i am really intrigued too by lookinside's observation elsewhere today about Vietnam being the ideal haven for drug producers and smugglers. Were the U.S. to attempt any interference with the Vietnamese kingpins whom lookinside leads us to expect soon enough, well, then even Americans would perceive the parallel with the VIetnam conflict ( Vietnam <=> Vietnam - get the parallel? ) even if it were absolutely invalid. I encourage the U.S. to reenter Vietnam in the name of preventing cannabis addiction among U.S. children. (There is petroleum offshore.) Or does the government favor the population's debilitation by narcotic addictors? ' and it's one two three four whaddya all waitin for?'

By the bye, today's paper tells how three democraptic congresscruppers are protesting the census bureau's refusal to publish statistics on the number of homeless in the U.S. Now why would the G want this information to be, in the Soviet style, witheld from the people? Reminds me of how Soviet economic figures were always state secrets. And now you know how we will fall.

a nice summer day for daydreaming beneath puffy clouds, picking wild strawberries and contemplating America's klutzy self-destruction.

Two highly flawed anti-drug articles in the same day make the Times a mouthpiece for failed government policies. It would be nice to see some actual thinking going on in your reporting.

I wanted to point out just one of the obvious flaws in Ben Gilman's "Risky Shootdown Policy Pause" piece. In it, he writes "In turn, an unlimited supply of ever-cheaper, purer, and highly addictive drugs coming in unabated from abroad, impacts and increases demand here at home, as well."

A first-year economics student will tell you that, as supply increases, demand decreases, not the other way around. And, when we decrease supply (through interdiction), we increase demand here at home. In other words, the more we try to destroy the drugs in Columbia or elsewhere, the greater the demand will be in the United States.

Can someone please ask Ben Gilman to open an economics book before the next election? We don't need people like this controlling drug policy in the United States.

But eventually the U.S. too will self destruct along with the country's economy, standard of living, science and culture: a policy of Universal Ignorance will not keep this country afloat indefinitely. I give us another 4-6 years until we are indistinguishable from Iraq or Afghanistan in our fanaticisms and become the embargoed shame of the world.

The U.S. War on Drugs is a doomsday machine. It's unstoppable. Only Europe and the wealthy drug warriors who flee to South America will survive. The world will be so sickened by the U.S. that the words "Jesus Christ" and "America" will ring foul for a thousand years, the same as the name "Adolf Hitler" offends today.

The Ends Justify the Means.

What's the death of a baptist womand and her baby compared to the glorious cause of .. what?

What cause are these bastards fighting now? the 16000 purported deaths on illicit substances which I don't believe now at all? How many of those deaths were "caused" and how many were "caused" /
Is it the grand cause of stopping people from feeling pleasure? Is that so, what about VIAGRA?

It must be the grand cause of stopping people from becomming addicts? Oh, cigarettes , right.

It seems to me the only cause Gilmans rooting for is the cause of never admitting mistakes; of never facing the shame of having pursued a failed social experiment during 80 years. And if it takes a number of innocent lives every year to reach that goal, the canonizaion of U.S. drug policy! Then all is well.

Dear Sirs,

I don't normally write to newspapers, as many have already made up their minds what they are going to print and what they aren't. But I am hoping that you will print this much-needed rebuttal to Congressman Gilman's recent remarks.

Congressman Gilman rather conveniently 'forgets' the names of the victims of the recent US-sponsored shootdown in the Andes. Or what they were doing there. So I'd like to remind him and all other DrugWarriors who think there's nothing wrong with shooting down planeloads of innocent women and children on the 'suspicion' of drug-smuggling.

Their names were Veronica and Chastity Bowers, Mr. Gilman. They were American taxpaying citizens. They were Christian missionaries doing God's work. And the US Government played a very large hand in their murder. As did every person who cheerleads this effort. Like you, Mr. Gilman. Their blood is on your hands.

Mr. Gilman hopes that he can excuse their deaths by stating that 16,000 people die from illegal drug usage every year. But is it worth the lives of innocent Americans, who normally would have had no involvement whatsoever with the drug trade, to try to stop some idiot from putting powder up his nose or a needle in her veins?

If Mr. Gilman says "Yes" as he seems to imply with his remarks, then may I suggest to him that he place his own children upon the altar of his holy DrugWar, and offer them as sacrifices to his principles?

As well as bearing in mind that over 400,000
amerikans lose their lives each year from the use of the
licit substance of tobacco, much of which originates in
the states of Kentucky and North Carolina.

The tragic loss of innocent life in Peru needs to be
viewed in the overall context of the illicit drug problem
facing our nation, destroying our young people and
communities.

This appalling loss of life needs to be viewed in the
overall context of the economies of these states and the
lobbying ability of the tobacco industry in the political
arena.

An old ploy, this. By refusing to name the victims, he makes them somehow anonymous. It's easier to dismiss the deaths of strangers than the death of 'your own.' By so conveniently 'forgeting' that these American citizens were murdered with the direct involvement of the United States Government, he seeks to lessen his own 'guilt by association' for having supported policies that killed those innocent Americans taxpayers.

Their names were Veronica and Chastity Bowers, Mr. Gilman.

And little Miss Bowers, an adopted child, was only seven months old Mr. Gilman. Being a staunch, right-wing Republican, can it be vouchsafed that you are opposed to abortion on the grounds that it is 'baby-killing'? Then how do you excuse the deaths of a mother and her adopted infant?

Children, it's time to crank up the ol' word processor and get busy writing this jerk's office and remind him of the points that have just been made.

You bet we should. I wholeheartedly agree. We should always bear in mind that in 1980 only 1700 people died from such causes, but now we can thank the drug war for increasing that number nearly tenfold. This isn't an argument for the drug war; it's an argument against it.

The Washington Times is owned and operated by the Unification Church, otherwise known as the "Mooniees" after their leader, Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The bulk of these people were indoctrinated into their religion by way of brainwashing techniques a la Straight Inc. These people are the epitomy of "sheeple." They have no ability to think for themselves; they care only for carrying out the wishes of their keepers.

I can't tell you how many times one of these people has come to my door saying they are members of a "Christian" organization selling X-product to raise funds for their church. I always ask which church, and when I find out, I always turn them away. I find any organized religion that openly supports the drug war absolutely disgusting.

Episcopalians and Quakers have it right--it's the drug war that's the problem, not the drugs.

By the way: Tim Lahaye, co-author of the wildly popular "Left Behind" series, worked for years as a writer for the Washington Times. Thought I'd throw that tidbit of information in for free.

...About the War on Drugs falling Heavily on Poor, Minority Communities...

"The aerial drug-trafficking shootdown program in the Andean Ridge region, which produces all of the world's cocaine, needs to be restored as part of the supply-reduction effort. One tragedy doesn't justify more death and destruction on our nation's streets and communities."

Funny choice of words there, Mr. Gilman, you unconscionable remorseless prick.

"One tragedy doesn't justify more death and destruction on our nation's streets and communities."

But it IS perfectly justifiable as long as it's somebody else's streets and communities, right Mr. Gilman?

It's so disgusting that we have such loathesome, rotten sociopaths as our country's "leaders".

I feel ill....
Shishaldin