December 6, 2012

"Why did America change its mind about legal marijuana?"

Asks the Christian Science Monitor, reacting to the Quinnipiac Poll — which we were talking about yesterday. Our discussion focused on the gender difference, which the CSM doesn't mention. It just says 51% of Americans support legalization, when in fact, as I highlighted "Men support legalization by a much wider margin, 59-36%, and women oppose it, 52-44%." You can get some different insights into why "America change[d] its mind" if you know the gender profile of that "mind."

But the CSM, gender-blind, speculates thusly:
The dramatic change in public opinion, experts say, has been driven by pop culture and generational shifts, and also a simple reality. While pot is illegal, it is common at parties and concerts....

"With the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes legal in about 20 states, and Washington and Colorado voting this November to legalize the drug for recreational use, American voters seem to have a more favorable opinion about this once-dreaded drug," Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, told CBS News. "There are large differences on this question among the American people."

Though boosted by successes in Colorado and Washington, pro-marijuana advocates say their toughest challenge is convincing Congress and President Obama to declassify pot as a Schedule 1 drug – or at least to ensure that Congress doesn't interfere with state experimentation on marijuana taxation. After all, Mr. Obama allowed his Justice Department to begin a crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries despite a campaign promise to not do so....
There's one more step needed in this analysis, and it's why I changed my mind. There's too much legal disorder, and it can only be decently cured by changing the federal law. Years ago, the states all agreed with the federal government's ban and helped out with the enforcement. But the states had the power to go their own way, and now that some have, there's a huge enforcement gap, which makes at least some people in those states feel that marijuana is legal. This is confusing to the point of unfairness.

I don't like the federal government lurking in the background and sending mixed signals about whether it will or will not enforce. Those who aren't too risk averse or who are not big rule-followers get to use a product that more timorous or punctilious individuals feel they're not allowed to use. And the medical marijuana approach makes it even worse, creating absurd temptations to lie and dissemble and even fantasize about ailments and the curative effect of the drug.

It's a mess that can only cleaned up by legalizing the drug at the federal level and letting the states take over the lawmaking and law enforcement.

125 comments:

Shouting Thomas said...

I think that the answers to the "Why" are pretty simple.

Boomers are in power. Have been for some time.

The states and the Fed are desperate for the tax revenue marijuana sales will produce.

The War on Drugs is a colossal failure. Witness this insanely bitter tragedy.

The War On Drugs has produced the same result as Prohibition did in the 30s. Mexico is now ruled by the Mob.

SteveR said...

I'm far from a prude on this issue but as has been discussed here in previous threads, I am somewhat concerned that the "legalization" of marijuana will create challenges that need to be considered before we get too far along.

Maybe it will all work out ok but I have little faith that the states and feds can properly address them, ahead of time, this has all the makings of a great field for trial lawyers.

roesch/voltaire said...

The most successful aspect of the war on drugs was the high rate of incarceration, which has become too expensive and unproductive, although it was also good for disenfranchising voters. America in general has not changed its mind, after all anyone who has indulged knows Chong was not wrong, but the elite has decided it is time to let go of the myths about grass.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Should marijuana ever become legal, it will come at the cost of America's sperm.

Hagar said...

But tobacco should still be outlawed?

Shouting Thomas said...

The most successful aspect of the war on drugs was the high rate of incarceration, which has become too expensive and unproductive, although it was also good for disenfranchising voters.

The racial hype R/V is pandering to here is bullshit.

No, black men aren't in jail in such huge numbers because of the War on Drugs. They are there because they commit violent crimes.

Anybody who's had consistent contact with the judicial system (and I used to work in the legal field) knows that incarceration is the last step in a long process that begins with multiple felonies that have plea bargained down to misdemeanors.

No, R/V, you're wrong about the racial angle.

EDH said...

"Why did America change its mind about legal marijuana?"

Heck, I'm counting the minutes until Americans demand free marijuana.

Skyler said...

States take over law making? Wow, what a radical thought.

Renee said...

How will it affect the costs of health care? Like other unhealthy habits? Will we ban cigarettes, but legalize pot?

Then we can put warning labels on it for consumers

Marijuana Use Associated With Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome in Young Males

X said...

isn't it odd how many government idol worshippers like r/v and garage have finally found a dictate they dissent on and how many small government types are so trusting of government masters on this issue?

if only there were a consistent political philosophy based on liberty.

lgv said...

The real challenge will be employment law. Can an employer forbid employees from having any in their system?

Rates of incarceration will not change nor will the war on drugs. The same people will be dealing drugs, just not weed.

SGT Ted said...

Not to mention all the junk science lies the anti-pot people have tried to use to scare people into not smoking pot. The DARE program probably did more to harm its own anti-drug cause by propping up said junk science and other pap like the "gateway" drug theory. And once young folk and adult realize they've been lied to, it discredits their effort, much like the lies and junk science of the environmental movement has done to their cause. The continued adherence also to the anti-pot laws passed in the 1930, which were based on yet more lies and WR Hearsts racist fearmongering "reefer madness" propaganda has also hurt the prohibitionists cause.

The War on Drugs has eroded civil liberties and encouraged police and small government corruption via asset seizure and forfeiture, as well as militarizing the police by encouraging them and financing them to set up SWAT like drug enforcement teams that use military tactics which leads to innocent people getting shot in their own home when they raid the wrong house.

Many people now know others that use pot as medicine and see that they don't become mad killers or zombies from smoking it.

I'd say that enough to make people change their minds about the wisdom of keeping pot illegal.

DADvocate said...

Hemp used to be a very profitable crop in Kentucky and elsewhere. My late father-in-law told me about the many fields he saw as a kid. Many products, including fine cloth, can be made from hemp.

I don't believe pot, weed, marijuana, Mary Jane, tea, grass, hoochie, etc is as bad as alcohol, all things considered. Plus, the economic benefits of industrial hemp.

A past mayor of the little town I'm most closely associated with, Maysville, KY, advocated for the legalization of marijuana in People magazine in 1988. (Her oldest son is not mayor.) In so many ways, we live in the Dark Ages and irrational fear rules our actions.


Here's a pix of a hemp field near Lexington, KY back when it was legal to grow.

EMD said...

So are states' rights a good thing?

It's getting so hard to remember when federalism is hawt or not.

Seeing Red said...

Hollywood.

SGT Ted said...

Illegal Pot is so profitable, Mexican drug gangs grow it in Californias National Forests and Parks. Legalize it and you undercut and eradicate that avenue of money making and environmental abuse.

Renee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

Latest study pot once a week lowers IQ 8 points.

Dumbing down of America & low sperm count.

X said...

I don't believe pot, weed, marijuana, Mary Jane, tea, grass, hoochie, etc is as bad as alcohol, all things considered.

yet many drunks are MJ prohibitionists.

it's much milder than your beer assholes.

Renee said...

I know of situations of adults losing their children due to pot use and their inability to stay off, caused them to lose their parents rights.

Should the get their children back?

Dante said...

I don't like the federal government lurking in the background and sending mixed signals about whether it will or will not enforce.

We need more of such laws. That way, when our leaders need scapegoats, they can round them up in the middle of the night and punish them.

roesch/voltaire said...

ST, I don't see the mention of "race" in my comments, but if you want to examine that aspect of the issue, you can read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" and see whether or not she has made a case for the racial, class bias of anti-drug laws.

KenK said...

It's more than a little crazy to turn entire country into a police state just to bust people getting high. I don't smoke it myself but in my job I see people daily that are more victimized by the system than by use of the drug itself. That's starting to dawn on people. Finally.

X said...

Should the get their children back?

yes.

should drinkers have their kids taken?

Expat(ish) said...

Interesting question - if they legalize pot, how many people get out of jail and/or get their criminal records expunged (if that's the right word)?

-XC

SGT Ted said...

The sperm thing is junk science and I'll bet dollars to donuts that the 8 point IQ drop is bogus too.

In fact, the comedian Doug Benson did a movie calles Super Hi Me as a spoof of SuperSize Me and did 2 IQ tests; the first one when he was smoking all the time and then one when he had been not smoked for 30 days. He scored a higher IQ score on weed.

EDH said...

Marijuana Use Associated With Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome in Young Males.

Also known as living away at college for the first time.

Renee said...

Should I note in these situations they were so high on pot, they didn't notice or care someone was molesting the kids?

Renee said...

expat- they were dealing probably, so their records hold.

Surfed said...

That would be State's Rights. Long overdue at this date under the Federal system. All things being equal, there is no reason why Colorado should be like Florida. Political diversity! It's always been my contention that during the late unpleasantness, The War for Constitutional Liberty and Southern Independence (1861 - 1865) that the North was legally wrong (secession) while morally right (slavery) and the South was the obverse - legally right yet morally wrong. Our Constitution is ALL ABOUT seccession. And the Declaration of Independence too.

Shouting Thomas said...

R/V,

Your post seemed to imply the standard "black men are being unjustly imprisoned because of the War on Drugs" meme. Sorry if I jumped to an improper conclusion.

But, I will repeat... incarceration is the end of the line of a very long process that begins with multiple felony arrests that result in convictions plea bargained down to misdemeanors. I'm sure that a small number of individual injustices occur. In any system so huge, that's inevitable. But the vast majority of men in prison, regardless of race, earned their way into jail.

Unfortunately, marijuana legalization won't end the War on Drugs, although it might ameliorate it.

Cocaine is a huge illegal biz, too. Profits are higher, too.

Renee said...

"Also known as living away at college for the first time."


It was terrible seeing guys stop going to class, due to pot. Hard lesson dropping out of school over it.

roesch/voltaire said...

X- I am not a government worshiper as you claim, but tend to take a pragmatic, not dogmatic, approach to each issue, and run a range from liberal to libertarian. For starters I want the government out of my bedroom and to keep their hands off my choices of recreational drugs, but I do want government to regulate and insure my water is safe, and the drugs from compounding companies won't kill me.

SGT Ted said...

SO, whats the threshold of impairment for removing the children of drunks? Why can't that simply be applied to weed users?

SGT Ted said...

YEa, Renee you should mention that in the first place. There are drunks that do the exact same thing and there's no push to outlaw booze because of it.

Renee said...

It is. But people can have a drink (drinks) and never get drunk, while keeping their kids safe, there is no such thing as just being a little high.

X said...

renee, you're moving goalposts. first you said the kids were removed for pot use. then it became negligence and molestation.

have you ever consumed alcohol?

Shouting Thomas said...

And, R/V, I've seen this process work out on the intimate family level, too.

A close family member was busted in college for peddling pot, LSD, cocaine and just about every other drug you can imagine.

I'm sorry to say that this family member would have found his way into jail, even absent drug laws. His moral character is seriously flawed. He's a wise ass.

I've had a lot of contact with drug dealers because I'm in the music biz. Even was in a band that in its early stages was bankrolled by a coke dealer, and went on to considerable fame and fortune.

The drug dealers were uniformly pieces of trash who seemed determined to find their way into jail.

X said...

Renee said...
It is. But people can have a drink (drinks) and never get drunk, while keeping their kids safe, there is no such thing as just being a little high.



oh, so you're ignorant.

SGT Ted said...

You mena the Southern War To Continue to Own Other Human Beings? That war?

Yea the South was wrong in every instance, from the first shots fired at Fort Sumpter on.

TMink said...

Federalism is the answer to so many problems.

Trey

Renee said...

X, Not with kids, not I've never over-consumed alcohol. I haven't over-consumed since I was under 21, ironically.

I'm not moving goal posts, parents who are unable to be attentive to their children put them at risk. Pot, since it makes parents incapacitated, puts children at risk.

roesch/voltaire said...

ST, yes I agree with you about other drugs as profitable etc. I didn't mention race, because I know some working class white boys who got caught dealing and served a bit of time. But I wonder how many folks ended up serving time primarily for just dealing pot? I found this in a report: Of the 450,000 increase in drug arrests during the period 1990-2002, 82% of the growth was for marijuana, with 79% for marijuana possession alone (Boyum & Reuter, 2005).

Renee said...

X, How am I ignorant?

SGT Ted said...

Ever consider that it was their own lazy ass that made them stop going to class, rather than the weed?

I know quite a few potheads whose life stories are of success. Funny how weed never gets the credit, but only the blame.

TMink said...

Renee, pot does not have to make parents incapacitated. Like most drugs, the effects are very dose dependent. There is a difference between using marijuana and getting baked just like there is a difference between having wine with dinner and doing shots till you puke.

Trey

DADvocate said...

The sperm thing is junk science and I'll bet dollars to donuts that the 8 point IQ drop is bogus too.

All I know is that during the height of my pot smoking days I pulled a 4.0 5 consecutive quarters and a 3.75 GPA my last 2.5 years of college. (Plus, I have 4 kids.)

X said...

r/v it would be more accurate to say your views run from statist to libertarian. nothing wrong with that but I think your statism tends to come from a place of self interest. that's OK, my libertarianism is self interested.

roesch/voltaire said...

St I am old enough to remember when some drug dealers were college kids working way through school selling nickel bags grown in Wisconsin, and then the Mob realized there was money to be made and the scene changed, the price when up and folks started carrying guns.

SGT Ted said...

It must be horrific to be there, books in your backpack, car keys in hand, and that bag of weed on the coffee table slaps the carkeys out of your hand and makes you sit on the couch and do bongs all day instead. Bad weed, BAD, BAD.

Poor innocent young person with no agency or willpower, apparently.

X said...

there is no such thing as just being a little high.

ignorance. a lack of knowledge. nothing to be ashamed of. just ignorant of facts.

by your standards though, you're a drunk.

Renee said...

Yes, SGT I consider it, but from my observations it was their choice to use pot over going to class.


Tmink,

I'm actually could be in favor for legalization, but pot works to get high. For parents, it is their obligation to be cognitive when they are parenting.


If anyone smokes pot in the presence of your children, guess what their children hate them for it. They need to stop immediately.

Balfegor said...

The War On Drugs has produced the same result as Prohibition did in the 30s.

And Chinese efforts to ban British opium in the 19th century. It's not particularly effective and it erodes the power and authority of the state.

Bob Boyd said...

"It's a mess that can only cleaned up by legalizing the drug at the federal level and letting the states take over the lawmaking and law enforcement."
I agree, but I don't see it happening.
The federal government is going the opposite direction on every front. In the current climate the idea of empowering states or individuals is backward.
If they do legalize pot they will impose the decision on the states.

