More undefined,'guesstistics' being used to subtly convince
people that continuing the drug war is a given.This is the
way the subject is approach again and again......Think about
it.....Articles such as this one,are seeming to put a bright new
attitude,and direction of the governments war...But if you really
look at the article,,you will firstly notice that it has no author.
Articles with no author are immediatly suspect ....The article seems
to be balanced,and even mildly critical,,,but it ends up saying we
should not "begrudge" the shrub,,,,what a pile of CRAP!!!!!!!!!!

"Even if it turns out to be a limited effort, no one should begrudge President Bush for trying to add some new thinking to this enterprise."

"new thinking",,,,that is pure BULL!

"enterprise",,,,that's exactly what it is,,enterprise,,a for profit enterprise
both politically,and financially.

These articles that are written by No One,are usually written by someone,and
there is no reason why the writer would not want to take credit,unless they
were afraid that they would be exposed for who they are.....The Government!!

This article displays a slight shift in rhetoric, replacing the word prison with the word treatment, meaning forced treatment under the threat of prison, treatments which will take place - guess where - in prisons:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010701/bs/bizservices_prisons_dc_1.html
Finally, the word 'war', I see, has been shifted to the word 'fight'. Why do so many of our government's policies consist of 'wars' or 'fights'? Why do our "leaders" believe that I am impressed by dumb violence?

That fight ought to be firmly grounded on what works. Let research and results--not rhetoric, moralizing or politics--guide any new federal strategy against substance abuse.
All the research and results, even under Nixon, say either decriminalize or legalize. So let's see George Bushhogger fight to legalize marijuana. Marijuana, and all the illegal drugs too, can be used to advantage by some people at some times. That's why they were invented, that's why, more often than most people are permitted to know, they're used positively and productively. Not all drug use is abuse. Nothing in America is more loaded with abuses than the war on drugs.

When Bush announced the nomination in May of John Walters as the new drug-policy adviser, critics quickly charged that the nominee represented the old lock-'em-up school
of fighting drugs. Looking at Walters' record as deputy drug czar under the president's father, there are grounds for such fears.
There sure are grounds for doubt:
Walters, who served as the top aide to William Bennett, the nation's first drug czar, in the late 1980s, has been a vocal critic of drug-treatment programs, saying "there is too much treatment capacity in the U.S.'' He has chided those who advocate increased spending on drug treatment as "the last manifestation of liberals' commitment[sic] to a therapeutic state in which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.''
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9784.shtml

But if you follow the money--and the president's statements--it's hard to miss a significant shift toward treatment of drug addiction as a disease rather than mostly a police problem.
Let's have our debate and define on television for the people what is meant by "treatment", by "drug", by "addiction", and by "disease". Marijuana is not addictive. It is not a drug. Smoking it is not a disease. Does the mysterious author then mean to leave marijuana out of these categories? If so, say so. If not say so. Let's have our TV debate. 54% of high school seniors do not have a disease. They're just pathetically ignorant. They don't need "treatments". They need an education. It would help if they could read and learn a little history. It would help if they were relieved of relentless government propaganda.

"This administration will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of this problem," said Bush, who pledged to spend an additional $1.5 billion over the next five
years on drug-treatment programs. This is a modest commitment but a good start.
More money for more cops to arrest marijuana smokers, seize their property, their children and their lives. It's nothing new, just more of the same evil.

Encouraging too is Bush's promise to target 5 million hard-core users. The majority of them are poor, and many don't have medical insurance. It's estimated that half of these addicts have no access to treatment.
These lines fail to point out that 48 million Americans lack medical insurance. They imply too that many "hard-core users" in fact DO have medical insurance. Anyone who has medical insurance in this country is doing quite well, has a pretty good job and money left over after rent, food, dope and gas. It's a great credit to "many hard-core users" that they have insurance. If there are only 5 million "hard-core users" to be targeted, then why are 1.7 million people arrested each year?

The majority of them are poor.... The majority of people who use dope have money to buy it with, honestly earned money. You don't support a $300 Billion industry by stealing hubcaps and VCRs. The majority of Blacks and Hispanics have less education and income than Whites. Color me subversive too.

