The Empire Strikes Back

[Bicycle Bill]

The war on drugs is finally what it should have been all along: a real war on drugs. In the past, it was treated like a joke, but now it is no longer a joke. Those who import illicit drugs into the United States are enemies of the nation. They are killing and enslaving Americans.

Tell me, liberty, that you have never, ever smoked weed (still illegal, although 'decriminalized', whatever the hell that means), or tried cocaine (again, illegal), or even drank beer in your teens (sure, alcohol is legal, but not for people under 18/now 21).   I know you can't do it.   And there's the reason we are losing the war on drugs, and it's the same reason we lost the war on alcohol during Prohibition.   You, along with tens of millions of other members of the American public, are the problem.    You and they want this stuff, and they'll get it one way or another.

And just like happpened during Prohibition, entities will arise that will ensure the supply continues.   Back in the twenties and thirties it was mobsters like Al Capone, Dutch Schuiltz, Lucky Luciano, Bugs Moran, and Meyer Lanksy providing bootleg alcohol.   Today it's the people that run the drug cartels and the countries that support them providing heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, and God-only-know what else.   And just like it was in the 1920s, the drug runners will win in the end, because while a large portion of the American public may pay lip service to the War on Drugs, in the end they won't allow the government to do more than play Whack-a-Mole because they want — nay, they DEMAND — their bag of weed or their bottle of Mother's Little Helpers to put the world on hold for a while.

And if that's slavery or a sickness...   well. let's just say that I''ve never heard of people volunteering to become slaves or acquiring a life-threatening illness.

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

" let's just say that I''ve never heard of people volunteering to become slaves or acquiring a life-threatening illness".

Ever hear of a product called 'cigarettes?

When I was in the fourth grade, 1949, long before the surgeon general ever put his warning on a pack of cigs, we commonly called them 'coffin nails' and 'cancer sticks.' Some of my fellow 4th graders bought them. The brand called "Wings" sold for about half the price of a regular pack-- ten cents. Wings included trading cards, just like the English brand "Players'. Rather than sports celebrities, the card in a pack of wings were all about flying machines. I think the wings pack contain less than 20 cigs, and the cigs were slightly smaller than Lucky's or Camels, or Chesterfields (the major brands then.) I never volunteered, never smoked any cig, or cigar or a pipe. When I shipped to Army basic training in 1960, there were only three smokers in my platoon. When I left active duty in 1963, I and three others were the only non smokers in my platoon. One was a career NCO. That was first platoon, H&Hq Company, 11th Combat Engineer Group, Schwetzingen, Germany

Times have changed. Kids for a prank now never call a store on the phone and ask "Do you have Prince Albert in a can?"

All volunteer smokers and consumers of nicotine.

[liberty]

The war on drugs is finally what it should have been all along: a real war on drugs. In the past, it was treated like a joke, but now it is no longer a joke. Those who import illicit drugs into the United States are enemies of the nation. They are killing and enslaving Americans.

I disagree with the idea that people who bring drugs into the US are killing and enslaving Americans.


Why kill them? Do you not believe in due process?

I wouldn’t be too sure of that. Do you remember the Dennis Paris trial in Hartford, CT, 2007? He used heroin to keep his slave whores in line. Once he had them addicted, they were much easier to control. He didn't recruit whores he made his own, capturing and Brutally training them. Most of his slaves were black and at least one as young as 14.

And no, I do not believe in due process in war. How would that have worked? It would have given the entire German army due process. How do you think that would have turned out?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I wouldn’t be too sure of that. Do you remember the Dennis Paris trial in Hartford, CT, 2007? He used heroin to keep his slave whores in line. Once he had them addicted, they were much easier to control. He didn't recruit whores he made his own, capturing and Brutally training them. Most of his slaves were black and at least one as young as 14.

And no, I do not believe in due process in war. How would that have worked? It would have given the entire German army due process. How do you think that would have turned out?

Not that it matters but these people swanning around the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean are not at all to be identified with Dennis Paris - a home-grown pimp who operated in the same manner as all pimps, using any coercive means to hand. The people being murdered in boats are not performing that function in the least.

Also 100% wrong is your claim that there is a "war" going on. No, there is not (yet). There is no named belligerent, opposing military force in the field. So - total bullshit called on you for bringing up the Wehrmacht.

[Burning Petard]

"And no, I do not believe in due process in war. How would that have worked? It would have given the entire German army due process. How do you think that would have turned out"

It turned out just like it does here in the USofA. A few were hanged. Many got a slap on the wrist. Some were hustled back to the USofA and put to work doing the same thing they had been doing in Nazi Germany, to join the fight against the evils of Communism. But those mud-men refused to know their place and had the audacity (chutzpah?) to make it their life work to punish the exterminators of Jews.

snailgate.

[Joe Guy]

I wouldn’t be too sure of that. Do you remember the Dennis Paris trial in Hartford, CT, 2007? He used heroin to keep his slave whores in line. Once he had them addicted, they were much easier to control. He didn't recruit whores he made his own, capturing and Brutally training them. Most of his slaves were black and at least one as young as 14. And no, I do not believe in due process in war. How would that have worked? It would have given the entire German army due process. How do you think that would have turned out?

What Meade said.... and to emphasize, the people being murdered in boats aren't soldiers. They are suspected criminals. If it's okay to kill them because we are in a war on drugs, then shouldn't we be able to immediately kill individuals who are caught attempting to smuggle in drugs daily at ports of entry at the Mexican border?

[MajGenl.Meade]

If it's okay to kill them because we are in a war on drugs, then shouldn't we be able to immediately kill individuals who are caught attempting to smuggle in drugs daily at ports of entry at the Mexican border?

Who are alleged by someone else to be smuggling drugs etc. or who are suspected by people several thousands of miles away from the port of entry at the Mexican border - why can't we just kill anyone we think deserves killing?

[Big RR]

And FWIW, just calling something a "war" doesn't make it one. Remember LBJ's "War" on Poverty (and FWIW, poverty affects and even enslaves far more people than illegal drugs)? Coundn't we just kill those who are causing the poverty? Hell, I recall Contac running a commercial where it said it was a weapon i fighting the cold ""war"--wouldn't it just be easier to go out and kill all those who spread cold germs in the name of the "war"?

Silly? Of course, but no sillier than the "War" on Drugs. That's why we have laws; you know, the things Hegseth and Trump et al despise.

[liberty]

And FWIW, just calling something a "war" doesn't make it one. Remember LBJ's "War" on Poverty (and FWIW, poverty affects and even enslaves far more people than illegal drugs)? Coundn't we just kill those who are causing the poverty? Hell, I recall Contac running a commercial where it said it was a weapon i fighting the cold ""war"--wouldn't it just be easier to go out and kill all those who spread cold germs in the name of the "war"?

Silly? Of course, but no sillier than the "War" on Drugs. That's why we have laws; you know, the things Hegseth and Trump et al despise.

We made war on terrorists and killed quite a few with drones, so I don’t see how taking out these boats in the open oceans is much different. Should due process have been applied to the German army in World War II? If so, they didn’t get their due process—aren’t they entitled to reparations? I think about 70,000 of them are still alive. We need to compensate them for the criminal actions we committed against them, since we did not always try to take them alive. Some Americans even killed German POWs without consequences, and American pilots shot German airmen while they were parachuting. Aren’t those war crimes? Yet no one has ever been tried for them.

[Joe Guy]

We made war on terrorists and killed quite a few with drones, so I don’t see how taking out these boats in the open oceans is much different.

If you can't see the difference between the Taliban & ISIS vs people on a boat transporting illegal drugs, I can't help you there.

Should due process have been applied to the German army in World War II? If so, they didn’t get their due process—aren’t they entitled to reparations? I think about 70,000 of them are still alive. We need to compensate them for the criminal actions we committed against them, since we did not always try to take them alive. Some Americans even killed German POWs without consequences, and American pilots shot German airmen while they were parachuting. Aren’t those war crimes? Yet no one has ever been tried for them.

POWs have a right to due process.

You could start a GoFundMe for Germans if you'd like. How German do I have to be to qualify?

[Big RR]

But I'd check if there is a statute of limitations first to avoid having to write checks giving all the money back.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Should due process have been applied to the German army in World War II? I

[liberty]

This might seem harsh to some, but it is logical. If drug addiction only affected the individual, society might be able to ignore it and simply let people destroy themselves. But it doesn’t, it affects everyone. Remember China’s opium crisis: their ability to defend themselves degraded to the point they could not resist European aggressors. That could happen to us too.

Here’s one solution: anyone discovered to be using drugs such as heroin or cocaine would be involuntarily sent to a walled town; a place they could not leave. Inside, their basic needs would be met, and they could have all the heroin or opium they wanted, unrestricted, day or night. Of course, the graveyard would be right next door.

Now ask yourself: could you tolerate that? Because at least then, the destructive effects of drugs would be contained and would not poison the rest of society.

[Joe Guy]

I've decided to create a word to describe a thought or action that is beyond asinine.

It is

assiten

: excessively foolish
: more stupid than humanly or artificial intelligently imaginable.

I added the extra 's' to help emphasize the assitenity that a person would be attempting to achieve when using the word.

[liberty]

I've decided to create a word to describe a thought or action that is beyond asinine.

It is

assiten

: excessively foolish
: more stupid than humanly or artificial intelligently imaginable.

I added the extra 's' to help emphasize the assitenity that a person would be attempting to achieve when using the word.

It seems that when there’s nothing left to say, people fall back on empty words. If you really see illicit drugs as some kind of supplement for a better life, then let’s be honest about it: heroin, opium, and cocaine are not making anyone happier in the long run. Do we truly want to see an end to the drug problem in this country? Don’t tell me the answer is treatment, because that’s an illusion. Very few people are ever saved from drug addiction, largely because most don’t want to be saved. They enjoy the effect.

Delicious drugs fuel most of the problems in our country: most of the crime, most of the murders, most of the robberies, and most of the assaults. Too often, innocent bystanders are caught in the crossfire, children playing on their stoops, lives destroyed for no reason other than someone else’s addiction. Some situations are important enough to stop by whatever means necessary, and I support whatever measures are required.

We have to knock out the boats. The simple reason is that their strategy is to overwhelm us with numbers. While we tie up our resources processing one boat, four others get through. The only way to have a chance at stopping them is to take them out as quickly as the Navy can.

[liberty]

The war on drugs is finally what it should have been all along: a real war on drugs. In the past, it was treated like a joke, but now it is no longer a joke. Those who import illicit drugs into the United States are enemies of the nation. They are killing and enslaving Americans.

Tell me, liberty, that you have never, ever smoked weed (still illegal, although 'decriminalized', whatever the hell that means), or tried cocaine (again, illegal), or even drank beer in your teens (sure, alcohol is legal, but not for people under 18/now 21).   I know you can't do it.   And there's the reason we are losing the war on drugs, and it's the same reason we lost the war on alcohol during Prohibition.   You, along with tens of millions of other members of the American public, are the problem.    You and they want this stuff, and they'll get it one way or another.



-"BB"-

I never drink beer. I never smoked anything, including cigarettes or chewed tobacco. I did try a little whiskey in my 30s, but I decided it wasn’t worth the risk.


I’ve got to stop doing this. Just because I’m retired doesn’t mean I can spend all day at the keyboard. I’ve got too much to do.

[Joe Guy]

Delicious drugs fuel most of the problems in our country: most of the crime, most of the murders, most of the robberies, and most of the assaults...

I bet alcohol also fuels those crimes.

And, according to CDC, about 178,000 people die in the US from excessive drinking of alcohol each year. Maybe we should start by killing alcohol dealers and making alcohol illegal and see how well that works out.

[Big RR]

Let's just try and reduce the trade in drugs--we saw how well that worked with prohibition. Take away the profit margin and we won't have the big cartels or the boats bringing them in or the gang warfare. Opening the tap of drugs for the addicts (whom you think cannot be saved) will keep the streets safer and stop the idiocy of trying to turn the US into an armed camp in the name of safety/security. Right now we play right into the hands of the cartels by decreasing the supply of drugs--the demand is still there and the interdiction just raises the price and increases the profit margin, encouraging more to start distributing. Providing legal access removes this. And if the sales are even moderately taxed, we can try to direct some of the revenue to treatment for those who choose to avail themselves of it.

Just think how removing the profit margin from "delicious drugs" will resolve "most of the problems in our country: most of the crime, most of the murders, most of the robberies, and most of the assault" (your words).

Legalization is not a cure--and the problems with alcohol Joe points out attest to this. But it's a hell of a lot better than playing cowboy and shooting fisherman, or deporting people who have had nothing to do with the drug trade saying it's necessary to keep us "safe". And maybe we then can devote our efforts and resources toward ending the problems that lead to addiction and programs for effectively treating it. But I guess the lure of playing the marshall/admiral and gunning down the fishing boats is just too strong; and common sense is just too rare.

[ex-khobar Andy]

And, according to CDC, about 178,000 people die in the US from excessive drinking of alcohol each year. Maybe we should start by killing alcohol dealers and making alcohol illegal and see how well that works out.

Trump, of course, famously does not drink alcohol because his brother died an alcoholic. I'm curious how much alcohol Trump has sold - we can still get Trump branded whisky and as a hotelier he probably sold a bottle or two. I think he has done a good job in staying off the booze himself but I wonder what his motive was/is for selling all that alcohol despite knowing its capacity for harm. El Chapo, according to some accounts, did not himself use the drugs he so willingly supplied. Which places Trump and El Chapo on roughly the same moral footing.

[Sue U]

It seems that when there’s nothing left to say, people fall back on empty words.

You must be talking about yourself. Not only are your words empty, literally everything you say is just straight-up wrong on the facts and highlights your prejudices.

Do we truly want to see an end to the drug problem in this country? Don’t tell me the answer is treatment, because that’s an illusion. Very few people are ever saved from drug addiction, largely because most don’t want to be saved. They enjoy the effect.

The fact is that about 75% of people who suffered addiction eventually recover. Moreover, the opioid (fentanyl) epidemic is fueled by precursor agents manufactured in China and shipped to Mexico for processing and ultimate distribution to the U.S., generally through regular ports of entry.

Delicious drugs fuel most of the problems in our country: most of the crime, most of the murders, most of the robberies, and most of the assaults. Too often, innocent bystanders are caught in the crossfire, children playing on their stoops, lives destroyed for no reason other than someone else’s addiction.

There are numerous reasons people commit crimes and drug addiction is a vanishingly small contributing factor; "most" murders, robberies and assaults have nothing at all to do with drug addiction. Additionally, criminalization of drug use automatically makes addicts statistical criminals, skewing the numbers of "drug-related crimes." The "innocent bystanders ... caught in the crossfire" are victims of capitalism, not drug addiction. Drug dealers are in the business to make money, not to make addicts, and addicts don't shoot drug dealers -- their competitors do. Even so, such crimes are a tiny fraction of the overall number of violent crimes.

Some situations are important enough to stop by whatever means necessary, and I support whatever measures are required.

We have to knock out the boats. The simple reason is that their strategy is to overwhelm us with numbers. While we tie up our resources processing one boat, four others get through. The only way to have a chance at stopping them is to take them out as quickly as the Navy can.

None of the boats blown up by the Trump Administration was even capable of reaching the U.S. and neither they nor their product (assuming it was drugs) were headed here anyway. There is no "strategy ... to overwhelm us with numbers." Compared to the thousands (and maybe hundreds of thousands) of tons of cocaine brought into the US every year, these small boats in the Caribbean would constitute less than a drop in the bucket. And Venezuela is not even a significant source for cocaine smuggling in the first place -- the biggest suppliers would be Colombia and Ecuador, and the shipments would travel up the Pacific Coast.

Moreover, drug smuggling -- even if it were proven -- is simply not a capital offense. The Coast Guard routinely interdicts and arrests would-be smugglers, who are then tried in courts of law, either here, in their home countries or some third country with legal jurisdiction. They are not summarily executed at sea. These are civilian vessels, not military, and the Trump administration has yet to provide any proof that they were even armed, let alone in any position to pose a threat to the US or its Navy.

It is blindingly obvious that the Trump Administration is trying to generate a narrative of Venezuelan "narco-terrorists" (a wholly made-up thing) somehow "threatening" the U.S. and intent on killing its citizens (why would drug dealers want to kill their customers?) in order to justify a war against Venezuela and particularly its president Nicolas Maduro, who Trump dementedly thinks is somehow involved in his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.