Danny's Weblog

Drug-sniffing dogs are another government lie

Like many people on this planet, I have actually observed dogs. So I was always suspicious of stories about "drug-sniffing" and "bomb-sniffing" dogs. Dogs are like dowsing: they will tell you anything they think you want to hear. After a while, I concluded that dogs were being used as a convenient excuse for otherwise miraculous searches: "Yes your honor, Bozo the Wonder Dog sniffed the heroin through three layers of plastic, an inch of clear resin encapsulation, a fibreglass shell and the fender, and it wasn't based on a tipoff from our informant who would like to eliminate competition on his drug import business, heavens to betsy."

Here's a webpage from an attorney who has a similarly jaundiced view of the thin blue line that defends our society from anarchy: rexcurry.net [http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsmain.html]

Why are recreational drugs illegal?

A friend of mine worked for the UN back in the 80s, and she told me that everybody who worked at the UN knew that the UN's politicians were utterly venal and corrupt.

I was musing about that the other day, and it occurred to me that perhaps the UN had been set up that way *deliberately*. If you allow the organization to be so infiltrated by crooks that honest people can no longer become part of it, you can be reasonably sure that that organization will not want to *rock the boat* – do anything inconvenient about what actually happens to development loans, or about the trade barriers against products from developing countries, or any of the other big, real, continuing problems which keep developing countries from becoming independent.

Then I remembered something else that I've been noticing. Rebel, libertarian, or independence movements very often seem to mutate after a decade or two into drug dealers. This was certainly true in Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Columbia, Jamaica... One could argue that the Black Power movement underwent the same process, but of course they were subjected to so much FBI manipulation that they're a special case.

It seems to work like this: the movement needs money and they've set up all this covert machinery, network of trust, etc which is just sitting around. Let's put it to some use while we wait for the government to fall apart from its internal contradictions! ...Boy, are we making a ton of money. In fact, now we're completely reliant on the money flow from the drugs. So when the captain in charge of our drugs operation needs someone killed, we say sure. In fact, now he says we'd better cut down on the mass demonstrations, because they make it harder to move the drugs. Oh well...

It used to make me laugh when useful idiots in the USA used to whiffle about how the IRA might be murderous gunmen, but at least they controlled the drugs on the housing estates. You'd keep reading about drug dealers getting kneecapped. Yeah... drug dealers who hadn't paid protection!

But now when I think about it, it seems to me this *isn't accidental*. I don't mean that Western governments were clever enough to figure all this out in advance – I'm sure the basic antidrug business started as mission creep for the FBI, just like the prodrug people say. But they *are* clever enough to figure out what *has* happened. And the important thing to realize is that the argument for criminalization is so completely and obviously chowderheaded and evil that there *has* to be a compelling reason why Western governments have stuck with it. And that is that it serves as a fully automatic mopup for *any* effective anti-government movement, unless its ideology makes it out of the question to enter the drug trade.

Hmmm... Maybe that's why BATF had to glass the Koresh compound. Despite their best efforts, they hadn't been able to drive Koresh to enter the drug trade.

Rush Limbaugh -- Newsweek's report compared to treatment of other drug users

I actually used to like to listen to Rush up to a few years ago, when I could easily find him on AM radio. I began to lose interest when he never seemed to go for the jugular on Clinton; he bought into the big lie that fellatio on company time was more important than Waco.

My impression is that once you buy into a group or movement, you, or your side, accumulates a whole bunch of skeletons in the closet. When you find out something about the other side it smiles and pulls a handful of Polaroids out of its briefcase, and a cosy little secret deal is done. After a while you realize that your organization has adapted to its environment and is no longer making a difference. Another little while and you realize your organization *is* the environment.

More succinctly, "Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!"

Rush recently confessed that for several years he'd been addicted to prescription drugs, and I said (like the kid bully on the Simpson's) "Ha-hah!"

The following link is a really nice comparison of the recent Newsweek story about Rush and his problems, to the way drug users are normally treated by the authorities and media.

www.exile.ru [http://www.exile.ru/176/1760101120.html]

It reminds me of a Rolling Stone (I think – maybe Village Voice) article I read about 20 years ago about the deaths of celebrities. The article writer pointed out that many news stories about the deaths of rock-and-roll and counterculture figures include the phrase "died choking on their own vomit", but this is a fairly common occurrence in many deaths not caused by excess and turpitude where this information is thoughtfully suppressed by the media. In other words, the excessive incidence of this phrase is an indicator of bias in the media, even if only the bias of wanting to spice up the article while knowing that most readers will feel a glow of rectitude. (I tried searching for this article on Google but could not find even a reference to it. In a way it's interesting that I was surprised some knowledge exists which is *not* findable through Google.)

It also reminds me that this phrase has become so well known that someone said the threshold has been raised: now, to have any street cred, a celebrity has to die choking on *someone else's* vomit.

...It occurred to me to wonder what Rush wanted to say himself about his own problems, so I went to his website:

www.rushlimbaugh.com [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html]

but I could not find anything about it, other than this interview with *his brother*:

www.rushlimbaugh.com [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102203/content/eib_interview__david_limbaugh_10_22_03.guest.html]

It's very strange. I think it would be very interesting to hear how he reconciles his own attitudes with his own behavior. (Incidentally, when a celebrity goes public like this, it's hardly likely that he suddenly saw the light. It's much more likely that he was facing inevitable prosecution and publicity and his lawyers advised him to forestall it.) Surely he will have already developed some sort of spin which enables him to defend his behavior – after all, most of his friends and associates must also have been aware of it. Or perhaps none of them are true believers, just cynical toadies.

Debug: hittotal: 2 startban: 0 dancookie: endbandate: banned: 0 tempdate: tert: jse: jsno jsh: 2