|
December 28, 2006
It Was Never About Drugs
Jerry Ford has died. As always when you mention the life of Ford, the question of Nixon comes up. I have lots of beefs with Nixon's career. This is my biggest. Using not just private henchmen, but the power of government to kidnap and injure your political opponents under color of law. Nixon said to Elvis: "You know," Nixon said, " those who use drugs are the protesters. You know, the ones who get caught up in dissent and violence. They're the same group of people." Nixon said something similar to Haldeman on the Nixon tapes with the additional proviso that he thought pot was no worse than the martini he was drinking. For Nixon, the drug war was never about drugs. It was a scheme to attack his political opponents based on some cultural characteristic. It has always been thus. Alcohol prohibition was in part an attempt to destroy the Democratic Machine which organized in saloons. Laws against smoking opium were instigated because Chinese smoked opium. White folks, who traditionally drank opium had no such prohibition. Sadly the pattern hasn't changed much. Blacks, buy, sell, and use drugs in aproximate proportion to their population. About 12%. They make up something like 50 to 60% of the prison population. I'm with Milton Friedman on this one. This whole stinking pile we call the drug war is totally immoral. It is about persecuting the unfavored, strictly power and control. Sadly we are getting that way with tobacco users as well. What? Forcing people out into the cold to have a smoke isn't persecution? Give me a break. Let me quote Professor Whitebread form the last link. From a speech he gave in 1995 when tobacco prohibition was just gathering steam. What he said seemed at least moderately fantastic at the time. And so, yeah, we will continue the War on Drugs for a while until everybody sees its patent bankruptcy. But, let me say that I am not confident that good sense will prevail. Why? Because we love this idea of prohibition. We really do. We love it in this country. And so I will tell you what I predict. You will always know which ones are going out and which ones are coming in. And, can't you see the one coming right over the hill? Well, folks, we are going to have a new prohibition because we love this idea that we can solve difficult medical, economic, and social problems by the simple enactment of a criminal law. We adore this, and of course, you judges work it out, we have solved our problem. Do you have it? Our problem is over with the enactment of the law. You and the cops work it out, but we have solved our problem. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.28.06 at 04:45 AM
Comments
Tobacco is an anti-depressant. BTW the moralizing was the disguise of the attack. Check out the "persecuting the unfavored" link. As to the "right to smoke". You are correct in a narrow sense. However, we now have laws in certain places that prevent smoking in bars and restruants no matter what the owner wishes. M. Simon · December 28, 2006 12:40 PM On tobacco, see Robert N. Proctor's "The Nazi War on Cancer," a fascinating look at Hitlerian anti-smoking campaigns. Unlike pinkos, the heilers largely limited themselves to exhortation so, in this respect, American liberals are more authoritarian than the Nazi Party. Bleepless · December 28, 2006 06:37 PM I thought the prohibition on marijuana was twofold: first, because the paper manufacturers didn't want the competition from hemp (the Act pushed through regulated hemp production in a manner which required official approval— which was simply never offered), and secondly because "marihuana" was something those "deadbeat Mexicans" did. Hmm. Seems your culture war theory has some merit to it. B. Durbin · December 28, 2006 11:20 PM Tobacco use may be unhealthy, for some, and for others obviously not - http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm My mother smoked 2 packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day and died at the age of 90! She lived a very unhealthy life, smoking, eating fatty meats, and never exercising. But I'm sure the Pall Malls gave her breast cancer at age 89 and that she would be here today but for demon tobacco. Frank · December 29, 2006 12:51 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Politicobiology
"Muslims" Abandoning Islam? A Geologist Looks At Global Warming It Was Never About Drugs Nazis to the Right of Me? I Must Be a Communist 'Tis The Season Palestinian Civil War Watch - 6 Greetings from Barcelona Last.fm on Nintendo Wii Treachery
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I agree generally with your stance on Prohibition, opium, Nixon and all of that, except to point out that you are oversimplifying. Prohibition was much more about rampant moralizing than it was a disguised attack on political foes. Smoking opium was not about race but using it for entertainment, with no cloak of medical self-treatment, which the moralizers saw as a big distinction.
Similarly, Nixon probably really thought there was something more wrong with smoking pot and mainlining smack than there was with drinking. In a lucid moment he probably also saw the illogic of that position, but mindsets don't just go away.
But wrt tobacco, you are stretching. Tobacco smoke is annoying, it makes everyting stink, and may (or may not, who knows) even cause illness secondhand. As such it causes harm, and I'd rather have the harm focused on the one who chooses to engage it.
There is no right to smoke where others are, any more than there is a right to play loud music at a chess match, shout in a library, or swing a baseball bat in a curio shop.
However, I am wary of the people who push smoking bans, since many of them have the nannylike goal of protecting smokers from smoking as their true motivation.