Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana

Author Topic: Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana  (Read 11306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
« on: August 19, 2013, 01:55:31 PM »
http://www.globalresearch.ca/five-reasons-cops-want-to-legalize-marijuana/5346057

Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana

More and more police officers are realizing the War on Drugs is a mistake

By Kristen Gwynne
Global Research, August 17, 2013
Rolling Stone, June 27 2013



Most people don’t think “cops” when they think about who supports marijuana legalization. Police are, after all, the ones cuffing stoners, and law enforcement groups have a long history of lobbying against marijuana policy reform. Many see this as a major factor in preventing the federal government from recognizing that a historic majority of Americans – 52 percent –  favors legalizing weed.

Top 10 Marijuana Myths and Facts

But the landscape is changing fast. Today, a growing number of cops are part of America’s “marijuana majority.” Members of the non-profit group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) say that loosening our pot policy wouldn’t necessarily condone drug use, but control it, while helping cops to achieve their ultimate goal of increasing public safety. Here are the five biggest reasons why even cops are starting to say, “Legalize It!”

1. It’s about public safety.

While marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, the black market associated with it can cause significant harm. Much like the prohibition of alcohol, marijuana’s illegality does not erase the profit incentive – instead, it establishes a risky, unregulated market in which violence and intimidation are used to settle disputes.

“When we ended the prohibition of alcohol, Al Capone was out of work the next day,” says Stephen Downing, Los Angeles’ former Deputy Chief of Police. “Our drug policy is really anti-public safety and pro-cartel, pro-street gang, because it keeps them in business.”

Marijuana trafficking represents a significant chunk of business for black-market cartels. Though the exact percentage of cartel profits from pot is disputed, lowball estimates fall at around 20 percent.

“During my time on the border, I saw literally tons of marijuana come over the border from Mexico,” says Jamie Haase, a former special agent in the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division. “Competition over the profits to be made from this illicit industry has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals in that country, and an ever-increasing amount of violence spilling over into the United States, where the Justice Department estimates Mexican cartels now operate in more than 1,000 American cities.”

2. Cops want to focus on crimes that hurt real victims.

In the past decade, police made more than 7 million marijuana arrests, 88 percent of them for possession alone. In 2010, states spent $3.6 billion enforcing the war on pot, with blacks nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested. That’s a lot of police time and resources wasted, says former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper, who had an “aha moment” about marijuana policy while working for the San Diego Police Department in the late 1960s.

“I had arrested a 19-year-old in his parents’ home for the possession of a very small quantity of marijuana, and put him in the backseat of a caged police car, after having kicked down his door,” recalls Stamper. While driving the prisoner to jail, he says, “I realized, mainly, that I could have been doing real police work, but instead I’m going to be out of service for several hours impounding the weed, impounding him, and writing arrest, impound, and narcotics reports. I was away from the people I had been hired to serve and in no position to stop a reckless drunk driver swerving all over the road, or to respond to a burglary in progress, or intervene in domestic violence situation.”

Cops have limited resources, and spending them on marijuana arrests will inevitably divert them from other policing. Adds Stamper, “In short, making a marijuana arrest for a simple possession case was no longer, for me, real police work.”

3. Cops want strong relationships with the communities they serve.

Baltimore narcotics veteran Neil Franklin says the prevalence of marijuana arrests, especially among communities of color, creates a “hostile environment” between police and the communities they serve. “Marijuana is the number one reason right now that police use to search people in this country,” he says. “The odor of marijuana alone gives a police officers probable cause to search you, your person, your car, or your home.”

Legalizing pot, says Franklin, could lead to “hundreds of thousands of fewer negative police and citizen contacts across this country. That’s a hell of an opportunity for law enforcement to rebuild some bridges in our communities – mainly our poor, black and Latino communities.”

Franklin adds that this would increase citizens’ trust in police, making them more likely to communicate and help solve more serious crimes. Building mutual respect would also protect cops on the job. Adds Franklin, “Too many police officers are killed or injured serving the War on Drugs as opposed to protecting and serving their communities.”

4. The war on pot encourages bad – and even illegal – police practices.

Downing says that monetary incentives for drug arrests, like asset forfeiture and federal grants, encourage an attitude where police will make drug arrests by any means necessary, from militarized SWAT raids to paid informants who admit to lying. “The overall effect is that we are losing ground in terms of the traditional peace officer role of protecting public safety, and morphing our local police officers into federal drug warriors,” Downing says.

