digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

How America Lost the War on Drugs : Rolling Stone

rollingstone.com — After Thirty-Five Years and $500 Billion, Drugs Are as Cheap and Plentiful as Ever: An Anatomy of a Failure.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • nomadishere, on 12/02/2007, -0/+36'Why are we working for these guys? Why don't we just buy it from the Colombians directly and keep the profits ourselves?' :)
    • Amnesia10, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13The same applies with Heroin, buy it at source from Afghanistan, and supply it via drug treatment centres and avoid all the drug related crimes. The benefits to society would be immense. Crime would plummet, insurance rates would fall, company profits would rise, the police would have far more time to sort out that mugging, so all crimes could fall.
  • bittwist, on 12/02/2007, -3/+31Cocaine planes with links to Washington and CIA
    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84652
    Theres an emerging story about the US govs illicit smuggling routes, used for drugs, weapons, and rendition flights. Long story short, we can't deal with the Colombians directly cause our Gov is already the point-man at this end of the shipping lines. :P
    edit: this was a response to nomadishere, just jabbed the wrong button, sorry.
    • qpn6ph9q, on 12/02/2007, -4/+1That looks like some kind of spoof humor site to me? Are you sure the Irish aren't pulling the wool there?
    • hiphoc, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9Two words, IRAN CONTRA
  • hiscity, on 12/02/2007, -37/+2What a joke! Rollingstone should know better. Look at how dead all that long list of rock stars, actors, athletes and pop idols are that could get drugs freely.

    http://www.av1611.org/rockdead.html
    • spudnic, on 12/02/2007, -0/+22My list of people with access to drugs who haven't died is much longer.
      • immersofloctan, on 12/03/2007, -0/+17...not to mention the list of dead people who never used drugs at all.
    • mlfoley, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6So some fundie kooks make a list of rock stars who have died from drug use, and somehow this proves that the war on drugs is a success? What fascinating logic. Plenty of people, from rock stars to regular joes, who have done drugs are still alive. McCartney? Alive. Jagger? Alive. Tyler? Alive. All the guys from Motley Crue? Alive. And on and on and on.
    • petewiz, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4"Look at how dead all that long list of rock stars actors, athletes and pop idols are that could get drugs freely"
      If I was some type of magical grammar-doctor, I would recommend that this sentence be aborted. Please try to have some grasp of the language that you are trying to spout off your illogical ***** in. And what was that list supposed to prove? Even if this was an accurate source (not even close), heart attack still rated higher than drug overdose. By your (lack of) logic, shouldn't you be more worried about people eating McDonald's and all of that fast-food junk?
      PLEASE DO SOME GODDAMN RESEARCH!
  • manicallday, on 12/02/2007, -3/+19This was a long ass article. I really didn't think that the problem was that complicated. To save everyone the time just read the last two paragraphs. It pretty much sums everything up nicely.
    • kindrobot, on 12/02/2007, -4/+3So what bothered you the most, all the "extra" words or the lack of commercial breaks?
      • manicallday, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2No. It was the time spent away from watching your mom on youporn.
    • expatcatalyst, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Thanks! Saved a lot of time. As a former drug enforcement (Early 80's Miami), I felt the same way as the now private consultant when it was all done and said.
  • rootguy420, on 12/02/2007, -2/+56Hmmm...starting an unwinnable war in the first place? Why does our country have seem to have an obsession with this for the last, oh, 40 ***** YEARS OF LOSING WARS!!!
    • Lynxplus, on 12/02/2007, -0/+19Because it's a blackhole for our money.
    • mal1964, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2We usually go with good intentions, But war is hard, then it gets harder. Then it changes and gets confusing. I'm glad I don't make those decisions, I just support the troops they're are getting ***** on by everyone while doing a job that the people ***** on them cant do.
      • rdoger6424, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3http://xkcd.com/349/ would describe that
      • neozeed, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I hope you stopped driving a car, lessining your need for oil to support our troops.
        If you still drive any vehicle, then STFU please, ok?
        • mal1964, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I actually own land in baker Montana and on it is a oil well that I share with three other members of my family. Also the way I support the troops is my choosing and not driving my car is not one of them, so no not OK, OK
    • ScottoGato, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4It basically creates jobs for law enforcement and makes their jobs easier. Along with the money that is funneled to the high-tech equipment that these law enforcement officers need.
      You will have the law enforcement officers saying that we need this to keep the "bad guys" off of the street.
      It makes the regular street cops lives' easier by being able to charge someone for drug possession or paraphernalia because they can't prove something else.
      You will also have the high-tech equipment manufacturers fighting to keep the "War on Drugs" going so they can continue making money.
  • brentinkc, on 12/02/2007, -1/+19Sweet land of liberty...
    • tunapez, on 12/02/2007, -3/+28Of thee I sing...
      Land where my fathers spied.
      Land of the Corporate Pride.
      From every cash register's side, let War bombs ring.
  • Goodbyeworld, on 12/02/2007, -0/+40the drug war is a dangerous addiction
  • duggtodeath, on 12/02/2007, -1/+56We are addicted to war.
    • mal1964, on 12/03/2007, -10/+1Yes unfortunately at times its a necessary evil, and even tho we hate most reasons why we do it. Because of war we can sit at our computer and give a opinion on it anytime we want.
      • capiCrimm, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Just like you can't live without eating. However, you also shouldn't be so fat that they can't move you without a crane.
        • mal1964, on 12/03/2007, -4/+1The best part is you don't even have to know that people died so you can make that comment.
      • duggtodeath, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3mal, If only you understood that was is not a necessity. People start it for gains that to no benefit the people. Anytime someone wants to start some mess, you can be guaranteed that they want something. And whatever that is, you aren't getting any.
    • cakerun, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3We should start a War on war. People will support it.

      That really only being based on the fact that SOME people actually support Bush.

      And that this exists:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ
  • thebellmaster1x, on 12/02/2007, -1/+59You know, guys... Dennis Kucinich would end the War on Drugs. He said that it "benefits only the prison-industrial complex."
    (...Oh, and Ron Paul too. But I'm a Democrat, so, eh. Either way, it's the same message.)
    Please vote correctly in the primaries, whether you're doing it for the Republicans or the Democrats.

    And bonus points to the submitter for linking to the print version.
    • rootguy420, on 12/02/2007, -11/+2How exactly? The prison industrial complex is now a huge part of our economy. AND how would he get something like that past the right wing ***** in congress??? I'm all for legalization but the next president wont be able to just "end" it. Our resources are too involved in it and have been for years...It's just too damn lucrative.
    • capiCrimm, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6how about he just automatically pardons anyone caught for drug usage? That'd force a stop, and maybe get congress to compromise.
    • Shorties, on 12/03/2007, -3/+4I want A Paul-Kucinich Candidacy (But I know thats unlikely considering how poler opposites they are on issues like Gun control) I have switched republican just for paul but I love Kucinich too, the fact is though, Kucinich has no chance to win, Paul at least has a chance. (Small as it may be).
      • TH3W1R3D, on 12/03/2007, -2/+5Do you base who you would vote on only on internet and drug positions?? Kucinick and RPaul have COMPLETELY different views. Educate yourself and actually think about whats important for our country and world. This is not an insult, its something you actually need to think about.
  • mal1964, on 12/02/2007, -1/+11Supply and Demand.
    • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3Oversimplification of Issues.
      • mal1964, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7The model Ive used for over 40 years.
  • skews13, on 12/02/2007, -0/+10sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.the scary thing in this case. it was by design
  • adammharvey, on 12/02/2007, -12/+3jesus that was a huge article hell maybe even a freakin book
  • Zenas, on 12/02/2007, -0/+15One more time - the war on drugs, just like the war on terrorism is/was a huge success - for those who profited from it - the government and those who control the government.
  • kindrobot, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8The media needs to get on board in regard to the failed drug war. They've ignored it far too long. And the funny thing is, there is so much "make america cry" material in there, with families split apart, sick people sent to jail, etc. Doesn't anyone else find it odd they haven't jumped all over these stories yet? And where are the so-called Hollywood elite? Don't they hate this crap as much as we do?
    • rootguy420, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2When their Hippocratic asses aren't shoving blow up their noses I'm sure Hollywood is all for it....right
    • personaehiro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6People have been taught there is only one way to deal with drugs, the tough way. Anything else and you're supposedly some sort of deluded "hippie" who just wants to be able to buy pot easier. They're afraid of the unfair and totally ridiculous stigma that comes with supporting drug reform.
  • dafrog2, on 12/02/2007, -8/+1tl;dr
  • active1x0, on 12/03/2007, -11/+2Rolling Stone is probably one of the worst magazines being published today. If you take it seriously, please at least be smart enough to not glean political advice from it.

    That said, I too think the war on drugs is pointless. But not because Rolling Stone says so.
    • personaehiro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I've never really read rolling stone. glanced through it a few times at a bookstore or while waiting for the doctor. this article is spot on though, that seems obvious.
  • faxxy, on 12/03/2007, -0/+19intensely funny:

    Fat Kid Educates on War on Drugs (and gets owned):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
    • bjornski, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5That was golden.
      • brianbb98, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5golden shower! that ***** got pissed on by the constitu.... oh forget it.
    • skyfire1, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3He's right. Every fat person needs to go to rehab.
    • ndonohue, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5McDonalds has killed more people than pot ever has. Make fast food illegal!
    • personaehiro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2that kid needs a slap in the face and a run around the block.
    • Notasheeple, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Once again Ron to the logical rescue................(sigh) my American Idol
      • brad3378, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4That's the only Ron Paul video I know of where he "insults" his opponent. Although I must admit he was right. :-)
  • ColonelJessup, on 12/03/2007, -9/+0When I say weak ass, you say bitch!

    Weak ass!

    Weak ass!
  • JonnyTrombone, on 12/03/2007, -13/+4The writers at Rolling Stone aren't really the best source for info on the War on Drugs (although I'm sure they know a lot about street pricing).
    • VaporBro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7I logged in just to say this:

      Dr hunter S Thompson

      Rolling stone not being a good source for War On Drug Info? Look him up.

      Wake up.
  • inf0, on 12/03/2007, -9/+5lol @ the war on Drugs... Clinton used to get his cocaine delivered personally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37edb5185038.ht ...

    http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs981d.html

    http://www.lethbridgesoccercentre.com/leth_a/clint ...

    Hmm, can't find the nice write up about a guy who used to deliver the ***** directly to Clinton.. but it's out there if you digg around.

  • SwedishNinja, on 12/03/2007, -8/+1tl;dr
  • codered1322, on 12/03/2007, -8/+5Drugs are bad mmm'k.
  • Zap2, on 12/03/2007, -0/+17Personal I don't use them, but if your over 18, I cant see why the govern't has any right to say what you can put in your body!
    If the people want them, why not let them use them? And we can tax the hell out of them!

  • bachdog, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12I doubt the powers that be consider it a failure because even though hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars have been spent, the prison and police industries have flourished. You know that even though it is a waste of public funds, a select few are enriching themselves through the "war on drugs," a failure and a travesty of public policy in the name of 'saving the childrens'. Big pharma and OTC drugs = good, Pot and Ecstasy = devils
  • RoyalPwner, on 12/03/2007, -15/+1This drug war is ridiculous. They will _never_ win it.
    However, it's helping to stop the spread.
    • bjornski, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12No it's not. The war on drugs will never be won, because it's immensely profitable for those "fighting" it. On BOTH sides of the "war".
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4You are naive.
  • sicknight, on 12/03/2007, -9/+0you guys really read that whole article?
  • p0s3r, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4I'd like to see the same article written about the War on Poverty. It's been going on longer and has cost us 10x that amount.
    • bjornski, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Yup. The "pro-poverty" people are winning.
      • dezmo, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3NEWSFLASH, more poor people means more votes for Democrats and their social programs. Do you really think they want people to become wealthy and start voting for tax-cuts and smaller government?
  • zomgzlol, on 12/03/2007, -18/+0The fact the "war on drugs" is being "lost" is hardly cause to end it.

    The war on robbery, rape, paedophilia, e-crime and road safety aren't being won. I see no reason to stop "fighting" them.
    • williamdyer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+10What a tool. Do you really not understand the difference between adults choosing to smoke pot or toot a line of coke and rape? And that a "war on drugs" is as ridiculous as a war on masturbation?
    • personaehiro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7are you really that dumb? when rereading your comment can you really not see how stupid that is?
    • Azurensis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5It is time to stop fighting it when all of the money that's been spent has had exactly zero effect on the price or availability of drugs. It has put millions of people in prison for no good reason and makes the drugs themselves even less safe.
      • Moonrider, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Not to mention turned normal, law-abiding people into criminals, then once imprisoned they become even worse criminals in order to survive prison. There's no better program for creating criminals than prison.
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3If there were enough money in robbery, rape, pedophilia, ecrime, etc, you'd better believe the evil US govt would mount a phony war against it and those crimes would subsequently increase tenfold.
  • jkremer3, on 12/03/2007, -0/+11This is true, we have made no progress, and it's a waste of money. Ron Paul would move to end the war on drugs.
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2They'd give him the Kennedy treatment before they let him end any of their precious and phony wars.
  • Langford, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8Is it a loss, or was it simply that the real goal was never to stop drugs? Whenever we "go to war" on anything, it gives politicians a blank check to do whatever they want. All the money being spent on the drug war isn't disappearing, it's going into someone's pockets.
  • qpn6ph9q, on 12/03/2007, -2/+11The phrase "War On..." anything implies a brute force, heedless confrontation. History has taught us that wars rarely if ever solve the underlying problems that they are invoked to solve. Killing the "enemy", and especially figureheads only ever slows, but never stops the real causes that underlie the problem; and in some cases may even accelerate the very thing the war is trying to prevent. War is an ideal environment for injustice and corruption, and for those bent on wealth or empire to leverage the ideological format for their own gain. We must put an end to warmongering at any level in society by refusing to accede to this language of war. We must not fight a "war on drugs" or a "war on terror" or anything else; what we must instead do is inspire change where it is necessary. As with both wars, government policy is at fault in both cases. In the case of drugs, treating drug takers as criminals, and not as people who need help to escape the clutches of the drug industry is the root cause of the crisis, and only serves to relegate an entire population of citizens to an underclass where they are doomed to be counter-productive addicts while strengthening the power of the drug cartels who profit from their illegitimacy. There is actually a very simple, very rational solution to these problems if viewed outside the mindset of "war". Decriminalize drugs. Regulate and tax them through the FDA. Allow drugs to be prescribed by specialist rehabilitation clinics, which provide counseling, treatment and withdrawal therapy to addicts as well as national media and education programs targeted at prevention. No dealer, no cartel will ever be able to undercut these clinics, and no drug addict will resist the opportunity to accept the terms and conditions of rehabilitation if it means they can get cheap access to the substances they have become addicted to. Instantly you will see the drug industry vanish globally. Crime will plummet and the people who need help will get it when and where needed. This is not a new idea at all. But it will take brave champions to fight the "law and order" focussed "warmongering" ultra-conservative elements that have escalated the plague of drug addiction and have held this nation hostage to the drug cartels for most of the last century.
  • playaj20008, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Someone should calculate exactly how much the government spends to stop 1 person from using drugs.
    • VaporBro, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Cost: $20 for a dub sack.

      Marijuana: My Anti-Drug
    • ndonohue, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6I can give that to you now: $500 billion to ultimately stop zero people from using drugs.
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1If the one person is black, the cost would be equal to the price of one bullet.
  • glomsmart, on 12/03/2007, -8/+4Wait a minute, our government can travel around the world fighting both known wars and unknown or shadow wars, and monitor conflicts that exist in various countries and assist from time to time, and yet declare a so called war against drugs, and not win? Is there really a war against drugs? Of course, the government makes these so called big bust, capturing billion dollar drug dealers in South America and others, yet the buying and selling of drugs continues at greater than ever?

    Arresting and raiding drug houses here and there, making great news in the local media does not even put a dent in the drug trade. What I am about to write, I abhor, but truthfully, if the US Government and or governments around the world stopped or closed the illegal drug trade tomorrow, America would suffer the hardest of economical times ever!

    If the illegal drug trade were closed tomorrow, the US Stock Markets would crash, the retail industry would plummet in sales significantly, the real estate industry bubble would explode like no other time in history, the automobile industry would loose a unbelievable percentage of sales forcing many dealerships to close, and so on.

    I abhor saying it, but the illegal drug money floating around in our US economy is keeping us afloat. With the war in Iraq spending billions of dollars approaching a trillion since its birth, it would not be able to afford the financing to the degree that exist today. Oil? I know, it is still a powerful commodity around the world especially in the USA most importantly, but again, without the drug money circulating in our nation today, the demand for oil would decline significantly.

    It is sad but true. Just my opinion without any hardcore facts? No, I may not have the precise numbers and statistics as most politicians use to manipulate a nation of people and by the way, those numbers can be deceptive if the right questions are not asked about how they obtained them, right? I abhor drugs and the industry as a whole, but this is the alarming truth and someday, and I mean someday when it is way to bad to fix, the truth will be revealed.

    What about the fact that Americans are the largest consumers of cocaine in the world? America is only a fraction of the worlds population, yet we consume so much. What about that problem? How about the behavior behind that? That says a lot about our nation, what is wrong with us? Why are we killing ourselves, destroying our families, loosing what could have been highly productive citizens? What if everyone in America was drug tested without the opportunity for people to cheat?
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Right on all counts, now read my comment below to see why you've been dugg down.
    • celticchrys, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Um, if we legitimize and tax all this black-market economy, we make it even more profitable to more people.
  • CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -2/+14The "war on drugs" was as much a lie as the "war on terror" and the Pentagon's 1-day "war on waste" which was "fought" on September 10, 2001 (Google that one, it should be fun). The US was founded on lies and is now owned and operated by the most brazen liars the world has ever seen. They have studied the populace and learned how to gain instant and total credibility no matter what they say.

    They knew that fighting the drug trade could never stop it; they learned that lesson when they were forced to reverse Prohibition in the 1930's. The whole "war on drugs" is and has always been a pretext; an excuse for the government to have warehouses full of drugs and databases full of information about drugs. The "war" also has the benefit of facilitating the persecution of *certain* segments of the population by incarcerating them in increasingly privatized prisons with the added benefit of restricting them from participation in the gene pool.

    They well know that the action of legalizing drugs would take the profit motive out from under the cartels, which would then collapse, but how then would all the CIA's black projects be funded? I'm not talking about housing in Compton, either.

    Taliban in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 but, since the Taliban had burned all the poppy fields, bombing them had the *secondary effect* of releasing the heroin floodgates. They allow foreign cartels to continue to exist because the cartels do the work of farming, producing and shipping drugs which the US has the option of seizing on arrival, saving production time and labor. The profit is easy money. Think the cartels are going to sue? I doubt it.

    Arresting local drug dealers eliminates competition while arresting users who cannot support their habit supports the economy by keeping a steady stream of warm (mostly black) bodies flowing through the expensive US crime machine. Provided they avoid public attention, users who can support their habit provide needed cash flow to the economy so they do their part by staying out of prison and on the stuff. There are so many corrupt reasons for the "war on drugs" that we should expect it to continue indefinitely.

    What people don't realize about this government is that everything it says and does is a double-entendre. There is always a *true* goal and a *stated* goal. *True* goals are achieved by engineering policies that achieve those goals *AS SECONDARY EFFECTS OF STATED GOALS* The secondary goals get sold to the public as a benefit or a protection while no mention of the true goal is ever made. Americans, by and large, are distracted by the stated goal and thus never pay attention to the secondary effect which ends up achieving the engineer's desired effect--but without opposition from people who were already convinced that it would do "good".

    Anyone who attempts to draw attention to the secondary effect is handled in the most elegantly simple fashion possible: One "news" broadcast during which the phrase "conspiracy nut" or "conspiracy theory" is mentioned and anyone espousing a view contrary to official opinion is publicly discredited, instantly losing all "official" credibility. No one will ever listen to that person again. Don't take my word for it, though. Ask Rosie O'Donnell -- if you can find her.

    Now compare this crazy theory to all the events of the last 60 years (and the next 60) and see how well it works.
    • wootup, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Fantastic post, I hope everybody reads it in full.
  • brianbb98, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Thats a good question for the candidates. What do they plan to do to solve the drug problem that has only gotten worse over all this time? Can any of them give a decent answer other than admiting that its a failure and shouldnt be fought anyway?

    Hmm Romney?
  • Urusai, on 12/03/2007, -0/+10The war on drugs has never been about preventing the use of recreational drugs. It has always been about oppression. The war has been won; you are oppressed.
    • shig, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2That has been the goal all along. Whenever they imposed a prohibition on alcohol they had to change the US Constitution to do it. Not so anymore.
    • HippyInASuit, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3On a similar note, if we never leave Iraq then the neo-cons will have been successful.
  • hendrixlives64, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5This article was extremely well written and compiled; I am delighted to see the subject breaching such a high profile publication.
  • Look4Truth, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9The CIA runs drugs and have no intention of "winning" any war on drugs. It's a complete scam.
  • senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3If the government declares drugs legal, can't they get sued for wrongful imprisonment by all the people in jail for it now?
    • blindhammer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4No. Changes in the law are not retroactive, unless the law specifically states that it is. Also, you actually need permission from the government to sue them ...
    • HippyInASuit, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2The war on drugs in unconstitutional, just like the federal income tax. Yeah, you can take action, but you won't win, even though you're right.
  • kiegh, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3I wonder how many people actually read the entire article. I'm on the 4th section and had to bookmark it so I could come back to it. It's a great read.
  • kLoWn420, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Great article. Rolling Stone never gets credit for their great investigative journalism, but it's almost always fair, well vetted and thorough.
  • dstz, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Someone needs to make a movie about it. It's the only way people will get the memo, and by people I include everyone including drug users who don't always think differently from the political paradigm (like pot users who think which should legalize only pot because it's "not dangerous" and rather "cool").
  • heroesdietrying, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2This article was a fantastic read. Unfortunately, most people are going to be too lazy and stupid to actually go through the whole thing.
  • Cerpin_Taxt, on 12/03/2007, -9/+2"Yeah! Down with the drug laws! Now watch as we smoke weed and write ***** music reviews!"

  • anarchytv, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, high fructose corn syrup / sugar, porn, media and video, religion.... which drugs do you speak of?
    • rdoger6424, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1The middle-american war on porn, of course
  • usgovterrorists, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5The United States Government is the biggest drug smuggler!

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Right on all counts. The worst is yet to come. They're planning to destroy New York City with a nuclear device. Just listen to the whispers in the press.
  • Zellus, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Well crafted article and worth the read. To bad it doesn't interest the masses. But, then again most issues of importance don't.
  • VectorParamus, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0I feel like I've read this before...
    I had to check the date on this twice before I made this post.
    I am nearly 100% certain I've seen this somewhere else. Am I the only one on this?
  • DanOnTheMoon, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3When Ron Paul ends it, it'll be a victory.
  • DestroyFascism, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3America is run by cowboys.....
    Americans watch wayyy to much TV (Mind control *****....)
    They sold your asses out and Americans Still want to vote for Billary.....*****~! Just blow yourselves up!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.