Above the influence of drug war propaganda

The Hypocritical and Paradoxical Way We Deal with Youth and Drugs

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:33:00 +0000

While we as a nation are telling youth not to use street drugs, We are prescribing the same dangerous chemicals in "purified" form to millions of children in the name of treating illnesses that can't be proven to exist. Tens of thousands of those children are physically forced to do so. That has to be arguably the most horribly corrupted application of the scientific method. The corrupter is money. This hypocrisy applies mutually to adults diagnosed with psychological conditions, but more forcefully to children because the chemicals alter brain development.

I think the pharmaceutical industry treats some physical conditions in good faith. I do not believe any of that good faith exists in association with mental health conditions. The treatment of virtually all these conditions relies on the flawed and unprovable pseudo-theory of a chemical imbalance. Imagine someone approached you and claimed that you committed a criminal act against their family. They are holding a weapon and saying they are going use it. They say that they are going to do so because they believe you did it although they have no proof. This is what the industry is doing in treating mental health conditions. Using a dangerous weapon to hit an object they cannot prove is there.

Today, whether it is right or wrong society believes that children as young as 13 are capable of making negative adult decisions. That makes it so sickening that they are not allowed to decide not to ingest a dangerous chemical.

Predator and prey

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:31:00 +0000

In a truly civilized society no one would take advantage of the misfortune or weakness of another unless their literal life depended on it. To do otherwise would mimic the animal behavior of our ancestors. Instead we live by the law of the concrete jungle. Is it any coincidence that the nutritious leaves in this jungle are green and smell good. The problem is they do not just smell good to the prey. Unlike in the real jungle the leaves smell good and are nutritious to the predator as well. If this ever happened in ecosystem it would die in short order. The same thing happens with the human economic ecosystem, except it is revived by government when it flat lines. That is essentially what separates us from others in the animal kingdom. Our larger brains give us the ability to decide to gorge ourselves in gluttony until we become greedy. I am a spiritual man, but not a religious one. The only Bible tenet I always make a best effort to adhere to is the Golden Rule. That said I think it seems it odd that so many are claiming that capitalism is in line with being a good Christian while two of the seven deadly sins are inherent to it.

You are prey if you make less money than is made from your labor. If this description fits your situation, you need to stand up and show the predators the power u possess. Do every thing in your power to save up enough leaves so u can graze for at least two weeks without going into the field. The economy will tinker on the verge of collapse as it may have last year, but this time the prey will decide through it's collective choice who survives when it receives a bailout.

Assuming what continues to separate us from animals with less cognitive ability is choosing to ignore our collective interests in favor of what is good for the individual, maybe it all should end in 2012 as some believe it will.

David Evans nearly sent me over the edge

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:09:00 +0000

This is my response as written on cbsnews.com to Part 2 of the "discussion" between Judge James Gray and David Evans of the Drug-Free America Foundation. When I read the first part yesterday I was bothered by Evans but it was typical prohibitionist rhetoric. Today he made me irate.

_______________________________________________

I had to take a few moments to calm down otherwise I might have said something that could have caused me some serious trouble.

Evans said that Gray called him a racist. Gray never implied or said that Evans was a racist. He did state the undeniable fact that war on "some" drugs treats the races unequally.

This statement from Evans shows he is either delusional or racist. I hope it is the former.

"Prohibition did not cause an increase in the overall crime rate but there was an increase in the homicide rate. However, the increase in homicides occurred mainly in the African-American community, and African-Americans at that time were not the people responsible for trafficking in alcohol."

Assuming Evans is simply delusional, he must believe that Alphonse Capone, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, Charles "Lucky" Luciano, Meyer Lansky and many others were black. These men were all responsible for an untold number of murders solely to gain control of the illegal alcohol market. The only truth in his statement is that blacks were not ones trafficking in alcohol. It's disturbing that Evans attacked Gray for not backing up his statements when he made no attempt to support his statement with evidence. Undoubtedly, many people of all races died during Prohibition for reasons that had nothing to do with the 18th Amendment.

I am a black man of moderate means, who is blessed to have a little family money that allows me to work on political issues that are important to me. My Mother was a hard drug addict during my childhood and remains an alcoholic and tobacco smoker. My late Father was an alcoholic who died of complications related to alcoholic pancreatitis. All of my education beyond high school I have obtained on my own. Although I have been told since I was a child that I have a 90% chance of becoming a hard drug abuser and alcoholic, I have never used anything harder than cannabis and only drink socially. I have been educating people on the horror that is our drug laws since I was 9 and working on political efforts to change them since I could vote. I was forcibly removed from the DARE program because I challenged what the officers were saying. I say all these things because according to Evans, there are not many re-legalization advocates like me. This is one place he is correct, he is just wrong about the reason. There are many, many blacks who come from a similar background and feel the same as I do. I personally know hundreds of them. The fact is the majority of the nation is not politically active, and in the black community in general, we have to be far more concerned about keeping jobs, supporting families and not "fitting the description". Evans states that blacks do not want more drugs in the community. This could not be more true, but drugs are not the problem, dealers and the law which enables them is.

Judge Gray although I take issue with some of the areas in which you agree with Mr. Evans, I applaud your efforts. I voted for your in your senate bid years ago and through your writing here have gained a new level or respect for you. I would have not been able to remain as civil as you did in responding to the misleading, outright dishonest and sometimes downright vicious things Mr. Evans has said.

DEA Continues Red-Ribbon Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:01:00 +0000

The DEA's annual Red-Ribbon Campaign memoralizes the death of Special Agent Enrique Camarena. He was tortured and killed by Mexican traffickers in March of 1985. This statement about the campaign is typical of the agency's myopic view of their operations:

"The Red Ribbon Campaign is dedicated to helping to preserve Special Agent Camarena's memory and further the cause for which he gave his life, the fight against the violence of drug crime and the misery of addiction. By gathering together in special events and wearing a Red Ribbon during the last week in October, Americans from all walks of life demonstrate their opposition to drugs."

The loss of any life is regrettable, and what makes this loss even more regrettable is the preventable nature of it. The law gives traffickers the ability to make enormous sums of money from what would otherwise be nearly worthless plants. This profit potential creates the ability to influence the highest levels of government and indiscriminately kill civilians and law enforcement officers alike. The DEA needs to believe that Agent Camarena's death was a drug-related crime. When a man becomes inebriated at a bar and returns home to beat his spouse, that's a drug-related crime. When an addict sells their child or turns their spouse into a prostitute to obtain money for drugs, that's a prohibition-related crime. When a law enforcement officer is killed by a trafficker in order to protect their business interests, that's a prohibition-related crime. Determining the difference between drug and prohibition-related crimes is a simple task. If the crime would likely have occurred before the law existed it is a drug-related crime. Otherwise it is a prohibition-related crime.

Addiction can have horrible consequences for addicts and their families. Often the consequences related to law enforcement contact and a subsequent conviction create more misery than the drug problem ever did. People can and do recover from drug addiction. Recovery from a drug conviction is nearly impossible unless you have a skill that allows to make you money without being employed by someone.

The DEA's claim that Americans from all walks of life oppose drugs, would be laughable if it were not so intentionally dishonest. With of over $100 Billion in annual sales from just three of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers, Americans obviously have no problem with drugs. Many Americans do however have a problem with drugs that have been demonized via political propaganda and false education campaigns. Left to their own devices most people wouldn't know about many of these drugs let alone have a positive or negative perception of them.

The futility of DEA efforts will not change regardless of how much they would like it to. What can and must change is the public's recognition of the agency's contribution to the problem not the solution.

Community Policing

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:27:00 +0000

There are many reasons police today have trouble performing their duties and investigating real crimes. Distrust in certain communities is a major factor. The way departments are structured is another. I believe the creation of new crimes by politicians who have no real world understanding of what their legislation will do is the greatest.

I believe there are many members of department command staffs across America trying in good faith to establish positive relationships with citizens. Community policing is a wonderful idea but it misses the point of exactly what it should be. Neighborhoods being policed by local residents who just happen to be sworn officers with real authority. This ensures those patrolling have a vested interest in the safety of that area. There was a time when an officer was required to live in the municipality in which they served. Many of these policies have been relaxed or tossed out completely for fear of losing the best talent. That may be a noble reason, but I would rather have a competent officer who lives down the street, than one who is the department's shining star but lives in the bordering city or county. A multitude of problems would be reduced in this scenario. An officer who knows everyone in the neighborhood by face if not by name is less likely to fear for his or her safety in a seemingly tense situation. That officer would have far more success obtaining information from fellow residents when a crime is committed. They would probably lose sleep when a violent or property crime goes unsolved for even a night.

The centralized structure of many major departments may make these things infeasible at the moment, but it is desperately needed in order to build neighborhood solidarity which would in turn lead to citizens being more willing to report crimes and give information because they would not feel alone.

Thoughts on the NAACP National Conference

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:26:00 +0000

I was very happy to see that drug policy reform issues were given time at the Conference. Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, spoke intelligently and passionately on the topic.

I have been a supporter of the Alliance for years and was a long time financial contributor. While I am happy that Ethan said what he said and the audience appeared to be very interested, I sincerely wish it had been a black person making the statements. As anyone with a good familiarity with the reform movement can attest, black faces are sorely missing on an issue that overwhelmingly effects us more than any other race. I was fortunate to be able to see that drug law enforcement has a far more negative impact on our communities than drug abuse. This is not an easy realization to arrive at when you are forced to deal with the violence associated with territory disputes on a daily basis. In many black communities it is more tolerable to be a non-prohibition related murderer than it is a drug dealer.

When Barack Obama had his opportunity to speak, he spoke about families raising their children properly. He spoke of the impact his Mother had on him. Interestingly he chose not discuss how his life would have changed dramatically if he had been arrested once while experimenting with cocaine and cannabis. While there are many people who view drug addicts and abusers as lazy and incompetent among other things, they ignore a simple reality. Many of these individuals hold intensely difficult occupations. A clear example of this was stockbrokers and others in high finance that had a cocaine problem. These are not the kinds of jobs that can be obtained or maintained with a criminal record, regardless of ability. There are many functioning alcoholics who hold jobs and perform well. They are blessed to not have worry about losing their livelihood simply because they had alcohol in their possession.

There are many habits than can have an adverse effect on one's life. Drug use in moderation is the only one that totally alters the direction of your life based on nothing to do with chemical properties.

Obama is not the friend of reform we hoped he could be

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:18:00 +0000

Before his campaign began, Obama stated that drug abuse should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal justice one.

Since he was elected all of his actions have belied his words. When his transition team opened change.gov as a forum to stimulate public involvement by posing questions for his administration, one question was most popular by far.

"Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"

The answer given was extremely unsatisfying, President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana. While this answer was not unexpected, the one sentence answer given spoke volumes. Every other question in the top ten received at least a detailed answer and some had a paragraph devoted to them.

I never expected Obama to expend any political capital on drug policy issues beyond ending mandatory minimums. I did have fleeting hope that he would not express support for the drug war. These hopes were thrashed when after a trip to Mexico and meeting with President Calderon, he began speaking in the common prose of a prohibitionist. He expressed his commitment to Plan Merida, the Mexican version of the destructive and wasteful Plan Colombia. He also expressed the commitment to devoting law enforcement and military resources to reducing drug trafficking and abuse.

There were two campaign promises that Obama made on drug policy issues. He said he would end the federal ban on needle exchanges, which he believes reduce transmission of HIV and other diseases. The second was his promise to end raids on medical cannabis dispensaries in states where the law has authorized. The first went down in flames in February when the budget was released. It states unequivocally that no federal funds will be used for needle exchange programs. The second has been implemented with mixed results. Now when DEA raids a dispensary, they claim they are assisting local law enforcement agencies that are executing warrants based on violations of state law. It is obvious that Obama was naive at best to think that a rogue agency like DEA would actually abide by not only the letter but the spirit of his directive.

Lastly, the Senate confirmed his nominee for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske earlier today. He is former chief of the Seattle Police Department. Initially this pick was lauded, because compared to Bush's drug czar, he is a breath of fresh air. He did not object to making cannabis violations the lowest enforcement priority in Seattle. He sent officers to the annual Hempfest not with the intent of arresting anyone, but in a true public safety capacity. He also posed no opposition to the city's needle exchange program, which has become a model for others to follow. All that said Kerlikowske having a law enforcement background is disheartening. Whether the pick was made on principle or because of politics, it shows that Obama is not ready to approach drug abuse from a public health perspective as he said in the past.

More DEA Nonsense

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:53:00 +0000

On March 22nd, two men plead guilty to kidnapping and other related charges for holding another dealer hostage while demanding a $300,000 owed. Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta Field Division, Rodney G. Benson, said in a statement, "DEA and its law enforcement counterparts are committed to protecting our citizens from the scourge of drug abuse. The swift actions taken by law enforcement personnel that day clearly saved this man's life. These guilty pleas should serve as a reminder that drug trafficking and the associated violence that it spawns will not be tolerated" This agent spouts the company line in one sentence and acknowledges the real problem in another. This crime had nothing to do with drug abuse. It had everything to do with the problem of unregulated drug trafficking. It is disturbing that a dealer DEA would have no problem killing becomes a citizen worthy of saving in this scenario.

"The methods employed by Mexican drug dealers to collect money are becoming increasingly violent, threatening not only the well-being of those directly involved but also innocent bystanders living in neighborhoods being infiltrated by participants in the drug trade. This case should send a clear signal that drug-related violence will not be tolerated in our community. And the captive drug dealer?s guilty plea also demonstrates that we will not tolerate the drug trafficking that leads to this violence," said U.S. Attorney David E. Nahmias. Win-Wins like this makes DEA salivate. They get to act sympathetic to a victim?s plight, when they actually can not wait to file charges against them. This individual would have meant little more than another count on an indictment had they been found dead. While prohibition-related violence is unnecessary, we know why it happens. The fear, trauma and violence caused by botched raids is intolerable. Citizens do not expect drug traffickers to look out for their best interests. They should be able to expect that from their law enforcement officials. More and more often it seems that law-abiding citizens in areas plagued by prohibition-related problems are no more deserving of protection than the dealers enabled by the laws in the first place.

The Michael Phelps situation has gotten out of hand

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:54:00 +0000

When I first heard about this incident, I was cautiously hoping this could remain little more than a publicity nightmare for Phelps. USA Swimming's recent decision to suspend him for three months shows it cannot. I would find the federation's decision egregious under any circumstances, but it is especially so in this case. When Phelps was convicted in 2004 of driving under the influence, USA Swimming should have reacted in the same manner. It chose not to although Phelps ran a red light and nearly hit a police car.

USA Swimming had this to say in 2004:

"This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero."

What kind of message does it send when you condone behavior that endangers public safety while punishing behavior that does not? It seems that no place in society is safe from the hypocritical tentacles of drug war ideology.

Kansas Senate panel OKs stiffer sentences for armed drug felons

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:31:00 +0000

This legislation could potentially add one to two years to a drug crime sentence when a firearm is involved. It was initially written to extend sentences five to ten years but a fiscal note to the Judiciary Committee led to an adjustment. One can only hope a bill like this will fail to pass the full body. It is unclear from reading the bill whether this sentencing enhancement would preclude a defendant from being charged separately with criminal possession of a firearm.

It seems that this law is designed to increase the sentence of an offender under false pretense. Firearms are rarely used to commit drug felonies because coercion is not part of drug transactions. Sen. Terry Bruce gives some insight into the rationale behind the bill with this statement from the Kansas Liberty.

"Drugs and violence seem to beget one another, and we definitely want to interrupt that relationship and let drug dealers know that the violence they bring into the community will have an added weight. Its bad enough they are selling narcotics and ruining people?s lives, but then by bringing a firearm along they are also endangering the lives of community members."

Prohibition and violence definitely beget one another. It is always striking to me how lawmakers can blame drug dealers for ruining people lives. They rarely if ever apply the same logic to alcoholic beverage producers. The use of a firearm by a drug dealer endangers public safety, but the mere possession of one does not.

New Season of "DEA" Starts Feb. 10th

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:24:00 +0000

It is disturbing that the only federal agency whose activities can maintain a TV show is the DEAs. The exercise in futility that makes up the daily life of a DEA agent should make viewers sad. Only the most discerning of viewers will ever see this fact through the fog of raids, seizures and agent testimonials about the difference they are making. This quote from DEA Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, Mary Irene Cooper sums it up very well:

"If you liked the first season of 'DEA,' you'll love the second. Season II delivers more episodes, more action, more dope and more money than viewers have ever seen before. You'll have a front row seat to DEA's hard-charging, relentless special agents risking their lives for the mission. They'll captivate you with their gritty determination and leave you wanting more."

Only the DEA would use its continuing failure as a selling point for a TV show. The mission of any law enforcement agency should be a reduction in the problem they are fighting. The nature of crime often makes this goal unattainable. When you take any business and make it a crime, the goal of stopping that crime will never be achieved. What the DEA calls "gritty determination" is truly pathological. Delusions of grandeur, are necessary to be part of DEA.

DEA Celebrates failure

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:19:00 +0000

In July, The Drug Enforcement Administration celebrated its 35th anniversary. This quote from Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart is telling.

"DEA has proven for the past 35 years that we can-and are-destroying powerful drug organizations. DEA's ability to hunt down major drug traffickers, wherever the case may lead, has been our signature. Time and again, we've taken down kingpins and collapsed powerful, violent drug trafficking operations that were considered untouchable. At the heart of this agency are its employees who today continue this proud tradition of excellence and the noble fight to free this nation of illegal drugs."

While DEA efforts will lead to the apprehension or death of key figures from time to time, the claim of destroying organizations is grandiose at best. Even in the rare situations when DEA is able to cripple an organization, it is just temporary. These organizations will return with new leadership or another organization will rise up. The current situation in Colombia characterizes this problem perfectly. After DEA brought down the Medell�n Cartel in the early 1990s, competition was decreased for the Cali Cartel. There is strong evidence that the Cali Cartel helped law enforcement take down the Medell�n Cartel. DEA does not want to think about inadvertently aiding one cartel by breaking up another. When DEA broke up the Cali Cartel, the Norte Del Valle Cartel took its place. In August, Juan Carlos Ramirez-Abadia one of its leaders was extradited to the United States to face numerous charges.

There are many lessons to be learned from the events in Colombia over the last two decades. The most valuable may be that as long as there is money to be made by exporting cocaine individuals will form organizations for the sole purpose of doing so.

Over the thirty-eight years that have passed since Nixon declared the "war on drugs", law enforcement has marked many milestones. Not surprisingly, these milestones indicate how horribly its efforts have failed. Our leaders choose to view larger and larger seizures as a sign of progress. If this view was in good faith, it might be forgivable. The fact is illicit drug proceeds fund many things from the stock market to political campaigns. We can't really expect our leaders to kill the golden goose.

H. CON. RES. 415

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:53:00 +0000

This congressional resolution celebrating the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition shows the hypocrisy of the legislature continuing to support the drug war. There are many interesting statements made, but this one stands out in my mind:

Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited `the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws

Undoubtedly, the following edit to the statement is just as true:

Whereas passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which prohibited `the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating drugs' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market drug production, organized crime, and noncompliance with drug laws

It is striking that our leaders can officially recognize the ills of one form of prohibition on one hand, and praise another form with the other.

Virtually every line in the resolution applies equally to Prohibition as the drug war. I hope that it will become an advocacy point.

H. CON. RES. 415 (PDF)

The National Drug Intelligence Center is out of touch

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:05:00 +0000

NDIC recently released its 2009 National Drug Threat Assessment. Its disappointing but not surprising that the center continues to attribute problems to drug use and abuse that are obviously caused by the prohibition scheme. I wish they were alone in this distorted view but it is obviously held from the highest levels of government down to everyday households. When innocent people are slain by stray bullets fired in territory disputes, the blame is often placed on drugs. This logic would hold true if those same disputes still occurred over alcohol.

There continue to be numerous parallels between Prohibition and the modern drug war. It seems that legislators and other policymakers have selective amnesia or blindness about them. There are few if any legislators who would give a second thought to making alcohol illegal again. ONDCP director John Walters has said that re-creating that black market would not be in the nation interests. Somehow we are suppose to believe that the vicious and deadly black markets we currently have are good for the nation. The simple fact is that in order to continue the drug war must be viewed as a completely different animal than Prohibition. The only differences are that one is exponentially worse than the other.

There is no doubt that drugs can wreak havoc in the lives of those who cannot handle them. It is my contention as well as many others that the involvement of law enforcement increases that havoc and starts a vicious cycle. For those who have any doubt, you need look no further than our President-elect. He is fortunate to never have been arrested for cocaine possession when he abused the drug during his youth. We likely would not know who he is.

Open letter to Barack Obama concerning his running mate selection

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:25:00 +0000

Dear Senator Obama,

I understand why you picked Senator Biden as your running mate, but I am troubled by it. I am deeply concerned by comments you made about him during the race for the nomination. At a debate in 2007, you stated that the Senator has been on the right side of racial issues. These comments indicate one of two things. Either you are not fully aware of his legislative history from the 1980s or you have overlooked it. I hope it is the former.

Senator Biden is the author of arguably the most detrimental law to blacks in the post Jim Crow era. I am referring to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which established the 100-1 disparity between powder and rock cocaine sentencing. The Senator recently reversed his position on the disparity, but that means little after 20 years of a policy that is primarily responsible for the prison population being 50% black. Today the incarceration rate for blacks is over 4500 per 100,000 and climbing. That is over 5 times higher than the peak incarceration rate during South African Apartheid.

During the forums held at Howard University, you and a number of other Democrats condemned mandatory minimums. Selecting the man who spearheaded that sentencing policy and believing that puts him on the right side of racial issues is disturbing.

I hope you will truly be the best advocate for blacks as you claim and maintain your opposition to this flawed policy.

Police raid Maryland mayor's home and kill his dogs

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:26:00 +0000

Berwyn Heights Mayor, Cheye Calvo, arrived home and found a package addressed to his wife on the porch. He brought the package inside. Within a very short time, the police burst through the door, killed the couples two black labs and grabbed the box. It contained 32 lbs of marijuana.

Police believe the Mayor and his wife were innocent victims of drug scheme involving two men, one of which is a FedEx driver. Apparently, the driver would drop of a box and his partner was to retrieve it.

AP story via Yahoo

Incidents like this are disconcerting, but maybe it needs to happen in order for the public at-large to see how destructive current drug policy is. The mayor has called for an investigation into the raid and the FBI has begun one. What he really needs to investigate is the root cause of police behavior like this. The drug war has made many police officers believe that they are above the law.

Fighting the Patriot Act: the ACLU and National Security Letters

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:36:00 +0000

"The ACLU is now three-for-three in our battles with the government of the national security letter (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act which radically expanded the FBI's authority to demand personal records like web site visits and e-mail addresses from Internet service providers without prior court approval. The provision also allow the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives a NSL from telling anyone about the record demand."

Excerpted from June report to ACLU monthly contributors AKA "Guardians of Liberty". To read the entire report click here.

I am proud to be a supporter of the ACLU's efforts. I hope that anyone interested in fighting the continuing evisceration of rights will support the ACLU. Financial contributions are the most helpful, but there many others way to help that cost nothing more than your time. Please visit their website.

Cannabis may be harmful, but not as much as law enforcement

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:56:00 +0000

This video from the NYCLU describes how severely slanted cannabis arrests are in New York City.

Three mistakes that have led to our country being in the state it is

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Tue, 20 May 2008 07:18:00 +0000

1. The Supreme Court Plan

The nation's founders believed that extremist judges on the left and right would be weeded out through the lower court system. This sounds grand on its face, but this would not be applicable to the first Supreme Court.

2. Granting rights of real citizens to corporations without the accompanying responsibilities

The Founders fully understood that business entities should not have these rights because they would abuse them. The result is the corruption of state and federal legislatures.

3. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution

Our system of government insures that monarchies and dictatorships do not occur because the president must be re-elected. When Congress decided that Presidents could not serve more than two terms, many problems were created. Presidents should be able to serve as long the electorate is happy with their performance. Today the president leaves their mark most notably on the Supreme Court. A president that did not have to be so concerned about doing what they could in eight years would be far less likely to use the Supreme Court as a legacy builder. It is Congress that needs to be refreshed every 2 or 6 years not the presidency.

Drug Bust At San Diego State

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Fri, 09 May 2008 06:00:00 +0000

The reports on this bust have been suspect at best. In one segment, CNN Reported that the undercover investigation lasted one year. In a later segment they said five months. Maybe this was a correction, but it was not presented that way. The Associated Press reported the investigation lasted 12 months. During the press conference about this operation, University President Stephen Weber said that these suspects preyed on their fellow students and have destroyed countless lives. I wonder who he thinks the predators are when a binge drinking incident results in death or serious injury. The local SSDP there hung a banner which read, "77 students are gone but drug abuse isn't". This sums it up in a nut shell. No matter how many arrests are made or drugs collected, the human want to alter their perception will always exist. As we do in drunk driving cases we must hold users accountable for their behavior that places others at imminent risk.

First Do No Harm

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:10:00 +0000

My late Grandfather, H. Phillip Venable, M.D., F.A.C.S., was a renowned ophthalmologist in St. Louis. In Jan. of 1987, He published an article in Metro Medicine, the journal of the St. Louis Metropolitan Medical Society. It was entitled, Marketing Has it's Price - Can We Afford It? At that time, He was very concerned about the medical profession being corrupted by marketing. As we see today his concerns were very well founded.

Today the profession seems to have forgotten it's most basic tenet. Many prescription drugs do more harm than good, and the practice of medicine has taken a step down. In my Grandfather's day, doctors were more than just prescription writers. Today, a doctor without the ability to write them isn't much use.

Because of his contacts and connections, I received consultations with people who were among the best in their specialty. If they were well-respected in the fields of psychiatry, neurology, psychology or any of the sub-specialties I saw them. From 1990-93, I saw doctors everywhere from Johns Hopkins to the Mayo Clinic. They said I exhibited symptoms of everything from Schizophrenia to sociopathy. Unfortunately, I was medicated as if I had all of those conditions. As one can imagine, the affects of all those chemicals on an adolescent brain were severely detrimental. In 1994 my real problem, Asperger's disorder, was added to the DSM.

After all my experiences with illicit and prescription drugs, I have come to one conclusion. I would rather be harmed by an untested, unproven substance than one than one the FDA approved as safe.

The arrogance of the DOJ knows no bounds

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:14:00 +0000

On June 27th, a hearing was held before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights. Oversight of capital punishment was the topic. According to Senator Feingold, it was the first such oversight hearing in over 6 years. Given the volatile nature of this issue, It's not surprising this hearing quickly turned into a debate on the policy. For the most part, I thought the testimony recycled information. Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Paul Charlton's testimony left me speechless. He testified about the last capital case he worked before he was forced to resign. He discussed the case U.S. v. Rios, a RICO case. The case centers around a methamphetamine dealer who is accused of killing his supplier. Charlton feels seeking the death penalty in this case is very suspect. AG Gonzales disagreed, and authorized the death penalty. Charlton's feelings are well founded. He stated that there is no forensic evidence in this case, NONE. All evidence is coming from individuals who have made plea bargains. There isn't even a body in this case. To make things worse, the location of the body is known. The AG will not authorize the $500,000-1,000,000 necessary to exhume the body from the landfill it is buried in. Even more disturbing is the amount of time given to this decision. Mike Elston, Chief of Staff for DAG Paul McNulty told Charlton that the DAG spent a considerable amount of time with the AG on this issue, perhaps 5-10 minutes. This is certainly an insufficient amount of time to decide whether someone should be put on trial for their life, especially given the facts of this case. Charlton believes he was forced to resign because of this case, and I find it very difficult to argue with that contention. Whether it be drug policy or crime policy in general, out of touch federal officials substituting their judgment for that of local people with intimate knowledge is very wrong. Regardless of one's position on capital punishment, it should be easy to see why this is a prosecution that should never get near a jury as a capital case. Transcript of Paul Charlton's testimony

Another coffin nail for personal responsibility?

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:11:00 +0000

The AP has reported on news chopper coverage of high speed chase that ended in tragedy yesterday. Two choppers from KTVK and KNXV in Phoenix were covering and collided. There were no survivors. The primary incident came to an end after the suspect barricaded himself in a house and SWAT was called in. He has been charged with six counts including four for aggravated assault of a police officer. He also carjacked someone on the highway. There is no question that this man should be in prison for a long time. The problem is, Phoenix Police Chief, Jack Harris suggested that the suspect could be held responsible for the four deaths that resulted from the helicopter crash. Obviously, this will not be a decision he makes. But, a police chief showing such a distorted understanding of criminal responsibility is scary. The choppers were there of their own free will. Day by day the concept of personal responsibility loses ground in this country. I can only hope that the prosecutor is more reasonable than the police chief.

Legally you cannot be addicted to cannabis

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:26:00 +0000

As most people know, there has been heated debate about the harmful and addictive nature of cannabis. I generally don't read anything in the Controlled Substances Act beyond the schedules. Recently, I decided to look at the definitions section. The definition of addict and marihuana make it clear that you can't be addicted under the law. This fact highlights the insanity of cannabis being a class I controlled substance and drug policy in general. 21 USC Sec. 802

My drug war horror story

noreply@blogger.com (puregenius) — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:23:00 +0000

I experienced the effects of the drug war up close and personal when I was 7 years old. In 1985, I was living in West Oakland, CA with my Mother and her boyfriend. Both were heavy drug users. Late one night, the police executed a no-knock warrant related to a drug and firearm investigation. The warrant had the wrong address. The boyfriend had me locked in the bedroom so he could abuse my Mother without interference from me. When the police encountered the door, they kicked it in. A few seconds later one of the officers discharged his weapon. Thankfully, I wasn't injured.

This event and my Mother later contracting Hepatitis C are what have formed my personal mission to see these horrid laws repealed. Since that time I have been educating as many as I can about the real effects of these flawed policies.