Showing posts with label Alcohol Prohibition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alcohol Prohibition. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

It Must Produce Revenue

Eric is discussing my post Prevention Methods, and looks at the harms that making things illegal causes. A commenter chimes in with this bit of wisdom.

...many of these “illegal drug” like Marijuana can be produced without a good means of tax revenue – another reason to outlaw them
You can make quite a bit of your own booze (200 gal a year I believe) without paying any taxes (a permit may be required). I wonder if we should be making alcohol illegal to recover that lost revenue. Oh. Wait. If they make alcohol illegal there is zero revenue. Only enforcement costs. Barring the usual theft pardon me "asset forfeiture" by police of anything people own that they cannot account for. Like cash. This is sometimes referred to as highway robbery.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Monday, October 10, 2011

Conservatives Are Really Progressives?

Right wing (without a doubt) magazine Human Events makes the case using the Ken Burns movie "Prohibition" as a springboard that Prohibition was a Progressive project. I think there is no doubt about that.

But I wonder. Since Prohibition is a Progressive Project why do so many "Conservatives" these days support its modern day variant, "Drug Prohibition" ?

Progressivism in America is not a Party. It is a state of mind.

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Will You Have Guns With That?

Yesterday I looked at the lessons of Part One of "Prohibition", a movie by Ken Burns. Today the lessons of Part Two.

We will obey the law because that is what law abiding citizens do. For about 6 months or until supplies run out. Then we will buy from the "nice" guys until their supplies or luck runs out. Then we will buy from who ever we can as long as the supplies keep coming. The moral of the story is:

Put the nice guys out of business
and a rougher crowd takes over.


Cross Posted at Classical Values

Monday, October 03, 2011

Alcohol Is The Enemy Of The Family And Civilization

Alcohol Is The Enemy Of The Family And Civilization.


There ought to be a law.


That is my take away from watching the first two hours of Ken Burns "Prohibition".

Update: I said this in an e-mail.

Drug Prohibition. Same old song. New lyrics.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Prohibition Is Not Over



"Prohibition" on PBS - TV schedule

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

A Local Comes Out Against Marijuana Prohibition

As you may or may not know Black support for the pResident is falling off a cliff. If the Head Man doesn't do something about it soon he is a goner in 2012. So imagine my surprise when a local Black who writes an editorial column for the Rockford Register Star, Ed Wells, has come out against Marijuana Prohibition. You can find details at the link.

What other Blacks are against Drug Prohibition to varying degrees?

The NAACP

Blacks in Government

Charles Blow at the New York Times

Wilton D. Alston at Lew Rockwell

It looks to me like the Black community is begging the President to change his tune on Drug Prohibition. It will shore up his waning support among Democrats and if the discussions around here are any indication it will split the Republicans. The Republicans who stick with Prohibition will be branded racists. That should motivate college kids who are itching to recreate the anti-racism of the 60s. Not to mention that enforcement is targeted at their age group.

The President will have a perfect opportunity to change his tune following the showing of the Ken Burns movie “Prohibition” about Alcohol Prohibition airing on PBS starting on this Sunday 2 Oct. Check your local listings. And follow the news on it (I probably will be posting copiously on it - sorry about that).

It should be a very exciting election season.

H/T a friend.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Monday, September 12, 2011

The Uh. Oh.

Watch the full episode. See more Ken Burns.


This is a followup to my previous post:

Prohibition - the movie

H/T Suzy of Drug Policy Forum of Texas

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Prohibition - The Movie



From a review of the book the movie is based on:
Okrent identifies five dry constituencies that formed a very unlikely coalition for the purposes of banning booze. Racists, progressives, populists, suffragists, and nativists linked hands across party and regional lines to agree on this one issue alone. Southern Democrats who used the spectacle of drunken black people to stoke racial hatred, Northern Republican anti-racists who saw a rational world beyond the alcoholic fog of the 19th century, small-town and farm Democrats wanting to free their communities from a scourge that led to debt and broken homes, women of all parties and regions all too aware that families' livelihoods could be poured into bartenders' tills, and ugly white folks from everywhere who loathed Catholic and Jewish cultures where alcohol was central: they could agree on very little, but they all disapproved of drink. The one common denominator among the temperance crowd was that they tended to be evangelical Protestants, that great majority of c1900 Americans that was hopelessly split on so many other political issues.
Any one see any parallels to Drug Prohibition?

Here is the PBS announcement of the schedule for the airing of the full version. Here is a short version of the announcement:
PROHIBITION
Premieres October 2nd, 3rd & 4th, 2011
at 8 PM on PBS

CHECK LOCAL LISTINGS
Thanks to my friend Jerry Epstein of Drug Policy Forum Of Texas for the heads up.

The Drug War:

1. Is unconstitutional

2. Abuses abused children

3. Is racist

4. Is UnChristian

I think if the Democrats push this they have a chance in the next election. And yes Obama is beatable. I’m working to give him a better chance. Or the Republicans can start working to repeal Prohibition. Choice. It is a wonderful thing.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Supports The Constitution

I'm reading around the 'net and people touting various candidates say their candidate supports the Constitution. OK. It is good PR. But there is a test. Say to them:

"I never noticed a Prohibition Amendment. Except for Alcohol."

So when a candidate supporter says "my candidate supports the Constitution" check them on it. Ask: "Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment?"

Funny thing is that a Classical Values commenter in decrying my effort to elevate the Drug Prohibition issue stated the Tea Party Manifesto which is (approximately):

Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutional Government, and Free Markets.


So my friend. Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment? If we don't have one then the Federal Government's institution of such a program is a usurpation of power. Funny how few notice these things.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Observing The Mentally Ill

I got a link from Instapundit to an article bashing the usual and continued left wing idiocy and especially its connection to the recent flash riots. Comments like this one pop-up regularly in such posts.

It’s all just more evidence that liberals are mentally ill. They cannot figure out cause and effect. Logic and facts do not sway them from their ideas.
You want to see mental illness? Just ask a conservative about the Drug War. Their little contribution to the mess.

There is no better promoter of outlaw culture than a prohibition regime. In fact we have recent American historical experience to prove that proposition. Alcohol Prohibition 1920 to 1933. Even criminals hate criminals who take stuff from them. In fact stealing from criminals is a very dangerous occupation. But criminals who can deliver something the government won't allow? Those boys and girls get respect. Glorification even.

Most Americans don't worship law and government. The worshipers are going to have to get over it. I'd hate to have to Party Like It Is 1773 all over again. That goes for the worshipers of the State on the Right and The Left. I actually like the Lefties better because they don't hide their love. The Righties are clever though. "I hate big government except for..." is how they rally the troops. Seriously. What are we to think of a country that has declared war on 5% to 10% of its citizens on account of they have habits which some others find distasteful?

Those condemned to history are bound to repeat it.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Liberty? We Can't Afford It - Says Coulter



I can understand her position. Notwithstanding the Constitution which so many "conservatives" claim to totally support. Except when it comes to Drug Prohibition. Could some one point out the Drug Prohibition Amendment to me? Anyone? Bueller?

Friday, August 12, 2011

Prohibition Regimes

The American Thinker is discussing the breakdown in respect for the rule of law. I have some ideas about that.

Prohibition regimes always engender a spirit of lawlessness among the populations they are imposed on. It seeps into the wider culture. See Prohibition, Alcohol, 1920 to 1933.

Had enough yet?

We now have two generations who have grown up in a prohibition regime. If it goes like Alcohol Prohibition we will have a 20 year hangover once we end it. Maybe longer since this has gone on longer.

Half of all kids growing up try pot. That is a LOT of folks whose adherence to the rule of law has been weakened. And of course just a generation ago such law breaking was a felony. Now it is more often just a caution or ticketing offense. Still.

In a Prohibition regime you give people practice in breaking the law. Is that really the training we should be giving half our kids?

Might I add that Alcohol Prohibition was a scheme cooked up by Progressives and some Social Conservatives. Billy Sunday ring a bell? The Progressives are no longer backing that. Leaving Conservatives holding the bag (all puns intended).

When the Democrats come back it will be under a banner of ending Prohibition. A former LEO friend of mine thinks it will happen in the next 5 years. The Maker help us if the right is on the wrong side of the issue.

And what will the Left run on? "Protecting people from themselves is not a legitimate function of government. That is what we have family and friends for." i.e. they will pretend to move to the right.

Let me add that only a police state can protect people from themselves. Why the Right wants a nanny state is beyond me. You are sharpening the dagger that will be used against you. Ah. Well. I guess there is a reason why they call the two parties names. One is evil, the other is stupid.

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT


I'm no more interested in moral socialism than I am in economic socialism.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Thursday, June 23, 2011

The Drug War – It Is Not Just For Dopers Anymore

The Drug War is not just a threat to dopers. It is a threat to gun rights as well. As one commenter puts it.

...this was a well executed plan to overturn the 2nd amendment and the DoJ lost control of the narrative.
Yes. And they are using Drug Prohibition as a backdrop.

They are using the Drug War against Gun Rights. And this is not the first time. Care to look into Alcohol Prohibition and its effects on gun rights? You would think some one with a knowledge of history would notice. You would be wrong. Mostly.

This was an attempt to use the Drug War against Gun Owners.

The Drug War – It Is Not Just For Dopers Anymore

Friday, May 27, 2011

Rockford Made The List

Of the ten most dangerous cities in America with populations above 100,000, Rockford, Illinois came in at number 9.

Rockford has unusually high violent crime rates for a city of its size. Most notably, the city has the fourth highest rate of aggravated assault in the country, with 10.5 cases for every 1,000 citizens in 2010. During the same period, 20 murders occurred, almost double the number in 2000. Quoted by the Rockford Register Star in 2007, Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers said that he believed the city’s “location worked against [it,]” as Rockford receives traffic from the drug markets in Madison, Chicago, and Milwaukee, resulting in heightened rates of violence.
Well back in the days of Alcohol Prohibition Rockford was known for alcohol manufacturing and as a hide out for Chicago criminals. Some things never change.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Monday, February 28, 2011

The Most Powerful Word In America

A while back I was having the usual interchange with another commenter:
Him:

Those monsters must be rubbing their bloodstained hands in glee at the prospect of their poisons becoming legal.

Dark-Star on February 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Me:
Dark Star,

Nope. It will put them out of business.

MSimon on February 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Me:
Dark Star,

You will note that gangs no longer distribute alcohol. “Drug” is such a powerful word. It instantly makes some people stupid.

MSimon on February 22, 2011 at 11:22 PM
You will note I said nothing about ending drug use. All I suggested was that it would put the "monsters" out of business.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Drugs Corrupt Cops

Alcohol prohibition corrupted the law enforcement apparatus of the United States.

4. Prohibition permanently corrupted law enforcement, the court system, and politics. During Prohibition, organized crime had on its payroll police, judges, prosecutors, and politicians. If mobsters couldn't buy or successfully threaten someone in a powerful position, they either "wiped him out" or, following more democratic principles, ran a candidate against the incumbent in the next election. They put money behind their candidate, stuffed the ballot box, or leaked some scandal about the incumbent just before the election (or all three). The important thing was winning, and more often than not, someone beholden to organized crime rose to the position of power. After more than twelve years of purchases, threats, and elections, organized crime had "in its pocket" the political and governmental power structure of most medium-to-large cities, and several states.
National drug prohibition has been in effect since 1914. In 1937, after the repeal of alcohol prohibition, marijuana was added to the list.

So what has been the result of drug prohibition according to a former head of the CIA?
"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
Thanks to Instapundit I have come across a more local example of police corruption.
MARTINEZ -- Public defenders on Thursday quickly moved to re-examine cases against their clients after the arrests of a Contra Costa County drug task force chief and a private investigator accused of running a narcotics-selling scheme, possibly with confiscated drugs.

The arrest of Norman Wielsch, commander of the state's Central Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Team, or CNET, could have far-reaching ramifications in superior and appellate courts, said Contra Costa County Public Defender Robin Lipetzky. The arrest not only calls into question the credibility and integrity of Wielsch as an individual, she said, but also that of the task force as an investigative body and the guardian of prosecution evidence.

"Was he motivated by a desire to confiscate as much drugs as he could so he could turn around and sell them? Was he writing false police reports? Was he exaggerating in police reports? You have to question everything in a CNET investigation," Lipetzky said. "You also have to wonder when it's the top cop of the investigation that's a crooked cop, what did others in CNET know?"

Wielsch and Chris Butler, who runs the investigative firm Butler and Associates, were arrested together in Benicia by federal agents Wednesday morning after an undercover investigation that began in January, said Department of Justice special agent Michelle Gregory.

Both men were booked into County Jail in Martinez on as many as 25 suspected felony offenses, including possessing, transporting and selling marijuana, methamphetamine and steroids, and embezzlement, second-degree burglary and conspiracy. District Attorney Mark Peterson said his office will likely decide whether to file charges Friday [18 Feb - ed.].
Public defenders are asking for what the investigators have turned up so far in order to find out what cases may have been tainted by these public servants. And you have to wonder who else in the department was doing dirty deeds if the guy at the top was dirty.

Plus you have to wonder where else stuff like this was going on? We do know that this is not the first time such malfeasance has been discovered. There was the Rampart Scandal that broke in 2000. There were cover ups and gang ties found in the Rampart Division of the LAPD.
The Rampart scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (or CRASH) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers in the CRASH unit were implicated in misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history. The convicted offenses include unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and covering up evidence of these activities
So are the police with their never ending drug war preventing anarchy or fomenting it? Hard call.

Take my town Rockford, Illinois. Around 1986 or '87 the FBI and DEA took out a whole gang of drug dealers. The local murder rate spiked and citizens were irate over the increase in street violence. They haven't done a whole gang raid like that since. I guess the ensuing anarchy was too much for the community. My guess is that the police are working with the gangs (or working with their favored gangs) to prevent a return of anarchy.

Well what about free speech? If you are tasked with fighting the drug war it is not allowed lest the public find out what is actually going on.
The War on Talking About the Drug War


Border Patrol agent loses job after stating the obvious


In April 2009, El Paso native and rookie Border Patrol Agent Bryan Gonzalez was working a stretch of the Mexican border near Deming, N.M. It was a relatively slow day, so when Gonzalez saw fellow Agent Shawn Montoya patrolling in the same area, the two men took a break, pulled their vehicles up next to each other, rolled down their windows, and began talking. When the conversation turned to the drug-related violence that was plaguing the border, Gonzalez "mentioned that he thought that legalization of marijuana would save a lot of lives across the border and over here," New Mexico ACLU spokesman Micah McCoy said during a recent interview. Gonzalez also mentioned that there's an organization of law enforcement officers and officials – Law Enforce­ment Against Prohibition – that stands in opposition to the drug war. "The other guy didn't agree" with Gonzalez's views, McCoy said, but regardless, "it was a friendly conversation" between the two men.

The conversation ended, and that was that – or so Gonzalez thought. As it turned out, Montoya related the content of the conversation to a fellow officer stationed out of the Customs and Border Patrol El Paso Sector headquarters; in turn, that agent bypassed his supervisor and went straight up the food chain to the agency's Joint Intake Command in Washington, D.C., to report what Gonzalez had said that day. "From there, they started a full-blown Internal Affairs investigation," says McCoy.
Well that backfired on them. Now instead of a conversation between a few officers it is now a conversation with the public.

And how about the latest national news on drug gangs?
Mexican and US security experts, some with inside information, suspect the Zetas in the killing of an American special agent this week, a prospect that could complicate investigations due to the Mexican drug gang's brutal yet sophisticated tactics.