Quotas and pressure for officers to make drug arrests – which profit police departments via federal funding and asset forfeiture – also encourage routine violations of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The NYPD, for example, stops and sometimes frisks well over 500,000 people a year, the vast majority of them youths of color – the basis for a pending federal lawsuit challenging the policy on constitutional grounds. While New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended stop-and-frisk as a way to get guns off the street, in fact, it’s more often used to arrest kids with small amounts of weed. Stamper adds that legalization would allow police officers “to see young adults not as criminals, but members of their community” – and start respecting those young people’s civil liberties.

5. Cops want to stop kids from abusing drugs.

Marijuana’s illegality has done very little to stop its use. A recent survey by the National Institutes of Health found that 36 percent of high school seniors had smoked marijuana in the past year.  Legalization would most likely involve age restrictions on marijuana purchases, while at the same time providing quality control over product. “The only way we can effectively control drugs is to create a regulatory system for all of them,” says Stamper.

“If you are truly a proponent of public safety, if you truly want safer communities, then it’s a no-brainer that we have to end drug prohibition and treat [marijuana] as a health issue, like we did with tobacco,” says Franklin. “Education and treatment is the most effective and cost-efficient way to reduce drug use.”

On the other hand, adds Franklin, “If you support a current system of drug prohibition, then you support the very same thing that the cartel and neighborhood gangs support. You might as well be standing next to them, shaking hands.  Because they don’t want an end to prohibition, either.”

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/five-reasons-cops-want-to-legalize-marijuana-20130627#ixzz2cD52CS1s
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2013, 01:58:47 PM »

                    [Image clickable]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2013, 02:14:35 PM »
To any of you so-called "social conservatives" out there -- particularly those who've been cheerleading the war on marijuana all these years -- who may be reading this, please understand that this issue isn't even about whether one is "pro-drug" or "anti-drug." It's about whether one is pro-property rights.

Property rights begin with the property each individual has in his or her own person, and logically extend from that to the fruits of his or her own labor:

-------------------------------

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself."

-- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, Ch. 5


"The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable."

-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Bk 1, Ch. 10, Pt 2


"The property rights that each citizen has in himself are the foundation of a free society."

-- James Bovard, Freedom In Chains, p. 86


"Libertarianism begins with self ownership."

-- David Bergland, Libertarianism In One Lesson, 7th ed., p. 35


"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life…Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life."

-- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2


"The right of life and liberty--that is to say, the right of the man to himself--is not really one right and the right of property another right. They are two aspects of the same perception--the right of property being but another side, a differently stated expression, of the right of man to himself. The right of life and liberty, and the right of the individual to himself, presupposes and involves the right of property, which is the exclusive right of the individual to the things his exertion has produced."

-- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 210

-------------------------------


Thus, anyone who opposes the outright and long-overdue repeal of laws that criminalize the mere possession of a plant has absolutely no business saying he or she believes in "property rights." Period. End of story.


-------------------------------

"At what point does behavior become so unacceptable that we should tell our government to lock people up? The answer, as explored in this book: We lock people up only when they physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

"Contained in this answer is an important assumption: after a certain age, our persons and property belong to us.

"Yes, if we harm ourselves it may emotionally harm others. That's unfortunate, but not grounds for putting us in jail. If it were, every time we stopped dating person A in order to date person B, we would run the risk of going to jail for hurting person A.  If person B were hurt by our being put in jail, person A could be put in jail for hurting person B. This would, of course, hurt person A's mother, who would see to it that person B would go to jail. Eventually, we'd all be in jail.

"As silly as that situation sounds, it is precisely the logic used by some to protect the idea of consensual crimes."

-- Peter McWilliams, Ain't Nobody's If You Do, pp. 3-4


"Drug-war proponents like to say: 'Well, why not just legalize murder and theft too?'  They cannot (or will not) see the distinction between conduct that involves the initiation of force against another and conduct that does not. Murder, theft, rape, assault, and battery mean that one person is violently interfering with another person's right to live his life the way he chooses. But the use of drugs and the like are the essence of living one's life the way he chooses. That is, they are the essence of freedom . If a person is not free to live his life the way he chooses (so long as it's peaceful), then how in the world can he be considered free? If a person is truly free, then he is able to engage in irresponsible and unhealthy conduct (so long as it is peaceful), and the state, through its laws, protects the exercise of the choice."



