The Single Best Anti-Gun-Death Policy? Ending the Drug War

This is not a column against gun control. Gun control is a good idea. The assault-weapons ban is a good idea. So are background checks, stricter licensing agreements, and greater efforts to keep guns out of the hands of minors. A prohibitive tax on ammunition? There’s another good idea finally getting attention it deserves, after being suggested by comedian Chris Rock a decade ago.

But much of the gun-policy commentary that has come in the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre is misdirected. Stringent gun-control measures are unlikely to turn the United States into a peaceful gun-free society like Japan. In addition, much of the hysteria over “rising gun deaths” is badly misplaced, since the violent-crime rate and the murder rate have both been declining since the early 1990s. If we really, truly want to reduce gun deaths, there is a much better way to do it than the gun-control measures.

– Read the entire article at West Hollywood Patch.

Comments

10 Comments

  1. animan425 on

    The war has never achieved any of its goals of reducing drug availability so why not end the failed war?

    $40 billion budget across the board this year, what’ll it be next year?

    http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

    There’s another article at this site now that answers the question. Of course most sane, peace-loving people want it to end. But the greedy pigs that profit off it only care about the money they make from it.

    Since it is funded by American tax-payer dollars, maybe we should all just stop paying our taxes?

  2. Son of Sam Walton on

    The nullification of the drug war will greatly disrupt the war on terror in the Middle East and many of the conflicts in Africa. Ending the drug war is paramount in making sure various terrorist attacks in Europe, Russia, Philippines, China, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Africa, Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia, Atlantic Coastal Africa, Somalia, India and America happen no more if not greatly reduced. When the Civilian wakes up and finally equates 9/11 to drugs being illegal, then we the people can begin to win against the war on drugs . . . when we utilize historical and legal precedents that proves via cause and effect (and not necessarily through personal religion or lifestyle/political choice) that the Average American cop, Department of Justice worker and politician is a Muslim Terrorist Sympathizer through drug prohibition, then the laws will change and be looked after with a fine tooth comb. If arresting people for drugs increases the likelihood of airplanes crashing into large American Buildings and $3 trillion spent on fighting in the Middle East, then the American/Canadian civilians should demand that treason during a time of war be outlawed and punished (since the only reason why Canadian cops will arrest people for drugs is so a Canadian soldier dies or gets hurt in Afghanistan –or at least that’s what it equals out to be). Since we know that the act of drug prohibition (arresting users/dealers) creates a drug black market and since we know drug markets finances terrorist attacks and fuels Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then we can prove cops arrest drug users as a method of aiding terrorists (even if they are unaware and are ignorant, but ignorance doesn’t negate punishment nor pardons the breaking of the law) –that cops arrest drug users just so U.S. soldiers can go to war and be killed or injured. Federal law actually requires that police officers and Federal Law Enforcement be denied the right to have access to weapons, since it’s technically illegal in America for saboteurs and terrorists to have access to weapons –we should demand that cops stop using guns and use their own money (paychecks) to lock up people for dope (coming out of their paychecks). But then again, according to Federal Constitutional law, it’s illegal for a cop to receive money for work rendered since terrorism, treason and fraud are illegal under American law and are illegal to profit from. It’s up to the masses of people to dissect the drug war and Federal Law and then to show their findings to the Feds . . . and since President Obama supports the drug war, he supports terrorism, which would have made his reelection illegal (just like Bush’s) since it’s illegal to elect a Military Dictator or terrorist sympathizer into office –which would make void the legal holdings for the vast majority of ‘official’ appointments, hiring’s and elected officials, since the U.S. Constitution makes it illegal for an enemy of the state to hold such positions. Because we can prove that the various practices (obeying) of the drug laws creates the finances of America’s enemies, we can prove that most ‘elected’ sheriffs don’t hold a legal right to their position . . . that it’s illegal for Secessionist (according to historical precedents and Federal Constitutional Law) to hold any seat of power in America and anyone who supports the drug laws during a time of war and economic chaos (stemming from the drug war) is in fact a Secessionist if not an illegal military coup since the Department of Justice is a private if not foreign militia –which makes them no longer citizens, thus making most political elections illegal since law prohibits non-citizens from ever running for any Government/Civic office in America –since committing treason is tantamount to losing one’s right to be a citizen of America. And if one is not a citizen, then one has more in common with a foreigner, thus proving that vast majority of law enforcement and our politicians and our very own president to be foreigners (legally foreign, though geographically local), which makes the DOJ a foreign military (according to Federal Law, which makes treason illegal). Proof the DOJ is a foreign entity in the grips of Dictatorship like controls: Checks and Balances found in the various offices set up by the drafters would have outlawed the War on Drugs much sooner than later. Only those belonging to a foreign regime would not recognized American Federal Laws protected under the Constitution: Michele Leonheart, Gil, Kevin Sabbot, Eric Holder etc are all foreigners by legal definition. The first independent and globally recognized nation that the Nazis invaded was Germany.

  3. Anonymous on

    Banning guns is not a good idea. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Millions of guns enough for every man women and child and still everyone is not killing each other. Please don’t support this stupid proposition it will not stop violence and will again just put more guns into black market more guns in hands of people who don’t give a shit about anything. Lets legalize guns so us good citizens can at least have a fighting chance against the assholes of this world. We are human god damn it let us be free. Oh btw these unfortunate killing sprees are minimal when’s till more people die on average from starvation HIV/aids around the world , these are rel issues that can be changed where you can actually get results ASAP . Wake the fuck up people pull your emotional heads out your ass and think long and hard befor letting your government take all your defence from your home.

  4. Anonymous on

    Banning guns and taking them away from people who legally and responsibly use them is no different than keeping marijuana illegal because some kid might smoke it or someones schizophrenia may be affected by it. Its just punishing the masses to stop the irresponsible few. Perhaps a better education and health system would be a better suggestion. Because lets face it being told “NO YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED!” doesn’t work. There is a very tight gun control program in Mexico but they have guns everywhere. And while they get the majority from the USA, they would simply buy off from another market if the US wasn’t available. If they can order tons of precursor chemicals to make meth from China whats going to stop them from throwing some ak47’s on to the order. And don’t forget the whole reason the USA has the Second Amendment (right behind freedom of speech at #1) is so the people have the ability to over throw a tyrannical oppressive Gov’t. after all else fails. But really, whats the likelihood of the Gov’t being tyrannical or oppressive? There is a way to fix this problem but jumping on the “BAN” wagon isn’t it.

  5. Anonymous on

    In order to correct for the Marijuana Injustice prevailing in Canada you need to keep alcohol and assault weapons legal.It is also high times that heroin,cocaine,crystal meth and LSD become legal in Canada.Only guns can help get rid of XXth century dinosaurs.

  6. gutrod on

    Gun and alcohol kill and are legal.
    Marijuana doesn’t and is illegal.
    Time to correct an Injustice system and step into the 21st century where marijuana use is mainstream.

  7. DuckHorseShit on

    U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy is on the Judiciary Committee
    and Cris Ericson is hoping to find a
    way to add him as a Defendant in a Conspiracy Lawsuit.

    It’s time to find a way to turn the tables on the people
    who have been locking up marijuana users for years!

    The Rich Politicians Get Re-Elected and Richer,
    while the poor political candidates
    stay unknown and poor.

    Non-Major party candidates in Vermont
    were excluded from 2012 political debates
    and are now fighting back in Court!

    2012 candidate for Governor of Vermont, Emily Peyton,
    was excluded from candidate debates and forums.

    She filed an action in Court against Burlington Free Press,
    WCAX television and WPTZ television.

    Cris Ericson was also a 2012 candidate for Governor of Vermont,
    but she was also on the ballot for U.S. Senate.

    In Emily Peyton’s Court pleadings, she states that because
    she is a pro-se litigant representing herself without an attorney,
    that she believes she can not file her Case as a Class Action Lawsuit.

    Cris Ericson is trying to find the laws about Class Actions,
    because she was equally excluded from the Governor candidate forums
    as was Emily Peyton.

    Cris Ericson thinks that if she can find a way to make Emily Peyton’s
    lawsuit a Class Action, then she could subpoena
    U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who she ran against in 2012,
    and also U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy,
    who she ran against in 2010
    because she believes there is a continuing cause of action
    and a civil conspiracy based on the fact that
    Burlington Free Press and WCAX television and WPTZ television
    claim in their Court responses to Emily Peyton,
    that they excluded her because she did not receive 5% of the vote
    in the previous election in 2010.

    Therefore, Cris Ericson believes that to show all of the elements
    of the alleged conspiracy to keep non-major party candidates
    from participating in debates, that all candidates from 2010
    and 2012 that she ran against should be included
    as elements to prove civil conspiracy.

    Cris Ericson believes that the civil conspiracy is based on
    non-profit organizations and organizations filed under 26 USCS Section 501(3)(c
    non-profits which have denied her participation in General Election
    candidate debates every two years from 2002 through and including 2012.

    So, because the non-profits and entitities such as Vermont Public Radio,
    AARP, Vermont League of Cities & Towns and League of Women Voters,
    all excluded Cris Ericson, she could not get 5% of the vote,
    and because she could not get 5% of the vote,
    then the privately owned Corporations including Burlington Free Press,
    WCAX television and WPTZ television ALSO exluded her from debates
    on the argument that she had not previously received 5% of the vote.

    Therefore, Cris Ericson feels that there is a conspiracy
    including the taxpayer funded non-profits
    and the privately held corporations.

    The privately held corporations believe that they have a right
    to choose to exclude candidates who did not previously receive 5%
    of the vote in the previous election.

    The non-profits which are taxpayer funded,
    according to Cris Ericson,
    should have no legal right what-so-ever
    to exclude any candidate from their debates and forums,
    and BUT FOR THE FACT that University of Vermont (UVM),
    League of Women Voters, AARP and Vermont Public Radio (VPR)
    all excluded Cris Ericson and did so in previous election years,
    she WOULD HAVE received 5% of the vote
    and she WOULD HAVE met the qualifications imposed by the privately
    held corporations Burlington Free Press, WCAX television and WPTZ television.

    E-mail below is regarding
    Emily Peyton’s ongoing lawsuit against
    Burlington Free Press, WCAX and WPTZ;
    and Cris Ericson’s campaign finance statement.
    Cris Ericson received 2% of the vote
    for U.S. Senate 2012 and also 1.9% of the vote
    for Governor of Vermont 2012.
    ___________________________________________________
    From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
    Sent: 12/20/2012 9:41:21 AM
    To: [email protected] [[email protected]];
    [email protected] [[email protected]];
    [email protected] [[email protected]]
    Cc: [email protected] [[email protected]]
    Subject: Filing Statement: Less than $500. spent on campaign

    To: Vermont Secretary of State
    Elections Division:
    Jim Condos;
    Kathy Scheele;
    Will Senning
    Good Morning:
    I did not receive any final forms in the mail
    after the election,
    but I think it is time to electronically file
    this by e-mail,
    my Filing Statement:
    I did not spend over $500. for my campaign
    for Governor of Vermont 2012.
    I was invited to two television debates,
    the one on CCTV in Burlington, all candidates
    except for myself and Emily Peyton
    refused to show up
    in person and participate.
    The other was a debate on
    VPT and all candidates were there including me.
    I was not invited to any other debates for
    Governor.
    Each debate cost about $20. round trip in gas.
    I also went to Burlington on Nov. 5
    to hand out campaign cards.
    That’s a total of
    $60. on gas.
    The campaign cards
    were less than $20. because they don’t
    say “for Governor” so I can use half of
    them for other purposes.
    Then there were three hotel bills for
    going to Burlington because I am not
    young anymore and not willing to drive
    up and back in one day,
    one visit to
    the Ho Hum Motel (half the cost for my
    campaign for U.S. Senate)
    and two visits to
    Motel North,
    at about an average of
    $65. each or less for my campaign for
    Governor.
    There was also a day trip to WNYT Albany,
    and from my place in southern VT that’s
    about $15. gas divided by two campaigns
    because I was also on the ballot for
    U.S. Senate.
    My appearances on WNYT did
    not get put on streaming video because
    of Hurricane Sandy.
    Please accept this as a late
    electronic filing statement.
    Summary: Less than $500. spent
    on my campaign 2012 for Governor of Vermont.
    Also, please note that apparently
    2012 Governor candidate
    Emily Peyton has filed a Court action against
    Burlington Free Press, WCAX and WPTZ for
    refusal to include her in debates and forums.
    She apparently named me
    [December 11, 2012 Plaintiff’s Additional
    Memorandum of Law]]
    in one of her Court
    papers filed in Chittenden Unit Superior Court
    Civil Division Docket No. 1115-10-12 Cncv
    She sent me a couple of the Court papers,
    one has an Entry Regarding Motion
    Filed Oct. 18, 2012
    and somewhere in one of the papers she
    apparently expresses that she is only
    representing herself;
    therefore,
    I looked up in a Vermont Statutes Annotated
    2008 General Index (which is what I have
    available here)
    and on page 926 it says
    “Class actions, VRCP 23(c),(d)”
    and I can’t find anywhere on the
    internet the
    “Appendix of Forms: Rules of Civil Procedure”
    Rule 23
    Apparently Emily Peyton thinks she can not
    represent a Class Action Pro Se,
    and I think that if she loses this case,
    that it will negatively affect all
    future candidates who are not members
    of major parties.
    Please let me know if you receive this
    and can electronically file it as my
    “Filing statement affirming $500. was not
    raised or spent”.
    Please also send me a copy of
    “Class Actions, VRCP,
    Vermont Court Rules Annotated,
    Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure
    by e-mail
    if possible.
    The defendants, in their papers, are
    apparently claiming that Emily Peyton did
    not meet their requirement of 5% vote
    in the previous election.
    I think that because she was excluded from
    debates and forums run by non-profits
    that should have included her because
    they are taxpayer funded,
    that she (and I)
    would have met the
    media’s creation of a 5% previous
    vote requirement.
    I think that certain entities that have
    excluded candidates may be in violation
    of 26 USCS Section 501(c)(3)(h)
    and EEOC laws when you look at the fact
    that EEOC covers job applicants,
    and EEOC laws protect against
    sexual and religious discrimination,
    so they protect against discrimination
    based on choices,
    because you can chose to have a sex
    change and you can chose to change
    your religion,
    so I think the Chittenden Superior Court
    should have a discussion about choices,
    because if sex and religious choices are
    protected, then shouldn’t your
    choice of political affiliation also
    be protected
    in a situation whereby it is a taxpayer funded
    non-profit
    excluding you from a debate or forum
    because you are not representing a Major
    Party?
    Also, because
    the non-profits exclude candidates like
    me and Emily Peyton
    because we
    are not members of a major party,
    then we do not achieve (accrue) the 5% vote
    requirement which was created
    not by
    statute,
    but by the media’s own created
    requirement that they will not include
    any candiate in a debate who did not
    previously receive 5% of the vote in the
    previous election.
    In other words, do we have a “civil conspiracy”
    under some law I came across and have to find
    again for “civil conspiracy”
    where by the media knows that the taxpayer funded
    non-profits exlude non major party candidates
    and because the non-profits which
    are taxpayer funded are excluding
    non-major party candidates,
    therefore,
    the excluded candidates
    can never reach (accrue) the 5% vote requirement
    in the previous election cycle
    that is not a requirement by law, code
    or statute, but invented by the media
    to exclude candidates from debates
    in the current election cycle, so,
    is that what you would call a
    civil conspiracy?
    At any rate, now I want to
    know what the Class Action laws
    are because apparently I am being named in
    this lawsuit but left out of
    any opportunity to argue my point.
    Thank you,
    Cris Ericson
    879 Church Street
    Chester, Vermont 05143-9375
    (802)875-4038
    http://usmjp.com
    [email protected]

  8. Anonymous on

    What Paul Pot said.

  9. Paul Pot on

    The feds don’t want to call it a drug war anymore but with a death toll in excess of ten thousand people every year it really can’t be called anything else. The war has never achieved any of its goals of reducing drug availability so why not end the failed war. Since California decriminalized cannabis in 2010 the murder rate has decreased by 26% in 2011. This is a fantastic result that can not be ignored. Full legalization across the US will lead to a huge reduction in violence in the the US and south of the border. We all know the drug war has to end.