, showing us how ‘concerned’ they are for our ‘welfare’…whether we want their ‘love’ or not. Like a dangerously obsessed stalker with a crush, they never seem to get the idea that “no means no”.

    • darkcycle

      “Yet, protecting public health and safety isn’t important enough to include providing health insurance to the 53-million Americans currently without it? Somehow, the alleged health problems of someone who smokes weed is a priority over someone needing big money for cancer treatment? Wow! We’re important. Or something.”
      May I steal this?

    • yeah… they’re the ones who hid a study about a promising cancer fighter almost 40 years ago, US: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew In ’74, not us egal levilizers.

      They’re the ones ignoring the obvious (and all the studies), ignoring the facts and completely missing the truth boat.

      That near 10% of the global economy that is all cash, unregistered, untaxed transactions, controlled by multi-national crime syndicates that prohibition has created and that these excrementalist yayhoos maintain, is tempting enough that they’ll not only backslap but apparently collectively masturbate in public.

      To be fair… former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders did recommend masturbation (for men)(sorry ladies) to keep that pesky prostrate working properly. And don’t get me wrong, you womyn go ahead too… I’m sure there are positive health effects (like the impossibility of being fertilized) for the female anatomy as well.

      But seriously, circle jerks in public are so… wrong. And for these gutless wonders to be parading so, it’s just wrong and gross. Although now that I think about it the cartel bosses are prolly smiling, grinning even…

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .

        Doctors used to prescribe masturbation for women. The vibrator was originally a medical device and women would make doctor’s appointments to get this “treatment” for the disease of female hysteria. The advent of the vibrator wasn’t the beginning of this practice, just an advancement in medical science and a labor saving device for physicians. Starting in the first century A.D., doctors manually massaged women to orgasm in hopes of purging them of a mysterious illness later identified as female hysteria. The old saw “what she needs is a good shtuping” may be less politically incorrect than it seems at first blush.

  • Windy

    “[Their] overarching theme is to completely turn the definition of human rights upside down, by apparently saying that human rights means protecting children from the existence of a world where adults use drugs. It’s taking the old, tired ‘think of the children’ mantra to new and even more frightening levels of unreality. In fact, the whole thing was framed around the Convention of the Rights of the Child.”

    Where do you suppose they got that idea? Here perhaps:

    “The State must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” — Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”

    • Peter

      no doubt goebbels had a hand in that early version of think of the children! and look what he did to his own kids

    • Duncan20903

      I think that Windy’s post above is prima facie evidence that Godwin’s “law” is a joke.

      • Emma

        There is an old book “Drug Warriors and Their Prey” by a scholar of the Nazi legal system, makes a detailed, convincing comparison between drug prohibition and the systematic scapegoating of ethnic minorities, similar objectives and similar tactics.

    • Servetus

      Within a year of coming to power, Hitler focused on ridding Germany of its ‘parasites’ and those he considered ‘decadent’, the ‘riff-raff’ as it were. These were people Hitler believed useless because they were seen as unproductive for the state, or dependent upon the state; drug addicts being just one example.

      By 1934, Hitler’s severe eliminationist policies had met with general public approval, if not apathy at the severe measures taken. He also wanted to eliminate Germany’s universal health care system in place at the time, but his advisors warned him against it, fearing it would make the NSDAP unpopular with the people.

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .

        Like any prohibitionist Mr. Hitler was an unadulterated hypocrite, taking injections of methamphetamine until at least 1942. Since the time that the restrictions on pseudo-ephedrine were implemented by the Feds and various States the most popular method of producing methamphetamine for home use is called the “Nazi method”. It’s called that because Mr. Hitler also believed in keeping his troops hopped up on meth. Sometimes the supply lines failed and the soldiers were forced to produce their own. As it has always been, it was (some) drug users that Mr. Hitler detested, not drug users in general.

  • strayan

    DuPont’s remarks are probably the most disturbing thing to have ever been penned by a prohibitionist.

    I hate invoking the label, but that man is pure evil.

  • Duncan20903

    Wouldn’t “self congratulatory circle jerk” be the more apt descriptor?

  • Nunavut Tripper

    Seems the DEA agents in Columbia picked a taste for strange pussy also.

    http://news.yahoo.com/colombia-secret-prostitution-scandal-spreads-dea-224937449–abc-news-topstories.html

    It’s legal in Columbia so the story is really a non event

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      Huh, when you said strange I was expecting to find that they were enjoying time with midgets or monkeys, possibly amputees. Perhaps even midget monkey amputees. (not that there’s anything…wait, never mind) I feel so disappointed and hollow.

    • darkcycle

      Tripper, looks like the real headline was buried in the story: “Gary Newcomb, a supervisory IT specialist from the DEA, flew in from Virginia to testify Wednesday. He said the scanners are already in place on drug trafficking corridors in California and Texas, and the DEA is considering placing them on interstates near the Arizona cities of Kingman and Flagstaff.”
      OOPS, this posted in the wrong place, please forgive the near duplicate.

  • Freeman

    The drug policy challenge facing the world today is not a choice between an enforcement-only “war on drugs” on the one hand and the extreme notion of drug legalization on the other. Rather, the challenge lies in combining cost-effective, evidence-based approaches that protect public health and safety.

    Hi Mark! Wait a minute — the notion of legal anything is the default state in a purported “free society”. Drug prohibition is the extreme notion. Gil’s really in love with calling something “evidence-based” and “science-based”, just because some professor whispered sweet nothings into his prohibitionist ear. AFAICT, most of this “third-way” nonsense is built on a single one-year HOPE study with no follow-up (I’ve repeatedly asked over at RBC about longer-term or follow-up studies — the response has been cricketesque so far). Hell of a lot of “evidence” there, Mr. scientist wanna-be.

    And did he really say “cost-effective”? Yep, and he said prohibition is results-effective too. “The three UN Drug Conventions are the foundation of our global drug control efforts and are effective in their current form.” Kerli always was the zaniest of the stooges.

    The only way any of Gil’s statements made any sense is if we assume that all drug use is addiction. He deliberately and dishonestly frames it this way, using phrases like “substance use disorder” and “tolerate drug use and allow the debilitating disease of addiction to continue untreated”. Here’s a hint, Gil: When you deliberately omit 80% of the data in your analysis, you’re not being “scientific”, you’re being “dishonest”.

    #5 is particularly stupid. “Recent innovations in medication-assisted therapies have demonstrated increasing effectiveness in reducing drug use”. So taking drugs is “effective in reducing drug use”? Oh, I see — one is “medication”. Give it a special label and it changes everything, right? Except in the case of medical marijuana — that’s just stoners trying to dishonestly re-frame their drug of choice as medication.

    I think Randy Barnett had it right in the article Pete linked to yesterday. These guys are obviously addicted to prohibition. Some sort of intervention seems in order — somebody should do something! Physician, heal thyself. Then we’ll talk about whether or not you’re qualified apply your healing techniques to the rest of us.

  • Gil’s “3rd way” goes multinational. Just read this from Transform UK’s blog, which also promises to “deconstruct” the joint statement soon.

    We, representatives of Italy, the Russian Federation, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, gathering in Stockholm on 20 May 2012, reiterate our commitment to these basic principles:
    • to ensure the adequate availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for the relief of pain, treatment of illness, and research
    • to prevent and reduce the use of these drugs for any other purpose and reduce the consequences their use cause

    Wait, did they just tell me I can have my medical cannabis?

    Nope.

    We are committed to strengthening our international partnership to develop and implement strategies grounded in science and human rights in line with the U.N. Drug Conventions.

    So what they’ve signed is essentially a declaration against legalization.

  • pt

    When Dupont says “adult child pornography” I cant help but think of those adults with fetishes to dress up in diapers and pretend to be infants, in that case he would definitely be wrong. Because some sexual freak in a diaper with a rattle and a pascifier does not really exploit children, so just leave em alone! lol

  • Francis

    So many prohibitionists together in one place and no giant meteor strike. You really dropped the ball on that one, God.

  • Jose

    What WFAD needed was Robert Gates to tell us there is no war on drugs…. It is a kinetic enforcement action! I mean, hey, it worked for Libya.

  • Matthew Meyer

    Pete, *THEIR* overarching theme

  • Tommy

    I find #10 offensive. If liberty is the enemy of “recovery” then I want nothing to do with it.

  • Peter

    you have to ask what putins mans been smoking if he thinks we re sponsored by an 800 billion dollar industry and if that industry would really want legalization

    • QuaxMercy

      Indeed. Putin’s Man is also the best argument against allowing
      propaganda free play in this free society. It completely distorts the discussion, undermines the scientific method, befuddles those who would be “scientific, evidence-based,” poisons the feedback loop upon which policy should be based.
      He even sounds pre-falling Wall.

  • So any bets as to what happens to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs when half the states have fully legalized the production and sale of marijuana?

    Does the US fully withdraw or attempt to force the rest of the signatories to accept a re-write which removes cannabis from the list?

    • claygooding

      Since,IMO,the war on some drugs is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to keep hemp off the open market(look how easily meth and cocaine were removed from schedule 1)the removal of marijuana from schedule 1 would end the entire program.

      Sure,the bureaucrats and paid propaganda machine would drag it out and choke as much money and misery out of us before their demise but it would be the removal of the foundation their empires are built on.

  • Servetus

    Today we can see how powerful our antidrug front is. And we should pass to victories over drugs, to resolutely reject decadent moods and conciliation with the drug mafia’s initiatives.” – Victor Ivanov, UN Drug Czar

    A major Mexican drug trafficker gives thanks to Victor:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-S2f0h3E8U

  • darkcycle

    Well, their orgy may just become public. Anonymous is announcing that it plans to release the names and motives of those who profit secretly from the drug war. Including the Police agencies.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-glazer/hackers-anonymous-declare_b_1532365.html

    • claygooding

      I commented that the Anonymous expose could show how corruption in our congress keeps drug war funding sacred while legislators argue about which social program to cut funding for. Didn’t get posted,,,,

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .

        I’ve really, really had it with HuffPo. My daily Google news search is now: marijuana -synthetic -huffington. For the love of all or any primitive tribal god figures, how in the world could anyone censor a link to the Weasel Stomping Day video??

      • John

        Clay, I just checked the link and your comment was posted at the very top.

    • Peter

      doesnt seem to say when they will release the name and shame report?

      • Duncan20903

        Anonymous left me very highly disappointed in their lame 4/20 “action”. Even worse, I don’t know who to blame.

  • Servetus

    Every automobile traveler may end up being investigated by the DEA along interstate highways deemed ‘drug corridors’. It’s not a done deal yet, due to privacy concerns.

    The DEA wants permission to use stationary license plate scanners positioned beside roadways, and they want to store the license plate data for two years. I-15 in Southwest Utah is currently being considered as one of the areas designated for surveillance. Big Brother’s plan includes tracking possible marijuana growers.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54126491-78/scanners-data-utah-dea.html.csp

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      That would certainly be a financial boon to the rental car companies. It might even get enough genuine business men hassled for dog sniffs that “find” the last renters contraband in the trunk to raise a substantial brouhaha.

    • darkcycle

      Servetus, looks like the real headline was buried in the story: “Gary Newcomb, a supervisory IT specialist from the DEA, flew in from Virginia to testify Wednesday. He said the scanners are already in place on drug trafficking corridors in California and Texas, and the DEA is considering placing them on interstates near the Arizona cities of Kingman and Flagstaff.”

    • Servetus

      ‘Drug smuggling corridor’ is a disingenuous description. With a reputed 28-million pounds of marijuana consumed yearly by Americans, there isn’t a freeway or a backwater dirt road that hasn’t been a drug smuggling corridor at one time or another.

      • darkcycle

        They really are stretching slowly toward the time when any and all interstate commerce is monitored. It won’t be as obtrusive as border control checkpoints, but cameras and routine stops (with no probable cause needed) for out of state plates traveling the interstates are coming, and soon.
        Heh-heh. I drive vintage vehicles alot, and have ridden old motorcycles all over the west without touching a single mile of superslab. The interstates suck if you love to drive. It’s like having sex, but not enjoying it. AFAIC it’s no problem at all staying away from the “major drug trafficking corridors”.