"The best use that could be made of our great law libraries…would be to send them to the paper mills....At the same time our statute-books are full of enactments which could, with advantage, be swept away. It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve."

-- Henry George, Social Problems, p. 173

-------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYTK0s7ZUw (Penn and Teller - War on Drugs)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2013, 02:18:54 PM »
Vices Are Not Crimes

A Vindication Of Moral Liberty

by Lysander Spooner
1875

I.

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.

II.

Every voluntary act of a man’s life is either virtuous or vicious. That is to say, it is either in accordance, or in conflict, with those natural laws of matter and mind, on which his physical, mental, and emotional health and well-being depend. In other words, every act of his life tends, on the whole, either to his happiness, or to his unhappiness. No single act in his whole existence is indifferent.

Furthermore, each human being differs in his physical, mental, and emotional constitution, and also in the circumstances by which he is surrounded, from every other human being. Many acts, therefore, that are virtuous, and tend to happiness, in the case of one person, are vicious, and tend to unhappiness, in the case of another person.

Many acts, also, that are virtuous, and tend to happiness, in the case of one man, at one time, and under one set of circumstances, are vicious, and tend to unhappiness, in the case of the same man, at another time, and under other circumstances.

III.

To know what actions are virtuous, and what vicious --- in other words, to know what actions tend, on the whole, to happiness, and what to unhappiness --- in the case of each and every man, in each and all the conditions in which they may severally be placed, is the profoundest and most complex study to which the greatest human mind ever has been, or ever can be, directed. It is, nevertheless, the constant study to which each and every man --- the humblest in intellect as well as the greatest --- is necessarily driven by the desires and necessities of his own existence. It is also the study in which each and every person, from his cradle to his grave, must necessarily form his own conclusions; because no one else knows or feels, or can know or feel, as he knows and feels, the desires and necessities, the hopes, and fears, and impulses of his own nature, or the pressure of his own circumstances.

IV.

It is not often possible to say of those acts that are called vices, that they really are vices, except in degree. That is, it is difficult to say of any actions, or courses of action, that are called vices, that they really would have been vices, if they had stopped short of a certain point. The question of virtue or vice, therefore, in all such cases, is a question of quantity and degree, and not of the intrinsic character of any single act, by itself. This fact adds to the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of any one’s --- except each individual for himself --- drawing any accurate line, or anything like any accurate line, between virtue and vice; that is, of telling where virtue ends, and vice begins. And this is another reason why this whole question of virtue and vice should be left for each person to settle for himself.

V.

Vices are usually pleasurable, at least for the time being, and often do not disclose themselves as vices, by their effects, until after they have been practised for many years; perhaps for a lifetime. To many, perhaps most, of those who practise them, they do not disclose themselves as vices at all during life. Virtues, on the other band, often appear so harsh and rugged, they require the sacrifice of so much present happiness, at least, and the results, which alone prove them to be virtues, are often so distant and obscure, in fact, so absolutely invisible to the minds of many, especially of the young, that, from the very nature of things, there can be no universal, or even general, knowledge that they are virtues. In truth, the studies of profound philosophers have been expended --- if not wholly in vain, certainly with very small results --- in efforts to draw the lines between the virtues and the vices.

If, then, it became so difficult, so nearly impossible, in most cases, to determine what is, and what is not, vice; and especially if it be so difficult, in nearly all cases, to determine where virtue ends, and vice begins; and if these questions, which no one can really and truly determine for anybody but himself, are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to inquire, investigate, reason, try experiments, judge, and ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice; in other words: what, on the whole, conduces to his happiness, and what, on the whole, tends to his unhappiness. If this great right is not to be left free and open to all, then each man’s whole right, as a reasoning human being, to" liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is denied him.

VI.

We all come into the world in ignorance of ourselves, and of everything around us. By a fundamental law of our natures we are all constantly impelled by the desire of happiness, and the fear of pain. But we have everything to learn, as to what will give us happiness, and save us from pain. No two of us are wholly alike, either physically, mentally, or emotionally; or, consequently, in our physical, mental, or emotional requirements for the acquisition of happiness, and the avoidance of unhappiness. No one of us, therefore, can learn this indispensable lesson of happiness and unhappiness, of virtue and vice, for another. Each must learn it for himself. To learn it, he must be at liberty to try all experiments that commend themselves to his judgment. Some of his experiments succeed, and, because they succeed, are called virtues; others fail, and, because they fail, are called vices. He gathers wisdom as much from his failures as from his successes; from his so-called vices, as from his so-called virtues. Both are necessary to his acquisition of that knowledge --- of his own nature, and of the world around him, and of their adaptations or non-adaptations to each other --- which shall show him how happiness is acquired, and pain avoided. And, unless he can be permitted to try these experiments to his own satisfaction, he is restrained from the acquisition of knowledge, and, consequently, from pursuing the great purpose and duty of his life.

