Humanity is victim in war against marijuana

The War on Drugs moves on toward old age. Heaps of money, time, people, lives, private property, personal liberty and personal ethics have been expended on the effort. For what? Less crime? More jobs for police and prison guards? A decrease in public respect for law?

It is simply not possible to wage a war on a substance that is inert until voluntarily used by an individual. War is always a destroyer of people. And somehow, this drug war has regressed to a war on the people who use the least harmful illegal drug substance of all, marijuana. Here are the numbers from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report 2003:

» Arrests for marijuana violations, 755,178

» 88 percent of those were charged with possession only.

» The total number of marijuana arrests for 2003 far exceeded the total number of arrests for all major violent crimes combined.

» Cost to American taxpayers, $7.6 billion

Those arrests have nearly doubled since 1993. And still there are no deaths attributed to overdose of the stuff.

Who on earth would characterize this as good news or positive progress? It seems the whole "war" is one that any individual would consider dysfunctional and unethical if he or she was accountable. But our government and its loyal agents march on and on and on. As our young people might say, "Get real, dude."

A more adult take would be "Police Public Policy Play Perverted -- by Pot." Or, more succinctly, "Potted Police."

Don't buy the land, just steal it instead

In his letter of Dec. 10, William Cooper urges us to oppose Bill 53, and I agree wholeheartedly. In an otherwise dull world, it is so much fun to steal. It is the ultimate cleverness to sign -- and later ignore -- a lease contract, perhaps with a sly and knowing wink at the fools who expected their contracts to be honored. After all, if home ownership is the "American dream," then certainly land theft is the "American way." Ask the American Indians stuck on barren reservations; ask Hawaiians about their lost crown lands.

How dare anyone contest the inalienable right to steal? How dare anyone assign a primacy of interest to landowners who worked for their lands and wish to leave it to heirs, rather than to present lessees, who paid inflated bucks to previous condo owners, relying upon the assurance of their future "vestment" in a land-theft-scheme? This certainly is un-American, and smacks of a communist plot. Let us all rally in opposition to Bill 53. Call your City Council member and express your support for theft. God bless America.

Best if enemy attacks in good weather

As reported by CNN and other news sources, heavy cloud cover Wednesday night canceled the $85 million launch from Kodiak Island of a target designed to test our national missile defense system. The Missile Defense Agency had planned to launch the mock enemy missile from Kodiak. It then would have fired an interceptor missile toward it from Kwajalein Atoll.

The spokesman for the agency declared that the intended launch was merely to test "various components" of the system. He added that it might occur later, "If there's no weather problems -- and everybody is in sync," but went on to say the interceptor actually shooting down the target is not a primary goal of the mission.

In the meantime, the Defense Department is arranging for enemy attacks to occur only in good weather.

I'll sleep better tonight, especially if the weather turns bad.

Rumsfeld's response shows callous attitude

Regarding Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to the soldier's question about using scrap metal for armor: All Americans should be offended, outraged, screaming, when a serious question concerning the life and death of our children is so callously answered. I find his answer an affront to every American.

Saddam didn't just pop into history and we attacked. There were 12 years of negotiations and many more years of preparations. Mr. Rumsfeld, you mean to say that you expect our children to fight and die, yet their lives are not important enough to properly outfit them? The government they are fighting to defend doesn't even value their lives enough to provide them with the basics -- body armor and tank armor.

When Rumsfeld and our government are asking our children to step up and defend their freedom, then they must defend our children's lives. Our children's lives are non-negotiable.

To do or not to do? Good question

In this world, it's hard to say to others not to possess what we have and not to do what we do.

Put another way, it's like telling other people: Do as I say, but don't do as I do!