Thursday, March 24, 2005

Death To The ACLU Blogburst

Welcome to the first edition of the Stop the ACLU blogburst or as I like to call it Death to the ACLU.

If you wish to join the fight, stop by Stop the ACLU and let Jay know that you’re interested in joining. Check out the Stop the ACLU blogroll on the right sidebar for different takes on each Thursday's topic. This week's example of ACLU insanity is the ACLU's stance on the legalization of drugs. Stand tuned while I dismantle their legalization argument point by point and show how out of step they are with their original mission.

For reference here is the link to the ACLU’s “informational” paper of drug legalization, follow along like I know you can. The ACLU does not waste any time in spreading falsehoods in their document, here’s an interesting quote from the third paragraph: “In trying to enforce the drug laws, the government violates the fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy that are guaranteed by our Constitution.” That is a bold statement, in fact I like to think I know the Constitution pretty good, but I re-read it just to be sure. I can only guess that the ACLU is referring to the 4th Amendment as far a right to privacy. Do you know what I found? The Constitution has no such guaranteed right to privacy or personal autonomy. Yup, the ACLU must have been smoking some pot when they read the Constitution, but that is nothing new for them. Back around Christmas in the heart of their “busy” season, they modified the text of the 1st Amendment on their website and when it was pointed out; they quickly corrected it and made no mention of it. In their eyes the Constitution is a document to be molded and shaped by the times. I must strongly disagree.

Here’s a laugh, in the 2nd section detailing drugs that were once legal they mention that “All of these drugs were also used recreationally, and cocaine, in particular, was a common incredient in wines and soda pop including the popular Coca Cola.” That is a true fact by I would have thought that the ACLU would know to check with being making yet another assine statement. Here is the actual truth about how much cocaine was actually in Coca Cola: “How much cocaine was in that "mere trace" is impossible to say, but we do know that by 1902 it was as little as 1/400 of a grain of cocaine per ounce of syrup. Coca-Cola didn't become completely cocaine-free until 1929, but there was scarcely any of the drug left in the drink by then: By Heath's calculation, the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year's supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine.” Man that is a lot of coke, 1/400 of a grain of coke per ounce of syrup which is further diluted when it was bottled or used at a soda fountain. Outstanding example, my hat’s off to you dopers over at the ACLU for that one.

In their section about the failure of the War on Drugs this particular line stood out for me as they talked about who actually benefits from anti-drug laws; “Those laws also support artificially high prices and assure that commercial disputes among drug dealers and their customers will be settled not in courts of law, but with automatic weapons in the streets.” So they want Tyrone from the Crips and Bubba from the Bloods to go to court if they have dispute over drug territory. Yeah that’s just what we need, the court system dealing with more bullshit lawsuits that waste even more taxpayer money and time. I can see the long-hairs over there at the ACLU writing that and then asking his barely conscious buddy to pass the “brownies”.

Consider this next statement by the ACLU, “Drug prohibition is a public health menace”. Hmmm, interesting idea, but I am not buying it. In fact I think that drug addiction is sad and the addicts who want to clean up and make a life certainly deserve our help but in the grand scheme of things I look at drug addiction as “culling the herd”. The truly sad part is that most drug addicts have children and they are the real victims. They are the innocents that the ACLU never mentions when talking about the effects of anti-drug laws. But you know what, if drugs were legal there would still be addicts having kids and then dumping them on society. One other point they make is about the spread disease through dirty needles. Hang on a second; I thought all the programs of passing out clean needles were supposed to address the disease issue. I guess that is another thing the leftists were wrong about. One of the most insane claims by the ACLU in their pursuit of drug legalization is their claim that without legalization how can the addicts count on a clean and steady supply of dope? I guess I missed the part of the Constitution that outlines the government’s duties in regulating drugs.

The ACLU states that drug prohibition is a destructive force in the inner city communities of this country. You know I am sorry that lazy, listless, unmotivated people who deal drugs reside in “inner city” areas more often then not but the people in those communities need to take some responsibility. If they don’t want the drug dealers in their neighborhood then they will find a way to get rid of them with or without the help of the police. It has happen in many cities around the country and will continue to happen as people step up and work for a safer community. The truth is that as a country we have a long way to go in presenting opportunities to minorities, but today’s minorities have far greater opportunities then at any other time in the history of this country. If you don’t want to deal or use drugs then you don’t have to, the thought that minorities in the “inner city” are forced to turn to a life of crime and drugs is a complete myth.

“Drugs are here to stay, let’s reduce their harm.” You have got to be freaking kidding. So they figure if we can’t change the problem they we should just throw our hands up and give up, that’s a great position to take. I guess since I can’t change how nutty the left is that I should just give up fighting for my ideals, yeah keep dreaming it ain’t going to happen.

Their last point in the “informational” paper is how they think that ending prohibition on drugs would not necessarily increase drug abuse. This point had several points that I find just absolutely insane. Ever heard this definition of insanity? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results every time. That’s the ACLU for you. I especially liked their data from the Netherlands on marijuana usage after that country decriminalized pot. For those not wise in the ways of pot here is the difference between legalization and decriminalization: “Marijuana is decriminalized (not legalized) in The Netherlands. It has been decriminalized for nearly 20 years. The Dutch government, in doing this, was making a distinction between soft and hard drugs, in terms of health problems, addictiveness, and controllability. The Dutch government doesn't believe that soft drug users will inevitably turn to hard drugs (such as cocaine) unless those soft drug users are constantly exposed to a criminal scene where soft and hard drugs have the same level of availability. So they decriminalized marijuana and allowed its sale and purchase in "coffee shops." In coffee shops, anyone over 18 years can buy small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Import and export of marijuana are illegal, as are sales in large quantities. Coffee shops are not allowed to sell alcohol, or hard drugs. They are also not allowed to advertise, and must not allow their customers to cause a public nuisance. I've been told that the great majority of nuisance complaints are in border towns or tourist areas, where foreigners cause problems. Small-scale growers and coffee-shop owners are quick to point to the inconsistency in the system, whereby the purchase, sale, and possession of small amounts of marijuana are decriminalized, as is its use, but wherein it is illegal (and prosecutable) to either import, export, or grow marijuana in any significant quantity. Now I am sure while not named specifically in the “information” paper, the ACLU if asked would suggest a system much like the Dutch have since every time this debate comes up the potheads point to the success of the Netherlands. The interesting part is that the ACLU quotes usage statistics from 20 years ago, surely some one in their office could have picked up the phone and called the Dutch for newer information. Hell, I could just googled it but what’s the point? Pot legalization is just giving addicts a free gateway to harder drugs.

Let me close with the ACLU’s core statement against drug prohibition: “The ACLU believes that unless they do harm to others, people should not be punished even if they do harm to themselves.” That is a fantastic display of the ACLU’s policy of complete lack of personal responsibility. People should not be punished even if they do harm to themselves? How about if Joe Crackhead overdoses in his living room when he supposed to be watching the kids and they set fire to the house? Of course in a twist of cruel fate, Joe would survive and the kids would all die. Now when the cops find that Joe was high when the kids died, the ACLU will ride to his rescue. After reading their position paper on this topic I honestly believe that if you’re a card carrying member of the ACLU, then that is the first signs of mental illness.

The sad part is that even with its communist beginnings the ACLU once upon a time actually did some good. I have said it before and I will say it again, the ACLU is the greatest example of a good intention gone horribly wrong. They now threaten the very foundation of this country and must be stopped. Join us next week for another example of the insanity of the ACLU. Have a great Thursday everyone and remember to pray for Terri and her family.

No comments: