Watch "Breaking The Taboo - Film" on YouTube -
It is full of disinfo and misinfo, like the whole bit on Afghanistan.
Also, the answer is not decriminalization, but legalization. If you decriminalize it, it is still illegal, but there is no penalty. The black market would continue. If it is legalized, then the prices will collapse and so will the black market and the drug cartels, and I am not just talking about the Mexican ones.
If you can't grow it, it is not legal. Don't settle for decriminalization. As Ben Swann says, if you just were to legalize marijuana, then the cartels would lose 70% of their profit, and no business can withstand that and stay in business. Start with legalizing (not decriminalizing) marijuana, if nothing else, and let the results speak for themselves.
I am Ron Paul.
Legalization means the government regulates the drugs and determines what you can and cannot do. Decriminalization means you can grow your own without meeting government standards/regulations/restrictions/fees/fines/taxes.
from the same article...
Back in June 2012, lawmakers in Providence jumped on the decriminalization bandwagon, replacing misdemeanor charges for adult recreational use with a civil fine of $150. (Youth pay the same fine but also have to attend a drug education class and perform community service.)
The Obama administration warned of a crackdown, and the state legislature beat voters to the punch with a sweeping decriminalization of pot that treats possession not as a misdemeanor but an infraction, like a parking ticket, with just a $100 fine.
It means you still can't do it, but you don't go to jail for it...
Unless you don't pay the ticket... of course...
Eliminating the black market and the profits would eliminate the pushers standing on the corners trying to get more and more people taking drugs.
is that by the sheer fact that it is illegal, drug use fosters its own growth.
When a community gains its first user, that person is now tied to high expenses that will increase as much as he can pay. When he fails at covering the cost, he is presented with the option to push to others to recoup some cost. Each of those new users now has a need to satisfy and the process escalates dramatically.
Also, when its underground and illegal, it becomes socially a badge of honor to do it as much as possible. If legalized, it could be persuaded more in light of the "give me a beer, I've had a long day at work".
long as there are people who want drugs, the market will always rise to meet these needs so it would be impossible to stop by attacking suppliers. Any child could see that this would only lead to a rise in price and more suppliers moving into the market chasing profit. Even where the penalty is death people will take the risk to reap the reward, this includes the police or governments. It's sad for the drug "warriors" to pretend that they don't understand this....or maybe they are actually this dumb. Either way I don't want the government legally running and regulating this either. We need to cut funds, not give them new ways to get bigger and further suppress the opposition.
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
When a globalist like Bill Clinton comes out against the war on drugs you know they have some legislation waiting that gives them even more control over your lives. This film is to convince the dinosaurs that need authority figures to tell them what to believe that drug legalization is ok so that they can replace the war on drugs with some other outrageous legislation. Its never the case in the last 70 years that the federal government does something to give freedoms back. Why would this be any different? Both Carter & Clinton are CFR and TLC members. My guess is they want a global drug tax. The war on drugs is a net negative on tax dollars, but a global drug tax gives them yet more money to spend.
the whole Mena, Arkansas / Iran - Contra deal with Barry Seal and Co. while Clinton was governor, protecting it all.
"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"
Take a good thing when it comes for pete's sake. There are enough bad things in the world to be inventing new ones. If and when they propose such legislation, I will oppose it. It hasn't happened, so you are just speculating pointlessly and then knocking an extremely good thing based on that pointless speculation.
The difference between a legitimate conspiracy and a crazy conspiracy theory is that one has evidence and one has speculation.
Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us
this is a good doc, but its not great. why call someone crazy and pointless over it? Clinton and Carter have a dubious History; they don't just do something because they know its right, its about an agenda and perception.
I guess the irony of the title was lost on most. I get called that a lot and was joking with the title. Unfortunately that seems to have blocked out my actual point...
That there is actually no evidence presented here. It is a random hunch, based on the faulty idea that if any of the people involved with the project have ever done anything bad, then the project is bad.
I had a discussion on the old Campaign for Liberty.com site a couple of years ago with one of their writers who advocated legalizing "drugs" and ending the war on drugs.
On another thread someone asked what would happen if one state legalized drugs and one state did not, which brought up one of the many points that I had brought up in my earlier discussion; Which indicated that legalizing drugs just "isn't that easy";
I will try to post many of those C4L discussions on our new web site when finished at http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc
First it is a state issue, not a federal issue within or between states; State('s - joint operations)& local citizen militia issue, not a federally controlled National Guard issue;
It is a State police issue within the state, not a military policing issue. Militias (singular or in joint operation) CAN be used to stop "smuggling" (James Madison - Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: "...would this be denied?" i.e. it wouldn't be denied; Madison also gave a reference of a occurrence to back up his point.)
The issue of a standing army requires a declaration of war; They cannot be used as "police"; Another issue of proper definitions.
The Constitution allows the federal government to define and prosecute only 4 crimes (drugs is not one of them); and cannot govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington, DC (See the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 which is one of 4 on our suggested reading list of Founders Documents - free download: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/American_Pa... also posted on the web site.
One of the issues I had brought up, was that you could make the federal government end its war on drugs; BUT you cannot force the "states" by federal law to end "their" war on drugs; Which if given to the states and local communities where it belongs, aside from possibly of marijuana, the states and local communities would probably not change the laws much.
(Here I had brought up the issue of the need to define what was a drug and what was a poison. As the definition is important in law - addictive mind altering drugs you simply will never legalize without other issues arising, a few I will summarize below)
The next problem is the attempt to make the federal government make a "federal law" that "forces the states" to legalize drugs; which is both unconstitutional as it is outside the federal authority of the constitutional compact;
Now the broader problem, if you legalize "drugs" (undefined) in the United States without forcing legalizing drugs all over the world, you will simply create a smuggling cartel(s) situation here in the states (like Columbia) to supply countries where drugs are still illegal...
Not a good thing... (the video touches only lightly on this)
Nor is Taxing drugs a solution (as some propose - like those in this film) Taxing drugs is not legalizing drugs, it simply grants exclusive privileges to the producers (like oil) and the money derived from taxes feeds larger government, regulations and dependency on the bureaucracy built upon it. It does just the opposite of what they propose;
As ALL FLAT UN-ENUMERATED TAXES "EMPOWER GOVERNMENT";
"AND" such taxation EMPOWER CORPORATIONS, UNIONS and SPECIAL INTERESTS (i.e State born exclusive privileges of cartel) by expanding government union and corporate contracts and dependency on the unlimited flow of money to government;
Such exclusive privileges should not exist in a free country as was warned by the founders; As when they do, free trade becomes "privileged trade" and freedom of contract becomes "privileged contracts";
The attempt of this film to say the unemployment and degradation of communities in the US was a drug "caused" issue, is far fetched;
More likely these communities fall into ruin when government regulations, zoning laws and the allowance of exclusive privileged entities mentioned above, stifle true free trade;
Do you see vendors in these streets? Of course not; because it is against ZONING REGULATIONS that prevent it and grant EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES to those in "COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS";
Drugs are more an an after effect of government restraint (on honest constructive trades), no hope and idle hands.
So, drug laws are bound to remain; but smaller states (republics) will reflect more accurately the will of local societies to define how they want their society to be.
See our 2008 News Letter on the APP site "Republics and Representation" http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter... which covers the smaller states and representation issue.
There are more points, but I will have to wait till I post the old article on the APP web site.
American Patriot Party.CC
RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC
John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.
i watched it a few days ago and meant to post it. my biggest problem is that this seems to be the moderate authoritarian drug warriors realizing they have lost the drug war and trying to prevent the public from totally rebelling and legalizing. listen carefully and you'll hear their solution for not ending the drug war but controlling, profiting and enslaving drug users in re-education camps. they don't call them re-education camps but they say people need to be "rehabilitated" which is the same thing. they have been shifting away from incarceration in jail to incarceration in "treatment facility's" for about 10 years now. authoritarian life long government drug testing and control is what a lot of the "reformers" in this doc are calling for. the money has slowly been shifting from jails to treatment and there is a hell of a lot more money to be made in the "forced" treatment racket. i wonder if Clinton or any of the other moderate prohibitionist are invested in the treatment industry?
Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
Is it just me or does the narrator sound like Morgan Freeman?
The narrator is Morgan Freeman.
But honestly I can't help but see a bunch of statists wanting a piece of the pie or seeking other means to control people.
Drugs should be decriminalized, but should we really let the Government regulate their use and sale? The same government that gives Monsanto and other big corporations a free permit to pillage and pollute.
No one ever mentions that the largest gang and cartels in the world are the US Military, DEA, CIA and all the other 3 letter agencies. I laugh (cry) when I see US soldiers guarding opium crops in Afghanistan while the media makes it out like these peasant farmers are terrorists and causing the problems. It is all about control of the cash. If you think our government wants to leave hundreds of billions of dollars of profit on the table think again. They control the drug supply and cash crop that enables them to finance whatever illicit wars and agendas they have around the globe while blaming it on people who are subsistence level survivors barely making out a living in a harsh environment.
It is an orchestrated system with addicts being created in the inner cities by supplying them with the drugs, which with these substances being illegal force them into being criminals, which are then subject to arrest and imprisonment, thereby growing and allowing the entire corrupt judicial system to profit at the expense of human beings. More prisons, more lobbying to keep the status quo, and all the meanwhile society degenerates further.
affect the black market or the profits. Drugs are illegal only because it allows them to control the markets, consolidate the production and distribution into fewer hands, eliminate competition and it drives up the costs and profit margins.
he knows about it personally because HIS BROTHER was addicted??? yea right... Nice try Slick Willie, I am sure that will work on the video's intended audience.
Bigger version of Vietnam.
Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.
Another DPer made a brilliant obervation a few weeks ago and I think it applies here perfectly... "This is liberal legalization and not libertarian legalization."
Liberals as a whole are frustratingly lame to the theory of "regulatory capture."
I feel like I have to explain it every time I have a debate with a liberal. They just don't believe it (or think that somehow it is a problem with corrupt individuals that can be overcome with voting instead of being inevitable consequence of the power of the institution.)
this video doesn't present the proper course of action at all. First, they only define half the problem. The other half is government complicity in the trafficking of drugs. Then, they propose a solution which only DECRIMINALIZES drugs, but doesn't make the them legal. It is just a different way of controlling people. it might be better than the current circumstances, but it is not the right solution.
War on drugs should be called war on the people.
LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15
for later watching when I'm in the right "mood" :)
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
have the courage to break the taboo. But Ron Paul broke it Big Time. And he's given about 3 whole seconds in this video (at about 35:00).
Despite that obvious flaw, a good watch!
Probably because Morgan Freeman's an asshole who thinks that Ron Paul and anyone who opposes King Obama is a racist.
No matter, this is extremely good material. No doubt it will help wake the public up.