War on drugs 'not working,' Harper says

Crankinit

Crankinit

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
6,175
News conferences with Canada's Prime Minister don't happen every day — which, of course, increases the likelihood that, when he does hold one, he'll make news.

But it's even rarer that you'll hear Stephen Harper concede that the war on drugs is a failure.

It happened, though, after two days of listening to Latin American leaders explaining just how costly, and bloody, the war is.

Harper met Canadian journalists and readily admitted differences over the exclusion of Cuba from the Latin summit. He admitted, too, to a disagreement over British rule in the Falkland Islands.

But he was not ready to agree that the division over drug policy is so clear-cut. Rather, he insisted that there is much agreement. Then came the most interesting quote of the day.

"What I think everybody believes," Harper said, "is that the current approach is not working. But it is not clear what we should do."

This would be intriguing from any prime minister. From Stephen Harper, whose government's crime bill ratchets up the penalties for drug possession, it was startling.

Lest anyone think he'd undergone a conversion in Cartagena, Harper quickly added the other side of the story.

Drugs, he said, "are illegal because they quickly and totally — with many of the drugs — destroy people's lives."

Was marijuana the exception he had in mind? We never got to ask. But perhaps that was enough eyebrow-raising for one day.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/15/pol-milewski-harper-war-on-drugs.html

Very interesting comment from someone with both a history of anti-drug reform policies and a close connection to the US...
 
Truman also thought the war against Japan wasn't working. So he escalated it with nukes.

(actually this is beside the point, but I think Truman dropped the nukes to show off to the Soviets)
 
Its definately a shocker to hear him say it, but harpers dream is to be oboma's lap dog , he cares very little about rights, or about the people, hes all USA and big buisness so even in the unlikely event he personally woke the hell up and started thinking logically, he'd still have to ask his master from the south for permission.
 
Truman also thought the war against Japan wasn't working. So he escalated it with nukes.

(actually this is beside the point, but I think Truman dropped the nukes to show off to the Soviets)
Click to expand...

IMO Truman dropped the nukes because generals were telling him that the projected casualties for a full scale invasion would be in the millions for soldiers and civilians.

I do agree with you though, perhaps what mister prime minister is saying is that perhaps they should escalate the war on drugs? Nuke poppy fields, napalm them? Who knows with these people.
 
Freddy47, your opinion is very factual. It would be foolish to think that the dropping of a nuke was the sole responsibility of one individual.
 
freddy47 said:
IMO Truman dropped the nukes because generals were telling him that the projected casualties for a full scale invasion would be in the millions for soldiers and civilians.

I do agree with you though, perhaps what mister prime minister is saying is that perhaps they should escalate the war on drugs? Nuke poppy fields, napalm them? Who knows with these people.
Click to expand...

Call me stupid but I honestly think Truman didn't having a clear understanding of the consequences of the ensuing and lingering radioactive fallout generated from dropping at least Little Boy and perhaps Fat Man as well at the time the decision was made to use them.

Also, in relation to Harper's meaning of what he said - the way you put it is a scary but believable notion considering his political views and conservative affiliation.
 
Freddy47, your opinion is very factual. It would be foolish to think that the dropping of a nuke was the sole responsibility of one individual.
Click to expand...

It was ultimately his decision but his decision was influenced by many people IMO.

Call me stupid but I honestly think Truman didn't having a clear understanding of the consequences of the ensuing and lingering radioactive fallout generated from dropping at least Little Boy and perhaps Fat Man as well at the time the decision was made to use them.
Click to expand...

No one at the time really did actually, even physicists at the time didn't fully comprehend the Atom bomb completely. Some thought the atom bomb would ignite the atmosphere of Earth and destroy all life for example. George C. Marshall chief of staff for the army for Roosevelt and Truman while planning for the invasion of Japan (what is known as Operation Downfall) proposed the idea of dropping a couple nukes on the invasion beaches and then landing marines.

Not knowing that the radiation would have killed more of their men than the Japanese. In the end Truman did what he thought he had to do. Was it right? IMO no. But I am speaking over 70 years after that decision was made. I can't possibly judge Truman and his decision. He was facing sending millions of American troops to fight an enemy that had proven time and again to be fanatical to the point of suicide. People thought at the time that Japan would have had to be destroyed more utterly than Germany was. And Germany was turned into a smoking rubble before VE day.

Ultimately I personally think although the dropping of the nukes was and is morally reprehensible, those nukes probably saved more lives than they ended. Sad but true. War, especially total war is brutal arithmetic. If killing a couple hundred thousand people saves a couple million than that is what you have to do.

Also, in relation to Harper's meaning of what he said - the way you put it is a scary but believable notion considering his political views and conservative affiliation.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It is scary sometimes how crazy some politicians are. Something isn't working? War isn't being won? Throw more money at the problem. Fucking wankers the lot of them.
 
freddy47 said:
George C. Marshall chief of staff for the army for Roosevelt and Truman while planning for the invasion of Japan (what is known as Operation Downfall) proposed the idea of dropping a couple nukes on the invasion beaches and then landing marines.

Not knowing that the radiation would have killed more of their men than the Japanese.
Click to expand...

I apologize if I offend anyone but that made me spit out my drink through my nose. Can you imagine what an awkward topic WW2 history (at least the bombing of Japan) would be? LOL

"Good job Curious George - all those American lives we wanted to save still didn't survive. Expect to be stationed in Anchorage, Alaska for the rest of your life."
 
Last edited:
Finally, a Prime Minister of a prominent developed Western nation has gone on record claiming the war on drugs is not working. Maybe the U.S. can learn a few things from our northern neighbors.
 
Harper is a tool. Canada's drug policy isn't changing because the U.S. will threaten us with economic sanctions, just like they did with Mexico when their President was about to legalize pot during the George W. Bush administration. The UN conventions on drugs and the worldwide war on drugs all comes from the United States. The UN budget is 29% American, and the U.S. drafted the UN charter. The UN is a staging ground for the policies of the U.S., and they bandwagon via special favours to other western countries to get them to sign this shit into law.

Drug laws around the world will not change until the U.S. starts the process, which is why it's the most difficult to challenge drug laws in the United States out of anywhere.

As for Harper... he's a social conservative and a neo-liberal trying to masquerade on the world stage as a moderate. He's an expert at saving face, but here in Canada he is doing more damage to our country's social and economic fabric than any Prime Minister has done in the past 50 years. He's part of the globalist agenda to reduce public power and privatize, while exporting cheap labor to other countries, and take public money into private hands.

The war on drugs benefits him just as much as any of the plutocrats.
 
^^ That.

Legalize drugs tomorrow? I would expect the U.S. to close its borders/embassies with us, recall all diplomats, expel ours, end trade agreements, freeze all our assets and eventually - after observing a mass exodus of strung out American freedom fighters - annex our parliament. Done, done and done, eh!?

Oh, and the NHL would be changed to National Hackey League.
 
This is very odd coming from that knuckle dragger. He can give any US tough on drugs politician a run for their money. Now if only Cannabis would be decriminalized here like it might have been had the liberals stayed in power.

There is no way stevie the Führer will ever give into science and think about drug decriminalization though. No advancement in that direction or any other socially liberal policy can be made with the conservatives in power. With his quasi-dictatorship in place he can basically do anything he wants.

Foreigner said:
As for Harper... he's a social conservative and a neo-liberal trying to masquerade on the world stage as a moderate. He's an expert at saving face, but here in Canada he is doing more damage to our country's social and economic fabric than any Prime Minister has done in the past 50 years. He's part of the globalist agenda to reduce public power and privatize, while exporting cheap labor to other countries, and take public money into private hands.
Click to expand...

Harper is not a neo-liberal at all in my opinion if anything he is alot more like the neo-conservatives in the US. I wouldn't doubt but Harper may try and privatize the prison system here if he can at all so he can turn the "justice system" into a cash crop like in the US. After the new tough on crime bill passed there is bound to be alot more prisoners unless the judges try and ignore the dumb laws.

