xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)





The erroneous drug abuse Table from Nationmaster

Where it claims the drug abuse rate in German is 250,969 per 100k (which is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE because this 2 and a half TIMES as many cases of drug abuse than there are people, and 500 TIMES as high as us), the actual figure from the UN is 200 (one THOUSANDTH of the Nationmaster figure and HALF of us).

Nationmaster versus UN:

Canada 92,590 vs. 202
South Africa 53,810 vs. 104
Switzerland 49,210 vs. 490
Belgium 40,856 vs. 408
Sweden 38,005 vs. 380
Italy 37,965 vs. 55
Poland 36,178 vs. 36
Japan 26,477 vs. 26
New Zealand 23,747 vs. 566k
Mexico 23,588 vs. 23
Austria 22,422 vs. 68
Morocco 17,064 vs. 50
Argentina 15,508 vs 15
Finland 13,857 vs. 181
Netherlands 12,683 vs. 22
Croatia 10,819 vs. 10
Slovenia 5,583 vs. 5
Belarus 5,303 vs. 5
Hungary 4,786 vs. 5
Peru 4,359 vs. 5
Bolivia 3,989 vs. 4
Czech Republic 3,860 vs. 30
Portugal 3,758 vs. 36
Burma 2,867 vs.
Moldova 2,481 vs. 2.4
Azerbaijan 2,190 vs. 21
Panama 1,484 vs. 40
Luxembourg 1,321 vs. 244
Romania 1,291 vs 1
Slovakia 1,119 vs. 1
Costa Rica 1,099 vs. 28
Denmark 1,053 vs. 15
Iceland 994 vs. 260
Norway 987 vs. 987
Lithuania 937 vs. 2
Uruguay 857 vs. 1
Tunisia 815 vs. 3
Latvia 629 vs. 3
United States 560 vs. 560 in 1997, tripled since then
Cyprus 436 vs. 20
Thailand 429 vs. 428



Chris M

"+Chr1st1an Israel Cite the 'back room penalties'. Cite the 'china has a bigger problem than us.'

The death penalty is inhumane. It has killed whilst failing to deliver on its promise. Exhibiti A:


Point blank - if you agree with this view, you agree with the killing of people. The killing with people. I have no choice but to conclude that you derive pleasure from seeing these people killed.

Christian Israel MY ASS. You're a hateful shit. Go ahead and attack me for calling you that. Doesn't make it any less true. "

Executing criminals is not "killing people", and it is not inhumane: to the 95.5% of Americans who CLAIM to follow Jesus, it's our DUTY.

What IS inhumane?

1) Putting more than 3,000 men on death row for decades, hauling them back and forth to court and psychiatrists, while the relatives of 1.2 MILLION murder victims, JUST in the last 60 years, JUST in the US, JUST by Blacks, never get *JUSTICE*.

2) Establishing a drug policy which is so confusing that half the population thinks pot is "legal" when all it does is create a criminal file that never goes away and which caused a TEN FOLD increase in the incarceration rate of American men, making us ONE THIRD of the world prison population and TWO THIRDS of the world's prosecutions.

3) Of course our war on drugs did not work and in fact dramatically increased drug abuse and prison populations. Imagine if we had public executions in the most inhumane way of the 1,000 most egregious drug dealers?

After decades of China having a serious drug problem, that's the only thing that worked in China.

See pg. 47 of the following document, which shows our drug abuse rate back in 1997 to be 583 per 100,000 population, compared to less than 4 in China:

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/5678svr.pdf  or here!

Why is it that our most recent drug abuse data has not been reported to the UN? Because we're to embarrassed to admit that SIINCE war on drugs began, it quadrupled to 2,332 per 100,000--a rate 777 TIMES greater than China's average of 3.0 per 100,000?

Does that make more sense?








"Legalizing" Marijuana Increased the Incarceration Rate in California TEN FOLD, from 48 to 480 inmates per 100,000 Population












1 United StatesUnited States 51.6% 2010
2 CanadaCanada 44.5% 2005
3 New ZealandNew Zealand 41.9% 2004
4 DenmarkDenmark 36.5% 2005
5 AustraliaAustralia 33.5% 2007
6 FranceFrance 30.6% 2005
=7 WalesWales 29.8% 2005
=7 EnglandEngland 29.8% 2005
9 United KingdomUnited Kingdom 29.6% 2004
10 ItalyItaly 29.3% 2005
11 SpainSpain 28.6% 2005
12 ChileChile 26% 2009
13 GermanyGermany 24.5% 2003
14 NetherlandsNetherlands 22.6% 2005
15 GhanaGhana 21.5% 2007
16 Czech RepublicCzech Republic 20.6% 2004
17 ScotlandScotland 20.5% 2004
18 AustriaAustria 20.1% 2004
19 IrelandIreland 17.4% 2002
20 Northern IrelandN. Ireland 16.8% 2002
21 NorwayNorway 16.2% 2004
22 SlovakiaSlovakia 15.6% 2004
=23 FinlandFinland 12.9% 2004
=23 LuxembourgLuxembourg 12.9% 1998
25 SwedenSweden 12% 2006
26 IsraelIsrael 11.5% 2002
27 ColombiaColombia 10.8% 2003
28 LatviaLatvia 10.6% 2003
29 BelgiumBelgium 10.4% 2004
30 PeruPeru 10.3% 2003
31 HungaryHungary 9.8% 2003
32 GreeceGreece 8.9% 2004
33 South AfricaSouth Africa 8.4% 2003
=34 NepalNepal 7.8% 2001
=34 MexicoMexico 7.8% 2001
36 PolandPoland 7.7% 2002
=37 LithuaniaLithuania 7.6% 2004
=37 PortugalPortugal 7.6% 2001
39 RomaniaRomania 7.4% 2008
40 CyprusCyprus 6.6% 2006
41 LebanonLebanon 4.6% 2002
42 BulgariaBulgaria 4.4% 2005
43 MaltaMalta 3.5% 2001
44 NigeriaNigeria 2.7% 2002
45 JapanJapan 1.5% 2002
46 ChinaChina 0.3% 2002


This author has made every attempt to correct the obvious and serious errors in the following otherwise excellent graph:


Certainly it's not true that the drug abuse rate in Germany is 250,969 per 100,000 Germans, as this would mean that for each one German, there are 2.5 drug abusers. What is CLEAR here is that the European notation where the separator for data is a comma rather than a period was not understood by the authors, and thus this figure SHOULD have been 250.969 per 100,000 Germans, or about 0.25% of Germans (or actually, of all those living in Germany, which includes 50,000 US troops and 8 million Turkish workers).

Germans themselves hate drug users, abusers, and dealers, so it's not likely that many of the 200,000 drug abusers there are Germans.

Conversely the rate in the US of 560 per 100k is one of the highest in the world, 145 times higher than China, Turkey, and Indonesia. We should note that after this correction, countries like Portugal, Panama, Denmark, Costa Rica, and Uruguay actually have one fourth as many drug abusers as China or Turkey.

IIt's "ironic" that Colombia, who DOES appear in the original study, does not appear on this graph. Why is that important? Colombia, who supposedly supplies many of our "recreational drugs" [as claimed by drug addicts], has a drug abuse rate ONE TWENTIETH of ours (26 vs. 580). It's also "ironic" that India and China, where almost half the world's population lives, has a drug abuse rate ONE FIVE HUNDREDTH of ours, or that at the height of Terrible Sadam Hussein's reign in Iraq, we had a drug abuse rate 29 THOUSAND times higher than Iraq (580 vs. 0.02).


1 GermanyGermany 250,969 per 100,000 people 2000
2 United KingdomUnited Kingdom 183,419 per 100,000 people 2000
3 CanadaCanada 92,590 per 100,000 people 2000
Group of 7 countries (G7) averageGroup of 7 countries (G7) average (profile) 84,593.74 per 100,000 people 2000
4 South AfricaSouth Africa 53,810 per 100,000 people 2000
5 SwitzerlandSwitzerland 49,201 per 100,000 people 2000
6 BelgiumBelgium 40,856 per 100,000 people 2000
7 SwedenSweden 38,005 per 100,000 people 2000
8 ItalyItaly 37,965 per 100,000 people 2000
9 PolandPoland 36,178 per 100,000 people 2000
High income OECD countries averageHigh income OECD countries average (profile) 30,298.77 per 100,000 people 2000
NATO countries averageNATO average (profile) 27,691.56 per 100,000 people 2000
10 JapanJapan 26,477 per 100,000 people 2000
European Union averageEuropean Union average (profile) 25,873.63 per 100,000 people 2000
11 New ZealandNew Zealand 23,747 per 100,000 people 2000
12 MexicoMexico 23,588 per 100,000 people 2000
Eurozone averageEurozone average (profile) 23,080.38 per 100,000 people 2000
13 AustriaAustria 22,422 per 100,000 people 2000
Non-religious countries averageNon-religious countries average (profile) 18,040.51 per 100,000 people 2000
14 MoroccoMorocco 17,064 per 100,000 people 2000
15 ArgentinaArgentina 15,508 per 100,000 people 2000
16 FinlandFinland 13,857 per 100,000 people 2000
17 NetherlandsNetherlands 12,683 per 100,000 people 2000
18 CroatiaCroatia 10,819 per 100,000 people 2000
19 SloveniaSlovenia 5,583 per 100,000 people 2000
20 BelarusBelarus 5,303 per 100,000 people 2000
21 HungaryHungary 4,786 per 100,000 people 2000
22 PeruPeru 4,359 per 100,000 people 2000
23 BoliviaBolivia 3,938 per 100,000 people 2000
24 Czech RepublicCzech Republic 3,860 per 100,000 people 2000
25 PortugalPortugal 3,758 per 100,000 people 2000
26 BurmaBurma 2,867 per 100,000 people 2000
27 MoldovaMoldova 2,481 per 100,000 people 2000
28 AzerbaijanAzerbaijan 2,190 per 100,000 people 2000
29 PanamaPanama 1,484 per 100,000 people 2000
30 LuxembourgLuxembourg 1,321 per 100,000 people 2000
31 RomaniaRomania 1,291 per 100,000 people 2000
32 SlovakiaSlovakia 1,119 per 100,000 people 2000
33 Costa RicaCosta Rica 1,099 per 100,000 people 2000
34 DenmarkDenmark 1,053 per 100,000 people 2000
35 IcelandIceland 994 per 100,000 people 2000
36 NorwayNorway 987.1 per 100,000 people 2000
37 LithuaniaLithuania 937 per 100,000 people 2000
38 UruguayUruguay 857 per 100,000 people 2000
39 TunisiaTunisia 815 per 100,000 people 2000
40 LatviaLatvia 629 per 100,000 people 2000
41 United StatesUnited States 560.1 per 100,000 people 2000
42 CyprusCyprus 436 per 100,000 people 2000
43 ThailandThailand 428.9 per 100,000 people 2000
44 MaltaMalta 341 per 100,000 people 2000
45 ChileChile 324 per 100,000 people 2000
46 MaldivesMaldives 293 per 100,000 people 2000
47 AlbaniaAlbania 250 per 100,000 people 2000
48 OmanOman 247 per 100,000 people 2000
49 NepalNepal 201 per 100,000 people 2000
50 IrelandIreland 190.2 per 100,000 people 2000
51 FranceFrance 176.1 per 100,000 people 2000
52 MalaysiaMalaysia 48.6 per 100,000 people 2000
53 SingaporeSingapore 46.8 per 100,000 people 2000
54 Hong KongHong Kong 34 per 100,000 people 2000
55 GreeceGreece 33.3 per 100,000 people 2000
56 SpainSpain 27.9 per 100,000 people 2000
57 South KoreaSouth Korea 9.9 per 100,000 people 2000
58 TurkeyTurkey 4.6 per 100,000 people 2000
59 ChinaChina 3.9 per 100,000 people 2000
60 IndonesiaIndonesia 3.4 per 100,000 people 2000





In the same timeframe, property  crime increased three fold, from 1,726 per 100,000 population to 5,139, the murder rate doubled from 5.1 to 10.2, the rape rate [reportedly] increased five fold from 9.6 to 42.8, robbery increased four fold from 60 to 268, assault increased five fold from 86 to 442, burglary increased three fold from 508 to 1,513, larceny increased three fold from 1,034 to 3,228,and vehicle theft three fold from 183 to 659.


California's Double Edged Sword



On July 9, 1975, Governor Brown signed

Senate Bill No. 95, and California joined the

growing ranks of states' which have dramatically

reduced the penalties for possession and

use of small quantities of marijuana. Eleven

weeks later, on September 26, 1975, the

Governor signed Senate Bill No. 268, providing

for a mandatory sentence of five years to

life imprisonment for anyone convicted of

selling or offering to sell more than one-half

ounce of a substance containing heroin, and

California became one of the few states2

which have disinterred harsh mandatory

sentences as a means of controlling drug

traffic. Thus, California drug laws now reach

to two extremes on the spectrum of punishment,

depending upon the drug: possessing or

[Oregon was the first state to reduce the penalty for

possession of a small quantity (less than I oz.) of

marijuana to a fine in 1973. During the past year, similar

legislation was enacted in Alaska, Colorado, Maine and


2Cf McKinney's Consol. Laws of N.Y. Penal Law

�220 ff.

transporting less than one ounce of marijuana

is punishable by a maximum of a $100 fine;

selling more than one-half ounce of a

substance containing heroin is punishable by

a mandatory prison sentence of five years to

life. Both new laws took effect on January 1,

1976, and are certain to have a dramatic

impact upon future operations in every aspect

of the California criminal justice system. The

purpose of this article is to assess the impact of

these new laws and identify some of the

problems that they will create for judges,

prosecutors and defense attorneys who will be

struggling with their application.



African American men are dramatically more likely to be imprisoned than are other groups.
Just more than half of California�s adult male population is nonwhite or Latino (56%), but these groups make up three of every four men in prison: Latinos are 41%, African Americans are 29%, and other races are 6%. Among adult men in 2010, African Americans were incarcerated at a rate of 5,525 per 100,000, compared to 1,146 for Latinos, 671 for non-Latino whites, and 43 for Asians.


How Dangerous Are Illicit Drugs?


The CDC reports that 1.6% of the 2,215,000 decedents in 1993 had used marijuana in the last year of their life, 0.8% had used cocaine, 0.4% had used heroin, 0.2% had used hallucinogens, and 84.6% had used psychotherapeutic drugs.  But it also reports that 4.7% of the US population over the age of 12 had used marijuana in the last month, 0.7% had used cocaine, 0.1% had used heroin, 0.4% had  used hallucinogens, and 1.8% had used psychotherapeutic drugs.   Thus, compared to the average person, the death rate for marijuana users is one third, for cocaine users is equal, for heroin users is four times higher, for hallucinogen users is one half, and for psychotherapeutic drug users is 47 times higher.  It would be expected that the psychotherapeutic drugs which reduce pain and increase life expectancy would be used by a high percentage of these decedants, so this point will not be addressed in this analysis.  The fact that marijuana users have a death rate which is one third of the average could be explained completely by the fact that people who are close to death tend not to use marijuana, rather than that marijuana users have a longer life expectancy.  This could also explain why the death rate for hallucinogen users is one half the average.  The ratio for cocaine users is too close to be able to suggest that cocaine use influences the death rate one way or the other.

The only statistic that suggests that drug use shortens life expectancy is the one for heroin, where deaths of heroin users are 4 times higher than average.  Where their ratio in the population suggest that only 0.1% of the 2,215,000 decedents or 2,215 of them should have been heroin users, there were actually 10,000.

Is this because the use of heroin caused the deaths of 7,785 heroin users, or are there other factors involved?  Heroin is a synthesized version of morphine, both of which are powerful pain killers.  550,000 Americans die of cancer every year, which is a very painful death.  If only 1.5% of them use heroin as a pain killer, this would completely explain the higher death rate of those who use heroin, which would mean that not even heroin addiction is a factor in increased mortality rates.

  Percent of Population over 12 years old using illicit drugs in prior month Percent of decedents who had used specific drugs in the last year of their life Odds Ratio
Marijuana 4.7 1.6 .34
Cocaine 0.7 0.8 1.14
Heroin 0.1 0.4 4
Hallucinogen 0.4 0.2 .5
Psychotherapeutic 1.8 84.6 47
bulletPage fourteen of the following report shows that 4.9% of Americans use illicit drugs, and 1.2% use an illicit drug other than marijuana http://www.samhsa.gov and http://www.DrugAbuseStatistics.SAMHSA.gov
bulletIllicit drug users were only 3% of all deaths in 1993 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nmfs/use.htm   

Does the drug war reduce drug overdose deaths?   Would there have been 20,000 heroin deaths rather than only 10,000 without it? Did the drug war save 10,000 lives from heroin overdoses?  The experience of other countries which decriminalized all drugs shows just the opposite to be true:  both drug abuse and drug overdose deaths decreased remarkably after their drug wars ended. But even if you still believe that this drug war does save 10,000 lives per year, how can we justify the expenditure of $155 billion per year, or $15.5 million per life saved?   We can't, not when cancer research is only $200 per life lost to cancer.  That amount of money applied to cancer research would probably cut the cancer death rate by 90% and save 495,000 lives per year, or 50 times as many lives as the most liberal claim about the success of the drug war.

Let's agree with "liberals" that the major drug pushers and biggest suppliers of drug money belong in either prison or "treatment". Now, who would that be? The federal government? Well, yes. It's estimated that half of welfare payments (something in the range of $200 billion per year) are used to buy drugs and alcohol. Most Americans are in 100% agreement that those operating such a system belong either in prison or "treatment programs" operated by the loony bins that pass as "psychiatrists" these days.

There are now 6 million teen aged boys on the most dangerous psychotropic drug known to man, and that's Ritalin. Prescribing this drug is KNOWN to have caused hundreds of thousands of children to graduate to "illegal" drugs. Almost every one of the boys who went on a shooting rampage at their schools was on this or a similar drug. The schools, "doctors", and "psychiatrists" who forced kids onto, and who forced their parents to agree to put their kids onto, Ritalin should be shot between the temples [not Buddhist temples].

The 90 deaths from drug overdoses are trivial compared to the big folks who run our real drug operations, and this even ignores the role the CIA probably played in bringing illegal drugs into the country in the first place. You can't spend $50 billion to solve such a trivial problem, only to make the original problem twice as bad, unless that's what you wanted to do in the first place.

The police kill 7 times as many people in drug raids than die from drug overdoses in the first place. The very best argument that "liberals" could make is that drug overdose deaths might be three times higher without this government sponsored drug war. But so what? Ending the drug war would still save $50 billion per year just for the federal part of this war, plus take 700,000 drug users out of prison (which would save the equivalent of 4,794 lives and $105 billion in incarceration costs, per year).

On top of that, it's absolutely correct that those countries who've decriminalized illegal drugs not only reduced the number of drug addicts--because of quality control and participataion of doctors in the process, their drug overdose deaths are now down to zero. So if this is the "liberal"'s real concern (which of course it's not), then the solution IS decriminalization, not a continuation of the same old failed drug war. http://fathersmanifesto.net/odds.htm  

The real hidden costs of this drug war are so huge that they can't even be quantified, though. When you've got utterly stupid jewesses like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who've made it absolutely possible (and thus probable) for numerous police officers across the country to plant ONE marijuana seed in your house and confiscate all your property, with no penalty whatsoever for the police for making a mistake, all bets are off. Such a suspension of constitutional rights wouldn't be acceptable even if it caused a MILLION drug overdose deaths (which of course is a completely ridiculous scenario).

Why don't "liberals" just argue that we should ban electricity!!?? That would make more sense than creating a totalitarian state!!

And it would save FIVE TIMES as many lives as are lost to drug overdoses! It would cost far less than $155 billion per year. And it'd be far easier to enforce such a law than it is to wage a drug war against American citizens' privacy and private property.

Down side? What down side? The downside of banning electricity would be infinitesimal compared to the downside of giving the police such absolute police powers in some drug war. Who needs that toaster and that TV anyway? We've got 482 lives to save, EACH YEAR.

The "liberals"' assertion that we need the drug war in order to protect idiot drug abusers like Len Bias ignores the fact that we DO have a drug war, and Len Bias, in spite of loads of help from hundreds of people and sources, still managed to kill himself with an overdose. He's not an example of the success of the drug war--he's a great example of its FAILURE.

Who needs people like him in the first place? The more of them who die off, the quicker drug users will realize how futile that lifestyle is anyway. Having them die by the boatload would be a bigger disincentive to drug abuse than the excitement created by making drugs illegal and then challenging creative teens to find ways to beat the system. The drug war and Hollywood do such a great job of glamorizing the drug war that they actually increase the demand for illegal drugs.

That's why *all* the countries who pulled out of this drug war experienced a DECREASE in drug use and abuse. Holland decriminalized drugs, and today, the only people you see in Amsterdam Square selling drugs are Americans, and the only people you see buying drugs are Americans. Why? Because the Dutch drug addicts don't need to hang out on that stupid square buying drugs, and there are no Dutch drug pushers because there are no Dutch drug addicts to sell to.

This is a great example of how widespread are the "inintended consequences" of American policy--if it weren't for our own drug war, Americans could walk around Amsterdam without getting bombarded by American drug pushers. How many American teens would not have become drug addicts because of this?

The drug war: the gift that keeps on giving.


horizontal rule


August 7, 2001
John's Weekly Column: 8/7/2001

"Medicating problem children"

by John Rosemond

horizontal rule

write the author

As a new school year begins, there is good news and there is, well, news.

The Good News: The Connecticut state legislature, by unanimous approval, recently passed a bill making it illegal for principals, teachers,counselors, school psychologists, and other school officials to recommend to parents that their children take psychiatric medication for behavioral or learning disorders. The bill, which was signed immediately into law by Gov. John Rowland, effectively prohibits school personnel from practicing medicine without a license.

The law is the first of its kind in the nation, but as soon as the news broke, school systems across the nation began claiming it was already their policy to prohibit teachers, etc. from recommending medication for children.

That may be so, but such policies are rarely enforced. A good number of pediatricians across the USA have reported to me that school personnel in their districts not only often recommend medicating children, but also are not averse to arguing with any physician who disagrees. Unbelievable, and yet

another indication that America's adults are becoming increasingly addicted to putting problem children (the definition of which is being slowly "dumbed-down") on personality-altering medication. Kudos to Gov. Rowland and

the Connecticut legislature for setting a much-needed example for the rest of the nation.

The News: First, either the game of tag is no longer the game I played as a child or adult hysteria is reaching new heights. In Maryland, tag has been banned at West Annapolis Elementary School because it might lead to children touching one another inappropriately. Mind you now, tag will still be allowed in physical education classes, under the watchful eyes of

teachers, but not at recess, where - what? - teachers aren't watching? Once upon a time, the objective of tag was to make someone "It," not to touch someone's "it," but obviously times have changed, and now this all depends on what one's definition of "it" is.

Second, Representative Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., referencing his own bouts with clinical depression, says he wants to create a government program that will address psychological problems in pre-school children. The goal, Kennedy says, is to send to school kids who are more well-adjusted and therefore more

capable of high achievement. He's proposing that Congress approve $250 million for a nation-wide program that will underwrite such things as therapy, parent education, and home visits by mental health professionals. His father, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is reportedly going to sponsor a Senate version of the bill.

One could not disagree that psychological health affects school achievement, but Kennedy's initiative raises lots of red flags, not the least of which concerns the question of how and by whom the psychologically needy children in question will be identified. A decade of experience in community (government-provided) mental health, leads me to envision thousands of

government employees who believe they're on The Most Important Ever Mission from God beating the bushes to find preschoolers who "qualify" for their services and then filing child neglect charges against any parent who refuses to cooperate with their benevolence. This bush-beating could take the form of

mental health screenings that become part of mandatory pre-Kindergarten developmental screenings now being conducted in many states. Government employees will go to great lengths to authenticate their jobs; furthermore, a government program will not survive unless it can convince the public the problem is getting worse.

Anyone who might think this is just my anti-big-government paranoia showing through should consider that in recent years a number of USA parents of children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder have been accused of abuse and neglect for having refused to give their children stimulant medication. The state forced them to do what they did not feel was in the best interest of their kids. It is axiomatic that the more we allow the state to "help" parents raise children, the more likely it becomes that bureaucrats will come to believe they know what is best for all children, in which case coercion becomes seen as a regrettable, albeit legitimate, means of persuading parents to do what the state thinks is best.

Perhaps Connecticut will resist Kennedy's proposal.