X said...

people like Renee actually believe alcohol is less incapacitating than MJ. government propaganda is effective.

Surfed said...

@SGT Ted - I think I was clear about the South being morally wrong about slavery. Was your reaction knee jerk or did you not read AND comphrehend what I wrote. I was very clear. But let me repeat it in simpler language: The South was morally wrong to keep people in bondage and slavery. Easier for you to understand now?

MayBee said...

We can move from marijuana being illegal but people doing it anyway to all kinds of laws about who can sell it, who can buy it, how much you can have and still drive legally, and the money that will go to the government every step of the way.

Will it be treated (legally and morally) more like alcohol,more like cigarettes, or like both of them?

Matthew Sablan said...

Parents can screw up in lots of ways; I see no reason to call out pot as specifically bad. It is bad to get high while parenting, yes, but it isn't the only danger to parents out there..

hombre said...

R-V wrote: "Of the 450,000 increase in drug arrests during the period 1990-2002, 82% of the growth was for marijuana, with 79% for marijuana possession alone (Boyum & Reuter, 2005)."

Marijuana smuggling is more pervasive and easier to detect. Enforcers like easy. Virtually nobody - nobody - goes to prison for possession of marijuana.

So what's your point?

garage mahal said...

They need to stop immediately.

Who the hell are you to tell a family how they need to live?

Kevin said...

I think people are just tired. This is the same reason as the collapse of the opposition to homosexual behavior. People's lives are stretched to the max, their companies are stretched to the max, their nation is stretched to the max. People have to choose every minute of every day what really matters and what is better to just chuck to the curb and not fight over anymore. I think compared to homosexuality, pot is easy. I also think the left understands this phenomenon very well and it is the reasoning behind their Occupy strategies, etc. They just wear you down and wear you down until you just don't give a shit anymore.

hombre said...

garage wrote: "Who the hell are you to tell a family how they need to live?"

Yeah! That's the government's job. Right, garage?

SGT Ted said...

Yea, my knee jerks anytime I see revisionist phrases like "The War for Constitutional Liberty and Southern Independence" that don't appear sarcastic. It's more about the written medium lack of conveying such than anybodies fault.

Seeing as how secession was motivated and based on the notion of keeping other humans beings as slaves, they were legally wrong there as well. The South was also legally wrong in committing an unprovoked act of war on Fort Sumpter.

hombre said...

Kevin wrote: "I think people are just tired...."

Exactly.

edutcher said...

Did it?

We're relying on a Q-pac poll here, not known for their honesty.

SGT Ted said...

You mena the Southern War To Continue to Own Other Human Beings? That war?

Yea the South was wrong in every instance, from the first shots fired at Fort Sumpter on.


No, surfed was right.

Read the Federalist Papers.

PS Marijuana is worse. The Blonde (nurse of 43 years, including 5 in rehab) can give you chapter and verse.

AlphaLiberal said...

Because the claims about marijuana's effects have been wildly overstated and discredit those who continue to call for imprisoning those who use it.

People know alcohol has worse effects and is yet legal.

Destroying peoples' lives by locking them up in prisons for smoking a naturally occurring plant is the height of stupidity. These laws should have been ended a long time ago.

Shouting Thomas said...

The notion that pot smoking labels on as a leftist is just dead wrong.

People of every imaginable political persuasion smoke pot.

I've met good old boy, gun totin' southern truck driving men who smoke pot.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Destroying peoples' lives by locking them up in prisons for smoking a naturally occurring plant is the height of stupidity."

-- Natural =/= good or should be used freely. There any number of poisonous things that, if ingested, will kill people. There are many better arguments than "IT IS NATURALZ!1!"

AlphaLiberal said...

Confederates were traitors.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the modern Republican Party warmly embraces neo-confederacy.


X said...

PS Marijuana is worse. The Blonde (nurse of 43 years, including 5 in rehab) can give you chapter and verse.

you should try it. seriously. it's not worse than alcohol. you don't get drunk. you don't get hung over. and society doesn't get the violence they get with alcohol.

Shouting Thomas said...

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the modern Republican Party warmly embraces neo-confederacy.

Jesus, that's some bullshit, Alpha!

AlphaLiberal said...

There any number of poisonous things that, if ingested, will kill people.

Marijuana does not kill people. It just does not.

So, to amend my remarks, "to lock people up based on a bunch of lies and hysteria is crazy and immoral."

Shouting Thomas said...

So, to amend my remarks, "to lock people up based on a bunch of lies and hysteria is crazy and immoral."

With some rare exceptions, this is just not happening.

X said...

I never got over the fact that the Democrat Party favored and fought a war to preserve slavery, not to mention the KKK and Jim Crow, but maybe you're more forgiving than I am.

Matthew Sablan said...

Ok, that's closer to being a solid argument. But, alas, you seem to have overlooked the point. Why flail around with bad arguments when there are good ones at hand?

X said...

With some rare exceptions, this is just not happening.

people are killed by police over it on an almost daily basis, many completely innocent of that shitty law that shouldn't even be a law. lives are ruined on a more regular basis.

SGT Ted said...

Southern Secession was predicated on the continuation of violating the most basic of human rights, over what was becoming the will of the majority to not support slavery so, the "it was legal" argument doesn't really fly, either.

AlphaLiberal said...

Some reject without substantive argument this: Let's not lose sight of the fact that the modern Republican Party warmly embraces neo-confederacy.

I offer as evidence supporting my point:

a) The decades-old Republican Southern Strategy. To my knowledge, only one Republican leader has apologized for this, Ken Mehlman.

b) Multiple Republican leaders embrace and use the Concerned Citizens Councils of the south, racist organizations that fly the Confederate (traitors') battle flag.

c) A number of historians have documented the strong influence of neo-Confederate views in the Republican Party.

d) Republicans oppose and seek to end the Voting Rights Act. (An amply documented fact, see various party platforms of the South, especially Texas).

e) Oftentimes when Tea Party talks about the Constitution, the values they attribute actually come from the Constitution of the (treasonous) confederate States of America.

f) Even many Republicans like David Frum have noted the neo-Confederates in their midst. These Republicans, though, are purged from the Republican Party.

g) The Confederate flag flies at many Tea Party events, especially in South. And the Tea Party runs the Republican Party these days.

I could go on for hours. But I have proved the point that the modern Republican Party warmly embraces the neo-Confederacy.

If people want to disprove this, they should show where any Republican leader has rejected the no-Confedracy.

garage mahal said...

I never got over the fact that the Democrat Party favored and fought a war to preserve slavery, not to mention the KKK and Jim Crow, but maybe you're more forgiving than I am.

You really need to crack better history books.

X said...

SGT TED, the democrats have always been in love with involuntary servitude and have always been able to explain how it is actually a good altruistic thing. if it ain't involuntary, you're not doing it right!

Shouting Thomas said...

Alpha that list was an even bigger pile of shit than your previous post.

Let me summarize your argument...

Conservative white people shouldn't be allowed to express their economic and political self-interest.

Fuck you, Alpha. I don't care how much it pisses you off.

Shouting Thomas said...

You really need to crack better history books.

He's correct, garage.

edutcher said...

SGT Ted said...

Southern Secession was predicated on the continuation of violating the most basic of human rights, over what was becoming the will of the majority to not support slavery so, the "it was legal" argument doesn't really fly, either.

For good or ill, slavery was a globally accepted practice in 1861.

Again, read the Federalist Papers.

They had every right; in fact, until the fired on Fort Sumter, the attitude in the north was, "Don't let the door hit ya...".

AlphaLiberal said...

Confederates were traitors.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the modern Republican Party warmly embraces neo-confederacy.


So did the Democrats.

They still do. I seem to recall a great deal of cheering when VA and NC went Demo in '08.

There any number of poisonous things that, if ingested, will kill people.

Marijuana does not kill people. It just does not.


Always a good, scientific rebuttal from Alpha.

hombre said...

Alpha wrote: "Let's not lose sight of the fact that the modern Republican Party warmly embraces neo-confederacy."

Another lefty sociopath weighs in: "We support massive debt; staggering unemployment - particularly among blacks, chaos in the MidEast, 50 million abortions - preferably on demand, potheads driving cars, a very Merry Not Christmas, etc., etc. But those Repubs, they are 'neo-confederates' (Whatever that is. Kos told me to say it.)."

Shouting Thomas said...

Alpha's argument is that conservatives white male are such vile people that they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That's pretty convincing, Alpha!

Shouting Thomas said...

Or, to put it another way...

Alpha is arguing that any voter who can be defined as a "bigot" should have no political representation.

Some argument, Alph!

AlphaLiberal said...

With some rare exceptions, this is just not happening.

That's just false. Thousands of Americans are in prison today over marijuana arrests.

US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Legalize and piss off the drug cartels.

AlphaLiberal said...

Shouting Thomas:

Alpha is arguing that any voter who can be defined as a "bigot" should have no political representation.

What an idiotic and pathetic attempt to lie about my plain words on this page.

But, you leap to the defense of bigots and defend the Republican Party's support of them. Noted.

AlphaLiberal said...

The War on Drugs has been a collosal and costly failure.

The cost comes in many forms:

* Our civil liberties have been sharply reduced in the prosecution of the Drug War.

* The dollar costs for the task forces, the prisons, the courts, etc are measured in the billions.

* The cost of locking up people in prisons and jails is immense and cannot be calculated. It is the cost of freedom lost, the costs to their families, the devastation of person finances for people caught in our legal (not "justice") system.

* The War on Drugs is waged predominantly in minority and poor communities. Rich white kids in the suburbs very seldom get busted.

mccullough said...

We need to lobby HHS to make sure that insurance policies are required to pay for medical marijuana.

We need a Cheeto-eating, 30 year old white male college student version of Sandra Fluke to go around saying how tough it is for his friends and him to pay for medical pot and that the government needs to pay for it.

Balfegor said...

re: edutcher:

For good or ill, slavery was a globally accepted practice in 1861.

No it wasn't. Slavery had been illegal in Great Britain since 1772. Evangelicals like Wm Wilberforce persuaded Parliament to outlaw slavery throughout the Empire in 1833. The Royal Navy had been interdicting the international slave trade from Africa since 1808.

The Confederacy -- and the Democratic party in general -- were well out of the mainstream of Western public opinion by that time.

Shouting Thomas said...

But, you leap to the defense of bigots and defend the Republican Party's support of them. Noted.

Thank you for proving my point, Alpha!

SGT Ted said...

Actually, the bigotry I see today ash to do with the notion that if you oppose socialist politicians who happen to be black, you are a "racist".

That if you oppose race based affirmative action, where the color of your skin matters more than your abilities, you are a bigot.

That if you oppose deficit spending on entitlements that are little more than vote buying payoffs and if you oppose the racist pandering to minorities by demonizing whites and males and the wealthy, you are a "racist".

edutcher said...

Balfegor said...

For good or ill, slavery was a globally accepted practice in 1861.

No it wasn't. Slavery had been illegal in Great Britain since 1772. Evangelicals like Wm Wilberforce persuaded Parliament to outlaw slavery throughout the Empire in 1833. The Royal Navy had been interdicting the international slave trade from Africa since 1808.


Agreed, but that part of the world that wasn't British still accepted it.

France didn't outlaw slavery until 1862 and Belgium didn't until '64

elkh1 said...

Legalize them, tax them, and sue them like Big Tobacco.

ken in sc said...

Sgt Ted, Most southerners called the Civil war the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression. They objected to Civil War because that term, as defined in the 1800s, de-legitimatized the elected governments of the Confederate states.

Balfegor said...

Re: ken in sc:

Sgt Ted, Most southerners called the Civil war the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression. They objected to Civil War because that term, as defined in the 1800s, de-legitimatized the elected governments of the Confederate states.

Well sure. But they were rebel scum, so I'm not sure why we should accomodate them . . .


TMink said...

Renee, pot is indeed an intoxicant. So is alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, caffeine, and under the right circumstances, oxygen.

But pot has a wide range of possible doses, from feeling no changes at all to falling asleep! Some of the more current strains have far less "high" and others have far more! But just like alcohol or caffeine can be used by good parents, so can marijuana. Good parents just don't get blotto when they should be watching their kids. The same problem would arise if the parents were sleeping because of exhaustion or just being tired.

Really, it is mostly just a dead plant in a baggie.

Trey

SGT Ted said...

Ken,

I'd say "The War to Keep Owning Blacks" is more appropriate. Civil War is appropriate. They didn't seek to invalidate the elected government per se as much as they sought to invalidate their policy of owning other human beings.

War Against Northern Aggression is a silly claim, seeing as how the South fired the first shots of the war.

ndspinelli said...

Sgt. Ted, I always appreciate your wisdom on this subject. We are in complete agreement. I comment on this subject here but I can't debate the idiots right now. I just don't have the energy. Thanks for holding down the fort! I would follow you into battle anywhere.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the modern Republican Party warmly embraces neo-confederacy.

AL's usual revisionist claptrap.

a) The decades-old Republican Southern Strategy.

In other words, the Republicans went after Southern Whites through shared values on religion and small government, while the Dems went after Blacks at about the same time through massive bribery, esp. at the time, LBJ's War on Poverty.

c) A number of historians have documented the strong influence of neo-Confederate views in the Republican Party.


There were two aspects to this - one is racical, and the other concerns States Rights, or, alternatively limits on the federal government. You, and presumably they, most likely assume the former, while the cause is the latter.

d) Republicans oppose and seek to end the Voting Rights Act. (An amply documented fact, see various party platforms of the South, especially Texas).

And, ignoring that the reason for this opposition is federal control over elections, imposed at a time when Jim Crow Dems controlled these southern states, and maintained to this day so that racists like Eric Holder can control their elections. Ditto for reapportionment. This federal control only extends to these southern states that at the time of enactment were considered to be racially discriminating at the time of enactment of the law, and not to the vast bulk of states.

I am not sure what AL means by neo-confederate, but have to assume that it is some term invented by leftists to try to shift the racist history of the Democrats to the Republicans, by essentially the flawed analogy that southern whites were racist, backed states rights, and wanted limited federal government power, that since a lot of Republicans these days want to limit federal power, and many of them come from the south, that many Republicans are therefore closet racists. The use of the "neo" prefix presumably is used to categorize these Republicans as essentially racist without going through the exercise of showing where the "neo-confederates" agreed with confederate values, and where they don't.

Inga said...

Renee, even cold stone sober parents neglect their children and yes if the children have been put in dangerous situations or actually harmed by the neglect, the parents should be a risk for having their children removed, until they can prove they can be responsible parents.

As a student nurse, our Peds rotation was in a children's burn unit. I saw more kids than I ever thought I would who were burned in incidents of parental negligence.

n.n said...

Barefoot and available for sex and taxation was an effective "liberation" of women. Mellowed and taxed will be an effective liberation of "rebels with a cause."

After several generations, we can compare and review the efficacy of each policy. Hopefully, the second will not engender nearly as dysfunctional an outcome as the first following its progressive (i.e. generational) capture by fanatics.

Anyway, reactive movements tend to be unprincipled and undisciplined, and subsumed by fanaticism.

Bruce Hayden said...

e) Oftentimes when Tea Party talks about the Constitution, the values they attribute actually come from the Constitution of the (treasonous) confederate States of America.

The values that AL are talking about here are states' rights and limiting the power of the federal government. Since southern Dems used these to justify their attempted secession as the Confederacy, anyone who today thinks that the federal government has too much power, and that this power is not derived from our written Constitution is then considered a neo-confederate, and, therefore (at least a closet) racist.

But, if you want to see how the two parties differ in their treatment of southern racists, you need look no further than the treatment that the Republicans gave Trent Lott, who was voted out as Senate Majority Leader over a questionable statement that could be taken racially, and Bob Byrd, who had been a KKK state leader, and was lionized by the Dems at his death. Never mind that Byrd had voted against every major piece of civil rights legislation he could throughout the 1960s, for presumably racist reasons.

edutcher said...

SGT Ted said...

Ken,

I'd say "The War to Keep Owning Blacks" is more appropriate. Civil War is appropriate. They didn't seek to invalidate the elected government per se as much as they sought to invalidate their policy of owning other human beings.


Hmm, as Joe Johnston noted 10% of the Confederate Army owned 90% of the slaves.

and, according to the 1860 census, 25% of all slaves were held in Charleston County.

So, the war wasn't about slavery on either side.

Especially since Confederate generals from Bobby Lee to Pat Cleburne kept saying, "You want to win the war? Free the slaves".

War Against Northern Aggression is a silly claim, seeing as how the South fired the first shots of the war.

SC had legally seceded , but Major Anderson refused to surrender the fort. A fine legal, point that can be argued as nauseam.

Besides, who invaded whom?

edutcher said...

AlphaLiberal said...

e) Oftentimes when Tea Party talks about the Constitution, the values they attribute actually come from the Constitution of the (treasonous) confederate States of America.

You mean the Articles of Confederation, under which we fought the American Revolution?

Bruce Hayden said...

What is interesting here with AL's revisionist history and the related issue of States' Rights is that pot legalization seems to cross-over here. One the one hand, you have a lot of Obama voters supporting state legalization, and presumably federal non-intervention (as evidenced, at least, by the two states that legalized pot this last election also voting for Obama). Supporting big federal government when it suits them, and not when it comes between them and their recreation. And, then you have Republicans opposing such, but otherwise backing a smaller federal government.

I can proudly say that I did vote for legalization, and that was one of the few votes that I cast in the last election that was successful. I don't expect to do pot or the like, but do think that state legalization is a good step towards terminating the War on Drugs, with all of its costs, both financial and in terms of civil liberties.

hombre said...

@Inga: It will probably come as a surprise to you to learn that "neglect" and "negligence" are not synonymous.

In any event, your comment is a non sequitur. Unless the fact that sober parents neglect their children somehow diminishes the likelihood that potheads will neglect theirs.

Or are you proposing that we criminalize sobriety to protect the children? LOL!

ambienisevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ambienisevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roux said...

We are aging and it just doesn't seem that important in the grand scheme of things.

If some idiot wants to destroy his life with drugs more power to him. Just don't ask me to pick up the pieces later.

Roux said...

We are aging and it just doesn't seem that important in the grand scheme of things.

If some idiot wants to destroy his life with drugs more power to him. Just don't ask me to pick up the pieces later.

Carl said...

No, it can only be fixed by overturning Raich, that abortion, and getting rid of Wickard while we're at it.

I figure a Constitutional Amendment along these lines:

That Tenth Amendment? It means just what it says, word for word. There WILL BE no God-damned penumbras and emanations nor implied ANYTHING, and any member of the Federal Government who says otherwise, up to and including Supreme Court justices and the President, on conviction thereof by any random group of 10 citizens who own property, pay taxes, and do not have a law degree, shall be horsewhipped and deported to Cuba forthwith. Love, The People.

Tina Trent said...

If you look beyond the headlines, a lot of the instances cited as examples of incoherence between state and federal law are drug busts in California of major gang related traffickers who are flying under the cover of that state's medical marijuana laws.

Rather than reduce the grip of violent narco-traffickers, legalizing pot in CA has empowered them.

I'm not making any value judgment about smoking pot, just noting reality.

That's a major cited reason why Californians voted against total legalization after moving in the opposite direction for two decades. One thing to be learned by the California experience is that the choice between drug violence and drug legalization is an entirely false one.

Lawyers and narco-traffickers are the winners here. The former are going to start making a whole lot of money now that employers will have to come up with ways to regulate stoned workers, or cover their liability. Ditto, auto insurers. We're all going to be paying for some to light up -- and no, it's not going to be like alcohol because we don't have a good method for detecting immediate use. Therefore, costs will be distributed to all of us. You're welcome, dude.

X said...

and no, it's not going to be like alcohol because we don't have a good method for detecting immediate use

how is this possible? isn't being HIGH just like being DRUNK times eleventy?

David said...

It's called surrender. The incessant cultural barrage has won the day for something, though I find it hard to tell what. It is clear that marajuana is a bad thing for a large percentage of the people who choose it. They are debilitated and demoralized by the drug.

Here's a question. If mj becomes legal, may I as an employer refuse to hire or retain persons who consume the drug? May I even test for it? Will a generation of legal potheads demand their "employment rights?" You can count on it, I think.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

ambienisevil:

Alcohol has healthful benefits. It is metabolized by the body, and will not have a cumulative effect when consumed in moderation. As with everything, including water and oxygen, excessive consumption will have toxic effects. The key is to identify reasonable moderation, especially with respect to concentration in time and space.

David said...

and, according to the 1860 census, 25% of all slaves were held in Charleston County.

WTF? Way to destroy your credibility!!

There were over 3.9 million slaves in the United States in 1860. About 38,000 resided in Charleston County, S.C. There were, however, more slaves in Charleston County than in any other county in the nation.



David said...

The south showed no signs of giving up slavery voluntarily, even over time and even for compensation. The south was so immeshed in slave culture that it saw no alternative.

Nevertheless, had the war not intervened, by 1880 or before they would have been trying to find ways to get rid of most of their slaves. Competitive markets that could grow cotton more cheaply than the American south were emerging, and would have won the day. For many reasons the slave system could not have adjusted to redeploy the labor. This would have been a different kind of disaster, but perhaps just as great a one as the Civil War.

And stop being smug that slavery was just a southern moral failure. The north, and especially New England and the mid Atlantic states, made vast amounts of money happily supplying first the slaves and then clothing and manufactured goods to the south. Only with the opening of the middle west, which had less economic stake in southern markets, did the slavery issue come to a head.

purplepenquin said...

Marijuana is worse. The Blonde (nurse of 43 years, including 5 in rehab) can give you chapter and verse.

She can? Then could you PLEASE have her show us the studies/reports that prove your claim that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol? 'cause I've been asking you to provide some sources ever since you started making that claim.

Here is one place to start:The CDC reports that over 80,000 people die every year due to an overdose of booze. Can you or The Blonde please tell us how many people die every year from an overdoes of ganja?

purplepenquin said...

If mj becomes legal, may I as an employer refuse to hire or retain persons who consume the drug? May I even test for it? Will a generation of legal potheads demand their "employment rights?" You can count on it, I think.

I think your fears are unwarranted, 'cause some employers already test for legal substances and will fire/not-hire workers who are using. Ain't saying it is right, ain't saying it is wrong, but rather just saying it already is.

Which begs the question: If a company can require workers to eschew a legal product, even on their own personal time, can a company then also require a worker to consume a specific substance (legal, of course) and test the employees to make sure? If "at-will employment" is absolute, then then answer would be "yes"...no?


Kinda reminds me of the story I heard* when drug-testing first started becoming in vogue...a law had to be passed in order to make the results of a drug test a valid reason to fire someone. And that is how it was worded...that the results of a drug test can be justification, with no other clarification of what those results had to be. So High Times magazine tested their entire staff, with the intentions of firing anybody who didn't have THC in their system. Everybody in the office passed tho, and the law was quickly re-written.



(*I've tried googling it up, 'cause it always sounded like an urban legend, but have you ever tried wading through a search for "High times drug test"?)

chickelit said...

She can? Then could you PLEASE have her show us the studies/reports that prove your claim that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol? 'cause I've been asking you to provide some sources ever since you started making that claim.

I dislike and disrespect arguments that rest on comparative demerits; legal THC should stand or fall on its own merits--i.e., "we'll be better off because___.

purplepenquin said...

I dislike and disrespect arguments that rest on comparative demerits;

Yeah, I knows what ya mean. It is just that when I see that claim made I'd like to know what kind of stats he has in mind when he says it.

legal THC should stand or fall on its own merits--i.e., "we'll be better off because___.

Oh, I can fill in that blank, with many responses!

But the best I've heard comes from the Shaffer Report (a commission that was hand-picked by President Nixon) is "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

That is why we'd be better off with it re-legalized.