comments

1. #1    Issues of personal liberty aside, the "war on drugs" is a massive drain on resources. Consider the millions spent eradicating feral hemp - ditchweed. Or the law enforcement focus on jailing high profile cases like Tommy Chong. My students (I used to teach public speaking) many times used the persuasive speech assignment to argue for medical marijuana. To me, this misses the point. Whether marijuana is medically beneficial is moot. The point is that it is in no way is marijuana harmful enough to be illegal. The DEA classifies it as a Schedule 1 narcotic, drugs with high abuse potential and no accepted medical use in the United States
   
   For a good background on the "war on marijuana" check out this timeline.
   
   http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
   written by draghnfly since 981 days 9 hours 32 minutes
2. #2    Good timeline, draghnfly.
   
   One caveat: it mentions the Dupont interest in prohibition due to their invention of nylon, but it misses the fact that the Dupont's banker (and the Secretary of Treasury) was named Mellon, and he was Anslinger's uncle-in-law. Anslinger was not initially interested in cannabis prohibition because he saw it as an unnecessary drain on his agency budget. That changed abruptly after he had held his position for about four years.
   
   The following passage was also misquoted. The original form retains more of the folksy racism.
   
   "There was fun in the House Health Committee during the week when the marijuana bill came up for consideration. Marijuana is Mexican opium, a plant used by Mexicans and cultivated for sale by Indians. 'When some beet field peon takes a few rares of this stuff,' explained Dr. Fred Fulsher of Mineral County, 'he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico so he starts to execute all his political enemies...' Everybody laughed and the bill was recommended for passage."
   written by kladner since 981 days 9 hours 8 minutes
3. #3    Yeah, leaving all this site's militia and constitutionalist bs aside (not really), the drug war gives a nice excuse to disproportionately incarcaerate young black men and then remove these "felons" from the voter rolls, all the while sending them to prisons where their bodies will be used to jack up the population and representation of backwoods types...oh! Sort of like these "populist" militia-types who vote thug when push comes to shove, hm?
   written by Zee since 980 days 23 hours 19 minutes
4. #4    Zee: Interesting comments. I totally agree with you on the fact that the drug war has been an absolute atrocity for minorities in this country. just a horrible thing....
   
   I also wanted to comment on your "constitutionalist" remark. There are many people, like you, who obviously hate the constitution. (and people who demand that politicans follow it) I don't.
   
   There are many many flaws to the constitution. Yet, we STILL need to demand that the government follow it - and work at the local level to amend and improve it.
   
   Why? because when you have a government that won't follow its most basic laws, then you have one that ends up waging wars around the world, spying on y...
   
   » ver todo el comentario
   written by populist101 since 980 days 21 hours 9 minutes
5. #5    Yeah, Zee, what's with the "constitutionalist" swipe? The Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is the one huge thing standing between us and unrestrained government power, and the one thing keeping our government from self destructing. It doesn't always work, mostly because jerks in Congress ignore it, and other jerks on the Supreme Court perversely misconstrue its words to suit their own ends, but it's an absolutely brilliant creation. It's just about impossible to overestimate its importance to our country.
   written by MLB since 980 days 19 hours 24 minutes
6. #6    MLB - that's exactly it! Congress and the rest of the government simply ignore the law governing the government (the constitution!) if we don't start demanding that THEY follow the law, then we're just enabling them in these constant attacks on our liberty...
   
   in the meantime, it's not a bad idea to consider the flaws in the constitution, and see what can be added to it to prevent more out-of-control government in the future.
   
   how about putting in stiff penalties for violating the law? It's quite easy for politicians to demand that We the People go to prison for all kinds of "violations" but do they? ever??
   written by populist101 since 980 days 17 hours 35 minutes
7. #7    "It's quite easy for politicians to demand that We the People go to prison for all kinds of "violations" but do they? ever??"
   
   Yes, but not often enough. Below, see the fate of one of my former representatives:
   
   "In 1994, Rostenkowski was indicted on corruption charges and stepped down as Ways and Means chairman; he lost his House seat in the Congressional elections later that year. He pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1996, and was fined and served (1996–97) a 17-month sentence. He has subsequently worked as a political consultant and commentator. Rostenkowski was pardoned by President Clinton in 2000." (Actually was sentenced to 17 months, served 15 at a "Club Fed" facility.)
   written by kladner since 979 days 15 hours 3 minutes

trackbacks

• (no trackbacks)
•  según Technorati