This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guns, Drugs, & Booze: The Bipartisan Support For Prohibition

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Andrew Syrios via The Mises Institute,

It’s been noticed more than a few times that there aren’t many substantive differences between the Republicans and Democrats. While this is true in many ways for the parties themselves, the Left and Right certainly differ on a range of issues from welfare to abortion to gay rights.

What they have in common — at least the mainstream varieties — is a desire to use the state to shape society in whatever way they see fit. As Andrew Napolitano put it, “We have migrated from a two-party system into a one-party system, the big-government party. There’s a democratic wing that likes taxes and wealth transfers and assaults on commercial liberties and there’s a republican wing that likes war and deficits and assaults uncivil liberties.” And both parties love prohibition, just of different things.

Alcohol Prohibition

There aren’t many people left who believe the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was a good idea. Interestingly enough, it was the progressives of the time that pushed for that. As historian William Leuchtenburg noted, “It was a movement that was embraced by progressives.” On the other side, in the words of historian Daniel Okrent, were the “… economic conservatives who … pushed so hard for repeal.”

Prohibition turned out to be a disaster. A report from the Cato Institute found that after Prohibition passed in 1920, homicide rates increased, corruption increased, alcohol-related deaths were unchanged and after a short dip in 1921, alcohol consumption returned to what it had been before the law was passed. Furthermore, in the midst of this chaos, Al Capone and organized crime came to power. Indeed, black markets and prohibition go together like peas and carrots.

Drug Prohibition

In the past, it was usually the progressives who wanted to use the state to tell people what they could and could not put in their own bodies. However, something must have changed among conservatives as the Right has generally been at the vanguard of the War on Drugs (although, with plenty of help from many on the Left). In 1971, Richard Nixon decided to try prohibition all over again, but this time with cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.

And of course, it has failed in every way imaginable.

According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Illicit drug use in America has been increasing.” In 2012, “9.2 percent of the population” had used illicit drugs in the last month “… up from 8.3 percent in 2002.” So drug use has actually gone up despite spending over a trillion dollars on this massive boondoggle.

Meanwhile, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. Despite having only 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. A large percentage of these prisonere are in prison for nothing more than non-violent drug charges.

Some think this is counterproductive and immoral. Others, like Michael Gerson, believe that those who want to legalize drugs have “second-rate values.” First-rate values include locking drug addicts in cages. So in accordance with Gerson’s first-rate values, instead of trying to help these poor addicts rebuild their lives, the government declared war on the substances, and thereby, the addicts themselves.

And to wage this war has required a massively invasive police state. “Victimless” crimes don’t leave many witnesses (or at least not many who want to talk about it). So the government must use more bellicose means. According to the ACLU, there are an estimated 45,000 SWAT raids every year and only about 7 percent are for hostage situations. The vast majority are for drugs. These raids sometimes end tragically. For example, David Hooks was shot twice while face down on the ground in one raid and a baby was put into a coma when a flash bang was dropped in another.

The evidence also shows that legalization works. Glenn Greenwald notes that “Since Portugal enacted its decriminalization scheme in 2001, drug usage in many categories has actually decreased when measured in absolute terms” and Forbes points out that “drug abuse is down by half.”

And despite some haranguing from conservatives, Colorado has done just fine since decriminalizing marijuana in 2014.

Gun Prohibition

While conservatives have taken some notes from the progressives of old, progressives certainly haven’t given up on the idea of molding society through prohibition. Fortunately, in the United States, most of the debate about guns has to do with regulation and not prohibition. This is not the case in many other countries. And it has also not been the case in several US cities, until Supreme Court decisions overturned the gun bans in Washington, DC and Chicago. Still, many US cities have extremely arduous gun laws on the books.

John Lott did an extensive study and noted that,

The odds that a typical state experiences a drop in murder or rape after a right-to-carry law is passed merely due to randomness is far less than 0.1 percent. … The average murder rate dropped in 89 percent of the states after the right-to-carry law was passed. … There was a similar decline in rape rates.

Further, to make sure he controlled for every variable imaginable (or didn’t control for variables that would incorrectly skew the data) he ran “20,480 regressions” using every imaginable arrangement of possible criteria and concluded,

… all the violent-crime regressions show the same direction of impact from the concealed-handgun law. The results for murder demonstrated that passing right-to-carry laws caused drops in the crime ranging from 5 to 7.5 percent.

John Lott found twenty-six peer reviewed studies on concealed-carry laws, sixteen showed a reduction in crime and ten were inconclusive. Not one showed that crime rates increased.

We can all mourn tragic events such as the recent mass shooting in Charleston. But what is obviously problematic about restricting civilian gun use is that only law-abiding citizens will comply, criminals will not. (Like many other such massacres, the Charleston shooting took place in a “gun free” zone.) Indeed, criminals will likely have no harder a time getting guns then they do getting drugs, which means that restricting guns just disarms potential victims. A survey by Gary Kleck made him conclude that there were approximately 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use each year. Although that number is almost certainly way too high, defensive gun use is still relatively common. For example, during a school shooting in Oklahoma, Mikael Gross and Tracey Bridges retrieved the guns from their vehicles and stopped the shooter before he could kill anyone else.

As stated above, while there are some in the United States who call for extreme restrictions on guns, or bans altogether, for the most part, outright prohibition is only an issue in other countries. Many will point to the higher murder rates in the United States than Britain as proof that gun prohibition stops murder (interestingly they don’t point to the property crime statistics as they are actually higher in Britain than the US).

But there are major problems with this simplistic analysis. For example, gun ownership has been increasing rapidly in the United States while gun crime has been falling. In addition, most guns are owned by people in rural areas, then suburban, then urban. Crime rates are exactly the opposite. Further, as Thomas Sowell points out in Intellectuals and Society,

Russia and Brazil have tougher gun control laws than the united States and much higher murder rates. Gun ownership rates in Mexico are a fraction of what they are in the United States, but Mexico’s murder rate is more than double that in the United States.

 

Handguns are banned in Luxembourg but not in Belgium, France or Germany; yet the murder rate in Luxembourg is several times the murder rate in Belgium, France or Germany.

And what about that lower murder rate for Britain? Well, Thomas Sowell again, “London had a much lower murder rate than New York during the years after New York State's 1911 Sullivan Law imposed very strict gun control, while anyone could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked in the 1950s.” What matters are the trends, not simplistic and vulgar comparisons. Instead, an international study done at Harvard noted,

To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Finally, when it comes to gun bans, the results are predictably terrible. John Lott again, “Every place around the world that has banned guns appears to have experienced an increase in murder and violent crime rates.” This includes Washington, DC, Chicago, Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica. One British newspaper ran the darkly humorous article “Gun Crime Soaring Despite Ban.” Change the “Despite” to “Because” and you have an accurate article.

Conclusion

Penn Jillette has half-joked, “If you can convince the gun nuts that the potheads are ok and the potheads that the gun nuts are ok, then everyone's a libertarian.” Arguments about whether these things should be regulated and how much so would be the subject for a different article. But it’s hard to understand why many liberals think that prohibiting drugs creates black markets with drugs, but that it wouldn’t happen with guns. Does one really think that drug cartels couldn’t add guns to their list of products to push? And the same goes for conservatives in the reverse.

It’s really quite simple; prohibition doesn’t work. Freedom does.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:20 | 6485812 greenskeeper carl
greenskeeper carl's picture

none of those thinks should be regulated. at all. no where in the constitution does it mentions drugs or alcohol or the fedgov having any say whatsoever about what a person puts into or does with their own body. As long as they don't harm others or damage their property, I don't believe in any regulation of any of those things whasoever

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:27 | 6485826 live free
live free's picture

I think it's interesting how abortion is so scarosanct to liberals because it's a "womans' body".  Although it affects another life it's too much to override an individuals right of their own body.  Yet not one expands on that right to anything else....How about we let everyone affect their own body based on their own decisions?  We can't have that, now can we?

 

 

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:45 | 6485870 83_vf_1100_c
83_vf_1100_c's picture

  State sanctioned abortion is still murder. I know women who years later are emotionally fucked up from taking what seemed at the time the 'easy' way out. Probably as it should be for them. I have been faced with the question twice and am happy to say all of my mistakes lived. One of them is now 16 and making me wish I had taken the 'easy' way out.

  Drugs are a bad deal. But, if you are old enough to make a rational decision and ypou don't get all fucked up and risk other's safety... enjoy your meth/crack/likker/whatever. My wife is working with a 17 yr old girl here in small town TX that uses shit you can buy in any Dollar General. Cheap, effective, easy to buy, really bad stuff apparently.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:08 | 6485923 live free
live free's picture

This is something that puts us in the hot seat and makes us all be parents and be responsible.  Once that was taken away from us, by us all working major hours for some corporation and not being near our kids that is what happens.  One reason I was fortunate enough to push the reset button and go out on my own and put way more time towards my kids lives.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:37 | 6485976 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

That baby is probably going to grow up to be a doper, so it's good he got a taste of The Law at such a young age.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:17 | 6486002 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

Prohabition.  You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.

The whole article is the tired old libertarian false dilemma  that any limits on anything (alcohol, drugs, firearms) is somehow the equivalent of a total prohibition of these things.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 11:02 | 6487133 wendigo
wendigo's picture

Dude. There is a total ban on drug use at the federal level. Firearms are totally banned in some locales in the country. 

Mon, 08/31/2015 - 13:15 | 6490764 Dark Space
Dark Space's picture

You can't even spell the word.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:33 | 6486102 BarkingCat
BarkingCat's picture

Your choice and your option. I know people that did the opposite and have no regrets.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 03:53 | 6486613 MSimon
MSimon's picture

People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers. PTSD mostly.

 

Drugs are GOOD.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:07 | 6486969 logicalman
logicalman's picture

It's not always the 'easy' way out.

Had to stare that one down quite a few years ago.

Pregnancy with very high risk of devastating physical and neurological defects.

What would you do?

You don't know until you've been there.

 

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:48 | 6485879 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Its very simple.....an unborn baby can't vote.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:35 | 6486108 rejected
rejected's picture

An unborn baby cannot defend itself.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 07:49 | 6486782 Dis-obey
Dis-obey's picture

 

You know GW was smoking it. and I don't mean Bush. 

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:29 | 6485823 JustObserving
JustObserving's picture

Legalize drugs but that would put a $100 billion hole in NSA/CIA's budget. And reduce America's prison population by more than 50%

Afghan Opium Production Increased 40 Times Since NATO, US Invasion

Since NATO entered Afghanistan in 2001, heroin production has increased 40 times, according to the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service. One million people have died from Afghan heroin since 2001.

“Afghan heroin has killed more than 1 million people worldwide since the ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ began and over a trillion dollars has been invested into transnational organized crime from drug sales,” said Viktor Ivanov, at the conference on the drug situation in Afghanistan. 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/afghan-opium-production-increased-40-times-...

Pulitzer Prize Winner Gary Webb wrote about CIA drug sales of crack cocaine in the ghettos of California to raise money for the Contras. Unhappily, Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head, the most remarkable feat of his life.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:23 | 6485949 Dakota Kid
Dakota Kid's picture

JustObserving

"Legalize drugs but that would put a $100 billion hole in NSA/CIA's budget. "

Don't forget to include asset forfeiture value for police departments and thousands of dead innocent Mexicans.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:39 | 6486123 willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

Not to mention the wealth the cities & states receive with their "cut".

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 08:30 | 6486810 NoPension
NoPension's picture

I like how for years, gambling has been portrayed as sooooo bad.
But only when the Mob controlled it.

Now, in Maryland, the Casinos are advertised as fabulous places to go and have a good time. Not to mention, the lottery.

It's for children, too. These kids should be doing pretty fucking good.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:29 | 6485832 bbq on whitehou...
bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

Being mindful of others business aught to be secondary to minding ones own. Thou seldom is that the case.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 01:38 | 6486519 Dakota Kid
Dakota Kid's picture
  •    Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty                                                           
  • Lysander Spooner, essay written in 1875
  • Good read.
Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:30 | 6485835 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

What is, those things controlled by the criminal, tyrannical, oppressive, and thugish agency known as the BATF?

