TheAgitator.com
A Pox on Both of Them
Friday, April 30th, 2004Amount of money the Clinton DOJ requested for anti-drug operations in FY 2001: $3.1 billion.
Amount requested for counter-terrorism: $998 million.
Amount of money the Bush DOJ requested for anti-drug operations in FY 2002 (before 9/11): $2.9 billion.
Amount requested for counter-terrorism: $1.04 billion.
Some of you wonder how I can say that our government failed us on 9/11. These numbers are a big reason why. Perhaps no amount of spending or competenece could have foreseen what was coming. But when our government spends more of our own money perscuting us for victimless crimes than it does protecting us from people who want to kill us, I think we ought to ask some questions when people do succeed at actually killing us.
And yes, I think Clinton has just as much to answer for as Bush.
Although I agree that we should be spending more on terrorism than the illicit drugs, how is drug dependency a “victimless crime.” Are you differentiating between drug use and dependency? I might see your view on drug use, but drug dependency does have victims. The victims not only include the actual user (I agree with freedom of choice) but also the user’s family. Didn’t I read how the Netherlands were rethinking their drug policies? Could you further explain what you mean, either with links or a post?
Van, a victimless crime is defined as one in which the activity involved harms no unwilling participant or their property.
In an assault, the unwilling participant is harmed, and the perpetrator is prosecuted for this.
In a car theft, the unwilling participant has their property stolen, and the perpetrator is prosecuted for this.
In a drug use case, the user themselves enter into the act of their own volition, and noone else is involved.
Thus ‘victimless crime’.
Drug dependency is simply an addiction which leads to further drug use. This, too, has no direct consequences for anyone but the user.
Indirect consequences?
‘Dear God, won’t someone think about the children’?
If we based the law on indirect consequences, we could lock anyone and everyone up.
‘Who says working long hours is a victimless crime? Don’t you see the family suffering?’
‘How can you call Michael Moore a victimless crime? The emotional trauma he causes is enormous.’
On the Netherlands issue, they are constantly evaluating the success of their drug policies. If only the rest of the world would do the same we’d all be in better shape.
Everybody knows that even suggesting the government change it’s stance on drugs is political suicide. No politician, that actually wants to get elected, is ever going to run on an issue such as this. The information is very interesting though.
I agree that drug use should be a personal matter. I agree that someone should take responsibility for his actions. I do not think we will ever get to that point. We have developed the Nanny State too well. Decriminalizing drugs may produce less criminals but will it produce less crime? See cigarette smuggling in NYC. If the government stayed totally out of it, sure. Unfortunately, we are far from that point.
‘How can you call Michael Moore a victimless crime? The emotional trauma he causes is enormous.’
Priceless. :D
Back to the point: You’ll notice the drug funding went down and the anti-terror funding went up (if only slightly). Could you imagine what would have happened if Bush had attempted to make drastic changes to these?
We’d have heard endless references to Bush’s past drug use, even more about how he doesn’t care about the children who these addictions are forced upon, and blah blah blah. Plus, he’s an evil scare-monger trying to scare people to get re-elected.
Though I agree with the point that in 2001 we spent too much on anti-drug stuff, and too little on anti-terror, I think you should be happy for the progress that was made.
Yeah, but everyone knows that when you fight drugs you fight terrorism. even the government says so.
For a group of such avid absolutists, I find the Bush defenders’ repeated use of the “how on Earth could he hope to be re-elected if he took such an unpopular, though admittedly right, position” defense intriguing.
xenical online Xen-770009122-345566
We have developed the Nanny State too well. Decriminalizing drugs may produce less criminals but will it produce less crime? Ã?©Ã?© Ã?â??Ã?© Ã?â??Ã?ÂÃ?â?¢Ã? Ã?Ë?Ã?¨Ã? Ã?Ë?