500x100

Ye shall be deceived and deceit shall make ye free?

 

by Don Hank

The Chinese Daoguang emperor in 1838 tried to oppose the British in their attempt to force opium on the Chinese people. One could say that, in doing so, the emperor was an anti-democratic despot, but he saw that the opium dens were destroying lives and families and turning productive Chinese into blobs of useless humanity — slaves to addiction.

One could also see the British as liberators, but they were anything but: they wanted to force the drug on the Chinese.

This story presents a dilemma for the libertarian because, while they can see the emperor as a despot who should have been overthrown, they can hardly see the British as bearers of the torch of liberty, since they were using force to drug another nation.

Incredibly, today, we have a similar situation. The libertarians have marshaled their forces and vast amounts of money to deceive unsuspecting people into accepting drugs.

The use of deceit is no less undemocratic and despotic than the use of other kinds of force. In fact libertarians decry the use of deceit by the media and major political parties, and they are right to do so. For example, there was a general perception in America after 9-11 that the Iraqis had attacked us. The press had not actually said that, but they implied it by focusing on WMDs and Saddam’s brutality. Libertarians and other thinking citizens cried foul. War based on deceit has left us with a mess in the Middle East.

Yet libertarians use the same deceitful tactics when pushing their pro-drug agenda.

As soon as Holland loosened up its drug laws, libertarians like Gov. Gary Johnson declared Holland to be a model for us all. Yet the truth was that many Dutch were dismayed at the aftermath of this great experiment. Their school kids started to drug themselves and the experiment got out of hand.

http://laiglesforum.com/the-young-pay-the-price-for-dutch-drug-experiment/23.htm

So much so that libertarian leaders backed away from the Dutch model and looked for another. They settled on Portugal, and the libertarian Cato Institute precipitously seized upon a dubious “study” by the Portuguese government that was published a few years into the experiment, claiming that all had worked out fine as planned and drug use was down. Gullible Cato jumped on this without a trace of critical analysis or further research and the world “learned” that drug legalization solves all our drug problems.

It was a lie, and if Cato had wanted to be honest with us, it would have listened to the Portuguese medical doctors who published a study of their own.

http://laiglesforum.com/decriminalization-of-drugs-in-portugal/2666.htm

When any group pretends to be for liberty, but deceives people in order to accomplish its goals, it is doing what the Left and the neocons have always done. Deceit is no substitute for the truth and none of our political parties are actually for freedom.

You, Fellow Citizen, are on your own.

Be careful out there!

Further on drugs:

http://laiglesforum.com/ye-shall-be-deceived-and-deceit-shall-make-ye-free/2969.htm


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

10 Responses to “Ye shall be deceived and deceit shall make ye free?”

  1. Totally agree, Don! Thanks for helping to expose libertarians and the likes of Ron Paul, who is dangerous at best. I too was caught up in Ron Paul & his stances until I discovered more of what he & libertarians are all about several years ago.

  2. GunRights4US Says:

    Libertarians aren’t pushing a pro-drug agenda. We’re pushing a pro-Liberty agenda. It’s not government’s role to tell me what to do with my body. Whether I choose to bathe my brain in alcohol, opiates, or nicotene; it’s MY body not Washington’s. Only if I put other people at risk by operating a vehicle does it become other people’s business.

    People are being murdered (by the authorities AND by the drug cartels) because drugs are forced into the underground. How much freaking money are we going to spend when all the evidence shows that enforcement has utterly failed? As a result America has more people in prison (by every measure, percapita or absolute numbers) than any other country on earth – including China! And it’s all because government thinks it OWNS YOU!

    I was a conservative for 45 of my 50 years on this earth, until I woke up and realized that conservatism is buidling a police state the likes of which the world has never seen!

  3. It’s not that simple, Don. During the Whisky Prohibition of the 20s, who controlled the alcohol? The Mafia. What was happening at that time and how was the problem resolved? Did everyone cry, “But EVERYONE will become drunks and alcoholics!”?? Yes, they did! Oh, horrors if we legalize booze!

    If you can imagine the legalization of drugs, people will not have free access to them. They’ll have to have a PRESCRIPTION to obtain them. Which cuts out the “middle man”, the Drug Cartel. You know, the bunch that reigns terror, murder and mayhem on the border. I’m assuming if one wants drugs, they’ll have to have a prescription. If this is correct, what happens to drug cartel’s power?

    I’m certainly not for anyone using drugs, but I believe there will always be some who will. As Ron Paul said in one of the debates, “How many of you can’t wait to try cocaine or heroin when it’s legal?” I won’t. Will you? It will just cut out the drug cartel’s power.

    I’m not 100% sure legalization will fix the problem, but how would you fix it? Letting the drug cartels control the drugs certainly isn’t working. So, HOW would you fix it?

  4. Hello GunRights,
    Check over my article and tell me where I said anything about taking away your rights.
    It is not about that. It is about the pro-drug side being less than truthful.
    By exaggerating, and even lying about, the benefits of drug legalization (and in some cases the benefits of doing drugs, as in the case of the U of Alabama study), they are tacitly admitting that the “right” to use drugs is predicated on whether or not there is a benefit, NOT whether the right is an unalienable, God given right guaranteed by the Constitution — which is what they simultaneously assert. You can’t have it both ways.
    Either it is a God given, unalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution, or the benefits of drug legalization must be proven. Which is it?

  5. Why is that Portugal cut their drug abuse in half when they decriminalized drugs?? Proof is where it is, not some half baked Chinese analogy speculation. Just say you are anti Libertarian and save everyone your nonsense. And the WMD?? yea and were we right about it? did we find them yet? Your blog is weak and lacks any real time proof.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

  6. It’s inalienable, Don. But I’d call it a responsibility not a right!

    I agree that pro-drugs groups (a lot, I believe, actually inspired by government/banker-driven agenda and covert operatives, who on the other side of their face are conducting a phoney war on recreational drugs) do lie or manipulate he truth.

    However, that does not change my beliefs that:

    1. It is not the government’s remit to determine what I or anyone else is permitted to do with my/his/her body. I don’t agree with GunRights4US on a technicality: it’s God’s body, not mine (but it definitely isn’t the government’s!) and once I am adult God has given me the responsibility to determine what goes into it and what doesn’t, no-one else.

    2. Even if I totally agree that recreational drug taking is harmful or even extremely harmful more often than not, if I cede to government the right to determine what I and others can do to/with and take into our bodies in the area of drugs, I have created a principle that they will exploit for economic purposes – as indeed they are already massively doing – to tell me what food and drink, food supplements, vitamin pills, water additives (e.g. fluoride) etc., etc. I must and must not take.
    The UK and the US constitutions were specifically framed in order to restrain government because government needs restraining. It simply cannot be trusted.

    3. If there is any case for regulating/banning recreational drugs, the two most harm-producing and addictive drugs on the planet are alcohol and tobacco. If any drugs should be banned these two should. Do you advocate banning these Don? If not, why not? Because your argument for banning others – what they are doing to our kids – demands that you seek prohibition of these, too. The 1920’s experiment taught us the lesson that prohibition doesn’t work. It just creates crime.

    4. Drug abuse and addiction is not a crime that needs to be punished – it is a sickness that needs to be understood and treated.

    – – – – – – – – –

    The US federal government now spends close to 20 billion dollars per year, and state and local governments at least that much again, on combating illegal drugs.

    “In 2007 the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) estimated that there were about 1,841,200 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States.” http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/enforce.cfm

    “In 2007, the FBI estimated that 14,209,365 arrests occurred nationwide for all offenses (except traffic violations)” http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html

    In 2004 drug offenders made up 21% of all State prisoners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

    So about 12% of all (non-traffic) arrests and 20% of all incarcerations happen because drugs are illegal, not because any real crime (harm, injury or loss to another) has been committed.

    Making drugs illegal does undoubtedly deter some people from using them but it is clear from these statistics that huge numbers will not be deterred.

    It is true that, “research continues to indicate that drug use precipitates criminal activity”. http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32348
    And this criminal activity is mostly of a violent or property-related kind.

    However, In 1998, it was reported that 21% of persons in US state jails or prison for violent crime were under the influence of alcohol and no other drug at the time they committed the crime. Only 3% were under the influence of cocaine or crack alone, and 1% were under the influence of heroin alone.

    Prohibiting the use of drugs has not fixed the problem, but it does cost phenomenal amount of money, it labels vast numbers of people criminals who have committed no real crime and puts many of them in prison where they will learn to be real criminals, it increases the street price of drugs to those who will use them anyway – thus promoting crime, it creates opportunity for crime by black market supply, it discourages addicts from coming forward for treatment.

    There is no doubt that drug abuse cause crime. But drug abuse itself is not and should not be treated as a crime – it is a sickness that needs to be understood and treated, not a crime that needs to be punished.

    Hedley

  7. Hi Don,

    A response to your e-mail containing the post (that doesn’t seem to appear here):

    Re: “If drug use an inalienable right, why the need to “prove” legalization is beneficial?

    “would this guy be willing to sign a life long commitment NEVER to use ANY public funded health service?
    has legalised drink reduced its consumption?”

    In my post above, the first part (points numbered 1-4) is a statement of my beliefs about the rights and wrongs of regulation/criminalisation of recreational drug taking.

    The second part is not an attempt to prove the benefits of legalisation – it is a very abbreviated attempt to illustrate the appalling costs (both economic and social) of maintaining prohibition.

    Re: “would this guy be willing to sign a life long commitment NEVER to use ANY public funded health service?”

    I don’t know quite who the writer is referring to by “this guy”, but personally I use state funded (and, in fact, any mainstream pharmaceutical-based) health services only with extreme caution: I almost never accept any treatment from them (almost always drug-based) and would do so only in life threatening or extreme pain situations, because I believe that any drug-based treatment almost always does much more harm than good in the long term. I, personally, would therefore happily sign such an undertaking if a reasonable alternative were available. The problem is that in the UK, at least, state-funded health-care has a virtual monopoly on trained physicians. State funding has made medical care way more expensive than it would be in a free market and hence there is almost no market for privately funded medicine – except for so called “alternative” therapies and preventive measures – which government and Big Pharma are constantly trying to regulate out of the market. [But this is probably a bit off the off-topic topic!!]

    Re: “has legalised drink reduced its consumption?”

    No. But did prohibition stop people from using it? . . . . But what it did do was to multiply crime – both the ‘fake’ crimes of “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” and the real crimes of gang warfare. And just the same is true of making the use and distribution of any recreational drugs illegal.

    By legislating something into being a “paper crime”, which, in essence is simply a contravention of some government policy, we both create real crime, and incur social and economic costs.

    The basic question is, “Do you want government to treat you as a child who needs to be told what to do or do you want to be treated as a responsible adult who can make decisions for yourself?”

    If you want that latter liberty*, then you must also allow that liberty to others. If you do not want others to have that liberty in all respects then you must accept the right of government to regulate ***every*** aspect of your life . . . and that is precisely what you are getting today and with rapidly escalating intrusion into your personal liberty.

    For example, if the government decides that your chosen religion is bad for you (or for the rest of society) then you’re going have to stop practising it. If they decide you can’t pray in public, you’ll have to stop. If they decide that you can’t celebrate or talk about Christmas in public, then you’re going to have to stop. If they decide that you are not permitted to decide what (sexual) acts are allowed in your own house, then you are going to have to quit trying. All three of these last three things have already happened in limited contexts in the UK, recently.

    If you are not religious, then none of the above might bother you, but, sure as anything, there will be some other ways that government tries to interfere in your life that will.

    (*It is probably unnecessary to explain that the limitation on my liberty is where your liberty begins and vice versa.)

    “Legalising drugs” in Holland and Portugal did not fix the problem. But prohibiting them almost everywhere else has not fixed the problem either! That’s because looking to legislation to fix what is essentially a problem of fallible human nature and a sickness of society is looking in completely the wrong place.

  8. GunRights4US Says:

    \Hello GunRights,
    Check over my article and tell me where I said anything about taking away your rights.\

    Check over my post and tell me where I even used the word ‘rights’.

    Bonnie, you are absolutely correct. God owns my body, I am merely the steward of it. But I was trying to keep my rebuttal succient and to the point.

    Sorry for the lateness of my response.

  9. Don / Bonnie

    Re: Bonnie, you are absolutely correct. God owns my body, I am merely the steward of it. But I was trying to keep my rebuttal succient and to the point.

    The Founders recognized Natural Rights, and particularly as articulated by John Locke.

    Jefferson, for example, wrote to the University of Virgiia that:

    “As to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his ‘Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government’, and of Sidney in his ‘Discourses on government’, may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow-citizens of this, and the US.”

    So, lets see what Locke said about our right to destroy ourselves:

    “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license: though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. –John Locke.” Second Treatise on Government. Chapter 2 section 6

    You are right and the libertarians are wrong, both by American Doctrine and Biblical.

    God bless

  10. Bonnie

    Re: If you can imagine the legalization of drugs, people will not have free access to them. They’ll have to have a PRESCRIPTION to obtain them.

    Might I suggest you go to California where the use of medicinal MJ is legal. It is NOW possible to drive down the road and see people with signs saying “Do you need a prescription..pull in here.”

    They have a doctor set up that will prescribe MJ for any thing you report. ANYTHING.

    Now, just so we are clear. Drugs is MORE than marijuana. Consider what it looks like for a person on cocaine to use their infant son as a base ball bat against a door jam.

    It matters not whether it was legal or not. The problem is the substance and those who use it as some nations in Europe can now testify.

Leave a Reply

*