Prohibition is to blame for child abuse

The video from Texas that came to light last week, showing seventeen- and fifteen-year old kids giving marijuana to a toddler is undeniably shocking and horrific, even to those of us who believe that the drug is relatively harmless. Undoubtedly, it is a tremendous blow to the anti-prohibition movement, as the prohibitionists are using the incident as propaganda further illustrating "the evils" of marijuana. Don't expect anybody in the media or politics to point out that the teenagers were in possession of marijuana precisely because it is illegal.
If marijuana were legal, it would be available only to people who have reached an age at which they have learned to be more responsible, say twenty-one, the same age at which it is legal to buy alcohol products. It is widely known that it is easier for an under-aged person to buy marijuana now than it is for that person to get alcohol. There are some people who would buy marijuana for an under-aged child, but there are those who buy alcohol or cigarettes for children. Such people are missing the sense of responsibility that most of us have--just because we can buy alcohol or cigarettes for ourselves doesn't mean we will abuse children by making these products available to them. It is the same innate responsibility that would prevent us from doing harm to others in any case. We don't steal from others, assault others, or falsely accuse others, because we know it is wrong to do so. Our psychological make up and our self-concept will not allow us to do such things.
Those who have made the choice to smoke marijuana have made that choice, just as those who choose not to smoke marijuana will not smoke marijuana just because it is legal--the same type of choice made with alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine.
Prohibition has done nothing but contribute to delinquency and crime. Law enforcement resources are misused to enforce victimless crimes, and criminals are often released early from prison to make room for those who have broken prohibition laws. So great is the underground economy created by prohibition that genuinely bad people--those with no morals, sense of responsibility, or value for human life--are heavily involved in the trafficking of marijuana, just as they were involved in alcohol trafficking during the prohibition against alcohol. They protect their territory with guns and violence, and hundreds of people--law enforcement officers, criminals, and innocent bystanders--are killed every year in the "war on drugs." Badly needed resources are stretched thin on our borders, as well-funded cartels use every means available to them to move their product. The best way to put these people out of business would be to end the prohibition.
Marijuana prohibition has been in effect for nearly eighty years, and it has made no difference in the use of marijuana. In fact, more people smoke marijuana now than when it was legal. There is no exit strategy in the war on drugs, and we spend way too much in money and human resources in trying to enforce laws against human nature. It isn't only "Secular Progressives" and Libertarians who are standing against prohibition. William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder and editor-at-large of the conservative magazine National Review has been speaking out against prohibition for nearly thirty years. There is also an organization called "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.)," founded by retired DEA super-cop Barry Cooper, that makes compelling arguments from the law enforcement officer's point of view for an end to the war on drugs.
As long as marijuana is illegal, we will see more atrocities involving children who have obtained the drug illegally. Legalization and regulation would reduce such incidences.

The following is the official L.E.A.P video on YouTube. It is very informative, and worth the thirteen+ minutes it takes to view.

Please click here if you are unable to see the video.

Whose Ally Is Egypt, Anyway?

To those Americans who think your freedom of speech is being suppressed, you should be glad you aren’t living in Egypt. Read what is happening to an Egyptian blogger who was convicted of insulting religion and insulting the government of Egypt here.
He received four years in prison, which is a death sentence for him because he “insulted Islam” which, to the members of the Muslim Brotherhood who will be his fellow inmates, is punishable by death. They will invoke Sheria law and take it upon themselves to administer the death penalty.
In America we may write and publish anything we want. Those who insult the President, and their fellow Americans who voted for the President, are free to do so without fear of arrest. You may insult other people’s religion, no matter what religion it is you are insulting, you may insult people for believing in that religion, and you may insult people for not believing in that religion. It is all protected under the First Amendment. It is even legal to criticize people for exercising their First Amendment rights, and to shout them down in public so no one, not even those who paid to hear them speak, can hear what they have to say.
Basically, we Americans are allowed to make up our own rules about what constitutes freedom of speech.
The Egyptian Government has ostensibly imposed sanctions on free speech in the name of stability. As in any tyranny, the government fears that critical voices will weaken the government by causing unrest. It is perfectly legal, in Egypt to refer to non-Muslims as “Infidels,” because that is not, according to Egyptian law, as that is not considered to be anti-Egypt or anti-religion. Certainly, freedom of speech would allow such opinions to be aired, but, when that freedom is used to incite violence, that is trespassing on the rights of others, and is no longer covered under free speech. Even in the U.S., where we enjoy First Ammendment protections, it is illegal to incite violence.
Because the government has declared the radical Muslim political party, the Muslim Brotherhood illegal, the United States sees Egypt as an ally against Islamist terrorists. However, the ban is not against the MB as a terrorist organization, it is as a political party. Egypt is actually appeasing the radicals in this way, allowing them to speak against Christians and Jews, and to foment their brand of Islam in their mosques and schools to incite violence against non-Muslims and Muslim secularists. The so-called “cartoon demonstrations” last year were legal, because they were not against the Egyptian government or Islam, but Christian rights and secular free speech demonstrators are immediately taken to jail and beaten. In further appeasement of the Islamofascist movement, Egypt defied the UN sanctions against the Hamas led Palestinian government by attempting to transfer funds to that government. They also apparently released Abu Ayoud al-Masri from prison to facilitate his taking the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq after the death of al-Zaquarwi.
Al Jawraa is a television broadcast company based in Syria that telecasts anti-American, anti-Shiite, anti-Israeli, anti-Iraqi government, and pro Al Qaeda propaganda programming. The Egyptian government provides an up-link for Al Jawraa to the government owned Nilesat telecommunications satellite, facilitating world wide broadcast.
Egypt is seen as an ally against terrorism, and receives at least 2.3 billion dollars a year in foreign aid from the United States. You read that correctly--we taxpayers are supporting an oppressive government, which, in turn supports terrorists. The State Department has applied some pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to relax sanctions against Egypt’s citizens, and has even aided in obtaining the release of some political prisoners. This pressure is usually very light, however, and it seems that the more we give Mubarak, the more he uses it to support Islamofascism. The foreign aid provided by U.S. taxpayers could be used as leverage to ensure that Egypt get in line on human rights and stop supporting terrorism, but, so far, such aid has not been tied to human rights or anti-terrorism. It is time we, as American citizens, pressure our own government to better scrutinize what it is doing with foreign aid money to Egypt.

Sunrise

"...last time I felt like this/I was in the wilderness and the canyon was on fire/I stood on a mountain in the night and watched it burn.."--Emmylou Harris Boulder To Birmingham

Censorship advocates go too far

This has been going around for a few days, and every time I read or hear about it, it arouses my ire. There is a subculture in government, and among those who influence the government, that believes that the general populace cannot control its lust. So you have people, perverts really, who have nothing better to do than spend their time finding reason to restrict what we can watch or hear on television or radio. In other words, in the name of censorship, they dig deep to find "offensive material," and find such material that no "normal" person would notice. They then complain about it to the authorities, the sponsors, the public, and the broadcasters, in hopes of creating more restrictions of what is available to the public in the form of arts and entertainment.
AP Photo
Prince presented an outstanding performance for the Super Bowl half time show, fitting more music into eight minutes than any other musician has in that venue. The aforementioned perverts made a big deal of the silhouette projected during the show, claiming that it displayed a phallic symbol. In my view, all I saw was the shadow of a guy playing guitar, but so what if it was meant to be sexual symbolism? Rock 'n' Roll is all about sexual symbolism. Does that mean that it should be banned from television?
We are human beings who claim to be the highest intelligence on Earth, and that intelligence is enough to allow us to choose what we see and hear. If we don't like it, we don't have to watch or listen to it. We can always change the channel. For instance, I choose not to watch porno movies. Does that mean I think nobody should watch porno? Of course not--it is a matter of personal choice, not public debate. We don't need anybody telling us what we should and what we should not watch, and there is no reasonable argument for censorship.
To those who think otherwise, I say censor your own damn self, and we’ll censor our own damn selves when necessary.

A Thought on the Boston Panic

Could Tuesday's panic in Boston have been avoided? That is a question that must be asked. A promotional campaign for the Cartoon Channel's adult program Aquateen Hungerforce, which covered ten cities in the United States, ran afoul in Boston when local law enforcement allegedly mistook the mini-billboards for "suspicious packages." The mini-billboards, which were actually LED displays depicting different characters, or "Moonites," from the series, were placed on bridges and near roadways. As a result of the panic, several roadways and a major waterway were closed while the Boston Police, the ATF, and the FBI dealt with the "potential threat." Two men were arrested and charged with perpetrating a hoax and obstruction.
The timeline of the panic began when a package was found in the administrative offices of the University Hospital, at Boston University. The package, which had nothing to do with the promotional campaign, was obviously a fake bomb, containing batteries wrapped in tape. When news of this came out, people driving on the roads apparently started calling in reports of suspicious packages on bridges and overpasses. The Boston Police responded rapidly and efficiently, discovering ten of these "fake bombs," investigating them and disposing of them.
Boston is sensitive to terrorist threats, because it was from Boston's Logan Airport that the airliners used in the 9/11 attacks in 2001 were high jacked. Vigilance is important these days, and the vigilance of the Boston Police and the citizens of that city is to be commended. However, several questions arise, such as why didn't the police recognize the mini-billboards for what they were, why didn't the city know about the promotion, and how did the promotional campaign get associated with the University Hospital bomb threat?
Nine other cities were targeted for the advertising campaign, and those cities seemed to be aware of it. If anybody in those cities had reported suspicious packages, they were likely reassured that it was just a promotional campaign. Only Boston took it as a bomb hoax.
If it was a legitimate advertising campaign, the city should have known about it. Most cities require permission to post bills on “public” (government) properties. If the advertising company did not get permission or pay applicable fees, then the company is at fault.
It is easy, however, to suspect that the City of Boston did know about it, and once the panic got out of control, and once somebody realized what the “devices” where, the City was reluctant to embarrass itself, and went ahead with the hoax charges. This will not likely stand up in court, as hoax was not the intent, but the perception of the city and police officials. If Boston can prove in civil court that the advertising company did not have permission to post the devices, there is an easy $750,000 plus punitive damages for the city in civil court. All in all, vigilance aside, the outcome of the situation is an embarrassment Boston will not admit to.



Click here if you can't see the video.

PETA could do better

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is under scrutiny after two employees were caught dumping animal carcasses in a supermarket dumpster in South Carolina. This caught many people by surprise, including many donors.
To be fair, PETA's explanation was that these animals were being treated inhumanly at a local animal shelter, and that there had been reports that this animal shelter was using cruel methods to euthanize unadoptable and unadopted animals, and that PETA had stepped in to administer humane euthanization to the unwanted pets. They explained that they do not have enough resources to prevent having to euthanize many animals, and that there are far too many abandoned animals nationwide for PETA to take care of or protect.
One could conceivably argue that this situation is the result of the virtual abandonment of the organization's animal rescue mission, and the allocation of funds to support radical activities and the anti-carnivore movement. PETA has, in recent years, become a social/political activist organization rather than an animal rescue operation. However, many long-time and large scale donors to PETA support the organization with the understanding that it is an animal rescue operation.
The real problem is that the scale on which PETA is trying to operate its animal rescue operations is much too large. PETA is a global organization, with few supported local community operations. One need only to look at the federal government’s social welfare programs to see how inefficient this type of organization can be. Many non-profit organizations, such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army, realized long ago that it is far more efficient to operate local community organizations, rather than trying to take care of everything on a national level.

In Colorado Springs, for instance, we have an excellent animal rescue organization called Dream Power, which avoids by every possible means the need to euthanize animals. Usually, the only time an animal is euthanized by Dream Power is when it has become too ill to treat. Dream Power gets most of its funding from local donors, and is supported by several local vetenary clinics that donate time and services for spaying and neutering, medications, and vaccinations. PETA would do better to allocate some of their funding to local organizations such as Dream Power, rather than trying to keep up with the cost of the attorneys they need to hire as a result of some of their radical activities.
While on the subject of animal rescue, my favorite singer, Emmylou Harris, has a very worthy organization called Bonaparte's Retreat which coordinates animal adoption efforts nationwide. This is Emmylou's personal project, and should be checked out.

How to talk to Iran

Photo copyright Associated Press

"I don't see why the most powerful nation in the world can't talk to the leaders of Iran (and) put some pressure on (them)...When I was in Europe, I talked to (Yugoslavian President) Slavodan Milosovich and told him that if he didn't get in line he would be bombed"

Thus spake General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO, former Democratic Party Presidential candidate, and political pundit. He was criticizing the State of The Union Address and the current administration's refusal to talk to the leadership of Iran to find a solution to the dual wars in Iraq. Of course, we know that NATO went to war with Yugoslavia, and Milosovich's country was bombed incessantly after Clark's talks with the wayword President. Clark's talks didn't amount to much.
It sounds to me as if Clark, who has expressed fear that the United States may engage in armed conflict Iran, is advocating war. This wasn't the only comment in which General Clark seemed to be contradictary. "We don't have to talk to (Iranian President Ahmadinejad), there are other elements in Iran we can talk to."
But none of these "other elements" are in a position to make or influence national and international policy in Iran. Certainly, as did the Iraq Study Group, individual "moderate" ayatollahs on the Supreme Islamic Council, can be spoken to, but not in the element of official policy. The Supreme Islamic Council, as the ruling body of Iran, cannot, by their perception of their religion, speak to representatives of the United States in any official capacity, because such representatives are "dhimmis" and not of the correct standing to speak to in such capacity.
Nor can the dissident or shadow government of Iran be a viable party in such talks. Those who are not in prison or in exile may be allowed to speak to representatives of the United States, but they dare not go contrary to the government's policy for fear of imprisonment or death. Besides, what purpose would that serve?
There is a glimmer of hope for future relations with Iran in that there has been some talk about impeaching, or at least reigning in President Ahmadinejad. This may mean a more moderate stance on the part of Iran, and, if it does, then it could be possible to have meaningful talks with that government. However, the Supreme Islamic Council will most likely not change its stripes, and the US will still be "The Great Satan," and untouchable in the minds of the ayatollahs.
That does not mean that Iraq can't establish relations or agreements with Iran. It should be up to that government to establish relationships with its neighbors. The Iraqi government first needs to be secure, though, before it can do so, otherwise it has no leverage.
We don't have to fear war with Iran. It is very possible that within forty minutes of the moment that Iran announces that it has a nuclear weapon, it will be green-glassed by Israel. Israel is the target of threats by Iran, and Israel, with a reported two-hundred warhead nuclear arsenal, will not hesitate to strike preemptorily to prevent its own annihilation. Hopefully, the ayatollahs realize that, and, eventually, will give in to the rest of the world and accept the light water nuclear technology which has been offered them.