The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Musings on Two of the Dumbest Wars the US Has Ever Fought
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_98961482

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

No, this won’t be about Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan or any other US military war of choice which, while dumb, could at least result in some kind of appearance of victory, no matter how feeble (say, against a few Cuban engineers armed with AKs in Grenada). Today I want to share a few thoughts about the two wars the US has been engaged in for decades even though they never, ever had a chance to win: the war on drugs and the war on guns.

Shocked that I would put these two wars in the same category?

Think again.

True, the war in drugs is something the (so-called) Right loves. The war in guns is the favorite of the (so-called) Left. Granted. That is one difference I won’t deny.

But the rest?

First, both wars are based on a logical fallacy: that an object, an item, is the source of evil. This is why politicians on both sides (let’s just pretend that there are, really, “sides” in the US official political spectrum, even if there are none) love them. Put yourselves in the shoes of a US politician and ask yourself what you would prefer: to deal with a complex problem (violence/addiction) which has its roots deep inside human nature and which is exacerbated by the very nature of our society, the society which has put you, the putative US politician, into a position of power and which now dangles the promise to let you join the select club of the ruling 1%ers or to simply ban an inanimate object by voting “yea” on a piece of legislature?

Think of all the risks a US politician would take if he/she wanted to deal with the real issues, especially those who are either rooted in, or the result of, our deeply dysfunctional social and political order. And think how smart, courageous, principled and even heroic you, the politician, would look if you took a “tough stance” against drugs/guns? All you really need to do is make sure first is whether your constituents suffer from drugs-phobia or gun-phobia and, voilà, you are a hero! Simple and very, very effective.

Second, both wars are easy to explain to the dumb and ignorant. Let’s be honest here, as a politician you need to mostly cater to the left side of the Bell Curve with some attention given to the center. Not only do smart folks tend to distrust politicians, but they also like to reach their own conclusions, often based on lengthy research and the analysis of complex arguments. To make things worse, smart people often tend to be anti-authoritarian – individualists who favor free choice over state enforced laws, rules and regulations.

Third, both wars are easily fueled by the fear factor: “drug warriors” have a phobia (in the sense of both hate and fear) of drugs just as “gun warriors” have a phobia of guns, which means that rather than rationally analyze the issue, their position will be emotionally driven, free from all the complexities of real life. A politician will always prefer an emotional argument over a rational one because only emotion generates the kind of unthinking loyalty a politician needs to secure his/her power base.

Fourth, both wars are a bureaucratic and financial bonanza. Why? Because these are wars which will never, ever, be “won” and that, in turn, guarantees not only a steady streams of dollars, but even the creation of specialized agencies such as the DEA or the ATF whose very existence will depend on never winning the war on drugs/guns. A bureaucrat’s dream come true!

Fifth, there is also a much more subtle but no less important aspect of the war on drugs/guns: they make it possible to easily detect potentially disloyal elements. Drugs users, especially, since they break the law to consume their drugs, have already crossed the psychological line of deliberately breaking the law and disobeying the doxa of the state and society and they are much more likely to engage in other forms of disloyalty (such as engaging in various forms of crimethink) than law abiding citizens. Legal gun owners in the USA are extremely law abiding (In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers; source), but a lot of them are also fiercely individualists who do not like to rely on the state for their defense and who often even believe that the 2nd Amendment was crafted with the specific intention to allow citizens to resist a state turned authoritarian (of course, illegal gun owners are, by definition, felons and criminals who are extremely disloyal to anything but themselves). So, in a way, the use of drugs or the possession of weapons is a good way to, shall we say, “screen” for those elements who could turn out to be potential trouble makers.

ORDER IT NOW

Of course, at this point in time gun owners have it much, much, better than drug users. Alas, there never was a constitutional amendment protecting the right of each citizen to ingest, smoke, inject or otherwise consume any substance he/she wants simply because at the time of the drafting of the Constitution that freedom was an self-evident truth (wars on booze and drugs happened much later). In fact, the list of rights specifically granted to the state was assumed exhaustive and the state could not engage in any legistlation not specifically authorized, while today we see the exact opposite of that: whatever freedom is not expressly protected is fair game for the millionaire lawyers sitting in Congress. But considering the very real risk of a Hillary Presidency soon, the 2nd Amendement might well be soon eroded to such a degree as to become unrecognizable. Even the Republicans have an ugly record, especially at a local level, for passing all sorts of petty and dumb regulations which gradually but constantly limit the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In some jurisdictions the mere possession of a firearm is already considered a felony while others try hard to make self-defense a crime in almost all circumstances. So yes, the 2nd Amendement is still there, but barely, and if Hillary gets to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice it might be gone soon. Besides, what the gun-haters failed to achieve in the courts, they have already achieved in a cultural sense where, for example, a revolver is seen by many as an “instrument of murder” rather than a home-defense tool, a hunting tool, a sports tool or just a harmless symbol of freedom (historically, free men were allowed to carry weapons, slaves were not).

I want to make it clear that I am not comparing guns and drugs by themselves. I am only comparing the rationale and methods used by the regime in Washington to wage a war on these otherwise completely different things.

Now let’s engage in a little thought experiment.

Let’s imagine that Congress decides to legalize all drugs and guns overnight: all drugs, medical or recreational, would be come available over-the-counter in any store willing to sell them and the right to bear arms would be completely protected under “Constitutional carry” guarantees. What would happen next?

Some will say that the US would turn into a gigantic war zone where millions of citizens sky-high on PCP and crack cocaine would begin shooting each other with assault rifles and that all those not busy murdering each other would be lying around terminally stoned. Do you believe that?

I don’t.

For one thing I believe that the number of people using drugs or owning guns would change very little. Sure, there would be a short-term novelty effect, but soon the numbers would stabilize. Shootings and overdoses would also remain pretty much at the same level as today. What would drop dramatically and immediately would be crime rate, not so much because of the deterrent effect of an armed citizenry (just like today, most folks who not go around carrying a firearm) as due to the fantastic effect of a complete collapse of the illegal drug market following a legalization of drugs.

[Sidebar: A friend of mine is a detective in the Daytona Police Department. He used to be in Narcotics for years. I recently asked him what percentage of crime in Daytona is drug-related. He said “almost all of it”. It turns out that not only does the trafficking in drugs result in a huge share of the violent crime in Daytona, but that most burglaries, thefts, break-ins, etc. are also committed by drug addicts. And even though drug traffickers and users cannot legally obtain a gun (convicted felons don't have that right in Florida), drug dealers all pack firearms (even if most are in very poor condition or even broken, and the felons themselves very bad marksmen). The truth is that if drugs were made legal the size of US police departments could rapidly and dramatically be reduced and that the remaining small force could go back to “normal”, civilized, police functions rather than fight the kind of military war in drugs with APCs, helicopters and SWAT teams they are engaged in every day.]

My point?

Simple: mainly to show to that those who want legalize drugs (the so-called “Liberals”) have much more in common with the defenders of the 2nd Amendement (the so-called “Conservatives”) than they think, and to show to those cherish their right to keep and bear arms that they, in turn, have a lot in common with the “potheads” they are so-willing to condemn and put in jail. At the end of the day, it makes absolutely no more sense to authorize drugs/guns and ban guns/drugs than it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty. Just as life is either a sacred value or not, so is the freedom of each person to decide for himself/herself how he/she chooses to live. It all boils down to a few simple questions: do we feel that it is our right to curtail the freedoms of our fellow citizens because we do not approve of their choices or not? Do we believe that inanimate objects can, by themselves, cause such evils as violence or addition? Do we believe that it will ever become possible to eliminate weapons or mind-altering substances from our societies? And, most importantly, do we believe that each individual ought to have the right to reply to these questions by him or herself, or do we believe that the state ought to enforce its truth on the rest of us?

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Drugs, Guns 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. As I now work in the medical field, allow me to provide Trump with an idea that can garner him a couple million votes. Announce that he will repeal the recent DEA order to reclassify Hydrocodone as a Class II drug. This pain med is used by millions of Americans, so now they must see a doctor every three months in person to continue routine prescriptions, rather than once a year. Most of these millions of citizens are elderly and can’t drive, so this is huge burden on families, nursing homes, and doctors. The DEA claims Hydrocodone is addictive. I agree, being free from pain is addictive.

    This was done by the DEA, even thought the AMA opposed the idea! The drug warriors overruled the doctors, and Obama did nothing! Most Americans know nothing of this, but the millions affected are outraged. This includes overwhelmed primary care doctors who must make room for frequent “howdy” visits simply to renew Hydrocodone prescriptions because the non-medical DEA warriors require it. Trump could score huge points by addressing this “war on drug” battle by saying that he trusts doctors more than bureaucrats and promising to reset Hydrocodone as a Class III.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The last thing this country needs is easier access to this drug. It has destroyed countless lives. If you think millions of Americans are in such pain that they need this addictive drug , then you are naive. It is a drug to get high. It is one of the reasons for our abysmally low birth rate.
    , @mr. meener
    addicts never like their supply interrupted
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/musings-on-two-of-the-dumbest-wars-the-us-has-ever-fought/#comment-1575687
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Think of all the risks a US politician would take if he/she wanted to deal with the real issues

    This was a theme of Machiavelli’s. Even autocrats require some popular support to stay in power, and the most reliable way to get that support is to appeal to people’s crass fears and prejudices.

