>>Sheppard, a proponent of bank reform and an advocate of women’s suffrage, may have been the country’s most sincere Prohibitionist, but he ended up on the losing side of history.
Except that states and nations are pushing the BAC standard down to Sweden’s of 0.01 (CDC wants to go there incrementally first by dropping to 0.05 and then 0.03). A low BAC that results in misdemeanor in the US will still ban you from Canada as a “felon”.
And cigarettes? Banned by employers even in off hours, penalized by insurers and employers, prohibited in parks, cars with children, and in homes (look at California). And “tax the hell out of it”.
But pot smokers believe that they can toke behind the wheel and smoke in public because they are different after 50 years of demonizing tobacco and beer as “impure poisons” while promoting pot as “all natural” and saying it “cures cancer”.
There is neo-prohibition in this world of demon rum (restricted hours of purchase in all but 3 cities) but we aren’t supposed to notice.
The woman who founded MADD left that organization decades ago because even then it became apparent that the goal was neo-prohibition, she was never against its use even publicly. She didn’t like serious repeat offenders getting ignored or a slap on the wrist.
Restricted hours of purchase is a pale shadow of Prohibition.
Drug warriors were the ones who weaponized zero-tolerance in the first place. All these intrusive nanny-state laws you rightfully mock and condemn took their cue from zero-tolerance drug warriors. A pox on both their houses.
Here’s an example of what Drug Warriors did to 900 children in a mass drug search =>
______
“Mass search of Georgia high school students included genital touching ...”
June 06, 2017
a) Deputies ordered students to stand facing the wall with their hands and legs spread wide apart;
b) Deputies touched and manipulated students’ breasts and genitals;
c) Deputies inserted fingers inside girls’ bras, and pulled up girls’ bras, touching and partially exposing their bare breasts;
d) Deputies touched girls’ underwear by placing hands inside the waistbands of their pants or reaching up their dresses;
e) Deputies touched girls’ vaginal areas through their underwear;
f) Deputies cupped or groped boys’ genitals and touched their buttocks through their pants.
This is shocking, at least at first glance. But perhaps it shouldn’t be. If police believe the drug war gives them authorization to conduct anal and vaginal cavity searches, forced enemas, and colonoscopies based on little more than a police officer’s suspicion that someone is hiding some quantity of illegal drugs, allegations of a little over-the-clothes groping of high school students ought not surprise us in the least.
According to the lawsuit, the deputies had a list of 13 suspected students. Three of them were in school that day. For that, they searched 900 students. (And, let’s just point out again, found nothing. In a school of 900.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3559602/posts
______
It makes you wonder how many children have been molested in the name of the War on Drugs, doesn’t it?