Paris Jackson Enters Treatment Facility + Her “Illuminati” Tweets

Paris Jackson, the daughter of pop legend Michael Jackson, appears to be aware of a lot of things but her life took a turn for the worse in the past months. On June 5, the 15 year old entered UCLA Medical Center (the same hospital where her father died) after a suicide attempt as she reportedly “cut her wrists with a kitchen knife and took as many as 20 ibuprofen tablets.” It was then reported that Paris actually “didn’t want to die” as she was simply “looking for attention”. Odd.

On July 13th, Paris was released from the hospital but was transferred to an “undisclosed residential treatment center” – one that was recommended by her doctors. She is therefore still under tight surveillance because, according to People magazine: “The feeling is that Paris is still a danger to herself.” Why is she still a “danger to herself” is she did this for “attention”? Things are unclear. Is there MK programming going on there?

One thing is for sure, Paris is definitely aware of the dark side of the entertainment industry. Through her Twitter account, she was looking to “educate” her fans know about it. Here are some of the tweets posted on her verified Twitter and Instagram accounts (most of them were however deleted since then).

Here, Paris refers to MJ’s song “They Don’t Care About Us”, a song that seems to be directed at the elite. “Tell me what has become of my rights/ Am I invisible because you ignore me? / Your proclamation promised me free liberty, now I’m tired of bein’ the victim of shame/ They’re throwing me in a class with a bad name/  I can’t believe this is the land from which I came/ You know I really do hate to say it/ The government don’t wanna see”

The video featured MJ singing next to a giant all-seeing eye as if to emphasize who he was singing about.

Trying to raise awareness?

Paris also posted a series of strange occult and secret society-related drawings.

A hexagram with all-seeing eyes and a bloody knife. 666 in the pool of blood.

Symbol of the Order of the Eastern Star – the “female” equivalent of Freemasonry.

A fractured skull with sealed lips doing sign of secrecy.

The symbol of Freemasonry.

It might be relevant to know that Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson’s doctor who was ultimately charged with “involuntary manslaughter”, is a high level Freemason.
According to “Freemasons for Dummies” Murray was grand lodge officer of “irregular” Masonic lodge.

“Dr. Conrad Murray was actually a member of the “United Most Worshipful Scottish Grand Lodge of Texas”, an irregular, unrecognized bogus group in the Houston area, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Grand Lodge of Texas AF&AM, the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas F&AM, or any other regular, recognized form of Freemasonry. Within three years of joining, Murray was made a grand lodge officer, with the rank of Grand Medical Director, which is the title that appears on his officer’s collar in the photo.”
- Chris Hoddap, Michael Jackson’s Doctor, Conrad Murray’s Freemasonry

After learning about Paris’ suicide attempt, Conrad Murray, who is serving a four year prison sentence, sent Paris a creepy “support” message stating: “I love you as a precious father loves his own child and I always will.” These words are coming from the guy WHO IS IN PRISON FOR KILLING HER FATHER.
In short, Paris appears to be a bright young girl who is quite aware for her age. She however appears to be “tainted” and manipulated by the same dark forces that killed her father. Let’s hope things get better for her.

 

Newly Released Documents Detail the Department of Justice’s Role in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests.

Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents proving that the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012.
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. According to the documents JW received, a little-known DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service deployed to Sanford, FL, to organize and manage rallies against Zimmerman.

• March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
• March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
• March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
• March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
• April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
• April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?

JW says the documents it obtained reveal that CRS is not engaging in its stated mission of conducting “impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution,” but instead engaged on the side of the anti-Zimmerman protesters.

On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinel reported, “They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,” after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents.
Separately, in response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which led to the ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee, was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding Lee be fired.  According to the Orlando Sentinel, DOJ employees with the CRS had arranged a 40-mile police escort for the students from Daytona Beach to Sanford.
“These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.”

Organizing such protests falls well within both President Barack Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s wheelhouses. Obama was a “community organizer” in his career prior to elective politics, a position that uses protests and street theater, along with threats, to obtain concessions from businesses and other political opponents. Holder has accused America of being a “nation of cowards” for not discussing racial issues enough. He also described black Americans as “my people” during a congressional hearing.
As the Zimmerman trial winds down, the threat of race riots should he be acquitted has risen.

Communication Infrastructure – Preparing for Chaos

In terms of preparedness, emergency communications should be at the top of your list. In times of crisis, the ability to send and receive information could mean the difference between life and death.

As part of our infrastructure series, we are going to take a look at our country’s communications infrastructure.

Who is Listening?

Let’s face it; every time we talk or transmit messages through our modern communications infrastructure, we put ourselves at risk. From bored teenage hackers, to more sophisticated criminal groups, hundreds of thousands of hackers are hard at work trying to steal every piece of data they can get their hands on.
If you use one of these modern forms of communication, (cell phones, the internet, email, etc…) there’s a good chance that  your information will eventually become compromised.

The technology is out there, and it’s getting easier for criminals to use it.
At a security conference a couple years back, a group of hackers showed how easily they could intercept just about anyone’s cell phone conversations.

With under $1,500 worth of gear, the security expert built a device that mimicked a cell phone tower. The device tricked cell phones into routing their outbound calls through the device, allowing the hacker to intercept even encrypted calls in the clear.

During the demonstration, the security expert was able to get 30 phones from people in the audience, to actually connect to his simulated tower.

Government is tracking it all…
Based on recent events, we can now say with absolute certainty that our communication channels are anything but secure. It’s very likely that everything you say, or send, is in some way being monitored or fed into a massive government database.

What was once considered the paranoid thoughts of conspiracy theorists, has now been confirmed: The government is monitoring everything.

During a Disaster, Can you really count on modern forms of Communication?

Time and time again, we see just how vulnerable we are to even small scale disasters. From cell towers being taken offline by relatively small storms, to cell networks becoming completely overwhelmed during national tragedies, it’s pretty obvious our systems are not built to deal with emergencies.

Most Americans have become way too reliant on their cell phones, and many don’t realize how ineffective they will likely be during a disaster. In fact, during the summer of 2012 a series of storms swept through the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. causing widespread damage to the cellular infrastructure.

During these disasters, millions of people were unable to use their cellphones, access the internet, or even dial 911. The problem was so bad that parts of Northern Virginia went without emergency 911 services for over 48 hours.


If our cell providers can’t even guarantee service during normal yearly storms, what do you think will happen during a major nationwide disaster?

You have to have a backup plan
During any type of emergency, communications is usually one of the most important survival skills that you can possess. When modern communication lines go down, you need to have a plan of action in place. For more information, read our article on emergency communication planning for disasters.

Large Scale Threats to the System:
Now that we have natural disasters covered, the next step is to prepare for large scale threats.
Cyber Threat: The cyber threat is real, and it’s so much larger than them just listening to our calls.
Our modern communication infrastructure is incredibly reliant on the grid; this reliance has made us incredibly vulnerable to attacks. Earlier this year, hackers launched one of the largest DDOS attacks in the history of the internet.

The attack caused widespread internet congestion, and jammed critical infrastructure around the world. The attack showed how quickly, and easily, hackers could cripple our communication systems.
In a matter of hours, a large scale coordinated attack could literally cripple the country.

EMP Threat: Just like our electrical grid, our communications infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks.

Recently, after North Korea threatened the U.S. with a nuclear attack, the threat on an EMP being detonated over our skies has become even more of a concern. If North Korea, or any rouge nation were able to detonate an EMP, it would change our country in an instant.

Our entire power grid would instantly go down, making every form of modern communication completely useless in a matter of seconds. Our cell towers, radios, telephones and internet systems would all stop working.

In the blink of an eye, the way we communicate and gather information would instantly change.
Contingency Planning:
When the power lines go down, and modern communication becomes completely unreliable, there is one form of commutation that will probably still be alive and well – Ham Radio.

Although there are many people who are leery of becoming a licensed Amateur Radio operator – and I really don’t blame them after all the recent government spy scandals – I do believe the benefits outweigh the risks. I mean let’s face it, they probably have more information on those that use cell phones, than those who become licensed Hams.

Why Ham Radio?
In my opinion, Ham Radio in probably one of the most viable forms of communication during a crisis situation. During the initial stages of a disaster, Ham Radio operators are often the only line of communication into or out of the affected area.

If your serious about emergency communications, I advise reading one of our many articles on Ham Radio.
In a survival situation, knowledge is going to be a critical factor in determining the outcome of your situation. Don’t underestimate the power of communication, and the importance of staying informed.

Will Zimmerman acquitall cause race riots??

Social unrest will “dwarf the Rodney King and the Martin Luther King riots”

Following a number of tweets making threats to kill white people if George Zimmerman is acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, a former Chicago police officer warns that the outcome of the case could spark race riots in cities across America.

As Infowars reported yesterday, following the woeful performance of Rachel Jeantel, the state’s so-called “star witness,” a number of Twitter users took to the social network to express their intention to kill white people in retaliation for Zimmerman going free.

Tweets included remarks such as “If Zimmerman get off ima shoot the first #hispanic/white I see,” and “If they don’t kill Zimmerman Ima kill me a cracka.”

In an article entitled, America Will See Its Worst Race Riot Yet This Summer, Crime File News’ Paul Huebl remarks that the case against Zimmerman should never have been filed in the first place and that when the trial inevitably collapses with Zimmerman’s acquittal, “I fully expect organized race rioting to begin in every major city to dwarf the Rodney King and the Martin Luther King riots of past decades.”

Huebl is a licensed private detective and a former Chicago police officer.

“If you live in a large city be prepared to evacuate or put up a fight to win. You will need firearms, fire suppression equipment along with lots of food and water. Police resources will be slow and outgunned everywhere,” writes Huebl, adding, “America may see some combat related population control like we’ve not seen since the Civil War. Martial Law can’t be far behind complete with major efforts at gun grabbing.”

Huebl is not the only prominent voice to express fears that the outcome of the trial could lead to widespread social disorder.

Columnist and former senior presidential advisor Pat Buchanan warned last month that, “The public mind has been so poisoned that an acquittal of George Zimmerman could ignite a reaction similar to that, 20 years ago, when the Simi Valley jury acquitted the LAPD cops in the Rodney King beating case.”

Political Strategist Charles D. Ellison also warns that, “There is the risk of a flashpoint as intense as the aftermath of that fateful Los Angeles police brutality verdict in 1992,” if Zimmerman walks free.

“At that time, many underestimated the potential for social unrest. And a bit over 20 years to the date, many could be making the same miscalculation at this very moment. The ingredients are there in Sanford and they loom large nationally, from an economy barely managing its own recovery to an unemployment rate that’s much higher than it should be, particularly for African-Americans,” adds Ellison.

Some are even asking whether the law should be ignored and Zimmerman convicted simply to avoid race riots.

“Regardless of whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense, a large segment of the population, particularly the black population, are demanding Zimmerman be punished. And if they don’t have their demands satisfied, it is possible they might riot,” writes a poster at the Aesops Retreat forum. “So would it be appropriate to consider potential riots when deciding on whether or not to prosecute Zimmerman? Or should justice be blind and follow the rule of law?”

Critics of the attempt to convict Zimmerman have cited numerous points of evidence which clearly suggest Zimmerman acted in self-defense and that the case against him was built largely on the back of contrived racial politics.

- Photos taken after the incident show Zimmerman with a bloody nose and lacerations to the head, suggesting he had been physically attacked by Martin;

- NBC News edited a 911 tape of Zimmerman’s call to the police to falsely depict him as a racist;

- Prominent black figures like Spike Lee and Jesse Jackson immediately portrayed the incident as an assault on the black community, stirring racial tension;

- President Barack Obama got involved in the case on the side of Trayvon Martin by stating, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

- A police report suggested Zimmerman had been flat on his back during the altercation and an eyewitness said that Martin was sat on top of Zimmerman beating and pushing him down;

- A responder at the scene said Martin’s knuckles were bloodied, suggesting he had injured Zimmerman with a punch;

- The lead investigator on the scene, Officer Christopher Serino, wrote that Zimmerman could be heard “yelling for help as he was being battered by Trayvon Martin.”

If some form of social disorder, be it limited or widespread, does ensue should Zimmerman walk free, authorities will be well prepared. TheDepartment of Homeland Security recently put out another order for hundreds of items of riot gear in order to prepare for “riot control situations.” The federal agency has also committed to buying around 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year.

Original article source.

The truth about assualt weapons.

This is an AR-15 rifle. It is the most popular rifle sold in the United States today. Millions have been sold to American citizens since 1963.

The AR-15 is the most common example of what are sometimes called assault weapons. But what does this term actually mean?

First, it is important to understand what an assault weapon isn't. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review:

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."

If an assault weapon is not an assault rifle, what is an assault rifle?

This is a M4A1 carbine. It is a U.S. military service rifle. It is also an assault rifle.

The M4A1 is fully automatic. This means it fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute.

The M4A1 and other fully automatic firearms are also called machine guns. In 1986, the Federal government banned the sale or transfer of new machine guns to civilians.

Like the majority of firearms sold in the United States, the AR-15 is semi-automatic. This means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.

The AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute.

So-called assault weapons are not machine guns or assault rifles. According to David Kopel, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. ... Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.

The truth about assault weapons is that they function like this ranch rifle...

...and this shotgun...

...and this pistol...

...and this double-action revolver.

All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.

But if that's true, what makes this semi-automatic rifle a ranch gun...

...and this semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon?

The answer is perception. According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

In the late 1980s, more than two decades after the AR-15 was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a systematic campaign to conflate it and other "military-style" firearms with machine guns. The media followed suit, and soon the American public began to think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.

This strategy came to fruition in 1993, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was introduced in Congress. The AWB would ban the sale of new assault weapons to American civilians.

However, since "assault weapon" was an invented term, it had no technical meaning. Before assault weapons could be banned, legislators had to define them.

Because assault rifles were already banned, and because an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms wasn't considered politically feasible, the AWB defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts.

These banned "military-style" features included certain combinations of collapsible stocks...

...flash hiders...

...and pistol grips, none of which actually made the firearms more lethal.

According to a Department of Justice study, the firearms that the AWB would ban were used in only 2% of gun crimes.

Nevertheless, the AWB's passage was aided by the fact that many Americans believed the bill would ban machine guns and "weapons of war," something that had, in fact, already been banned.

The AWB also banned magazines having a capacity higher than ten rounds. This restriction applied to all firearms, not just so-called assault weapons.

To secure enough votes to pass the bill, a sunset provision was added. After ten years, the AWB would end.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:

[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

When the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines.

In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.

Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded:

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Regarding large capacity magazines, the study said:

[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

Furthermore, legislators had misjudged the popularity of so-called assault weapons. In his memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because of the AWB. Other Democrats have stated that the AWB may have cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.

At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.

Cho used seventeen of the magazines and fired approximately 170 rounds—or ten rounds per magazine—from two handguns before killing himself.

Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine's capacity was incidental to the amount of death and injury an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone."

Although the Virginia Tech massacre was and remains the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, it resulted in relatively few calls for new gun control, possibly because so-called assault weapons were not used.

But after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons were widely depicted as military weapons whose only purpose was to rapidly kill large numbers of people.

In reality, so-called assault weapons are commonly used by hunters and competitors.

It has been estimated that at least 3.3 million AR-15 rifles were sold in the United States between 1986 and 2009. In its ubiquity, the AR-15 is a modern musket—the default rifle with which law-abiding Americans exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The AR-15 is particularly favored for its modularity, accuracy, light weight, and low recoil—attributes that make it ideal not only for shooting sports but also armed self-defense.

As such, it is the epitome of what America's founders sought to protect when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Nevertheless, on December 17, 2012, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, announced her intention to introduce another Federal Assault Weapons Ban in Congress.

However, Senator Feinstein's own facts do not support her agenda. The truth about assault weapons is that they are underrepresented in gun crimes.

According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.

Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.

Insofar as the AR-15 is used in crimes, the rifle's popularity must be considered.

Besides the AR-15, James Holmes used a best-selling and arguably more lethal shotgun at the Aurora movie theater shooting.

At the Virginia Tech and Tucson shootings, Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner used a best-selling handgun.

All else being equal, a gun that is common is more likely to be used for legal or illegal purposes than a gun that is rare. Outlawing guns that are popular today will only make different guns popular tomorrow.

The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—the guns most commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans.

Banning firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.

Contact your legislators, and tell them the truth about assault weapons.

Read full article

Why Good Parents Should Support Drug Legalization.

 

 

 

A friend of mine used to laugh when I said I was in favor of legalizing all drugs. He just couldn’t fathom such a position. He told me that if they legalized drugs, “It would take all of the fun out of it.”

Three years after he died of a heroin overdose, I wonder whether he’d be alive now if drugs had been legal.

As a father, I sometimes find myself on the receiving end of an argument that’s a perennial favorite of the hardened drug warrior: Why would I, the father of a nine-year-old girl, advocate for a society awash with legally available drugs?

The answer is simple: My daughter is already growing up in a society in which illegal drugs are easier to procure than alcohol. Unlike the guy behind the counter of my local liquor store, I’ve never known a drug dealer who checked IDs.

Of course, as an ex-addict, the idea of my daughter using drugs is disquieting. But let’s be honest: The idea of her dating boys is disquieting. I’m not about to campaign to ban co-ed schools. It is hard to remain detached and logical when I’m talking about the little girl I tuck into bed every night. But I truly believe that ending prohibition would protect her, not expose her to harm.

A relapse isn’t something that can be prevented by legislation. But at least when alcoholics relapse they don’t risk death from drinking contaminated bathtub hooch.

The horrors of drug addiction are the last thing I’d ever want her to experience. But if it did happen, I’d prefer it to happen in a society that treated addiction as a medical issue, rather than a reason to lock her up. And frankly, I’m more at ease with the idea of her smoking a joint when she’s old enough, rather than exposing herself to the greater potential harms of alcohol. That doesn't mean I'm going to head off with her to my local 420 rally this weekend.

Maybe it’s easier for me than most parents because the cat, as it were, is already out of the bag. I've written about my experiences with heroin and crack in great detail in my books. She'll no doubt read them when she's old enough. But even without the paper trail, I've always felt that I have a duty to be honest with my daughter about drugs. Especially when she's growing up in a society that will be bombarding her with politically motivated propaganda via police-led “educational” programs like DARE, and a media that often prefers hysteria and controversy to cold hard facts.

I truly believe that we're moving toward a society in which it is no longer acceptable to persecute drug users, and it's my duty to prepare my child for that.

The movement to legalize marijuana is gathering unprecedented momentum. In the US, it’s now legal in two states for adults to buy pot just like tobacco or alcohol. In many other states, all it takes is a doctor’s prescription. There is a steady shift in public attitudes to the War on Drugs: According to one recent poll, only one in five Americans feels it has been worth the cost. Suddenly, it seems everything is up for grabs.

Taking a stand against prohibition—whether by how we vote, where we donate or simply being “out and proud” about our beliefs—is one thing that our unique, fractured and excluded community should do with one voice. If we don’t, others will make their own assumptions about where we stand. 

Addiction and recovery issues have for years been moving out of the shadows and into the media spotlight. Celebrities openly discuss going to rehab; in a weird way, recovery has become trendy. We can seize this high profile to speak out against the injustices of the drug war.

My introduction to activism came in London a decade ago. I was on the methadone program at Homerton Hospital and my doctor was giving me hell. He wanted to wean me off immediately. While I was open to the idea of detoxing—in my own time—I knew that if the clinic started weaning me off just weeks into the program, I was going to be back on the needle at the end of it.

That terrified me. Because methadone—which gets a pretty bad rap—saved my life. It gave me enough breathing space to finally look at my situation. And I didn’t like what I saw. I began to believe that maybe I could try a life without heroin at its center. But I could see this potential new life slipping away after an immediate attempt at detox.

Somehow I got in touch with a fellow called Bill Nelles at the Methadone Alliance, and to this day I thank the stars I did. Bill argued my case with the clinic; pulled out pages of evidence in favor of high-dose maintenance from men way smarter and more experienced than my doctor. Eventually my clinic capitulated. Within a year I was able to wean myself off without their help.

Bill’s advocacy was a powerful lesson. With his help, I soon immersed myself in groups like The National Drug Users Development Agency. I went from feeling utterly disempowered to realizing that even junkies, society’s outcasts, could wield enormous power, if we only fought smart and stuck together.

When I quit dope and left England I lost touch with a lot of my advocate friends. But what we were fighting for—equality, decent treatment and an end to our persecution—is still a major concern of mine. And these goals are irrefutably tied to the question of legalization.

People who have never experienced addiction often express some confusion on this issue. They feel that we, as current, recovering or ex-addicts, should be fighting against legalization. After all, drugs have wreaked havoc in our lives: Why on earth would we want them legal?

We want them legal for the same reason that few ex-alcoholics are in favor of banning booze. The legality of the substance is not the issue; the availability of it is. Prohibited or not, trillion-dollar drug war spend or not, drugs remain readily available all over the globe—in small towns, big cities, schools and even prisons.

A relapse isn’t something that can be prevented by legislation. But at least when alcoholics relapse they don’t risk death from drinking contaminated bathtub hooch. Many of the tangible harms of addiction come from the illegality of substances we use—the prohibitive cost, the uncertain quality and the legal risks involved in procuring our substance of choice. 

You must know by now that the current approach has failed. A century of prohibition has resulted in a wider proliferation of drugs than ever, sold by criminal organizations so powerful and well funded that they hold the power to topple governments. This “war” has done nothing to stop people taking drugs. The only people who benefit are drug dealers and the profiteers in the prohibition industry.

It's all well and good for us to rally around “safer”—albeit crucial—causes, like better and more accessible drug treatment, ending the stigmatization of drug users, and developing new and more effective medications to help break the cycle of addiction. But even these issues fail to get to the root of the problem. The addiction community's number one priority has to be convincing the powers that be to end drug prohibition. Only when drug use is classified as a medical rather than a legal issue can resources finally be focused on helping to solve, not worsen, our problems. 

Drugs are either illegal or they’re not. Drug users are either criminals or they're not. There is no “third way,“ and "compassionate prohibition” is an oxymoron. We have a moral imperative to speak out.

Addicts and former addicts—drinkers, smokers, IV drug users or whatever—are anything but a homogenous bunch. While undergoing treatment I shared a room with a crack-smoking bank manager and a meth-shooting ex-hooker who’d changed gender twice. During the time I once spent in the rooms, I sat alongside priests, actors, gangbangers, businessmen, housewives, prostitutes and pilots. The only thing binding this ragtag group together is an obsession for narcotics.

Sometimes we agree; sometimes we scream at each other. We may be using actively or moderately; we may have quit via the 12 Steps, CBT, free will, religion or some other way. We might not like each other; we might not agree on a single issue politically or socially. But we do have a shared, collective experience.

We know that a life spent as a slave to a substance isn’t glamorous or fun. And when we’re at our lowest ebb, no law on the books can cause us the kind of hurt and pain that we heap upon ourselves; we need support, not persecution.

Drug prohibition should be our top priority also because it has the greatest potential to unite us: 12-step, non-12-step and anything in-between. AA “neither endorses nor opposes any causes.” But that doesn’t mean that those who are in the program should also remain silent. We should be getting involved with organizations like MPP and LEAP. We should be talking to our families, our friends and our peers about this. We should be putting pressure on politicians.

We’ve long had the experience and the knowledge; now we have the momentum, too. For ourselves, for our kids, for the countless others who will follow in our footsteps down the dark path of chemical dependence, let's make it count. 

original article

Gun Control Debate: 5 Reasons Millennials Should Teach Their Children to Shoot.

I like guns. Everyone should own one. Well, maybe not everyone. I don't think people should be allowed to own them if they are repeat offenders or maybe if they show up for their prom 20 years late in an Easter bunny costume.

But it's certainly something that people ought to learn how to do if they are of sound and upright mind. More importantly, hawkeyes should learn how to make hawkeyes. People who aren't familiar with guns are often afraid of them, but the more people become familiar with them, the more at peace they will become. The best way to do this is to teach them when they're young. And for all you doubters out there, here are five reasons why you should teach them:

1. Shooting Teaches Discipline.

   A lot of people just think that shooting is about destroying things. Nothing could be further from the truth. If people wanted to destroy things they would probably hit something other than a ball with a baseball bat. With shooting, on the other hand, to do it well, you have to learn to keep total control and have all of your fundamentals in balance: Your sight picture, your position, your breathing, and your trigger pull.

2. Shooting Teaches Responsibility.

     Some people think that shooters point empty guns at each other all the time and play around with them when they aren't shooting them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most shooters know the principles of weapon safety: never point at something unless you're prepared to shoot at it; always keep the weapon aimed at the ground when not firing it; never have your finger in the trigger well unless you are about to fire, etc. To a gun owner, intentionally flagging someone with a gun is a taboo on par with streaking the stage at your mother's funeral. (As I recall, the first time I was intentionally flagged by someone who had not been taught the basics of weapons safety, it took a moment for me to say, "What the hell!" because I was surprised anyone could be so stupid.) The most important thing to repeat to a kid when you first put a weapon into their hands (and I have) is, "That is a real gun. Always assume its dangerous." You might have to threaten to take it away once or twice, but they learn fast enough.

3. Shooting Teaches Situational Awareness.

    Kids need to know never to point a gun at someone intentionally, but they also need to know how to avoid pointing it at someone unintentionally. To do this, they should be aware that they are in control of the gun when they are ready to shoot it. And, most importantly, whenever someone is in that 180 degrees in front of them, between their three o'clock and their nine o'clock, they need to know that they do not ever pull the trigger, point the weapon, or even have the weapon hot or loaded. Shooting teaches kids to be aware of not only their situation, but of the situations of everyone around them.

4. Shooting Teaches Camaraderie.

This is something that parents and kids could use a lot more of. Shooting may not take a long time to learn. But it is something that can come much faster if you have a good coach, correcting you on your breathing, your position, or your trigger pull. It used to be that parents taught their children everything they needed to know. Today, parents try to let the daycare, teachers and eventually professors do that. But shooting. That is one of those things that you can teach them that no one else should (other than maybe a boy scout, girl scout, or drill instructor).

 

5. Shooting Teaches Self-Confidence.

You might not need to be strong to pull a trigger. But it does take a will to do so. It is surprising how difficult it can be to get some people to even touch a rifle. A lot of people don't even know that they can do it, even though it is not hard. Shooting well is something that can only come through practice. The real hurdle that people need to overcome is nervousness which wrecks their concentration when they shoot. Your zeroing can create a map of your self-confidence. And it can create a map of your child's self-confidence also.

Learning to respect the gun is something that every child should learn. A gun is the sort of magister that can teach a lot but that also requires a lot. The high schools our grandparents went to knew this, which was why students could bring rifles to school and use the school range and no one would have thought anything of it. In the 1940s, a kid could be seen traveling on New York City's subway to school with a rifle slung across his or her back. Back then, that would be just another day in the Big Apple. No one worried; they knew that the kid respected the gun and could handle it safely. 

It would be nice to have that sense of security back, but I recognize that it probably won't happen. But we can all teach children how to feel safe around guns and, if nothing else, that the gun is safe as long as it is in safe hands. Teach your children how to handle a gun, and they will learn how to handle themselves.

original article: