Short post here, but have you watched the Ken Burns documentary about Prohibition? I have. Twice. And I was struck both times at how similar everything about Prohibition was to our current battle against Prohibition II.
Chapter 1: Prohibitionists get their way, through pushing lies about alcohol and riding on the waves of moral panic and public ignorance. They also push programs to indoctrinate schoolchildren with their lies demonizing alcohol as some kind of devil juice that will damn you with a single sip.
Chapter 2: Prohibition is in full swing, and is being enforced with draconian laws that often bulldoze right over the Constitutional rights of the citizens. As it fails, the efforts at enforcement become increasingly draconian. Organized crime gets involved in making and selling liquor. No matter how many jackboots the government sics on the public, liquor fails to disappear, and innocent lives are destroyed for nothing.
Chapter 3: Prohibition is an incredible failure and the people have finally realized it. Even many of the very Prohibitionists who lied through their teeth to get Prohibition passed have now been forced to admit it is a failure and has actually exacerbated the problem they wanted to eliminate, and these former Prohibitionists get behind the effort to repeal their once-cherished authoritarian law.
It is exciting to realize that we are actually in Chapter 3. For example, former Prohibitionists are now supporting legalization efforts, like Dr. Sanjay Gupta changing his tune and recanting all his mistakes in supporting marijuana prohibition. Not to mention the various Prohibitionist political entities I mentioned in my last post who have been backpedaling so fast about drug law reform they're tripping over their own feet--and yes, this is mostly in an effort to placate us by throwing us a meager fragment of bone from the steak they once swore we'd never get a piece of, but they were forced to do so against their will due to overwhelming and ever-increasing support for legalization.
Now if Prohibition II could be repealed as fast as Prohibition I, that would really make me smile, but unfortunately Prohibition II has seventy years of profiteering behind it to make our country stumble as much as possible on the path toward doing what's right. Why is it so easy for this country to make mistakes and so hard for it to fix those mistakes?
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Do they really think we can be so easily placated?
Is it my imagination or have the various political people and
forces that have, previously, championed the failed (and unjust) Drug
War been backpedaling rather speedily since the recent government
decision not to interfere with state legalization laws? Some days it
seems, from reading the NORML, DPA and MPP blogs, that the only thing
that seems to be happening faster than legalization measures going on
ballots (both medical and full) is various measures to loosen MMJ
restrictions, decriminalize, and/or soften draconian and racist
drug-enforcement and sentencing policies and laws—many coming from
supposedly hardline prohibitionists like Chris Christie of New York,
who once took the POV of “no way, no how, not gonna happen you
filthy stoners” to actually signing legislation to lift the
three-strain restriction on growers and even make vital medication
available to small children who need it.
Now many people on our side are still pouting about this because they realize (and correctly) that many of these don't go nearly far enough to give we, the people, what we actually want. They feel these efforts are nothing more than an attempt to create the illusion that our leaders give even half a damn about doing what the people want or doing what is right regarding the drug issue. And they are absolutely right.
But what they don't realize is that this is a good thing.
Think about it: no more than a year or two ago, prior to the historic votes in Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana, these very people laughed in the face of reforming drug laws or decriminalizing marijuana and called it a “pipe dream” (suggesting that the only reason anyone could oppose the status quo of the failed Drug War was not because of it's massive failure on both factual and moral levels but because those people were clearly “stoners” trying to “protect their illegal habit” and, by extension, trying to reinforce the myth that the Drug War was totally working and that there was no logical reason to oppose the methods of the Drug Warriors, entirely by ad hominem assault—or is it a red herring—but either way it was a logical fallacy).
Now, since the successful legalization votes in two states simultaneously, there has been serious talk about drug law reform and decriminalization being an “ideal” solution to our problems with the failed Drug War. By the Drug Warriors! Some of it has even been acted on! And especially since the historic government decision to not interfere with state legalizaiton efforts, it seems that every day I'm hearing about another area where some staunch anti-marijuana nut is green-lighting various half-measures that they thought went “too far” only years ago—like decriminalization, removing mandatory minimum sentencing, removing the huge and racist crack/cocaine disparity, and loosening many excessively tight regulations on medical marijuana access.
Why? They don't seem to be wanting to admit that marijuana is not a dangerous narcotic. They still want to maintain the fraudulent DEA drug scheduling. They still maintain all the former lies about marijuana, as well as all other illicit drugs, even as they begin to allow some grudging access to them in areas that they once considered out of the question. And it's true that even as they make these grudging half-measure concessions they are upping many of their tyrannical and unconstitutional Drug War enforcement methods—such as pushing drug testing incentives in every state that hasn't legalized in any way, and continuing their unjust raids of medical marijuana dispensaries. Why do they even bother?
Well, isn't it obvious? They know they are losing. They know that at some point in the future they will have to bite the bullet, throw in the towel, and drop their precious—and profitable—Drug War. They know they have lost the support of the public, they know the facts have finally come out about their failures and their corruptions, and that they will never again regain the glory days of Reefer Madness propaganda-fueled public ignorance and moral panic. They know there is no way back.
Yes, they are dragging their feet. But the thing is...they're still moving. The momentum of the full-legalization movement has gotten so strong and gotten so much of the population on board that they have been forced to agree to the minute half-measures we were pushing for decades ago, half-measures they had once claimed they would never, under any circumstances, consider. They are trying to negotiate with we, the people, in the hopes of preserving their unearned and undeserved profit and power by giving us some of the smaller demands we've been making since the beginning.
I do think they hope to slow us down this way. Perhaps they believe that the majority of the legalization movement will drop off once they reform a few draconian laws a bit. Perhaps they think that we will accept decriminalization as a reasonable and acceptable compromise. Perhaps they believe that most pro-legalization citizens don't really want legalization and can be bought-off by these grudging little concessions. But they cannot slow us down. They cannot cut us down. And there will be no compromise.
Perhaps they misunderstand the numbers. The numbers are not just one homogenous mass of people who generally don't support the draconian Drug War and its focus on marijuana, ranging from namby pamby “let's just reform a couple laws” and “let's just decriminalize” to the “let sick people get the medicine they need” to the full on “evil stoners” who support full-legalization. These statistics differentiate between these views. The majority isn't just for decriminalization, or for medical marijuana, with a thin stoner fringe that can be easily squashed. There is now a solid majority in most states for FULL legalization.
Or do they understand these numbers and still believe they can fight them? Their other actions suggest this, such as the ramping up of drug testing in states that are still foundering in the dark (despite a majority support for MJ legalization) like Ohio. Do they think that by stopping marijuana users from using they can somehow change those MJ users' minds about legalization and turn the clock back to Reefer Madness levels of ignorance and panic? (I wouldn't expect them to actually consider the fact that 60% to 70% of the American public—the number that support legalization—are not, in fact, stoners, because when your entire career has been built on fraud, ignorance and panic, facts are your sworn enemy.) Do they think that by making medical marijuana available to sick people they can eliminate our momentum by eliminating the most obvious of our moral arguments? After all, prior to the increasing public awareness of the myriad of medical benefits of marijuana it was the prohibitionists who had the heavy-duty emotional smokescreen argument (look at this drug user/former drug user/drug user's family/ etc, how could you not support our Drug War, by not supporting us you are turning your back on these addicts and their families and consigning millions of other people to a lifetime of addiction!), and now we have a much better one, not only emotionally gripping but supported by actual facts, unlike their claims that the Drug War is of any use in fighting addiction or helps addicts in any way rather than simply incarcerating them in private for-profit jails. Do they think that by making a few minute concessions they can distract or placate us enough to slow us down, or peel away enough of our support to perhaps pounce once we lose momentum?
I do think that part of it is that they hope to distract us. They will not distract us.
I do think that part of this is they hope to placate us. They will not placate us.
I do think that part of this is so they can slow us down. They will not slow us down.
We will not lose momentum, and the Drug Warriors big chance to pounce will never come. And I think that part of them knows this, even as they waste their time with these tiny little retreats. Those tiny little retreats will become bigger retreats, and exponentially so now, until there is no more ground they can give up and they are forced to admit their loss whether they like it or not.
So don't pout when they concede, my brothers and sisters in arms! Celebrate! Keep up the fight and don't let your guard down, but definitely celebrate because every concession is another inch of ground those Drug War bastards have been forced to give up. We are winning, and our victory is not only inevitable, is coming soon. And they can feel defeat closing on them. Their concessions are minimal and pathetic and nowhere near enough, but for the first time in forty years they are finally admitting on some level that they are being defeated, and this is evidenced by the fact that they have given any ground at all to us, that they actually are feeling forced to concede ground that was once, not too long ago, non-negotiable. We will increase our efforts and they will give more ground. They will continue to retreat until there is nowhere left to run and their precious Drug War and all its profiteering industries are dead and gone, a footnote in the history books about one of America's greatest domestic blunders.
I'm going to piss on their graves when that day comes. I hope you'll all join me.
Now many people on our side are still pouting about this because they realize (and correctly) that many of these don't go nearly far enough to give we, the people, what we actually want. They feel these efforts are nothing more than an attempt to create the illusion that our leaders give even half a damn about doing what the people want or doing what is right regarding the drug issue. And they are absolutely right.
But what they don't realize is that this is a good thing.
Think about it: no more than a year or two ago, prior to the historic votes in Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana, these very people laughed in the face of reforming drug laws or decriminalizing marijuana and called it a “pipe dream” (suggesting that the only reason anyone could oppose the status quo of the failed Drug War was not because of it's massive failure on both factual and moral levels but because those people were clearly “stoners” trying to “protect their illegal habit” and, by extension, trying to reinforce the myth that the Drug War was totally working and that there was no logical reason to oppose the methods of the Drug Warriors, entirely by ad hominem assault—or is it a red herring—but either way it was a logical fallacy).
Now, since the successful legalization votes in two states simultaneously, there has been serious talk about drug law reform and decriminalization being an “ideal” solution to our problems with the failed Drug War. By the Drug Warriors! Some of it has even been acted on! And especially since the historic government decision to not interfere with state legalizaiton efforts, it seems that every day I'm hearing about another area where some staunch anti-marijuana nut is green-lighting various half-measures that they thought went “too far” only years ago—like decriminalization, removing mandatory minimum sentencing, removing the huge and racist crack/cocaine disparity, and loosening many excessively tight regulations on medical marijuana access.
Why? They don't seem to be wanting to admit that marijuana is not a dangerous narcotic. They still want to maintain the fraudulent DEA drug scheduling. They still maintain all the former lies about marijuana, as well as all other illicit drugs, even as they begin to allow some grudging access to them in areas that they once considered out of the question. And it's true that even as they make these grudging half-measure concessions they are upping many of their tyrannical and unconstitutional Drug War enforcement methods—such as pushing drug testing incentives in every state that hasn't legalized in any way, and continuing their unjust raids of medical marijuana dispensaries. Why do they even bother?
Well, isn't it obvious? They know they are losing. They know that at some point in the future they will have to bite the bullet, throw in the towel, and drop their precious—and profitable—Drug War. They know they have lost the support of the public, they know the facts have finally come out about their failures and their corruptions, and that they will never again regain the glory days of Reefer Madness propaganda-fueled public ignorance and moral panic. They know there is no way back.
Yes, they are dragging their feet. But the thing is...they're still moving. The momentum of the full-legalization movement has gotten so strong and gotten so much of the population on board that they have been forced to agree to the minute half-measures we were pushing for decades ago, half-measures they had once claimed they would never, under any circumstances, consider. They are trying to negotiate with we, the people, in the hopes of preserving their unearned and undeserved profit and power by giving us some of the smaller demands we've been making since the beginning.
I do think they hope to slow us down this way. Perhaps they believe that the majority of the legalization movement will drop off once they reform a few draconian laws a bit. Perhaps they think that we will accept decriminalization as a reasonable and acceptable compromise. Perhaps they believe that most pro-legalization citizens don't really want legalization and can be bought-off by these grudging little concessions. But they cannot slow us down. They cannot cut us down. And there will be no compromise.
Perhaps they misunderstand the numbers. The numbers are not just one homogenous mass of people who generally don't support the draconian Drug War and its focus on marijuana, ranging from namby pamby “let's just reform a couple laws” and “let's just decriminalize” to the “let sick people get the medicine they need” to the full on “evil stoners” who support full-legalization. These statistics differentiate between these views. The majority isn't just for decriminalization, or for medical marijuana, with a thin stoner fringe that can be easily squashed. There is now a solid majority in most states for FULL legalization.
Or do they understand these numbers and still believe they can fight them? Their other actions suggest this, such as the ramping up of drug testing in states that are still foundering in the dark (despite a majority support for MJ legalization) like Ohio. Do they think that by stopping marijuana users from using they can somehow change those MJ users' minds about legalization and turn the clock back to Reefer Madness levels of ignorance and panic? (I wouldn't expect them to actually consider the fact that 60% to 70% of the American public—the number that support legalization—are not, in fact, stoners, because when your entire career has been built on fraud, ignorance and panic, facts are your sworn enemy.) Do they think that by making medical marijuana available to sick people they can eliminate our momentum by eliminating the most obvious of our moral arguments? After all, prior to the increasing public awareness of the myriad of medical benefits of marijuana it was the prohibitionists who had the heavy-duty emotional smokescreen argument (look at this drug user/former drug user/drug user's family/ etc, how could you not support our Drug War, by not supporting us you are turning your back on these addicts and their families and consigning millions of other people to a lifetime of addiction!), and now we have a much better one, not only emotionally gripping but supported by actual facts, unlike their claims that the Drug War is of any use in fighting addiction or helps addicts in any way rather than simply incarcerating them in private for-profit jails. Do they think that by making a few minute concessions they can distract or placate us enough to slow us down, or peel away enough of our support to perhaps pounce once we lose momentum?
I do think that part of it is that they hope to distract us. They will not distract us.
I do think that part of this is they hope to placate us. They will not placate us.
I do think that part of this is so they can slow us down. They will not slow us down.
We will not lose momentum, and the Drug Warriors big chance to pounce will never come. And I think that part of them knows this, even as they waste their time with these tiny little retreats. Those tiny little retreats will become bigger retreats, and exponentially so now, until there is no more ground they can give up and they are forced to admit their loss whether they like it or not.
So don't pout when they concede, my brothers and sisters in arms! Celebrate! Keep up the fight and don't let your guard down, but definitely celebrate because every concession is another inch of ground those Drug War bastards have been forced to give up. We are winning, and our victory is not only inevitable, is coming soon. And they can feel defeat closing on them. Their concessions are minimal and pathetic and nowhere near enough, but for the first time in forty years they are finally admitting on some level that they are being defeated, and this is evidenced by the fact that they have given any ground at all to us, that they actually are feeling forced to concede ground that was once, not too long ago, non-negotiable. We will increase our efforts and they will give more ground. They will continue to retreat until there is nowhere left to run and their precious Drug War and all its profiteering industries are dead and gone, a footnote in the history books about one of America's greatest domestic blunders.
I'm going to piss on their graves when that day comes. I hope you'll all join me.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Drug War/Drug Testing in Pop Culture Part 2: Sly Cooper: Band of Thieves
Remember the PS2 game "Sly Cooper"?
I not only remember it, I still play it. In particular, the best game IMO, which was the second one "Sly Cooper: Band of Thieves". It was amazing fun, with an interesting storyline, fun story-based challenges, and best of all, the optional challenge of finding 30 "clue" bottles in every overall open-ended chapter environment. Plus you could just wander around and pick the pockets of the various guards if you wanted and build up some loot to use later--or just because you want to go around playing a game where you run around on your own terms and pick pockets as you please with no particular goal, whatever you like.
But there was one thing about it that both irks me and makes me laugh, and that is the Drug War element of the plot. It's clear that the game-producers really wanted to have some kind of gritty drug-trade-based storyline but couldn't do it directly because, despite the fact that it's a game about a master thief and his thieving buddies who come in constant contact with criminal villainous types, it's-also a cartoony and light-hearted game directed at children. Enter "spice".
You see, one constantly recurring theme in the plot was this plant-based substance known as "spice", that is clearly a euphemism for drugs. Presumably some kind of really hard drug, since at some point they directly refer to this plant as causing "insane violent rages" in those who use it, and the only people who still believe that about marijuana are the chowder-heads who still think "Reefer Madness" was fair and accurate. I swear, every time any character uttered this coy euphemism--with the comical levels of melodramatic doom usually reserved for vaudeville--my late brother and I would fall about laughing our guts out. (Yes, I know that there is supposed to be some kind of drug called "spice" now, but I think this pre-dated it, or at least pre-dated widespread awareness of it, otherwise why would they use the word as a euphemism to make it acceptable for children?)
And seriously, who ever took a drug where the only result was "insane violent rage"? Even alcohol which is legal and, depending on the circumstances and user, can make a person violent, is not imbibed strictly for its violence-inducing properties. Any "insane violent rages" induced by any drug are a side-effect, and I've never heard of a drug where it was an inevitability or else you wouldn't have to pretend to need to drug test to find people who were using--they'd all already be in jail for assault! I rather suspect that the same thing is at work here that is at work at all "anti-drug" messages aimed at children--to take one negative result of a particular kind of drug use, extrapolate from that to all users, and present this to the children as the single and solitary result of taking any drug--and, by extension, the single and solitary reason anyone takes drugs. Because if you told them the real reason people end up trying drugs INCLUDING alcohol (which is the "high"), you might intrigue them enough to want to try it.
And since you're presenting all illicit drugs in this category and in this light, at some point the kids will try marijuana, they will know the older generation has lied through their teeth about it, and assume at that point that maybe cocaine or heroine or some harder drug is equally harmless.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy this game and play it every year or so. (Ironically enough, its particularly fun when you're buzzed on some rum or vodka--you can just pick pockets for hours and if you get caught, you don't care, you're running and laughing, and I can only imagine how it might be to play it after a puff of MJ!) But every time I play it I can't help but look forward to the day when Drug War references like this will be looked at as a quaint and curious relic of one of the mistakes of the older generations, the way old Prohibition I propaganda is regarded today.
That will be sweet. Let's make it happen, people!
I not only remember it, I still play it. In particular, the best game IMO, which was the second one "Sly Cooper: Band of Thieves". It was amazing fun, with an interesting storyline, fun story-based challenges, and best of all, the optional challenge of finding 30 "clue" bottles in every overall open-ended chapter environment. Plus you could just wander around and pick the pockets of the various guards if you wanted and build up some loot to use later--or just because you want to go around playing a game where you run around on your own terms and pick pockets as you please with no particular goal, whatever you like.
But there was one thing about it that both irks me and makes me laugh, and that is the Drug War element of the plot. It's clear that the game-producers really wanted to have some kind of gritty drug-trade-based storyline but couldn't do it directly because, despite the fact that it's a game about a master thief and his thieving buddies who come in constant contact with criminal villainous types, it's-also a cartoony and light-hearted game directed at children. Enter "spice".
You see, one constantly recurring theme in the plot was this plant-based substance known as "spice", that is clearly a euphemism for drugs. Presumably some kind of really hard drug, since at some point they directly refer to this plant as causing "insane violent rages" in those who use it, and the only people who still believe that about marijuana are the chowder-heads who still think "Reefer Madness" was fair and accurate. I swear, every time any character uttered this coy euphemism--with the comical levels of melodramatic doom usually reserved for vaudeville--my late brother and I would fall about laughing our guts out. (Yes, I know that there is supposed to be some kind of drug called "spice" now, but I think this pre-dated it, or at least pre-dated widespread awareness of it, otherwise why would they use the word as a euphemism to make it acceptable for children?)
And seriously, who ever took a drug where the only result was "insane violent rage"? Even alcohol which is legal and, depending on the circumstances and user, can make a person violent, is not imbibed strictly for its violence-inducing properties. Any "insane violent rages" induced by any drug are a side-effect, and I've never heard of a drug where it was an inevitability or else you wouldn't have to pretend to need to drug test to find people who were using--they'd all already be in jail for assault! I rather suspect that the same thing is at work here that is at work at all "anti-drug" messages aimed at children--to take one negative result of a particular kind of drug use, extrapolate from that to all users, and present this to the children as the single and solitary result of taking any drug--and, by extension, the single and solitary reason anyone takes drugs. Because if you told them the real reason people end up trying drugs INCLUDING alcohol (which is the "high"), you might intrigue them enough to want to try it.
And since you're presenting all illicit drugs in this category and in this light, at some point the kids will try marijuana, they will know the older generation has lied through their teeth about it, and assume at that point that maybe cocaine or heroine or some harder drug is equally harmless.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy this game and play it every year or so. (Ironically enough, its particularly fun when you're buzzed on some rum or vodka--you can just pick pockets for hours and if you get caught, you don't care, you're running and laughing, and I can only imagine how it might be to play it after a puff of MJ!) But every time I play it I can't help but look forward to the day when Drug War references like this will be looked at as a quaint and curious relic of one of the mistakes of the older generations, the way old Prohibition I propaganda is regarded today.
That will be sweet. Let's make it happen, people!
Friday, September 20, 2013
Opposing the Drug War and having fun!
Here's something funny: a Nostalgia Critic review of old Drug War PSA's! It's amazing how FAIL all of them are, especially the one that with the mixed message, where it sounds like a pro-drug use PSA instead. "Drugs drugs drugs--hooray!" I rather think that people who support the Drug War deliberately avoid knowing any and all actual information about drugs and instead just take the often-fraudulent snippets from various "drugs 'r' bad, m'kay" speeches they've heard from supposed "authorities" (mostly people who stand to directly profit from the Drug War) and feel that is more than enough knowledge of the subject to be able to adequately discuss it with...well anyone, but especially children. It's like they have no idea the actual cause and/or scope of the drug problem, and figure throwing a lot of pop culture at the problem will do what years upon years of increasingly militaristic enforcement have failed at and, as with the anti-drug programs at schools, they end up producing something that will do the exact opposite of what they intended. It's almost as if you need to know what you're talking about to successfully discuss an issue! Amazing! Who would have thunk it?
Why is it when people are selling a lie like the Drug War, they fail so spectacularly? From the active liars and profiteers at the top of the Drug War to the well-meaning but misinformed peons on our level, there is always so much unintentional hilarity produced by these people. At least, I look forward to the day when it genuinely will be an unintentionally hilarious relic of our benighted past instead of a reminder of a war on the American public that has destroyed countless lives and may continue for another ten years before the stake can finally be driven into its heart.
But there I go again, getting dark. Time to smile!
(Linked above for anyone who can't see embedded video.)
Why is it when people are selling a lie like the Drug War, they fail so spectacularly? From the active liars and profiteers at the top of the Drug War to the well-meaning but misinformed peons on our level, there is always so much unintentional hilarity produced by these people. At least, I look forward to the day when it genuinely will be an unintentionally hilarious relic of our benighted past instead of a reminder of a war on the American public that has destroyed countless lives and may continue for another ten years before the stake can finally be driven into its heart.
But there I go again, getting dark. Time to smile!
(Linked above for anyone who can't see embedded video.)
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Marijuana use leads to biblical flooding disasters!
Did you hear about the crazy flooding that's gone on in Colorado, within days of the feds saying they won't challenge the legalization efforts in the states?
I'm seriously surprised the Drug War proponents haven't seized on this yet, as a "direct" result of marijuana use/legalization. They've been doing so much outright lying about the inevitable legalization of marijuana that this wouldn't be totally out of character for them.
After all, they seriously expect us to believe that we'll return to their scam Drug War and all it's various ineffective and militaristic universal-criminalization methods once we see the "terrible toll" legal MJ will supposedly cause. Including a claim that we'll see more traffic accidents, despite the fact that studies have shown that states with legal medical MJ have no more or less traffic accidents but far less FATAL traffic accidents than in places where it's entirely illegal. And they seriously expect us to believe their fearmongering lies, as if we are of the same mind as the people of the "Reefer Madness" generation who actually believe to this day the lies in that "documentary".
Why not go all the way with this, Drug War Profiteers? You're already lying without a hint of shame to a country that knows you're lying. You're already generating all manner of outright untruths in a futile attempt to regain what you had in the glory days of old, before the public knew you were liars and crooks and charlatans. Why not try and blame this on the marijuana legalization efforts and try to use that loophole the feds left to jump in and neutralize the will of the people in Colorado--and then Washington and then any other states that have the audacity to come between you and your ill-gotten profit? Hell, try the religious angle ("God is angry that you made marijuana legal--He created that plant specifically so the Godly could use it to criminalize those who defy them...or have the wrong color skin, of course.")
I really am surprised I haven't heard any attempts to tie this into the legalization effort. I wouldn't put it past the Drug Warriors, given their many dishonest little tantrums they've been having since the 2012 election.
I'm seriously surprised the Drug War proponents haven't seized on this yet, as a "direct" result of marijuana use/legalization. They've been doing so much outright lying about the inevitable legalization of marijuana that this wouldn't be totally out of character for them.
After all, they seriously expect us to believe that we'll return to their scam Drug War and all it's various ineffective and militaristic universal-criminalization methods once we see the "terrible toll" legal MJ will supposedly cause. Including a claim that we'll see more traffic accidents, despite the fact that studies have shown that states with legal medical MJ have no more or less traffic accidents but far less FATAL traffic accidents than in places where it's entirely illegal. And they seriously expect us to believe their fearmongering lies, as if we are of the same mind as the people of the "Reefer Madness" generation who actually believe to this day the lies in that "documentary".
Why not go all the way with this, Drug War Profiteers? You're already lying without a hint of shame to a country that knows you're lying. You're already generating all manner of outright untruths in a futile attempt to regain what you had in the glory days of old, before the public knew you were liars and crooks and charlatans. Why not try and blame this on the marijuana legalization efforts and try to use that loophole the feds left to jump in and neutralize the will of the people in Colorado--and then Washington and then any other states that have the audacity to come between you and your ill-gotten profit? Hell, try the religious angle ("God is angry that you made marijuana legal--He created that plant specifically so the Godly could use it to criminalize those who defy them...or have the wrong color skin, of course.")
I really am surprised I haven't heard any attempts to tie this into the legalization effort. I wouldn't put it past the Drug Warriors, given their many dishonest little tantrums they've been having since the 2012 election.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Why has no one made this connection yet? (The REAL "gateway" involved in marijuana)
I just had a thought.
It's already been established time and time again that companies that drug test their employees have lower rates of productivity (unless you want to go by the biased Marlboro-style industry-funded research that always states that always conclude that drug testing is the best thing ever to happen to American business). The mechanism for this is usually worker morale, that employees who feel respected, valued and trusted by their employers do superior work to employees in companies where they are treated with contempt by the management (to the point of having no physical privacy rights, being openly called criminals and being forced to subject themselves to constant humiliating and invasive physical searches to "prove" their innocence only to have to prove it again the next day if the employer demands it.) I am not denying this either; the fact that employer respect correlates to worker morale correlates to higher productivity is also well-established, as is the fact that people perform poorly when subjected to constant surveillance.
But here's what I was thinking today.
It's been established (again, by all the non-biased research) that people who smoke marijuana tend to be more productive than people who do not. And now it's been established (again, by all non-biased research) that companies that drug test have fewer marijuana users but a hell of a lot more cocaine users. As my late brother once told me, he thought I was mad and that drug testing was an important part of ensuring workplace safety and productivity, right up until he started working at a warehouse with a robust "your piss and your body is company property subject to constant surveillance" policy and found himself for the first time constantly surrounded by glassy-eyed co-workers who were clearly in the grip of some hard drug like cocaine while working on the heavy machinery. Drug testing programs target marijuana primarily, as that is the only drug they have more than the most forlorn hope of ever catching, since the hard drugs clean out of the system within a day or two, metabolites and all, and so marijuana accounts for about 98% of all positive tests--which means if your company tests for four drugs and marijuana, a common policy layout, they will have to catch 200 drug users to net one positive for every non-marijuana drug, and the other 196 users will be marijuana users. Which means that catching hard drug users with suspicionless drug tests is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Which means both that marijuana users are increasingly being pushed into using harder drugs that are more difficult to catch AND that cocaine/heroine/hard drug users, including those who will come to work under the influence, have a better chance of getting hired to begin with and staying employed than people who smoke harmless marijuana responsibly off the clock no differently than someone having a cold beer at home.
So why has no one put these ideas together logically? Why has no one added this evidence of drug testing driving up hard drug usage rates as a possible reason that companies that do not drug test have higher productivity rates? Not to crowd out the psychological evidence that workers who feel respected, valued and trusted do better work and that that will have a significant effect on the productivity of a company, but it's becoming clear that drug testing programs are making hard drug users more employable than marijuana users and, in this way, prodding a lot of incredibly productive marijuana users into using harder drugs that are actually harmful and addictive.
Once again, any elements of marijauna that could make it a "gateway" to other more harmful drugs are a direct result of the failed Drug War and it's methods and have nothing to do with any inherent properties of this amazing plant. This, of course, has been observed, but for some reason the role of drug testing in this has been overlooked. The Drug War and its various dishonest profiteers, especially in the drug testing industry, have been responsible for creating the problem they pretend to be solving, and then sell us more fraudulent "solutions" that, far worse than mere ineffectual snake oil or placebo, actually make the problem much bigger.
Drug testing is the REAL "gateway drug". Legalize marijuana, eliminate the various failed Drug War techniques like drug testing, and see how much better things get. It will happen, and they know it, which is why we're seeing these tantrums. I look forward to pissing on the grave of the drug testing industry, an industry that it turns out is directly responsible for millions of harmless marijuana users becoming addicted to hard drugs and, in some cases, going to an early grave. I look forward to that industry meeting its end, and it will not be missed.
It's already been established time and time again that companies that drug test their employees have lower rates of productivity (unless you want to go by the biased Marlboro-style industry-funded research that always states that always conclude that drug testing is the best thing ever to happen to American business). The mechanism for this is usually worker morale, that employees who feel respected, valued and trusted by their employers do superior work to employees in companies where they are treated with contempt by the management (to the point of having no physical privacy rights, being openly called criminals and being forced to subject themselves to constant humiliating and invasive physical searches to "prove" their innocence only to have to prove it again the next day if the employer demands it.) I am not denying this either; the fact that employer respect correlates to worker morale correlates to higher productivity is also well-established, as is the fact that people perform poorly when subjected to constant surveillance.
But here's what I was thinking today.
It's been established (again, by all the non-biased research) that people who smoke marijuana tend to be more productive than people who do not. And now it's been established (again, by all non-biased research) that companies that drug test have fewer marijuana users but a hell of a lot more cocaine users. As my late brother once told me, he thought I was mad and that drug testing was an important part of ensuring workplace safety and productivity, right up until he started working at a warehouse with a robust "your piss and your body is company property subject to constant surveillance" policy and found himself for the first time constantly surrounded by glassy-eyed co-workers who were clearly in the grip of some hard drug like cocaine while working on the heavy machinery. Drug testing programs target marijuana primarily, as that is the only drug they have more than the most forlorn hope of ever catching, since the hard drugs clean out of the system within a day or two, metabolites and all, and so marijuana accounts for about 98% of all positive tests--which means if your company tests for four drugs and marijuana, a common policy layout, they will have to catch 200 drug users to net one positive for every non-marijuana drug, and the other 196 users will be marijuana users. Which means that catching hard drug users with suspicionless drug tests is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Which means both that marijuana users are increasingly being pushed into using harder drugs that are more difficult to catch AND that cocaine/heroine/hard drug users, including those who will come to work under the influence, have a better chance of getting hired to begin with and staying employed than people who smoke harmless marijuana responsibly off the clock no differently than someone having a cold beer at home.
So why has no one put these ideas together logically? Why has no one added this evidence of drug testing driving up hard drug usage rates as a possible reason that companies that do not drug test have higher productivity rates? Not to crowd out the psychological evidence that workers who feel respected, valued and trusted do better work and that that will have a significant effect on the productivity of a company, but it's becoming clear that drug testing programs are making hard drug users more employable than marijuana users and, in this way, prodding a lot of incredibly productive marijuana users into using harder drugs that are actually harmful and addictive.
Once again, any elements of marijauna that could make it a "gateway" to other more harmful drugs are a direct result of the failed Drug War and it's methods and have nothing to do with any inherent properties of this amazing plant. This, of course, has been observed, but for some reason the role of drug testing in this has been overlooked. The Drug War and its various dishonest profiteers, especially in the drug testing industry, have been responsible for creating the problem they pretend to be solving, and then sell us more fraudulent "solutions" that, far worse than mere ineffectual snake oil or placebo, actually make the problem much bigger.
Drug testing is the REAL "gateway drug". Legalize marijuana, eliminate the various failed Drug War techniques like drug testing, and see how much better things get. It will happen, and they know it, which is why we're seeing these tantrums. I look forward to pissing on the grave of the drug testing industry, an industry that it turns out is directly responsible for millions of harmless marijuana users becoming addicted to hard drugs and, in some cases, going to an early grave. I look forward to that industry meeting its end, and it will not be missed.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Drug Testing's Liars Part 1: The Shameless Liar
Allow me to introduce you to
Susan Ramsden. She's one of Drug Testing's Liars and, believe me, she is shameless.
From “Drug Testing’s NegativeResults”
(may require free signup, but it's worth it):
“The drug-testing industry generally treats these reports with scorn. It advises doubters, in effect, to value the drug testers’ experiences on the front lines above dry, abstract studies and, above all, to consider just who is making the arguments against them. Susan Ramsden, a forensic toxicologist who is founder and president of Comprehensive Medical Center, a drug-testing service in Sacramento, California, says that whatever the national statistics happen to show, she does business in what she believes to be the illegal amphetamine production and consumption capital of the world, parts of Northern California."If I go into warehouses, small construction companies or temp agencies that use day labor, we’ll have as high as a 30 percent positive drug rate," Ramsden says. "When I get a call from a business owner, saying, ‘Oh my God, I just was told we have a problem,’ or ‘I’ve just found some drugs,’ I’ve sometimes found 100 percent of his employees positive for amphetamines."
What a liar! You seriously
expect me to not only ignore what the actual data shows in favor of
your “stories from the front line” anecdotes (after years of
spreading false data to promote your dishonest trade and encouraging
people to look at “the facts” about drug testing, now you want
people to ignore them because the actual facts are starting to
emerge), but to believe that you not only found “100 percent of
employees” testing positive at all, but that they all test positive
for the EXACT SAME DRUG? Despite the fact that the vast majority of
illicit drug users are using marijuana and the fact that the majority
of positive drug tests are for marijuana, not to mention that there
are plenty of other illicit drugs, you expect anyone to believe that
your supposed anecdotal 100% result was entirely homogenous?
And THEN you expect us to believe
you’ve had that result MULTIPLE TIMES?
Listen, Susie, I know your entire
industry has been based on lies, deliberately skewed data, moral
panic and public ignorance, but I can't help but feel that you are
now being dishonest to yourself, if you can say those things with a
straight face and expect anyone to believe you. I know your entire
industry is based on ignorance of the facts, but ignorance is not
stupidity. You, like the rest of the liars in the drug testing
industry, seem to have gotten complacent and seem to have conflated
those two ideas (stupidity and ignorance) as if they were
interchangable, but they are not. You seem to have forgotten that
public support, or at least acceptance, of your industry is based on
the public simply not knowing the facts (ignorance) and not based on
the public being mindless mouth-breathing simpletons who would stick
their head in the toilet if you told them there was magic world of
marshmallows in there (stupid). You seem to have forgotten that you
have to strike that delicate balance of vague lies based on
deliberately skewed data to maintain your scam. You've gotten so
careless, thinking yourself untouchable, that you are now bleating
obvious untruths that anyone with a modicum of logic could unravel in
an instant. (Seriously, I've run your story by various people who
all opened their eyes wide in amazement and pronounced your “I've
found 100 percent workforce on a single hard drug more than once!”
story to be clear, abject bullshit.
Everyone knows that there is
exactly ZERO chance that any workforce would turn out 100% positive
drug test results, either once or multiple times, and there is
exactly ZERO chance that even if it managed to happen even once,
against all odds, that every single individual would be getting high
on the same substance, and it's even less likely that it would be a
hard drug (as hard drug use is directly correlated with having a drug
testing program, while MJ users are more prevalent in companies that
respect their workers' physical privacy and human rights—and
companies that don't drug test also have higher productivity rates,
another thing that unbiased—ie: not bought and paid for by your
dishonest lying industry—has shown time and time again, not to
mention the fact that marijuana use dwarfs all other drug use in this
country). Not to mention the fact that a company that had a
workforce with 100% addiction rates for hard drugs would not have
lasted long enough for you to ply your dark trade on their employees'
flesh. And there is ZERO chance that, even if it happened once against all odds, it would happen more than once, much less the multiple times you so coyly suggest.
And again, I can't emphasize this
enough, observe how the drug testing industry has changed its colors
in such a way that shows they are a scam and they know it. When they
were deliberately skewing the data and cooking the statistics and
lying outright in their bought-and-paid-for Marlboro-style “studies”
and “research”, they wanted you to pay attention to the so-called
“dry abstract studies”--but now that people are becoming aware
that all the legitimate research—the actual science—is in fact
showing your industry not only doesn't work but actually causes
increased rates of hard drug use, you want to try and hand-wave that
away and pretend it doesn't matter, because you have “experiences”
that totally disprove “whatever the statistics say”. Sure, the
accepted statistics only count when they're propping up your
fraudulent industry and putting money in your pocket.
And then there is the sheer unmitigated gall that her kind has to say "consider just who is
making the arguments against [the drug testing industry]" when this can happen:
The drug screens used by most companies are not reliable. These tests yield false positive results at least 10 percent, and possibly as much as 30 percent, of the time. Experts concede that the tests are unreliable. At a recent conference, 120 forensic scientists, including some who worked for manufacturers of drug tests, were asked, "Is there anybody who would submit urine for drug testing if his career, reputation, freedom or livelihood depended on it?" Not a single hand was raised.[ACLU Briefing Paper No. 5: Drug Testing in the Workplace]
You have a lot of nerve to expect us to believe your spin anymore. You people, you forensic scientist drug testing shills, know you're peddling snake oil and, like Romney in a closed-door meeting of rich American aristocrats feeling he can speak freely, you admit to each other in private what you would never admit to John or Jane American. I can't think of a better definition of charlatan than that.
It's true, though. People need to consider the source. Only rather than "consider just who is
making the arguments against [the drug testing industry]" they need to instead "consider just who is
making the arguments IN FAVOR OF [the drug testing industry]". There, FIFY. Because the biggest and most damaging falsehoods are coming from evil corporate shills like you, who stand to lose billions if people knew the facts about the Drug War profiteering scam you've been running on our bodies for over thirty years. Those of us arguing against you are honest, decent, hardworking citizens who value our civil and human rights, including our right to privacy--especially our right to our intimate bodily privacy, and the only thing we stand to gain by arguing against your kind is the restoration of those rights--and what's more, we have the facts on our side. No amount of demonizing opponents of drug testing as "mindless addicts protecting their illegal habit" is going to save your industry from what is coming, when you have nothing but air-spun untruths to back up your claims. Air-spun untruths that come from a single disreputable source, at that (purchased "scientific" data).
Look, I’m not “calling” you
a con artist per se, but you are certainly using the same techniques that a
con artist uses. I am calling you a damned liar though. You, Susan
Ramsden, are a liar and a loser, like all your colleagues in the drug
testing industry, and your kind is on its way out now that people are
starting to see past your lies. Legalization will be the final nail in your industry's coffin, and you know it. I hope you enjoyed your ill-gotten
undeserved and unearned profit and power while it lasted, liar. You should be ashamed to lie the way you do, and the fact that you don't seem to be ashamed is a testimony to your low character. Yourkind
will not be missed.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Drug War/Drug Testing in Popular Culture Part 1: The Ghostbusters Game
Let me tell you something about me. I love The Ghostbusters. I love Ghostbusters big time. Ray is my favorite, and Egon is probably next--a big factor of that is probably because Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis created it, and also because Dan Akroyd is hot, shut up. And I have played the game through several times and am finally trying for the "Are You A God" achievement for the first time--while Bioshock Infinite sits half-played on my shelf. I just can't get sick of anything Ghostbusters. Believe me, I've tried.
Which is why one line in the Civil War Exhibit section of the Museum level is like nails on a chalkboard down my spine every time I hear it. If you've played it, you probably know what I'm talking about. It's that line, shouted by Winston while you and the Ghostbusters bust an ongoing ghostly Civil War battle, that goes, "It couldn't have been the American Revolutionary War, could it? Or the War of Roses. Even the War on Drugs! It had to be THIS one!"
HA HA HA HA HA HA...oh, no wait. That's not funny. At least, it isn't if you're aware of the fact that the War on Drugs is effectively the most recent continuation of the values of the South in the Civil War, and possibly the most successful attempt to return to those halcyon days of enslavement of black people for white profit. And to put those words into the mouth of Winston, a black man living in New York City, where blacks and latinos make up about 45% of the city's drug users but represent over 80% of drug incarcerations due to various racist applications of Drug War policies such as the recently neutralized (here's hoping) "Stop and Frisk" laws, where minority schoolchildren are funneled into the prison system in the "School to Prison pipeline" in an effort to ensure that as many minorities as possible will enter adulthood with criminal records that will guarantee their futures as career prisoners, where those prisoners are then put in prison, often private for-profit prisons wherein prisoner labor is used for commercial profit...well, words simply don't exist to sufficiently express my disgust.
The War on Drugs is an enabling policy of modern day slavery on modern day plantations. It is a return to the days when predominantly black labor is used to enrich predominantly white people--the fact that this time, there are a few white faces in the sea of human livestock means nothing, as the rich white Drug War supporters are more than happy to throw a few of their own on the grenade if they can get rich,but the primary target is minorities, because it's easier to get people to ignore the pain of people who look different from the majority, especially if you can use misinformation about drugs and tie it to misinformation about minorities to convince that majority that "those people" are just suffering their "just deserts" for being so evil. The Drug War is a thinly veiled modern-day extension of the institution of slavery from the Civil War, and to have a black character, suggest that this newer institution, wherein people who exist today are currently suffering, is preferable to the Civil War and nineteenth century southern slavery which, as terrible and unconscionable and utterly wrong as it was, is over--and to have him express this preference in such a way that it is suggested that the two are mutually exclusive, unconnected to one another, and that the former is not the continuation of the latter--well, that is the kind of thing a privileged and sheltered white idiot would say. Or a privileged and sheltered token black person. In either case, someone who is entirely ignorant of the facts. Or a complete traitor who doesn't care because their own private gravy train is set. It's exactly the kind of dumbshit thing I would have said many years ago before I stopped assuming I knew what was going on and actually bothered to shut up and listen and learn. I'm not proud of that, but I did learn, and a lot of other people need to do likewise in this country. Believe me, it's not as hard as they say it is to admit you were wrong, America! Especially when you can do something to fix your mistakes!
Please, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis, please don't make me think that Winston is not just a Token Black Guy but a conservative Republican Token Black Guy toboot--a total sellout and a tool. And please don't make me think that, failing that, Winston is somehow ignorant of how the majority of the toll of the failed Drug War has fallen on minorities, especially black Americans, and how it is nothing more than a front for racist economic and social policies? You spent so much time developing your three white guys to the point where a single episode of The Real Ghostbusters told me more about WHO Winston was as a person than two whole Ghostbusters movies, and now you're starting to give him a bit more development--even making him an educated man rather than the "help"!--and you have to ruin it by making him say something boneheaded and ignorant--or dare I say it, reeking of white privilege--like this?
Pretty please with sugar on top?
Which is why one line in the Civil War Exhibit section of the Museum level is like nails on a chalkboard down my spine every time I hear it. If you've played it, you probably know what I'm talking about. It's that line, shouted by Winston while you and the Ghostbusters bust an ongoing ghostly Civil War battle, that goes, "It couldn't have been the American Revolutionary War, could it? Or the War of Roses. Even the War on Drugs! It had to be THIS one!"
HA HA HA HA HA HA...oh, no wait. That's not funny. At least, it isn't if you're aware of the fact that the War on Drugs is effectively the most recent continuation of the values of the South in the Civil War, and possibly the most successful attempt to return to those halcyon days of enslavement of black people for white profit. And to put those words into the mouth of Winston, a black man living in New York City, where blacks and latinos make up about 45% of the city's drug users but represent over 80% of drug incarcerations due to various racist applications of Drug War policies such as the recently neutralized (here's hoping) "Stop and Frisk" laws, where minority schoolchildren are funneled into the prison system in the "School to Prison pipeline" in an effort to ensure that as many minorities as possible will enter adulthood with criminal records that will guarantee their futures as career prisoners, where those prisoners are then put in prison, often private for-profit prisons wherein prisoner labor is used for commercial profit...well, words simply don't exist to sufficiently express my disgust.
The War on Drugs is an enabling policy of modern day slavery on modern day plantations. It is a return to the days when predominantly black labor is used to enrich predominantly white people--the fact that this time, there are a few white faces in the sea of human livestock means nothing, as the rich white Drug War supporters are more than happy to throw a few of their own on the grenade if they can get rich,but the primary target is minorities, because it's easier to get people to ignore the pain of people who look different from the majority, especially if you can use misinformation about drugs and tie it to misinformation about minorities to convince that majority that "those people" are just suffering their "just deserts" for being so evil. The Drug War is a thinly veiled modern-day extension of the institution of slavery from the Civil War, and to have a black character, suggest that this newer institution, wherein people who exist today are currently suffering, is preferable to the Civil War and nineteenth century southern slavery which, as terrible and unconscionable and utterly wrong as it was, is over--and to have him express this preference in such a way that it is suggested that the two are mutually exclusive, unconnected to one another, and that the former is not the continuation of the latter--well, that is the kind of thing a privileged and sheltered white idiot would say. Or a privileged and sheltered token black person. In either case, someone who is entirely ignorant of the facts. Or a complete traitor who doesn't care because their own private gravy train is set. It's exactly the kind of dumbshit thing I would have said many years ago before I stopped assuming I knew what was going on and actually bothered to shut up and listen and learn. I'm not proud of that, but I did learn, and a lot of other people need to do likewise in this country. Believe me, it's not as hard as they say it is to admit you were wrong, America! Especially when you can do something to fix your mistakes!
Please, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis, please don't make me think that Winston is not just a Token Black Guy but a conservative Republican Token Black Guy toboot--a total sellout and a tool. And please don't make me think that, failing that, Winston is somehow ignorant of how the majority of the toll of the failed Drug War has fallen on minorities, especially black Americans, and how it is nothing more than a front for racist economic and social policies? You spent so much time developing your three white guys to the point where a single episode of The Real Ghostbusters told me more about WHO Winston was as a person than two whole Ghostbusters movies, and now you're starting to give him a bit more development--even making him an educated man rather than the "help"!--and you have to ruin it by making him say something boneheaded and ignorant--or dare I say it, reeking of white privilege--like this?
Pretty please with sugar on top?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)