Saturday, October 26, 2013

Our most disastrous war...

It's a war that, in retrospect, we never should have started. Oh, sure, we had the best of intentions going in; there was a perceived threat to our society, plus the do-gooder angle of people who needed saving to make us feel better about ourselves. Sure, we might have to curtail a few civil liberties for the duration, but that's the price of security in time of war, right?

Forty years later, we are still an occupying army, people's rights are still getting trampled, and you have a harder time buying good cold medicine than you would the meth they're afraid you'll make with it. They would rather an innocent person writhe in pain than risk somebody getting high.

Seriously, the War on (Some) Drugs has done more damage to the fabric of American liberty and the Bill of Rights than any other single factor, shows no sign of letting up, and yet bring this fact up to any Law 'n' Order Republican and they just snort and dismiss the issue with "Libertarians just want to smoke pot."

Thank you, John Locke, for that penetrating insight; you've figured me right out. Yes, the reason I want to roll back the ridiculous regulations that have built up around cold medicine is because I want to smoke pot... you knob. No, Eliot Ness, I don't particularly want to smoke pot, but I do want to stop the ongoing judicial death-by-torture of the Fourth Amendment.

America, land of the piss test and the no-knock; the militarized southern border; a Drug Enforcement Agency that is not only twice the size of the Estonian army, but which probably outguns it, too; where moderately bright dogs are treated as constitutional scholars on Fourth Amendment issues, eager to please their handlers by giving them an excuse to tear your car apart on the roadside; where state and local police agencies are the recipient of DoD hand-me-down armored cars and machine guns and attack helicopters as though they were banana republics, although with less oversight as to how the gear will be used.

And you bring this stuff up and it gets hand-waved away with "you just want to smoke pot."

"Oh, Tam, the scourge of drugs is..." No scourge is worth this, okay? This whole "burn the village to save it" thing has got to stop.

People complain about the loss of freedoms in the War on Terror? It was all built on a scaffold of dope laws. How did they legally justify the .mil assistance at Waco? They claimed there was a dope lab on the premises. How do they go after your scary-looking AKs and ARs? By claiming that they're the preferred weapon of dope dealers. (That's right: 922r is a direct result of the War on Drugs, via paleoconservative Republican Bill Bennett. You can look it up.) Next time somebody complains about the "parts count" provisions on their SKS, I'm going to snark right back at 'em with "You just want to smoke pot."


EDIT: Heh. I must've subconsciously been picking up the vibes of an ongoing discussion elsewhere on the internets. I heard that news story about the proposed prescription drug regulation changes this morning and the above rant just happened.

69 comments:

PhilaBOR said...

I agree 100%!

Legalize it and stop sending kids to crime university for smoking or selling a joint.

Mark Alger said...

As far as I can tell, every single pathology alleged by the drug warriors is either induced by the government-created black market in the drugs or is a personal problem.

The drugs aren't the problem; the government is the problem.

Gee! Where have I heard that before.

M

TW: rprioriz... Yes. We do need to reprioritize

Anonymous said...

Gods truth Tam, But you forgot one thing this won't change as long as the people making the law are the ones making the money off keeping the anti-drug laws intact.

greg said...

The worst part about having a cold is having to wait in line to fill out my Sudafed paperwork.

Farm.Dad said...

Its no damned better here where pot is " legal " in any and all forms . We are way past the point of voting our way out of this mess .

John A said...

Growing hemp became a Federal offense in the 1930s. But was suspended (there is a YouTube entry of the USDA showing farmers how to grow it on "waste" land) during WWII as the military needed it to make ropes and such.

I do not particularly want pot to be unregulated over-the-counter, but keeping it in the class it is ("no medical use") is ridiculous. Like aspirin, we may not know why/how it works, but there is plenty of evidence it (at least, some components - ask doctors in Canada) does.

Why this became "War on Drugs" and expanded so much and so quickly some years after WWII may have been the "feel good" idiocy that occasionally grips the pols, such as alcohol prohibition.

And quick it was. In Junior and Senior High School I used to put together plastic models - but the effective glue/cement was removed in the early 1960s because some fools were inhaling the fumes. Not even a drug, but waddahay...

Anonymous said...

I'm almost to the point of "legalize everything but meth." Almost, because of watching a guy on PCP and crack try to kill a grand piano at my place of worship. Thank G-d he didn't go after any people (this was before CCHLs were available).

LittleRed1

Anonymous said...

