More pro crime legislation?

The “tough” new immigration laws recently passed in Arizona is a godsend for terrorists and criminals. Where else can so many documents necessary to infiltrate security be so easily obtained. All a terrorist needs to do is to mug or pick pocket random citizens – who must carry proof of citizenship that can pass law enforcement scrutiny. Or if they prefer less risky methods all you have to do is to pose as a real undercover police officer by having business cards with a real officer name to obtain access to real papers from real workers. They identify themselves as undercover officers enforcing the new law and apologize profusely for “the necessary inconvenience of enforcing the new law”. They hand out their business cards with real police station telephone numbers for the detained people to contact. Then one of the “undercover” police officers hands the papers to a 2nd officer for “verification”. Viola! You have photocopied critical papers that can be either duplicated directly or have the names and numbers used to obtain “replacements”.
People who live in poor neighborhoods will pay in higher crime. Criminals will have easy access to papers for identity theft. The ID theft will expand to higher income people because – to avoid “racial profiling” – everyone will serve jail time for not carrying papers. Businesses who recruit employees across the border will not be impacted. And terrorism will expand in our country. What idiots enact this kind of pro crime legislation?
The only logical explanation is that someone wants more acts of terrorism in our country. Today over 98% of terrorist acts are done overseas and the victims are military personnel or “those people”. And yes, some of those people are “collateral damage” from military retaliation. If we had a few more 911 style events we could rally citizenry to support more big government to protect us from these threats. This big government would be on a cost plus and spare no expense basis with great profit to those lucky contractors.

The debate that should be happening

THE FALSE MEDIA DEBATE

We have a heated debate on the role of government in our lives. Sadly it is NOT the real debate we should be having. Allegedly it is between the proponents of Karl Marx and Adam Smith and it involves “free market versus government control”. The real debate should be between the proponents of John Locke and Jean [John] Rousseau since “the free market economy” has always been mythical and transitory even in theory. While John Locke is considered to be the founder of modern liberalism he does so only as a comparison to the contemporary Hobbes – who favored a monarchy over representative government.
Rousseau and Locke were in agreement in preferring popular rule over monarchy. They also agreed that the government owed citizens basic human rights in order to be legitimate and that any government that didn’t should be resisted. And both men’s ideas were inspiration’s for famous rebellions: Rousseau for the French and Locke for the American revolution. There was really only one fundamental difference in their attitudes toward government’s role in peoples’ lives. Locke believed that people in nature were inherently evil and predatory whose base instincts needed to be made subservient to society. Rousseau believed that people were basically noble and that predatory instincts were systemic to their new role in society. And while both supported no limits on wealth Rousseau insisted that all citizens should be treated equally in the justice system. While this may seem minor when compared to the prevalent monarchies in control throughout Western societies, both are huge when considered in context with today’s Western governments.
For followers of Locke the role of government is to set rules of conduct for citizens and enforce them against wrongdoers or criminals. For Rousseau the only role of government – besides military protection against the incursions of other more predatory governments – is to settle grievances and enforce restitution to victims of predatory behaviors. In a Rousseau justice system the only time the government is a plaintiff is when harm is done to government property or employees while serving the government or with minors or adults who can’t exercise their citizen rights due to impairment [including murder victims]. In a Rousseau world there would be no consensual crimes, no regulations by government agencies and no multimillion dollar judgments involving punitive damages. Admittedly in a Rousseau government we would have many more ten thousand dollar judgments and business would necessarily be more socially responsible as big business would be held accountable to employees, neighbors, and consumers for harm done. If the Rousseau faction ruled the US we would not have 90% of the world’s lawyers.
Ironically, both Karl Marx and Adam Smith were followers of Rousseau and both wrote about the abuses of big government being run for the benefit of the very wealthy. Sadly, those who cited these two great thinkers when they grabbed political power did not share Rousseau’s ideal of limited government – trusting to the inherent justice and fairness of average citizenry to run their own affairs with minimal government interference.
Of course there is a religious component of the Locke/Rousseau debate. Conservative factions within many world religions believe that people are inherently evil and are the most ardent supporters of the many abusive criminal codes – especially on bans involving consensual conduct. Conversely, liberal factions object just as severely to governmental abuse of low income people both inside and outside of the criminal justice system. To Rousseau the idea of denial of due process to alleged criminals apprehended outside the country is totally absurd and outrageous. They wholehearted agree with the Biblical passage where Jesus emphatically states: God is no respecter of personal status.
Supporters of Locke – were a debate possible – would argue that Rousseau was the instigator of the horrid abuses that followed the French revolution whereas Locke inspired the American revolution that produced the more orderly government. The problem was that – once the abusive authoritarians were deposed – the followers of Rousseau acted in accordance to Locke’s principles of abusive justice dispensing justice to royal “wrongdoers” and their allies. This goes back to another cliché: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the dilemma that will ultimately face the Tea Party movement if they succeed. If they do gain control over their own lives by deposing the current abusive government can they refrain from dispensing justice to “those people”?

Addition by subtraction

ADDITION BY SUBTRACTION

The basis for laws and regulations is that there must be negative consequences to deter abusive behavior. Sadly, in our society there are consequences – but they seldom apply to abusers. In real life justice is swift, assured and often disproportionately harsh for low income criminals. Conversely justice is ponderous, sporadic and often disproportionately light for those with money and influence. And often laws are either written or selectively enforced to deflect consequences from those who profit from criminal behaviors to those who either commit crimes are are themselves victimized by those who profit. The free market of commerce and information has historically worked against this process but has increasingly become diluted with the concentration of wealth and influence beginning in the 1980s.

When an individual without influence commits a heinous crime that effects another individual justice is swift. When a business owner makes decisions that result in heinous crimes against thousands of consumers, workers, and/or citizen taxpayers justice is virtually nonexistent – especially if the government is dependent on the economic activity generated by that business. Moral suasion can be even more useful than fines or prison time – IF there were no adverse consequences for those who report these crimes or no code of silence among other high level businesses who either engage in similar practices to “stay competitive” or does business with the criminal. When fewer people control greater proportions of our economy this process only accelerates.

Liberals all too often call for regulations that dictate rules of business conduct that may or may not improve the quality of the workplace, product or environmental protection. The cost of these regulations fall on both legitimate and criminal business but – like all laws – punishment falls on those with the least access to justice that only money will buy. Criminals with money always find ways to delay justice until such time as they can deflect blame or bargain with regulators over consequences. Legitimate businesses pay the costs of regulation while the criminals who profit make deals with those in power.

Drug prohibition has always been a response to citizen unrest based on abuse of power by those in power to benefit the investor class. In the mid 19^th century, thousands of soldiers fought and died in wars that benefited the interests of the investor class who sold the weapons and reaped the rewards of access to more resources. The working class paid the price in blood and tax money. This is why the Republican anti tax stance resonates with the working class. That’s also why the GOP stance on spending always excludes government spending that either benefits the investor class or abuses the working class disproportionately.

Invariably at the end of any war and the nationalistic fervor has subsided there is considerable unrest among those who paid the costs and received little of the benefit. Often these include soldiers wounded in battle whose care began and ended at the battlefield. Once they were not needed for conquest they become disposable and useful only as symbols of national pride to rally support for current government policy. Many of these soldiers self medicate and it is easy for those in power to deflect discussion of the real problems that involve the blatant disconnect between those who pay the price of war and those who benefit to the drugs used by some protesters. It doesn’t take a genius to see the relationship between wars and drug prohibition – although with countries who prefer a constant state of warfare the cause and effect are a bit less obvious.

Obviously, the answer to our pro crime drug policies that enrich criminals and punish addicts, low level gang members, taxpayers and crime victims is either repeal or adoption of actual measurable drug standards that actually deal with drugs proven to be harmful based on exceeding thresholds for harm established with legitimate studies and a drug education curriculum based on the actual problems related to drugs that have little to do with the drug used and a lot to do with irresponsible drug use.  As I state in my book [that meets these minimal criteria] the problem is that those with influence actually promote irresponsible drug use to maximize sales and profit.

We have more than enough tools to ensure justice. They are derived from common law and our Constitution. The problem is that access to the legal process is expensive and out of the reach of most people – especially if the criminal can deny access by spending more money than the crime victim. And today there are many companies who can outlast federal regulators funded by tax dollars. If access to justice was as easy as having a legitimate grievance, legitimate companies would have an incentive to develop a process or partnership that would work outside the punitive legal system to quickly resolve and correct problems with consumers, workers, and neighbors. It can be done. I know because I developed such a process in my lifetime involving adversaries with unequal influence and power – that worked and was easy to implement. I do find common cause with conservatives who whine about our country having too many lawyers [90% of world's total]. Their solution to cap potential damages is so bogus since the beneficiaries of current glut of lawyers are NOT big companies. We need a legal system where money is irrelevant and where “cashing in on deep pockets” is equally irrelevant if such suits are tossed out as being done in bad faith. This is where incentives for a process that engages business and community in meaningful dialog to compensate those injured and end abusive practices rather than “payback”. But then again our media glorify vengeance – especially against the “Bond villains” who don’t exist in real life.

The Fosamax controversy

The “Fosomax controversy”

My original reaction to the “Fosamax controversy” about lack of disclosure about shattered bones due to long-term use was as follows: anyone who was educated about drugs could logically reach that conclusion! Drugs do not heal; the body heals. The body always, in varying degrees, resists the effects of drugs. The function of drugs is to aid the body in its healing process by stimulating its normal functions [stimulants] to speed up the natural process or depressing its normal process [depressants] to allow the body to rest and recuperate. As the body begins to heal the effects of the drugs diminish as the body takes over and completes the healing process. The use of drugs is always to be as a stopgap to aid the body to heal itself quicker and to step in and aid in catastrophic illness and injuries.
Long term use for health purposes is always a bad thing – but sometimes the alternative is worse. Even then the decision is up to the patient and it is his/her responsibility to get information even as he/she provides feedback to guide the doctor. There is no such thing as a “side effect”: this is what the drug does – if used in sufficient quantities over long periods of time. In this particular situation, the longer the drug is used to effect repair the less capable the body becomes in repairing itself. This is what should be called a drug dependency – if the term was used by our media as a more dramatic form of drug addiction in order to promote our abusive drug policies. If you rely on drugs to help repair your body, the body not only becomes less responsive to the drugs but loses its own ability to repair itself.
A sagacious older runner once quipped: “Injury or illness is the body’s way of telling you to take a break.” Your body gets injured or sick because of overload. It needs rest, relaxation, and recuperation. If you take drugs because you feel compelled to subject your body to this abuse for extended periods of time you are always headed for problems. Yet, those who sell drugs promote them on exactly this premise: you don’t have to “miss out” on a hectic schedule that produces stress, anxiety, and even physical duress because of an illness. The message is: don’t let [the symptoms of this health problem] interfere with your busy, productive life. The fact is that if you use drugs to solve problems the problems will always increase and most of the new problems will be caused by drug use.
The problem is that people are deliberately NOT being educated about the proper role of drugs in a health regimen. This is especially true in our public schools and is echoed in nearly all media dialog. Instead children at a very early age are taught the dangerous drugs mythology in order to justify an abusive drug policy that has always increased drug use, drug abuse, drug addiction, toxic drugs, crime, violence and public corruption in every single culture that has enforced it on its own citizenry. The consequences are so consistently predictable it can only be logically concluded that these results are the desired consequences of those in authority.
What’s even worse for young people is that school officials bring in police to promote current drug policy using fraud. When they blame abusive behaviors on use of certain arbitrarily banned drugs they teach kids at an early age how to abdicate personal responsibility. These misconceptions are echoed in pulpits, school classrooms, and TV news throughout the country which deliberately promotes “flexible” moral principles where lying is OK – for a good cause. When lying to promote an abusive policy that rewards evil and punishes the victim becomes acceptable to those who claim moral leadership the country is in real trouble.
However, the most important reason why young people – and by extension the general population – is not being educated about drugs are those who profit handsomely by promoting over reliance and dependency to enhance sales of their drugs. There is something seriously wrong when the primary education about drugs is being provided by those who profit from increased sales. There is no coincidence that the United States is by far the leading per capita consumer of drugs both among the arbitrarily banned and arbitrarily legal drugs. I use the term “arbitrarily” simply because our country has never adopted actual measurable standards for restrictions on any drugs. Yes, I have formally requested those standards from the DEA through my Congressional Representative Peter Defazio – to be blithely ignored. Even our doctors are being indoctrinated by sellers of newly patented [more expensive due to government guarantees] drugs to direct patients to new drug “regimens”. To the doctors’ credit many do resist such direction and/or direct them to positive lifestyle changes to augment those drug “regimens”.
The bottom line is that drugs are NOT the problem – in 99% of the cases. Drugs are just tools that can be used to enhance one’s life. Stronger drugs are always more risky and more addictive than weaker drugs. The bad consequences of drug use are nearly always the result of bad judgment [severe allergic reactions being the most numerous exception]. That said, I am not at all sympathetic to the makers of Fosamax. They profited handsomely by promoting their product as a long-term “health regimen” whether that promotion was explicit or implicit. When drug sellers in this country stop promoting their product as an alternative to recuperation and recovery I will become more sympathetic. But that would put them at odds with all the other sellers of the “American Dream” with all of its “quick fixes”. We don’t need more drugs and “stuff” to cope with a hectic abusive lifestyle; we just need a less hectic and less abusive lifestyle. And that’s what most of my book is about.

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?