|
May 04, 2008
Real Class Warfare
Real class warfare has always been the upper classes against the masses. Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School in a speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference lays it out: 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.It doesn't get much more classy than that. What else do we know about the drug war? Again according to the linked speech it is a form of covert racism. The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana.We know something else about drug prohibition. It is a price support mechanism for criminals. Or as Nobel winning economist Milton Friedman put it: The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise We actually know quite a bit about the nature of addiction too. According to the NIDA Addiction Is A Genetic Disease. == So let me see if I can encapsulate what we know from history, economics, and science: The Drug War is a socialist enterprise, founded on covert racism and class warfare, that punishes a genetic minority and those who serve them. How many proud supporters do we have here? Raise you hands. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 05.04.08 at 11:02 PM
Comments
M. Simon · May 5, 2008 07:34 AM The only thing I would add is that at least from what I've observed, the Drug War is not necessarily waged by "the upper classes against the masses." I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage of "upper class" people favor relegalization, and that the bulk of support for drug laws comes from the middle classes, from law enforcement, and from government people of all stripes. If by upper classes you mean those who rule then the politicians and bureaucrats are the upper classes. But if you mean the country club, Martini-sipping elite set, most of them have nothing but disdain for the "War on Drugs." Eric Scheie · May 5, 2008 09:27 AM The War on Drugs has been a farce for a long, long time now, but as long as politicians can run for re-election, it is here to stay for another thirty years. Just the sound of it...WAR ON DRUGS, plays to the masses. I am with Brett on the burgeoning cigarette legislation being tyrannical, and far more dangerous to Jane and John Doe over the long term, whether they see it now or not. The legislation has moved along at lightening speed from state to state. The worst of it to my mind is telling a business owner they do not have any choice in the matter. That is counter-intuitive to all that has made this country successful over these two hundred plus years. The next wave of similar legislation had to do with fat. Legislating types of FAT? I was incredulous, but damn it passed in some major cities and it passed FAST. Put on your seat belts (legislated) and helmets (legislated). As a nation we are quickly sliding down some STEEP, slippery slope. Jane and John Doe may not be the first to the bottom, but I feel certain they will meet the rest of us there soon enough. Penny · May 5, 2008 09:15 PM Penny, The Whitebread speech has been one of my favorites since it was published on the net about 10 years ago. I think it is one of the most effective pieces I have ever read on elite paternalism. Fortunately for us peons one of the drivers of that, the MSM, is dying. The death of the Mpls Star Tribune is a harbinger of that which can no longer be written off as an isolated event. The Decay of the NYTs is another. M. Simon · May 5, 2008 09:59 PM Do you believe that prescriptions should be required for certain drugs? Because if we're going to legalize crack, then in order to be consistent, you'll also need to advocate that pharmacies should no longer require prescriptions before dispensing any of their products. You believe that's the way it should be? In theory I'm not unsympathetic to your argument, but I'm concerned about the outcomes should your wishes come to pass. Mook · May 6, 2008 12:00 AM "Do you believe that prescriptions should be required for certain drugs?" No. The intelligentsia should not be given legal authority over the people. The erosion of individual liberty is the inevitable result, accompanied by sophistic arguments that limiting the individuals ability to act isn't really a violation of liberty. I'd prefer such people flipped my burgers. Brett · May 6, 2008 07:38 AM Mook, Anyone who wants drugs now can get them. What bad outcomes are you expecting that we do not already have? As I see it we have two main choices on how to structure the situation. 1. Drug + gang + crime problem Alcohol prohibition gave us the same choices: 1. Alcohol + gang + crime problem That choice hasn't worked out so badly that we couldn't manage. Far fewer people use drugs than used alcohol. M. Simon · May 6, 2008 08:41 AM Fairly simple to move gradually, decriminalizing and then legalizing softer drugs one at a time as long as it seems to help. When it stops making things better and starts making them worse, stop. It is a practical, rather than theoretical morality. Assistant Village Idiot · May 6, 2008 10:19 AM |
|
June 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2008
May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 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 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Pfalse pflag Pfizer spam? (Pfooey!)
Vicious dog attacks everyone! (And yet, we laugh...) Sun, Sun, Sun, Here It Comes Reagan Democrats The conflation of corruption And you thought the safety Nazis were bad.... Straight talk? In Beverly Hills? Vets For Freedom Has Some Questions when earned is unfair, unearned is fair! Second City Cop
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The War on Tobacco has been a true boost to the proponents of tyrannical government. It's success has proved that no custom of the people, no matter how widespread or time-honored, is safe from the machinations of political activists. The governing classes have succeeded in setting an incredible precedent that will be used to violate the rights of many of the citizens who cheered on the persecution of smokers.