Maptalk-Digest Saturday, December 22 2001 Volume 01 : Number 334
'Us' vs 'Them'
From: Sirc Michaels <>
Thanks and Happy Holidays From DrugSense/MAP
From: Mark Greer <>
Re: MAP: Steve & Michele Kubby interview me on POT-TV
From: Mark Greer <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: Adam Wiggins <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Big Drug-War Brother's 'Patch'
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: Gerald Sutliff <>
CHOMSKY : Terrorism, Weapon Of The Powerful
From: Peter Webster <>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: 'Us' vs 'Them'
From: Sirc Michaels <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:24:43 -0800 (PST)
I've been quiet for a while, but I was reading the
messages and had to put in my two cents about this
idea that some drug use is okay while other use isn't.
If we look at the anti-prohibition effort as a whole,
there are many satellites fighting for various causes.
What is important to remember is that the biggest,
strongest argument in support of amy reform is that
any government that wishes to impose a 'censure' law
on its citizenry have moved from leaders to rulers.
The government was never set up to dictate morality to
the masses. Instead, it was carefully constructed to
be a small, central body that made sure the US stayed
the US.
Unfortunately, people time and time again have looked
to the government to solve their problems for them, in
the form of laws, rights, etc. It is WRONG for one set
of men to tell another set of men what they can
ingest, and imprison them if they ingest the substance
anyway. It is ethically wrong, and it goes against the
very ideals that this country was founded on.
Of course, this doesn't matter in this laughable land
called the USA. People believe that the government can
protect them from terrorists, according to a recent
poll, even though officials in the CIA and FBI have
admitted they are horribly behind in intelligence
work. This shows that dispite the facts, people will
believe propoganda if it is compelling. This is
nothing new, but it is still sickening to see.
Remember - this is the same government who equates
drug use with terrorism but ignores the prohibition
factor.
This is an issue that many people said we, as
activists, should not touch on. I was against that
outlook and still am. I believe that we should have
been pointing out the direct link between terrorism
and prohibition as soon as those planes tore into the
Twin Towers and we were readying to replace
'communists' with 'terrorists'.
Not that it matters now. Many of America's allies are
changing their tune on drug prohibition, of marijuana
in particular. Perhaps we can hope that this is a sign
that in the future, somethings will be legal. I am a
marijauna law reform activist, though I do not believe
any substance should be illegal. So I am personally
motivated on the marijuana side. However, I think that
any change for the better, anywhere in the world, is
good.
Besides, if worse comes to worse, I can always move to
Canada.
Just a thought, for what it's worth.
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Subj: Thanks and Happy Holidays From DrugSense/MAP
From: Mark Greer <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:39:54 -0800
Please forward to any and all appropriate parties.
Dear Friends:
We at DrugSense/MAP would like to take this opportunity to extend the
warmest of wishes for a terrific holiday season and an outstanding New Year
to all of our friends supporters, staff, volunteers, media contacts and all
those who have used our various services to further the implementation of
sensible drug policies and improved and widespread knowledge on all drug
and drug policy topics.
2002 is shaping up to be another banner year for the drug policy reform
effort. We have some exciting projects that have been long planned and, due
to the generosity of our funders and supporters, will become a reality over
the coming year. These new features should help us all to become even more
effective at disseminating accuracy and facts on all drug policy issues. We
will give a greater voice to those who have been victimized by current
failed drug policies and become even more effective at working with,
educating and influencing the print media. We will also begin to become
much more active in working with the broadcast media arena.
More details will follow as these projects take shape but for now we again
wish each and every one of you good luck, continued success, and a
persistent and positive attitude as we move together towards a better world
in the coming months and years.
Mark Greer
Executive Director
DrugSense
DrugSense is working to encourage accuracy, honesty, and common sense
in matters involving the failed, expensive, and destructive "War on Drugs."
Get Involved - Learn about the Issues
http://www.drugsense.org
Contribute - Help us Help Reform
http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Find Information - Learn how to Make a Difference
http://www.mapinc.org
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: Steve & Michele Kubby interview me on POT-TV
From: Mark Greer <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:40:14 -0800
Nice Job Richard!!
At 01:05 AM 12/21/2001 -0500, Richard Lake wrote:
>*blush*
>
>Steve and Michele interview:
>
>"Senior MAP Editor Richard Lake gives some valuable tips on online activism."
>
>Starts about 2/3rds of the way thru the show
>
>http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1100.html
>
>or directly to the realvideo
>
>http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1100.ram
>
Mark Greer
Executive Director
DrugSense
DrugSense is working to encourage accuracy, honesty, and common sense
in matters involving the failed, expensive, and destructive "War on Drugs."
Get Involved - Learn about the Issues
http://www.drugsense.org
Contribute - Help us Help Reform
http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Find Information - Learn how to Make a Difference
http://www.mapinc.org
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: Adam Wiggins <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:55:07 -0800
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:38:23PM -0600, Dave Michon wrote:
> >"I'm not sure if it's hypocrisy Dave or that he just
> >does'nt understand that all drug prohibitions will fail.
> >A lot of pot reformers still think hard drugs should be
> >prohibited. They don't get the BIG picture."
I have to agree with this. It's easy to draw your own lines: for
example, whenever I see people spilling out of a bar at 2am, I look at
their behavior and think "this should be illegal!" But I know that is
an emotional response, and that making alcohol illegal would be
ridiculous.
All drugs must be legalized and regulated. There is no other method
that will save our society from self-destruction and endless
self-denial.
> >"We should keep transcripts of his debates/chats for reference to create
> >good questions for him when he makes himself available again."
>
> I give Asa credit for making himself available for debate.
Definitely! He's one of the kindest, gentlest drug warriors I've seen
yet. The fact that he was made head of the DEA shows that the
shifting attitudes amongst the populace are finally starting to be
reflected, in some tiny amount, amongst our legislators.
> Here is one I'd
> like to ask him:
> "As even Drug War Hawks begin to concede that we must reduce demand and
> that, to do that, you must have some insight into why people use drugs -
> what they are about, how are the American people well-served by having
> someone serving in your position who's impressions of drug use and drug
> culture were forged in the hermetically-sealed furnace of Bob Jones
> University?"
I have to take exception to asking this kind of aggressive, cornering
question. I have the same problem with that columnist's question for
politicians, "Do you support the war on drugs because it finances
criminals at home or terrorists abroad?" All it can do is make the
listener not like you; I doubt it really draws their attention to the
issue.
I DO like questions that force people to think without seeming like a
character attack; but which have no good answer, much like the one
Dave asks above. For example, "Given that Holland experiences lower
rates of drug abuse and lower rates of violent crime related to drugs
than America, shouldn't we consider adopting part of their policies
for ourselves?" Or: "20 million Americans smoke marijuana on a
regular basis according to the ONDCP. If it were possible to
incarcerate them all today, do you feel like that would be a good
idea?" Aggressive but not necessarily quite so personal, I guess.
Just a thought.
- -Adam Wiggins
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:56:04 -0600
A good thought on the 'Question for Asa' idea. You are right. I still think
that the idea behind my hypothetical question (since it will never be asked)
is a sound one but probably shouldn't be asked of Asa himself. I feel as
though I'm treading on very thin ice with all this putative 'slack' we're
cutting Hutchinson here because it wouldn't surprise me bit if he turned
around tommorrow and called a medimar auto-da-fe. And we do have to remember
who it was that just 'sent in the troops' to roust the medimar patients in
California. So I won't be pulling my LTE punches *that* much in regard to Mr
Hutchinson.
Your website was very good and helpful in expanding my extremely limited
knowledge of the rave issue which may someday come in handy in an LTE.
Dave
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Wiggins" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:38:23PM -0600, Dave Michon wrote:
> >"I'm not sure if it's hypocrisy Dave or that he just
> >does'nt understand that all drug prohibitions will fail.
> >A lot of pot reformers still think hard drugs should be
> >prohibited. They don't get the BIG picture."
I have to agree with this. It's easy to draw your own lines: for
example, whenever I see people spilling out of a bar at 2am, I look at
their behavior and think "this should be illegal!" But I know that is
an emotional response, and that making alcohol illegal would be
ridiculous.
All drugs must be legalized and regulated. There is no other method
that will save our society from self-destruction and endless
self-denial.
> >"We should keep transcripts of his debates/chats for reference to create
> >good questions for him when he makes himself available again."
>
> I give Asa credit for making himself available for debate.
Definitely! He's one of the kindest, gentlest drug warriors I've seen
yet. The fact that he was made head of the DEA shows that the
shifting attitudes amongst the populace are finally starting to be
reflected, in some tiny amount, amongst our legislators.
> Here is one I'd
> like to ask him:
> "As even Drug War Hawks begin to concede that we must reduce demand and
> that, to do that, you must have some insight into why people use drugs -
> what they are about, how are the American people well-served by having
> someone serving in your position who's impressions of drug use and drug
> culture were forged in the hermetically-sealed furnace of Bob Jones
> University?"
I have to take exception to asking this kind of aggressive, cornering
question. I have the same problem with that columnist's question for
politicians, "Do you support the war on drugs because it finances
criminals at home or terrorists abroad?" All it can do is make the
listener not like you; I doubt it really draws their attention to the
issue.
I DO like questions that force people to think without seeming like a
character attack; but which have no good answer, much like the one
Dave asks above. For example, "Given that Holland experiences lower
rates of drug abuse and lower rates of violent crime related to drugs
than America, shouldn't we consider adopting part of their policies
for ourselves?" Or: "20 million Americans smoke marijuana on a
regular basis according to the ONDCP. If it were possible to
incarcerate them all today, do you feel like that would be a good
idea?" Aggressive but not necessarily quite so personal, I guess.
Just a thought.
- -Adam Wiggins
------------------------------
Subj: Big Drug-War Brother's 'Patch'
From: "Dave Michon" <>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:18:51 -0600
Get this:(It's a continuous 'Patch' that monitors drug use)
http://www.sciconcepts.com/prog_frm.htm
How the hell will we ever be able to counter the burgeoning
financial/political strength of all these companies which have fastened
themselves on America? Methinks they are "the man behind the curtain."
Dave
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: LTE to MSNBC Omsbudsman
From: Gerald Sutliff <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:21:31 -0800
Dear Kim et al,
I haven't read all the posts or this string, however, it seems to me that
Asa resorted to "I'm just following orders" and shifted the "blame" to
congress who after all wrote the stupid law. He's correct to some extent
but I get the impression that he's actively lobbying to keep marijuana on
the prohibited status. No one will able to ask him if he would support
lightening up on MJ or even if he was "neutral."
vty
jerry
At 12:50 AM 12/21/01 +0000, kim hanna wrote:
>I'm not sure if it's hypocrisy Dave or that he just
>does'nt understand that all drug prohibitions will fail.
>A lot of pot reformers still think hard drugs should be
>prohibited. They don't get the BIG picture.
>
>Looks like Asa got some good questions. I'm glad he's out there for
>debate. He's a master politician and will be hard to trip up.
------------------------------
Subj: CHOMSKY : Terrorism, Weapon Of The Powerful
From: Peter Webster <>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:59:41 +0000
Terrorism, weapon of the powerful
UNITED STATES, GLOBAL BULLY
BY NOAM CHOMSKY
From: Le Monde Diplomatique, December 2001
Noam Chomsky is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), and this is an edited extract of a talk he gave there. His many
books include 'Rogue states: the rule of force in world affairs', South End
Press, 2000, and 'The culture of terrorism', South End Press, 1994
The leaders of the United States do not realise that their desire to win at
everything always has consequences, and that their present exploits are
likely to have high future costs. Osama bin Laden was the price of the US
victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. What will be next?
TWO things have to be assumed: first, that the events of 11 September
caused probably the most devastating instant death toll of any crime in
history outside a war. Second, that our goal is to reduce the likelihood of
such crimes, whether they are directed against the United States, or
someone else. If you do not accept those assumptions, I am not addressing
you. If you do, questions arise.
Let us start with Afghanistan, where seven or eight million people are on
the verge of starvation, and surviving on international aid since way
before 11 September. On 16 September the US demanded that Pakistan stop the
truck convoys providing much of the food and supplies to Afghanistan's
civilian population. As far as 1 can determine, there was no reaction to
this in the US or Europe. Removing international aid workers further
crippled assistance programmes. After the first week of US bombing, when
the aid delivery rate was down to half of what was needed, the United
Nations warned that the harsh winter would make deliveries to many areas
impossible.
The major agencies, Oxfam and Christian Aid, and the Special Rapporteur of
the UN in charge of food pleaded with the US to stop the bombing; this was
not even mentioned in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston
Globe, hidden in a story about Kashmir. By October Western civilisation was
resigned to the idea of the death of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. At
the same time, the "leader of Western civilisation" [President George Bush]
dismissed with contempt offers to negotiate for the delivery of Osama bin
Laden and a request for evidence to substantiate the US demand for total
capitulation.
But let us return to 11 September. There have been terrorist crimes with
more extreme, if more prolonged, effects. But the events of that day were
historic, because there was a radical and new change in the direction in
which the guns were pointed. Pearl Harbor is the usual analogy, but it is
not a good one, as in 1941 the Japanese bombed military bases in two US
colonies (colonies disgracefully taken from their inhabitants). On 11
September US national territory was attacked on a large scale for the first
time.
For nearly 200 years the US expelled or mostly exterminated indigenous
populations, many millions of people, conquered half of Mexico, depredated
the Caribbean and Central America, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines
(killing 100,000 Filipinos in the process). Since the second world war, the
US has extended its reach around the world. But the fighting was always
somewhere else and it was always others who were being slaughtered.
The difference is immediately apparent if you look at the IRA and
terrorism. There are very different reactions on either side of the Irish
Sea, in Ireland and Britain. The world looks very different, depending on
whether you are holding the lash or whether you have been whipped for
centuries. Perhaps that is why the rest of the world, a] though horrified
by the September attacks, nevertheless sees them from a different
perspective.
To understand the origins of 11 September, we have to distinguish between
the agents of the crime and the reservoir of sympathy, sometimes support,
from which they draw, a reservoir that exists even among people who oppose
both the criminals and their actions. Let us assume the crimes'
perpetrators come from Bin Laden's network. Nobody knows about their
origins better than the CIA, because it helped organise and nurture them.
President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, says
proudly that the US drew the Russians into an Afghan trap in 1978 by
supporting the mojahedin, getting the Russians to invade in 1979. In 1990
the US established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, home of the
holiest sites of Islam; that is when Islamist activities were first
directed against the US.
What about the support Bin Laden's networks enjoy even among the governing
classes of the South? These people are angry at the US because it supports
authoritarian and brutal regimes (and is in its 35th year of supporting
Israel's harsh military occupation), and because its policies devastate the
civilian society of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein. The New York
Times asked "Why do they hate us?"; on the same day, the Wall Street
Journal published a survey of bankers, professionals and international
lawyers, who said they hate us because we are blocking democracy,
preventing economic development, and supporting terrorist regimes.
The war against terrorism has been described in high places in the West as
a struggle against a plague spread by barbarians, by "depraved opponents of
civilisation". That is a feeling I share, but the words I quote are 20
years old, and were said by President Ronald Reagan and his Secretary of
State, Alexander Haig. The Reagan administration came into office with a
declaration that war against international terrorism would be the core of
US foreign policy, and it responded to the plague by creating its own
extraordinary international terrorist network, unprecedented in scale,
which carried out massive atrocities all over the world, primarily in Latin
America.
One case is Nicaragua and it is an incontrovertible case, because of the
judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Security
Council. But how often has this precedent for a lawabiding state's response
to terrorism been mentioned since September? The ReaganUS war against
Nicaragua was more extreme than I I September: it left tens of thousands of
people dead, and the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery (see articles
by Rapha=EBlle Bail and Fran=E7ois Houtart on pages 12 and 13).
Nicaragua responded not by bombing Washington but by taking Washington to
the ICJ. The ICJ accepted Nicaragua's case, ruled in its favour, condemned
what it called the "unlawful use of force" by the US (which had mined
Nicaragua's ports), ordered the US to end the crime and pay massive
reparations. The US dismissed the judgment with contempt and announced it
would not accept the jurisdiction of the court.
Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council, which considered a
resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No state was
mentioned but everyone understood which one was meant. The US vetoed the
resolution. The US now stands as the only state on record which has been
condemned by both the ICJ for international terrorism and has vetoed a
Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.
Nicaragua then went to the UN general assembly, where there is technically
no veto, but where a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a
similar resolution, which only the US, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The
year after, the US could only rally Israel, so just two votes opposed
observing law. Nicaragua could do no more that was lawful. It had tried all
measures. They did not work in a world ruled by force. Nicaragua's case is
incontrovertible, but how often is it front page news or taught in schools?
This is the culture in which we live. It offers certain revelations: that
terrorism works, that violence usually works (that is world history). That
it is a serious error to claim that terrorism is the weapon of the weak:
like other means of violence, it is primarily, indeed overwhelmingly, a
weapon of the strong. It is thought to be a weapon of the weak because the
strong also control the doctrinal systems, and because their terrorism does
not count as terror. The nature of our culture is indicated by the way in
which all this is approached. One approach is simply to suppress things, so
that almost nobody has ever heard about them. The power of American
propaganda is so strong that even the victims barely know. When you talk to
people in Argentina, you have to remind them about these things and they
will say: "Yes, that happened, we forgot about it."
Nicaragua, Haiti and Guatemala are the three poorest countries in Latin
America. They were also victims of US military intervention. This was not
necessarily coincidence. The intervention happened at the same time as
Western intellectuals were enthusiastically congratulating themselves
(another event that probably has no counterpart in history). Just a few
years ago there was massive self-adulation: we were so magnificent; we were
standing up for principles and values, dedicated to ending inhumanity
everywhere in the new era of thisand-that. We could not tolerate atrocities
near the borders of Nato only within the borders of Nato, where not only
can we tolerate much worse atrocities but we contribute to them. But how
often has this been mentioned? The silence is an impressive feat for a
propaganda system in a free society. I do not think it could be done in a
totalitarian state.
That brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? A brief definition,
from a US army manual, is that "terror is the calculated use of violence or
the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals
through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear". The problem with this
is that it corresponds almost exactly with what the US calls low intensity
warfare, which is official US policy. In December 1987, when the UN General
Assembly passed a strong resolution against terrorism, one country,
Honduras, abstained. Two countries voted against the resolution, the US and
Israel. Why? Because the resolution had one paragraph that says that
nothing in it infringes on the rights of people struggling against racist
and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation.
At the time South Africa was an ally of the US. Apart from attacks against
neighbouring countries (Namibia, Angola) that killed about 1.5m people and
did $60bn damage, the apartheid regime fought a socalled "terrorist" force,
the African National Congress (ANC), inside the country. Israel has
occupied the Palestinian territories since 1967 and others in Lebanon since
1978, opposed by what the US calls a "terrorist force", Hizbollah. None of
that appears in the annals of terrorism, or in scholarly works on
terrorism, because the wrong people held the guns. You have to hone the
definitions and the scholarship carefully so that you come up with the
right conclusions; otherwise it is not considered respectable scholarship
or honourable journalism.
Colombia was the worst human rights violator in the 1990s, and by far the
leading recipient of US military aid (excluding Israel and Egypt, both in a
separate category). Turkey was also a prime beneficiary of US military aid
until 1999. It is a strategically placed member of Nato, but the arms flow
to it increased sharply in 1984. This had nothing to do with the cold war,
as Russia was already collapsing: 1984 was the year that Turkey launched a
major terrorist campaign against the Kurds. In 1997 US military aid to
Turkey was more than for the entire 195083 cold war period an indication
of how much the cold war affected policy. The results were awesome, with
two or three million refugees, tens of thousands killed, 350 towns and
villages destroyed. The US provided 80% of the arms, peaking in 1997. The
supply declined in 1999 because Turkish terrorism (called, of course,
counterterrorism) worked: it usually does when executed by the powerful.
Turkey was grateful. The US had supplied it with FI 6s to bomb its own
people; in 1999 it used them to bomb the Serbs. Just after I I September
the Turkish prime minister announced that Turkey would actively join the
coalition against terror. It owed a debt of gratitude to the US, because
the US had been the only country willing to contribute so massively to
Turkey's own "counterterrorist" war.
Other countries helped Turkey a little against the Kurds, but the US
contributed enthusiastically and decisively and was able to do so because
of the silence even servility of the US educated classes, who could
easily have found out about it. The US is a free country: we can read human
rights reports, we can read anything. But we chose to contribute to the
atrocities.
The present coalition against terror includes other choice recruits. The
Christian Science Monitor, one of the best US newspapers with real coverage
of the world, recently led with a story about the way that people and
countries who used to dislike the US were beginning to respect it. A prime
example was Algeria. The author of the article is an expert on Africa and
must know that Algeria has had a war of terror against its own people for
years. Another leading member of the coalition is Russia, delighted to have
the US support its murderous terrorist war in Chechnya. China is joining
enthusiastically, too, grateful for support for its atrocities in western
China against what it calls "Muslim secessionists".
What are the policy options? The pope a farout radical suggested trying
to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks. But the
US does not want to use normal legal process. It would rather offer no
proof and has rejected the jurisdiction of the ICJ. For the past few years,
Haiti has been asking the US to extradite Emmanuel Constant, a leading
figure in the slaughter of thousands after the coup that overthrew
President JeanBertrand Aristide in 1991. The Haitians have plenty of
evidence, but their request has made no impact on Washington and there has
been no public debate of the issue.
To combat terrorism we must start by reducing the level of terror, rather
than by escalating it. When the IRA detonates bombs in London, London does
not destroy Boston, although it is the source of most of the IRA finance,
nor does it wipe out West Belfast. The UK hunts the perpetrators, brings
them to trial and looks for the reasons for the violence.
There is one easy way to reduce the level of terror: stop participating in
it. We need to rethink the policies that are creating support, and
benefiting the people behind the attacks. One of the few rays of light
recently has been an increased openness. Many issues are now open for
discussion, even in elite circles, and certainly among the public. These
opportunities should be used, at least by those who accept the goal of
trying to reduce the level of violence and terror.
------------------------------
End of Maptalk-Digest V01 #334
******************************
Mark Greer () ___ ___ _ _ _ _
Media Awareness Project /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651 | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258 (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759 | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ (_)
|
