The PATRIOT Act Protects the US against Drug Users, Not Terrorists

Although this chart only represents a few years since 9/11, you can bet with the consistent rise in drug related arrests over the past 10 years, the PATRIOT Act has arrested and convicted far more drug offenders each year than terrorists.

As we all know, marijuana is in the spotlight, waiting for its moment to become legal. With opposing forces from all sides, this plant has also been a target of the PATRIOT Act.

Indeed, the act -- a piece of legislation that was sold to the American people during a vulnerable time in history -- has been used more in the War on Drugs than the War on Terror, and it's here to stay.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells of the NYMag.com states:

The authors of the Patriot Act always intended that its provisions would be permanent.

Never would it occur to our lawmakers, of course, that after the 9/11 attacks the country would return to a “normal” state in which we could retract any situational laws that were put into place. Nope, we have been stripped of our 4th Amendment rights with no sign of their return. So next time someone justifies the PATRIOT Act as necessary to protect us from terrorism, ask them how arresting thousands of drug offenders protects our American freedoms and stops terrorism?

H/t Reason.com for the image.  Originally published at Silver Circle.

CIA Doublecross?

Ahmed Wali Karzai was not a nice guy. Known as one of the big leaders in the Afgani opium trade, he obviously had some enemies. Combine that with his brother, Hamid Karzai, being the American puppet leader of Afghanistan, and no one should be surprise that he was assassinated. However, despite the awesome movie his life would make, there are now many questions arising from this assassination that I have a feeling are going to go unanwered.

 The first and primary question that should be on everyone's mind is why was the CIA giving Wali Karzai money. In 2009, the New York Times reported that the CIA was paying Wali Karzai for intellegence and to help train paramilitary forces. All of this was happening when it was known that he is directly involved in the drug trade in the region. I don't know about you, but if our nation's laws prohibit the possession and trade of opium, I'm wondering why our tax dollars going to support one of the ring leaders.

The second question is simply a more specific "Why?" Why was he killed -- and by one of his trusted and long time bodyguards in his own home no less? It is now coming out that the CIA was directly involved with this bodyguard and that the bodyguard had family in one of these CIA-run paramilitary groups.

Florida "Drug Testing for Welfare" law is just more statism

Today, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill into law that requires welfare recipients to pass a drug screening before they are eligible to receive payment.

Conservatives have applauded the law saying it weeds out those who are not "worthy" of welfare, but what they fail to realize is this law is not conservative in any sense of the word. Once upon a time self-identified conservatives did not believe in the concept of government social-engineering. Today, however, they seem to believe the best way to fight social-engineering is with some of their own.

Liberals, on the other hand, have responded by arguing this law interferes with the privacy rights of welfare recipients and thus is unconstitutional.

Like usual, both sides have failed to see the big picture. The overall issue here is that government should NOT have any impact on who does and does not receive welfare because government should NOT be involved in welfare! Welfare services should be controlled by private organizations (charities, churches, etc.) and these groups should decide who receives and does not receive aid.

This is just more of the same disturbing trend of statism that has gone on for the past half a century in America. Instead of debating what the government should and should not do our debates now center around who should and should not receive government funds. It is up to those of us who still cherish the concept of liberty, small government and personal freedom to point out these statist occurrences and resist. We must show our peers that issues such as whether or not you think drug addicts should receive charity are irrelevant in politics. All that is relevant is "should the government provide _____ or not." If we pose the question that way, we might like the answers we hear.

Why Else Would the Alcohol Lobby Try to Stop Prop. 19?

Because they know that their government enforced monopoly is about to end  -- at least in California.