Why Do You Think They Call Him Dope?
Add to the mess that the Bush regime is leaving behind in Iraq the meth that the president and his handlers are leaving behind in the heartland of America.
If you block out the sounds of gunfire currently taking place on the streets of Baghdad, you can almost hear the cries of outrage from Republican senators and ordinary Americans about George W. Bush's mishandled drug war back home.
Seems that Wal-Mart and the business-suited drug dealers who work out of Big Pharma's boardrooms are unhappy with various states' restrictions on sales of pseudoephedrine, a key component in the manufacture of methamphetamines.
The Bush regime has proposed new nationwide rules that are less restrictive than many meth-plagued states' rules and go easier on Wal-Mart, which peddles the legal drugs made by Big Pharma that are combined in meth labs to make illegal drugs.
- Meth is a contemporary plague. Yet the Bush administration seems dazed and confused about this reality.
The White House unveiled a federal anti-meth plan last week. Unlike Iowa law, it wouldn't require most cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine — a key ingredient in making meth — be sold only by pharmacies. It would allow consumers to purchase up to 110 pills in a single purchase.
It's essentially a non-policy. Even Republican lawmakers are criticizing it.
Sen. Charles Grassley said the White House is "listening more to Wal-Mart than to the economic and social problems" meth causes. Actually, White House officials are probably listening to drug companies, which stand to lose sales when drugs are difficult to purchase.
Or maybe they're not listening to anyone. Maybe they just can't get their eyes off their old enemy: marijuana. The administration has focused on this as a gateway drug that's widely used.
But being widely used doesn't make it the biggest problem. Ask governors, law-enforcement officers, child-welfare workers, landlords. Meth may not be the most common drug, but it's the biggest problem in many states. It's deadly. It's dangerous. It's destructive.
It makes pot look harmless.
Late last week, the most mainstream newspaper in the nation, USA Today, delivered a body blow in its news pages to the Bush regime:
- A federal anti-methamphetamine plan unveiled [August 18] by the Bush administration is yet another example of how the administration is floundering in its efforts to combat the nation's top drug problem, Republican members of Congress said.
Pols of all stripes — from reactionaries like Indiana's Mark Souder and Missouri's Jim Tallent to moderates like Grassley to dippy Dems like Delaware's Joe Biden of Delaware to libs like California's Dianne Feinstein of California — are all united in their disgust for the Bush team's national drug policy. More from USA Today:
- The administration plan also would provide $16.2 million for meth treatment programs in seven states — California, Tennessee, Oregon, Texas, Montana, Georgia, and New Mexico.
But President Bush's proposed fiscal 2006 budget would substantially cut anti-meth programs, another source of congressional anger.
"We are going to defeat you in the budget process and debate process until you cry uncle," Souder said last week in comments directed at the administration.
Meanwhile, the Bush regime is still consumed by reefer madness. As USA Today pointed out:
- The administration's announcement caps weeks of harsh criticism from GOP lawmakers who say the administration does not have a comprehensive strategy to deal with the costly environmental and social problems caused by meth.
White House officials have focused more attention on marijuana.
"Methamphetamine causes much more destruction in a much shorter period of time," Grassley and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said in an Aug. 1 letter to national drug czar John Walters.
The token effort against meth seems inexplicable — until you read how Walters replies to average Americans' drug questions. On April 9, 2004, for example, on the White House's insipid "interactive" page, there was this exchange:
- Q: Christopher from South Carolina: Why is it that marijuana hasn't been legalized in the United States yet we spend so much money fighting against something that really isn't that bad.
I personally have smoked marijuana in the past and still can not figure out why it's not legal to smoke. Alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana is. So why not legalize it?
John Walters, White House Drug Czar: Marijuana is a dangerous drug that remains illegal because of the threat it poses to Americans, particularly children. Our current knowledge surrounding marijuana — including treatment center admission data, scientific research, and medical knowledge — directly contradicts the myths that this drug is non-addictive and harmless.
Walters went on to say that "the perpetuation of these falsehoods has fueled the spread of this harmful drug among Americans over the last 30 years." So he thought it was "important that Americans understand the facts about marijuana."
You have to wonder what Walters is smoking — he either lies about or exaggerates the government's own official pronouncements on marijuana. Here were the "facts" from Walters:
- Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, which can lead to cancer of the respiratory system and can disrupt the immune system.
Marijuana use has a negative effect on learning and memory, and is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia.
Marijuana users are more likely to be depressed and have suicidal thoughts.
Of the 7.1 million Americans — 1.4 million of whom are teenagers — identified as needing drug treatment, over 60 percent have a dependency on marijuana.
In recent years, for the first time, more teens have presented themselves for treatment of marijuana dependency than have presented themselves for treatment of alcohol dependency.
Legalizing marijuana will only cause more Americans, especially children, to believe the marijuana myths and try this harmful drug. Because of these concerns for public health and safety, the federal government will continue to oppose the legalization of marijuana.
Now, go to the chart on "Uses and Effects" in the DEA's Drugs of Abuse 2005. Let's compare marijuana and alcohol, leaving not one word out of the DEA's descriptions.
Here are the "possible effects":
Marijuana: "Euphoria, relaxed inhibitions, increased appetite, disorientation."
Alcohol: "Impaired memory, slurred speech, drunken behavior, slow onset vitamin deficiency, organ damage."
Here are the "effects of overdose":
Marijuana: "Fatigue, paranoia, possible psychosis."
Alcohol: "Vomiting, respiratory depression, loss of consciousness, possible death."
And here is the "withdrawal syndrome":
Marijuana: "Occasional reports of insomnia, hyperactivity, decreased appetite."
Alcohol: "Trembling, anxiety, insomnia, vitamin deficiency, confusion, hallucinations, convulsions."
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Walters. Better yet, pour yourself a drink. And one for Bush, too.
Oh, and of all the drugs listed on the comprehensive DEA chart, the only one the feds consider to be milder than marijuana in its effects is LSD. And LSD is the only drug that the DEA lists as having "none," under "withdrawal syndrome."
But nothing seems to stop the Bush regime from doing its own kind of trippin'. Too bad its "withdrawal syndrome" regarding Iraq is also "none."