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

DrugWarRant.com is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
January 2013
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

Legalization’s Biggest Enemies

Krysten Gwynne in Rolling Stone: Meet the drug warriors working to roll back hard-won advances in marijuana policy.

  1. Kevin Sabet
  2. Mel and Betty Sembler
  3. Michele Leonhart
  4. Gil Kerlikowske
  5. David Frum

Kevin is going to be insufferably gleeful over this.

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

77 comments to Legalization’s Biggest Enemies

  • ya know… the fact that we’re all having this discussion about having a discussion is all well and good but ytf is the Drug Kzar still doing these damn unannounced staged visits? If we’re gonna have a discussion let’s have a frigging PUBLIC discussion!

    He was up the road in Portland on Wed:

    Marijuana legalization ‘not sending a good message,’ drug czar says

    Droop Dogg… you can’t hide forever.

    Well-liked Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

    • darkcycle

      He’s sure gonna try. Lordy, lordy, lordy, it just wouldn’t LOOK good to have protesters hounding him at every stop he makes….

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • Klay

    I agree with Reason.com that the list should include Obama, Holder, and Clinton.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • strayan

      I think Clinton recanted in ‘Breaking the Taboo’.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Which Clinton are we discussing?

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • primus

          Slick Willy, because he appeared in the film.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Reason was talking about Hillary.

          Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        • darkcycle

          Last I heard they were a team…you know, Like Astaire and Rogers, Ozzy and Harriet, Bob and Bing, Cheech and Chong…wait, maybe that’s wrong.
          They both should answer for their crimes, Bill no less. He waited until it was a done deed, then he says “oopsie”, and all is forgiven? Forget that silly notion, right now. Suppose I stole every cent you owned, then said “Gee, stealing is wrong, I oppose stealing”. You gonna just think I suddenly saw the light?

          Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • I believe that the point Reason was making was that Hillary actually has current governmental power in the drug war, whereas Frum and Sabet are merely bloviating writers, so that she should be considered a greater enemy of legalization at this point.

          Well-liked Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

        • darkcycle

          Yeah, I know. But Bill peed me off…now he’s for legalization…and we’re supposed to forget all about his role in escalating the drug war…

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • Klay

          Yes, it was Hillary – though given that Bill did not do anything while in office makes me think he is hypocritical (and was basically disregarding personal belief for political power).

          Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • War Vet

          She’s the Sec of State. She knows first hand about drug money and terrorism. She knows all about the massive U.S. military draw-up in Africa and why. She is complicit in allowing the State to be harmed by the CSA laws, which she refuses to openly connect the dots in public for the rest who don’t know that the war on drugs was 9/11 etc. She like all of us on the Couch have read the War College and Zurich Institute’s etc ‘Narco-Terror’ documents. Isn’t she supposed to protect the nation?

          Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • Freeman

      What reason.com article are we discussing? I’m not seeing a link to reason.com in this thread and was unable to find a relevant article on their front page.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • wiggles

    Twas a penis a penis? Or was the Obama a dirty penis of all penises? Could we hit the drug warriors where it hurts? Like their penis? (Tiss tiss,silly reformers drug warriors don’t have balls) hence they can’t tell the truth and hide behind wittle threats. They take your homes,you children,your wives,cars, YOUR FREEDOM!! And throw you away in cages,stripped of dignity,pride,and sanity… 5 years the wiggles did in florida prison,for merely possessing 21 grams of marijuana.The wiggles was using it for medicinal perpose, See the Wiggles is half blind,(no vision in right eye) and legally deaf(except for constent nausuating ringings)twas the reason for the buddege. The wiggles spent 5 years in solitary confindment,no human contact except once a week for 30 minutes enough for a shower and maybe a 5 minute phone call,hoping family would be able to accept a collect call that is. Lost my mind,busted out my own teeth on the steel bed frame,so I could just see if I was still alive.. Anyways back to the point of the Wiggles. Wiggles Never gave up the Big Bad Government took everything from Wiggles except for the one thing the Goverberment could never have or possess.Mother Fucking Balls! God damn right the wiggles faught back HARD with a HUGE RAGING PENIS! You fucking hear me? A huge fucking penis. .Wiggles jerked his Penis into oblivion! Sprayed his massive load all over the 8′by 10′ cell walls,creamed it sooooo bad. He could draw pictures on the wall with his gooey semen. Then it got super duper krusty.(and smelly)Wiggles didn’t mind though.he finally made a friend…. and Now Wiggles is free. And he demands You whip out your penises! Lock em and load em,Beat those fucking cocks so hard and aim at Sabets fucking face and Spray your American gooey goodness all over him,make him into a bukkake queen.and tell him, Legalizers are taking back americas penises,and to suck our fucking balls

    Well-liked Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  • claygooding

    Senator Leahy: After Spending Billions on the War on Drugs…Well, We’ve Lost

    http://tinyurl.com/b37fbhj

    “”The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the most senior member of the Senate, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) again spoke out against the War on Drugs today during a briefing on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s upcoming agenda.”"

    He is also on the Appropriations Committee,which should end the “grant monies” to police for marijuana arrests but that may be why the ONDCP has moved it to Homeland Security’s budget,,to keep it in place even if they shut down the war on drugs.

    Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      Well that’s certainly a change. It seems like all of my life the “most senior” member of the Senate was an old racist with a permanent case of jungle fever and subsequently a goddamn political pork dealer from West Virginia.

      “Nudity leads to lewdity!” ~~ Strom Thurmond

      Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      • stlgonzo

        70 years ago today, Strom Thurmond’s mistress was put to death

        The Best Line:

        “What makes the story even more interesting is that before Logue was to be executed, Thurmond rode with her from the Columbia women’s penitentiary to the prison which housed Death Row, and even managed to “get it in” one last time before his mistress was executed.”

        http://tinyurl.com/abubrec

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • War Vet

      They don’t have a legal right to get drug war budgets from Homeland Security . . . Homeland Security is required under Federal Law to help end the drug war. The 1940’s Hemp for Victory laws under the Department of Ag would be legal precedents to legalize all the illicit black market drugs during a time of war. You legalize hemp to win a war –you legalize crack, heroin, speed and weed to win the war. Many of our political entities, officers and the rest who obey the war on drugs are by legal definition: Secessionists –they are operating within U.S. Borders –they have stopped utilizing the Constitution and our 3 branches of government’s Checks and Balances and they are making their own laws out of thin air to govern their own nation –which is the exact definition of what a secessionist is. Their end results are waging a war against America –akin to a Confederate Army (today’s drug laws and overseers of the laws) waging war against the U.S. (war on the people –violence in the streets and near our boarders; allowing a law to generate terrorist funding by directly creating said funding with the physical properties of the law and how it’s applied).

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Byddaf yn egluro:

    Olé!

    “The Provincial Court of Castelló has ordered the dismissal of an alleged crime against public health for possession of six marijuana plants considering that the owner cultivates for therapeutic purposes. As explained in the order provided yesterday by the High Court of Valencia, the judges considered that the facts do not constitute a criminal offense because the person concerned has proven that marijuana is consumed to relieve back pain.”

    http://tinyurl.com/b7rrged

    Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  • CJ

    hell yeah!! this is so awesome!!!!! uhhh usually i subscribe to what St K says about the average rolling stone reader gathering moss – nevertheless, i think i just fell in love with a writer named Krysten

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Freeman

    “We’re in the midst of a national conversation about marijuana policy”, or so says the czar, who also says “Legalization is not in my vocabulary and it’s not in the president’s”.

    Listen up, Kerli: You have admitted that you lack the vocabulary to engage in this national conversation. So please sit down, shut up, pay attention, and try to learn something! The rest of the nation is definitely using the language of legalization to carry on this discussion, and you’re going to need some fluency in order to participate in any meaningful way.

    Well-liked Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  • CJ

    OK let me say this.

    I read this article and it got me thinking and yes i think i am definitely into this chick but thats a different matter altogether.

    you know, these 5 (actually 6) people, i just really gotta think about the depth of their ignorance and stupidity. Like for example – well, i really dont know what its like to be in the shoes of someone who is really convinced that prohibition will last forever. I am wholly under the impression that one day, perhaps not in my life time but nevertheless one day and not even that long, but slowly and surely this whole drug prohibition business (cause thats what it is, business) will be 100% totally over on an international level.

    I think these people must be so self centered or wrapped up in themselves. I have no clue how they can read and hear arguments by LEAP and people like Pete etc. and still stubbornly dig their heels in the sand. It makes no sense to me. The only reason I can see for anybody ever being that belligerent about anything is cause they’re being paid to be.

    You know it makes me think about these people in another way as well. And, it kind of makes me wonder too. Like for example alright – let me talk about Japan for a second. So, the Imperial Japanese family maintains it’s line is unbroken dating back to the first emperor Jimmu who was around 400 or 600 B.C. Unlike the Chinese dynasties the same Imperial house ruled as Emperor of Japan from the beginning to today. Oh yea the power went from legit to superficial but even during the reigns of the Minamoto/Kamakura Ashikaga/Muromachi Toyotomi and Tokugawa there was always an emperor and on paper he was the boss (technically the Shogun was supposed to be the emperors protector in practice and in title.)

    The second Shogunate was the Muromachi (name of the location of the headquarters but the Shogun family name is Ashikaga.) and there was insane political and battle stuff going on when he took the title. It was so bad he actually did something that was never done before or after when he split the imperial house into two factions a northern court and a southern court. To this day, the emperor is a descendant of the northern courts although the imperial house has said, after World War 2, that, regardless, during the Southern/Northern court period, the Southern emperors were the real emperors and the northern emperors just pretenders until the South gave up in defeat and unified the chrystannthemum throne under the eye of the third Ashikaga shogun.

    So uh, if you dont know, there is no Shogunate anymore. The Meiji Restoration ended the final Shogunate and the samurai class as well as modernized the nation to be the powerful economy it is today. So after the Meiji Restoration wide scale changes occurred in society. They were basically medieval in culture and were transformed into modern standards insanely rapidly. Whats more, like we all see growing up in America and going to school here, when there’s a battle the winner writes the history books.

    So I read an interview with the modern day descendant of the Ashikaga clan/shogunate. He spoke about growing up and attending classes under the imperial restoration. He spoke at length about the abuses he suffered as the future head of the Ashikaga clan and as an Ashikaga descendant by his fellow classmates when the imperial backed school system began teaching he and his classmates about the Ashikaga period. Essentially his family is looked at like usurpers. They split the court. They degraded the Emperor etc. etc. It was so bad for the Ashikaga descendant that he basically felt like an outsider amongst his common people in his own country. So much so that he became reknowned on history/culture – not of Japan but of someplace far away – India as a matter of fact. Because of stuff that happened with his great great great etc etc great granddad (if you will.)

    So I wonder about these people – all these 6 people talked about in this article. God, are they that short sighted? That selfish? That naive? That ridiculous? That ignorant?

    I dont have kids and I hope I won’t have any – not just because I am one of those people who for whatever reason is totally annoyed by little kids – but also because I feel bad and really hate what I see happen to women after they have kids. Alot of women in my experience seem to go through life changing experiences. Losing a piece of who they are. I guess it’d be sweet and romantic and typical to say that’s a “good” or “beautiful” thing but I disagree and if I ever loved someone that much I would never want to do that to them. However, for the point, if I did have a kid, I could not imagine what he and his friends would do to the kids of these people. History is written by the winners. They call it a drug war and even though that is a little bit silly the reality is it is a freakin drug war – what with all the dead people all over the world and the military stuff they do to get simple users (sorry to burst your bubble you dumbass Kevin and the rest of you losers with your ‘they dont lock users up’ BS.) It really is a war in so many ways. See drug prohibition is an upstart thing – lol, kinda like a shogunate. The world has been prohibition NOT DRUG free but prohibition free for the majority of it’s existence. Really think about that. Drug prohibition isn’t even a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of time this planet and the people of it have spent living in a global society of drug freedom. And it hasn’t done any good and everybody knows that so it’s not like it was a good implementation by society. It has been one of the greatest catastrophes of human history. Doubtless to go up there alongside christian persecution, jew genocide etc. etc. yes, all us drug users are persecuted and in some sick countries even executed.

    So yes the drug war will end one day and these people who still hold fast to their bull have a responsibility to themselves to look in the mirror and really think about what they’re doing.

    I dont plan on having kids but if theres ever an accident and the girl exercises her right to choose and decides to keep the kid I’d do anything I could for my kid but for myself and every insane thing i’ve been through all over this planet I wanna make sure that my kid and his kids and whatever the hell know exactly who I was and everything that I was about. I really would hope they’d hold fast as drug warriors in a prohibition free world, combating the psycho prohibitionists that will always exist, drug war or no drug war.

    In the end when these peoples future generations go to university where they’ll be able to get a broader education on the war on drugs and the horrible thing that it was and the war crimes it perpetuated, I truly hope, if they end up unlike their forebearers and thus are honest, genuine, good people, I hope they won’t be ridiculed for the sins of their parents/grandparents/etc but you know how bad kids can be – even and alot of times over stuff they really dont know the first thing about – if these peoples kids one day grow up in a prohibition free society and learn that their forefathers were involved in the persecution of people, I hope they wont be picked on too much. I could definitely see them, if they take even a mild interest in the things us prohibitionists are dealing with today, learning about the horrors their family vouched for and thus develop a great sense of guilt.

    And I wonder too about these 6 people, do they truly feel no guilt, are they that numb to the suffrage of fellow human beings? Are they that ignorant to the things they say and the message they promote? If so it’s a sick shame and further proof of just how primitive we all really are at the end of the day.

    Well-liked Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  • Francis

    The real list:

    1. Ignorance
    2. Bigotry
    3. Fear
    4. Greed
    5. Apathy

    Well-liked Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0

    • primus

      OK, so we set it up like one of those ‘match the items’ games, with the names on the left and the vices on the right. Goal is to correctly connect the names with the vices. Hint: some names may connect to more than one vice.

      Well-liked Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  • Peter

    pete im not sure if you were being ironic about kevins glee at this article, which seemed like an indictment of this criminal gang to me. im wondering who will be the first to face charges under a new administration. my guess would be the semblers. maybe we ll have a saigon helicopter moment with them all fleeing to somewhere more drug warrior friendly like china or russia

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • primus

    I have concerns about the direction some of the language is taking regarding punishment of drug warriors.

    It is a pointless exercise because this outcome will not happen. No drug warrior is going to be charged with any crime. Even with the total end of all drug prohibition, they will be perceived as just misguided anachronisms, not criminals.

    My main concern is that by sending the message that there may be negative personal outcomes, that there are those who wish to destroy the lives of those prohibitionists, they will fight even harder to maintain prohibition and delay those consequences as long as possible. The fear of consequences is a powerful motivator.

    I get that many want to send a strong message, however I fear they may be doing the movement some harm.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

    • Peter

      maybe public ridicule is the best we hope for. ive got the feathers. anyone with tar?

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • divadab

      Perhaps you’re right. I do recall that some gutless wonder said: “We’re looking forward, not back”.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • darkcycle

      I agree. But they have committed these crimes none the less.
      And as to negative personal outcomes…so far these have ALL been on our side. We suffer them now. Just read Wiggler’s screed above…I understand at some level the desire for turnabout.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • Servetus

      A legal mechanism exists to bring charges against prohibitionists. Its implementation within something like the International Criminal Court is simply a matter of doing to the work necessary to bring the case to trial once all other legal venues have been exhausted. It also takes a lot of time, as mothers of the disappeared in Argentina discovered.

      Decisions about lawsuits brought before the ICC are enforceable only within its member states, which don’t include the U.S. If the charge is torture, then people like Betty and Mel Sembler might just find themselves unable to travel to Canada or Europe for fear of arrest for crimes against humanity growing out of the torture industry they created for young drug users.

      It happened to Kissenger for supporting Pinochet; and to Bush Jr., Rumsfeld, Cheney, law professor John Yoo, and 9th Circuit Federal Court Judge Jay Bybee, for their rationalizations targeting the international laws against torture, thereby championing those who went on to torture POWs. With proper finesse and political timing, Kevin Sabet could likely face ICC charges someday. In many cases, the prohibitionists can all be made prisoners of their own devices.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • darkcycle

        I like the sound of that idea, if not it’s chances for succeeding…

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • War Vet

        Federal Law clearly states that all prohibs are to be prosecuted under a Military Court of Justice since such prohibs created policy that directly created 9/11, U.S. troop death in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, U.S. Embassy bombings etc . . . that their actions cost America $3 trillion dollars in one decade alone (the cost of 9/11 and war on terror). Even if drug money only paid 10% of funding 9/11 -prohibs are still guilty of terrorism or at least allowing terrorism to grow and multiply under the law. But we do know that 100% of every dead U.S. soldier killed in action in Afghanistan was from drug money, which makes prohibs 100% to blame for the War on Terror. Of course if one takes the time to read everything under the sun about Narc-Terror and terrorism and the global drug trade, we’d be hard-pressed not to prove that drug money has the largest role in funding attacks and attackers worldwide. Since the drug laws killed U.S. soldiers in Beirut, Saudi Arabia, off the coast of Yemen during peacetime, prohibs are no longer ignorant. When Michele Leonhart and the rest are legally executed, it will teach future law holders and policy makers to think very hard about what their job and role and law does in the long run. They had time to say ‘sorry’ and change the laws based on past terrorist attacks they created out of their laws’ causes and effects, but they are no longer ignorant nor apologetic and have stayed the course -9/11 be damned. According to Federal legal definition of treason: prohibs by default are allied by choice (since they are not ignorant) with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the Cartels etc. Prohibs were more responsible for 9/11 than all the drug users using up all the Afghan poppies, kush and hash.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • War Vet

      Since the Drug Warriors know that drugs are made illegal by a law, they know that the removal of the law would remove 100% of all the illegal drugs. They know that people who buy illegal drugs buy it off the drug black market, which means that if we remove the CSA and U.N. Single Laws on drugs, we would remove the drug black market herself, which proves that the drug laws are all actually a legal document which physically and directly creates illegal sales. One problem: these drug warriors do know that drug money is hurting America as seen in Texas against cartels and is hurting our troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa. The only way poor people can wage a very long war against rich well equipped and advanced nations is to utilize the $400 Billion a year drug market. The Drug Warriors know that the Taliban sell illegal drugs globally because of the 1961 U.N. Single Convention, which was created by American drug warriors like Anslinger.

      If you knew that your job stimulated and created policy that directly puts U.S. soldiers in harms way (as seen in Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama etc) by giving the enemy more funding than it would normally have, this is treason. Again, if you knew your policy automatically generated the funding of 9/11 (laws creating illegal drug money by outlawing drugs) etc, you are complicit. It’s one thing for the Beirut bombing or NYC bombing or 9/11 to happen and then legalize drugs to reduce said terrorist activities in America and on our embassies from ever happening again, but it’s another thing to know the outcome of keeping drugs illegal (terrorist funding) and let it continue. Knowing means one is not ignorant, therefore we can legally prescribe blame –that the only reason drugs are illegal is so terrorists can us it –so American soldiers can go fight an ever constant supplied insurgency or Taliban forces –be it in Iraq or Afghanistan or Africa. An 11yr war fighting drug money in the Middle East at $3 trillion U.S. cost of war is proof that the drug laws and drug warrior jobs are left in place so America can be at war (there might be other reasons why cops will arrest you for meth or pot, but it’s a known fact that one of the reasons is so we can be at war as proven by the outcomes of said laws, lack of ignorance and length of the wars we are in). We have the legal right to demand that they be sentenced for treason during a time of war which usually carries life or death.

      Besides, the drug warriors know that their laws are illegal according to the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which proves the DEA are a monopoly only created to allow foreign hemp to be sold by restricting American hemp -and the DEA get paid to work, which means they are not a Federal Agency under legal definition of the 1890 law, which is still legal. If we have legal right to jail rich people who manipulated investments, we have legal precedents to arrest said drug warriors for robbing America trillions of dollars in American grown hemp goods, denied by allowing only foreign nations to sell it -denied by reducing hemp output. You don’t see Wal-Mart arresting an American clothing company now do you? Though Wal-Mart would profit more by selling only foreign made clothing and making American made clothing illegal.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    My wife was watching more of those those so called “reality” shows on TV last night. There was a promo for a “reality” show during the commercial break that that literally made me weep in despair for the future of mankind:

    Beyond Scared Straight

    I can’t believe we actually pay good money to have this crap piped into our home. I have to quit sitting on our couch when she’s watching that drivel.

    driv·el
    [driv-uh l] noun, verb, driv·eled, driv·el·ing or (especially British) driv·elled, driv·el·ling.

    noun
    1. saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.
    2. childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.
    verb (used without object)
    3. to let saliva flow from the mouth or mucus from the nose; slaver.
    4. to talk childishly or idiotically.
    5. Archaic. to issue like spittle.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    • divadab

      Duncan – for the protection of your and your loved ones’ brains, CANCEL YOUR CABLE!

      They don’t call it programming for nothing. And the supreme irony is that the herd actually pays for the privilege of being programmed!

      Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .

        If you could talk my wife into it I’d be obliged to you for the rest of my life. It’s actually been at least 2 years since I’ve used the television set for myself. Ever since my discovery of The Pirate Bay I’ve had no need for it whatever. I think that must be how such a barfalicious program like “Beyond Scared Straight” got into Season 3 before I noticed it existed. But what the heck is everyone else’s excuse?

        P.S. any suggestion that I give up watching police dramas is a waste of breath. I don’t know why I like them so much. Perhaps because the fictional TV police act the way that real police should. But I sure don’t kid myself that these fictions are reality. Hey, who loves you?

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • War Vet

          This is the kind of TV that people who wear Tin-foil hats watch (wait -it ain’t tv)

          http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=cab359a3-9328-19cc-a1d2-8023e646b22c&lng=en&id=90550

          PDF format:

          ‘Twelve of the 28 organizations, which in
          October 2001 were listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department, were stated to be involved in the illegal drug trade. The total income from the drug trade for movements of the al‐Qaeda type has been estimated by the U.N. to be 2.4 billion USD (approx. 20 billion SEK).16 (Terrorist list: G. D. Lee (2004, pp. 296 f.); income: Björnehed (2004))’.

          http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?lng=en&id=150634

          A 4pg PDF quick note showing Hezbollah in South America, which means Al Qaeda is in South America and if we can prove a war is going on in Mexico, we can prove Al Qaeda is in Mexico, or we won’t be able to prove a war in Syria since Al Qaeda loves to pop up at places having conflict –like Syria. It behooves Al Qaeda to buy some of their coke destined back to Europe off the Mexicans (and not just off the SA’s south of Panama) –it makes for a good business ally and since Mexico and the SA’s cannot grow enough poppy for the two continents, its would be a good business merger since Al Qaeda is never far away from the plotting and business schemes of the Taliban.

          Some from the U.S. Military’s War College -Organized Crime akin to the Mafia and what we know from the Godfather.
          ‘Suspi-cions that terrorists might do the same were confirmed: authorities recently discovered that Al-Qaeda operative Dawood Ibrahim hired gunmen from Pakistan who entered Thailand using visa-on-demand and then tried to kill an Indian organized crime boss living in Bangkok.58 (Tang, Edward, “Thailand, the United Nations of Criminals?” The Straits Times, 10 Sep 2002)’

          From MIT
          http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Audit_01_06_Vanda.pdf

          ‘If al Qaeda is in fact profiting from en route trafficking, then eradication is a distinctly
          ineffective solution. Even if all drugs in Afghanistan were eradicated, in the absence of a
          large-scale reduction of worldwide demand for opiates, opium poppy cultivation would
          simply shift into another territory—the so-called balloon effect. The likely candidates for
          picking up production slack from Afghanistan would be Myanmar, Pakistan, and the former
          Soviet Republics in Central Asia. In all three cases, al Qaeda would probably be able
          to maintain control of a part of the international traffic, and if cultivation relocated into
          Pakistan and Central Asia, might well be able to tax some cultivation as well. Paradoxically,
          successful eradication in Afghanistan—a pipe dream, currently—might well enable al
          Qaeda to obtain far greater benefits from the drug trade.’

          So yeah the War on Drugs is Treason and a Muslim Terrorist strategy as proven in 9/11 and our recession (Osama’s guide to Jihad Revolution –you should read how accurate it is –Osama believed he could get America to undergo a recession some years after getting America to deploy –what a loon?). Did not the terrorists know or at least hoped that a long war with America (by using drugs) would create fractures in our economy like it did to 1991 Soviet Russia? Do not most cops and politicians and judges and all prohibs know that terrorists sell drugs (since they know gangs and cartels do?) . . . this shows me a group of people holding authority in America who are in the eyes of American law, legally and lawfully prescribed the definition and label: Muslim Terrorist Sympathizers (like calling a white dude in Baltimore a Nazi sympathizer when all he did was simply destroy on purpose some big machines in a war factory in the early 1940’s).

          Try to stay off the reality TV –you’ll start believing everything. You’ll start envisioning the ‘Amish Mafia’ placing horse heads in people’s beds at the end of the show. I don’t watch much TV. I read books at the University Library or my own or legal docs on the web. None of us have time to watch TV when the largest threat since WWII is currently knocking at our door.

          Federal Law Clearly states it’s illegal for drugs to be illegal –it’s illegal for drugs to be illegal if Al Qaeda sells drugs and uses said drug money to attack America and her citizens and her troops and embassies and economy –if the Taliban sells drugs and if said drug money created 9/11 and $3 trillion additional debt in one year (Brown University, NY Times: cost of 9/11) –Federal Law Clearly states drugs are legal if any law banning drugs, compromises the safety of the nation, her citizens, her boarders, her Embassies, her commerce and trade, her troops and her troops’ mission and mission strategy, her economy etc. That’s why we can claim America has an illicit and unrecognized Secessionist Congress, governors, judges, mayors, city councils, DEA, ATF, FBI, Many DOJ workers (sadly our own military in a few aspects –but nowhere near all of us), and president and vice-president who obey their own laws and not the Law of the Land, which are Federal Laws protected and steered by the U.S. Constitution and 3 Equal Branches.

          WE The People have no evidence linking the DEA to the Federal Government, let alone the American Department of Justice based on proving their legal defaulted alliance with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and their violation of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act in regards to hemp and even opiates I might say . . . What did the DEA do in Mumbai, India of 2008? How were they not to blame? How are they not to blame for terrorism in both Jihad (India, 9/11, Iraq etc) and illicit rogue/coup form (like killing Americans during raids –destroying millions of American hemp jobs via their will and law)? There is no legal proof not linking all prohibs to either Militant Islamic Sympathies or either military and American economic sabotage . . . Everyone of us on the Couch has known of terrorism being what it is today because of drugs –from Beirut to Benghazi to World Trade Center Bombing to War on Terror.

          No law is a legal law if said law directly creates a war with said nation who invested and gave birth to said law. That’s why we have proof that every drug offender was taken hostage after 9/11 (maybe before 9/11 but I don’t know how to win and prove that argument like this one) by the police and courts: Were they not required to pay a bail, fine or do some time before getting out? Don’t hostage takers require payment to be considered hostage takers? That’s why there is no law in the Constitution giving jails, prisons, guards or officers or judges the authority to make any drug offender wear any jumpsuit, take any pictures or fingerprinting let alone clean up his area in the jail –let alone make him stay there since a drug violation isn’t even legally on the books or even a violation in the first place since We the People have proved said drug laws are non-void regardless of Congressional or Presidential order (since we pay them).

          This is proof that a Secessionist Congress, DEA, prison complex, many DOJ personnel etc are illegally holding drug offenders as slaves (since forced labor or confinement is slavery) and since cops and jailors and congress get paid, we can prove they are making money in the slave trade, which is a violation of the Emancipation Proclamation. You see, we have so much proof to prove said cops, judges, prohibs, politicians, presidents etc don’t have legal or Federal or State authority to do what they do, let alone keep their jobs after said violations of the law, just from precedents found throughout U.S. history alone. Even old Abraham Lincoln made the War on Drugs illegal during his terms in the 1860’s (though I don’t think he knew about it).

          Do you really think that a law or set of laws that made attacks, recession, terrorism and war much more likely for the U.S. would remain as legal laws or set of laws after a bunch of bad after effects created out of the law happened? Only Secessionists would disobey the law. Only Secessionists would steer the American ship upon the rocks or iceberg. This is proof that any 2nd term or more elected official from Sheriff to U.S. President who didn’t attempt to stop the drug war or speak out against it with legal proposals were illegally elected a second time since it’s illegal for a felon or a terrorist to be elected. Protecting the drug laws are treason and directly aids Al Qaeda and the lot. WE know it does –so do the authorities.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • primus

      I have not had TV for many years and don’t miss it. It is such thin soup that I can’t be bothered. I recall a study which compared perceptions of how violent a world we live in. They contrasted TV watchers and non-watchers. The watchers feel the world is far more violent than it really is, the non-watchers don’t see it that way at all. Even when the programming is not obvious, it is still reinforcing the ‘follow the leader’ mentality in the sheeple and feeding them the party line.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • Windy

        I watch every science fiction show I can watch, I usually DVR them, also vampire/werewolf/witchy/fairy tale shows, etc., a couple of soaps, The Voice and DWTS. I don’t watch procedurals, all the really good (intelligent) dramas seldom last more than a whole season or two (Harry’s Law is the latest of my favs to fall). I also enjoy Person of Interest and Nikita.

        I do NOT watch most “news”, sitcoms (with the exception of Big Bang Theory) or “reality shows”, unless I have no choice — hubby likes the reality shows like American Pickers, Storage Wars, etc. and bike and car building shows. Since he broke his leg and has been housebound, he’s been watching Amish Mafia and Moonshiners, (UGH!) luckily most of that has been watched in the bedroom (he’s supposed to keep his leg elevated most of the day) and I can avoid them. I actually spend more time on the computer than watching TV and most of the TV I watch has been recorded, so I can skip the commercials and view them in far less time.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • darkcycle

      I watch RT news, and I get the Speed Channel to get my raceing fix. I occasionally watch a documentary. That’s all I’ve used it for for almost a decade. I have a huge problem with the level of violence, so casually sent into our homes, 24 hours a day. Non-stop promotion of death and fear to groom a public to accept the unconscionable violence in our every day lives, that’s what it is.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • stlgonzo

        I never used to be interested in cars and racing but watching velocity channel and the brittish version of top gear has gotten me interested.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • darkcycle

          Talk about a lifelong addiction…
          I’ve gone without eating to support my motorcycle habit…NEVER did that for a drug. Ever.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  • stlgonzo

    More proof Obama should be on that list.

    Mexico to get help in drug war from U.S. special ops

    http://tinyurl.com/amo7sow

    From the comments:

    “Here we go again….American military “advisers” teaching another of our southern neighbors how to more efficiently destroy their own country and murder their own people. God bless the USA.”

    Well-liked Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

    • War Vet

      Let me see. We trained Los Zetas. America is having a harsh time during this recession -many vets cannot get a job or the one they need and many don’t want to go back to war either (again and again and again and again). Maybe the Los Zetas can train American troops how to run the drug show up North Mexican Style.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • ezrydn

    I don’t understand why Gil doesn’t just produce the big chunks of sky that have fallen and endangered folks in OR an CO. All that they told us would happen, AIN’T! So, we’re back to “The Message.” Gil, my boy, the People have SENT “The Message.” And it’s YOU that’s not listening.

    Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  • just a thought… pot showed up in 7.4% of drivers tested. Yet which substances remain in the system longer than about 72 hours? hmmm… Gil? Are we fudging the stats again, just a bit?

    I thought one of you young SSDPers was trying to track these appearances by Droop Dogg? If we could start just a few protests at some of these appearances, in the most visible circumstances and locations…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      Even more important is the number of drivers with cannabis in they’re system that were actually impaired,,it is more of “any use is abuse” crap.

      Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • darkcycle

      These visits are never announced. It’s a no-brainer for old Gilly. I bet he doesn’t even tell his audience. They’re probably only told they will be hearing “an administration official”.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • Liam

    Although those of the list and those of like mind labor under the opinion that “It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.” (Joseph Goebbels), we should hold them dear for without them as sounding boards our opinion that “There is a power in public opinion in this country – and I thank God for it: for it is the most honest and best of all powers – which will not tolerate an incompetent or unworthy man to hold in his weak or wicked hands the lives and fortunes of his fellow-citizens.” (Martin Van Buren) would simply dissipate into the aether.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  • Amanda Reiman from the drug policy alliance hits the nail right on the head:

    Reefer Madness Redux: If You Smoke It, You Will Become Addicted!

    http://tinyurl.com/aagsyd5

    “Whatever the case, SAM’s plan involves the active identification of marijuana consumers, followed by forced involvement in the system. Don’t be fooled, this is not a “new way” for marijuana, but rather a regressive old approach dressed in new clothes.”

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • Peter

      Sen. Kennedy’s all new, all singing and dancing drug war:”those CAUGHT using marijuana…” sounds like the same ol’ same ol’ to me….
      good article

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • strayan

      Even RAND Corp. knows that trying to ‘treat’ our way out of a drug problem is absurd:

      We cannot treat, prevent, deter or incarcerate ourselves out of a drug problem. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16499507

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • claygooding

        It seems like Rand is trying to justify the rehab with law enforcement efforts,,meaning continue imprisoning the poor and rehab the ones that can afford to pay the cash.

        It is more research for Kevein’s and Kerli’s “3rd way”.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • darkcycle

    Here we have a job posting of considerable interest. Okay, couchmates…
    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/01/state-seeking-experts-in-pot-quality-and-use/#.UPmtoWWImkI.facebook

    Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      Finally,,after I retired of course,,a job where failing the drug screen is required,,,and a headline it only took 46 years to see.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • that’s how I felt when I got hired at Conde’s… the drug test was multiple choice and an essay question. Safety in the lumber yard was such a concern we held safety meetings every day! It took me a week to acclimate.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • one of these days I’ll chronicle the Conde days I knew.

          when the multi-agency drug task force rolled into the yard in ’98, lots of cars, dudes w/ ‘tudes and pistols strapped to their hips… that’s a sight. The feds were easy to recognize, they really were the obvious pricks. Being raided isn’t fun. They searched everywhere, even Bill’s home. If memory serves they found an oz in his house (shocking that an old hippie hemp advocate would have an ounce of marihuana) and arrested him. Seized all the computers, held us for over 3 hours, including our kinda old guy neighbor Larry, who just happened to come by for coffee on a Sat morn.

          When Conde was released I went to pick him up and he gets in the car, reaches into his shirt pocket and pulls out a joint. “They gave it back to me” he says. He rolled his own cigs. The Albany Dem-Herald had a front page pic w/ him holding a tobacco hand rolled cigarette and made it a point to include that in the caption.

          The 2 sheriff’s deputies that detained us became my friends. Over the next 2 summers I really met every deputy in the county and called Sheriff Burright by his first name. I got to hand deliver court summons to the undercover deputies that testilied on the affadavit for the search warrant (I couldn’t help but smile as I did so, politely of course).

          If anyone has ever read Tom Robbins’ Another Roadside Attraction the Conde days were straight out of that.

          And it’s saturday and I’m pissed. Saturday is not my pissed off day. It’s my listen to music and do shit around the house day. But the lack of real discussion is stuck in my craw.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • claygooding

          We will have to start hooking up with Skype or something so we can just talk to each other,especially as this dying beast we call prohibition goes into it’s death throws.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Cannabis

    I’m surprised that Joe Biden didn’t make the list!

    Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  • Tony Aroma

    Gill’s not really a drug warrior. He’s just a civil servant doing his job — reciting the administration’s policy. I don’t think he could care less one way or the other, as long as he’s getting a paycheck.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      Tony,,of all people that needs to have scruples,,the top law enforcement agent for the war on drugs should have them. He took a job where he is required by law to lie to the American public and accepted that as a prerequisite of the job.

      No matter how you slice it,,he is neither a patriot nor even a good bureaucrat and if he will receive a big pension with health benefits for doing it,,which we will pay for the rest of his miserable life.

      Well-liked Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  • War Vet

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act

    Really now you infamous 5. Say –Are not the odds very high that all you met in the office to discuss policy? Is that not a violation of the 1890 Sharman Anti-Trust Act . . . Yes Folks Read All About the old Sherman Act of 1890 “The prevailing economic theory supporting antitrust laws in the United States is that the public is best served by free competition in trade and industry.” Is that a fact now? “The Sherman Act made agreements ‘”in restraint of trade” illegal.”’ So why is China and Canada allowed to sell us our Hemp, Mrs. Leonheart? Why Mr. Kerlikowske –Mel, Betty or Sabet –why did all you guys emphasize that hemp is a way towards marijuana legalization –as demonstrated in some of the mindsets of the other Prohibs following the same ‘Legal Theories’ which the CSA laws and the like are made up of. Why isn’t America not growing a few million jobs guys? Oh, yeah, because Michele’s Calvary rides up and takes it –would she take it from the Indian Farmers in the Dakotas? But they get paid and get tax money and seized money while not having more influence in said nations’ hemp applications? You in every other’s business what precedents don’t you DEA got to not take your notepads and clipboards and pens (plenty) and register the THC of the Chinese hemp . . . why not the Russians and Hungarians and French now that we are at it . . . India?

    “Section one of the Sherman Act provides that “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations is hereby declared to be illegal.”

    Boycotts
    A boycott, or a concerted refusal to deal, occurs when two or more companies agree not to deal with a third party. These agreements may be clearly anticompetitive and may violate the Sherman Act because they can result in the elimination of competition or the reduction in the number of participants entering the market to compete with existing participants. Boycotts that are created by groups with market power and that are designed to eliminate a competitor or to force that competitor to agree to a group standard are per se illegal. Boycotts that are more cooperative in nature, designed to increase economic efficiency or make markets more competitive, are subject to the Rule of Reason. Generally, most courts have found that horizontal boycotts, but not vertical boycotts, are per se illegal.
    May I ask who do I address my mail for My Hemp Application and Fees Mrs. Leonheart?

    How is it possible we pay taxes to you guys when you profit off the restriction of so called Controlled substances when opiates make money for Doctors and Pharmacists . . . Dutch folk make money in their nation –Do you not have some paper work in regards to the University of Mississippi? You permit beer and people to use trees to make paper but not hemp by Americans or weed. Your offenders have went to private Prisons right?

    Monopolies
    “Section two of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolies, attempts to monopolize, or conspiracies to monopolize. A monopoly is a form of market structure where only one or very few companies dominate the total sales of a particular product or service. Economic theories show that monopolists will use their power to restrict production of goods and raise prices. The public suffers under a monopolistic market because it does not have the quantity of goods or the low prices that a competitive market could offer.”

    “Although the language of the Sherman Act forbids all monopolies, the courts have held that the act only applies to those monopolies attained through abused or unfair power. Monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal under the Sherman Act, as long as honest methods have been employed. In determining whether a particular situation that involves more than one company is a monopoly, the courts must determine whether the presence of monopoly power exists in the market. Monopoly power is defined as the ability to control price or to exclude competitors from the marketplace. The courts look to several criteria in determining market power but primarily focus on market share (the company’s fractional share of the total relevant product and geographic market). A market share greater than 75 percent indicates monopoly power, a share less than 50 percent does not, and shares between 50 and 75 percent are inconclusive in and of themselves.”
    What do you doe with that Application money –or the seized assets not worth burning? We pay you taxes and you cannot even eliminate 100% of the problem –yet you are operating in the parameters of a business by not letting anyone grow hemp but allowing foreign hemp . . . the U.N. Single Act gives us permission to grow hemp now . . . are you saying you know better than thousands of farmers and millions of more employed Americans (Notionally Speaking)? Sciences using the Marijuana as Medicine Theory . . . Doctors went to Med school to learn drugs and try drugs on patients in sometimes experimental pre-FDA states for those willing –Where did Gil or Michele or Kevin get their Medical Degrees at? Yet your job directly influences Chinese trade in the form of hemp and applies to more of our currency leaving –We Pay you to Do That! How?
    “In focusing on market shares, courts will include not only products that are exactly the same but also those that may be substituted for the company’s product based on price, quality, and adaptability for other purposes. For example, an oat-based, round-shaped breakfast cereal may be considered a substitutable product for a rice-based, square-shaped breakfast cereal, or possibly even a granola breakfast bar.” Why do wool sweaters get better treatment than American Hemp sweaters. Why does an oil based paint have to be the only thing available? Why aren’t Americans allowed to work in more Paint industry jobs or plastics (biodegradable), medicine, food, soaps, clothing, paper, furniture, hempcrete etc?
    “Other courts consider it an unfair power if the monopoly power is used in conjunction with conduct designed to exclude competitors. Still other courts find an unfair power if the monopoly power is combined with some predatory practice, such as pricing below marginal costs.”

    “In accordance with traditional conspiracy law, conspirators to monopolize are liable for the acts of each co-conspirator, even their superiors and employees, if they are aware of and participate in the overall mission of the conspiracy. Conspirators who join in the conspiracy after it has already started are liable for every act during the course of the conspiracy, even those events that occurred before they joined.”
    So the former hemp conspirators weren’t complicit in the 1920, which set this whole show a blaze.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • War Vet

      So, what branch of the DOJ does Wal-Mart and Kodak fall under since it’s now legal for private companies to be law enforcement agencies -according to the DEA, word for word that is?

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Jeff Trigg

    Obama should have made the list, but the list is a great idea nonetheless. How about some top 5 lists for each state? Let’s name as many of the evil prohibitionists as we can. Here’s mine in Illinois.

    1. Democrat House Speaker and State Chair Michael Madigan
    2. Democrat Attorney General Lisa Madigan
    3. Democrat Senate President John Cullerton
    4. Democrat Governor Pat Quinn
    5. Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • Peter

      there must be some good old conservative drug warriors in illinois especiay as you head south into jesus land

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • claygooding

    Steve Berke has another video going viral on legalization

    http://tinyurl.com/avptx6e

    And of course,my nomination for our new National Anthem

    http://tinyurl.com/bzbwvhr

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0