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 ...
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.
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.