I am very glad to come from the only province that he never got a seat in =D . Fuck Harper right off :p . As i am communist his type seems the most repulsive to me as he stands for much of what is wrong in our current society.
 
Last edited:
paranoid android said:
Harper is not a neo-liberal at all in my opinion if anything he is alot more like the neo-conservatives in the US. I wouldn't doubt but Harper may try and privatize the prison system here if he can at all so he can turn the "justice system" into a cash crop like in the US. After the new tough on crime bill passed there is bound to be alot more prisoners unless the judges try and ignore the dumb laws.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think the terms I used are creating some confusion. Neo-liberals tend to be pro-industry and pro-globalization. They are the ones behind treaties like NAFTA, that allow goods to move more easily and cheaply, along with business, but not human beings. Labour gets outsourced to more impoverished countries, etc. At the same time, they deplete public resources by paying off the government or mixing government with business, and have the public sector privatized. A "liberal" is more socialist and tends to be more about social spending and the public sector expanding. A neo-liberal is about placing things like public health, education, and safety, into private hands. Their foreign policy tends to be about allowing unlimited access for businesses.

Similarly, a neo-con is one with hardcore traditional social values, but is still usually an economic globalist. They just focus their globalism and privatization on different things, like the prison system as a means to enforcing moral hierarchy. A classical conservative is in favour of smaller government, restrained fiscal responsibility, and, in some cases, traditional social structures. However, a classical conservative is moderate compared to modern neo-cons. Neo-cons tend to be social extremists and their foreign policy is hawkish, even pro-war.

Both neo-cons and neo-liberals are anti-sovereignists who routinely degrade the powers of individual nations and governments, in favour of globalism. Their focuses are just different.

When applying this... you could say that someone is, socially a liberal, but economically a neo-liberal, for example.
 
It is indeed strange to hear Harper admit such a thing, I guess he got handed a faceful of revelations at this conference.

As for Harper... he's a social conservative and a neo-liberal trying to masquerade on the world stage as a moderate. He's an expert at saving face, but here in Canada he is doing more damage to our country's social and economic fabric than any Prime Minister has done in the past 50 years. He's part of the globalist agenda to reduce public power and privatize, while exporting cheap labor to other countries, and take public money into private hands.
Click to expand...

Masquerading and doing damage is not what Harper is doing. I didn't even vote for him but I admire his leadership qualities. He sticks to his guns but is willing to consider all the facts and that's what, as international ambassador for this country, he is expected to do. Here is a man who is trying to forge a cohesive national identity by promoting moral standards and he does more than he talks which is fucking astounding if you've actually paid attention to the people who have been running this country for the past 50 years.

As for doing more damage... well that's just bullshit. In a time of international austerity the standard of living in this country hasn't fallen and if you've opened up a newspaper at any time since the Conservatives took power you would have seen any number of articles about Harper at yet another economic summit trying to grow stronger ties with X,Y,Z regional power and keep step with Obama who is working at a furious rate to try and prop up the GDP of a nation saddled under debt. I really don't know how you would quantify a good standard of living but peace and stability is pretty high up on my list and in this multicultured quagmire of Liberal and Conservative emotions, where it's hard to tell up from down because there are so many voices screaming, I feel a little bit better about the direction our country is headed in because we have someone with his head fully screwed on at the helm.
 
Harper has nothing to do with why Canada is not nearly as bad off as the US or many other countries. We just happened to have in place more regulations on the financial sector then the US did. This in fact conflicts with the ideology of people like Harper who want much less government regulation on the private sector and to also turn much of the public sector into private hands. Of course he could not really do this in this country without getting hung so he can't.

He is the only prime minister in my lifetime that has actually made me seriously think that forming a republic and breaking away from Canada would be a good idea the way things are headed. Of course the idiot nationalists in this province just want to put our own in the same positions of power that the federal government has which of course would solve nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top