    The other relevant theme here is “war is a racket.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. CalDre says:

    Just to focus on the comment, “it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty” (sic). Sure it makes sense. A fetus is an innocent soul, whereas the death penalty is applied to those guilty of a heinous crime, typically one which took another life.

    What’s actually much more incongruous is to oppose the death penalty, or to oppose abortion, but to support war. In war innocents always die, and as to those you “believe” are guilty (like, say, Hussein or Qadafi), you really don’t know, you are relying on politicians (who everyone agrees lie constantly) to tell you that. Would we give a citizen the death penalty on a politician’s say-so? Of course not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Judges are politicians.
    , @dearieme
    "the death penalty is applied to those guilty of a heinous crime": no, only to those found guilty. The occasional innocent will be executed, and probably many more of the guilty will go free.
    , @Antiwar7
    So true! And yet people accept the US going to war so casually! I cannot understand this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  5. 2/1 Doc says:

    Dear Sir,
    The second amendment was ( consider its position in the first 10) passed to indeed provide citizens with weapons to fight off oppressive government. Its what the american revolution was all about after the first amendment. Its as simple as that. Agree with the rest of this essay. Thanks

    Read More
    • Replies: @shropster
    You are correct. It was also thought that the Federal Government should not have a standing army unless there was a external threat.
    The militias were meant to be the civilian defense against a rapacious Federal government, to be armed as well as any standing army.
    The standing army was then deemed to be necessary for the Indian Wars, waged to steal their land. The raison d'etre of the Louisiana Purchase was to have a place to put the Native Americans so that the USA could expand to the Mississippi. This evil was the beginning of the end of our noble experiment. The end of the beginning came with the War for Southern Independence, 1861-1865.
    Lincoln exchanged our Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States for a Democracy with provinces instead of States.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  7. Brilliant analogy!

    It is sad how intellectually frozen folk are, depending upon which side of the political church grabs them. They never see the lunacy of their own enforcement, morality imposition, on “the other side.”

    It ain’t looking good for the simple White Hats. ….sigh. ….Lady in Red

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Alas, there never was a constitutional amendment protecting the right of each citizen to ingest, smoke, inject or otherwise consume any substance he/she wants simply because at the time of the drafting of the Constitution that freedom was an self-evident truth (wars on booze and drugs happened much later).

    Maybe. Or maybe this was just because the founders believed that the several states should be in charge of regulating the issue, rather than the federal government. Until the Civil War at least, there was a profound bias in favor of states’ rights. Most of the founders (except for the Hamilton faction, which is probably why liberals love him so much) envisioned the US as more a federation of sovereign states than as a unitary entity.

    Beware, Euroheads. If you allow this “ever closer union” nonsense to get much further, one day soon you too could end up living in a federal tyranny, just as we now do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Most of the founders (except for the Hamilton faction, which is probably why liberals love him so much) envisioned the US as more a federation of sovereign states than as a unitary entity.}

    Right. And the POTUS was mostly a ceremonial figurehead in times of peace.

    Now, the POTUS is feted like a Roman emperor, with a massive imperial court and retinue. A dedicated praetorian guard. When the emperor decides to come to Los Angeles, for example, to collect tribute right in the middle of rush hour, 100s of 1,000s of commuters, taxpayers, who are dead tired and trying to get home, have to sit in traffic, while streets are closed off to give the Emperor's motorcade open roads.
    If the Emperor does not like what the Congress does, He issues Imperial decrees. It never ends.

    There is hardly any aspect of ordinary people's lives that Washington's suffocating reach has not intruded upon.

    It is really tragic and disgusting how the once free people, American citizens, have been so thoroughly enslaved.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Avery says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Alas, there never was a constitutional amendment protecting the right of each citizen to ingest, smoke, inject or otherwise consume any substance he/she wants simply because at the time of the drafting of the Constitution that freedom was an self-evident truth (wars on booze and drugs happened much later).
     
    Maybe. Or maybe this was just because the founders believed that the several states should be in charge of regulating the issue, rather than the federal government. Until the Civil War at least, there was a profound bias in favor of states' rights. Most of the founders (except for the Hamilton faction, which is probably why liberals love him so much) envisioned the US as more a federation of sovereign states than as a unitary entity.

    Beware, Euroheads. If you allow this "ever closer union" nonsense to get much further, one day soon you too could end up living in a federal tyranny, just as we now do.

    {Most of the founders (except for the Hamilton faction, which is probably why liberals love him so much) envisioned the US as more a federation of sovereign states than as a unitary entity.}

    Right. And the POTUS was mostly a ceremonial figurehead in times of peace.

    Now, the POTUS is feted like a Roman emperor, with a massive imperial court and retinue. A dedicated praetorian guard. When the emperor decides to come to Los Angeles, for example, to collect tribute right in the middle of rush hour, 100s of 1,000s of commuters, taxpayers, who are dead tired and trying to get home, have to sit in traffic, while streets are closed off to give the Emperor’s motorcade open roads.
    If the Emperor does not like what the Congress does, He issues Imperial decrees. It never ends.

    There is hardly any aspect of ordinary people’s lives that Washington’s suffocating reach has not intruded upon.

    It is really tragic and disgusting how the once free people, American citizens, have been so thoroughly enslaved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    "It is really tragic and disgusting how the once free people, American citizens, have been so thoroughly enslaved."

    Wired to obey authority and voluntarily enslaved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Samantha Powers

    Repellant filthy Irish Scum Legal Immigrant from Ireland…

    Spawned in Satan’s personal toilet bowl

    Way down below in boiling hot HELL!!!!…

    Read More
    • Agree: Marcus
    • Replies: @jimmyriddle
    She once called Hillary a monster:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/hillary-clinton-s-a-monster-obama-aide-blurts-out-attack-in-scotsman-interview-1-1158300

    so, not entirely bad.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Hibernian says:
    @CalDre
    Just to focus on the comment, "it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty" (sic). Sure it makes sense. A fetus is an innocent soul, whereas the death penalty is applied to those guilty of a heinous crime, typically one which took another life.

    What's actually much more incongruous is to oppose the death penalty, or to oppose abortion, but to support war. In war innocents always die, and as to those you "believe" are guilty (like, say, Hussein or Qadafi), you really don't know, you are relying on politicians (who everyone agrees lie constantly) to tell you that. Would we give a citizen the death penalty on a politician's say-so? Of course not.

    Judges are politicians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. I sent this link to a prog friend of mine, terribly opposed to the “war on drugs.”

    He sniffed and wrote back, “There is no war on guns.”

    I wrote, “When you are sitting on my side of the church and they are shooting at you, it sure seems like there’s a war going on.”

    The right wants to fight drugs and abortion and the left hates guns. Neither side can look in the mirror and see themselves for what they are. ….Lady in Red

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    Any guesses on the origins of the behavioral adaptations of gun phobia, drug phobia, abortion, and death penalty?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. When you’re right, you’re right. I guess you’ve developed some objectivity, able to view our American situation from a perspective outside the insanity of the maelstrom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Rehmat says:

    The US wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc. were all proxy wars for Israel.

    The so-called ‘war on drug’ and ‘war on guns’ is also to serve the interests of the Organized Jewry. The drug Mafia is run by Russian Jews sitting in Israel, the US and Russia.

    Several Jewish groups have praised new executive actions by Barack Obama to reduce gun violence including leaders from the National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Women International, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, ADL, AJC, Central Conference of Rabbis, and of course former Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who faked a shooting attack in a Tucson suburb in 2011.

    Pro-Israel American Jewish groups are the most pro-anti-gun campaigners. Almost every anti-gun law was authored by Jewish lawmakers. Their main excuse is their past victimization in Nazi Germany. However, the same Jewish groups are in the front to force Washington to keep billions of dollars military aid to Israel which has invaded all of its neighbors since 1948.

    Rabbi Dovid Bendory publish a good study on why Jews hate guns.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    The US wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc. were all proxy wars for Israel.
     
    Why would Israel need to have proxy wars with this rouges gallery of countries ?
    None of them ever posed any threat to Israel .
    Iraq-600 miles from Israel , separated by Jordan , Bombed by Israel in 1981 destroying nuclear reactor and killing dozens of scientists. No retaliation by Iraq. Seems no threat to me and no way to project its military thru Jordan .
    Somalia-6000 km from Israel. Separated by 5 countries . No way to project its military past its borders. Absurd .
    Bosnia-3000 km from Israel, separated by a dozen countries . No way to project its military beyond its borders. No conflict with Israel.
    Kosovo-3000 km from Israel , separated by a dozen countries , no way to project its military beyond its borders and warm relations with Israel .
    Afghanistan-3000 km from Israel , separated by 3 countries , no way to project its military beyond its borders. Military aged men to consumed with forced sodomy of pre pubescent boys , known as Bacha Bazzi .
    libya-1800 km from Israel ,separated by Egypt. No way to project its military beyond borders.
    Syria-Lost 3 wars to Israel already , lost territory to Israel already and not able to recover it.

    None of these countries are threats to Isreael.
    , @Wally

    Pro-Israel American Jewish groups are the most pro-anti-gun campaigners. Almost every anti-gun law was authored by Jewish lawmakers. Their main excuse is their past victimization in Nazi Germany. However, the same Jewish groups are in the front to force Washington to keep billions of dollars military aid to Israel which has invaded all of its neighbors since 1948.
     
    Garbage in, garbage out.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    "Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."
    - Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since 1869:

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg
    , @Anonymous

    Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who faked a shooting attack in a Tucson suburb in 2011.
     
    Listen you vile scumbag, everyone knows that you are a muslim bastard that likes to live in the comforts of the West and at the same time write lies about the West. Why don't you go back to your shithole Pakistan and stay there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. gdpbull says:

    The War on Drugs. Winner – Drugs

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’m going to deny that drug abusers are likely to engage in any ‘crimethink’. Those people are absorbed with their drug-craving lifestyle and have no political consciousness at all outside of their immediate boundaries and are politically quiescent. They do engage in local crime and are grist for the mill of police, courts, jails, judges. lawyers, the whole shebang. They provide income for an entire group of solid citizen types who can then pay their mortgages and send their children to college as a result. In this way they are a valuable segment of the population. One junkie can provide employment for three or four good citizens, an upside-down pyramid. We can’t provide full employment so let’s give them marijuana and a small welfare check instead.
    The US has full air control over Afghanistan and can survey the entirety of it. It could spray-bomb the opium poppy fields at will yet it doesn’t, the opium that’ll be transformed into the heroin that then travels all over. Why is that? Alfred McCoy’s book ‘The Politics of Heroin’ and Michael Levine’s ‘The Big White Lie’ give some insights into what’s gone on in this so-called ‘war on drugs’. There’s more, much more, available material regarding the double-dealing of government agencies all these years.
    Gun owners tend to be independent types who are looked upon with suspicion by the government which wants a compliant and docile population. However, by and large, historically they’ve been a dumb bunch who’ve marched to every war-drum the government has ever beat. Not many anti-war types there. However, that seems to have been changing recently as this segment has increasingly become skeptical about all these wars in obscure places and their relevance to the average citizen. Also, government actions to engineer the culture and destroy traditional ways of life have engendered opposition among many, hence this ‘war on guns’ which is really a veiled attack upon this segment of American society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mr. meener
    I have been around 1000's of gun owners for 40 years and they worship cops and military. only maybe 10% are independent distrust the govt and want to be left alone. most are cowards who will turn their guns over to their beloved cops. it will go down in history where the most heavily armed people in world history were genocided out of existence without firing a shot . well maybe one or two shots
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Considering that the US government allows two of the deadliest drugs around, nicotine and alcohol to stay legal, one has to wonder why they keep the most benevolent drug, marijuana, illegal.

    I’ve seen a lot of mean drunks, drunks that get into fights just because they’re drunk, but have never seen someone stoned get into a fight.
    Drunks also like to practice their fisticuffs on women and children.

    Guess keeping alcohol legal helps Americans maintain that ‘indispensable’ feeling and if you don’t agree, I’ll punch your lights out!

    Read More
    • Replies: @pm
    That's a great idea, prohibit alcohol. I'm pretty sure that's never been tried, but it's sure to be a big success.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. turtle says:

    >Some will say that the US would turn into a gigantic war zone where … citizens sky-high on PCP and crack cocaine would begin shooting each other … and that all those not busy murdering each other would be lying around terminally stoned

    Welcome to the South Side of Chicago ( a.k.a. Chiraq).

    Close the door, folks.
    That horse is already out of the barn.

    Political terms “Left” and “Right” have no meaning, bar ad hominem attacks.
    Political space is curved, not flat.
    “Left” and “Right” meet somewhere, on the “Dark Side,” where people think for themselves.
    As the author states, such people are a menace to the State, and must be kept track of.
    See you on the Dark Side…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Biff says:

    Drug control = people control

    Gun control = people control

    Terrorism = the cherry on top

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    As I now work in the medical field, allow me to provide Trump with an idea that can garner him a couple million votes. Announce that he will repeal the recent DEA order to reclassify Hydrocodone as a Class II drug. This pain med is used by millions of Americans, so now they must see a doctor every three months in person to continue routine prescriptions, rather than once a year. Most of these millions of citizens are elderly and can't drive, so this is huge burden on families, nursing homes, and doctors. The DEA claims Hydrocodone is addictive. I agree, being free from pain is addictive.

    This was done by the DEA, even thought the AMA opposed the idea! The drug warriors overruled the doctors, and Obama did nothing! Most Americans know nothing of this, but the millions affected are outraged. This includes overwhelmed primary care doctors who must make room for frequent "howdy" visits simply to renew Hydrocodone prescriptions because the non-medical DEA warriors require it. Trump could score huge points by addressing this "war on drug" battle by saying that he trusts doctors more than bureaucrats and promising to reset Hydrocodone as a Class III.

    The last thing this country needs is easier access to this drug. It has destroyed countless lives. If you think millions of Americans are in such pain that they need this addictive drug , then you are naive. It is a drug to get high. It is one of the reasons for our abysmally low birth rate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    If you don't realize that millions of Americans suffer from under/untreated chronic pain, you are willfully blind and ignore the reality that millions of Americans have to live with.
    , @Drapetomaniac
    Just a heads up here: other people are not your property.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    The US wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc. were all proxy wars for Israel.

    The so-called 'war on drug' and 'war on guns' is also to serve the interests of the Organized Jewry. The drug Mafia is run by Russian Jews sitting in Israel, the US and Russia.

    Several Jewish groups have praised new executive actions by Barack Obama to reduce gun violence including leaders from the National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Women International, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, ADL, AJC, Central Conference of Rabbis, and of course former Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who faked a shooting attack in a Tucson suburb in 2011.

    Pro-Israel American Jewish groups are the most pro-anti-gun campaigners. Almost every anti-gun law was authored by Jewish lawmakers. Their main excuse is their past victimization in Nazi Germany. However, the same Jewish groups are in the front to force Washington to keep billions of dollars military aid to Israel which has invaded all of its neighbors since 1948.

    Rabbi Dovid Bendory publish a good study on why Jews hate guns.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    The US wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc. were all proxy wars for Israel.

    Why would Israel need to have proxy wars with this rouges gallery of countries ?
    None of them ever posed any threat to Israel .
    Iraq-600 miles from Israel , separated by Jordan , Bombed by Israel in 1981 destroying nuclear reactor and killing dozens of scientists. No retaliation by Iraq. Seems no threat to me and no way to project its military thru Jordan .
    Somalia-6000 km from Israel. Separated by 5 countries . No way to project its military past its borders. Absurd .
    Bosnia-3000 km from Israel, separated by a dozen countries . No way to project its military beyond its borders. No conflict with Israel.
    Kosovo-3000 km from Israel , separated by a dozen countries , no way to project its military beyond its borders and warm relations with Israel .
    Afghanistan-3000 km from Israel , separated by 3 countries , no way to project its military beyond its borders. Military aged men to consumed with forced sodomy of pre pubescent boys , known as Bacha Bazzi .
    libya-1800 km from Israel ,separated by Egypt. No way to project its military beyond borders.
    Syria-Lost 3 wars to Israel already , lost territory to Israel already and not able to recover it.

    None of these countries are threats to Isreael.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    The real rouge state is the Zionist entity built on a land where the ancestors of the European terrorists ever lived in history.

    American Jewish writer and author Steve Lendman not only agrees with the above fact but also stated that Jewish army is led by coward Generals who are afraid to attack Iran or Hizbullah without the American boots leading them.

    French Jewish journalist and political activist, Bernard-Henri Levy, was the driving force behind the former French half-Jewish President Nicolas Sarkozy’s war on Libya to remove Qaddafi from power.

    In November 2011, speaking at the first national convention in Paris, organized by the French Israel Lobby, the Council of Jewish Organization of France, Levy boasted that he lead the anti-Qaddafi campaign because it was a Jewish thing to do.

    “What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/09/18/bernard-levy-qaddafi-was-an-enemy-of-israel/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    the one challenge that all opinionaters face is the demand to constantly opinionate.

    if a genius writer — or a mediocre writer who got lucky — makes a splash one time, he feels compelled to try to repeat the feat. or he has a contract that requires him to keep writing, even if he has nothing to say.

    take the case of Tom Friedman
    or David Brooks
    or Jennifer what’s-et-name, the one whose mouth/writing is only exceeded in ugliness by her face.
    the whole lot of ‘em — they write, and they stir up shit, because that is what they do, not because they are wise, or contribute to the commonweal, but because when they get up in the morning, when an honest man grabs the lunch bucket his wife fixed for him and marches off to work to repair someone’s toilet or paint a bridge or install a furnace in a mud-floored cellar, the Tom-David-Jennifers of the world get up, sip late, nibble on a croissant, spend 30 minutes on the virtue treadmill while watching Morning Katie, then dip into their grab bag of profundities to capture their digestive processes in writing. Whether anyone wants to read it — or gives a shit — or not.

