The Shotgun Blog
« The True Lost: CBC versus waiving gun licensing? | Main | Love Thy Torontonian As Thy Self »
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
There are no victories in the drug war
The Toronto Sun is reporting a major drug bust. An Ontario marijuana grow operation that was worth a reported $1 300 000 was discovered and broken up. This has to be a great victory in the fight against drugs, right?
It would be if there was only $1.3 million worth of marijuana in Ontario. The truth is that this is a mere drop in the ocean of pot smoking in Ontario, never mind the rest of the world. Even if this was a fatal blow to one particular organization, how fast will some other gang move in to take this market share? I want to say that it will be a matter of months, but I will be more conservative and guess that thismarijuana will be replaced in a year.
Even the police admit that this police action will have limited effect on the drug trade:
"Is it going to end it (the drug trade)? No. Is it going to assist in getting some of the drugs off the street? Definitely," Const. Wendy Drummond said of the bust.
Now I want to know how much money was spent on this futility? How much police resources went into this band aid that could not possibly stop the bleeding? Is an attempt to command the tide not to come in really a good use of taxpayer's dollars?
As they would say in HBO's The Wire, this is nothing but drugs on the table.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on October 7, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
A small victory is still a victory. In fact there was a significant victory just last week - the deportation of Vancouver's leading drug dealer, Marc Emery! That's reason to celebrate.
If Emery was such an advocate for freedom, why can I drive a car today while he's stuck in a jail cell? Because he was stupid.
I wish to congratulate the DEA and FBI agents for their hard (well, not so hard) work on the Emery case.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-07 5:56:59 AM
A reduction of the number of addicts by about half compared to 1900 is considered a defeat, then? Everything you have said about the marijuana industry is also true of the criminal industry in general—no matter how many busts you make, there will always be more. It's not an excuse for surrender.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-07 6:23:44 AM
' I get high with a little help from my friends.'
Stephen Harper.
Canada's New Drug King Pin??
Oooohh, the Rapture.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-07 7:14:39 AM
I doubt that Mr. Harper personally initiated anything against Emery. Political figures rarely do. Emery just encourages his supporters to think that various national and foreign government officials have it in for him. He's lying of course - he did all of this to himself and now he's trying to get out of it. Fortunately, he will fail.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-07 8:19:17 AM
What Mr. Harper has' personally initiated' has been an escalation of the failed USA War on Drugs with his Bill C-15/ Mandatory Minimum Sentencing.
Mr. Emery does not fit into Mr. Harper's plan of increasing Alcohol/ Pharmaceuticals and Private Prison distribution for Canadians.
'Today's DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana group- is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the USA and Canada, butt also to the mariijuana legalization movement... drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.'
Karen Tandy DEA Chief, July 29, 2005.
Not Political??
'I get high with a little help from my friends'
Stephen Harper. Dispensationalist.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-07 9:38:28 AM
First, your quote from the DEA chief predates Mr. Harper's administration, so it cannot be personal in any way. That Emery would see this as personal is obvious, but he cannot be seen as an objective source.
Second, C-15 is an amendment to the existing law passed in the 1990s, which itself merged Canadian law into US, UK and United Nations measures. it does enhance punishments, but it cannot be called a conspiracy against anyone.
Had anyone thought that maybe taking drugs (or alcohol, tobacco, or not dieting or exercising regularly for that matter) was a bad idea for the health of one's person and family? Really, these laws shouldn't be necessary when some common sense would save one many problems.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-07 9:52:05 AM
What Mr. Harper has' personally initiated' has been an escalation of the failed USA War on Drugs with his Bill C-15/ Mandatory Minimum Sentencing.
Who says it failed? The fact that addiction remains a problem does not mean that it would magically get better if more product were available. This makes about as much sense as the yuppie lie that you can't build your way out of traffic congestion. And who says it was a USA war? The British Empire outlawed it ten years before the States. Honestly, do you guys just keep pulling the same old boilerplate out of the hat again and again in the hope that eventually something will stick?
Mr. Emery does not fit into Mr. Harper's plan of increasing Alcohol/ Pharmaceuticals and Private Prison distribution for Canadians.
"Private prison distribution"? What the hell is that?
Not Political??
How is celebrating a blow to organized crime political?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-07 9:57:14 AM
The argument that there is less drug use today than in 1900 because of prohibition is patently absurd.
A proper analysis of why people were so addicted in 1900 is required. There were three reasons for opium addiction in 1900. 1. Instead of using whiskey to blunt the pain coming from amputation, soldiers (for the north) during the civil war were given opium (with the obvious consequences). 2. Patients in hospitals were given opium during surgeries (with the obvious consequences). 3. Unscrupulous salesmen were going around rural America selling elixirs filled with opium to (generally) women.
