Civil Rights Progress.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:13 am

Here ya go my friends.

A chance to educate yourselves:

The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia by Alfred W. McCoy with Cathleen B. Read and Leonard P.Adams II

http://druglibrary.eu/library/books/McCoy/mccoy.pdf

Or if you want the action adventure slightly fictionalized version watch "Air America" with Mel Gibson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_%28film%29

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:24 am

You see D the Powers are playing you for the fool.

choff · Post by **choff** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:00 am

It's my understanding that about a hundred years ago China went from importing to exporting Opiates, but the same actors wanted to stay in charge of the monopoly. They described Mao as being unstable and easily controlled, a lot of people were fooled into thinking the same thing with him. Opium production was moved south after the Reds took over China.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:24 am

choff wrote:It's my understanding that about a hundred years ago China went from importing to exporting Opiates, but the same actors wanted to stay in charge of the monopoly. They described Mao as being unstable and easily controlled, a lot of people were fooled into thinking the same thing with him. Opium production was moved south after the Reds took over China.

That would be Burma.

You can pretty much track the drug crazes in America based on where the CIA operates. Heroin in the Vietnam war era. "Thai Sticks" when operations moved into that area. Also Afghan hashish in the same era. Cocaine during South American operations. Lebanese hashish during Reagan's operations there.

So how is "advertising" handled? Lurid drug tales work very well. Conservatives just eat up that sh*t. You can follow the CIA by following the latest drug scare. "Warning" is not their real intent. Advertising is. But the warnings look so sincere that the weak minded are easily fooled.

This video by/about a DEA agent alludes to it:

http://youtu.be/nBnYHXY4ZRw

Here is the same guy talking about Ron Paul

http://youtu.be/ixid6XGtemw

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:41 am

What I find most amusing is that those arguing the most against the NWO are some of their biggest useful idiots.

http://www.unodc.org/

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:59 am

Obey normal laws? OK.

Now tell me what is normal in America about substance prohibitions?

They are not normal according to the Republicans of 1914. In fact they were a radical innovation. So much so that one of them which affected the most people required a Constitutional Amendment. I look forward to your usual lying sophistry to excuse what you know in your heart to be anti-Constitutional. Such lying sophistry might cause a feller to lose respect for you. Not that my respect is worth much one way or another. But what is your respect for yourself worth? Not much either.

And thus America falls from a lack of honor. Thanks for doing your part.

America can only survive if its people are moral. Where do you fit in my friend?

Well no matter, the farce is coming to an end:

61% in Colorado Favor Legalizing, Regulating Marijuana

randomencounter · Post by **randomencounter** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:22 pm

I find it disconcerting that people can argue in one breath for reduced government (in general), and then in the next breath argue vehemently for the most invasive and oppressive government regulations to be strictly enforced.

You can't have small, unintrusive government and have government enforcing morality at the same time, it is impossible. Not just inconsistent, impossible.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:23 pm

randomencounter wrote:I find it disconcerting that people can argue in one breath for reduced government (in general), and then in the next breath argue vehemently for the most invasive and oppressive government regulations to be strictly enforced.

You can't have small, unintrusive government and have government enforcing morality at the same time, it is impossible. Not just inconsistent, impossible.

It is a wonder. But today's Republican Party has little in common with the Republican Party of 1914 except the slogans.

You would think the so called party of logic and history would notice. You would think they had learned the lessons of alcohol prohibition. You would be entirely wrong.

You can find pages of people asking the same questions here with pages of sophistry in reply.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/16/c ... as-failed/

Most amusing.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:25 pm

MSimon wrote:
randomencounter wrote:I find it disconcerting that people can argue in one breath for reduced government (in general), and then in the next breath argue vehemently for the most invasive and oppressive government regulations to be strictly enforced.

You can't have small, unintrusive government and have government enforcing morality at the same time, it is impossible. Not just inconsistent, impossible.
It is a wonder. But today's Republican Party has little in common with the Republican Party of 1914 except the slogans.

You would think the so called party of logic and history would notice. You would think they had learned the lessons of alcohol prohibition. You would be entirely wrong.

You can find pages of people asking the same questions here with pages of sophistry in reply.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/16/c ... as-failed/

Most amusing.

There is one other aspect to the war on drugs. It has been quite successful in jailing a large percentage of a young male minority population that let us say a significant percentage of an older white population find instinctively threatening. The older lady who grasps her purse more tightly or locks her car door whenever a minority male approaches on some level may simply support the war on drugs just because she knows it results in large number of those scary minority youths locked up. Not saying this was the original intent, but unlike prohibition that targeted alot of whites, the W on D has largely evolved from an incarceration point of view to more of a war on young non-white males. Maybe that is why is has so out lasted alcohol prohibition.

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:50 pm

MSimon, What are you smoking?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:01 pm

hanelyp wrote:MSimon, What are you smoking?

Tobacco.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:02 pm

I do understand the problem. Most people are not interested in studying the prohibited drugs. They are then left with DEA propaganda. And the purpose of the DEA is to keep the fear up so their iron rice bowls remain filled.

Funny that so many who understand how government really works forget it all when their fears are activated.

I'm on an anti-prohibitionist list (mostly lefties) and try to tell them that the way government works in the Prohibition realm is the same way it works in the economic realm and you will see a LOT of screaming. I almost got kicked off the list for that one.

It seems that fear makes people deaf, dumb, and blind.

Government’s Greatest Trick - Making you a slave to your fears.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:23 pm

williatw wrote:There is one other aspect to the war on drugs. It has been quite successful in jailing a large percentage of a young male minority population that let us say a significant percentage of an older white population find instinctively threatening. The older lady who grasps her purse more tightly or locks her car door whenever a minority male approaches on some level may simply support the war on drugs just because she knows it results in large number of those scary minority youths locked up. Not saying this was the original intent, but unlike prohibition that targeted alot of whites, the W on D has largely evolved from an incarceration point of view to more of a war on young non-white males. Maybe that is why is has so out lasted alcohol prohibition.

No. It was designed that way from the start. Here is a history lesson given to a conference of judges and later to the FBI

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:28 pm

Alcohol prohibition died rather easily because the vast majority remembered what it was like before prohibition.

When it comes to heroin and cocaine there is no one alive who remembers the before. For Marijuana very, very few.

So all the ills of prohibition are ascribed to the drugs.

Hardly anyone cares to study the actual history.

williatw · Post by **williatw** » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:32 am

MSimon wrote:Alcohol prohibition died rather easily because the vast majority remembered what it was like before prohibition.
When it comes to heroin and cocaine there is no one alive who remembers the before. For Marijuana very, very few.
So all the ills of prohibition are ascribed to the drugs.
Hardly anyone cares to study the actual history.

GIThruster wrote:Diogenes has already made a very compelling argument that prohibition does work. Simon has made a bunch of childish and bogus arguments that it does not, but the facts are that prohibition does reduce drug use. If you spend any time in the drug culture at all, you find out that although it appears from inside that "everybody does it", this is entirely not true. Most people don't use illegal drugs because they are illegal. That is the fact of prohibition that you are ignoring. Prohibition works.

The only thing that will stop this kind of thinking, "we are holding the line on drug addiction" is forfeiture of assets. With the gov's increasing appetite for taking people stuff without charge, to the tune of billions per year, let’s see what happens in a few years more. When someone like GIThruster neighbor's lose their house because their teenage son was caught with or attempting to sell pot at school or something, let’s see how that affects his willingness to support the war on drugs. The law arguing that the parents’ house somehow facilitated the sale of said pot, even if the parents knew nothing about it. When some upper middle class kid driving his dad's Porsche gets stopped by cops coveting his car who "discover" drugs in the car, next thing you know bye-bye car. By an inevitable progression, declining law enforcement budgets & greed will push it along. And black/hispanic families have only about one twentieth the assets as whites do, so unlike incarceration the lust for money will push the gov to confiscate their assets.

According to a 1992 Cato Institute study examining the early results of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, total federal forfeiture revenues increased by 1,500 percent between 1985 and 1991. The Justice Department’s forfeiture fund (which doesn’t include forfeitures from customs agents) jumped from $27 million in 1985 to $644 million in 1991; by 1996 it crossed the $1 billion line, and as of 2008 assets had increased to $3.1 billion. According to the government’s own data, less than 20 percent of federal seizures involved property whose owners were ever prosecuted.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/t ... singlepage