The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise

Schaffer Library ^ | 1992 | Milton Friedman

[philman_36]

Uh why then is socialist #1 and good hillary friend, George Soros, the main backer of drug legalization?
Do you have some info to back this up that everyone can examine and make their own conclusion from instead of just "taking your word for it"?

[hove]

The drug war is a socialist enterprise. Liberals love the war on drugs. Tax the people...create agencies. Billions of taxpayers dollars going to cops,courts,prisons, and not to mention crooks. And for what. Nothing...that's what. Money down the drain. But then that's what liberals do best. Waste taxpayers money.

[headsonpikes]

"Oh, just sell it the way you do alcohol and cigarettes. Why?"

I'm with you bobby; NO WAY should the Feds be taxing the good herb the way they do booze and smokes!

That would be a travesty; God gave us the 'green herbs' for our use, not for fat slug bureaucrats to collect their pensions from.

;^) heheheh...

[dcwusmc]

So let me ask just what you have to contribute to this discussion besides stomping your little feet and wishing that all this would just go away? Milton Friedman has more sense in his little finger than you do in your body and KC's and CJ's all put together. Get over it, control freak. We're gonna RESTORE the Constitution and put FedGov OUT of 99 percent of the illegal stuff it's doing, INCLUDING your precious War on Americans you call a war on drugs. People are waking up to your lies and distortions... live with it!

[headsonpikes]

George Soros is a deep cover agent for the Forces of Light, apparently.

Don't blow his cover, the Reds will arrest and shoot him.

[jodorowsky]

Uh why then is socialist #1 and good hillary friend, George Soros, the main backer of drug legalization?

• Fallacy of composition
• Guilt by association

[Dane]

Do you have some info to back this up that everyone can examine and make their own conclusion from instead of just "taking your word for it"?

Uh George Soros is the main benefactor of the Lindesmith Center, the Sierra Club of drug legalization.

Of course you already knew that.

[philman_36]

Are you getting your information from articles such as Strange Bedfellows?
Do you think that Thomas Constantine, head of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, might have a slightly biased view or is he being "completely honest"?
You got a money trail for us to follow?
Or maybe you get your views from someplace like National Families in Action and their Guide to the Drug Legalization Movement with articles such as Trying to Fool the Public About Legalization.
Where you get your concepts from helps the rest of us understand where you're coming from.
Of course, all of this material is subject to rebuttal, both pro and con. Those articles, like your attitude and opinions, are strictly a pro view. You'll probably agree wholeheartedly with everything mentioned. However, you don't ever seem to want to look at an opposing viewpoint. Whether that is from narrowmindedness, closedmindedness or something else, I don't know.

[Dane]

Whether that is from narrowmindedness, closedmindedness or something else, I don't know.

Actually it is my answer to Libertarian hubrismindedness, idealoguemindedness, and shutmyeyestodrugabusebecuaseIdon'tseetherealworldmindedness.

[Search4Truth]

Dane, what are gonna do when they legalize pot, move to Singapore? LOL.

[philman_36]

NORML has been around a lot longer. Guess what...they're not funded by Soros as far as I can tell.
And here is something for you to consider...
Who Funds Prohibition?
The National Drug Control Budget for national and international law enforcement has risen dramatically from 1991 to 2000, surging 68% in ten years, from under $11 billion to nearly $18.5 billion. The separate demand reduction allocation similarly swelled 61% from $3.7 billion to nearly $6 billion. Nevertheless, marijuana use among twelfth graders rose even more dramatically, more than doubling between 1992 and 1997. Clearly, there is no correlation between anti-drug spending, both federal and private, and drug use.
Furthermore, though General McCaffrey labels the drug reform movement as "carefully camouflaged", he does not mention that the leading sponsors of the anti-drug movement are scarcely revealed. Few know that the companies from which they purchase products, or whose stock they own, also fund these pro-drug war organizations.
And he certainly fails to include the budgets of pro-Drug War groups when lambasting the size of the supposedly formidable anti-drug organizations.
These figures are quite minute compared to the considerable assets of the prohibitionist side. The budget of NORML and its sister NORML Foundation, from 1980 to 1999, has never exceeded $750,000. NORML has no endowments and the NORML Foundation received its first $1 million matching grant just this year. For the past several years, the Soros backed Lindesmith Center and Drug Policy Foundation have worked within the $5 -7 million neighborhood to fund harm reduction and drug policy reform, needle exchange grants and OSI grants to numerous organizations. Compare this to the nearly $40 million private pro-Drug War groups had at their disposal and the sharp rhetoric falls flat.
Further, the lack of adequate funding appears to be the major reason behind the supposed "carefully camouflaged" claim of General McCaffrey. There would be little secrecy to this movement, if not for the lack of financial support. As public policy groups intent on influencing public opinion, secrecy would be the least desirable quality to maintain.
Moreover, the major donors to the drug reform movement, New York financier George Soros, insurance magnate Peter Lewis and educator-entrepreneur John Sperling, are open about their support of the issue. The media, the Congress as well as Mr. McCaffrey have highlighted Mr. Soros as a supporter of changes to drug policy on numerous occasions.
In clear comparison, it is obvious that the drug reform movement is badly overmatched in a struggle of truly David and Goliath proportions. But the girth and strength of the prohibitionists is nonetheless hardly enough to keep teen drug use rates down, let alone stable. It is clear that increases in funding have had no discernable effect on use rates. And the current Ad campaign of $1 billion over five years will have the same lack of effect.

Some good information in there for you.
It seems you are right, in part. Three men are the major donors to the drug reform movement. Does it necessarily mean something? NO, not in the least, no matter what your "implications" are!

[philman_36]

shutmyeyestodrugabusebecuaseIdon'tseetherealworldmindedness
Too funny!
yourmindisathingthatisterriblywasted

[BlazingArizona]

because there's more personal gain in it for them to push the war on drugs. Not only do their minions get big offices and legions of followers, but there's also political advantage.

Political advantage, my rosy pink Daschle. What keeps the WOD going is the loot that any little tin dictator in the law-enforcement field gets to seize from the public without due process. There are whole county governments that thrive as highwaymen, living off money and goods stolen from "profiled" travelers passing through.

[philman_36]

Any comments on the opposing viewpoint?

[philman_36]

Well, Dane, since you're refusing to reply I'd like to personally thank you anyway, once again, for drawing me into a conversation where I can present everyone with a little bit more information and a different viewpoint than they might've had before the thread started.
Your thoughts and beliefs have been greatly instructional and instrumental in showing...something. I'm not sure what that "something" is to each seperate FReeper and lurker, but it's "something".

[snefling]

There are whole county governments that thrive as highwaymen, living off money and goods stolen from "profiled" travelers passing through.

The motto I live by is "he who complains has already lost". Why not join the winners instead of constantly complaining about the results? The bottom line is that whether or not one agrees that the WOD is a bad idea (myself included), there's something disturbing about seemingly intelligent people constantly banging their heads against a wall.

Life is too short to waste on losing propositions; the amount of time fighting this issue could have been more profitably spent catering to the insatiable appetite of the drug warriors.

[Dakmar]

For only a small service fee I can get you the documents necessary to copyright those words. Oh, btw, you might not have to pay taxes anymore either, but we'd best keep mum about that for a little while. If we tell everyone about this I'm going to run out of forms. I'm just making this special offer to you because I like you.

[Dakmar]

Uh why then is socialist #1 and good hillary friend, George Soros, the main backer of drug legalization?

What, you've never seen pictures of Soros' giant dope plantantions he got down in Hungaria?

[A CA Guy]

I see an obsession of drugs here on FR with all the drug threads!
Plus these Addicted Warriors help get Democrats elected instead of conservatives.
Don't get the attraction here for them in a conservative forum.
I guess the Libertarian home page is so vacant they have to ruin this site.

[Dakmar]

I see an obsession of drugs here on FR with all the drug threads! You seem to be gravitating to these threads yourself.
Plus these Addicted Warriors help get Democrats elected instead of conservatives. I've always voted Republican, except for 1988, because GHWB had that one sown up, so I voted LP.
Don't get the attraction here for them in a conservative forum. Maybe if you took the time to notice, a lot of us anti-WOD posters have more in common with you than you think.
I guess the Libertarian home page is so vacant they have to ruin this site.The LP does more damage to conservative/libertarian philosophy every single day than David Duke did to the Republicans "Southern Strategy" in a decade.