The bill would have required a “sentence of death for certain importations of significant quantities of controlled substances.” It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — of marijuana across the border. Defendants would have had a window of 18 months to file their one and only appeal.
“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs, it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children,” the Georgia Republican said at a fundraiser for Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) in 1995. “I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”
“The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, ‘Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?’ the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically.”
U.S. law already allows the death penalty in the cases of large-scale drug operations — or continuing criminal enterprises — that result in murder.
Gingrich charged in 1994 that 25 percent of President Bill Clinton’s White House staff used drugs, but at the same time admitted that he had also smoked pot 25 years earlier.
“That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era,” he explained.
“See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral,” Gingrich reportedly told Wall Street Journal reporter Hilary Stout in 1996. “Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.”
Perhaps this is a bit more than you need of actual insight into the scrambled mess of virus cells that masquerade as the soul of the thing called NOOT!
5 comments:
Hello Microdot,
This is where you once agian are the best. Good clip with the posting.
Dottie- This isn't only a problem with Newt. Most of our politicians are hypocritical jerk-offs. I guess once we evolved from monkeys, the evolution stopped there.
Their are two things that the legallization of drugs would accomplish.
1- Create a bunch of tax revenue. Not just sales tax, but maybe a luxury tax as well.
2- Most importantly, It would cause gangs to implode. I truly beleive they would almost seize to exist.
Well, JOB, I totally agree with you here. Lopok at the countries that have decriminalized drug use... Portugal is a very good example. The use of drugs in the society has actually gone down, but not as fast as the crime rate. It's been 10 years and it's only served to stabilize Portuguese society.
In America, though, we only have to look at the corporate prison system and the banking industry to see why decriminalization is so ardently lobbied against.
I agree wholeheartidly with your comment on the prison system. But please explain your comment on the banks. Do you mean because of laundering? Or am I missing something else?
If you trace the laundering of money, most of the major American banks are players. That is what I am talking about here. They work with the cartels and the smaller banks.
Just today, there was a story in the NY Times about a supposed connection between Hezbollah, Columbian drug gangs and a Lebanese bank...and the ultimate connection leads to Wachovia.
This story is being used to make a case against Hezbollah, and the way it was uncovered was by watchdogs "scrubbing" the bank records...but the real case would be the involvement of the ultimate instruments of these transaction which make billions on the deals.
Because of the Mexican government'c crackdown on their banks, the money that was going from the gangs is now flowing north...into the American banks where the lack of scrutability of these transactions is allowing the money to be laundered and major profits made.
Post a Comment