The Democrat's 2012 Victory Plan

[Diogenes]

And Portugal is also a real world experience from what happens when all drug consumption is legal.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html

That is not the only report. You can look for more.

I would have to. Your article is in "TIME", (A Wackjob Liberal publication) it covers a 5 year span between 2001 and 2006, (no mention of the most recent 5 years) is written BY the Cato institute (A Libertarian group) about Portugal, ( One of the nations about to collapse the European economy because of their profligate spending on social programs. ) And that wants to be copied by three of the stupidest states in the nation.

But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug laws.

China took 200 years to get to the 3/4ths addiction percentage for their population. 5 years is much to short of a sample to predict the long term consequences. Show me a study after 20 years, and It might be reasonable to believe they have something.

BTW alcohol consumption in America was very high when we were a developing country. It has since tapered off some. So how about opium in China? I expect that their problems with drugs will taper off as they approach first world status.

Mao Tse Tung cured China's opium problem mostly. That is a bad solution to the problem of a drug addicted populace. I would prefer that so many people didn't become addicted so as to prevent a Dictator's rise to power.

"When we sold the Heathen nations rum and opium in rolls,
And the Missionaries went along to save their sinful souls."

The Old Clipper Days --Julian S. Cutler

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

And who was doing the selling?

William H. Russell (Skull &Bones; co-founder-1833) cousin Samuel Russell formally established Russell & Co. on January 1, 1824 for the purpose of acquiring opium and smuggling it to China. Russell & Co. merged with the number one US trader, the J. & T.H. Perkins "Boston Concern" in 1829. By the mid-1830s the opium trade had become "the largest commerce of its time in any single commodity, anywhere in the world." Russell & Co. and the Scotch firm Jardine-Matheson, then the world's largest opium dealer working together were known as the "Combination."

It makes no difference to the victims who the drug dealers were.

[Diogenes]

BTW D.

It is good to know that Police Chiefs are ignorant of how the drug trade works. No wonder why they can't stop it.

BTW 67% of police chiefs say end it:

http://blogs.mcall.com/bill_white/2011/ ... g-war.html

It is comforting to know that so many dummies are in charge of our police depts.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was specifically different from what you appear to be claiming I said. I said: "nor do I think a Chief of Police is likely to be the most knowledgeable authority on this issue."

A police Chief may know about drug transport and distribution, but this is all at the battlefield level of knowledge. It is unlikely that a police Chief would understand the issue at the Theater, Tactical or Strategic level. If they don't know and understand about China, then it isn't worthwhile to listen to them.

They aren't dummies, they just aren't looking at the bigger picture.

[MSimon]

I just posted the link to Rev. Donald Sensing's blog sense of events.

The Rev. Col. Sensing was quite pleased with the heads up.

http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2011/ ... movie.html

He is a Rev. because he is ordained. He is a Col by the grace of God and the US Army.

What you fail to comprehend is what this could be like if the MSM takes this up and the lefties go into full screech mode on this.

I have yet to see an answer to this question:

About 70% of female heroin users were sexually abused as children.

Very sympathetic even if they are slamming smack. I would play those who want to continue persecuting such women as brutes. If I wanted to hurt the Rs. And you know the Ds are desperate for ammunition.

In any case we shall see come Oct. 2 - 4.

Also my intel tells me that college kids are desperate to find a race war to fight (one of my righty friends was complaining about that very thing on a blog) . Just like their heroes from the 60s. Well they have it. Once they get the message.

This is also very good on the subject of why the Rs are blind to dangers - in the battle space.

But it goes further. For years and years, the left has behaved with extreme hypocrisy on issues of race, ethics, and pro- vs anti-American stances. The response that the right delivers is to point out this hypocrisy in a polite manner, expecting the left to acknowledge their error and not repeat it in the future. Needless to say, the left has no problem with hypocrisy and projection, and has no intention of changing this. Yet, the Republicans still fail to notice that pointing out such examples of hypocrisy has no effect on the debate. The definition of insanity, or at least stupidity, is repeating the same action a number of times, and expecting a different result, but Republicans fail to see that the character of their opponents is far too uncivilized for the toothless tactics that Republicans restrict themselves to.

Take, for example, the African-American vote, which usually goes 90-96% for Democrats. This is true even if the Republican candidate is black and the Democrat is white (as was the case in 3 major races in 2006). An examination of recent history quickly reveals this loyalty towards Democrats as more than a little odd. George Wallace ran for President as a Democrat on a segregationist platform as recently as 1976 (note that this was after Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' approach). Furthermore, Robert Byrd, a senior leader in the KKK, was a US Senator in the Democratic party until 2010. These facts would make it less surprising for blacks to vote 90% Republican than the current reality of the opposite. But this yet again shows how poor Republican messaging is. The party of George Wallace and Robert Byrd still manages to get 90% of the black vote, due to the left's tireless propaganda in black neighborhoods, and historical revisionism in school textbooks in inner-city public schools. As a result, the black vote is not even remotely available to Republicans, and with African Americans being 11% of the US population, for a Democrat to win a nationwide election, he only has to get 40 out of the remaining 90% of votes to be cast. The Republican, by contrast, has to get 50 out of the remaining 90%. That is correct, for a Republican to win, he has to get not 50 out of 100%, but 50 out of 90%.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/11/ ... nment.html

Everybody who is dislikes my arguments has spent a lot of time telling me why I'm wrong or "it won't work". I have yet to see a post suggesting how one might counter such propaganda.

Me? I have been working this issue for 12 years with vigor. If I had a counter I'd tell you. So here is my best shot:

There are two possible counters a spoiling attack - but you lack the resources for that. Or strategic retreat - and you haven't the brains for that. So you will not give an inch and the Russian Army will grind you to dust.

Is all this enough to support the President? Maybe. Will it cost races that otherwise might be won? Surely.

I am getting indications from my friends who watch such things that the President may be gearing up. So far the indications are tentative. But again - we shall see.

There are only 3 counter candidates on the R side. Ron Paul - who has no chance for the R nomination. Gary Johnson who is getting very little traction. And tada - Sarah Palin.

T -17 days and counting.

[MSimon]

Let me count the strands the Democrats might use.

1. Racism - that energizes college kids and Blacks
2. Abusing abused women - there go the women
3. Legalization - there go the men (57% favor legalization)
4. The Constitution - that grabs some TEAs
5. Separate the libertarians from the socons

So come on all my brilliant thinkers on the Social Conservative Right. What will be your counter campaign?

T -17 days and counting.

[Skipjack]

Msimon, you did not respond to my earlier post. Just making sure that you read it this time (regarding the "legalization" of drugs in Portugal).
Anyway, I am all for a system like the one in Portugal. It decriminalizes the users and gives them professional help, but keeps punishing the dealers.

[Diogenes]

Let me count the strands the Democrats might use.

1. Racism - that energizes college kids and Blacks
2. Abusing abused women - there go the women
3. Legalization - there go the men (57% favor legalization)
4. The Constitution - that grabs some TEAs
5. Separate the libertarians from the socons

So come on all my brilliant thinkers on the Social Conservative Right. What will be your counter campaign?

To ignore yours. It is odd to see someone so otherwise grounded in reality to project such exaggerated wishful thinking onto the numbers. Right now the number one issue is economics, and specifically employment. As Will Rogers said, American's vote their pocketbook.

To Address your points one by one:

1. Racism - that energizes college kids and Blacks

Too subtle, too abstract and too disconnected. A causal relationship is argued while direct supporting evidence is absent. Blacks know that they receive a greater portion of drug convictions than the overall population, but they also know that the ones being convicted actually were involved in the activity which is proscribed by law. Here, let Chris Rock explain it to you:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/602032/ho ... he_police/

2. Abusing abused women - there go the women

Again, too subtle, too abstract, and too disconnected. The cause and effect relationship is not established. The argument doesn't make any sense. You are trying to assert that by prosecuting drug abusers they are picking on Women. Most people see it as picking on the drug users, and their background isn't the reason for it. It is their current activity that is. You also overlook the argument that if women come from abusive families, that perhaps a genetic component of trashyness is already inherent in their DNA. Fathers or family members molesting their Daughters is indicative of serious mental problems in the family to begin with. Most people cannot empathize.

