Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:11:16 -0400
From: rfriend@advnet.net ("R. Friend")
Subject: [lpaz-repost] BUSH'S DRUG CZAR
To: MIlibertarian@listbot.com ("Michigan Libertarian")
Cc: armedpagans@egroups.com ("Armed Pagans"), ArmsFreedom@listbot.com ("Arms Freedom Discussion Group"), drugfreedom@listbot.com ("Drug Freedom - Discussion Group"), EduFreedom@listbot.com ("Education Freedom - Discussion Group"), glbilib@listbot.com ("Gay, Les, Bi"), lpaz-repost@yahoogroups.com ("LPAZ - Repost"), pagolibertarian@egroups.com ("PagoLibertarians"), PALibernet@egroups.com ("PALibernet")
While I may be considered by many to be a MAJOR, Pro-2nd Amendment, Gun-Rig=
hts-Fanatic, and possibly to some, as a one issue person and Libertarian ca=
ndidate. I will openly admit to the former, and show once again that the la=
tter is just simply NOT the case.
The article below came to me via the Saginaw Attorney, and author of the PR=
Ayes, Ballot Initiative, Greg Schmid's, On-line newsletter (see www.PRAyes.=
com or www.petition2vote.com Which I will be forwarding to my Michigan (co=
nnections) list later.
My motives are and always have been, directed toward the Rights of the "Ind=
ividual." I've said it many times before, but will repeat it, here, again f=
or the new people on the list. "I've never done, nor do I advocate the use =
of, illicit, so-called, drugs, and do no intend to start, even with the pa=
ssage of the PRAyes Initiative!!!" I do smoke tobacco, and will have an occ=
asional drink, but have always managed to "Just Say 'NO,' to Drugs!" I am a=
lso not such a "Hypocrite," as to have done them in the past, then to say y=
ou cannot now.
To my way of thinking, and my reasons for supporting this Initiative in the=
first place, are still confined to the issue of "Individual Rights." I am =
a "Born in America," American Citizen, who also believes in the concept of =
our Founding Fathers, that the "Rights of the Individual," come first, and =
foremost. I am not such an "Authoritarian," or "Prohibitionist," that I wou=
ld attempt to restrict anyone from living their lives as they please. Just =
as long as these people respect the Rights of every other "Individual," to =
live their lives in peace, and without infringement, as well.
If you harm or attempt to infringe on the Rights of anyone. I will fight, l=
ong and hard, and by any and every means, to see you punished ccording to =
the laws you have violated.
It doesn't matter whether your issue is taxes, religion, education, abortio=
n, environmental, sexual consent, sexual orientation, Guns, smoking tobacco=
, or the illicit, so-called, drugs, etc. If I am not hurting you, or violat=
ing your Rights, to do as you please with your life or property. Who are yo=
u, to tell ME, that I cannot do as I please, with mine? (The first property=
any of us owns, is our own bodies!!!) Why, must you insist, that I must CO=
NFORM to your image, morals, or standards, of how to live?
If you choose not to smoke or drink, not to own a Gun, or not to do illicit=
drugs. All the better for you, and you are entitled to your opinion on tho=
se subjects, and to attempt to persuade others, as I do here, to your point=
of view. But, you are NOT entitled to use threats or coercive force, to en=
force and impose your views upon anyone. Quit trying to manipulate the laws=
. Using "Government," to IMPOSE your will, morals, or standards, on anyone =
else that happens to disagree with you!!! Especially, when you use outright=
lies and distorted facts, to make your point and statements on an issue. L=
ive your life, but, stay out of mine!!! As the Song says; "This is MY Life.=
"=20
All the more so (Sandra), if you've fled from some repressive, "Authoritari=
an," foreign, "Government." Seeking instead, the "Liberty and Freedom," whi=
ch the United States and the "Lady Liberty," each promise to everyone! If y=
ou don't like it in this country. Then, I strongly suggest, that you find a=
nother place (country) which better conforms to your image, morals, or stan=
dards!
Yours, In Liberty;
Rick.
" . But when a long train of abuses and usurpation's, pursuing invariably t=
he same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it=
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to pro=
vide new guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence, =
July 4, 1776, James Madison, author of this document, one of the Founding F=
athers, and 3rd President of the United States.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe fre=
e. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tem=
pest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door." - Emma Lazarus,=
1903, poem to the Statue of Liberty.
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by th=
e prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the gover=
nment and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. I=
t is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is=
closely connected with this" - Albert Einstein, 1921, "My First Impression=
of the U.S.A."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
BUSH'S DRUG CZAR DINOSAUR IS NO BARNEY
You would think that a man with George W. Bush's, er, familiarity with ille=
gal substances might be sympathetic to calling a cease-fire in America's $5=
0-billion-a-year drug war.
But, in Bush's parlance, that would be a "misunderstandimation" of the pres=
ident.
The man who still refuses to discuss exactly how much cocaine he snorted in=
the 1970's is drawing fire for his nomination of "do-drugs, do-time" extre=
mist John P. Walters, to serve as the nation's drug czar.
"Walters is another white male from the conservative Washington, D.C., thin=
k tank crowd who supports the 'shoot-first-ask-questions-later' approach to=
the drug war," says Keith Stroup, director of the National Organization fo=
r Reform of Marijuana Laws.
A Heritage Foundation acolyte, Walters quit a Clinton administration drug p=
olicy gig to protest moves to spend more money on drug treatment - as oppos=
ed to the get-tough, incarceration strategy he favored. In a Senate Judicia=
ry Committee hearing, he dismissed calls for a greater emphasis on preventi=
on and treatment as "this ineffectual policy - the latest manifestation of =
the liberals' commitment to a therapeutic state in which overnment serves =
as the agent of personal rehabilitation."
How does Walters propose to win the war on drugs? For one thing, he's a big=
fan of stepping up U.S. drug war interventions to assist the Colombian and=
Peruvian armed forces in the difficult work of shooting down American miss=
ionary planes. While thinking Republicans, such as former U.S. Rep. Tom Cam=
pbell of California, warn that Colombia is Latin American for "Vietnam," Wa=
lters has no fears about getting the United States entangled in te civil w=
arfare of distant lands. Indeed, with a tip of the hat to Gen. William West=
moreland, Robert McNamara and other like-minded individuals, he says: "Fore=
ign programs are cheap and effective."
Walters does not limit his interventionist impulses to so-called "foreign p=
rograms." He wants to insert the tentacles of the federal drug war apparatu=
s even deeper into the grass roots. For instance, he says he will battle st=
ate efforts to exempt users of medical marijuana from criminal prosecution.=
Walters doesn't buy the scientific research that says marijuana eases the =
pain and symptoms of people suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other serio=
us ailments.
Walters has lots of problems with scientific research.
He calls complaints that drug law enforcement tactics disproportionally pen=
alize minorities one of "the greatest urban myths of our time" and dismisse=
s as "utter fantasy" the claim that jails are packed with drug users who ne=
ed treatment - despite Bureau of Justice Statistics data that 25-percent of=
America's 2 million prisoners were locked up for drug offenses.
Just how far out are Walters' drug war fantasies? Even Gen. Barry McCaffrey=
, the Clinton administration drug czar who was no softy on crime-and-punish=
ment matters, has warned that the views of his likely successor are too ext=
reme.
"Instead of finding a 'compassionate conservative' to lead our anti-drug ef=
forts," argues Stroup, "President Bush has selected a man whose views are r=
egarded as harsh and extreme, even among drug warriors."