Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Tories Raise Taxes | Main | A Time for Choosing »

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Mexican conference on drug policy says prohibition has failed

Experts, academics, and activists meet in Mexico City as the Mexican drug war continues its bloody viciousness. The conference is hosted by an organization called the Collective for an Integrated Drug Policy.

These are the conclusions that they reached:

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on February 27, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

What will all those Mexican drug gangs do for a living? The government will have to sponsor re-education programs.

More likely, they'll move to greener pastures, namely, countries that still have prohibition.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-27 9:06:18 AM


They sound like appeasers to me.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-27 9:57:51 AM


The illegal drug trade is a pure market economy. It is also a growth industry that has grown to the point that the narcos have control of the police and military in many parts of Mexico and are moving into higher levels of government taking cuts from government corporation like Pemex. Inevitably the narcos will move their social control over the border into the Southern States of the US. When the Americans finally bring their troops home from Asia and their generals start getting a bit restless out of theatre, the next big military engagement will likely be with the narcos right on their border ... so much for being able to export the violence inherent in pure capitalism.

Posted by: holographic | 2010-02-27 11:25:08 AM


So Hugh, what you’re telling us that an anti-prohibition group has reaffirmed its own mission statement? Well, thanks for the news flash. Also thanks for sharing the same things you’ve shared countless times before. Tell me, did you ever watch an old rerun of Gilligan’s Island and really, really believe they were going to make it off the island this time?

Just to humour you, let’s look at their points one by one:

The so-called war on drugs has failed and, without doubt, we need "winds of change" to advance toward alternative policies to address the problematic of drugs across the globe.

This is opinion, not fact. Also, some countries have far worse drug problems than others, despite the trafficking in narcotics being illegal in virtually every country in the world.

The prohibitionist paradigm has been ineffective, and furthermore, for the majority of countries it has implied grave violations of human rights and individual guarantees, discrimination, and social exclusion...

This is emotional horseshit that takes the tired rhetoric of blaming society for individual failings. People who break the rules deserve to be disapproved of. By the way, imprisoning someone for breaking the law is not a human rights violation, unless the law itself is a suppression of basic human rights, which drug laws are not.

...as well as an escalation of violence that grows day by day, ever broadening the scope of impunity for organized crime.

And a great many people on this board are the ones actually feeding that organized crime, with the wan excuse that the world needs to “get off their nuts.” But, like most outlaws, they blame the lawman for their lawlessness.

Drugs are never going to disappear.

Neither is the impulse to commit murder. That statement is grounds for, and proves, nothing.

Thus, a more realistic drug policy should focus on minimizing the harms associated with drug use -- overdoses, blood-borne diseases like HIV/AIDS, and violence.

And that can be done by locking them up until they’re straight. Or were you under the impression that a sharing, caring society should just have to absorb a certain amount of violence, property crime, and anti-social psychosis for the dubious privilege of being civilized in your eyes?

This concept is known as "harm reduction," and must be the backbone of any drug policy.

This concept is known as “appeasement,” and has been an abject failure everywhere it has ever been tried. It’s simple human nature—the more you have, the more you want.

My point is that you have nothing new here. Recycling stale boilerplate and tired hand-me-downs is not the best way to engender policy change, nor is presenting the opinions of this or that activist group without also saying why they should be society’s opinions as well. This is precisely why most protests are so ineffective at forcing change.

As for Mexico’s problems, they stem from universal corruption, not drug policy. Otherwise you’d be seeing the same level of violence here, too. In fact, you’d be seeing more, because the U.S. has more people than Mexico, a far greater percentage of them own guns, and drug use per capita is far higher.

You’re just going to keep beating this bongo until you die, aren’t you, Hugh?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 12:41:26 PM


P.S. Your link to their site is wrong. It's www.cupihd.org, not www.cuphid.org. If you’re going to offer other people’s opinions are justification for you own, at least do it properly.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 1:25:37 PM


Aztecs VS the Conquistadors all over again..

This time there are way way more conquistadors
and they have helicopters and spray units,
We do not welcome the advance of the death drug cult one little bit: haven't and won't welcome any of their snake cult crap

Go! straight edge Conquistadors Go!
Boo! surrender monkey Aztec head choppers Boo !


Posted by: 419 | 2010-02-27 1:38:52 PM


Why is Shane Matthews allowed to post here? He never has anything original to say and he's an idiot. His 'arguments' amount to 'I don't like druggies so I want the government to indulge my stupid prejudices by persecuting them'. Which is immoral because taking, trafficking, and producing drugs is a human right. The good news is that those Latin American countries are starting to decriminalize all on their own. Even America is headed that way; our victory is inevitable and made all the more imminent by looming government bankruptcy.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-02-27 3:27:36 PM


Better that the government act against drugs than the citizenry have to resort to vigilantism.

Drug trafficking is a human right? Ridiculous! You people are delusional. Look at your hero Emery - now doing a 5 year hitch for that very crime.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-27 3:47:58 PM


You got it right Cytotoxic, Matthews is a bitter, twisted human being, who lashes out and insults everyone not on his page. Its just sad really. He always wants facts, then when they don't suit his agenda, they are dismissed out of hand. He twists everything to make you look like your the bad guy. Hes just a uptight asshole, with a superiority complex. Its all about absolutes with Matthews. He doesn't see grey. I bet he doesn't say a peep out side of the internet to real people about his views. Maybe in his church, but I would bet even they look at him funny.

Drug trafficking is not a human anything Zeb. Its a product of prohibition. It is my right to do as I want to myself, and no outside force should be allowed to interfere. Why is that such a tough concept to grasp. Lets say religion was prohibited, would you then abandon your faith because someone else told you to? Because its the law? Its been tried, and failed. Its the same thing. People are going to do what they want to do. I would say religion affects people more than drugs do, and kills way more. So as a society, why do we allow it? Because you are somewhat free in this country. Free to think and do what you want. Provided you don't harm others or damage property.

Anyway, this gives me hope that I will win my bet with 419.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-27 4:42:06 PM


Give this essay a read, this is what we should be striving for. Unity, not division. Harmony, not chaos.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-27 4:50:27 PM


You people are all on about the tax benefits of legalization. What happens if you fail to report your imports and pay taxes on them? It's called trafficking and tax evasion, which leads to serious jail time. This occurs on a wide range of products. Legalization is therefore a myth.

Oh how I wish we could go back to the good old days and hunt druggies like wild game. We could capture them and release them into preserves for safaris. Since drugs make these people lazy and indolent, it should be very easy. Cash prizes for competitions such as long distance, fewest rounds, most rounds, and for head shots. After all, they're not people.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-27 5:13:06 PM


Other than the fact they are great ads well go to warrenkinsella.com and look at the drug ads and then share your pathetic BS!!!!


Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2010-02-27 5:22:35 PM


I happen to like what Matthews says you fascist pig cytoxic.
Truth hurts eh???

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2010-02-27 5:25:21 PM


If Matthews is an idiot, and I see no evidence that would contradict that assessment, he is still a notch or two above Pike on the sub-normal food chain. They gotta be Blogging Tories.
But to indulge for one moment.... murder is obviously a crime. Imbibing a mood/mind altering substance most certainly is not, notwithstanding successive unenlightened governments listening to imbeciles like Matthews and Pike and criminalizing that which is not a crime.

Posted by: phil | 2010-02-27 5:29:28 PM


Do you know what a fascist is Merle? You would be describing yourself or Matthews more than Cytotoxic. Warren Kinsella is a political hack.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-27 5:47:57 PM


Hey Phil...I'm on Blogging Tories...

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-02-27 5:49:21 PM


Right you are Steve- I like a betting man.
If the dozmns of wipehead apologists who dtift in here, you are the only one who will risk the princely sum of $20 to back up your convictions

I know I could get your spiritual enemy Shane to bet $1000 on his opinions based on facts you don;t acknowledge, but its been difficult to find anything that Shane and me strongly disagree with.. He puts the same story his way and I mine, propelled by drug free thinking.

We;re talking pure argument pure facts likelihood of probability based on past performance- BTW i don;t know Shane in real life

Shane would pay if he lost. collect if he won its you I worry about getting my winnings from from - $20 risk to tilt the axis of the future world towards sobriety is a fine wager.


When Marc Emery, Western Standard Freedom Hero # 003 walks out of jail and is promptly deported backto into a Canada where recreational pot is _not legal- he will not be able to buy it in a transparent legal way-
maybe he can get away with being a born again wipehead, but it will not be legal. taxed & govt controlled like beer or tobacco. You say different, $20 says you are mistaken

I assure you, i won;t rub it in
when prohibition continues to prevail-

all I want is your money,
you can have whats left of your dignity.

Posted by: 419 | 2010-02-27 6:01:54 PM


All the personal insults indicate immaturity, and I am being nice. Please try to present your views and defend them without attacking the messenger of opposing views.

The argument that legalising drugs, which everyone posting assumes to be only marijuana, is naive and ignores the track record of organised crime. Just one example is the Mafia that profited from the American prohibition but simply turned to other sources of revenue when the prohibition ended. Secondly the drug cartels do not limit themselves to marijuana, so legalising marijuana will result in them focusing on other drugs.

Another problem is our society which insist on protecting people from the consequences of their choices, and this exists also in the United States without socialised health care. As long as this mind-set exists, the cost to society for drug addicts remains very high and society has a vote in the matter.

I therefore suggest that people think their arguments through instead of a knee-jerk reaction to the subject of drugs.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-27 6:12:47 PM


Hey Phil...I'm on Blogging Tories...

Why?

Posted by: phil | 2010-02-27 6:15:49 PM


"so legalising marijuana will result in them focusing on other drugs" -so legalize them too. Not that it matters; your argument that my life should be given sanction by and for the benefit of 'society'is morally bankrupt.

And Phil asks a good question. BT is a sewer.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-02-27 6:29:07 PM


trafficking and tax evasion, which leads to serious jail time. This occurs on a wide range of products. Legalization is therefore a myth.


Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-27 5:13:06 PM


For crying out loud Zeb. This is Canada and there is no such thing as serious jail time. 3 good meals a day(plus snacks) and all the recreation you can handle. There must be 3 social workers dedicated to every con in there and you only have to serve about a third of your sentence.
Why do you think they have so many repeat customers ? It's called Club Fed for good reason. I doubt if anyone pushing drugs or evading taxes is apprehensive about jail time.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-27 7:09:43 PM


What about being denied a good job afterward?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-27 7:20:38 PM


Why is Shane Matthews allowed to post here? He never has anything original to say and he's an idiot.

Since all my posts are in rebuttal to the posts of others, Cyto, perhaps that's because, as I have already mentioned, there is no new material to be considered.

His 'arguments' amount to 'I don't like druggies so I want the government to indulge my stupid prejudices by persecuting them'.

What facts do you have on offer, Cyto? Why is it pro-druggie types get personal first, last, and only? What would you have to say if not for insults? Nothing.

Which is immoral because taking, trafficking, and producing drugs is a human right.

Says who and based on what?

The good news is that those Latin American countries are starting to decriminalize all on their own. Even America is headed that way; our victory is inevitable and made all the more imminent by looming government bankruptcy.

And on that day, Cyto, Satan will be skating to work.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 7:45:56 PM


He always wants facts, then when they don't suit his agenda, they are dismissed out of hand.

You don't provide any facts, Steve, so how would you know? You provide only opinion, and furthermore, don't see a problem with that.

Its all about absolutes with Matthews. He doesn't see grey.

Your problem is you see ONLY grey. If you had the ability to see black or white, you might not be such an amoral narcissist.

I bet he doesn't say a peep out side of the internet to real people about his views.

And you lose. Pay up.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 7:48:51 PM


It is my right to do as I want to myself, and no outside force should be allowed to interfere.

But if your actions affect other people--as funding organized crime most certainly does--that removes your immunity. Says "if only, if only" doesn't cut it. At this moment, right now, you're an accessory to all drug-related crime, whether you like it or not.

Lets say religion was prohibited...

Let's say it wasn't. Rebuttal, please.

People are going to do what they want to do.

That's no reason to let them do it. Someone could use the same rationale to carve a few parts off of you, and what protest would you be able to mount? You're so steeped in your own reality that you're willing to advance any theory, however, loopy, to rationalize it, without the slightest idea of how easily it can be used against you.

Free to think and do what you want. Provided you don't harm others or damage property.

Unfortunately for your side of the argument, Steve, drug users are known for doing both. When 80 percent of the crime in the city is junkies stealing for their fixes, and harm reduction policies do nothing to address that, you have an insurmountable wall.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 7:57:19 PM


Give this essay a read, this is what we should be striving for. Unity, not division. Harmony, not chaos.

Put away your love beads, Steve. That is SO 1960s.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 7:58:22 PM


But to indulge for one moment.... murder is obviously a crime. Imbibing a mood/mind altering substance most certainly is not, notwithstanding successive unenlightened governments listening to imbeciles like Matthews and Pike and criminalizing that which is not a crime.

1. It's not enough to say that "it certainly is not." That's just opinion. You have to justify or prove it; it's not enough that you simply say it.

2. Define "unenlightened." Because your tone suggests that it simply means "doesn't think like me." Like "uncivilized," it's a greatly misused and ultimately self-aggrandizing term.

3. Demonstrate the intellectual superiority that would make you a valid candidate to call me "idiot."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 8:00:52 PM


Do you know what a fascist is Merle? You would be describing yourself or Matthews more than Cytotoxic.

I know what a Fascist is, Steve. They are remembered as some of the world's greatest criminals. Since you are a criminal, and I am not, you already have more in common with them than I.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 8:01:52 PM


What about being denied a good job afterward?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-27 7:20:38 PM

Why would any of these losers want a good job if drug dealing pays far more without working ? The only way they would ever look for "real" work is drugs became legal and they lost their ability to play the black market. Making pot legal would be a good start.(and no, I don't use it) For coke,heroin and the like, just send them to a boot camp in the arctic for 10 years.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-27 8:04:19 PM


In order to assess the functionality of a less punitive drug policy we should look at countries that are trying decriminalization to see how it is working. As there are no true examples yet of legalization this is the best way to measure if moving policy that way will have any affect.
The best example right now is probably Portugal though other countries and states are pushing for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country

Since Portugal decriminalized in 2001 overdoses have dropped, new HIV rates have plummeted, rates of use by teenagers declined, drug tourism did not become a problem, and people in treatment doubled.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Granted Portugal was not a large tourist destination before, but the main argument against it by opponents was that there would be a wave of drug tourists flooding in.This simply did not happen. The fact that Portugal was not a tourist destination before should not matter. If drug tourism is a big problem then drug tourists would be there in large numbers because lax drug laws would be what they are looking for, a person would not go to Mexico to see the the Eiffel tower.

As noted above a lessening in the punitive drug laws did not increase overall use but actually decreased it.

If we look at the fiscal side of things it is also a great savings for taxpayers. The enforcement savings dwarf the costs in this system. As well the prevention of Aids saves the government massive amounts of money.

http://www.gpiatlantic.org/pdf/health/costofaids.pdf

It is also important to note that this policy was for all drugs not just the relatively minor one marijuana.

Posted by: Bret | 2010-02-27 8:36:06 PM


I am liking this matthews guy!!!! Like I said look at the ads on Warrens site. Fine hate Warren all you like-but look at the ads if you dare!!!
I called you a facist because you want to stiffle debate by asking why is Matthews allowed to be on here.
Maybe you may sue me like Ezra did for $100,00 for a letter to the editor he did not like.
It makes me want to barf when Ezra did what he did to me and then he is going to introduce Anne Coulter in Calgary.

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2010-02-27 8:59:29 PM


that should read a law suit for $100,000 dollars

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2010-02-27 9:00:25 PM


What happens if you're caught with drugs in Portugal?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-02-27 9:08:43 PM


Did you read the essay Shane? How many times have we gone over this? When I first arrived to the WS, the facts, links, ect. where flying all over the place. You took what you liked, I did the same. Think anything has changed? So stop babbling about the facts. I would have to say that hemp is the most studied plant on the planet. Still no deaths.

Fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Fascist - one who supports fascism.

That's more like you buddy, not me. I don't believe in government of any kind. The politics of today are obsolete. The money system is obsolete. Religion is obsolete. They are no longer relevant. But because the system is designed to perpetuate itself, it will have to collapse before people wake up. Not in my life time, but maybe mankind will get it right in the future.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-27 9:23:20 PM


I actually back Matthews right to speak his mind. I don't like it, but so what. Anne Coulter, HACK!! They are all in it for the money or some perceived power. They tell you otherwise, they are lying.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-27 9:28:20 PM


Bret, decriminalization basically means lesser (or no) penalties for end users. The Tories have already moved somewhat in that direction. Portugal still goes after traffickers, as do the Dutch. Despite what some people say on this forum, end users are dealt with much more gently than dealers, and I have never argued it should be different.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-27 11:10:14 PM


@Alain -"Mafia that profited from the American prohibition but simply turned to other sources of revenue when the prohibition ended. "

Like drugs? The numbers racket? Prostitution? All markets handed to them by the government. Of course the government decided to cut them out of the numbers game, and reap the profit them selves. But it is still the same game.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-27 11:56:04 PM


Did you read the essay Shane?

If you’re talking about the seminal treatise, it’s not an essay; it’s an article, and a rather brief one at that. It also offers nothing new.

When I first arrived to the WS, the facts, links, ect. where flying all over the place. You took what you liked, I did the same.

You don’t care what the facts are, Steve; that is what separates us. A man who lards his words heavily with expressions like “I bet” and “I think” is not dealing from a strong factual base.

So stop babbling about the facts. I would have to say that hemp is the most studied plant on the planet. Still no deaths.

And death is the only harm capable of being inflicted on anything, ever? Think about it. We didn’t pull Thalidomide from the market because it caused death.

Fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Restricting access to psychotropic hallucinogens and meting out harsh justice to murderers and traffickers in human misery constitutes none of those.

I don't believe in government of any kind. The politics of today are obsolete. The money system is obsolete. Religion is obsolete. They are no longer relevant.

Gee, where have I heard this before? Reefer heads have been preaching this self-indulgent crap since the 1960s. Do we have more government than then, or less? Is religion (not necessarily Christianity) more of an issue now, or less? Not according to those same reefer heads.

But because the system is designed to perpetuate itself, it will have to collapse before people wake up. Not in my life time, but maybe mankind will get it right in the future.

Or maybe it will dismiss you, your demographic, and its so-called “values” as an embarrassing setback in social evolution and seek to bury your legacy as swiftly as possible. Human society has endured religion and politics for thousands of years. But no society has long endured a people gone soft, inward-looking, indolent, and self-indulgent.

I actually back Matthews right to speak his mind.

On that at least we have no disagreement. For what it’s worth, I defend your right to speak as well. Better to know, and not like, than to know nothing.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-28 12:09:40 AM


Like drugs? The numbers racket? Prostitution? All markets handed to them by the government.

And loan sharking, racketeering, extortion, money laundering, contract murder, and good old robbery? Were those courtesy the government too? Laws against those exist as well, so I suppose that if we legalized those acts, they’d never take place, is that right?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-28 12:12:27 AM


Yes Shane I know what decriminalization means. In the second sentence I stated "As there are no true examples yet of legalization this is the best way to measure if moving policy that way will have any affect." As you can see a vast majority of the changes are positive. Now if we can only take the supply and delivery out of the criminal elements hands. Instead of criminals making the money and growing their organizations, farmers/government/shopkeepers/trucking outfits etc (the list goes on and on) will be.
Ummmm Shane you have stated numerous times in the past you think that the end users should be put to death or locked up for life?

Posted by: Bret | 2010-02-28 12:37:57 AM


Yes Shane I know what decriminalization means. In the second sentence I stated "As there are no true examples yet of legalization this is the best way to measure if moving policy that way will have any affect." As you can see a vast majority of the changes are positive.

Nominally. But when another type of "harm reduction" was tried in Switzerland a few years back, the number addicts swelled from 3,000 to 20,000, resulting in the infamous "needle park"; at one point EMTs were resuscitating 40 people per day. But harm reduction advocates never seem to get round to mentioning this example. You have a SINGLE example with LUKEWARM results that may or may not be due to other factors. "Vast" majority? Please--how many factors do you have under consideration? Is it a "vast" number?

As they say, once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. Also, the Dutch have apparently decided that their tolerant attitude towards drugs is causing more problems than it is curing, and they are tightening enforcement.

Now if we can only take the supply and delivery out of the criminal elements hands. Instead of criminals making the money and growing their organizations, farmers/government/shopkeepers/trucking outfits etc (the list goes on and on) will be.

You think the effects of the drugs will be any less destructive if we do? The reason they were restricted to start with was because of the harm the drugs themselves did while they were available over the counter. You seem to think that drugs are harmless and inert products that should be put in the same category as lava lamps. They aren't.

Shane you have stated numerous times in the past you think that the end users should be put to death or locked up for life?

Where? Not that I condone their being an accessory to murder and mayhem, but where?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-28 12:51:06 AM


First of all when lets say 9 out of 10 things are positive that would be a vast majority, now when 6 out of 10 are positive that would be a majority. The concept is really quite simple but I know you are just trying to nitpick. I never said there was a vast number but rather "a vast majority of the changes are positive". Another way of saying the positive effects were far greater than the negative.

How are the results "luke warm"? Is that your OPINION? Gasp. Did you read the articles? The facts presented stated a pretty positive case. What makes it nominal in your "opinion"?

The effects of prohibition are destructive. Increase profits for criminal gangs, dealers with little regard to whom or what they sell, innocent bystanders being hurt or killed in "drug wars", large amount of incarcerations, etc. Along with all the other things providing an almost unlimited amount of money to organized crime brings us.

So drugs are harmful to people? If that is the reason they are illegal what about alcohol and tobacco? Both drugs and both far more dangerous than marijuana? If it is alright to legalize and control some drugs why not others? What about other drugs available to the public? Take lunesta for example, Hallucinations, aggression, suicidal thoughts among others. Yet perfectly legal. So don't give me the its bad for you argument.


"It would cost less to "help" other kinds of criminals than to incarcerate them for lengthy stretches, too. And even less to put them all to death, along with the sick, the lame, the poor, and the indolent, and do it quickly and efficiently, without fuss, employing a hydraulic guillotine and a conveyor belt.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-02-26 9:44:31 AM"

That was 2 days ago. There are plenty of more examples but I am not going to comb through all of your rants to find them.

"The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz0gorC4fFo

Sounds like your way is working out fine for them.

Posted by: Bret | 2010-02-28 2:00:57 AM


Started looking up your switzerland needle park example.

"Based on the failure of Needle Park and the Letten railroad station experiments, the Swiss government, like other governments in Europe, developed consumption rooms to provide a "clean and safe" environment for addicts to inject heroin under medical supervision."

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/zurich.html

So they went with smaller scale consumption rooms? What exactly is your point with this example?

Posted by: Bret | 2010-02-28 2:04:18 AM


"If you’re talking about the seminal treatise, it’s not an essay; it’s an article, and a rather brief one at that. It also offers nothing new."

No, the essay you dismissed as hippy crap. Its about 12 pages long.

"You don’t care what the facts are, Steve; that is what separates us. A man who lards his words heavily with expressions like “I bet” and “I think” is not dealing from a strong factual base."

Your right, I don't care about the "facts". One of the other guys here put it in a nutshell in a past post, but I can't find it. Basically, don't tread on me. Take the law away, and what harm am I doing?

"Restricting access to psychotropic hallucinogens and meting out harsh justice to murderers and traffickers in human misery constitutes none of those."

Got no problem with your take on the murderers. And I'm with you on the traffickers in human misery. But who would that be? How many innocent people died in the Iraq war? How many people are starving to death right now? How many people live on nothing? How many are dieing because of our social institutions? What is the real source of human misery on this planet? What human misery am I causing by smoking a fattie with some friends?
We all seem pretty happy.

"Gee, where have I heard this before? Reefer heads have been preaching this self-indulgent crap since the 1960s. Do we have more government than then, or less? Is religion (not necessarily Christianity) more of an issue now, or less? Not according to those same reefer heads."

We have more government. And religion is more of an issue now, including Christianity. And what is this bringing us? War. Destruction. And human misery on an unprecedented scale. There are at least 25 million Americans that are praying for the end of the world. How fucked up is that? And me smoking weed is your big concern? I should lose my liberty for this? Read the essay.

"Or maybe it will dismiss you, your demographic, and its so-called “values” as an embarrassing setback in social evolution and seek to bury your legacy as swiftly as possible. Human society has endured religion and politics for thousands of years. But no society has long endured a people gone soft, inward-looking, indolent, and self-indulgent."

And it will die. And possibly, so will the human race. Human society has never had the technology we have now. Read the essay. Its late.

"And loan sharking, racketeering, extortion, money laundering, contract murder, and good old robbery? Were those courtesy the government too? Laws against those exist as well, so I suppose that if we legalized those acts, they’d never take place, is that right?"

Yes, they are created by the government. The government perpetuates the monetary system. Every thing you listed there revolves around money. In the monetary system, they will always exist, as long as we put money before people.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-28 3:02:26 AM


Here's the address again. In case you want to read it.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-28 3:19:19 AM



Sad, another 2 lives snuffed out in B.C. yesterday by the most dangerous drug known to Western Civilization.

Alcohol.

