Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

Quick Facts About US War On Drugs

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

Here are some interesting numbers for the USA war on drugs. I focus on the war in the USA because Canada fights the war on drugs mainly on trading and political pressure from the USA. Although there is a very large misguided political belief and pressure in Canada to continue and ramp up the war on drugs in Canada as well the main pressures still come from our neighbors to the south. That being said if a victory to end prohibition can be made in the USA which is the largest battle ground the war can be ended here in Canada as well.

US drug war has met none of its goals

  1. $20 billion to fight the war on drugs in producing countries (Columbia , Mexico and so on)
  2. $33 billion in marketing to youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970.
  3. according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention drug overdoses have “risen steadily” since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.
  4. $49 billion for law enforcement along America’s borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.
  5. * $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.
  6. $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

New Obama Drug Strategy Just Like Old “Drug War” Approach

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

New Obama Drug Strategy Just Like Old “Drug War” Approach

Despite Rhetoric, Administration Funds Enforcement Over Treatment

WASHINGTON, DC — The Obama administration released its National Drug Control Strategy today, claiming that it represents a balanced new approach to drug policy that focuses on treatment over enforcement. However, a group of police officers who support legalization is pointing out that despite the administration’s words, the drug budget dedicates nearly twice as much funding to policing and enforcement as it does to public health and prevention, virtually the same ratio as the previous budget under President Bush.

“The drug czar is saying all the right things about ending the ‘war on drugs’ and enacting a long-overdue balanced strategy focused on a public health approach,” said Neill Franklin, a former Baltimore cop and incoming executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). “Unfortunately the reality of the budget numbers don’t match up to the rhetoric. Two-thirds of the budget is dedicated to the same old ‘war on drugs’ approach and only a third goes to public health strategies. My experience policing the beat tells me that it’s certainly time for a new approach, but unfortunately this administration is failing to provide the necessary leadership to actually make it happen instead of just talking about it.”

The strategy devotes 64 percent of the budget to traditional supply reduction strategies like enforcement and interdiction while reserving only 36 percent for demand reduction approaches like treatment and prevention. And, due to accounting changes made under the Bush administration and maintained by Obama, the budget ratio doesn’t even take into account some costs of the “war on drugs” such as incarceration.

Drug policy reform advocates are pleased, however, with the strategy’s support for syringe exchange programs and its criticism of laws that bar people with drug convictions from receiving public benefits like student aid.

“It’s great to see the administration starting to talk like they want to actually change failed drug policies,” said Franklin. “But we can’t let them get away with claiming that they’ve ended the ‘war on drugs’ while we continue to arrest 800,000 people a year on marijuana charges alone.”

The National Drug Control Strategy can be found online at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/strategy/

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is an international organization representing police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the “war on drugs” and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. More info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com

# # #

Tom Angell, Media Relations Director
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com

Washington, D.C.
phone: (202) 557-4979 // e-mail: tom@leap.cc
AIM: ThisIsTomAngell // GChat: tomangell

Videos of LEAP cops: http://YouTube.com/CopsSayLegalizeDrugs
LEAP on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/CopsSayLegalize
LEAP on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/CopsSayLegalizeDrugs

Glenn Beck’s Revolution Holocaust

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

I am well aware how evil socialism and communism is and the massive deaths it caused but even parts of the episode surprised me especially talking quotes from George Berandard Shaw (note Before The Nazis)who advocated people justifying there exists to a board of government officials. Then advocate marching them into gas chambers with classical music playing if there existence isn’t bettering man kind. A gentlemanly gas…. People think capitalism kills but tell me what corporation out there marched people off in to gas chambers.

The Urine test

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

THIS GUY MAKES A GOOD POINT
This was written by a construction worker in Fort MacMurray- he sure makes a lot of sense.

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig site for a Fort Mac construction project. I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass drinking beer and smoking dope.
Could you imagine how much money the provinces would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque?

Cancer patient challenges government health monopoly!

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

Karen Selick sets the record straight on Shona Holmes
The following article also appeared in the Calgary Herald today, August 13, 2009, under the title, “A Canadian’s journey South.”

When something’s growing in your head …

Shona Holmes has been attacked for criticizing Canada’s health insurance monopoly, but she should have had the right to seek prompt treatment for her suffering

Ontarian Shona Holmes, right, joins members of the U.S. House Republican leadership, from left, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Judy Biggert and Eric Cantor for a news conference about U.S. health care policy last month in Washington, D.C.
Photograph by: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images, Citizen Special

By Karen Selick, Citizen Special

August 12, 2009

Imagine yourself in this situation. You’ve been noticing for a couple of months that your vision is deteriorating. You’ve been having headaches and unexplained vomiting. You feel tired all the time.

You know your doctor is busy so you don’t trouble her for an appointment immediately, hoping you’ll get better. When you finally do go, she’s alarmed by your vision loss and your skyrocketing blood pressure. She orders an MRI scan. Five weeks later you get the report: there’s a lesion on your pituitary gland, just below your brain. The doctors aren’t sure what to call it. It could be a meningioma, a pituitary adenoma, a craniopharyngioma, an epidermoid adenoma, or a Rathke’s cleft cyst, they say.

You ask what these terms mean. Several of them are types of brain tumour, one possibly malignant. Uh-oh.

Your doctor refers you to two specialists. The earliest appointment you can get with a neurologist is more than seven weeks away. The earliest appointment with the endocrinologist is 16 weeks away.

But this thing is growing in your head.

Your optometrist’s tests confirm that you are getting progressively closer to blindness. What to do?

Shona Holmes, the woman who has been criticized in some quarters recently for jumping into the U.S. debate on health care reform in television ads and media interviews, faced exactly this situation. She decided to take matters into her own hands. If Canada’s health care system didn’t care enough about her to alleviate the unbearable anxiety that anyone would feel under such circumstances, there were other places in the world that would.

Shona travelled to the world-famous Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she was seen by three specialists within seven days. She was fortunate: her growth turned out to be non-malignant. But it still had to be removed or she would surely go blind. As well, it seemed to be the source of hormonal problems that had been plaguing her. Left unattended, she was warned, her symptoms could worsen dramatically and over the long run, could be fatal. The U.S. doctors were clear: urgent surgery was needed.

Shona returned to Canada thinking that with such a clear diagnosis and treatment plan, she would have no trouble getting urgent surgery.

Wrong again. Faced with more consultations and more waits of indefinite duration, she returned to the U.S. and had immediate surgery that restored her vision completely within 10 days.

Would you have done anything different? I wouldn’t. Canadian politicians and celebrities frequently don’t wait either, using private Ottawa clinics or U.S. hospitals for speedier care.

Nor should Canadians have to wait, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2005, the court struck down Quebec’s health insurance monopoly, thereby permitting Quebecers to purchase private health insurance.

“Access to a waiting list is not access to health care,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. The court accepted evidence that Canadians sometimes die on waiting lists for the public health care system. Many others undergo physical and psychological suffering that saps not only their enjoyment of life but also their ability to contribute to society as productive members of the work force.

Four years have passed since the Supreme Court rendered that decision, but Ontario’s laws have not changed.

That’s why Shona Holmes, supported by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, is bringing a similar constitutional challenge to Ontario’s health insurance monopoly. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees citizens’ rights to life, liberty and security of the person. No one should have to experience the agony Shona went through because of a legal prohibition on spending your own money to buy something essential for your health.

Some fear that ending the health insurance monopoly would also spell the end of Ontario’s public health care system. The experience of other countries has demonstrated that this is not the case. Public and private plans co-exist in many countries, including Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, the United Kingdom and Sweden, providing care to all citizens, regardless of income, but without long waiting lists. These countries have health care outcomes as good as, or better than, Ontario’s.

Ironically, two of the doctors who treated Shona in Arizona were Canadians who had gone south. Permitting privately funded medicine in Canada could end the brain drain and might even encourage some of the medical talent we have been exporting for decades to return.

Karen Selick is litigation director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is representing Shona Holmes in a court challenge against the government’s health care insurance monopoly.