Speak Out: Ollie North is NO Hero

Replies (56)

• Ollie North is a hero.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 1:50 PM

• Whether or not someone is a hero is pretty much a personal thing. In fact heroic actions are performed by people who have led far from heroic lives. To me Col. North is a survivor, a celebrity and one whose opinions are shared by a large contingent of people. Hero or not, he will draw a crowd - and that crowd will donate to a couple great causes. His worse actions may seem to some as far better than modern day character's best attempts. So InfoWarrior, you are right (or left, sorry). DTower you are right. And me, I'm always right.

  -- Posted by blogbudsman on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 2:03 PM

• Like P. Proud, I was fooled by Ollie North initially too. I was a big fan of President Reagan and I thought the dems in congress were trying to use North to get to Reagan.

  The democrats insisted on televising the hearings live which was rare in those days. Their plan backfired. Ollie North in his crisp pressed Marine uniform and with the help of his excellent attorney and his smoking hot secretary stole the show from the inquisitors.

  After learning later what really happened, my opinion of North soured. North was part of the conspiracy to allow cocaine to be imported to the U.S. Some of that money was used to ship arms to our supposed arch enemy Iran. ( with the help of Israel I might add)

  But to bring things up to date, I wish the Missourian or other press there would ask North why our Marines and soldiers are dying today to protect the opium and heroin precursor poppy fields in Afghanistan. North is an expert on using the military and CIA for drug importation to this country.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 2:05 PM

• I think the cause North is promoting is good, but the celebrity promoting it is not. We have got to learn to stop calling evil good and good evil. Oliver North is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 2:23 PM

• Col. North was never convicted of any drug-related activity. Of the sixteen charges leveled against him, his was found guilty only on three - accepting a gratuity (Ollie's Gate), lying to Congress, and destroying evidence. All three were later thrown out, because Col. North was given limited immunity in exchange for his testimony, and those charges violated that immunity agreement. In essence, in its zeal to prosecute Col. North, the government broke its own promises.

  Col. North was never charged, much less convicted, of any drug-related charges. The indications are that the planes he used to transport aid to the Contras may have been returning drug flights, but that was not proven. Logically, it makes sense: he needed planes to take the aid to Nicaragua, Mr. Palmer had planes returning to Central America empty, so a deal was struck. Col. North may have 'turned a blind eye' to the question as to why the planes were coming here in the first place but, again, we have no evidence, only suspicions.

  For service in Vietnam, Col. North received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and two Purple Hearts. That is enough, in most peoples' book, to qualify for 'hero' status.

  Someone, perhaps Gen. Patton, once commented that heroes are supposed to die in battle, because nothing they do in later life will ever measure up to the honour they receive. There is probably some truth to this.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 2:46 PM

• Shapley Hunter,

  You said it very well. I could not agree more.

  Your third paragraph is absolutely correct.For those reasons, he is a hero in my book.

  -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 3:24 PM

• Taken from the summary of Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh; "The disrespect for Congress by a popular and powerful President and his appointees was obscured when Congress accepted the tendered concept of a runaway CONSPIRACY (my emphasis) of subordinate officers and avoided the unpleasant confrontation with a powerful President and his Cabinet. In haste to display and conclude its investigation of this unwelcome issue, Congress destroyed the most effective lines of inquiry by giving immunity to Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter so that they could exculpate and eliminate the need for the testimony of President Reagan and Vice President Bush.

  Immunity is ordinarily given by a prosecutor to a witness who will incriminate someone more important than himself. Congress gave immunity to North and Poindexter, who incriminated only themselves and who largely exculpated those responsible for the initiation, supervision and support of their activities. This delayed and infinitely complicated the effort to prosecute North and Poindexter, and it largely destroyed the likelihood that their prompt conviction and appropriate sentence would induce meaningful cooperation."

  In essence this means that if a person keeps his mouth shut to protect the king they live and get to be famous on T.V. and such. But if they intend to speak out about government conspiracy they end up like Ron Brown or Vince Foster.

  And people still wonder why more people don't speak out about government conspiracies?

  The final report by the special prosecutor on Iran Contra http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 3:47 PM

• Well Shapely and Wolf, if that is the defining criteria to be a hero then I guess you would have to bestow that honor on Benedict Arnold as well. No?

  He was a wounded war hero too before he committed crimes against his country.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 3:53 PM

• No comparison of the accomplishment and crimes between the two; would have expected better than that.

  -- Posted by RA on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 3:58 PM

• An opinion by a prosecutor. I would note that of all the charges, only three stuck, which were dropped because of the immunity charge. Mr. Walsh believed there was more there, but he failed to prove it. You, and many others, choose to believe that he would have been successful had he been given more time and money. I choose not to do so. Under the circumstances, neither of us can be proven right or wrong, as we only have the opinions and statements of others, and conflicting views on the moral correctness or lack therof of the underlying motives.

  I would note that it was a Democrat Congress that granted the immunity, one that expressed no love for the President. They cast their lots and the consequences were what they were, Mr. Walsh's opinion notwithstanding.

  As to whether or not his later actions undo the recognized heroic actions of his prior service is also debatable. However, I tend to believe that we recognize such actions for what they are at the moment, and they are not undone by later acts.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 4:01 PM

• Was it Al Gore sr that asked North who he was so afraid of to need all that security? I think he replied Osamsa Bin Laden.

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 4:04 PM

• Info_Warrior wrote:

  "Well Shapely and Wolf, if that is the defining criteria to be a hero then I guess you would have to bestow that honor on Benedict Arnold as well. No?"

  Yes. Are you saying it is not possible to be both hero and traitor? Are both mutually exclusive?

  To be sure, we have bestowed hero's honour on those who served us while pretending to serve others. The others have done likewise. May spies not also be heroes?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 4:06 PM

• Old John wrote:

  "Was it Al Gore sr that asked North who he was so afraid of to need all that security? I think he replied Osamsa Bin Laden."

  No. That's an internet rumour that has been debunked. Al Gore was not on the committee, and it was not bin Laden that drove him to install the gate.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 4:13 PM

• Why would anyone want immunity if they were not guilty?

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 5:17 PM

• Howdy,

  Ever heard of innocent citizens being prosecuted? Guilty or innocent anyone with reasonable intelligence and a threat of prosecution (or persecution)hanging over their heads, would be well advised to seek immunity before blindly co-operating.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 5:37 PM

• IW,

  I have to admit - I really don't know a whole lot about Ollie North besides that he has a couple of shows on TV, and has a weird space between his top two front teeth.

  I will check out the links. Thanks!

  -- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 6:01 PM

• I met Col North when he was the featured speaker last fall for the Vitae Society. He is strongly pro-life and seems to have decent family values.

  Seemed like a decent sort to me.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 6:25 PM

• Now Rick I don't mind your ridicule,but be fair. If you remember I never said an earthquake weapon was used on Haiti because I can't prove it. I said the event seamed odd to me.I also said there are weapons that can cause earthquakes and volcanos because former Sec. of Defense William Cohen said so. I didn't make that up. If you don't believe him then I don't know what else to say. Here's what he said once more ( the 4th answer). http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=674 I said if other countries had these weapons then we do too. In fact our HAARP facility in Alaska can probably do this.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 8:54 PM

• Old John I watched every minute of the hearings. North was afraid of a terrorist named Abu Nidal. Nidal was a nasty psychopath so North had reason to be afraid.

  I guess my biggest beef with all of this is that nothing in our political system will ever be fixed until each side of the political fence quits excusing criminal behavior from the officials in whom they have invested their loyalty.

  The republicans find excuses to exonerate their criminal celebrities by saying they didn't do anything as bad as the democrats did. The democrats excuse their criminals by saying the republicans did worse things. And so on and so on and so on. It never changes.

  Until we collectively as a nation hold all officials regardless of party responsible for their criminal behavior and not search for excuses to defend them, they will get bolder and bolder and we are all doomed. I think we are probably already there to be honest.

  So on second thought, what the heck. You guys keep on defending criminals on your side of the fence and demanding justice for those on the other side. When one of your guys finds a loophole to evade prosecution rejoice. When their side gets away with something criminal , raise he[[. That will surely get this country back on track.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 9:32 PM

• Vandeeven, if I didn't know North's background with the CIA, NSA, Israeli Massad, and other government spooks, I would say he was a very likable and knowledgeable guy. He does seem to care about the troops and it does take a lot of courage to make all of the trips he has done to the war zones.

  But as of yet I have not heard him say anything about why our troops are protecting poppy fields with their lives while the international bankers and high level politicians are making money from the illegal importation of drugs. Maybe he doesn't care about the troops as much as he claims. I think a case can be made.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 9:44 PM

• I don't know if he was a traitor or not since he, his secretary, and other officials shredded most of the documents. But we do know that he was instrumental in allowing military armaments including TOW and Hawk missiles to be shipped to our supposed arch enemy Iran ( with the help of Israel.)

  Yep that same Iran that kidnapped and held our embassy employees for 444 days from 1979-1981. The same Iran that our CIA overthrew their governments twice in 40 years. The same Iran that we are now claiming are some of the most evil people on Earth and nee to be punished.

  For those of you who want to defend Oliver North go ahead. But when you b*tch and moan about Obama's people doing similar things don't be surprised if your protests fall on deaf ears. They shouldn't fall on deaf ears, but they will.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 11:22 PM

• Oh! I don't know PP,

  That sentence could easily be used to describe

  its author! But I prefer not to resort to childish name calling when refering to others.

  I will say this, lunatics abound in today's society and Cape sure isn't immune. Wait, could "lunatic" be considered name calling?!!

  -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Apr 15, 2010, at 7:34 AM

• You know there are people I dislike. And there are people I disagree with. And there are people I just won't associate with or watch - and certainly wouldn't pay to see. But I don't consider them pieces of crap.

  And PP if you would just replace all your unnecessary commas with inappropriate periods no one would notice your run on sentences - that is anyone that chooses to read them at all.

  -- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Apr 15, 2010, at 7:42 AM

• I think it has already been pointed out that Oliver North was convicted on only three of the many charges and neither of the three was for arms sales.

  I am not a fan of Oliver North, but facts are facts. I don't care if the charges were overturned or not, only that it was proven that he took actions that were found in a court of law to have been illegal.

  I would have had more respect for him had he stood up, admitted what he did and taken his punishment.

  I do accept however that he has served his country heroically in the past for which I am thankful; whether he remains a hero is up to each individual to determine.

  -- Posted by RA on Fri, Apr 16, 2010, at 4:21 PM

• sateva wrote:

  "So it would be OK with you if our troops used torture and rape if they were ordered to do so?"

  Troops are only obligated to follow 'lawful' orders. That is drilled into them from boot camp onwards. However, one has to exercise caution when refusing orders one may think are unlawful, as the consequences are serious if they turn out not to be so.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Apr 17, 2010, at 2:55 PM

• sateva wrote:

  "So it would be OK with you if our troops used torture and rape if they were ordered to do so?"

  Troops are only obligated to follow 'lawful' orders. That is drilled into them from boot camp onwards. However, one has to exercise caution when refusing orders one may think are unlawful, as the consequences are serious if they turn out not to be so.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Apr 17, 2010, at 2:55 PM

• Friday night I was forced to listen to Bill O'Reily while waiting to have my car tires replaced. Bill had Geraldo on as a guest and I couldn't believe that Geraldo said that he was mystified as to why our troops are told to protect the poppy fields which enables heroin to hit the streets in this country.

  Now I don't know if that is Geraldo's true feelings or if he is trying to save face because the New York Times reported about this despicable practice a couple of weeks ago.

  As of yet, I have not heard Ollie North condemn this un-excusable practice. Neither have I heard Limbaugh or Hannity or any other so called conservative explain why our troops are putting their lives on the line to protect the international bankers importation of deadly drugs to our country.

  Also, I am curious as to why all those on this website who always claim they support the troops but then chastise those of us who protest these deadly and costly wars aren't demanding a halt to the protection of hard drug producers.

  Did anyone ask Ollie about that when he was in Cape Girardeau? Has anyone asked Rush or Hannity of Beck about this or the people on MSNBC and CNN for that matter? If anyone has I haven;t heard about it.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sat, Apr 17, 2010, at 11:19 PM

• "He's a traitor."-- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Apr 14, 2010, at 2:35 PM

  To level such a serious charge is outrageous and egregious. Obviously, a change of screen name has done nothing to improve or correst the intellectual and rational content of an immature mind.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 12:13 PM

• Oh my God, look who is back!!!

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 1:45 PM

• I stand by my statement. I am not interested in your book. I have plenty of my own having just unpacked 12 book cartons and several to go.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM

• PLEASE, you guys ... don't do this again?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 2:37 PM

• Red is Positive.... Black is Negative

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 2:46 PM

• Is the growing of poppies legal or illegal in Afghanistan?

  To the best of my recollection, poppies produce opium, which is still used for medicinal purposes in other nations. It was used here until the late '60s or '70s, being a component of Paragoric, among other things. It may still be used in some prescription medicines, I believe.

  Paragoric was available over the counter in Asiatic countries when I was there twenty-plus years ago.

  Poppy seeds are still used in cooking, even in this nation. How do you get poppy seeds without poppy plants?

  Is the farmer responsible for misuse of his produce, if the produce is legally grown?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 3:58 PM

• I have to hand it to you Shapely. You should be a defense attorney if you aren't one already. As my dad always told me that I could argue with a fence post and I think that could apply to you too. To me that is a compliment.

  But this poppy defense is about as good as your convoluted explanation as to why the stealing of American Indians' land was not the same as Israel stealing Palestinian land because Indians did not have "permanent" structures on their land and moved around alot.

  Growing poppies is illegal in Afghanistan however our "allies" in the Afghan government are making a killing (no pun intended) off of the product. I don't blame the farmers so much since they are just trying to survive. We could support the poppy farmers for the rest of their lives and still save billions from what we are spending on that useless war. Or we could get the farmers to grow a less lucrative and relatively harmless drug like marijuana or hemp.

  It is legal to grow poppies used for medicinal purposes like morphine and it's derivative codeine in countries such as India, Turkey, and Australia. And for those who just can't live without poppy seeds on their hamburger buns, poppies can be legally grown in the U.S. for the seeds or as ornamental flowers. You just can't grow them to make heroin.

  Paregoric can still be bought in the U.S. but you need a prescription. I remember when you just had to ask your pharmacist to get you some without a prescription.

  Finally Shapely, again I don't blame the poor farmer so much as he is just trying to feed his family. But I do blame our government forcing our military to stand down which allows those poppies to be grown to addict and kill people in our country.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 6:59 PM

• Welcome back Voyager. Are you on the road?

  If North is a traitor, so are some others of a more recent administration.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 7:55 PM

• Not being contentious here Why Not, but would you also say that it would be acceptable if people fighting the U.S. military pulled out our guys fingernails and hooked them up to electric shock because it was war time or even peace time for that matter?

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 9:38 PM

• Old John you are right. Our government is full of traitors from both parties. It is up to us Americans to expose them and not excuse them.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 10:00 PM

• Info Warrior, don't you think saying our government is full of traitors from both parties is a bit harsh. Why not say they are a bunch of misguided folk of uncertain loyalities and intellectual limitations.

  Sounds a bit nicer. And we all do want to be nice, don't we?

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 10:19 PM

• But if we're all nice, voyager ... Wouldn't it get rather boring on these threads? ☺

  I didn't mean to offend anyone, just that it bothers me when things get so bad that the Missourian's staff has to step in and ban people.

  It's good to have you back! Missed you ...

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 10:36 PM

• Mom, moving ain't fun. Getting reorganized with everything in its new place can either be very provoking or an exciting adventure in poor man interior decoration.

  Once I can get my computer and Comcast working together on my e-mail problem, life will improve. Lost all of my old e-mail addresses and files. All floating around in space somewhere.

  -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 9:58 AM

• Voyager, I believe we have gotten into the ominous situation we are in now because citizens have been too nice. The global elite do not understand nice. I'm not saying we should be violent at this point, but we should be mad as he[[. I'm not saying we should be un-civil with people on these blogs who disagree with us either.

  Like G-Mom says, I don't want anyone on here to be banned. I like to read what all views are. If people really get under my skin, I don't read what they say for a couple of days. My goal is to get more people to understand what I am saying. If they don't agree, that's o.k. because I know that my beliefs are not the main stream yet. But a whole lot more people agree with me today than even a couple of years ago. Even Limbaugh is starting to say some of the same things I have been saying. Unfortunately he still says it is only Democrats who are taking our freedom. If he included Republicans, I would probably listen to him more. I listen to him now a couple of times a month.

  Being nice when it comes to warning the people what the government is doing and has done to us is a different story.The government wants us all to be nice when they abuse us and steal our money and freedom. They don't want us to question what they do. They don't want us to have alternative views of their "official" accounts of events. They want us to act like domesticated livestock, because that's how they view us.

  The domestic mind control psychological engineers have convinced people that being angry is a bad thing when in fact is a normal emotion when one is being abused.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 12:54 PM

• To be very clear, InfoWarrior, there is nice and then there is nice. The first is parlor nice of making the guest feel comfortable and welcome without ever giving offense. Fine and good for Sundayvisitors or guests in your home. The second is nicely sticking the stilletto into the opponent with surgical precision before he recognizes he's "been done in."

  We have had those on SO who indiscriminately accused other of "a lie" or being "a liar." Such serves only in diminishing the namecallers point of view.

  On the other hand, perhaps a better response would have been "I think you are taking undue liberties with the truth, granting you possess the capacity to recognize truth."

  If someone is going to insult, at least do it with some panache.

  Now that's being nice as I see it, in my opinion.

  -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 2:43 PM

• Voyager,

  I am not as well spoken as you. My termonolgy for that goes more like "Stab em in the heart with your pencil". But you try to do it in a nice way. Then again, I'm from Bollinger County.

  Parlor nice may be what a friend of mine referred to as "Nasty Nice"

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 3:40 PM

• Absolutely, voyager ... the organizing, while less strenuous, is always the worst part of moving!

  Frustrating about the e-mail loss, I know. Windows 7 wouldn't 'accept' my e-mail files from the old computer (Windows XP) ... I'm still trying to figure out how to save those, short of printing out every single thing.

  "... government wants us all to be nice when they abuse us and steal our money and freedom. They don't want us to question what they do. They don't want us to have alternative views of their "official" accounts of events."

  Info ... Often I find it intriguing that you seem to have such a good 'handle' on things. If we question ... if we are skeptical ... we're un-American. Whoever came up with the term 'sheeple' ... was correct, because it probably describes a large segment of our population, not just those of any certain party.

  The last two comments? SUPER!

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 4:30 PM

• Thanks G-Mom. Emotion and intent are so difficult to express in these threads without writing longer posts explaining the intent and emotion.

  I try my best to be civil and diplomatic, but I fully understand that some of what I write in condensed form hurts people's feelings even though that is not my intent. I'm sure that is true for most everyone else who writes on here too.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 4:47 PM

• What do Ollie North and OJ Simpson have in common?

  -- Posted by crackpot on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 5:55 PM

• Ah, crackpot, but you are just itching to tell us, aren't you? So please, with baited breath we courteously await your reply.

  -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 6:48 PM

• ...

  -- Posted by crackpot on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 9:31 PM

• Info_Warrior,

  Thanks. I didn't know if the growing was legal or illegal in Afghanistan, hence the question mark. The computer I was using was very site-restrictive, so searching was tedious. Thus, I just left the question open.

  I understand that poppy growing in most countries is probably closely-watched, making unregulated growing more lucrative due to the demand from alternative end-uses. I merely wanted to point out that growing poppies in and of itself is not wrong, there being legitimate purposes for the plant.

  Hemp also has legitimate uses, besides the narcotic uses. It is grown for rope-making in several countries, although the plant genus may be slightly different from the hallucenogen popularly grown for medicinal (and non-medicinal) narcotic uses.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 10:02 PM

• Shapely. George Washington grew hemp. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper and the first U.S. flag was made of hemp. As you have said, hemp is such a versatile plant and is so easily grown. It is legal to import hemp products here but we still can't grow it and that is crazy.

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 10:58 PM

• Did the ban on hemp have anything to do with American patents on other competing products and processes?

  -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 11:13 PM

• Old John the banning of hemp was pushed by the DuPont Corporation and their patents of synthetics especially plastics. The ban was also encouraged by the paper, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries and others.

  Here are some pretty good websites for hemp information and products. http://www.hempusa.org/product_info.php?cPath=6&products_id=24

  http://hempbasics.com/

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, at 11:38 PM

• InfoWarrior wrote:

  "Old John the banning of hemp was pushed by the DuPont Corporation and their patents of synthetics especially plastics. The ban was also encouraged by the paper, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries and others."

  I've never been a fan of the ban. I have no interest in smoking hemp, but the ban is designed to prevent commercial and non-commercial production of a valid product in order to discourage its use for 'other purposes'. Generally, we encourage domestic production of products to reduce foreign dependence and promote the national economy. This ban has the opposite effect.

  The 'War on Drugs' has had many such nonsensical consequences. We ban or restrict legal substances in order to prevent their mis-use. The goal is to make law-enforcement easier, but is law enforcement really supposed to be made so at the expense of liberty?

  Random urinalisis is a prime example, IMHO. We are supposed to be protected from 'self incrimination' and yet, what can be more 'self-incriminating' than having ones' own body testify against you? I realize that there is a valid public interest in keeping drug-crazed persons from operating public transportation, etc., but the use of urinalisis has become so widespread that we, as a society, accept as a fact of life the idea that our bodily fluids may be sampled, tested, and used against us both by private individuals (employers) and by the government.

  And, yes, I know that Ronaldus Maximus was largely responsible for escalating the 'war on drugs'. Even the greatest of men stumble from time to time.

  I realize I am dragging this thread out on a tangent, but it is related because of the 'drug war' connection.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 20, 2010, at 8:50 AM

• only 30% of the nation supports legalization, 55% oppose. A good chunk of those who support it are younger are less likely to vote, so it looks like it will continue to be illegal for awhile.

  -- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Apr 20, 2010, at 9:15 AM

• futile_rant wrote:

  "only 30% of the nation supports legalization, 55% oppose. A good chunk of those who support it are younger are less likely to vote, so it looks like it will continue to be illegal for awhile."

  Just one more indication of how willing we, the people, are to hand over our freedom to the government in the name of 'security'.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 20, 2010, at 10:00 AM

• Shapeley. I agree 100% with your last two posts especially about the urinalysis scam. I believe that what one does on their own time, with rare exceptions, is their business as long as it does not interfere with their job duties.

  Hemp and cannabis have been demonized since the 1930's by the people who directly benefit from it's illegality. That would be the corporations previously mentioned plus the "criminal" justice system, lawyers, law enforcement, prisons, court required rehab centers, politicians, and of course the people who make big bucks selling it.

  An old tired argument for sure, but hemp and cannabis are far less harmful than alcohol. H & C have nutrition and medical purposes as well as many industrial uses. And finally if it was good enough for the father of our country, it is good enough for me.

  (Disclaimer: I used cannabis in my 20's and early 30's. I haven't smoked pot or made pot brownies for many many years, but if I acquire cancer or other painful conditions, I would consider using it again legally or not. I guess I should stock up on pizza and brownie mix coupons just in case)

  -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Tue, Apr 20, 2010, at 1:21 PM