    Saker should take a pass.
    and a rest.

    It’s ok if you don’t express every thought that passes thru your mind.

    We’ll wait until you can come up with something that really matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @anon
    The last thing this country needs is easier access to this drug. It has destroyed countless lives. If you think millions of Americans are in such pain that they need this addictive drug , then you are naive. It is a drug to get high. It is one of the reasons for our abysmally low birth rate.

    If you don’t realize that millions of Americans suffer from under/untreated chronic pain, you are willfully blind and ignore the reality that millions of Americans have to live with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. The analogy contained in “than it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty.” is consistent if the death penalty is carried out irrespective as to whether the one to whom it is applied has committed a crime deemed punishable by the death penalty. In this case the more common term “murder” would be more appropriate as it makes the analogy clearly consistent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Randal says:

    Fourth, both wars are a bureaucratic and financial bonanza. Why? Because these are wars which will never, ever, be “won” and that, in turn, guarantees not only a steady streams of dollars, but even the creation of specialized agencies such as the DEA or the ATF whose very existence will depend on never winning the war on drugs/guns. A bureaucrat’s dream come true!

    This aspect is rather underplayed here, I think.

    Recall that the very first US federal firearms regulation, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed in direct response to the increase in gang violence resulting from Prohibition of alcohol. Further impetus for gun control has regularly resulted from the ongoing prohibition of other drugs and the gang and other violence it has caused.

    Furthermore, the bureaucratic roots are largely shared. Because any honest interpretation of the US constitution and the proper roles of government (back before such things were utterly corrupted by leftist “government uber alles” thinking) would always defeat federal prohibition of either drug (including alcohol) use or ownership of guns, the US regime always sought to use taxation as the means to implement such laws. Meanwhile the bureaucrats and state enforcement thugs quickly shifted from one source of state employment and empowerment to the next (from alcohol to guns and later to other drugs), and doubtless weren’t above using nefarious means to “facilitate” popular and institutional support for their source of income and status.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. dearieme says:
    @CalDre
    Just to focus on the comment, "it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty" (sic). Sure it makes sense. A fetus is an innocent soul, whereas the death penalty is applied to those guilty of a heinous crime, typically one which took another life.

    What's actually much more incongruous is to oppose the death penalty, or to oppose abortion, but to support war. In war innocents always die, and as to those you "believe" are guilty (like, say, Hussein or Qadafi), you really don't know, you are relying on politicians (who everyone agrees lie constantly) to tell you that. Would we give a citizen the death penalty on a politician's say-so? Of course not.

    “the death penalty is applied to those guilty of a heinous crime”: no, only to those found guilty. The occasional innocent will be executed, and probably many more of the guilty will go free.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Jason Bayz says: • Website

    If the war on drugs has been lost, so too has the “war” on murder, rape, theft, arson, drunk driving, ect. Witness the great failure of the “war on cancer.” Yet none of this implies we should legalize murder, rape, or theft, or that doctors should cease to treat cancer. Yet many apparently think that, because we cannot eliminate all usage of drugs, that we must allow anyone to ingest any substance, no matter how harmful.

    “At the end of the day, it makes absolutely no more sense to authorize drugs/guns and ban guns/drugs than it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty. Just as life is either a sacred value or not, so is the freedom of each person to decide for himself/herself how he/she chooses to live. It all boils down to a few simple questions: do we feel that it is our right to curtail the freedoms of our fellow citizens because we do not approve of their choices or not? Do we believe that inanimate objects can, by themselves, cause such evils as violence or addition? Do we believe that it will ever become possible to eliminate weapons or mind-altering substances from our societies? And, most importantly, do we believe that each individual ought to have the right to reply to these questions by him or herself, or do we believe that the state ought to enforce its truth on the rest of us?”

    Here’s what’s wrong with that comparison: “freedom of choice” is not the sole or even the primary argument for either the gun rights advocates or the drug legalization advocates. Some libertarians would argue that the principle of freedom of choice is so absolute that they’d support libertarian policies even if they make society worse off.(More often the argument is that libertarians policies can never make society worse off.) But for most, the argument against prohibition is practical. The gun rights supporters argue that guns provide a practical benefit, allowing people to defend themselves against criminals and oppressive governments. A society with lots of people owning guns would be a better society than one where guns were not present. In contrast, those who support drug-legalization rarely argue that a society full of people who use cocaine, meth, or heroin would be better than one where these drugs are not present. The argument for guns is that guns are good, the argument for drugs is that, yes, drugs are bad, but prohibition is, they say, worse.

    I find that the people who argue against prohibition often make the same argument they attack prohibitionists for making. While prohibitionists “blame an inanimate object” for the crime committed by the drug addict, legalization supporters blame instead the “prohibition,” both avoid blaming the problem on the person in question: the drug addict. Both are right, partially. Drugs like cocaine and meth undoubtedly make people more violent, and by impairing the addict’s ability to work and earn money legitimately, contribute to criminal behavior. Prohibition, in addition to the violence caused by drug gangs, causes more crime increasing the price of the drugs, forcing addicts to resort to crime to feed their habits.

    In my view, if all drugs were completely legalized, the effect on crime would probably be a wash, with an effect too small in either direction to statistically prove. The gangsters which today engage in the drug trade would still be violent, amoral people, and few would join the legitimate workforce. They’d instead do more general property crime. They’d still fight with one another, probably less lethally, and much of this violence would go unreported. Drug use would increase. I find much of the argument that it wouldn’t relies on the typically out-of-touch intellectualism. The intellectual separates the world into two categories, himself and his class, finding no need to use drugs, and the underclass, the drug-using “losers,” who can’t be helped. He misses the large number of people who live in drug-infested neighborhoods but who resist often substantial peer pressures to use drugs. Imagine if people consumed cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine as freely as they drink beer today. Imagine what message it would send the children, seeing consumption in the open when it was previously hidden. Imagine how much more difficult it would be for those former addicts who successfully quit. The “novelty effect” would eventually go away, but it would be dwarfed by the new normalcy effect. The addicts would now be able to feed their habits more cheaply, and thus would be less likely to turn to crime. But there would be more of them, with all the attendant problems as far as unemployment, family breakdown, welfare abuse, ect.

    Saker says:

    “The truth is that if drugs were made legal the size of US police departments could rapidly and dramatically be reduced and that the remaining small force could go back to “normal”, civilized, police functions rather than fight the kind of military war in drugs with APCs, helicopters and SWAT teams they are engaged in every day.”

    The drug dealers do not have tanks, helicopters, or any type of “military” technology which would justify calling the war on drugs “military.” A team of drug dealers is armed no better than a team of bank robbers, and the police could find plenty of examples, school shootings, man takes wife and kids hostage, ect, to justify buying the latest army-surplus toys. By international standards, the United States has a lower number of police per capita:

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/police-versus-prisons.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    If the war on drugs has been lost, so too has the “war” on murder, rape, theft, arson, drunk driving, ect.
     
    A common fallacy put about by prohibitionists. It is based upon a false equivalence between real crimes (assault, murder, rape, robbery, etc) which are wrong in themselves whatever the law says, and breaches of state regulations, such as prohibition laws, speeding laws, etc, which are only wrongful inasmuch as the state has designated them to be crimes for the supposed greater good.

    In my view, if all drugs were completely legalized, the effect on crime would probably be a wash, with an effect too small in either direction to statistically prove.
     
    This is rather absurd on its face. The simple law of supply and demand tells us that increasing the profits to be made from crime will increase the amount of crime. Prohibition has resulted in pressure jetting colossal amounts of money into the criminal community for decades now, and that torrent continues daily.

    Furthermore, making money from supplying drugs is generally a lot easier than other forms of crime, especially real crimes such as robbery. Doubtless some drugs criminals are just criminals in general and will turn to such real crimes if the drug money dries up. But anyone with any contact with the lower echelons of drug crime knows, as I do, that the vast majority of the low level dealers are just ordinary people who simply don't think they are doing anything really wrong in making a bit of money on the side by supplying their friends and a few other contacts with recreational items. They mostly don't have either the bottle or the ruthlessness to engage in real crime.

    For those higher up the drug dealing ladder, it would be difficult and highly dangerous to make anything approaching the kind of profits breaching prohibition laws generates through any kind of real crime. And for sure, without the massive funding that prohibition provides, they'd be a lot less well armed and a lot less capable of bribing police, judiciary and other state authorities to protect themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Wally says: • Website

    Does anyone know someone who wants drugs, but cannot get them?

    Prohibition didn’t work, doesn’t work, will not work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Wally says: • Website
    @Rehmat
    The US wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc. were all proxy wars for Israel.

