War on Drugs or you your money?

It is not worthy to repeat what has been said so many times before, rather it might be prudent to point at the proven evidence of exactly one century ago. The same scenario with brain sensitive substances. But, the results are so good, that I have to make reference to Prohibition.

About a century ago, tyrants decided to influence the government to act in tyranny and oppress the people by “Prohibition”. In the nation of the “Free”, the people sought to be free and ignored tyranny. Since alcohol became illegal, and whatever is illegal makes people question why, unless it is something bad, restriction entices people to looked into it, to see why. But, yes, alcohol is a drug and is bad.

Thus criminals prospered by “crime”, only criminals had access to manufacturing, selling and distributing whine and alcoholic products. Since there was no other way to get what for thousands of years had been free, territorial wars were common; thus murder was part of business. The force of capitalism was in control under the nose of government that said you could not do it.

Then the spirit of common since prevailed by the influence of capitalism still. The government decided to have a share on that criminal trade. We ended up with a government department dealing with Tobacco Alcohol and Firearms—growth in government, that is good for politicians. Better yet, now all those criminal substances that had been used freely for thousands of years before prohibition, became free again—but, only if you pay the government—it sounds like taxes.

Now, governments around the world have an excuse to tax tobacco and alcohol, more government growth. It makes politicians appear as if they really care for the people who voted them into office. Since the governments assumed the role of the criminals, those alcoholic substances became controllable, with permits to the same criminals who had not gotten caught.

Politicians around the world demonstrated what the law of prohibition was. Alcohol is part of their entertainment, as it has been for thousands of years, for everyone else.

Now, we even have an ex-President who refused to say he never used drugs, rather Mr. Clinton said that he “…did not inhale it”. No one can be present where smoke is present without inhaling it. It has been classified as “secondhand smoke”, in Clinton’s case “grass smoking”.

However, the war on drugs has a different base. First its source is South America, legalizing drugs would allow large sums of money into the coffers of the Latinos—no way. Secondly, the Latinos could become financially independent. In contrast we had big grain farms to produce alcohol; but coco is a natural near the Equator. Thirdly, there is a real cultural threat. Some Latino clown once bragged that he would intoxicate America—the same way, the English enslaved the Asians with the opium business two centuries ago.

But, those are small potatoes, when we compare that the war on drugs allowed governments around the world to control your money. If anyone deposits or makes transactions of $10,000 or more, the government has to be notified. It is called financial or property oppression. That is how the European governments controlled the Jews for centuries, by taking their property.

In the sixteen hundreds, the English did come to the conclusion that the ultimate weapon is not the sword, rather, it is the control of money. Without the war on drugs there does not appear a validity for governments to control your money.

Reality: Any substance altering the thinking process is bad and should not be use at all.

This is refernce to:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/leaders-rethink-the-war-on-drugs-at-summit-of-the-americas/article2402426/page2/

The Globe and Mail

Drug Policy
Leaders rethink the war on drugs at Summit of the Americas
CAMPBELL CLARK AND MARINA JIMÉNEZ