|
|
| War on Drugs, War on Terror; What's Next? |
|
Posted by FoM on February 25, 2002 at 12:10:54 PT By Steve Stephens, Dispatch Metro Columnist Source: Columbus Dispatch 
When politicians outlaw lard, as they surely soon will, organized criminals will eagerly step into the breach and peddle onion rings on the black market. Turf wars will erupt over prime deep-fry corners. The price of potato chips will skyrocket, as will profits from smuggling pork rinds. Hundreds of thousands of peaceful, oil-sodden french-fry lovers, who once clogged just their arteries, will clog prisons, too. It's the age-old story of what happens when bureaucrats try to save us from ourselves. Cops will spend less time chasing murderers and more time sniffing out illegal doughnut labs. Other officers will be taken off the streets and put inside schools to promote Bad Oil Resistance Education. Children robotically will recite, "Chickpeas are my anti-fat'' before sneaking behind the school for a shot of Wesson. The courts will approve no-knock refrigerator searches and covert oven monitoring. The politicians behind the Health and Happiness for All (Prohibited Fats and Oils) Act of 2012 will claim they are protecting the public. "There is no such thing as a victimless meal,'' Sen. Buncombe will pronounce very loudly at a news conference. "A fatty-food junkie may eat in the privacy of his own home, but when that same junkie steals money for a Pringles fix; when he glamorizes his depraved, greasy lifestyle among our youth; when he overtaxes our health-care system with his liposuction, his bypass surgery, his Richard Simmons tapes, then society pays. You pay. And yes, my friends, my fellow Americans, your children pay.'' Soon the Bill of Rights -- the batter-thin crust separating us from tyranny -- will be tattered and torn. Fat barons will control several Third World countries. Nacho-terrorists will perform foul deeds in the service of their oily masters. Finally, the Office of the National Fat Control Policy will run ads during the Super Bowl and in newspapers blaming the chip eaters, doughnut dunkers and deep-fry nibblers for the evils spawned by criminalizing grease: "Lard money helps support terror. Buy fat and you could be supporting it, too.'' Such is the logic of politicians, who care more about power than truth. The same scenario played out during Prohibition. Beer drinkers and martini lovers were blamed for the rise of organized crime. Every bottle of bathtub gin was alleged to encourage Al Capone. Perhaps it did. But the real culprit, as Americans finally realized, was Prohibition itself -- and the politicians, vote-grubbers, moralists, scolds, gin-runners and crime bosses who benefited because a product demanded by millions was illegal. Five years after alcohol was outlawed, H.L. Mencken, that tireless journalist and truth-teller, noted that "None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of (Prohibition) has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.'' Prohibition was finally repealed, but little, apparently, was learned from the disaster. Perhaps Americans will learn something from analogous disasters, up to and including the War on Fat. But I doubt it. Steve Stephens is a Dispatch Metro columnist. Complete Title: War on Drugs, War on Terror; What's Next, War on Fat? Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH) Related Articles: Prohibit Prohibition - Michael Williams Prohibition Should Be Banned Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #26 posted by mayan on February 26, 2002 at 14:41:51 PT |
| Just got my copy of the USA Today too! Beautiful!!!(not Walter's mug - like you said Kap'n). There are two very contrasting views being pushed by The ONDCP & the LP. I hope this ad makes people question the government propaganda that's been shoved down their throats for so long. I am going to let the USA Today & the Washington times know how much I appreciated the ad. We should all show our support for what the Libertarians have done. www.LP.org/drugwar [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #25 posted by kaptinemo on February 26, 2002 at 10:52:51 PT |
| Needless to say, you've been missed.... [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #24 posted by Doc-Hawk on February 26, 2002 at 06:42:06 PT:
|
| The Drug Policy Alliance is printing another ad in the Roll Call on Feb 28. The story is at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pr-february25-02x.html and the ad can be viewed at http://www.theantidrugwar.com/ . The boy had it coming. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #23 posted by Patrick on February 26, 2002 at 06:19:23 PT |
| Usufructs. I had to look that one up too…! Definitely the new word of the Week at the least! I had a good laugh from an earlier misprint on CNN.com on this same story at the following link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/25/us.drugs/index.html I just checked it and they fixed it. They had printed retail spending at $64 million twice, instead of $64 billion. Those fiendish corporate news editors! Anyway, that number divided by the 14 million illegal drug users at the time to me, {got out calculator and divided $64mil by 14mil} and got $4.57! Each and every illegal drug user spent $4.57 on illegal drugs last year!!! Wow, I got ripped off!!! It took me a moment to realize the obvious misprint. But what-a-laugh I had. Then it donned on me all these numbers? They are all jacked up to anyway that someone wants to read or interpret them. Fuzzy math indeed! The truth doesn't need statistics or fuzzy math. Millions of people understand that the numbers racket run by these bureaucrats with their fancy authoritarian titles wouldn't even exist if it where not for all the prohibition lies in the first place. Give the people back their $20 million tax dollars spent on the DEA's annual budget. This way we can cure the 14 million addicts in this county once and for all. That work's out to a whopping $1.42 for each addict's treatment program per year. Oops, I meant to say $20 billion dollar budget. Perhaps, one of the 10,000 to 0 studies recently quoted illustrates that improvement in cognitive math skills comes with practice regardless of ones cannabis, tobacco, or alcohol consumption. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #22 posted by kaptinemo on February 26, 2002 at 05:39:02 PT:
|
| Page 14A. The entire page. Big and beautiful. (The idea of the ad, not Walter's mug; could do without seeing that this early in the morning.) And all true. This is bound to stir the s**t pot this time. The illict drug trade flourishes under the very conditions Republican think-tanks wax lyrical about. The pinnacle of the "Free Enterprise" system, the idea that if government intervention is kept to a minimum, market forces will provide their own checks-and-balances. Sublimely free of moralistic posturing, market forces will provide the greatest degree of freedom to all. Considering that the Reps have stolen every free market idea from the Libs for the last 20 years, and then had the bald-faced effrontery to deny it, this could get ugly. Because now, just as has been explained ad nauseum, the market forces which presently drive Drug Prohibition drove Alcohol Prohibition. What are the Reps going to do? Fall on their swords and say they were wrong? That market forces don't control the illict drug trade? That they, because of their 'price supports' courtesy of the DrugWar, have not been aiding and abetting gangsters who've used their own economic principles against them? Oh, this is rich. I can hardly wait for the Bush Sub One's Administration to come up with a rejoinder to this one. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #21 posted by el_toonces on February 26, 2002 at 02:42:21 PT:
|
| Usufructs...just had to say it....look it up.....kist had to think about the fructose = sweet..sort of like using another's goodies with legal sanction..........neat connotations plus it just sounds so damned cool.....gets my vote for "Best New Word (=Word I Learned) of the Millenium (So Far Anyway)! BUY this word now......:) Just to weigh in on the word = usufructs (sounds kinda naughty?) Be well, El [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #20 posted by Duzt on February 25, 2002 at 21:18:00 PT |
| Every make sure to pick up a copy of USA Today and look in the A section for the Ad mocking the Drug war using our idiot drug czar as the ass of the joke (not a joke, an ad saying if you support the drug war or the politicians who support it then you support terrorism because the war on drugs raises profits up to 17,000 percent). It will be in the Washington Times as well but I'm not sure what day, possibly tomorrow. Going to piss off lots of people, should be fun.... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #19 posted by shrox on February 25, 2002 at 19:47:03 PT |
| I did not mean "render" in a good way... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by The GCW on February 25, 2002 at 19:15:16 PT |
| A deluding influence. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by shrox on February 25, 2002 at 19:02:00 PT |
| All people are not created equal. It is the duty of the government to render them so. That is where we are headed. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by FoM on February 25, 2002 at 18:50:13 PT |
| The stats were from the DEA didn't they say? Don't they need an independent source to be fair? When a politician is asked a question they go round and round until the person doesn't exactly remember what the question was so no answer that makes sense. They should answer with yes or no and no double talks. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by Patrick on February 25, 2002 at 17:49:58 PT |
| They analyze the drug traffic patterns quarterly. Lots of numbers and a clear picture of where it comes from and where it goes they claim. I wonder how much money is spent quarterly analyizing what treating the 6.3% of the population that is chronically addicted would cost versus waging a war on them. I doubt that it would cost as much as the DEA's annual budget. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by FoM on February 25, 2002 at 17:42:45 PT |
| The titles these people have are so long and say nothing. Acting Deputy Director for Supply Reduction! What in the world does that person do? What kind of money does that long title get? Inquiring minds want to know. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by Patrick on February 25, 2002 at 17:39:32 PT |
| gobblygook whatever it is called it the same ole party line that blames the problem on the symptoms rather than the root cause prohibition itself.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by FoM on February 25, 2002 at 17:30:46 PT |
| You should be a fly on the wall at my house and hear my husband! LOL! I'm listening and I question what makes these people act like they do. They must really love their job or the money they get. Must be the money. Double talk! You know it's what is is! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by Patrick on February 25, 2002 at 17:22:18 PT |
| Domestic retail spending on drugs in this country is $64 billion dollars according to the State Department and this money is spent by the 6.3 % of the population that is addicted??? Who uses fuzzy math again? If drugs were not inflated by Prohibition, I venture to say that the debate would revolve around what to do with the revenue from regulation than how to provide narcotic enforcement billions to poorer countries and new prison budgets. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Robbie on February 25, 2002 at 17:18:37 PT |
| but Children robotically will recite, "Chickpeas are my anti-fat'' before sneaking behind the school for a shot of Wesson... ...Nacho-terrorists... ROTFLMAO! Too funny ;-) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by goneposthole on February 25, 2002 at 16:52:54 PT |
| usufruct The legal right of using and enjoying the fruits and profits of something belonging to another. I prefer the definition: The right to use or enjoy something [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 25, 2002 at 16:47:58 PT |
| Just passing this on. 08:00 pm
News Conference [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on February 25, 2002 at 16:46:33 PT |
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on February 25, 2002 at 16:24:49 PT |
| I didn't know much about Mencken, but he seems interesting...almost like the Hunter S. Thompson of his day. A little racist and aristocratic to be sure, but at least he recognized Prohibition for the sham that it was. And some of the political themes he mentioned are 100% relevant today - like the fact that politicians exploit the ignorant masses with dumbed-down demagoguery. The 2 or 3 step logic required to understand ending the drug war is far too much for most Americans. (i.e., drugs are bad, but making them criminal means channeling distribution into the hands of those who have no qualms selling to kids, thus Americans kids smoke twice the pot of Holland's - WAY too complicated). Which is another reason I like this article - not overly-layered liberal intellectualism, just 2 very simple but powerful analogies (alcohol prohibition and fatty foods). [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 25, 2002 at 16:22:12 PT |
| the real culprit, as Americans finally realized, was Prohibition itself -- and the politicians Libertarian Party ads against the war on drugs will be running in USA Today and Washington Times, I think tomorrow. Lets hope these ads get the media attention they really deserve, hopefully more attention than the 3.4 mil wasted on the Superbowl. You can make a secure online donation at: http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=drugwarad [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on February 25, 2002 at 15:49:17 PT |
| Five years after alcohol was outlawed, H.L. Mencken, that tireless journalist and truth-teller, noted that "None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of (Prohibition) has come to pass That'll confuse Asa Hutchinson. Ask him to show the world his usufructs. You mean the DEA doesn't do usufruct analysis? I think the National Academy of Scientists had a different way to say it in their report. Maybe they should have chenneled Mencken when they wrote it. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on February 25, 2002 at 14:08:45 PT |
| Really powerful article, for someone who doesn't write about this issue professionally..... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by FoM on February 25, 2002 at 13:06:09 PT |
| Thank you! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on February 25, 2002 at 13:03:02 PT:
|
| Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power. They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their hands.
H.L. Mencken
from: [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |