Posted on 09/07/2009 3:09:41 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
The racism of marijuana prohibition
Enforcement of marijuana laws disproportionately affects young African Americans -- even though their usage rates are lower than whites'...
So while the purported mainstream is delighting to "Weeds" and contemplating the new revenue that state-regulated marijuana would generate, there's even greater urgency to ending the prohibition of marijuana. California can't wait any longer to end the racist enforcement of marijuana laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Good God. Everything’s about race to the L.A. Times.
Most pot smokers don’t get arrested for sitting at home, watching TV and munching popcorn. Could it be that some of these folks that were charged were caught with it in their possession while doing something else?
At this juncture the “war on drugs(TM)” is the single biggest issue I have with republicans and I don’t even care any more what it takes to get rid of it. If racism can do it, hurray for racism...
Maybe the difference is because most whites are just using, while a lot of blacks are on the street dealing.
“At this juncture the “war on drugs(TM)” is the single biggest issue I have with republicans”
Oh, come on. No one has pursued a war on drugs for decades.
Remember, California wants marijuana legalized so they can then turn around and tax it. So if they can frame the argument around racism or prohibition or anything else they can dream of, they will. A broke state that is still issuing IOUs seemingly must drop to standards they otherwise may not have considered.
LLS
The failed war on drugs is idiotic.
The Republicans are absolutely hypocritical on the drug war. I will scream all day long about the Dems violating the Constitution but the Republicans do it every time on drugs.
Pathetic position on their part.
No matter how bad drugs are for you, prohibition is a violation of Liberty borne out of the same union of state and religion that brought about the prohibition of alcohol but without the same formality of Constitutional authority.
People on the Right who claim to believe in rights will never be consistent so long as they support anti-drug laws but will be picking and chusing which Constitutional rights to recognize according to their own whims, the same as any Leftist.
Libertarian much?
This article is hard to follow, what with nonwhites, of colors, blacks, and African Americans. It is only going to get worse with the addition of the various hues and hyphens.
Don't get them started. Many barrels of ink have been spilled on the subject of crack vs cocaine prison sentences. The deal is, you get in more trouble for crack, and that leads to more blacks than whites being incarcerated, for longer periods of time.
Back in the day, the worst smoke I ever scored I scored from black dealers.
>Libertarian much?
Nope. I just believe in the same rights that were recognized in the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, before temperance, anti-gun laws and the New Deal Supreme Court reinterpretations of commerce, general welfare, free exercise etc. Nothing more and nothing less.
There’s a racist under every bed and in every closet. Boo!
No.
While their theory is a complete load of tripe, count me as having a libertarian bent when it comes to legalizing a drug that is far less harmful than any single precription medication out there already.. we’re too smart to fall prey to the reefer madness hype.. have you seen the prescription drug ads and their side effect? shameful.. we could generate taxes from the sale of marijuana if it were regulated. The war on drugs is a joke and harms more than it helps. Flame away.
You’re wasting your time with the pro-druggies. With all the crap going on in the world today, they get absolutely infuriated when anyone mentions the drug war. Talk about messed up priorities!
I’m sure this will rankle them, but they should start asking themselves why they think mood-altering drugs should be more plentiful than they already are. Devoted to more meth, crack, etc in society? How pathetic!
Personally, I’d support the fed getting out of the drug war, but I’d vote in a heartbeat to keep the vast majority of these drugs illegal at the state level.
“No matter how bad drugs are for you, prohibition is a violation of Liberty”
The question is not whether drugs are bad for the user. The issue is that they are bad for all around him. His “right” to seek intoxication (and I put the word “right” in quotation marks because I do not believe that God bestows any such right upon us) stops where it begins to affect the quality of others’ lives.
“the prohibition of alcohol but without the same formality of Constitutional authority.”
One difference is that consumption of alcohol does not always have intoxication as its object — especially where water supplies are contaminated.
“People on the Right who claim to believe in rights will never be consistent”
I consistently believe in actual rights, and just as consistently reject bogus rights trumped up by the left in an effort to harm mankind.
“so long as they support anti-drug laws but will be picking and chusing which Constitutional rights to recognize according to their own whims, the same as any Leftist.”
Our rights do not derive from the Constitution; the Constitution only enumerates those rights regarded as most important by the Founding Fathers and state legislatures. The ultimate source of those rights, as the Founders often noted, is God.
Do you wish to make a case that God bestows upon us the right to intoxicate ourselves as drug addicts do? Bearing in mind, of course, the difference between a freedom and a right.
God leaves us free to do many bad things, but that in no way indicates that we have the right to commit them.
Let’s lighten up on rape laws because blacks are beat the curve on that to. /sarc
LBJ July 1965 to a Dem. con. helping pass Medicare
No more calls, please; we have a winner. Why did this not occur to the Los Angeles Times?
Legalize it!
Both Political Parties are hypocrites on this issue.
Legalization will never take place across the country. It would expose soooo many of the other pointless laws on the books.
If you really wanted to get someone’s attention, start throwing some of the branch bankers in jail.... Where did that large deposit come from? .... My goodness, all cash today, wow! Get real, folks in the boondock burbs know what’s going on...
“The issue is that they are bad for all around him.”
That is not an issue. Everything you do has a consequence for those around you. Waste your money, waste your time, eat too much etc. It is only the business of government when you do something to other people.
“One difference is that consumption of alcohol does not always have intoxication as its object — especially where water supplies are contaminated.”
The Constitution did not have anything to say about intoxication. That is a moral issue. But then the churches turned it into a state issue. (Look up Episcopal bishop of the Philippines, Charles I Henry Brent.)
“I consistently believe in actual rights, and just as consistently reject bogus rights trumped up by the left in an effort to harm mankind.”
Benjamin Franklin (an opium user) would wonder where your idea of rights or who the left is came from.
“Our rights do not derive from the Constitution”
But the Federal Government’s rights DO derive from the Constitution. And the Federal Government has no right in the original understanding of the Constitution to prohibit drugs.
You need to do just one thing to convince me otherwise and that is to point to the provision in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government that authority. But be careful lest you use the same clause and logic that the Left has misinterpreted in order to create its pet projects. That is your inconsistency. I’m really looking forward to this answer.
If you legalize it the crooks will just sell harder drugs to the kiddies who like the thrill of breaking the law.
“It is only the business of government when you do something to other people.”
And that is exactly what I said.
“That is a moral issue.”
All legal issues are moral issues. The Constitution merely enumerates the rights God bestows upon us. If He does not bestow a right, no amount of Constitutional verbiage will serve to bring it into being.
“Benjamin Franklin (an opium user) would wonder where your idea of rights or who the left is came from.”
Yeah, and I suppose he was an atheist, a communist, and a homosexual as well.
“But the Federal Government’s rights DO derive from the Constitution.”
The federal government has no rights. It has only powers, and it rightfully has only those powers that we consent to.
“And the Federal Government has no right in the original understanding of the Constitution to prohibit drugs.”
It’s fine with me if the state governments take over that task...after we dispense with this fiction that there is some constitutional right to take intoxicating drugs.
“You need to do just one thing to convince me otherwise and that is to point to the provision in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government that authority.”
Just hold on a minute there, pilgrim. You’re the one arguing that the Constitution protects a person’s right to abuse intoxicating drugs. The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion, and you’re not going to get away with trying to turn the argument upside down.
You are trying to assert that the absence of a specific enumeration of that power in those words implies the positive existence of a right to engage in that behavior, and prohibits the government from enacting laws prohibiting it. That is not just illogical, it’s gibberish.
The fact is that we may, in the absence of a bona fide right to the contrary, pass laws prohibiting drugs. It is up to you do persuade people that such a right exists. Good luck.
The word “murder” does not appear in the Constitution, nor do the words “rape” or “theft.” And yet we have laws against these. How can that be? Are you arguing that these laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished?
Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” No?
Minimizing the depradations of drug addicts on our society certainly falls under the umbrella of “general welfare.” As there is no right to intoxication, we may pass laws prohibiting drugs.
“That is your inconsistency.”
Yours, on the other hand, is in approving of laws against murder, rape, and theft (You do, don’t you?), while deploring laws that seek to reduce murder, rape, and theft by minimizing drug use.
Something you may have overlooked: Prohibition was repealed not because some right to booze was discovered. It was repealed solely because people didn’t want it. Had they wanted it, it would still be in the Constitution.
“I’m really looking forward to this answer.”
Only because your desperate need to legalize drugs blinds you to the truth.
Keep your heads down when you come for our guns.
I doubt we'll be as passive about it as the pot smoker.
Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
Screw you and the commie horse you rode in on.
~~~
Translation: "All dis narcin' on the po' Black brothas who is gettin' their bling by peddlin' ganj to the whiteys jus ain't fair..." ("'Co'se, don't go bustin' on ol whitey too much -- 'cause that bees screwin' wif our market...")
Please read the 9th amendment. This isn’t rocket science.
Most people don’t like a high beyond a certain point. Saying teenagers, or anyone else, will go to hard drugs is silly. There are lines most folks won’t cross regardless.
“And that is exactly what I said.”
No, you argued that bad effects were governable. That is the argument being used against second-hand smoke, transfats on healthcare costs and carbon dioxide emissions. You are a statist.
“All legal issues are moral issues.”
But not all moral issues are legal issues. If you are arguing that they can be one and the same, then you are arguing for the union of church and state and absolutism. Proper laws govern relations between people. When they seek to impose morals on the individual, they invade conscience.
“It’s fine with me if the state governments take over that task...”
There were state laws before the federal takeover. The feds took over because they felt state laws were ineffective at imposing absolutism - as it should be.
“You’re the one arguing that the Constitution protects a person’s right to abuse intoxicating drugs. The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion, and you’re not going to get away with trying to turn the argument upside down.”
I’m arguing bottom up - I have a right to conscience and whether one becomes privately intoxicated is a matter of conscience - as well as top down - the federal government was not given power to regulate intoxicating substances or anything else except as regards commerce between states.
“It is up to you do persuade people that such a right exists. Good luck.”
Rights do not come from the people. It is up to me to persuade people to recognize a right that exists regardless of whether they continue to trample it. It is much more difficult for 50 states to trample a right without the federal government to call on.
“The word “murder” does not appear in the Constitution, nor do the words “rape” or “theft.” And yet we have laws against these. How can that be? Are you arguing that these laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished?”
Has it escaped your notice that except on federal property, these are all state laws and that these all govern acts between people and are thus not matters only of conscience?
“Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” No?”
Providing is spending or setting aside for, not controlling individuals so you are distorting the language. Without any enumerated power to control people’s lives, you are willing to use any vagueness you can find to establish statist control based on your morality that happy hour is evil. There is no limit to the logic that left or right can put that mischief to.
“Yours, on the other hand, is in approving of laws against murder, rape, and theft (You do, don’t you?), while deploring laws that seek to reduce murder, rape, and theft by minimizing drug use.”
I look to minimize rape, murder and theft by laws against rape, murder and theft, not by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens as the left’s morality calls for or whatever connection you think drugs of themselves have with these. Murder and theft, in my view, are caused by the laws against drugs, much as Prohibition gave opportunities to organized crime in the 1920’s. It isn’t like we haven’t seen this before.
Me: Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
You: Screw you...
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Legalize any crime that’s done more by x race than whites.
That should shut em up, right? There will be a wide shift of the landscape of the country, since murder would be legalized, but hey...
“Please read the 9th amendment.”
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“This isn’t rocket science.”
So why don’t you get it?
That passage means that the possibility exists that there are *some* rights not enumerated in the Constitution. It does not mean that *everything* not specifically named is a right. There is a nearly infinite number of things not enumerated as rights that are not, in fact, rights.
If you wish to establish that being a drug addict and all associated behaviors are rights, then it is up to you to make a case that persuades enough other people that drug laws are repealed.
“That is the argument being used against second-hand smoke, transfats on healthcare costs and carbon dioxide emissions. You are a statist.”
I don’t know whether you are mistaken or lying. Don’t much care. You have a moral obligation to make a legitimate effort to understand what a person says before you engage in detraction.
“If you are arguing that they can be one and the same, then you are arguing for the union of church and state and absolutism.”
That’s how leftards argue. Assign the worst possible interpretation to a person’s remarks, stretching and distorting as desired, then attack your own creation. I don’t have much patience with such dishonesty.
“There were state laws before the federal takeover.”
And you go so far as to ignore places where I agree with you?
“I’m arguing bottom up”
You’re arguing bass ackwards. That is why you arrive at incorrect conclusions.
“I have a right to conscience”
No, you have a right to a *properly formed* conscience. In America we extend others the freedom to cling to a distorted conscience, but that’s a freedom, not a right.
“and whether one becomes privately intoxicated is a matter of conscience”
Dead wrong, on any number of grounds. No point in repeating them yet again, as you just put your fingers in your ears.
“the federal government was not given power to regulate intoxicating substances or anything else except as regards commerce between states.”
The federal government is given the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Insomuch as it is recognized that such crimes as murder, rape, and theft are criminalized as detrimental to the general welfare, behavior that leads to those crimes is seen also to fall under that purview.
“Rights do not come from the people.”
Laws, however, are supposed to. As this is not a Constitutional issue, you can either lobby for the laws you want or lobby for a Constitutional amendment. If you want either of those outcomes, you need to persuade others.
“…recognize a right that exists…”
Buncombe. No such right ever has existed, or ever could.
“…these all govern acts between people and are thus not matters only of conscience?”
And neither is recreational drug use solely a matter of conscience.
“Providing is spending or setting aside for”
Perhaps you can cite a (non-leftist) constitutional authority for that. Your reading would require the federal government to out-source national defense. Silly.
“Without any enumerated power to control people’s lives”
Like the enumerated powers government has to criminalize murder, rape, and theft?
“you are willing to use any vagueness you can find to establish statist control”
As Thomas Sowell wrote, “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
I have refuted your arguments using facts and reason. Now you attempt to answer my arguments by attributing bad motives to me.
“…based on your morality that happy hour is evil.”
So, am I to understand that you’re a God-hater too? Btw, it’s not *my* morality.
“There is no limit to the logic that left or right can put that mischief to.”
As H. L. Mencken wrote, “It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”
“I look to minimize rape, murder and theft by laws against rape, murder and theft, not by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens”
We wave a fond farewell, as you drift further and further from any argument actually presented against your position, eventually to become mired in the Sargasso Sea of personal slur and stalking horse arguments.
It happens that I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, I regard any restriction on weaponry as unconstitutional.
“Murder and theft, in my view, are caused by the laws against drugs”
Yeah, I used to think that myself. In later decades I realized that I was wrong. Even if we provided free dope, housing, and food to junkies, they would still prey on others and deprive others of their right to be secure in their persons and their property.
“much as Prohibition gave opportunities to organized crime in the 1920’s.”
It was the demand for hooch and the willingness of society at large to break the law that gave opportunities to organized crime. Dope is neither the medical nor the moral equivalent of booze.
“It isn’t like we haven’t seen this before.”
Yes, it is. Laws against the recreational use and eventual addiction to, say, Fentanyl, are not the equivalent of the 18th Amendment.
“Rasmussen Reports: 51% Rate Alcohol More Dangerous Than Marijuana”
That would be 51% of the same population that just elected B. Hussein Bamtard president?
Truth is not subject to popular vote.
take a look at who runs the newsrooms these days
Yes... you are making fun of brown people by eating food that makes your poop brown... /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.