Free Associating on Drugs

---

One of the joys of being free from the ability to research and fact check is that I can ponder at will without the annoyance of challenging my own assumptions. I'll let you, dear reader, do so in the comments section. Since my last posting I have continued to consider the ubiquitousness of the border patrol and that the prime reason given in the area is the drug runners. Whatever, we are all aware that it is to keep out illegal aliens, namely, brown skinned Mexicans, not narco-terrorists so much. That being said, the drug war has made the border and parts of Mexico more dangerous than in years past. Melisse and I have given up on the idea of revisiting Baja California due to so many people dissuading us that, due to corruption, and potential violence, it's jut not worth the risk. Lets face it, on so many levels, the war on drugs is lost. Just looking at the obvious around here, drugs continue to permeate our border from the south with little difficulty. Illegals do too. Just see who is tending the produce fields in California. Not to mention the vineyards in wine country. Our border patrol must let in the quota necessary to keep our food and beverage cheap and, for the wine producers, profitable. So chalk up these winners on the side of drug producers so far. (I consider alcohol a drug for this musing) Now, where else is the war being lost? Consider Afghanistan. The only real winners in the war over there to this point are the opium poppy producers. Curious. In our own country, as you read in Melisse's earlier post on marijuana in California, production and distribution is commonplace and out in the open. As a point of disclosure, I have no problem with what's happening in California. I have no moral objection to pot. The high doesn't agree with me but that's about it. Legalization seems to keep the ugly side of the illegal pot industry at bay. Seems the current administration in Washington agrees.
Speaking of Washington, that is where the drug wars are really being lost to the producers and profiteers. I'm speaking of Big Pharma and the insurance industry. They must be laughing their collective asses off at the caving in of congress to their demands in the ongoing struggle for affordable health care for all. In fact, the only place the war on drugs has been won by the supposed good guys was when all those cheap pharmaceuticals from Canada were not able to come across our border. Oh wait, that was another win for US Big Pharma. Never mind. The only real difference between legal and illegal drug profits has to do with the collateral damage due to militarization. Ultimately, Todd Snider summed it up best when he sings, "it's not what drugs you're on, but whose."
So, what to do, militarization? This seems to do nothing but incite more corruption, criminality and violence. A fence? Ask the Chinese how well that worked out. Education? I just spent eight years teaching prevention programs to very bright young people. The main message they seemed to have gained was when ex-abusers said that drugs were fun. In fact research reports that prevention programs don't work, including DARE. I have no real suggestions rather than teaching moderation in the family. Our drug companies and entertainment medias have a lock on "just say yes". And to think, I haven't even mentioned cigarettes. Have you seen Mad Men yet?
Until next time.

---

Comments

[Jack]

It's about the money, not the big or little guy.
Affordable Health Care - the REAL issue is affordable insurance, not health care quality or health care availability. If only someone was actually fighting to lower the cost healthcare. Those fighting in Washington claim to be interested in cost, but in reality it's only about who is in control, be it government or private companies. It's not about how much it costs, it's about who controls the money and the power it carries. Speaking of fights, the insurance companies want lower drug prices and big pharma wants higher drug prices. No one in government is fighting for, or against, both interests. Insurance companies want government run insurance so everyone can afford all the prescription drugs money can buy. Insurance companies want lower drug prices to cut their expenses and don't care much about those uninsured. Both want the government to force everyone to have to have insurance, even if it's unaffordable, as it'll increase sales for both insurance and life-saving drugs. The majority in Washington is now going for forcing everyone to buy private insurance to please the both big money interests, which screws the consumer/voter.

[Stub]

merci bien
A thoughtful post indeed... hope you don't find any talking cactus out there in the dessert...

[anonymous]

I hope people get a chance to read this. As a parent with a teen who like's his ganja, moderation is the best approach to teaching him to be mindful of his health.