VII.

A man is under no obligation to take anybody’s word, or yield to anybody's authority, on a matter so vital to himself, and in regard to which no one else has, or can have, any such interest as he. He cannot, if he would, safely rely upon the opinions of other men, because be finds that the opinions of other men do not agree. Certain actions, or courses of action, have been practised by many millions of men, through successive generations, and have been held by them to be, on the whole, conducive to happiness, and therefore virtuous. Other men, in other ages or countries, or under other condition, have held, as the result of their experience and observation, that these actions tended, on the whole, to unhappiness, and were therefore vicious. The question of virtue or vice, as already remarked in a previous section, has also been, in most minds, a question of degree; that is, of the extent to which certain actions should be carried; and not of the intrinsic character of any single act, by itself. The questions of virtue and vice have therefore been as various, and, in fact, as infinite, as the varieties of mind, body, and condition of the different individuals inhabiting the globe. And the experience of ages has left an infinite number of these questions unsettled. In fact, it can scarcely be said to have settled any of them.

VIII.

In the midst of this endless variety of opinion, what man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, "We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it? We have determined it, not only for ourselves, but for all others? And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion? We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by any one, and, consequently, no further acquisition of knowledge by anybody?"

Who are the men who have the right to say this? Certainly there are none such. The men who really do say it, are either shameless impostors and tyrants, who would stop the progress of knowledge, and usurp absolute control over the minds and bodies of their fellow men; and are therefore to be resisted instantly, and to the last extent; or they are themselves too ignorant of their own weaknesses, and of their true relations to other men, to be entitled to any other consideration than sheer pity or contempt.

We know, however, that there are such men as these in the world. Some of them attempt to exercise their power only within a small sphere, to wit, upon their children, their neighbors, their townsmen, and their countrymen. Others attempt to exercise it on a larger scale. For example, an old man at Rome, aided by a few subordinates, attempts to decide all questions of virtue and vice; that is, of truth or falsehood, especially in matters of religion. He claims to know and teach what religious ideas and practices are conducive, or fatal, to a man’s happiness, not only in this world, but in that which is to come. He claims to be miraculously inspired for the performance of this work; thus virtually acknowledging, like a sensible man, that nothing short of miraculous inspiration would qualify him for it. This miraculous inspiration, however, has been ineffectual to enable him to settle more than a very few questions. The most important to which common mortals can attain, is an implicit belief in his (the pope’s) infallibility! and, secondly, that the blackest vices of which they can be guilty are to believe and declare that he is only a man like the rest of them!

It required some fifteen or eighteen hundred years to enable him to reach definite conclusions on these two vital points. Yet it would seem that the first of these must necessarily be preliminary to his settlement of any other questions; because, until his own infallibility is determined, he can authoritatively decide nothing else. He has, however, heretofore attempted or pretended to settle a few others. And he may, perhaps, attempt or pretend to settle a few more in the future, if he shall continue to find anybody to listen to him. But his success, thus far, certainly does not encourage the belief that he will be able to settle all questions of virtue and vice, even in his peculiar department of religion, in time to meet the necessities of mankind. He, or his successors, will undoubtedly be compelled, at no distant day, to acknowledge that he has undertaken a task to which all his miraculous inspiration was inadequate; and that, of necessity, each human being must be left to settle all questions of this kind for himself. And it is not unreasonable to expect that all other popes, in other and lesser spheres, will some time have cause to come to the same conclusion. No one, certainly, not claiming supernatural inspiration, should undertake a task to which obviously nothing less than such inspiration is adequate. And, clearly, no one should surrender his own judgment to the teachings of others, unless he be first convinced that these others have something more than ordinary human knowledge on this subject.

If those persons, who fancy themselves gifted with both the power and the right to define and punish other men’s vices, would but turn their thoughts inwardly, they would probably find that they have a great work to do at home; and that, when that shall have been completed, they will be little disposed to do more towards correcting the vices of others, than simply to give to others the results of their experience and observation. In this sphere their labors may possibly be useful; but, in the sphere of infallibility and coercion, they will probably, for well-known reasons, meet with even less success in the future than such men have met with in the past.

