“You want me to do what?” The look on Jerome’s face was bewildered, angry.
“It’s like I said,” I replied. “For the next 28 days you have to live at this facility. You have to go into groups of people you don’t know and tell them all you are a drug addict. You have to tell them stories about how drugs ruined your life and harmed your family. You have to go to Narcotics Anonymous meetings and do the same thing. You’ll have to convince everyone around you that you’re an addict trying to get better. And the fact that you don’t have, and have never had, a drug problem will have to remain between you and I.”
“If you want to save your job,” I added.
Jerome leaned back in his chair and let out a great breath. His eyes watered for a moment and then stopped. An African American man that looked younger than his 35 years, Jerome was straight up blue collar and no nonsense. It was clear that nonsense like this did not sit well with him at all.
He had worked for a large telephone company in the Southwest since he was 20, working his way up from lineman to a top tier foreman. He started working there the same year he got married and now had three children.
“How the hell could this be happening to me?” he asked, and his eyes started to glisten again.
The answer to his question was simple. He worked for a company that periodically forced employees to surrender bodily fluids for examination. On a recent weekend, he had been to a bar-b-que at a friends house and someone passed a joint. It was an infrequent indulgence for him, but he took a few hits and passed it on.
The following Monday he was tested. Company policy afforded him the option of intervention and treatment or the end of a career that was the only source of income for his family. There were no gray areas The fact that they didn’t start drug testing till he had invested 10 years of his life in working for them didn’t matter. If you tested positive on a drug screen, you were an addict; a liability, and you needed treatment; expensive treatment, though no one has ever demonstrated that this was true.
I could have told Jerome a lot more about how his life was about to change; the mandated outpatient treatment after he discharged, aftercare meetings for a year, and 12 step meetings, one hour each and every day for the first three months after he went home.
I didn’t have the heart. He would find out at as time went by, and make the adjustments. For the time being my only goal was to help him not do anything stupid. He was caught up in the system, the system that I worked in, and if he wasn’t careful he could lose everything.
I told him, as I will tell you now, that he was one of the lucky ones. Employers can have a powerful impact on your life when they decide to. But it is nothing compared to governments.
Absolutely nothing.
Jerome just got a scratch compared to what was happening elsewhere. His was a slight wound from a war on drugs that regularly kills more people than drugs do. We have been doing it a hundred years now; making criminals of our countrymen; making war on our own people in their own homes.
And as MND publisher Mike LaSalle just reported to readers, it is a war that is now hitting close to home.
It started, like a lot of deadly bad ideas, with politicians. We can thank the Democrats for the inception, but somewhere along the line, the Republicans stepped in to prove they were just as stupid.
Woodrow Wilson, who also gave us the Federal Reserve Act, the first draft since the Civil War and rave reviews of the stunningly racist movie “Birth of a Nation,” helped usher in the age where America turned questionable personal habits into concrete walls and steel gray bars.
It was called the Harrison Tax Act of 1914, and it was the result of nearly fifteen years of disinformation and racist propaganda promulgated by Wilson’s associates.
In 1900 the Journal of the American Medical Association published in a report that “Negroes in the South are being addicted to a new form of vice– that of ‘cocaine sniffing’ or the ‘coke habit.’” That was followed up by several newspaper reports that cocaine was causing blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship.
Eight years later President Teddy Roosevelt appointed Dr. Hamilton Wright as the first Opium Commissioner for the United States. Among his most notable observations was that “cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by Negroes of the south and other sections of the country.”
Wright also postulated that “one of the most unfortunate phases of smoking opium in this country is the large number of women who have become involved and are living as common-law wives or cohabitating with Chinese in the Chinatowns of our various cities.”
Let’s see. A bunch of drug crazed horny black men and a growing number of loose white women with no qualms about crossing racial boundaries?
Yeah, man, it was time for war, alright; time to break out some fucking law and order.
And so it started. Police began busting heads, most of them black and poor, and prisons started to fill. Law upon law was written and enforced with no more thought to the truth than Dred Scott. The edges of The Constitution were already starting to singe.
It got a boost in 1937 with the Marijuana Tax Act, signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt. And just like the Harrison Act, its roots are steeped more in racial bigotry than in public safety. In fact, marijuana had already been criminalized in many states prior to the federal prohibition. Most of this started with border states and stemmed from a fear of indigenous Mexicans. One Texas legislator is quoted as saying, “Mexicans are all crazy, and this stuff (marijuana) is why.”
Now it was brown heads getting busted, and prisons became bilingual.
And the drugs kept coming.
And there is money in it. Big money, your money, fed into a vast machine that is eating up the very freedoms it purports to protect.
Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were Democrats, but as time passed and political stances vacillated, it was the republicans that took over the reigns of anti drug insanity, not out of racial prejudice (though for some that seems to be a big plus), but puritanical fundamentalism. Many a good Christian constituent doesn’t cotton much to personal choice when it comes to drugs.
So the right has pretty much owned the war on drugs since. And for the efforts of these “keep the government off our back” conservatives, they have given us the mammoth sized DEA, a thousand federal regulations, a rainbow coalition of busted heads, overflowing prisons, enough dead bodies to please Pol Pot, a meaningless Constitution and a bevy of government functionaries that are literally out of their minds with power.
We wanted a war on drugs and that is exactly what we got. Only it isn’t drugs we are attacking, it’s people. It is a civil war with a guaranteed Viet-nam style ending that might be worth paying attention to.
Because the drugs keep coming.
You would think a century of this would be enough to have learned a lesson or two. I mean, we actually did learn something with alcohol. We made it illegal, and then, when we got tired of mobsters, mass murder, poisoning deaths from bad hooch, graft and the fact that everyone that wanted to was still drinking anyway, we got a little wiser.
Today, we have alcohol in its various forms being distributed nationwide, in complete peace, with no underground economy and most importantly, no bullets flying.
Are there consequences? Sure. Some tragic ones. I have seen it first hand a thousand times over. After all, most of the people I worked with were not Jerome’s, though his situation is a direct result of the woefully inept way we are approaching this problem.
In the end, though, and anyone with a half a mind should already know this, there are plenty of problems you can’t fix with a badge and a gun. The best we can do is damage control.
Sadly, all you have to do is get a news report from the border with Mexico, or take a look inside one of our prisons, to find out just how far we are from the best we can do.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
If one were to think of it, the war on drugs ( though I do not use drugs by personal choice), is a blatant violation of the ninth amendment; which concerns rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let me correct an error: Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. Don’t re-assign this quintessential manly-man to the left.
That said, the “war on drugs” has proven to be a war that cannot be won and a massive waste of taxpayers’ dollars. However, it keeps a lot of activists, counselors, and other self-interest group trash, as well as police officers, DEA inspectors, and other officials in the money. And most women are staunch supporters, since most of the victims of this fraud are men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gents, the ‘war on drugs’ is part of the Orwellian future of ‘perpetual war’. Like the ‘war on terrorism’, the ‘war on domestic violence’ and so on. In case you didn’t notice your guvment is consistently using the term ‘war on fill in the blank’. And if you do not join in this ‘war’ you are a ‘terrorist’, ‘traitor’, ‘not patriotic’….blah, blah, blah. The REAL war has ALWAYS been the war of the ruling oligarchy against their subjects to make sure the subjects keep in line. They do this by demanding ‘respect’ that is not earned. This is why, as little children, we are indicrinated with such ‘songs’ and ‘God Save the Queen’ or whatever the national anthem is. Did any of you men ever wonder why we make 5 year olds learn the national anthem before we make them learn how to read, write, count or think? It’s called indoctrination.
This ‘war on drugs’ is all about ‘war on the population’. Where men can be abused for imagined ‘offences’. If men do not say ‘NO. I do NOT consent’ then the presumption is that they DO consent. And when you consent to be part of this control grid? You are a slave. Men like Jerome are ‘helpless’ because the men around him will not help him defend his rights. Just the same way as men thrown in jail for not paying imagined ‘alimony’ and ‘child support’ are thrown in jail and the man next to him does not raise a finger or a voice in objection. I am pretty disgusted how men will not stand up for the rights of the man next to them. I really am.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Want a job these days in the USA? Piss in a cup.
Although this is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendmant, the US gov’t. gets around this by stating that you don’t ‘have’ to work for a company that does drug testing. Which leaves almost nothing anymore.
What’s the substance overwhelmingly found in drug tests? You guessed it; marijuana.
The irony is that the one substance that’s detectable the longest (pot – up to a month after use) is the least harmful of all recreational drugs (including alcohol). Cocaine, opiates, MDMA, etc. are all naturally flushed out of your system within 48 hours. Ain’t that great?
Land of the free? Hardly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Isn’t it also interesting that drug testing in the workplace has coincided with women entering the workplace?
This all really only started en masse in the late-’80′s.
Your corporate pimps WILL tell you how to live.
The only way to get rid of the dangers and failures of working with women is to work for yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see the ‘Dr. Paul’ is gone, it’s now Paul Elam/Elan, whatever I don’t care to scroll up and see.
Anyone who chooses to work in the system men are forced into, is a piece of dog s#$t.
He already showed us last week how he chose to work in a similar role with feminists.
“mandated outpatient treatment”…. that sounds like a real man’s job Paul… tell me, what kind of a spineless sycophant doesn’t see that forcing people into Narc Anon or Al Anon is a blatant violation of separation of church and state? Higher power anyone?
Paul’s here to force you. Or at least he was, once. Nice one Paul.
Now you entertain us with stories from when you were part of this system with forced Al anon and feminist counseling. Nice.
I am so sick of the game articles, and Paul Elan’s articles. Get rid of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
But then, if men are forced into it, they wouldn’t have much choice, would they?
Paul, I think a lot of people are still very butthurt over you calling manhood101 special ed. This guy’s references to ‘real man jobs’ gives the game away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Real man’s job”… Wow, the shaming language practically screams “feminist”. Tell me, would you be any more likely to agree with him if he was a lumberjack who cut trees down with swings of his gigantic penis?
Paul’s articles are well written and well thought out. If you bothered to read his other articles, you’ll see that in the counselling he does he is the one voice of compassion towards men, who otherwise have to deal with man-hating feminist social workers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Peter…. it’s hard to avoid ‘shaming language’ when I think what this man chose to get involved with is unconstitutional and immoral.
Ok, I’ll strike the real man comment and just say, ‘immoral’.
How about that.
Happy now?
And working in a system where men are denied choice is not ‘compassion’.
He just admitted, he was involved with men who were forced into AA and NA.
And I disagree about his writing, I think it’s bad.
And Snark, I’ll say this to you slowly, you seem to need it. Paul chose to work in an unconstitutional system of force that men were caught up in. Yes, the man had no choice, but Paul did. Paul overtly endorsed the policies of the system by choosing to work in that system. I for one think that’s not something he should be congratulated for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I encourage all of you to visit this site and watch the video.
http://manofthemonth.wordpress.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Futhermore, if Paul’s going to choose to work in such a system, he might as well be Judge handing down restraining orders that force men out of their house on the basis of one DV allegation. He might as well be a cop tasering people in their own homes.
We are talking about Paul, getting up, going to work, earning money off the backs of men who were forced into NA or AA. If he thinks he’s not going to be criticized he’s wrong.
My criticism is fair, and I stand by it. How many of you would take a job where you’re part of a team forcing men to be in AA, which is a religious program, ordered by the state?
I wouldn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Attorney Hollander makes very excellent points.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
IMHO, Paul is giving us an important peak into the hell that men who are addicted to drugs go through. With all of the widespread misandry in society, it is a wonder more men aren’t turning to drugs as an escape. We NEED to whatever IS necessary to stop this shit from happening. How many of you are really fighting the misandry that leaves so many men (and boys) to feel as if drugs are their only source of relief? Answer me this; How many drug addicts/dealers do you think there were before feminism hijacked society and the system?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the war on drugs and disagree with the contention that Dr. Paul is in any way less a man for choosing to save as many men as he can from self-destruction through ignorance of the feminist system.
When asked about the war on drugs, a better question might be: ” A war on [i]which[/i] drugs?” It seems that we’ve been focusing much more on combating the “makes you crazy” drugs vs. the “don’t give a fuck” drugs in recent years, given how marijuana has been semi-legalized in many places. You generally don’t pass the crack pipe around at the party.
But I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: [i]If we didn’t make drugs illegal, a whole host of businesses would make them [b]compulsory.[/b][/i] Especially those run by women, who will substitute an amped-up workforce for a better-organized-or-directed one in a heartbeat. (Improving core processes takes [i]work[/i], dontcha know.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I am correct, there is a direct correlation between all forms of prohibition and feminism; keep all men from enjoying any/every form of pleasure that does not keep them entrapped to either/both the system or, a woman.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I worked in this “industry.”
It is a way for The State to find a way to make crime pay – for them.
The more they illegalize, the more they can fine as alternative to lock-up.
They gain power and simultaneously make money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
globalman said:
Yes there is always a war on something, the most recent incarnation being the war on terror. I find the most striking similarities between the boogeyman to the western world (bin laden) and the Orwellian Emmanuel Goldstein, which was the recipient of the daily two minutes hate. Anybody that questions the war on terror and how it began is at the very least unpatriotic, and he might even be a terrorist himself. This is why I never fell for the conservative > liberal bullshit.
The reality is conservative = liberal and vice versa
yes the liberals deprive us of freedom via feminism and cultural Marxism, but the conservatives sneak in a hefty dose of patriot acts and illegal wiretapping under the guise of “keeping America safe”. Those swat team storm troopers you see in all major American cities aren’t there to “fight terror” they are there first and foremost to let the men of the west know, that as things get increasingly worse because of feminism, govt. bureaucracy, and the shitty economy, we better not think about overthrowing this worthless criminal govt.
its that simple they are there to serve as a warning to men that will eventually get fed up. This is exactly why the media is now focusing on domestic “lone wolf” terrorism.
Its my opinion that “lone wolf” could eventually come to mean MGTOW to our benevolent big brother governments. Maybe it sounds crazy, but I could see it happening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who has heard of the temperance movement?
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2a.htm
http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm
http://www.islam101.com/women/jameelah.htm
http://www.questia.com/library/sociology-and-anthropology/social-organization-and-community/social-movements-and-collective-behavior/temperance-movement-in-the-u-s.jsp
It appears feminism infected churches perhaps, earlier than we thought then, at it’s convienence, abandonded it. N.O.W. feminists ( reference the pro-choice abortion movement), are betraying the segement that supported them in their temprence movement goals. Feminism blasted men as using women like whores yet, what/who did they use as their whores?
This BS is provided for scrutiny;
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/the_feminist_movement_in_the_u.html
http://www.conservativetruth.org/archives/brucewalker/10-27-02.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
IHO, this, and all forms of prohibition are feminist constructs. vs feminist jurisprudence.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Feminist_jurisprudence
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Anonymous
Thanks for pointing that out. I had corrected it in the final draft but did manage to make the change here. I have gone in and made the correction.
@ Peter
Thank you for saying that, but it was not necessary. There is a lot that hangnail doesn’t realize, most of it having nothing to do with my work or my writing.
I am not in counseling any more. I spent the first twelve years having fun, actually helping a small handful of people. And I spent the last eight dividing my time between justifying to insurance clerks why a guy smoking his life away with crack, or why a man with liver disease and esophageal varices might need three more days in treatment, and fending off the most unrestrained attacks on men you can possibly imagine, and at the most vulnerable point in their lives.
Here are some of the nasty details if you are interested.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/paul-elam/
Hangnail actually has some accidental truth to his words. The whole shebang is corrupt and coercive. But I will never regret doing it, all for one good reason. I have had two people – that is two in two decades – tell me that had they not met me they would be dead. So for the most part I did something I loved doing, and if either of those people were correct the whole deal was worth it, even the last eight years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXko2YCuZa8&feature=related
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Snark
Butthurt is as butthurt does.
Paul and others may catch the drift of the video. The rebellion against feminized society began long ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Men have had ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“They cursed and buried him
Along with shame
And thought his timeless soul had gone (gone)
In empty burning hell–unholy one
But he’s returned to prove them wrong
so wrong”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The beast is feminism and it’s supporter’s and it’s cohorts; church and state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJqswLi3uE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women have had their part in abusing “mother” Earth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Female (feminist) prosecutor imprisons an innocent man, on false child porn charges. The sweet twist is, a female pornstar comes to his rescue to actually get him off, and out of jail.
The disgust, and rage i felt after reading of this injustice was palpable.
Truly, tis the year of the vagina.
Fucking hell!
Read it here.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is given for men to dream and imagine.. How else would technology have benn born?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
been*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“My fans mean everything to me, ” Fuentes told Asylum via her publicist. “It was important to me to make the trip to Puerto Rico to show support to someone who did no wrong.”
So let’s not get too excited about this. It’s just business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alcohol may indeed be “distributed nationwide, in complete peace,” but it’s certainly not being consumed so.
Come on, Paul. About the worst argument for a lifting of the War on Drugs is the one that boils down to, “Well, it’s no worse that alcohol”. That’s like saying that bashing yourself on the head with a hammer is okay since it’s no worse than stabbing yourself in the leg with an icepick. Clearly there are downsides to each.
I say that your right to drink/snort/shoot-up/whatever is fine–as long as it doesn’t infringe on my right to drive on the highway without fear of some drunk asshat crashing into me. Yet sadly, we’ve seen from the story on alcohol that many people are incapable of separating the two (alcohol and driving).
All that said, I do think the types of drugs defined as illegal vs. legal is completely twisted around. The worst thing that can happen to someone shit-faced drunk is that he gets violent and causes some sort of damage to others or perhaps dies of alcohol poisoning. But the worst thing that can happen to someone shift-faced stoned on weed is that he feels lethargic and a strange compulsion to eat at McDonalds.
I appreciate your righteous passion. Aspects of what you say are true. Like all wars, the proponents of the War on Drugs have installed a propaganda machine to promote a biased agenda. Many men, like those in your story, receive a punishment far out of proportion to the crime. However, as soon as one begins to not just f*ck up one’s own life through certain drugs, but f*cks with the lives of others, this libertarian argument no longer applies.
p.s. I’m trying to figure out why this article is on the Spearhead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“a female pornstar comes to his rescue to actually get him off”
Heh, might have wanted to word that just a little differently.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
there is synthetic marijuana that is not controlled yet. It goes by the name of jwh-018 and is used in otc products called spice, k2 and yucatan fire.
see
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Products_Spice.shtml
it is banned in some countries at this point but if you like pot and are caught in the criminal justice system it could be a reasonable surrogate at this point as it is not possible to test for. Even if you are in the drug court system (which is grossly unconstitutional as it goes against the adversarial system of justice) there really isnt anything they can do to you anyways. If you have an addiction problem I would recommend ayahuasca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca
or hell I would even recommend ayahuasca as being fun even without an addiction problem. It contains an illegal drug (dmt) which is legal in unprocessed forms with an maoi inhibitor which makes it orally active, otherwise the dmt is destroyed in your stomach.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Queue the Manhood 101 faggots. zzzzzz.
As any who has ever voiced his opinion on the Internet can tell you, Haters. Gonna Hate. So fuck them.
Is not only in the US. Colombia is basically a police state because of the War on Drugs. As many people who have been there have told me, there’s cameras and cops everywhere. Illegality only gives a monopoly of income to the Guerrillas, the bunch of despictable thugs that want to live the Che Guevara dream of 100 Vietnams.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The so called “war on drugs” is meant to keep law enforcement well funded and occupied should or until, other matters more pressing arise; such as mass revolt. The liquor industry is also the second biggest lobby group in Washington DC. They’d prefer not to have to compete with legal drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Well, it’s no worse that alcohol”.
Actually Paul, opiates are the safest drugs to use and shouldn’t even be compared to alcohol. If you compared a chronic alcoholic to an opiate user of many years with a physical dependence, the alcoholic would be a really sick and deteriorated person. The opiate user would have no physical or psychological damage at all and at very worst may suffer from constipation. There’s even some evidence that opium will protect a person from certain harmful viruses and bacteria and opium addicts certainly look much younger than their actual age. An alcoholic looks really old looking at a young age.
I know you’re going to say that many heroin addicts look bad and are unhealthy but this is from using impure street drugs that can have anything in them, needles that are not sterile, and just living a rough street life in general aside from the fact that most of them also take other drugs like cocaine which will cause deterioration when used excessively.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul wrote: “Hangnail actually has some accidental truth to his words. The whole shebang is corrupt and coercive. But I will never regret doing it, all for one good reason. I have had two people – that is two in two decades – tell me that had they not met me they would be dead. So for the most part I did something I loved doing, and if either of those people were correct the whole deal was worth it, even the last eight years.”
In order to have two people thank you, you had to be part of forcing many more. Even a serial rapist will have a couple of women find out he’s not all bad in bed. In the end, all that matters is that there was no consent in that system. These two people didn’t ask for your help, and to justify forcing dozens, hundreds more on the basis two thanked you, is wrong. The two people who thanked you are wrong too, because in order for them to score a gain, in order for them to be thankful, lots of other men had to lose their rights. If they benefited from having their rights taken away, they benefited at the expense of their fellow men forced into the program who didn’t feel so thankful.
And that, is not an ‘accidental truth’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64
http://www.ciadrugs.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Cool
Actually, you’re off the mark. There was a lot I didn’t say to Hangnail because if his manner of addressing me.
Truth is, I never forced anyone to do anything. Neither does anyone else in private setting treatment. The fact is that from my end it was all voluntary. There were plenty of people that “found religion” about getting help after a DUI or a bust, and would come to treatment to have something to show the judge when they went back to court. I did everything I could to help them, even knowing they were “playing” the system, because whatever their problems, I didn’t figure a jail cell would help them.
I never released any information that would have harmed any of these people, and in fact withheld information when I thought it would help them.
The only “coercion,” as you put it, was the self referred individuals who came looking for help, were expected to meet program expectations or leave, even if it meant losing the money from their business.
As in the case I cited in the piece, I sometimes told men what they had to do to make their situation better for them, but I was doing it to address a reality that I did not create or believe in, but that I could help with because I was in a position to.
It was still up to them, and nothing I could have done would have changed the circumstances that brought them to me.
I explain this to you because you were at least respectful. But also to let you know, that I never played a part in forcing anyone to do anything. I dealt with people that were caught up in the cogs of a very large machine, over which I had no control, but I did not bring them there or ever use the system to compel them to do anything.
@ Avenger,
I don’t know what about the article makes you think I needed the lesson on opiates, but for what it is worth, you are correct. Not that I even brought that end of things up in the article.
Who do you think suffers the most as a group for the war on drugs?
You don’t have an email address onyour website… paul?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul, it wasn’t directed to you but to MNL. My error.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Who do you think suffers the most as a group for the war on drugs?”
MGTOWs of the ‘no preference’ variety who seek to recover good feelings lost when women reveal their true colors.
But again, I must ask which particular drugs you wish to cease the war on. Last I checked, I was never the opiates that were the main focus of the war, but the cocaine, the PCP, the speed, and the steroids. No one’s afraid of potheads, but crackheads are a different matter.
Any method a man uses to assuage the soul-grinding of feminism is likely to be used as a legal hammer against him, whether it’s illegal or not. And legalizing drugs would be a wash as far as the fight against feminism is concerned. I’m betting that a lot of the tireless affirmitizing manginas are keeping themselves chipper on the ‘Zoloft for Everything’ diet. (A war on certain legal psychotropic drugs I can most heartily recommend.)
Defeat feminism first. Reinstitute the patriarchy first. Save civilization first. And the road that leads from there may well go through drug legalization, and in fact already is in some states. But it is simply not the primary issue, and will assist the majority of the men’s movement little to none.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Cool. LOL! It seems I don’t. I will go in and correct this. Thanks
Update: done. It is just under the donate button.
@ Epoetker
Patriarchy is what we have, a system that utilizes men as disposable accessories in the lives of women. All we have done is put it into hyperdrive.
Why would I want to do anything but destroy such a thing?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would probably argue that the exact reverse is true.
Paul,
Here, here!(Applause). Why indeed. I doubt it will ever happen though… well, not as long as men are truly men. Men in the true genetic sense that is…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, you could reinstitute the guilds, labor, and trade unions instead. Have you considered joining a gang?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 2 trackbacks }