3. Legalization - there go the men (57% favor legalization)

Even if this is true, such support would be "a mile wide and an inch deep." These sorts of comments are much like the Miss America pageant contestants wishing for "World Peace." Silly, not well thought out, and not a powerful motivator for action.

4. The Constitution - that grabs some TEAs

If you are referring to the confiscation laws, yes, that garners some support, but this is not the same thing as a broad support for the idea of drug legalization. I see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a government from controlling, regulating, and/or banning dangerous substances.

5. Separate the libertarians from the socons

What? Have they become any more intimate lately and I haven't noticed? All the Socons i've ever known have always disdained the Libertarians and the feeling has always been mutual from the Libertarians. The two sides are pretty much separated except on their common ground of reducing the size and influence of Government especially in regards to fiscal issues. I have always regarded Libertarians as the opposite extreme of Liberals.

Liberals want ever pervasive government control, (with them in Charge. i.e. a resurrection of the Monarchy/Nobility form of government) while libertarians want none.(Anarchy. Which leads back to Monarchy) Conservatives are in the sensible middle (Republican Federalism, the Founders principles.) where we recognize government is needed for some functions, and needs to be constrained to only those necessary ones, such as defense and law enforcement.


In summation, your movie (Ken Burns' "Prohibition") which is coming up soon, is more likely to produce amusement at America's previous backwardness than moral outrage and indignation culminating in political activism. Now if I turn out to be wrong, and you turn out to be right, I will make a point to let you know that you were right and I was wrong, but I expect the movie to come and go without a significant blip on the political map of the nation.

[MSimon]

Of course the top issue is the economy. Until the Pravda media changes the subject. And they are desperate to change the subject.

[MSimon]

Ah D,

For a while there was an uneasy truce between the socons and libs to defeat O. It still exists so far.

Making Prohibition a top issue is designed to peel libs from that coalition.

The socons can't win without the "independents" whose politics is best described as muddled libertarianism.

Socons have NEVER been strategic thinkers. You are possibly the best evidence of that I have ever seen.

Can O win on this issue? Maybe. Will it cost the Rs in some other races? Surely.

T -17 days and counting.

[Diogenes]

Ah D,

For a while there was an uneasy truce between the socons and libs to defeat O. It still exists so far.

Making Prohibition a top issue is designed to peel libs from that coalition.

The socons can't win without the "independents" whose politics is best described as muddled libertarianism.

Socons have NEVER been strategic thinkers. You are possibly the best evidence of that I have ever seen.

Can O win on this issue? Maybe. Will it cost the Rs in some other races? Surely.

T -17 days and counting.

I can only speak for myself. You may burn it to the ground for all I care. If the Libertarians win, then we will simply be on a different path to destruction. Better this one here and now. You cannot play games for long with Adam Smith's invisible hand, nor can you play games for very long with Belshazzar's disembodied hand. Both will come and "get" us.


Libertarian philosophy has destruction baked in. It, like Liberalism, leads back to the Monarchy/ Nobility form of government. That is not progress, it is regress.

[MSimon]

If you can't play games with the invisible hand why do you try?

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

See that is what I don't get. Why do so many socons embrace socialism when it suits their purposes? You know it doesn't work. And yet there you have it.

And it is the very worst sort of socialism - price supports for criminals and terrorists.

Sadly we have two socialist parties in America. They are just socialist about different things. And neither of them counters the other. So it all goes one way.

“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” -The great Ronald Reagan

And you want the subsidies to continue. It is a wonder.

And how about the Federal militarization of the Police Forces Of America funded under the rubric of "Fighting Drugs". Doesn't that look like a danger to you? It does to me.

If you are not familiar with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie

You ought to look into it. The plan was to use a police force developed for one purpose to be used for another: the overthrow of the Austrian Corporal.

The Federales in effect have a private army in every city in America. It scare the s**t out of me. And yet you are nonplussed.

[Diogenes]

If you can't play games with the invisible hand why do you try?

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

See that is what I don't get. Why do so many socons embrace socialism when it suits their purposes? You know it doesn't work. And yet there you have it.

I do not support socialism, but a nation's first duty is to preserve it's own existence. I see widespread drug addiction as an existential threat. It destroyed China, it will destroy any nation made of humans.

And it is the very worst sort of socialism - price supports for criminals and terrorists.

That might be it's unintended consequence, but it is certainly not a sought after goal. Were it fought differently, that would not even be an unintended consequence.

Sadly we have two socialist parties in America. They are just socialist about different things. And neither of them counters the other. So it all goes one way.

Just because police are necessary for Socialist oppression does not mean that the need for them makes a nation socialist. All nations must have law enforcement personnel. We had police before socialism was invented.

“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” -The great Ronald Reagan

And you want the subsidies to continue. It is a wonder.

You have the same distorted view of the word "subsidy" as does skipjack and scotl. Interdicting drug usage is no more a subsidy for drug dealers than fighting a war is a subsidy for the other nation's arms merchants. It is a necessary consequence of opposing the malevolent intent of other parties.

And how about the Federal militarization of the Police Forces Of America funded under the rubric of "Fighting Drugs". Doesn't that look like a danger to you? It does to me.

If you are not familiar with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie

Yes, it is a very frightening development. If only the addlepated drug users would stop giving the Feds justification for increasing their jackboot capacity.

As Glenn Reynolds says about Global warming advocates. "I'll start believing it is a crises when THEY start acting like it's a crises! " I dare say some drug legalization advocates are perfectly willing to allow the creation of a massive cadre of brownshirts rather then stop using drugs.

We shall both go over the cliff when that comes to pass.

You ought to look into it. The plan was to use a police force developed for one purpose to be used for another: the overthrow of the Austrian Corporal.

The Federales in effect have a private army in every city in America. It scare the s**t out of me. And yet you are nonplussed.

I don't like it one bit, but it is a lesser risk of destruction than legalized drugs. If drugs are made legal, the country will eventually collapse from addiction instead of fascism, then we will get the fascism anyway. ( I bet we can do it a lot faster than China did. )

[ScottL]

Diogenes, according to you all forms of government lead to destruction. If this is the case, why not find a balance between the forms?

[williatw]

An earlier poster mentioned that cigarette smoking has been on the decline. Probably mostly because of the massive propaganda campaign against the dangers of smoking, even though cigarettes are still cheap(like alcohol) and legal. Consumption of hard liquor is similarly down, with beer and wine making up most alcohol consumption. Maybe then the answer is yes legalize drugs, even hard ones like cocaine and heroin but heavily regulate them. Marijuana might be relatively free of regs but heroin/cocaine heavily regulated. Legal heroin/cocaine might be a "product containing heroin/cocaine" that was only about 10% h or c. I seemed to recall hearing a Frontline special on Crystal meth that said the threshold for ferociously addictive was the concentration, that above a certain threshold it was hard to quit from. Wonder if H or C are the same? Maybe below a certain threshold of legal(purchased at a state liquor store by a licensed provider) the 5-10% product much cheaper than illegal is not that addictive? Legal but heavily regulated, massive education/propaganda against usage through schools/media but queasily tolerated like smoking still is.

[MSimon]

Legal opiates now tied to more deaths than heroin, cocaine combined

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 ... /308299921

FORT WAYNE – When most people think of drug overdose deaths, they think of overdoses from street drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

It would be more apt to think of the pills in our medicine cabinets.

New government figures show that the use of prescription narcotics – powerful opium-based painkillers that can be deadly when taken incorrectly – continues to skyrocket. Also, the number of overdose deaths involving painkillers has exploded to the point where fatal overdoses of drugs such as Vicodin, OxyContin and morphine now outnumber those caused by street drugs.

[Teahive]

I see widespread drug addiction as an existential threat.

And the most efficient defense against this threat is awareness, regulation (not prohibition), and medical treatment. How much of that applied to China?