IX.

It is now obvious, from the reasons already given, that government would be utterly impracticable, if it were to take cognizance of vices, and punish them as crimes. Every human being has his or her vices. Nearly all men have a great many. And they are of all kinds; physiological, mental, emotional; religious, social, commercial, industrial, economical, etc., etc. If government is to take cognizance of any of these vices, and punish them as crimes, then, to be consistent, it must take cognizance of all, and punish all impartially. The consequence would be, that everybody would be in prison for his or her vices. There would be no one left outside to lock the doors upon those within. In fact, courts enough could not be found to try the offenders, nor prisons enough built to hold them. All human industry in the acquisition of knowledge, and even in acquiring the means of subsistence, would be arrested: for we should all be under constant trial or imprisonment for our vices. But even if it were possible to imprison all the vicious, our knowledge of human nature tells us that, as a general rule, they would be far more vicious in prison than they ever have been out of it.

X.

A government that shall punish all vices impartially is so obviously an impossibility, that nobody was ever found, or ever will be found, foolish enough to propose it. The most that any one proposes is, that government shall punish some one, or at most a few, of what he esteems the grossest of them. But this discrimination is an utterly absurd, illogical, and tyrannical one. What right has any body of men to say, "The vices of other men we will punish; but our own vices nobody shall punish? We will restrain other men from seeking their own happiness, according to their own notions of it; but nobody shall restrain us from seeking our own happiness, according to our own notions of it? We will restrain other men from acquiring any experimental knowledge of what is conducive or necessary to their own happiness; but nobody shall restrain us from acquiring an experimental knowledge of what is conducive or necessary to our own happiness?"

Nobody but knaves or blockheads ever thinks of making such absurd assumptions as these. And yet, evidently, it is only upon such assumptions that anybody can claim the right to punish the vices of others, and at the same time claim exemption from punishment for his own.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2013, 02:29:22 PM »



Yet which one does our "wuving" government wage war against?   ::)

"More than 800,000 people are arrested for marijuana each year, the vast majority of them for simple possession."

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/07/hillary-clinton-we-cant-legali

Hillary Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs Because 'There Is Just Too Much Money in It'

Jacob Sullum
reason.com
Feb. 7, 2011

Last week, while visiting Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Denise Maerker of Televisa, who asked her opinion of proposals to address black-market violence by repealing drug prohibition. Clinton's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president (emphasis added):

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

Clinton evidently does not understand that there is so much money to be made by selling illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Prohibition not only enables traffickers to earn a "risk premium" that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be; it delivers this highly lucrative business into the hands of criminals who, having no legal recourse, resolve disputes by spilling blood. The 35,000 or so prohibition-related deaths that Mexico has seen since President Felipe Calderon began a crackdown on drugs in 2006 are one consequence of the volatile situation created by the government's arbitrary dictates regarding psychoactive substances. Pace Clinton, the way to "stop" the violent thugs who profit from prohibition is not to mindlessly maintain the policy that enriches them.

[via the Drug War Chronicle]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.naturalnews.com/035584_Obama_War_on_Drugs_prohibition.html

Obama betrays the left; cheers continued expansion of drug war, criminalization of plant-based medicine

by Mike Adams
NaturalNews.com
April 16, 2012

(NaturalNews) If you happen to need even more evidence that President Obama has gutted his campaign promises and betrayed not only the left but also African Americans who enthusiastically supported his election, he has just gone public with his support for the continued war on drugs. Keeping marijuana criminalized, it seems -- and keeping more African Americans in prison -- is a top priority for the Obama administration.

This means Obama supports the midnight DEA raids on our citizenry; the filling of prisons with small-time pot smokers; the disproportionately punitive sentences handed down to black men and women across America who aren't really criminals at all... they merely suffer from a chemical addiction that would more rightly be considered a medical issue.

Nearly every country in Latin America has now openly and publicize recognized that the so-called "war on drugs" is a complete and total failure. But Obama thinks it's just great! Fill the prisons! Prosecute more blacks! Buy more guns and night vision gear for the DEA! That's what Obama's America stands for, it seems.

"I personally and my administration's position is that legalization is not the answer," Obama said just hours before the meeting of Latin American leaders at the Convention Centre in Cartagena, Colombia, for the Americas Summit (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17716926). Meanwhile, Obama's top Secret Service agents and military commanders were banging Colombian whores in the background, then refusing to pay them their $47 prostitution fee. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035580_Secret_Service_Colombia_prostitutes...) Obama had "no comment" on that particular issue.

Let's get real about all this. Marijuana prohibition simply doesn't work. At least not for reducing crime and drug addiction. Anyone who thinks prohibition works is completely delusional. But it does work for certain special interests. What are those special interests, anyway?

Who BENEFITS from the continued criminalization of marijuana?

If you really want to know why prohibition remains in place with marijuana, it's simple to find out why. Just ask yourself "Who benefits?"

• The DEA. Without a drug "problem," the DEA won't get hundreds of millions of dollars worth of increases in operating budgets from the federal purse strings. If drugs were decriminalized, the DEA would have to be sharply downsized (which would be a great thing for liberty and safety but a terrible thing for the DEA honchos).

• Private prisons. Thanks to illegal agreements between prison operators and state governments, prisons can put prisoners to work at slave labor wages -- just a few cents an hour -- manufacturing goods that the corporate prison owners sell for pure profit. If you thought the Nike sweatshops in Asia were bad, go visit a prison in the USA some time and watch the slave labor taking place right here at home.

• Local police. The "drug war" is the excuse that local police departments use to receive more grant money for weapons, assault gear and now even armored assault vehicles to be used against the citizens. Without the drug war excuse, all this grant money disappears and these cops have to go back to actually serving the community instead of bashing in doors like a bunch of cocaine cowboys.

• The government drug runners! It's now a well-known fact that the ATF, DEA and other government agencies are all heavily involved in running drugs across America. Just Google any of these terms if you want to check it out for yourself. The ATF is even engaged in money laundering through the globalist banks. This is why government crackdowns on drugs are highly selectively -- drug raids are really just a way to eliminate the competition so that the biggest drug dealer of all -- the government itself -- can continue to rake in the maximum profits. Legalizing drugs would obviously cause street prices to collapse, sucking all the profits out of the government-run drug business.

• Local District Attorneys and prosecutors. Without the drug war to give them a juicy field of easy targets to prosecute, their careers would take a huge hit. It's so much harder to arrest real criminals than to go after pot smokers and raw milk farmers, isn't it? Gee, imagine the difficulty of actually fighting REAL crime for a change?

• Big Government. The entire government benefits from the continued criminalization of drugs. For starters, it establishes the outrageous precedent that government can outlaw a native plant -- even a plant that has grown wild across North America for hundreds of years. This alone is an outrageous encroachment on fundamental human freedom. Beyond that, the government can always point to "drug violence" as another excuse to squash our freedoms and put in place a tyrannical police state. It's all "for your own good," of course. Isn't it always?

• Big Pharma and the hospital industry. Because recreational drugs are illegal, they're often cut with dangerous chemicals that cause liver damage and kidney damage. This results in yet more repeat business for hospitals and the drug industry. If street drugs were legalized, they would be standardized and regulated, and adulteration of those products would be extremely rare. They would be safer to use, in other words, which is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry is dead set against. They only make money when people are damaged or sick from using street drugs concocted in somebody's trailer.

Who LOSES from the drug war? You!

So we've covered the beneficiaries of the drug war, but who loses from it? You do, of course: Your liberties, freedoms, tax dollars and personal safety are all threatened by the existence of the war on drugs. Decriminalizing and regulating these drugs would have an enormously positive impact on you and your life.

If drugs were decriminalized, here's what would happen:

• Drug gangs would vanish as their source of revenues (illegal drugs at black market prices) dry up.

• Drug-related crime would sharply fall.

• State revenues would skyrocket from the regulated sale of legalized marijuana.

• The corrupt prison industry would collapse to perhaps only 25% of its current size.

• Your personal safety and security would be greatly enhanced due to the lack of drug violence, shootings, home invasions and more.

• Mexican drug gangs would lose their power base, resulting in a sharp drop in crime along the border.

• Former "criminal" pot smokers would once again become taxpaying members of the workforce, contributing to the financial upkeep of society rather than draining it as prisoners.

• The happiness index across society would sharply rise.

Even the Red Cross says decriminalize marijuana

It's all pure economics, my friends. Cause and effect. Legalize recreational drugs and you end the violence, the crime, the prison system overload and the entire underground market for the stuff.

It's all so obvious that even the Red Cross has called for decriminalization (http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/2012/03/red-cross-calls-for-drug....).

At the same time, countless members of the FBI, DEA and active-duty police organizations are also openly calling for decriminalization (http://www.leap.cc/).

The rational argument for ending prohibition is further detailed at www.Norml.org

There are no rational reasons for keeping marijuana criminalized. There are only political reasons for doing so. That's why Obama continues to support the irrational war on drugs -- because it's a political issue.

Obama, the betrayer of the political left

Obama, of course, is a teleprompter-reading puppet of the global elite. He does what they tell him to do, and right now they're telling him to keep pushing Drug War propaganda because it's a highly effective way to expand the police state and keep people living in fear while denying them access to plant-based medicine.

Obama, it turns out, has betrayed the left so many times I can hardly keep count: He supports the GMO industry, he signed the NDAA which expands secret arrests and secret Gitmo-style prisons, he's an opponent of farm and food freedom (http://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply....) and he has proven himself to be nothing more than a big business operative who defends the status quo while preaching "hope and change" that he never delivers.

Obama has assaulted free speech, due process (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html), medical freedom and parental rights. In doing so, he has betrayed many of the top priorities of the very people who once put him into office.

He wants to keep marijuana criminalized because that's what the police state fascist system of corporate control wants.

Of course, this doesn't mean the alternatives we're given are going to be any better. This is not some pitch for Romney, for God's sake. That guy is just as much of a corporate sellout as Obama (and Bush before him). Elections are created to present the illusion that the People have a choice when, in reality, all they're voting for is which color of puppet they want to see on television while we're all being imprisoned, exploited, enslaved and oppressed by a growing fascist state.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-libertarians-advocate-everyone-go-out-run-around-with-no-clothes-on-and-smoke-pot/

Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate “Everyone Go Out… Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 14, 2013



In an effort to further woo the Republican establishment ahead of a probable presidential run, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has demeaned the libertarian philosophy of his father, former Texas representative Ron Paul.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” he said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

Rand Paul made the comment at a sold-out Republican dinner in Iowa, the state where the first caucuses are held in the lead up to presidential nominations.

Paul will also visit two other primary states, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He will meet with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus later this month in an effort deliver his libertarian and tea party followers into the Republican establishment fold.

He also plans to deliver a speech at the Reagan Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Reagan, who upheld the anti-libertarian policies of big government and the warfare state, is often described as a libertarian conservative, same as Rand Paul is now being described.

In addition to visiting primary states, Paul will meet with evangelical pastors in an effort to woo the conservative Christian vote.

Some of the pastors “who traveled with Paul, a Methodist, said they engaged in deep conversations with him about the Bible and his faith. Several of the pastors said they are still assessing the senator’s views,” The Washington Post reports.

“Straight libertarianism has nothing Christian about it,” pastor Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa, told the newspaper. “I know a lot of people attribute him to be a libertarian. My impression so far is that he’s not as libertarian as possibly his father was, but I’d like to explore that more.”

Sherman traveled with Paul to Israel in January. The trip aligned the Senator from Kentucky more closely to the neocon faction of the Republican party and its Israel-centric policies.

“Absolutely we stand with Israel,” he told Breitbart News after the tour. “What I think we should do is announce to the world — and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

“The Israel trip served a dual purpose, drawing Paul closer to evangelicals, who identify with the Jewish state and push for strengthened U.S. aid to Israel, and giving him a chance to separate his foreign policy views from those of his father, who is a critic of U.S. financial aid to Israel and other countries,” the Post reports.

Unlike his father, Paul believes the United States should keep many of its overseas military bases. “There are some who want to come completely home. Some want to stay forever. And the answer might be somewhere in the middle that we’ll still have bases in places, but we don’t necessarily have to maybe have 900 bases. Maybe we have less,” he said in April, embracing the neocon military stance.

Sherman said Paul has turned his back on other libertarian issues as well. “He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” he said.

“He’s closer to our philosophy than he is to what I would define as the hyper-libertarian position,” said David Lane, an organizer of evangelical pastors and voters who arranged Paul’s trip to Israel.

Appearing before the Heritage Foundation in February, Paul paid homage to the neocon vision and the war on Islam.

“Radical Islam is no fleeting fad but a relentless force,” he said. “Though at times stateless, radical Islam is also supported by radicalized nations such as Iran. Though often militarily weak, radical Islam makes up for its lack of conventional armies with unlimited zeal.”

In June, we said Paul’s “absorption” of the neocon agenda should have set off alarm bells in the Tea Party.

However, thanks to a successful operation to domesticate the Tea Party – originally a libertarian movement kick started by follower’s of Rand’s father – by seasoned establishment Republican operatives, Rand Paul’s pro-Israel and neocon sympathetic pronouncements did not send even a ripple across the Tea Party pond.

There was little protest after Paul threw his support behind the consummate establishment Republican, Mitt Romney, the favored candidate of the neocons. “Paul’s support of Romney translates into support for more neocon wars, more mass murder, and more tyranny at home,” we wrote before Obama was reappointed for a second term.

“How is it possible Rand Paul would consent to crawling into bed with this gang of war criminals? Is it possible he was a neocon all along a rode the coattails of his father’s reputation in order to get elected to the Senate?” we asked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sofwJ1qfJw (Master political manipulator, Glenn Beck, takes libertarians to task for criticizing Rand Paul.)

Now Rand Paul is being preened as presidential material. It is yet another slick packaging deal by the establishment. For politically naďve Americans tired of the old left-vs-right board game that invariably puts big government warmongers into the White House, Rand Paul’s middle of the road Republicanism with its minimalisitc libertarian window dressing and constitutional rhetoric is designed to have presidential appeal for a large number of disgruntled Americans.

If Paul is elected in 2016 – and even the optimists agree this is a serious long shot – he will undoubtedly follow the establishment script. Rand Paul is being groomed as the Tea Party candidate now that the Tea Party is user friendly for establishment Republicans and can be counted to stand up and cheer when the establishment requires audience participation.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,145
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2013, 03:28:12 PM »
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Juntawatch

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
  • "This ain't Rock-n'-Roll;     This is Genocide."
Re: Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2013, 03:26:00 PM »
 I tell you why I want it more legally freely available. So as I can auto-treat my often very painful, as like now, almost disabling Neuropathic Pain, or Neuropathy. It's certainly worth a try as it works distinctly well for people with far more serious nerve pain complaints like ME.

 As for the effect it has on the peoples' mind. It's quite simple. Tends to bring out your predominant and/or latent behaviours unless you're fully in check of yourself, you know watching yourself without being neurotic. That's why people tend to get paranoid I think. It may be the struggle that's initiated between the individual person's ego (a good thing) and the super-ego of the State which controls our normal daily routines and programming. People get paranoid and think someone's watching them when it's just your own (AND THAT of OTHERS) conditioning of the subconscious being exposed, like a truth. As I remember from the good old days when everyone, and I mean everyone I met smoked, say in the late 70's, it was just a general policy to 'remain cool' when you got paranoid. It got a bit weird, like sympathising with your torturer; -  if you weren't having a good 'Trip' or 'Experience'.

Make of that what you will. Fact is, America's prisons, and increasingly so in the EU and UK too, are filled to the brim with people who were done for cultivating their own and smoking a joint or two for personal medicinal use. The Situation can't get any worse. It can be sustained for TOO LONG.

They could start napalming city areas suspected of harbouring 'pot-heads' and trust me, there'd be plenty of Idiots on here, who'd go straight to mike and say: " ... how cool is that, napalming the stoned Dope-Heads, first thing at morning light"! No names mentioned.
— Whatever it takes to keep your Public Image up.

 As for Mary Jane: It's a mind expansion drug. That's the reason the establishment hates it. It's now a drug available to all the pseudo-elites, those who think they're going to be inheriting power & control under 'The New Order'. Thus it was in the past too. They'll be smoking it on the one hand, whilst pointing out people to be arrested with the other. That's why the cops kept the stashes from drug hauls in the past.

 We're getting there. Apparently there are trial areas in England where you can get prescribed the THC compound or derivative from specialist Pain-Management Physicians.

 Personally, I don't care. The Brain must be nurtured to health. In my experience the human brain can't be tempted into a chemical dependence in order to function better. It has to be able to run completely on it's own. Change your perspective for a while by all means, if it takes a chemical. When the Psychological repetitive need or 'Dependancy' creeps surrepticiously in, and we always deny it's existence, then the problem has already started.

 Which is the Bigger Problem: -
— The Establishment/State Management of the War-on-Drugs or the Drugs themselves?

There, I think I've finished. God Man, what am I smoking? Just won't stop going on and on and on ...
"The Dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire."
2 Peter, 2:2.

'The Intellectual, the Plebitian & the Proletariat could be treated; just as wasps are treated.'
- Sanctimonious III. 1st Century.