Posted on 06/09/2014 4:45:15 AM PDT by mgist
Drugs and politics
Police investigations have uncovered links between political leaders, businessmen and drug smugglers.
In December last year, Jagdish Bhola, a suspended deputy superintendent of police accused of drug trafficking, revealed as he was being escorted in handcuffs from a court hearing in Mohali: "I am just a pawn in the hierarchy of drug trade in the state - the real kingpins are politicians."
Bhola is accused of masterminding a huge synthetic drug racket and investigating officers claim his entourage had provided significant levels of campaign funding during Punjab's last state assembly elections.
Based on Bhola's revelations, police arrested a hotelier, Maninder Singh Aulakh - a local treasurer and election organiser for the ruling Shiromani Akali Dal party - and a business associate from neighbouring Himachal Pradesh, Jagjit Singh Chahal, who has also been linked to Akali leaders.
Aulakh is said to be close to senior Akali legislators and allegedly used government vehicles to smuggle the synthetic drugs.
The allegations reinforce those made in 2012 by another drug lord, Raja Kandola, who put politicians - and the Punjabi police themselves - in the dock by accusing them of conniving with drug lords.
Lack of political will
Yet despite these allegations, as the polls approach in Punjab it is the depiction of drugs as a menace that reverberates throughout the speeches given by politicians promising action at rallies and public meetings.
Most of the drug problem is caused by the welfare state, which is the great enabler. Prior to the welfare state, alcohol and drug abuse was self-limiting because addicts who exhausted the support capacity, or the tolerance, of their families were reduced to squalor and died pretty quickly. It was ugly, but effective. Today we feed, house and medicate them, and they live, breed, and vote democrat.
I grew up in Miami in the 80’s and 90’s. I never saw heroin in my life. There was cocaine, and since there really was a war on drugs, it was too expensive for curious kids.
Back then the DEA was in Colombia burning coca fields, drug interceptions before entering the country made nightly news. What is going on now is a farce.
Today heroin is cheaper, and easier to get than beer, and “just say no” turned into “legalize, it’s medicinal”. Billions $ have been spent on this social engineering of narcotic drug use by elitists who will profit from the misery of others. Afghan poppy fields are at record production under US military protection, and we have an opium epidemic in the country that exceeds alcohol and car accidents in accidental deaths. World markets are being flooded with pure heroin, and world citizens are bring deceived beyond most people’s comprehension.
Our complicit government has the blood of American children on its hands, along with the enabling “media”. God will take care of them, everyone else take care of your families.
I would begin by drug testing all applicants for welfare benefits. Test clean, or no benefits, period, beyond a hard labor program to keep you fed. Children? No problem. Take ‘em away. An unemployable junkie is by definition an unfit parent. Get clean and get a job, or lose your kids.
I do not regard this as cruel or punitive. It is tough love. If drugs are the problem, we need to deal first with the drugs. Enabling addiction is precisely the wrong thing to do.
1. There IS no federal policy to give out BACKBONE and self control. Weight Watchers is a GOOD first start. They talk about exercise too. It does cost, but it's worth it.
2. I favor NOTHING from her, nothing.
What federal policies do you support to combat overeating and never moving? Do you favor Moochelle 0bama's food czarina-dom?
There IS no federal policy to give out BACKBONE and self control.
I'm all for backbone and self control. Are they also what you advocate to combat drugs and alcoholism - or do you for some reason favor laws in those cases but not overeating and never moving?
Backbone and self control also preclude drugs and alcoholism, or didn't you know that?
Backbone and self control also preclude drugs and alcoholism
Absolutely. How does that relate to your point that "Laws WERE made for a purpose and they were MEANT to protect people" - or were you just free-associating in post #10?
Laws are for those who WON'T protect themselves or their children. When they break those laws, they go to prison.
That's the deal: you do the crime; you do the time.
By the way, why on earth would you care so much if I should happen to "free-associate"? Why do you care? You need a life.
Backbone and self control also preclude drugs and alcoholism
Absolutely. How does that relate to your point that "Laws WERE made for a purpose and they were MEANT to protect people" - or were you just free-associating in post #10?
Laws are for those who WON'T protect themselves or their children. When they break those laws, they go to prison.
So we need to imprison those who won't protect themselves or their children from drugs and alcoholism - but we don't need to imprison those who won't protect themselves or their children from overeating and never moving. Why is that?
You need a life.
Hey, I'm not the one cluttering up conservative forums with free association.
So who made YOU the moderator and the arbiter of "clutter"?
You are paying WAY too much attention to me. Get a life.
I find your squirming and wriggling hypnotic.
So we need to imprison those who won't protect themselves or their children from drugs and alcoholism - but we don't need to imprison those who won't protect themselves or their children from overeating and never moving. Why is that?
This is not drug legalization. It's a plan to collect all the drug users in one place, not a good idea. And there are laws they could've enforced on public use of drugs, alcohol and sex. No overnight camping. And hygiene. Who owned the large field? The government? Let's regulate public behavior and give that a try. Drugs were completely legal in this country up to 1906, when drug laws were passed by the Progressives to bring us in line with International Treaties that were pushed by the US. Sound familiar?
If government is limited, as our constitution intended, it doesn’t matter much what voters do, because the power of government is so small. And I don’t think we’ve produced better politicians with an “educated populace” than with an “uneducated” voting population. I prefer to have informed voters, rather than “educated” ones.
The welfare state was also created by the law book, but you do make a great point. We need to massively reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government.
The problem I have with Libertarians is that they are dangerously ignorant of the world in which we live. Soros has spent too much money either influencing or compromising the party.
Heroin turned powerful nations with amazing culture, such as China and Iran, into slave nations.
The Federal governments role is to protect and support general welfare. That is what we pay taxes for.
Heroin is NOT alcohol that can be consumed periodically without ending in deadly addiction. The Feds are not doing their job allowing Poisonous heroin, killer “spice marijuana” from China, and approving opiods and other highly addictive substances, even for children, giving doctors and parents a VERY false sense of security.
The Feds are in cahoots with the cartels and that is treason. Taxation without representation is tyranny.
“Heroin turned powerful nations with amazing culture, such as China and Iran, into slave nations.”
When opiates were legal in this country, addiction was low,and declining in the late 19th century.
“The Federal governments role is to protect and support general welfare.”
The Constitution’ s general welfare clause is a statement of purpose not a grant of authority; federal authority is limited to its explicitly enumerated powers, which don’t include regulating any drugs that don’t cross state or national borders.
“Heroin is NOT alcohol that can be consumed periodically without ending in deadly addiction.”
Of all those who ever used alcohol, 15% at some time were dependent; the percentage for heroin is 23% - higher, but a difference of degree not of kind.
In them19th century this country had limited access to heroin regardless of legality.
Heroin wasn’t grown in this hemisphere. It has always been understood that supply leads effects rates of addiction. The nature of addictions vary as well.
Crack, heroin, etc. are deadly addictions. Opiate deaths have already SURPASSED alcohol and car accidents in accidental,deaths in this country. Not caring about children and “the weak” among us, is notmsomething anyone should be willing to agree with.
And still isn't - so on that evidence the risk should be no greater than it was.
Opiate deaths have already SURPASSED alcohol and car accidents in accidental,deaths in this country.
One can always use one's freedom so as to harm oneself - the only alternative is a nanny state ... which leads to its own harms because banned activities can't be regulated or controlled.
Not caring about children and “the weak” among us, is notmsomething anyone should be willing to agree with.
We're taking away your freedoms for your own good: a verse from the 0bama/Hillary songbook.
In other words, you disagree with libertarians and I've spent alot of time among libertarians and I don't find them ignorant of the world. Libertarians supported drug legalization way before Soros ever came on the scene. Soros focuses more on liberal groups, not libertarians. "Heroin turned powerful nations with amazing culture, such as China and Iran, into slave nations."
Really? That's the cause? Big government, corruption, oppression and confiscatory taxation weren't causes? I'm pretty well up on drug history, I've never heard this claim about Iran before. The British conducted and won the Opium Wars against China to open China up to opium. Obviously, this disaster happened before China was "destroyed" by heroin. So, what was then the cause of Chinese weakness?
After the ChiComs took power, they wiped out the opium trade by killing dealers, users and others. Did that "liberate" China or was China even more of a slave state without drugs under Mao, who murdered over 100 million Chinese in his various Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolutions and general murderous rampages against anyone considered an opponent or not. "The Federal governments role is to protect and support general welfare. That is what we pay taxes for."
That's general welfare, not specific welfare. Also, why are you picking up and using debunked liberal talking points? General Welfare is in the Preamable to the Constitution, it is not a grant of specific, enumerated power, which are listed in Article I, Section 8. Regulating drugs is not in that list and the Federal Government as zero authority to say anything about drugs, legal or illegal. "Heroin is NOT alcohol that can be consumed periodically without ending in deadly addiction. The Feds are not doing their job allowing Poisonous heroin, killer “spice marijuana” from China, and approving opiods and other highly addictive substances, even for children, giving doctors and parents a VERY false sense of security."
Wrong. There are occassional users of heroin, who don't get addicted or enslaved to heroin. And I'll admit, illegal drugs are not pharmaceutical grade and anyone who uses them are fools. Second, there is only one drug that has been powerful enough and pervasive enough to affect entire cultures due to the use of the drug. That drug IS alcohol. Look at Russia, American Indians and other countries have terrible alcoholism problems. "The Feds are in cahoots with the cartels and that is treason. Taxation without representation is tyranny."
Gee whiz, you're on board that drug prohibition or any prohibition causes corruption.
Over all, my main point has been is that drug prohibitionist ignore the problems caused by prohibition. Many of the problems they blame on drug use is actually the result of the misuse of law and drug prohibition. Let's way up the costs and benefits of the law instead of continuing to ignore the costs.
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.