The War On Drugs

Unfortunately, they don't want to cover those dirty little secrets. You'll just have to settle for what is presented, from what and who creates the articles.

Cynical sarcasm.

 

you have actual evidence The Economist and National Review don't want to "cover those dirty little secrets"??

Didn't think so.

 

@Dayton3
Now here's an interesting one.

Opium, the CIA and the Karzai Administration
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125230

 

They have obligations not to. As it would destroy their street cred, too scared the CIA will off them.

 

you have unquestionable evidence the CIA has ever killed American citizens?

 

"Unquestionable"? Don't you mean 'undeniable'? It depends, on what circumstances. The OP topic or other? I'm sure I'll find something, and it won't be from your beloved Economist or National Review, don't hold your breath for that.

 

Why not? The Economist is highly regarded for their unbiased reporting.

 

You'll have to ask them those specifics. As I stated before:

 

We usually leave that kind of work to the FBI don't we ? no need for CIA personnel involvement in the internal wet work . Doesn't make much of a difference the name of the agency does it though? NSA - CIA - "Homeland Security" FBI .. all one happy intelligence family .. keeping the Nation Safe ..

 

Think again .. plenty o "dirty little secrets" the Economist don't want to cover .. someone been duped you real good thinking they some pinnacle of journalistic integrity .. Economist is very informative .. no doubt .. but the idea they have no agenda is quite naive.

 

It works.

• Chart: Then & Now Portugal's Drug Decriminalization | Statista

 

What is The Economist's agenda? They aren't even an American publication.

 

There's a lot of misconceptions about the legality of weed in California, the biggest of all of them is the idea that since it is legal at the state level, that must mean it is legal to grow and sell weed anywhere in California. In actuality, weed is still illegal in 68% of the state, and in many of the areas where it is legal, there still remains caps on licensing and farming.

 

Doesn't have to be American to have an agenda .. be politically biased. Did you think the only US publications were biased

 

So, you're saying let addicts be addicts.

 

Pot is the roadmap. The pot disaster just shows how much more of a disaster we will have if we decriminalize even more.

 

LOL. Portugal? Really? Please go back to the link in the OP.

 

I realize the War on Pot was part of the road map to collectivist Tyranny .. and that criminalization of Pot has been a disaster for civil liberties and society in general .. but never mind decriminalizing further .. should be legal .. It was illegitimacy of authority for Pot to have been decriminalized to begin with.

What I don't understand - is how so many on the red team have come to hate the founding principle and the constitutional Republic so much .. the religious right to hate the teaching of Jesus. These Orwellian authoritarian extremists .. now running along side the wing nut progressives on the Blue side.

 

Logically a publication would need to be an American one to be biased in favor of the United States.

 

I don't even know what that means. There were laws in Jesus's times. Surely he didn't want a society with no laws. Weren't there those Moses tablet things? And, I'm saying that instead of standing back and letting people destroy their lives and be OK with that, we should round up drug addicts and get them the help they need and make sure they are not released back into society to fail again until they are truly recovered. Is there really anything wrong with that? Doesn't Europe do something like that?

 

No one said anything about no laws.. you OK mate - having some conversation with some fantasy characterature that I am unaware of ?

"Don't know what that means" - Clearly you do not know what "Essential Liberty" means .. and have no respect fo it.
Clearly you have no idea what the Teachings of Jesus were .. as you have no respect for those either.

Now you say you wish to round people up that disagree with you and imprison them indefinitely... .. why am I not surprised .. did you model your plan after China's re-education system ?

 

"Logially" - come on now -- we both know that is not your strong suit .. and once again you are wrong. One does not need to be an American in order to be biased in favor of the US .. but, we are not talking necessarily about "The US itself" .. it could be a US position in which case your claim is completely irrational .. without a sniff of logic

 

Yep it really works, been going on since 2001.

 

I'm saying round up drug addicts and give them the help they need. Isn't that something that Jesus would have agreed with? Aren't we supposed to help our fellow man? Are we supposed to just have a hands off policy and let people lose themselves to drugs?

 

What part of "Drugs" and "Pot" are two separate things - are you having trouble understanding ? I have mentioned this 3 times now - what is the cause of your comprehension difficulty ?

When did you wish to start rounding up sugar addicts .. "or are we supposed to just have a hands off policy and let the Fatties lose themselves" in sugar ?

You just hate civil liberties ..