Further knotting the matter, experts say it is not entirely clear if the gunmen were operating independently or on orders from commanders when they opened fire Tuesday on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents Jamie Zapata and Victor Avila, who were driven off the road between the violent city of Monterrey and Mexico City in the state of San Luis Potosí. Mr. Zapata died from his injuries, and Mr. Avila suffered leg wounds.

Washington swiftly announced the creation of an FBI-led task force from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to work with Mexico in its investigation.
And for those of you who think it is the drugs. Please explain why alcohol distribution gangs melted away after 1933. Did some one find a cheap way to instantly turn water into wine?

Well the above catalogs a whole host of things that are going wrong with the drug war. So how about some more? Like raiding the wrong house.
When narcotics officers appeared at a Castro home shortly after 7 a.m. on Jan. 11, they had permission from a judge to search for "proceeds" from an illegal marijuana grow.

The SFPD and DEA found no piles of marijuana money at 243 Diamond St., one of six addresses raided simultaneously in San Francisco that morning. Instead, they found Clark Freshman, who rents the penthouse at the two-unit building. Freshman, a UC Hastings law professor and the main consultant to the television show Lie to Me, was put into handcuffs while in his bathrobe as agents searched, despite Freshman's insistence that they had the wrong place and were breaking the law. "I told them to call the judge and get their warrant updated," he says. "They just laughed at me — I guess that's why they're called pigs."

Soon they may be called defendants in a lawsuit. A furious Freshman has pledged to sue the DEA and the SFPD for unlawful search and seizure of his home.

In his search warrant, Officer Scott Biggs of the SFPD's narcotics unit says that prior to the raid, he spent two days and two nights casing the address looking for Mahmoud Larizadeh, the property's owner. Larizadeh also owns a 13th Street warehouse, a part of which he rents to Bruce Rossignol, a licensed medical cannabis patient who now faces three felony charges for growing pot there.
Thanks to Instapundit for that one too. I'm not going to go into the marijuana as medicine issue here. If it interests you you can start your reading here: Cannabis is the Best Medicine. I'll just say that it seems rather evil to slap a man with a felony for growing his own medicine.

The first quote in this article was taken from:

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Friday, January 28, 2011

Try This One First

According to the DOJ the only drug statistically associated with violence is alcohol. Maybe we make that illegal first and see what happens.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Marijuana Mushrooms

No. This is not some new way to make THC with genetically altered mushrooms. (it is just a matter of time though). It is about a follow up to my story Mutiny In Montana. The Helena Independent Record has a story called Missoula marijuana ‘mutiny’ mushrooms.

Call it the Pot Shot Heard ‘Round the World.

Oh, wait. Somebody already did that.

The Examiner online news site — one of many news organizations that picked up on the story of a Missoula jury pool that dug in its heels last month at the prospect of trying a case involving “a couple of buds” of marijuana — put a variation of that headline on its story.

Others likewise had fun with it. “The Great Montana Marijuana Mutiny,” the Wall Street Journal’s legal blog termed it.

“Where There’s Smoke, There’s Change,” pronounced the Toronto Star.

And Huffington Post declared in a possible first that “Sanity Broke Out in Missoula, Montana, Today.”

Headline hijinks aside, the jury pool’s action — and the reaction to it — has serious ramifications for continued prosecution of low-level nonviolent drug crimes, not just in Missoula County but around the country.

“It was almost like a slap in the face to the system,” said John Zeimet, of the moment on Dec. 16 when he watched his fellow prospective jurors, one after another, tell Missoula County District Judge Dusty Deschamps that not only were they disinclined to convict, but wondered aloud why taxpayer money was being wasted on the case.

“The people stood up and spoke out.”
Yes they did. We could use a lot more of that in this country. The judge in the case is also speaking out.
The judge and former Missoula County attorney said he’s “more or less” convinced that marijuana should be legalized in some form, despite being “much alarmed at what I consider to be rampant abuse of what I think was a well-intentioned initiative” — that being the 2004 statewide voter initiative that legalized medical marijuana in Montana. Deschamps also voted for that initiative.

“We’ve seen some downside in the medical marijuana thing, but I’m reasonably convinced that, over the years, I haven’t seen very many criminals go out and commit horrible crimes under the influence of marijuana. Alcohol is 10 times the problem marijuana is, a hundred times.”
Yes. Alcohol is the biggest drug problem in America. And yet, we are solving that problem, little by little over time without further recourse to prohibitions.

Which brings up the other bette noirs of our prohibitionist friends. Cocaine and heroin. A recent headline from the UK says it all: Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin or crack'.
Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK by a considerable margin, beating heroin and crack cocaine into second and third place, according to an authoritative study published today which will reopen calls for the drugs classification system to be scrapped and a concerted campaign launched against drink.

Led by the sacked government drugs adviser David Nutt with colleagues from the breakaway Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, the study says that if drugs were classified on the basis of the harm they do, alcohol would be class A, alongside heroin and crack cocaine.

Today's paper, published by the respected Lancet medical journal, will be seen as a challenge to the government to take on the fraught issue of the relative harms of legal and illegal drugs, which proved politically damaging to Labour
The caption on a picture included in the article encapsulates the findings.
Heroin causes harm to users, but alcohol causes considerably more harm in the wider community, study finds. Photograph: Action Press/Rex Features
Why is that? From my studies on the subject recounted in my article Heroin, only the most abused children turn to heroin. And even those must be genetically susceptible. Most people are not interested in the stuff. But suppose you are one of those who got a habit from medical use? For those people with no history of abuse detox works well. What detox does not fix is the pain in the brain left over from child abuse. We have no fix for that. Which is why addiction is different from habituation.

We are spending tens of billions a year in America on what appears to be a minor problem. In fact if we could switch alcohol addicts from alcohol to pot we might have a LOT less trouble with alcohol. In fact just such switching was considered a valid treatment for alcohol addiction before cannabis was prohibited nationally in 1937. So not only is the spending a waste, it may actually be counter productive.

Way to go my "sufficient punishment can cure any social ill" friends.

No it can't.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Charity

In a discussion of welfare and child nutrition a commenter makes this point about how people on welfare should live.

Ok I'll got for the program as long as the parents don't:
Have cable tv
smoke
drink
dine out
have a cell phone (Feeding Your Child Is More Important)
take vacations
and are LEGAL citizens or residents
To which another commenter responds:
It's a pretty strange form of charity when you want to make sure that the people you help are as miserable as possible
Welfare of course is not charity but I think the point still stands.

Similar sentiments are expressed about drug users: "Of course I have no objection to making alcohol legal as long as alcohol drinkers can't get any government benefits." Wrong era. Today we should be talking pot heads.

The question should be dealt with on its main merits. Not on secondary effects. i.e. Prohibition makes it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer. So is prohibition a good idea or stupidity squared? And if government spending is the issue: will the savings from lower criminal justice and prison costs plus fewer fathers in prison out weigh any other effects or at least be a wash? No one knows for sure. What we do know for sure is that ending alcohol prohibition pretty much ended the public school's problems with kids coming to school drunk.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

The Government Must Do Something

A commenter at Classical Values said:

I believe the government must do something about abortion. That does not mean I believe the government must do everything about abortion.
Ah yes. The government must do something. The start of all mischief. The rallying cry of socialists and social conservatives. Wasn't that the idea behind Alcohol Prohibition? Some people never learn.

What is line at which the effort should stop? And suppose the effort fails? (It will. Government is in charge.) Won't more efforts be required?

What should be done about a RU-486 black market? Another black market for the drug dealers.

How about menstrual extraction parties? Just do a search. The instructions are not hard to find. Kits are described.

Wouldn't it be easier just to convince women not to do it? Rather than adding another set of enforcers to the government. Wouldn't that offer a better protection of your liberties?

These people think so.

Rockford Pro Life

So do I.