We also know that drug use fell drastically between 1900 and the 1930's. Was it the drug act in 1914 or was it something else? Obviously, with the improvement of medicine, issues 1 and 2 were solved gradually on their own. There is no logical reason to believe the law had any effect whatsoever. Issue 3 is the contentious one. The clean food and drug act was passed in 1906 requiring accurate labelling of products. One could argue that this forced labelling jolted people into realizing what was in those elixirs. On the other hand, the law was the result of massive public pressure; so it can also be argued that most people were already aware of the problem and probably wouldn't have bought any more of those potions without proper labelling (regardless of the law). But again, the change in attitudes had nothing to do with prohibition.
So why are so many kids today addicted to drugs? Why was it not the case in 1900? Why did drugs make a comeback in the 1950's, 60's and 70's when they were illegal?
I really wish some people on this site would look up the term "spurious correlation".
Posted by: Charles | 2009-10-07 10:00:17 AM
Shane: these people see conspiracies all around them - and spiders and other creepy things because of their hallucinations. To them, everything is political, and that the powerful are out to get them. They say drugs make you mellow and see the truth in things. It's quite obvious that drugs do not do those things. Quite the opposite in fact. That's why arguing with them is a waste of time. Just ignore them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-07 10:02:11 AM
The argument that there is less drug use today than in 1900 because of prohibition is patently absurd.
Indeed, and that's why I didn't make it. I did not say there was less drug use. I said there were fewer addicts. Addiction is primarily seen in narcotics and cocaine, and to a much smaller degree, in synthetic drugs. As all its proponents are so fond of pointing out, marijuana does not foster addiction, so the "millions and millions" of marijuana users do not count as addicts.
A proper analysis of why people were so addicted in 1900 is required. There were three reasons for opium addiction in 1900. 1. Instead of using whiskey to blunt the pain coming from amputation, soldiers (for the north) during the civil war were given opium (with the obvious consequences). 2. Patients in hospitals were given opium during surgeries (with the obvious consequences). 3. Unscrupulous salesmen were going around rural America selling elixirs filled with opium to (generally) women.
And you think we don't have war amputees today, patients given opiates in hospitals today, or unscrupulous quacks today? We have all three in abundance. The difference is access to these drugs is now controlled instead of uncontrolled. The result: fewer addicts.
We also know that drug use fell drastically between 1900 and the 1930's. Was it the drug act in 1914 or was it something else?
Most likely the Drug Act. Most of the world began the move to control narcotics and other drugs at this time, precisely because they were so tired of dealing with drug addicts and the attendant social evils. This puts a serious dent in the argument that legalizing these drugs again would amount to harm reduction.
Obviously, with the improvement of medicine, issues 1 and 2 were solved gradually on their own.
There was no substantive improvement in medical care, save from that gleaned from battlefield experience, between 1900 and 1930. Sulfa drugs, antibiotics, vaccines for most of the most common childhood diseases (polio being a big one) came later.
There is no logical reason to believe the law had any effect whatsoever. The clean food and drug act was passed in 1906 requiring accurate labelling of products. One could argue that this forced labelling jolted people into realizing what was in those elixirs. On the other hand, the law was the result of massive public pressure; so it can also be argued that most people were already aware of the problem and probably wouldn't have bought any more of those potions without proper labelling (regardless of the law).
You're speculating. Trying to find a way around the obvious--but for you, repugnant--explanation. "It can be argued" are WEASEL WORDS. If it can be, do it. Don't tell us what's possible. Research, commit to a position, and defend it.
But again, the change in attitudes had nothing to do with prohibition.
The change in attitudes had everything to do with prohibition, and for that matter, with alcohol prohibition, vestiges of which may still be seen today. Many counties in the United States, including the one in Tennessee where Jack Daniels is made, are totally dry to this day.
So why are so many kids today addicted to drugs? Why was it not the case in 1900?
Because kids in 1900 couldn't afford drugs. Hell, they were shining shoes and selling papers for pocket change.
Why did drugs make a comeback in the 1950's, 60's and 70's when they were illegal?
Because the most self-indulgent and rebellious generation in history found the real world too hostile and decided to rebel and strike out against it, any way they could. As they find it too hostile, to this day. Pushing sixty and still chasing eternal youth. Sad.
I really wish some people on this site would look up the term "spurious correlation".
I really wish some people on this site would look up the term "nihilism."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-07 10:34:47 AM
Zebulon,
You say that drugs are controlled today. Do you define control as making them easily available for high school kids? The control of the dope market is in the hand of the criminals that sell these products and they don't care about regulations. You cannot control anything that is outside the law, only that which is inside the law can truly be controlled and regulated... That is why today kids are unable to buy beer at school but they don't have any problem on getting pot, meth or heroin.
Posted by: Pablo Torre | 2009-10-07 11:28:07 AM
If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in this nation's history.
If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.
If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.
If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.
If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.
If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.
If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.
If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.
If you support prohibition you've helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.
Congratulations!
Posted by: Malcolm Kyle | 2009-10-07 12:08:49 PM
Well said Malcolm Kyle.
