Questions about the
DRUG WAR
by Atheistcable
Anyone who has clicked onto this website also reads newspapers. We have been reading about dead bodies and grieving families and very likely, if you’re a normal human being, your emotions are touched. The question you would invariably have, “This is awful, what can I do about it?”
This is usually my first question when I meet someone, instead of asking them if they’re married and how many children they have. My question is: Are we winning the drug war? To my surprise, many people don’t care and have no opinion. I remember asking this question to a Lutheran woman who used to be a civilian community liaison employed by the police department. Her response was a frustrated “Oh, I don’t know. I just wish it would go away.”
This website not only discusses the tragedies resulting from Federal Drug Policy (FDP), but to actually do something about this situation. AND, unlike the Drug Policy Alliance of NYC, I don’t ask for any money. Unlike the Drug Policy Alliance, when you write to me, to post your comment, you will get a response from me. The Drug Policy Alliance wants your money, and since 1985–23 years ago–they’ve accomplished next to nothing in the way of political action.
Like the NAACP and unlike the Drug Policy Alliance, I hope what you read and contribute to my website will help citizens in every city where Schedule One drugs (SODs) are bought and sold, will encourage you to establish anti-FDP organizations or protest groups.
Since I’m an individual, and not a non-profit organization, I can discuss politicians and party politics. My U.S. representative is Keith Ellison (D-MN), who has done nothing about the drug war–mainly because he doesn’t understand or care how FDP is hurting the black American community. He doesn’t even discuss on his website or in any literature, the many negatives of FDP. And the reason for this is that not enough people are putting him under enough pressure to act. It’s like Nancy Pelosi who refused to consider impeachment proceedings against George Bush. But once Cindy Sheehan challenged her seat in California, Pelosi then acted the way she was suppose to–she reconsidered her position opposing impeachment hearings. For those living in the Fifth District of Minnesota, I ask you to please call, email or write to Keith Ellison about ending the drug war.
If SODs are bought and sold in your community, you also have armed gangs killing one another over turf. In business terminology, they would be called franchises. “Gangs” in business terminology, would be stores operating in commercially-zoned areas of your city. There would be no need for murder and bloodshed. Disputes would be settled peacefully in a court of law.
But when you think about it, how many liquor store owners are going to court to settle disputes with other liquor dealers? Selling alcohol and tobacco is no big thing. And that’s the the way it should be for cocaine, heroin, Ecstasy, LSD, Meth, and, before I forget, marijuana. Yes, marijuana and all these other SODs to be sold for whatever the customer is going to use them for.
SODs should be carefully regulated and taxed moderately so as to not return to black market selling. I will explain regulation more below.
WHY is there no organization in the Twin Cities metro area dealing with federal drug policy? There are plenty of places that deal with people who are addicted to drugs and want help them get off drugs, but no one is dealing with the root-cause of the gangs, guns and violence in our residential communities.
GOALS
There are three goals I would like to achieve
1. Have the Minneapolis City Council pass a Resolution condemning the drug war.
2. Meet with Rep. Keith Ellison to discuss how the drug war is affecting all Americans, and especially black Americans. See if we can motivate him to be more responsive to the needs of the black community.
3. Form a team of 30 well-informed citizens about the drug war, and to engage civic leaders, politicians and especially ministers of religion in public debates about federal drug policy. Why ministers of religion? Because they are a formidable force behind the drug war and the human misery that is the result. I discuss this more toward the end of this page with my critique of a Christian Science Monitor editorial.
In order to accomplish goal #3, I have to personally meet 50 or more people who are willing to involve themselves in debating and lobbying against the drug war.
As for goal #1, I find it utterly astonishing that the citizens of the District of Columbia have not pressured their City Councilmembers to pass such a Resolution. Add to that list the citizens of Prince George’s and Baltimore Counties (MD). So it’s not far-fetched to think that perhaps the City of Minneapolis could be the first in the nation to condemn the drug war–or federal drug policy.
Many of the questions below can’t be answered with a Yes or No. The purpose is to stimulate discussion. For those who think that we are winning the war, do they think in terms of when it will end? Probably not because we’ve been fighting people who take drugs since before the 1914 Harrison Act outlawing cocaine and heroin.
With question 01b, what is it about U.S. culture that takes such a punishing attitude towards people who make a personal decision about taking a non-prescription drug? We tried the same thing with alcohol and after 14 years of enforcement ended up legalizing it, even though alcohol kills those who drink it to excess and causes them to kill others while driving. In some cases, alcohol drives them to murder people while under its influence. Yet alcohol is legal today.
#01: Are we winning the drug war? If we are, when will it end? Or is this a war without an end?
01a–How many other nations have similar drug wars?
01b–Are their prisons packed with drug offenders like those of the U.S.?
Question 02 is a bit ponderous. The purpose is to give a little background on the federal agencies that have been created to apprehend and punish people for taking drugs. Today, according to an analysis by the Pew Charitable Trust Foundation, we’re spending $80 Billion every year on enforcement and incarceration. Is this the best way to spend tax dollars? Their figure does not include the Billions of dollars leaving the U.S. which ends up funding terrorist groups, private armies and lavish lifestyles of foreign drug kingpins.
#02: In 1970, Pres. Richard Nixon announced a War on Drugs. So in 2008, we have been conducting and spending billions of dollars to carry forth this war for 38 years. Actually for almost the past 100 years. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created on July 1973. The DEA combined the efforts of the FBI, Federal Bureau of Narcotics (created 14 June, 1930), the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (created Feb. 1966), the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (created 1968), and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (created 12 Jan 1972). With all this attention paid to enforcement to prevent drugs from being distributed and used by Americans, is it not true that we now have more drugs, cheaper drugs and purer drugs than we did in 1972?
02a–If this is the case, then why are we spending $80 Billion dollars every year for not just a failed federal drug policy, but a policy that is doing just the opposite of what American society expected with enforcement.
#03: Prohibition of alcohol started 16 January 1920 and ended 05 December 1933 with the ratification of the 21st Amendment. Did 14 years of vigorous enforcement of Prohibition diminish or increase the use of alcohol?
03a–Did the murder rate increase or decrease during Prohibition?
#04: If Americans learned that the 18th Amendment could not bring about an alcohol-free nation, what is preventing Americans from learning and applying the same lesson concerning street drugs? (”Street drugs” are officially classified by the DEA as Schedule One drugs.)
#05: If vigorous enforcement of federal drug policy could reduce the amount of drugs coming into this nation, would that reduce the demand?
05a–Might it be the case that fewer drugs would cause the price of drugs to rise, giving more profit to drug dealers? But upon seeing greater profits, would more people jump into dealing drugs?
#06: As expensive as the Drug War is, as devastating as it is–especially to the American black community–why is it that politicians fail to address the drug war–except to get tougher against users and dealers and lock more people up?
The following questions cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No. The questions are for the purpose of stimulating discussion. Over the past 25 years, it appears that imprisoning buyers and sellers of drugs is counterproductive.
#07: Does the strategy of locking up drug users/dealers work by rehabilitating those convicted?
07a–Are the crowded conditions of our prisons humane?
07b–Might overcrowded prisons increase the chance of spreading TB, chicken pox, hepatitis, influenza, measles, mumps, STDs, and other diseases?
07c–Since the state is responsible for the lives of these imprisoned citizens, are medical services within the prison the same quality as those available to the general public?
07d–If not, for a simple charge of selling an illegal drug to a willing customer, has justice been served if a citizen emerges from our prisons with mental illness from rape, beatings, and untreated or incurable diseases? Or is this overbearingly cruel punishment?
07e–How has the drug war warped our sense of justice? And our sense of human kindness and rational approaches to social problems?
07f–Is it rational to maintain 2.3 million citizens behind bars–mostly people of color?
#08: When we talk about elevating the dignity of the American black community, how can that be done when so many millions have “ex-convict” hanging around their neck like an albatross?
#09: The black church played a vital role in promoting racial equality. What is the role of the black church in view of so many black Americans serving time in prison for drug violations and more blacks who cannot get employment because of being an ex-convict?
09a–In my research, the closest any black clergyman got to dealing with the drug war was Rev. George A. Stallings, of Washington, D.C. who, in 1996, stated that he favored the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. In 1996, this little step away from the drug war was, nonetheless, revolutionary. Do you think we can do better than this?
10a–Rep. Bob Barr. made a U-turn about the drug war. First he was for the drug war, now he’s against it–much to his credit. When people learn the facts, they change.
From the Huffington Post, Bob Barr writes:
As both a U.S. Attorney and Member of Congress, I defended drug prohibition. But it has become increasingly clear to me, after much study, that our current strategy has not worked and will not work. The other candidates for president prefer not to address this issue, but ignoring the failure of existing policy exhibits both a poverty of thought and an absence of political courage. The federal government must turn the decision on drug policy back to the states and the citizens themselves.
Go here to read the rest of the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/federal-drug-war-rethough_b_125458.html
#10: Is it possible that churches devote their time and energies to treating symptoms instead of getting to the root cause of the drug war by demanding an end to the drug war?
10a–Is it possible that the church sees prisoners as a way to win converts to their religion and church?
#11: If alcohol is consumed for recreational purposes, why not marijuana, cocaine and other Schedule One drugs?
11a–Is alcohol more or less dangerous than street drugs?
#12: When one goes into a liquor store, one can read on the label the exact percentage of alcohol in the product, and also know that it has not been cut with meth or PCP. (”In Europe, marijuana is cut with Taiwanese road-marking materials, and ground-up glass.”–Wikipedia) Do you believe that the absence of government regulation is the cause of injuries and deaths among street-drug users?
#13: Do you believe that there should be free-needle exchange for addicted drug users?
#14: One of the hallmarks of American Democracy (which we’re trying to export to the world’s nations) is open public debate on any and all issues–especially when it comes to how our elected officials spend the taxpayer’s money. Public debates are viewed by many as a way of bringing forth arguments for and against a given law. How many public debates have there been on the issue of federal drug policy?
#15: On November 18, 1956, Nikita Khrushchev threatened the West with “We will bury you!” Years later, while in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev clarified by explaining that the Soviets will not bury Westerners, but their own working class will do the burying.” How true. The working class of America has failed to rise up against the racist drug war, but instead allow turf wars to rage in residential communities, killing hundreds of thousands of mostly young black men over the years. In the 70s, Rev. Walter Fauntroy of Washington, D.C. said that he was quite weary of burying so many young black men. However, no black minister in the United States, nor the Congressional Black Caucus, has ever questioned Federal Drug Policy? Why is that? (This question cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No. The purpose of the question is to get people to think about what is not being done by our community and national leaders.)
#16: When some people say “Drugs will never be legalized because the government’s making money off of it,” What precisely is meant by that? Our federal government is divided into three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Which branch is making money from the drug war?
16a–Ordinarily, products, services and income are taxed–which is then redistributed by Congress. Products, such as tobacco and alcohol are taxed, and this is how state and federal governments derive income from these legal drugs. However, Schedule One drugs are not taxed. Explain, then, how the government is making money off of the drug war?
#17: Governments are funded by tax dollars. Government funds pay construction companies to build prisons, pay judges, police and parole officers, and jurors. Our tax dollars also pay people we don’t think about: stenographers who are paid to make transcripts of drug trials. In your opinion, wouldn’t you rather have your tax dollars pay drug counselors than parole officers?
17a–Wouldn’t you rather have your tax dollars pay for professors than judges?
17b–Wouldn’t it be better if your tax dollars were spent in government programs to make four years of college free of charge, rather than burdening students with debt after completing course requirements for a bachelors degree?
17c–Wouldn’t you rather have those who choose to purchase Schedule One drugs pay taxes on their purchases rather than your tax dollars be spent for more prosecutors of drug cases?
17d–How is the government making money from the drug war? Isn’t it more likely that we are all losing from this war on the people?
#18: If you agree that this nation is losing because of the drug war, then why aren’t there any political organizations to lobby our congressional representatives, such as Rep. Keith Ellison?
#19: What has Keith Ellison done in terms of addressing federal drug policy–which some believe is the root cause of drug-related misery in our urban residential communities?
#20: When some black Americans ask: “Well, who’s bringing these drugs into the country?! No black man has enough money to buy a plane to bring them in.” – Hmm. Are planes the only way to bring drugs into the country?
20a–Is it true or not true that those from Africa, Southeast Asia, the Caribbeans, Central and Latin America bring drugs into this country–as well as European countries?
20b–Is it always done by plane? If drugs are brought into this country by plane, does the drug carrier have to own the plane? Or just be a passenger on the plane?
20c–Is it possible that drugs can come into this country by truck, tunnel, boat, submarine, and other means?
20d–Isn’t it true that drug kingpins in foreign countries are always one step ahead of government agencies in inventing new ways to bring drugs into the country?
20e–If you agree with 20d, then how is the U.S. federal government going to stop drugs from coming into this country?
#21: With the enormous volume of raw materials, finished goods, and food products crossing the U.S.-Mexican border, is it feasible to stop every car and truck coming into the U.S. and thoroughly search them for drugs? News reports say that this is not possible. The DEA has been admitting over the years that no more than about 15% of drugs crossing the border are discovered and confiscated, allowing 85% of narcotics approaching the border to get through and arrive at distribution points in U.S. cities — without any help from the CIA. This is not generally reported in the news. What is reported are the big catches–the one-ton cargo of hashish or cocaine captured before it got passed our borders.
21a–If you were the head of the DEA, how would you do things differently in order to catch 90-100% of drugs crossing the border? (This is a rhetorical question. Most likely no answer can be given because if there was a more effective way of doing things, someone in the U.S. or the world would have thought of it already.)
#22: Is it true that the white man is bringing drugs into this country in order to commit genocide against its black citizens? Or might this be an example of Louis Farrakhan crazytalk?
#23: If drugs come over the border and into this country, aren’t there guards to prevent this? Or is it possible that some guards may look the other way if paid a bribe?
#24: It is stated that drugs are harmful. Is marijuana more or less harmful than tobacco and alcohol products? If not, then why is marijuana illegal and tobacco and alcohol legal? (This is another $64,000 question–the contradiction of federal policy cannot be answered.)
#25: The United States is the top manufacturer of weapons of all kinds. The National Rifle Association is a well-funded, powerful lobby for gun owners. A recent Supreme Court decision favored private ownership of weapons by individuals–not just an organized militia. Under these circumstances, how can we “get rid of guns”? (This is another rhetorical question with no rational answer.)
25a–If gun ownership were illegal throughout the nation, but at the same time if 85% of drugs can flow across the border, is it possible that illegal guns would also flow across the border and into the hands of drug dealers?
#26: If Washington, D.C. had the toughest anti-gun legislation in the nation, but the murder rate was among the highest in the nation, would that not indicate that as long as we have a drug war that we will also have turf wars and guns?
26a–If you agree that the proliferation of guns will continue as long as there is a drug war, then do you agree that the possibility of another shooting at the Juneteenth Celebration for 2009 is quite high?
#27: Over the past half century, blacks have been calling for more employment–presumably as a source of income outside of selling drugs. But is that the solution to stopping drug dealing in black communities?
27a–With more and more corporations going abroad to profit from cheap labor, with more immigrants from overpopulated countries coming into this country and working for less than the minimum wage, with American teenagers finding fewer and fewer jobs because jobs that used to be available are now taken up by illegal immigrants, is it really true that there are jobs for every one and that those who are unemployed are so because they are “lazy, shiftless and irresponsible?”
#28: Even if there were full employment for all citizens, is it possible that some citizens would still sell drugs to supplement their income?
28a–Is it not true that no one has more money than they need or want?
#29: If the drug war were ended, would that mean that far fewer police officers would be needed in our communities?
29a–If street drugs were legalized, regulated and modestly taxed, could the $200 Billion in revenues each year be used for drug rehabilitation clinics and government job-training programs and government-sponsored employment? (Note: $200 Billion is just a guess. We know exactly what the tax revenues from alcohol and tobacco are because they’re legal. This gives an idea how much heroin is being exported from Afghanistan. So when one reads that federal agents seized two tons of heroin, that’s nothing. And Afghanistan isn’t the only country producing opium and heroin. Confiscating two tons of heroin doesn’t even change the street price because so many tons are flowing into the U.S. all the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghan-Drugs.html?scp=107&sq=july+24+2008&st=nyt
In 2003, about 198,000 acres of land was used to cultivate poppy. By 2007, it rose to 476,900 acres.
Opium production topped 9,000 tons, enough to make over 880 tons of heroin with a street value of $4 billion, according to the United Nations.
#30: Even though the origins of the drug war may be rooted in white, Puritan culture, is it possible for whites and blacks to work together to get our representatives to publicly debate the issue–not just once, but at least three times so that on the second and third debate, previously unanswered questions can be researched and addressed?
#31: Can we really legalize drugs if they’re so dangerous? This is almost the first question people ask. And I ask in return, which is more dangerous: law enforcement and the violence that results, or the drugs themselves? My answer is law enforcement. Because of the U.S. federal drug policy, thousands of Central and South Americans have been killed. “More than 500 people have been murdered in Ciudad Juarez this year in a wave of violence blamed on drug gangs.” –http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Mexico-Violence.html?scp=108&sq=july+24+2008&st=nyt
#31a: Have more people died from the effects of marijuana, cocaine or heroin, or did more people die because of shootings between police and drug dealers, and among drug dealers themselves?
#32. What is the Green Party doing about the drug war? I went to their website <http://www.mngreens.org/documents/platform#O> to the section dealing with drugs and this is what they write:
#33: War on Drugs. Greens recognize that the “war on drugs” is racist and disproportionately targets people of color and poor communities. We call for a revised view of the “drug problem” and the “war on drugs,” and we call for more innovative approaches to healing communities in which there is a high frequency of drug abuse — such as investing in the development of locally-based economic opportunities.
3b. Drug abuse. Drug abuse of all kinds should be treated as a disease, rather than a criminal offense. We support the decriminalization of personal possession of non-addictive drugs.
The big mistake here is assuming that “communities in which there is a high frequency of drug abuse” would be black American communities. Oh, they don’t mention race, but this is what they mean. About 20 years ago, NPR did a survey on whether whites or blacks were more likely to use street drugs. Their conclusion is that the white community is more likely.
Nowhere in the Green Party statement is there a reference to “federal drug policy.” Not in their vocabulary. They would like to think that they are somehow better than Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, but they are not. I wouldn’t waste my time voting for any Green Party candidate.
“We support the decriminalization of personal possession of non-addictive drugs.” What in the hell does this mean? Aspirin is already legal! I know they don’t mean marijuana, because marijuana can be an addictive drug. Here is what Brown University says:
For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting. –http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm
The Greens want to decriminalize non-addictive drugs–that is, aspirin, or whatever they’re talking about. After the 21st Amendment turned the issue of alcohol control over to the states, the states Legalized alcohol, not just decriminalized it. Here is what “decriminalize” means:
Offenders are given a citation and fined, and their marijuana is confiscated. Possession of larger amounts is still a criminal offense because it implies an intent to sell.
Legalization, as opposed to decriminalization, would create a legal, regulated market for marijuana, presumably with age limits and quality controls similar to those placed on alcohol. –http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n276.a05.html
In other words, the Greens are still enthusiastic supporters of persecuting and prosecuting those who use cocaine, heroin, Ecstasy, PCP, meth, and other Schedule One drugs. However, they say, they view the drug war as racist. They contradict themselves like ministers of religion–don’t vote for these people!
Although not in their statement, Greens and other so-called “liberals” say: “We need less emphasis on arrests, and more emphasis on treatment.”
Can anyone say “federal drug policy”? Cocaine, heroin and other Schedule One drugs are illegal. Police officers are sworn to uphold the law. They will arrest and the courts will convict buyers and sellers of cocaine, heroin and other drugs. Police in Oregon may be more lenient by looking the other way or not answering calls from residents who ask for enforcement (I don’t know that for a fact) than those in TX, MS, and AL, but the point is, blacks will continue to be victims of the drug war–until all drugs are LEGALIZED! And the Green Party is not calling for drug legalization–because they’re don’t care to understand the tragedy of the drug war.
This is why I and others don’t bother wasting our time voting–because it’s a choice between BS-1, BS-2, and BS-3. I will admit that based on how Greens present themselves as the “progressive” party, better than the Dems and Repubs, I expected much more from them. They are a big let-down.
#34.
One man’s protest emboldens Ohio city to fight drug violence
Jesse Lowe began a public protest against drugs in March, spurring new activism.
By John Seewer | Associated Press
from the July 29, 2008 edition
Lima, Ohio – Jesse Lowe stood silently by himself holding a cardboard sign with three words scrawled in black marker: “Drugs Bring Death.” His eyes darted up and down the intersecting streets, watching for trouble. He also prayed, asking God to protect him and touch the hearts of the drug dealers glaring at him from across the street.
[[If Mr. Lowe's god didn't protect a woman and her baby, it's not likely that this god will protect Mr. Lowe.]]
Mr. Lowe’s solitary protest, which began in March, has drawn together black and white, rich and poor in a city simmering with anger since a white police officer shot and killed a black woman and wounded her baby during a drug raid.
[[The problem is not drugs, but federal drug policy which prompts the police to violate 4th Amendment rights of citizens by breaking into their house looking for drugs. The police, not the drugs, killed the black woman. The right thing to do is to protest against federal drug policy.]]
Manufacturing still plays a vital role in Lima, a city of 40,000, but the factories that once turned out buses, locomotives, and tanks have closed or cut jobs. Selling drugs has become a more lucrative option than a lot of other jobs, prompting an increase in drug-related crime: two fatal drug-related shootings; two cases of heroin overdose in March; and six drive-by shootings in April. The police shooting in January magnified the trouble.
[[Heroin overdoses were most likely due to the selling of unregulated drugs. Under regulation, the users of heroin sold in this area would be marked as to their strength. The same as regulated alcohol shows what percent of the product is alcohol. Alcohol is also sold in Lima, Ohio, and there are no alcohol-related drive-by shootings. Because alcohol is legal.]]
The son of a junkie, Lowe didn’t need anyone to tell him the damage drugs have inflicted.
[[Again, wrong. The damage comes from federal drug policy. Change the laws, and lives will be saved.]]
Since his first solitary protest in March, upwards of 100 people have shown up at many of the nine rallies he’s put together, waving “Drugs Bring Death” signs. They’ve handed out thousands of stickers, T-shirts, and signs that now blanket the city midway between Toledo and Dayton. A billboard company donated space on four signs, and businesses have supplied food for the rallies.
Bob Horton, a minister, has noticed a change in the neighborhood.
“People are calling in more when they see something,” he said. “They didn’t used to do that.”
[[Oh. The article ends here?? I'd be quite surprised if John Seewer of the Associated Press wrote a follow-up article about Jesse Lowe and Lima, Ohio. But I can write a follow-up article right now. With tight budgets, because of factories that are now closed, there will also be a reduction of police forces, and there won't be enough police to arrest all of those selling and buying drugs. More work for the police with more people calling in to complain about drug dealing will not mean that the police will get a pay raise--they will be more inclined to arrest drug dealers, take their drugs, and re-sell those drugs themselves. Otherwise, they will take bribes from drug dealers to leave them along. Federal Drug Policy Brings Corruption.]]
Go here to see a photo of Mr. Lowe:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0729/p02s01-usgn.html
#35: Since the Christian Science Monitor didn’t provide a means for responses, I downloaded this article without their permission. If one cannot give their opinion on their website, you can give me yours on my website.
This is an example of how religion does harm to society. All Mexico would have to do is to legalize all drugs, enabling them to be sold in stores. But no, they have to send forth 25,000 Christian soldiers to kill and maim their own citizens. My italicized comments appear within double-brackets.
Supporting Mexico’s fight against drugs
A Christian Science perspective on daily life.
from the August 5, 2008 edition
Mexican President Felipe Calderón has made battling drug cartels a cornerstone of his presidency, sending 25,000 soldiers and police across his country to battle drug-related violence. But hundreds of people have been killed this year in battles between drug gangs and security forces. A major problem is that some usually low-paid police officers are working for drug traffickers (see The Christian Science Monitor, “Mexico boosts police ethics to fight drugs,” May 22).
The actions being taken, such as arresting corrupt police officers, emphasizing ethics and service in police training, and increasing police salaries, all contribute to more professional policing. There’s a way we, too, can help. The Bible promises, “The prayers of the righteous have a powerful effect” (James 5:16, Moffatt translation).
[[Just using the police to fight drug dealers is unethical. And who's going to pay for the increase in police salaries? Answer: The already over-taxed workers.
[[And then we have the thing about "prayer." We need a rational approach to federal drug policy (of the US or any other country), we don't need superstition. Praying, lighting candles, fingering beads, wearing medals of "saints"--all this is superstition. Ever since Nixon gave us the War on Drugs, people have been praying for peace. The rational approach is to change the laws, and we'll have peace without all this praying!]]
We can pray for the police and security forces in our own countries and elsewhere who are engaged in the challenging task of overcoming drug-related violence, by recognizing one of the central messages of Jesus’ ministry: that God is actually governing now. [[This is false.]] The Gospel of Mark quotes Jesus as saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (1:15). [[The Bible has no credibility. It's filled with myths and contradictions.]]
In conditions involving such violence, it may not be easy to see God governing. [[Of course it's not easy to see "God" because there is no such thing.]] But the situation in Mexico gives some indication of God’s government [[It does not.]] – in the courage of Mexicans in general not to accept the inevitability of violence, in the determination of some elected representatives to root out drug-trafficking, and in the selflessness of those working to eradicate this problem. [[As long as drugs are illegal, violence will be inevitable.]]
Jesus, the perfect example of selflessness, proved that God’s government is actual. [[False. Jesus was/is a mythical character and there is no such thing as "God's government."]] According to Luke’s Gospel, Jesus encountered a corrupt tax collector named Zacchaeus. Jesus didn’t judge or condemn him; he loved him as a son of God, and as truly spiritual. He addressed him by name and valued him so much that he went to his house – and this in spite of the disapproval of people who felt he should not have befriended him (see Luke 19:1-10). Jesus’ healing approach to Zacchaeus – seeing him as God’s child, honest and good – resulted in the transformation and reformation of his character.
Recently an international speaker followed Jesus’ example in proving through prayer that God’s child is not corrupt. One afternoon, in a country known for police corruption and street crime, he set out to buy a newsmagazine and was directed to the plaza across the street. Thinking that he shouldn’t take his bag with him, he left it in the hotel, not remembering that his passport was in it. As he crossed the plaza, two policemen identified him as a foreigner and asked to see his passport. The policemen said that foreigners were always expected to have their passport or a photocopy of it with them. They stated that the man could either go to the police station with them or pay a fine right there on the spot.
[[In a Catholic country that is overpopulated with a high unemployment rate, men, mostly, are going to take a job--any job with any employer--that pays the highest salary to support all their children. In an overpopulated nation, employers can pay slave wages.]]
The visitor was praying, knowing that the policemen, as expressions of the Divine, could be governed only by Truth, by God – and by honesty, a quality of God. They couldn’t be lacking integrity or in any way since they were the children of God. [[I assume that one would have to be praying out loud and in Spanish.]]
He talked cordially with the police but explained that the organization he was representing didn’t allow him to pay them in the way that they were suggesting. After about 10 minutes, the men called their superior, with whom the man, who was continuing to pray, had essentially the same conversation. After about another 10 minutes, the senior officer handed him back his driver’s license (the only official form of identification that he had with him) and wished him a pleasant afternoon.
[[So the organization this man represented was a church and the police were religious themselves. This would not work for me. Therefore, if you were with IBM or Comcast, or a vacationer with the Five-Star Vacation Cruize Co., am I to assume one couldn't say that their organization didn't allow them to pay the police in the way that they were suggesting? Or what if you did say this, and you weren't attached to a church, the police would do what? I suppose throw you in jail. So the police ended up acting illegally by letting this Christian off the hook. Why?
If this is not the case, then the police acted unethically by showing deference to praying Christians. If this is not the case, then would they accept the prayers of Jews or Moslems? And what about the poor atheist? What the unnamed author of this article is saying is that religious people should be treated differently than atheists. So if you want to avoid the inconvenience of going to jail until your appearance before a judge, then you must become a Christian.]]
Mary Baker Eddy, who founded this newspaper and who prayed for the freedom of all peoples, wrote: “… progress is the law of God, whose law demands of us only what we can certainly fulfil” (”Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” p. 233). We can all contribute to humanity’s progress by helping to root out police corruption. Affirming in prayer that divine Love is protecting, guiding, and maintaining the integrity of all people helps society move forward. [[What a bunch of bull! There would be much less police corruption if drugs were legalized. Prayer is 100% ineffective.]]
* * *
Intelligent and rational people know that drugs have to be legalized. The question is: why is there so much apathy or antipathy toward this in the face of so much human suffering and cost to the workers?
The CSM article explains some of this apathy. But I know of atheists who don’t care. Atheists are usually white middle-class people with college education. Black Americans, the prime victims of federal drug policy, are usually highly religious. Not necessarily church-going, but say something negative about Jesus (a mythical entity), and you’ll get a strong reaction.
Members of the Green Party are not very concerned about the drug war. But then Green Party members are usually Christians as well as white middle-class folks.
Advocating that people pray for peace is detrimental to our society because it’s asking people to waste their time doing something useless. After people pray to their nonexistent god, they get up off their knees and feel that magical or miraculous things will happen. If their nonexistent god doesn’t bring peace, they pray again–with the same results. The one doing the praying is insane. Therefore, those who proclaim that they are deeply religious are dangerously insane. So if you thought that Christians were crazy (I always have), you’re right!
I can accept experimentation, to pray once to see if a perfect god responds and if he doesn’t, then no more praying. But why should one pray to an omnipotent, all-seeing god? These aren’t questions that can be answered since religion is totally irrational. Advocating prayer just shows the ignorance and irrationality of the editors of the CSM.
Being ignorant enough to pray, the religious don’t think any further. Do they somehow believe that their god will compel drug dealers to put down their guns and deal unarmed? Actually, by legalizing drugs, this can be accomplished. Or do the Christians believe that drug buying and selling will also go away? I know this will not be acceptable to the CSM writer of this dumb article, but I can assure you that drug dealing will remain with us–and that includes alcohol dealing and cigarette dealing. The United States has never been a drug-free nation, and it never will be.
From my observations on my neighborhood block, drug dealers do not accept money orders, checks or credit cards. Cash only. Therefore, everyone knows that drug dealers have cash in their pockets.
Another guy in the neighborhood who is facing eviction and needs to come up with money for the landlord, acquires a gun and goes out and kills a drug dealer and robs him. That’s easy to do. It’s a little harder to rob a liquor store manager or a bank teller because of security cameras everywhere. And since a drug dealer is viewed with so much contempt by so many, the killer, if caught and arrested, will get a much lighter sentence than if he had killed a bank teller.
I do not view the drug dealer with contempt. I view the drug dealer as a victim of FDP (federal drug policy) and as a businessman just trying to earn a living. If he does well, he gets to buy a big car like any preacher who lies to his ever-donating flock.
Back in the late 90s, there was a food store about three blocks from where I live. You could buy fruits, vegetables, canned goods, soft drinks–the usual things that food markets sell. They also sold cigarettes. Cigarettes, as everyone knows nowadays, are very addictive and cause cancer and other illnesses in most–but not all–who smoke. Cigarettes were so popular that they had a special counter where one could buy any one of many brands they had available. A smoker could walk into the food market, buy their cigarettes, and walk right out–without having to stand in line with people buying other things.
That’s how we should be selling less-dangerous products like cocaine, heroin, Ecstasy and marijuana.* Usually there were two women behind the counter. One woman, a senior citizen, was always so polite and well-dressed. Her white hair was always perfect. Well, her hair wasn’t exactly white–it had a slight blue tint to it. I learned that this warm and friendly white woman was a Lutheran and went to church every Sunday, sat third row from the front. I asked her, in a joking manner, if she sat in the front row, and she explained exactly where she did sit. She made a nice living selling cigarettes. Now contrast that to the black drug dealer on the corner. Both are making a living doing the same thing–except the drug dealer on the corner doesn’t have blue tint in his hair.
*Dr. Lester Grenspoon, former head of Harvard University’s School of Medicine, stated that all the SODs combined are less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol.
===========================================================
If you still agree that the Drug War should end, then what can a citizen do toward drastically reducing the number of citizens behind bars for drug convictions?
I recommend that we gather 30 people to meet with Mayor R.T. Rybak and Cam Gordon, Councilmember of Ward 2. We need to invite the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, City Pages, Channels 4, 5, 9, to city-sponsored public debates. We need to urge the mayor and the City Council to hold at least three public debates on the drug war.
The purpose of public debates is to break the silence about drug legalization. The second purpose is to get people who oppose ending the drug war to compare their views with those who want the drug war to end.
Then we lobby all of the City Council to pass a Resolution condemning the drug war. If we can accomplish that, we will be the first in the nation to do so. This will be carried by the news media, perhaps all over the world. It will then, hopefully, prompt other cities to hold public debates about the drug war and pass resolutions condemning this obscene waste of human lives and money.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I’m looking for citizens in the Twin Cities to become involved in distributing copies of this paper above. If you give the paper to politicians, clergy, community leaders, post what you did along with the date and the name of the person you contacted.
If you see a way I can improve the presentation of this message, do, by all means, post your suggestion.
When you do post, I ask that you not use your real name.
<>==oo==<>==oo==<>==oo==<>==oo==<>==oo==<>
Below this line is my diary and what I’m doing to try to organize people to lobby their representatives here in the Twin Cities. Those living outside of the Twin Cities, I welcome your suggestions as well–and hope I can give you ideas for your community. If you would like to meet me, the best place would be the Pierre Bottineau Public Library, at 1224 NE 2nd St., Mpls. Suggest a time in your post, and I’ll respond to confirm time and date.
2008 July 22 (Tue) —-
I went to the office of Mayor R.T. Rybak and give him the questionnaire above, but also the following letter:
(Atheistcable)
Minneapolis, MN 55411
22 July 2008
MAYOR R. T. RYBAK
City Hall, Room 331
350 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis MN 55415
Dear Mr. Rybak
I have a serious drug problem and I need your help. No, I’m not chemically addicted to any drug, like alcohol, nicotine or any of the Schedule One drugs. My problem is with federal drug policy.
My problem is that no politician, including Rev. Don Samuels, Joe Mullery, Keith Ellison or you, have been publicly discussing this issue or, in the true tradition of an open democracy, held public debates concerning the drug war–and how this horrible and racist policy has been wasting Billions of dollars and countless lives–especially citizens of color.
I would like for you to direct me to an individual who will sit down with me and help me improve my presentation–that’s the most immediate problem. The attached “semi-questionnaire” contains 30 questions, but many of the questions are rhetorical and have no answers. But they need to be asked anyway.
Then I need to learn what I can do to help solve my (and our) drug problem. Can I work with someone to help prepare a presentation or debate to community groups?
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
–(atheistcable).
2008 Aug 07 (Tue) —-
>I got no response whatever. Here I am, an interested citizen who cares about my community and about my city–and I get no response. All I asked was to bring me into contact with someone that somebody in the Mayor’s office would know so that we could discuss this issue. It’s true, if I were a heroin or cocaine addict, referrals would have been forthcoming. But to discuss government policy–”we don’t have time for you. Go away!”
2008 Sept 17 (Wed)—-
Mr. Bobby Joe Champion is running for 58B, MN House seat.
Bobby@Champion4Change.org
I will be voting for Barack Obama simply because Obama is much better than McCain/Palin.
Otherwise, I am so utterly disgusted with all Democratic, Republican and Green Party candidates that I haven’t voted in years–and this may be the last time I waste my time going to the polls.
Let me ask: Have you ever heard of the Drug War? Do you discuss Federal Drug Policy with your colleagues? Do you care that so many, particularly young black men are killing one another over Federal Drug Policy?
Your response will probably be: “Yes, Mr. Richardson, but see, you’re discussing Federal legislation–and I’m running for a state office, therefore I can wash my hands of a topic that no one else wants to talk about. You should talk to Keith Ellison about your concern. Besides, I belong to a church that is helping young people avoid drugs. Those who become addicted are being helped by people of my church overcome their addiction. What more can be done?”
I’ve heard this over and over and over for the past 40 years and the homicides of black men continue and the prison population keeps on growing! Taxes that are being spent on enforcement and incarceration could be spent on so many social programs that are underfunded–including those that deal with domestic violence.
I’m looking at the results of drug prohibition on a national level. People being killed in Florida or Los Angeles because of federal drug policy affect me as much as someone being killed here on my street.
A nation that is well-run should have only a very small fraction of a percent of its population behind bars.
So, what is Keith Ellison saying about federal drug policy? Nothing.
What is the Urban League saying about federal drug policy? Nothing.
How about the Congressional Black Caucus or the NAACP? Nothing.
What is Rev. Don Samuels, Ward 5, saying about federal drug policy? Nothing.
What is Bobby Joe Champion saying about federal drug policy? Nothing.
This is hurting me right here in my neighborhood. Somebody has to have the compassion and concern for black victims of federal drug policy. As I’ve heard many times, “If white men were being killed in the same numbers that black men are, this country would be passing laws left and right to overturn federal drug policy. But since turf wars are victimizing mostly black men, well, is there a problem here?”
I simply do not understand how, especially black Americans, can be so unfeeling and unconcerned about the thousands of homicides caused by enforcing federal drug policy, that they don’t need to discuss it. This is really very sick! There is not one organization that I know of in the Twin Cities that is dealing with federal drug policy and its deadly results in our urban communities.
If there is a volunteer in your campaign headquarters who would like to discuss this with me, I would be glad to meet with them.
–(atheistcable)
Last revised: 080917–ymd
238V9W687BB5523X51C
