Controlling Drugs

Regarding drugs …

Let’s rid ourselves of the term legalization.

Control is a better word.

If we use the term legalization, then people get the idea that cocaine and heroin are going to be sold right next to the Skittles at the drugstore.

The word control is better.

The word control involves intelligent thought.

How will we control drugs? How will we control addiction rates?

That’s what we want: intelligence.

What we don’t want are mindless politicians involved in drug policy.

Currently, we can’t get anywhere with regard to drug policy and addiction rates because the political debate is controlled by two widely opposing schools of thought.

Those two schools of thought are complete legalization versus complete banning on drugs.

This is not going to work.

We want to put a rheostat on all drugs.

There are probably five to ten parameters that can be adjusted on each particular drug in an attempt to control it.

Those parameters would include how much a person can buy, who can buy it, when can they buy it, where can they buy it, for what purpose can they buy it, how frequently can they buy it.

I’m sure you can think of a few more.

What we want to achieve is the lowest addiction rate and the least amount of illegal drugs.

All of this can be graphed out, analyzed and then controlled by using the above parameters.

This would best be handled by an independent board comprised of schooled professionals, mathematicians, social workers, attorneys and healthcare providers.

The last thing we want is a politician making hay over these issues.

This particular individual, the politician, is best relegated to that of the irrelevant village idiot who dances haplessly in a remote corner of the room.

To achieve a better world, the term legalization when it comes to drug use should be eliminated from our vocabulary.

The word legal is an unfortunate and almost useless word to use.

Yes, a drug can be legalized – but at a 5% level thus making it effectively illegal.

Alcohol is legal, yet it is illegal for people under 21.

Control is a better word.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Sex, Drugs and Hollywood Celebrities

A recent discussion on Quora centered around Jack Nicholson and his wild parties on Mulholland Drive when he was a younger man.

Apparently at these parties there was sex and drugs to be found in every room of the house.

I remarked that Jack Nicholson and others in Hollywood were the straw that broke the camel’s back for many young people who were living on the edge.

I argued that he was a poor role model that helped transform America into the sex and drug crazed culture that it is.

How many of these people would have led productive lives instead of becoming drug addicts, I wondered.

Furthermore, I added, since it was at Jack Nicholson‘s house that Roman Polanski engaged in illegal activity with a minor, perhaps Jack Nicholson should’ve been charged as an accessory before the fact for creating an “anything goes” environment that might have contributed to such an act.

Another individual on Quora remarked that he was glad that Jack Nicholson was able to lead the life that he could, that it wasn’t Jack Nicholson‘s responsibility to be a role model for anyone.

I disagree.

It doesn’t matter whether Jack Nicholson wanted to be a role model or not; when you aspire to be a movie star, and then do become a movie star, you accept that responsibility as a role model whether you like it or not.

That’s part of the job.

You enjoy even greater responsibility in a day and age where our media has become more centralized and under the control of relatively few individuals.

And that is precisely what happened as our nation evolved in the past century.

The elites consolidated their death grip upon the media, and they set out with a vengeance to destroy the moral base of the people of the United States of America.

Morality, you see, which owes obedience to a higher power such as God, is an obstacle to the imposition of ethics, a quasi-legal code, whose rules the elites will decide.

Thus the drive to eliminate the moral base of the nation.

This was accomplished though celebrity influencers.

The sexual revolution that occurred in the 1960s and subsequent decades in America was not an accident.

It was not homegrown.

It did not begin with the people and grow upwards.

It was the powers that be who control the Hollywood celebrities who engineered the sexual revolution.

The 1950s were very tame in America. That was to change in the 1960s.

This is when shows first began to express sexual innuendo. There was hardly an episode of Johnny Carson‘s Tonight Show that did not contain such titillating fare.

Johnny Carson was instrumental in mainstreaming people like Hugh Hefner. Recently in the past year, Hugh Hefner was reported by one of his lovers to have had sex with dogs – real dogs.

Big surprise.

Prior to the 1960s, sex was a verboten subject on television and in movies. You couldn’t even hint that a husband and wife shared one bed. The couple had to sleep in separate beds.

The 1960s ushered in an “anything goes” type of programming.

It’s not surprising that magazines like Playboy thrived. Playboy was the first. This was soon followed by magazines such as Penthouse and Hustler which were more over the top when it came to nudity and sexuality.

While this might seem to be an enlightened, healthy approach to sex, one could fairly argue that the sexual revolution ushered in a state of permissiveness that hurt many people living on the edge – financially and spiritually speaking.

Some people went too far.

One cartoon that was featured regularly in Hustler magazine was entitled Chester the Molester.

Many people at the time thought it was funny.

I don’t see it that way. 

I see it as encouraging bad behavior amongst people living on the fringes. The cartoon gave them license to engage in immoral activity.

Magazines like Hustler helped give rise to the legitimizing of the pornography industry.

Prior to the 1960s, adult bookstores were kept quiet and not spoken about. They were there, but they weren’t there.

As the decades progressed into the next century, pornography became mainstreamed.

Unfortunately, there are many people in the United States who do not come from good families. Many of these families are financially hurting.

Financial stress upon the family produces divorce and separation. This in turn produces a lot of angry children who are looking to channel their anger. These young people are extremely susceptible to bad influences.

Young adolescents are undergoing tremendous psychosexual growth when they experience this familial stress.

If you throw pornography into the mix, that child will be affected by that pornography. That child’s mind will be altered.

You as an adult may form an opinion about pornography; in contrast, pornography forms an opinion within your child.

I will argue that much of the social ills that we have today with pedophilia have their roots in the sexual revolution being imposed upon young troubled adolescents as they were undergoing rapid psychosexual development.

Pornography twists the mind.

Not only does pornography twist the mind, illegal drugs have their effects as well.

I have personally seen how illegal drugs destroyed my step-brother Stevie, who was hurting immensely after his parent’s divorce.

I myself had my sexual development affected by the pornography that I was exposed to as a youth. The father of a friend of mine was a big collector of pornography. My friend and I would sneak in and view his sex magazines. As I grew a little older in my adolescence, another boy brought over what were called smokers – low grade pornographic films. Many of the boys gathered around to watch these.

The people in these smokers were not like the beautiful people you see in pornographic films today; the guys were usually super-hairy and not very attractive.

I remember being somewhat frightened by these movies and images; and looking back on my life now and my ability to not get close to people – I’m an asexual – I feel my sexual development was affected by this pornography.

Like my step-brother, Stevie, I was suffering also. My father died when I was thirteen making my mind ripe for being adversely affected by poor forces of influence.

I didn’t suffer from drugs; my experience was different. As I say, I was an asexual.

The experience is different for many people.

If you examine the lives of many mass murderers, you will often find, if you dig deep into their history, a broken home. I wouldn’t be surprised if many pedophiles came from a broken home. I have read that Jeffrey Dahmer’s parents went through an acrimonious divorce when he was young. Kevin Spacey’s brother states that Kevin was brutally molested by his father when he was young.

A culture of sex and drugs harms those people who come from broken homes.

This is the culture that people like Jack Nicholson, Hugh Hefner, Larry Flint, and Bob Guccioni were aiding and abetting.

The sexual revolution didn’t do any favors for young people who were exposed to it.

Free and open sex may seem like an enlightened idea for mature adults; it is not an enlightened idea for young children and troubled adolescents who are developing.

That is why I posed the question: How many young children living on the edge have had their lives destroyed by sex and drugs when they otherwise would have invested their time and energy into studying, working, and being a productive citizen?

A lot.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Helping Our Friends

What can we do to help our friends in Mexico?

What can we do to stem the drug violence that has ravaged this nation?

One Mexican President, Calderon, tried playing tough.

But he wasn’t tough enough.

Another, AMLO, the current President, is trying to play nice guy.

But he’s not nice enough.

His program of “hugs not bullets” is not working.

The hugs that he gives the people are not enough to dissuade them from entering the drug trade.

So, what can be done?

Given the continued leadership of our greedy, power hungry, unenlightened elite in the United States and Mexico, which does nothing to help the people in Mexico, but rather profits off the drug trade, probably nothing can be done.

These Ivy League educated imbeciles care only about themselves, their reflection in the mirror, and the amount of money in their bank accounts.

So nothing will be done.

But what should be done?

To solve this problem, carrots and sticks are required.

It’s not a matter of choosing one or the other. Both must be employed.

Citizens must be given a true stake in the game to dissuade them from entering the drug trade.

They must also be given a true disincentive from participating in this destructive area of endeavor.

The carrots are obvious. Real jobs with real living wages must be offered.

The sticks are not so readily agreed upon.

The penalty of death must be imposed for those individuals who traffic in narcotics.

Those concerted underminers of society who deal in drugs are waging war against the citizens of Mexico and the United States.

They are destabilizing Mexico.

There is no difference between these drug cartels and a foreign invading force.

The members of these drug cartels may not wear uniforms, but they are as dangerous as enemy soldiers who do.

These drug dealers must be identified and executed on site just as you do in a military campaign.

By dealing drugs, these cartel members forfeit their rights as citizens.

They enjoy no rights.

The towns and cities which give succor and support to the drug dealers are equal game.

There is no other way.

Just as cities in the American South were ravaged by Sherman during the great Civil War, so must these cities and towns receive a similar wrath.

War must always be taken to the people in order to defeat them.

There is no other way.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2022 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Violence in Mexico

Is the violence in Mexico planned? And does it suit the agenda of the powers that be? Regardless of what you think, the continuing violence in Mexico is an indictment of our leaders in both countries. They are either too devious or too dumb to fix it.

Too devious? Now that’s a thought. Maybe the leaders, corporatists all, don’t care about fixing it. Maybe they like the idea of rampant violence, beheadings and body chopping. After all, violence gets them the following:

  1. Unease amongst the population resulting in a greater reliance upon the elites “to do something.”
  2. Greater expenditure of federal spending on law enforcement to “fix things.”
  3. Greater drug use mandating expensive drug programs to “help” people. Such programs will be managed, of course, by major corporations.
  4. Increased need for federal prisons which will be built, managed and supplied by, again, major corporations.
  5. Increased immigration of people from Mexico to the United States resulting in a situation where some day the elites can say, “Well, we may as well just combine the two countries.”
  6. Increased role of the corporate state in providing welfare for poor immigrants and their kids.
  7. Rubbing out of competing small businessmen (who have the audacity to offer a better service) who are more affected by violence than larger corporations. Larger corporations have the dough to hire their own private police force on their own sequestered campus.
  8. A weakening of the pesky middle class in America who are always barking about “The Bill of Rights.”

With all that money coming in, why would our bought-off leaders fix anything?

They won’t. It’s not a matter of ability but desire.