Too bad, so sad that the rabid, Hypocritical Puritanical Prohibitionists are too obtuse to see what you've so clearly stated.
'I get high with a little help from my friends.'
Stephen Harper.
Dispensationalist
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-07 12:34:31 PM
So no one sees drug abuse as a social problem that requires a curative?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-07 12:47:30 PM
If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in this nation's history.
You lie. The great crime waves during the 20th century were in the 1930s and the 1970s. Today the crime rate is lower than it's been in 25 years and lower than the average for the entire 20th century.
If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.
Regulators, by definition, can only restrict markets; they are established by consumers, and consumers only. Blaming the lawman for one's lawlessness is the ruse of the outlaw.
If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.
Legal products such as tobacco and booze are also to be found in schools and prisons.
If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.
I thought you said it was the WORST crime wave in history. Which is it? Can't keep your lies straight?
If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.
You will, immediately, post either a Constitutional or common-law right to get stoned. Now. I mean it. Your next post will contain a convincing example, or don't bother showing your face again.
If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.
Of course! Restricting the supply always creates more supply. Oh, this gets better and better. The tortured, twisted, backward logic is simply delicious.
If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.
Even legalized drugs would still cost something, and addicts would still not have any, since many of them are unemployable and unhouseable. Therefore property crime would continue unabated.
If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.
Don't libertarians complain that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in history? I must say, for such scanty resources, they sure seem to catch a lot of crooks.
If you support prohibition you've helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.
Really? The crime rate has been dropping since the 90s. Turns out that people who are in prison are not elsewhere at the same time committing crimes. And over half of them are in for violent crimes--that's about a million violent felons off the streets. If we caught and imprisoned the rest, though, you'd be sure to complain about the loss of civil liberties and the high incarceration rate.
Congratulations!
Thank you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-07 12:55:20 PM
Vancouver Hosts the 2010 Addiction Olympics
The Harsh Reality of Drug Addiction
Not for the faint-hearted, this video is graphic and shocking and shows the depths of depravity that the human soul can descend to.
After 11 months of sobriety from cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs this individuals mental state has sunk to an almost animal-like existence
http://www.2010homelesschampions.ca/reality_of_drug_addiction.htm
VANCOUVER CITY OF ADDICTION
The dtes is a melting pot of people from all walks, the addiction scourge that exists there will continue to grow as long as the support for this lifestyle is supported by so called harm reduction policies. Safe injection clean needles i agree with for health and potential overdoses. The fact that the vpd will not charge you for possession makes this part of town a freeway to hell. The so called four pillars approach should add another pillar the fact that insite has over seven thousand registered iv users and the estimated number of people in active addiction is said to be some ten thousand in a twelve square block area means that all these addict's have a habit to support and drug's to buy. To me the fifth pillar seems to be let the drug dealers do what they want. The amount of arrest's for trafficking does not add up compared to consumption how do i know you ask well let me tell from a personal observation over the last five years. I walk and or drive through this area of town daily and it seems that the same drug dealer's set up shop at the same locations daily i have never seen them arrested the seem to be untouchable so in conclusion i say the fifth pillar must be to supply the four. You can get heroin, cocaine ,crack, rx, weed, twenty four seven in this part of town at many well known places. People from across the city as well the country migrate here to the addiction capital of north America knowing that it's a free for all. Here is links to stories i have personally written and witnessed in the last six month's The first is a video of the Carnegie centre at main and hasting's the second is a unbelievable example of the brazen drug dealer's who sell there wares across the street from the Carnegie and some three hundred yards from the Vancouver police station
THE CARNEGIE DRUG MART http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz13o_drThE
More than 2 million syringes are handed out free every year. Clean mouthpieces for crack pipes are provided at taxpayers’ expense. Around 4,000 opiate addicts get prescription methadone. Thousands come to the injection site every year.
addiction is a state in which the body relies on a substance for normal functioning and develops physical dependence, as in drug addiction. When the drug or substance on which someone is dependent is suddenly removed, it will cause withdrawal, a characteristic set of signs and symptoms. Addiction is generally associated with increased drug tolerance common usage of the term addiction has spread to include psychological dependence. In this context, the term is used in drug addiction and substance abuse problems
http://www.2010homelesschampions.ca
This website is dedicated to telling the stories of the unfortunate individuals living in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver in the hope that awareness of this problem will spur people to get involved, to let all levels of government know that something has to be done to alleviate this misery rooted in addiction, homelessness and depravity. To point the way to recovery from addiction, which we believe is the root of most of this situation. With the 2010 Olympics coming to Vancouver it is our mandate to record the transition and the extreme changes that are even now occurring and will continue to unfold in the Downtown Eastside
2010 Homeless Champions Videos on YouTube
http://www.2010homelesschampions.ca/youtubevideos.htm
Posted by: RECOVERED ADDICT | 2009-10-07 1:00:47 PM
Marc Emery believes in something, and that is why he is facing extradition. I would wager that Americans smoke more marijuana than Canada, even though it is less accepted here. If Marc Emery spends time in a U.S. prison, he will be considered a hero to millions of people, unlike Zeb, who is only considered a windbag of ignorance and uneducated bias to the few that read the comments in this article. I have smoked marijuana, and I happen to know for a fact that I am not a worse person for doing so (contrary to some public opinion). I currently do not smoke, but firmly believe that anyone who does smoke is no worse off than a tobacco smoker, and much better off than the alcoholic. If ethics concerns you, then on moral ground it is illegal here in the United States, although through the ignorance of our constitutional rights, go figure. Contrary to public announcement, the United States is more of a socialist government than a democratic one. We have to fight daily to keep the few rights we have from being taken from us. Mexico did something right when it decriminalized marijuana. Until the United States does the same, you'll see injustices daily from the government taxing its peaceful people, while real criminals roam the streets.
Posted by: Douglas Smith | 2009-10-07 2:16:20 PM
ohhhhh 1.3 milllllion wooow.
What did they use to measure it, street price?
In some places it goes for 15 dollars per gram or higher.
That's roughly 86 000 grams, or 86 kilos.
That might amount to each potsmoker in an average sized city not being able to find their gram for that one day. what about the other 364?
Not to mention that ONE good sized grow room could replace that in under 3 months.
When one considers supply and demand, especially in the black market of controlled substances, reducing the supply simply raises the price and adds new incentive for someone to fill the void with fresh product. This is why it will never be completely destroyed. Thanks for promoting a policy that further spawns crime.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-07 2:28:11 PM
Marc Emery believes in something, and that is why he is facing extradition.
No, he is facing extradition because he is an international drug smuggler. Belief does not require action, particularly illegal action.
I would wager that Americans smoke more marijuana than Canada, even though it is less accepted here.
And would lose, at least on a per capita basis, because Canada has the dubious distinction of smoking more marijuana per citizen than any developed country. It explains a great deal, actually.
If Marc Emery spends time in a U.S. prison, he will be considered a hero to millions of people, unlike Zeb, who is only considered a windbag of ignorance and uneducated bias to the few that read the comments in this article.
This ain't Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela we're talking about here; this is a malignant narcissist, unrepentant drug pusher, and seditionary who has called for the overthrow of the government because it won't agree with him on the legality or morality of getting stoned.
I have smoked marijuana, and I happen to know for a fact that I am not a worse person for doing so (contrary to some public opinion).
Where did you get the pot? If it came from criminal drug lab, then you have contributed to the crime in our streets, in which case you're right--you would have to be a pretty awful person in the first place to do that.
I currently do not smoke, but firmly believe that anyone who does smoke is no worse off than a tobacco smoker, and much better off than the alcoholic.
What you believe does not matter. All that matters is what you can prove. The Universe does not wait upon your word; this is not about you. And not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, either; in fact the great majority don't even get drunk.
If ethics concerns you, then on moral ground it is illegal here in the United States, although through the ignorance of our constitutional rights, go figure.
Which Constitutional right or amendment, specifically, protects your right to be stoned?
Contrary to public announcement, the United States is more of a socialist government than a democratic one.
Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Most of the world's socialist (but not communist) countries are democracies. Democracy only means you elect government representatives; it works whether the government itself is large or small.
Mexico did something right when it decriminalized marijuana.
The problem in Mexico is not illegal drugs, but massive corruption. They have police officers moonlighting as kidnappers and assassins.
Until the United States does the same, you'll see injustices daily from the government taxing its peaceful people, while real criminals roam the streets.
With your money in their pockets, put there by you, willingly.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-07 2:40:26 PM
That might amount to each potsmoker in an average sized city not being able to find their gram for that one day. what about the other 364?
I thought most pot smokers didn't smoke every day, Fed.
Not to mention that ONE good sized grow room could replace that in under 3 months. When one considers supply and demand, especially in the black market of controlled substances, reducing the supply simply raises the price and adds new incentive for someone to fill the void with fresh product.
Are you volunteering?
This is why it will never be completely destroyed.
Destroyed, no. But we can control it to the point where its presence is a minor factor, just as we can any type of crime.
Thanks for promoting a policy that further spawns crime.
Criminals spawn crime.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-07 2:43:39 PM
Is this thread to be the resurrection of Shane the invincible and the second coming of Zebulon, his weird alter ego, that strangely seems to keep the same weird hours--how else can he stay in sync with Head Office?
Could we just agree to scrap the Emery file [13 pages and growing] and concentrate on the war on cannabis on this new thread or must we fight the war on shane on two fronts.
I'm guessing shane prefers a "fresh start". A running jump, to the casual observer, it may even lend credence [love the Creedence]to his initial drivel.
For the sake of sanity, ours not yours, can we at least cut and paste the first 13 pages and start "afresh".
Or not.
Posted by: toney o | 2009-10-07 3:16:15 PM
"So no one sees drug abuse as a social problem that requires a curative?"
