Tuesday, May 19, 2009

How The Drug War and War On Terrorism Has Made Us Safer

Here's a look at our legacy from two incredibly expensive wars. One a prohibition wars that makes the US government a competitor in the organized crime business and the other an endless war on a tactic.

Torture a hallmark of Phoenix's drug kidnappings
PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) -- Jaime Andrade had just gotten out of the shower when the men came to snatch him.
Jaime Andrade was kept in this closet for three days without food or water, police say.

His wife, Araceli Valencia, was mopping the kitchen in their family home on a typical warm spring morning in Phoenix, Arizona, "when she suddenly felt a hard object pointed to the back of her head and a voice in Spanish tell her not to move," according to a Phoenix, Arizona, police investigative report.

"I told you not to look at me!" Valencia heard one of the kidnappers bark as he struck Andrade across the head.

Her four children bawling, Valencia was hustled into a bedroom where an armed man fondled her and threatened to rape her if she didn't tell him where Andrade hid his money, according to the report.

After beating and binding Andrade, one of the kidnappers put a gun to Valencia's head. His message: We're taking your husband and SUV. We'll be watching your house. If you call the cops, he's a dead man.


This is the safety we're paying for. This is what we got in exchange for our government robbing us of our freedoms and constitutional rights.

We can slaughter millions of people thousands of miles away, to make life better for Halliburton, but we do it by making life at home more dangerous.

And Obama has made it clear that he intends to escalate this violence by kicking the drug war up a notch. It won't be long before Mexico's problem runs rampant through our border states. Organized crime thrives in a prohibitionary climate. The bigger the risk, the bigger the rewards, the more intense the violence.

Then there's the problem of the CIA being in the heroin smuggling business. We can't end the illegal drug trade, so we have to fight a battle for market share. the CIA backs their violent drug lords, and other nations back their violent drug lords. Innocents are caught in the middle.

Thank you Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. You've done a great job of destroying the country I love.


At 4:05 AM, Blogger Bukko_in_Australia said...

Right you are, Weas. I had, not a LOT of hope for Obama, but I at least thought he'd get things headed in a different direction. All he's doing is being a kinder, "intelli-gentler" George Bush.

We've got heroin junkies down here. I get 'em as patients from time to time, and a couple of our political/music buddies are former addicts. Oz has had stuff like North Korean ships surreptitiously offloading smack via Zodiac boats. But somehow, there's not the same level of nastiness and violence associated with drug abuse. Except the meth. Bikie gangs are getting into that. I hope it doesn't take hold here.

I say just legalise everything, have the government give it away, and if people want to kill themselves with it, at least that eliminates the dumb fucks from the gene pool. Too many people on this planet anyway. But no money in that for the cops/prisons/mafia, eh?

At 6:47 AM, Blogger Weaseldog said...

It's my belief that moving the bar on what is illegal would help a lot.

Legalize the weaker stuff. Then take a fraction of the money used to fight the war, and put that into treatment and social conditioning, ie: advertising and education.

The problem with such a plan is that spy agencies the world over make a lot of off the books income on heroin. They wouldn't have as much illicit income for which to spread murder and mayhem if that income went away. So they'll fight against legalization.

I'd personally like to see less murder and mayhem in the world, but from the perspective of my redneck relatives, I must be a little off my rocker.

The reason that I think our federal government really doesn't want to legalize pot and similar substances, is that it would be harder to generate tax revenue from it. It's too easy to grow.

Cigarettes and alcohol require more infrastructure to produce. A small backyard won't produce enough tobacco to feed a nicotine habit, and it doesn't grow well everywhere. Marijuana on the other hand, can be cultivated in large quantities, in a backyard.

If marijuana were legalized, smokers would be getting most of it for free. no taxes involved.

And further, it would probably depress alcohol sales. Most smokers I knew during my college days, didn't drink alcohol.

Like you argue, it's about protecting profits. The violence keeps the profits high. So from a federal standpoint, the goal is to make it a violent industry, to maintain a high rate of cash flow.

At 1:38 PM, Blogger Brother Tim said...

Good post, Wease, short, and to the point!

At 5:46 PM, Anonymous edgar said...

Hi weaseldog!

If the illegals started snatching usa politicians I would be okay with that. The politicians sure don't care about me.

At 5:02 PM, Anonymous edgar said...

[delicious hopey changiness!]

At 2:31 PM, Anonymous buzzsaw99 said...

Sorry, but I'm pissed off.

That's it, I'm voting for the white guy next time. Sotomayor said it herself, Latinas are better than white men. The class struggle continues, only this time it is the whites who are being discriminated against. Obama thinks he is a one man affirmative action program. The entire secret service turned black over night. A white man can't get a job on a road crew. Screw it, I didn't start this race war, the Obamination regime did. Boycott minorities.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home