Vineland Today

[Robin Landseadel]

On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Ian Livingston wrote:

> I dunno about this guy's rhetoric. His research might be good, and his
> conclusion laudable. but between the two he gets a little squirrely.
> An invitation to the right wingnuts for mockery. He says "no
> unconventional war will resolve the matter," so "the 'War on Drugs'
> should become a war on US citizenry." Is he advocating a civil war, in
> which the military should attack and overthrow the stoners?

I honestly think it's simply a "Modest Proposal."

> Prop 19 is
> unlikely to pass because of the flawed language in its framing and the
> sloppy rhetoric in its support, but I intend to vote yes on it just to
> send the message to Washington that Americans should pay taxes on
> their luxuries instead of being incarcerated for them.

I'm voting Yes for the simple reason that any drug THAT DOESN'T HAVE A  
LD50 should not  be on any schedule, much less the ultra-restrictive  
schedule one. I really don't care how the DEA gets its ass handed back  
to them for this one, but I want to see it happen in my lifetime, the  
sooner the better.

The way Mr. Tokatlian writes about marijuana reminds me a lot of the  
way Pynchon writes about marijuana.

> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Robin Landseadel
> <robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:
>>        Proposition 19: a chance to end the 'war on drugs'
>>        Juan Gabriel Tokatlian
>>        guardian.co.uk,
>>        Thursday 28 October 2010
>>
>>        It is now evident that the "war on drugs" is not a metaphor:  
>> in the
>>        Andean Ridge and Mexico, as well as in West Africa and Central
>>        Asia, it has become a militarised crusade against narcotics.
>>        Several thousand soldiers are directly involved in anti-drugs
>>        operations worldwide. Hundreds of billions have been spent
>>        everywhere in an armed combat against drug consumers,
>>        drug traffickers, drug producers, drug launders and drug  
>> lords.
>>
>>        As part of an irregular battle against an illicit business,  
>> as a twin
>>        threat – together with terrorism – to be defeated by a form  
>> of low
>>        -intensity conflict, or as a component of a punitive war, US  
>> and
>>        non-US troops are the leading an armed fight against narcotics
>>        from Colombia and Guinea Bissau to Afghanistan. The actual
>>        results – in terms of crop eradication and substitution,  
>> drug inter-
>>        diction, narcotics trafficking reduction, organised crime  
>> disman-
>>        tling, curtailment of money laundering, improved statehood,
>>        better civil-military relations and human rights advancement –
>>        have been abysmally poor.
>>
>>        Even though Washington now spends $1,400 every second
>>        in the "war on drugs", the crusade has been a complete fiasco.
>>        The US-funded Plan Colombia (started by 2000), the Andean
>>        Regional Initiative (since 2002), the Merida Initiative  
>> (originated
>>        in 2007) for Mexico and Central America and Caribbean Basin
>>        Security Initiative (launched in 2009), have totalled more  
>> than
>>        $9bn and have had negligible results in terms of lowering the
>>        drug consumption, reducing the availability of psychoactive
>>        substances and diminishing the purity of narcotics in the
>>        United States.
>>
>>        What this tells us is that the problem with drugs is no more
>>        "alien" than the solution is "military". Drugs are a US demand
>>        issue – driven by domestic markets that have their own social
>>        and political implications, as well as by transnational  
>> economic
>>        forces and their global ramifications. So, no unconventional
>>        war will resolve the matter. If the idea were to follow the  
>> advice
>>        of military theorist Carl von Clausewitz – to discern the  
>> "enemy's
>>        centre of gravity", the pivotal place "on which everything
>>        depends" and "the point against which all our energies should
>>        be directed" – then the "war on drugs" should become a war on
>>        US citizenry.
>>
>>        One way to begin the domestic dismantling of the "war on  
>> drugs"
>>        rationale and to signal to the world that the United States is
>>        willing to initiate a realistic, frank and effective debate on
>>        narcotics is to support Proposition 19, on which Californians
>>        will vote on 2 November. If passed in this ballot, the  
>> proposition
>>        would mean a new regulatory regime of different marijuana-
>>        related activities, one no longer based on prohibition and
>>        interdiction. This would represent a real advance in dealing
>>        seriously and effectively with the narcotics issue – and a
>>        bold new step towards broadening the global debate on the
>>        effectiveness, or otherwise, of drug prohibition.
>>
>>        Proposition 19 provides a window of opportunity for Americans
>>        to think again about the wisdom of prolonging a costly and  
>> futile
>>        war.
>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/25mfhnh
>
>
>
> -- 
> "liber enim librum aperit."