Sure Zeb, of course drug abuse can be a problem, as with many of the legal variety as well. Do we arrest drunks for drinking? Cigarette smokers for smoking? Children for taking Ritilin? No. So why the law and order approach to the other drugs? I can get just as high from cough syrup and cold medicine. End prohibition so we can deal with the drug abuse problem. Locking people up, punishing with fines, and letting gangsters run rampant through the streets doesn't seem to be working. Its a nice make work project for law enforcement, but isn't addressing the problem.
FREE MARC EMERY!
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-10-07 3:53:14 PM
shane said: "I thought most pot smokers didn't smoke every day, Fed."
You probably did think i said that, because you seemed to have lost your medication or you haven't been prescribed the ones you should be using.
Don't put words in my mouth. We have more than enough just with the ones coming from your mouth.
shane said:"Are you volunteering?"
Funny that this was all you came up with when i brought up that complex supply and demand concept again. You hate that stuff.
shane said: "Criminals spawn crime."
hahaha
what do cops spawn? law?
the evil terrorists and the spawning criminals and the incivility, how will you cope?
what would jesus do?
lol
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-07 4:10:30 PM
does every person who drinks alcohol drink everyday? that's a pretty broad generalization.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-07 4:13:35 PM
One almost gets giddy when considering P.M. Harper's song choice for next years 2010 black tie event in Ottawa, the naton's capital.
This year our Minority Leader chose to sing:
'I get high with a little help from my friends.'
Does Mr. Harper's Fashionista/ Psychic forsee Mr. Harper singing in 2010, the Beatle's 'Happiness is a Warm Gun.'
Imagine, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan clapping along to Mr. Harper as he croons:
'I need a fix cause I'm going down, I need a fix cause I'm going down.'
'Mother Superior jumped the gun.'
Oh the Rapture of it all.
Yo Lauren! I did it for you!
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-07 5:00:17 PM
Justice Minister Rob Nicklesworth and Publik Safety Minister Peter Van Loon; aren't those both oxymorons?
It's 2009 kant we drop the Oxy's once and for ALL!
Or, are we just not that into the brevity thing?
Yet.
Posted by: Dude | 2009-10-07 5:17:38 PM
The Toronto Sun is reporting a major drug bust.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on October 7, 2009
Other than cut and paste jobs about marijuana and David Miller or posting emails that you get from the Ontario PC party do you have the ability to write about anything else? Or are those three subjects what your life revolves around?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-10-07 6:33:12 PM
No victories?
Has anybody seen Shane Matthews or Zebulon Pike?
Posted by: Wanna bet | 2009-10-07 10:42:51 PM
I had been very skeptical about the Conservative's changes to the law, envisioning a kleptomaniac highschool student going to prison for five years.
However, I think they are very admirably targeted, aiming at exactly the people everyone realizes are dangerous criminals, but about whom too afraid to do anything.
As for the addiction issues, I think it's quite clear that cultural forces are very important in our problem. Under the drug war, clearly cultures of abuse have continued. Yet when I see people blaming this problem entirely on the war on drugs, I see a textbook example of denial. This is exactly the shifting of responsibilities away from the appetites that makes addiction so dangerous.
If advocates of legalization want to get smart, they'll look at the big picture, and acknowledge the vast criminal role played by users; not as helpless pawns, but as free agents who made immoral choices.
This is not a question of self-abnegation, but of acknowledging the scope of the problems involved. It's simply a matter of responsibility, a character trait which addicts are notoriously short in.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-10-08 9:40:29 AM
And just a note:
I think it's bizarre to construct a theory on Shane and Zebulon as alleged clones of the same user, when clearly there are others people who take gleeful pride in being obvious as they spam the site under many many different names.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-10-08 9:42:48 AM
I have two questions for Zebulon Pike and any other illegalizer regarding what is a crime and who are the criminals: Suppose that you were peacefully minding your own business when a heavily armed gang attacked you, threw you to the ground, pushed your face into the pavement, pointed a dozen guns at your head, and blew your head off if you resisted, just because they did not approve of what you ate for breakfast -- would you agree that they were violent criminals or would you conclude that you were the criminal?
Second question: Suppose that a similar gang, armed to the teeth, kicked down your door, invaded and ransacked your home, terrorized your family, stole your property, and murdered anyone who resisted, just because they or others did not approve of what you chose to drink or smoke -- would you agree that those thugs were violent criminals or would you conclude that your family were the criminals?
By the way, the several hundred million honest, decent human beings who have been declared criminals by your drug war are no more inferior to you than the Jews were inferior to the Nazis. Rick Freedom_First at verizon.net
Posted by: Freedom_First | 2009-10-08 11:36:45 AM
RECOVERED ADDICT -- You have been mis-informed. Inert substances have no will power and therefore cannot destroy anyone or cause anything. You, like everyone else, are responsible for your own personal failures. The several hundred million people who have been declared criminals by your war are NOT responsible for your failures. Please grow up and stop blaming others for your failures. Regarding the human beings whom you label as "addicts" in order to elevate yourself, I will make a deal with you: For every "addict" that you can name who should be put in prison or "treatment", I will name a dozen substance-abuse-expert idiots who should be put in prison.
By the way, the major drugs in the world -- alcohol, cocaine, opiates, and cannabis -- are valuable medicines which have served mankind for hundreds of years. These naturally produced medicines are also the safest drugs. Preparations of coca, opium, cannabis, and alcohol have been safely produced and consumed for centuries. These much-valued herbal medicines also have religeous, ceremonial, and recreational uses. They belong in every home and medicine cabinet unless the owner decides otherwise.
If you want to believe that plant medicines and extracts are evil substances that destroy all those who possess them unless they are protected by a magic piece of paper called a "license" or "prescription", that is your choice. You are free to believe any voodoo nonsense that you want. But, you don't have the right to assault, rob, arrest, and murder all those who do not share your pagan religion. Likewise, you don't have the right to authorize others to commit these crimes. Rick Freedom_First at verizon.net
Posted by: Freedom_First | 2009-10-08 12:15:17 PM
nice work Freedom First. encore
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-08 1:04:41 PM
hahahah
Even after all the times shane pretended to be an expert in supply and demand, he posted this golden nugget:
shane said: "Of course! Restricting the supply always creates more supply. Oh, this gets better and better. The tortured, twisted, backward logic is simply delicious."
hahahaha
well he's right about one thing, this does get better and better.
Thanks shane, it's the most fun when you prove yourself wrong. (and likewise, me right)
Just for shits and giggs let's go through this one more time.
In economics, (the academic subject; not the voodoo econ in ShaneLand where whatever he thinks instantly becomes reality), if the quantity supplied of a good drops or 'is restricted', there is a resulting effect on the price of that good. (You may remember the concept of scarcity from when you contemplate how often you have a critical thought.)
When the price of a good rises, it becomes feasible for other firms to enter the industry; firms which suffer diseconomies of scale, government restriction, or any other barrier to trade that keeps them from entering the market. The added price acts as a new incentive which attracts firms to fill the void of consumer demand. Hence, there is a market force known as the 'invisible hand of the market' which corrects these supplier deficits to the correct equilibrium. Supply and Demand.
It is one of the few concepts of economics that you usually don't have to study to comprehend fully. It just takes logic.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-08 1:37:49 PM
Anybody want to talk to shane for some 'expert' advice?
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-08 1:40:41 PM
If prohibitionists really wanted to lower health problems and promote good lifestyles they would be looking to decrease demand, not simply raising the price and funding the mordern Al Capones' new enterprises, fortified gang club houses, smuggling-yachts, smuggling-planes, high-priced lawyers, lobbyists, weapons, and you name it.
When you prohibitionists are done fighting and want to lower demand peacefully instead of oppressing the harmless, let guys like Marc Emery know. They've been waiting a long time for that, and they've been thinking up some great ways to do it in the meantime.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-08 2:06:58 PM
It is impossible to comment on these statements. They have little basis in reality except in the most extreme police states like Nazi Germany, China, or a Latin American banana republic. If the rhetoric and myth were eliminated, there would be something to say. Until then, this is a pointless thread.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-08 2:29:17 PM
are you sure you posted that in the right thread? What does any of that stuff you just said have to do with this post?
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-08 5:00:17 PM
The "war on drugs" is a lie. In fact, it is a war against human beings and their freedoms. It is human beings, not drugs, who are being murdered, assaulted, robbed and arrested. Several hundred million honest, decent human beings have been declared criminals by the drug war. This holy war against human beings who have been labeled evil substance abusers, is now the biggest witch hunt in history.
After more than two decades of escalating this insane war and millions of arrests, military-style assaults against peaceful people are now taking place in every city and town across this once-free country (USA). There are now thousands of heavily armed government gangs that specialize in using Gestapo tactics against peaceful people. They break down doors, invade and ransack homes, terrorize families, and murder anyone who resists. They attack suspects, throw them to the ground, push faces into the pavement, point guns at heads, and even blow heads off in the name of fighting drugs. Peaceful people are being treated like they are worse than murderers. In their attempt to combat what they percieve to be evil, the anti-drug crusaders have become evil. And, just like the alcohol prohibitionists who waged a war against alcohol consumers-producers-dealers, the result of their violent, brutal, and criminal intervention into the free market has been to produce an equally violent and crime-ridden underground market.
Drug wars, like all other unjust wars, are made possible by gun control. When the weak and vulnerable don't have the means to defend themselves, they are easy targets for fascist thugs who gain political power. It is easy to scapegoat and persecute defenseless people. But, it is impossible to persecute an armed population. With unrestricted access to guns, freedom-violating thugs would not be able to conduct prohibition wars and create a police-prison state. They would not be able to target millions of the young, poor, and politically weak like they do today because their victims would defend themselves. It would be like thousands of Nazis trying to arrest millions of armed Jews. They would never attempt it because fascist thugs are coward scumbags. Their idea of a fair fight is to hire a dozen goons to point a dozen guns at one head.