The worst part is that America has lost the war on drugs. Marijuana and heroine are now cheaper, adjusting for inflation, than they were 40 years ago when Nixon declared war. The other effect is that the drug trade gave rise to the cartels in Colombia and Mexico. What is the DEA's annual budget?

Incidentally, in Canada, pseudo-ephedrine containing products are on the pharmacy shelf and you don't even have to show ID to purchase them, yet meth use is less prevalent.

Al_in_Ottawa

Tam said...

LittleRed1,

"I'm almost to the point of "legalize everything but meth.""

They already give amphetamines to fat people, fighter pilots, and kids with ADHD.

Anonymous said...

The militarization of the southern border has to be seen to be believed. Over a couple of years, I traveled the border from Brownsville to the AZ/CA line. (I don't go to CA.) Parts of it are unaccessible- reservations, military bases and a big chunk of TX with no border road but the rest I saw. The numbers of various kinds of Federal police are staggering. Thousands of them. It felt like an occupied country. Patrolling the backcountry, setting up highway checkpoints 75 miles from the border, doing paperwork in their stations which have hundreds of cars in the lot, etc. And it is all about drugs. One time I went through the checkpoint on the Interstate by Las Cruces. The thing had 3 traffic lanes but only one was open even though there were about 20 Border Patrol standing around. Only one dog.

Ancient Woodsman said...

But but but...The War on Some Drugs is such a convenient way around - or an excuse to try to get around - the Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, & 10, and a frequent excuse to further restrict 2. Why wouldn't those who seek to rule instead of govern wish to keep waging this farce?

Seems to me that - as with firearms - when such products were quite freely available to anyone who wanted to buy such, there were much fewer problems in society. This "war" is only an excuse to ignore the Constitution on a regular basis, and hence just what the statists were pretty much always looking for since 1789. It just took Tricky Dick to sell it to the masses; like a bad car with an unidentifiable horrible smell, once purchased outright it's hard to get rid of.

Pootie Tang said...

I'm tired of wars that have no clear objectives, no clear metrics for success, and no endgame.

Every civilization since the beginning of human history has indulged in some type of intoxicant. The idea that we can purge drug use (caffeine and alcohol included) is ludicrous. So then what is the acceptable rate of drug use when we can declare the war has been won? Good luck getting an answer on that.

Our legal system has many problems, but it does one thing very well. It allows for the resolution of disputes without having to resort armed conflict. I mean really, wouldn't you want to sue your local dealer for fraud when they sold you less quality dope than advertised?

Borepatch said...

Portugal decriminalized *all* drugs 12 years ago. Drug abuse has fallen by half since then.

Wow, it's almost as crazy as crime falling after States go to Shall Issue ...

LabRat said...

There has got to be some kind of middle ground between "legalize everything" and "busting drug users and sellers is such a high priority we suspend civil rights".

KM said...

When everything was legal, the addiction rate in the population was lower than it is now.
Congress decided that it's better to have violent drug gangs making billions of dollars a year than for people to go buy what they want at the store.
Great plan.

Drang said...

I think Lab Rat is correct: Ending the War On Some Drugs would not necessarily mean decriminalizing all drugs, and certainly not all drug usage. Driving Under the Influenced would still be illegal, for instance. And you'd need an enforcement/regulatory structure to ensure the drugs were manufactured/processed/packaged in a safe and sanitary manner...

The Freeholder said...

If we legalized all drugs--and I mean every freaking one, even Krocodile--all the societal evils they cause would still be illegal. So people drive under the influence--still illegal. They steal to get the money to buy--still illegal. So one and so forth.

The personal evils will still be there, but they're here already and the war isn't making them go away. Like the poor, they will always be with us.

We would have something of a problem in what to do with the bodies of those who drug themselves to death, and there will be those. Soylent Green is probably out, but potters' fields would work. Have the ones still able to work bury the dead and pay them off in the drug of their choice, perhaps....

The best thing would be that there would be the possibility of starting to demilitarize our police, although honestly I doubt that would happen. Just as ATF managed to hang in there after Prohibition ended, I'm sure the cop industry would find some reason for all those SWAT teams and armored vehicles to hang around. But maybe we could slow the growth rate.

I don't know, we may be so far down the road that there is no way to turn back, but if we keep going forward, there will definitely be some very dark days ahead, and shortly, I suspect.

SewerDweller said...

I'm a chronic pain patient. I have a pinched nerve in my spine( due to age, and work related injury) that does not respond to anything but narcotics. As it was explained to me, that's 'normal' for pinched nerves. As a side note, if anyone knows of any other treatment, I'd love to hear it.

I'm a legal narcotics user. I get mine from the VA.

The latest indignity is we have to sign an annual 'pain contract'. Yeah, that's what my doctor called it.

We have to promise not to take any pills other than what we're given. We also have to take piss tests regularly. Oh, and violations will get reported to the police.

So, in order to recieve medical care, we have to surrender both our 4th, and 5th amendment rights.

What really cheeses me off about this? The only people who are going to feel bound by that signature? Are the people who were not going to take illegal drugs in the first place.


Rusty Gunner said...

Anon @10:10

So, legalize them all and beef up penalties for behaving like a baboon under the influence. Your piano-tuner wasn't using LEGAL PCP.

The key is to punish behavior that infringes the rights of others, and leave everyone else alone. Alcohol is a decent model; it's legal to get drunk but go driving and you cross the line.

Anonymous said...

The fact that we have destroyed basic human freedoms in the name of stomping on people's fun is a very very bad thing, don't get me wrong. But it irritates me that it the conversation immediately goes to marijuana when in fact, the worst rules being put into place now I designed to stomp on prescription medicines.

We rarely put a human face on this, so let me spell it out for you. Let me tell you about a good man who worked all of his life to support a family despite a steadily deteriorating back condition, one that required a double handful of surgeries over the years. We never see people like him in the news. We never admit, even to ourselves, that we will vote to make an old man suffer in extreme agony for years on end, make it impossible for him to get the pain relief he needs and that is medically possible, make it horrendously expensive and time-consuming for him to receive even mild amounts of the relief he needs, make it humiliating for him and insulting for him to seek out that help. We pass laws forcing his doctors to insult him and call him a liar – at least by implication – every time his medication needs to be adjusted, and at the end of the day he still literally cannot spend 10 minutes on his feet because the pain is so bad ...

Oh no, that's not enough. Prescription drug abuse is such a bad thing that we must make it against the law, a felony, for this pain-filled, suffering old man to change up his medication on a bad day. Oh, and make him take a piss test to be sure that he never, ever takes one pill more than he is "supposed to" take – even though for many years he took much higher levels, that's not legal now, because the rules have changed. His doctors agree with him that it is stupid and unconscionable but what can be done about it?

Go ahead, drug warriors. Keep killing this good man by inches, let him suffer. Let him cry. Let him feel depressed, and have no quality of life whatsoever. It's okay because after all you're doing a good thing – you're sending SWAT teams to stomp on kittens in the name of…

Bah.

Sevesteen said...

Penn Jilette-never taken any recreational drugs including alcohol, supports full legalization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk

Stingray said...

There has got to be some kind of middle ground between "legalize everything" and "busting drug users and sellers is such a high priority we suspend civil rights".

That would require nuance, and well north of 99% of the human species can't even pronounce that word.

Kevin said...

Legalize them all. It is not the business of government.

JohninMd.(too late?!??) said...

We probably don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending it; too many people support themselves and their families on the biz. The smugglers, the growers, the processes, cops, DEA, prison guards, politicians, they've all got job security as long as the trade continues. I agree with all the above com enters, but it ain't gonna happen.

Opinionated Grump (Rich in NC) said...

you just want to smoke pot
your gun is stupid
and
you're holding it wrong
and
You want everyone to think like you

That about covers it, No?
Rich in NC

Ken said...

Prohibition does two things:

1. It breeds contempt for the law. (Think about how much "only ones" shenanigans are a result, direct or otherwise, of the War on Some Drugs.)

2. It breeds corruption in law enforcement. This was true even before civil asset forfeiture came along to give theft the color of law.

ecurb said...

Token conservative/libertarian-based counter-argument:

We never got back the rights we lost during prohibition. The federal government never gave up the ability to monitor all our financial transactions and seize our assets at will, even after they busted all the Al Capones.

Why do we think ending drug prohibition will be any more effective at restoring our rights?

Joe in PNG said...

I wonder if a majority of police officers actually do support the War on Some Drugs. It is very likley they don't, for the simple reason that it leads to more paperwork.

Instead, blame the Government Needs To Do Something!! voters.

Tam said...

ecurb,

That's why I try and remember to phrase it as "end the war on drugs" and not "decriminalize drugs".

The problem isn't that drugs are illegal, per se, but the elaborate legal structure that has sprung up to make it easier to prosecute.

Drunken teenagers with car keys kill people in boxcar lots annually, and we manage to make teenage drinking illegal without helicopters and armored cars and 1,000-page omnibus bills and and tortured reasoning as to what constitutes "plain view"...

og said...

To be fair, a powerful lot of libertarians- certainly, most I know, do just want to smoke dope. As do about half of the people I know who style themselves "Republicans"

Make it all legal, and let the weak weed themselves out- but G-d help you if you harm me or mine while under the influence.

Windy Wilson said...

If all drugs currently illegal were legal, would anyone use Krokodil? "Bath Salts" amateur-produced amphetamine? Bathtub gin disappeared after the real thing was legally available again.

Windy Wilson said...

We'll end the war on drugs if it becomes too burdensome to prosecute that war and the war on terror at the same time.

Sigman said...

Joe: I've been a LEO for 38 years. We were fighting the WOD when I started and we're in worse shape now. I have no problem legalizing possession and enhancing Under The Influence penalties.

Anon: We've got about 600 prisoners in our jail. I'd guess about 10% for drug possession. 90% for crimes they commit to get the drugs.

I hope crime does go down. I live here too and worry about my family being victimized (especially my Mom who still lives alone at 85). And don't worry about us losing our jobs, there would still be plenty of calls for us to answer.

Goober said...

People who've never suffered from chronic pain have no business getting involved in this discussion.

You can tell me all you want its worse for me to get addicted then it is to suffer from the pain.

Then you can go f*** yourself, because you have no idea what you're talking about. Me every one of these anti drug politicians suffer from chronic pain at some point in their life so that they can finally realize what asshats theyve been

ecurb said...

Another problem is that the support we get from Drug War Footsoldiers has been a big help in the War Against The War On Guns.
We're pretty complicit in the whole thing, from the "protecting ourselves from a horde of drugged-up gobbos" conversations, to our weekend warrior trainers teaching cops Home Invasion 101 on weekdays.

This gets into what I was trying to say to LabRat the other day: one's "allies" on one front can be a serious threat on others, and it pays to be careful about helping them push even the most laudable parts of their agenda.
The obvious solution is to be a political judo master, so your helpful allies can end up mysteriously under a bus before they become a liability. But nobody ever accused libertarians of being good politicians.

Tam said...

ecurb,

"We're pretty complicit in the whole thing, from the "protecting ourselves from a horde of drugged-up gobbos" conversations, to our weekend warrior trainers teaching cops Home Invasion 101 on weekdays."

I don't get it. What "horde of drugged up gobbos"? Huh?

ecurb said...

Sorry, "gobbo" is a play on "goblin" and the anglo-australian "yobbo".
I just picked it as representative of the modern euphemisms for "violent crackhead what needs shootin'" used on gun and self-defense blogs.
You use "sumdood" in a similar way, but without any of the usual racist overtones.
Hopefully the "Home Invasion 101" bit was easier to get.

To put it plainly: 2A campaigners have benefited greatly from the cultural and materiel advances of the WoD.
The AR15 didn't become the country's most popular rifle entirely through "civilian" sales, and a lot of our training institutions came up hand in hand with the massive expansion of SWAT team training.

Anonymous said...

You forgot "your cat is upside-down"

Back on topic, I don't even drink and full legalization makes me nervous. I dont know what the solution is, but I think we have definitely and conclusively determined what it isn't. Now can we drop the plan that we know is a failure and try something; anything else?

Corey

tweell said...

Decriminalize them all, but... I want maximum penalties for those that give drugs to children. Death works.

Anonymous said...

"When everything was legal, the addiction rate in the population was lower than it is now."

Because back then, the only people who would save an addict from the effects of his life choices were VOLUNTEERS, with limited time and resources, and they usually made the drunk or druggy sit through a sermon to get his soup bowl filled .....you either made an honest attempt to straighten up and fly right, or you died in gutter..... as opposed to now, where we have a .gov with unlimited borrowing power that will subsidize indigent addicts with food stamps, unemployment, disability checks, even free "medications" (Methadone is a medication, right?) and every kind of "Program" you could imagine .... "If you want more of a thing, subsidize it. If you want less of a thing, tax it."

Legalize and tax the stuff.

-jimbob86

Joseph said...

It might be easier to argue in favor of "legalize everything." "Legalize pot but ban meth" not only sounds like it came from a stoner but a prejudiced stoner at that.

We must recall that the War on Some Drugs is a handy excuse for curtailing civil liberties even if the list of Some Drugs changes.

Matt said...

Legalize all the drugs, let the Devil claim his own.

Mick Havoc said...

This has cut the Gordian Knot. It is as clear and succinct as the Declaration of Independence in its honesty.

And I was a cop for 28 years

Anonymous said...

By all means leagalize any and all drugs. In five years we will clean out the gene pool.

Kristophr said...

Matt: Agreed.

I am unwilling to give up my rights to try to save someone from that gutter if they obviously belong there.

Anonymous said...

The "War on Drugs" was a scam from the git-go. It was the noble cause dreamed up by lawyers & politicians to keep the money rolling in indefinitely. They had (have) no intention of winning the "war on drugs" because that would cut into their cash flow. If they actually wanted to stop illegal drug use in the U.S., they could do it in relatively short order. Execute drug dealers and smugglers.

Anonymous said...

For the longest time I was one of those who thought "you just want to smoke pot" when I heard "libertarian". The reason? Everyone I knew who espoused libertarian values interrupted their own diatribes with bong rips.

Also I didn't hate cops, authority figures, and assorted bullies as much then as I do now.

perlhaqr said...

Seriously, the War on (Some) Drugs has done more damage to the fabric of American liberty and the Bill of Rights than any other single factor, shows no sign of letting up, and yet bring this fact up to any Law 'n' Order Republican and they just snort and dismiss the issue with "Libertarians just want to smoke pot."

I just ask them which constitutional amendment grants the Feds the authority to regulate "drugs".

perlhaqr said...

Kevin: That was a really great post.

Og: G-d help you if you harm me or mine while under the influence.

Why do you care? I mean... If someone harms me or one of mine and it wasn't truly an accident, it's pretty irrelevant to me why they did it.

Anonymous: For the longest time I was one of those who thought "you just want to smoke pot" when I heard "libertarian". The reason? Everyone I knew who espoused libertarian values interrupted their own diatribes with bong rips.

I have to admit, the longer I've been able to see just how utterly fucked we are, the more I feel the need to self-medicate, too.

Everyone who commented about chronic pain: Hell yes.

Tam: The most noxious thing about this recent FDA issue is their faux concern over acetaminophen poisoning... when it was the FDA who mandated the acetaminophen content explicitly for the purpose of making the drugs less safe to use. (Yes, I'm going to go look for a citation for that claim.)

Mark Alger said...

Borepatch:

The difference between instruments and actions. Between objects and behavior.

I find it [some adjective on a range between hilarious and disturbing] that conservatives can see the point where it comes to guns but utterly miss it when it comes to drugs. Or,for that matter, prostitution. Or any other "sin".

M

lineman said...

I don't drink or do drugs but I say legalize them...The only problem is who is going to pay for all the complications that arise from that...I have a feeling that the taxpayers will like we do on all the alcohol abuse..Now the money we save on doing away with enforcement might be more on what we spend on treatment so we might be better off in the long run anyway...As long as it doesn't infringe on my Rightful Liberty I say go for it...

idahobob said...

Yes, the war on us, and our civil liberties is really tiresome.

A few years back , I went into my local vet supply house to purchase iodine, you know for using on newborn calf navels, and puncture wounds, and was told that I could no longer purchase straight iodine because it was being used in the manufacturing of meth.
Excuse me? WTF?

My own experiences of traveling in southern Nevada and Arizona would fill a very large tome.

Damn, I do not use or sell drugs, but it just gets really tiresome.

'nuff said.

Bob
III

Anonymous said...

"...this won't change as long as the people making the law are the ones making the money off keeping the anti-drug laws intact."

Bingo. We have a war on some drugs because it is in the interest of the ruling class to have it, just as in any other war. It is completely irrelevant that to us, the war makes no sense. The rulers don't care what we think, as long as we leave them in power over us.

"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-- Frederick Douglass

Ted said...

Honestly the .Gov only cares about power. The health and safety of its subjects is far from the top of its To-Do list.

How many were ever taught about the Government Prohibition alcohol poisoning non-scandal.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html

JFP said...

"(That's right: 922r is a direct result of the War on Drugs, via paleoconservative Republican Bill Bennett. You can look it up.)"

Son of a... yet another reason for me to despise that man.

Last year it was his moralizing on young men being "peter pans" and not marrying good conservative working women and thus continue to contribute to society and family values nonsense. All while he was the drug czar and a gambling addict.

KM said...

The only problem is who is going to pay for all the complications

The same people that pay for everything, US Taxpayers.
Personally, I would rather pay for fixing something that is broken, an addict, than pay to destroy something, our rights. And I think the money saved would be a landslide.

Ken said...

My reason for despising Bill Bennett is his advocacy of conscription on the grounds of promoting social cohesion.

og said...

"
Why do you care? I mean... If someone harms me or one of mine and it wasn't truly an accident, it's pretty irrelevant to me why they did it."

I said nothing about accident. If someone harms me or mine, "Accidentally", I won't be happy. If someone harms me or mine "Accidentally" under the influence, well, they won't be happy. I don't care if it's an accident or not.

Tam said...

I think I'd be just as irked if they hit me because they were texting at 70 versus toking at 70.

Jennifer said...

I really have nothing to add that hasn't been said. I just wanted to add my applause for a rant well done.
I don't really give a damn (texting/toking/etc) why they hit me, just that they did. Sure, drugs are bad n'stuff because some people do bad things when they use them. How about we prosecute and punish for the bad things done rather than all the people.

og said...

"I think I'd be just as irked if they hit me because they were texting at 70 versus toking at 70."

Indeed. Both under the influence. I know people who functioned perfectly well while doing enough heroin to bring a horse to it's knees. I know people who should have dashboards with one and only one idiot light because anything else is beyond their ken. The point is, if you can't handle it, whatever it is, and you hurt me, or mine, hunker down for the shitstorm.

Tam said...

og,

I was just curious and wondered if you'd expand, that's all. That makes sense.

og said...

No sweat. Ask me in meatspace about this sometime.I cant expand further here.

Anonymous said...

Waco was a classic- I watched the FEDS trot out their justifications one after the other during the siege. First it was -"They have illegal guns!!" Nobody seemed to give a damn, so then the story changed to "they are drug dealers, and nobody seemed to give a damn, so they changed it "they are child molesters", and then the feds leveled the place.
The war on terror was invented because we still had one or two civil rights left over after the war on drugs....

Anonymous said...

Tam, Agree 100%, but must correct an error of fact. Billy Bennett was not, is not, and will never be considered a paleo conservative. In fact he was the neo con replacement for Mel Bradford at NEH, in the 1980's. Paleos hate Bennett and have for thirty years

Anonymous said...

Amen Sister Tam

Scott said...

My two cents as someone who is an addict and alcoholic with 32 years sober and now someone with a herniated disc and a career that involves irritating that disc daily, I vote legalize it all.Not because I want to get high because I seriously don't and hate the way depressants and opiates make me feel.
I hate having to eat vicodin most days but I hate crying from the pain more. I have a pretty high pain tolerance and have done some truly retarded things because... John Wayne...such as taping up a broken rib at 18 because I didn't want my parents to know I'd been sparring. Such as running and puking while trying to figure out how to run a 7 minute mile pace for 2nd batt, or all the other dumb shit they encouraged (good lord I was a moron). Breaking an ankle at a racetrack and going on to operate a rather stiffer clutch pedal (2800 lb pressure plate) than is found in the average grocery getter on a half mile dirt track instead of using my brain and going to the emergency room (did I say "was a moron?"). My back has completely recalibrated my pain scale and my obligations to my family and debtors mean I need to suck it up and deal for the foreseeable future. Some days I'm fine slinging 80 lb wheels all day and then others I walk a mile at the county fair with my sweetie on a day off and it feels like someone is taking a pointy but dull knife to the spaces between my vertebrae.
If only I'd know I'd survive until fifty I would have done things differently, like go to college, hell the army tried to pay for it...did I mention I was a moron?

lelnet said...

If I "just wanted to smoke pot" I'd smoke pot. It's not like it's hard to come by. When I was in school there were at least six guys I personally knew from whom you could obtain whatever illegal drug you fancied, but I was the only one who could get you a pack of Marlboro Lights.

When it isn't meaningfully more difficult for an inmate in a maximum-security prison to get heroin than it is for a law-abiding citizen to get Sudafed, it is no longer possible to argue that the WoD is anything but an abject failure at its nominal purposes. Which leads me to believe that what we bemoan as the "horrific side effects" (crime, violence, tyranny, etc) aren't actually side effects at all, but the true purpose.

Anonymous said...

The hemp that is used for rope and paper contains no THC . The war on pot was used to stop the production of paper . The war was lead by Life and Time Magazines the MSM of the '30 s . I believe Hearst owned them and he had interests in Pulp and Paper production.

Glenn Kelley