Skip to comments.
DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" - a rebuttal
(self)
| March 13, 2012
| (self)
Posted on 03/13/2012 9:55:41 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
The DEA Web pages on "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" are linked with some regularity on FR. They're full of errors in fact and logic; since I couldn't find a comprehensive rebuttal online, I've started creating one. Here's my rebuttal to their "Fact 1;" more to come as time permits.
Claim 1: "We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts."
-
Claim: On the demand side, the U.S. has reduced casual use, chronic use and addiction, and prevented others from even starting using drugs. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years. That’s 4.1 million fewer people using cocaine. Fact: And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm), while from 1973 to 2006 cigarette smoking dropped by 59% (http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/Tobacco-Trend-Report.pdf) - all while alcohol and cigarettes remained legal. Correlation is not causation. Here the DEA commits the ancient logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") - like the rooster who claimed his crowing caused the sun to rise. -
Claim: Almost two-thirds of teens say their schools are drugfree, according to a new survey of teen drug use conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. This is the first time in the seven-year history of the study that a majority of public school students report drug-free schools. Fact: That's what teens think other teens are doing. Here's what teens say about what they themselves are doing: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reported in 2002 that teens said for the first time that they could get marijuana more easily than cigarettes or beer (http://www.casacolumbia.org/download.aspx?path=/UploadedFiles/b0ooqrvk.pdf). This is the DEA's idea of "progress"? What this shows is that the best way to restict teens' access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market). -
Claim: The good news continues. According to the 2001-2002 PRIDE survey, student drug use has reached the lowest level in nine years.
Fact: And 8 years later, the percentage of daily marijuana use was essentially unchanged (http://www.pridesurveys.com/Reports/index.html), despite ever-rising spending on drug enforcement. Trends in youth drug use simply don't correlate with drug criminalization efforts. Claim: According to the author of the study, “following 9/11, Americans seemed to refocus on family, community, spirituality, and nation.” These statistics show that U.S. efforts to educate kids about the dangers of drugs is making an impact. Like smoking cigarettes, drug use is gaining a stigma which is the best cure for this problem, as it was in the 1980s, when government, business, the media and other national institutions came together to do something about the growing problem of drugs and drug-related violence. This is a trend we should encourage — not send the opposite message of greater acceptance of drug use. Fact: Legalization does not "send the opposite message of greater acceptance of drug use." We manage to educate kids about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco despite their legality. If we're going to criminalize everything we don't want kids doing, we've got a long list to work on. -
Claim: The crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s has diminished greatly in scope. And we’ve reduced the number of chronic heroin users over the last decade. In addition, the number of new marijuana users and cocaine users continues to steadily decrease. Fact: See the first fact, above. -
Claim: The number of new heroin users dropped from 156,000 in 1976 to 104,000 in 1999, a reduction of 33 percent. Fact: See the first fact, above. -
Claim: Of course, drug policy also has an impact on general crime. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office found violent crime and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. Our murder rate is too high, and we have much to learn from those with greater success—but this reduction is due in part to a reduction in drug use. Fact: Apparently the DEA hopes we won't notice that:
- All those countries also have anti-drug laws.
- There is no evidence that those countries had rising levels of drug use.
- As mentioned previously, correlation is not causation.
-
Claim: To put things in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. Fact: According to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, in 2008 8% of Americans had used an illicit drug in the past month and 14.2% in the past year (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/2k8nsduh/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.19B).
Supply Reduction
-
Claim: There have been many successes on the supply side of the drug fight, as well. For example, Customs officials have made major seizures along the U.S.-Mexico border during a six-month period after September 11th, seizing almost twice as much as the same period in 2001. At one port in Texas, seizures of methamphetamine are up 425% and heroin by 172%. Enforcement makes a difference—traffickers’ costs go up with these kinds of seizures. Fact: Based on available federal government data (http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf, http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/american_users_spend_2002.pdf), no more than 21% of the cocaine that enters this country is seized, and no more than 19% of the heroin. The DEA is grading itself on a very generous curve if it calls a score of 21% anything better than failing. -
Claim: Purity levels of Colombian cocaine are declining too, according to an analysis of samples seized from traffickers and bought from street dealers in the United States. The purity has declined by nine percent, from 86 percent in 1998, to 78 percent in 2001. There are a number of possible reasons for this decline in purity, including DEA supply reduction efforts in South America. Fact: Cocaine purity rises and falls with no correlation to drug enforcement activity; after that cherry-picked dip in 2001, purity rose again (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/price_purity.pdf). -
Claim: One DEA program, Operation Purple, involves 28 countries and targets the illegal diversion of chemicals used in processing cocaine and other illicit drugs. DEA’s labs have discovered that the oxidation levels for cocaine have been greatly reduced, suggesting that Operation Purple is having a detrimental impact on the production of cocaine. Fact: Oxidation is used to remove impurities; whatever the significance of these reduced oxidation levels, it hasn't meant a reduction in cocaine purity, as shown above. -
Claim: Whatever the final reasons for the decline in drug purity, it is good news for the American public. It means less potent and deadly drugs are hitting the streets, and dealers are making less profits — that is, unless they raise their own prices, which helps price more and more Americans out of the market. Fact: Speaking of prices: powder cocaine prices have declined by roughly 80 percent since 1981, with the average price of one expected pure gram of cocaine purchased at Q1 (i.e., 0.1 to 2.0 bulk grams) costing approximately $107 in 2003. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/price_purity.pdf)
-
Claim: Purity levels have also been reduced on methamphetamine by controls on chemicals necessary for its manufacture. The average purity of seized methamphetamine samples dropped from 72 percent in 1994 to 40 percent in 2001. Fact: Methamphetamine purity did decline during that period - but then it rose again. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/price_purity.pdf) As with cocaine, purity rises and falls with no correlation to drug enforcement activity. -
Claim:The trafficking organizations that sell drugs are finding that their profession has become a lot more costly. In the mid-1990s, the DEA helped dismantle Burma’s Shan United Army, at the time the world’s largest heroin trafficking organization, which in two years helped reduce the amount of Southeast Asian heroin in the United States from 63 percent of the market to 17 percent of the market. In the mid-1990s, the DEA helped disrupt the Cali cartel, which had been responsible for much of the world’s cocaine. Fact: When Southeast Asian heroin declined, South American heroin picked up the slack. When the Cali cartel was disrupted, other cartels stepped in. These high-profile busts serve only to create opportunities for other traffickers. -
Claim: Progress does not come overnight. America has had a long, dark struggle with drugs. It’s not a war we’ve been fighting for 20 years. We’ve been fighting it for 120 years. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal. We didn’t know their harms, but we soon learned. We saw the highest level of drug use ever in our nation, per capita. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in our nation. That’s twice as many per capita as there are today. And like today, we saw rising crime with that drug abuse. But we fought those problems by passing and enforcing tough laws and by educating the public about the dangers of these drugs. And this vigilance worked—by World War II, drug use was reduced to the very margins of society. Fact: The only anti-drug laws passed in the 1880s were against smokable opium, and were targeted at the recently immigrated Chinese laborers. Even when the Harrison Narcotic Act was passed in 1914, "The supporters of the Harrison bill said little in the Congressional debates (which lasted several days) about the evils of narcotics addiction in the United States. They talked more about the need to implement The Hague Convention of 1912," which was "aimed primarily at solving the opium problems of the Far East, especially China." "Even Senator Mann of Mann Act fame, spokesman for the bill in the Senate, talked about international obligations rather than domestic morality. On its face, moreover, the Harrison bill did not appear to be a prohibition law at all." (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm) And if the use of opiates and cocaine declined in the early part of the twentieth century (although the use of barbiturates and amphetamines was widespread), they rose again later despite not a single anti-drug law being repealed. Again we see that trends in drug use do not correlate with anti-drug laws and enforcement.
|
TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: anslingersghost; dea; drugs; drugwar; jackbootedthugs; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101 next last
To: G Larry
Just how many semester hours of Saul Alinsky training do you have?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Long enough to recognize when somebody is using such tactics against me and long enough to learn how to turn those same tactics back on the originator.
61
posted on
03/14/2012 9:55:39 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Then why didn't you state outright that the incident you depicted happened almost twenty years ago and why did you use a 2009 article talking about it? Surely there are older articles you could have used if you only wanted to "give the particulars". Two points.
1. In my opinion, it matters not if it was yesterday or 200 years ago. Humans still behave the same way regarding drugs.
2. The 2009 article of which you speak is the SOURCE of that picture. (With link provided)
You gave the impression that it was current day and unless somebody went to the site you linked to they would never know how old your picture was.
Again, two points.
1. The age of information regarding drug addiction is immaterial in my opinion. Human physiology hasn't changed much in 10,000 years.
2. I gave the link fully EXPECTING people to go to the website and read the article from which the picture came.
A further clarification of this point is that I KNEW of this incident and it's aftermath, and knew that it serves as a real world example of what actually happens when Libertarian ideas regarding drugs are implemented. (China is the BIGGEST Real world experiment involving legal drugs.)
62
posted on
03/14/2012 9:58:32 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: DiogenesLamp; CodeToad
I and others have already rebutted your China comparison (shame on you for recycling it as if we hadn't).
As for AIDS: apart from a few aberrant 'bug hunters' those infected with AIDS didn't know they were exposing themselves to infection, whereas most drug users are well aware that they're using drugs.
63
posted on
03/14/2012 10:00:49 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
(A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
To: philman_36
Well then your argument is already blown. You can go anywhere, at any time, and get any drugs you want. The ready availability of drugs is well known so America should be in the grips of drug addiction and guess what...it isn't! Supply and Demand dude. It's that simple. We have a ~2% addiction rate and severe social and legal stigma attached to it, with interdiction of supply.
Let the stuff in, and you will see a slow crawl upward of the addiction rate, which accelerates over time.
In other words, We aren't like China (yet) because we have been choking off the supply as much as possible.
64
posted on
03/14/2012 10:02:35 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: DiogenesLamp
My recollection is that legal alcohol kills ~ 50,000 people per year. Isn't that a small sacrifice to pay for it? Only 50,000 dead people? (per year) Yes, we certainly need another bunch of substances to add to the death rate. Then automobiles, though not a substance and by using your standards, need to be outlawed as well as they're almost as deadly with about 40,000+ deaths a year IIRC.
The vast majority of such deaths that are not ordinary accidents, are caused by drunk drivers. Apart from that, the utility of Automobiles is so valuable to our population that we would be willing to tolerate an even higher death rate than that.
Toleration of ordinary vehicular accidents is unavoidable, and is therefore necessary.
Getting back to the original point: are alcohol deaths (non-driving) avoidable? Shall we attempt to avoid them by returning to Prohibition?
65
posted on
03/14/2012 10:08:08 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
(A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
To: philman_36
Nobody can control where an indigenous plant comes from, not even the federal government. Irrelevant to the point. ONLY the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to interdict contraband coming into the nation. Now that Contraband can be Uranium 235, Sex Slaves, Drugs, Non-Tariff-paid French wine, or tainted Chinese Dog food, but it is still the responsibility of the Feds to deal with it. Where it comes from is irrelevant, the fact that it comes from elsewhere makes it a Federal interdiction issue. Especially regarding efforts *INSIDE* the source country.
Well there ya have it. Nothing is outside of their realm and there is justification for anything. And instead of making it a trade issue you try to make it an issue of national defense. That's pretty convoluted in thinking.
I REGARD it as an issue of National Defense. So did the Chinese when they fought a war with England to stop it. In my mind it is no different than trying to smuggle in toxic anthrax spores.
66
posted on
03/14/2012 10:10:19 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: DiogenesLamp
Your analogy is weak.Why is my analogy weak?
Do you have poisonous cleaning products in your home? Do you have bleach for washing? That will kill you in a heartbeat if you drink enough of it. How about vinegar for a vinegar/water solution for cleaning your mirrors and windows? Oh, you didn't know about that? It's an old trick.
What happens when you combine vinegar and bleach?
Are you unable to safely use those products and avoid killing yourself with them?
Since you're still here I would say that you do know how to safely use deadly household products.
@Dangerous Household Chemicals
67
posted on
03/14/2012 10:10:51 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
BTW, cocaine is legally purchased as medicine all of the time. Once again, it's a controlled substance and not an illegal drug. I have no problem with substances which are used as MEDICINE and controlled by trained Doctors and Pharmacists. Cocaine, Heroine and other drugs have long been used for Medical purposes, but the notion that Prescription medications should be completely available to anyone who wants them is just nuts.
68
posted on
03/14/2012 10:13:36 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: DiogenesLamp
So, you’re saying the people will turn into total freaks if we legalize drugs and therefore the only reason they haven’t turned into freaks is that drugs are illegal.
Got it. You believe government begets civility and not that government are created by the people.
Alcohol is legal, yet, I don’t see total mayhem. So, I guess you are for prohibition once again, too.
69
posted on
03/14/2012 10:15:48 AM PDT
by
CodeToad
(I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
Not to mention that as between 19th century China and 21st century America, "if the circumstances are similar" evaluates as FALSE. Different histories, cultures, systems of government, etc. etc. You may feel differently, but in my opinion the only similarities which matters are physiology and availability.
You light a fire to paper, it burns. It doesn't matter what kind of stacks it is organized in. Drugs bind to receptors in the human body. It's that simple.
70
posted on
03/14/2012 10:16:04 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: DiogenesLamp
“I have no problem with substances which are used as MEDICINE and controlled by trained Doctors and Pharmacists. “
This country was founded without such laws, yet, they did just fine. Prescription drug laws are a recent invention.
71
posted on
03/14/2012 10:17:24 AM PDT
by
CodeToad
(I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
You didn't answer my question: Do you support narrowing the array of poisons by returning to alcohol Prohibition? I answered it, but not in a way you wished it to be answered. Regarding Alcohol Prohibition, I would suggest the best way to handle the abuse of it is through regulation, as is done now.
What this shows is that the best way to restict teens' access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market).
What this shows is that those who support legalization can write stuff.
Nonsense. Is illegality YOUR only reason - or even your primary reason - for not using addictive drugs?
Not at all. I know people who have died from drug abuse. Why would I think *I* am immune?
Legalization in a single small area is probably the worst possible way to do legalization. Let's not do it that way.
And as China's experience shows, blanket legalization in multiple large areas is also the worst way to do legalization.
72
posted on
03/14/2012 10:23:54 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: Darren McCarty
It already has spread through society. I can get pot in 15 minutes. I could probably get the real bad stuff (crack, heroin, or meth) in two hours, and I don't even have to go to Detroit or Ypsi to get two of them. ~2% of the population is addicted, and the market supplies that addiction. Raise demand by 100% and the availability will dry up. The market is in a sort of balance currently. One or even hundreds of additional purchases will not reduce supply appreciably.
Drugs are bad. The war on some drugs is worse.
How do you know? China became so weak that it was overrun by much smaller Japan. I have long postulated that a dictator eventually lurks behind the legalization of drugs. (Mao)
We are increasingly giving up more freedoms and giving more powers to government, especially the feds in the name of the war on drugs. Asset forfeitures without convictions came from the WoD. The unPatriot Act (judge shopping and sneak and peak) was based on a Clinton proposal to combat the WoD. Debt increases in corrections budgets because of drug crimes. Sudafed controls for those with allergies.
Now this I more or less agree with, but I argue this issue with Libertarians all the time, and they say "Why are you bringing tyranny down upon us because you insist on banning drugs?" To which I respond "Why are you bringing tyranny down upon us because you insist on USING drugs? "
Apparently they don't worry about tyranny enough to quit smoking their drugs.
Yes, the Feds have gone too far in the war on drugs, and they represent a threat to our freedom. If people would just stop using drugs, the Feds wouldn't have an excuse for what they are doing. What i'm saying is that the shoe fits on both of our feet.
73
posted on
03/14/2012 10:34:15 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: DiogenesLamp
Let the stuff in, and you will see a slow crawl upward of the addiction rate, which accelerates over time.What about this can't you understand? There is no "let it in".
It's already in!
In other words, We aren't like China (yet) because we have been choking off the supply as much as possible.
And for every pound that gets stopped 5 more go through.
So why not stop it all together? There is no desire to actually stop it ...at the federal level! If there were it would already be a done deal.
74
posted on
03/14/2012 10:35:39 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Ah...so, you admit to the Saul Alinsky training!
75
posted on
03/14/2012 10:38:10 AM PDT
by
G Larry
(We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
How do you know "only so much government as is necessary, and not more" is more than "almost NO governmental control"? Someone MUST enforce the laws to protect our Liberties.
Someone MUST defend the nation to protect our Liberties. That Someone is the Various Governments. With the Feds solely responsible for protection from Foreign dangers.
That's a circular statement - if there were no laws against drugs, drugs would no longer be an issue of law enforcement.
If there were no laws against murder, murder would not be an issue of law enforcement. I can see how YOUR statement is circular.
I regard drugs as CAUSING an injury to innocent people, and is therefore wrong even in accordance with Libertarian philosophy. Libertarians simply refuse to see any "injury" and so contend that no one is being harmed by someone else.
People kill themselves with alcohol. Should we return to Prohibition?
All or nothing eh? I think there is an appropriate middle between the two extremes.
False analogy - a communicable disease infects a person with no element of choice on their part, whereas drugs don't leap down people's throats.
Drugs soak in through atmosphere and osmosis. Friends talk friends into trying it, with absolutely no understanding that it might burn them for the rest of their life. Same thing with cigarettes; An addiction that kills millions of people every year, yet which is spread through social contact.
You might recover from a communicable disease more easily than a substance addiction.
76
posted on
03/14/2012 10:45:32 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: DiogenesLamp
...the notion that Prescription medications should be completely available to anyone who wants them is just nuts.Who has presented such as a notion? Not me. However, with Ritalin being only one molecule away from cocaine I can see that prescription medicine is a valid concern. Anybody can take "the test" and, with a little coaching, fail the test therefore qualifying for that prescription drug. And when you thing about it...that pretty much makes it completely available to anyone who wants it.
And it's gotten to the point, because of control freaks like you, that even some over the counter medicines are no longer available unless you "jump through the hoop" so there are unintended consequences.
I don't believe alcohol should be available to anyone who wants it either. I sure there are tons of teens who "want it" and I know they shouldn't have it and I agree to laws that restrict them from purchasing it.
However, an adult is a different matter altogether.
When does it stop and how far does it go? An immature, inexperienced young woman can have an unborn child murdered in the womb and yet an adult can't smoke a joint or give their own teenage child a beer in the privacy of their own home?
77
posted on
03/14/2012 10:57:42 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Then judging by your reply at @reply 43 you're a liberal. That is a non sequitur. Just because I believe the government should enforce normal and proper laws does not mean I believe government should control every human behavior or activity.
You can no more paint all Libertarians as being the same than you can paint all conservatives as being the same.
The philosophy of Libertarians identify them as such. My experience is that Libertarians have a more consistent adherence to their philosophy than does any other political group. They seem more unified of thought and purpose than any other demographic.
Then you're being idiotic and jaundiced in looking at the issue. @"Illicit drugs" are readily available yet only a small portion of the populace uses them and that percentage has remained relatively steady for decades.
I am simply not making my argument understood. Yes, it HAS remained steady for decades because we've been fighting a drug war at the same time. The NORMAL progression looks like this.

In the absence of the drug war, our addiction rate would look something like the above chart.
And? Homosexuality was viewed as a perversion in his time. To many people in modern day America it's still viewed as a perversion despite efforts to depict it as "normal" behavior instead of abnormal behavior.
And Libertarians of today regard it as "just another lifestyle choice between consenting adults." I point out that the founders didn't see it that way, and so did not adhere to modern ideas of Libertarian philosophy.
Don't bother with the image. Any search engine can yield results for the image, even the website you linked. It's enough that you tried and failed to pass it off as a current event when it wasn't.
You keep repeating that. It won't become true because you keep saying it. Look, I regard you as an ally. If this conversation is going to turn derogatory, I will just leave you in peace.
To me, the drug issue is a relatively minor problem compared to other more serious issues, such as the growth of the Federal Behemoth, and it's insatiable demands for the fruits of our labor.
Let us just agree to disagree on this issue, and leave it at that. I will even refrain from discussing it here on Free Republic in the future.
78
posted on
03/14/2012 11:01:25 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: G Larry
Ah...so, you admit to the Saul Alinsky training!No, I'm
not "admitting" to Alinsky
training.
I've read up on such tactics, as many others have, so that I can recognize what they are and when they're being used.
And when I recognize that they're being used against me, like you're doing now, I turn it around on the user...like I'm doing with you now.
Haven't you ever heard of "Know Your Enemy"?
Or do you only know "Know Your Enema" since you're obviously full of "it"?
79
posted on
03/14/2012 11:02:44 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: CodeToad
I am done discussing this issue. You win. You are right, I am wrong.
80
posted on
03/14/2012 11:03:05 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson