?Protecting? the public from drugs

Montana Standard ^

[Fred Kevlin]

December is the season for giving, and no one gives more generous gifts than the U.S. Congress. Of course, Congress has the advantage of doing its last-minute holiday shopping at someone else’s expense, namely yours and mine.

For example, on Dec. 8, the House of Representatives passed a bill that gives the White House drug czar’s office $145,000,000 of taxpayer money to run anti-marijuana propaganda ads. My personal favorite in this genre is a television ad in which police rough up a high school student when arresting him in the school’s marijuana-smoke-filled bathroom. This is followed by a caption reading, “Marijuana: Harmless? Think again.” (And no, I did not make that up).

Yet this bill contains something far more obnoxious than pots of money for another round of clueless anti-marijuana propaganda. A section of the bill prohibits any local transit system that receives federal funding from running privately funded ads that call for marijuana policy reform.

In other words, at the same time that the federal government is forcing you to spend your money to publicize its willingness to engage in storm trooper tactics to persecute the tens of millions Americans who smoke or have smoked marijuana, it is trying to prohibit you from having the freedom to spend your money to protest these same tactics.

If this bill becomes law, it will be illegal to buy advertising space on a city bus or in a subway station, advocating that doctors be given the right to prescribe marijuana as a painkiller for their terminally ill patients.

Two words that are thrown around far too loosely in political debate are “fascism” and “unconstitutional.” Nevertheless, this sort of thing has a distinctly fascist tinge. And if the First Amendment means anything, it ought to mean that the government cannot take away the right of citizens to engage in public political protest.

Anyone who has doubts that the drug war is wrong ought to consider what it tells us when our federal government tries to make it illegal to protest that war. Fence sitters might also want to view a the video from the surveillance tape at a Goose Creek, S.C., high school, which on Nov. 5 was raided by police looking for drugs. (A photo from the tape can be viewed at www.mpp.org).

After a search, the police found no drugs, but they did terrorize more than 100 students (two-thirds of whom were black, even though less than 25 percent of the school’s student body is black). With guns pointed at their heads, students were handcuffed and forced to lie on the floor.

One student said he assumed the police “were trying to protect us, that it was like Columbine, that somebody got in the school that was crazy or dangerous. But then a police officer pointed a gun at me. It was really scary.”

What’s really scary is that incidents such as this seem to stir so little outrage. What level of government persecution will put a dent in public apathy about the madness that is the war on drugs?

If the police at the Goose Creek high school had inadvertently shot a student or two in their zealous search for marijuana cigarettes, would that be enough to distract people from holiday shopping and channel surfing? Or would such an incident be shrugged off as another regrettable accident of the sort that is inevitable in wartime? Take a look at that photograph, and consider: This is your government on drugs.

[CWOJackson]

Well, the wife and I are going out for Sushi so you play nice with them. See you later and thanks for the pictures; I can actually say that I found something worthwhile and interesting on one of leroys dope threads for once.

[ellery]

Oh, how I wish we could have a reasoned discussion about this issue. Reasonable people can disagree on this -- it's pretty unquestionable that both drugs and the war on drugs are destructive. Principled people can come down on either side of this issue without being dopers or statists. Kumbayaaaaaaaa...... /self-righteous rant

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Have a good meal. Later!

[KEVLAR]

Me too, but I don't think the ones labeled 'statist' are capable of being reasonable.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Re Post #107 ... things are looking up

Yup, that pic has that effect on me.

[NCPAC]

You've nailed it with your statement regarding "statist(s)."

For the record: I've never smoked marijuana, though I twice had it in brownies, once knowingly and once unknowingly. Years ago I did take amphetamines (Candy of the Gods), and have reaped the results: High blood pressure and a mild stroke due to same. Therefore, I know that unprescribed drug use is destructive to the individual just as the War on Drugs is destructive to the nation.

The bottom line, though, can be found by answering the following question with a simple "yes" or "no": In an allegedly free country should an individual be allowed to ingest what he or she desires as long as he or she is not in any manner harming another individual? Sociology be damned, it really comes down to a matter of level of personal freedom Americans are allowed, or may be expected, to enjoy.

[KEVLAR]

To your question - YES
The war on drugs has changed the nature of our law enforcement IMO. The result from what I can see is a general distrust of LE by the public. When our police are reduced to fishing for any violation simply to increase revenues and add to their arrest/citation tally, they are no longer "keeping the peace".

[NCPAC]

Bingo! In my not so humble opinion, the only correct answer that anyone who claims to believe in individual freedom can possibly provide to my question is "Yes." Any other answer and the respondent does not believe in individual freedom. It really is as simple as that.

[jmc813]

Oh, how I wish we could have a reasoned discussion about this issue.

Seek out a thread with robertpaulsen holding down the fort for the pro-WOD gang. He's intelligent, civil, and actually makes good arguments for his side. Jackson and Axel are admitted trolls on these threads. I gave up trying to have intelligent WOD discussions with them long ago.

[pageonetoo]

I gave up trying to have intelligent WOD discussions with them long ago....

Prerequisite: intelligence!

Get some troll-be-gone, sprinkle on all parts, then say a prayer. Stay away from kitchen sinks, with stoves nearby! Ignore crotchety ole' bigots!

[CWOJackson]

There's nothing "intelligent" about the desire to legalize dope.

[jmc813]

Is there anything intelligent about raising concerns about the Constitutionality of certain drug laws?

[CWOJackson]

"Prerequisite: intelligence!"

Attempting to discuss something way outside your realm of understanding. Nothing new there.

[CWOJackson]

Those concerns are shared by a very small fringe of people. So?

[Conservative til I die]

For example, on Dec. 8, the House of Representatives passed a bill that gives the White House drug czar’s office $145,000,000 of taxpayer money to run anti-marijuana propaganda ads.

Wow, what a great use of taxpayer funds. The government needs to spend $145,000,000 to tell us pot is bad for you? Hell, I work in marketing. Give me 1/10 that and I'll disseminate that message to everybody.

What a joke. Guess I should bite my tongue, since it's my party that passes this bill, blind partisanship being what it is and all.

[Conservative til I die]

There's nothing "intelligent" about the desire to legalize dope.

That's debateable. Which is the point of course, of these threads. It's too bad you decide to not even show up for the debate.

Since you've obviously made up your mind, have shown you can't be swayed, and have made it clear you're not interested in debating, why do you even bother?

And yes, this is a rhetorical question, because I know what your follow-up will be like.

[CWOJackson]

"That's debateable. Which is the point of course, of these threads."

And that would be the reason why these end up in the smokey backroom where they belong.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And that would be the reason why these end up in the smokey backroom where they belong.

You ensure they go there on purpose. Come on---you might as well give yourself a big round of applause. It's what you do best on Free Republic: ensure anti-Drug War threads get pushed to the back.

[jmc813]

Those concerns are shared by a very small fringe of people.

Such as the owner of this forum.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Jackson and Axel are admitted trolls on these threads. I gave up trying to have intelligent WOD discussions with them long ago.

Is this from you jmc? About me? I thought you liked me, well, well, the truth does come out.

Oh well!