Wrong on so many levels

WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS

The latest anti drug ad is troubling. It features a tragic incident that results from a bad reaction from a “passive” Meth user who lives next to a Meth lab. It is supposed to warn us about the dangers of Meth. However, we must accept the following preposterous assumptions:

1] This is a typical – not freakish – incident.

2] The reactor is a peaceful person of good will.

3] The Meth was the primary – if not sole – cause of the incident.

4] This is why Meth is illegal.

It should be noted that Meth was never produced outside of professional labs – until it was banned. Production is way too risky and costly – unless the profit margins are huge. Thanks to current drug policy they are. It was never smoked before being banned – but that is irrelevant since vapors would permeate from any lab without the proper safeguards.

The most troubling aspect of this ad is how the sponsors are so eager to blame misconduct on drugs. Using drugs will NEVER cause someone to act with reckless disregard to personal moral principles. The same principle holds true for those under the influence of hypnosis. Using drugs will drop down social barriers imposed by society and peer groups. It may lead to nudity and casual displays of affection that are socially discouraged – but will not cause acts of violence or theft in someone who has moral principles against violence and has respect for personal property.

This is why people of faith with strong moral principles have next to no problems with drug abuse and crime when using drugs. This isn’t a faith based on a supreme judgmental authority figure. It is a faith based on a transcendent figure who teaches us how to minimize or avoid the inherent judgment that comes with every day decisions. It is a living faith that makes sense and not one based on arbitrary dogma dictated by authority figures.

The actual person depicted in this ad probably plea bargained his misconduct on the simple plea: the Meth made me crazy. Meth would never make Jesus crazy. Nor would it adversely affect any number of principled people. It would be used as a short-term solution to energize until the better solution of adequate sleep was available. More likely it would not be needed at all by people with righteous priorities.

Repent and sin no more is the mantra of Jesus with regard to sin. That means admission of personal responsibility. Today our media readily defers this responsibility. The terrorists made people crazy in Abu Graib and caused rampages by military and private contractors. Al Qaeda caused the Bush administration to launch a full frontal assault on our constitutional protections. MacDonalds and Burger King cause rampant obesity in our own populations. Marlboro causes cancer. Poverty causes educational deficits. And Chevrolet and Ford cause massive carbon emissions by producing larger cars [and forcing them on the US public?]. Until we accept personal responsibility for our errant decisions we concede responsibility – and power – to those around us. We can never be free until we repent. Once we do repent we become virtually omnipotent – especially if we “sin no more”.

Why we don’t have pharmacists more involved in drug ed

WHY NOT HAVE PHARMACISTS TEACH KIDS ABOUT DRUGS?

Pharmacists’ eyes gleamed in excitement when I told them of my research for a new drug education curriculum that would be taught by pharmacists. That is because they know how badly disinformed [deliberately misinformed – as in disinformation] the US citizenry is about drugs. I asked about legally available “dangerous drugs” positing that they were as dangerous as or more dangerous than illegal drugs. I was promptly schooled and told that most – if not all- problems with these drugs had to do with stupid reckless user decisions. And while illegal drugs have never been shown to be as harmful as legal ones they were inherently more risky due to the lack of standards due to their illegal status.

Undoubtedly, pharmacists would be far less likely than I to call police and educators liars; they would give useful answers and would not parrot drug war disinformation. That is why they are not invited to speak at drug awareness meetings with students and their voting parents. Those meetings are NOT for the purpose of serious education: they are a badly disguised political rally for current drug policy. If every speaker at these meetings were under oath nearly every one could easily be convicted of perjury. The only defense for these speakers is incompetence: anyone who suggests that the use of drugs cause behavioral problems is incompetent to educate others. Police chiefs and other police leaders know this. That is why they avoid forums with knowledgeable drug war critics like a plague.

JT Barrie

Philomath Oregon

541-929-5392

My book is a launching pad for further discussion with honest and knowledgeable drug experts. First on the list are pharmacists with doctors a distant second. I have found no doctors or pharmacists as big drug war advocates. They recognize the problems that this policy causes for drug consumers. I have no exercises involving contact with police or educators about drugs: they are motivated to disinform the public. I explain this in the book. Pharmacists are extremely reluctant to talk about illegal drugs because they are not reliably made and there has never been government sanctioned research that can be taken seriously as to how they effect users. How can you seriously research any product whose quality is so variable and whose clientele is adversely selected towards anti social behaviors? I suppose my business education when I sold insurance is a big detriment to my buying the drug war disinformation campaign. It just doesn’t add up!

On the subject of appeasement and aiding our “enemies”

ON THE SUBJECT OF APPEASEMENT

We hear a lot of talk from the GOP about “appeasement” and “lending comfort to the enemy”. What we don’t hear from them is a definition of the “enemy”. We are supposed to associate anti war protests with Neville Chamberlain who accommodated Hitler – a defined threat. In Iraq we have both aligned with and fought against every indigenous military group within the country [no Al Qaeda is not indigenous and is despised as much – if not more – than our presence]. Who is the enemy?

We achieved victory in the last declared war by defeating Hitler and his armies, along with the armies of Japan and Italy. We were not allowed to do that against North Korea due to Chinese intervention and against North Vietnam due to the possibility of Chinese intervention. This caused great angst and anger among those who supported our involvement in those interventions. Obviously, since China intervened later against Vietnam that threat was imaginary.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had simple stated objectives: topple dangerous governments. We did that easily. Since then we have allied and opposed every indigenous group within Iraq; Al Qaeda is just another outside group even more reviled than us. That’s why the original GW warned us against foreign interventionism. It seems that only the protesters have taken his thoughtful message seriously. By definition we can’t “lend aid and comfort to our enemies” since they are deliberately undefined. And that’s why victory is impossible – by [lack of] definition.

I will be out of town

My posts will become a little less frequent. I’m going on the road as a truck driver. I will be online quite a bit less and a bit less informed on the issues. I still understand the issues so the quality of my work will remain the same – even if the attention to details drops.  I may likely stand for office locally, since I should be earning enough money to pay for a spot in the Voter Pamphlet and give my local voters a real choice on issues that get ignored by the mainstream candidates and the media. I will continue to press for truth in politics [oxymoron?]. I will work for accountability and defined standards – to protect citizenry from abuse from police and regulators.

The power of false associations to influence

THE POWER OF FALSE ASSOCIATIONS

Jesus was decried as the “friend of prostitutes and tax collectors” – so we know that the liberal use of false associations started long before the drug war or “war on terror”. Sophistry was a sporting event in ancient Greece: the abuse of logic to draw ridiculous conclusions. I will give a perfect example of how this works. Timothy McVeigh is a white male. He murdered over 250 innocent people in an act of terrorism. Two thirds of white males are moderate to severely addicted to coffee. Therefore, drinking coffee can lead to extreme violence – especially among white males. For that reason we should ban coffee and jail anyone who sells or provides that evil beverage to others.

What’s so grand about false associations is that there is no need for evidence. Timothy McVeigh does not need to be a coffee drinker – much less a severe addict. There is no need to study the effects of coffee on behaviors. There is no need to establish standards for banning foods or beverages. False associations take care of all of that. When someone in authority makes the claim – it becomes fact.

There are no standards or tests for drug prohibition. Bin Laden couldn’t be convicted of 911; why bother finding him. There is no evidence that the “Patriot” Act helps prevent future acts of violence. If “everyone” [in authority] agrees then it must be true. Those who disagree are marginalized: they don’t count. It goes without saying – literally. So when do we ban coffee?

Of course, there are way too many coffee drinkers for this to happen. As in Nazi Germany, it simply becomes a matter of isolation of minorities. Eventually, nearly everyone is vulnerable to government supervision and micromanagement of lives and personal choices. In ancient Greece, these sophists were ridiculed by many in power. Todays sophists are news editors and powerful elected officials. Occasionally they will disagree and undermine rival sophistries. However, certain false associations are given rare scrutiny – and even then those scrutinies are given little attention. Why worry the citizen taxpayers’ “pretty little heads” over endless scrutiny and questioning of their leaders’ judgments?

How not to solve problems

WHY DO WE HAVE OPEN ENDED LAWS AND REGULATIONS?

There is an oft quoted saying among Christian clerics: love the sinner – but hate the sin. There is a delusion among citizen taxpayers that our laws target bad behaviors for criminal and civil statute [target the sin] but the exact opposite often happens when those in authority deliberately write laws to maximize options against wrongdoers [hate the sinner]. Very few modern day laws actually serve the purpose of promoting the public interest. They are passed to punish wrongdoers and coerce compliance to social norms.

I call these laws abusive. The most obvious abusive policy is the War on Drugs. It has historically been used as a bludgeon against outsiders – those who wield less power or provoke anxiety among those who wield power. Environmental and safety laws are directed against businesses that don’t pay lip service to social responsibility. It does nothing to actually serve those victimized by careless business practices. They are cut out of the loop – as noted by 3^rd party perennial candidate Nader.

Ironically, abusive anti gay measures are NOT directed against gay people: they are not punished for sexual orientation; the targets are those who openly state that their orientation is legitimate and undeserving of social stigma. This is one of many abusive policies that are all about paying lip service to social norms – no matter how ridiculous and counterproductive these coercive attitudes become to citizen taxpayers.

I contend that the use of measurable and limited laws whose language deals with specific behavior is preferable over our present busybody policies and laws. We don’t need law enforcement and regulators there to intervene in our personal and business lives! I also contend that the Drug Czar can unilaterally end the War on Drugs. All that has to be done is to change the arbitrary schedule and/or establish verifiable standards for restrictions. This is already being done under the Bush administration with environmental and safety regulations.

Democrats may whine about lax enforcement under Bush – but those laws were written so loosely – with the intention that they be enforced in a vindictive and abusive manner by regulators [just as drug laws are enforced by police]. The laws are directed against businesses – and not against their misbehavior. Those harmed by their careless and irresponsible behaviors are taken out of the loop by regulations and “tort reform” –along with a legal system that is out of reach for most citizenry. All we need with badly written laws is to change the attitudes of those entrusted to enforce and we change the entire intent of those laws: punish wrongdoers.

We don’t solve problems by making life someone else’s lives miserable. The legal and judicial system should be the last resort for honorable people. Sadly, the urge to be honorable and act in a righteous manner has been supplanted by abusing laws and regulations to inflict harm upon adversaries. This is not only wrong but counterproductive. Having the highest proportion of inmates and lawyers [by a greater than two to one margin] is NOT a good thing. When will our leaders wake up and start dealing with real problems instead of pandering to those with abusive attitudes towards others?

What happened to victims and the 3rd Amendment?

THE FORGOTTEN THIRD AMENDMENT

The Constitution of the US is under attack. This is notable because the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular are supposed to limit the abilities of government to interfere in peoples’ lives. I was talking to my child about constitutional amendments and happened across the 3^rd amendment. This is the one that guarantees the right of the accused the rights to a speedy trial and to face accusers.

This amendment presumes that there are plaintiffs [accusers] who claim harm from the actions of defendants [accused]. Sadly, our legislatures seem obsessed with punishing wrongdoers – and most laws are deliberately written to make actual victims of misconduct irrelevant. These are in essence “victimless crimes”. And these crimes are not limited to the usual suspects: drugs, prostitution and gambling. These also include many – if not most – of our health, safety and environmental laws. Workers and citizens are excluded from nearly all processes and actually discouraged from participation.

This situation is ridiculous! Why do we have “tort reform” laws that limit the rights of people actually harmed by negligence or misconduct – while we have many regulations based on overkill – that do nothing to enhance safety, health or well being. We have walls of security around wealthy corporations who carelessly harm and endanger citizen taxpayers – while we have small businesses struggling to install safety and health devices whose marginal benefits are negligible.

The latest scandal about FAA inspectors and airlines are typical in today’s climate of busybody laws that exclude those at risk. It is a standard career path for bureaucrats to work for regulated businesses after retirement. After all, the laws are written so ambiguously – deliberately so as to give law enforcement wide latitude [that they always abuse against “outsiders] - that law enforcement makes actual laws. There are no provisions for law enforcement bureaucrats [and let’s include regulatory agencies with law enforcement to be fair] to make laws.

Jesus clearly stated that the law should serve citizenry and not vice versa. They should be clearly defined. There should never be a “high potential for abuse” in laws – unless it is measurable and measured. We should eliminate the “middle man” for the benefit of society. We should not have police bust someone for smoking pot at home – and then laugh off a drunken orgy at a fraternity house as “kids just need to blow off some steam”.

Citizens should have an affordable venue for legitimate grievances against irresponsible business practices. Government bureaucrats are not watchdogs. Anyone who believes so is welcome to buy the Eiffel Tower from me. Nader has the right idea: concerned and informed citizens should act as independent watchdogs. Funding should come from taxpayers and terms of service should be strictly limited.

We should stress victim compensation in criminal trials. Real crime victims’ groups’ highest priority is NOT socking it to the bad guy with mandatory minimums that sock it to the taxpayer. Their highest priority should be reducing the number of crime victims. Ending the inane drug war is a no brainer for real crime victims’ rights groups.

In the last trial that I was involved in, I told the judge that there was a HUGE problem in that I had never even met the alleged victim of the alleged dog attack. How can that happen? It makes no difference with this generation of lapdog judges. The municipal judge just sucked up to police during the entire hour that I was in court. That’s how most courts are nowadays. In none of the 7 cases I heard, was an actual wronged party there to testify. Whatever happened to confronting accusers? They’re irrelevant when enforcers act on laws that have no relevance to actual harm done.

They actually do have trial with victims in Philomath. My neighbor had such a trial as a plaintiff. He got as little respect and satisfaction from the judge as I did. If you want justice, the court system will screw you. If someone enforces a deliberately undefined rule, law, regulation or ordinance against you that doesn’t involve actual harm, risk, or safety you are also screwed. Plaintiffs suffering actual harm or endangerment are irrelevant in today’s judicial system. How can you face your accusers in such a system?

How well do you really know Jesus?

How well do you know Jesus?

This is a short quiz on how well good Christians really understand Jesus and his message. I will pose several questions. The answers can be found in http://www.originaldrugmanualforkids.com/christianity4dummies.html . They are as follows:

1] Jesus’ attitude towards sin and sinners is best summarized in a five word sentence. Hint: it is NOT “accept me as your savior”. What is that sentence?

2] What is repentance?

3] Which sin and class of sinners got most of Jesus’ attention?

3a] Why would such a sin be special in his eyes?

4] Based on your answers to the previous questions is their any doubt about Jesus’ position on the War on Drugs?

5] Why are most Christian pastors so silent about this issue?

ABUSIVE GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES

           

            In my book I frequently mention abusive laws and policies. The best definition is that abusive laws and regulations limit choices for citizenry – and don’t serve any legitimate public interest. It is clearly stated in the Bible: the law is made for people and not vice versa. We have many such laws and policies inflicted upon citizens today. I will list some of the traits of such laws:

            1] They are written using undefined terms such as “high potential for abuse”, “aggressive biting”, promoting homosexuality” or “unhealthy environment”. They are deliberately open-ended and allow enforcers to enforce laws upon targeted groups. Laws should be limited in scope and strictly defined.

            2] They add punishments for misconduct that is already illegal.

            3] They are based on “zero tolerance”. Nonsense! Enforcers always enforce deliberately undefined laws giving preference to the privileged and well connected.

            4] There is little to no consideration for actual harm done by “criminal” or compensation to “victims”. When someone can be jailed or fined without any need to demonstrate harm this is a travesty of justice.

            There is a legitimate need to limit actions that adversely affect the welfare of others. My right to swing my fist ends at your face. IF we were to protect consumers it should be from inadequate disclosure and seller fraud. IF we wanted to ban inherently dangerous products we should first define levels of harm and risk in verifiable fashion. This is NOT being done today.

        It should be noted that before I started blogging I did correctly identify Oregon’s anti-gay measures as abusive. I also correctly identified the targeted groups. They were NOT homosexuals! The targeted groups were any educators, employers, government officials, or anyone in authority who didn’t condemn homosexual sexual orientation as immoral. It would have provided a chilling negative effect on free speech for anyone with credentials and expertise in such matters. Telling the truth would have been punishable by law. But since when as any good deed gone unpunished?

News editor targets wrong culprits on drug war

HERING HAS WRONG CULPRIT

 

            Just because someone sincerely believes something doesn’t make it the truth. Sorry Hasso, but you are either extremely ignorant [a major minus for intellectual leaders and a major plus for news editors] or a chronic liar. Casual users are NOT the problem with Meth or any other banned drug. Anyone who says different is lying.

            Meth had far more abusers and addicts in the 60s than today. They came mostly from the suburbs and boardrooms and the problem was confined to users and close family. It was only when biker gangs and counterculture musicians starting using and abusing that law enforcement stepped in and things got progressively worse for everyone else who wasn’t using and abusing. Quality control and user choices plummeted while prices and potency skyrocketed. Well over 95% of violent crime related to use is due to public policy. We simply don’t have these problems with alcohol and cigarettes – but would if the “wrong” people were targeted.

            The fact is that Hasso has been advised that there has never been any measurable standard for restrictions on any drug. If there were we would either have far more restrictive laws on currently legal drugs or far fewer banned drugs. We have the current system because it allows law enforcement to target specific user groups: those with less political power. Be assured no liar – including Hering – will ever discuss the real problems with banned drugs with informed and honest people like me. See John 3:20 for details.

 

JT Barrie

Philomath, OR

541-929-5392