But on the treatment side, new drugs have become available to tackle some types of addiction.... and scientists have made strides in understanding how addiction and drugs affect the brain. Additional funding is needed to more clearly understand the physiological underpinnings of addiction and how this disease can be treated.

What does 'new drugs to tackle addictions' mean? It means forced, mandatory injections of catalytic antibodies so that the "rush of smoking a large dose of crack might be reduced to the less overwhelming level of snorting a few milligrams of powdered cocaine." It means that addicts forced into treatment will simply require more money to buy much larger doses of black market dope to first overcome the antibodies and then more dope still to get high. Another counter-productive government cure-all conceived to make the real addicts more miserable and to expand and intensify the drug war industry - exactly as promised by John Ashcroft - and all under the threat of prison for users of drugs less harmful than the diarrhea and headache yielding potions pushed on TV every 6 minutes.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/Cocaine/treatment.html

The most successful rehabilitation programs traditionally have had a strong spiritual component that, combined with medical interventions, still offer the best hope for helping
addicts. In this case, a bias for or against religion ought not be the guiding criterion. Again, the most important factor should be who or what gets results.

I havn't got time to join the growing numbers of AA bashers today - they're easy to find on the Internet and they have some good points. AA, the original 12-step self-help program, also has much that can be said in its favor. It's voluntary. It works for some people. It has a success rate of about 10%. But a growing number of its attendees carry with them some court paperwork which must be signed at the end of each meeting for periodic presentation to a judge or probation officer. AA is being abused as an arm of the law. Its program requires that the member admit that his life is out of control, that he has a disease and that this "disease" requires life-long "treatment" - by AA. This is not for everybody. Most people who quit booze or dope simply quit all on their own and fairly effortlessly - once they've decided to quit. Others drink or dope all their lives without real imposition on anyone. The government's position , as always, is that all drug use is abuse, is a disease and must be treated.
--------------------
"Follow the money", this article advises. I'd like to know who wrote this article, who paid for it and where that money came from.

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/dianetics.html

their only goals are to help those who WANT help...whether
an alcoholic(AA) or a spouse or family member(ALANON)...drug
addicts would attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings(NA)...

these groups are NOT big business...usually they are
supported by donations at meetings...usually a dollar per
person..these donations are not required...most barely
squeeze by month to month, renting the cheapest property
available or meeting in private homes or churches...

i attended AA for years, i've been sober for 8
years...honesty is a hallmark of AA...i felt that i could
not be honest about some things involving my wife's MMJ, and
i stopped going...

AA/NA are SPIRITUAL programs, but are NOT affiliated to any
religion...

Please be careful who you include when you talk about
religious charlatans...

So, I think Bush is trying to facilitate a move back in the church-based direction, but he seems totally oblivious to the hypocrisy of using government funding to boost private sector charity programs. Just more examples of how dysfunctional our federal bureacracy has become, and how much the Republican party has gone back on their stated goals of less government.

To Cannabis Crusader - there is no formal "separation of Church and State" in the consititution. Merely a prohibition against establishing a national religion, with a guarentee to uphold the free exercise of all religions.

You'd think the Robertsons and the Falwell's would have tumbled to the fact that historically they've been used like toilet paper every time they get involved in politics. In fact, Robertson in one of his books actually pointed fingers and named names of those who were behind the Bush Prime presidency. But they still are eternally hopeful that they can get one of their own into the White House.

No matter what Bush thinks some religious groups will be discriminated against. Will someone with a cannabis "abuse" problem be sent to a Rastafarian program? (I'm mean no disrespect to Rastas at all. I just wanted to illustrate a point that discrimination is inevitable.) Religion is a personal issue and in my opinion has no place in politics, no exceptions. Apparently the founders of this country agreed with me or separation of chuch and state would have never been included in the Constitution.

Again, I mean absolutely no disrespect to any person except Bush. I hate to see any group of people being discriminated against. Anything that introduces or promotes discrimination of any group of people shouldn't even be considered for the very reason that the members of the religious groups that will be discriminated against also pay the taxes which would fund the programs. Bush just seems to continue to make himself look like the "village idoit," which really scares the hell out of me.