rocky@tcom.stc.co.uk (Dave Kennard) (01/16/90)
In article <6185@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: :Have no fear. It is not an accident that to date, the War on Drugs has :had absolutely no impact on the actual availability (or even the street :price) of illegal drugs. That is not its purpose. It is nothing more :than a vast public-relations charade at the expense of the taxpayer's :dollar and the citizen's freedom. Far from trying to "win" the war, :Bush'n'Bennett will endeavor to drag it out for as long as possible. They :are a perfect example of the famous symbiosis between the Vice Squad on :the one hand and the drug dealers, pimps, and numbers operators on the :other. Neither side can prosper without the other. Is this really true? What benefit does Bush and Bennett get from the 'public-relations' excercise? Surely, given the budget deficit and the 'No More Taxes' declarations of Bush's election campaign, it does not seem reasonable that Bush would wish to 'waste' public money? Does your last sentence mean that Bush & co. are waging this 'war' to support the drug dealers etc..? :David Casseres : Exclaimer: Hey! -- +-+ +-+ +- | | Regards, Dave Kennard. | | | | | |/ Dept. 30820, STC Telecommunications, Oakleigh Road South, |-+ | | | |\ New Southgate, LONDON. N11 1HB, England, UK, (etc..) | \ +-+ +- | |Voice (+44) 01-945-2195 <rocky@tcom.stc.co.uk>
scj@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Scotian) (01/17/90)
Douglas Miller writes: |[...] |If my fears become real, I think few in the cities will remain untouched. |It is ironic that success for Bennett and Bush will likely mean degradation, |injury, and death for many innocent people. We must remember that in |modern war, the greatest impact falls on the civilian population. | |If there is anyone out there who can allay these fears, please post your |reassurances. You can get no reassurances from me, except that the 'War on Drugs' is doomed to failure as a drug control measure as all forms of prohibition are by nature ineffective, so this drying up of the proverbial 'drug pond' will not take place. But continued effort into the 'War on Drugs' can only create more of the violence to which you refer, most likely leading to the justification for the erosion of our constitutional rights and to change this country into some sort of police state. -- ............................................................................... Scott C. Jensen I'm the NRA scj@meccsd.mecc.mn.org Say NO to the War on Drugs Pro Choice (abortion, guns, drugs, sex, etc.)
hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson) (01/17/90)
In article <21220@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> DOUGM@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Douglas Miller) writes: >If there is anyone out there who can allay these fears, please post your >reassurances. There is no need to worry Douglas. What with all these revolutions going on and the borders breaking down, international drug trafficking will enjoy a resurgence. And look how all the "mafia" types of organizations are moving in on Eastern Europe and Russia, there will be more international crime than ever before. I predict that all this will mean an INCREASE in the drug supply to Amerika and other countries. --Hiram [uunet!sco!hiramc || hiramc@sco.COM]
unhd (Paul A. Sand) (01/17/90)
In article <6185@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >Have no fear. It is not an accident that to date, the War on Drugs has >had absolutely no impact on the actual availability (or even the street >price) of illegal drugs. That is not its purpose. It is nothing more >than a vast public-relations charade at the expense of the taxpayer's >dollar and the citizen's freedom. Far from trying to "win" the war, >Bush'n'Bennett will endeavor to drag it out for as long as possible. They >are a perfect example of the famous symbiosis between the Vice Squad on >the one hand and the drug dealers, pimps, and numbers operators on the >other. Neither side can prosper without the other. One can only hope that similar connections will be made with the other great governmental moral crusades that proclaim high dudgeon and noble sentiment, but never seem to accomplish anything worthwhile beyond making their perpetrators Feel Good About Themselves. (Although, for a few, a good deal of political power and some extra spending money is also involved.) So the current war on drugs is just one more battle in the never-ending struggle against racism, sexism, porno, booze, poverty, ignorance, inadequate recreational facilities, sexual preverts, tobacco smoke, unemployment, homophobia, various ecological catastrophes, the decay of the family, homelessness, Oriental cars and DRAMs, mental illness, gambling, the international communist conspiracy, and those folks who won't buckle their seatbelts and drive at 55 mph. In short, Evil. Don't worry, friends: your government is making real progress on these problems, and more you haven't even heard about yet, but will. Don't forget to send in your 1040, and make sure you check that little box for the Presidential Campaign Fund. -- -- Paul A. Sand | For this unavoidable excess I take full responsibility, -- U of New Hampshire | trusting that readers will sort out what is valuable -- uunet!unhd!pas | from what is not, and that those who find nothing of -- pas@unh.edu | value will forgive and forget. (Robert Grudin)
wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Bennett) (01/17/90)
In article <36030@cornell.UUCP> anoop@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Anoop Kumar Mangalick) writes: > >I have some tidbits of my own to add to this growing discussion topic. >Several days ago someone brought to my attention the fact that the country >in S/Central America which is receiving the most monetary/military support >in order to fight the Drug War, Colombia, is not the country with the >highest export volume of cocaine to the U.S. > >The Bush administration is as vehemently anti-communist as the Reagan >administration. It sees the creation of communist states in S/Central >America as threatening to our national security. Right-wing military >dictatorships in that region are prime targets for communist revolutions. >Thus, it is in the best interests of the U.S. to forestall this possibility >by seeing that such regimes are removed from power gradually, preferably with >the installation of U.S.-backed, freedom-and-democracy-oriented, capitalistic >governments. The Drug War helps to justify a military presence in various >S/Central American countries and thus achieves this purpose. It also >presents our government as being devoted to solving a domestic social problem. >Finally, when a politician comes out strongly in favor of the Drug War, >fighting for billions for his constituency, then he receives more voter >support (votes). No politician can lose by supporting the Drug War. > >The lack of funds for many programs, including manpower, prisons, and rehab >centers, is consistent with this view. The Bush administration is not >truly intent on ridding the U.S. of the drug scourge. It is only seeking >to project a military presence into S/Central America for the purpose of >preventing communist insurgencies in that region. > >Any comments? > >Anoop Mangalick Actually, the Bush administration (and the Reakan Reich [I prefer the Libyan spelling] before it) probably prefer to focus on Columbia out of cowardice instead of imperialism. The country that actually grows all the cocaine is not Columbia, as you note, but Peru. And it is all the cocaine being grown in Peru that supports the rural economy of that country. If the US is the "imperialist oppressor" who enforces coca eradication in Peru, that means massive bad PR for the US. This is only a problem, since we've shown time after time that we really don't care about world opinion as far as our western hemisphere imperialism is concerned, because Peru has perhaps the only viable communist insurgency in South America. This is the formidible, in the countryside, Shining Path movement. Shining Path has protected cocaine fields in return for political support (and cash), and so far the US has been loath to extend the cocaine wars into Peru. Frankly, I think it is simply because the US is afraid of antagonizing another native population, this time of a democratic country, in a losing effort. Most of these cocaine fields are very high and remote (we're talking the Altoplano, folks) and interdiction would be virtually impossible. However, all the labs are in Columbia and, until recently, Columbia has had a corrupt, military-dominated government. The new government is supposedly clean, but with all of the cartel terrorism we still have easy culprits (the cartels) and easy targets (the labs). So the US is willing to ignore the raw cocaine flowing out of Peru just as it was once willing to ignore the arms flowing from Cambodia into Vietnam. Of course, if Daddy (Bill Bennett) had his way he'd be leading teams of Rangers through the Peruvian hills to round up all the poor, ignorant farmers growing the White Death. And he'd pack along his portable guillotine with which to render appropriate, if summary, justice. After all, the Big Pus Blister with the nicotine grimace (Daddy-O) is on record as favoring beheading for anyone associated with drugs. A quick solution: American decriminalization will pull the economic rug out from under the drug trafficking cartel; Removing all American military personal above the Mexican border would reduce imperialism; And three hits of prime MDA just might turn Big Bill into a nice guy. Give it a try, Dad, Bill Jr.
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (01/18/90)
In article <2135@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> rocky@tcom.stc.co.uk (Dave Kennard) writes: > In article <6185@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > :...[the war on drugs] is nothing more > :than a vast public-relations charade... Far from trying to "win" the > :war, Bush'n'Bennett will endeavor to drag it out for as long as > :possible. They are a perfect example of the famous symbiosis > :between the Vice Squad on the one hand and the drug dealers, pimps, > :and numbers operators on the other. Neither side can prosper > :without the other. > Is this really true? What benefit does Bush and Bennett get from the > 'public-relations' excercise? Well, Bush gets to look like he's actually _doing_ something (besides invading Panama, another PR scam). As for Bennett, now that he's made a total failure of himself as an educator, the "war on drugs" is his entire career. > Surely, given the budget deficit and > the 'No More Taxes' declarations of Bush's election campaign, it does > not seem reasonable that Bush would wish to 'waste' public money? No it doesn't, does it? But I don't think Bush cares a rat's ass about the deficit, and his "no more taxes" declarations were campaign rhetoric. Conservative Republicans LOVE to blow the taxpayers' money, as long as it winds up in the hands of their own constituents or allies. Then there's the atmosphere of emergency created by a "war." This is indispensible to a politician whose agenda includes a reduction of the Constitutional rights of individuals. > Does your last sentence mean that Bush & co. are waging this 'war' > to support the drug dealers etc..? I doubt that they have sat down and said to each other "Let's support the drug dealers (other than Manual Noriega)." But I don't think it bothers them at all that the drug dealers are getting richer than ever as a result of the "war," and I think if the drug dealers started going out of business it would make them very nervous. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
zetetikos@oxy.edu (Rachel C. Andrews) (01/18/90)
In <36030@cornell.UUCP>, Anoop Mangalick writes:
-> No politician can lose by supporting the Drug War.
.
Considering the war on drugs *is* a war on the Constitution, and considering
that the war on drugs *is* a war on the American people, I certainly hope
that a politician who favors fighting this war _can_ lose. I will not
vote for a drug warrior (whether tacit or explicit), which unfortunately
means that I do not get to vote very often :-( but hopefully enough
voters will, with time, come to view the drug war as a direct threat upon
freedom and individual autonomy so that soon posters to the net will write:
----> "No politician can WIN by supporting the Drug War"
<RCA>