End the Drug War, Save Black America

Why drug legalization is a civil rights issue

One key to getting past the race issue in America is to end the war on drugs. John McWhorter says it's the most important thing we could do.

Cato's Letter features a lecture by McWhorter, who will be a guest on my Fox Business show this week, in which he calls for an end to the war on drugs. (It's really a war on certain people.) McWhorter, the former Berkeley linguistics professor and now senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, specifically indicts the war on drugs for "destroying black America." McWhorter, by the way, is black.

The "main obstacle(s) to getting black America past the illusion that racism is still a defining factor in America" are, he says, "the strained relationship between young black men and police forces" and the "massive number of black men in prison."

And what accounts for this? Prohibition.

"Therefore, if the War on Drugs were terminated, the main factor keeping race-based resentment a core element in the American social fabric would no longer exist. America would be a better place for all."

McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families. "It has become a norm for black children to grow up in single-parent homes, their fathers away in prison for long spells and barely knowing them. In poor and working-class black America, a man and a woman raising their children together is, of all things, an unusual sight. The War on Drugs plays a large part in this."

He also blames the black market created by prohibition for diverting young black men from the normal workforce. "Because the illegality of drugs keeps the prices high," he says, "there are high salaries to be made in selling them. This makes selling drugs a standing tempting alternative to seeking lower-paying legal employment."

This has devastating consequences. The attractive illegal livelihood relieves men of the need to develop skills that would provide stable legal incomes. To those who argue that there's a shortage of jobs for black men, he says that is refuted by the black immigrants who thrive in America. "It is often said that because immigrants have a unique initiative or 'pluck' in relocating to the United States in the first place, it is unfair to compare black Americans to them. However, the War on Drugs has made it impossible to see whether black Americans would exhibit such 'pluck' themselves if drug selling were not a tempting alternative."

One poisonous byproduct of prohibition and the black market, McWhorter says, is that going to prison is a now "badge of honor." "To black men involved in the drug trade, enduring prison time, regarded as an unjust punishment for merely selling people something they want (with some justification), is seen as a badge of strength: The ex-con is a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way." This attitude did not exist before drug prohibition.

Would cheaper and freely available drugs bring their own catastrophe? McWhorter says no.

"Fears of an addiction epidemic are unfounded. None such has occurred in Portugal, where the drug war has been significantly scaled back." How about damage to the culture?

"Our discomfort with the idea of heroin available at drugstores is similar to that of a Prohibitionist shuddering at the thought of bourbon available at the corner store. We'll get over it."

He enumerates the positive results from ending prohibition.

"No more gang wars over turf, no more kids shooting each other over sneakers. ... (P)eople who don't sell drugs for a living don't much need to kill each other over turf. ... (T)he men get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to."

To the majority who say that there are better and less risky ways to address the troubles of young men in black America, McWhorter replies:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    TEH RAAAAACIST

  • Somali Roads||

    We're not just going to build ourselves!

  • Almanian||

    I second heller's sentiments

  • ||

    Let's look at the statistics again: (2008 - illicit drug use by race) "Current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older varied by race/ethnicity in 2008, with the lowest rate among Asians (3.6 percent) (Figure 2.9). Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics."

    That's 8.2% of whites and 10.1% of blacks using illicit drugs. Now look at the incarceration statistics:

    (2007 - incarceration rate by race) "The custody incarceration rate for black males was 4,618 per 100,000.
    while the incarceration rate of white males was 773 per 100,000.

    This means that there are at least 5 times more blacks incarcerated for drug offenses than should be expected. This is clearly a gross injustice!

    http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

    Whatever the exact dynamics involved, these horrific racial disparities are a direct result of drug-prohibition and are quite clearly unacceptable. This moronothon has done nothing but breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans and any citizen not doing their utmost to help reverse this perverse injustice may duly hang their head in shame.

  • ||

    "This means that there are at least 5 times more blacks incarcerated for drug offenses than should be expected. This is clearly a gross injustice!"

    No, it reflects a stupid drug dealing business model by blacks.

  • ||

    Am I a racist if this made me laugh??

  • Jesse Jackson||

    Absolutely you god damned cracker!

  • Bucky||

    of course there are less people in jail in Portugal if you decriminalize drugs.
    did anyone read the link.
    did i miss something.
    there was nothing about an increase of black men getting jobs and striving to be part of society in Portugal.
    or are they still stuck in the rut of trying not to "be white"...
    the biggest success was less sexually transmitted diseases and less deaths related to drugs (this was attributed to an increase in money spent by gub'mint for programs)
    did i miss the win/win?

  • ||

    Isn't the population of Portugal about 1% black?

    Didn't you notice that Portugal has gotten a lot of people into rehab and there's been a general decline in the use rates since they decriminalized? It's pretty brain dead to decide that the only reason people aren't going to jail anymore is because they stopped arresting them. You get an "A" for ism, no doubt.

    By any objective metric Portugal has improved their society since ending arrests for choosing to use other than government approved intoxicants.

  • Gaelicstar83||

    Um, he said that there was no addiction epidemic, not that there were fewer people in jail.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    One key to getting past the race issue in America is to end the war on drugs.

    A-fuckin-men to that. If we're all super mellow, then who's gonna give a shit about skin color or border-crossing job-stealers or whether or not someone bombed the fuck out of us at the Pearl Harbor?

    I just don't know what the state will do with all that taxpayer money it saves ending the WoD.

  • Rich||

    "The Peace Dividend"? Ah, yes ....

  • Zeke||

    Maybe they'll use the money to look for the next Bernie Madoff.

    Also, have you ever tried to start a fight with a pothead? You can't do it.

  • Goodman Downs||

    Once you get 'em giggling uncontrollably you can do pretty much whatever you want.

  • Zeb||

    Potheads aren't the one's giggling. Those are the first timers or occasional users.

    "have you ever tried to start a fight with a pothead? You can't do it."

    I've seen it done.

  • Thomas O.||

    That or distract them with some Jack In The Box tacos.

  • ||

    Not only does the US have the highest rate of incarceration on the planet, but the racial disparity of arrests, convictions and imprisonment have become grossly pronounced. Nationwide Afro-Americans are arrested, convicted and imprisoned disproportionately. Thirty-seven percent of drug-offense arrests are Afro-Americans, 53 percent of convictions are of Afro-Americans, and 67 percent -- two-thirds of all people imprisoned for drug offenses -- are Afro-Americans. This is depute the fact that Afro-Americans do not use drugs at a perceivable higher rate than white Americans. - 8.2% of whites and 10.1% of blacks use illicit drugs.

    Much of the voting rights & victories won by the civil rights movement during the 1960s have effectively been eroded. Nearly 5 million people are now barred from voting because of felony disenfranchisement laws. The United States is the only industrial democracy that does this.

    Drug prohibition has become a successor system to Jim Crow laws in targeting black citizens, removing them from civil society and then barring them from the right to vote. If harsh sentences deterred illicit drug use, America would be "drug-free" by now. But that is not the case, and never will be. The drug war has given the "former land of the free" the highest incarceration rate in the world and disenfranchised millions of citizens. It is a cure worse than the disease.

  • wulfy||

    I know you would love to make your vast racist conspiracy argument resonate and lock in Democratic power, but consider:

    1. Many inner city blacks (and hispanics) choose the drug trade because it is lucrative.
    2. They secure drug trade territory with gang violence.
    3. Gang violence attracts police intervention.

    This is why the police attention to minority drug dealing is disproportionate to white drug dealing. White drug dealing is far less violent.

    The statist toolbox is pretty small: race card, class card, sex card. It's getting very old and less effective by the day.

    Ending prohibition is one of the two required actions to get blacks to finish school, get a real job, and get married. The other is to end welfare for able-bodied people.

  • ||

    Welfare provides medical care, visible means of support, subsidized housing, and a small cash bonus to drug dealers.

  • Realist||

    I have always said when blacks can be stoners legally...their problems will be over.

  • Old Mexican||

    And now, the anti-Stossel halfwits come out of the woodwork....

  • ||

    Allow me to finish that statement: "And now, the anti-Stossel halfwits come out of the woodwork and pretend to be conservatives while calling for more nannyish, socialist policies like prohibition.

  • MWG||

    "...pretend to be conservatives while calling for more nannyish, socialist policies like prohibition."

    Sounds conservative to me.

  • Realist||

    Great debate tactic....call anyone who disagrees with your side a halfwit!

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    There are facts, and there are facts.

  • ||

    You're right. It really goes without saying...

  • ||

    Master Shake: What's the problem? He's tiny and cute!

    Frylock: He's homeless and drunk!

    Master Shake: Calm down, Hitler. You think Ron Howard just wished 'Willow' was great? No, and yet it was.

  • Jim||

    ^^ Greatest...show...ever

  • Meatwad||

    (to the tune of Tom Sawyer) Neener neener neener neeee-ner neener neener

  • Old Mexican||

    To those who argue that there's a shortage of jobs for black men, he [John McWhorter] says that is refuted by the black immigrants who thrive in America.


    But that's because of racism!! Clearly, black Africans are a different hue than black Americans, so there!

  • Tony||

    I have a good friend from Texas who explains this to me. Racism is more subtle than just skin color. Being African is better than being African-American. The theory is slaves were bred to be strong but dumb and their ancestors have to live with the consequences. Eh, Texans.

    But the interesting thing is that racism now isn't really about hating a person because of his skin color. It's about resenting a group of people for perceived special treatment. Why people think higher poverty and incarceration rates amounts to special treatment, I don't know.

  • JJ||

    "But the interesting thing is that racism now isn't really about hating a person because of his skin color. It's about resenting a group of people for perceived special treatment."

    Christ. And rape isn't really about forcible sexual acts and violence. It's about resenting a woman for her perceived special treatment.

    This just in.. cats will now be referred to as dogs!

    You truly are retarded Tony.

  • Tony||

    I agree that the racist sentiments are retarded... please don't think I was endorsing any of them.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I have a good friend from Texas who explains this to me. Racism is more subtle than just skin color. Being African is better than being African-American.


    And, obviously, you believed him.

  • Bill Clinton||

    Racism is more subtle than just skin color.

    Heh. Tell me about it.

  • sarcasmic||

    American born blacks are taught from birth that less is expected from them because of the color of their skin. Racist policies like Affirmative Action send the message to American blacks that they are inferior and can only be equal to whites with the help of government. Social workers who discourage blacks from working and encourage a life of dependence on government make things worse. "Because I'm black" is an excuse used often by American born blacks that is encouraged by policies that your liberal ilk created and support.

    African born blacks, not being taught from birth that they are inferior, thrive and find work when American born blacks do not.

  • ||

    in his book, Ethnic America, Thomas Sowell really hammers this point home. *if* racism (or for that matter - genetics) was truly the (primary) cause of racial underachievement, then black immigrants wouldn't do so well. also, if racism was to blame etc. then how does one explain that japanese americans, and asian americans in general doing so much better than white americans? etc.

    attitude means a lot. if one preconceives that the deck is stacked against them, has that pounded into one's head from an early age, then underachievement is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    American born blacks are taught from birth that less is expected from them because of the color of their skin.


    It's called "victimology." White liberal/Progressive racists have been teaching and promoting this to keep the black masses down, and has worked miracles, achieving what Jim Crow could not.

    African born blacks, not being taught from birth that they are inferior, thrive[.]


    They are not taught in American public schools - that's a huge advantage.

  • sarcasmic||

    What I find funny is how those white liberal/Progressives will bristle with anger if you point out that what they view as compassion is actually racism.
    What's really funny is how they will accuse those who want to see blacks treated equally as being racist.
    Progressive's hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

  • Bucky||

    i know a fourteen year old white male who explains to his mother he misbehaves because "that's just the way i am!"
    that's creeping hypocrisy...

  • Realist||

    Actually American blacks have about a 15 % point advantage over African blacks on IQ tests.

  • Realist||

    The luckiest blacks in the world are born in the United States!

  • ||

    I just heard a black guy on the bus this week say, "I was born with a handicap. Black in America."

  • ||

    "Come to think of it his exact words were "I was born disadvantaged. Black in America."

  • ||

    "Why people think higher poverty and incarceration rates amounts to special treatment, I don't know."

    Could it just be that they are vicious narrow-minded drug warrior zealots who are ignorant of abstract concepts such as truth, justice and decency?

    Or maybe they are fairly retarded true believers; ignorant Calvinists that have never lost their vindictive fervor for punitive hatred and who actually think it's better that way?

    Or possibly they get high on their own stupidity while protesting the taking of any non-liquid intoxicants?

  • seguin||

    Take it from another Texan: Your friend is full of shit, and not representative of Texans.

    Then again, you're Tony, and if it sounds right to you, then it must be so, doesn't it?

  • The Fringe Economist||

    I also love how they automatically have a come back of "oh those african black people have a huge advantage over our american black people" bull fuckin shit! has anyone seen any movie ever made about africa? that entire continent's got bullets, starvation, coups, lions, and hyenas and shit all over it!!

  • WTF||

    ^^See Tony @ 12:26PM for example ^^

  • rogue biologist||

    >that entire continent's got bullets, starvation, coups, lions, and hyenas and shit all over it!!

    The future is africa. Over on that continent they are evolving far faster than dumpy white people with medicare and social security.

  • Realist||

    If bullshit were gold you would be rich.

  • rogue biologist||

    When you're at zero, the only way to go is up. Place your bets today!

  • Bucky||

    last i heard the high aids rate was due partly because of the idea among some men that you can screw your way out the disease...
    sounds like devolution to me...

  • ||

    They tell us that, we lost our tails.
    Evolving up, from little cells.
    I say it's all, just wind and sails.
    Q: Are We Not Men?

  • Realist||

    The countries, in Africa with black "leaders" are shit holes.

  • Mike||

    But most of it has cultures that even our bible-thumpers would consider conservative. And whatever its faults (and dear lord do conservative cultures have issues) they tend to encourage people to show up to work on time.

  • ||

    End the Drug War, Save Black America
    End the Slavery, Save Black America
    End the Jim Crow, Save Black America
    End the "Separate but Equal" Education, Save Black America
    End the Police Brutality, Save Black America
    End the Ban on Abortion, Save Black America
    End Housing Inequity, Save Black America
    End Exclution from Unions, Save Black America
    End Manditory Minimum Sentencing, Save Black America
    End Disparate Cocaine Sentencing, Save Black America
    End Illiteracy, Save Black America
    End Institutionalized Racism, Save Black America

    Go eat a shit pie, Stossel.

  • Black America||

    And your point is ...?

  • ||

    That there is no magic bullet. I spent years working with inner-city black kids and the culture they are unfortunately born into is simply too chronically fucked up to be corrected with a simple solution.

  • Black America||

    What's the complex solution, then?

  • ||

    How the fuck would I know? Maybe ask Bill Cosby or Thomas Sowell.

  • ||

    Sounds to me like the complex solution is outlined by EAP at 12:11.

    Why he busts on Stossel, I have no idea.

  • ||

    Because he is all too often a simpleton.

  • ||

    That's rich.

  • ||

    But he has the Moustache of Authority!

  • ||

    Well,

    God forbid we even try to fix any problems by removing a government presence then... because it's already too screwed up for a marginal improvement to be worth anything.

  • ||

    That's not Stossel's assertion at all. Way to be obtuse.

  • ||

    NO, that was YOUR assertion, jackass.

  • ||

    End the Drug War, Save Black America + "Then I realized that he basically didn't write anything except John McWhorter's words." = 0

  • wayne||

    He didn't need to add to McWhorter's words. McWhorter pretty much summed up the problem, and showed the solution.

    Ending the WoD won't, by itself, solve the problems in the black community, but it will go a long way in the right direction and we will all, regardless of race, benefit immensely if we get our criminal justice system out of the business of terrorizing citizens.

  • db||

    I think a major point of McWhorter's statements is that the culture you mention has been created and warped in large part by prohibition. Standing there yelling "IT'S A COMPLEX PROBLEM!" does absolutely nothing to solve it. Complex problems are solved by breaking them down into sub-problems that can be more easily understood and solved. In this case, flawed policy is a major contributing factor to the problem. Yet the policy itself has become so rooted in our overall culture that most people will look right past it when looking for a cause of the obvious problems in our society.

    So which culture is chronically fucked up, again?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Enough About Palin,

    That there is no magic bullet. I spent years working with inner-city black kids and the culture they are unfortunately born into is simply too chronically fucked up to be corrected with a simple solution.


    Maybe you missed it, but the author is not saying that the solution to the problems of black Americans is to end the war on drugs. He's saying that ending the war on drugs would have the effect of eliminating one main problem that black Americans face, which is: "the strained relationship between young black men and police forces" and the "massive number of black men in prison."

    And NO, it is NOT the same thing.

  • 1980 Redux||

    There is, of course, another solution that is often overlooked in these situations: black americans could just stop doing fucking drugs. White kids have to work for shit wages in fast food restaurants, and yet they don't turn en masse to drug dealing to make up that income shortfall. I wonder why that is?

  • Bradley||

    Of course, tell people to stop doing drugs. Why didn't we think of that before?

  • 1980 Redux||

    The question is, why don't white kids turn to drug dealing for the higher incomes, which is the excuse thrown out for blacks in the article? No one puts a gun to their head and makes them take welfare; they do it voluntarily, because they're lazy. Poor whites could take it en masse also, and yet they largely don't, and in places where they do (poor rural areas), they don't turn into ghetto hell-holes with drug dealers ruling the corners.

    When will you idiots take your PC blinders off and just admit that they aren't genetically equal.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: 1980 Redux,

    The question is, why don't white kids turn to drug dealing for the higher incomes[...]?


    Who says they aren't?

  • ||

    i used to work a drug/street crimes unit in a very white/rich area, and let me tell you PLENTY of kids turn to drug dealing for higher incomes, and many of these are kids whose parents have high 6 figure incomes. it's just that they deal primarily stuff like E, pills, and stuff like that, and get much better lawyers and frankly get favorable treatment in the "justice system". don't think for a second that metric assloads of white kids, and rich kids of various races for that matter, don't turn to drug dealing

    they do

    the three biggest drugs at the rich high school in that district were E, Viagra, and ADHD drugs, not mentioning of course MJ which is ubiquitous everywhere

  • 1980 Redux||

    I respect your opinion on this matter since you have more experience with it (directly) than I do, Dunphy, but it still reeks of excuse-making. The Irish, Italians, Jews, etc. got unfavorable treatment when they came over, also, and still succeeded (and even if modern welfare was in place, I think they still would have, unlike our resident ex-slaves).

  • 1980 Redux||

    Oh, and even though many white kids may do this, that doesn't come close to accounting for the massive disparity in arrests & convictions unless the justice depts. in every city in America are the most racist institutions ever. I mean, 20% of black males are in prison. Even if you accounted for some uptick in the white numbers due to their "getting off easier", it wouldn't match that.

  • ||

    it is not mostly a racial thing. it is a CLASS thing. to paraphrase Chris Rock, if OJ Simpson was just a poor guy (white or black), he would be "Orenthal the convicted murderer". blacks disproportionately occupy the lower income quintiles as compared to whites (and asians disproportionately have a higher average income, but i digress). it kind of becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and victimology creating the idea that the only way out is drug dealing, leading to the choice ot do drug dealing, leading to a greater incarceration rate.

    given a strong enough culture, such as that that japanese americans came/come to this country with (chinese, etc. also) they may start out in the lower quintiles, but they inevitably rise. But when you have a combo of a welfare state that disincentivizes(es) achievement, encouraged out of wedlock birth, etc. AND a way to get rich quick, well what do you think is going to happen?

  • ||

    ubiquitous everywhere

    brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department

  • ||

    kind of. by "ubiquitous everywhere" i meant ubiquitous AT THAT rich kid high school AND ubiquitous at other locations as well. but i get yer point

  • ||

    Liar

  • JJ||

    "When will you idiots take your PC blinders off and just admit that they aren't genetically equal."

    Wow, that is some racsit shit right there. It's a cultural issue dude, not a racial one.

  • 1980 Redux||

    Ah, so whites aren't superior, just their culture? Don't you see, that's STILL racism to believe that one group is superior to another, whether for ANY reason (genetics, culture, etc)?

    If you're saying their culture is rotten, and ours isn't, then why did we develope a "superior" culture, while they developed an "inferior" one? There wasn't welfare 100 years ago, and yet Irish, Italian, & Jewish immigrants, who ALSO faced discrimination, thrived, while blacks remained poor. It was an EQUAL PLAYING FIELD back then between them and European immigrants, and the blacks still failed. Their culture of laziness and stupidity arises BECAUSE of their race, not in spite of it.

  • JJ||

    "It was an EQUAL PLAYING FIELD back then between them and European immigrants, and the blacks still failed."

    Wow again. I guess that whole civil rights thing was a figment of my imagination. And yes, there happens to be a trashy culture that exists in America (white trash, brown trash, black trash). This in no way has anything to do with race, and has everything to do with ignorance, laziness, and dependence.

  • ||

    if there is one thing that my life experience (and experience in the emergecny medical firefighter field/police field) has impressed upon me, it is the difference that culture can make. books like sowell's Ethnic America reinforce what i have seen firsthand.

    the fact that african immigrants do so well VS. african americans strongly supports the idea that culture is the primary issue, not race.

    in general, cultures that emphasize certain things tend to do better in america than cultures that emphasize other things. jews and japanese americans kick ass on most factors, and there are a lot of commonalities in culture (emphasis on education, most specifically in practical fields that yield higher incomes), and groups that have nothing to do with race but have similar qualities also tend to do well - mormons for instance, regardless of race are very successful. trey and matt would agree. despite the silly stories they believe.

    culture and attitude are HUGELY important for success.

    here's one thing I am certain of, given NO WOD, i believe that america in general, and black americans in particular would have created more wealth, been more successful, and been far less likely to be incarcerated.

    the WOD is the perfect example of a cure that is worse than the disease.

    it's that whole napalming a village to "save it" thang

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    he fact that african immigrants do so well VS. african americans strongly supports the idea that culture is the primary issue, not race.

    "do so well" relative to what? Perhaps in relation to their American brethren. How about a list of black Nobel prize winners, regardless of their country of origin?

    No, the Peace Prize does not count.

  • Zeb||

    Seriously, fuck you 1980. You are total fucking scum and you should just kill yourself now. This racial shit is so fucking tiresome.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Probably because the government never tried to help the Irish, the Italians and the Jews. Government policies are kind of a whipsaw for inner-city blacks - the Feds attempts to "help" created a culture of dependency that traps many in a cycle of poverty, and then now they engage in a war on drugs that makes illicit behavior seem like the most likely way out of that poverty.

  • Zeb||

    I know there is no point in responding to this racist piece of shit (1980 Redux, that is), but I'll do it anyway.

    You are a fucking moron. Plenty of white kids become drug dealers, and there are plenty of rural communities with significant drug problems. Fuck you.

  • racist piece of shit||

    Wild Africans, before white European colonials came along, lived in the Stone Age.
    Same with Native Americans (both continents).
    Stone Age. And there is no reason to think it was going to change any time soon.
    Whites and other races moved on from the Stone Age thousands of years ago.
    But not blacks, reds and South American browns.
    Primitives.

    Some of these primitives have integrated well into advanced cultures. Some highly intelligent ones have even made contributions. But on the whole those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

    Some races advanced from the Stone Age. Some did not.

    Why is that?

    Is it race?
    Is it culture?

    I think it can't all be race by virtue of the fact that some primitives are genuinely intelligent and capable people.
    It can't all be culture, or being raised in advanced culture would be sufficient to bring them all up to speed.

    I think it's both.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

  • Realist||

    Any citations to back up your assertions?

  • ||

    Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" for a great discussion of why different races and areas developed as they did. Believe it or not, there may be even more important factors in development than race and culture!

  • ||

    yes, good book. and of course environment being extremely important. different environments help cultures evolve different survival mechanisms.

  • 1980 Redux||

    Again I appreciate the insight Dunphy, but I think there's too much emphasis being put on "culture" as if trying to separate it from race. Culture, as I pointed out above, is tied to race.

    To state that races are equal, but culture is not, is impossible, because the two are inextricably tied together. If a culture is inferior, then the race which gave rise to that culture is, also. Either people (along with their culture) are equal, or they are not. If they are not, they are inferior. A simple look around the world shows us that cultures are not equal. Therefore, the people which spawned those cultures are not equal.

  • RandomAmericanHighSchooler||

    Race is pretty much an invention of the mind; a concept more than a concrete reality. We in the US have decided that a black person is anyone who has even partial ancestry from certain parts of Africa. Hence we have "blacks" like Halle Barry and Colin Powell. There is more genetic diversity within Africa itself than the rest of the world together. Trip on that. Linking some invented idea of "race" and intelligence is extremely weak intellectually.

  • ||

    race is a social construct, however there are physical differences between groups - west africans vs. east africans for instance are quite different, but both fall under "black" largely because they have similar skin color etc.

    powell and berry both "look black" which is (apart from southern racial quanta crap) why they are considered black. berry has also admitted to making a conscious effort to selfidentify as black, to contrast with for example tiger woods who identifies as (somewhat jokingly) cablinasian and emphasizes his asian background moreso than his black background.

    in regards ot west vs. east african, the vast majority of blacks in the US, england, etc. came from the latter group.

    also, practically all the top 10 meter sprint times worldwide are from west africans. east africans make shit sprinters (but good distance runners). and all but 1 sub 10 second time (and it has been scores of times) in the 100 meters were west african origin blacks. iirc, there was recently 1 sub 10 time by a non-west african black, but i haven't the details.

    jon entine wrote a lot about this in his book "taboo"

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure he's satirizing drug warrior and affirmative action viewpoints.

  • Mensan||

    "When will you idiots take your PC blinders off and just admit that they aren't genetically equal."

    There is no genetic distinction of race. It is entirely a social construct.

  • 1980 Redux||

    "There is no genetic distinction of race."

    So everyone is the same color, and has the same kind of hair, and the same shape eyes? These things are genetic, and distinguish race.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    There is no genetic distinction of race. It is entirely a social construct.

    I guess that explains how an anthropologist can look at a thigh bone, or a geneticist can look at a DNA sample, and identify the race of the person it came from.

  • Mensan||

    I guess that explains how an anthropologist can look at a thigh bone, or a geneticist can look at a DNA sample, and identify the race of the person it came from.

    No, they cannot. The anthropologist can determine a partial phenotype, and the geneticist can determine genotype. Neither indicate race, as race is a social construct based on shared culture, ancestry, geography, and perceived physical appearance.

    Homo sapiens sapiens is 99.9% genetically homogenous. Out of the 0.1% genetic variation, 85% of it occurs within “races,” and 15% of it occurs between “races.”

  • ||

    White kids do sell drugs. They just don't do it like black kids. And that's the primary reason black kids get busted more.

    And let's stop saying 'kids', the vast majority of people selling drugs have reached their majority.

    Black dealers do a lot of street selling. Corners, parks, streets it fits in nicely with pre-existing neighborhood gang structures. So they're on the street, selling to whoever. And cops can see them.

    White dealers tend to network themselves out, they tend to be users(which a lot of black dealers aren't) who sell to friends. They use phones to sell rather than being a visible presence on a street, and they expand via friends and customers. Much harder for cops to see.

    Drug use busts work pretty much the same way. Blacks get busted more because of the way they use rather than their 'class' or color. Whites tend to use at home--or at parties at others homes. They're heading towards getting busted when they start using at bars and clubs. Blacks also use at home, but they also use in other places where they feel at home('feeling' at home is a white thing , too)--and some places where they feel at home are far too public for consumption of illegal substances.

    Different styles of use and sale, different arrest rates--no racism needed.

  • Pip||

    Makes sense.

  • ||

    it's more complex than this. first of all, it's primarily class, not race. poor neighborhoods see literally street corner dealing, etc. rich ones don;'t. REGARDLESS of race.

    blacks are also way more likely to use crack cocaine for example, whites to use powder cocaine. the former have laws that often get much stiffer sentences than those for the same dosages/weights of powder cocaine.

    rich kids, regardless of race tend to prefer pills(and of course MJ) such as manufactured pharms as well as XTC which is made to look like one. they are far less likely ot use drugs like crack or meth that are viewed as "poor people drugs"

    i've never once seen a black guy in a meth lab, and i've been in a few dozen.

  • Nancy Reagan||

    We did!

  • ||

    Someone was even selling crack across the street fom the White House!

  • ||

    I had to look for this for a while.

    http://www.metafilter.com/9496.....-President

  • Gphil||

    Wait, so the cure to ending the "strained relationship between young black men and police forces" is to make legal the crimes for which they are being arrested? Isn't this a bit backwards? The merits of ending federal drug restrictions aside- why is it that black Americans should be the impetus for a repeal of these laws? Drugs are just as illegal (and just as potentially profitable) for everyone in America, so why are black men so disproportionately represented in prison? Because they can't get regular jobs because of racism etc.? By this logic, we should be focusing on making sure jobs are available for these men, not changing the rules simply because they can't follow them. Black men are disproportionately responsible for handgun crimes too, are we saying that in order to decrease the strain between black men and police, we should make murder legal too? I mean- I know i sound like some kind of racist for saying this (and I'm sure I'll get some nasty comments). I promise I'm not but I just don't see how changing the laws because one group can't seem to obey them is very fair.

  • Bucky||

    what Gphil said...

  • Realist||

    Or the blacks could obey the law. And work to change the law...but fuck no they're too fucking smart for that.

  • White Northerner||

    If slaves don't like the Fugitive Slave Act, they need to work to change not break it!

  • 1980 Redux||

    Except, the law now is not race-specific. It outlaws a certain activity for ALL races. Which means that the ones who choose to continue to break it, deserve whatever happens to them.

  • White Northerner||

    Way to miss the point champ.

  • Realist||

    You people argue like little kids!!!

  • Realist||

    Meant for White Northerner.

  • White Northerner||

    You mean like this?

    "Well, Zeb me thinks you stoners are just a little too excited about this subject for it to be academic"

    "Why don't you libs go back to the Huffington Post???"

  • sarcasmic||

    You're right. If something is not the perfect solution to all things, then it isn't worth doing.

    Only complete and total solutions to all problems are worth considering.

    Anything less, like ending the drug war to ease tension between blacks and the police, that doesn't fix EVERYTHING, just isn't worth doing.

  • Realist||

    "Anything less, like ending the drug war to ease tension between blacks and the police, that doesn't fix EVERYTHING, just isn't worth doing."

    Or the blacks could obey the law. And work to change the law...but fuck no they're too fucking smart for that.

  • 1980 Redux||

    ^^ THIS

  • Zeb||

    There is no moral obligation to obey immoral laws.

  • Realist||

    Spoken like the true loser you are!

  • MWG||

    The law is the law right, Realist?

  • Realist||

    Then go to jail....you are as stupid as always.

  • MWG||

    So you actually have no argument. SImply: the law is the law. Typical conservative, simply appeal to authority. Might makes right.

    "you are as stupid as always."

    Oh, internet tough guy is tough. Pussy.

  • Black America||

  • Rep. Corrine Brown||

    I believe that was meant for me.

  • The Fringe Economist||

    And how would one go about obtaining this "shit pie"?

  • ||

    Your time will soon come to have a piece of that same shit pie my friend!

    Prohibition has brought us massive crime and suffering, government/police corruption, the highest prison population of any country in the history of this planet, loss of most of our rights and true values, trillions in wasted taxpayer dollars, wars, violence and death in other countries, unlimited funding for criminals and terrorists, a weakened defense and a totally ruined economy.

    * Ten thousand Mexicans died in the last twelve months alone and many more are fleeing a civil war imposed on them by our failed policy of drug prohibition. – - Accusations of a “corrupt” Mexican government protecting certain cartels have been around for decades. Investigative reporters say they have solid evidence showing that authorities are going after other cartels, but not targeting the largest one which is the Sinaloa cartel.

    * The U.S. comprises 5 percent of the world’s population yet uses 60 percent of the world’s drugs. The prohibition on these drugs has been waged for 70 years and has cost $1.5 trillion. — Have you ever watched the drug war clock as it ticks away all our hard earned tax dollars? http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

    * The drug war actually encompasses everyone of us. The prohibited Drugs kill far less people than drug prohibition.

    * The prison system under prohibition worsens both the drug epidemic and the AIDS epidemic.

    * A potential tax payer is turned into a tax burden every time prison is used to enforce prohibition.

    * 87 percent of drug users are white yet 74 percent of people sentenced for drug possession are black. Whites do most of the ‘crime’ but blacks do most of the time. — 8.2% of whites and 10.1% of blacks using illicit drugs. Now look at the incarceration statistics:

    (2007 – incarceration rate by race) “The custody incarceration rate for black males was 4,618 per 100,000.
    while the incarceration rate of white males was 773 per 100,000.

    This means that there are at least 5 times more blacks incarcerated for drug offenses than should be expected. This is clearly a gross injustice!

    * Teachers with a college degree start at around $32,000 annually and a university professor with a Ph.D. starts at around $47,000 annually, but prison guards with a GED or high school diploma earn $50,000 + overtime pay. Is it no wonder that their Union constantly lobbies against reform? http://tinyurl.com/34mvgna

    * Without the legalized regulation of opium products Afghanistan will continue to be a bottomless pit in which to throw countless billions of tax dollars and wasted American lives.

    So you see, the damage done by prohibition is costing us far more, and is far worse, than all the damage caused by all of the ‘at present’ prohibited drugs combined. And it’s happening NOW! –BTW, please don't anyone try to falsely claim that legalized regulation may mean more users, because all the evidence points to the opposite effect. According to a WHO report, 42.4 percent have used marijuana in the US. The only other nation that comes close is New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the U.S. again leading the world by a large margin. thttp://www.alternet.org/drugs/90295/

    By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model – the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous and ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved. Thus the allure of this reliable and lucrative industry with it’s enormous income potential that consistently outweighs the risks associated with the illegal operations that such a trade entails, will remain with us until we are collectively forced to admit the obvious.

    Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them; the concept of a “Drug-Free Society” is a neurotic fantasy and Prohibition’s ills are a product of this psychotic delusion.

  • Hooha||

    tl;dr

  • Bucky||

    did anyone see anything in the link that drug use decreased?
    in Portugal they didn't legalize drugs they just decriminalized them.
    did the prices on the street drop?
    did the gub'mint start selling drugs?
    did availability of drugs increase?
    anyone, anyone...?

  • sven||

    Herc is a dick.

  • Old Mexican||

    One poisonous byproduct of prohibition and the black market, McWhorter says, is that going to prison is a now "badge of honor."


    So much for "rehabilitation."

  • Rich||

    That's why the incarceration rate being so high is a good thing: It dilutes the honor. Everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.

  • ||

    Prison is just like The Special Olympics?

  • Rich||

    Or like arguing on the Internet.

  • WTF||

    I get a prize for showing up?

  • Rich||

    Yep. Your words will live forever.

  • db||

    You get links to The Golden Girls, don't you?

  • Skip||

    Wouldn't ugly, smarter, non-criminally inclined black men be in favor of the Drug War since it makes themselves more in demand to women who want to date black guys?

  • ||

    Spoken like someone who hasn't had to function as one of those non-criminally inclined Black men. It's amazing how drug cash and the thrill of danger can make a man look pretty despite the jail time. :)

  • ||

    May I ask you all to please consider the following very carefully: It wasn't alcohol that caused the surge in crime and homicide during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, it was the prohibition of alcohol. That's why many of us find it hard to believe that the same thing is not happening now. We clearly have a prohibition fueled violent crime problem. A huge number of these violent crimes are perpetrated by criminal syndicates and gangs who use the proceeds from the sales of illegal substances to further even more of their criminal activities.

    The second biggest business during prohibition in Detroit was liquor at $215 million a year and employing about 50,000 people. Authorities were not only helpless to stop it, many were part of the problem. During one raid the state police arrested Detroit Mayor John Smith, Michigan Congressman Robert Clancy and Sheriff Edward Stein.

    The Mexican cartels are ready to show, that when it comes to business, they also like to be nonpartisan. They will buy-out or threaten politicians of any party, make deals with whoever can benefit them, and kill those who are brave or foolish enough to get in their way.

    If you support prohibition then you're either a black market profiteer, a terrorist, a corrupt politician, a sadomoralist, a wing-nut socialist, fake-conservative or a prohibitionist excrementalist.

    If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history, raising gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.

    If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

    If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

    If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

    If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

    If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

    If you support prohibition you've helped to prevent the sick and dying from obtaining safe and effective medication.

    If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

    If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

    If you support prohibition you've helped escalate the number of people on welfare who can't find employment due to their felony status.

    If you support prohibition you're responsible for the horrific racial disparities which have bred generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans.

    If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

    If you support prohibition you're promoting a policy which kills our children, endangers our troops, counteracts our foreign policy and reduces much of the developing world to anarchy.

    If you support prohibition then you are guilty of turning the federal, state and local governments into a gargantuan organized crime syndicate, interested only in protecting it's own corrupt interests. -- The very acts for which we initially created governments to protect us from, have become institutionalized. Thanks to prohibition, government now provides 'services' at the barrel of a gun.

    Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them; the concept of a "Drug-Free Society" is a neurotic fantasy and Prohibition's ills are a product of this psychotic delusion.

    Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, corrupt or criminally insane.

    If you support prohibition then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, foreclosed homes, and the complete loss of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.

  • ||

    malcolm, old chap, no one here supports the War on Drugs.

  • BakedPenguin||

    malcolm, come around here much? You obviously haven't met the choir.

  • Realist||

    "So much for "rehabilitation.""

    So much for intelligence.

  • ||

    The Federal Laws against Cocaine, Heroin, and Marijuana where passed coincidentally just after the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition. An argument can be made, from contemporary documents, that they were passed as "full employment" measures for out-of-work Prohibition Agents. They were certainly passed in a blizzard of the most sickening "We gotta keep them Goddamned N*ggers in line" swill ever presented to the public by somebody not actually wearing a sheet.

    Make of that what you will.

  • ||

    Wasn't the prohibition of marijuana more in reaction to Mexicans?

  • Jazz Player||

    Don't forget me!!!

  • Stoned White Girl||

    You're kinda cute.

  • DEA||

    Orgies!!!

  • BakedPenguin||

    The racism was a bit more widespread. It was the evul Chinese snaring white women in their opium dens that got the anti-opium laws passed in the 1910's.

    the evul Mexicans and their marihuana (oops, marijuana) were denounced by Anslinger.

    Cocaine was the alleged drug of the negro, particularly jazz musicians, who also might come in contact with white women... and ensnare them in their cocaine dens, or something.

  • MWG||

    I learn something everyday here at H&R.

  • Realist||

    You have a long fucking to go!

  • MWG||

    Oooh... internet tough guy is 'fucking' witty now.

  • Bucky||

    no, it was "Reefer Madness" wasn't it?

  • WTF||

    So a freedom-crushing government program has its roots in racist oppression? Shocking!

  • Realist||

    "So a freedom-crushing government program has its roots in racist oppression? Shocking!"

    Yep live just ain't worth living without dope!

  • Realist||

    Should read "life".

  • BakedPenguin||

    So you don't drink alcohol, caffinated beverages, or smoke tobacco, Realist? Good for you.

  • 1980 Redux||

    And giving false comparisons is a bad argument. Coffee & PCP do not have the same level of effect on people.

  • WTF||

    What about alcohol and pot? Or do you just believe you have the right to tell people in general what they may or may not consume?

    Also, are you totally unaware of the racist roots of gun control legislation?

  • 1980 Redux||

    I'll be the first to admit that allowing alcohol while outlawing marijuana is nonsensical. However, that is the path that has been chosen by a large plurality of American voters, and thus, it is the law. As long as people are free to write in candidates, but choose not to, then they are giving permission for a two-party system, and neither party runs on a platform of legalization.

  • Realist||

    Why don't you libs go back to the Huffington Post???

  • MWG||

    Um, this is a libertarian website. Libertarians are against the drug war. You may consider yourself a libertarian, but you are far from it.

    You may feel more at home here:

    http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/

  • BakedPenguin||

    As WTF pointed out, alcohol can have some pretty bad effects. Despite the scare stories in the media, PCP is a tranquilizer. It is less likely to facilitate violent behavior than alcohol.

  • Realist||

    I see none of you doper replied to this.

    Or the blacks could obey the law. And work to change the law...but fuck no they're too fucking smart for that.

  • Realist||

    ...dopers.

  • ||

    "obey the law" (appeal to authority)

    "work to change the law"

    Wow, you really did drink the Kool-Aid they served you in public school, didn't you? You must really believe that laws are created by well-meaning individuals who care about the country and its people. You must really believe that we can show them the error of their ways by "working to change the law."

    That's the crap I believed when I was a kid.

    I know better now: Laws are written to favor the powerful and wealthy at the expense of the poor and powerless.

    I think it's funny that you call yourself a Realist when it is obvious that you merely buy into the fantasy that those in authority have created for you.

  • seguin||

    It has its roots in whatever will work.

  • ||

    While I agree that government should not be engaged in a War on Drugs, that doesn't mean that it is responsible for the breakdown of black families. A contributing factor, but people can still make choices.

  • ||

    ^^THIS^^

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Len,

    A contributing factor, but people can still make choices.


    Choosing to use cocaine, heorin or marijuana, a act that is non-aggressive and totally voluntary, is a moral choice. Why would this choice be
    criminalized?

    Saying "You can choose not to use drugs" misses the point entirely: That the act of criminalizing a non-violent and voluntary act, is IMMORAL in itself.

  • ||

    I wasn't talking about drugs. I was talking about black families,as in what's responsible for their breakdown? How do you get otherwise in that context?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Len,

    I wasn't talking about drugs.


    You talked about choices. The point is: Assuming a black father is responsible and takes care of his wife/partner and children, the fact that he cat get his ass in jail just for daring to carry a small packet of marijuana (a non-violent, non-aggressive, voluntary, victimless act,) is enough to DISRUPT the family to its foundation. So just saying "People can make choices," is missing the point: People can already be making the RIGHT choices and still have their lives disrupted and destroyed by the Leviathan.

    The point is: Let's also lift the undue hindrances imposed on people by the thieving, murdering state.

  • ||

    "have their lives disrupted and destroyed by the Leviathan."

    Since I mentioned that the WOD was a contributing factor, it seems to me you're attempting to rebut a phantom post, which you've done in the past.

  • Gphil||

    This, I think is a major flaw in the drug legalization push. Enforcing this logic would require a complete overhaul of the healthcare and social welfare systems quite in the opposite direction from current trends in legislation. So long as healthcare is socialized, your decision to consume drugs affects me. If you accidentally overdose, damage your health, require hospitalization or transplant surgery etc. these costs will be passed on to me either in the form of taxes to fund medicare/medicaid or increased premiums on mandatory insurance plans. If you lose your job because you chose to get high instead of going to work, my taxes fund your unemployment, COBRA, welfare, etc. You can see where I'm going with this. Only when every person's decisions/consequences are fully independent from everyone else's will this argument make any sense. This country would require some pretty dramatic changes to create this sort of atmosphere. Until then, drug laws make sense the same way seatbelt and helmet laws do. It may restrict your freedom, but it mitigates my risk and liability for your stupidity.

    For the record I would fully support such changes.

  • ||

    "So long as healthcare is socialized, your decision to consume drugs affects me" -Put that bottle down!

    Alcohol is a factor in the following

    * 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides.

    According to the Australian National Drug Research Institute (2003): "Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are prematurely killing around seven million people worldwide each year, and robbing tens of millions more of a healthy life...The research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths)."

    According to DrugRehabs.Org, national mortality figures for 2009 were: tobacco 435,000; poor diet and physical inactivity 365,000; alcohol 85,000; microbial agents 75,000; toxic agents 55,000; motor vehicle crashes 26,347; adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000; suicide 30,622; incidents involving firearms 29,000; homicide 20,308; sexual behaviors 20,000; all illicit drug use, direct and indirect 17,000; and marijuana 0.

    Apart from the fact that legal drugs kill far more people than all the illegal drugs combined, debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Are drugs like Heroin, Meth or Alcohol dangerous? It simply doesn't matter, because if we prohibit them then we sure as hell know that it makes a bad situation far worse. If someone wants to attempt to enhance or destroy their lives with particular medicines or poisons, that should be their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. And, anyway, who wants to give criminals a huge un-taxed, endless revenue stream?

    A great many of us are slowly but surely wising up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco, clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances. But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society.

  • Bucky||

    drug free?
    you ARE on drugs...

  • ||

    Alcohol is also a factor in the following
    *87% of all white guys trying to dance
    *73% of all one-night stands
    *64% of all the times I got laid.
    The facts don't lie folks. Alcohol is awesome!

  • Realist||

    What fucking idiot would take a chance on going to prison? Work to change the law.

  • MWG||

    Do you actually have an argument for/against the WOD, or are you just merely appealing to authority? Might makes right? The law is the law?

    Do you think there aren't people fighting to the WOD?

  • Realist||

    You show'em Old Mex...fucking go to jail instead of trying to change the law.

  • Realist||

    You show'em Old Mex...fucking go to jail instead of trying to change the law.

  • ||

    "people can still make choices."

    Are you sure of that?
    http://articles.latimes.com/19.....lse-arrest

    There are thousands of such-like examples.

    Whatever the exact dynamics involved, these racial disparities are a direct result of drug-prohibition and are quite clearly unacceptable. This moronothon has done nothing but breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans and any citizen not doing their utmost to help reverse this perverse injustice may duly hang their head in shame.

    One out of three young African American (ages 18 to 35) men are in prison or on some form of supervised release. There are more African American men in prison than in college. Thats a four times higher percentage of Black men in prison than South Africa at the height of apartheid.

  • Bucky||

    my "choice" is to discount your authority on "direct results"...

  • ||

    Even if it won't save black america, it certainly can't hurt black america any more than the current policies. What are the downsides again to ending the drug war?

    Oh, that's right, all those prison guards and DEA agents will be out of work.

  • Jess Asken||

    What percentages of prison guards and DEA agents are black?

  • ||

    Prohibition is a war not just on the health, safety and freedom of racial minorities but on the safety and self-respect of all of us, and any one of us, by refusing to accept what these facts are telling us, is guilty of sanctioning this aberration.

  • Bucky||

    since you brought up self respect, explain to me how self respect works in the black community today...
    then tell me about safety...

  • ||

    As I was reading this I was thinking, Wow, this is the best, most eloquent article I've ever read from Stossel, and maybe the first I've ever read that was Reason-quality from him.

    Then I realized that he basically didn't write anything except John McWhorter's words.

    I only bash Stossel because he's basically a high-school caliber journalist/writer. I still agree with nearly everything he says. So I'm glad he's doing what he's doing...I just wish someone from the senior staff at Reason could switch places with him, like in one of those movies, except in this one they never get their own bodies back.

  • ||

    Possibly Stossel can do better (I don't know), but may think his style more effective in opening up the conversation?

  • ||

    I think he phrases his words to reach the lowest common denominator. This is probably after years of being on national broadcasts where you can't elevate the conversation unless you dumb down the vocabulary and use simple analogies.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: jcalton,

    I only bash Stossel because he's basically a high-school caliber journalist/writer.


    He writes in the same manner he talks - short phrases, directly to the point, possibly because of his stutter. I find no fault in his style.

  • ||

    i agree. if i want to read stuff from a wanking intellectual poser, i'll read foucault or anything from social text.

    writing simply does not imply a simple mind. profundity can be found in simplicity. stossel isn't trying to impress with big words.

  • Middle Age Crazy||

    Clearly, Stossel adds little to libertarianism, the philosophy.

    Libertarianism, the movement, however, needs all the help it can get, of exactly the kind Stossel brings. Nothing wrong with the avant garde lending him their little platform from time to time.

  • SFC B||

    Watching one of Stossel's "Give me a Break" specials back when I was, maybe, a freshman in high school (I think it was about salt) was my very first exposure to a way of thinking that was different from what I was being taught in (public) school. For the longest time the only "leave us alone" voice I can recall seeing on broadcast TV was his.

    Using Stossel as a gateway drug to libertarian thought is a very good thing.

  • Middle Age Crazy||

    mmm...gateway drugs

    just kidding

    no I'm not

  • ||

    The statistics on the US prison population are appalling. Putting a bunch of low level users/traders is a BIG waste of time and money.
    But just as Head Start didn't end poverty, legalizing drugs won't do it either.

  • db||

    You get links to The Golden Girls, don't you?

  • Melvin Morass||

    Not currently. Do I get them if I subscribe to your newsletter?

  • ||

    They weren't supposed to leave the jungle. It is a wasted race not good for anything (ok, ok, they apparently invented the peanut!)and have contributed nothing to society. They produce nothing and all they do is take, take, take. The liberals have convinced them that they are "entitled" to all this. They are the unhealthiest, most criminal, most uneducated, most unemployed and the most worthless race on earth. They were at their absolute best and most productive when they were slaves.

  • The Reverend Al Sharpton||

    I'll let this slide, it being Saint Patrick's Day.

  • Bucky||

    too drunk for any anti-sem-antics today?

  • ||

    How do I reach across the internet and bitch slap someone?

  • ||

    +100000000

  • MNG||

    Why this guy is attacking the Irish on this day of all days is beyond me.

  • ||

    he must be Irish. Nothing a good irishman likes than a fight.

  • ||

    being drunk, right?

  • Mick||

    Q. What's an Irish 7-course meal?
    A. A six-pack and a boiled potato.

  • ||

    Too right!

  • ||

    A day that celebrates catholicism driving out paganism from our native land? I'm sorry, but I don't see much to celebrate about that.

  • ||

    Wasn't it snakes that were supposed to have been driven out? As politicians are our modern day snakes, then "Slainte"!

  • Mensan||

    It's a metaphor for the Druids who would tattoo snakes on their arms as religous symbols.

  • Bucky||

    any reason to DRINK...

  • ||

    And here I thought St. Patrick's Day was just a celebration of the color green, beer and fighting.

  • Pink Cosmotarian||

    "Raaaaacist!!"

  • Zeb||

    No. This is one of those cases of real racism that you hear about sometimes. Or a really lame attempt at humor.

  • ||

    The racist is strong in this one. I like how it reads so dispassionately. Time to go fire up the eugenics device. Impressive.

  • MNG||

    It does harm black people, and lots of other people (and that harm is just as important). Many libertarians sincerely and correctly want to end it partly for that reason (and partly for other good reasons) but I can't help but think that for some 'the WOD hurts blacks and we oppose it' is the 'some of my best friends are black' libertarian policy stance...Everything else is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, get over it and/or freedom of association rulez!"

  • ||

    I don't want to see a bum being beat up, but at the same time I don't want someone else to come over and demand I hand them money to help the "bum". Its all part of the same drive of "non-coercion" that libertarians embrace.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Lost-In-Translation,
    MNG believes that not thieving to help others is not cool. And that people who do not want to be robbed to help others are "freedom fundamentalists."

    Just so you know who you're dealing with.

  • Gphil||

    What if someone demanded that you help stop the bum from being beaten up?

  • ||

    That's really unfair.

    As I said below, putting the issue in an economic context makes it clear that engaging in the drug trade IS a means of "pulling onself up by ones bootstraps". If your other options are low paying but legal work, it's not necessarily stupid or lazy to deal drugs instead.

    Moreover, looking at it as an economics problem helps to illumate many of the other pernicious effects that the drug war has on society, some segments more than others. From the lack of trust in law enforcement, to the absence of anything but violence to resolve disputes in the black market, it's not just a matter of people not being able to put what they want in their own bodies. There's a whole array of secondary and teriary problems caused by the drug war.

    IMO, Libertarians are more aware of them than most other political groups, precisely because we aren't afriad to apply rational choice theory and other economic concepts to the situation.

  • ||

    Drug dealers making a lot of money are the exception and not the norm at least, according to "Freakonomics" (see chapter on Why so many drug dealers live with their mothers). I've represented more than a few of them on appeal and most of these drug dealers are just lazy. The are never going to be persuaded to bust ass to make money whether by dealing drugs or in any other job.

  • Ska||

    I'd have to think that most dealers (the low level ones at least) are basically pizza delivery guys/lemonade stand operators that happen to be selling substantially overpriced products (thanks black market!), thus earning several times more than their legal counterparts.

    They might not be rich, but if you can make $200 a day selling pot or $100 delivering pizzas, you just might take that pot dealing job. The fringe benefits (getting high vs. getting a free slice) are also nicer. The real odds of getting pinched are pretty low, so the risk seems worth it until you find yourself in court one day.

  • ||

    Ok, but nonetheless the image of the successful suave badass dealer who has made it is the prevailing image, and image is what matters. It's why lotteries work despite the odd.

  • Justin||

    It's so very racist of Stossel and McWhorter and the rest to exclusively associate drug-dealers with black men. As if mexicans and asians don't sell drugs. Or white women for that matter. Racist and closed minded.

    "Because the illegality of drugs keeps the prices high," he says, "there are high salaries to be made in selling them. This makes selling drugs a standing tempting alternative to seeking lower-paying legal employment."

    The price is high because they are selling something that is hard to get. This is what they do for a living, the drugs are immaterial. If you legalize the dope to drop the market price of weed and coke, they'll just switch to another product that is prohibited - prescription drugs, weapons, under-age indonesian hooker-boys, etc. They won't magically abandon their criminal networks to seek sales jobs at the wireless store. Problem not solved.

    But that's not the problem that the 'legalize drugs' crowd wants to solve anyway, is it?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Justin,

    It's so very racist of Stossel and McWhorter and the rest to exclusively associate drug-dealers with black men.


    You just won the "Head In Sand" Award.

    Congratulations!!!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The price is high because they are selling something that is hard to get. This is what they do for a living, the drugs are immaterial. If you legalize the dope to drop the market price of weed and coke, they'll just switch to another product that is prohibited - prescription drugs, weapons, under-age indonesian hooker-boys, etc. They won't magically abandon their criminal networks to seek sales jobs at the wireless store. Problem not solved.

    You have to admit that he raises a good point, though. It's not like the American Mafia ceased to exist after the repeal of Prohibition.

  • ||

    No, they went in to gambling, the other major illegal passtime of America.

    That and general violence and mayhem of protection rackets, basically stealing from businesses a little at a time. (the IRS could have hired them)

  • ||

    prescription drugs, weapons, under-age indonesian hooker-boys

    The first is immaterial and the other two will never have the popularity of drugs (hopefully).

    The high price is due to the illegality, but the choice to sell drugs is made easy by the demand for drugs. Trafficking in stolen paintings is profitable too, but the demand is just not there to support that many dealers. Drug legalization would kick the legs out from most street-level crime. Nothing else would "employee" that many people.

  • seguin||

    +1

  • ||

    Until we learn that it is immoral to prohibit the use of indonesian hooker-boys, we will always have war.

  • ||

    Black market cigarettes?

    Moonshine still exists.

    Weapons aren't as popular now--but what happens if there's a more general ban?

    And, while asian bois might not be as popular as drugs, sex slavery isn't always limited to smuggled trannies--nor is it limited to prostitution.

  • Michael O'Hara||

    Oh, so true. The gangsta life is what they're all about. Most gang bangers are in prison for violent crimes. True that they are associated with the drug trade. But violence is their cultural creed. They live by it. They are eventually screwed by it; often by the people/animals that swore to protect them...their hommies. Prison is a breeding ground for it. It doesn't matter what color your skin is; black, white, brown. Recruitment is at it's highest there. Stossel missed the mark here.

  • Justin||

    Sarcasm is an effort wasted on you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Justin,
    Leave sarcasm to us, the professionals.

  • ||

    No we just want cheap drugs so we can have more frequent coke parties. Golly, are we that transparent?

  • Bradley||

    If you legalize the dope to drop the market price of weed and coke, they'll just switch to another product that is prohibited - prescription drugs, weapons, under-age indonesian hooker-boys, etc.

    Nobody's arguing that legalizing drugs will turn every thug into a model citizen. But anything else they can move into won't be nearly as lucrative. As you may've noticed, not a great deal of people roll up to the corner looking for Indonesian hooker-boys.

    And if gambling, guns, or prescription drugs become an issue, that just tells us that we need to get rid of prohibitions on those goods too.

  • Jim||

    I seek out, and have to fend off other people looking for, indonesian hooker boys every single day. I prowl Craigslist constantly on the lookout. But they need to look feminine, because I'm not gay.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Nobody's arguing that legalizing drugs will turn every thug into a model citizen.

    Exactly. however, a good portion (especially low-level) would probably go legit. The rest would become true thugs, committing crimes of violence.

    If they were sent to prison, that would not be a travesty, because they would have violated others' rights.

  • ||

    Not to mention that with more of the police force devoted to legitimate functions the environment would be tougher for those "true" criminals to thrive in.

    Legitimate functions; patrols (protecting property rights) = deterrence, detective work, among others.

  • rogue biologist||

    > It's so very racist of Stossel and McWhorter and the rest to exclusively associate drug-dealers with black men. As if mexicans and asians don't sell drugs. Or white women for that matter. Racist and closed minded.

    You're an idiot. Sure, there are drug-dealers of other races, but they are disporportionately not incarcerated. So, associating *arrested drug-dealers* with black people is completely valid, and it's not Stossel's fault.

  • Zeb||

    Of course there will always be organized crime and big time criminals. The thing is that most people that end up in prison for dealing drugs are not those people. They are people who through laziness or lack of opportunity or whatever decided that selling drugs was the thing to do. So you are right that there will always be violent criminal gangs, but it is ridiculous to suggest that legalization of drugs won't reduce by a lot the number of petty street criminals. Particularly when you consider all of the crime committed to fund addictions to drugs that would cost next to nothing if they weren't illegal.
    Another thing, the number of black market criminals will depend on how much money is available to be made. Drugs are really popular. People like drugs a lot. Far fewer people want or need illegal weapons or underage prostitutes. So yes, some drug dealers might go into these areas, but there is no fucking way there will ever be the market for young boys as there is for cocaine. You can't sell unless there is demand. That is why drug prohibition is the best gift ever to organized crime.

  • ||

    The War on Some Drugs is like any other big government program. The statists absolutely cannot imagine that a big government program doesn't work, and so their "solution" will always be "spend more money on it".

  • ||

    If you want an example of how changing the law doesn't reduce a bureaucracy, look at the federal sentencing guidelines. They are almost as incomprehensible as our tax code but how many government employees depend on their existence for their jobs? Everybody in probation for one thing. The guidelines have been found by the highest court in the land as being unconstitutional but everyone still uses them. WHY?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jane,

    The guidelines have been found by the highest court in the land as being unconstitutional but everyone still uses them. WHY?


    Public choice theory. If you can perpetuate an environment ripe for rent-seeking, like: drug law enforcement officers, prosecutors, sentencing courts and prisons, you will see more of it.

    Money is being thrown towards the system in ever increasing amounts, and of course the piggies at the trough will keep squealing for more. The more vague and arbitrary the guidelines and the more sentences you can make in consequence, the more piggies you can invite to the trough. There's money in them thar hills of legalese!

  • ||

    I predicted they would never be overturned because of the bureaucracy that depended on it. Never did I think they would be overturned and still used. I think the lesson from that is even if we repeal the drug laws (which I'm for), we'll still have the overbloated bureaucracy that grew to depend on it. There's never any turning back, ever. I hate, hate, hate our justice system (I'm a lawyer). And no, I don't know of any better system but the one where you determine guilt by drowning would probably produce comparable results and be a lot cheaper.

  • ||

    A contributing factor, but people can still make choices.

    Passively submitting to oppression and complying with the demands of Our Masters is, indeed, a choice.

    This argument can be used to blame the victim of any act of government oppression.

  • ||

    Alcohol is a factor in the following

    * 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides.

    According to the Australian National Drug Research Institute (2003): "Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are prematurely killing around seven million people worldwide each year, and robbing tens of millions more of a healthy life...The research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths)."

    According to DrugRehabs.Org, national mortality figures for 2009 were: tobacco 435,000; poor diet and physical inactivity 365,000; alcohol 85,000; microbial agents 75,000; toxic agents 55,000; motor vehicle crashes 26,347; adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000; suicide 30,622; incidents involving firearms 29,000; homicide 20,308; sexual behaviors 20,000; all illicit drug use, direct and indirect 17,000; and marijuana 0.

    Apart from the fact that legal drugs kill far more people than all the illegal drugs combined, debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Are drugs like Heroin, Meth or Alcohol dangerous? It simply doesn't matter, because if we prohibit them then we sure as hell know that it makes a bad situation far worse. If someone wants to attempt to enhance or destroy their lives with particular medicines or poisons, that should be their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. And, anyway, who wants to give criminals a huge un-taxed, endless revenue stream?

    A great many of us are slowly but surely wising up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco, clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances. But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to your absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society.

  • ||

    I totally agree. Alcohol is the worst drug there is.

  • The Gobbler||

    I think you are forgetting about the brown acid, but then, it's your trip.

  • ||

    Alcohol is a factor in the following
    * 73% of all felonies * 73% of child beating cases * 41% of rape cases * 80% of wife battering cases * 72% of stabbings * 83% of homicides.

    Those wacky Abos!

  • ||

    this is why so many cops i know (myself included) aren't concerned with MJ use. we don't get assaulted by potheads, we don't go to robberies by guys hopped up on pot, and i can't recall the last time i arrested a guy or gal for beating their spouse/partner who was high on MJ

    any drug that makes one want to eat cheezy poofs and laff at dumb jokes is not a concern of mine.

  • Bucky||

    sigh...
    4 Loco...

  • ||

    a friend of mine (cop) had a 4 loko party not too long ago. note that it's legal to possess and use, they just banned its SALE. much like the ridiculous ephedrine ban (banned sale AS dietary supplement, but wasalways legal to possess and use, that was later overturned), it was based on bad science. i read the JAMA study. what a joke.

  • Zeb||

    "Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are prematurely killing around seven million people worldwide each year"

    God, I hate it when people say shit like this. Drugs are not killing anyone or ruining anyone's life. People are killing themselves or ruining their own lives with drugs.

  • john||

    This guy's spot on, not only as regards the future of blacks in America, but in terms of criminalizing what should be a legal (if arguably a harmful) activity. So are drinking too much, eating too much, exercising too little, and having an undisciplined child, or dog for that matter.

    Opiates could be bought in any pharmacy at the turn of the 20th Century, and at a minute fraction of current street prices. Yet drug addiction, while perhaps not unknown, was certainly not seen as the menace it is today. In fact, at that time alcohol was seen as the foremost corrupting influence in America, leading to our experiment with Prohibition. Need I say more?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Opiates, if used without other drugs, are far less harmful to the than alcohol. (The obvious exception is overdose, but lethal [non-poly drug] overdoses are rare.)

  • ||

    I had always heard this about opium and heroin.

  • The Gobbler||

    Smoking black tar opium is wonderful.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I had always heard this about opium and heroin.

    My original sentence should have read "far less harmful to the body than alcohol"

    The key is that opiates, if used, should never be used with other CNS depressants (alcohol, benzodiazepines, barbiturates.)

  • ||

    Eating too little and exercising too much are also harmful. If one wants a huge, well defined physique, one must take care not to eat like All McBeal or train like a marathoner.

  • Mensan||

    Some opiates (specifically Codeine) are still available OTC in Australia.

  • ||

    proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco,

    As a matter of pure political expediency, I would think that a campaign to regulate and tax marijuana exactly as you do alcohol would be our best shot at actually winning.

    Its easy to understand, intuitively appealing, the pro arguments write themselves, the anti arguments are easily mocked.

    For example: a pro ad that intercuts scenes from prohibition - dead bootleggers, etc. - with equivalent scenes from the drug war. Then, show a shiny clean modern liquor store. End with some catchphrase about how black markets are violent markets, and legalizing ends black markets.

  • ||

    "For example: a pro ad that intercuts scenes from prohibition - dead bootleggers, etc. - with equivalent scenes from the drug war. Then, show a shiny clean modern liquor store. End with some catchphrase about how black markets are violent markets, and legalizing ends black markets."

    We can't be that far off from such infomercials!

  • Realist||

    It looks like every dumb fuck stoner lib is posting here.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And at least one real dumb fuck non-stoner.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, no one could possibly have any interest in drug policy without being a stoner. And no stoner could possibly have anything worthwhile to say. Ass.

  • Realist||

    Well, Zeb me thinks you stoners are just a little too excited about this subject for it to be academic

  • Realist||

    Yes, stoner=loser....oh fuck yes!

  • Michael O'Hara||

    The professors assertion that "gang turf wars" would cease is a naive assumption. I've lived among gang members (black, white, brown) in prison and have witnessed their sense of life on an intimate level. It is more than a badge of honor for these guys to go to prison; it has become an indoctrinated way of life. They absolutely love this way of life, in deed many have tattoos on their knuckles daclaring:"THUG LIFE" and the like. Clearly, selling drugs on the corner is not the root to what has driven this sub-culture. It is the danger, risk to their very lives and the easy money that they thrive upon. Sure, take the drug trade out of their hands and there would be a significant drop in crime concerning the drug trade. But, just as the mafia did after prohibition was abolished, they will merely employ other avenues of crime and easy money. LOOTING is their M.O. and there are vast methods of employing their thuggary; on the street corners, with business owners, and on the private property of law abiding citizens.
    Legalizing drugs will only cause their leaders to adapt and improvise; they will send their torpedos out on new quests and missions. Don't kid your self Stossel. You are way off the mark on this one.

  • Zeb||

    There are always several people who trot out this dumb ass argument. Yes there are people committed to a life of crime. And ending prohibition will not end all of the associated problems immediately. But a basic understanding of supply and demand will tell you that legalizing an incredibly popular black market item will drastically reduce the opportunities available in the crime field.

  • Michael O'Hara||

    You, The linguist Prof and Stossel ought to come down from your ivory towers and engage your selfs into the dumb ass argument; tacitly, practically and literally, before you espouse the supply and demand argument, which, by the way, had 0 to do with the Profs. assertion; nor did it have anything to do with mine:-)

  • Spazmo||

    Nobody ever claimed that legalizing drugs would completely eliminate street gangs. There will always be criminals.

    So what? What is your point?

  • ||

    in that respect, i gotta give props to ... god forbid... jimmeh carter for legalizing home beer brewing.

  • Pip||

    This^

    The young men robbing my neighbors at gunpoint are not drug dealers, they are criminals who are too lazy to work.

    http://4thprecinctcare.org/art.....8_14_2011_

  • AT||

    Legalize drugs. Let law abiding citizens have access to guns. People will handle self defense and defense of their property.
    Thugs will fill morgues, not prisons. Problem solved.

  • ||

    For once a Stossel column that I like. It's nice to see the social ills in poor black communities put into the context of the economic forces unleashed by the drug war.

    Everyone knows that drug dealing is an easy way to get rich, if you're willing to take the risk, but we rarely think of it as an economically rational choice given the circumstances on those communities.

    Looking at these problems from a dispassionate economic standpoint really adds a lot of perspective.

  • ||

    The attractive illegal livelihood relieves men of the need to develop skills that would provide stable legal incomes.

    It's also a big problem with Chinese-Americans and such.

    Paraphrase McWhorter: "No, you can't have that attractive livelihood, and it's for your own good!"

  • ||

    "Reason" is my new favorite read, mostly because of the comments section, where you have what seems to be a pretty intelligent base and a (mostly) respectful dialog. I have a genuine question, which this posting on drug legalization seems to highlight -- do libertarians still identify with the Tea Party (if indeed you ever did, that might have been my association) or did the co-opting of the Tea Party by conservative Christians who support things like drug wars end that party? I don't think there's a right answer to this one, but would love anyone's thoughts.

  • Zeb||

    Speaking only for myself, I definitely don't identify with the Tea Party, but I am guardedly optimistic that they will do some good things toward reducing the size and scope of government. I'm not holding my breath, though.

  • Pip||

    "do libertarians still identify with the Tea Party"

    Not me.

  • ||

    Unless you're talking about my aunt Mary's invites, I ain't goin' to no stinkin' tea parties.

  • 1980 Redux||

    We never wanted the libertarians in the first place. All they are are hedonists and libertines pretending to be "conservative" on some issues, i.e. spending. There is no room in the Republican Party for drug users, homosexuals, or anyone else who believes in subjective morality. There is already room for them in the anti-Christian commiecrat party. As I believe Jim Demint and several others have pointed out, you CANNOT be in favor of some conservative principals, but not others. That is not how the binary, American system works. If you want some pantheon of parties representing every little shade of belief, move to Europe. Love it or leave it.

  • waffles||

    Eww...yuck. Reading that left a nasty taste in my mouth. Really? Are you just trying to be an ass? Who took over who's popular movement?

    This says it all,
    There is no room in the Republican Party for drug users, homosexuals, or anyone else who believes in subjective morality.

    Do you know how many people the (R) elect who use drugs, have gay sex, and play loose with morals? More than zero. Anyway, I think I've just been trolled.

  • RyanXXX||

    Ah, so you reveal yourself for the Troll you are.

    "We never wanted the libertarians."
    "Blacks are genetically inferior."
    "Love it or leave it."

    ^Is that the true Tea Party? I guess Rachel Maddow was on to something

  • ||

    "There is no room in the Republican Party for drug users, homosexuals, or anyone else who believes in subjective morality."

    That could be a pretty small party, but at least you'll be happy with each other's company.

  • Lowdog||

    No problem, 1980, I despise the Republican party as much as I do the Democratic party.

    See, libertarians are not conservatives - in fact, the true term for a libertarian is liberal, or classical liberal, since the idiot democrats have stolen the word "liberal" for their own foolish uses.

    Now go pray to your sky daddy for all the niggers and queers to die and leave the adults alone to discuss reality.

  • 1980 Redux||

    Maybe you personally don't like it, but look at the amount of people who are constantly talking about supporting Christie if he runs. Face it: the readership here may hold their noses while they do it, but they DO vote Republican when push comes to shove. And every vote for a Republican is a vote for a strong America, fiscal sanity, and against drugs, homos, & muslims trying to establish a global caliphate and put us all under sharia law.

  • jacob||

    Heh - I really do think this guy prays for the niggers and queers to disappear.

  • ||

    there is plenty of room in the repub party for drug users, and releasing the artificial distinction between "drugs' and alcohol would make that even more so.

    i don't smoke MJ, for instance, but i know a metric assload of good repubs (many libertarian persuasion) who do or did.

    what the fuck does what intoxicant you choose to use for recreation have to do with your political/economic ideology?

  • 1980 Redux||

    "what the fuck does what intoxicant you choose to use for recreation have to do with your political/economic ideology?"

    Show me a mainstream Republican bragging about smoking weed or shooting heroin or whatever it is ghetto-trash thugs do in their spare time, when they aren't robbing people or speaking what they hilariously call "english". That's who does drugs: trash, losers, hippies, who use a chemical to replace Jesus' love. I'm pretty sure even Mitch Daniels is in favor of harsh mandatory sentences, and apparently he had quite a wild youth (drugs-wise).

  • RyanXXX||

    Guess what that makes Mitch?

    A hypocrite, and one who would incarcerate other people in rape-land for things he was in a position to get away with, and did.

  • ||

    this is just ridiculously wrong. generally speaking, the drug users that come to media attention are the "losers" because they are fucking up in many ways to make their story tragic or spectacular.

    the REALITY is that tons of responsible business owners, community members etc. choose to smoke an occasional joint, etc. instead of a martini and they are equally productive.

    i fucking HATE the whole MJ culture thang, but i readily acknowledge that not everybody who smokes MJ is a "stoner' in the same way that not everybody who drinks alcohol is a wife abusing piece of shit

    heck,when i was in college, one of the best academics in my school (and a guy who was very successful after college) routinely used cocaine to help him study. big fucking deal.

    the reality is that with some drugs there are tons of responsible users for every fuckup. the fuckups are the ones who get on the cops (and your radar).

    like i said, i've yet to see potheads robbing stores, smacking their gf's around, or assaulting cops, and i've been a cop for 20 yrs.

    i am also convinced that if every violent fuckstick alcoholic (and many get violent only when they drink) instead smoked pot , crime would be a lot lower.

    again, i think pot is lame as fuck, but those who use it in excess are far less of a burden to others than those who drink to excess

  • 1980 Redux||

    I generally agree with you, sir. However, the sad fact of the matter is that alcohol is legal, even though the people who use it to alter their state of mind are losers.

    If your life is so sad and pathetic that you need chemicals to alter your perception, then I strongly urge anyone to go to their local church and seek the only true mind-altering experience you'll ever need: the true love of our Lord Jesus Christ, though which all things are possible.

  • MWG||

    LMAO! You're a conservative 'Christian'... You sound like one, I'll give you that. I think this guy is a hell (pun intended) of a lot more Christian than you are.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • 1980 Redux||

    He is a very Christian gentleman, and the world was a much better place for having heard his ministry. But I respectfully disagree with him on this issue.

  • ||

    it's not a matter of need, it's a matter of personal choice. the constitution, civil rights, and our mode of govt. shouldm't require people to establish a NEED to do stuff legally that affects themselves, whether that be drugs, or sexual stuff or whatever (in the latter case that affects consenting adults)

    yes, pot is illegal. that's the point. it should not be.

  • ||

    So if you partake in illegal drugs you're an out-of-your-mind loser, but if you believe in a fairy tale ghost in the sky you occupy the moral high ground?
    The stoniest stoner I've ever met couldn't come up with anything so fantastic as a guy in the sky running things like the CEO of Chrysler and answering the fervent pleas of Earthly fantasists.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    You're not a real person, right?

  • Newt Gingrich||

    I'm still here!

  • Mark Foley||

    Don't forget about me!

  • jacob||

    LOL

    A few weeks ago I got into an argument with one of the right-wing trolls who said that that the Tea Party was behind Ron Paul and Gary Johnson's success lately. I argued otherwise.

    Where were you back then to help me out?

  • Rush Limbaugh||

    Is there room for me, 1980?

  • RyanXXX||

    What's with all the racist pieces of shit coming here defending prohibition?

    Christ, I'm getting tired of these Reagan-worshipping movement motherfuckers.

  • waffles||

    Oh, so that's what 1980 redux means...he wants to summon the vast right wing conspiracy and bring about the Reaganocalpyse.

    Fortunately the forces of free minds and free markets have saved the day.

  • RyanXXX||

    The sooner Reagan's corpse is exhumed and shit on, the better.

  • 1980 Redux||

    "...bring about the Reaganocalpyse."

    I actually really like that turn of phrase. I hope you don't mind if I use it in the future.

    But in response to the posts, pick a side and get on it. Republican or commiecrat are you only two choices. Whining about it won't change anything. Those are the only two choices which have existed for a century now, and it will not change in the forseeable future. You can get on board with us, which includes outlawing drugs, muslims & gays in addition to fiscal restraint, or you can be a socialist dem. Those are your only two options: A, or B. Now pick.

  • ||

    I disagree with your premise that there are only two choices. Do you believe that the GOP of today has the same set of ideals and priorities as the GOP of 1960? 1940? They do not. So, in the meantime, those changes occured because people discussed ideas and moved the center line. Having beliefs outside what a party holds can move a party. But I have a feeling you're not here to discuss what's real (your dogma is coming through loud and clear).

  • 1980 Redux||

    Oh you're absolutely right that parties can change; what I'm saying is, this is the way the party is at this particular time period, and there are only two choices. In 30 years, maybe it will be something different. But in each election, if you're actually trying to win, there are only two choices: communist, or Republican. And the Republican party, at the present, represents traditional American values, resistance to muslim colonization, peace through strength, and support for traditional morality. So that's the package.

  • ||

    The GOP is the party of state. It is the party of government. It is the party of the income tax. It is the party of the IRS.

    What did Ronald Reagan do to eliminate the income tax? What did he do to eliminate the IRS?

    Traditional morality dictates that the state has no business taking what folks in the private sector produce in order to give to DEA agents / probation officers / social workers / other do gooders / judges / substance abuse organizations / corrections officers unions and all sorts of communist entities.

    The GOP is the party of communism. Period. Are you even conversant with Marx and the Communist Manifesto?

    If one supports an income tax with its own internal police apparatus, one is a communist.

    If one supports collective bargaining, one is a communist.

    If one supports public education, one is a communist.

    If one fails to advocate the abolition of the department of education, one is a communist.

    After all, the ten commandments do not contain any exceptions for the state, particularly one run by repbulican party politicians.

  • 1980 Redux||

    "If one supports collective bargaining, one is a communist.

    If one supports public education, one is a communist.

    If one fails to advocate the abolition of the department of education, one is a communist."

    Completely agree with you. Which is why the Republican Party advocates against those things, and is only held back from following through with them because of the communist / democrat brainwashed public. They would never allow it. The goal right now is to de-program enough people to get actual, popular momentum behind those items.

    And you do not have the freedom to take drugs. It is not listed in the Constitution. True, the Constitution makes provision for freedoms not listed, but which the people may still hold. However, that concept is so open-ended and nebulous, that the only way to decide it is through the legislative and judicial process, all of which has determined that no, you do NOT have a right to get stoned.

  • George Bush Jr.||

    "Which is why the Republican Party advocates against those things, and is only held back from following through with them because of the communist / democrat brainwashed public."

    Riiight...

  • MWG||

    "And you do not have the freedom to take drugs. It is not listed in the Constitution."

    So much for conservatives understanding the constitution. Our rights don't come from the constitution you moron. The constitution sets limits on the government.

    As it relates to mind altering substances, the govt. actually amended to constitution to prohibit alcohol... interesting that they never thought to do that when prohibiting other substances.

  • wulfy||

    More conservatives are supporting marijuana leglization, though I haven't found the direct stats yet. This study shows 46% of all adults favor legalization now, up from 31% in 2000. 72% of Democrats support. the biggest swing has been the moderates/indpendents, many of whom are fiscal conservatives. Therefore your black and white caricature on soicla issues is not defensible. http://www.gallup.com/poll/144.....juana.aspx

  • 1980 Redux||

    Just goes to show how much commicrat, stoner, minority propaganda has infiltrated the ranks of so-called conservatives. Pathetic. I would suggest that it's a massive case of cognitive dissonance to reply to a survey that you're both "conservative" and in favor of rampant, legalized immorality & hippie culture, aka drug legalization. True conservatives will not stand for this, if that time ever comes.

  • ||

    i am asking this question seriously...

    what is it about the effects of, etc. mj VS. alcohol that make one drug acceptable for conservatives and the other -not?

    apart from the legality issue, which is the very thing that would be changed by legalization.

    they are both mind altering substances, but only one has a LD50 value, is deadly in large doses, can even kill during WITHDRAWAL (which is not true even of heroin), tends to promote violent assholery in a fair %age of the population, etc.

  • Boxbot as 1980 Redux||

    One of them is used by negroes and godless commies. I don't see what's so hard about this.

  • ||

    and you keep forgetting... JAZZ MUSICIANS!!!

  • ||

    True conservatives will not stand for this, if that time ever comes.

    You "true conservatives" will roll over and take it up the ass if that time comes.

  • ||

    "resistance to muslim colonization, peace through strength, and support for traditional morality"

    Now that's a platform I can reject across the board. Thanks for clarifying!

  • 1980 Redux||

    So you're in favor of being forced into sharia law, and of being weak enough to be unable to resist hostile powers on the international stage? Wow.

  • ||

    1) No one can force me into Sharia law, and no one is trying. That's a paranoid fantasy created to manufacture an enemy because with an enemy you can get the braindead to follow you. 2) We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. What are you so afraid of?

  • 1980 Redux||

    It isn't a foreign invasion you twit, it's immigration. We have open borders, and allow more and more muslims to move here every year. Eventually, they WILL outbreed us and impose sharia law, which is their ultimate goal, as admitted to by many of them in numerous international studies.

    And if they outnumber you 50 to 1, yes, they CAN force you into sharia law. Or you can die a martyr. Your choice.

  • Boxbot||

    1980 is absolutely correct, guys. The only reason you're still clinging to libertarianism is because you don't understand game theory. I'll bet you haven't even HEARD of the Nash equilibrium.

  • ||

    fwiw, i LIVE game theory. as a futures trader and avid poker player, i've studied more game theory than you could imagine. with that said, i am a libertarian who SUPPORTS strong border enforcement. that's where i differ with many here. fair enuf.

  • ||

    Does 1880 Redux really believe that the A-rabs are going to out-number whities 50-1? That's quite the river of immigration that must be streaming across the border.
    Where do you people get your fantasies? Do you imagine them yourselves or do you purchase them wholesale?

  • Lowdog||

    D'oh! I fed the troll, sorry...

  • RyanXXX||

    This guy is really something.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's Flake! And he has his shirt on.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Nick won't let Harry Reid live down that cowboy poetry thing.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This just in: Jeff Flake want kids to have to serve their own school lunches.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stossel and Flake want people to stand up during the SOTU address and shout, "You lie!!!"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Jeff Flake: "I fear we'll just have one big package..."

    That line was for the ladies.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A commercial where fans are booing a team called the Pirates? These ads get more far fetched every day.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Look how small Stossel's Constitution is. No wonder the government so easily sidesteps it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I liked Christopher Preble better the first time I saw him, when he was the Literal Doctor for Arrested Development.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...and if other nations refuse to spend their own money to defend themselves from invasion without US help, then the US should invade them and make them do so.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Preble from Cato is not the Commie Hunter that America needs him to be.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Department of Energy needs to increase its budget to study how to stop Stossel harrassing them with a bullhorn.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Making ethanol costs more energy than it makes? Sounds like somehow it's even better than any perpetual energy machine.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Needham stealing some Reagan quote heat. That's energy efficiency.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Heritage is lobbying Congress to stop them from caving to lobbyists.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We all have to come together to put the national interest above parochial interests..."

    Sounds like Communism to me.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We all have to come together to put the national interest above parochial interests..."

    Sounds like Communism to me.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I agree with both above comments.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    School vouchers? She's evil!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "People who use terms like 'government monopoly' with respect to school choice don't like children."

    It's like a verbal inkblot test.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obama speaks boldly for charter schools? Even if that's true, what Obama speaks doesn't always jibe with what his administration does.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Happy St. Patrick's Day, McWhorter.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I liked McWhorter better the first time I saw him, when he was Lock from Matrix Revolutions.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yet another Mesothelioma commercial. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm breathing in asbestos.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ooo, I just thought of a line for Democrats. "The Republicans want a Reichstag fire sale of our country!"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Malfoy tried to kill Harry Potter? Thanks for the spoiler, John.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Give me a break! He said it! Everyone, finally, drink!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    You are amazing!
    Hold down the fort Pleez!!

  • MWG||

    Something tells me FOE is drunk commenting... it is St. Pats after all.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stossel and Guinness are my only friends!

    AA, here I come!

  • ||

    Fist of Etiquette, it must get really lonely commenting on Stossel's thread during his show all by yourself. I commend you, keep up the good work.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Okay, I'm here.

  • basket converse||

    thank

  • WOOT||

    WOOT, NGIG YAGS SCUM!
    Cossily wollows in the ptramigan path, crossed over the twilighte dew. Wehnce spoake of (R) and (D) and Sharia's song. We press the yellow triangles and defear GANON.
    Wallow Mightilty young COWARD.

    Today is the day we find COURAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE.

  • Wander||

    it must get really lonely commenting on Stossel's thread during his show all by yourself. I commend you, keep up the good work.

  • ||

    If I had the money, I would file a federal lawsuit on the grounds that in the preamble, congress cannot abridge the freedoms of the individual unless such freedoms infringe on others more basic freedoms (such as noise or air pollution by one impacting another). Arguably, if I use drugs and don't rob another in the process, my freedom to use drugs does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms.

  • ||

    except for the inconvenient little statistical fact that 1 in every 4 crimes is committed by someone because they are on drugs, while 1 in 3 crimes are committed by someone who is on drugs

  • ||

    That's a non sequitur.

    If someone commits a crime, punish the crime. The motivation shouldn't be an issue.

  • O'RLY?||

    So, someone who has committed a crime has a 1 in 4 chance to be breaking the law? Whod've thunk it?

  • ||

    OK I have read all this with great interest but, with the obvious exception of Redux and the obvious racists, am still totally confused about what any of you stand for except for legalisation of drugs. Are you right wing, left wing? Don't be mean - or do, I don't give a shit - but I was led to believe libertarians, which I take as ultra rightwing, no government, pure capitalism, blah, blah hated drugs. Where does the crossover apply?

  • ||

    You should stop getting your understanding of libertarianism from the USA Today.

  • ||

    Excellent idea. Drug addiction is a medical condition, not a criminal one. Making it a criminal one is a far worse crime. Making it a schedule one narcotic, is an insane, and deliberately misleading. The damage the drug war has caused far exceeds the benefit. The waste of tax dollars is the crime here.

  • ||

    if anyone in your family is killed by someone strung out of their mind, don't you dare shed a tear - I know I won't

  • ||

    Tyler,
    Which do you suppose kills more?
    Strung-out dopers or drunk drivers?

  • ||

    I'm almost 50 and have come to believe that all politicians are crooks. I guess I'm an anarchist.

  • ||

    sorry guys.seems like it is just us now!

  • ||

    oh, great - let's just promote addiction, which will greatly increase other crimes, and further burden healthcare.

    A completely hypocritical proposal for Stossel, the so called libertarian...just trying to create a 21st century slave class

  • mbtshoesbest||

    great posting. Thank you.

    http://www.mbtshoesbest.com

  • ||

    Well it's simply amazing that the Republicans seem to have adopted Reason magazine as their own.

  • The Trolls||

    Should not be fed.

  • Ekim||

    I wish they would make Lipitor et al OTC, so its not so expensive. People try to self medicate with garbage, because they can't afford the right medicine. There is no good reason for the US to get generic Lipitor a full year later than the rest of the planet.

  • sophie||

    Last quote heard from Toni’s dad after abruptly leaving for good upon hearing that his wife was pregnant with their one and only child.

  • Jan||

    Thanks4Sharing

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • tory burch||

    End the drug war,is good for everyone.

  • xiingguan||

    asdvgasvcasv

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement