Democrats Start Positioning Themselves For Prohibition End

[MSimon]

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/12/demo ... hibitiion/

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter appear in the YouTube video Breaking The Taboo <video at above link>. Their message: prohibition has not worked and is not working. In my estimation they are positioning the Democrat Party to take advantage of the end of Prohibition.

Where are the Republicans on this issue? MIA. I predict another 1932 in their future.

=====

<Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick> Leahy is planning committee hearings on marijuana legalization, to include consideration of legislative options, including "amend[ing] the Federal Controlled Substances Act to allow possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, at least in jurisdictions where it is legal under state law."

I am wondering just how huge this may be. Leahy has good views, but he's also a careful senator who would not care to be at odds with his fellow Democratic committee members or the president. He's also a former prosecutor who dislikes uncertainty or disorder in the law and its implementation.

On the other side of the aisle are Tea Party and other Republicans who may or may not like legalization, mostly don't want to say so if they do, but have campaigned on states' rights. One Colorado Republican, Mike Coffman, has cosponsored a recent bill to allow for state marijuana legalization, despite having voted against the Colorado initiative himself. Word is that at least a couple more Republicans are likely ready to join the group. And recent polls have found that more Americans favor letting states decide about legalization than even support legalization. Micah Cohen at the FiveThirtyEight blog noted the CBS poll found 49% of people who oppose legalization favor letting states decide.

In any case things are further along in Congress than before. The Frank-Paul bill to end federal marijuana prohibition, H.R. 2306, got a few Republicans, but the hard-line House Judiciary chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) would not allow hearings. (Smith was the only member of Congress to oppose crack sentencing reform -- our Judiciary Committee chair!) Incoming chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is said to be reasonable on some issues, but not particularly positive on ours. Still, given what happened last month and what is happening now, it may just look a little too bad for Goodlatte to disallow even hearings, as Republicans struggle to redefine their profile in the wake of a tough election for them.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/201 ... ittee_take

The Republicans need to get out front on this issue lest they suffer another 1932.

[choff]

One of the ironies of the movement to legalize drugs is that they can only organize, formulate policies. debate opponents and successfully campaign for legalization when they are relatively sober. If you don't believe me, try this experiment.

Get as a control group a set of legalization proponents when not on anything, and have them formulate a complex position paper. Then get an equally qualified set of legalization proponents, get them stoned out of their minds on LSD, and have them do the same task as the control group. Finally, compare results.

[MSimon]

One of the ironies of the movement to legalize drugs is that they can only organize, formulate policies. debate opponents and successfully campaign for legalization when they are relatively sober. If you don't believe me, try this experiment.

Get as a control group a set of legalization proponents when not on anything, and have them formulate a complex position paper. Then get an equally qualified set of legalization proponents, get them stoned out of their minds on LSD, and have them do the same task as the control group. Finally, compare results.

Well what does that tell you? The legalizers are more sober than the prohibitionists because they are winning.

BTW Carl Sagan used to say that pot helped his writing. So evidently it does not work like alcohol or LSD.

[MSimon]

The biggest thing is that the American people are tired of the level of violence prohibition brings. And they would like to use pot as medicine. And they are tired of the waste of police resources. Maybe some of them are tired of the level of racism involved in Prohibition.

They told this DEA agent not to enforce drug laws in white areas. Really.

[hanelyp]

Well what does that tell you? The legalizers are more sober than the prohibitionists because they are winning.

Would you say that those who want punitive taxes and out of control spending are more sober because they are winning?

[MSimon]

Well what does that tell you? The legalizers are more sober than the prohibitionists because they are winning.

Would you say that those who want punitive taxes and out of control spending are more sober because they are winning?

No. I would say they can sell better.

The difference is that they don't get that socialism is in the end unworkable. Whether it is price supports for criminals or vast give away programs.

But it is funny. They (generally the same people) can do exquisite economic analysis of prohibition but are incompetent to apply that analysis to programs they favor. Their opposition is the opposite.

It is a wonder.

====

The Republicans surrendered a LONG time ago. Their only promise these days is "we can better manage the welfare state". Romney being a prime example.

Ron Paul - who was in effect driven out of the Party (booed at the R convention) was the only candidate who was at least philosophically opposed to the welfare state. To actually dismantle it he would need votes in Congress.

Prime example: Medicare Part D. Was that a small government program?

Why was Paul booed? Because he was against welfare for criminals. Too funny.

====

Back on topic. The socialists are preparing to clean up on the issue and the conservatives are bumps on a log about to be thrown in the fire.

You can see it coming and yet conservatives are unable to find a way to change their position.

"Everyone" (about 80% of the adult population) knows prohibition is not working. Unfortunately the 20% resides in the R Party and the Party needs their votes. This is the making of further debacles until the Ds take the issue off the table by passing laws.

I see years of train wrecks ahead for Rs. Too bad. All because they can't do economics in the one area where it currently politically matters most.

I might add that the Rs don't study the subject. They refuse to look into the Government's importation of hard drugs to further its Black programs. Taiwan, Viet Nam, Central America. etc.

Just for starters you might want to look into the origins of the current Chinese Government of Taiwan and its relation to the opium trade during the Chinese civil war. And how our "anti-drug" government dealt with them and that aspect of their organization.

It does go back much farther than that. With American clipper ships delivering opium to China in competition with the Brits. What gave opiates their foothold in China? The Brits convinced the Chinese to outlaw it. Read the whole history of that some time. It is fascinating.

So what caused opiate prohibition in America? Among other things Americans were ashamed of calling for prohibition for the "lesser races" while not practicing it themselves.

But it was the Brits who started it all with their triangular trade - opium from India - sold in China - proceeds used to buy silk - sold in Britain. Sweet deal.

With Clinton coming out against prohibition my guess is that at least one faction has decided that the political costs of prohibition are no longer worth the economic profits.

[Diogenes]

The Republicans need to get out front on this issue lest they suffer another 1932.

The Republicans need to hide. The Bolsheviks have defeated the Mensheviks.



We must now go through the pit to emerge from the pit.

[Diogenes]

Well what does that tell you? The legalizers are more sober than the prohibitionists because they are winning.

So are the other forces of darkness. Nature's rebuttal is going to be epic.

[Diogenes]

You can see it coming and yet conservatives are unable to find a way to change their position.

Neither was Galileo. It is contrary to reason to change your position when you happen to be correct.

[hanelyp]

Nature's rebuttal is going to be epic.

Indeed.

The leftist sense of entitlement, and unwillingness to recognize evil, invites "zombie" riots and War.
Making the successful the enemy will bring Famine.
License in sex and drugs breeds Pestilence.

You should be able to fill in the rest.

[JoeP]

You can see it coming and yet conservatives are unable to find a way to change their position.

Neither was Galileo. It is contrary to reason to change your position when you happen to be correct.

Well put. I think conservatives should point out why they oppose such laws and stand as clear from the leftist positions as possible.

The future over the next two decades is not going to be very nice. If you can't stop it, stand clear and protect your own as well as you can.

[MSimon]

Nature's rebuttal is going to be epic.

Indeed.

The leftist sense of entitlement, and unwillingness to recognize evil, invites "zombie" riots and War.
Making the successful the enemy will bring Famine.
License in sex and drugs breeds Pestilence.

You should be able to fill in the rest.

But we already know nature's rebuttal from the Netherlands, from Portugal, from Switzerland, from Australia. When the substances are legalized (or decriminalized) use declines. Let me add that we also know that from the Dr. Marks study in England re: heroin.

Now what will that do to Republican credibility when it works the same way in the US?

Of course if it works as Republicans predict their stock will go sky high. But if it works the way it has in other countries Republican stock re: everything else will be falling like a rock.

You gentlemen are placing a rather big bet (everything you have got for a few decades) that you are right. And the odds are against you. Normally people only place such large bets with the odds wildly in their favor.

With even one counter example I would have reduced my bet - "If legalization doesn't work we can always reinstate prohibition." But you gentleman have doubled down with 4 counter examples.

And it is worse. You have doubled down when the current question is about a drug that is known to reduce traffic fatalities when it is allowed for medical purposes. Some alcoholics switch to a drug safer for all when it is legally available. If the end of pot prohibition works out despite your dire predictions you have in effect destroyed your fire wall against harder drugs. Smart armies/generals know when to retreat, regroup, and hold a better position. Lee made the same mistake at Gettysburg. Why did he make that mistake despite an inferior position (he was aware of that)? Because his army wanted to fight. In effect the Confederate Army was leaderless. It had turned into a mob and sober judgment was no longer allowed to prevail. The right is now in that position re: Prohibition.

Drugs seem to make the right stupid. It is amazing given that so few on the right use drugs.

Not only do I see a 1932 in your future. I see a future where FDR is lionized. Ah. Well.

OTOH, I expect libertarian and Libertarian stock to go sky high if the US results are any where close to the results in the four countries I have mentioned. Kids on the right are already leaning libertarian. If ending prohibition works as I expect they will do more than lean.

[MSimon]

Let me add that the Republicans of 1932 were no different with respect to their Prohibition. It cost them dearly for a long time.

[MSimon]

And gentlemen. Please explain your avidity for price supports for criminals?

You can just see it coming post prohibition: Republicans were in cahoots with the criminals and drug cartels.

[TDPerk]

"We must now go through the pit to emerge from the pit."

Getting rid of unconstitutional baggage like drug Prohibition helps you climb out of the pit.

It's too heavy, not nearly worth the effort.