Kudos to Marc Emery, who through his tireless efforts, has met with thousands of Olympic guests, who have visited his Cannabis Culture store in Vancouver over the past few weeks.

Mr. Emery has met with many people during the Olympics, providing them with a safe/alcohol free environment to watch the Olympics and enjoy the best of what B.C. has to offer adult visitors from around the world.

Is it any wonder that more and more people are choosing a Safe, non toxic product that has none of the associated side effects, ie. the death and violence that are directly related to alcohol.

Indirectly, Mr. Emery is saving the hard working taxpayers of Vancouver thousands of $$ in policing/hospitalization costs since the majority of his adult visitors choose to partake in a Safe product and choose not to engage in senseless violence that comes from the use of alcohol.

The $$ saved by Mr. Emery and his clientelle can be put back into city coffers or used instead to Police the mindless drunks, who fight, throw up and cause general mayhem, kill or get killed while driving drunk.

Thank You Mr. Emery for a most memorable Olympics

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-02-28 6:13:03 AM


Good ol' Shane Matthews, 419, etc. Up to your same old tricks. Making multiple posts under different names to make it look like a bunch of commenters are actually supporting pot prohibition. What gives you away is people being able to look back on old internet postings & they'll see your aliases always appear together. Plus, you use exactly the same writing style, not usually something seen by different commenters. Gotta love how you make so many posts in order to make it appear that there's a whole host of Americans who favor pot prohibition. Remember the recent Zogby poll that shows only 11% of Americans actually believe the war on drugs is working? Well, your postings so many times it's making it look like 90% of Americans believe the war on drugs is working. Isn't it a funny coincidence that it's about 11% of Americans who in some way make a living off their job of keeping pot an illegal substance? Then we have your weak opinions stated a solid facts. I've noticed the articles that really fire you up are ones regarding policy reform. This would lead me to believe you're an administrative level drug agent. You need to get a whole bunch of new aliases to pull this off in the future. Because, you used the same aliases too long & blew your cover. That's pretty arrogant, which means you don't think much of people thinking for themselves. Looks like we have a nanny state type here. Even Zebulon Pike looks like a shill you use to make weak arguments you can easily overturn to make yourself look even more intelligent. The 2nd Shane Matthews always shows up, too. This is an old trick of provocateurs meant to incite rebellion against reasoned commenters. I took the time to count how many real commenters are on here & it's only 5. By the way, the fact is this article is right & pot prohibition is on borrowed time. This is what has Shame so upset, too. Well, my work of exposing you is done for now. I'll be watching for your new aliases in order to blow those covers, too. I apologize for being so busy that I haven't had time to proof read this comment. I've wasted enough of my valuable time on you for now. Bye all. good luck with guy.

Posted by: Romaray | 2010-02-28 8:43:38 AM


Shane Matthews reminds me of the rabid prohibitionist John English. He used to post this propaganda unless his past drug use surfaced.

http: // tr.im/JohnEnglishDrugUse1
http: // tr.im/JohnEnglishDrugUse2

Hey Shane, do you know John?

Posted by: John Doe | 2010-02-28 8:46:03 AM


jeff

There are just as many people in B.C. driving around stoned as there are drunk. And those potheads kill people, just like the drunks. And do you actually think there are no health effects from taking marijuana? get real!

Posted by: LJB | 2010-02-28 8:56:15 AM


Yo Romaray-

you are awesome beyond awesome..
Boy you sure showed us!
I imagine you have quite a wonderful way of proving Shane, Zebulon and 416 are making multiple posts just to be bad sports..to wreck everything for the good drug loving people in the world..

I think a little $100 bet
would be just about perfect right now.. I sit here on a cold sweat in dread that you will reveal even more rotton spam work with solid proof, and will take my money and send me away humiliated, never to return- striking a blow against prohibition that will shake the foundations of the Western World.
Yes you can make a difference, and here's how...

how about upgrading our little bet to >> $1000 my money is good Romaray,its as good as how bad you think I am.
You show how I am doing multiple postings under different names here and I give you $1000..
thats easy enough..Pay day will be tomorrow if you can do this today
earn $500 a minute and flip me off..
think of how proud Marc Emery would be of you..

Bad deceptive people should be made to pay for their crims of deception and invalid accusation, I totally agree with that sentiment--
$1000, let's go


Posted by: 419 | 2010-02-28 9:45:33 AM


1 2 3 4 5 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.