A Politician’s Response on the War on Drugs

Drug Policy, Police Statism, Victimless Crimes
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Recently, through DownsizeDC.org, I sent an email to Congressman John Linder, urging him to support an end to the war on drugs and the legalization of marijuana in California. I believe that move will do much to make both Californians and Mexicans safer. Predictably, our masters in Washington are more concerned with maintaining power than actually allowing people to freely make choices for themselves. The response, which should come as no surprise to any libertarian:

Dear Mr. Wicks:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the recent drug-related violence in Mexico.  I appreciate hearing from you, and I share your concerns.

In 2007, former President George W. Bush announced the Merida Initiative proposal, a coordinated effort between the United States, Mexico, and the countries of Central America to combat the threats of drug trafficking.  President Obama recently stated that in 2009, under the Merida Initiative, $700 million would be invested to support Mexico’s law enforcement and judicial personnel in the war on drugs.  This money will be spent in part on training personnel, equipment for counternarcotics forces, and information sharing.  Additionally, to increase border security the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tripling intelligence analysts and increasing the number of canine units operating along the Southwest border, as well as increasing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) staff in Mexico.

Our drug policy must be a comprehensive one, and we must continue to put pressure on producers throughout the Americas to ensure that they cannot sell their product in the United States or ship across our borders with impunity.  We also have an obligation to assist foreign governments with their efforts to stop the crime and violence associated with the drug trade, a trade primarily focused on meeting American demand for illicit drugs.  I believe that we must dedicate ourselves to winning the war on drugs and I will support legislation that attacks this serious threat to America’s health and national security on every front.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,

John Linder
Member of Congress

Even people of fairly limited intelligence (i.e., congressmen) can see the clear line connecting the war on drugs to drug violence. It is well past time to stop assuming the drug warriors actually care at all about our lives. They care about their own power, and the power of the state on which they depend. If thousands must die and millions must be imprisoned, that’s just a cost of doing state business.

A Politician’s Response on the War on Drugs Read Post »

Sexuality, the State, and the Death of Black Manhood

Drug Policy, Nanny Statism, Police Statism, Racism, Victimless Crimes
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Recently, my college friends and myself were discussing a recent article in Vibe magazine on the experiences of a flamboyantly gay man at Morehouse College, and the response of the school’s president. I shared the two articles with family and friends, and the inevitable question “what has happened to black men?” came up. It seems clear to me that the main things which have happened are the reasons I despise Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan. The war on poverty brought us welfare, which pushed a lot of black men from homes in the name of easy (or easier) money. That was Johnson. Reagan escalated the war on drugs, which further devastated the black family, especially the black males. Can anyone really claim that it is better for a black guy to be locked up for smoking or selling weed, rather than going to a community college and getting himself a job some day? Is controlling what someone does with his own body so very important? Is promoting the creation of drug gangs, then promoting the increase in the intrusiveness and violence of policing something we can really describe as “good?”

Because of these two factors, black men have fewer male role models. Many men emulate their mothers, unsurprising, as so many men are reared without fathers. Some of those mothers are educated, so that is fine as far as education goes. These men will pursue education. But they do not act like men. This is true even of many heterosexual men. Among any sufficiently large population, a number of gay people is to be expected. I do not find it surprising that a segment of the gay population would take emulating their mothers to an extreme that the straight men would not.

I predicted years ago that black higher education would become increasingly gay, and specifically, effeminately so. The war on drugs has devastated the ranks of black men in black communities to such an extent that female role models are, all too often, the best role models for success that black boys have. The testosterone has been depleted from the segments of black society most in need of it. This is one of the many tragedies brought to neighborhoods across the nation by the desire to force moral choices on others “for their own good.” And, while I targeted those two presidents for specific criticism, we can hardly “blame whitey” for this one. There are lots of people who are black drug warriors. Pretty much every black politician, including Obama, is a drug warrior. Eric Holder, his pick for Attorney General, is an especially fervent drug warrior. As far as I am concerned, we should treat blacks who support the war on drugs the same as we would treat a black guy doing a minstrel show in full blackface at an NAACP meeting. They deserve nothing but derision for being essentially black slave overseers. They profit from promoting oppression.

Sexuality, the State, and the Death of Black Manhood Read Post »

In Defense Of Lindsay Lohan

Drug Policy, Pop Culture, Victimless Crimes
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Wild child Lindsay Lohan is apparently not a fan of staying out of trouble — nothing but private and public battles with family members, lovers, the media and, lately, the state (see here, here, here, here, here and here). In my opinion, her life is a mess. Yet I must come to her rescue — if only ideologically. You see, LiLo is a victim.

If you thought prohibition was repealed, think again. From minimum drinking age laws to laws that prohibit even parents, in some states, from responsibly introducing alcohol to kids, the state still manages to control not just the alcohol industry but those consuming it. Indeed, if you consume alcohol in places and times that the state deems “illegal,” you will be treated like cattle — literally. Indeed, Lohan has been in the past required to wear an alcohol monitoring bracelet. She has also been required to forcibly attend rehab (let’s see: a chain, involuntary migration — yep, sounds like a form of slavery to me) and comply with various others threats by the state.

The support for the war on drugs is sickening. From what I can tell, almost everyone has been bashing Lohan and praising the judge and the almighty legislation that makes these atrocities happen. Sure, if Lohan committed a real crime against someone else’s property or body, then she’d be guilty. However, the government’s gauntlet was thrown because she had the audacity to say no. There is no obligation to show up in court. LiLo’s record ought to be expunged. Set her free at once.

Repeal the drinking age. Legalize drunk driving. Repeal the war on drugs. Abolish the prisons. Why not repeal the state while we are at it.

Oh, and regarding the judge who sentenced an innocent person? I agree with Lohan’s sentiments:

In Defense Of Lindsay Lohan Read Post »

“The plan’s perfect… it will work this time”

Drug Policy, Immigration, Police Statism, Victimless Crimes, Vulgar Politics
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Back when Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for telling the Armenians to get over it (genocide at the hands of the Turks), I cautioned that “The continuing collapse of Western Civilization is going to produce a multitude of similar ridiculousnesses, so be prepared.”

Well, today I watched one such unintentionally hilarious (and notably revolting) “ridiculousness”: a John McCain television ad encouraging completion of “the danged fence.” In case you haven’t seen it or you have but want another snicker at McCain’s expense, here it is:

I often wonder the process by which commercials and political ads with such phony, contrived premises are approved for release to media markets. Does anyone really take seriously an actor dressed in doctor’s garb explaining the health benefits of the drug he or she is touting? Is this ridiculous, pretend, scripted conversation between McCain and some (possibly authentic) jack-booted tax leech any different? I picture some advisor or media consultant pitching the idea to his team, and instead of being laughed out of the room, those around the table exclaim, “Oh yeah! That will work!” and the project leader green-lights it with a confident “Let’s make it happen!” Somehow the commercial makes its way past the politician’s consultants and advisors without being vetoed, and finds itself in front of a focus group which… responds favorably? Unbelievable. I find such ads insulting prima facie. The contrived nature of the commercial combined with the claim that “the plan’s perfect” and “it will work this time” comprise its “hilarious” aspect.

The revolting aspect, of course, is the call to militarize the border (with National Guard troops), add another 3000 Border Patrol Agents, and wall up the border. This “perfect plan” fits with what I warned about in this post, specifically:

If there is one thing every libertarian should know about government it’s that government cannot efficiently or effectively perform any “service” without resorting to totalitarian police-statism. When the government minimizes costs (don’t laugh), it performs at woefully substandard levels. Think of the levees around New Orleans which failed during Hurricane Katrina, for instance. For adequate quality of service, for instance the Hoover Dam or those stretches of elevated interstate cutting through the marshes and swamps of Louisiana (very fine work), the government has to overpay enormously. The systemic defects inherent in government bureaucracy cannot be overcome, as they are due (mostly) to the absence of a profit motive. The government simply cannot provide quality services at market prices; often, the government cannot provide quality service at any price. What the government can do, however, is provide brutality very cheaply, for a while.

This isn’t to say that the United States doesn’t have an immigration problem. It does; or rather, it has a problem which the mass-invasion of the Mexican lower class exacerbates, namely the massive welfare state. “Fighting immigration” is simply another misguided, alleged “solution” to yet another unintended consequence of government interventionism. It’s stunning that Americans haven’t learned how dangerous it is to empower the government to “make them safer”, given the War on Drugs, which has left the Bill of Rights decimated, led to the incarceration of more citizens than any other country (both nominally and per capita), and taken the lives of many innocent people and their pets:

It’s certainly delusional to believe that militarizing the border won’t lead to similar atrocities — violations of person and property — and for what? All this so that the insidious welfare state doesn’t have to be dismantled? How sad.

“The plan’s perfect… it will work this time” Read Post »

Scroll to Top