John Ashcroft Escalates War Against Americans

Search

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
aka the so-called War Against Drugs. I'm glad we've solved the terrorism thing so we can better focus on putting more Americans who are no threat to anyone else, into prison.

From the current edition of National Review:

Pubdate: Mon, 10 May 2004
Source: National Review (US)
Copyright: 2004 National Review
Contact: letters@nationalreview.com
Website: http://www.nationalreview.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/287
Author: Deroy Murdock


BAD TRIP

The Federal War On Drugs Expands.

At a time when federal officials should focus obsessively on crushing terrorists, they are expanding the disastrous war on drugs into an even more pointless war on substances. From old bogeymen like marijuana to new "hazards" like Oxycontin, Washington busybodies are knocking themselves out combating compounds that, by themselves, do not threaten public safety.

The Justice Department has appealed a December 2003 federal court decision that barred Uncle Sam from impeding Californians who use personally grown, locally cultivated, or charitably donated medical marijuana. In Raich v. Ashcroft, the Ninth Circuit correctly disallowed the Constitution's commerce-clause rationale for federal intervention. After all, how can interstate commerce include intrastate, noncommercial activity?

Rather than accept defeat and confront genuine dangers, Attorney General John Ashcroft seeks Supreme Court permission to keep raiding medical-marijuana suppliers and harassing people such as Angel Raich who has used medical marijuana to treat a brain tumor, wasting syndrome, seizures, and more.

Among many others, the feds also are prosecuting, Gary and Anna Barrett. This Victorville, California couple had state permission to grow marijuana to address their respective ailments. He suffers Crohn's disease, a potentially lethal digestive disease. She uses marijuana to relieve the pain she has endured since surviving a five-story fall from a London hotel balcony during their 1995 honeymoon.

"We are disappointed, but not surprised, that Attorney General Ashcroft has chosen to ask the Supreme Court for what amounts to a license to attack the sick," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Washington-based Marijuana Policy Project. "Conservatives should be appalled that the Justice Department is arguing that two patients and their caregivers, growing and using medical marijuana within California -- using California seeds, California soil, California water, and California equipment, and engaging in no commercial activity whatsoever -- are somehow engaged in 'interstate commerce.'"

On April 12, the Bush administration became the first to prohibit a dietary supplement, yet another GOP triumph. Ephedra, an herbal stimulant, helped dieters lose weight -- a healthy objective -- and energized others, much as does currently legal caffeine. Alas, Sidney Wolfe of the liberal Public Citizen estimates that ephedra has contributed to some 155 deaths since January 1993. But as Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum notes, "this number is remarkably low given how many people have used ephedra. Until the recent bad publicity cut into sales, the industry estimated that 12 million to 17 million Americans were taking around 3 billion doses a year."

Sullum compares these 155 possible ephedra deaths spanning 11 years with the federal Drug Abuse Warning Network's survey of coroners' reports. In 1999 alone, DAWN found 811 multiple-drug overdose deaths that included Valium ingestion, 427 fatalities that involved Tylenol, and 104 that entailed aspirin. Why not ban those drugs, too?

The Justice Department led a federal grand jury to issue a 42-count indictment against San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds's personal trainer, Greg Anderson; track coach Remi Korchemny; and Victor Conte Jr. and James J. Valente, executives of the Bay Area Lab Cooperative. They are accused of giving professional athletes anabolic steroids.

"Illegal steroid use calls into question not only the integrity of the athletes who use them, but also the integrity of the sports that those athletes play," Ashcroft told reporters February 11. "Steroids are bad for sports, they're bad for players, they're bad for young people who hold athletes up as role models."

There you have it: Uncle Sam has seized the responsibility for policing America's hallowed sports teams and athletes. Who needs the commissioners of baseball and football? Even if steroids were Washington's business, must the attorney general spend even three seconds on this? Surely Ashcroft has more pressing items in his inbox. So does every other steroid cop. Ashcroft should scrap this project.

Hydrocodone ( Vicodin ) is America's most widely prescribed drug. Doctors prescribed it 100 million times in 2002, according to Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

"Nowadays a physician can prescribe this drug and give patients multiple refills," Michaels says. "Now, the Drug Enforcement Administration wants you to see your doctor before every refill. Its proposal will require 300 million more doctor's office visits per year, assuming that one visit today covers two refills. That equals 150 million worker days lost."

Michaels badly injured his neck in a softball mishap, leaving him in such agony that he wanted to die.

"Unremitting and severe chronic pain creates a very logical decision on the part of the patient not to want to live," Michaels recalls. "I remember thinking it was stupid to be alive.... Along with 38 million other people, my life was made a heck of a lot more livable with hydrocodone."

The DEA wants to make hydrocodone a Schedule II drug, track how much of it doctors prescribe, and monitor the amount each patient receives.

"I can assure you," Michaels warns, "this is going to make doctors reluctant to prescribe the world's most popular pain reliever."

"The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is being destroyed by federal bureaucrats, who have turned the drug war into a war on pain relief," Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. ( R., Tex. ) lamented in an April 19 commentary. The feds have threatened prosecution and loss of medical licenses for physicians who prescribe strong painkillers such as Oxycontin. While some abuse these pharmaceuticals, many more rely on them to ease pain. Nonetheless, Rep. Paul wrote, some doctors no longer prescribe these pharmaceuticals while others "have even posted signs in their waiting rooms advising patients not to ask for Oxycontin and similar drugs."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gene Rossi encapsulated Justice's profound disdain for pain specialists when he declared: "Our office will try our best to root out certain doctors like the Taliban."

Adults should be free to stimulate, fortify, or medicate themselves however they wish, so long as they simultaneously respect the rights and safety of others. As al Qaeda prepares bloody surprises, it is simply surreal for federal officials to exert even one calorie of collective energy to battle American citizens who trim their waistlines, boost their batting averages, or soothe their pounding nerve endings.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
John "When in doubt throw em in jail" Ashcroft.


marsububu.gif
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,123
Tokens
Asscroft is one of the most dangerous members of Junior's SS goon squad because he is a religious zealot. I wonder if he talks to God like Junior?

Semper Fi,

Lt. Dan
 

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
2,857
Tokens
Love Ashcroft. However, think marijuana should be legal but only to be used in the home. If you are caught under the influence while driving, then same penalty should be given as drinking.

------------------------------

Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly for the White House
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
TT: If you are caught under the influence (of marijuana) while driving, then same penalty should be given as drinking.

BAR: Why?
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
A litttle lenghty but worth the read.

John Ashcroft, Keep Your Mouth Off My Wife!
Talking the Homeland Security Blues with Bingo the Philosopher Dog
By JOE BAGEANT

I'd be the first to admit that sitting here in this garden shed drinking Jim Beam and feeding pork rinds to my dog Bingo (a black mutt of the type we call a "piss hound" around here) may not be the be the best vantage point from which to examine national security affairs. However, it must be said that when the nebulous tendrils of U.S. security policy begin to reach down this far into everyday life, far enough to rattle a 57-year-old pee dribbler such as myself, it sure as hell can be called pervasive, at the very least. Not only pervasive, but also downright personal too. John Ashcroft publically insulted my wife. I kid you not. I never thought I'd see the day when I would be ready fo a balls-to-the-wall scrap with the Attorney General of the United States. I really didn't. So last week I sent him a nasty note, from which I quote, in order to explain to you, dear reader, the sordid details:

"John, goddammit, we are going to have to thrash this thing out! Thanks to you, my librarian wife, who is pretty much the stereotypical, quiet, matronly archivist down in the basement of the local scriptorium, can be fined and sent to prison if she refuses to hand over library records and public internet logs to federal agents. In fact, under the USA Patriot Act, she can be prosecuted if she tells anyone at all, including coworkers and me, that the government came snooping around. And YOU, Mr.Ashcroft, made wisecracks about the National Library Association's objections to this spying on citizens, calling the librarians' concerns "baseless hysteria," and a "hissy fit over Tom Clancey novels." At the same time you and I both know there are plenty of librarians more than happy to hand over records to government spies, for political reasons or merely for the excitement of it all. My wife is not one of these people. (Nevertheless, I find it rather chilling that she and I seem to have an unspoken agreement not to discuss it, so potentially shattering are the repurcussions. Also, she knows I have a big mouth.) "Living here in a bedroom community of Washington D.C., it is only a matter of time until the feds come to our library---if they haven't already. And only last weekend I learned that the Department of Homeland Security has put restrictions on what geneologists can request. Geneologists for god's sake! For the record Mr. Ashcroft, I am being neither paranoid nor having a hissy fit. I am asking a simple question. And this time none of your arrogant, smart-assed replies. How does preventing some old blue-haired geneologist from looking at my aunt Gertrude's baptismal certificate prevent terrorists from blasting me and old Bingo out of this garden shed? And exactly how does surveillance of the reading habits of an aging redneck pud like me make this nation one bit safer?"

(signed)
Ready to rumble,
Joe Bageant

I've not heard back from the attorney general, but it's only been a week. So during the wait, I've put aside for the moment this Mexican standoff between me and the attorney general in order to contemplate the larger picture. Maybe the problem is that I am not a "big picture guy." It could very well be that aunt Gertrude's baptismal certificate is somehow related to the war on terror and events in Baghdad, via a strange web of connections far too vast for me to comprehend. After all, I have seen stranger political events happen during my lifetime, things with mysterious connective tissues far beyond my humble grasp...chief among them being an altzheimer's victim shaking his fist at the Berlin Wall and bringing down the enire Soviet Union. I still haven't figured out how Reagan did that, whether it was an optical illusion or just another example of chaos theory, wherein the butterfly flaps its wings causing a tornado in some other part of the world. Whatever the case, Reagan has since been cannonized for having planned it that way from the beginning. Who are we to doubt it? Given that a U.S. president can rattle the global economy with a single pronouncement, or push the red button at will (even while getting his joint copped under the oval office desk, right there between those two flags, if he so chooses) it's reasonable to assume that behind every decision a president and his cabinet makes there is a sophisticated master plan. Then again, maybe not. Ever since George W. Bush---whom we call "Sparky" around our house---stepped onto the Capitol steps and placed his beefy paw on the Good Book, my big-picture-guy notion of the U.S. presidency, my image of the president as "the man with the plan," has been shot to hell. In fact, I find myself turning cranky at the very mention of the president's name, which could be attributable to the Jim Beam, or it could be my prostate acting up again. I dunno. But from where I sit, it looks like more planning goes into our local Elk's Club picnic than happens in the presidential cabinet these days. Neither Sparky nor the other three horsemen of the chicken hawk apocalypse ever give us a rationale for anything, at least not until after the deal goes down, which does not exactly spell P-L-A-N to me. And even then, the rationale or plan will not stay put, but rather shifts around like a whore in church. What's more, members of the president's own team keep defecting and telling us the White House cabinet members are peddling big wheel tricycles around the oval office without any real plan, other than getting reelected, giving voting rights to unborn fetuses, and killing "the bad guys." Personally, this has not been comforting. I doubt Bingo likes it much either.

If that were all, it would certainly be enough to make me double my dose of Prevacid. But now I find that I may be an "enemy combatant" and not even know it. At this very moment the president and his crew are arguing in the Supreme Court that certain American citizens, even those arrested inside the United States, are "enemy combatants," a non-legal term invented out of thin air, yet expected to be recognized in the Supreme Court of the United States. In any case, once an American citizen is singled out as an enemy combatant by the president, lo and bedamned, he or she morphs into a U.S. military captive---a prisoner of war. Well, actually, not even that lucky because the captive in this case is not quite entitled to the rights of POWs, much less those of an American citizen. They are not entitled to a lawyer or a jury trial, and can and are being kept locked up in a windowless cell for as long as the president sees fit. Which means forever, if the president happens to be having a bad day. So if, for example, John Ashcroft or Don Rumsfeld ever find my sympathetic email correspondence with Muslim Middle Eastern friends, WHOOSH! I could suddenly become an enemy prisoner of the U.S. military...shitting in a crapper between interrogations in an undisclosed location, instead of lounging on a bag of potting soil pondering all this with Bingo. A seemingly small action on my part could lead to huge disaster. It's one of those chaos theory butterfly wing things.

In the meantime though, I am surely being defended abroad, though precisely what threat to this potting shed the Iraqis represented, I cannot say. The Pentagon spends hundreds of billions a year on sci-fi techno-toys now swarming like giant steel insects across the skies and the miserable bombed-out mud brick moonscapes of the Middle East---only to be blown up by semi-literate, sandal wearing villagers wielding cell phone detonators, for crap sake. (Not a real confidence builder there, Sparky.) Yes, I must confess to doubt. For the life of me I cannot see how any American with more than two fingers of forehead can find reassurance in reports of U.S. troops gunning down Muslim demonstrators, or bombing Iraqi neighborhoods in the process of liberation and democratization. One might suspect that snuffing all those Iraqis---the collateral damage---and the current photos of American torturers shown on worldwide TV will breed more resentment and at least a few new terrorists, say, a few hundred thousand. Somehow it smells like the same pile the Israelis stepped into when they began doing those things to the Palestinians. It could be that Iraqis love stepping out to pick up the morning paper amid gunfire and mangled body parts. Somebody needs to check this out.

I have always been accused of going all the way around my elbow to get to my thumb; this article is no exception. We started out bitching about John Ashcroft sneering at my better half (I do not intend to drop the matter, John. Keep your mouth off my wife!) and ended up in Iraq. Everything seems to end up there these days, doesn't it? Maybe it is because Iraq is where this malignant, festering boil on the American geopolitical buttscape, the one that started as a pimple in the White House, comes to a head. But what do I know? Say goodnight Bingo. Joe Bageant is a senior editor for Primedia History Magazine Group and a connoisseur of home grown tomatoes.

wil.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
2,857
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barman:
TT: If you are caught under the influence (of marijuana) while driving, then same penalty should be given as drinking.

BAR: Why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because you are driving in an altered state of mind.

Don't tell me you want it to be legal to be high and drive?

If you go any further left you would fall off the edge.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Shouldn't impairment be the defining factor?

After all, most every drug in the pharmacopia alters the mind - by definition.

Yet I don't think you'd endorse using the laws for alcohol-impaired driving for any and all drug use, would you?
~~~~~~~~~~~
And fwiw, this would not be a left/right question, though if it was, "I" would be leaning hard right since I pose strong questions as to when the government can legally intervene on my personal choices.
 

Another Day, Another Dollar
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
42,730
Tokens
So many serious issues in the US and we fall back on the drug war. What a waste of time. I can eat a couple sinus pills and be twice as fuked up as smoking some weed.

Weed = YAWN
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
You are correct, General.

For the vast majority of people, marijuana use does not impair driving under normal conditions.

However, proposed legislation in several states, as well as federal calls for anyone with even marijuana metabolites in their bloodstream to be cited for DWI.(Driving While Impaired)

And lest you non pot users cheer too quickly, note that most of that legislation also calls for anyone that has ANY trace of a long list of routine over-the-counter drugs in their bloodstream to be cited for DWI as well.

If such legislation were to pass, and frankly I don't think it's got too good a shot given the current language, it would effectively make criminals out of 20% of more of drivers at any given moment.

Most 'right' thinkers believe the government should only intervene on personal choice when a clear and present danger to others can be demonstrated.

Thus it's odd that someone would suggest I must be 'left' when I call for laws that demand a demonstration of impairment before the driver can be cited for DWI.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
2,857
Tokens
When you are in an altered state that's enough for me to take you off the road.

Rather have you smoke your shit at home than risk taking a life.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
So if the 'altered state' of mind does not create impairment, it's still sufficient to take away someone's driving privileges?

The majority of drugs available over the counter and by prescription create an altered state of mind. Your preferred policy would then call for over half of Americans to not be able to drive.

Yikes.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
2,857
Tokens
Altered state, impairment same potential danger. Wouldn't put in front the rights of a pot head to be high and drive over the potential risks of endangering people's lives.

Alcohol cause impairment and an altered state of mind, should people be allowed to drive since over the counter drugs cause that too?

If it will save 1 life making it illegal to be high then its worth it.

2 wrongs don't make a right, so justifing over the counter drugs with weed is like me saying you should legalise having a choice to wear a seat belt because abortion is legal.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
608
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If it will save 1 life making it illegal to be high then its worth it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why not create legislation to protect us from ourselves... I mean if it will save 1 life making it illegal then its worth it. Jesus Christ, thank you John Asscroft and thank you FDA for saving me from myself... I mean it was obvious, I could have killed myself with ephedra.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
TT, I don't have much of a problem with the concerns you're stating.

But I'd appreciate a direct answer to whether or not level of impairment should be the key consideration as opposed to a rather vague, "altered state of mind".

In response to your own question, no, driving while under the influence of defined levels of alcohol should not be legal, because we've scientifically demonstrated that these certain levels of alcohol in one's bloodstream will produce sufficient impairment to create a very increased risk of damaging others.

No such example has been demonstrated for people with marijuana in their systems. So if we cannot demonstrate impairment, why should we charge someone with a crime for driving with marijuana ingredients in their bloodstream?
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
And TT, I think even you can do better for justifying the creation of new legislation simply by using the "If it saves even one life, it's good policy" card.

Using that standard, I should propose that all driving nationwide cease immediately for any reason whatsoever, since after all, it will save at least one life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a copy of a post I made the other day which nicely summarizes why we should question the notion that laws regulating drivers who use alcohol can simply be Copied to apply to marijuana using drivers:

BAR wrote: Oh, I wouldn't be as 'blunt' as Meanstreak, but I can speak with authority that driving with marijuana in your system is a completely different equation than driving with alcohol in your system. Here's why.

ALCOHOL IS NOT MARIJUANA. MARIJUANA IS NOT ALCOHOL.

They are too completely different substances.

The primary thing they have in common is that people use them both for relaxation and 'partying', for lack of a better term.

Other than that, there's little resemblance.

But due to that one common use, much of the public slots pot and alcohol in the same vein, thinking, "Driving with pot in your system is pretty much the same as driving with alcohol in your system". It's a very inappropriate analogy, but that doesn't stop politicians and drug prohibition supporters from flogging it for all they're worth.

There's been lots and lots of research on this topic and not one peer reviewed study demonstrates significant impairment for drivers who have recently used marijuana. In fact, most conclusions indicate that pot-influenced drivers simply slow down a bit and otherwise make any neccesary adjustments to continue driving safely.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
2,857
Tokens
Here is an article on the government's website http://www.drugabuse.gov that shows Marijuana Impairs Driving-Related Skills.

I am sure you will find an article by pro-weed users disputing this.

Fine with me but if it's in dispute, why not give the benefit of the doubt that it does impair driving to be on the safe side and saving lives.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Marijuana use impairs driving-related functions and is linked to a pattern of behaviors that leads to poor job performance, according to two NIDA-supported studies on the effects of marijuana on human performance. Findings from the studies were presented at NIDA's first National Conference on Marijuana Use

"Driving and marijuana do not mix; that's the bottom line," said Dr. Stephen J. Heishman, a research psychologist in the Clinical Pharmacology Branch of NIDA's Division of Intramural Research. Figures from previous studies of automobile accident victims show that from 6 to 12 percent of nonfatally injured drivers and 4 to 16 percent of fatally injured drivers had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their bloodstream, Dr. Heishman said. One study showed that 32 percent of drivers in a shock trauma unit in Baltimore had marijuana in their bloodstream, he noted. However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving.

In a laboratory study at NIDA's Addiction Research Center in Baltimore that controlled for alcohol's confounding effect, Dr. Heishman tested marijuana's effects on the functional components of driving. Study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. Both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent THC. Twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. The test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. As the dose of THC increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. Subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger.

The data from these laboratory studies show that marijuana impairs balance and coordination - functional components important to driving - in a dose-related way, said Dr. Heishman. These effects may be related to reported marijuana-induced impairment of automobile driving, he stated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
TT: Fine with me but if it's in dispute, why not give the benefit of the doubt that it does impair driving to be on the safe side and saving lives?

BAR: Very easy to answer. Because if we err on the wrong side and begin arresting anyone with marijuana metabolites in their bloodstream and there is not strong decisive evidence they were a danger to others, we destroy literally millions of lives by giving people criminal records who don't deserve them.

More in the following post.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,239
Messages
13,565,768
Members
100,771
Latest member
Bronco87
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com