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:33 | 6486101 rejected
rejected's picture

BATFE.... Worse bunch of them all.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:31 | 6485841 Teh Finn
Teh Finn's picture

Question for the legalize "all" drugs crowd.

What about pharmaceuticals?  No scripts needed?  Just walk into Walgreens and get a bottle of hydro, a bottle of zanax, pick up a fifth of vodka and have a weekend never to remember?

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:39 | 6485849 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

Well here's a thought for you.  Pharmaceuticals still need a prescription from a doctor.  Illicit drugs needs a prescription from a drug dealer.  Same thing really if you think about it!

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:46 | 6485872 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

So long as you pay for it all. Why should I care?

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:48 | 6485877 Sigh.
Sigh.'s picture

Legalize most of the weaker-set drugs, up to and including cocaine and it's derivatives.

Then take away welfare and other negative-incentive social services, and remind each Citizen what the Gods of the Copybook Headings 'splain every chance they get:

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:04 | 6485915 agent default
agent default's picture

Taking away welfare should be a matter of general principle.  You get a bunk in community housing and a bowl of soup so that you don't starve.  Everything else you want, go work for it.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 09:43 | 6486911 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 including the children, the aged, and the infirm?

(therein lies a big problem)

 

And if there are no jobs?

Shall there be a law requiring employers to hire all who apply?

Should the government offer free training for everyone?

Shall there be last resort government employ available to all?

Should the government provide child care for those who work?

Mon, 08/31/2015 - 13:18 | 6490774 Dark Space
Dark Space's picture

Yes (to your first question) - why not the children, aged, and infirm? If some of the non-destitute wish to put them up in special accomodations, we have a little thing called charity that Americans are actually pretty good at, and they can give funds without a gun pointed at their head.

 

No, to all the other questions.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:16 | 6485935 Teh Finn
Teh Finn's picture

So cocaine is going to be legalized.  Is it over the counter, behind the counter, does it need a script, or is it more or less like buying a 5 Hour Energy™ but with a fraction of the duration?

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:38 | 6486122 Sigh.
Sigh.'s picture

If the purpose of legalization is to stop the criminality associated with drugs (dealing, hiding dope from cops, cutting down on cops' and local gov't's favorite reasons to bash and wallet-plunder, filling jails needlessly) then set it up like Colorado has set up it's bud shops: in plain view, open to the public.

Of course you'd have to keep out kids and wire-head stupids who'd kill for their next buzz. But for the most part, it'd be doable.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 22:03 | 6486172 Teh Finn
Teh Finn's picture

Thanks for the sincere reply.  I was in CO this past fall and saw all the dispensaries marked with their green cross.  Went to the grocery store and the frozen pizza and Hostess aisles were wrecked!

BTW, Coloradough in Glenwood Springs has killer coffee and doughnuts.  They even have the vaunted Cronut!

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 04:04 | 6486618 MSimon
MSimon's picture

Before 1914 Cocaine and Heroin were over the counter.

 

Before 1937 Cannabis and its tinctures were in the Pharmacopoeia. Not to mention freely available in patent medicines before the FDA.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 07:58 | 6486786 Dis-obey
Dis-obey's picture

Coca-cola will suddenly be sold as a weight loss energy drink when the old recipe is restored.

  http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-ou...

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:01 | 6485910 agent default
agent default's picture

I am sure this is impossible to do today because you need a prescription.  Because you cannot get any of the above from the guy around the corner, because regulation and scheduling has been so effective. 

And now a question for the war on drugs crowd.  What about civil forfeiture?  What about being treated like guilty until proven innocent?  What about loss of privacy?  What about using what other guy might be doing TO HIMSELF as an excuse to determine what MY rights should be?

No go on and give us a lecture about "social responsibility"  and "government action"  and other statist nonsense you are here to shill for Mr two weeks.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:05 | 6485920 Teh Finn
Teh Finn's picture

I just wanted to make it clear that I asked that question in good faith.  Additionally I am for relaxing the restrictions on some of the illicit drugs.  So you can can your presuppositions that I am some big government nanny stater.  good grief.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 22:41 | 6486252 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

I think if you were to describe the principle you are ascribing to that would have what you are for impacting what I can do, you would understand the response. 

Don't let it get you down.  This is fight club after all.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 23:02 | 6486301 Teh Finn
Teh Finn's picture

I guess, being a "two weeker" here makes me an outsider...In the future I will establish my position before asking such an open ended question.  I was hoping for more sincere responses, but I was shocked at the level of cynicism and poor presupposition I encountered.  I am a dereg proponent for damn near all aspects of government, but some things like drug dereg need more specifics as to how they would actually work.  I can't imagine that everything from weed to flakka, krokodil to cocaine, LSD to heroin would be marketed and sold in the same marketplace such as Lisinopril, Vicodin, Klonopin, etc.  It seems that more people here just want to red arrow instead of intellectualy addressing it.

Whatever.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 23:57 | 6486414 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

"I can't imagine that everything from weed to flakka, krokodil to cocaine, LSD to heroin would be marketed and sold in the same marketplace such as Lisinopril, Vicodin, Klonopin, etc"

Sure it could, anything can be in the market and, in a coherent society, there would be no problem.  There was a time (not sure if it still applies) when I could go to drugstore in Florida and self-prescribe an antibiotic by signing a ledger.  Alternatively, I can go to a veterinary and pick up a number of antibiotics still today.

The happy/experimental drugs such as LSD, heroin and others could be shelved for those wish to partcke similar to the rows and rows of liquor found in drug stores, complete with regualted wieghts and measures and cost per ounce so the decision between products would be rationally based.  Shit like flakka and krokodil suddenly aren't conjured up out of desperation.  Though I would support advisories explaining that that kind of shit is very dangerous and harmful. 

That's all government should be doing...regulating weights and measures, and putting out advisories on items it has found to be deadly or has harmful effects.  There shouldn't be a police state over this if our government was in it's proper role.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 02:29 | 6486555 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

It won't matter how long your here.

Watch this:

I understand that in theory people should be free, but why have a government if it isn't going to step in and insure our safety.  I used to be really naive when I was young, but thankfully government regulations were there to protect me and schools were there to teach me how to live.  I have no idea what I would have done if I could have bought crack when I was in elementary school or worse yet if I didn't even have a school to go to.  I probably would have never amounted to anything but now I have a good job and my 401k to insure my health and comfort into retirement.  The whole reason to be a part of society is so those who know better and have more resources can take care of those with little to no understanding of what is going on around them.  Lets face it, the world has become dangerous and if we don't all work together as a country there is no telling what could happen.  I am so glad I was not born in Somalia.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 04:11 | 6486623 MSimon
MSimon's picture

Before 1914 you could buy heroin and cocaine over the counter. At age 10. Or 7 if mommy or daddy sent you to the store with the cash.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 09:20 | 6486864 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So, a coupe chicken or free range?

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 04:08 | 6486621 MSimon
MSimon's picture

All that stuff is already sold. By CRIMINALS. And they don't card.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:03 | 6485912 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

We are trapped between ignorance and enlightenment.

The most informed and intelligent will always seek to dominate their lessers, typically by limiting their access to knowledge and wisdom, with a healthy dose of fear of the unknowable.

The most ill informed and ignorant will ultimately defer to violence which always empowers the elite to impose overwhelming force to the benefit of those in the middle....supposedly.

We submit, for our own protection....the collective, and if we don't buy that, then we submit out of fear. Fear for the loss of our remaining property and liberty, and failing that, our life.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:33 | 6485972 Dakota Kid
Dakota Kid's picture

Oldwood

"The most informed and intelligent will always seek to dominate their lessers"

Be careful when you use the word always.

I think Einstein and many other scientists would disprove your statement.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 22:01 | 6486171 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

My mistake.

I should have said that those who always seek to dominate others perceive them as their lessers and thus themselves more intelligent and enlightened.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:29 | 6485964 mc225
mc225's picture

indeed, kind of the way it was 100+ years ago. then, a 12-year old could walk into a pharmacy and purchase opiates (among other things). but since you and your handwringing friends took over, things changed.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 00:01 | 6486417 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

Forty years ago a nine year old could walk in and buy a pack of smokes.  And some stores would sell beer to the same kid.  Trust me.  (Fucking cigarette machines were everywhere...$0.20 a pack.)

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:34 | 6487046 all-priced-in
all-priced-in's picture

My best friend's dad built houses - we would stop by the construction site and pick up a pocket full of slugs (the little circle in a metal electrical box that gets punched out to allow wires to be inserted)

 

All the cigarette machines took them - 

 

They cost $.35 a pack - so insert 2 "quarter" slugs and you got a pack of cigarettes, a book of matches and $.15 change.

What a deal!

 

We would buy 10 packs - take the change to the candy store and then go smoke cigarettes and eat candy until we were sick. 

I honestly think this is why I never smoked as an adult -

 

 

 

 

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:35 | 6486109 BarkingCat
BarkingCat's picture

yes, no permission should be required from anyone. It is MY body.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 22:25 | 6486222 goldpercent
goldpercent's picture

Yes.  What is so hard to understand?  You are welcome to do as much harm to yourself as you would like and you are not my problem.  Once you endanger or harm someone else, everything changes.  Now you are a problem and you should be delt with.

Mon, 08/31/2015 - 00:40 | 6489203 chicmagnet
chicmagnet's picture

Thats right, legalize all drugs then you will be free! Also at the same time stop all entitlements, stop construction of the hundreds of rehab centers being built with my tax dollars and defund the ones currently operating. Send a sympathy card to the latest young womans parents that overdosed on heroin yesterday (she was 19) YES then you will be free. Fucking brainless morons get out from under your rock! 

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:36 | 6485842 Spiritof42
Spiritof42's picture

They don't care whether their laws and regulations work or not. That's not their goal. The goal is control and domination. They never have enough.

To them it's like getting a new iPhone. Once the novelty wears off, they become hungry for the next upgrade. They can't stop until something greater stops them.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:38 | 6485854 tictawk
tictawk's picture

When it comes to running deficits, the Repubs have done their share but it pales in comparison to what is being done under a Democrat regime.  Under Obama we have run the highest deficits ever and a couple of years it was 10% of GDP.  If you account for SS money that is an on budget item, the deficits are actually higher.  Its a shame that most of the public are intellectually and politically asleep.  Every deficit is a future tax and we can never borrow ourselves into prosperity.  $19 trillion is just the tip of the iceberg.  

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:06 | 6485914 nc551
nc551's picture

There is no difference between the parties.  Every administration becomes worst ever and runs the highest deficits ever.  It is an exponential system as well.  If the country still exists, 1-2 administrations from now will make Obama look like a miser, no matter the party.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 00:03 | 6486421 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

"$19 trillion is just the tip of the iceberg."

"I promise it'll be just the tip..."

That iceberg is in excess of $200 trillion.

Iceberg dead ahead!!

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:41 | 6485862 Sigh.
Sigh.'s picture

Ranking the 51's Concealed Carry rankings, worst to best. Or the way I've linked it, best first: Arizona. You need go backward to find the worst: DC, CA, NY, NJ, MD, CA, and other like-minded bracken cess-holes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/best-concealed-carr...

 

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:43 | 6485865 nc551
nc551's picture

As per the constitution the only legitimate Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives is a convenience store with great prices.

The only legitimate DEA would be a voluntary consumer reporting agency for quality testing.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 19:47 | 6485876 didthatreallyhappen
didthatreallyhappen's picture

I think everyone, liberals included, realize that liberals are total fucking pieces of shit and are hell bent on destroying the USA

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:48 | 6485997 didthatreallyhappen
didthatreallyhappen's picture

LMAO

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:55 | 6486161 BarkingCat
BarkingCat's picture

They are not "liberals" they are fucking statists that stole a perfectly good word.

These people are the antithesis to the true meaning of the word liberal.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 06:47 | 6486726 didthatreallyhappen
didthatreallyhappen's picture

ok, agreed, +1

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:01 | 6485897 franciscopendergrass
franciscopendergrass's picture

 how come when it comes to legislation which seemingly on the surface seems great for children like drug prohibition, gun control, increase in penalties for criminals, laws against pedophilia, andterrorism get passed so easily.  However, when it comes to the existence of the Federal Reserve who places a tremendous burden on the future earnings  of children they become adults, no one gives a shit

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:34 | 6485900 SSRI Junkie
SSRI Junkie's picture

banning drugs, guns or whatever only increases the price on the illicit market. those in power who support the bannings are most likely in a position to profit most from it (they really do like supply and demand)...not to mention a huge boost to the prison industrial complex by creating whole new classes of "criminals".

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:32 | 6486099 e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

 those in power who support the bannings are most likely in a position to profit most from it...

 You mean like this guy?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-state-senator-leland-yee-arrested...

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 23:37 | 6486378 SSRI Junkie
SSRI Junkie's picture

yeah...his case vanished off the media almost as soon as it happened.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:17 | 6485936 Skip
Skip's picture

I agree with the article. But the BIG money Bloomberg, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, Gates, Ballmer, venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, George Soros and the mainstream media, ALL want GUN PROHIBITION.
The ominous future is that Asians, Africans, and Latinos ALL poll pro-gun prohibition. Of course these same groups arm themselves illegally without a care.

Marvin Harris, one of the world's most noted anthropologists, wrote a book in 1980. This title was previously available as America Now: The Anthropology of a Changing Culture. New York: Simon & Schuster. The new title is Why Nothing Works: The Anthropology of Daily Life 1981.

In the chapter titled: Why There's Terror on the Streets, he demonstrates that American White men have violent crime rates LOWER than English in England and the Japanese in Japan. So why does America have such a high level of violent crime? Dr Harris puts it quite plainly: Blacks and Hispanics. That's the story. He also pointed out that the average gun owner is a middle-aged, middle class White guy.

LEGAL immigration will KILL the Bill of Rights.
No free speech, no guns, just helpless Whites.

And this is true for northern states as well!!
Texas’s Top 10 Most Wanted Fugitives Include 8 White Males–Dominguez, Valdez, Jimenez, Cruz, DeLeon, Aguirre, Alaniz, And Marizcal

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:26 | 6486066 Jam
Jam's picture

It's surprising to know that Texas doesn't know a Hispanic from a White. That appears to to be a joke, they are as White as Obama is a US citizen.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:38 | 6485979 Trucker Glock
Trucker Glock's picture

I've been telling people this for over 20 years.  Both "parties" want to take my money and my rights.  They just want to spend my money on different shit and take different rights away.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:14 | 6486048 didthatreallyhappen
didthatreallyhappen's picture

HK as Hello Kitty, lololololololol

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 20:54 | 6486012 cpnscarlet
cpnscarlet's picture

Progressives responsible for 1920s prohibition? I think not.

There are many good things the social conservatives support, but Carrie Nation's crusade against "demon rum" was NOT one of them. She was a mentally ill woman with a literal ax to grind due to her sick parents and abusive husband. But that didn't give her the right to swing an ax at other people's property, or to see the devil anywhere men would gather.

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ - let's not make the same stupid mistake twice. The Bible has NO prescription for going "dry". Wine is a celebration, beer is part of everyday life, and strong spirits are for soothing pain and suffering. Getting swaggering drunk is wrong, and any one with sense knows when to stop.

Carrie Nation's lasting legacy to America is organized crime.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 01:37 | 6486521 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RERiMNuHC0I

How alcohol as a fuel was killed

That is a 5 minute section from a video presentation
about how the temperance movement was funded,
so that their ulterior purposes of alcohol prohibition
could be achieved, through the influence of funding
on the political process in the USA, and elsewhere.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:02 | 6486027 LawyerScum
LawyerScum's picture

“Illicit drug use in America has been increasing.” In 2012, “9.2 percent of the population” had used illicit drugs in the last month"

Yeah, and I bet 9.1% of that use was cannibis. Take that off the table and we would see that hard drug use really isn't prevalent at all.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:45 | 6486141 Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

They can do whatever they want to do but I will never comply.  What are they going to do about that fact?  Bring it on.  I am not afraid.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 21:55 | 6486160 Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

Come and try to take it and see how that goes for you.  I would like to live a little longer and I would guess that most you fucking facists would too.  It is not a video game and it is no joke.  Do not fuck with us.

Sat, 08/29/2015 - 22:18 | 6486207 Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

I have to be honest here.  Shit, I am always honest with you folks.  I don't tell anyone when to buy anything.  Politics and economics are all intertwined to the point of extreme bullshit.

There have been several times in my life where I was ready to lead the charge against inequity, did so, and found myself alone.  In a way, it is sad but it is the libertarian way.  

I can't run for state senate because I don't care.  I can't be part of the problem.  The problem is that government exists in the first place and then you become part of the problem.  Hey, you are an elected part of the problem.  Call me an asshole and I would be happy.

 

These people who are in politics have nothng but malice in their dead hearts.

If you get your tractor stuck in some mud I will come over and pull you out.  No charge.  How is that?

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 09:37 | 6486904 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Its difficult to fight power when you must compete for this same power to do so. Conservatives, especially libertarians, have a tough road. We understand the threat at hand but also understand that the only true way to lead is by example. If others fail to follow, to force them to do so defeats the real principle at hand. Self destruction can be as equally voluntary as prosperity. For us to understand that while we desire prosperity for everyone, it comes as no small frustration that the freedoms that we hold most dear allow liars and thieves to subvert those freedoms to self destruction. All that can be legitimately done is to illustrate the lies and manipulations while leading lives of positive example. For some that is seen as selfish and self serving as our values necessarily will create relative prosperity in our lives, if not in monetary terms, at least emotionally. Contentment and satisfaction are NOT available online.

Our world will become the best it can be when we become the best we can be. Let the world reflect who we really are and maybe this transparency will be transformative. let consequences fall where they may. Let people see the folly of their choices rather than giving them alternative to blame. The world is us and to allow our governments to strip away our freedoms, our voluntary acts in some scheme that promises "fundamental change" to force us, to mold us into something we will never be unless it is VOLUNTARY.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 14:52 | 6486477 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

In order to understand "prohibition," it is necessary to comprehend how and why governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, AND that must necessarily be the case.

"Freedom" does not make any sense unless one goes through profound paradigm shifts in order to reconcile that with the principle of the conservation of energy. Along the way there one has to appreciate that the common sense notions of time and space were profoundly wrong, and therefore, the generally accepted view of the concept of entropy is absurdly backwards.

Of course, most of those in various "Liberty Movements" promoting their version of "freedoms" never make the slightest efforts to attempt to reconcile those concepts with mathematical physics, nor the empirical observations that have confirmed the principle of the conservation of energy. For those people, there is perceived to be no problem with continuing to presume upon old-fashioned DUALITIES. They generally have not the slightest clue about what taking the principle of the conservation of energy more seriously would mean, such as the UNITARY MECHANISMS that would require.

From my point of view, the article above was merely another example of the mainstream morons, or reactionary revolutionaries, attempting to understand "prohibition" in grossly superficial ways, because they deliberately do not want to understand how and why organized crime exists, and therefore, how and why governments exist as the biggest forms of organized crime controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. Indeed, the biggest bullies' bullshit world views so totally dominate our society that almost everyone operates within those frames of reference, which promotes the bullshit that the situation was "government versus organized crime," whereas, governments were always the biggest forms of organized crime, AND necessarily had to be.

The only things that exist are the dynamic equilibria between different systems of organized lies operating robberies. The current systems becoming more and more extremely unbalanced are primarily due to the biggest and best organized gangs of criminals becoming so excessively successful that there is almost nothing which surrounds them than various controlled opposition groups, which continue to operate within the same frame of reference that was originally promoted by the biggest and best organized gangs of criminals.

As stated on Zero Hedge by Cognitive Dissonance:

"The absolute best controlled opposition is
one that doesn't know they are controlled."

An article like the one above was yet another example of those problems. From a philosophical perspective, there was no attempt made to reconcile the concept of freedom with progress in physics. Of course, that is especially the case because in order to do that one has to correct the ENORMOUS ERRORS in the currently established philosophy of science which have resulted from the history of the scientific enterprise compromising with the biggest bullies' bullshit world views.

The degree to which the biggest bullies' bullshit dominates our society has resulted in there being almost nothing but a core of organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition. While it makes sense that is the situation, it results in more bogus bullshit "solutions" to the problems of "prohibition" to fail to penetrate into deeper levels of analysis regarding how and why organized crime necessarily exists, and therefore, why governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals.

But nevertheless, it is that kind of approach to perceiving the problems regarding "prohibition" that is necessary in order to more scientifically understand what was actually happening. The simplest symbol and most extreme particular example was when hemp, the single best plant for food, fiber, fun and medicine, was re-branded as "marijuana, which is almost as bad as murder." The war on marijuana was about 75% of the "war on drugs," and so, black market marijuana money became the backbone of organized crime. HOWEVER, that money ended up back in banks. The banksters were able to skim the cream of the profits from making drugs illegal.

It is typical for the various mainstream morons and reactionary revolutionaries to present the superficial view that the "war on drugs was a failure." However, from the point of view of the best organized gangs of criminals, that were effectively controlling governments, the "war on drugs" was a fantastic success, in their series of being able to back up debt slavery with wars based upon deceit.

Although I am quite convinced that authors, like the one who wrote the article above, will continue to deliberately ignore my criticisms, and that will also typically be case with almost all of the other varieties of controlled opposition groups, that want to continue to believe in their favourite DUALITIES, as expressed through false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible ideals, I nevertheless will outline what approaching the issues of "prohibition" through more UNITARY MECHANISMS could mean ...

One should reconcile natural selection with artificial selection, by observing that artificial selection systems operated inside of natural selection systems, and were driven by those natural selection pressures to become what the currently existing artificial selection systems actually are, namely, manifestations of the principles and methods of organized crime, whose central features are the combined money/murder systems, which operate with the most social successfulness by being the most fraudulent and deceitful, due to their central core being the death control systems, with the murder systems as the most extreme forms of those.

Theories of natural selection are based upon perceiving that all living systems operate as entropic pumps of energy flows, which includes human beings and civilizations. Those necessarily match the principles and methods of organized crime, because they necessarily have their death control systems as central to everything else. Natural selection pressures drove the history of warfare to become most socially successful through backing up deceits with destruction, which morphed to become systems of enforcing frauds. Human civilizations were always based on backing up lies with violence, which became more sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. The ONLY connections between human laws and natural laws were the abilities to back up lies with violence. Of course, therefore, that is the context in which "prohibitions" existed.

The essential issues are that there are, and must necessarily be, human death control systems, which are central to everything else. However, the history of warfare was driven by natural selection pressures to develop to become most socially successful when done through the maximum possible deceits and treacheries. Those surviving War Kings made the sovereign states, whose powers were then covertly captured more and more by the Fraud Kings, the banksters, as information became more significant than physical power previously was. THE BASIC SYSTEMS WERE DEBT SLAVERY BACKED BY WARS BASED ON DECEITS. Various phases of "prohibitions" such as the "war on drugs" were episodes of those WARS BASED ON DECEITS, that advanced the agenda of the DEBT SLAVERY.

To the degree that one defines human beings as separate from their environment, then that original SUBTRACTION necessarily means that across their defined boundaries they must engage in ROBBERIES, in order to take energy, in order to continue to live as entropic pumps of energy flows. The only genuine source of "freedom" which is consistent with the principle of the conservation of energy is based on critiques of the original SUBTRACTION. Such critiques, in turn, radically transform our understanding of time and space, and therefore, of entropy. In general, when one engages in that sort of deeper analysis, it leads towards a creative synthesis of post-modernizing science with ancient mysticism.

Since our entire political economy is based upon governments enforcing frauds by privately controlled banks, of course, various "prohibitions" fit inside of those social situations. However, most of the those who continue to want to believe in the DUALITIES of their favourite false fundamental dichotomies, and related impossible ideals, would rather use the words "freedom" or "liberty" as magical phrases, that can be employed in their preferred kind of transcendental poetry, that does not have to endeavour to become consistent with thermodynamics and information theory.

As soon as one sees a by-line referring to the Mises Institute, one can predict there will be a particularly intense presentation of false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals. Articles like the one above tend to be superficially correct, but yet, profoundly WRONG. Articles associated with the Mises Institutes, that are republished on Zero Hedge, tend to usually be some of the stupidest articles, due to the degree to which they most take completely for granted their favourite false fundamental dichotomies, and therefore, tend to conclude by promoting their bogus "solutions" based upon magical words like "freedom," that do not have to be operationally defined in ways that connect those to the physical world, and physical science.

On the other hand, my approach is to endeavour to reconcile political science with physical science, which requires series of intellectual scientific revolutions, and profound paradigm shifts in the ways that we perceive political problems, that surpass the paradigm shifts which have already been achieved in physical science. Of course, that approach tends to be deliberately ignored by both the established systems, based on a core of organized crime, and their surrounding controlled opposition groups. From that perspective, authors associated with the Mises Institute, as well as similarly others such as reviewed in another recent article published on Zero Hedge, Ayn Rand & Murray Rothbard: Diverse Champions Of Liberty, make no sincere efforts to reconcile their concepts of "Liberty" with mathematical physics, nor the empirical observations of the physical world.

Since there is only one energy, there is only one political system, and that manifests as the principles and methods of organized crime, operating death controls that back up debt controls. Of course, therefore, that is the actual context in which every sort of "prohibition" was developed, as systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which always had ulterior goals, whose agendas tended to be achieved, while the bullshit promoted by the various professional liars and immaculate hypocrites regarding what they were supposed to be thereby doing always failed to happen.

Indeed, there is no greater example of that than how the Federal Reserve Board has so perfectly achieved the exact opposite of everything that it claimed it was supposed to do. I REPEAT, the deeper problems are that there ARE, and MUST BE, some death control systems, which are central to everything else. After life exists, then the death controls direct the evolution of that life. Similarly so with human beings. However, the main difference is the degree to which human beings developed the mental abilities to build models of their world, with models of themselves within their models of their world.

Human intelligence was the internalization of natural selection, which then was primarily directed towards the most significant selection pressure, which was other groups of human beings. That then drove the history of civilization to be based upon warfare, whose successfulness depended upon deceits and destruction, which then gradually morphed to become the currently established systems where governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, which manifests as those governments enforcing frauds by privately controlled banks.

Given the degree to which that has been socially successful, there is almost nothing but controlled opposition groups surrounding that core of organized crime. Such controlled opposition stays within the same bullshit frame of reference. Hence, articles like the one above are examples of that, where reactionary revolutionaries explain those problems to mainstream morons, in ways which are NOT scientific, but rather, based upon magical words like "freedom," used in the context of a sort of political transcendental poetry. That kind of unrealistic and unscientific analysis is way too superficial, and tends to result in promoting similarly superficial "solutions" based upon impossible ideals, that actually make the opposite happen ... Of course, that makes a perverse kind of sense, since those sorts of bogus "solutions" are being promoted by a controlled opposition, (despite probably not understanding that, and not wanting to understand that.)

Of course, there is primarily a PRIVATE PROPERTY PARTY, based on backing up lies with violence, while in the USA, that has become that there were two factions of that PRIVATE PROPERTY PARTY, called the "Democrats" and the "Republicans" (and similarly for all other the other fake "democracies" around the world.) Inside of that context, various "prohibitions" became complexly encoded ways of backing up legalized lies, with legalized violence, which would benefit those who set those systems up. In particular, the "war on drugs" segued from racism, and still primarily accomplishes the same purposes, although, of course, it usually does not publicly admit nor address that. Indeed, most of the history of civilization has been the history of slavery, with the development of debt slavery being a more sophisticated from of that kind of "human farming."

While there must exist some death control systems, the current artificial selection systems have been driven by natural selection pressures to become more and more psychotic, due to their excessive successfulness based upon backing up deceits with destruction, morphing to become enforcing frauds. Within that context, pot prohibition was the single simplest and most extreme particular example of those ways that only a civilization that was completely crazy and corrupt to the core would have ever criminalized cannabis. Indeed, pot prohibition demonstrates most clearly the ways that Neolithic Civilizations, originally based on agriculture, have become psychotic. (While pot is the single best plant for people, alcohol is the fundamental chemical of organic chemistry, and so similarly demonstrated the ways that triumphant programs of propaganda, based on being able to back up Huge Lies with Lots of Violence, were always becoming as insane as those could possibly become!)

In my view, the kinds of social psychiatry that we should go through are way more profound than that recommended in articles like the one above. Civilization must necessarily operate according to the principles and methods of organized crime, because it must have its death control systems at the central core of everything else, because it must continue to operate as entropic pumps of energy flows. However, the currently established systems, based upon that kind of organized crime, have become so excessively successful that they have become runaway criminal insanities.

Ideally, the sorts of social psychiatry that I recommend require changing how we think about "freedom" so that becomes possible to reconcile with physics. That means we would take the principle of the conservation of energy much more seriously, which, in turn results in changing how we think about time and space, and so too, how we think about entropy. Theoretically speaking, all of that is made more imperative by the actual progress in physical science, already going through series of profound paradigm shifts, to make it possible for there to now exist globalized systems of electronic monetary frauds, backed by the military forces that have an abundance of atomic bombs.

Theoretically speaking, since those are the really existing problems, our political science should be developed to go through series of intellectual scientific revolutions, whose resulting paradigm shifts surpass those already achieved by progress in physical science. However, OBVIOUSLY, articles like the one above, as well as most of the rest of the content on Zero Hedge, never bothers to try to do that, and generally speaking is not interested in that.

Rather, most people like to stay within their roles as controlled opposition, who do not recognize the degree to which they are being controlled, when they rely upon the same sets of old-fashioned false fundamental dichotomies, and related impossible ideals, that the biggest bullies originally developed in order to enable them to operate as better professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. OF COURSE, all of the various "prohibitions" were promoted by various professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, while, at the same time, those tends to be opposed by other groups that were also dominated by professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.

The tragic trajectory we appear to be on is for those "prohibitions" to only "end" in the worst possible ways, because those will NOT be better understood by enough people. The vast majority of people are acting like Zombie Sheeple, being fleeced to exhaustion, while being set up to be slaughtered. In that context, articles like the one above, which is typical for content republished on Zero Hedge, can be fairly described as the work of one of the Black Sheeple.

Various "prohibitions" were usually promoted covertly, by the wolves in sheep's clothing, who were either the members of the biggest organized crime gangs, called governments, or members of the best organized crime gangs, called the banksters, as surrounded by their buddies. Hence, entities like the CIA, which operated as the muscle, or the goons, to globally enforce the corporatocracies' agendas, also ended up being the biggest illegal drug smuggling outfit. After all, the CIA was originally made and maintained mostly by Wall Street lawyers, etc. ... Those are the levels of duplicity which are necessary to put into better perspective how the various "prohibitions" tended to be phases of WARS BASED ON DECEITS, BACKING UP DEBT SLAVERY SYSTEMS.

However, I emphasize, if one is serious about realistic solutions to those real problems, then those must necessarily become better organized crime, that will operate better death control systems. Of course, at the present time, it is unknown how the human murder systems could adapt to survive after the development of weapons of mass destruction that have become trillions of times more powerful than ever before in the human history that we now know about. Of course, in theory, that returns to my main points above, that since it was profound paradigm shifting progress in physical science that made it possible to develop weapons of mass destruction like atomic bombs, it also should be through profound paradigm shifts in political science that we change to adapt to those developments.

Too bad, so sad, but that appears to be politically impossible at the present time. Most of those people who campaign to "end the drug war" tend to be reactionary revolutionaries, as in the article above, whose bogus "solutions" are those promoted by the various Black Sheeple, who attempt to "lead" the masses of mainstream morons, or Zombie Sheeple, backward, by exhorting that everyone should become better Sheeple. On the other hand, my recommendations are based on the view that everyone should become better Wolves.

However, OBVIOUSLY, neither the ruling classes, who appear in public as wolves in sheep's clothing, nor those they rule over, who are often forms of controlled opposition, that do not understand the degree to which their thinking is being controlled, would like to suffer through the degrees of cognitive dissonance it would take to more fully comprehend how and why governments are necessarily the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals.

At the present time, those sorts of problems with respect to "prohibitions" continue to be most clearly illustrated by pot prohibition, which is ending in the worst possible ways, by continuing to compromise with the same old Huge Lies. At the present time, marijuana is NOT being legalized on the basis of more radical hemp truths, but rather, being legalized on the basis of compromises with the same old lies, within the same old-fashioned money/murder systems.

The mainstream "legalize marijuana" movements are dominated by reactionary revolutionaries, leading mainstream morons backwards, into the Wonderland Matrix Bizarro Worlds. Of course, at the same time, the funding of those political movements continues to manifest that same basic problems as have always existed with respect to the funding of the political processes. Indeed, pot politics is merely a microcosm of the other bigger political issues that surround it, and so, the problems regarding pot politics demonstrate relatively easy to understand ways that the same patterns repeat throughout other realms of social facts.

Indeed, one could reasonably argue that the "war on drugs" was the most insane domestic social policy, developed within 20th Century North American history, and then enforced all around the world, with the "war on marijuana" being the most insane aspect of that overall insane social policy. However, all of those kinds of social insanities should be analyzed in deeper ways, as I have outlined above, which then indicates the need for much deeper solutions.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 03:33 | 6486597 MSimon
MSimon's picture

If you look at the 1932 election it was "Conservatives" who were the last champios of Prohibition.

 

Same as it ever was.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 09:42 | 6486914 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Conservatives have seen the power they hold to create laws as the only means of which to hold onto the morals that have created the world we all enjoy. Unfortunately, the fact that government has seen fit to intercede, ultimately has destroyed any legitimacy of the actual behavioral morality. As we have seen repeatedly, the messenger can destroy the message, regardless of the value of the message. Hypocrisy destroys the message. If you can't live your values, and yet care about those values, then keep your mouth shut.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 03:42 | 6486604 q99x2
q99x2's picture

You want prohibition. I'll give you prohibition. No banksters allowed on this planet or I'm calling for reinforcements from Q99X2.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 05:59 | 6486696 exartizo
exartizo's picture

by 2015 the basic constitutional idea that government should not be used as a tool to oppress the people had completely disappeared from the minds of politicians from both political parties in favor of the idea that the poor man's oppression is the rich man's opportunity.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 07:58 | 6486787 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

What if you like to drink beer, smoke dope AND shoot guns?  Sometimes all 3 at the same time?  Oops, nvrmind.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 09:51 | 6486933 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

We should be able to preach our values and let the results fall as they may. The answer has always been consequence. If you kill someone with you car or gun or sharpened stick from malice or negligence, you should suffer those consequences which your fellow man deems appropriate. Today's society has done just that by equivocating and justifying destructive actions as not the fault of the perpetrators but of "society" as a whole, and seeks to eliminate the opportunity of doing wrong and punishing those who might enable such behavior rather than actually punishing those who do the crime. We have what we now have, and even still they will pursue to control outcomes through the limitation of freedoms rather than simply holding bad actors to account. By their account, it is not Vestor who is the problem, but those who made and sold him a gun.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:59 | 6487125 22winmag
22winmag's picture

Old news.

 

Everybody knows that long ago the Repubes were infiltrated by the Nazis and the Demoncrats were infected by the Commies.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 20:07 | 6488582 Ckierst1
Ckierst1's picture

Actually, the Nazis were infected by the Repubes.  Hitler drew inspiration from Dishonest Abe Lincoln.  I couldn't make that shit up!!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!