This could happen to you...

[Jotun]

Remember this short story the next time you go eat, go out with friends, or even do the laundry. You could be next...

A young man named Christian Martenson is serving a 10 year prison term in the state of Arizona. He was set up by an undercover DEA agent over a two year period while following the Grateful Dead. Without the DEA agent's involvement it is likey he never would have commited the crime he is currently incarcerated for. Rapists and child molesters are serving shorter prison terms than people like him. The system is failing. Free Christian Martenson.

Wake up...

your rights are gone....

www.unreality.dk/enemylines

 

[Cap'n Beeb]

Question...

Maybe because its around 3 in the morning and I have been playing Deus Ex all day, but what did he do? Sorry, this sounds like a stupid question even to me, but I'm kinda fuzzy on what he did...

but yeah, I think the system is FUBARed /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I feel the reason as it's leaving me, no, not again

Its quite decieving as I'm feeling the flesh made me bad

-Korn

 

[Gryphon]

Yeah, what's going on? If the guy bought a hit of acid and got busted for it, then yeah, Let My People Go, man. But if he was convinced to smuggle 5000 kg of hash or something, he's either not guilty by reason of entrapment, or guilty as hell and he is just a moron.

Let's hear some facts first.

Gryphon
Technical Advisor
i n f i l t r a t i o n
http://www.planetunreal.com/infiltration

Read the Roadmap and the FAQ.
Get the latest scoop on Inf munitions here.

 

[Jotun]

`

The DEA handle drug issues right? Well they set Christian up with drugs. In other words the put a dime bag of marijuana in his bag or something that is very FUBAR. Is this the answer you were looking for?

www.unreality.dk/enemylines

 

[Alpha_9]

In your first post you say:

"Without the DEA agent's involvement it is likey he never would have commited the crime he is currently incarcerated for."

In your 2nd post you basically say he was framed.

So which is it? If it's the latter, then what evidence is there?

Personally, I'm very unsympathetic to people complaining about anti-drug "persecution". The fact of the matter is drug use is not a victimless crime. It has very real destructive repercussions throughout society.

Traffickers should be punished, and addicts should be forced into treatment. Period.
<h1><font face="symbol">
a 1001</font></h1>
"I love war and responsibility and excitement.
Peace is going to be hell on me."

Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

 

[Christopher Webb]

I disagree totally. How do define users? At what level does experimentation transgress to user-dom? What level of dealer are you talking about? Those high-up the drug chain? Or the poor fools who are merely doing it support their habit?

You're looking at the picture in too much of a black-and-white image. The only real reason there is such a big drug "problem" is simply because the drugs are illegal.

If they weren't, you wouldn't have such an image of rebellion surrounding it. You also wouldn't have such a high crime rate surrounding it.

Look at it this way. There was an experiment (in a northern European country) a few years back where heroin addicts were given a regular supply of heroin. Last year the idea was raised in Australia; however our PM stated that the project had an extremely low success rate.

As only the current Aus. PM can, he basically twisted the results to his own damn conservative liking. Now I hear all say; "Say what?"

As it turned out;

Of those who took part in the drug trial, very few gave the habit. HOWEVER, the majority moved away from a life of crime and found successful jobs.

So Alpha_9, are you simply against drugs full stop, or its effect on people?

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>

 

[Bad.Mojo]

A similar program in Canada is underway for the legalization of marijuana, with the first warehouse slated to open in Ottawa some time before 2010.

I personally think its a step forward.

Let's face it, hemp wasn't outlawed until DuPont Chemical found a way to synthesize the fiber, and having the government in their pocket, promptly outlawed hemp under the guise of it being a cannabis plant, when in actuality it was because they didn't want competition.

All other forms of contraband were created solely due to the fact that it gave immigrants a chance to hold an industry, with opiates, hashish, and marijuana all coming from "over the border". The government wasn't fond of this, they squashed it out.

People are only poisoning themselves, and in fact cigarettes and alcohol are worse for you than most other drugs. If the government taxed this multi-billion dollar industry, like they should, the crime rate would go down significantly. Instead of scaring our children into not doing drugs and therefore miseducating them, we could properly teach them about it and let them make the choice about the drugs themselves, like drinking or smoking. If we started cracking down on intoxicated drivers more, and stopped letting people use the excuse "I was under the influence so I didn't know what i was doing" as a technicality in courts, there'd be a lot less drug and alcohol related deaths. Less people would be crowding jails.

We're sitting around wasting tax dollars into what could be converted into a relatively safe industry (as safe as anything that alters your body's chemicals can be) and in return send tax dollars back up the ladder, instead of down. We're wasting money keeping people who commit no crime other than excercising control of their own body in jail and keeping cops fighting them, while in plenty of cities across the world child predators and murderers are allowed to roam free.

I dunno man, it just doesn't make sense to. Nothing makes much sense any more... and worst of all, most people are fucking sheep to it.

God I hate this world sometimes.

---
Another funky radical bombtrack started as a sketch in my notebook
---

 

[Jotun]

WHAT HAVE I DONE! I'M STARTING SOME REVOLUTION!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!

viva la Jotun /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

www.unreality.dk/enemylines

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

Amen Mojo, amen. I don't know about Canada, but here in the US we're wasting around half of our police officers and federal agents on drug enforcement. I can understand going after the murderous drug lords who run street gangs and smuggle and bribe and all that, but they are going at it the wrong way- have companies sell drugs legally and safely at a reasonable price, and no more drug dealers!

And then you've got a hell of alot more prison space, and a hell of alot more cops to put *real* criminals inside of them. Less money for drug cartels and street gangs, more manpower for the law to use to get rid of them, and maybe they could tax the drugs and take a piece out of our 6 trillion dollar national debt to boot!

But nooo, it ain't happening, because for some strange reason everyone thinks people go to the government for advice... "Hey! The goverment says it's legal so it must be OK to do! Let's go smoke some crack!"... give me a break.

_______________________
Shot four puppet governors in a line,
Shook all tha world bankers, who think they can rhyme,
Shot the landlords, who knew it was mine,
Yes, its a war from the depth of time!

 

[Christopher Webb]

The US has doubled, then doubled, then doubled AGAIN, the amount of money it is sending to Columbia. The Columbian President actually requested money to invest in society (you know, schools, factories, bridges etc.) but NOOO, the US sent the money in the form of military aide.

And the US's current target is a group of Marxist guerillas, while ignoring the other major coke growing organisation, the anit-Marxist paramilitries, who are the ones mainly responsible for the actual SMUGGLING.

Most countries have only banned drug use because of pressure from the US.

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>

 

[Alpha_9]

Hmmm...

It would appear I'm a lone voice in this debate... /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Well, clearly I'm not going to convince anyone here, but let me show you why I believe what I believe (refer to my post earlier in this thread).

I found this excellent paper by Deputy Chief Thomas J. Gorman of the California Narcotics Officers' Association:

CNOA/The Myths of Drug Legalization

It makes a compelling case, I think. It's pretty long, so I'll excerpt a couple pertinent passages here. It's in the form of a Q&A, where Dep. Chief Gorman took questions from various CA citizens and compiled them in this paper.

The first addresses the claim Bad.Mojo made earlier, that drug use only hurts the users themselves:

Q: Well, for instance, they say drugs are a victimless crime like prostitution and gambling, and that government doesn't have any business controlling behavior that doesn't harm anyone. They also say that police use special tactics that threaten our privacy and freedom.

A: First, drug abuse is not a victimless crime. The abused children, the crack babies and battered spouses are all victims. The innocent citizens who are assaulted, raped and murdered are victims because drugs affect self-control and normal thought processes, increase aggressiveness and impulsiveness, and release inhibitions in the user. The motorist killed by a drugged driver is a victim. You yourself are a victim because drug abuse costs society between $65 billion and $76 billion a year.

The users are "self-chosen" victims since drugs make them slaves to their pleasure and addictive qualities. We outlawed slavery in this country, but drugs can enslave the user, and I can assure you they don't make benevolent masters.

Second, government has not only the right but the duty to protect people from their own poor decisions as well as protect them from the potential risk of harm caused by others. We have a number of examples, such as drunk driving, possession of explosives and certain weapons, safe foods, control of certain pesticides, child labor, traffic regulations, prescription drugs, and euthanasia.

Lastly, we all give up certain freedoms and a degree of privacy for the good of society as a whole. You, as an individual, may be able to drive safely without any restrictive traffic laws but give up certain freedoms because of the potential harm that could be caused by an irresponsible driver who, without rules and regulations, would drive recklessly. I don't think you'd be in favor of eliminating traffic laws to gain back some of that freedom. This same analogy also applies to drunk driving, which doesn't hurt anyone unless the drunk crashes into somebody or something. Drunk driving, as with drug abuse, places others at just too great a risk of harm.

Frankly, you are probably more afraid of criminals violating your freedom and privacy than you are police. Surely, your wife isn't hesitant to go out at night nor do you lock your doors because you're afraid of police. The people afraid of law enforcement are criminals who don't want their privacy or freedom violated but are so willing to violate those of others or place you and your family at risk.

The claim about drug legalization reducing the burden on law enforcement and crime in general is addressed by this exchange:

Q: How about crime? Wouldn't legalizing drugs reduce the number of crimes and free prison space for the more violent criminals? By the way, how many drug arrests are there in this country?

A: There are approximately 1 million arrests for drug violations out of a total 12 million arrests annually. Of that million, only about 12 percent are sentenced to prison.

In answer to your first question, yes and no. The number of crimes for drug violations would be eliminated simply because the criminal codes would be removed, but that doesn't mean the behavior would change. If we lowered the age of consent to 13, there would be a significant reduction in the number of child molestation crimes, but those creeps would still be molesting children from ages 13 to 18. Drug dealers and addicts are not suddenly going to change their anti-social attitude and behavior to become law-abiding citizens looking for honest employment. They will continue to commit crimes to pay rent, buy cars, go to concerts, buy clothes, eat, and buy legal drugs. Studies show that most were criminals first, and that drug violations are just another one of the many crimes they commit.

The biggest problem is what drugs do to the user, some of which I described to you earlier. Legalizing drugs would increase the number of users and addicts, and likewise increase the number of violent crimes they commit such as rape, assault, and homicide. In Philadelphia, 50 percent of the child abuse fatalities are by cocaine-using parents. Nationally, about I million child abuse cases are directly linked to substance abusers. Studies show that about half of our violent crimes are committed by drug users.

In addition, drugged driving fatalities would skyrocket. Compared to alcohol, relatively few people use drugs, but they account for a disproportionate number of traffic deaths. Legal drugs would increase use and cause a corresponding increase in crimes against persons. Just look at alcohol and the number of violent crimes that are committed by those under the influence of liquor. We can expect at least that, if not more. Legalizing alcohol did not reduce crime; but, rather, alcohol intoxication led to more crime.

Lastly, I'll excerpt a passage that addresses the legalization experiments in Europe, including the one in the Netherlands Chris Webb mentioned earlier:

Q: I keep hearing things about other countries like Great Britain and the Netherlands which have a great deal of success with lenient drug laws. How do you account for that?

A: First by saying it's not true. In the 1970s, advocates of drug legalization touted Great Britain's system of giving free heroin to addicts as a successful health model that we should adopt. They were wrong, and most of the advocates today don't cite Great Britain anymore. What that country experienced was a failure in that its addict population and related problems skyrocketed, while our own heroin addict population, although still a problem, remained fairly stable. Today, Great Britain has adopted a policy closer to the U.S.'s including treating addicts with methadone.

After that, many advocates were excited about the experiment in Zurich, Switzerland, which created a free drug park. What the authorities expected was to see the drug user population remain isolated, less crime, better opportunity for treatment, lower medical costs, and less AIDS because they also gave out free needles. What they actually experienced was an increase in crime, skyrocketing medical costs, very little interest in treatment, a higher AIDS rate, and a general increase in a whole myriad of problems. In less than five years, they abandoned this experiment and shut down the park.

Not satisfied, the advocates began praising the Netherlands, where, although drug use is illegal, many cities simply choose not to enforce the law and allow sale and use of marijuana and hashish in certain areas. The Netherlands has begun experiencing a host of problems including a rise in crime, welfare, unemployment, and addicts from other countries migrating there to indulge their drug appetites. The Netherlands is discovering, like Sweden, Italy and Spain, that lenient drug laws don't work. Besides, a side issue is that the Netherlands is only about half of the size of the state of South Carolina and only has 15 million people compared to our 250 million.

Just about every other argument that has been made for drug legalization, including medicinal use, is addressed in this thorough paper.

As far as I'm concerned, the Dr. Timothy Leary message of "Turn on, tune in and drop out" is an abject failure. It accomplishes nothing but chemical escapism, at the price of the abuser's health, if not life, and at enormous cost to society as well.

If the day ever comes that hard drugs are legal throughout the world, let me tell you, I'm movin' to Mars...
<h1><font face="symbol">
a 1001</font></h1>
"I love war and responsibility and excitement.
Peace is going to be hell on me."

Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

 

[Bad.Mojo]

Then consider the fact that its written by a narcotics officer.

That is what we call "I desperately want to keep my job and will whatever it takes to defend it so I don't end up without a pension."

Lets not forget President Bush was a drug lord, now.

I think that's just about the blackest eye the so-called "War on Drugs" ever received.

---
Another funky radical bombtrack started as a sketch in my notebook
---

 

[Styx_Surfer]

Sweden?

"The Netherlands is discovering, like Sweden, Italy and Spain, that lenient drug laws don't work." Sweden? What does he mean, is he just making stuff up? I don't get it. Hash has never been legal in this country.

 

[Bad.Mojo]

Yes he is.

---
Another funky radical bombtrack started as a sketch in my notebook
---

 

[Christopher Webb]

Now obviously limits should be placed on drugs. But the entire "no mercy" idea is a right-wing farce propogated by conservatives who don't know their time has come.

I may strongly disagree with you Alpha_9, but I do respect the way you keep to your opinions, even in the face of adversity. That's something to be admired.

Oh, I know the exact erm isn't 'no mercy', it's no something else, but I really can't recall it off the top of my head.

<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>

 

[CoffeyCan]

Those who abuse drugs will always be a part of at least the US society. I dont mean casually use, I mean abuse, as in - dependent on. Research generally tends to show that out of 100% of addicts, 1/3 will kick no problem and never re-abuse, 1/3 will kick then relapse once or twice, generally staying clean, and the final 1/3 will never be able to kick, it will be constant re-lapse for them.

The discussion seems to be veering abstract, but there is a bottom line: the US is not going to legalize hard drugs anytime soon, heroin, cocaine and its by-products, amphetamines, LSD and all that will not be legalized in my life time, most likely never, which I whole-heartedly support. The sale and abuse of harder drugs is intrisically linked with crime.

Drugs are far from victimless, besides the pre-natal effects (in the womb) of drugs, you have obvious social consequences: child abuse, child neglect, prostitution, assault and of course larceny and murder to support a habit.

Where the US fails is in its punitive approach to drug addicts. I strongly believe that substance abusers should be required to complete treatment while in jail and closely monitored by a probation officer upon release. This, like legalization, is unlikely to happen as well, due to the culture of retribution that us yanks generally seem to display, which in some cases, murder, child molesters, rapists, is fine, but is off the mark when it comes to drug addicts. There are larger issues as well, the fact that someone can rape a child a get less time than a a petty crack dealer is to me, insane. Again, it goes back to sentecing guildines imposed by the courts, mixed with the fact that rehabilitation in adult prisons is a joke that feeds into the problem.
CC

Oh, I also wanted to say that its nice to see intelligent discussion, its what makes the board great.


RealMaps Site Co-Founder/Coordinator
Want to be an Infiltrator? Get the goods at:
http://www.planetunreal.com/realmaps/
"Fall seven times, stand up eight." - Japanese Proverb

 

[Bad.Mojo]

I think trying to prevent an invisible crime is difficult enough. And you're wrong, CoffeyCan, drugs ARE a victimless crime. Murder is murder, not drug abuse. Theft is theft, not drug abuse. Child abuse is child abuse, not drug abuse.

Yes, the prenatal effects are bad enough, so I propose a simple solution. Bi-weekly drug testing. If the fetus is found to be warped by drugs, then both fetus and mother are aborted. Its a little drastic, but this world is no place for a distorted image of a human being, be it physically or mentally handicapped child, or the person sick enough to do this. This would probably scare most women into not doing it, and the ones who are stupid enough to do it anyways get punished and destroyed.

As far as the rest of the crimes concerned are, the simplest way to deal with crime is execute the criminal and sell their harvested organs to decent people. If somebody commits a vicious crime like murder, rape, child molesting, et al, of which there exists NO DOUBT, then the person should be swiftly executed, and the cost of the bullet first billed to their funds, then to their family, and then, if both those measures fail for whatever reason, to the tax payers.

Drugs should be institutionalized and regulated.

Lastly, a one-world military government should be appointed power. All people should require an implant of a trace device so that at all times a record of who they were around is available, so murders and such can be more easily investigated. Its not a matter of privacy, but a matter of global interest. There is no real invasion of privacy anyways, a good mother knows where her son is at all times without needing to listen to his phone conversations or look under his bed for his stack of playboys.

---
Another funky radical bombtrack started as a sketch in my notebook
---

 

[CoffeyCan]

I take back my comment about intelligent discussion.

Theres no reason to respond to this, you dispute facts with opinions, if you want to show me facts that support your master plan, then great. I also find it ironic that you use one of the most left leaning bands lyrics as a sig, while at the same time suggesting a Eugenics like program for dealing with crime, one that even the most right leaning zealots would cringe at. What a hoot!
CC

RealMaps Site Co-Founder/Coordinator
Want to be an Infiltrator? Get the goods at:
http://www.planetunreal.com/realmaps/
"Fall seven times, stand up eight." - Japanese Proverb

 

[Bad.Mojo]

Another thing I'd do, is open pounds for stray people. I mean, we pick up stray animals and then adopt them out or put them down, right?

See, if somebody's not being a productive member of society by wasting tax dollars by sleeping in the streets (thus increasing the need for street sweepers exponentially,) we can take them into a pound, and adopt them out as sla-- servants, or put them to sleep if nobody wants them. They probably have some sort of disease anyways, so putting them down would be much more humane than just letting them live in the cage and occasionally giving them sandwiches and fresh water.

And you'd need a permit for pregnancy, too. If you weren't a fit parent, your child would be birthed and then entered into a new home.

Now I just gotta find some black helicopters.

---
Another funky radical bombtrack started as a sketch in my notebook
---

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

When exactly did that other post (not the most recent) go from seriousness to a joke/sarcasm, Mojo? I thought it made sense for the most part up until the last paragraph. If you hadn't confused me with that last paragraph I probably would have asked you if you are sure you're liberal -not because you like Rage, but because you've said you're "admittedly far left". Rage is my favorite band, but I'm not left or right, I'm libertarian- and I don't agree with EVERYTHING Zach screams, but I do with very good sized portion of it (as do some who claim to be conservatives that I know).

Anywayz, where were we... CC, I don't think he tried to counter any facts you posted with opinion, he mostly gave suggestions to fix problems you talked about... the only thing Mojo said was untrue about your post was the victimless crime thing, and I agree with him- murder is murder, and it's illegal too (same goes for theft, assault, etc). About drug *abuse* (as of now it illegal both to ABUSE and USE the drugs in question) increasing chances of other crimes (which are illegal in and of themselves), you're probably right, but the same can be said about alchohol. A DARE officer here in Tuscon once told me that in 96% of cases of domestic violence, alchohol is involved. Does that mean we should illegalize alchohol (again)? We don't need to, because assault is a crime, we can just punish the people who cause harm, and not screw with the people who just like to have one harmless beer (or a glass of wine, cigarrette, extra-strength advil, mary jane cupcake, etc) when they come home from work to help them relax.

One more thing: "The sale and abuse of harder drugs is intrisically linked with crime." --CC

True, and that's precisely why it should be legalized! If someone could get X amount of crack for 10$, legally and safely, why would they risk getting arrested for buying the same amount of crack, though contaminated with lots of nasty shit that can fuck up/kill him, for 3 times as much? Less break-ins and prostitution for drug money, less business for the smugglers, more money and jobs for the US. Yes, people then could legally fuck up their own minds/bodies, but they already could with tobacco and alchohol, and the harder stuff being illegal didn't exactly stop anything.

_______________________
Shot four puppet governors in a line,
Shook all tha world bankers, who think they can rhyme,
Shot the landlords, who knew it was mine,
Yes, its a war from the depth of time!

[This message was edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] on Jul 12, 2000 at 20:25.]