Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Individual Mandate And Catastrophic Coverage | Main | Lobbyists Parade Through Obama's White House; Times Blames Bush »

April 14, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e20163042d1fca970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Putting The 'Joint' In Joint Summit:

Comments

Donald

I say the drug war is evil.

It has cost billions of dollars and has criminalized too many good people.

Evil dammit.

BR

Oh, good, sex and drugs in Colombia, two elements (in journalism) that always sell well.

I've read that not just one, but 12 of Obama's bodyguards got released (from duty) in Colombia.

Maybe it was a subconscious effort to distance themselves from him.

The Times of India, 4/15/12.

Jane

Is there really a drug war? I am so out of the loop.

pagar

"has criminalized too many good people. "

?

narciso

I've always wondered why the culture is so eager in generating the demand for said substances, at least 1964,

someguy

Well, the Secret Service has put "hookers" into the summit.

Might as well break the dope out.

Jesus fucking Christ this country is being run by your high school Model UN.

pagar

"has criminalized too many good people. "

?

Clarice

The Secret Service AND some of the military detail. wow, TM, one of your best headers ever.

BlahBlahBlah

I'm sorry, and maybe its just me, but I see four issues I just cant get over with regard to legalizing drugs

1 ~ I am already at risk of getting taken out in my car by drunk drivers and idiots. Adding legally stoned drivers just increases my chances of being hurt too much for me to feel comfortable with it. I already play Frogger trying to get to work everyday - and its hard enough as it is!

2 ~ I love, love, love the fact that hardened criminals with felonies on their backs are regularly picked up and run through the system for drug offenses. Maybe its just me, but solving crimes and removing criminals from the streets is a great service in my mind.

3 ~ a majority of crimes are committed in an effort to get drug money. If drugs were legal, and therefore easier to buy, wouldn't these criminals need more money, and therefore commit more crimes? (and dont give me the "it will be cheaper" nonsense - when is anything regulated by the Government and falling under a "sin tax" ever cheaper?)

4 ~ the people working at my local BurgerKing are stupid enough without legal (and therefore, more frequent) pot use; I can honestly say I am not sure I can handle their IQ being lowered even more. "Going Fast-Food" might just become a house-hold term if we allow these idiots to legally run around using mind-altering drugs with no ability to quickly test for intoxication in an effort to fire them.


...okay, that last one lead to one more concern - would we need to lower the hiring standards even more to adjust for the percentage of population which would then be either too stupid or too stoned to get a job otherwise? Will stoners become a "class" with "rights" that dictate you can not discriminate against their low IQs and poor Motor-Skills by not hiring them? Would we be forced to include them in affirmative action to make sure a proper representation of society was covered?

Allred: "they fired sweet, well-intentioned, mother-of-eight Jessica here because the poor soul suffers from a horrible addiction to a very legal product which unfairly leaves her unable to button up her own company-issued BurgerKing shit" -- I can see it now

BlahBlahBlah

Oh, and as far as solving South America's "drug problem" which is created by the need for the people in those countries to run drugs up to ours - I have a crazy idea that might just work...

...secure the damn border!!!

or am just way too out there with such thinking?

Porchlight

Legalization is not the answer. It is only a tradeoff, and the problems we will incur will be much larger than those we leave behind. You only end up subsidizing the much more lethal narcotics industry.

Frau Grammatik

Blah3 - it will come under the AWDA.
Some CA police are against making driving-while-stoned an offense because some of the stoned drivers just might be medical marijuana "patients." That's where we are out west.

I'm waiting to hear that driving-while-stoned will reduce road rage...

Porchlight

Thank you for those words of sanity, BlahBlahBlah.

Legalizing/decrminalizing an activity means you get MORE of it. Those who were cautious because of its illegality will no longer be cautious. See: abortion.

Same goes for destigmatization of an activity. See: sex and childbirth out of wedlock. And abortion.

You might be able to raise the price out of reach. Define "out of reach." More expensive than pot now? How much more expensive

It's a huge social and governmental mess. Much, much huger than the one we have now. Don't go there.

Porchlight

2 ~ I love, love, love the fact that hardened criminals with felonies on their backs are regularly picked up and run through the system for drug offenses. Maybe its just me, but solving crimes and removing criminals from the streets is a great service in my mind.

Drug offenses can also be reasons to rescue children from abusive parents. No longer, if drugs are legal. Selling drugs out of your apartment and exposing your young children to the lowlifes that entails? Spending all your income on drugs and none of it on food and clothes for your children? No problem. No one can touch you.

Europe is moving away from this just as we are moving toward it. Just like socialism. Come on.

I know the libertarians have strong pro-legalization arguments. They have strong arguments for all sorts of things I think are horrible ideas.

Frau Grammatik

Has Pres. Kool run this past Uncle Soros who, IICR, has publicly advocated the legalization of drugs? The Open Society calls for docile citizens subjects.

BlahBlahBlah

"That's where we are out west."

Yeah, I am (temporarily) out here with ya (theLBC baby!). My new home recorded last Monday though, so this horrific mess of a backwards state will only get to take advantage of me for about another 3 weeks!

As far as the Cops part of your post though, I would personally suspect many are probably against making driving-high illegal because its impossible to test for. They would likely be opening themselves up to countless false-arrest lawsuits if it were illegal since there is no test to prove MJ-intoxication like there is for drunk drivers. Self-preservation, ya know.


"You might be able to raise the price out of reach. Define "out of reach." More expensive than pot now? How much more expensive"

you want it defined in the form of the anticipated prohibiting dollar cost of pot, or in the percentage of increased crime rate needed for the low-lifes to be able to pay for said prohibited costing pot?

narciso

Like the song goes 'there's something happening here, what it is isn't exactly
clear' first we have Perez Molina, start
sounding like Ethan Nadeleman's boss.Fmr Defense Min, Santos, saying democracy is too strict a criteria to qualify for the summit.

Captain Hate

What we have here is a failure to communicate. On one side you have the libertardians who want everything legalized and damn the consequences. And on the other side you have the MADD Carrie Nations that want being in the same zip code as a place that sells alc guilty of DUI. Telling both of them to go fuck themselves works for me.

Captain Hate

Has Pres. Kool run this past Uncle Soros who, IICR, has publicly advocated the legalization of drugs?

If the Nazi symp hasn't, his partner in grime Peter Lewis has.

mockmook


Hmmmm.

There isn't a large illegal liquor/beer industry even though liquor/beer is highly taxed.

Drunk driving is way down, severe penalties seem to work there; I'm sure "potted driving" could be kept low as well.

I think reasonable regulation of legalized pot would save us a lot of grief.

Cocaine is more dangerous (to the user), so I'm not sure if legalizing it is wise.

I just don't see a good way to hurt the illegal drug trade (and the violence it creates) without some legalization scheme for "popular" drugs.

bgates

I am already at risk of getting taken out in my car by drunk drivers

Driving while drunk is illegal.

I love, love, love the fact that hardened criminals with felonies on their backs are regularly picked up and run through the system for drug offenses.

If you think they should be in prison longer for committing felonies, argue for that.

If drugs were legal, and therefore easier to buy, wouldn't these criminals need more money, and therefore commit more crimes?

What's keeping users from buying more now? It can't just be lack of money, they have the opportunity to commit more crimes.

If legalization inevitably increases prices, couldn't we get gas down below $3/gal by outlawing petroleum distribution?

FUBAR

Drug offenses can also be reasons to rescue children from abusive parents. No longer, if drugs are legal. Selling drugs out of your apartment and exposing your young children to the lowlifes that entails? Spending all your income on drugs and none of it on food and clothes for your children? No problem. No one can touch you.

Um. This is the kind of behavior legalizing drugs would stop. The lowlifes would go to the corner store. And spending all your money on ANYTHING and none of it on food and clothes for your children will get you in trouble, whether pot is legal or not.

Some blinkered thinking going on around here.

Look, if a bunch of Mexicans have to deal with death and corruption so that Manhattan hipsters can light up on Saturday night, well, move on, right?

And I honestly can't even figure out WTH this means. The hipsters are lighting up IN SPITE OF the death and corruption.

bgates

Selling drugs out of your apartment and exposing your young children to the lowlifes that entails?

Wouldn't be possible if the apartment sellers had to compete against retail stores. Nobody runs a bar out of his apartment.

Spending all your income on drugs and none of it on food and clothes for your children?

Is it legal to starve one's children so long as one's income is otherwise spent legally?

bgates

Advantage: FUBAR.

Captain Hate

The stoner stoopid is really strong in this thread.

Sohbet

Very good and interesting site with very good look and perfect information ... I like it.

narciso

The problem is not with the law, but the culture, of course that's a more intractable
problem, so it's not tackled, except for new
ways to instill acceptance for drug taking,
after all would Ashton Kutcher have a career
otherwise, and at least McConnahey got his start that with 'Dazed and Confused'

Ignatz

--The stoner stoopid is really strong in this thread.--

You don't have to be a stoner to think the present quo should not be status, Cap.

BlahBlahBlah

"If you think they should be in prison longer for committing felonies, argue for that."

I'm not arguing that one bit - I am saying criminals are found and crimes are solved solely because people are currently being picked up on drug charges. Remove that possibility and you add more criminals to the street and increase the number of crimes going unsolved.


"What's keeping users from buying more now? It can't just be lack of money, they have the opportunity to commit more crimes.

Risk/Risk factor. If pot could be purchased without risk anytime, a person is more likely to increase their usage. Increasing usage increases the need for cash. Increasing need for cash increases amounts of crimes to get said cash. (committing more crimes to use a legal product actually decreases the amount of crimes they commit from what they are doing now) Plus, the price would go up meaning an even greater amount of crimes to pay for it)


"If legalization inevitably increases prices, couldn't we get gas down below $3/gal by outlawing petroleum distribution?"

While this comment doesnt actually make a bit of sense, I will say this - decreasing the involvement of Government is the action which would have the most drastic reduction on the cost of Petroleum.

Right now, you are paying between 29 cents (Alaska) to 59 cents (California) "sin tax" when you pump a gallon of gas - and that is solely the buying cost. Factor in all the costs added in production which are heaped on by the Government's involvement and you can probably get it down to under 2 bucks a gallon with ease. (Remember, it was below 2 when Obama took office and its estimated that his policies have added up to another dollar themselves. Sure, some of this is because of environmental changes he has forced, but some it is cost of production changes too)

matt

The Netherlands is tightening their drug laws after 40 years of being quite open. Drug use is rampant and has destroyed millions of lives.

The War on Drugs has been a complete failure, and a large subset of our society is anesthetized.

I do not have the answers, but know that society would have to perform a phase shift in its acceptance of drug use order to have an impact.

Even in Afghanistan and Colombia and Peru the populations of addicts are rising precipitously.

FUBAR

You don't have to be a stoner to think the present quo should not be status, Cap.

Amen. As a personal matter, I could give a crap whether pot is legal, I have rarely if ever have trouble getting it.

But as a matter of public policy, I think it's pretty clear that legalization would be beneficial. Consider Prohibition. And remember, we can always outlaw it again if the benefits are outweighed by the costs.

Kinda like the situation now: the benefits of our current drug policies are outweighed by the costs. Fine, we don't have to legalize pot or any other drug, but for feck's sake, we gotta do SOMETHING different. Or is there honestly someone here who's satisfied with the status quo?

Lastly, smoking pot is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Lighten up, people.

Captain Hate

You don't have to be a stoner to think the present quo should not be status, Cap.

Yeah but the arguments here are just like the CBO scoring of tax changes; like nothing's gonna change in behavior, which is ludicrous. narc and matt get it right.

And spare me the NPR argument that we just have to have better education on it. Sex ed has been a big success story, right?

Not singling you out, Iggy; you just happened to respond to me.

Uncle BigBad

In many places around the world any man traveling alone automatically gets a prostitute, whether he wants one or not.

Ask any sailor.

narciso

This sort of bleeds into the other thread, one cannot understand the broader question which has been obliquely mentioned, in the
tweets, which are sadly typical of the films
and specially the music, that urban youth are saturated with, a cross of Huxley's soma with
Bradbury's shells,

BlahBlahBlah

"But as a matter of public policy, I think it's pretty clear that legalization would be beneficial. Consider Prohibition."

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I mean, we are so much better with 1 in 13 Adults being alcoholics, 53% of people having a alcoholic in their family, the leading cause of death among kids being drunk driving, at least 1/2 of all road related deaths because of alcohol, and overall more then 100,000 preventable deaths in the country coming at its hands - making it the third leading Cause of preventable deaths.

But really, just think, right now it is only about 2/3 of child abuse victims coming at the hands of substance abusers - if we legalize drugs like we legalized booze, we might just be able to get it to at least 3/4 and maybe increase the number by another million or so!

Yeah, its just a really good thing that prohibition thing went away; we are so much better watching Hundreds of Thousands of people die or suffer each year then to watch a handful of people find loopholes to occasionally have a drink. And ideally we can increase that death and suffering rate even more moving forward!


"but for feck's sake, we gotta do SOMETHING different"

Like maybe securing the border?

Its the answer to countless problems in the country - and I guess that's probably why Democrats just wont allow it...

jimmyk

BBB, are you seriously advocating a return to prohibition? Do you have data to back up your claims? People managed a lot more than to "occasionally have a drink," but also the murder rate skyrocketed because of the illegal trade.

Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA

Stormy issue.

BlahBlahBlah

Well if you want to reduce the death and suffering rate in the country, its not a bad idea. But no, that isnt what I was advocating - I was saying we already opened this horrific can of worms once, and the outcome was as horrendous as one could have been able to predict. (and yes I have data to back up my claims - its readily available in many places; not that I would expect you to honestly look at it though; you have a clear agenda)

As far as the murder rate because of illegal trade - we are talking about the 1920 here, not 2012. In 2012 there wouldn't be much of any illegal trade on booze even if it were illegal. (believe it or not, the police are much more advanced with a much greater reach these days...)


BTW, just so you know, the murder rate did spike the year of prohibition then dropped when it was recalled. Know what else happened? It spiked back to the level of 1921 within 3 years, and steadily rose for more then the next 10 years despite Alcohol being legal again. But you're right, its all prohibitions fault - and the murder of 1921 hold much more worth them the Hundreds of Thousands of deaths each year from alcohol today...

Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA
Neo

"... when Chris Whalen matter of fact (because it is a fact) let a rare glimpse of reality on the NBC Universal distraction and entertainment show, when he said "There is no Chinese Wall. Please. Come on. This is Wall Street." Awkward silence follows."

LUN fun begins @9:23

bgates

While this comment doesnt actually make a bit of sense

So you want to argue that making a substance legal inevitably raises its price, while making a substance illegal will not lower its price.

BlahBlahBlah

"So you want to argue that making a substance legal inevitably raises its price, while making a substance illegal will not lower its price."

Huh? Government involvement is what is in question - not this "legal/illegal" path you are trying to force me to illogically take

Government Involved in something = higher cost
Government not involved = lower cost

Its that simple

mockmook


Govt involved = higher cost

Like govt waging war on a product?

mockmook


Prohibition didn't work--large illegal trade and consumption. Created a culture celebrating lawbreaking (the same as pot today).

Alcohol = easy to produce (same as pot)
Alcohol = desirable high (same as pot)
Alcohol = popular, even when illegal

Same as pot.

This war is a loser. Direct resources to something more pressing.

Soylent Red

that urban youth are saturated with, a cross of Huxley's soma with Bradbury's shells,

This is the argument that checks my otherwise libertarian views on drug policy. Having known and lived with chronic users (not the weekend recreational folks) I can tell you that drug use creates a certain complacency about life. Making dope easier to get just adds to that phenomenon. One of the great evils in our society, not just here but in the West in general, is complacency. Apathy. Whatever you want to call it. We need people who are more engaged in reality, not less.

But having said all that, current drug policy is garbage. All the people who decry the "war on drugs" might have an argument if we were actually conducting anything that resembled a war. That's not to say that we haven't ceded a boatload of civil liberties in what has been called a war, but that's not the same as actually taking the necessary steps to reduce use by reducing supply. So let's focus on where the problem is, i.e. large international drug organizations.

Making something hard to get is a great deal different than making a person a criminal for having it. Decriminalization for personal use would negate the "turns average people into criminals" argument and take the end user out of the equation. Stopping it at the end use level is a waste of resources and time.

I am not an advocate for the "legalize and tax" policy, mostly due to the fact that a criminal will simply evade the taxes whether the substance is legal or not, and allowing production to expand to a place where it makes sense to tax it tends to act against the personal use solution. Again, decriminalize personal production below a certain amount. It's not like a person could realistically make hard drug production feasible on a personal use scale. The chemicals and know-how alone would deter most people from producing small amounts alone. Difficult to make it economical. Weed and opium are the exceptions on this. Weed is relatively benign, but I'm not sure how you control home wet opium production other than import control on the poppies.

Anyway, once you go above that personal use level, you have to crush offenders. Crush as in execute on the fifty yard line of the Super Bowl or incarcerate in gulag work camps until they beg for death. At the same time, you step up interdiction, and has been mentioned, close the doggone border once and for all.

We know what needs to be done. The reason we don't do it is because we are all wrapped up in the law enforcement vs. education/rehab argument.

GAinNY

"Plenty of people smoke cigarettes and are very casual about the likely pain and suffering they will eventually inflict on themselves and their family."

You've fallen for the propaganda. I don't even know where to start.

Anti-smoking/tobacco control is a WHO/NWO social-control plan, whose template was established by the Nazis and is sustained today by pharmaceutical interests, corrupt "science," and incessant and ever more wild-eyed propaganda (for example, "secondhand smoke" and now "thirdhand smoke," to persuade nonsmokers that smokers endanger them and their children).

Some links: http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/ has a history of the propaganda campaign. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/ focuses on the destruction of social life caused by smoking bans. http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/ covers the government-sponsored propaganda "charities"; also check out his blogroll. And if you think they're stopping at tobacco, read http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2012/04/minimum-pricing-for-food.html.

A good book on the disgraceful misuse of science is Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco (Richard White, 2009).

Don't drag smokers into this.

And, by the way, if Obama ("Of course I'm black—I checked it on the Census form") and Holder ("my people") wanted to do something for blacks, they could stop locking them up for drug use.

James D.

Prohibition made Joe Kennedy rich, which led inevitably to "Camelot", RFK, Teddy, and all the useless third generation spawn. Isn't that proof enough it was a disaster?

Seriously, I can see both sides here, but nobody's mentioned the massive increase in police militarization due to the drug war, along with the vastly increased expansion of asset forfeiture laws, and their use as a major funding tool for police departments (and the changes in police and prosecutor behavior that stem from that). That personally scares me more than the prospect of more people driving while stoned.

Donald

It's got nothing to do with revenue toe. It is a simple freedom/responsibility issue to me.

Slocum

I say the drug war is evil.

It has cost billions of dollars and has criminalized too many good people.

It's much worse than that. It has *killed* tens of thousands (more than 45,000 in Mexico alone during the last few years). It is providing enormous streams of funds to violent criminal networks. It is degrading our civil liberties. It has militarized our police (no knock, middle-of-the-night SWAT raids) and corrupted them (with asset forfeiture abuses). It has damaged the life prospects of millions of people by saddling them with a criminal records. It is truly evil. And to what end? Has it really succeeded in making drugs hard to get?

IMHO, compared to the drug war, the only long-term, systematic evil in America history that was even worse...was slavery.

AliceH

Happy Tax Day. *sigh*

GMax

Well my default position for the moment at least, is if its a position Ron Paul would take to distinguish himself from the other candidates, then the answer is a simple and firm, hell no.

Charlie (Colorado)

I hate to go off-topic so late in a thread, but I went to the wake for the guy who got "the greatest obituary of all time" and wrote about it for the Daily Caller:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/15/reporters-notebook-flathead-we-hardly-knew-ye/2/

Go look: I get a bonus based on page views.

Charlie (Colorado)

"has criminalized too many good people. "

!!

Charlie (Colorado)

The stoner stoopid is really strong in this thread.

Oh, lovely argument, CH. Such erudition! The pellucid logic! The elegance!

GMax

Professor Reynolds a law prof at UTenn shines the light on prosecutors:

Personally, I think that overcharging should cost prosecutors something. How about this — the state is on the hook for a pro-rata share of defendant’s legal expenses based on the number of offenses charged, but not convicted. Charge with 20 crimes, convict on 2, you pay 90% of the defendant’s legal fees.

Or maybe it should be based on years: Charges adding up to a maximum penalty of 100 years; actual sentence, 1 year. Government pays 99%. What do you think? I think that we need more oversight of prosecutors, and since I have little faith that the legal establishment will provide it, I’m looking for structural ways to give them skin in the game.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

In my discussion with Kevin Williamson yesterday we talked about two schools of thoughts: Democrats believe that laws can do anything - change behavior, create fairness, make the economy prosper, you name it. Conservative believe the economy drives behaviors. That seems to have some relevance to this discussion.

GMax

Professor Reynolds also indicates that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution not by legislative act but by judicial fiat. This is one of my pet peeves, attorneys featherbedding for their own fellow attorneys.

GMax

Hey Clarice

You get a headline link at Powerline to your latest.

Going to read it now.

Clarice

Thanks, GMax

Porchlight

Sorry I missed the thread last night. People, it's a hell of a lot easier to grow pot than it is to to distill liquor. Brewing beer is pretty easy, but the volume you would have to generate in order to make any money is ridiculous. None of that is true with pot.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

Geez Clarice, I forgot. It's fabulous as always.

Is anyone else getting a little bored with the Trayvon matter? I know TM isn't.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

Boy that sounded like a left handed compliment. The most un-bored I've been about the Trayvon matter in days is your spectacular AT piece Clarice.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

David Axelrod appears to be melting down on Fox News Sunday.

How fun!

GMax

Nothing good can come from this.

Well I think that is absolutely true for George Zimmerman. He has been arrested and detained and must spend his savings defending himself against what looks quite Nifongesque behavior to me.

But perhaps in the greater sense there will be some good. We are now talking again about prosecutorial misconduct. Its becoming evident to many that too much discretion and too little consequences inure to prosecutors.

And perhaps even better, the law of unintended consequences seems to be having its way with both Holder and Obama. I cant say that I would not celebrate this cigar blowing up in both of those two incompetents faces. And I think it has already done so, and the longer this farce drags on, the worse the scorching is going to be. If they end up with mostly blacks and progs supporting their behavior, we are ever closer to the day that both must leave office. Hallelujah.

AliceH

Jane - It's the opposite for me. I was disinterested for the first 2? 3? weeks of Travyon threads, but (apparently through osmosis) I've accumulated some critical mass of information and am now actually interested. That, plus I fear what new nightmare of a story might arise to take its place.

buck smith

The biggest danger from the war on drugs is not the violence, but the way it has allowed the totalitarian tendency to grow. The manifests in no knock raids and asset forfeiture.

No knock raids undermine self-defense of the home. I am told there are 50,000 no knock raids per year. This tactic is more appropriate for the kind of totalitarian regimes this country has spent much blood and money opposing.

Asset forfeiture is the proposition that if a house owner rents his house to a junkie or a pusher, the government can take the house. It is the trial attorney’s version of a bill of attainder. A government which acquires the habit of seizing property may find that habit as addictive as some of those drugs they so ineffectually (at maximum expense) try to suppress.

Extraneus

Singapore has very strict drug laws. Big signs at the airport advise travelers in multiple languages of the death penalty for carrying drugs. And guess what?

"8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates - such as heroin, opium and morphine - 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore," claimed Teo. "We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centres."
Because of their strict punishments for criminal behavior, such as caning (for example, 9 lashes for a first DWI offense), their society is so clean and safe that you could put your 10-year-old in a cab and send him to the movies.
Captain Hate

Oh, lovely argument, CH. Such erudition! The pellucid logic! The elegance!

Irritating gasbags never gets old.

Captain Hate

David Axelrod appears to be melting down on Fox News Sunday.

I'm glad for Chris Wallace that it was a remote feed because the smell of flopsweat must have been brutal. The desperation in his eyes was so obvious I almost started to feel sorry for the prick.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

Alice,

I hope I get a second wind too at some point, cause I'm pretty sure it is here to stay.

centralcal

heh, Captain!

Regarding the Trayvon threads, they are getting a little dull when there isn't any new information to analyze.

Clarice did a wonderful synopsis in her Pieces, this morning.

GMax

Today's RAS has Zero at 46% which probably explains the flopsweat from axlegrease.

This has become about the performance of Zero. Since even Bubu could not think of a brag for the miserable incompentent besides offing Bin Hiding, I think its fair to say that they need to find another mule to flog. This war on wymyn stuff aint working. Neither is the race war stuff.

GMax

incompetent

Sheesh

Rick Ballard

"This war on wymyn stuff aint working. Neither is the race war stuff."

The one that's really not working is the occupooper envy war. It's not the profound incompetence of the leaders of the bands of murderers, rapists and arsonists. That just reflects the total incompetence of the President whom they seek to emulate.

The problem is that envy won't buy $5 per gallon gas or get Uncle Bob, Aunt Sally and the kids out of the basement rec room where they've been living since Inauguration Day 2009. The Fuddle has never been particularly consumed by envy in the first place and the "hope" which substituted for thought when they mistakenly voted for BOzo has been entirely overcome by the "change" for the worse brought about by his election.

Chubby

((Singapore has very strict drug laws.))

I do think that a big lesson of the past century's experiments is that permissiveness and sickly charity, coddling when rebuking is needed, leads to moral and social decay. So with the proof in front of our eyes, do we start pushing back, or do we speed up our skipping down the permissive path?

Captain Hate

Great Pieces, C. I usually don't mention anything about them because I consider them compilations of what's been discussed here during the week (very well done compilations; I meant that as a compliment); but this one gets to the essential points of the myriad of threads on the matter. And I enjoy reading all of them even if I don't remark on them.

Even though I berated TM for the number of threads at the beginning of what is a tabloid-esque matter which belonged being handled by local authorities, I've changed my mind and wish to offer him praise for the way he's stayed on top of it as it's morphed into a fascinating study in mass deception. In addition to the tiresome trolls it's drawn some good posters. I still want an explication about how this unremarkable provincial story was elevated by the MFM; it's impossible to imagine without those dimwit journolists in whatever incarnation they exist.

Melinda Romanoff

Excellent summation, Clarice.

Captain Hate

myriad of threads

Chubby

((He has been arrested and detained and must spend his savings defending himself against what looks quite Nifongesque behavior to me. ))

if he starts a defense fund, I think flood of donations will pour in. The NRA is in his corner as well, so that should help.

cboldt

All those posts, and none have brought up an allegation that the WOD is a white man's tool to oppress the blacks. See sentencing disparity between crack and cocaine, which has been claimed to be racist in nature.


Separately from that, government "war," executed by way of criminalization and law, is incapable of curing weaknesses in human nature. That too many people are alcoholics and substance abusers isn't a failure of law; any more that the fact that people are in poverty is a failure of law. Some parts of human nature, in some fraction of the population, just are not curable. James Burnham probed these issues in his essay, "Suicide of the West."

Soylent Red

None of that is true with pot.

You can make lots of money with small amounts of pot because it is prohibited. Decriminalize and everyone can own a flowerpot.

OT, Patrick Kennedy admits what the whole country is beginning to realize: the White House is corrupt and for hire to insiders. Any guesses as to how long it will take before the Left brings up booze and pills as an excuse?

Chubby

((I still want an explication about how this unremarkable provincial story was elevated by the MFM))

I beleieve it first started with the parents appealing to Al Sharpton because no arrest was made. The rest was history.

Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA

"Even though I berated TM for the number of threads at the beginning of what is a tabloid-esque matter which belonged being handled by local authorities, I've changed my mind and wish to offer him praise..."

Yes. Who would have thought there would be so much juice in this story?

cboldt

-- I beleieve it first started with the parents appealing to Al Sharpton because no arrest was made. --


Crump is the pivot man. He's the one that nationalized the incident. He enlisted the assistance of Matt Gutman, and Trayvon's narrative became, as far as the public was exposed to it, objective reality.

Chubby

Rick, there was also a bandwagon effect during hope and change which won't be in effect this time. Then it was novel, new and cool, now it's just same old and old.

narciso

No, they went to Crump and he brought it to Sharpton, excellent Pieces, Clarice the abuse of the plain meaning of the truth, the use of the media to obscure reality, something I have found on other occasion, is what sparks my interest,

In retrospect, there were no heads that rolled at NBC, not a lowly drone like Burnside, nor a Headquarter's honcho like Bell.

cboldt

-- I've changed my mind and wish to offer him praise for the way he's stayed on top of it as it's morphed into a fascinating study in mass deception. --


Yep. The real story is the mendacity of the press, and not only how that can corrupt public perception, but how it can also corrupt the legal process.


Think about what motivated Nifong to do what he probably knew was wrong, in the first place. He had to think he could get away with it; and by making a big splash in the press, he enhances re-election efforts. But for the media attention, he has no motive to act unethically.


I also find it interesting that the press holds itself out as, on balance, a net benefit to society. I think it is not a net benefit, as long as it is able to fool a critical mass of people into giving the press the benefit of the doubt.

Rick Ballard

SR,

Decriminalizing at the Federal level would allow a test of the hypothesis at the state level. I imagine that we would see the Blue Hells enthusiastically imposing the same type of regressive taxation on State Soma as they do on gas, cigarettes and liquor. It might be quite difficult to objectively determine any measurable degradation in a Blue Hell cesspool but I suppose that counting the number of final resolutions to territorial disputes between pharmaceutical representatives could provide some insight concerning drug induced violence.

Captain Hate

Of course no heads rolled narc; it probably wasn't even the biggest lie of the week.

Chubby

cboldt,

you're right, thanks for the correction.

((Only after his parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, hired attorney Ben Crump — a Tallahassee lawyer who specializes in raising the profile of his clients’ dead loved ones, as evidenced in the case of Martin Lee Anderson, the 14-year-old beaten to death at a Florida boot camp in 2006 — did people start paying attention. It was Crump who contacted Sharpton, and Sharpton who helped organize the largest rally, in Sanford a week ago, which was among the events that made Trayvon’s death a national conversation.))

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/04/2731982/dont-blame-al-sharpton-for-making.html

narciso

ahem, Chubby, that was my insight, based on that column, by an Air America TV bit player,
which inadvertently gave away the store.

Chubby

((The real story is the mendacity of the press))

to me the real story is how easy it is for a good and responsible person to become public enemy number one while on your way to Target

narciso

And on an earlier column that Caputo had written about Crump.

cboldt

-- to me the real story is how easy it is for a good and responsible person to become public enemy number one while on your way to Target --


No good deed goes unpunished.


The perpetually-pissed class was and remains impatient for facts, and willing to lie. Crump is the one who demanded public disclosure of the investigation before the process had run its course.


The mob has too much power. The press at least enables it, and more likely, provides active assistance.

Chubby

sorry, narciso. thank YOU for the correction. I think the fact that you and cboldt have the same avatars contributed to the confusion

Soylent Red

I suppose that counting the number of final resolutions to territorial disputes between pharmaceutical representatives could provide some insight concerning drug induced violence.

The key to it is in the amount. Local street pharmacists would come in over the personal use limit and be subject to penalty.

Of course, in the Blue Hells the personal use amount would be higher and the penalties lower, so the net affect would be legalization. But those people are already stupid and sedated, so I don't count that as a real loss to society.


Yep. The real story is the mendacity of the press, and not only how that can corrupt public perception, but how it can also corrupt the legal process.

Not only that the press can corrupt public perception and the legal process, but that it does, willfully, to promote an agenda.

Who or what is behind that agenda, and to what ends the media is being directed is the followup expose to this whole sordid episode.

narciso

Here is the piece, and the answer to Melinda's query 'floor wax and food topping'


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/23/2710008/trayvon-martin-attorneys-use-playbook.html

Ignatz

--Yeah but the arguments here are just like the CBO scoring of tax changes; like nothing's gonna change in behavior, which is ludicrous. narc and matt get it right.

And spare me the NPR argument that we just have to have better education on it. Sex ed has been a big success story, right?

Not singling you out, Iggy; you just happened to respond to me.--

CH,
I don't take it to be strictly a utilitarian question; the idea that thousands of drug laws and arrests and incarceration for possession results in presumably some unknown lower rate of drug use so it's obviously better, doesn't seem self evident to me.

Legalization might in fact result in less violence because so much of the drug trade would be controlled by the likes of Phillip Morris or Seagrams or the corner liquor store than by Pablo Escobar and the Sinoloas, but even if it didn't, there is a principle of freedom of choice. We rail, correctly, here about people having to go out in a field somewhere to enjoy their nicotine but prohibit some moron from smoking a joint in his own home.

I don't now and never have used illegal drugs. But I've never smoked cigarettes and only consume alcohol if somebody offers me some rum cake.
I have a hard time differentiating why I should vote to let one of my fellow citizens enjoy his mind altering chemicals with impunity while another one has to spend several years in pokey for enjoying his.

As usual Rick gets it about right. The Feds shouldn't be in this at all. Let the states decide what kind of a society its citizens live in. The Federal government was not created to make social policy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame