He turned 12 years old in April.
We love you, buddy.
Exploring current and past conspiracies from a logical view point. Also bringing you legal and practical information about cryptography.If you're the victim of a conspiracy, you need crypto.
07 April 2012
05 April 2012
HAVE YOU LOST YOUR HOME YET?
WHAT THE HOUSING CRISIS REALLY MEANS
Just how bad is the US housing
crisis? More importantly, how does it – or will it affect you? I
can't answer that for you personally since each person's situation is
different and anybody's situation can change overnight. What I can
do is show you what has happened and what that means for the future.
The bottom line is this; most
people are either in some level foreclosure, or know someone that has
or is about to lose their home. Think about it for a minute. Who do
you know that is 90 or more days behind on their mortgage or has
already lost their home? According to Time Magazine (Feb
12, 2012) 22%
of home-owners are upside down in their mortgages. That means they owe
more on their mortgage than their home is worth and, as such couldn't
sell it if they had to.
I live in Billings, Montana; a
typical mid-size city. According to the US Census Bureau1,
Montana had an estimated population of 998,119 in 2011. About 104,000
of those live in Billings. The Census Bureau also says that about
66% of families own their own home. In Billings, that would be about
68,640 people. If each family averages 2.592
members then there about 26,501 private homes in Billings.
MainStreet.com3
said:”A total of 2,698,967 properties entered some stage of
foreclosure – default notice, scheduled auction or bank
repossession – last year.” That (according to them) was 1 in
69. In Billings, that would be about
304 homes in some stage of foreclosure. Los Angeles county has a
population a little shy of 10 million, which would mean about 56
THOUSAND families that have lost or will lose their home in
LA. You can do the math for your city.
And what is the prognosis? Will
things get better or worse? To answer that, we need to know what
caused the disaster in the first place. Why did the bubble burst? Was
it the Republicans? The Democrats? Greedy Wall Street Moguls or the
Evil Bankers? Did Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac just start taking
people's homes?
I think that, when pressed, few
people can trace the roots back to where it started. Most people that
I know don't realize that the base causes stem from President Jimmy
Carter's administration and the the Community Reinvestment Act4
(CRA), enacted by Congress in 1977.
The CRA, in a nutshell, directed
banks to loan money to people to buy homes. Whether those people
could afford them or not. And two government institutions known as
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac guaranteed those loans. Many of the loans
were adjustable rate. That means that every so often, your interest
rate can go up or down. They rarely go down.
When the economy began to tank
after the internet bubble burst, the interest rates went up to more
than the original payment. Then the payments went up to more
than many people could afford. People had to get out from under
their mortgages so a lot of houses went on the market all at once. The ever-present law of supply and
demand kicked in. More houses for sale meant lower prices and
suddenly a whole lot of people owed more on their homes than they
were worth. They couldn't sell them and they couldn't afford the
payments. The only thing left is foreclosure.
That's the short version. Follow
the links for the long version.
And just who are Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? Why do they have
anything to do with your house?
According to Wikipedia, “The Federal National
Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie
Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as
part of the New Deal...The corporation's purpose is to expand the
secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of
mortgage-backed securities (MBS),[3] allowing lenders to reinvest
their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of
lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on thrifts5.
About Freddy Mac, Wikipedia says
“The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac,
is a public government sponsored enterprise (GSE)...The FHLMC
was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in
the US. Along with other GSEs, Freddie Mac buys mortgages on the
secondary market, pools them, and sells them as a mortgage-backed
security to investors on the open market.”
The fact that,
as of 1970, we have two government-run and non-elected agencies doing
the same job at twice the cost and twice the confusion is another
story. Here's what it means as far as the housing crisis.
John Q.
Bluecollar takes out a mortgage down at his local bank. Fannie Mae
&/or Freddy Mac step up; purchase that loan from the bank, put it
together with several other loans they purchased [with
your tax dollars]
and
sell them as a package to some investor.
Since
the CRA, the bank doesn't really care if Mr. & Mrs Bluecollar can
repay the loan because they know they will get their money from
Fannie or Freddy. Ms. Mae and Mr. Mac don't care either, because they
know they can pawn it off on some unsuspecting investor who (quite
incorrectly) believes that, since they came from the a
supposed-government agency (since 1968, Fannie has been public) the
package has to be a good investment.
WRONG!!!
Now the
investors are stuck with a bunch of bad debts and foreclosed homes;
known as Toxic
Assets6
”.
They
(the investors) lose a bunch of money. They don't want and won't buy
any more of these money-losing packages, which leaves Fannie and
Freddy stuck with a few BILLION dollars worth of toxic assets and now
they can't buy any more mortgages from the banks. The banks can't
collect the loans back from people who can't afford the payments so they go bankrupt. The FDIC7
has
to bail out the banks8
with more of your tax dollars and the whole thing spirals down to
what we have today. More people demanding more free help from the
government that has less money because more businesses close down and
the ones that remain have less profit so they pay less taxes. Banks
are belly-up so businesses can't borrow money so they can't hire more
people so unemployment goes up so less people can afford a house so
more banks have more foreclosed homes so...ad nauseam!
And just exactly what does all
that mean for you, your family and the future?
The good news is that, if history
is a reliable indicator, things will get better; and probably before
the USA goes the way of Greece. The bad news is that it WILL get
worse before it gets better.
WordPress.com says “The
housing market won’t recover until employment increases and
consumers become more confident.9”
And, according to the San
Francisco Chronicle “"When things turn and there is
job growth and there is consumer confidence back, then we'll see a
change," said Douglas Yearley, chief executive officer of luxury
builder Toll Bros. Inc. "We have to get job growth back.10"
In other words, until people THINK
there
is a recovery, there won't be one. Once Americans start to believe
that things are getting better, they will spend more of what little
money they have. That will bring more capitol into businesses who
will then begin to hire more people. Less unemployment will mean even
more consumer confidence which will mean more spending which will
mean more growth and more taxes collected to help people that haven't
caught up yet. With more growth, housing prices will start to recover
and more people will have jobs and be able to afford to buy a home.
Someone once told me that it is
easier to act yourself into a new way of thinking than to think
yourself into a new way of acting.
Apparently we are going to have
to do it the hard way. We have to believe in our recovery first. Then
and only then will there actually be a recovery.
At
least, that's my opinion. Let us know what you think.
Citations
3
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/real-estate/foreclosure/2011-foreclosure-rate-was-lowest-4-years
5
A savings and loan association
(or S&L), also
known as a thrift, is
a financial institution that specializes in accepting
savings
deposits and making mortgage and other loans.
10
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/05/BU811G77MR.DTL&feed=patrick.net#divider
If you wish to unsubscribe from this blog, please send an email to pyrate02@gmail.com with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE”in the subject line.
22 March 2012
CITIZEN OR SUBJECT?
It
seems like my monthly postings keeps coming later and later in the
month. I do apologise and next month I'll do my damnedest to have it
to you by the 5th. This time I really do have a valid
reason, though. Two, actually.
First,
there are so many things going on I was having a hard time deciding
which one deserves the time to research. I finally settled on this
month's topic, sat down to write it and that day my wife had a heart
attack. A trip to the ER and the fear of possibly losing my best
friend put everything else on hold. While we were dealing with all
that that entails, my computer crashed. I thought I had everything
backed up. That's what I get for thinking; I didn't double-check the
output of my back-up program. There is a lesson in there somewhere.
BTW;
my wife is ok now. Making a few life-style changes and slowin' down a
bit but back home and doing well.
So
now I have redone all of my research for this month's topic: The 2nd
amendment and some recent court cases and decisions about it.
Here it is in all it's simplicity and glory.
Amendment II
A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This simple, one-sentence part of our constitution
has caused more controversy than almost any other legal statement in
the history of our great country.
Let's get a bit of historical context.
A
lot of people in this country think that we should have
European-style gun laws. They point, quite correctly, to a direct
correlation between the very restrictive European laws and most of
Europe's very low incidence of gun violence. What these good citizens
completely ignore is over 300 years of history and culture.
Most
European countries are hundreds, if not thousands of years old. In
their entire history the military were the only ones allowed to
posses any more armament than a dagger. Ordinary citizens were
simply forbidden from possessing weaponry. That is all they know.
On
the other hand, since the first explorers and settlers landed on
America's shores; a century or two before we became a sovereign
nation, EVERYBODY had a gun. They (guns) were an absolute necessity
for survival both from a view of self defence and for putting food on
the table. Even the Quakers and Pilgrims all had guns. Our entire
history has been written with the average person being armed.
In
that light, any attempt to disarm our population succeeds only in
either disarming the law-abiding citizenry or – if they refuse to
give up their ability to defend themselves and their families -
making criminals out of them. On the other hand the bad guys, by
their very nature, don't pay any attention to the laws in the first
place and they keep their guns. Or get more of them. I seriously
doubt that any law passed anywhere has ever made a criminal give up
his gun.
So
that brings us to this months' topic. What have the courts been
deciding recently in regards to the 2nd
amendment?
#1
Until 2008, probably the biggest point of disagreement about the 2nd
amendment were the first 4 words. Does the statement: “A
well regulated militia” refer
to the individual or to the national guard? That question has finally
been settled. At least for now.
On
6/26/'08 in District
of Columbia v. Heller1,
the
supreme court held in part : The
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home.
Arguably,
the most important part of this decision was 1b that reads:
“The
prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the
operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defence. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicised standing army or a select militia to rule. The response
was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of
individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’
militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. “
That
reminds me of the old adage: “An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed
one a subject.” Obviously, that is what our wise [er than me]
founding fathers had in mind.
#2
On June 28th,
2010, the supreme court ruled on McDonald
v. Chicago2
,
expanding on DC v Heller
and
stating
that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms"
protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to individual states
as well as the Federal Government. In a nutshell, that means that
states have to follow the federal constitution as well as their own
and that federal trumps state.
In
explaining the Chicago decision, Justice Alito stated "It is
clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms
among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered
liberty."
#3
A Maryland law restricting carrying outside the home has been struck
down. U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg has declared the
requirement forcing those applying for a gun-carry permit to show
that they have a "good and substantial reason" to do so
"impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms,"
as guaranteed by the Second Amendment3."
The judge went on to say: "The right's existence is all the
reason he needs."
#4
In Colorado, if you have a valid conceal carry permit, you can now
carry even on a University campus. Thanks to the
Students
for Concealed Carry on Campus you can now protect yourself, at least in Colorado, from campus
shooters4.
At
least 8 states have passed so-called “Firearms Freedom Acts”;
laws that state “
any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of
Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among
the states.5”
FFA
s are an attempt to eventually end federal control over all gun laws
within an individual state. South Carolina has actually done just
that. In 2010 a bill was introduced in their state legislature which
would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the
state6.
Several more states are considering similar laws. How these laws will
hold up to constitutional scrutiny is any body's guess
In
the news lately due to the shooting in Florida of an un-armed
teenager,
are
the so-called Castle
Doctrines7
of
several
states. A Castle Doctrine is an American legal doctrine that designates a
person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such
as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain
protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an
intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. At least 22 states
have some form of Castle Doctrine, with a few going even further and
instituting a "Stand
Your Ground"
law8.
These laws state that you have no duty to flee from an aggressor and
that you are justified and indemnified from civil or criminal
prosecution for using deadly force, even if you're in a public place
and had a chance to leave and avoid the confrontation.
Stand Your Ground laws (sometimes known as "Make My Day" laws) are
especially controversial; particularly in light of the Zimmerman
shooting9.
The
Federalist Papers consist of a series of essays written by Alexander
Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison explaining how this new
government would operate and why this type of government was the best
choice for the United States of America.
In
the Federalist papers # 46, founding father James Madison put the
entire need-to-be-armed subject in context when he wrote: “Besides
the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the
militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition,
more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form
can admit of. Notwithstanding
the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which
are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
are afraid to trust the people with arms”10.
Although
many people in the last hundred-or-so years have tried to say that
the need to maintain a militia of “all
males
physically
capable of bearing arms”
is no longer valid since we have the national guard and a constant
standing army, the courts keep upholding an individuals' right to own
guns. As one Supreme Court justice-whose name I can't remember- put
it (I
am quoting from memory so this is a paraphrase) “The
2nd
amendment is there in case the courts, military and law enforcement
forget about the other 9.”
Former
president Bill Clinton not withstanding, the right to keep and bear
arms has nothing to do with hunting ducks. It is a vital part of our
way of life; necessary to keep a free people free and to guarantee
that the Federal Government won't decide to throw out the
constitution and turn us all into subjects and serfs.
At
least that's my opinion. What's yours?
To
keep an eye on upcoming court cases involving the 2nd
amendment to our constitution, visit the Second Amendment
Foundation's web site at:
For
the complete text of the Constitution of the United States, visit:
If
you would like to download and print a nice-looking copy of the
Constitution and/or our Declaration of Independence, go to:
Citations
1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
2
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5141154246897960488&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0628/Supreme-Court-Second-Amendment-rights-apply-across-US
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/huge-court-victory-for-expanding-second-amendment-rights-by-saf/
http://radioviceonline.com/two-2nd-second-amendment-cases-provide-right-to-carry-victories-in-maryland-and-
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
If you wish to unsubscribe from this blog, please send an email to pyrate02@gmail.com with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE”in the subject line.
16 February 2012
LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE
Last
night, as my wife and I were watching the news, she asked me what a
Liberal or Conservative actually is. As I made a gallant but futile
attempt at defining them for her, I realised that I'm just like
Potter Stewart (supreme court judge; 1958 to 1981) who, when referring
to pornography, said "I
shall not today attempt further to define (the
kinds of material)
I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and
perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it
when I see it...1”
The
February 13th
issue of Time®
Magazine has an article titled “WHAT IS A CONSERVATIVE?”. 3 pages
of commentaries by 9 different authors and they all seemed to
articulate what a Conservative ISN'T,
with absolutely no consensus on what one IS!
I will assume that they would be similarly as inconsistent if they
tried defining a Liberal.
On that note, and with one of
the most important elections of the last 100 years coming up in just 9
months, I decided to try my hand at coming up with a solid definition
for each term.
If you have been reading this
blog for any length of time, you know where I stand on most social,
economic and political issues; I have always considered myself to be
a staunch right-wing Conservative and try to espouse those values and
ideals. However, like Justice Potter, I really don't have a solid
definition. I just know them when I see them.
So I did a bunch of research
and here I bring to you my shot at putting forth true, accurate
definitions for the terms Liberal and Conservative.
Answers.com has this to
say:
Liberals
believe that individuals are collectively responsible for the welfare
of the entire community. Thus more programs to help the entire
community means that higher taxes and bigger government is needed to
oversee the programs.
- Pro-choice
- Equality
- Feminism
- Affirmative Action
- Gun Regulation
- Social Help
- Insurance that covers all
- Support welfare program
- Separation of church and state-No religion in schools
- Against the death penalty
- Regulated Market
Ask.com
says:
Liberals
don't love to pay taxes, but they stress that a well-functioning
government has a responsibility to maintain law and order, and that
doing this is costly. Liberals stress that taxes are necessary for
providing police and courts, ensuring safe transportation by building
safe roads, promoting education by providing public schools, and
protecting society in general by providing health care to those who
need it.
In an article by Robert
S. Sargent, Jr titled “Understanding
the Liberal agenda”2,
I believe I found the best non-Conservative-biased definition. Even
though he is an obvious conservative, he seems to attempt to offer a
truthful, straight-forward view. It the article he says:
“...what
is the underlying principle that drives the Liberal (not Democratic)
agenda? I'm convinced it's egalitarianism. It is a constant drive
toward equality.”
And:
“Egalitarianism
means everybody is equal, and that must be instituted from a central
source: the Federal Government.”
And
from
StudentNewsDaily3
we get what is probably the most definitive, in-depth and
side-by-side comparison, which begins (for the Liberal side):
“Liberals
– believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and
equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate
social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human
rights. Believe the role of the government should be to
guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasise the need for the government to solve problems.
Now onward to:
Conservative:
/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective: Holding
to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or
innovation, typically in politics or religion.
For the Conservatives,
Answers.com says:
Conservatives
believe that individuals are responsible for themselves, and that the
community benefits from the efforts of the individuals acting in
their interests. Thus less governmental programs, less taxes, and
less government is the goal.
- Pro-life
- Equality takes a back seat
- Patriarchal
- Believe there is reverse racism in affirmative action
- No Gun Regulation
- No social help
- No separation of church and state
- Religion in public schools
- Support the death penalty
- Free Market
And
we get this from Ask.com.
Conservatives
generally value individual accomplishment and resent too much
government intervention. They do not believe that it is the job of
the government to solve the problems of society by imposing intrusive
or costly policies, such as affirmative action or mandatory health
care programs.
The
Conservative side of the StudentDailyNews.com3
comparison
says:
“CONSERVATIVES
– believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free
markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong
national defence. Believe the role of government should be to
provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.
Conservative policies generally emphasise empowerment of the
individual to solve problems.”
While
assisting me in the research for this posting, my son said: “For
what it's worth, here is why I call myself an independent.”
It
has been said many times that; if you want to keep peace in a crowd,
never discuss politics or religion. I hope this discussion doesn't
start any brawls. I just wanted to bring a little clarification to
what seem to be some very muddy waters. I hope I succeeded. And...I
hope that, the next time someone tells you that they are a Liberal or
Conservative, you know exactly what they are claiming to believe. Or
at least what somebody else thinks they claim to believe. Or what the
other side wants to believe they believe. Or...Ahh! To hell with it.
For better or worse; there it is.
One
more thing. I'll
be the first to admit that our laws,
our government and even our country are not perfect. Sometimes our
laws don't work quite like we think...or wish they would (see
my posting: 01 June 2011-THE HIJACKING OF THE WHITE-HOUSE - WHO REALLY
CHOOSES OUR PRESIDENT?)
But the
ballot box is the backbone – the very lifeblood of our republic.
I'm not trying to get anybody to vote or believe one way or another.
Whether you consider yourself a Liberal, Conservative or Progressive;
whether you think of yourself as a Socialist or a Constitutionalist;
please vote. Do your part to make us better. And to keep us the best
country in the world. It only takes a few minutes every other year.
Please! Just vote.
Besides
if you don't vote, you have no room to complain if things don't end
up the way you wanted.
At least, that's my opinion.
What's yours?
PS:
for a little more incentive to get out the vote, please read my
posting from 04
November 2011 titled
“A SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEM“
Citations
If
you wish to unsubscribe from this blog, please send an email to
pyrate02@gmail.com with the
word “UNSUBSCRIBE”in the subject line.
08 January 2012
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ONE WE LOST
I have written several controversial posts but I have a feeling that this will probably be the most contentious yet by far. I don't ask that you agree or disagree with me. What I do ask of you is to keep an open mind and read the entire thing before forming an opinion...and think. If, through this article I start just one meaningful conversation about the suffering that we as Americans bring upon ourselves, I will have fulfilled my purpose in writing it.
God knows we've tried. We fought the good fight and gave it our all. We spent our prayers, our time, our money and our blood. Some fell along the way. Many good men and women died or were ruined for life.
Citations
1
History
of the Harrison act of 1914
God knows we've tried. We fought the good fight and gave it our all. We spent our prayers, our time, our money and our blood. Some fell along the way. Many good men and women died or were ruined for life.
Now, I believe the time has come to
face the truth. A very uncomfortable and controversial truth.
The fact is we lost! We lost the
war.
Not the ones in east Asia or the
middle east. I don't mean Korea or Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada,
Afghanistan or the cold war.
I'm talking about the war on drugs.
Although the war on drugs was
officially declared by Richard Milhous Nixon in 1971, in truth it
started with the passage of the Harrison Act1
in 1914. This was the first federal attempt
to curb usage of cocaine, opium and their derivatives. It was
presented as a tax law, but it's real intention was to end the sale
and use of recreational drugs. It failed. Miserably!
Instead of curbing drug
use, it only drove it underground; into the world of smugglers,
thieves and murders2.
One law review stated " The impact... make it almost impossible
for addicts to obtain drugs legally.3”
What people failed to realise was that they would obtain them. One
way or another.
Instead of stopping crime, this
misguided attempt at legislating morality and personal behaviour
actually increased it. Drug use and all the suffering associated with
criminals and their ways of life flourished. Soon, the cartels began
to become a major criminal force in an exact parallel to the rise of
the Mafia directly due to our (the governments) attempt to stop us
all from drinking: the 18th
amendment4.
Yes. By making illegal
drugs profitable, we created the cartels. That makes us responsible
for the thousands of murders and kidnappings, be-headings and bombings
perpetrated by them every year.
And besides the cost in
misery and blood, let us not forget the absolutely staggering
financial cost. According to one police chief, we waste almost 52
million dollars a day5
on a losing battle-a battle we cannot win.
There's another –
hidden – cost, too. Not money spent, but money not made. If you buy
a new TV, you spent $300 or $400. If you skipped work today, you may
not have spent any money, but you didn't make any either. The effect
on your monthly budget is the same: you have less money to pay the
rent and buy groceries.
Anything bought and
sold on the black market isn't taxed. That's just a plain fact.
And how much tax
revenue is lost each year? One government estimate states that
Americans consumed about 22,000 metric tons of Mary Jane in 20026.
There are 35,274 ounces in a metric ton. Assuming a tax of just $5.00
per ounce, we lost $3,880,140,000 of tax money that year. And that
was just on pot. I'm sure that almost every pot smoker would gladly
pay $5.00 or $10.00 more for his/her weed to be able to get it
legally. That's 4 BILLION
dollars a year we didn't collect in taxes; 8 billion at $10 a bag.
And that's just on marijuana. Throw in all the other drugs and you
would probably come up with a trillion dollars in less than 5 years.
That would cover a lot of the Social Security deficit.
And now you know where
I'm going with all this. Maybe it's high (pun intended) time to look
at the issue from another angle.
Legalization. Total
legalization of the purchase, possession and use of all drugs. Let
the government control the manufacture and sales of marijuana,
hashish, cocaine, opium, heroin, ecstasy, lsd and all other
recreational substances.
Oh yes. I can hear all
the screams already. I said you should read the whole thing before
forming an opinion.
Think about it. No more
overdoses from extra-pure drugs. Or people getting ripped off buying
aspirin instead of X. Or going on a bad trip because they got pot
laced with PCP. There would be quality control. People would get what
they pay for.
But wouldn't even more
people use drugs if they were legal? Not if history is any measure.
Again let's look at prohibition. Thousands of people who never drank
before started drinking precisely because
booze was against the law. The forbidden-fruit syndrome.
No more filling our
jails with people that just want to get high. According to a study I
read, there are about 420,000 people in jail just for drug offenses7.
Lane County, Oregon says that it costs between $90 and $130 a day to
keep someone in jail8.
Another article places the cost at a paltry $79 a day9.
Even at that figure, it costs us the taxpayers $28,835 a year for
each and every man or woman caught with a bag of weed or a hit of
acid. That works out to $12,110,700,000 a year just to lock up the
druggies.
Add that to the lost
tax dollars and we are out over 16 BILLION
dollars a
year. Add in the profits that the states would make from selling the
drugs out of state-controlled outlets and about 30 of the 50 states
could balance their budgets in under 3 years.
What
about jobs? Consider that someone would have to hire hundreds if not
thousands of people to produce, package, market, transport and sell
all these products. That's American jobs; not European, Colombian or
Mexican. That money would stay in the US of A. Not get shipped to
some country that doesn't even like us.
Some
people say that it would cost more money than it saves. Not true10.
Addicts will still be addicts. People will still get high, just like
all the folks in the speakeasies of the 20s and 30s. The 21st
amendment (repeal of prohibition) brought a reduction in drinking and
crime, an increase in tax revenues from the sale of liquor and a lot
of legal, good paying jobs. The same would happen with the
legalization of drugs. The prisons would be empty. Or at least a hell
of a lot less overcrowded. And the trillion or so extra dollars we
would have could go towards education, health care, feeding the
hungry or just getting the country out of debt.
In
this time of financial collapse and failing job markets does our
current drug policy really make any sense at all?
If
the drug laws and all the associated problems had ever actually
helped to curb drug use, I might say yes. But the reality is that we
are simply making a bad situation worse.
We
lost the war. It's time to face the truth, change direction and try
something that we know works.
We
know it would work because it worked before.
We
lost the war.
Time
to lick our wounds and start over.
We
lost the war.
At
least that's my opinion. What's yours? Leave a comment and tell
me...and the world what you think.
Citations
If you wish to unsubscribe from this blog, please send an email to pyrate02@gmail.com with the word “UNSUBSCRIBE”in the subject line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)