Perhaps these 2 links offer insight & solutions of current Lackings & Baggage :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O1cmw8BeRk

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608580/eliminating-the-human/amp/
This Link is from David Byrne ;
Famous musician-composer of Talking Heads

http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2017/09/drug-lord-duterte.html

Parts of the push for the legalisation of drugs :

1.

1.1
Drugs loosen sexual inhibitions

1.2
Drugs enable people to be unwillingly controlled Re; their sexual integrity by other people

1.3
Drugs enable people to become sexually corrupted ;
Part of the conspiracy by the elite & individuals acting on their own personal motivation TO HOMOSEXUALIZE THE YOUTH

1.4
Drugs enable people to become sexually compromised

PERVERTS WANT ALL OF ABOVE IN THEIR TARGETS

SPY-MASTERS WANT ALL OF ABOVE IN THEIR TARGETS

2.
The persons involved in the drug-trade would make much more profits were drugs legalised ;
Because :
drug-use by “existing drug-users would escalate
drug-use by “very most likely persons who were drugs illegal would never try drugs” would happen

3.
Powerful rich families — incl. in Irish State — wish to :

3.1
rid their family members of criminal records for having got sentenced for :

3.1.1
drug importation

3.1.2
drug pushing

3.1.3
drug dealing

3.1.4
currency-laundering for drug-biz. persons

3.1.5
committing assaults, eg. “sexual” assaults, under the influence of drug use ;
Whereby, if drugs were legalised ;
==>

3.1.5.1
their criminal record may be retrospectively absolved ;

………………………………………..

PRIOR :

1st EVENT

1st_AR_Y
3.1.5.1.1
Having committed illegal consumption of drugs ;
Thus ;
“Actus Reus” X ? ; Yes !

1st_MR_Y
3.1.5.1.2
Having criminal intention to consume drugs ;
Thus ;
“Menus Reus” X ? ; Yes !

2nd EVENT

2nd_AR_Y
3.1.5.1.2
Having committed assault ;
Thus ;
“Actus Reus” Y ? ; Yes !

2nd_MR_N
3.1.5.1.2
Not having criminal intention to commit assault ;
Because of
3.1.5.1.1
Having committed illegal consumption of drugs
Thus ;
“Menus Reus” Y ? ; No !

OVERALL JUDGEMENT ;
Guilty of Assault because of ;

1st EVENT
1st_AR_Y
+
1st_MR_Y

AND

2nd EVENT
2nd_AR_Y
+
2nd_MR_N

…………………………………..

NOW ;
Following successful Appeal through the Courts or by mass Clemency [ I lazy to look up the special applicable term ]

OVERALL JUDGEMENT ;
NOT Guilty of Assault because of ;

1st EVENT
1st_AR_N
+
1st_MR_N

AND

2nd EVENT
2nd_AR_Y
+
2nd_MR_N

…………………………………………………………….

I could go on with many more interesting reasons for the push to legalise drugs …

Alas, … a Lass beckons

………………………………………………………….

I am of the belief that there needs to be set tiers of Criminal Ofences
Perhaps 5 Tiers

Tier 1 :
Murder [ incl. Abortion ], Manslaughter, Treason [ e.g.s Directing the Irish Nation to pay the Private Debt of Private Banks to Foreign Creditors, conspiring to coerce indigenous Irish into partaking in process of getting SS Photo ID Card + associated SS Database ], Drug Pushing, Drug Dealing, Conspiring to profit with Drug Pushing, Conspiring to profit with Drug Dealing, Rape, inter alia

Tier 2 ;
Consumption of Drugs ; Class A

Tier 3 ;
Consumption of Drugs ; Class B

Big banks (aka governments) make a sh1t ton of money laundering the dirty drug cash, why would they want drugs legalised?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering

Who’s going to buy all the illegal guns on the streets if there’s no black market for drugs? Concerned citizens? Doubt it…

The generalisation is simple, well lobbied industries make lots of money from this chaos, we don’t really have a say. Accept the fact that drugs will not be legalised until every single interaction between lobbyists and government is broadcasted live to all of us. Make politics and government the new reality TV!! What goes on behind closed doors in every government needs to be more transparent.

One problem with your position is that I cannot imagine a typical user of cannabis being remotely interested in the needs of others or in shouldering any responsibility of any kind.
—————
They consciously break what you consider a reasonable law but
Many are not interested but many pot smokers do assume great responsibilities but who are recreational users..
—————
Remember, this is an individual who, in the pursuit of selfish pleasure, gambles with his own health and ignores the worries of his family, who deliberately befuddles his senses
———————————-
a user may indeed not care about the worries of his family, but you do not specify if this is an adult in charge of a family or a juvenile who disdains parental authority.
—————————————-
or seeks an illicit euphoria, who consciously breaks a reasonable law and supports criminality,
——————————–
Only because it is made illegal. If the law were repealed there would be no criminality, nothing to break and no illicit behavior.
————————————–

who behaves furtively and sneakily, and who is a hypocrite by behaving in public as if he is a upright citizen while sniggering in private with his friends.
—————-
Because the law is considered by them to be an ass. Why is your opinion that it is a reasonable law any more valid than they who declare the law to be unenforceable and bad law.

One man’s meat is another man’s poison. If a person wants to drive while stoned then lock’em up.

From GATA’s good friend Hank Fellerman…

Essay

Hello Bill,

I know a lot of people with an interest in gold wonder if the manipulation will ever end. The bullion banks, supported by the US and allied governments have used various devices to tamper with gold. That’s been US policy since April 25, 1974 when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger established the policy. The State Department released the transcript of a meeting between Kissinger and his economic staff to discuss the role of gold in the post modified gold standard era. A staffer asks Kissinger how to deal with a country that doesn’t follow US dictates on gold. Kissinger says, “We”ll bust them.” The word bust is a euphemism for destroy. The quote is found at about page 237 of the transcript, which is at this link:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969- 76v31/d63

Its no wonder people give up on gold. After 43 years of controlling the market it seems like it could go on forever, or at least for the rest of our lives. If some outside force doesn’t enter the picture the manipulation could go on for generations.

After World War II American businesses controlled their markets. Detroit and Pittsburg dominated cars and steel. It often seemed these industrial giants, with their money and power, were beyond challenge and that was the normal order of things. In 1967 Harvard economist and historian John Kenneth Galbraith, the smartest economist of his time, published The New Industrial State, which perfectly described how the system worked. However, even Galbraith couldn’t see that in the next decade the system would be torn apart and the great US manufactures would be dethroned. He didn’t foresee the arrival of foreigners, in this case the Japanese, who would show US firms were no longer competitive.

The American government will soon loose control of the gold market, as the governments of China and Russia know the score. They know how the US and its confederates operate. And these foreigners are in a position to do something about it.

Controlling the price of gold is the foundation of the American government, economy, financial markets and military power. China and Russia will end this American scheme because to fail means the US will dominate the world at their expense. Success means the American government and people will be forced to live by the same rules as everyone else in the world.

I’ve written about this before in an essay at the Matisse Table dated December 1, 2016, titled “Hank Fellerman… Letter From Hank Fellerman to Bill Murphy.” I won’t repeat the arguments from that essay.

The world economy is unbalanced and unfair. People around the world go into factories and make things with all the effort and risk that entails. Americans buy the output of those factories with computer generated X’s and O’s. If foreigners want to import something they must export goods of equal or greater value. Americans pay for imports with computer generated money. So to “defeat” the US, China and Russia only have to see that America lives by the same rules as the rest of the world. “Victory” for the US means the existing system continues.

The Census Bureau records the US trade (Balance of Payments Basis) for the years 1960 to 2016:

https://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

In the old days foreign governments could exchange their dollar holdings for gold, which limited the deficits the US could run. From 1960 – 1971 the US ran an average trade surplus of $2.5 billion. Nixon closing the gold window freed Americans from the market discipline foreigners had to follow. In the twelve years ending in 2016, the US had an average trade deficit of $566 billion. Control of the gold price makes this condition possible.

(I want to point out something I don’t fully understand. US gold holdings have not been audited since Eisenhower was President in about 1954. At the time the US held about 22,000 tons of gold. When Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, only seventeen years later, that number was down to 8,000 tons. If the US ran average trade surpluses of about $2.5 billion we should have accumulated foreigners’ currency, debt and gold. Something besides world trade was going on. By some means massive amounts of US currency went overseas that greatly exceeded the trade surpluses. It was this money that foreign governments exchanged for gold. If a reader knows what happened please submit it to the Café. Though I’m not an economist I’ve read a lot of books on economics and economic history. Nothing I’ve read addresses this issue.)

The US military is the most powerful and advanced force in world history. I don’t know if our service members are braver, smarter and more patriotic than those of other countries. However, the Pentagon is so powerful because it has so much money to spend. America’s global reach is all about the money. And here is where foreigners can defeat the US military without firing a shot.

It is useful to follow the foreign press as we get an idea as to their thinking and learn what influential foreigners are telling their own people. A recent story in Tass.com has Sergey Glazyev telling a Russian audience, “As soon as we and China dump the dollar, it will be the end of the US’ military might”.

Look up the man and he certainly appears to be a mover and shaker in Russia. He is probably not lying to his audience but reporting on a strategy already adopted and in the process of being implemented. The Tass.com story is at this link:

http://tass.com/politics/942643

The only important fact with US military spending is that we spend so much more than any other country. It’s much easier for the US to have a big military budget as the government is in large part spending computer generated X’s and O’s. In contrast, Canada must fund its military with money generated by the productive economy, which represents real economic sacrifice by the Canadian people. So its no surprise that Canada’s military spending is 1% of GDP while the US spends 3.3% of GDP on the Pentagon.

When the US looses control of gold and has to follow the same rules as every other country the purchasing power of US military spending will drop by 30%-50% (in my opinion.)

Of course, the US will remain a great military power. The missiles on the Trident submarines alone would kill most of the people in China and Russia. What the US will loose is the ability to project military power around the world. The US would field at least 30% fewer service members, aircraft and ships. While the Defense Department would still be able to defend America it would loose the ability to project massive military power anywhere in the world. The American people will not fund the military at its present level if they have to pay for it the way Canadians do.

At this point the US government has few options to prevent China and Russia from forcing America to live by the rules other countries are forced to follow, the main one being that to import something a country must export goods of equal or greater value. Starting a war with those two nuclear powers would do the trick, but I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Hank Fellerman