« And no money in our coats | Main | whatever / letters i've written, never meaning to send »

anna

I know not of what you speak, but only what you've wrought

by anna at 01:23 PM on December 30, 2003

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. -Pat Robertson

Among the crowning achievements of our times is the rescue of Native Americans from the poverty, squalor and hopelessness that pervaded their “reservations” i.e. prisons for generations untold. How was this accomplished? By allowing them to run casinos, that’s how. Private enterprise, trafficking in what many once considered a vice no less, succeeded where scores of government handout programs failed so miserably. Irony is seldom more wicked. The long-suffering Indians found the palefaces’ Achilles heel, greed, and exploited it to the hilt.

Meanwhile our spendthrift government sinks further into debt by the second. It is literally hemorrhaging your tax dollars. Talk of budget surpluses and lockboxes is a trifling thing of the past. Those under 50 can thus forget all about receiving any pittance from Social Security or Medicare. (According to my statement, I’m out $66,000 so far.) Look forward to your golden years spent residing in an appliance box under a bridge. I call dibs on the dishwasher box.

And it is time to wake up to the irrefutable realization that this “war on drugs” (or for that matter illegal gambling or prostitution or online porn) is not winnable. In fact, it’s a no-win proposition because all these businesses are reliably profitable. The drug thing in particular has gotten way out of hand. Violent pot farmers control a wide swath of northern California and have expanded into our national parks. Likewise, terrorists show no compunction about financing their operations from smuggling opium. When kids can’t get their hands on Ecstasy they’ll huff the propane from your grill.

All those financial woes could be rectified in one fell swoop, if officials would only face up to this stark new reality. If they’d stop listening to hypocritical moralists like that crackpot Robertson, insufferable Bill O’Reilly or equally loudmouthed junkie Rush Limbaugh, they could dare to admit the obvious: That vice (“victimless crime”?) can never be stopped or even curtailed by law enforcement. That these illegal businesses are so lucrative because of, not in spite of, spotty law enforcement. That their tax-free status only makes these rackets more attractive to people with few other options in life. It’s a vicious cycle of our own making. And it’s gotten to the point where it threatens our very way of life---see above.

Thus we need to repeal all laws against prostitution, gambling, porn and dope post haste. The government doesn’t need to get involved in doling out these much-sought-after goods and services, however, since the distribution channels already exist. All they need to do is slap a 20% sin-tax on all drug, porn, gambling and pimping revenues. Supposing that these age-old industries rake in $3 trillion a year, that comes to $600 billion for the Federal treasury. Plus, the big-budget DEA could be disbanded, resulting in an additional windfall. On the local level, cops could quit chasing streetwalkers and get after the Real Killers of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Indeed, it’s simply a matter of cost-benefit analysis. As it stands, a junkie stockbroker can obtain his daily fix easily enough. But he is overcharged by the bicycle messenger. A farmer can ring up a prostitute while sitting on his tractor; but he is liable to contract some life-threatening disease. Anyone who wants kiddy porn can download it by the megabyte. You can fritter away your life savings online or in casinos across the country. Yet the government can’t touch a dime of these obscene profits because those pesky scolds have their hands tied. Rather than addressing problems such as this head-on as they should, our chosen leaders allow emotion and outdated mentalities to skew their decision-making.

The treasury makes up for the shortfall by taking more from you and your employer, which in turn pays you less as a direct result of this foolishness. Once they get their grubby mitts on your hard-earned dough, what do they do? Why, they turn around and gleefully pour it down that very same rat-hole! Narcs buy more helicopters to rain deadly poisons onto Peruvian coca fields. They claim they’re eradicating these cash crops. Ah but they mysteriously reappear the next season. It’s the same way with poppies in Afghanistan, an exercise in futility.

Aside from appeasing old people at the expense of the young ($66,000, yikes!,) no governmental policy has remained so inexplicably sacrosanct and above reproach. Folks, it’s time for this to change. High time, if you will.

comments (25)

The “drug war” boggles my mind. Is drug addiction a crime or a disease?

Medicare makes perfect sense to me. Baby boomers are getting old – old people make up a majority of voters – the majority get what they want: more of my Medicare money now. Thanks Grandma!

Feminists suck — or is it they don’t suck, and that’s why Pat Robertson’s unhappy. I forget. I think it’s the former and not in a good way. (Who listens to pat Robertson anyway?)

by MrBlank at December 30, 2003 4:42 PM


Depending on your age you might ask yourself this: Even though the government is always reassuring the public about the rosy future of these programs, would you opt out today and forfeit all you've contributed to date? (I would.) Soon you'll receive your Social Security statement so you'll know how much you've lost. It pisses me off more than Pat Robertson.

by anna at December 30, 2003 5:03 PM


The only thing I disagree with you on is the kiddy porn: while the rest of it is up to consenting adults, kiddy porn involves child abuse.

I mean, letting someone profit from drugs, porn or prostitution is all down to supply and demand. But with kiddy porn, it really screws up the kids. Do I even need to try to defend that point?

by Andy at December 31, 2003 4:50 PM


I second that: everything except the child pornography. The "War on Drugs" is really the War on Just Some Drugs. Alcohol and cigarettes easily kill more Americans than all other drugs combined, but everyone wrings their hands making the slightest move against them. It's so handy that the "bad" drugs have perpetrators that are far away (except the forest and hydroponic pot growers-- go UV lights!) and operate in a shadow economy. Then it's so much easier to claim that you're making progress. Excellent post, Anna, and beautiful dig at OJ, as all digs at OJ are.

by jean at December 31, 2003 10:15 PM


Happy New Year Everybody!

by Lucy at January 1, 2004 2:25 AM


Thanks Jean, Lucy. Clearly kiddy porn = despicable. I agree that it isn't a victimless crime. Cops have made great strides in breaking up rings and they should be commended for that. However, it remains available against society's wishes and that kind of illustrates my point. Mostly people will just do as they please regardless of the law. And the ACLU will continue to defend NAMBLA's right to free speech.

by anna at January 1, 2004 10:46 AM


Anna,
I think you are the first person i have come accross (On-line or Off-line) that has the same view i do. I completely agree with what you have said above.

Firstly, the kiddie porn. Lucy, Jean, Andy... glasses up to all three
It's disgusting. Child pornogrpahy. What the hell are people thinking? How can anyone think of a child in such a way daunts me. There is child porn and then you sometimes hear the stories about the children who were molested by their parents? What the? Are these people sick? (No need to answer!)

These are the situations that need to be addressed here. Child porn is only part of the ridiculous events that happen these days and the governments are concentrating on things like who sniffs what and does who and for how much? Sometimes it makes me wonder who are the people behind law enforcement?

The 'war on drugs' is bringing so much attention. More youngens will walk this way. There are so many negetives towards it, no many wanting this 'stopped' that it will be seen as "cool" to go against this goal, peer pressure will heighten and where will we be left?
More addicts in the future. Why? Because one mistake when someone is young can ruin their lives forever.

Either way, attention or not, there will be people into drugs and prostitution. But the more you concentrate on these things the more damaging it will be in the long run. If we concentrate on the hard issues (ie: Kiddy Porn) we will get alot more done, quicker, with less hassles elsewhere.

Most of you just have to remember what you were like when you were younger to realise "its 'cool' to go against the rules".

(At least these are my views)

by Cazza at January 1, 2004 11:12 AM


Damn Cazza, that's eloquent. Are you new 'round here? Cuz if you are, it's almost a certainty that I'll turn around and piss you off with my next outburst.

by anna at January 1, 2004 6:25 PM


Now, I pretty much agree with all the points in this post. I wish we could do something about drugs and prostitution, but it's obvious that we can't. The child pornography shouldn't be even comprehensively wanted, but it obviously is. However, something not mentioned here is important. What about the drug dealers who find totally clean kids, show them the drugs, and add them to the tainted cult of drug users.

by Ian at January 1, 2004 7:38 PM


The little bugger now has his own computer and I must admit he raises a valid point.

by anna at January 1, 2004 7:52 PM


Yeah, Ian's point is valid: just because it's *usually* adults who decide to use drugs, I guess it's not always. Would age controls work? They don't for alcohol or cigarettes, from what I can see.

by Andy at January 1, 2004 8:24 PM


.. And even if age controls worked, wouldnt that leave a niche for a small number of specialised illegal dealers serving exclusively to underage kids?

If the govt slapped a big tax on drugs, prostitution , it would have to be thoroughly involved at every step of production and distribution. There would have to be a certain assurance that prostitutes weren't infected/getting infected with STD's and that drugs weren't cut with washing up powder or cut glass, and were of a specified potency (the drugs, not the prostitutes, although perhaps that would be necisary too - helping lonely women everwhere get value for money;j) Basically, the logistical problems of taxing such things would surely be horribly complicated; its not a matter of just slapping on a tax.

Having said that, I for one would welcome such steps. As you say, its time for goverment to start being pragmatic and remember that as long as the risks are clearly labeled and they are not hurting anyone else, it is surely everyones right to engage in all the moraly-dubious activities they should so desire.

by flibble at January 2, 2004 12:12 AM


Well, the example is Amsterdam. Just about everything is legal and regulated there. From what I've read, whether this social experiment has proved successful depends on the writer's preconcieved perspective.

by anna at January 2, 2004 10:58 AM


Thats what most things tend to depend on Anna, pre-conceived notions. And no matter WHAT we think, we can never be free of them. Ah well. Never mind, eh?

by Jun at January 2, 2004 3:27 PM


I know and that, to me, is the problem. We can't have meaningful discourse unless people maintain opne minds. But we don't so things just stay pointless.

Now I kind of wish someone else would post something because I have one that's a tad more less cumbersome a subject. But I don't want to monoplize things, you know.

by anna at January 2, 2004 6:58 PM


I think that if the government just put a sales tax on drugs, and didn't try to regulate or assure the potency or purity, it would be workable. There would probably still be a black or grey market, but I think a pretty large majority of people would be happy to pick up their poison from the corner store instead of depending on an unreliable network of underground dealers.

by jean at January 4, 2004 4:20 AM


Well Anna, you know what they say. "A mind is like a parachute. It works best when opened."

The only this is, working past preconceived notions is difficult, and most people are too happy to take the easy road.

Know what i mean?

by Jun at January 4, 2004 4:36 PM


All victimless vice crimes are stupid. Man, that is so true, and has kept me off of jury duty a time or two!

But, of course, the "War on Drugs" is not a war on drugs - it's paid protection for the mega-wealthy pharmacos and well-connected liqour industry (and of course the tax revenues those businesses bring in.) Remember the "War on Booze" (a.k.a. Prohibition?) Worked like a charm, eh? People drank more than ever before, and thousands of violent and muderous criminal thugs became some of the richest people in America. Sound familiar?

Now, I've never understood why prostitution is illegal. I suppose working girls and boys are an easy target to help appease the Fundies.

by Charles at January 4, 2004 5:49 PM


"it's not a war on drugs it's a war on personal freedoms" -- dr. timothy leary

dr. leary was such a reckless idealist. certainly the vice laws are their own war on personal freedoms, & feel like that both to the right & left wing speechmakers & those who believe them, but in reality you are absolutely right about this -- it's the economics of it. prohibition the second. makes just as much sense as the first time but much much more money by unimaginable orders of magnitude.

i am one of those idealistic types though, & will continue to thoroughly resent the assault on my personal freedoms, while enjoying my legal vices courtesy of the vast wealth of the alcohol & tobacco industries.

i am all about the vices.

by lizard at January 4, 2004 7:54 PM


Would the government really have to make sure the prostitutes weren't STD-ridden? Whatever happened to warning labels? A nice little circular tattoo around the belly button (or, um, wherever). Enter at your own risk, maybe?

In Amsterdam, from what I've heard, the government does not control the import or production of cannabis: I think this is why it's known as decriminalization, not legalization. So, it leaves the problem of criminal gangs handling this and making a killing. Not exactly a solution.

And why, oh why, can't I get your comments box to remember my info?

by Andy at January 4, 2004 8:13 PM


Andy, do you enter your e-mail address? I use IE 5 on Mac and it seems that if I just enter name and URL and click "remember info" it doesn't work, but if I do all that AND enter my e-mail address, it works. I have no clue why. Or maybe the voodoo gods are unhappy you sacrificed a chicken and not a goat last month. I always get the premium goats ;)

by jean at January 4, 2004 10:17 PM


I collect quotes and I'd never heard those two. Cool.

by anna at January 5, 2004 7:49 AM


Nope - it happens when I fill out all the fields. Grrr. Must be a Safari thing.

by Andy at January 5, 2004 5:53 PM


Say it ain't so! I was all ready to wipe IE off my hard drive once I got OS X 10.3 (still have 10.1 right now). Good luck, and let me know if you solve it, as I think I will be having the same problem soon.

by jean at January 6, 2004 4:02 AM


Do you want to learn more about the income potential available through an Internet based business?
Visit: www.bww.com/hasselbach
Guest Password: welcome

by Eric at April 9, 2005 10:03 PM