Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The Mormon-Christian right alliance Previous entry: Glenn Beck: The World’s Number One Source For Glenn Beck

The crime war of Juarez

So, I was gone Friday-Monday, and away from the internet.  I was in the city of my birth, El Paso, TX.  I occasionally get to go back to my second favorite city in Texas (with Austin being an easy first), though I rarely get to stay long enough to do what I really love doing there, which is hitting downtown and thrift shopping.  Still, a little listening and looking, and I got a taste of what life’s been like these past few years there, and how much things have changed while everything continues to look the same.

See, geographically, El Paso is part of a bigger metroplex area—-it’s all one big city with Ciudad Juarez, with a very thin Rio Grande and the mountain pass it cut (the Paso that gave El Paso del Norte its name) separating the Mexican side from the American side.  Juarez is the much bigger city, but both cities sit in the valley of their little spate of Rocky Mountains.  The entire area suffers from dryness, hot sun, and unreal amounts of smog that is trapped by the mountain range and hangs over the city, giving me a sore throat by day #3 there.  Most of my life, I felt like the fates of Juarez and El Paso were intertwined in such a way as to be functionally inseparable.  People traveled back and forth with ease, both commuting for work (as my Spanish professor for summer courses at UTEP did), and for fun and shopping.  That changed a little after 9/11, when the government revoked the right to cross the border without a passport.  But things didn’t really get weird until this functional civil war with the drug cartels broke out. 

Now it seems like El Paso and Juarez are worlds apart, even as they look even more like one city.  (In the past, at night, you could see a clean border between the cities because Mexico had a different standard light bulb than the U.S., which led the lights in El Paso to be a light yellow but the lights in Juarez to be a greenish white.  Now they all look the same, though the Mexican side of the border still twinkles because fewer people have their lights on.)  El Paso is peaceful and quiet, and it’s consistently in the top 5 safest large cities in America. This, despite its outrageous poverty, the ability of criminals to border hop to escape detection, and of course, the fact that it’s in the same spot on the globe as what is becoming the most dangerous city in North America. 

You can hear from a distance how bad Juarez has gotten, or you can hear it up close.  The murder rampage is simply on people’s minds.  What used to be a regular part of visiting El Paso—-going to Juarez for a drink and some shopping—-is basically unthinkable now.  The people of El Paso are as content as the people of Juarez are fearful, and that feels dramatically off, almost impossible, really.  But what really blew my mind was when we were standing in the hotel lobby waiting for our cab to take us to the airport, and I saw they were giving away copies of the El Paso Times.  I casually picked one up and saw this story

Juárez cancels Sept. 16 celebration

For the first time since the Mexican Revolution, Juárez city government has canceled the festivities of one of Mexico’s most patriotic holidays.

“First comes the safety of the population,” said Juárez Mayor José Reyes Ferriz. “Because of threats, because of criminal activities that exist in Juárez, we don’t want to take any risks.”

On the eve of Sept. 16, mayors in Mexico lead crowds at city hall esplanades in the traditional ceremony of grito de independencia, or call to independence.

¡Viva México! were the words shouted the same day by Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla in 1810, when he launched the rebellion against the Spanish crown.

It’s basically like canceling the 4th of July.  But it’s understandable, of course.  Since 2008, there have been 6,200 murders in a city of about 1.3 million people.  I know intellectually about the murders, the curfews, the kidnappings, and the general climate of fear.  Still, seeing this simple story about the cancellation of the Sept. 16th celebrations really drove home to me how much Juarez has really fallen to pieces, and is basically a war zone.  We would stand on the hotel balcony and overlook Juarez and it was almost impossible to believe.  Obviously, it looks as quiet and normal as it ever did.  Only at night do you even get a hint of it, as the city looks darker than it should.

Of course, the way this tends to translate into American self-centered craziness is by reinforcing the hysterical racism in places like Arizona.  Passing laws to antagonize immigrants and people suspected of being immigrants—-or beefing up border security to pander to racists despite the fact that there’s no real reason to believe the war is leaking over in anyway—-is straight forward asshole behavior.  The worst part about all this is that the United States does play a role in all this, but it’s in a way that we, as a nation, don’t want to talk about.  The reason this kind of stuff concentrates on the border is because Americans exert such a powerful demand for illegal drugs that are either manufactured or at least routed through Mexico.  Conservatives are keeping us busy with their screeching about non-existent crime on the American side of the border and non-existent threats from illegal immigrants, but no one is talking about what we could do to relieve this horror show in Mexico that we played such a major role in creating.  Which isn’t to say that Mexico doesn’t have its own problems with waging a pointless War on Drugs as a bit of moral showboating and a form of control exerted on disenfranchised citizens.  But again—-border town, American demand, and the criminal element has everything to do with the fact that Americans are so hellbent on keeping drugs illegal and dedicating outrageous amounts of resources towards attempting to stop the flow.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.  Deeply, deeply ashamed of ourselves.  It’s amazing to me that over this past weekend, the Glenn Beck rally was only the second biggest reason looming in my mind for why Americans should be ashamed of ourselves.  Of course, part of that is because Tea Crackers are such a clown show, but the War on Drugs is something even supposedly smart people mindlessly keep backing. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 02:00 PM • (167) Comments

About the War on Drugs, all I can say is, WORD. I should be paying a lot more attention to it than I am, frankly.

Comment #1: atheist  on  08/31  at  03:14 PM

If you haven’t read 2666 yet, you need to read it right away. Santa Teresa = Ciudad Juarez

Comment #2: lizvelrene  on  08/31  at  03:16 PM

What’s also scary is that this weird surreptitious War Of Drugs is slowly escalating toward an actual, war. “AFP: Predator drones to patrol entire US-Mexico border.

¿Tonto de mierda EE.UU., lo que es nuestro problema?

Comment #3: atheist  on  08/31  at  03:20 PM

You really think it’s of any concern to our political class when our policies fuck up other countries?  Our political elites don’t even give a shit when our policies fuck up our own country.  To the extent any of them care, hurting other countries via our policy choices is a feature, not a bug.

Comment #4: libdevil  on  08/31  at  03:33 PM

Robert Taft, Republican President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was against the Prohibtion movement because he believed that the only thing that it would really do would turn otherwise law-abiding people into small-time criminals. The only element of his prediction that was wrong was the small-time part.

  The War on Drugs is obsence, its been joke since it started. The least bad thing about the war on drugs is that its a tremendous waste of money. Thats literally the best thing you can say about, that it is a waste of money. Right now, we seem to be at the point in the War Against Drugs where Prohibition was after Hoover was elected. Most people realize that it is complete failure but its being kept alvie by a decent number of hardcore believers that can’t recognize that it has failed and failed in a rather spectacular way. Eventually, something has to give. There have been encouraging but too small steps in the proper direction.

Comment #5: Lee  on  08/31  at  03:34 PM

War on Some Drugs. Alcohol, a much more destructive drug by any standards, is not only legal but relentlessly advertised.

Comment #6: felagund  on  08/31  at  03:42 PM

I had this exact conversation with a co-worker after hearing about the recent legislation to send $600million to go towards beefing up border patrol.  As long as the War on Drugs props up a bustling black market for drug trade there will continue to be massive amounts of crime associated with it.  It’s ass backwards.  We focus on the end results and not the cause. 

But of course it’s far easier to use fear mongering to get the public angry at the immigrants themselves so we forget that it might be better to address the industries that enjoy the benefits of the indentured servitude that they provide.

Comment #7: Blitzgal  on  08/31  at  03:49 PM

I’m really glad you are posting on this.  It’s close to impossible to get reasonable information about Mexico in the US.  I watch the spanish language news, which has its own biases but at least I get some info.  Having said that, I’m waiting desperately for last week’s CSA post (or did you give it away b/c of the traveling?)!

Comment #8: Ruviana  on  08/31  at  03:53 PM

Much more destructive than what?  Weed?  Sure.  But it depends on the drug.  Despite the out of control propaganda against all drugs, some substances actually are pretty fucking dangerous.  I am, broadly speaking, in favor of legalization of recreational drugs other than alcohol but I don’t think we should just throw out all regulation.  The effects of many drugs are too dangerous or unpredictable to be anything but a public health hazard well out of proportion to their benefit, when used without the supervision of a medical professional.  Then too, there are some substances that are uncommon as recreational drugs, but more commonly used to incapacitate victims, often for sexual assault.  I don’t know that those things should be legal to own without good reason.

Comment #9: libdevil  on  08/31  at  03:55 PM

Well there should at least be regulation to make sure someone isn’t cooking up actual poison and selling it as a fun time.

Comment #10: pharmakos  on  08/31  at  04:10 PM

This, despite its outrageous poverty, the ability of criminals to border hop to escape detection, and of course, the fact that it’s in the same spot on the globe as what is becoming the most dangerous city in America.

Did you mean to type Mexico or North America instead of America?  It doesn’t seem to make sense if you didn’t.

Comment #11: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  04:25 PM

Where do all those guns come from? Hmmm… Maybe from their gun-loving wacky neighbor to the north? Annenburg places the number conservatively at 36%. Thoughts?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

Comment #12: vitaminC  on  08/31  at  04:28 PM

Pity Mexico: so far from God, so close to the United States.

Comment #13: atheist  on  08/31  at  04:29 PM

While I’m sure there are idiots out there, I can’t think of any legalization advocates who call for no regulation.  That seems a bit of a straw man. 

Plus, many of the drugs used to incapacitate people (other than alcohol) for sexual assault actually ARE legal when used for their intended purposes (veterinary sedatives like ketamine), or are available with a prescription. 

Personally, at least as far as weed goes, I’m all for legalizing, regulating and taxing it.  You won’t be able to tax it too hard, otherwise there will still be a substantial black market for it, to avoid the taxation.  So, less than many states tax cigarettes.  As to the other drugs, one of the keys to being a long term addict, and sometimes even functioning on drugs like heroin, is whether or not you can get a consistent supply, both in getting it period and in quality.  Most overdoses are caused when people don’t know the strength of what they’re getting, or what it’s cut with.  Legalizing and regulating it could go a long way toward that. 


I’m not advocating selling heroin in 7-11s next to grade schools, granted, saying this isn’t going to make anyone not accuse me of that.

Comment #14: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/31  at  04:29 PM

This November, California will become the first state in the nation since the introduction of drug prohibition to leglalize marijuana, not just for medicinal purposes but for recreational purposes as well (I assume the law will put an age restriction on the purchase and consumption of marijuana, however).  It will be really interesting to see how this impacts the cartels.  Obviously, the drug trade involves much more than pot, but I think pot is still the mainstay of the drug trade, as society generally accepts that it is the least harmful recreational drug available.

Anyway, for those screeching about Mexican drug lords, what californiaa is doing is the right approach.  It’s not rocket science.  The Prohibition of alcohol created America’s organized crime syndicate; much the same, the “War on Drugs” has created the gang culture.  Create a legal marketplace for marijuana, and you disempower the cartels.

Comment #15: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  04:36 PM

I’ve been wanting to find a “hook up” for a while. And while it’s obvious that you’re pretty likely to consort with “unsavory types” when the product you want is only on the black market, I flat-out refuse to buy Mexican weed, which makes it exponentially harder to find a hook-up. There’s just no way my money (pittance that it is) is going to the Mexican drug cartels if I can help it.

Pot is the most used drug in the country. It’s used by people who have steady jobs, children, and manage to have the occasional joint without turning into monsters or have their life disintegrate around them. But all that money for a drug that is not addictive and is more or less harmless—you have a ton of people pumping money into the black market for it. This is why I support full legalization and regulation, and actually bothered my senator about it at a meet the candidates forum a few weeks ago*. The problem is not the drug itself, it’s the black market. If we simply decriminalize, we’ve lost a huge tool in combating the black market aspect without gaining any of the tax money that would come off of the sale. We need legalization and regulation, and the ability for people to grow their own for personal use.

* I have to describe this scene—at first I didn’t want to bring it up because I was in a room full of older people and I wasn’t sure how conservative they would be… but then this little old lady with fluffy white hair raises her hand and declares she wants to look into legalizing drugs and everyone in the room agreed. God I love this state.

Comment #16: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/31  at  04:42 PM

War on Some Drugs. Alcohol, a much more destructive drug by any standards, is not only legal but relentlessly advertised.

True.  And the reason that is true is because we got a taste of what happens when you try to make alcohol illegal, and it wasn’t good.  Prohibition was great for folks like Al Capone, but not so much for everyone else.

It appears that we are now starting to take a look at the impact of our prohibition of drugs, and mayeb getting ready to start implementing saner policy.  I doubt we’ll see crack, heroin, or meth legalized in my lifetime (and I’m not sure that would be a good idea), but we’re starting to turn the corner on the most heavily trafficked and most popular illegal drug on the market, marijuana.  I believe that it’s going to be fully legalized (I assume with age restrictions) in California in just over two months when voters go to the polls.  And provided that President Obama is willing to keep the DEA attack dogs away, we’ll get a good idea pretty fast about how this really isn’t going to cause the collapse of civilization, and how much money it can put into state coffers in the form of excise taxes on the drug.

Comment #17: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  04:44 PM

@Murrow Fan:  I have a friend who’s from Humboldt County, and the growers their opposed legalization, because they knew that legalization would cut into their profits. 

Since legalization has become inevitable, they’ve decided to incorporate and create a brand. 

I am highly amused.

Comment #18: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/31  at  04:45 PM

I’m sure this isn’t an atypical sentiment among Pandagon readers, but I oppose the drug war in its entirety. Legalize everything if you have to, and we can start again from there. Burn the system down. The debate should be between complete legalization or partial regulation. No ands, ifs, or buts.

California, you can get on my good side again after Prop 8 if you legalize marijuana and start the debate.

Comment #19: Seebach  on  08/31  at  04:48 PM

murrow fan, that’s if the proposition passes. i haven’t seen recent poll numbers on the issue, but i have some serious doubts about whether that will happen.

Comment #20: chareth cutestory  on  08/31  at  04:51 PM

We need legalization and regulation, and the ability for people to grow their own for personal use.

I don’t touch the stuff myself, but I agree to a point. What I’d hate to see is the tobacco companies dominating things. Those evil scumbags would make ice cream poisonous given half a chance, and they and their lobbyists have been preparing for 30+ years to get in on the pot market.

Comment #21: Gracchus.  on  08/31  at  04:51 PM

Despite the out of control propaganda against all drugs, some substances actually are pretty fucking dangerous.  I am, broadly speaking, in favor of legalization of recreational drugs other than alcohol but I don’t think we should just throw out all regulation.

I don’t think this is an issue.  While there are some who believe that all drugs should be legalized, there is no groundswell of support to make heroin and crack legally available for consumption.  Some want to end all drug prohibition, but that position is not widely held.  I wouldn’t support the legalization of all drugs, but I do think we need to radically change how we deal with people who get caught up in that world.  I believe that we need to move away from the strictly punitive model and towards the treatment and rehabilitation model in addressing the users and sellers of the hardest drugs.  And we absolutely need to do away with the sort of racist sentencing guidelines that send crack abusers away for life while giving coke abusers a slap on the wrist.

What we’re looking at is the legalization of pot, arguably the least harmful recreational drug available, including alcohol.  And yes, there will be regulation.  I imagine minors will still be prohibited from purchasing or consuming it, and I would think the state will be looking to get its share ofthe revenue generated from marijuana sales through excise taxes.  It’s probably going to be regulated and taxed much the same as alcohol and tobacco currently are.

Comment #22: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  04:56 PM

What’s really sad is the other industry that’s profiting from the war on drugs is the prison industry.  We have an amazing number of jobs invested in the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.  Just another reason why even decriminalization will never happen, in addition to the fact that the pharmaceutical, alcohol and tobacco companies also have a vested interest in keeping us at the status quo.

Comment #23: Blitzgal  on  08/31  at  04:59 PM

fela, that’s a little simplistic.  Perhaps you think the entire War on Drugs is about marijuana?  That’s part of what the Mexican drug cartels are selling, but not their main source of income by a long shot.  No, that’s cocaine and meth, maybe heroin?  In no known universe are those drugs less dangerous than alcohol.  We have to be realistic and adult about this, or the pro-war people will have a leg up in the arguments.

Comment #24: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/31  at  05:00 PM

Robert Taft, Republican President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

That would be Robert’s dad, William Howard.

Comment #25: rea  on  08/31  at  05:02 PM

Create a legal marketplace for marijuana, and you disempower the cartels.

Nope, sorry.  Not that simple, I’m afraid.  The cartels didn’t even used to *bother* with marijuana—-they do now, but only because it’s gotten to be such a money maker.  But the notion that taking pot out of their hands equals the end of them is to ignore meth, cocaine, and heroin.

Comment #26: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/31  at  05:05 PM

You won’t be able to tax it too hard, otherwise there will still be a substantial black market for it, to avoid the taxation.

That will only be true if the taxation is so onerous that it drives the price of legally sold marijuana way beyond the price of what it would be on the black market.  We tack excise taxes onto tobacco and alcohol, and I’m not aware of a huge underground market for hand-rolled cigarettes or moonshine.  I haven’t bought pot in forever, so I have no idea what the going rate is (and it varies widely based on the quality and the locale), but I assume that if someone knows they can get an quarter ounce of weed legally for $50, they aren’t going to go out of their way to find a black market seller who will sell it to them for $40, given the risk involved.

Comment #27: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  05:05 PM

How do people feel about the idea of having to get a license to use harder drugs? So like if you want to do heroin you can do heroin but to get your license to buy heroin you have to pass an exam on how to use it safely, what the factual long and short term health effects are and so on. If they included in the test a section on how to get off heroin and where to get help to do so you might well see a big increase in people trying to stop using heroin.

Comment #28: pharmakos  on  08/31  at  05:06 PM

I would support legalizing and regulating *all* drugs.  I’d change the laws so that if you commit a crime under the influence of a drug it is an aggravating factor in sentencing.  I’d tax the drugs to pay for education and rehab. 

There would certainly be a period of churn when this happens.  But is it worse than the police state we’re building?  Is it worse than living in a country with the highest incarceration rate in the world?

Comment #29: James  on  08/31  at  05:09 PM

@Murrow Fan:  I have a friend who’s from Humboldt County, and the growers their opposed legalization, because they knew that legalization would cut into their profits. 

Since legalization has become inevitable, they’ve decided to incorporate and create a brand. 

I am highly amused.

Indeed.

The one thing that will really change when legalization starts kicking in around the country will be the Walmartification of the business.  I’m guessing companies like Altria (formerly Phillip-Morris) are going to join the marketplace once the dust settles and we hit the point of no return on legalization throughout the country.  One day, marijuana will come in branded packaging that makes it look like any other consumer good you might buy in a convenience store.  I have a Deadhead hippie friend in California who is irritated by this possibility, because it’s probably going to hurt the head shop business bad.

Comment #30: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  05:12 PM

I’m not aware of a huge underground market for hand-rolled cigarettes or moonshine.

There is a black market for cigarettes thanks to the punitive taxes on them, up to 100 percent in some areas.  Taxes on alcohol are nowhere near as punitive.

I assume that if someone knows they can get an quarter ounce of weed legally for $50, they aren’t going to go out of their way to find a black market seller who will sell it to them for $40, given the risk involved.

And what if they can get it for $10/oz. on the black market?  Besides, the main risk would be for the seller, not the buyer, and organized crime is frequently willing to take that risk.

Comment #31: keshmeshi  on  08/31  at  05:14 PM

“I would support legalizing and regulating *all* drugs.  I’d change the laws so that if you commit a crime under the influence of a drug it is an aggravating factor in sentencing.  I’d tax the drugs to pay for education and rehab.”

I can’t help but wonder if this would lead to Halliburton’s new Psychoactive Substances Division or something equally nefarious.  But I am somewhat sympathetic to the concept.

“There would certainly be a period of churn when this happens.  But is it worse than the police state we’re building?  Is it worse than living in a country with the highest incarceration rate in the world?”

Honestly, I figure the use rates for Heroin, Cocaine, and Meth would probably stabilize at something near their current levels.  The mental image of things like this coming back, however, isn’t very pleasant…

Comment #32: MikeEss  on  08/31  at  05:19 PM

I think the mitigating factor is addiction, keshmeshi. Cigarettes and alcohol are highly addictive, marijuana is not. Sure, you may have a person who has habituated to it, but people generally aren’t going to be SO DESPERATE to keep their supply of marijuana flowing that they’re going to resort to going to a black market situation in order to get some. When your body is chemically dependent on a substance, you’re probably going to be a lot more likely to cut down the cost of your fix. Also, black-market cigarette still have the benefit of being name brand: if you buy a pack of Kools, you know that they’re sealed, they came from the sealed Kool factory, and the poisons in there are the devil you know. If you were buying a baggie of black market weed, there could be a lot of weird shit in there.

Comment #33: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/31  at  05:23 PM

Create a legal marketplace for marijuana, and you disempower the cartels.

Nope, sorry.  Not that simple, I’m afraid.  The cartels didn’t even used to *bother* with marijuana—-they do now, but only because it’s gotten to be such a money maker.  But the notion that taking pot out of their hands equals the end of them is to ignore meth, cocaine, and heroin.

I agree that it won’t completely end the cartels, but I do think it will hurt them

Yes, the big money is in cocaine, heroin, and meth.  But the demand for those drugs is nowhere near as high as it is for marijuana.  Not even close.  So while marijuana may have a much lower profit margin for the cartels, the overall volume of sales more than makes up for the disparity caused by the profit margin.

Think of it like the difference between General Motors and Bentley.  Sure, a Bentley dealer makes a ton more money for each car sold than a GM dealer, but the GM dealer is moving a lot more of his product because the demand is much, much higher.

I only know a handful of people who have never smoked pot in their entire lives.  Virtually everyone I know has smoked weed at some point, including my 76 year old ultra-conservative Catholic father (he did it when he was in his late twenties and campaigning for JFK).

Conversely, the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances have not messed with harder drugs than pot.  I have used alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, mushrooms, nitrous oxide, opium, and Vicodin, but I also wound up in a treatment center in Florida after doing all of that, and don’t use any drugs, including alcohol, today.

Legalizing marijuana won’t destroy the drug cartels, but it will take the most highly demanded product out of their business models.  And while they’ll still push harder drugs and make money, I think their power and influence will suffer if and when they can no longer be a serious player in the pot business.

Comment #34: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  05:25 PM

And what if they can get it for $10/oz. on the black market?

Most people despise organized crime drug dealers and would much prefer to buy legally. Assuming that the production costs would be the same, although obviously they wouldn’t because you don’t risk the dea burning your crop down if you are growing legally, that would be an absolutely monster tax on a quarter of weed and anyone would point out that’s inviting organized crime to keep doing what they’re doing and the point of regulation isn’t just to legalize what people are already doing, its to drastically reduce the income of organized crime

Comment #35: pharmakos  on  08/31  at  05:25 PM

I can’t help but wonder if this would lead to Halliburton’s new Psychoactive Substances Division or something equally nefarious.

Are you sure there isn’t one now?

Comment #36: James  on  08/31  at  05:25 PM

Another point to yours, Murrow Fan, is the idea of the gateway drug. Not necessarily that smoking weed will turn you into a smack fiend, knowing someone who deals marijuana means you have an in with someone who probably deals stuff much harder than just weed. So it’s that much easier for you to try and become addicted to harder stuff when it’s available to you from someone you trust who’s been selling you less potent stuff. And while I know a lot of people are smarter than that, some people can’t figure out that listening to the sales pitch of a person working the black market might not be the smartest thing. And after all, with a lifetime of propaganda equating weed smoking with becoming a baby-killing burnout, and you’ve been smoking weed for the past few years and nothing’s wrong with it, you might decide that a) the man is lying about everything else too, or b) you possess super-human abilities to fend of addiction.

If I ran a drug cartel, I would fight like hell to keep Marijuana in the black market, because I’m not sure a lot of people go from zero to crack. I don’t know that there are a lot of people out there who wake up on a Saturday afternoon and suggest to their wife that after doing a little shopping they give Meth a try. But if I’d been buying weed from someone for a while and he suggested I give some of his other products a try.

I know it sounds like I’m arguing that once you smoke weed you’re inevitably going to be tying off a vein in an alley somewhere, but my point is that it’s easier to do that later on because you’ve already got a connection.

Also, to Amanda’s point, I think one thing that’s worth thinking about is that with selling harder drugs comes a greater investment in security, and a higher default rate. It’s riskier to keep in stock. So that might cut into the profit margin a bit.

Comment #37: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/31  at  05:39 PM

30 comments and still no Know-Nothing troll to tell us how Mekskin “illegal alien gangs” are undermining our hardworking, white American way of life. Guess the banning of our proud racist troll threw a scare into the others.

Comment #38: Gracchus.  on  08/31  at  05:39 PM

re: Gracchus in #38.

I think you just made the “Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!” play.

Comment #39: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  05:43 PM

Gracchus, that troll made me laugh. He seemed so utterly proud to be a raving moron. He always made me think of this song.

Comment #40: atheist  on  08/31  at  05:43 PM

Amanda, I thought most meth was domestically produced.  At least around here it seems to be.

Comment #41: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/31  at  05:47 PM

My issue with legalizing all drugs is that I’ve never met a responsible or strictly recreational meth user.  And while I support the idea of people being given the freedom to destroy their own lives if that’s what they want to do, the problem is that very, very rarely is the user the only one whose life gets messed up.  I don’t want kids to have to grow up in a home where they come home from school to see mom or dad sprawled across the living room floor with a belt around their arm and a needle lying next to them and the refrigerator always empty because dad blew all the grocery money on getting his fix.

I do think how we deal with the matter needs to be drastically changed, however.  I think we need to treat drug addiction as an illness, and we need to provide treatment and rehabilitation for those who abuse the hardest drugs, not incarceration.  Alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than marijuana, but it isn’t more dangerous than heroin.  While the total number of alcohol-related deaths is much higher than heroin-related deaths, the discrepance is solely due to the fact that there are probably 100 times more alcohol users than heroin users out there, if not more.  I’m guessing that a far, far higher percentage of heroin users die from overdose than do alcohol users.

Comment #42: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  05:50 PM

MPG @ #37:

I’ve always hated the “Gateway Drug” argument because it has it backwards.  It presents the argument that those who use marijuana are likely to eventually use harder drugs.  The truth is that those who use harder drugs likely started with less dangerous drugs such as marijuana.

So while you can probably say, “Almost all heroin addicts smoked pot before using heroin,” you cannot say, “Almost all pot smokers wiill eventually use heroin.”

As for me, alcohol was my “gateway drug”, if anything.  And after I drank, I started smoking pot, and after I started smoking pot I started using harder drugs.  The difference between me and a lot of my college peers is that after smoking pot in college, I started seeking more dangerous drugs, whereas for them, after smoking pot in college they mostly cut back or eliminated their marijuana usage when they entered the adult world and started getting married and having kids.

I do not believe that all drugs can be taken strictly recreationally by most people.  Most people won’t develop an addiction to alcohol even if they drink with some regularity, nobody will develop an addiction to pot, but almost everyone who uses heroin, coke, crack, or meth on a regular basis will eventually become addicted to those substances.  And the same holds true for what is likely the most addictive drug out there, nicotine.

Speaking of nicotine, today is the first time in my adult life that I have not used a single tobacco or nicotine product for a full month since I began smoking 16 years ago.  Chantix fucking rocks!

Comment #43: DTGslu2K  on  08/31  at  06:04 PM

I’ve always hated the “Gateway Drug” argument because it has it backwards.  It presents the argument that those who use marijuana are likely to eventually use harder drugs.  The truth is that those who use harder drugs likely started with less dangerous drugs such as marijuana.

Uh, that’s sort of what I was trying to get at. In fact, it was the crux of my argument. Guess I picked the wrong year to stop sniffing glue.

Comment #44: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/31  at  06:06 PM

What the cartels lose in black market marijuana sales, they may make up for in money laundering the take from their hard stuff through legal sales of pot or productive farms. No statistics, just thinking aloud here.

I do have personal anecdotal evidence about the tobacco industry’s interest, however. A lawyer we consulted about trademarks back in the late 1980s mentioned that Big Tobacco had registered trademarks waiting in the wings to apply to pot once it was legalized, and had for some time. I suspect that many of the novelty small-run cigarette brands we’ve seen out of the industry over the last couple decades are efforts to protect those marks.

Comment #45: Yamara  on  08/31  at  06:24 PM

So while you can probably say, “Almost all heroin addicts smoked pot before using heroin,” you cannot say, “Almost all pot smokers wiill eventually use heroin.”

And before that, with tobacco and alcohol.

Comment #46: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  06:40 PM

I suspect that many of the novelty small-run cigarette brands we’ve seen out of the industry over the last couple decades are efforts to protect those marks.

I’m guessing that “American Spirit” is one of those TMs. It’s been marketed to hipsters and Bohemian types, so I can see them rolling out a pot sub-brand (with the usual carcinogenic and toxic additives and preservatives, of course).

Comment #47: Gracchus.  on  08/31  at  06:42 PM

I’m not sure it’s fair to say that “Conservatives are keeping us busy with their screeching about non-existent crime on the American side of the border and non-existent threats from illegal immigrants” that it keeps the liberals from paying attention. It’s not that Conservatives aren’t doing any of that (they totally are), but rather that I think even if they weren’t there would be no ground-swell of liberal politicians (outside of California) trying to legalize narcotics. Sure, there’s massive evidence that the “war on drugs” is a completely stupid waste of money and resources, and that it causes significant violence and provides funding for terrorists, but so what? Many people, many of them liberals, are still convinced of the necessity of making narcotics illegal, and, other than with weed, there’s absolutely no political upside to arguing for legalization. The liberals aren’t speaking up on this particular issue because they have no political reason to, not because the conservatives are shouting them down. Which, in my mind, makes the whole thing even more disgusting.

Comment #48: Ladyshalott  on  08/31  at  07:12 PM

That’s part of what the Mexican drug cartels are selling, but not their main source of income by a long shot.

According to most sources, pot is 70% of Mexican drug cartels’ money.  While they would still be terrible at 1/3 of their current size—and would possibly expand harder into other drugs—that’s an obvious incentive toward legalization.

Comment #49: Punditus Maximus  on  08/31  at  07:25 PM

Alcohol and tobacco each cause significantly more annual deaths than all illicit drugs combined.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Comment #50: snobographer  on  08/31  at  07:25 PM

rea at 25: Yes, you are right. My bad. Thank you for the correction.

Amanda: Generally, I favor a system where non-dangerous or relatively non-dangerous drugs like marijuana, schrooms, hashish, and opium are legal and sold commercially and regulated like alcohol is. I am not sure what to do about cocaine, heroine, and meth. Outright banning doesn’t work but legalization is probably not a very good idea either. Nor do I think that a sort of government monopoly system would work. The best solution might be to make the creation of and distribution of the drugs illegal but not the possession and use of the drugs. Treat addiction as a social problem and distribution as a criminal one.

Also, private prisons are really bad and they need to be brought back under government control. Too many bad incentives when prisons are private.

Comment #51: Lee  on  08/31  at  07:32 PM

Sweden is welcome to your racist ass, Elizabeth, but I doubt that they’d want your dumb ass, for the simple reason that it’s dumb and racist.

May I suggest South Africa? Well, they used to be stocked up with your kind, but even they wised up.

Where in the world would they want Elizabeth? I’m stumped, or than some cracker factory red state, that is.
The kind that soaks up all the gravy in taxes from the blue states, where meth-addled boys and pregnant teenage girls drop out of the defunded high school at such rates, that businesses which require employees who can read locate elsewhere.

Where the crackers have nothing going for them, but some idea that because their skin comes in pale, if red-necked, well that’s gotta mean sumthin’, right?

So the very idea of you learning Swedish - ha!

Comment #52: judybrowni  on  08/31  at  07:33 PM

My God. I feel sorry for the people of Sweden if Northeast Elizabeth is released upon them. It would be an act of war against a friendly country.

Comment #53: Lee  on  08/31  at  07:33 PM

GeekGirlsRule @ 41:  I think the recent restrictions on the bulk purchase of OTC forms of pseudoephedrine (e.g. Sudafed), which is precursor in the usual production of meth, has put some of the smaller meth labs out of business and shifted production to larger labs in Mexico.  On the other hand, I have seen articles about people making meth in mobile labs in stolen cars, so they can drive around purchasing small amounts of pseudoephedrine…

Comment #54: topometropolis  on  08/31  at  07:34 PM

james, that’s my take on the matter.  doesn’t punish people who use recreationally and harm no one, money goes to help addicts.  if the taxes are reasonable such that most people buying a given product would rather buy legally than go black market, i think it could work.  i’ve seen many lives destroyed by alcohol and know many recreational users of illegal drugs (and prescription ones for that matter) and so frustrated by the disparate treatment.  the war on drugs is a joke. i also have a good friend in the foreign service stationed in ciudad juarez at the moment and not a day goes by that i don’t hope to hear something from her on gchat to know she’s alright.

Comment #55: chareth cutestory  on  08/31  at  07:38 PM

#52: Lee

Also, private prisons are really bad and they need to be brought back under government control. Too many bad incentives when prisons are private.

Ditto for the military, which plays no small part in the drug war.

I think heroin, coke, meth, etc should be legalized in the way similar to the original methadone program, where it’s accessible to addicts at clinics, and add on a plan to taper people off or help them through withdrawal symptoms.
The rest should just be sold to adults and taxed.

Comment #56: snobographer  on  08/31  at  07:44 PM

@topometropolis Up here we’ve had a number of RV-methlabs busted, frequently after traffic accidents.  A buddy of mine is in meth lab clean up for the state gov’t, says they’ve definitely seen an upswing in mobile meth labs, and far fewer fixed location labs.

Honestly, I don’t know that the restrictions on cold medicine and allergy meds with pseudoephedrine have done much up in Washingotn state, other than annoy sick people.

Comment #57: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/31  at  07:46 PM

The war on drugs is a failure, but so long as it’s going on, recreational cokeheads should be prepared to take some credit for present day Juarez.  Just because you didn’t know the kid caught in the cross fire, just because the rectum that ferried your hit remains a stranger’s rectum does not mean you bear no responsibility for the death and abuse surrounding the drug trade at large.  Own it or stick to locally produced highs.

Comment #58: YoNoSoyMarinero  on  08/31  at  07:50 PM

Northeast Elizabeth = Stick Rule! JE SUIS DE RETOUR!

Anyway. It would be good to have a wider debate about various drugs, but I think it has to start with the mary jane being decriminalized. It will be the test case for how the future debates will be shaped.

Comment #59: Yamara  on  08/31  at  08:01 PM

Thanks Elizabeth! You really added to this article about how the US should be just like Sweden!

Comment #60: alysia  on  08/31  at  08:07 PM

YoNoSoyMarinero @60:

Few consumer products are free of genuine slave labor in their production streams, especially computers, so. I’m an abolitionist, how about you?

Elsewhere in Juarez, The Onion reports:

Biden To Cool His Heels In Mexico For A While

Comment #61: Yamara  on  08/31  at  08:11 PM

@58

Is you’re an idiot ok?

You would need a passport because you are from a different continent.  You do not need a passport if you are from Continental Europe, just a national ID card.

This is where comparing US requirements get a bit tricky because 1) we don’t have a national ID card and 2) there are only three fucking countries here.

To go to Sweden for up to three months, you will not need a visa.  If you were to travel as a Swedish citizen to the US for the same amount of time, you technically do need a visa but are eligible to get it waived.

If you want to have an actual discussion about these things, why don’t you do some reading and then bring it up on a thread where it makes sense to do so.  (Hint: this is probably not that thread.)

Comment #62: Atheist, A Feminist  on  08/31  at  08:12 PM

And, just for your information, Sweden is part of the EU. Any resident of the EU is free to live and work and go anywhere within the EU that they would like. There is even a Stockholm program designed to make trans-european immigration easier. And the European continent has countries like Poland that are about as poor as Mexico and have rampant organized crime, etc.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/index_en.htm

Comment #63: alysia  on  08/31  at  08:14 PM

That stupid little Sweden-immigration thingy isn’t even Elizabeth’s own work, didn’t think it up herself, or squeeze it out of her own tiny little brain.

It’s a cut-and-paste copy straight out, word-for-word, of the crazy, racist wingnut viral email list of arguments that don’t make sense.

Elizabeth, honey, when someone drops that thing into a discussion—which isn’t even about immigration—we don’t bother to respond to your non-points, not just because they don’t exist, not just because they’re stupid and obviously racist, THEY’RE NOT EVEN YOUR OWN THOUGHTS.

Sweden doesn’t want you, either, so why not sling your non-arguments over at some wingnut blog where they love endless repetition of racist bumper sticker wisdom, whatever slogans were dreamed up at White Power training camp, or pulled out of Beck’s and Limbaugh’s ass.

Comment #64: judybrowni  on  08/31  at  08:21 PM

What’s amazing about the trolls is that in their attempts to score cheap points, they never make a point.

Comment #65: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  08:33 PM

What, was there some sort of right-wing troll memo:  “today we talk about Sweden?”  What does a thread about the drug war and crime have to do with Sweden, anyway? 

Jeez, you trolls could at least bother to read the post before dump your rancid, semi-literate bullshit.

Comment #66: Captain Bathrobe  on  08/31  at  08:33 PM

What, was there some sort of right-wing troll memo:  “today we talk about Sweden?” What does a thread about the drug war and crime have to do with Sweden, anyway?

Amanda talked about a border community. Therefore, it’s about anchor babies. Or something.

Comment #67: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  08:36 PM

Not “Today we talk about Sweden,” but “Today we cut-and-paste erroneous information we got from a wingnut site, and slap it on a random thread of a blog we perceive as ‘liberal.’”

Only they don’t use the word “perceive,” because they can’t.

High school just let out on pacific time, so a guess might be cut-and-pasters from the enlightened land of Arizona.

Comment #68: judybrowni  on  08/31  at  08:41 PM

And how lazy do you have to be to troll by plagiarizing a chain e-mail?  It’s pure sloth, I tell you.

Comment #69: Captain Bathrobe  on  08/31  at  08:42 PM

Chris, when liberals fret about the consequences of creating a permanent underclass of non-citizen workers, they are usually looking at what is happening in Europe with the muslim populations. Remember the parisan riots?

And as I noted up above, EU citizens are entitled to all the rights of citizens of any European country in which they choose to live. The GDP per capita in Sweden is a bit lower than that of the US, but Denmark, another EU member has a GDP/person that is a bit higher than ours. The EU includes countries like Romania and Bulgaria with lower gdps per capita than Mexico. Sweden is more liberal and more conservative than the US wrt immigration depending on the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Chris, Elizabeth—how do you end up here? I mean that seriously. Do you just have a google alert for Mexico and then just come and type bullshit whenever anyone mentions it? Do you read all liberal blogs waiting for something tangentially related to race so you can come and advocate for groups of people to be treated poorly and then complain about how everyone calls you racist? Is it just Pandagon that you follow? What is the deal with you guys?

Comment #70: alysia  on  08/31  at  08:48 PM

Chris, has anyone ever implied that Swedes and Brits and Canadians cannot be racist? I think Britain pretty much invented racism, yet you make that comment like it is so absurd as to be hilarious.

Comment #71: alysia  on  08/31  at  08:50 PM

Reading and thinking are too much for chris.

Comment #72: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  09:04 PM

According to Chris, the only thing Amanda posts about is how much Jesse the man (and her own boyfriend) are terrible, the only thing Jesse and Pam post about is how much whitey Amanda sucks, the only other thing Pam posts about is how much the hetero-swine Jesse and Amanda suck.

Comment #73: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  09:07 PM

Then why are you here, Chris. You just come to not read the articles and respond to arguments that no one has ever made. (like responding to the accusation that you don’t read the articles) It seems like you could do nothing and be ineffectual anywhere, so why here?

Comment #74: alysia  on  08/31  at  09:08 PM

“And how lazy do you have to be to troll by plagiarizing a chain e-mail?  It’s pure sloth, I tell you.”

Back in my day, trolling was seen as a serious matter.  Trolls took the time to learn how to use bogus arguments, carefully selecting each one for maximum effect.  They would never just cut-n-paste some crap from an email.  Consequently we had higher-class trolls, who could give you headaches if you didn’t watch out.

But these days!  You can’t find a decent troll to save your ass…
[/GrumpyInternetVet]

Comment #75: MikeEss  on  08/31  at  09:11 PM

So I was just running those numbers: about 3x the rate for DC at its worst, almost 10X the rate for new york when everyone thought it was way too dangerous to visit.  The mind quails.

Oh, and not just the drug war. NAFTA takes a huge chunk of the blame too.

Comment #76: paul  on  08/31  at  09:16 PM

Chis, like a lot of uninformed rightwingnutty cut-and-pasters, has a very basic problem with reading comprehension: he claims we repeat topics, or phrases, that otherwise don’t exist in either the comment thread or the diary, including “straight” “christian” or “men suck.”

Chris, honey, “Christian” and “Republican” are capitalized, at least in the manner in which I’m guessing you meant to use them.

And, oh honey, it’s sooooooooooo telling that only you felt compelled to type “straight christian men suck” and in THAT order.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Best laugh I’ve had all day!

Comment #77: judybrowni  on  08/31  at  09:16 PM

This post criticizes the enforcement of U.S. immigration law as racist.

Reading comprehension fail.

Comment #78: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  09:17 PM

Um…no liz sweety. The AZ law was about persecuting people for seeming like illegal immigrants, ie looking sort of spic-y. Checking everyones passport as they enter the country is not racist—allowing citizens to sue the police for not harassing mexican-looking folks standing on the street is racist. The former treats everyone the same, the latter targets certain groups.

But, you know, your idea is popular, therefore it must totes be right. I hope I am as smart as you some day.

Comment #79: alysia  on  08/31  at  09:20 PM

The AZ law was about persecuting people for seeming like illegal immigrants, ie looking sort of spic-y.

Which becomes even clearer when you look at the other laws passed at the same time: the attacks on ethnic studies and on teachers with accents.

Comment #80: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  09:25 PM

Amanda, I thought most meth was domestically produced.

Doubt it.  The meth from Mexico is, from what I understand, both a better quality and safer.  They have big old professional level labs in Mexico, unlike the fly by the seat of your pants operations in the U.S.  Depending on where you are, I’m sure it’s different, but a whole lot of meth out there is Mexican-made.

Comment #81: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/31  at  09:27 PM

“You are racist” does not answer any of these questions, or even make sense

But it probably is a good reason to think nothing you say should be taken in good faith, since the current MO of racists is to use a “wah, me?” strategy.

Comment #82: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/31  at  09:30 PM

fela, that’s a little simplistic.

I really wasn’t at any point in that comment suggesting that we should completely legalize heroin or meth. I was just pointing out that the category “drugs” really includes lots of things that are legal and that people use every day (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine), and at least the first two of those are profoundly more dangerous and toxic than many of the illegal drugs.

For the record, I think pot should be treated like cigarettes, and the psychedelics available in pharmacies the same way effective antihistamines are now. Heroin, coke, meth: legal to possess, illegal to manufacture or distribute. Treat all three of the latter group as public health problems, not ones of criminal justice. Date rape drugs: strictly illegal.

Comment #83: felagund  on  08/31  at  09:31 PM

Chris, I have no idea what you’re attempting to convey, and don’t have a Wingnut-to-English translator handy.

It’s been fun, but enough with feeding the Trolls—apparently makes them think what they write merits a response.

Comment #84: judybrowni  on  08/31  at  09:33 PM

I think you just made the “Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!” play.

Ah well, 48 comments without a racist troll was pretty good. And technically, a copy-paster counts as only half a troll. But Chris2 picked up on the talking point du jour gamely:

Swedes don’t grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.

As opposed to America, where even the children of deadbeats like you would get citizenship just because they’re born on U.S. soil.

Look, Chris2, I’m sure that Sweden or Britain or Canada would be glad to take you in, even undocumented, if the demand for poorly educated and easily cowed cheap manual labour was as high in those places as it was in the U.S. Sadly for you, they’re covered in that regard by their own citizens and documented immigrants. And even if they weren’t the Eurozone countries would make up the difference with the sort of guest worker scheme that your hero Prince Bush wanted to implement here.

So as it is, you’ll have to wallow in your disappointment that your white skin and your high school diploma and the fact that you were born on U.S. soil didn’t result in the automatic 6-figure salary to which you thought you were entitled. And you’ll have to seethe bitterly at the thought of all those undocumented Mexicans stealing the really good jobs.

Reading and thinking are too much for chris.

You’re being unfair—by now it should be clear that tying his own shoes while he hums “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” would be a bit too much for Chris2.

Comment #85: Gracchus.  on  08/31  at  09:34 PM

This post criticizes the enforcement of U.S. immigration law as racist.

Or the writing of completely unconstitutional laws that are based on the premise that being brown means you’re probably doing something wrong.  If you’re honestly trying to argue that the “papers please” law has anything to do with U.S. immigration law, I highly recommend that you take your racist ass back to school and learn to look the word “jurisdiction” up in a dictionary.

Anyway, laws that assume certain classes of immigrants are less desirable based on race are, yes, racist.  And that is true here and in Europe or anywhere racists pass their racist laws.

Comment #86: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/31  at  09:34 PM

I doubt the likes of Elizabeth and Chris are human beings at all.  They show every sign of being bots, posting canned comments in response to key words.

Comment #87: rea  on  08/31  at  09:36 PM

The government of Mexico really needs to get its shit together.

Comment #88: Bitter Scribe  on  08/31  at  09:44 PM

“The government of Mexico really needs to get its shit together.”

True.  But on the other hand, those of us who live in glass democracies probably shouldn’t throw too many stones…

Comment #89: MikeEss  on  08/31  at  10:04 PM

Oh, Johnny, what are these biscuits of yours that you’re teasing me with. I got high expectations, and I doubt your kitchen skillz are up to the task.

Comment #90: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  10:05 PM

And if I were you I too would be ashamed of myself.

You have shown yourself to be incapable of shame.  If you were someone else, I can’t imagine that would change.

Comment #91: Atheist, A Feminist  on  08/31  at  10:06 PM

See if you can make one comment without using the word ‘racist’ or ‘white’

About you, I’ll admit it would be difficult to avoid using both words.

Also, you should really tell your fellow white racist (damn, did it again!) JohnMcKay that it doesn’t help your cause when he posts while intoxicated.

Comment #92: Gracchus.  on  08/31  at  10:19 PM

How come chris gets to stay when stick was banned? at least stick made assertions, even if they were terrible. this guy does not read anything or respond to anything or say anything. i don’t know if he is dumber than a stick, but a stick would certainly be better able to stay on topic.

Comment #93: alysia  on  08/31  at  10:20 PM

/me rubs knuckle to forehead…

Okay from the top…

Prohibitions are a form of ethnic warfare, sometimes gender warfare.  Just about all of them coalesce from moral panic arguments.  Banning abortions are about asserting male control/profit/linneage concerns over reproductive activity.  There are many tear inducing reasons why we should ban abortion, but they ain’t the real reason, eh?  Banning alcohol was just as much about Protestant “natives” asserting dominance over Catholic “immigrants”.  Sure we’d like to stop drunk men from beating their wives—that’s the nominal reason, but the real reason is simply to find legal (and underhanded) means to oppress certain people that others of a certain bent don’t like.  Marijuana became an illegal drug because people thought brown people liked to use it.  Same with opium.  Of course, many white people used those drugs too, but this would be…kinda…besides the point.  Going further…Right wing French people target veils because it gives them a nominally progressive way to oppress North Africans.

Put simple, you’re not ever going to convince people as a whole to stop stuff like Three Strikes or do some drug decriminalization because that is part of the race/gender/I’m Against Everything war.  They’re just as much rational as drunk white men terrorizing Sikhs.  Nothing is ever going to change because functionally, you need to have someone up on the telly to say how things really are.  Not like Howard Beale or Father Coughlin, where you do the narrow-mindedly reasonable interpretation of a crazy world, but speak to the public in a way that they can’t evade how they think.  TV stations won’t let you do that, and most people would be quite self-protective of their more evilly minded narcissism.  We can only wait until people are fed up with paying for the costs of such irrationality—by then, something new will pop up.

Comment #94: shah8  on  08/31  at  10:20 PM

How come chris gets to stay when stick was banned? at least stick made assertions, even if they were terrible.

One of the few rules here as I understand it is no eliminationist rhetoric, including calls for the mass displacement of ethnic groups. Chris2 might want that deep in his racist white heart (damn, did it again!), but sticky was quite open about his white supremacist race-war fantasies.

Also, sticky had been banned twice before, so it’s not like he was welcome in the first place.

Comment #95: Gracchus.  on  08/31  at  10:32 PM

Ah, ok I see. Stick was banned like 5 or 6 times though raspberry.

Comment #96: alysia  on  08/31  at  10:36 PM

Wow, he’s even more of a psychopath than I thought.

Comment #97: Gracchus.  on  08/31  at  10:48 PM

This post criticizes the enforcement of U.S. immigration law as racist.  If that’s the case, the enforcement of any country’s immigration law is racist.

“This post criticizes the cooking and eating of human infants as evil. If that’s the case, the cooking and eating of anything is evil. So how come it’s okay for the Swedes to eat beets, huh?”

Comment #98: kristin  on  08/31  at  10:49 PM

So how come it’s okay for the Swedes to eat beets, huh?

