Re-legalize it
Watch the Lamestream Media continue to dismiss top-tier GOP presidential contender U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, as an "unelectable crank" because he argues our endless, undeclared, "no-win" overseas wars are both unaffordable and counterproductive; because he argues the delegation of the congressional power and duty to guarantee the soundness of the dollar to a "Federal Reserve Board" has been a disaster, and because he embraces some kind of "weird" or "iconoclastic" definition of inflation that contends inflation consists of the unjustified expansion of the money supply in order to enrich the banksters, robbing Americans through the resultant "slow-motion" devaluation of the buying power of their savings.
(If Congressman Paul "hates the armed forces," why does he poll so well among them?)
Now note how LITTLE attention these desperate harridans now pay to the positions for which Libertarians were previously reviled as "unrealistic nut-jobs," especially the notion that the federal government should be restricted to those powers speficially enumerated in the Constitution, whereupon Libertarians often point out that a Constitutional amendment was enacted in 1919 (subsequently repealed in 1933 at the behest of the liberal Saint Roosevelt) to authorize the federal War on Booze, but that no parallel Constitutional amendment has ever been enacted to authorize the War on (Some) Drugs ... particularly those previously legal plant extracts historically favored by our black and Hispanic minorities.
Now see John Whitehead, of The Rutherford Institute, document the ongoing racist nature of America's Failed War on Drugs.
This entry was posted on Monday, Jan. 09, 2012 at 02:03 PM
and is filed under Vin Suprynowicz.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
21
Responses
to "Re-legalize it "
" particularly those previously legal plant extracts historically favored by our black and Hispanic minorities."
What a racist piece of $#!# you are.
What a racist piece of $#!# you are.
There are some folks that want to maintain the status quo in this country. Wars, huge deficits,overspending and terrible foreign policy. These people feel this country is headed in the right direction. I do not. Ron Paul 2012.
I wonder if Mr. Sprat bothered to read the document by John Whitehead or is one of those who refuses to be disturbed by the facts. Of course, no policy, especially referring to drugs, ever implemented in the USSR (or is that USA? I get them confused) ever had anything to do with race, or ethnicity, or religion, or beliefs (especially those out of the mainstream)!!!
@ Jack Sprat: I think you miss Mr. Suprynowicz' point. When marijuana, in particular, was first perceived as a threat to public safety, its use was largely confined to the African-American population. It was the racist notion that drug use was a black threat to white America that helped fuel the criminlaization of drugs and the rise of the police state*. Mr. Suprynowicz' comparison of marijuana to alcohol is particularly apt. Alcohol was the drug of choice for white America in the early 20th century (still is). It was assumed people had the freedom under the constitution to make and ingest their own alcoholic beverages; the constitution did not grant the government the power to regulate its production or sale. It took a constitutional amendment to take away that right.
So why is it that banning the growing of a plant and smoking its dried leaves took no similar constitutional amendment? The answer, in large part, lies in racism, and Mr. Suprynowicz is pointing that out.
*And please note, the idea was we'd use the power of the police state to keep the black population down. On the whole, it's been a very effective effort. Compare the number of black Americans in jail for drug possession to the number of white Americans in jail for drug offenses - especially those that involve alcohol. Drug laws were and are racist in both their intent and their effect. Mr. Suprynowicz pointing that out is NOT racist.
So why is it that banning the growing of a plant and smoking its dried leaves took no similar constitutional amendment? The answer, in large part, lies in racism, and Mr. Suprynowicz is pointing that out.
*And please note, the idea was we'd use the power of the police state to keep the black population down. On the whole, it's been a very effective effort. Compare the number of black Americans in jail for drug possession to the number of white Americans in jail for drug offenses - especially those that involve alcohol. Drug laws were and are racist in both their intent and their effect. Mr. Suprynowicz pointing that out is NOT racist.
Right on, Vin.
