I'd like to think it was more Freudian. Hillary should know a great deal about it, since Barry Seal used to fly his C130 right over her house all the time.
choff wrote:I'd like to think it was more Freudian. Hillary should know a great deal about it, since Barry Seal used to fly his C130 right over her house all the time.
I see we are on the same page. Did you read the Narco News links from
Yep, that's why I support a top down approach to the drug problem as opposed to bottom up. Go after the drug money laundering on Wall St. and you'll end up arresting the same people responsible for 08's financial fraud. It would end the stalemate in Washington since so many politicians would be incarcerated and replaced.
So much easier to concentrate law enforcements resources on a few hundred perpetrators as opposed to millions of low level minor offenders.
Something would have to 'give' in society as a result. Doesn't require a political movement, just the basic enforcement of existing laws.
There was mention about a month or two ago about a case before the courts, an association of black police officers opposed to drug war discrimination. Did anything come of that?
choff wrote:Yep, that's why I support a top down approach to the drug problem as opposed to bottom up. Go after the drug money laundering on Wall St. and you'll end up arresting the same people responsible for 08's financial fraud. It would end the stalemate in Washington since so many politicians would be incarcerated and replaced.
So much easier to concentrate law enforcements resources on a few hundred perpetrators as opposed to millions of low level minor offenders.
Something would have to 'give' in society as a result. Doesn't require a political movement, just the basic enforcement of existing laws.
There was mention about a month or two ago about a case before the courts, an association of black police officers opposed to drug war discrimination. Did anything come of that?
re: 'the war on drugs' Vs. 'decriminalisation' Vs. 'open economic/fiscal and legal incorporation', i think the are three principle hurdles for any government, even supposing that they were minded to engage with the issue seriously, that is:
- 'public acceptance' - equated with the prevailing senses of 'common morality', 'public rational', 'safety/health factors', 'media attitudes/motivations',
- practical difficulties' - eg: 'monitoring', 'enforcement', 'tax collection', 'health care', etc - albeit, i too recognise, these factors would likely be less onerous and damaging that what we currently have,
- 'legal risk' - in effect, any government introducing such measures or 'relaxations' could be seen as 'endorsing the use of...' - which, if the recent class actions associated with tobacco smoking is anything to go by, is 'no-go land'.
crazy situation though at present, i agree with you MSimon.
Ah, I though it was an actual case before the courts. I recall something about a John Loftus involved in a lawsuit by former DOJ agents regarding selective prosecution. If remembered correctly, thrown out by the judge because they couldn't show how they were victims.
That's why if a few million former drug crime inmates got involved in a class action suit over same, it would be to public too be ignored my the mainstream media. Especially if the same former agents and others were willing to testify. A judge couldn't just publicly fudge to protect the corrupt system.
The internet gets discredited by mainstream media, but if only a 10th of what you can find out about the drug war online is true, it's mainly a matter of forcing it out into the cold light of day.
Why should millions of poor people get busted for drugs while the big shots walk free?
choff wrote:Ah, I though it was an actual case before the courts. I recall something about a John Loftus involved in a lawsuit by former DOJ agents regarding selective prosecution. If remembered correctly, thrown out by the judge because they couldn't show how they were victims.
That's why if a few million former drug crime inmates got involved in a class action suit over same, it would be to public too be ignored my the mainstream media. Especially if the same former agents and others were willing to testify. A judge couldn't just publicly fudge to protect the corrupt system.
The internet gets discredited by mainstream media, but if only a 10th of what you can find out about the drug war online is true, it's mainly a matter of forcing it out into the cold light of day.
Why should millions of poor people get busted for drugs while the big shots walk free?
The press in this country is just as controlled by the cartels as the press in Mexico - the cartels are just more discreet here. They don't go after reporters. They control the editors.
Stuff gets through but it never is a national issue. Look at how Gary Webb was treated re: CIA involvement. That did go national. He was tarred. Then a couple of years later when it all quieted down his observations were confirmed.
Why do the big shots walk? Well it has ALWAYS been that way. As long as they use and don't deal they are basically immune.
The fewer the resources you have the more draconian the punishment. There is no equality before the law. It is human nature to have hierarchies and sh*t flows downhill. And no one cares. Well not enough anyway. The platitudes just get mumbled while people prefer to look the other way.
Re: social mores - they change. What was once legal is now illegal. And for the most part it has gone on long enough that people act like it has always been this way. For instance - there was a time when conservatives were anti-prohibitionist. Prohibition was a progressive thing. Tell it to conservatives today and they just ignore you. Too funny.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I'd like to think that cellular technology, social media and the internet will change the equation so that it becomes increasingly difficult to run coverups.
Combine that with the corruption becoming more widespread and sooner or later it becomes impossible to hide anymore.
There are plenty of ticked off former DEA, FTA, FBI and Justice Dept. agents who would be more than happy to testify against the corruption.
If a few million former drug crime inmates banded together the way the Tea Party or Occupy people did, that would be very hard to ignore. Especially if they did so to expose the hypocrisy of the current policy.
The drug problem ties in with other social and economic problems, attack the one and it gets easier to fix the others.
By forcing the issue front and center into broad public debate, and preventing the reflexive retreat into cognitive dissonance, by keeping attention focused on it for a long period, society will have no choice except to fix it.
rjaypeters wrote:Please accept my congratulations...yet another thread jacked for the Great Drug Debate.
If you are tired of the debate you could always work to end Prohibition.
"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
But if you like corrupt government, corrupt police, and a corrupted people by all means support Prohibition. I know of no more effective way to promote all three.
My assumption these days is that any politician who supports Prohibition is in the pay of the cartels. Directly or through campaign "contributions".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I have participated in those debates on this forum but find further participation here not to my taste.
In the real world, I have argued for years against almost all of the Prohibitions in which we engage, mostly because of the near-impossibility from stopping people from doing what they really want to do with the related unintended and really horrible consequences. I would rather tolerate (and regulate and even tax) open vice than create more crimes which will be fought with police-state "Prohibitions."
My current political debating tack is to argue no elected federal politician should be re-elected for the span of about a generation. With no chance of re-election our politicians would not have to raise funds for the next campaign and might concentrate on doing the people's business. Surely among 330 million people we can find fewer than a thousand every few years to keep the Republic going strong?
rjaypeters wrote:Please accept my congratulations...yet another thread jacked for the Great Drug Debate.
If you are tired of the debate you could always work to end Prohibition.
"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
But if you like corrupt government, corrupt police, and a corrupted people by all means support Prohibition. I know of no more effective way to promote all three.
My assumption these days is that any politician who supports Prohibition is in the pay of the cartels. Directly or through campaign "contributions".
Actually MSimon raises a valid point, the drug war violence in Mexico will eventually spill across the border if the corruption remains unchecked.
Take note of the protest movement gathering in Mexico itself. Eventually this will take the form of a protest against political corruption. When this also spills across the border, US politicians will be faced with a choice, go to prison or create a dictatorship. Which way do you think the choice will fall?