Saturday, January 25, 2020

Legalization of Marijuana Needs to Be Reconsidered

Ed.'s note: We just thought of something while doing some background reading for this post. It seems Israel is getting all the technological advances when in America this drive to legalize marijuana will turn Americans into a complacent population of passive zombified drones "in a good mood" all good at one thing: selling hybrid strains of cannabis to each other. America getting pacified with a marijuana boom and its legalization while Israel has access to all the technological advances.

How NeoCon Billionaire Paul Singer Is Driving the Outsourcing of US Tech Jobs to Israel

Israel Leads Cannabis Technology Boom – U.S. Investors Drop $50 Million

Israel: The Epicenter of Cannabis Research and Innovation

EIR Volume 23, Number 48, November 29, 1996

Soros, Republicans push to legalize drugs

by Our Special Correspondent

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the White House director of national anti-drug policy, has pledged to lead a campaign against the fraud which was perpetrated by the backers of "medical mari­juana legalization" referenda, which were passed by the vot­ers in the states of California and Arizona. The propositions were put on the ballot with money from international specula­tor George Soros, and were championed by the Drug Policy Foundation (DPF), an organization which Soros funds.The ballot victories are a foot in the door for the drug legalization plans being championed by the secretive, free-trade Mont Pelerin Society, and its devotees among the "conservative revolutionaries" in the Republican Party. [see Mont Pelerin's hatchetman Milton Friedman and The Mont Pèlerin Society: The ultimate neoliberal Trojan horse]

"This is now a national issue," McCaffrey says, "not a California or Arizona issue.The proponents of these two ini­tiatives want to promote this in other states."

That fact was confirmed at the recent Washington, D.C. conference of the Drug Policy Foundation,the flagship of the pro-legalization movement,when DPF attorney Eric Sterling told an enthusiastic audience: "We are the drug legalization movement." Sterling and DPF chief Arnold Trebach gloated that it was DPF money and organizational support, which secured the success of the initiatives. The California ballot measure, Proposition 215, authorizes doctors to prescribe marijuana as a medicine, and the Arizona initiative, Proposi­tion 215, provides for medical legalization of an array of Schedule I drugs, including L SD and heroin.

A stalking horse for legalization

At a press conference in Washington, McCaffrey pointed out that the "medical use " label is a hoax perpetrated by the legalization movement. Shortly before the election, he said, "We were concerned that it was a hoax. It was false labeling. It was posited as a medical issue, but in fact it was opposed by the California Medical Association....What we had was no doctor's exam, no prescription for any illness, and not supported by the Food and Drug Administration and the Na­tional Institute of Health. So, we thought, it's really a stalking horse for legalization."

McCaffrey continued, "We've got an open scientific and medical process by which any drug,to include this one,could be analyzed, and if found safe and effective, would be ap­ proved for use by physicians. Cocaine, for example, is a Schedule II drug that can be used by physicians. ... Our central concern is that young people are using drugs in double the numbers from a few years ago....So we think it's a disastrous message to children....

"In Arizona, I might add, what was apparently approved was the use of heroin, methamphetamines, L SD, and other drugs, again, for allegedly medical purposes, and potentially the release of as many as 1,000 prisoners out of the state system who had been charged with 'possession' of these drugs."

At a press conference announcing his response to the vote, McCaffrey reiterated that point.'There could not be a worse message to young people than the provisions of these refer­ enda," he said."Just when the nation is trying its hardest to educate teenagers not to use psychoactive drugs, now they are being told that marijuana and other drugs are good, that they are 'medicine.' The conflict in messages is extremely harmful."

'Medical use' hoax will be exposed

The nation's top anti-drug official promised that his office will undertake a campaign to bring out "all the facts about the real impact and the real meaning of so-called 'medical' use of Schedule I drugs. A hoax has been perpetrated and will be exposed. Other states should be on guard against this dangerous development."

One of the problems with current data on drug-induced accident rates in the workplace and on the roads, is that the statistical collection procedures are driven by the interests of the commercial insurance firms, which haven't had any rea­son to gather such information. Law enforcement authorities, especially State Police traffic enforcement officers, have no systematic means of reporting the impact that marijuana and related drug use has on the accident and fatality rate nation­ally. Until now, the lack of such statistics has been used by the legalization movement as "proof' that psychoactive drugs are socially harmless. McCaffrey pledged to correct that problem.

"We will actively collect data, i.e., drug-related accident rates, teen pregnancy, work absences, hospital emergency cases, and the like, which will indicate the consequences of the referenda. By our judgment, increased drug abuse in every category will be the inevitable result of the referenda. We will inform all states."

From a legal standpoint, the referenda are in direct conflict with federal law which has established controls over these substances. A doctor may prescribe that a patient should smoke marijuana, for example, but that does not overturn federal statutes which prohibit the sale or possession of the substance. Attorney General Janet Reno and Drug Enforce­ment Administration head Thomas Constantine have empha­sized that federal law remains fully in force, and the DEA will continue its enforcement obligations.

National Drug Policy Director Barry McCaffrey: Claims that marijuana and other dangerous drugs have "medical uses" are a hoax, perpetrated by the drug legalization movement. [McCaffrey has also called President Trump a "rogue president"]

Washington officials have put out the word to local police and sheriff's departments, which vigorously opposed the referenda in both states, that they will receive full support for efforts to enforce all applicable laws, and the U.S.Department of Justice has said that when the evidence merits, it will weigh in. Attorney General Reno is now consulting with state au­thorities to determine how best to uphold the law.

Orange County Republican lemons lead dope drive

One point made by General McCaffrey in his press confer­ence deserves to be amplified if the significance of the legaliza­tion vote is to be properly understood, and that involves the apparatus which built the vote for the measure. McCaffrey notes that "advocates of a drug-free America could not com­pete with the millions of dollars of out-of-state funds raised by legalization proponents and used for very inaccurate advertis­ing.... News coverage which articulated the referenda's hid­den agenda could not compete with legalization's paid ads."

The legalization campaign was effective in neutralizing the very real concerns that voters have about drug legalization, by playing on two susceptibilities: first, the general recogni­tion that the strategy of simply trying to lock up low-level push­ers and users is a failure; and, second, there has been a persis­tent but low-key campaign, by leading conservative Republicans, to provide "respectability" for the legalization agenda. Centered in the Mont Pelerin Society, the campaign for drug legalization boasts William Buckley, Milton Fried­man, former Secretary of State George Shultz, top officials of the "conservative" think-tank the Hudson Institute, and a bevy of jurists, mostly Republicans, as its public spokesmen. The "respectability" factor was provided by two promi­nent Republican jurists from Orange County, California, who are leading the effort to recruit law enforcement officials to the cause.James P. Gray, an elected judge from Orange County (who was unopposed in the last election) who has taken the lead on this project, emphasizes that the main focus of the le­galization movement will be to "legitimize " the discussion of the issue.

A 'neutral commission'

The DPF conference was the venue for this apparatus to outline the next phase of the legalization campaign, which will key off a provision of the crime bill passed by the last Congress, which mandates the creation of a "neutral commis­sion" to examine current drug policy. Judge Gray confidently predicted that the "neutral commission " will produce an "anti­ prohibition" statement and policy recommendation.

The strategy is to approach demoralized public officials, and ask them to engage in a "dialogue" about the "failure of prohibition." The loaded terminology is the hallmark of the DPF, which is well aware that the recent Arizona and Califor­nia votes are not a mandate for legalization.

A more clinical expression of the problem,which is eating away at the Republican Party, is the example of Gniy's neigh­bor and fellow panelist, retired Federal Magistrate Volney Brown. Brown was the leader of one of the first Nixon-era federal task forces created to combat narcotics in the South­ west, and he recounted anecdotes showing that 25 years of trying to stop drugs with prosecutorial tactics have failed. On one level, he is absolutely right.

Beginning during the Nixon administration, a cadre of legal theorists-typified by Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist, Iran-Contra figure Charles Cooper, and numerous lesser known federal officials be­came the architects of a federal law enforcement apparatus which looks to the federal prosecutor, the federal "task force," and the conspiracy statutes, and not the cop on the beat, as the front line of anti-crime policy. There is no measure too draconian, no power too authoritarian, that these men, and their students, have not tried to arrogate it to the federal law enforcement apparatus. Simultaneously, they demolished the banking regulation system (in the name of "free trade" and "free markets"), which is the means by which the federal government could most effectively attack international drug­ trafficking and money-laundering organizations.

Worse, Nixon administration political operatives are now confessing to the drug legalizers, that they always conceived the "war on drugs" as a type of political theater, a useful device for pitting white voters against black voters in a cynical electoral gambit.

It was this rot in the Nixon-era policies which prompted Lyndon LaRouche to design an effective model for a "war on drugs" which hits at the international financial cartels that create and control the drug trade. Despite the honest efforts of elements of the first Reagan administration, which was catalyzed by its alliance with the LaRouche Democrats on this issue, the "war on drugs" remained a cynical slogan in Washington-a cynicism which was fueled by the criminality which flourished under George Bush, when the "secret, paral­lel" government brought massive amounts of drugs into the United States to fund their covert wars.

Many of those who are now standing up and taking re­ sponsibility for the failure of that phony anti-drug fight, were the sworn enemies of LaRouche and his allies in the Reagan administration.

The system isn't working

Demoralization is to be expected among the people who designed or implemented the flawed strategies of the war on drugs.But there is a new generation of jurists who are surrendering without a fight.Typical of these is the third jurist who spoke at the DPF conference: Pamela Alexander, a dis­trict judge from Hennipen County, Minnesota, who ruled that crack cocaine sentencing guidelines are racist, by virtue of their disparate impact on young black men. Her argument is compelling, and has caused considerable controversy, but the fact remains that the problem reflects the "body count" ap­proach to law enforcement which was pioneered by some of her fellow legalizers. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

McCaffrey has spoken clearly on the problem.In an inter­ view with the Washington Post, he said, "The disparity is, you look at who is in prison, and 48% of them are black. Thirteen percent of the nation is black, so you've got to ask yourself, why is that the case ...? When you look at the total number of arrests for drugs, the total number of people taken to trial for drugs, the total number convicted, and the number serving in prisons, the numbers don't lead one to a sense of confidence if you're a minority American, or a thinking American, that the system is working appropriately."

The proposal to rectify this problem by legalizing drugs, is the military equivalent of shooting your sentries, in order to avoid casualties from an impending attack on one's camp. It is only in the unbalanced minds of budget-cutters such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and House Majority Leader Richard Arrney (R-Tex.), that there is a contradiction between effective law enforcement, and humane treatment of addicts and drug abusers. It will be up to the American people to inform themselves, and to reject the immoral sophistry being peddled by the legalization movement.

Republican and former Speaker of the House (2011-2015) John Boehner stands to make a lot of money in the coming marijuana space. It's called a "space," didn't you know that? The "cannabis space." With Acreage Holdings.

Boehner joins marijuana advisory board 


The 15 States That Will Have Legal Marijuana by 2020, Revealed

Drug Legalization: Who Is Fooling Whom?


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who's visiting Abel Danger
view a larger version of the map below at