About this blog

Drug testing is an ineffective, unreliable, and inexcusably invasive form of security theater forced on the American people based on deliberately skewed data, public ignorance, and moral panic, and it continues operating on those frauds to this day, mostly because those of us who are aware of the facts must live in fear of being targeted as addicts. This blog is intended to raise public awareness of the real facts about drug testing that the testing companies don't want you to know, and to provide some tools to the public by which they can raise awareness while maintaining anonymity. I will also be accepting guest posts, if anyone has a story about drug testing injustices they would like to get out anonymously, or if anyone just has something to say against drug testing in general.
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2015

No Sympathy for Harry Anslinger

I just started reading an excellent book exposing the origin of the failed Drug War, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs by Johann Hari.  At the start of Chapter 1: The Black Hand, he details Anslinger's early childhood experiences with addicted loved ones, and at the end of the chapter he says:

It is easy to judge Harry Anslinger.  But if we are honest, I suspect that everybody who has ever loved an addict*--everybody who has ever been an addict--has this impulse in them somewhere.  Destroy the addiction.  Kill the addiction.  Throttle it with violence.  Harry Anslinger is our own darkest impulses, given a government department and a license to kill.

 And...I give him this, I almost had sympathy with Anslinger, this monster whom I have come to hate more than anyone in history, who has arguably victimized, destroyed, and murdered more innocent people than Hitler could have dreamed, reading about his frightening childhood experiences with addiction.  I still disagree with him and I still see him as having been dangerously wrong and having launched one of the most evil institutions and societal endeavors in history, but at least I could feel a bit sorry for him.  My own mother grew up dealing with alcoholics--which is also an addiction that is, in many cases, far more common and damaging than any illicit drug--and can understand him too, but she was able to understand that alcohol was not to blame in itself and that most people can have a drink without having a problem with it.

Then I read the rest of the chapter, which detailed not only his lenience and kindness toward white people with addiction while persecuting Billie Holiday to her death even as she asked for help to kick her habit.  It is made extremely clear that Anslinger was not motivated by "love of an addict" or "desire to destroy addiction" but to use the boogeyman of addiction against black people.  His motivation was rank bigotry and racism and the desire to control the increasingly "uppity" black people.  If he was motivated to fight "drugs" or "addiction", he wouldn't have exhibited that blatant double-standard between the treatment of white and black people with addiction.

Not only that, he didn't persecute Holiday for having an addiction, he persecuted her for singing "Strange Fruit", a song about lynching.  He ordered her to stop singing a song that an oppressive white culture found uncomfortable and upsetting and used the criminalization of drugs and addiction to silence her, to make an example of her to silence others like her.

Any sympathy he could have gotten from me is erased completely by how he went about furthering his cause.  And all of this is just from the first chapter--further reading into Chapter 2 has also detailed his witch-hunt techniques, his illegal activities, his outright lying and persecution, and other evil methods he used to push his wrong-headed hate-filled agenda, but I wanted mostly to address this particular entreaty of the author to have sympathy for poor Anslinger after clearly showing us exactly why he deserved no sympathy whatsoever.

Harry Anslinger was a monster, and I can't wait until we bury his child, his legacy, the Drug War, deep into annals of history as the massive and immoral failure it is.  I can't wait to further piss on his grave by seeing his name go down in history as the villain he was, and it's only too bad he can't see it.

*I wish the author would not refer to people struggling with addiction as "addicts".  This is a damaging term that is often used to dehumanize and demonize such people, as if they are entirely defined by this one issue in their lives.  I have been trying to eliminate this term from my own vocabulary, and if I miss it anywhere in my writing, I encourage readers to point it out.

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.)

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Isn't it cute how hypocritical the failure Drug Warriors are?

Well, it would be if they hadn't destroyed so many lives and denied so many people vital medicine.

Politifact verified The Marijuana Policy Project's ad about marijuana being less toxic than alcohol (of course, with a dishonest little qualifier that they're "mostly" right--we've come so far, and yet some idiots still can't bring themselves to admit the pro-legalization side is right even when they're admitting that very thing, so they add little qualifiers to make it sound like it's still one of those "jury's out" deals).

And the dishonest asses at the National Institute on Drug Abuse had a little tantrum.  How delightful.  Go ahead and read the link.  See if you can spot the Drug War hypocrisy.

Yup, the same liars who told us for THIRTY YEARS OR MORE that marijuana was "one of the most dangerous drugs in the world" and insisted over and over that it was totally worse than alcohol AND cigarettes put together....are now saying that to compare alcohol and marijuana is to compare apples to oranges.  And how interesting that this little revelation has come just as a majority of people have seen through their lies and discovered the overwhelming evidence that no, marijuana is not a dangerous drug and yes, it is objectively less toxic and dangerous than alcohol.  How much do you want to bet that if prohibition wasn't on the brink of collapse, marijuana and alcohol would still be totally comparable?

But yes, National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana and alcohol do have different effects on people.  And the effects of marijuana have been proven by all unbiased (ie: not paid for/conducted by dishonest Drug War profiteers like you) scientific evidence to be less dangerous than alcohol by a wide margin.  And this was the truth even over the last thirty years or so of this atrocity called the Drug War, while liars like you were lying about marijuana being much more dangerous than alcohol.

Keep whining, by all means.  Keep lying too.  You and your kind are finished and you know it.  Every whining little untruth that comes out of your mouths, every prohibitionist tantrum you throw, is going to make your inevitable destruction more satisfying to those of us on the right side of morality, science, and history.  So keep flapping your lips.  It won't do you any good at this point.

We're going to piss on your grave with great relish--as much relish as you have had making us piss in a cup all these years.  It's only too bad we can't piss on your face too.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

A Modest Proposal regarding Workplace Whipping Programs



It’s already been established up and down that drug testing does not increase productivity—quite the opposite, in fact—but right now I’m going to assume for argument’s sake that it does increase productivity.  Then I would like to ask this question of those who still believe this testing industry lie:  What of it?

Seriously, just because something increases productivity does not mean it is something the boss should be allowed to do.  And to illustrate this, I would like to submit that we should return to the days when employers could use corporal punishment on their employees, ranging from paddlings and canings all the way up to floggings.  Yes, at one point in history this was accepted practice, and I’m not talking about slavery!  There was a time in history where you could cane and/or whip your employees for any number of infractions, including some rather minor ones.  And since the pro-drug testing side is not coming from a position of actual peer-reviewed research and evidence, we’re going to assume that flogging one’s employees will raise their productivity level—because, like drug testing, it is intuitively “true”, isn’t it?  Like drug testing, it just “makes sense” that employees will be much more productive if the consequence for getting a customer complaint or not making their quota or breaking any company rules would be getting a certain number of lashes on their back or their butt rather than just a neutered little verbal or written warning.  That is the spurious evidence-free reasoning that was used (and is still used) to enforce drug testing into the workplace, so it’s fair play to use it for corporate corporal punishment on employees.  In this exercise, we’re not going to test the efficacy of Workplace Whipping programs on productivity or safety, we’re just going to explode them into the workplace using arguments that appeal to common intuitive thought, just like the drug testing industry did in the eighties.

(And don’t get me started on how the drug testing industry deliberately skewed, distorted, and otherwise lied about the “data” they did get by doing this, because I’m not going to derail my own post.  But it’s an interesting history—go to the “Helpful Links” post helpfully linked on the sidebar to read all about it.)

Corporate CEOs, business-owners, managers, lend me your ears!  Imagine how fast your workers could be moving to make your products, stock your shelves, clean your bathrooms, or cook your food with the proper motivation!  Imagine how servile they would be to customers if they knew a displeased customer would result in physical pain and humiliation!  Imagine not only higher productivity but a better safety record, since you could also use this to enforce safety rules and punish anyone who is failing to follow those safe workplace policies!  Imagine how much could get done if your employees were afraid to speak to one another, for fear of a lashing!  Even better than ending their non-productive fraternization, your workers would find it virtually impossible to unionize or organize against you!  And since we’re increasing the power of the employer to govern the employee’s private life outside of work…well, you see where this is going.

And, as with the arguments for allowing employers to drug test their employees, you can also justify it based on the “at-will” employment laws—if you don’t like bending over for a caning for being five minutes late, or talking a little too long with a co-worker, or missing your quota by one piece, or just because your boss doesn’t like your beliefs, politics, or your face, you can always just go to some other employer who doesn’t whip his employees. That is, until they all end up doing it and your level of control is limited to whose hand holds the whip over your shoulders (just as your only control regarding drug testing now is who is holding the cup between your legs as if they own what’s in your pants), because all the companies are being given the scaremongering speech from the whip companies that if they don’t adopt a pro-whipping disciplinary policy then all the “lazy” and “non-productive” workers will hide out in their companies and bleed them dry.  Because the only reason someone could have a problem with being flogged or caned by their boss as a disciplinary measure is if they are lazy, non-productive workers, and there is literally no other reason one might object to such a policy.

Just like anyone who opposes drug testing must, by necessity, be a drug user, because there is absolutely no other logical reason someone would object to handing an employer or potential employer (who is, by right of demanding a no-cause drug test, starting your relationship off with a show of obscene distrust and calling you an a priori criminal) a sampler platter of intimate bodily fluids and be expected to trust them to use those fluids ONLY for the stated purpose despite there being almost no regulations or oversight on such activities* (effectively demanding a greater trust than the one they have denied to you, by the way.)  Just like anyone who is concerned about being observed while providing a sample must by necessity be a user, because there is no possible logical reason anyone could object to having someone squat down and stare at their bare genitalia as they urinate unless they were planning to adulterate the sample, right?  No possible reason to object to that unless you’re a user trying to pull something!  The only thing a Proper Honest Upstanding Non-Drug-Using Citizen would do when told to pull down their pants and display their bare genitals for a total stranger while urinating is to say “Yes, Sir (or Ma’am) and start unzipping those pants!  (What scares me is that so many people have been brainwashed into genuinely thinking this very thing.  This needs to change, and it will.)

And no, you have no leg to stand on trying to say “well, you see, flogging is disfiguring and drug testing isn’t, so you can’t do it” because we don’t have to flog.  We could instead use a paddling or a caning, as mentioned above, which is not disfiguring, any welts or bruises will heal without scarring, and for crying out loud so many benighted individuals support that exact same punishment for errant children and teenagers on the grounds that it’s incredibly effective and totally “not abusive”.  If it's not too abusive for children, then it's not to abusive for adult workers.

So what are we all waiting for?  If productivity is the only argument we need to justify a personal violation of the employee’s body by the employer, reinforced by the “at-will” employment law, why don’t we add the cat o’ nine tails to the specimen jar in our toolbox of employee management?  Let’s adopt workplace whipping policies across the board, and start a “slacker-free workplace”!

Let’s face it, you can’t support drug testing policies and make any serious arguments against workplace whipping policies.  The only reason anyone would try is that they don’t like the idea of being whipped as a disciplinary measure in the workplace but they have been acclimated to the idea of pissing in a cup for an employer after drug testing has been enforced for thirty years and counting.  You’re just used to drug testing and haven’t really given it any serious thought before (unless you’re one of those profiteers who works for the drug testing industry, in which case you’re something else, but this post isn’t about dishonest charlatans like you, so I’ll hold back the stream of abuse.  You’re welcome.)

And I would invite anyone who doubts that I could possibly be a non-user for the above ignorant reasons to imagine they actually live that world they don’t like as described above, a world where nearly every single solitary employer has a Workplace Whipping policy and part of the "Slacker-Free Workplace Program", a world where they can be given a number of  lashes for failing to meet quota at work by any amount or any number of other offenses, where this practice is supported, encouraged, and even taxpayer subsidized by government “Slackers Don’t Work” programs, where all the evidence showing this is a good business practice has been conducted by or paid for by whip and cane companies (or companies that provide whipping and caning services for companies) while all the unbiased evidence showing it to be ineffective and unreliable goes ignored, and where anyone who objects for any reason is immediately considered to be a lazy non-productive worker who is only objecting so they can protect their lifestyle of workplace sloth—and is therefore considered a prime candidate for the whip, regardless of how hard they actually work or how great their actual work record is.

Then you will know my pain.

*From the ACLU link:   "In 1988, the Washington, D.C. Police Department admitted it used urine samples collected for drug tests to screen female employees for pregnancy - without their knowledge or consent."

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Another expert admits there is no scientific case against medical marijuana!

Another nail in the coffin of the Drug War!  CNN's Sanjay Gupta has changed his mind and now supports medical marijuana, admitting that there is no sound scientific proof against it and much in favor of it!  A quote:

I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.

They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
 They didn't have the science to support that claim, and now I know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true.  It doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications.  In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. [my emphasis]
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.
- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf

I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.”
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.
- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
 Those bolded lines are particularly important, because they also apply to the practice of drug testing.  Drug testing has not only never been tested for efficacy but has never once passed peer review, and yet people assume that "they must have quality reasoning...and science to support".  Few have ever given the practice of drug testing the scrutiny it should have had, and once it was forced in based entirely on social spin playing on moral panic and ignorance about the drug problem people simply came to assume that it was a "good thing" and that there must be "something" to it if it's so commonly done.  They assume that it keeps drug users out of the workplace despite the fact that all unbiased studies show that it has no effect on workplace safety or the ability of drug users to find employment.  They assume that it is accurate when false positives happen up to 30% of the time, to the point where drug testing companies can make fraudulent claims of "100% accuracy" with impunity.

I look forward to the day when drug testing companies, like the rest of the Drug War profiteers, can be brought up on charges of fraud, as they should have been in the eighties.  Yes, you heard me, I said fraud.  What else do you call it when they tell employers that their service, which has never once passed peer review, is "considered 100% accurate", as my company's suspicion-less drug testing policy claims?  What do you call it when drug testing companies tell employers that drug testing their employees not only will improve workplace safety and productivity, knowing that such claims have been entirely debunked by all studies not conducted by or funded by your industry, but that there is absolutely zero chance that they will terminate any non-users based on a false positive, when they know perfectly well that independent non-industry studies have shown that false positives happen 10% and often as much as 30% of the time?  When you make a claim you know is false and is supported by no unbiased evidence, only your own personal insistence that it's "totes scientific", that is commonly known as fraud. In a just world, it would be considered false advertising at the very least, which is also actionable but in my opinion far too lenient a charge for an industry that has been deliberately lying about their product for at least thirty years to date, not only taking money for value they don't deliver but destroying the lives of innocent people who lost their jobs, livelihood, and reputations (and in some cases, their freedom) due to false positives.

Unfortunately, it isn't likely they'd ever be charged with fraud or false advertising or anything at all.  Rich criminals always get away with their crimes, no matter how many lives they ruin.  I don't know why they're so damned scared when all they stand to lose is their obscene unearned profit and will never be charged with the crimes they've committed, like any of us poor violated stiffs would be if we pulled a fraction of the crap they've pulled over thirty years.

I guess laws are for the little people like us, huh?  Except laws like the Fourth Amendment, of course.
I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.”
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.
- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.”
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.
- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf
I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.”
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.
- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/08/08/cnns-sanjay-gupta-apologizes-for-past-opposition-delivers-full-throated-defense-of-medical-marijuana/#sthash.jzkPzCa5.dpuf

Saturday, July 20, 2013

More Desperation from the Anti-Legalization Crew




He is seriously suggesting that marijuana legalization is a danger to drivers.  There is another such illogical individual bleating this uninformed bull about Colorado, but I can’t seem to find the article anymore.  It was one of the big politicians though, and I wonder how much the Drug War profiteering companies such as drug testing companies are paying these guys to say this crap.

The politician is whinging on about the Colorado legalization law endangering drivers for somewhat vague and stupid reasons that seriously sound as if he genuinely believes that outlawing marijuana has prevented everyone from using marijuana, and that now that it’s legal it’s going to spread like wildfire and absolutely everyone will be stoned everywhere they go…even in their car!   Oh noes!

It’s like he doesn’t seem to realize that millions of people are already smoking marijuana and anti-marijuana legislation has been an enormous failure.  It’s as if he doesn’t seem to know a damn thing about history.  I would swear this moron really thinks that Prohibition I actually worked, and for a glorious fourteen years or so the country was blissfully booze-free until the degenerates managed to force through a repealing of the Volstead Act.  And does he realize that even though alcohol is legal, it doesn’t mean people go around drunk day in and day out regardless of the circumstance or environment.  If this idiot really thinks that making an intoxicant legal is going to somehow magically compel all people to start using it at all times, why is he not fighting to restore the Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment, since alcohol abuse actually dwarfs the influence of all illicit drugs combined in both workplace issues and traffic accidents?  Oh, I know—because he probably likes alcohol, and even if he doesn’t I’ll bet the majority of voters do, and for sure some of his corporate payouts are undoubtedly coming straight from alcohol companies, who are prevalent in funding efforts to defeat attempts to legalize marijuana.  The more you know, right?

Then there’s this Donald Ramsell.  He starts off saying that marijuana legalization is popular and supported by a majority of people, and maybe it’s wrong to keep it illegal.  Then he veers off into Bizarro-world as he states that there are no effective tools or measures to determine marijuana intoxication for the purposes of enforcing DUI laws and no real way to create any, so we ought to reconsider legalization for the sake of traffic safety.

WHAT?

You do realize, Donald, that we already have none of those things despite marijuana being illegal and used by millions of citizens who may or may not be driving under the influence?  You do realize that people are no more likely to be driving under the influence of marijuana now than they were before?  You do realize that even if we can’t develop marijuana-specific sobriety tests that we are still no less safe than we were before (especially since people on marijuana tend to be more relaxed and slower, whereas drunk people tend to drive like maniacs and get much angrier—ever hear of someone going on a “marijuana-fueled” rage or killing spree?  Me neither.), and that such an argument is still not a reason to outlaw the use of an essentially harmless plant and, by extension, jettison our civil rights?  You do realize that your argument is a non-argument, intended only as a desperate move to try and recapture the glory days when you could just scare people with illogical boogey-man sound bytes and have the vast majority of ignorant citizens ready to join you in battle and give you whatever you want to fight your precious Drug War, including their own civil liberties?  Do you work for a drug testing company, or are you paid by one in any way to spout this drivel?  Because I don’t believe you when you say you are happy for medical marijuana patients.  You just realize that there is a solid majority in favor of medical marijuana and that at this point arguing against it makes you look like a picture of Ebenezer Scrooge wearing a coat made out of Bambi’s skin and masturbating while eating a live puppy and that tends to turn people off whatever you’re going to say.  Your words are the marijuana legalization version of the notorious “I’m not racist, but…”

Nice try, people.  I’d tell you to try harder, but no one believes the lies in “Reefer Madness” anymore and I don’t know that you could try hard enough to bring those days back at this point.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Short post about the Fourth

Hello!  This will be a rather quick post.  I would just like to say Happy Fourth of July, and point out that the Fourth is one of those days wherein we celebrate all the people who have fought, bled and died for our freedoms--and that means civil rights.  This day has become a real joke in modern America, where a nation of frightened crybabies have given up every last one of their rights, rights hard-won with the blood of freedom-loving martyrs, in the hopes that their government and corporate lords can keep them safe.  A nation where a majority of stupid putrid cowards submit to strip searches and groping in the airports and piss in a cup, not just for the "privilege" of eating but the "privilege" of slaving like an animal for a wage not even sufficient for basic survival, all because they think that such submission to the established powers will keep them safe from "the bad guys".  A nation that has turned it's back on our Founding Fathers' actual visions for this country, great men who knew the fact that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve and will have neither.  A nation of cowards and right-wing authoritarians who would rather suckle at a security theater blanket than face reality head on.

What I'm saying is that if you still support the Failed Drug War and the drug testing culture, if you are one of those useful idiots who cheers a system wherein every person must either drop their pants and submissively urinate for their boss and/or government or starve to death, if you are one of those stupid putrid cowards who thinks that our country needs more authoritarianism and more people being strip searched in airports and everywhere else....

Well, if you are one of those uninformed and benighted individuals, you have no right to celebrate the Fourth of July because you have taken the wonderful gift our Founders and many others fought and died to obtain for you and spit it straight in their face.  You have taken the freedoms that others have faced danger and death to give you and have given them right back to the oppressors like a coward, because those oppressors have given you an empty and undeliverable promise to keep you safe.  You are what is wrong with this country, and for you to celebrate any holiday that honors people who have died for our freedoms is the rankest hypocrisy.  You should be ashamed of yourself for selling out such important freedoms, and doubly ashamed of pretending to honor the people throughout history who sacrificed their lives for those freedoms.

Let me tell you a little something about facing reality head-on:  To paraphrase Westley, no one can ever guarantee your safety, no matter how many civil rights or crucial freedoms you cast aside like garbage.  Anyone who tells you different is selling something.