      • Francis

        It’s too bad roads are already public. Think of the money that could be raised by seizing them all!

        • Duncan20903

          .
          .

          Who says private interests can’t seize stuff from the government? It is civil seizure you know. Can’t the government waive sovereign immunity if it sees fit? Sheesh, for an attorney you have no imagination. Start working on the brief and I’ll contact some upper level muckity mucks in the government and work out a 50/50 under the table split on the tolls we’ll collect.

      • Duncan20903

        28 million pounds is a short hair more than 41 grams for every man, woman, and child in the United States, our unregistered guests excepted.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    OpenDoors to hold rally Tuesday for decriminalization of marijuana
    May 21, 2012
    By Randal Edgar

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — OpenDoors, a nonprofit Providence-based agency that provides job training for ex-inmates who are seeking work, will hold a rally at the State House Tuesday afternoon to urge Rhode Island to follow other states in decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
    /snip/

  • I personally believe that this entire political endeavor has corrupted the field of substance abuse with its money. It has perverted help into a political statement furthered by those in the treatment industry dependent on Government bucks.

    Its a perversion of the idea of “help” and “rehab” to lump marijuana together with heroin, forcing people into Government sponsored diversion clinics and treatment. There is a section of the help industry devoted to their own interests. DuPont is a shining example. Help through courts and Government sponsored drug testing is making a joke out of the idea of rehab. When help is no longer voluntary but coerced, its no longer help.

  • Emma

    The pseudo-medical drug treatment industry has been linked to US and international drug prohibition from the very beginning. People were justly worried that prohibition would create a large criminalized class of addicts, stealing to buy drugs, and basically all the obvious problems of prohibition. But then it was all good because “treatment works”.

    Read about Charles B. Towns in the book “The American Disease”.

    • kaptinemo

      You can also find a much shorter comment about his ‘contribution’ here

      It really gets me sometimes; the prohibs come up with all this claptrap that is so pseudoscientific that it belongs on the (current) History Channel, but when real research comes along to blast holes in their favorite snake oil, they stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loud in hopes they may not have to listen.

      Prohibition breeds more than crime, it breeds charlatans of every stripe and degree. Most of whom wind up in one way or another costing the public, either through endangering it, or through simply being on the taxpayer’s dime…or in the case of today’s prohibs, both.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    The signatures have been filed and if the SoS certifies then North Dakota voters will decide a medicinal cannabis patient protection ballot initiative on Election Day. If they’re anything like South Dakota residents it doesn’t stand a chance. South Dakota has rejected similar ballot initiatives twice in the last 6 years, most recently in 2010 by a margin of 63-38. That’s much worse than 2006 when the issue narrowly lost by a margin of 52-48. Don’t forget that the difference in margins could have more to do with the contents of the proposed law than with a shift in voter sentiment.
    ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-
    What other very important issues concern North Dakota legislators and votes? One very significant issue is the nickname of the sports teams at the University of North Dakota, currently the “Fighting Sioux”. The ND Legislature passed a law requiring UND to use that name, then recently repealed that law. Measure 4 is a veto referendum aimed at the recently passed repeal, I think. I admit that I’m confused since Measure 4 is sponsored by the Spirit Lake Sioux.

    Hey, how ’bout them Redskins?

  • A Critic

    “In summary, there is not a coherent and intelligible human rights argument against the current UN Drug Conventions.”

    They lost the argument and they know it. Prohibitionists, of guns and drugs, are now desperate since they no longer control the dialogue. Hurray for the Internet.

    Mr. Dupont mentioned the “children” about 40 times. I find it very suspicious when any adult thinks of children all of the time obsessively. Why is he so concerned about protecting the children? Perhaps it’s abusers guilt?

    • kaptinemo

      If you see prohibitionism as a religion, you begin to see certain patterns of behavior that bear striking resemblance to religious dogmas…and the rituals that surround them.

