Satire, Circuses, and Libertarians…

A smorgasbord of interesting reading…

MacAttack, a new blogger in the UK, has this piece of satire about England’s move to re-classify marijuana, including harpooning public figures on both sides of the Atlantic:

…There has also been immense pressure from America over the move. George Bush released this statement: ‘Cutchy cutchy coo Tony, ohhhh, you know you like it behind the ears… good boy,’ before going on to suggest a change in United Kingdom policy.

‘We believe, in the United States of Americana, that a hard stance should be taken on drugs because of the dangers of serious adictivication and termination. They should all be prizonified – us folks can’t have people running around with things that could kill people, then where would our country be?’ he concluded, before tickling Tony behind the ear again.

The Blair Administration leapt furiously to the defence of their softly softly approach to the drug problem… by offering America our prisons…

The best coverage of the recent ONDCP circus with the New England governors can be found at the Boston Phoenix.
For an overview of the event, read Behind closed doors: What really went on at the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Summit of New England Governors
by Camille Dodero.
Then read the current issue’s editorial – Reefer madness, redux: The war on drugs destroys lives but does nothing to mitigate the abuse of drugs in this country.

Despite compelling evidence of the bloated costs and wasted resources devoted to our two-decade-long war on drugs, not to mention shocking racial disparities in arrests and sentencing for drug charges — all documented by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, the Justice Policy Institute, and the Sentencing Project — the Bush administration has embraced the gulag approach to dealing with the societal problems caused by drug abuse. This, more than anything else, was evident at last week’s anti-drug summit organized by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Finally, with a focus on the medical marijuana panel: Snake-oil salesmen: Why does the Bush administration seem so intent on denying medical marijuana to adults in extreme discomfort? by Kristen Lombardi.

Forget about meaningful discussion. Indeed, in keeping with the Bush administration’s general assault on patients who smoke pot to manage their illnesses…, the federal government will go to extreme lengths to prevent the push for legalizing medical marijuana — and last week’s panel was no exception. If anything, it amounted to a one-sided exercise suggestive of propaganda such as Reefer Madness (1938), whose characters are driven insane by taking a puff of a joint.

Barthwell, who’s become the ONDCP mouthpiece on medical marijuana by penning op-eds against the cause for newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Kansas City Star, and Newsday, kicked off her remarks with a blunt statement of opposition. Medical marijuana, she said, is “the worst scam” drug legalizers have perpetrated on this country. She went on to dissect the scientific research. Interestingly, she and her fellow panelists fixated on the fact that patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes typically have to smoke it – a delivery method that, they claimed, isn’t “scientifically proven.”

Interesting indeed. I keep hearing from the government’s medical “experts” that medical marijuana can never be accepted because it’s smoked, and that’s not medicine. Forget for the moment that it’s not true, since other delivery methods like vaporization are possible. It’s still ridiculous. We have accepted medicines that involve bombarding the body with radiation or ingesting poisonous substances. Accepted medications are delivered orally, anally, by injection, by inhaler, and with a patch. Accepted medications have acceptable side effects of having your hair fall out, severe nausea, and even death.

The Libertarians have a couple of good articles.
Via RandomActOfKindness comes Libertarian Solutions: How federalized crime threatens our liberty

By intervening in what has traditionally been a state and local matter, federal politicians endanger public safety, threaten civil liberties, and weaken Constitutional safeguards.

Although the article oddly ignores the drug war, the points made are extremely pertinent to what’s been going on with the federalization of drug crime.
While you’re at the Libertarian Party site, check out their attack on the administration’s selective demonization of drug users: America owes talk host Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude, Libertarians say

Given their longstanding support for the Drug War, it’s fair to ask:

Why haven’t President George Bush or his tough-on-crime attorney general, John Ashcroft, uttered a word criticizing Limbaugh’s law-breaking?

Why aren’t drug czar John P. Walters or his predecessor, Barry McCaffrey, lambasting Limbaugh as a menace to society and a threat to “our children?”

Why aren’t federal DEA agents storming Limbaugh’s $30 million Florida mansion in a frantic search for criminal evidence?

Why haven’t federal, state, and local police agencies seized the celebrity’s homes and luxury cars under asset-forfeiture laws?

Finally, why aren’t bloviating blabbermouths like William Bennett publicly explaining how America would be better off if Limbaugh were prosecuted, locked in a steel cage and forced to abandon his wife, his friends, and his career?