Rational inquiry requires raising uncomfortable questions about double standards. This is largely a criticism of arguments I see presented from the American political right atbthe time of this post. Just please hear me out and ponder a bit before furiously denouncing me as a communist or an apologist for domestic terrorism. It is also just an assortment of off-the-cuff responses to a lot of social media nonsense. My apologies if it seems disjointed. Feel free to comment below if anything needs to be clarified.
There is currently a lot of condemnation for protesters from right-wing critics. Some go so far as to accuse all protesters of being complicit in any crimes committed in the name of the cause of Black Lives Matter or AntiFa. But if all protesters are complicit in acts of arson and vandalism committed by a few, why are those protesters wrong when they consider all cops complicit in murder and misconduct of "a few bad apples"? Shouldn't the police be held to an even higher standard than the people protesting their response to their actions?
If the protesters are indeed completely off-base, why does the general population seem so poorly equipped intellectually to exercise their first amendment rights despite presumably all receiving a 12-year education including civics, history, and critical thinking? Does this not erode your faith in the State's competence to provide any essential services?
If appeals to legality are part of your argument, why? Remember, the Underground Railroad was technically a criminal conspiracy to illegally deprive slaveholders of their lawful property in violation of state and federal law. "That's illegal" is an empty statement in and of itself. If there is no victim, there is no crime, and the State cannot be a victim.
How well do you really feel politicians are representing you? Probably not very. Now picture yourself a member of a minority group that has objectively been targeted by legislation and corrupt law enforcement for decades. Gun owners: remember, it's the police who enforce stupid gun control laws. Fear and hate for minorities has been used to justify those laws and many more. Who writes those laws, who enforces those laws?
I'm no fan of the Marxist ideology behind the leaders of BLM, and I can't support the widespread vandalism and arson that has accompanied many protests, but neither can I stomach the reflexive "back the blue" responses from the right as they condemn all protesters. Isn't conservatism still about restraint, responsibility, liberty, and small government? Police accountability is a real problem we need to address. After all, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, right?
ducks for cover
THE BROAD BRUSH IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.
Perhaps, but the police are all paid with stolen money to enforce bad laws even when they do not commit misconduct, and the police do protect wrongdoers among their ranks. Protesters are by and large not involved in vandalism and destruction, and likely do not condone it.
Thanks to JOE BIDEN,
In 1 minute and 15 seconds,
It's been a lot longer than that. All taxation is theft. Civil asset forfeiture is just more blatantly so.
Well, taxation is technically EXTORTION ("protection" money).
Civil Asset Forfeiture ONLY takes place in a POLICE STATE.
SEXY, SEXY FASCISM (in 18 minutes)
LAW IS CODIFIED MOB RULE.
How well do you really feel politicians are representing you? Probably not very.
WE MUST DEMAND RCV.
THE WAR ON DRUGS WAS STARTED BY NIXON IN ORDER TO IMPRISON VIETNAM WAR PROTESTERS.
THE WAR ON DRUGS WAS STARTED BY NIXON IN ORDER TO IMPRISON CIVIL RIGHTS PROTESTERS.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL PRIVACY.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL PROPERTY.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS.
It ramped up then, yes, but it didn't start then.
To understand how we ended up here, it is important to go back to what was happening in the United States in the early 1900’s just after the Mexican Revolution. At this time we saw an influx of immigration from Mexico into states like Texas and Louisiana. Not surprising, these new Americans brought with them their native language, culture and customs. One of these customs was the use of cannabis as a medicine and relaxant.
Mexican immigrants referred to this plant as “marihuana”. While Americans were very familiar with “cannabis” because it was present in almost all tinctures and medicines available at the time, the word “marihuana” was a foreign term. So, when the media began to play on the fears that the public had about these new citizens by falsely spreading claims about the “disruptive Mexicans” with their dangerous native behaviors including marihuana use, the rest of the nation did not know that this “marihuana” was a plant they already had in their medicine cabinets.
The demonization of the cannabis plant was an extension of the demonization of the Mexican immigrants. In an effort to control and keep tabs on these new citizens, El Paso, TX borrowed a play from San Francisco’s playbook, which had outlawed opium decades earlier in an effort to control Chinese immigrants. The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants.
That excuse became marijuana.
This method of controlling people by controlling their customs was quite successful, so much so that it became a national strategy for keeping certain populations under the watch and control of the government.
During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales. LINK
Nixon took a billy club and turned it into a sledgehammer.
While the Act was ruled unconstitutional years later, it was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970’s which established Schedules for ranking substances according to their dangerousness and potential for addiction. Cannabis was placed in the most restrictive category, Schedule I, supposedly as a place holder while then President Nixon commissioned a report to give a final recommendation.
The Schafer Commission, as it was called, declared that marijuana should not be in Schedule I and even doubted its designation as an illicit substance. However, Nixon discounted the recommendations of the commission, and marijuana remains a Schedule I substance. LINK