      Years ago I ran across an escapee of Ceaucescu’s Romania, who didn’t speak much English at all, but had a card with him explaining his plight and why he was begging. He kept saying, over an over, “Por Christos, por Christos” (“For Christ, for Christ.”). It partly an entreaty as one nominal Christian to another…but there was an air of desperation, as if he was mouthing an incantation to make me cough up the money.

      That’s DuPont and the other prohibs. Their sun is setting and they know it…but they will continue to pursue their agenda, like any fanatic does after forgetting their original purpose…they just redouble their efforts.

      Truly, we are in the penultimate stage of Gandhi’s Progression; they’re really coming out swinging after they’ve learned we cannot be silenced with ridicule. But the target audience that they were able to flummox so easily for the past 40 years, the same one from which most of them, themselves, are derived, the same pre-Watergate generation that they could so successfully tailor their lies for easy assimilation…is literally dying out. And dying with it is a mindset, as is being proven by the latest polls.

      The saying used to be, We’ll legalize when Grandma dies.” Well, ‘Grandma’ is dying out, right effing now, and the generation that’s replacing them knows the truth about cannabis and isn’t believing the prohibs, not with over half the populace saying weed should be outright legal (again).

      But the ‘deacons’ and the ‘priests’ of the Holy Church Of Prohibition will just repeat their incantations and rattle their prayer beads even louder and more frequently, even though it’s obvious they’ve lost their ‘magic’. Such fetishism on the part of putative adults is actually very sad, really.

      • kaptinemo

        I realized later I wasn’t plain enough. The prohib’s main incantations are all about The Holy and Sainted Children™…which they couldn’t give two sh*ts and a damn about, as they don’t vote.

        Kids are budgetary ‘human shields’ for them, nothing but tools to get their appropriations. But they figure very greatly in the prohib’s incantations. Hence their continual (and I do mean continual, as in incessant) mentioning.

        But with a lot of those kid’s parents in the poorhouse, it’s going to get real interesting as to how they justify their budgets when those parents can’t feed and house and clothe those kids and need the money the prohibs want.

        The ‘magic’ soon won’t work at all, and some of them know it, trying to hid their quiet desperation by attempting to ‘re-invent’ themselves with ‘third way’ BS. But they still can’t stop trying to use ‘The Children’; force of habit, I suppose.

  • nick

    I know I don’t want the government “protecting me” or involving themselves in my or anyone elses life who doesn’t want them to. I’ll protect myself thank you.

  • Metabaron

    So if he wants to “reject decadent moods and conciliation with the drug mafia’s initiatives”, will he efectively shut the unodc down?

    He is probably more for the “4th way”, the so called “chinese solution”…

  • iceblueray

    Did any representatives from China go to the gathering? If so, did he/she propose lots of death penalties?

  • B.Snow

    The messed up part is they often use the *ahem* -“logic”:

    “Well, obviously this person is addicted! Otherwise they wouldn’t use this drug = knowing that it’s illegal (and we say its ‘naughty’ – one should only get “high” in church =(filled with the Spirit) or running marathons =(running yourself to near death). And therefor risk the possibility of serious criminal punishment(s)…”

    “If you’re not addicted, you would do as we say and simply -stop doing- whatever you’re doing that we’ve told you is bad/naughty/’that we disapprove of’/etc.”

    PP=assholes with too much free time & nothing to contribute to society – but harass people they dislike.

  • kaptinemo

    “PP=assholes with too much free time & nothing to contribute to society – but harass people they dislike.”

    Yep. And unfortunately the breed mutates every generation, so every generation thinks that their actions are something new, but in fact they’re old as dirt. They’re Mencken’s ‘Uplifters’, and they bedvil every generation with their accursed desire to ‘help those less fortunate’…whether the subjects of their overweening ‘compassion’ want that help or not is of no consequence to them, for exactly the ‘reasoning’ you detailed.

    In short, they’ll kill you in order to ‘save’ you. But you don’t have to thank them, really. They know you would greatly appreciate their efforts if you just saw things their way… (/snark)