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

Drug Control? These Intellectuals are Crazy

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/151197/major_international_leaders_plead_for_the_us_and_the_world_to_get_smart_and_stop_the_war_on_drugs/
by
Molly OTolly
Major International Leaders Plead for the US and the World to Get Smart and Stop the War on Drugs
June 4, 2011

-------------------
My Take

Drug Control? These Intellectuals are Crazy
Of course these Intellectuals are not discovering anything new. They are just looking at the history of the USA and seeing that last century’s US decision to end prohibition and start regulation both saved lives and increased taxes for the US Treasure.

To repeat the same about drugs other than alcohol would be another great way to overcome drug crime and paralyze drug cartels. That is logic.

However there is the capitalism logic of the so called police and lawyers and lawmakers who make a living from the drug crime. If drugs are legalized and thus controlled, most cops making around $100,000 would have to work for a living. Many trial lawyers and prosecutors would be in the unemployment lines; or actually on the crime business as direct participants.

A few years ago while serving on a Grand-Jury, most of the activity was about drugs. Can you see judges without a job? The Jail business as third party enforcers, would be without much of the revenue from those contracts, and from the dirty money of about $5 per phone minute that the inmates pay for phone calls.

The Intellectuals proposing regulation over criminalization are not looking at the economic downturn of the US in an already super fragile economy. They forgot that in the capitalist system it is not what is right that counts; but, rather what brings in the money is what counts—unless the public standup to the crooked lawmakers of course.

Regulation over criminalization would also hamper the US government abuse in the controlling of money-flow. There would not be another good reason to control money transactions to $10,000. The population of the world would be free--that is against the core of the capitalist system.

The tight control of the money supply and knowing where the money is, is what keeps capitalist in power. Once there is cash freedom, there will be the end of capitalism as we know it.

Can we imagine the lives save by no accidental overdoses, because cocaine and other mood affecting drugs would be quality controlled. The user would know precisely the limits; deaths from over-doses would be greatly decreased. Because over-doses normally occur when a different drug supplier sells a drug that is more pure-thus more potent than what the user normally takes.

Drugs are as evil as alcohol and tobacco are evil, therefore they should be controlled for the public’s safety.

The big question remains: Would Bill Clinton rephrase his statement from “I didn’t inhale” to “I didn’t overdose?” Better yet, would Hillary Clinton say: “I used it with moderation?”