The Racism of Marijuana Prohibition (another fine editoral from the LA Times)

Los Angeles Times ^ | September 7, 2009 | Stephen Gutwillig

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

“And that is exactly what I said.”

No, you argued that bad effects were governable. That is the argument being used against second-hand smoke, transfats on healthcare costs and carbon dioxide emissions. You are a statist.

“All legal issues are moral issues.”

But not all moral issues are legal issues. If you are arguing that they can be one and the same, then you are arguing for the union of church and state and absolutism. Proper laws govern relations between people. When they seek to impose morals on the individual, they invade conscience.

“It’s fine with me if the state governments take over that task...”

There were state laws before the federal takeover. The feds took over because they felt state laws were ineffective at imposing absolutism - as it should be.

“You’re the one arguing that the Constitution protects a person’s right to abuse intoxicating drugs. The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion, and you’re not going to get away with trying to turn the argument upside down.”

I’m arguing bottom up - I have a right to conscience and whether one becomes privately intoxicated is a matter of conscience - as well as top down - the federal government was not given power to regulate intoxicating substances or anything else except as regards commerce between states.

“It is up to you do persuade people that such a right exists. Good luck.”

Rights do not come from the people. It is up to me to persuade people to recognize a right that exists regardless of whether they continue to trample it. It is much more difficult for 50 states to trample a right without the federal government to call on.

“The word “murder” does not appear in the Constitution, nor do the words “rape” or “theft.” And yet we have laws against these. How can that be? Are you arguing that these laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished?”

Has it escaped your notice that except on federal property, these are all state laws and that these all govern acts between people and are thus not matters only of conscience?

“Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” No?”

Providing is spending or setting aside for, not controlling individuals so you are distorting the language. Without any enumerated power to control people’s lives, you are willing to use any vagueness you can find to establish statist control based on your morality that happy hour is evil. There is no limit to the logic that left or right can put that mischief to.

“Yours, on the other hand, is in approving of laws against murder, rape, and theft (You do, don’t you?), while deploring laws that seek to reduce murder, rape, and theft by minimizing drug use.”

I look to minimize rape, murder and theft by laws against rape, murder and theft, not by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens as the left’s morality calls for or whatever connection you think drugs of themselves have with these. Murder and theft, in my view, are caused by the laws against drugs, much as Prohibition gave opportunities to organized crime in the 1920’s. It isn’t like we haven’t seen this before.

[dsc]

Me: Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

You: Screw you...

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[Tolsti2]

Legalize any crime that’s done more by x race than whites.

That should shut em up, right? There will be a wide shift of the landscape of the country, since murder would be legalized, but hey...

[dsc]

“Please read the 9th amendment.”

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

“This isn’t rocket science.”

So why don’t you get it?

That passage means that the possibility exists that there are *some* rights not enumerated in the Constitution. It does not mean that *everything* not specifically named is a right. There is a nearly infinite number of things not enumerated as rights that are not, in fact, rights.

If you wish to establish that being a drug addict and all associated behaviors are rights, then it is up to you to make a case that persuades enough other people that drug laws are repealed.

[KDD]

Rasmussen Reports: 51% Rate Alcohol More Dangerous Than Marijuana

[dsc]

“That is the argument being used against second-hand smoke, transfats on healthcare costs and carbon dioxide emissions. You are a statist.”

I don’t know whether you are mistaken or lying. Don’t much care. You have a moral obligation to make a legitimate effort to understand what a person says before you engage in detraction.

“If you are arguing that they can be one and the same, then you are arguing for the union of church and state and absolutism.”

That’s how leftards argue. Assign the worst possible interpretation to a person’s remarks, stretching and distorting as desired, then attack your own creation. I don’t have much patience with such dishonesty.

“There were state laws before the federal takeover.”

And you go so far as to ignore places where I agree with you?

“I’m arguing bottom up”

You’re arguing bass ackwards. That is why you arrive at incorrect conclusions.

“I have a right to conscience”

No, you have a right to a *properly formed* conscience. In America we extend others the freedom to cling to a distorted conscience, but that’s a freedom, not a right.

“and whether one becomes privately intoxicated is a matter of conscience”

Dead wrong, on any number of grounds. No point in repeating them yet again, as you just put your fingers in your ears.

“the federal government was not given power to regulate intoxicating substances or anything else except as regards commerce between states.”

The federal government is given the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Insomuch as it is recognized that such crimes as murder, rape, and theft are criminalized as detrimental to the general welfare, behavior that leads to those crimes is seen also to fall under that purview.

“Rights do not come from the people.”

Laws, however, are supposed to. As this is not a Constitutional issue, you can either lobby for the laws you want or lobby for a Constitutional amendment. If you want either of those outcomes, you need to persuade others.

“…recognize a right that exists…”

Buncombe. No such right ever has existed, or ever could.

“…these all govern acts between people and are thus not matters only of conscience?”

And neither is recreational drug use solely a matter of conscience.

“Providing is spending or setting aside for”

Perhaps you can cite a (non-leftist) constitutional authority for that. Your reading would require the federal government to out-source national defense. Silly.

“Without any enumerated power to control people’s lives”

Like the enumerated powers government has to criminalize murder, rape, and theft?

“you are willing to use any vagueness you can find to establish statist control”

As Thomas Sowell wrote, “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”

I have refuted your arguments using facts and reason. Now you attempt to answer my arguments by attributing bad motives to me.

“…based on your morality that happy hour is evil.”

So, am I to understand that you’re a God-hater too? Btw, it’s not *my* morality.

“There is no limit to the logic that left or right can put that mischief to.”

As H. L. Mencken wrote, “It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”

“I look to minimize rape, murder and theft by laws against rape, murder and theft, not by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens”

We wave a fond farewell, as you drift further and further from any argument actually presented against your position, eventually to become mired in the Sargasso Sea of personal slur and stalking horse arguments.

It happens that I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, I regard any restriction on weaponry as unconstitutional.

“Murder and theft, in my view, are caused by the laws against drugs”

Yeah, I used to think that myself. In later decades I realized that I was wrong. Even if we provided free dope, housing, and food to junkies, they would still prey on others and deprive others of their right to be secure in their persons and their property.

“much as Prohibition gave opportunities to organized crime in the 1920’s.”

It was the demand for hooch and the willingness of society at large to break the law that gave opportunities to organized crime. Dope is neither the medical nor the moral equivalent of booze.

“It isn’t like we haven’t seen this before.”

Yes, it is. Laws against the recreational use and eventual addiction to, say, Fentanyl, are not the equivalent of the 18th Amendment.

[dsc]

“Rasmussen Reports: 51% Rate Alcohol More Dangerous Than Marijuana”

That would be 51% of the same population that just elected B. Hussein Bamtard president?

Truth is not subject to popular vote.

[Americanwolf]

is that speaking from experience??? J/k

[wardaddy]

take a look at who runs the newsrooms these days

[Americanwolf]

Yes... you are making fun of brown people by eating food that makes your poop brown... /s

[kcvl]

For 20 years, California State Director Stephen Gutwillig has worked for cultural and social change community organizations in Boston, New York and Los Angeles. Prior to joining the organization, Gutwillig served for eight years as executive director of Outfest, the L.A.-based nonprofit devoted to nurturing, exhibiting and preserving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media.

Gutwillig also previously served as director of development and communications for the Labor/Community Strategy Center, the L.A.-based social and environmental justice organization best known for organizing low-income, transit-dependent bus riders. Gutwillig’s experience includes work as a nonprofit organizational development consultant. He currently serves on the Lesbian and Gay Community Funding Board of the Liberty Hill Foundation.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The federal government DOES NOT make the laws against murder, rape or theft for the 50 states.

Well, since you have stopped offering any arguments and rely on the same abuse (or even more of a stretch) of the “general welfare” clause to get what you want as many leftists do, I can only conclude that you do indeed ride that commie horse.

[kcvl]

http://www.indiewire.com/images/uploads/iw9/ots/outfest07two.jpg

Stephen Gutwillig, executive director, Outfest: Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. Stephen Gutwillig has been executive director of Outfest: Los Angeles Gay and. Lesbian Film Festival since 1999.

Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the pro-legalization Drug Policy Alliance.

“We can’t borrow or slash our way out of this deficit,” said Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “The legislature must consider innovative sources of new revenue, and marijuana should be at the top of that list.”

“In ever-increasing numbers, the citizens of this state are ready to junk our failed prohibition policies, even if that means taking on the feds,” said Stephen Gutwillig, state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. The voters, he said, are “way ahead” of public officials on the issue.

“The ink’s barely dry on the Obama administration’s kinder, gentler approach to medical marijuana, and the DEA is up to its old tactics,” said Stephen Gutwillig of the Drug Policy Alliance. State prohibits profit.

Stephen Gutwillig, California’s state director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said that the new policy would protect millions of Americans who benefited from the medicinal properties of marijuana. “Under the Obama administration, the federal government may finally be recovering from a long bout with ‘reefer madness,’ “ he said.

[KDD]

Truth is not subject to popular vote.

Spoken like a true dominist moralizer.
You guys have nearly destroyed the Republican Party.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis

When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence. – Gary Lloyd

[Nate505]

Really? Tell that to the people who get killed (and the myriad of pets) in no knock raids that still seem to happen.

[Nate505]

No, but truth is subject to logic. I’m amazed anyone would argue that booze isn’t more dangerous than pot. For one, you can overdose on the former. The second also tends to make a good percentage of its users violent and out of control., while the latter makes a good percentage of its users lethargic.

[mvpel]

Race-baiting has a long tradition in prohibition movements:

The Racial History of U.S. Drug Prohibition

When marijuana was popularized in the 20s and 30s in the American jazz scene, Blacks and Whites sat down as equals and smoked together. The racist anti-marijuana propaganda of the time used this crumbling of racial barriers as an example of the degradation caused by marijuana. Harry Anslinger, head of the newly formed federal narcotics division, warned middle-class leaders about Blacks and Whites dancing together in "teahouses," using blatant prejudice to sell prohibition.(7) In 1931 New Orleans officials attributed many of the region's crimes to marijuana, which they believed was also a dangerous sexual stimulant.

During the Great Depression, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into law, again using racism as its chief selling point. The same Mexicans who were vying with out of work Americans for the few agricultural jobs available, it was said, engaged in marijuana-induced violence against Americans.

[dsc]

“The federal government DOES NOT make the laws against murder, rape or theft for the 50 states.”

So? There are federal laws against murder, rape, and theft. And before you come back again with the jurisdiction argument, state laws are only effective within a state’s borders.

“Well, since you have stopped offering any arguments”

Yeah, it’s about time for you to start denying the existence of arguments you can’t rebut.

“and rely on the same abuse (or even more of a stretch) of the “general welfare” clause”

You make that assertion, but fail to support it. In fact, the general welfare clause covers drugs with no stretch at all. It is just the sort of thing that clause was intended to address.

“to get what you want as many leftists do, I can only conclude that you do indeed ride that commie horse.”

More groundless attacks on my character. And don’t pretend that you are concluding anything on the basis of rational thought, here.

[LibLieSlayer]

I will thrash my back with Eucalyptus and wail a bunch today to make up for it!

LLS

[Americanwolf]

LOL... for some reason I think that is something you may enjoy!?