Posted by: Freedom_First | 2009-10-08 5:42:41 PM
Suppose that you were peacefully minding your own business when a heavily armed gang attacked you, threw you to the ground, pushed your face into the pavement, pointed a dozen guns at your head, and blew your head off if you resisted, just because they did not approve of what you ate for breakfast -- would you agree that they were violent criminals or would you conclude that you were the criminal?
When the police blow somebody's head off because they disapprove of what he had for breakfast, FF, call us. "What if" is a game for scholars.
Suppose that a similar gang, armed to the teeth, kicked down your door, invaded and ransacked your home, terrorized your family, stole your property, and murdered anyone who resisted, just because they or others did not approve of what you chose to drink or smoke -- would you agree that those thugs were violent criminals or would you conclude that your family were the criminals?
Again, when the cops actually shoot somebody for smoking pot, call us. Hell, when the cops actually arrest somebody for smoking pot, call us. Until then, you have nothing.
By the way, the several hundred million honest, decent human beings who have been declared criminals by your drug war are no more inferior to you than the Jews were inferior to the Nazis.
Actually, they are, and unless they grow their own, they can by no stretch of the imagination be considered either honest or decent. Any human being who would knowingly hand money over to a violent criminal, thus sanctioning his violent and anti-social activities, just so he can toke, toke, toke, demonstrates a murderous selfish so perverted, so base, so degenerate, that the actual penalties for it seem altogether too lenient.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 6:18:02 PM
if the quantity supplied of a good drops or 'is restricted', there is a resulting effect on the price of that good. When the price of a good rises, it becomes feasible for other firms to enter the industry; firms which suffer diseconomies of scale, government restriction, or any other barrier to trade that keeps them from entering the market.
Except that in this case they all suffer the same restriction: The product in question is illegal. The newcomers will run right into the same wall that the older firms did, and have the same problems. Your example assumes a free market. It also assumes that the pool of potential criminals is bottomless. Not everyone has a criminal mentality, nor are we all disaffected nihilists who yearn to stick to the Man. And except maybe for Marc Emery, few people actually hope to end up in jail.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 6:31:25 PM
When you prohibitionists are done fighting and want to lower demand peacefully instead of oppressing the harmless, let guys like Marc Emery know. They've been waiting a long time for that, and they've been thinking up some great ways to do it in the meantime.
Sure, Fed. Marc is all about lowering demand for his own product. Tell us another bedtime story.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 6:33:35 PM
Oh Dear.
Shane is back from his National Geographic/ Colorado gig spreading his 'Made in the USA DEA Disinformation/Lies.'
How come no articles in National Geographic on the multiple uses of Hemp?
Lots of advertising from Budweiser, Mobil, Dupont and Glaxo Kline though.
A puritanical prohibitionist hypocrite, Shane Matthews, back from the brink and hoping for the Rapture.
'I get high with a little help from my friends.'
Stephen Harper
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-09 6:50:06 PM
The “war on drugs” is a lie. In fact, it is a war against human beings and their freedoms.
There is not constitutional nor common-law freedom to smoke dope. You guys keep putting this one out there, but not once have I seen you support it, except to provide a list of the ancient civilizations that once used it. The fact that something was once done is not a reason for permitting it today, and certainly proves the existence of no “right.”
It is human beings, not drugs, who are being murdered, assaulted, robbed and arrested.
And just think—by funding organized crime, pot smokers are contributing to all of this! What does that say about them, FF?
Several hundred million honest, decent human beings have been declared criminals by the drug war. This holy war against human beings who have been labeled evil substance abusers, is now the biggest witch hunt in history.
Who says they’re honest, or decent? Based on what proof?
After more than two decades of escalating this insane war and millions of arrests, military-style assaults against peaceful people are now taking place in every city and town across this once-free country (USA).
Spare us the dramatics. SWAT teams are not dispatched to reports of kids smoking dope underneath the apple tree. They are sent only when there is potential for armed resistance.
There are now thousands of heavily armed government gangs that specialize in using Gestapo tactics against peaceful people.
Thousands? How many thousands, exactly? Or is it more like a couple dozen?
They break down doors, invade and ransack homes, terrorize families, and murder anyone who resists.
Killing someone who offers armed resistance isn’t murder. It’s self-defence. People know they have little to fear from the police if they cooperate. The police don’t prosecute you; the courts do. All cops do is tell what they saw.
They attack suspects, throw them to the ground, push faces into the pavement, point guns at heads, and even blow heads off in the name of fighting drugs.
A list, please, of the heads blown off.
Peaceful people are being treated like they are worse than murderers.
Yes, so peaceful they rig shotguns with tripwires to protect their grow ops and drive around in armour-plated SUVs with hidden compartments for suppressed automatic weapons. Yup, they’re paragons of peace and love all right.
In their attempt to combat what they percieve to be evil, the anti-drug crusaders have become evil. And, just like the alcohol prohibitionists who waged a war against alcohol consumers-producers-dealers, the result of their violent, brutal, and criminal intervention into the free market has been to produce an equally violent and crime-ridden underground market.
While reducing alcohol-related deaths in the United States by half.
Drug wars, like all other unjust wars, are made possible by gun control.
Except there was no gun control to speak of in 1930s America. Until 1934, you could buy a submachine gun over the counter. In fact, in many states, you still can, albeit with some paperwork, a $200 tax, and a quick fingerprinting. Virtually any adult non-felon can own some form of firearm in the United States, and about half do.
When the weak and vulnerable don’t have the means to defend themselves, they are easy targets for fascist thugs who gain political power.
Apparently they feel strong and invulnerable enough to break the law and escape punishment.
It is easy to scapegoat and persecute defenseless people. But, it is impossible to persecute an armed population.
Isn’t that what armies do to each other?
With unrestricted access to guns, freedom-violating thugs would not be able to conduct prohibition wars and create a police-prison state.
And what happens when your “freedom-violating thug” brings in the B-52s? You gonna stand and fight with your Raven Saturday-night special?
They would not be able to target millions of the young, poor, and politically weak like they do today because their victims would defend themselves.
Age, social class, and political identity are all irrelevant.
It would be like thousands of Nazis trying to arrest millions of armed Jews.
Hmm. Thousands of Nazis backed by millions of German soldiers, comprising possibly the finest war machine ever created, armed with tanks, aircraft, artillery, MG42s, and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, against a bunch of round-bellied merchants and scrawny fortune-tellers armed with break-action pheasant guns. Tough call, isn’t it?
They would never attempt it because fascist thugs are coward scumbags. Their idea of a fair fight is to hire a dozen goons to point a dozen guns at one head.
Yours is to hide behind a mask of anonymity and hurl invective from what you perceive to be a position of complete safety. At least the Jews knew who their killers were.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 7:02:04 PM
Didn’t you learn your lesson on the other blog, Poser?
For those who care, this lowlife fancied himself a master detective and tracked down another Shane Matthews who lives in Colorado, and then posted his home address, his work address, photos of his home and associates, threatened to contact his place of work and “blow the whistle” on his online activities, and suborned identity theft and “elimination.” All of this, on the wrong person.
Poser never, EVER gives his real name, but that’s a matter of little consequence. I imagine the cops will have little trouble learning who he is, should my namesake decide to file suit. And then he can kiss those five acres goodbye.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 7:10:10 PM
From what I understand the "lowlife" did not post anything that wasn't posted on the internet already, so trumped again pinhead
From what I understand, exhortations to "eliminate" him or steal his identity were not posted on the Internet already. Nor, already, were there posts filled with anti-Catholic hate speech on the Shotgun. But you remedied both those deficiencies, didn't you?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 8:18:11 PM
What shane and his many aliases seem to forget is that more so than they, we understand the drug is just an ongoing modern day religious war, perpitrated on us, by the giant Catholic, and southern bible thumping blocks of voters.
Is this the same man who offered Biblical passages as proof of the ancient use, and acceptance, of marijuana?
Like Shane, reason and irrefutable evidence regarding all the damage the drug war is causing is ignored and a perspective dating back pre jesus, is what is considerd for modern day guidance.
Somehow, Jesus's day doesn't seem so remote when compared to the Sixties, Poser.
The world sat still and went through dark ages for almost 2000 years because of peolpe who were exactly like Shane.
Actually, it went through the Dark Ages because Romans went all soft and degenerate like you, Poser, forgetting what had made them great, making them easy prey for the more vigorous Germanic tribes. And the Dark Ages affected only Europe; in the Middle East and Asia, civilization flourished.
Oh, and you know who brought about the Renaissance and launched Europe toward the position of preeminence it eventually acquired? Catholics. Today there are a billion of us. So no, I don't feel particularly marginalized. Not enough at any rate that I need to direct an army of phantom identities or lead crusades against innocent men to vindicate my own existence, unlike you, Poser.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-09 8:26:11 PM
"Don't argue with Shane or his pseudonyms it is the best form of torture for him."
-Written by anon by any other name.
To anon,
The problem with being a liar is not that others won't trust you. It's that you can no longer trust others.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-10-09 9:05:25 PM
You'll love this
Google this: shane matthews lurker
or, shane matthews longtime lurker
"I'm a yankee doodle dandy, yankee doodle do or die"
Posted by: Don't tell Shane we're having a party | 2009-10-09 10:34:36 PM
There is no skool like a home skool[ I can attest to that!]
Posted by: Don't tell Shane we're having a party | 2009-10-09 10:44:47 PM
Post a comment