At Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:54:48 -0800, you wrote:
>
>joe dees wrote:
>
>>
>> As I previously stated, it is a strategy of defence, not attack (which is why the Vietnamese were able to rid themselves of us; they employed it). This is also why the US "War on Drug Users" fails. The US, in both instances, was/is attacking, not defending.
>
>You think the Drug War is a failure?
>
>The War on Some Drugs has been a smashing sucess in terms of
>demoralizing the black community, dismantling a lot of the gains of the
>civil rights movement, fomenting racial antipathy, creating a burgeoning
>prison population which is used by US corporations as virtual slave
>labor, weakening civil liberties, turning a supposedly free and liberal
>(ha!) press into a complicit partner in the government's propaganda
>campaign, and finding a new justification for a bloated military in the
>post-cold-war era by creating a new enemy out of thin air. It's only a
>failure if you believe that the intended goal is or ever was to reduce
>illicit drug use.
>
>How should the besieged communities at whose doorstep the war is fought
>present a resolute defense? What means of defense would you advocate?
>
>-KMO
Well, the referenda seem to be doing well (a flawless record of passage so far, every time the citizenry have been allowed to vote). A more radical idea would be a national Surrender Day. If everyone who, say, smokes MJ showed up, all on the same day, at their closest police station with a couple of joints and turned themselves in, the jails could not hold them all.
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher