Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic
Gee, who to believe?

Surely not your lying eyes ;-)
141 posted on 05/12/2006 2:15:01 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]


To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
The Federal drug prohibitions are unconstitutional the same way the alchohol prohition LAW was. Not the amendment, the Federal laws just prior to. It was, iirc, legislators with a greater respect for the constitution than many seem to have, especially wrt/ this topic, that went for an amendment to prohobit alchohol, rather than an overreaching law that ruined the constitution. I don't know why they left the narcotic laws stand, probably only so much one can do.

What was the source of the political outcry for prohibitions on both? For alchohol it was widespread abuse. Wife beating, child abuse, broken families, violence -- all the fruits of too much intoxication, easy availibilty of distilled spirits.

But for las drugas, drugs -- marijuana, heroin, cocaine -- it was not such rampant abuse. There was abuse, there always is to some extent -- for example, today, prescription drugs are widely abused -- Kennedy's Ambien nightmare just a timely historic marker for that. In the early 1900's -- the age of the KKK -- what drove the Federal drug laws was racism. Fear of the marijuana toking negro or Mexican bandito.

145 posted on 05/12/2006 4:00:42 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson