|
|
|
Flashback to the war on Terror^W^W Drugs
Posted by Pile
(5860 views)      [E-Mail link]
|
 |
With this decade's metaphorical war, it seems only fitting to take a look back at the toll the last Republican-motivated war on abstractions took place: The War on Drugs, and see if we won.
In Washington, D.C., a 27-year old quadriplegic is sentenced to ten days in jail for marijuana possession, where he dies under suspicious circumstances. In Florida, a wheelchair-bound multiple sclerosis patient now serves a 25-year prison sentence for using an out-of-state doctor to obtain pain medication. And in Palestine, Texas, prosecutors arrest 72 people -- all of them black -- and charge them with distributing crack cocaine. The scene bears a remarkable resemblance to a similar mass, mostly-black drug bust in nearby Tulia five years ago.
These examples aren't exceptional. They're typical. America's drug war marches on, impervious to efficacy, justice, or absurdity. Drug prohibition was nowhere to be found in Election 2004. There was no mention of it in the debates, the conventions, or the endless cable news campaign coverage. |
|
Details. |
|
|
Serious?
Posted by Anonymous on 2004-12-05 13:10:02 | | If you think the current war or the effort to curb drugs in America are taking place only because of the Republicans, you're even more ignorant than is evident from your ridiculous "article". |
War on Some Drugs
Posted by Anonymous on 2004-12-05 13:28:08 | First "Serious" needs to read the article itself and notice that it is from the Cato Institute--a conservative think tank, before making such a"ridiculous" comment.
Second, the War on Some Drugs has been designed for three essential purposes--to protect the proprietary rights of the pharmaceutical industry; to facilitate funding for covert operations in specific global regions(as far back as the opium wars, and before that); to channel US dollars directly into the flow of cash money in banks and financial institutions.
There has never been an effective anti-some drug program, mostly because the message to use drugs is part and parcel of our nation's marketing media. It is difficult to say "no to drugs" while simultaneously telling the population, from the earliest ages, that taking drugs can help them overcome all sorts of problems. |
Educate yourself
Posted by Anonymous on 2004-12-05 17:56:30 | | Maybe the previous poster should educate themself about the Cato Institute. They are in fact a self-described "market-liberalism" organization, not a "conservative think tank". |
| Posted by Pile on 2004-12-06 14:10:04 | Cato is a shill for carefully-disguised corporations who want government intervention when it's profitable for them (i.e. "war on drugs" = more money for big pharma) or no government involvement when it's not good for them (i.e. "let's get rid of the EPA and the FDA" = good news for heavy polluting industry and healthcare companies). This is all neatly packaged under the umbrella of what I call exploitive libertarianism. Taking advantage of peoples' frustration with various areas of the government and using this as leverage to push an anti-populace, pro-industry agenda in the name of "libertarian values" and "less government". It's all BS, but every once in awhile you get some of these organizations to call attention to the fact that their is no logic or consistency in their agenda.
--
The Cato Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation (think tank) with strong libertarian leanings, headquartered in Washington, D.C.. It is named after Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that Cato's founders say helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution. Founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and David H. Koch, its stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by seeking greater involvement of the "lay public in questions of public policy and the role of government." Because of its decidedly ideological agenda on many topics, members of the Cato Institute are often cited as non-partisan experts on news programs. Chairman of the Cato Institute is William A. Niskanen.
Funding
80% of Cato's income comes from individual donations and subscriptions. 8% comes from corporations, 8% from foundations and the remaining from conference and book sales etc. They currently have an annual income of $17,000,000. Between 1985 and 2001, the Institute received $15,633,540 in 108 separate grants from only nine different foundations:
* Castle Rock Foundation
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Known corporate funders include ExxonMobil, who gave $30,000 during 2002 [2] (http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf).
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch previously served on the board of directors of Cato, which has numerous ties to the Republican Party. Cato often differs with Republican Party positions on specific issues, such as the 2003 decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq, prosecution of the war on drugs, giving federal money to faith-based organizations, and the decision of President George H.W. Bush to fight the first Gulf war. Cato has also criticized the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry [3] (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html). The Cato Institute has argued implicity against the Republican party on spending issues [4] (http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-03.html).
Sometimes, however, it has proven willing to set aside its libertarian principles - such as supporting a Bush administration moves to restrict civil liberties as part of the "war on terror." In 2002, a Cato news release endorsed new Justice Department guidelines giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions. "As reported in the press, the new FBI surveillance guidelines present no serious problems," declared Cato legal affairs analyst Roger Pilon, a former Reagan administration official who writes frequent Cato commentaries defending property rights and opposing affirmative action that have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. Pilon added that "law enforcement monitoring of public places is simply good, pro-active police work that violates the rights of no one."[5] (http://www.cato.org/new/05-02/05-30-02r-2.html)
Of course, that one release by Pilon is the rare exception, not the rule. Cato scholars such as Robert Levy and Timothy Lynch had railed against the Bush administration for its civil liberties record on, for example, the Padilla case, military tribunals, national ID cards, the creeping militarization of domestic law enforcement, border patrol, the drug war, grand jury abuse, the PATRIOT Act, federal surveilance of ordinary Americans, operation TIPS, and mandatory vaccinations against potential bioterror threats. [6] (http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/terror-civilliberties.html)
Murdoch sat on the board of directors of Philip Morris, the tobacco giant recently inducted into INFACT's Hall of Shame "for exerting undue influence over public policy-making" with the help of 240 registered federal and state lobbyists -- spending as much as $2 million per month to lobby federal officials. Murdoch publications such as TV Guide reap enormous profits from cigarette ads. And Murdoch's Fox Broadcasting is cozy with Philip Morris subsidiary Miller Brewing Co., which recently boosted its advertising account with Fox to about $75 million per year for sports and primetime programs (Advertising Age, 6/16/97). ...
... Clearly, the Cato Institute falls in the latter category. The Institute's yearly funding has climbed above $8 million, more than twice what it was in 1992. The organization's most recent annual report exults: "We've moved into a beautiful new $13.7 million headquarters at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue and have only $1 million in debt remaining on it as we enter 1997." Dozens of huge corporations, eager to roll back government regulatory powers, are among Cato's largest donors. In their book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Stefancic and Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. Cato's main philanthropic backing has come from the right-wing Koch, Lambe and Sarah Scaife foundations. But today, Cato "receives most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation." Financial firms now kicking in big checks to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc. ... |
|
Bumper Sticker Store