The leader of our current regime in Washington, D.C., is famous for warning terrorists that he will find them and he will kill them. He has invoked some version of that threat multiple times in his so-called foreign policy: in his speeches about Boko Haram, in his comments about ISIS, and most recently in his address to the United Nations in which he threatened (once again) to annihilate Iran. He will find them and he will kill them. So there! Even his wife Lara worked that trope into a convention speech in Detroit in 2024, when she told the MAGA crowd that "We will find you, we will track you down and we will prosecute you to the full extent of the law." She was referring to anyone who so much as THOUGHT about cheating in an election. That latter version, however, does not roll off the tongue as easily as the original phrase which was taken (appropriately enough) from the movie "Taken," starring Liam Neeson. In that 2008 thriller, the star calmly informs his daughter's overseas kidnappers via landline that he is going to find them and he is going to kill them, even if he has to beat astronomical odds in order to do so.
I knew all along that Measure 110 in Oregon was going to be blamed for the problems that the drug war causes. Drug warriors never take responsibility, despite all the blood that they have on their hands.
The Partnership for a Drug Free America should be put on trial for having blatantly lied to Americans in the 1980s about drugs, while using our taxpayer money to do so!
This is the "Oprah fallacy," which has led to so much suffering. She told women they were fools if they accepted a drink from a man. That's crazy. If we are terrified by such a statistically improbable event, we should be absolutely horrified by horses and skateboards.
It is a truism to say that we cannot change the world and that therefore we have to change ourselves -- but the drug war outlaws even this latter option.
The benefits of outlawed drugs read like the ultimate wish-list for psychiatrists. It's a shame that so many of them are still mounting a rear guard action to defend their psychiatric pill mill -- which demoralizes clients by turning them into lifetime patients.
Being a lifetime patient is not the issue: that could make perfect sense in certain cases. But if I am to be "using" for life, I demand the drug of MY CHOICE, not that of Big Pharma and mainstream psychiatry, who are dogmatically deaf to the benefits of hated substances.
In response to a tweet that "some drugs cannot be used wisely for recreational purposes": The problem is, most people draw such conclusions based on general impressions inspired by a media that demonizes drugs. In reality, it's hard to imagine a drug that cannot theoretically be used wisely for recreation at some dose, in some context.
Democratic societies need to outlaw prohibition for many reasons, the first being the fact that prohibition removes millions of minorities from the voting rolls, thereby handing elections to fascists and insurrectionists.
Americans think that fighting drugs is more important than freedom. We have already given up on the fourth amendment. Nor is the right to religion honored for those who believe in indigenous medicines. Pols are now trying to end free speech about drugs as well.
Did the Vedic People have a substance disorder because they wanted to drink enough soma to see religious realities?
(up)