    The so-called 'war on drug' and 'war on guns' is also to serve the interests of the Organized Jewry. The drug Mafia is run by Russian Jews sitting in Israel, the US and Russia.

    Several Jewish groups have praised new executive actions by Barack Obama to reduce gun violence including leaders from the National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Women International, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, ADL, AJC, Central Conference of Rabbis, and of course former Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who faked a shooting attack in a Tucson suburb in 2011.

    Pro-Israel American Jewish groups are the most pro-anti-gun campaigners. Almost every anti-gun law was authored by Jewish lawmakers. Their main excuse is their past victimization in Nazi Germany. However, the same Jewish groups are in the front to force Washington to keep billions of dollars military aid to Israel which has invaded all of its neighbors since 1948.

    Rabbi Dovid Bendory publish a good study on why Jews hate guns.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    Pro-Israel American Jewish groups are the most pro-anti-gun campaigners. Almost every anti-gun law was authored by Jewish lawmakers. Their main excuse is their past victimization in Nazi Germany. However, the same Jewish groups are in the front to force Washington to keep billions of dollars military aid to Israel which has invaded all of its neighbors since 1948.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.
    - Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    Jews have been marketing the ’6,000,000′ lie since 1869:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    The Holocaust estimate began with 11 million then smart Zionist accountant found out that he counted the flies on the dead bodies. He reduced the figure to 6 million out of Europe's total 7.5 million Jewish population. In 2006, the score-board at the Auschwitz Museum further reduced the estimate down to 2.5 million.

    Speaking at the 2006 Tehran Holocaust Conference, Rabbi Weiss claimed that Nazis couldn't have killed even one million Jews.

    Holy Talmud claims that Roman killed 2 BILLIONS Jews.

    David Cole, an ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israel Jew and author of book 'Republican Party Animal' in an article, entitled 'Justifying My Existence', published at TAKI’s Magazine on February 17, 2015, wrote: "I attempt to correct the historical record regarding the Holocaust, primarily by sniffing out and exposing fake artifacts and fraudulent or improperly-used documents."

    "In no other field are fakes, frauds, and forgeries tolerated as they are in Holocaust history. And in no other field are the people who try to sort the fakes from the facts so ruthlessly attacked and in many countries imprisoned", David Cole added.....

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/02/19/david-cole-holocaust-is-based-on-fakes-frauds-and-forgeries/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Rehmat says:
    @anon

    The US wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc. were all proxy wars for Israel.
     
    Why would Israel need to have proxy wars with this rouges gallery of countries ?
    None of them ever posed any threat to Israel .
    Iraq-600 miles from Israel , separated by Jordan , Bombed by Israel in 1981 destroying nuclear reactor and killing dozens of scientists. No retaliation by Iraq. Seems no threat to me and no way to project its military thru Jordan .
    Somalia-6000 km from Israel. Separated by 5 countries . No way to project its military past its borders. Absurd .
    Bosnia-3000 km from Israel, separated by a dozen countries . No way to project its military beyond its borders. No conflict with Israel.
    Kosovo-3000 km from Israel , separated by a dozen countries , no way to project its military beyond its borders and warm relations with Israel .
    Afghanistan-3000 km from Israel , separated by 3 countries , no way to project its military beyond its borders. Military aged men to consumed with forced sodomy of pre pubescent boys , known as Bacha Bazzi .
    libya-1800 km from Israel ,separated by Egypt. No way to project its military beyond borders.
    Syria-Lost 3 wars to Israel already , lost territory to Israel already and not able to recover it.

    None of these countries are threats to Isreael.

    The real rouge state is the Zionist entity built on a land where the ancestors of the European terrorists ever lived in history.

    American Jewish writer and author Steve Lendman not only agrees with the above fact but also stated that Jewish army is led by coward Generals who are afraid to attack Iran or Hizbullah without the American boots leading them.

    French Jewish journalist and political activist, Bernard-Henri Levy, was the driving force behind the former French half-Jewish President Nicolas Sarkozy’s war on Libya to remove Qaddafi from power.

    In November 2011, speaking at the first national convention in Paris, organized by the French Israel Lobby, the Council of Jewish Organization of France, Levy boasted that he lead the anti-Qaddafi campaign because it was a Jewish thing to do.

    “What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/09/18/bernard-levy-qaddafi-was-an-enemy-of-israel/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Islamic Indonesian land thieves are occupying 123,000 square miles in occupied Papua as compared to 2,000 square miles of the west bank and gaza. Islamic Indonesian occupying force is occupying 121,000 more square miles than Israel is occupying.

    Indonesia has been occupying Papua since 1963 . Israel has been occupying west bank and gaza since 1967. Indonesian occupation is going on longer .

    Indonesia has killed over 500,000 Papuans. Israel has killed 22,000 palestinians. Indonesia has killed 478,000 more people than Israel has.

    Israelis and palestinians are the same ethnic group , both Caucasian . Indonesians are Asians and Papuans are Melanesians. Papuans are much darker and completely genetically different from indonesians.


    By every measurable metric , Indonesia is far worse. You are an islamic supremacist , despite the fact that you country pakistan has the highest incidence of cousin marriage , incest and birth defects in the world .

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Rehmat says:

    Most political aware Muslims see Putin and Netanyahu two sides of the same coin.

    On September 16, Russian Television (RT) reported that Netanyahu talked to Putin on phone seeking help in resolving the situation in the Middle East including restarting the peace talks between Israel and its long-time collaborator Mahmoud Abbas led Palestinian Authority (PA).

    This closer relationship is illustrated by Benjamin Netanyahu’s three visits to Moscow since September 2015 to meet with Vladimir Putin.

    While tirelessly depicted as America’s best ally, the Zionist regime is placing more of its eggs in Russian basket starting with Ukrainian conflict by refraining to vote against Russian annexation of Crimea at the UN General Assembly.

    Although generally ignored by the Jewish-controlled western media, Russia-Israel relations have reached its peak in the recent years since the establishment of the Zionist regime in 1948 despite Russia’s support for Iran, Syria and the Palestinians. The improvement stems in part from the fact that both countries have a common interest in opposing the rise of political Islam.

    Unlike the US and Europe, the Zionist regime fully supported prime minister Vladimir Putin’s bloody war in Muslim-majority Chechnya in the 1990s.

    Since becoming president in March 2000, Putin has worked for better relations with the Zionist entity. Meetings and telephone conversations between Russian and Israeli officials have taken place on a regular basis.

    In 2005, Putin became the first Russian (or Soviet era) head of state to visit Israel. He received a very friendly welcome from Israeli president Moshe Katsav, who called him a friend of the state of Israel, and from then prime minister Gen. Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, who called Putin among brothers.

    Putin returned to Israel in 2012 to meet with Israeli leaders and inaugurate a monument to the Soviet Army for its victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. In his dedication speech, Putin called the Holocaust the darkest, most shameful chapter in human history.

    In January 2016, Putin appealed to European Jews to immigrate to world’s first Jewish autonomous state of Birobidjan in Russia.

    Putin regime has treated 200,000 Russian Jews very favorably as compared to 20 million Russian Muslims.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/09/18/russia-and-israel-united-against-muslim-power/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. The US gov. has been implicated in dumping mass quantities of both drugs and guns onto the streets of American cities.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/gang-members-implicate-u-s-govt-dumping-crates-guns-chicago.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=a8a235ae97-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-a8a235ae97-369077697

    The CIA makes billions of dollars (for their Jewish/NWO masters) through illegal drug sales all across the globe…billions of SECRET dollars that congress, nor the sleepy American people, know anything about. One of the reasons that the US invaded Afghanistan was because the Taliban had all but stopped heroin production in that country by 2001. The heroin trade is an extremely lucrative industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year…hard for an unscrupulous organization, that has very little oversight and zero accountability, to pass up!

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/09/the-real-afghanistan-surge-is-in-heroin-production-and-tripled-opium-cultivation-since-the-us-military-arrived-un-and-us-government-documents.html

    The true and secret purpose of the “War on Drugs” is to facilitate and maintain a world-wide, state-of-the-art, high-tech, covert drug distribution operation…and, of course, to drive up the cost/value of the products being distributed.

    As for the “War on Guns”, this is more straightforward…it actually is a war on guns and gun ownership. Who’s behind ‘gun control’? Although there are many people and organizations who are actively working to eliminate gun-ownership in the US, it is the Jews who stand out as the leaders of the ‘gun control’ movement. Most of the U.S. Federal gun control legislation has been written, sponsored, and introduced by Jewish Congressmen and Jewish Senators. There are dozens of Jewish organizations actively working toward gun control and have mounted a relentless mass-media campaign to smear and demonizing gun owners. Most mass-media (and many “alternative” media outlets) corporations in the US are either directly owned by Jews or are controlled by Jews through strategic infiltration (e.g. writers, editors, producers, directors, etc.) of mass-media organizations. The dumping of guns onto the streets of America – into the hands of extremely violent street gangs – will obviously accelerate and exacerbate gun related violence, which will, in turn, accelerate the need for stronger gun control measures.

    Although not entirely Jewish, the NWO is still a Jewish thing because Jews occupy all the crucial/strategic positions of power, and more and more people are figuring that out now. The American president (whomever it happens to be) is nothing more than a mid-level political puppet and is subservient to the Jewish overlords of the NWO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Randal says:
    @Jason Bayz
    If the war on drugs has been lost, so too has the "war" on murder, rape, theft, arson, drunk driving, ect. Witness the great failure of the "war on cancer." Yet none of this implies we should legalize murder, rape, or theft, or that doctors should cease to treat cancer. Yet many apparently think that, because we cannot eliminate all usage of drugs, that we must allow anyone to ingest any substance, no matter how harmful.

    "At the end of the day, it makes absolutely no more sense to authorize drugs/guns and ban guns/drugs than it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty. Just as life is either a sacred value or not, so is the freedom of each person to decide for himself/herself how he/she chooses to live. It all boils down to a few simple questions: do we feel that it is our right to curtail the freedoms of our fellow citizens because we do not approve of their choices or not? Do we believe that inanimate objects can, by themselves, cause such evils as violence or addition? Do we believe that it will ever become possible to eliminate weapons or mind-altering substances from our societies? And, most importantly, do we believe that each individual ought to have the right to reply to these questions by him or herself, or do we believe that the state ought to enforce its truth on the rest of us?"

    Here's what's wrong with that comparison: "freedom of choice" is not the sole or even the primary argument for either the gun rights advocates or the drug legalization advocates. Some libertarians would argue that the principle of freedom of choice is so absolute that they'd support libertarian policies even if they make society worse off.(More often the argument is that libertarians policies can never make society worse off.) But for most, the argument against prohibition is practical. The gun rights supporters argue that guns provide a practical benefit, allowing people to defend themselves against criminals and oppressive governments. A society with lots of people owning guns would be a better society than one where guns were not present. In contrast, those who support drug-legalization rarely argue that a society full of people who use cocaine, meth, or heroin would be better than one where these drugs are not present. The argument for guns is that guns are good, the argument for drugs is that, yes, drugs are bad, but prohibition is, they say, worse.

    I find that the people who argue against prohibition often make the same argument they attack prohibitionists for making. While prohibitionists "blame an inanimate object" for the crime committed by the drug addict, legalization supporters blame instead the "prohibition," both avoid blaming the problem on the person in question: the drug addict. Both are right, partially. Drugs like cocaine and meth undoubtedly make people more violent, and by impairing the addict's ability to work and earn money legitimately, contribute to criminal behavior. Prohibition, in addition to the violence caused by drug gangs, causes more crime increasing the price of the drugs, forcing addicts to resort to crime to feed their habits.

    In my view, if all drugs were completely legalized, the effect on crime would probably be a wash, with an effect too small in either direction to statistically prove. The gangsters which today engage in the drug trade would still be violent, amoral people, and few would join the legitimate workforce. They'd instead do more general property crime. They'd still fight with one another, probably less lethally, and much of this violence would go unreported. Drug use would increase. I find much of the argument that it wouldn't relies on the typically out-of-touch intellectualism. The intellectual separates the world into two categories, himself and his class, finding no need to use drugs, and the underclass, the drug-using "losers," who can't be helped. He misses the large number of people who live in drug-infested neighborhoods but who resist often substantial peer pressures to use drugs. Imagine if people consumed cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine as freely as they drink beer today. Imagine what message it would send the children, seeing consumption in the open when it was previously hidden. Imagine how much more difficult it would be for those former addicts who successfully quit. The "novelty effect" would eventually go away, but it would be dwarfed by the new normalcy effect. The addicts would now be able to feed their habits more cheaply, and thus would be less likely to turn to crime. But there would be more of them, with all the attendant problems as far as unemployment, family breakdown, welfare abuse, ect.

    Saker says:

    "The truth is that if drugs were made legal the size of US police departments could rapidly and dramatically be reduced and that the remaining small force could go back to “normal”, civilized, police functions rather than fight the kind of military war in drugs with APCs, helicopters and SWAT teams they are engaged in every day."

    The drug dealers do not have tanks, helicopters, or any type of "military" technology which would justify calling the war on drugs "military." A team of drug dealers is armed no better than a team of bank robbers, and the police could find plenty of examples, school shootings, man takes wife and kids hostage, ect, to justify buying the latest army-surplus toys. By international standards, the United States has a lower number of police per capita:

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/police-versus-prisons.html

    If the war on drugs has been lost, so too has the “war” on murder, rape, theft, arson, drunk driving, ect.

    A common fallacy put about by prohibitionists. It is based upon a false equivalence between real crimes (assault, murder, rape, robbery, etc) which are wrong in themselves whatever the law says, and breaches of state regulations, such as prohibition laws, speeding laws, etc, which are only wrongful inasmuch as the state has designated them to be crimes for the supposed greater good.

    In my view, if all drugs were completely legalized, the effect on crime would probably be a wash, with an effect too small in either direction to statistically prove.

    This is rather absurd on its face. The simple law of supply and demand tells us that increasing the profits to be made from crime will increase the amount of crime. Prohibition has resulted in pressure jetting colossal amounts of money into the criminal community for decades now, and that torrent continues daily.

    Furthermore, making money from supplying drugs is generally a lot easier than other forms of crime, especially real crimes such as robbery. Doubtless some drugs criminals are just criminals in general and will turn to such real crimes if the drug money dries up. But anyone with any contact with the lower echelons of drug crime knows, as I do, that the vast majority of the low level dealers are just ordinary people who simply don’t think they are doing anything really wrong in making a bit of money on the side by supplying their friends and a few other contacts with recreational items. They mostly don’t have either the bottle or the ruthlessness to engage in real crime.

    For those higher up the drug dealing ladder, it would be difficult and highly dangerous to make anything approaching the kind of profits breaching prohibition laws generates through any kind of real crime. And for sure, without the massive funding that prohibition provides, they’d be a lot less well armed and a lot less capable of bribing police, judiciary and other state authorities to protect themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    Well stated. There are no supply-side solutions to a problem of demand.

    If the war on drugs has been lost, so too has the “war” on murder, rape, theft, arson, drunk driving, ect.
     
    So which of these other crimes is a big profit center to anyone? The motives underpinning the drug trade are vastly different from these forms of anti-social criminality.


    The big worry with drug legalization is it will become yet another economic area dominated by a few huge multinationals and everybody else will be left out in the cold. The ghetto slingers will certainly be unable to compete. Just think about: who's making a killing in moonshine in this day and age? It will be the same for most of the drug organizations once GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer get their hands on the drug trade (Coming soon, Monsanto's Wonder Weed, with Round-Up built in!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    The US wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc. were all proxy wars for Israel.

    The so-called 'war on drug' and 'war on guns' is also to serve the interests of the Organized Jewry. The drug Mafia is run by Russian Jews sitting in Israel, the US and Russia.

    Several Jewish groups have praised new executive actions by Barack Obama to reduce gun violence including leaders from the National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Women International, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, ADL, AJC, Central Conference of Rabbis, and of course former Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who faked a shooting attack in a Tucson suburb in 2011.

    Pro-Israel American Jewish groups are the most pro-anti-gun campaigners. Almost every anti-gun law was authored by Jewish lawmakers. Their main excuse is their past victimization in Nazi Germany. However, the same Jewish groups are in the front to force Washington to keep billions of dollars military aid to Israel which has invaded all of its neighbors since 1948.

    Rabbi Dovid Bendory publish a good study on why Jews hate guns.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who faked a shooting attack in a Tucson suburb in 2011.

    Listen you vile scumbag, everyone knows that you are a muslim bastard that likes to live in the comforts of the West and at the same time write lies about the West. Why don’t you go back to your shithole Pakistan and stay there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Clyde says:

    We need a real war on drug pushers, similar to what the new president Duarte of the Philippines is engaged in. For serious drug pushers you try them and execute them. Serious means selling large quantities of ☠poison☠, hard drugs, drugs harder than marijuana such as meth and heroin. For the lower ranking drug dealers you give them 2-3 strikes and they are out! They get exiled from the United States for 2-10 years. This includes exile for those dealing in large quantities of marijuana and medium to small quantities of hard drugs aka ☠poison☠

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Randal

    If the war on drugs has been lost, so too has the “war” on murder, rape, theft, arson, drunk driving, ect.
     
    A common fallacy put about by prohibitionists. It is based upon a false equivalence between real crimes (assault, murder, rape, robbery, etc) which are wrong in themselves whatever the law says, and breaches of state regulations, such as prohibition laws, speeding laws, etc, which are only wrongful inasmuch as the state has designated them to be crimes for the supposed greater good.

    In my view, if all drugs were completely legalized, the effect on crime would probably be a wash, with an effect too small in either direction to statistically prove.
     
    This is rather absurd on its face. The simple law of supply and demand tells us that increasing the profits to be made from crime will increase the amount of crime. Prohibition has resulted in pressure jetting colossal amounts of money into the criminal community for decades now, and that torrent continues daily.

    Furthermore, making money from supplying drugs is generally a lot easier than other forms of crime, especially real crimes such as robbery. Doubtless some drugs criminals are just criminals in general and will turn to such real crimes if the drug money dries up. But anyone with any contact with the lower echelons of drug crime knows, as I do, that the vast majority of the low level dealers are just ordinary people who simply don't think they are doing anything really wrong in making a bit of money on the side by supplying their friends and a few other contacts with recreational items. They mostly don't have either the bottle or the ruthlessness to engage in real crime.

    For those higher up the drug dealing ladder, it would be difficult and highly dangerous to make anything approaching the kind of profits breaching prohibition laws generates through any kind of real crime. And for sure, without the massive funding that prohibition provides, they'd be a lot less well armed and a lot less capable of bribing police, judiciary and other state authorities to protect themselves.

    Well stated. There are no supply-side solutions to a problem of demand.

    If the war on drugs has been lost, so too has the “war” on murder, rape, theft, arson, drunk driving, ect.

    So which of these other crimes is a big profit center to anyone? The motives underpinning the drug trade are vastly different from these forms of anti-social criminality.

    The big worry with drug legalization is it will become yet another economic area dominated by a few huge multinationals and everybody else will be left out in the cold. The ghetto slingers will certainly be unable to compete. Just think about: who’s making a killing in moonshine in this day and age? It will be the same for most of the drug organizations once GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer get their hands on the drug trade (Coming soon, Monsanto’s Wonder Weed, with Round-Up built in!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Rehmat says:
    @Wally

    Pro-Israel American Jewish groups are the most pro-anti-gun campaigners. Almost every anti-gun law was authored by Jewish lawmakers. Their main excuse is their past victimization in Nazi Germany. However, the same Jewish groups are in the front to force Washington to keep billions of dollars military aid to Israel which has invaded all of its neighbors since 1948.
     
    Garbage in, garbage out.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    "Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."
    - Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since 1869:

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    The Holocaust estimate began with 11 million then smart Zionist accountant found out that he counted the flies on the dead bodies. He reduced the figure to 6 million out of Europe’s total 7.5 million Jewish population. In 2006, the score-board at the Auschwitz Museum further reduced the estimate down to 2.5 million.

    Speaking at the 2006 Tehran Holocaust Conference, Rabbi Weiss claimed that Nazis couldn’t have killed even one million Jews.

    Holy Talmud claims that Roman killed 2 BILLIONS Jews.

    David Cole, an ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israel Jew and author of book ‘Republican Party Animal’ in an article, entitled ‘Justifying My Existence’, published at TAKI’s Magazine on February 17, 2015, wrote: “I attempt to correct the historical record regarding the Holocaust, primarily by sniffing out and exposing fake artifacts and fraudulent or improperly-used documents.”

    “In no other field are fakes, frauds, and forgeries tolerated as they are in Holocaust history. And in no other field are the people who try to sort the fakes from the facts so ruthlessly attacked and in many countries imprisoned”, David Cole added…..

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/02/19/david-cole-holocaust-is-based-on-fakes-frauds-and-forgeries/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    The real rouge state is the Zionist entity built on a land where the ancestors of the European terrorists ever lived in history.

    American Jewish writer and author Steve Lendman not only agrees with the above fact but also stated that Jewish army is led by coward Generals who are afraid to attack Iran or Hizbullah without the American boots leading them.

    French Jewish journalist and political activist, Bernard-Henri Levy, was the driving force behind the former French half-Jewish President Nicolas Sarkozy’s war on Libya to remove Qaddafi from power.

    In November 2011, speaking at the first national convention in Paris, organized by the French Israel Lobby, the Council of Jewish Organization of France, Levy boasted that he lead the anti-Qaddafi campaign because it was a Jewish thing to do.

    “What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/09/18/bernard-levy-qaddafi-was-an-enemy-of-israel/

    Islamic Indonesian land thieves are occupying 123,000 square miles in occupied Papua as compared to 2,000 square miles of the west bank and gaza. Islamic Indonesian occupying force is occupying 121,000 more square miles than Israel is occupying.

    Indonesia has been occupying Papua since 1963 . Israel has been occupying west bank and gaza since 1967. Indonesian occupation is going on longer .

    Indonesia has killed over 500,000 Papuans. Israel has killed 22,000 palestinians. Indonesia has killed 478,000 more people than Israel has.

    Israelis and palestinians are the same ethnic group , both Caucasian . Indonesians are Asians and Papuans are Melanesians. Papuans are much darker and completely genetically different from indonesians.

    By every measurable metric , Indonesia is far worse. You are an islamic supremacist , despite the fact that you country pakistan has the highest incidence of cousin marriage , incest and birth defects in the world .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. The problem is that both the “wars” mentioned are proxy wars.

    The “war on drugs” was only made necessary by poor border and immigration controls.

    The “war on guns” was only made necessary by desegregation and snivel rights laws.

    Our refusal to fight the actual enemy was what made both of those struggles into failures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Think of all the risks a US politician would take if he/she wanted to deal with the real issues,

    The real issue are blacks and hispanics regarding crime and asians and subcons for economic issues (and taking showers. Subcons never take showers).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. I am a booster of 2nd Amendment, ambivalent about drug legalization. Please, I have heard all the arguments pro for fifty years, and am somewhat sympathetic to them.

    But ex addicts have told me, and vehemently so, DO NOT LEGALIZE DRUGS. This set me back. Their point was that like suicide, a momentary decision or lapse of self-discipline can have irredeemable results. There may not be any going back, to recover what was before.

    Few upon first imbibing alcohol become “addicted.” A much larger percentage of first- time drug experimenters become psychologically consumed by the drug. Many then find their first, and ONLY interest in life is to get high. Is this the meaning of life? Is this the true purpose of existence – to get “high?” Mankind is the animal of mentation, Does drug usage inhibit that pursuit?

    Does anyone truly believe that alcohol consumption declined after repeal of Prohibition? So how do we go about legalizing drugs without increasing their usage? A cultural revival might do it. But…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @Carlton Meyer
    As I now work in the medical field, allow me to provide Trump with an idea that can garner him a couple million votes. Announce that he will repeal the recent DEA order to reclassify Hydrocodone as a Class II drug. This pain med is used by millions of Americans, so now they must see a doctor every three months in person to continue routine prescriptions, rather than once a year. Most of these millions of citizens are elderly and can't drive, so this is huge burden on families, nursing homes, and doctors. The DEA claims Hydrocodone is addictive. I agree, being free from pain is addictive.

    This was done by the DEA, even thought the AMA opposed the idea! The drug warriors overruled the doctors, and Obama did nothing! Most Americans know nothing of this, but the millions affected are outraged. This includes overwhelmed primary care doctors who must make room for frequent "howdy" visits simply to renew Hydrocodone prescriptions because the non-medical DEA warriors require it. Trump could score huge points by addressing this "war on drug" battle by saying that he trusts doctors more than bureaucrats and promising to reset Hydrocodone as a Class III.

    addicts never like their supply interrupted

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @anonymous
    I'm going to deny that drug abusers are likely to engage in any 'crimethink'. Those people are absorbed with their drug-craving lifestyle and have no political consciousness at all outside of their immediate boundaries and are politically quiescent. They do engage in local crime and are grist for the mill of police, courts, jails, judges. lawyers, the whole shebang. They provide income for an entire group of solid citizen types who can then pay their mortgages and send their children to college as a result. In this way they are a valuable segment of the population. One junkie can provide employment for three or four good citizens, an upside-down pyramid. We can't provide full employment so let's give them marijuana and a small welfare check instead.
    The US has full air control over Afghanistan and can survey the entirety of it. It could spray-bomb the opium poppy fields at will yet it doesn't, the opium that'll be transformed into the heroin that then travels all over. Why is that? Alfred McCoy's book 'The Politics of Heroin' and Michael Levine's 'The Big White Lie' give some insights into what's gone on in this so-called 'war on drugs'. There's more, much more, available material regarding the double-dealing of government agencies all these years.
    Gun owners tend to be independent types who are looked upon with suspicion by the government which wants a compliant and docile population. However, by and large, historically they've been a dumb bunch who've marched to every war-drum the government has ever beat. Not many anti-war types there. However, that seems to have been changing recently as this segment has increasingly become skeptical about all these wars in obscure places and their relevance to the average citizen. Also, government actions to engineer the culture and destroy traditional ways of life have engendered opposition among many, hence this 'war on guns' which is really a veiled attack upon this segment of American society.

    I have been around 1000′s of gun owners for 40 years and they worship cops and military. only maybe 10% are independent distrust the govt and want to be left alone. most are cowards who will turn their guns over to their beloved cops. it will go down in history where the most heavily armed people in world history were genocided out of existence without firing a shot . well maybe one or two shots

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. In the case of drugs, it’s really pretty simple: legalization makes the criminals compete with everyone else for jobs at McDonalds.

    And the FEDERAL, not just Florida law against felons possessing firearms is just stupid and should be done away with. As should all laws against felons voting.

    Then we can move on to weeding out the steroid monsters from our local police forces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Cato says:

    I’m more in favor of the freedom to get high than I am of the freedom to carry a gun. You can chalk it up to old-hippiness, but I think the state has fewer grounds telling me which psychoactive drugs to take, than it has in trying to enforce its monopoly on violence (a monopoly I eagerly endorse). Like any responsible person, I obey the law, and consume only caffeine and alcohol, but would much appreciate a relaxation of the law. Anyone else out there likely to vote for Gary Johnson?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    I have no trouble with that IF we prohibit anyone using drugs from obtaining medical care from the welfare state for those things they inflict on themselves through their drug use.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Darin says:

    You forgot the sixth benefit- war on drugs gives chance to get rid of any one, any time and fully legally. Drugs are banned, but widely used nevertheless, and can be therefore “discovered” at any time and place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Bravo! I saw what the author did there also. Such interjection needs correction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @War for Blair Mountain
    Samantha Powers




    Repellant filthy Irish Scum Legal Immigrant from Ireland...



    Spawned in Satan's personal toilet bowl




    Way down below in boiling hot HELL!!!!...
    Read More
    • Replies: @Antiwar7
    If you read that article, you see that Samantha Powers called Hillary Clinton "a monster" only because Clinton was playing hardball in the 2008 US presidential primary versus Obama. Nothing about her foreign policy. In fact, both Clinton and Powers are equally monstrous in advocating for wars of choice that kill millions of innocent people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Antiwar7 says:
    @CalDre
    Just to focus on the comment, "it makes to oppose abortions and support the death penalty" (sic). Sure it makes sense. A fetus is an innocent soul, whereas the death penalty is applied to those guilty of a heinous crime, typically one which took another life.

    What's actually much more incongruous is to oppose the death penalty, or to oppose abortion, but to support war. In war innocents always die, and as to those you "believe" are guilty (like, say, Hussein or Qadafi), you really don't know, you are relying on politicians (who everyone agrees lie constantly) to tell you that. Would we give a citizen the death penalty on a politician's say-so? Of course not.

    So true! And yet people accept the US going to war so casually! I cannot understand this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    All drugs and all guns should be legal. If some junkie wants to rob a little old lady coming from church on Sunday and catches a few .38 rounds in the chest, then that’s life…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Antiwar7 says:
    @jimmyriddle
    She once called Hillary a monster:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/hillary-clinton-s-a-monster-obama-aide-blurts-out-attack-in-scotsman-interview-1-1158300

    so, not entirely bad.

    If you read that article, you see that Samantha Powers called Hillary Clinton “a monster” only because Clinton was playing hardball in the 2008 US presidential primary versus Obama. Nothing about her foreign policy. In fact, both Clinton and Powers are equally monstrous in advocating for wars of choice that kill millions of innocent people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Avery
    {Most of the founders (except for the Hamilton faction, which is probably why liberals love him so much) envisioned the US as more a federation of sovereign states than as a unitary entity.}

    Right. And the POTUS was mostly a ceremonial figurehead in times of peace.

    Now, the POTUS is feted like a Roman emperor, with a massive imperial court and retinue. A dedicated praetorian guard. When the emperor decides to come to Los Angeles, for example, to collect tribute right in the middle of rush hour, 100s of 1,000s of commuters, taxpayers, who are dead tired and trying to get home, have to sit in traffic, while streets are closed off to give the Emperor's motorcade open roads.
    If the Emperor does not like what the Congress does, He issues Imperial decrees. It never ends.

    There is hardly any aspect of ordinary people's lives that Washington's suffocating reach has not intruded upon.

    It is really tragic and disgusting how the once free people, American citizens, have been so thoroughly enslaved.

    “It is really tragic and disgusting how the once free people, American citizens, have been so thoroughly enslaved.”

    Wired to obey authority and voluntarily enslaved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Lady in Red
    I sent this link to a prog friend of mine, terribly opposed to the "war on drugs."

    He sniffed and wrote back, "There is no war on guns."

    I wrote, "When you are sitting on my side of the church and they are shooting at you, it sure seems like there's a war going on."

    The right wants to fight drugs and abortion and the left hates guns. Neither side can look in the mirror and see themselves for what they are. ....Lady in Red

    Any guesses on the origins of the behavioral adaptations of gun phobia, drug phobia, abortion, and death penalty?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @anon
    The last thing this country needs is easier access to this drug. It has destroyed countless lives. If you think millions of Americans are in such pain that they need this addictive drug , then you are naive. It is a drug to get high. It is one of the reasons for our abysmally low birth rate.

    Just a heads up here: other people are not your property.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. MarkinLA says:

    I would completely support legalizing drugs if someone could only come up with a plan for dealing with the millions of totally useless people who will spend all day trying to get their next fix.

    Yes, some people can smoke a little dope and continue to function just like there are functional alcoholics but there are a lot like my brother that nobody in their right mind would ever hire. Should he be locked up, probably no, but we aren’t going to let those like him starve to death on the streets. He doesn’t want my help because he thinks one day (when his legal handcuffs expire) he will move back into my mother’s house and start selling drugs again with his girlfriend.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. shropster says:

    Silly me. And I thought that he would have trouble picking only two from all that we had fought since the War of 1812.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. The War on Drugs is being waged at the instigation of people who are often themselves on drugs. The War on Guns is being waged by people who are intellectually disarmed and therefore must appeal to feelings.

    That the vast majority of the electorate continues to buy into their tripe is one of those mysteries of human development. Maybe that is why more and more are tuning out with drugs or offing themselves with drugs and/or guns. BTW, the increase in mortality is one of the few things that gives Obamacare a chance to survive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. The ongoing war on drugs long ago proved that government need not be restrained by the bill of rights. The people would not object. It was training wheels for the coming GWOT and police state that followed and gave birth to the vast American gulag for profit. The war on guns has so far been unsuccessful in disarming the people. But now that the people show signs of not being controlled by the corporate media I expect the confiscation of fire arms in the near future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @Cato
    I'm more in favor of the freedom to get high than I am of the freedom to carry a gun. You can chalk it up to old-hippiness, but I think the state has fewer grounds telling me which psychoactive drugs to take, than it has in trying to enforce its monopoly on violence (a monopoly I eagerly endorse). Like any responsible person, I obey the law, and consume only caffeine and alcohol, but would much appreciate a relaxation of the law. Anyone else out there likely to vote for Gary Johnson?

    I have no trouble with that IF we prohibit anyone using drugs from obtaining medical care from the welfare state for those things they inflict on themselves through their drug use.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. DEA and ATF are two of the worst federal agencies. Both are dependent upon their things being illegal to stay alive. The result is they themselves become law breakers in the so called enforcement of the law. We see such things in the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco, which are only the incidents that get have gotten the most PR. There are hundreds of lesser known incidents every year committed by both agencies. Both agencies need to be closed down along with the IRS, another agency that has committed gross illegalities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. zerotile says:

    There are more credible expressions of individualism than chronic disregard of grammar. For heaven’s sake get yourself someone to proofread/edit your publications.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. It’s always seemed to me that guns are to liberals what drugs are to conservatives. Liberals respond to the real damage that guns do as factors that exacerbate (but do not cause) destructive behaviors is the same way conservatives have responded to the real damage that drugs do in exacerbating destructive behaviors – with the impulse for prohibition, enforced by the law and its armed agents, the police. Quick, pass a law! Call the cops! has become a virtually automatic reaction of conservatives and liberals alike, according to their various tastes.

    See in-depth analysis of gun rights from a left viewpoint:
    The Polemicist: The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. shropster says:
    @2/1 Doc
    Dear Sir,
    The second amendment was ( consider its position in the first 10) passed to indeed provide citizens with weapons to fight off oppressive government. Its what the american revolution was all about after the first amendment. Its as simple as that. Agree with the rest of this essay. Thanks

    You are correct. It was also thought that the Federal Government should not have a standing army unless there was a external threat.
    The militias were meant to be the civilian defense against a rapacious Federal government, to be armed as well as any standing army.
    The standing army was then deemed to be necessary for the Indian Wars, waged to steal their land. The raison d’etre of the Louisiana Purchase was to have a place to put the Native Americans so that the USA could expand to the Mississippi. This evil was the beginning of the end of our noble experiment. The end of the beginning came with the War for Southern Independence, 1861-1865.
    Lincoln exchanged our Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States for a Democracy with provinces instead of States.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. pm says:
    @Greg Bacon
    Considering that the US government allows two of the deadliest drugs around, nicotine and alcohol to stay legal, one has to wonder why they keep the most benevolent drug, marijuana, illegal.

    I've seen a lot of mean drunks, drunks that get into fights just because they're drunk, but have never seen someone stoned get into a fight.
    Drunks also like to practice their fisticuffs on women and children.

    Guess keeping alcohol legal helps Americans maintain that 'indispensable' feeling and if you don't agree, I'll punch your lights out!

    That’s a great idea, prohibit alcohol. I’m pretty sure that’s never been tried, but it’s sure to be a big success.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation