The Tyranny of the State, Part 3

As you can probably tell, this third installment of Tyranny of the State is about the War on Drugs, or put more aptly, the War on Innocent People. Other than the stealing of money, and the apparent uselessness of incarceration, I want to talk about this other aspect of the state: It's claim that it can force you not to do something if it feels it's bad for you.

There is not only a lot of hypocrisy here, but a lot of bullshit as well because no one has a right to tell you what substances you can, or cannot, put into your own body. In this instance, the state is behaving much like religion because religion is what usually tries to force it's morality upon you. The only difference is the fact that the state either kills you or throws you behind bars for doing nothing more than exercising your natural right to do whatever you want to your own body. While the theists usually just tell you how you're a sinner and need jesus, or another similarly retarded statement, they usually inflict no real harm upon you (that is, of course, if they don't use the power of the government to stop you).

The War on [People] ultimately began in 1914 when congress passed the Harrison Act, which heavily restricted the availability of many drugs. "Supreme court decisions in the first years after the Harrison Act effectively made it a crime for doctors to prescribe controlled drugs in most cases and made possession of controlled drugs without a prescription a federal crime. The Harrison Act was denounced by medical authorities. The New York Medical Journal commented May 1915: 'The really serious results of this legislation...will only appear gradually and will not always be recognized as such. These will be the failures of promising careers, the disrupting of happy families, the commission of crimes which will never be traced to their real cause, and the influx of many who would otherwise live socially competent lives into hospitals for the mentally disoriented.' American Medicine criticized the new law, claiming that as one of its effects, drug users 'would be driven into an unsanitary and criminal underworld...afflicted individuals [would be] under the control of the worst elements of society'" (Source: Lost Rights:The Destruction of American Liberty, by James Bovard, pages 199-200).

In a strange feat of precognition these medical professionals predicted the future of millions of people who have been needlessly victimized by these satanical laws many years before Richard Nixon first coined the term 'War on Drugs' in 1971. It was at that time when the government began to seriously enhance the prohibition on drugs (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs).

Since 1980, over ten million people have been arrested for violating narcotics laws and, as I noted in Tyranny of the State, Part 2, as of 2000, over half (56.9 %) of individuals in prison are innocent people, or "drug offenders," as many statists like to call them.

Federal spending for the fight against drugs rose from under $1 billion in 1980 to $13 billion in 1993, and because of the government's failure to produce a reduction in drug use, the government has stepped up their demands for ever-increasing violence against drug users and suspected drug users. In 1989, Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates recommended that drug users "be taken out and shot," and in March of 1989 federal drug czar William Bennett suggested abolishing habeas corpus to help in the fight against drugs. Later on, he added that he would not be opposed to public beheadings of drug dealers (Lost Rights, page 201).

Even more absurd is the fact that the government diverted NORAD's (North American Aerospace Defense Command, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado) defense capabilities to search for any signs of incoming planes that might be carrying narcotics (Lost Rights, page 201), instead of maintaining their focus on defense! What a waste of time, resources, and man power.

Another total waste of man power is that the government uses the National Guard to help campaign against private citizens in drug eradication sweeps. "In 1992, National Guard members assisted in making almost 20,000 arrests, searching over 120,000 cars, entering (without a warrant) over 1,200 privately owned buildings, and trespassing onto private property over 6,500 times" (Lost Rights, page 201). Col. Richard R. Browning III, chief of the Drug Demand Reduction Section of the National Guard Bureau, said in 1992 that, "The rapid growth of this drug scourge has shown that military force must be used to change the attitudes and activities of Americans who are dealing and using drugs. The National Guard is American's legally feasible attitude-change agent." The Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Duncan showed a similar attitude at a 1991 Conference of the Association of the U.S. Army, when he said, "We can look forward to the day when our Congress....allows the Army to lend its full strength toward making America drug-free" (Lost Rights, page 201).

I don't know about you, but this sounds to me like they're describing a police state! How in the hell can these idiots wish upon average citizens the abandonment of our natural rights to live in peace, as long as we don't harm anyone? If you're going to argue from the perspective of the constitution, how can they urge these measures to take place when it completely goes against the founding documents of this country (of course in reality this means nothing as they are just pieces of paper, but many hold these documents to a high standard)? Can anyone see the bullshit that's taking place here?

Another story that is told in James Bovard's book Lost Rights happened right here in Arizona. "In 1986 100 state and federal narcotics agents swept into Jerome, Arizona, a small old mining town with 460 residents. The New York Times noted, 'To law enforcement officials, Jerome had become a 'hippie' redoubt in the wilderness highlands, where dropouts and outcasts form the counterculture of the 1960's had taken over the local government, established their own rules and officially tolerated the production of marijuana in the nearby hills.' One resident complained: 'To bring 100 policemen into a small town at 5 o'clock in the morning, dragging women and children out of bed, scaring them half to death, to get 9 or 10 pounds of marijuana, is asinine (Lost Rights, pages 201-202).' "

Another incident took place in Punta de Agua, New Mexico, in 1991, when 200 DEA, FBI, and National Guard officials, riding in armored personnel carriers and surveillance helicopters, came to the town to find drugs, but came up short. Nothing could be found (Lost Rights, page 202).

Well, there's another good example of our stolen tax dollars at work!

Yet another horrible situation occurred to a grandmother who was put in prison for life because her son hid marijuana in her home. From my friend Bob Clapp's blog here is the story:

"...in The Arizona Republic 10/28/94: 'Grandmother, 56, serving life term for marijuana possession.' The vote’s good deed was as follows—Elaine Prince-Patton went behind bars in 1992 after her second conviction for possession of marijuana. At the time [1992] Arizona law mandated that twice-convicted drug felons automatically receive life sentences. Mrs. Prince-Patton, an English born grandmother, who came to this country about 10 years ago to work, as a tailor, admitted doing a favor for one of her sons in 1991. She was caught with a package of marijuana in a suitcase at the Tucson Airport. She pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana. Two weeks later, Tucson police banged on her door and asked to speak to her son. He wasn’t there, but police found an 80 lb. bag of marijuana hidden in a laundry room. Mrs. Prince-Patton was arrested again. ‘I knew I was on probation, and I certainly wouldn’t knowingly have allowed dope in my house.’ Nevertheless, she was found guilty in less than two hours and given life in prison. [Two murderers were paroled that same day after serving 9 and 13 years respectively.] She stated, ‘The first time I was guilty. I foolishly did my son a favor; however, the second time, I was completely innocent.’ But, hell! This is okay—remember, ‘The ends justify the means.’ And congratulations to the vote: our streets are safe from this grandmother who never sold, bought or used marijuana."

To show the appallingly stupid nature of this War on [Innocent People] beginning in 1987, the DEA sent agents "to 81 stores and mail order houses specializing in indoor-gardening supplies, asking for information regarding the growing of marijuana." Two years after this incident, DEA agents carrying automatic weapons raided 71 gardening stores in 46 states, stealing business records, customer lists, and merchandise; eight stores were seized by the government even though no charges were filed against the store owners, and over $ 9 million in assets were confiscated.

The DEA, as stupid as they are, assumed that almost any store selling lighting or watering equipment should be treated as a potential accomplice or as a coconspirator to a drug dealer. "The Associated Press reported in 1991 that DEA agents 'working on Operation Green Merchant have told dozens of garden-supply houses to hand over the names of anyone who has bought so much as a fluorescent lamp or a box of plant food.' As a result of DEA's seizures of the sales and customer lists of gardening stores, over 100,000 americans came under federal investigation."

"Journalist Peter Gorman reported that 'one couple had their parental rights terminated for growing pot at home; several school teachers and at least one nurse lost their state licenses; others simply got caught up in the legal system, and found that trying to extricate themselves nearly ruined them" (Lost Rights, page 203).

An added negative consequence of this War on [Innocent People] is that the government has made it illegal in most states to be in possession of hypodermic needles without a doctor's prescription. Because of this many heroin users end up sharing needles, and this is a large cause for the spread of the AIDS virus. "About half of New York City's 250,000 heroin users are thought to carry the AIDS virus. One -third of all AIDS cases are now tied directly to the injection of drugs; in Baltimore, Maryland, 42% of AIDS cases are drug related. In Hartford, Connecticut, an estimated 70% of AIDS cases are related to intravenous drug use. The vast majority of heterosexuals with AIDS are hard-core drug users... Daniel Lazare observed in the Village Voice, 'The state could not have designed a more effective policy for spreading the AIDS virus if it had tried" (Lost Rights, pages 204-205)

In 1991 the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that intravenous drug users who were also diabetic had an AIDS rate much less than half of non diabetic intravenous drug users because the diabetics had access to a large supply of clean needles. Another study done by Yale University found that needle exchange programs reduced new HIV infections by 33% (Lost Rights, page 205).

In December of 1991, president George Bush said that he opposed needle exchange programs because they would "harm traditional values." But as James Bovard quips, "...as if spreading AIDS somehow promotes traditional values."

Another drug that is very often vilified is steroids. "In 1990, Congress, at DEA's behest, decreed that steroids were illegal, putting twenty-seven different steroids and steroid derivatives in the same legal category as opium and morphine. Possession of steroids without a prescription is now a felony, punishable by up to one year in prison. Once congress criminalized steroids, federal officials wasted little time demonizing steroids and steroid users: Assistant Attorney General Stuart Gerson declared that steroids 'are in reality poisons that are destroying the health and the integrity of athletes...and the public in general.' On August 10, 1992, the FBI issued a press release stating that, 'Weight gain and enhancing athletic performance are not legitimate uses of steroids, even if authorized by a physician'" (Lost Rights, page 206).

I find these acts to be completely unnecessary and unethical; these people have no right to regulate what people choose to do with their own bodies. Are these leaders afraid that the people they think they are supposed to rule over might be in better shape, and healthier than they are??? Are they simply jealous? Who knows, but either way they are hypocritical tyrants!

The reason is because these idiotic people ban substances that are known to cause no harm, while at the same time allowing tobacco companies and alcohol companies to continuously poison people every year! The following statistics are taken directly from one of the following sources: The Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Department of Commerce; The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Center; The International Classification of Disease; The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics; The Mental Health Administration; The Human Resource Services of the U.S.; The Consumer Product Safety Commission; and The Accident Safety Council. These statistics are from the years 1984-2000.

Nicotine Related Deaths: 366,000
Nicotine Related Lung Cancer: 166,000
Nicotine Related Emphysema: 13,000

Alcohol Related Deaths: 138,000
Alcohol Related Suicide: 9,000
Alcohol Related Vehicle: 26,000
Alcohol Related Homicide: 9,000

Testosterone and Anabolic Steroids: -0-

To put things in perspective, here are totals of deaths from other common activities and substances:

Non-steroidal, over the counter aspirin and ibuprofen: 7,600
Antibiotics: 80
Football: 20
Boating: 1,000
Parachuting: 30
Motor Vehicle: 51,000

(Source: Robert Clapp's White Paper called Whose Body Is It Anyway?, pages 4-5)

In Lost Rights, pages 214-215, it says, "Far more people die from legal drugs each year than die from illegal drugs. As Paul Scriven noted in a Drug Policy Foundation study, 'In 1988, approximately 400,000 deaths were associated with tobacco usage, 100,000 deaths with alcohol usage, 5,000 deaths with prescription drug usage (primarily sedative/hypnotic or 'sleeping pills' abuse) and 6,756 deaths combined from all illegal drug usage.'"

Some might start to wonder, now, why the government freely allows pharmaceutical companies to produce these medicines that are more dangerous than the banned steroids! You might wonder why the government doesn't try to ban cars or sports! You might also be wondering how in the hell the government can still allow alcohol companies and cigarette companies to remain in business with as many deaths as they cause. Perhaps the following hypocrisy will shed some light on the subject.

Tobacco and alcohol companies contribute yearly to the republican party over three million dollars. To the democratic party, over two million (Source: Robert Clapp's White Paper called Whose Body Is It Anyway?, page 3). Maybe this will get you thinking about who has your best interest at heart, and it sure as hell isn't the government! It's clear from this data that all they care about is lining their pockets with cash, no matter who it kills!

In an attempt to show just how much power the alcohol companies have over the government, in the 1930's they banned the use of marijuana due, at least partly, to the lobbying of alcohol producers who were trying to suppress competition from a "cheap popular intoxicant" (Lost Rights, page 200).

For some more absurdity for you, federal mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug violations are often extremely stupid, to say the least. "Federal law focuses on the weight of the drug as the key to how many years a person should be locked away. In one case, three judges on the federal appeals court in Boston wrestled over whether the weight of a fiberglass suitcase, with or without metal frames, should be considered as part of the cocaine seized in a drug raid, and therefore as a factor in the resulting prison sentences" (Lost Rights, page 210).

One unfortunate victim of this idiocy was "Stanley Marshall of El Paso, Texas, [who] was arrested in 1988 for possessing less than a gram of LSD, but since the drug was on 113 grams of paper, Marshall got a twenty-year federal prison sentence" (Lost Rights, page 211).

More ruined lives because of these needless laws was a Michigan grandmother who had picked her grandson up at the airport and after police stopped her car, found a large amount of cocaine in her grandson's suitcase (which she was unaware of), and because of this she was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Ricky Isom of Cobb County, Georgia, was sentenced to life in prison in 1990 for selling a quarter of a gram of cocaine for $20 (his second conviction). Columnist Doug Bandow observes, "It is perverse to punish someone satisfying another's desire for a dangerous substance, however unfortunate, more severely than someone assaulting, raping, robbing, or murdering another person" (Lost Rights, page 210).

Drug prohibition has resulted in millions of casualties, often due to the actions of the government itself. A government drug-spraying operation with paraquat and other herbicides took place on marijuana plants and resulted in over 9,000 americans being exposed to potentially toxic concentrations of the drug. A National Academy of Sciences study concluded that ingestion of even small amounts of paraquat can cause irreversible lung damage. In 1989 the Washington Post reported that "10 percent of marijuana street samples tested by the DEA in five cities were found to be laced with paraquat and glyphosate, two toxic herbicides used in U.S. funded drug eradication programs overseas..." People are sentenced to prison for possessing drugs, innocent bystanders shot or terrorized by drug battles in their neighborhoods or housing complexes, yet all this resulting carnage has failed to prevent pervasive use of illicit drugs.

"Despite a vast expansion of interdiction efforts, the real price per gram of pure heroin in New York City fell over 95 percent since 1982, and the number of heroin addicts has reportedly increased from 500,000 to 700,000 since the mid-1980's. Cocaine prices have fallen by up to 90 percent over the last ten years" (Lost Rights, pages 211-212).

Not only have the drugs been easy to obtain, and the price decreased, but with more people being put into prisons for drug related charges, prisons are becoming increasingly crowded (For related subject matter please see The Tyranny of the State, Part 2).

"American University professor Arnold Trebach has referred to 'the American drug gulag' to describe prisons full of drug offenders. The United States now has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The average length of prison sentences for drug offenses almost tripled between 1986 and 1991 (from twenty-seven months to seventy-eight months). In New York City, prisoners have been kept on barges. The federal Bureau of Prisons is acquiring college campuses and religious seminaries and converting them into minimum-security facilities. The number of people incarcerated in federal and state prisons in 1992 was 883,593 - almost triple the number of people who were incarcerated in such prisons in 1980. The number of people in federal and state prisons on drug charges has increased tenfold since 1980; since 1987, drug defendants have accounted for three-quarters of all new federal prisoners. Despite politicians' efforts to portray drug users and dealers as dangerous social agents, almost 80 percent of the people sentenced to state prisons on drug charges had no history of criminal violence" (Lost Rights, page 212).

Because of the over-crowding that has been taking place in recent years due to the increase in non-violent drug users, the Washington Post reported that "in the late 1990's 'Florida released 130,000 felons early to make room in state prisons'" (largely for new drug offenders), and because of their foolish action 40,000 of the people released committed new crimes.

"Florida has been plagued by repeated 'horror stories' about early-release inmates who committed sensational crimes. In July 1988, Bryan Keith Smith went on a headline-producing crime spree - murdering a restaurant dishwasher, a motel clerk, and a convenience store clerk in three armed robberies that started 12 days after he was released..."

Many might argue that if all drugs were legalized it would cause drugs to be more widely available and more violence might be seen from addicts. But it's actually been shown that the opposite is true. "Nobel laureate Milton Friedman observed that the homicide rate soared in the late 1960's after president Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs and estimated that the war on drugs could be causing an extra 5,000 homicides per year" (Lost Rights, page 214).

"Advocates of drug prohibition warn that legalization would sharply increase usage and thereby lead to more fatalities. The Netherlands legalized marijuana in 1970; as of 1985, American high school seniors were more than ten times more likely than Dutch high school seniors to be heavy marijuana users. Alaska decriminalized marijuana in 1975; as of 1982, daily use of marijuana was one-third lower among Alaska high school seniors compared to other Americans (6.3 percent vs. 4 percent). As for fatalities, it is almost impossible to conceive of legalized drugs killing as many people as the number of heroin addicts who will die of AIDS because of their use of infected needles" (Lost Rights, page 215).

"Use of marijuana, quaaludes, and cocaine declined once the public became convinced of the drug's adverse impacts. Public understanding is a far more effective deterrent than government punishments. Even if there was a slight increase in the number of people using drugs after legalization, they would be using much safer drugs than are currently being used. It would be better to have six million people using clean cocaine than five million people using cocaine laced with benzene" (Lost Rights, page 215).

According to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 67 million americans have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime, and over 22 million americans have used cocaine at least once in their lifetime. 36 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 12 has used illicit drugs at least once in their lifetime. Despite the extremely large number of individuals who have gotten their hands on, and used drugs, it would seem that the War on [Innocent People] just isn't working, and hasn't stopped the availability of the drugs themselves - as well as made many of them cheaper (Lost Rights, page 216).

Certainly, there is the possibility of overdoses with drugs being legal, though probably not much more than the legal drugs that are available now. Other than that though, with drugs legal, we would see a decrease in crime since people will no longer need to commit harmful acts against other people to feed their habit, and the drug wars, which kill thousands a year, would be stopped. There would be several more advantages, but ultimately, it would mean the freedom of all individuals to exercise their natural right to put whatever substances into their own bodies that they want, so long as they don't harm anyone in the process.