Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LP member creates an online "Drug War Carol"
libertarian party ^ | 2/19/03 | libertarian party

Posted on 02/19/2003 10:16:20 AM PST by freepatriot32

February 19] An LP member has created "A Drug War Carol" --an online graphic novel about the War on Drugs modeled on Charles Dickens’ "A Christmas Carol."

The 64-page story, which was funded through the DRCNet.org Foundation, was written by Libertarian Susan W. Wells, with artwork by Scott Bieser.

It is designed to tell people the truth about the human suffering caused by the War on Drugs, said Wells.

"If people were to learn the truth, I’m sure the drug war would be over in months," she said. "Can you imagine the impact this work could have if every drug warrior were to start to be confronted with dozens, or even hundreds of people holding signs with cartoons from ‘A Drug War Carol’ every time he or she spoke in public?"

In "A Drug War Carol," the Drug Czar attends a medical marijuana rally in Washington, DC and orders the arrest of a medical marijuana patient. Later that night, the Drug Czar is visited by the ghost of the first drug czar, who shows him the misery caused by the War on Drugs. The Drug Czar, who sees the error of his ways, publicly repents on Christmas Day and frees all medical marijuana patients.

In the future, "A Drug War Carol" may be published as a booklet in paper form, said Wells.

"A Drug War Carol" can be viewed at: www.adrugwarcarol.com.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: blasphemy; book; carol; charles; christmas; comic; dickens; drug; garbage; losersareusers; marijuana; medical; online; prodrug; propoganda; usersarelosers; war; wodlist
interesting take on the war on (some)drugs
1 posted on 02/19/2003 10:16:20 AM PST by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Juvenile, but typical of Libertarians.
2 posted on 02/19/2003 10:19:03 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping
3 posted on 02/19/2003 10:57:12 AM PST by jmc813 (Do tigers sleep in lily patches? Do rhinos run from thunder?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Just like the Libertarian effort to recall Grey Davis is juvenile? Let me know when the California Republican Party finds the guts to get onboard.
4 posted on 02/19/2003 10:59:55 AM PST by jmc813 (Do tigers sleep in lily patches? Do rhinos run from thunder?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Just like the Libertarian effort to recall Grey Davis is juvenile?

It IS juvenile. He was just re-elected two months ago.

A total waste of time.

5 posted on 02/19/2003 11:08:48 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Just like the Libertarian effort to recall Grey Davis is juvenile? Let me know when the California Republican Party finds the guts to get onboard.

Chant after me....

Repocrats GOOD ! Libertarians BAD !

Demopublicans GOOD ! Libertarians BAD !

See, it's not so hard once you've mastered the powerful logic and detailed facts behind this opinion !

< /sarcasm >

6 posted on 02/19/2003 11:10:07 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
From reading the article, the supporters of the recall presented several valid reasons. Are you saying the Clinton impeachment was juvenile as well?
7 posted on 02/19/2003 11:13:17 AM PST by jmc813 (Do tigers sleep in lily patches? Do rhinos run from thunder?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Isn't that cute? Little marijuana plants as markers. See kids, marijuana is your friend! And the book is written in Libertarian (comic book) format -- easy to read! Seriesly!

I thought the WOD stood for the War on Drugs, not the War on Medical Marijuana.

8 posted on 02/19/2003 11:29:10 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
From reading the article, the supporters of the recall presented several valid reasons. Are you saying the Clinton impeachment was juvenile as well?

Clinton broke the law. I'm not aware of any law broken by Davis. He just didn't reveal the size of the budget deficit.

Knock yourself out if it makes you feel good, but I predict these well-meaning people are not going to get the 1.2 million signatures needed for the recall.

Davis was re-elected in November. You're asking voters to admit they made a mistake the day-before-yesterday, and they're not going to do that.

9 posted on 02/19/2003 11:29:13 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Isn't that cute?
You're far more cute...
Is there such a thing as Medical Methamphetamine?
Your ignorant self doesn't even know about Desoxyn.
Go play in a corner.
10 posted on 02/19/2003 11:43:23 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


One the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
A reefer in a pear tree

One the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Two roach clips
and a reefer in a pear tree

One the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Three cannibas seeds
Two roach clips
and a reefer in a pear tree

One the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Four NORML t-shirts
Three cannibas seeds
Two roach clips
and a reefer in a pear tree

One the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Fiiiiiive golllldennnn bonnnnnnngs
Four NORML t-shirts
Three cannibas seeds
Two roach clips
and a reefer in a pear tree
etc.
11 posted on 02/19/2003 1:10:29 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; *Wod_list
Juvenile

How so? Is post #11 also juvenile?

12 posted on 02/19/2003 1:21:59 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
YES...he should be shot on sight (or is it "shot on site"?)
13 posted on 02/19/2003 1:33:59 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In the spirit of the post, "God bless us, every one!"

You'll have to picture me shaking my little crutch.
14 posted on 02/19/2003 1:39:35 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
It was overwritten, to be sure, but it led me to this little gem:

JUST WHAT WAS HE SMOKING?

Now that the latest tapes from the Nixon White House have been released, the press is all over them with characteristic glee, eager as always to remind us that not long ago the leader of the free world was buggier than a flophouse blanket. Don't you get tired of this?

Me neither. So when researcher Doug McVay from Common Sense for Drug Policy sent me tapes he culled from Nixon's Oval Office rants about drugs, I pounced on them. I figured it would be a welcome respite from Nixon's recent rants about Jews.

From the Weed Screed, May 26, 1971:

"You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists."

In my professional capacity, I diagnose a delusional state of mind. It's simple logic: In a previously released rant, Nixon and Billy Graham gnash and froth over how Jews control the media. How can most Jews be psychiatrists and still control the media? Nixon does not explain.

But he does explain many other things in these drug tapes, including the insidious nexus between drugs, homosexuality, communism and, of course, Jews.

The excerpts begin with the Nixon doctrine on why marijuana is much worse than alcohol: It is because people drink "to have fun" but they smoke marijuana "to get high." This distinction was evidently enormously significant to Nixon, because he repeats it twice.

In an excruciating sequence from Sept. 9, 1971, Nixon is meeting with former Pennsylvania governor Raymond P. Shafer. Shafer heads a presidential commission on drug policy that Nixon has heard might be flirting with the notion of recommending the decriminalization of marijuana.

"You're enough of a pro," Nixon tells Shafer, "to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we're planning to do, would make your commission just look bad as hell."

Shafer begins to stammer. Nixon appears to be telling his commission, in advance, what to conclude.

If there is any doubt about this, Nixon erases it instantly. He instructs Shafer not to seek input from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which he seems to think is soft on drugs, apparently because it is filled with, you know, psychiatrists:

"As an old prosecutor, I don't mind somebody putting it in J. Edgar Hoover's hands, but I come down very hard on the side of putting it in, uh, hardheaded doctors, rather than a bunch of muddle-headed psychiatrists."

Shafer can barely get a word in edgewise.

"They're all muddle-headed," Nixon says. "You know what I mean?"

The governor's discomfort is palpable. You can almost hear him hooking a finger in his collar.

Nixon continues, making things perfectly clear: "But anyway, the thing to do now is to alert the country to the problem and say now, this far, no farther, and I think that's what you want to do, take a strong line."

Suddenly, people start getting up. The meeting is over. Before Shafer knows what hits him, the president is pushing him out the door, with a gift of golf balls and cuff links.

Eventually, Shafer's commission would recommend decriminalization. The Nixon White House was appalled, understandably: Nixon saw drugs as a threat to the vitals of the republic -- right up there, hand in hand, with the scourge of homosexuality.

Nixon expounds on this in a lengthy monologue on May 13, 1971. On this day, he makes it clear that he does not like gay people. Northern California, he says, has gotten so "faggy" that "I won't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."

Nixon loves this subject. He is nearly unstoppable on it. His top aides H.R. "Bob" Haldeman and John Ehrlichman are in the room, but they barely speak beyond monosyllabic sycophancies. It takes the president a while to get to the point, which begins with his review of a popular TV sitcom he has just watched, apparently for the first time:

"Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. . . . The son-in-law apparently goes both ways."

Nixon seems to have concluded, against all evidence, that Meathead is bisexual. Possibly it is the length of his hair. Another character in the show, Nixon reports, is "obviously queer. He wears an ascot, and so forth."

The president is outraged that this filth should appear on TV:

"The point that I make is that, goddamn it, I do not think that you glorify on public television homosexuality. You don't glorify it, John, anymore than you glorify, uh, whores."

The president asserts that America is in jeopardy from this Archie Bunker gay thing:

"I don't want to see this country to go that way. You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates."

Ehrlichman interrupts to reassure his boss. Socrates, he says, "never had the influence that television had."

Precisely, precisely. Nixon is on a roll, lecturing like a history professor:

"Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. . . . You know what happened to the popes? It's all right that popes were laying the nuns."

Someone laughs nervously. Nixon bulls on, not a hint of humor in his voice.

"That's been going on for years, centuries, but when the popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell in, I don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual. . . . Now, that's what happened to Britain, it happened earlier to France. And let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn it, they root them out, they don't let 'em hang around at all. You know what I mean? I don't know what they do with them."

"Dope? Do you think the Russians allow dope? Hell no. Not if they can catch it, they send them up. You see, homosexuality, dope, uh, immorality in general: These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing it. They're trying to destroy us."

Well, that was 31 years ago, and I am happy to report that the Jew-homo-doper-Commie-shrink-lefty-pope cabal has not, to date, destroyed us. Nixon seems to have been wrong on this one.

Of course, it's not the first time he was wrong. Yes, he was a crook. No, it wasn't a third-rate burglary. And yes -- we do still have Dick Nixon to kick around. Apparently, thanks to his tapes, forever and ever and ever.

15 posted on 02/19/2003 1:45:19 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Ah, but funny. And dig the ghost of Christmas present:

And he attempts to deal with the ghost of Christmas future:

Fairly well drawn graphics. The history is accurate as far as it goes, also. Interesting.

16 posted on 02/19/2003 2:16:32 PM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Alaska Libertarians file suit over rejected hemp initiative another good article about how far the goverment will go to keep the war on drugs going
17 posted on 02/20/2003 10:14:42 AM PST by freepatriot32 (Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Juvenile, but typical of Libertarians

Gee, that's right. It's just not on the same towering intellectual level as Reefer Madness.

18 posted on 02/20/2003 10:34:00 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson