Category Archives: Drug War

Updated: Blame Local Yokels

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Drug War, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security

Republican loyalists protesting Hillary Clinton’s latest antics should spare us their righteous indignation. Bush would have said and done exactly as Madam Secretary of State has—he too would have blamed American tokers and dopers for the fact that Mexican murderers are killing one another, and, while at it, are throwing into the mix an American or two.

It’s business as usual:

An “insatiable” appetite in the United States for illegal drugs is to blame for much of the violence ripping through Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday.

Clinton acknowledged the U.S. role in Mexico’s drug cartel problem as she arrived in Mexico for a two-day visit where she will discuss U.S. plans to ramp up border security with President Felipe Calderon. …

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians,” Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City.

“I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility.”

We’d expect nothing else from Clinton–blaming peaceful members of society for the savagery of criminals. Ever ask yourself, Madam, why Mexicans are more likely to run drugs, while Americans are more inclined to consume them?

Update: And could it be, Madam, that these societies–Mexican and American–are fundamentally different in some real and material way worth investigating and perhaps even preserving? Perish the thought!

Update II: Addicted To That Rush

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Drug War, Music, Republicans, War on Drugs

The title of this column comes not from Rush Limbaugh’s unfortunate addiction to prescription drugs, but from the eponymous ‘Mr. Big’ hit. (They don’t make musicians like Paul Gilbert and Billy Sheehan any longer, but I digress.) Nevertheless it alludes to another of Rush’s missed opportunities: Speaking against a war into which he was involuntarily drafted and almost destroyed.”

“Rush rightly denounced the State’s failed war on poverty. It failed not because fighting poverty is not a noble cause, but because, given the perverse incentives it entrenches, government is incapable of winning such a war. The same economic and bureaucratic perversions make another of the State’s stalemated wars equally unwinnable and ruinous: the War on Drugs.”

“Lysander Spooner, the great, American 19th-century theorist of liberty, defined vices as those acts ‘by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which a man harms the person or property of another.’ A conservative worth his salt should know the difference; and should know that government has no business treating vices as crimes.”

“If for harming himself a man forfeits his freedom, then he is not free at all. …”

The excerpt is from my new WND column, “Addicted To That Rush.” It brings together, somehow, the Steele-Limbaugh spat, the Bush/Barack death wish for America, the progressive rock group “Mr. Big,” and much more.

Update I (March 6): Sigh. Over at The View From The Right, Larry Auster and readers discuss (rather obsessively) the one-word change I made in quoting Auster in “Addicted To That Rush.”

Auster had written:

“…their criticisms of Obama will have the stink of rank partisanship.”

I changed that to:

“…their criticisms of Obama will have the [odor] of rank partisanship.”

Let me indulge Auster’s readers: First, the change was introduced quite appropriately, encased thus []. Next, there was no deep deception, just an editorial choice. The reader Leonard D. got the issue of redundancy right, writing:

“My guess as to what Mercer did not like about ‘the stink of rank partisanship’ is that it is redundant, ‘rank’ being almost synonymous with “stinky.”

However, and not withstanding Leonard D.’s valid point, I’d have expected traditionalists to get that “stink” is rather crass and certainly very earthy. A good word, no doubt, but not the most refined one when used by a woman. Again: an honest word, for sure, but I don’t like “stink” because of its connotations (bodily fluids, etc., say no more).

Traditionalists, generally hip to the vulgarization of society, should have been hip to this preference. I simply chose a daintier, less vulgar word.

There is a time and a place for everything, and I have indeed used strong language to describe elected officials on the blog (but not in columns).

Update II: The spouse, also the best guitarist I know, tells me that Paul Gilbert located to Japan, where there is a vast audience for maestros of guitar and progressive rock. It figures: the Japanese also have aggregate higher IQs than the local Coldplay fans, to whom complexity and competence are cuss words.

Updated: Canada Votes

Canada, Democracy, Drug War, Economy, The State

It was swift and efficient. It took a day. There was little fuss. Campaigning did not begin three years earlier. Voters and election officials managed to cast and count the ballots. There are no reports of systemic voter fraud. Conservatives have returned to form a minority government. (As the American duopoly merges into undifferentiated socialism.)

The Wall Street Journal once called Canada “an honorary Third World country.” The tables are turned.

Update: (October 18) It’s important to make finer distinctions. Canada is more socialistic than the US; the US is more fascistic. Take the Drug War. Canada doesn’t have one nearly as destructive to lives and liberties as the US’s. Ditto an SEC. The US put Canadian newspaper mogul Conrad Black in jail; not the other way round. When last did you hear of an SEC witch hunt in Canada? Canada has tried to follow the US’s lead in these areas, but has not lived up to the latter’s brutality. Not by any measure.

Letter of the Week: Your Home is the Government’s Castle’ By Carolus

Drug War, Private Property

I have very ambivalent feelings about drug legalization, though I can certainly understand the arguments that have been advanced for it in libertarian circles. The thing I oppose here is the destruction of the fourth amendment that this type of thing represents and the gross abuse of such ‘no-knock’ warrants by prosecutors, judges, and police.

Such warrants are routinely sought by careerist DA’s, rubber-stamped by moronic judges, and carried out with blind stupidity by police. The list of innocent victims of such abuse grows every day. While there might be a rare in extremis instance where such a raid might possibly be justified (against a cell of jihadis preparing an terrorist attack, for example), that’s not what’s going on day after day in city after city.

Instead, we end up with innocent victims of prosecutorial, judicial, and police misconduct and incompetence, for whom there is zero recourse. Yes, there will no doubt be an official investigation and yes, no doubt the shooting of the 92-year-old woman will be ruled “justified.” It’s as predictable as the sun rising in the east. I think a more appropriate response for this type of wanton stupidity would be: 1) the summary dismissal with prejudice of the officers involved (meaning they will never wear a badge again); 2) the removal of the prosecutor who sought the warrant; 3) the summary removal of the jurist who signed the warrant. In all, the guilty parties should have their careers ruined for good.

If a doctor screws up and kills a patient, the odds are high that he will be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey by hungry trial lawyers via malpractice suits. If prosecutors, judges, and police screw up and an innocent person dies, they are all quite immune from lawsuits since they are acting in official capacity as government employees.

–CAROLUS