Origins Of Pot Legalization Part 2

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, member of the Mont Pelerin Society, in the May 1972 issue of Newsweek: “We cannot end the drug traffic .. .. The individual addict would clearly be better off if drugs were legal.” In his 1983 book Tyranny of the Status Quo: “The tide is turning away from the doctrine of social responsibility. … Legalizing drugs might increase the number of addicts … [but] whatever happens to the total number of addicts and the possible increase of that number the individual would clearly be far better off if drugs were legal …. Our belief that it is desirable to legalize marijuana and all other drugs does not depend on whether marijuana or other drugs are harmful or harmless.”

Elliot Richardson

Elliot Richardson, former U.S. Attorney General, for the Inter-American Dialogue, April 28, 1988: “We must be willing to face the facts. If the cost of trying to stop drugs outweighs the benefits at some point, it no longer becomes realistic to continue trying.”

The London Economist, June 1989: “It is obvious … that drug dealers use banks …. The business … has become part of the financial system .. .. If you had morals or ethics in this business, you would not be in it.”

George Shultz

George Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state, Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford since 1989 Oct. 7, 1991: ”The time has come to make it possible for addicts to buy drugs at some regulated place at a price that approximates cost. … We need at least to consider and examine forms of controlled legalization of drugs.”

William F. Buckley, Jr.

William F. Buckley, Jr., in a speech to the Bar Association of the City of New York, summer 1995, reprinted in National Review, Feb. 12, 1996: “A conservative should evaluate the practicality of a legal constriction, as for instance in those states whose statute books continue to outlaw sodomy, which interdiction is unenforceable, making the law nothing more than print on paper. I came to the conclusion that the so-called war against drugs was not working, that it would not work absent a change in the structure of the civil rights to which we are accustomed and to which we cling as a valuable part of our patrimony. And that therefore . . . we should look into what effects the war has, a canvass of the casualties consequent on its failure to work. That consideration encouraged me to weigh utilitarian principles: the Benthamite calculus of pain and pleasure introduced by the illegalization of drugs. … It is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors.”

Buckley was a leading advocate of drug legalization for decades. He was a founding member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the Playboy Foundation-bankrolled U.S. dope lobby in the 1970s which was staffed by hippies and counterculture anarchists who also ran High Times magazine, the trade journal of the drug-paraphernalia industry. In a late-1970s syndicated column, Buckley had thumbed his nose at U.S. law enforcement, boasting about smoking pot on his yacht, just outside U.S. territorial waters.

Jorge Ochoa

Jorge Ochoa, jailed capo of the Medellin Cartel, to Colombian journalists, in February 1995: “It’s a world problem. Legalize it the way they did with alcohol.” Ochoa said that when he gets out of prison, he will campaign for legalization.

Dr. Norman Zinberg

Dr. Norman Zinberg, founder, Drug Policy Foundation: “Look how prosperous Colombia has become based on the drug trade, in contrast to Argentina and Brazil, where no one sees any alternatives. The economic argument is the strongest one favoring legalization.”

George Soros

George Soros is the visible side of a vast and nasty secret network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe, centered in the British House of Windsor. This network, called by its members the Club of the Isles, was built upon the wreckage of the British Empire after World War II. Rather than use the powers of the state to achieve their geopolitical goals, a secret cross-linked holding of private financial interests, tied to the old aristocratic oligarchy of western Europe, was developed. It was in many ways modelled on the 17th-century British and Dutch East India Companies. The heart of this Club of the Isles is the financial center of the old British Empire, the City of London. Soros is one of what in medieval days were called Hofjuden, the “Court Jews,” who were deployed by the aristocratic families. The most important of such “Jews who are not Jews,” are the Rothschilds, who launched Soros’s career. They are members of the Club of the Isles and retainers of the British royal family. This has been true since Amschel Rothschild sold the British Hessian troops to fight against George Washington during the American Revolution.

Soros is American only in his passport. He is a global financial operator, who happens to be in New York, simply because “that’s where the money is,” as the bank robber Willy Sutton once quipped, when asked why he always robbed banks. Soros speculates in world financial markets through his offshore company, Quantum Fund NY, a private investment fund, or hedge fund.” His hedge fund reportedly manages some $11-14 billion of funds on behalf of its clients, or investors, one of the most prominent of whom is, according to Soros, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, the wealthiest person in Europe. The Quantum Fund is registered in the tax haven of the Netherlands Antilles, in the Caribbean. This is to avoid paying taxes, as well as to hide the true nature of his investors and what he does with their money.

Soros established the Lindesmith Center at his Open Society Institute and the Drug Policy Foundation in 1992-94, spending a reported $500,000 in doing so. Over the following three years, 1994-97, he both gave directly, and mobilized matching funds, up to the level of $10.5 million to fund these institutions, and one of their offshoots, the Marijuana Policy Project, which promotes the legalization of marijuana, “medicinal” and recreational.
In 2000, Soros merged these two groups to create the Drug Policy alliance. Through this structure, including the Open Society Institute, Soros also funds a plethora of other pro-drug legalization outfits, including NORML (National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws), and many others less obvious, like the Transnational Institute. These institutions also lobby with state legislatures and the Federal government, pushing to change drug laws in the direction of legalization. There are a multitude of affiliated organizations and websites that get Soros’s money for marijuana legalization, including High Times and Grow magazines, stopthedrugwar.org, drugsanddemocracy.com, and Americans for Safe Access, to name a few.

Ballot Initiatives
Both through his organizations and individually, Soros has been the leading funder, and sometimes the only funder, of the dozens of ballot referenda in the United States over the past 25 years, all aimed at legalizing narcotic drugs. Rather than reflecting the “will of the people,” these initiatives reflect the passion of Soros and his crowd of drug legalizers to promote drug use. Soros is said to have spent $30 million on drug initiatives between 1993 and 1999, according to a 1999 report, “The Long Strange Trip of George Soros,” published in The Nation. But that is merely the tip of the iceberg. Some examples of his “work” follow:
1996: Soros personally poured $550,000 into promotion of a California referendum for the so-called medical use of marijuana, a favorite pathway toward legalization. On top of that, his Drug Policy Foundation is documented to have spent $200,000 for the referendum, which passed. The same year, Soros directly spent $440,000 for passage of Arizona’s proposition 200, which called for decriminalizing marijuana, and automatic parole for drug offenders.
2000: Soros spurred a Nevada referendum for legalizing retail distribution of drugs.
2004: That year, there were 17 dope-related initiatives on state ballots, primarily throughout the western states. Assuming a modest level of support, say $500,000 for each referendum, means that Soros and friends spent $8.5 million in that election cycle.
2008: Soros is documented to have spent heavily in California, Michigan, and Massachusetts for pro-drug legalization referenda, which passed in Michigan and Massachusetts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s