Talk-Polywell.org

I have a bad feeling that what will happen is the drug war will go on, with the same incarceration level as before, but with proportionally fewer blacks. The difference will be made up with such poor whites as are deemed expendable(not rich college kids) and illegal immigrants. I hope I'm wrong, but usually Murphy's golden rule decides. With drugs eventually everybody loses, there are no winners.

choff wrote:I have a bad feeling that what will happen is the drug war will go on, with the same incarceration level as before, but with proportionally fewer blacks. The difference will be made up with such poor whites as are deemed expendable(not rich college kids) and illegal immigrants. I hope I'm wrong, but usually Murphy's golden rule decides. With drugs eventually everybody loses, there are no winners.

I usually have a fair vision of the future. All I get post 2 Oct is cloudiness/storms followed by ??????

Your take is a possible outcome.

Reality is more often than not much lamer than the most credible/insightful predictions.

I had planned to ignore this topic, but occasionally a gem falls into your lap and you just have to post it.

Cute D,

But look at what women were willing to do for tobacco when deprived.

Reports of women who are willing to prostitute themselves for a carton of cigarettes, and of men who trade stolen goods for cigarettes, are also common during and after wars.

The German experience after World War II suggests an explanation of why we Americans in recent generations have lost awareness of the addicting nature of nicotine. People become acutely aware of an addiction only when their supply is cut off.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lib ... /CU25.html

So are you proposing Tobacco Prohibition sever enough to get sex for a single cigarette? Or would you prefer less severe restrictions so a pack of cigarettes would be enough.

You know - most of the ills you ascribe to drugs are cause by prohibition. I'd chalk it up to your ignorance. But you are not ignorant. Just desperate.

These days I assume anyone supporting prohibition is in the pay of the cartels or the Drug Warriors.

====

But it matters not. Following 2 - 4 Oct the MSM will be all over this and you will be branded a racist drug prohibitionist.

Anslinger kept the focus on blacks and Mexicans and used White kids as victims. It was a perfect strategy. Racism was very much alive and overt in the 1930s.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... icago.html

BTW love the actress they got to pose for that billboard.

And D,

Prohibition is a Progressive Program. I never knew you were a progressive. Well you are in good company.

And don't tell me you are on the right. There are progressives on the right and left. Billy Sunday ring a bell?

“Political tags–such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” – Robert A. Heinlein

Msimon, interestingly it is socialists here that are for legalizing drugs and the conservatives are against it. Maybe you are a socialist at heart?

Skipjack wrote:Msimon, interestingly it is socialists here that are for legalizing drugs and the conservatives are against it. Maybe you are a socialist at heart?

Well libertarians look like socialists on some issues and conservatives on others.

OTOH I can assure you Mr. D is no libertarian.

MSimon wrote:

Skipjack wrote:Msimon, interestingly it is socialists here that are for legalizing drugs and the conservatives are against it. Maybe you are a socialist at heart?

Well libertarians look like socialists on some issues and conservatives on others.

OTOH I can assure you Mr. D is no libertarian.

Absolutely right. The Libertarian philosophy is so simpleminded it can fit on a bumper sticker.




The glaring fallacy in this concept is that only obvious or immediate physical harm is the threshold of prohibition. No thought is given to later occurring consequences to individuals or their kith and kin.

Promiscuity is fine, even if it results in abortion, deadly diseases, or destroyed families. Those are consequences for which Libertarians refuse to take responsibility. It is a childish and petulant mindset in my opinion. The philosophy of Edmund Burke is more suited to adults.

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)

Well libertarians look like socialists on some issues and conservatives on others.

Oddly enough, the same has been said about me... But I am sure that YOU would never classify me as a libertarian.
But then, I cant even classify myself in any way. I am for whatever makes the most sense at a given point in time and I dont really care what the official line of some party is.

OTOH I can assure you Mr. D is no libertarian.

Oh, he is clearly a conservative. I sometimes think, even a religious base type of conservative.

But D if you hate drugs so much you ought to favor the end of prohibition.

This police chief says prohibition is a vector for the INCREASE of drug use.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... worse.html

I also liked his statement that the Drug War is a "self perpetuating and constantly expanding policy disaster".

I thought you were against drug use and big government yet you support a policy that increases both. Weird.

And yeah. The Libertarian philosophy can fit on a bumper sticker.

Small Government. Liberty.

No wonder you think libertarians don't get it. Of course neither do the TEAs.

Skipjack,

My link

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... worse.html

has video with German subtitles. You may be amused.

MSimon wrote:

choff wrote:I have a bad feeling that what will happen is the drug war will go on, with the same incarceration level as before, but with proportionally fewer blacks. The difference will be made up with such poor whites as are deemed expendable(not rich college kids) and illegal immigrants. I hope I'm wrong, but usually Murphy's golden rule decides. With drugs eventually everybody loses, there are no winners.

I usually have a fair vision of the future. All I get post 2 Oct is cloudiness/storms followed by ??????

Your take is a possible outcome.

If I'm right, it may take a second court case by another group of cops, after statistics are gathered that definitively prove the wealthy are not being prosecuted for drug crimes. You have to keep chipping away at the stone.

Sometimes the cigarettes would be used more as currency during the war. Though there was during the depression years a saying amoung poor families of, 'we may not eat but tobacco we'll have,' usually said to starving children by addicted parents. Tobacco being more addictive than Heroin.