Jack, your knee-jerk reactive views towards Vin are showing again. Does it really take a Democrat to embrace an idea before you'll give it any legitimacy? For years blacks have been saying that drug laws are discriminatory...
Meanwhile, Vin, pls take on the NDAA's "indefinite detention" and now Joe Lieberman's S. 1698.
Jack, your knee-jerk reactive views towards Vin are showing again. Does it really take a Democrat to embrace an idea before you'll give it any legitimacy? For years blacks have been saying that drug laws are discriminatory...
Meanwhile, Vin, pls take on the NDAA's "indefinite detention" and now Joe Lieberman's S. 1698.
Wow, "... particularly those previously legal plant extracts historically favored by our black and Hispanic minorities."
That's probably the most racist thing I have read in a newspaper in my life.
I always thought that Vin was a wack job Libertarian, but unfortunately, he is also a racist. The RJ should reconsider his employment.
That's probably the most racist thing I have read in a newspaper in my life.
I always thought that Vin was a wack job Libertarian, but unfortunately, he is also a racist. The RJ should reconsider his employment.
Yes, Ron Paul is continually vilified, by the allegedly "conservative" media (Fox News plus virtually all "right-wing" talk radio hosts) for having "loony" ideas.
Like following the Constitution (aka "The Supreme Law of the Land") to the letter. That's loony!
Like abolishing the Federal Government's inflationary candy machine, the Federal Reserve, and moving to a system of sound money. That's crazy!
Like ending our ongoing invasion and occupation of foreign countries, on the "Loony" notion that maybe terrorists are motivated by having bombs dropped on their families, and not because they "hate us for our freedom." That's nutty!
Like unending the unconstitutional, liberty-destroying "War on some drugs not under control of the white-coated medical priesthood." Crazy!
Like following the Constitution (aka "The Supreme Law of the Land") to the letter. That's loony!
Like abolishing the Federal Government's inflationary candy machine, the Federal Reserve, and moving to a system of sound money. That's crazy!
Like ending our ongoing invasion and occupation of foreign countries, on the "Loony" notion that maybe terrorists are motivated by having bombs dropped on their families, and not because they "hate us for our freedom." That's nutty!
Like unending the unconstitutional, liberty-destroying "War on some drugs not under control of the white-coated medical priesthood." Crazy!
Ever wonder...If anybody who can piss off both Republicons and Dumbocrats at the same time might be telling the truth?.....GO RON PAUL!
"particularly those previously legal plant extracts historically favored by our very own Jack.Sprat and notaman2."
Would you boys like some cheese with that whine.
Would you boys like some cheese with that whine.
Hey Sissy Harry..so do you think that Vin was correct to say "particularly those previously legal plant extracts historically favored by our black and Hispanic minorities"? Is that the kind of editorial that you like to see in the RJ?
@ notacon2: I'll answer that one. Absolutely, that's perfectly fine. As I stated previously, Mr. Suprynowicz is pointing out that marijuana, in particular, was made illegal precisely because it was the favored drug of minority populations in the US. The intent of the laws was racist to begin with.
Read the Whitehead article that's linked to here for a further explanation of the point being made. An excerpt:
"In terms of its racial impact, the U.S. government’s war on drugs also constitutes one of the most racially discriminatory policies being pushed by the government in recent decades, with African-Americans constituting its greatest casualties. As the ACLU has reported, “Despite the fact that whites engage in drug offenses at a higher rate than African-Americans, African-Americans are incarcerated for drug offenses at a rate that is 10 times greater than that of whites.” Indeed, blacks—who make up 13% of the population—account for 40% of federal prisoners and 45% of state prisoners convicted of drug offenses."
Mr. Suprynowicz is saying the government's war on drugs is racist in its application and effect. He's right, and saying so is not racist.
Read the Whitehead article that's linked to here for a further explanation of the point being made. An excerpt:
"In terms of its racial impact, the U.S. government’s war on drugs also constitutes one of the most racially discriminatory policies being pushed by the government in recent decades, with African-Americans constituting its greatest casualties. As the ACLU has reported, “Despite the fact that whites engage in drug offenses at a higher rate than African-Americans, African-Americans are incarcerated for drug offenses at a rate that is 10 times greater than that of whites.” Indeed, blacks—who make up 13% of the population—account for 40% of federal prisoners and 45% of state prisoners convicted of drug offenses."
Mr. Suprynowicz is saying the government's war on drugs is racist in its application and effect. He's right, and saying so is not racist.
The first national drug laws were to support international efforts to stop the British from selling opium to China. People using opiates at the turn of the century were using them to stop coughs associated with TB and whopping cough, etc. It was all that was available. The drug act of 1911 caused much suffering and sent many doctors to jail. We can't afford the drug war or war in the middle east. People who think we can are the true "nuts."
mrs ed,
That was intelligent, logically argued and well written.
One can only conclude someone stole your login and password.
With that person, I wholeheartedly agree.
That was intelligent, logically argued and well written.
One can only conclude someone stole your login and password.
With that person, I wholeheartedly agree.
John F,
How dare you forget the first order of intent amongst the radical left is to flame the messenger.
Shame on you for having an independent opinion based on research of fact.
Next we know you will be having dinner at a farm!
Good points and I wish those usually aligned with you would do some actual reading.
How dare you forget the first order of intent amongst the radical left is to flame the messenger.
Shame on you for having an independent opinion based on research of fact.
Next we know you will be having dinner at a farm!
Good points and I wish those usually aligned with you would do some actual reading.
The other view:
http://controlfreaku.com/wordpress/freak-of-the-week-01-13.html
http://controlfreaku.com/wordpress/freak-of-the-week-01-13.html
Ironically, the most drugged-up (legally and otherwise) society on the face of the planet--the United States of America--continues to champion a "War on Drugs."
But it's not really a "War on Drugs." It's a "War on SOME Drugs." Specifically, it's a war on non-patented but useful drugs, and a war on certain plants (Indian Hemp--called "Marijuana" early on to paint it as a drug used by Spanish-speaking brown people to seduce white women--being the prime target).
Americans are drugged up, under the wise guidance of our white-coated medical priesthood, from a very early age. Got a minor earache? Take antibiotics! Is your kid a little restless and bored in school? Give him Ritalin and Luvox! Are you, as an adult, feeling a little depressed? Here, take Prozac! Can't get it up? Here, take Cialis! Over 60 years old? Here--just take everything else!
But it's not really a "War on Drugs." It's a "War on SOME Drugs." Specifically, it's a war on non-patented but useful drugs, and a war on certain plants (Indian Hemp--called "Marijuana" early on to paint it as a drug used by Spanish-speaking brown people to seduce white women--being the prime target).
Americans are drugged up, under the wise guidance of our white-coated medical priesthood, from a very early age. Got a minor earache? Take antibiotics! Is your kid a little restless and bored in school? Give him Ritalin and Luvox! Are you, as an adult, feeling a little depressed? Here, take Prozac! Can't get it up? Here, take Cialis! Over 60 years old? Here--just take everything else!
@Paulweber, you're right and it's worse: it's a war against certain groups of people (young vs. older, who prefer alcohol; minorities vs. whites, who have better access to government maneuvering) and, literally against the Constitution itself, as others have pointed out. Can you imagine the outcry from the Palefaces if the government handled alcohol the same way it has handled drugs?
Alcohol abolishment worked so well!
Prohibition made millionares out people who would have otherwise been little better than street thugs all their lives.
Vinny, Pass the bong!!! Now we know why you think everyone should carry guns....Your high all the time!!!!!!
Vinny, you must have been highhhhhhhhh when you picked out that sweater vest!!!! Looks like my grannies curtains!!
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (21)
Share your thoughts on this story.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.