Six American Zeroes: Reason Enough to Support California Prop 19

By Al Giordano

As support continues to grow for California’s November referendum to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana, the six US drug czars from four different administrations have now flailed together to try and stop the biggest electorate in the nation from bringing America back to its senses. In an August 25 column in the Los Angeles Times, Why California should just say no to Prop 19, the six epic losers posse up and ride out West in an attempt to rescue their failed cause.

Because memories are short, let’s review all the big successes of these brave and valiant drug czars, who assuredly saved the nation from drugs and drug abuse and all the violence and corruption caused by policies of prohibition all these years, so we can remind ourselves of why these six American Zeroes are the last people we should listen to when it comes to figuring out how to solve problems associated with illegal drugs.

William Bennett (1989-91)

At the January 1989 press conference when then-president George Bush, Sr. established a new cabinet-level post and named William Bennett as “drug czar,” an enterprising reporter asked how could Bennett – a heavy cigarette smoker – lead the nation away from addictive drugs when he himself was an addict? The press conference briefly halted as Bush and Bennett huddled in the rear of the stage whispering back and forth. Bennett returned to the microphone and announced that for the duration of his term in the National Office of Drug Policy Control he would quit smoking cigarettes.

Nine months later, as Bennett oversaw a major escalation in federal spending and repression against users and suppliers of some drugs, the Doonesbury comic strip revealed a scoop that would later be confirmed by official media: Bennett had been chewing Nicorette, the nicotine chewing gum then only available with a doctor’s prescription, to mask his nicotine addiction.

Bennett’s hardline approach to combating drugs was, as everybody knows, an abject failure and he left the post in just two years, parlaying it into a gig as a national conservative political pundit and author of the so-called “The Book of Virtues.” In 2003, reports revealed that this braggart moralist had lost millions of dollars gambling in Las Vegas. Virtue might not have a book, but it sure does have a bookie.

Bob Martinez (1991-1993)

After Florida voters unseated him as their governor, Martinez replaced Bennett as drug czar. Although not known for any tobacco habit, Martinez did Bennett one better, as the Miami New Times reported at the time: “…if approved by the Senate during confirmation hearings that begin this week, he will be the first drug czar known to have enjoyed the financial support of a major drug trafficker.” You can’t make this stuff up! Click the link to read all about it.

Lee P. Brown (1993-1995)

The former police commissioner in Houston and New York was tapped by then-president Bill Clinton to be a kinder, gentler drug czar, emphasizing Brown’s role as “the father of community policing.” Like his predecessors, Brown accomplished absolutely nothing to curb drug use or abuse in the US, but he did use the post as a trampoline into a job as Mayor of Houston. His was the last political campaign supported by the Houston-based Enron corporation, which went belly-up shortly after Brown’s 2001 reelection.

General Barry McCaffrey (1996-2001)

Narco News owes a great debt of gratitude to General McCaffrey, the craziest drug czar of all, with an even battier press secretary. On our first day of publication, April 18, 2000, I issued a public invitation to the White House to respond to our reports of official corruption, malfeasance and ineptitude in the US-imposed “war on drugs.” And McCaffrey’s spokesman incredulously took the bait… more than a year later, and after McCaffrey had been supplanted as drug czar.

McCaffrey’s spokesman, Bob Weiner (whose congressional campaigns I had covered a decade prior in Massachusetts) apparently discovered the Internet around 2002 after he and his boss left the office and wrote an email-to-the-editor complaining about our coverage of his office. Here’s an example of the quality of work that came out of McCaffrey’s regime:

“Al -- HI! In browsing the net, I JUST saw your strange report of over a year ago (sixth item) when you attacked me (?) for not only my "silencing" two reporters during my then ongoing stint at the White House but my strategies in my congressional campaign...????!!!!  First of all, what am I missing here -- you and I were/are liberals fighting for just about all the same causes, and were then. Second, why didn't you just call me up at that very number you printed (which I am of course no longer at -- now I'm at 202-361-0611). It would have been great to hear from you -- AND I would have given you a lot more substance from your (and my) point of view than you mysteriously printed without, for some reason, even calling me up! What was that all about and why didn't you call?”

“Why didn’t you call?” I haven’t heard that since my last one-night stand.

Anyway, McCaffrey had a few bigger scandals as drug czar, like when he got caught secretly paying millions of taxpayer dollars to TV networks to implant subliminal anti-drug messages on television programs.

And remember how that and the other pioneering work by McCaffrey’s drug war command post stopped the flow of illegal drugs?

No?

Me neither.

John P. Walters (2001-2009)

One of the only members of the George W. Bush administration to last the entire eight years, Walters survived mainly because of his superpowers as The Invisible Man. The former chief of staff to the first drug czar, William Bennett, Walters saw his role eclipsed when in 2001 the war-on-drugs took a back seat to the war-on-terror as the pretext for erasing the Bill of Rights.

Sure, millions of Americans continued to go to jail and suffer when family members were imprisoned for violating drug laws, lost their homes, and were denied access to basic medicines like marijuana even when they were sick, and meanwhile during Walters’ term multiple Latin American countries that had been victimized by US drug policies set a new course away from US dominance.

But, surely, Walters ended the scourge of drug use and abuse utilizing quiet invisible leadership, didn’t he?

Um, guess not.

And now the current drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, the former Seattle police chief friendly to harm reduction policies, somehow got himself caught up signing an open letter with his Rogues Gallery of predecessors.

They chose a title for their LA Times op ed column utilizing that failed slogan of the 1980s war-on-drugs – “just say no” – that had been championed then by First Lady Nancy Reagan. One wonders why they didn’t invite Mrs. Reagan to sign the letter, too. At least she’s a California voter.

As Tom Lehrer says, parody is dead when stuff like this happens: the six guys who most embody the failure of prohibitionist drug policies – none of whom vote in California, by the way - now are telling California voters to continue to bankrupt their state budget on enforcement of laws that can’t be successfully enforced. They might as well have titled their open letter, “We Screwed Up and You Can, Too!”

There can be no more ringing endorsement to vote Yes on Proposition 19 than its opposition from the very bureaucrats that exacerbated the problems associated with illegal drugs over the past two decades with their stubborn and cowardly cling to same policies that clearly have never worked, and never will. But they and their lost war are now at the mercy of California voters, who in November could deliver the fatal blow to a budget-busting drug policy that wore out its welcome years ago.

 

Comments

Well, the arguments of these six seem to be a mixed bag.

Some of the numbers are meaningless, e.g. the 8% nighttime marihuana users on the roads. One would need to know whether they are preferentially involved in accidents (they might, though). And the Amsterdam situation is atypical for having to fend off the drug tourists, they are very close to many countries who do not allow marihuana. Also, I do not see the normal population grow their own stuff, they generally do not make their own alcohol, even though it is very easy (mix sugar, water and yeast and wait some time -> gets you about 20% alcohol content, before the yeast dies).

On the other hand, driving under the influence presumably is a problem, and legalizing seems to increase consumption, if the cited statistics are right. So there probably is a downside to legalization. I still think that the benefits outweigh the cost, just as has been the case for alcohol and for similar reasons.

As a general point: why should the arguments of someone necessarily be wrong because he is corrupt? In particular, people tend to be more insightful after they leave their official job.

@ Sophie

Hi Sophie - 

You ask:

"As a general point: why should the arguments of someone necessarily be wrong because he is corrupt? In particular, people tend to be more insightful after they leave their official job."

If a person is corrupt (or dishonest) as an official, it is more highly likely that he is also knowingly dishonest as a person. These guys, of all people, know that the arguments they put forth are largely BS. And I'm betting that the column they signed was written by a staffer for some special interest based on polling data, using arguments that cause certain kinds of voters to worry. These guys could care less if the document they sign tells the truth or tells falsehoods: they just feel ideologically and professionally invested in the arguments they've made their careers off of and would have signed anything put in front of them, in my opinion.

As for the arguments you mention, studies have long shown that marijuana use does not impair motor control skills for drivers or even for workers operating heavy machinery. (Alcohol, of course, does impair it severely.) If anything, experienced users become more physically coordinated and attentive to simple tasks under its influence: they may drive a little slower, but not faster or recklessly.

And if California's passage of this law would increase tourism of any kind, well, isn't that exactly the kind of boost the Californian economy lacks right now? Hotel and restaurant taxes would yield more for schools and other public services if there was more tourism.

Finally, as to whether more folks will use marijuana if it is legal and regulated, here is my informed view: A certain (high) percentage of the population will intoxicate themselves with one or more substances, a much lower percentage will abuse such substances, become addicted to them, or engage in risky behavior that could hurt themselves or others, and among both kinds of people there is a competition between substances.

Would people who don't drink or smoke or use any mind-altering drug suddenly start smoking pot if it were legal? No way. (One point the czars neglected to say about Holland is that it has the lowest teenaged marijuana use in the developed world: take away the luster of forbidden fruit and the kids just aren't as into it.) Would some hard drinkers or alcoholics or pill poppers switch to marijuana sometimes or all the time, especially if it were less expensive? Yes, they would. But that would increase safety on public roads, not decrease it, because you would have fewer drunk drivers. The same for those who use or abuse pharmaceutical sedatives, pain killers or anti-depressive drugs that can and do affect their motor control skills. The more of those that switch to pot, the less harm or risk to others who don't, and the less harm to their own health. Which is why the pharmaceutical and alcohol industries founded the Partnership for a Drug-Free America in the 1980s to stoke public opinion in favor of the phony "drug war": to protect their own business interests.

This change is so long overdue, and I always thought it was inevitable but wondered if I would live to see it. The California referendum suggests that it is now possible to achieve in our lifetimes. And then we'll be able to compare and contrast life under marijuana prohibition and life without it. As with the repeal of alcohol prohibition, I predict that once marijuana is legalized you won't find a serious public voice calling to prohibit it anew. The whole thing has been a gigantic fraud upon public opinion.

Rope-a-dope

 

The cure is in learning to say no;

Why? So simple..., bugger if I know;

Strip the joint of curated means,

Thy ills, I say, with thy Dopamine;

Stress threshold hovering Preacher atypical,

God duly paroles notwithstanding moral;

Grandiloquence may butter this warrior's bread,

Grandstanding kudos may tether faith to lead,

Vagaries and canaries, inhibited boroughs,

It takes  a war for a Lecturer's furlough...

Prohibition is big business and ideological warfare in America

Cannabis has proven itself time and again as a relatively harmless substance--the reason more public studies on Cannabis have not taken place or surfaced is because of it's scheduling as a schedule 1 substance, meaning it has no medicinal value (which is crazy, Cannabis infused products used to be the number one treatment for a whole list of ailments prior to the racism against Mexican imigrants that first demonized it in the early 20th century, look it up if you don't belive me).  Were we to reschedule cannabis to schedule 2, it would become legal to test cannabis and MANY more doctors and labs would do so and much more proof of it's value would be available. The problem is that the data they found would immediately disprove over 80 years of strait propoganda, lies, and manipulation of an uneducated populus that has proven time and again that fear is the easiest way to control them and to subvert their Constitutionally mandated rights.

To put it bluntly, nobody, not even the most conservative police officer, belives that cannabis is harmful anymore. But it does provide a unique oportunity, like other drugs, to allow authority to overstep the bill of rights, come into your house, point guns at you, your children and your pets, and then plug you into a system that will whore you out with fines, jail time in privately owned jails (which incindentally trade their stock based on the number of people they have incarcerated), and more importantly, make you an ideological target for those who aren't content to protect their own beliefs, they need to stomp out yours, making one wonder who the real comunists are?

Cannabis has been used for the last 80 years as a way to arrest people that the dominating hegemonic influences of the time want to silence.  It was first used as a way to arrrest Mexican imigrants who brought it over with them from Mexico to smoke after a log day of work. By the way, they had to create a tax stamp to do so, because they couldn't find a way to legally ban substances under this little thing we call the American Constitution.   40 years later in the 1960s it became useful again when they discovered that a great many of the people fighting against the Vietnam War, as well as a great many people pushing for civil rights, smoked marijuana, and as they could not be silenced under the Bill of Rights, they could be targeted and arrested under marijuana prohibition and silenced in jail.

In short, cannabis and probhibition in general is used as a tool in fighting an ideological war, generally by Christians and conservatives (durring alcohol prohibition it was 'Baptists and Bootleggers', referring to the only two groups who benefitted from alcohol prohibition).  In America you can't have a war on free speech, or on other people's religion, but you can have a war on drugs, which is really just a war on people, but called by a different name, as it isn't drugs that occupy our prisions, it's American citizens. California has more people incarcerated today than any 5 countries in Western Europe COMBINED. That's not per capita, that's total (go look it up). They're so broke because we're paying that bill, funnelling money into privately owned jails where conglomerate corporations make billions per year.  If you don't think prisons and prohibition are as big of business as drug trafficing ever was, well, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for you to buy too, you'lll love it, I promise ;) Whenever we spend billions on anything, it's important to realize that someone along that line makes billions, and wants to protect that revenue stream.

We spend billions on drug prohibition, yet usage rates are still on the increase, the drug cartels are richer and thus more violent than ever, and the real culprit of addiction is allowed to operate right down the street (your local drug store such as Walgreens, who legally sells the most widely abused substances in America today by both adults and teens (generally Opiates or Benzodiazipams) , pharmaceuticals, and guess what, they make millions doing so, drive up the cost of health care, and are considered pillars of the community despite peddling addiciton. Meanwhile their coworkers in the drug cartels must resort to violence to make that same money).

Our United States soldiers are guarding poppy fields as we speak in Afghanistan for Karzai and company, which US pharmaceutical companies (and drug lords alike) will then make into pure grade heroin, sell to hospitals and pharmacies (and kids who later die of Oxycontin overdoses), and what is left will go onto the illegal market, where those same soldiers can use their new post-war job as swat team member to kick in your door and arrest you for possession of a substance they guarded throught it's production. Go look this up, I wish I could make up this stuff but it's too crazy for fiction, and Fox News did a report on this trying to justify this allowed and overseen production of heroin as needed to stabalize the economy in the region--so wait, we are spending all this money in Afghanistan to stabalize the region into a heroin-based ecnonomy? Our government is so in debt that it's ready to go under but we spend billions to protect heroin dealers in Afghanistan, while marijuana users in America are targeted, jailed, and fined?

re: michael

Michael, believe me - here of all places, you're preaching to the choir! But one niggling thing about word choice, as disinterested as I generally am in ideological labeling - I've known some fine and honorable communists in my day . Your intended point about authoritarianism is, of course, agreed with.

If Prop 19 passes

would the federal judiciary be able to make mischief? The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 would still be on the books, and might not enterprising "activist" judges decide that federal authority trumps state initiatives? (I'm thinking of the recent embryonic stem cell dust-up, which turned on the interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker [sic] Amendment.)

@ Lucidamente

Hi Lucidamente - 

The federal judiciary can't force a state to use its police and other resources to enforce federal law. In the case of federal drug laws, that is the job of the DEA and other agencies.

The federal executive branch, yes, could make mischief in the sense that nothing in the California proposition prohibits federal authorities from enforcing federal law in its territory. When years ago Alaska voted by referendum to allow its citizens to grow (up to six, as I recall) marijuana plants, the DEA did indeed go in and arrest folks anyway and seize their property. But in this century, that becomes a political problem; defying the electorate in California, the single largest electoral college state! I doubt the Obama administration and the Holder Justice Department will want to be seen as defying the people's will. But, sure, a future president Palin or Gingrich just might be so brash as to do that. Still, much harder to do without the active cooperation of state and local police agencies.

There is a precedent for what is happening here. In the late 1920s NY Governor Al Smith announced that NY police and agencies would cease enforcing alcohol prohibition laws, and defied the federal government saying "if you want to ban it, you spend your money to enforce it, but we're done!" That was the major turning point that led to the national repeal of alcohol prohibition.

Real easy for the feds to kick around a small state. Not so simple to take on a big one over something like this. But in any case, the judicial branch really has no authority to force a state to have any law (outside of certain civil rights and liberties guarantees, but that goes in the other direction toward freedom).

Feds vs States

IIRC it was actually 1923 when NY state said no thanks to alcohol prohibition. 

As to the whole Feds trumping the State on drug law. The reality is FAR more complex. The Federal system is relatively small and concentrates it's efforts on the biggest cases. The presumption being that Federal "super power" is most efficiently used that way. The Feds extent their reach in terms of enforcement through targeted grants. These are basically bribes to local law enforcement across the country to actively pursue certain types of "crime". Cannabis enforcement would have diminished years ago in CA if not for these grants. Sheriffs Depts. up and down the state work to preserve their Federal grants by dropping other pursuits in order to meet the quotas set for annual renewal of funding.

If cannabis is no longer illegal under CA state law, ALL the cases generated by State and local LE (except those that violate Prop 19 limits) will not be pursuable in the CA Superior court system. That system is the workhorse of drug law enforcement. It surely handles 90+ % of the case load in the State. Without it, it becomes up the Federal system to handle the prosecutions. It can't possibly come anywhere near being able to. One then wonders whether Congress could pass various sorts of budgetary blackmail restricting federals funds to CA in order to coerce State lawmakers to find ways of repealing or compromising Prop 19.

Regulate Control and Tax -- Not Legalize

Actually Al, fact check! It is the 2010 Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act -- not legalize, tax and regulate as you call it...I am afraid that you have reinfoced the misconception that it is a broad bill to legalize Marijuana, when it is essentially an effort to commercially control and provide tax revenue based on the interests of those who specialize in the industrial indoor cultivation of marijuana.

Under this law there would still be PLENTY of circumstances in which Cannabis would still be considered illegal.

Clearly, all the evidence is that passage of this proposition would be great for the consumer who does not care if their medicine comes from giant indoor grows -- and could have real detrimental impacts on rural California.

Your blog is interesting, and kind of humorous, but it missed investigating the on-the-ground realities in California, and ignores the economic motives behind the proponents of the bill.

See this article from the North Coast Journal:

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2010/07/29/general-lee/

And listen to a series run on Redwood Community Radio-KMUD, the Cannabis Chronicles (especially part 3):

http://kmud.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=583&Itemid=212

That is just the tip of the iceberg. I am not convinced that endorsing Prop 19 is so easy to do. I am not saying NO, but the Yes does not come so easy for many people in California, especially people in the rural parts of the state.

@ Gary

Gary -

You've got to be kidding me. A gaggle of Northern California pot growers who have enjoyed decades of massive profits while thousands of their workers and salesmen, especially those at the retail level who are black, Hispanic and urban, went to prison on harsh mandatory sentences, and the Humboldt County pot magnates did little to nothing to help them, now are telling us that we shouldn't pass Prop 19 because they want to keep their monopoly? They can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. They've had decades of easy street and lived the American Dream, and plenty of time to amass their life savings. Meanwhile, if Prop 19 doesn't pass, thousands more of the working class of the pot trade will continue being shipped off to prison.

Their stance is immoral and corrupt. I frickin' hate those hypocrites. They are no different than any other ultra-greedy capitalist and their stance is border line racist.

And don't feed us this "I'm not saying NO" bullshit. You wouldn't be out trolling the comments sections on the Internet if you were not trying to actively sabotage this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to finally turn the momentum around against the war on drugs. People like those millionaire hippie growers whose bidding you are doing, who don't have the ethical or moral responsibility to say, "we've had a good ride, but there is a greater societal good in not criminalizing the entire underclass youth of California," are pond scum. And you should be ashamed of yourself for doing their bidding, whether you are doing it out of stupidity or for profit, you're still being an ass.

- Al Giordano

Would you like to do a KMUD interview?

Oralé Al,

I am sorry to have provoked such a heavy response. Again, I am not saying NO to Prop 19, I know in my heart I will vote for it (and for Jerry Brown I suppose). But I added those comments to suggest that you take a look at some of the local independent media and their look into the real issues at hand in California. I regret that these efforts seem to have failed to meet your parameters of Authentic Journalism.

I am curious, have you been to Humboldt County, or Mendocino County, or up in the Sierra?

I will now inquire in the thread in the same way I have asked you a couple of times with emails to the narconews@gmail.com email--would you like to do an interview with me during a show I occasionally host on KMUD that we call Latino America Sonando?

Of course, I do so knowing full well that giving you the mike gives you the chance to lay in to me as you just did in the thread, which certainly was not why I was compelled to post.

Hasta luego,

Gary

Radio Interviews

Gary - I used to do a lot of radio interviews. In 2010 I have turned them all down. It is too time consuming and distracts me from my reporting. Of course, anything I write here can be read aloud on the air anyway, within the parameters of "fair use."

But, sheesh, if you're going to vote for the thing anyway, why go around being a Debbie Downer about it? I did read your first link and it reinforced my belief that Prop 19 may be our first best chance to finally bring down the single largest source of human misery, destruction and incarceration in the United States, not to mention how much better life will be for the rest of the hemisphere and the world when the US finally turns away from its prohibitionist drug policies.

There were a lot of people who did very well economically under alcohol prohibition and likewise opposed its repeal. But when the jig was up, the smart ones invested their profits in different businesses, legal ones. They had names like Kennedy and Rockefeller (and a lot that had a lot of vowels like my own). Today's growers will have ample opportunities to similarly "go legit" when the artificially high price goes down. And on the retail level, when users aren't spending a quarter or more of their income on grass, that will create an economic stimulus for the aboveground economy when that money is then spent on other things.

I haven't been to Northern California but I've been to plenty of jails and prisons, both as a visitor, and, ahem, as a "guest." You simply can't tell me that keeping a million nonviolent offenders in prison is the price we have to pay to artificially stimulate the pockets of a much smaller sector of the population. Nor is the collapse of public school systems because states like California are going bankrupt for both the large untaxed pot industrial complex and its partner-in-crime, the prison industrial complex. Tell a kid whose dad is in jail, tell his mom, and the rest of his siblings, that his daddy has to be locked up in a hellhole so that some sixties generation back-to-the-landers can keep striking it rich, along with their lawyers and money-laundering bankers. Prop 19, above all, is a class struggle that will benefit the many, instead of this current policy which benefits a very privileged few, and hurts everyone else.

One more thing, Gary

Your last attempt to communicate here - an essay of many pages masquerading as a comment - was so riddled with foaming-at-the-mouth falsehoods that it doesn't meet our standards of publication.

In sum, you accuse me of having insulted all the residents of Northern California (what demagogic poppycock) through my characterization of a very small number of people who have gotten wealthy off marijuana prohibition. Nothing here has implied that that refers all or even most of the citizens of your region.

The whole tone smacks of a really boring radio host reaching for the Arbitron ratings that have long eluded him, he's so desperate to try and mischaracterize a journalist's statements and then invite him on his radio show to defend something he never wrote or said. Only a fool would think that would work here.

What's the real deal anyway? Have my descriptions of a certain sector of businessmen irked somebody who is bankrolling your radio program? I just don't know what explains your irrational and hysterical concern-trolling about Prop 19. But in the end, I don't care, not about you, not about your radio show, or your indignant rants about the poor oppressed rich boys who profit off of other people's pain and seek to stand in the way of what could alleviate the pain and injustice that harms the many.

Frankly, you've given me an idea for a parody "Vote No on 19" TV ad, featuring the kind of individual you are so eager to defend. So, even though that wasn't your intent, thanks!

The best reason to say yes to Prop 19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR201009...

Yesterday was a waste of my time trying to throw rocks at you about an issue that plays close to home. While many folks care nothing about what happens to us in rural Nor Cal after Nov. 2, (if the crash was hard after the timber industry died watch what happens when this boom goes bust) when the time comes to vote I have the sensation that people in the North Coast region WILL vote in the interest of everybody and will pass Prop 19.

I have a thick skin and I appreciate taking a beating in a debate.I also learned along time ago to trust the editor who reads your words.

Many folks will react harder than I am to the beating you gave me. Watch the polls on Prop 19. I think there may be some evidence that support has actually been falling for Prop 19. If the vote fails it won't be because of folks like me who dither around intellectually questioning the pros and cons of the details of the proposition and still essentially support Yes, but because of proponents that making people through out the state feel as though no one cares about their view of the future. There are alot of undecided people in California on this issue, and how proponents of Prop 19 treat them will have a great impact on their vote, or if they even decide to show up to vote.

Your points have been well taken, and it is noted that you kicked my ass in a thread that you moderated.

I also note that your style is harsher than ever. I have been reading NarcoNews since I don't know when, since around the Zapatour that is for sure. The rocks you throw are nastier than ever. If proponents want Prop 19 to pass, it will be important to get folks who are on the fence to see the possibilities, regardless if you care about their concerns or not. To insult people who have serious concerns about the changes that are ineveitably coming will certainly make them indifferent to the fate of Prop 19. Then again, look, I feel totally insulted by you, but I am willing to say you are right, and I am back here again, giving you another chance to rip into me. But there are not many folks like me out there. A regular glutton for punishment soy yo.

De todas maneras, yo sé que la nota que va con la liga demuestra la essencia del por qué yo voy a votar sí...regardless of my misgivings about the Proposition. As I have said from the beginning, I am not saying NO.

Good luck out there,

Gary

Internet demographics

Gary - In my experience about fifty percent of all Internet commentators are masochists, and the other fifty percent loves to watch lash of the whip. But words are just words and are never nasty compared to their consequences. Policies that put non-predatory peaceful citizens in prison, to me, that's nasty.

Who is financing drugs into the US?

So, here we have tons of illegal drugs coming into the US through both borders with Juan Valdez who dumped the load of coffee beans he was carrying and loaded up said mule with weed and cocaine! Now he slides across the river and delivers his 100 pounds to some other person who distributes it to dealers who sell it to middle school kids...yeah right! Every small town as well as every city has drugs of all kinds for sale every day of the week nationwide! Juan cannot haul that much even if his whole family started doing it too! This calls for a nationwide distributorship, warehouses, trucks, planes, ships, cars, trains, etc. loaded with the stuff running every day! Now Joe dealer is not financing that big of an operation! And I cannot believe that an organization as big or bigger than most big box distributorships is not on the DEA's radar! BS! Were talking trains, planes, and ships into every airport, every city, every port every day! Not to mention the transporting it to each town and then to each dealer...the RICH are financing this operation! And the cops and government knows about it! And they are allowing it to happen! And the people busted are their competition. Prove me wrong!

eugene

re, "Policies that put non-predatory peaceful citizens in prison, to me, that's nasty."

 

 

 

Add comment

Our Policy on Comment Submissions: Co-publishers of Narco News (which includes The Narcosphere and The Field) may post comments without moderation. A ll co-publishers comment under their real name, have contributed resources or volunteer labor to this project, have filled out this application and agreed to some simple guidelines about commenting.

Narco News has recently opened its comments section for submissions to moderated comments (that’s this box, here) by everybody else. More than 95 percent of all submitted comments are typically approved, because they are on-topic, coherent, don’t spread false claims or rumors, don’t gratuitously insult other commenters, and don’t engage in commerce, spam or otherwise hijack the thread. Narco News reserves the right to reject any comment for any reason, so, especially if you choose to comment anonymously, the burden is on you to make your comment interesting and relev ant. That said, as you can see, hundreds of comments are approved each week here. Good luck in your comment submission!

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

User login

Navigation

About Al Giordano

Biography

Publisher, Narco News.

Reporting on the United States at The Field.

RSS Feed