Who says it’s OK for anyone to eat beets?

Beets aren’t food. They’re an instrument of torture. Unless they’re sugar beets.

Comment #99: Bitter Scribe  on  08/31  at  11:14 PM

Beets aren’t food. They’re an instrument of torture. Unless they’re sugar beets.

I thought that too, but then I ate baby golden beets, and they’re like a completely different animal; so although I have certain reservations (red beets just taste like dirt to me) I am a beet devotee.

Comment #100: kristin  on  08/31  at  11:24 PM

Watching a documentary on indigenous peoples being evicted in Colombia.  The army throws home-made grenades at them, they throw them back, and the news only shows the later.  The army then says the resistance (rocks and people sitting in the way?) are funded by narcoterrorists.

Comment #101: Crissa  on  08/31  at  11:28 PM

Who says it’s OK for anyone to eat beets?
Beets aren’t food. They’re an instrument of torture. Unless they’re sugar beets.

I made some beet chips for a party this weekend. (fried, not baked). With a horseradish sour cream dip. Phenomenal! (and a huge hit at the party.)

Beet greens are also pretty damn good. But, I live in North Dakota, and that seems to be the only damned thing they grow around here.

Comment #102: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  11:30 PM

Whiteness is one of the greatest poisons humanity has created.

Comment #103: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  08/31  at  11:31 PM

John—the law did not just require non-citizens to produce proof of citizenship if they had committed a crime. It acted anyone that seemed sort of immigrant-y who had any contact with police to produce proof of citizenship if they had any interaction with police at all. It also allowed people to sue the police if they don’t think the police are enforcing the law well enough. It basically mandates that the police harass immigrant-y like people. Most immigrants do carry their green card, so they would likely be ok. I am sure many illegal immigrants procure fairly effective fake documentation. However, US citizens do not usually have a way to prove citizenship—your driver’s license doesn’t count. So US citizens that seem immigrant-like are the ones most likely to get in trouble. The federal law is different because interaction with federal agents is not as everyday as with state officials. How often do you see the feds when you are out on your day to day business?

The major problem with this law is that it will exacerbate the problems that already exist with illegal immigration. Fear of police will keep hispanic people that are crime victims from seeking any sort of police protection. This will make those populations even more exploitable, meaning employers can treat them even worse and making them even more attractive as workers. Furthermore, such measures will keep hispanic people from eventually integrating into mainstream society; hispanic people will become further isolated in barrios. When you create a minority worker class that is isolated from mainstream society, things like riots happen. The best way to minimize the potential negative impacts from immigration is to recognize immigrant rights, make sure that employers treat them fairly, and allow for their children to have better lives than they do. 

There are too many illegal immigrants here to simply kick them all out. It is financially and logistically infeasible. Just hating on immigrants and commanding the police to harass hispanics will not make anyone better off.

Comment #104: alysia  on  08/31  at  11:43 PM

The whole idea of a gateway drug is seriously screwed up when the truth about any illegal substance is far less scary than what they proclaim it is.  When kids find out that they’ve been lied to about marijuana, it seriously undermines anything said about any other substance.

We need to be honest about why things are legal or illegal.  Being dishonest only undermines the efforts to keep people safe.

Comment #105: Crissa  on  08/31  at  11:44 PM

Additionally, a nation built on and by mass immigration - like ours - will have a different definition of citizenship and a different concept of it than a nation built, run and primarily populated by the indigenous population of the area. In the European nations mentioned, assimilation isn’t seen as a desirable end goal for immigrants, as often as it is seen as a near impossibility, because group membership is firmly based in blood and a shared origin, as opposed to a shared ethos.

Comment #106: Selena777  on  08/31  at  11:49 PM

Just for general information, nearly every country in North, Central, and South America practices birth-right citizenship. Pakistan, Fiji, and Lesotho also follow jus soli. It is really the most sensible and fairest way to establish citizenship. The UK, Ireland, France, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa follow modified jus soli, which is better than nothing. That other countries do not follow it, including Sweden, is a mark of shame on them even if they have other admirable qualities.

  MAJeff at 114: I’m with you as long as there is an exception for Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews suffered under the European yoke and there is no need for us to be classified with white people.

Comment #107: Lee  on  08/31  at  11:50 PM

My issue with legalizing all drugs is that I’ve never met a responsible or strictly recreational meth user.

Why would you think about it?  Pseudoephedrine is legal.  Nearly everyone does it.  You already know many responsible users.  Probably everyone you know.

However, talking about the ills of Methamphetamine when talking about marijuana?  That’s a strawman argument.  It should be illegal because it’s hazardous.  It hurts people.  But marijuana and MDMA and any other number of recreations drugs are not methamphetamine, and calling up the ills of one when talking about the many is dishonest.

Comment #108: Crissa  on  08/31  at  11:52 PM

Elizabeth—I lost my original birth certificate. The state of IA only keeps electronic copies, so I can’t be a citizen enough for you. Can I stay here since I am an Iowa-born Swede or do I have to go back to Mexico?

Also, why did the great conspirators work to get the fake birth announcement in the Honolulu paper rather than just fly Mrs. Obama’s pregnant ass back to Kansas? How did they have the forsight in 1961 to think that a black baby could be president?

Its also worthy of note that there is no definition for natural born citizens. Some contend that if you are a citizen of the US at the time of birth-as Obama was, unless you also think he has another secret mother (maybe the same mystery lady that birthed trig!) who is not a US citizen.

Comment #109: alysia  on  08/31  at  11:58 PM

Liz is a birther?  That makes so much sense it’s ridiculous, as her accusation that we’d want to get a late-term abortion for kicks.

John McKay, Chris, Liz, why the bloody hell are you here?  Seriously, we aren’t suddenly going to go “Oh, dearie me, I’ve been shown the error of my actually-giving-a-shit about people ways because some unrepentant racist is yelling about how the president is illegitimate because of mumblemumble CONSPIRACY!”

I have a family of conservatives who I KNOW are decent people, who more or less help out their neighbors and are sincere in their beliefs.  If the very best examples of conservative philosophies don’t convince me, why would embarrassments to conservatism and the human race like you convince me?

Dana, never thought I’d say this, but come back!

Comment #110: Antigone  on  09/01  at  12:01 AM

The state of IA only keeps electronic copies, so I can’t be a citizen enough for you

Same here. I had to contact Iowa to get a copy of mine so I could get a passport. I guess my passport, like the President’s, is invalid then.

Comment #111: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  09/01  at  12:02 AM

Dana, never thought I’d say this, but come back!

Fuck. No.

Comment #112: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  09/01  at  12:03 AM

No citizenship for the Dutch, I say. Take your tulips, wooden shoes, and fanatical Christian Sect and high tail-it back to Holland.

Comment #113: alysia  on  09/01  at  12:08 AM

Oh, Lee, you Jews ain’t white. No worries about that.

Alysia, if the Dutch will take me, I’m there. I think 5 generations might be too far removed though, even for a pure-bred Hollander like me.

Comment #114: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  09/01  at  12:12 AM

Ha! They were probably so glad to see you guys go raspberry

Comment #115: alysia  on  09/01  at  12:15 AM

“Its also worthy of note that there is no definition for natural born citizens.”

The meaning is crystal-clear to me.

Any child born in the US via cesarean section is not “natural born” and therefore cannot be considered an American citizen.

In fact, any birth in a hospital is obviously unnatural, and therefore the resulting issue cannot be considered a legal US citizen…

Comment #116: MikeEss  on  09/01  at  12:16 AM

MAJeff-

At least Dana wasn’t a birther.  And he had basic logic.

Subject at hand:

If we legalized mj, we’d: get a huge chunk of our law enforcement money freed up, a new tax source, disempower drug cartels, and, most importantly, get a lot of people out of jail for a ridiculous law in the first place (thus saving money from having to watch and them and the human cost of jailing people).  The drug would be safer, and people who needed it medicinally would get it easier and cheaper. 

The downside of legalization would be….?

Comment #117: Antigone  on  09/01  at  12:17 AM

Elizabeth, where do the Freemasons, Elders of Zion, and Bilderburgers fit in the whole scheme?

Comment #118: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  09/01  at  12:24 AM

“So Obama could release it in a second, but is withholding it to hide embarrassing information or play a game.”

That’s funny.  Obama is “playing a game” regarding his birth certificate?  This from one of the horde of teabagging morons who project onto Obama everything but the kitchen sink?  You’ve got issues, serious bloody issues, sweetheart…

Comment #119: MikeEss  on  09/01  at  12:25 AM

Re: Birth Certificate Nonsense.

I actually have as close to an original birth certificate as you can get (Certificate of Live Birth).  It is from within a couple of months of my birth, I am pretty sure it is mimeographed, and, while it does have the hospital I was born at on it, I cannot imagine that it would be hard to fake.  It is smaller than a 3X5 card and I am really surprised (and pleased) that it has lasted this long.

My boyfriend has copy of his obtained in the late ‘90s.  His looks pretty much like Obama’s and has four or five security protections built in.

Now, if I were going to pretend to be born somewhere I wasn’t, I would forge the older, “authentic,” easier-to-fake one (especially if the fake birth place would go along with me).  But, no, Obama is an ultra-sneaky socialist who managed to fool almost everyone in the United States by fucking that up.  And the only reason anyone suspects him is because the birth certificate he presents is the one that is almost impossible to fake.

Comment #120: Atheist, A Feminist  on  09/01  at  12:25 AM

typing out “someone who seems like an immigrant” takes to long. I could have gone immigrant-ish or immigrant-esque.

Comment #121: alysia  on  09/01  at  12:27 AM

When Hawaii said that his birth certificate was not destroyed, they were able to say it because they had the birth certificate because he was born in Hawaii.

Atheist is also right about the real BC being so much easier to forge. When I had mine it was a note card with blanks filled in in pen. My new reproduction is all rainbow-y (probably because of all the gay marriage) and has an embossed seal. In fact, when you apply for a passport, you have to have a copy—they won’t accept the real thing.

Comment #122: alysia  on  09/01  at  12:36 AM

It forbids racial profiling in words, but it specifically demands that the immigrant-y be targeted.

Comment #123: alysia  on  09/01  at  12:38 AM

Elizabeth, you have so far failed to prove that you do not engage in sexual acts with goats.  Until you produce such proof, I will assume that you do, in fact, enjoy such carnal knowledge. 

Obama has produced prima facie evidence that he is a natural-born citizen—which is more than I can say for you, goatfucker.

Comment #124: Captain Bathrobe  on  09/01  at  12:39 AM

I assume Mr. McKay wanders around with a passport in his pocket at all times, and is perfectly delighted to produce it on demand by any police officer or government official on pain of jailing. After all, that is what he thinks hispanic US citizens in Arizona ought to be delighted to do.

Comment #125: Tapetum  on  09/01  at  12:39 AM

We should be ashamed of ourselves.  Deeply, deeply ashamed of ourselves.  It’s amazing to me that over this past weekend, the Glenn Beck rally was only the second biggest reason looming in my mind for why Americans should be ashamed of ourselves.  Of course, part of that is because Tea Crackers are such a clown show, but the War on Drugs is something even supposedly smart people mindlessly keep backing.

In response to this challenge, this evening’s mighty avenging troll responds:

“But Obama’s birth on the moon was faked, and he worships the god Termagant.”

 

Requesting a conversation space free of clownspeakers, please.

Comment #126: Yamara  on  09/01  at  12:40 AM

Tapetum @139:

Arizona? How about Rochester, New York?

Comment #127: Yamara  on  09/01  at  12:42 AM

it’s worse than missing 4 of July. September 16, 2010 is Mexico’s Bicentenial. Our country is turning 200 and one million juarenses won’t be able to celebrate with the rest of us.

Comment #128: bxley  on  09/01  at  01:54 AM

JohnMcKay, honey, the grownups are trying to talk right now. You can show us your Lego later, okay sweetie?

Comment #129: kristin  on  09/01  at  02:02 AM

Ah, “birthers.” Facts are foolish things to “birthers.”

I can’t show you my “actual” birth certificate because it’s on file in New Jersey, and so that it will always be on file, that original copy will never be released. Although they will send me copies, if I need ‘em. Which is the case with Obama’s birth certificate, and just about everybody else in the U.S., as far as I know.

“Birthers” also never address the birth notices that appeared in two Hawaiin newspapers the week of the future President’s birth. (Foolish fact!)

Or that birth notices then were issued to newspapers by the Health Department, not relatives.

So, for “birther” theories to be true, we’d need both a time machine, and a Health Department complicit in a time machine conspiracy!

Why don’t “birthers” ever address those inconvenient facts? Because birthers know they’re full of shit, but think they’ve discovered a way to act like a racist and not get called on it.

Fat chance on Pandagon, so Chris and Elizabeth and other trolls must get a thrill out of being called racist.

Comment #130: judybrowni  on  09/01  at  02:09 AM

I know it’s a fool’s errand to offer up factual information to wingnuts, but here goes:

“A birth notice for Barack Obama was published in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on August 13 and August 14, 1961, respectively, listing the home address of Obama’s parents as 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu.[18][39] On August 3, 2009, in response to the growing controversy, the Advertiser posted on its Web site a screenshot of the announcement taken from its microfilmed archives. Such notices were sent to newspapers routinely by the Hawaii Department of Health.[39]”

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

Duck! Here come a passel of wingnut time-machine conspiracy theories! Or other, equally plausible, conspiracy theories.

Comment #131: judybrowni  on  09/01  at  02:22 AM

John, your drivers license does not prove your citizenship. you have to have a passport or your BC. Do you carry these documents? Furhtermore, if you are a crime victim interacting with the police, would you be cool with the police asking for ID and then helping you?

I am fine with having to show your passport to cross the border, and I don’t think that anyone here is complaining about that. This is about everyday people who look like immigrants getting stopped on the street. And if you want a border you can cross w/o ID, try any border in Europe. You can go from France to Germany with no need to produce a passport.

Comment #132: alysia  on  09/01  at  02:29 AM

It’s almost as if Barack Obama doesn’t give a shit what Northeast Elizabeth thinks the standards of proof are, and refuses to dignify racist xenophobic conspiracy theory with so much as the lifting of a phone, let alone jumping through a ridiculous series of hoops.

Comment #133: Auguste  on  09/01  at  03:36 AM

I’ve addressed how meaningless the publication of Obama’s parent’s intended address is above.  He wasn’t born in a house.

No you haven’t. You haven’t addressed anything, you’re just pretending to have. If he wasn’t born in Hawaii, why did the Hawaii Dept of Health report his birth?

Comment #134: Auguste  on  09/01  at  03:38 AM

No but if I’m stopped I’m required to produce ID.  Who isn’t?  Hello?  Please tell me what border you can cross without being required to have ID and permission to enter, please tell me.  Gimme an answer asshole.

*Sigh* Troll feeding, but here goes:

If you’re stopped in a car, you’re required to produce a driver’s license, not just any random ID.  And guess what?  Driver’s Licenses don’t prove citizenship.  If I’m stopped in the middle of the sidewalk, I’m not required to produce fuck-all to the cops.  And you want to know what border I can cross without ID and permission to enter?  ALL OF THE STATES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (ne Alaska and Hawaii).  You are asking American citizens to prove citizenship on the basis of being brownish.  My lily white ass is never going to be asked for my passport in AZ.

People call you a racist for a reason.

NE Liz-

I don’t remember Bush providing a birth certificate either.  Or Clinton.  Or John McCain (who actually was born out of the country).  What about this president could be so different that makes people think he’s illegitimate? Hmm, I wonder.

Do you even listen to yourself?  Do you have any idea the number of people who’d have to be involved in a conspiracy in order for Obama to not be an American citizen.  You’re getting into ridiculous levels here.

Comment #135: Antigone  on  09/01  at  03:47 AM

What would he have to lose? Wouldn’t his birth to an American woman make him an American citizen, regardless?

Comment #136: Selena777  on  09/01  at  03:47 AM

That was a thread derailing if I ever saw one. Count how many comments after about #50 were about the War on Drugs.

Comment #137: Dharmaserf  on  09/01  at  03:48 AM

See, I told you, wingnut birthers don’t need no stinkin’ facts.

But keep in mind, whatever a birther is saying aloud, only one word bounces aound inside their skulls, “N#gg#r, N#gg#r, N#gg#r!”

Comment #138: judybrowni  on  09/01  at  03:50 AM

Another charming wingnut trait: conflating her source-free cut and paste lies, with a link to, you know, facts and stuff.

But in wingnut worldview copying fabricated lies in a racist screed is equal to evidence from myriad sources.

Comment #139: judybrowni  on  09/01  at  04:05 AM

Ladyshalott @ #48:

Which is precisely why I don’t think we’ll see the full legalization of all recreational drugs anytime soon, but I bet before I die, marijuana will be decriminalized in all 50 states.

Comment #140: DTGslu2K  on  09/01  at  04:23 AM

Alcohol and tobacco each cause significantly more annual deaths than all illicit drugs combined.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

True, but that’s largely due to the fact that they are legal and far more ubiquitous.  It’s sort of like saying 50 times more people die from cancer than from AIDS each year, so we shouldn’t worry about AIDS.

As far as alcohol goes, I doubt the percentage of alcohol-related deaths relative to the total number of alcohol users in America is anywhere near the percentage of heroin-related deaths relative to the total number of heroin users in America.

My point is, alcohol kills a lot more people largely because there are probably 1,000 times as many people using alcohol as there are people using heroin.  But I think heroin is still a far more deadly drug, and I think a much larger percentage of heroin users die in heroin-related deaths than the percentage of alcohol users who die in alcohol-related deaths.  I’ve lost three friends to heroin addiction in the past 10 years.

Comment #141: DTGslu2K  on  09/01  at  04:37 AM

However, talking about the ills of Methamphetamine when talking about marijuana?  That’s a strawman argument.  It should be illegal because it’s hazardous.  It hurts people.  But marijuana and MDMA and any other number of recreations drugs are not methamphetamine, and calling up the ills of one when talking about the many is dishonest.

I agree completely, and if I didn’t make myself clear before, I’ll do so now… I support the legalization of marijuana and some of the other minimally dangerous drugs.  I oppose the legalization of the harder drugs because I know firsthand how bad that shit can be for you.  I do think the idea that the manufacture and distribution of hard drugs (ie coke, meth, heroin) should remain illegal, but mere possession should not result in jailtime, though treatment should be offered, and with people who get caught repeatedly, perhaps mandated.

Comment #142: DTGslu2K  on  09/01  at  05:01 AM

And let’s cut this crap about state’s refusing to, or be prohibited from, or “never” releasing an original birth certificate.  They do it all the time and the person in question has an absolute right to request a copy at any time.

Really?  Because I can’t find any reference to getting an “original” from Hawaii, from the state I was born in, or from every other state I have lived in (except Florida, where you can get a photocopy pretty easily but many of their birth certificates apparently lack a city of birth and can’t be used in certain instances period). 

What I can find is the state of Hawaii passing a law to prevent you assholes from taking up their time.  It is apparently working.  I’m a little surprised at that.

Comment #143: Atheist, A Feminist  on  09/01  at  06:09 AM

You know what I’m tired of? Getting to a post the next morning, seeing some interesting and substantive conversation that I’d like to join, and then getting to the end of the comments and finding out it’s been totally derailed by some troll.

Comment #144: snowmentality  on  09/01  at  09:18 AM

Okay, sorry I went to bed.  Time for some banning for hate speech.  I just read an interesting essay from Matt Taibbi pointing out how much the right wing media is resembling Radio Rwanda.  Even though banning racists is probably not going to make a difference, I don’t want to play any part in letting the fascists encourage each other.

Comment #145: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/01  at  09:40 AM

John, Chris, and Elizabeth have been banned for racial slurs and generally spreading racist hate against innocent people.  Is there anyone else that we need to ban?

Comment #146: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/01  at  09:44 AM

Amanda, to be clear, my frustration was not directed at you or other mods! There have just been a lot of incredibly stupid and annoying trolls lately and I am frustrated with their existence. You’ve been doing a great moderating job.

Substantive conversation: I think it makes sense to legalize marijuana. A friend of mine who researches gang violence thinks the drug gangs will just find something else, but I think getting rid of that hugely profitable black market would cut down on a lot of the violence.

Furthermore, keeping cannabis illegal has more to do with a puritan, Prohibitionist moral code than reality. I don’t use it myself, but my experience with people who do has been that it’s about like alcohol. A lot of people who use it moderately and recreationally, some who are self-medicating depression or anxiety and therefore tend to overuse, few (but some) people who have an addiction. (This is not taking medical use into account, since I don’t know anyone who’s been prescribed it. But its medical use is pretty well established at this point.)

I don’t know exactly what to do with harder drugs. I do know a punitive approach to addiction doesn’t work. I have heard of programs that let addicts come in and use free heroin, to cut off the theft and violent crime involved with buying and selling it illegally—and offer drug treatment programs to any addict who decides they want to quit. The idea is that forcing someone into treatment won’t lead to recovery; they have to decide on their own, and until then, at least we can cut down on the harm to other people. This kind of pragmatic harm-reduction solution seems reasonable to me, but I don’t know details of programs like this, nor do I have data on how well they work.

Comment #147: snowmentality  on  09/01  at  10:39 AM

Is there anyone else that we need to ban?

Since you ask, “jack ryan” in this thread is definitely a proud racist (with sexism as the cherry on his shite sundae). Whether he’s said anything ban-worthy is your call.

Comment #148: Gracchus.  on  09/01  at  10:42 AM

I actually have as close to an original birth certificate as you can get (Certificate of Live Birth).  It is from within a couple of months of my birth, I am pretty sure it is mimeographed, and, while it does have the hospital I was born at on it, I cannot imagine that it would be hard to fake.  It is smaller than a 3X5 card and I am really surprised (and pleased) that it has lasted this long.

My boyfriend has copy of his obtained in the late ‘90s.  His looks pretty much like Obama’s and has four or five security protections built in.

Yeah, I have a mimeographed, stamped, and notarized version of my vault birth certificate. (Or, that’s what I presume that kind of nasty and hard to read piece of paper is.) I had enough problem with it being QUESTIONED as real that I went and got my rainbowy version from the county clerk last time I was around my birth county. It looks basically like what Obama’s looks like.

All I have for my kid is the rainbowy version. I don’t even know if they do “vault” certificates anymore.

Comment #149: hp  on  09/01  at  11:52 AM

snowmentality, the Dutch have done much good with their harm reduction approach to heroin and other hard drugs:

The Netherlands spends more than €130 million annually on facilities for addicts, of which about fifty percent goes to drug addicts. The Netherlands has extensive demand reduction programs, reaching about ninety percent of the country’s 25,000 to 28,000 hard drug users. The number of hard drug addicts has stabilized in the past few years and their average age has risen to 38 years, which is generally seen as a positive trend. Notably, the number of drug-related deaths in the country remains amongst the lowest in Europe.

Using the cops to treat the problems generated by the use of drugs is like using statisticians to treat people with a gambling problem.

Comment #150: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/01  at  01:05 PM

One thing that I noticed hasn’t been brought up yet is the subject of asset forfeiture.  It’s a VERY important (and profitable) tool in the WOD.  Legally, the gov’t can steal everything you own- your house, your car, your bank account- without your ever having been convicted in a court of law for ANY crime.

Let’s say you enjoy gardening as a hobby, and decide you want to raise, oh, say…tomatoes…all year long.  Nothing illegal, just nice fresh tomatoes.  So, you go out to your nearest hydroponics shop and purchase gardening equipment: lights, fertilizer, timers, a couple of fans, etc, and retrofit your closet into a growroom so you can grow luscious tomatoes. 

All’s well and good, until suddenly the electric company’s meter reader notices a “spike” in your readings and decides to drop a dime to LE (for which he may get a generous “tip”).  LE gets curious, and arranges for one of their cohorts to do a flyover, using FLIR, to check for a heat signature.  Now, a heat signature via FLIR isn’t considered evidence enough to obtain a warrant, but it IS enough for them to drop by for a “knock & talk”. 

Perhaps you panic and manage to blurt something stupid, triggering LE’s suspicions even further.  Or maybe they might get a glimpse of some grow equipment, or a couple of jugs of nutrients, or hear a humming coming from the closet.  Hmmm- you live in a nice neighborhood, drive a very nice new car, your home is fabulous, you have all kinds of artwork and goodies…care to see where this is leading?

Realistically, though, most asset forfeitures occur during “routine traffic stops,” (usually DWBIAWN: driving while brown in a white neighborhood)- especially if the so-called suspect happens to be in a nice car. 

FYI I grew cannabis for over 20 years.  It started strictly as a hobby, but eventually grew (no pun intended) into a profession.  Why?  Well, the saying “money doesn’t grow on trees” comes to mind…how else could I get up to $6,000 per lb for doing little more than growing a plant under a light?  I no longer grow or use cannabis, nor am I actively involved with any cannabis users (sorry, LEO lurkers- ya’ll had your chance to fuck me and ya blew it).

Comment #151: Zephira, Queen of the Space Weasels  on  09/01  at  01:16 PM

Whenever I read a right-wing nutbag troll rant I can’t help but picture them barking it out with a sneer, drool dripping down the side of their mouth, spittle flying out at their laptop screen.

Why is JohnMckay still here?

Comment #152: judybrowni  on  09/01  at  03:15 PM

Mexican drug cartels make at least 60 percent of their revenue from selling marijuana in the U.S., according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_15950679

Amanda, I am not sure why you think legalizing pot won’t hurt the cartels that much. It won’t destroy them, but they will take a huge hit

Comment #153: bay of arizona  on  09/01  at  03:19 PM

Alcohol and tobacco each cause significantly more annual deaths than all illicit drugs combined.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

True, but that’s largely due to the fact that they are legal and far more ubiquitous.  It’s sort of like saying 50 times more people die from cancer than from AIDS each year, so we shouldn’t worry about AIDS.

But then there isn’t any reason to spend 50 times as much on the smaller ill as the larger, is there?

Comment #154: Crissa  on  09/01  at  06:56 PM

So John, what WOULD make you suspect someone of being an immigrant?

Comment #155: alysia  on  09/01  at  07:06 PM

I really like arguing and once found troll psychology interesting. I would just like to apologize to everyone at this blog for all the troll feeding I have done.

Comment #156: alysia  on  09/01  at  08:28 PM

I’ve lived long enough to see that bigotry always leads to bodybags.

How racists can live with themselves is beyond me, but apparently using the word “shit” helps ‘em get through the day.

Comment #157: judybrowni  on  09/02  at  03:36 AM

@judybrowni

But apparently not “fuck.”  I got lectured about that in another thread.  That racist lived with himself by engaging in good old-fashioned non-gyrating partner dancing. 

I believe JohnMckay has previously said he fishes as well.  I also have no idea how that would help mitigate the misery caused by living in a world populated primarily by people the racist fears and loathes.

Comment #158: Atheist, A Feminist  on  09/02  at  03:44 AM

Eaten up by hate and fear, it must be horrible inside McKay’s head.

With the only comfort his belief that somehow, someway he’s better than someone, by the color of his skin.

Imagine what it must be like, to have nothing else in your life of which to be proud?

When demagogues can use you like a puppet to wreck economic havoc by playing up hate and fear of THE OTHER (whoever they’ve told you is The Other this decade.)

I’d feel more sorry for racists, if they didn’t create such misery in this world. The bigotry that eventually ends in bodybags.

I wouldn’t want to be in McKay’s head for any amount of money.

Comment #159: judybrowni  on  09/02  at  08:25 AM

That’s why I stayed in El Paso for the night and blew straight through Juárez around mid-morning the next day when I was heading through there on my pan-American trip back in mid-July, and got a bus out to Chihuahua city ASAP. Didn’t want to spend any more time than I had to in the murder capital of the world. There were federales in pickup trucks patrolling the streets with rifles out in all directions, looking like they were making the rounds in Baghdad or something (and probably wishing they were out there where it was safer). One moment of kindness, though: I was trying to find the local bus out to the central camionera to get to Chihuahua, and a woman named Ramona walked and rode with me about 6 or 8 blocks and showed me onto the local bus through town. Goes to show what ignoring the news reports and actually getting in there can get you.

Comment #160: Wareq  on  09/02  at  02:36 PM

OK, let me make sure I have the wingnut checklist correct here: Poor people and brown people should starve if they can’t beg enough alms, beat the schoolchildren so they grow up acknowledging what groveling worthless worms they are before God, shoot the brown hordes before they get in. No saying fuck, nice people don’t do that.

Oh and nice, hetero, non-gyrating partner dancing. Wait, was that john or jack? Shit, I can’t tell the tiny-penis impotent rage apart anymore.

Comment #161: kristin  on  09/02  at  02:56 PM

165# It was jack.

152# Well, I’m confused… I haven’t recieved money. Neither have any minorities I know intimately - we are legion. As you could accurately assume, we enjoy recieving money - there’s a particularly alluring platinum grill I’m eyeing at the moment - so if anyone had recieved a check from the government, George Soros, ACORN or the Illuminati, I’d probably get a call and a celebratory chicken dinner would be had by all, but thus far, nothing. Does your black friend recieve money from liberals? Perhaps he could get us on the mailing list. For a minute there, my black friend and I were getting so desperate we contemplated becoming wingnut talking heads to get a straight pipeline to all of that hard-working conservative money. It seems to be a lucrative option for minorities… almost as if they were being disproportionately plucked from obscurity and recruited into high-visibility positions.

Comment #162: Selena777  on  09/03  at  01:20 AM

154# In this case the ONDCP makes a plausible claim, but the fact that the Ministry of Truth says it doesn’t actually tell us anything.

Comment #163: hf  on  09/03  at  09:29 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.