Skip to main content

Monday Night Drug War Updates

Oh joy, what a great use of resources : U.S. to send more drug agents to Afghanistan

Meanwhile : Mexico's drug gangs drive film crew out of town

Also : With Mexico's army in the war on drugs

Author : U.S. security no match for drug cartels, legalization should be considered


If you want to hear a thoroughly tired non-sequitur re-hash of the pathetic "save the children; all drugs are the same : evil; we need to restore our culture; marijuana is dangerous, even more than alcohol or tobacco, and is killing kids" propaganda, Asa Hutchinson delivers.

Unfortunately for Asa the Arkansan, the other 7 panelists are stuck on facts and reality, seemingly quite unconvinced by Asa's worn-out rhetorical regurgitations from out of the 1980's :

Comments

Anonymous said…
Tyler,

Here is what your former boss Newt Gingrich thinks:

O'Reilly: Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built.

The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker.

Gingrich: Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization.

Aren't you proud to have worked for such a great freedom-loving repub? Good times.

anonone
Here is what your former boss Newt Gingrich thinks:

Ugh...can't you make a damn point without having to use those techniques? Jesus, it's so old.
Tyler Nixon said…
Just as proud as you are in your [uncritical] support for that freedom-loving demo Obama.

Maybe in your world having been an intern for a politician's staff means you endorse every last breath they expel. I, on the other hand, exist in reality.

Matthews is right. What in the f*** does Newt Gingrich have to do with the current horrible drug policies supported by your party, now in charge for at least 2 years?

What's next? Quoting Rush Limbaugh to me?
Anonymous said…
II just thought it might be interesting to you that a potential presidential candidate from your beloved repub party (and your former boss) suggests that we should "get the stomach" to have a totalitarian society in order to combat drugs.

Has Obama proposed anything that even remotely resembles that? No, of course not.

And, by the way, Obama sucks on a lot of things, including drug policy. But he is a hell of a lot better than your party leaders, like Gingrich.

If you had ever worked for Limbaugh aand said that you were proud of it, yeah, I'd quote him to you, too. But I'll try to avoid that, even though he is the leader of your party.

anonone
Tyler Nixon said…
Obama is much much worse than Gingrich, and not just on drug policy.

Obama is a merging of Bush and Clinton, or as I think of Obama : Bullshinton.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...