Posted on 07/13/2007 6:25:51 PM PDT by SubGeniusX
The nation's top anti-drug official said people need to overcome their "reefer blindness" and see that illicit marijuana gardens are a terrorist threat to the public's health and safety, as well as to the environment.
John P. Walters, President Bush's drug czar, said the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties. Walters made the comments at a Thursday press conference that provided an update on the "Operation Alesia" marijuana-eradication effort.
"Don't buy drugs. They fund violence and terror," he said.
After touring gardens raided this week in Shasta County, Walters said the officers who are destroying the gardens are performing hard, dangerous work in rough terrain. He said growers have been known to have weapons, including assault rifles.
"These people are armed; they're dangerous," he said. He called them "violent criminal terrorists."
Walters, whose official title is director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said too many people write off marijuana as harmless. "We have kind of a reefer blindness,' " he said.
No arrests have been made so far in the four days of raids, the opening leg of what Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko has promised will be at least two straight weeks of daily raids.
He said suspects have been hard to find because their familiarity with their terrain makes it easy for them to flee quickly.
Although crews doing the raids are using Black Hawk and other helicopters to drop in on some of the gardens, Bosenko said they don't want to give the growers any warning of a raid.
"We try to move in under stealth," he said.
As of Thursday morning, Operation Alesia raids had resulted in the yanking of 68,237 young marijuana plants from public lands in Shasta County. Raids already have been conducted in Whiskeytown National Recreation Area, as well as on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service north of Lake Shasta and other public land near Manton.
The operation is being led by the sheriff's office and has involved 17 agencies, including the California National Guard and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. It's believed to be the largest campaign of its kind in the state, Bosenko said.
The operation is named after the last major battle between the Roman Empire and the Gauls in 52 B.C. That battle was won by the Romans.
With the blitz of marijuana gardens around Shasta County, Bosenko said officials hope to not only get rid of the pot, but also win back the land for the public that owns it.
"These organizations are destroying our lands and wildlife," he said.
Bernie Weingardt, regional forester for the Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Region, said the 28,000 acres believed to house illegal marijuana grows on national forest land throughout the state would cost more than $300 million to
revive.
"These lands must be cleaned and restored," he said.
His estimate is based on a National Park Service study that found it costs $11,000 per acre to pull the plants, clear irrigation systems, reshape any terracing and replant native vegetation, said Mike Odle, Forest Service spokesman.
While Walters didn't give specific goals for Operation Alesia, he said anti-drug agencies aim to cripple the organized crime groups that he said are behind the marijuana cultivation.
"This business we intend to put into recession, depression and put its leaders into jail," Walters said.
“His estimate is based on a National Park Service study that found it costs $11,000 per acre to pull the plants, clear irrigation systems, reshape any terracing and replant native vegetation...”
Let me keep the harvest and I’ll do it for half the cost.
Like changing the name of the Drug Enforcement Agency to the Drug Regulatory Agency is going to reduce the "devastation" to society? Please.
Legalize drugs then tell me if that kilo of pure heroin on the kitchen table is legal or illegal. If you think there's rights violations today, wait until drugs are legal and your regulatory agency is forced to distinguish between the two.
"But the absolute criminalization of marijuana, heroin and cocaine is much more devastating to society, and to individuals, than allowing people access to them."
Devastating to society? How?
I concede it's devastating to the trafficker and the dealer and the user -- but they made that choice. If a drug dealer is growing plants in the basement and he forfeits his house, I don't lose any sleep over it.
Yes, occassionally the innocent get caught up in the War on Drugs. But to say that's more devastating to society than the increased drug use resulting from legalization is ludicrous.
"You cannot seriously tell me that the War on Drugs has proven to be good social policy."
I believe regulating drugs is good social policy, where some drugs are legal, some are legal and only available by presecription, and some are illegal. I believe that a social policy of "if this recreational drug is legal then all recreatiuonal drugs must be legal" is insanity.
Since you obviously didn't bother to read my whole essay, I guess there's no point engaging with you any further. But hey, thanks for playing.
It’s funny that you are accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about. Missouri and Oklahoma both passed laws a few years back (Oklahoma first) putting pseudoephedrine behind pharmacy counters and cutting the number of meth labs drastically. There is still plenty of pot being grown in both states, but a lot lot less meth cooking going on. Was there ever a big shift in either state where pot growers all starting giving up growing pot in favor of cooking meth? I sincerely doubt that. There is no evidence that such a think ever occurred, but you are free to imagine whatever you want to imagine.
I did. I was looking for devastation, however.
You mentioned asset forfeiture, which I addressed. That's a non-starter. They deserve what they get. And you need to get familiar with CAFRA 2000 before you continue your criticism.
You mentioned the "devastating" financial cost of $19 billion -- one-half of one percent of the budget -- half of which goes to anti-drug advertising and substance abuse programs.
By the way, 8 of that $19 billion was for incarceration costs. The 2007 ONDCP budget is $12 billion -- $8 billion of which is for enforcement (including border patrol).
The WOD forced the 2007 budget to skyrocket from $2.77 trillion to $2.78 trillion. Oh, the humanity!
As to organized crime, you're going to have that for any prohibited activity -- drugs, prostitution, counterfeiting, porn, gambling, weapons, illegals, human organs, stolen diamonds, art, etc. To imply that legalizing drugs will rid us of organized crime is disingenuous at best. I bet they said the same thing during Prohibition.
If those ARE your "devastating" arguments, then, hey, thanks for playing. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you backstage.
This isn't a child we're talking about, these are adults trying to make a living in a country with a US-installed government that can barely excercise authority in Kabul (let alone the rest of the country), and they don't give a shit about US drug laws.
When life gives you lemons, you can either make lemonaid or walk around with a sour expression.
i notice that as usual, you completely ignored the rest of the post. Tell me Paulsen, what do you stand to gain from this failed war on (some) drugs? Seems to me that your extremism might derive from some material benefit because it.
It's certainly not from any successes of the policy.
What is so bizarre, is that the exact opposite of what he says is true - it is the government’s designation of ‘drugs’ as illegal which causes terrorists to attempt to fundraise from them.
Many Drug Warriors seem to get their information by reading only headlines and wildly extraoplating (e.g. the MSM is running a lot of meth stories so it must be rampant).
You can't successfully hawk nanny-state policies without ignoring basic economic truths.
“Was there ever a big shift in either state where pot growers all starting giving up growing pot in favor of cooking meth?”
Yes there was. It was more profitable and easier to do. I’m from OK and currently live in MO. I worked in state government in OK (over 20 years) and currently work for DoD (I have a great deal of experience in Environmental Protection and HAZMAT). I know what I’m taking about, and will leave it at that.
I was still in OK with when psuedofed sales were controlled and in MO when it happened here. These were good ideas and have drastically reduced the amount of Meth produced domestically, but not all. Unbelievable as it may seem, they are starting to recycle urine from meth users...
Sadly, because the demand for Meth hasn’t declined (just the supply), it is now profitable for large industrial scale laboratories in Mexico to produce Meth to meet the demand. So, I will predict that the “weed” production in OK will go back up. Probably will happen here in MO also. I have no doubt that directly or indirectly that enemies of the US will take advantage of this of a way to fund their activities.
Whatever, libertarian views about legalizing drugs is sophistry and frankly idiotic. I personally consider libertarians to be on a par with insurgents and more dangerous.
Walters is as credible as Chertoff.
Argument from authority is invalid logic. With all your experience you should be able to easily locate evidence for your claims.
No doubt in a large part because should Libertarians take over the government, you'd have to rely on the private sector for gainful employment, assuming the verasity of your claims.
What is idiotic is the idea that the government has any possibility of controlling what people wish to imbibe. One would think that after the debacle of the late, unlamented 18th Amendment that the lesson would have been applied.
Then you believe if we ended the War on Drugs the number of users would not increase? The amount of drugs entering the United States would not increase? The number of local meth labs would not increase? Marijuana fields?
You may be the only one that really believes that.
Apparently there is no depth limit for the stupidity of posts on FR. I am slack jawed and goggle eyed over the sheer unalloyed beauty of idiocy in its essential state.
Do we want to go back to the days when these drugs were legal? From the USDOJ:
By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict.
--http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
(That's 0.5% of the population, for those in Rio Linda)
_____________________________________
100 years later, the USDOJ says:
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."
--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm
"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."
--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm
_______________________________________
Using a population figure of 280,000,000, you get about a 1.6% addiction rate in 2000 vs 0.5% in 1900. So we had lower addiction rates, and no well-financed, violent drug gangs.
Now, get lost.
Hey Walters, no one believes your BS anymore. Go screw yourself.
You can get drugs in prison easier than you can on the street. Good luck in your endeavor to create a prison society. It still won't succeed.
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.