Camden And Clinton: Two Flavors Of Drug War Stupidity
If you dig post-industrial dystopian decay, the United States offers ample opportunity for you to live your dream, and the opportunities keep growing. They're easy to find via a simple two-step process: 1) look for an American city that had a strong and prosperous manufacturing base 50 years ago; and 2) not anymore, it doesn't.
The manufacturing decline provides the post-industrial decay, while the dystopia stems largely from our draconian drug laws. Over at the Guardian I discuss the sad state of Camden, New Jersey -- and the intellectual bankruptcy of Hillary Clinton -- in light of recent developments in America's eternal War On Drugs.
You'll notice a bit of a typo in the headline; some luckless intern must've been off his game this morning. Of course, my spellcheck program for this blog keeps insisting I've misspelled "dystopia" and "dystopian," so this could simply be the latest example of computers rebelling against their human masters, which (according to my fave sci-fi authors) is something that happens a lot in nightmarish dystopian hellscapes like the one Camden is transforming into.
The manufacturing decline provides the post-industrial decay, while the dystopia stems largely from our draconian drug laws. Over at the Guardian I discuss the sad state of Camden, New Jersey -- and the intellectual bankruptcy of Hillary Clinton -- in light of recent developments in America's eternal War On Drugs.
You'll notice a bit of a typo in the headline; some luckless intern must've been off his game this morning. Of course, my spellcheck program for this blog keeps insisting I've misspelled "dystopia" and "dystopian," so this could simply be the latest example of computers rebelling against their human masters, which (according to my fave sci-fi authors) is something that happens a lot in nightmarish dystopian hellscapes like the one Camden is transforming into.
posted by Jennifer Abel at 10:43 AM
12 Comments:
I love how the first poster completely misses the point. Guess public schools in the UK are just as bad as in the US.
It's the illicitness that is responsible for the homicides, not the drugs! If the drugs were legal and alcohol was illicit, illicit alcohol sales would result in homicides.
Yeah, that first comment was amazing, and it doesn't seem to be ironic, either.
For whatever it's worth, Chicago cops haven't been responding to non-serious accidents for maybe 20 years. You have to drive to the nearest police station to file a report. Not so easy in the pre-GPS days.
I always used to be soundly in the corner of getting tougher on illegal drugs. I am now leaning strongly toward legalization and regulation, and I have to say, Jennifer, your article is very convincing.
Manufacturing is actually up a lot since 1950.
It just, like agriculture, needs a lot fewer people.
Curiously, this raises the standard of living.
For the cause of decay, look at government. Only they can make real property unprofitable.
Drugs are a scourge on society. I would favor de-criminalizing pot and the death penalty for trafficking in hard drugs. I would also be in favor of a law that would allow any parent of a child under 18 to shoot or otherwise prevent anyone from sellingdrugs to their child. Essentially provide them with the same protections given to the "self-defense" arguement. They are in fact defending their underage child who is incapable of defending themselves. That is someone sells your child crack and the next day you get your kid to tell you who did it and you go shoot thenm dead in their home, on the street, or where ever.
Drugs have one purpose and that is to remove any resistance to sex. When your daughters boyfriend gives your daughter cocaine he isn't doing it to expand her mind he is planning on expanding her vagina. You would condone strangers giving your kid ruffies so why condone anyone, friend or stranger giving your kid hard drugs? The intent is the same; to have sex with someone who would not have sex without the drug effect.
Drugs have one purpose and that is to remove any resistance to sex. When your daughters boyfriend gives your daughter cocaine he isn't doing it to expand her mind he is planning on expanding her vagina.
Thank you, Mr. Ansliger! That's the same argument originally used to outlaw marijuana: "Negro jazz musicians" used it to entice white women to sleep with them. You know how we white women are ... the second the tiniest bit of an intoxicating substance enters our bloodstream, we all get the Jungle Fever and say "To hell with going to college; I wanna be a babymama with a lovely mocha child."
Though to be honest, I suspect you're actually a troll; even most genuine drug warriors aren't stupid enough to say people should be executed on no more evidence than a child's say-so. "the next day you get your kid to tell you who did it and you go shoot thenm dead in their home, on the street, or where ever."
So are you trying to tell me that sex is not a common or even occasional result of using drugs?? Most children born outside of marriage are the result of drug use.
I do indeed think a parent should be legally able to use the "self defense" arguement if they use violence in the defnese of their under age child. Regarding the wisdom of taking your childs word or however you determine who it was that put your child at risk it is critical to your defense that you don't make a mistake.
I have no useful comment on your racist rant. I don't know what your needs and wants are and I don't want to know.
Most children born outside of marriage are the result of drug use.
Citation, please?
I have no useful comment on your racist rant.
It's not "my" racist rant; it's the racist rant originally used to justify the drug laws you support.
I don't know what your needs and wants are and I don't want to know.
No offense, but it sounds like "I don't know and I don't want to know" is you response to most facts which contradict your worldview.
I think you are trying to claim that someone, we don't know who, made a claim that "could have been interpreted as racist" as an arguement against drugs, so therefore everyone opposed to drugs is racist. That makes "it" your racist rant. A way to divert from the issue at hand. A red herring dragged across the narrative of the arguement so that you are not forced to address the issue.
You were the one to inject personal sexual preferences into this not I. Now you feel the need to use an ad hominem attack to further deflect the issue. My position on "hard" drugs was crystal clear. Hardly a case of me sticking my head in the sand or being afraid to deal with a contrary point of view.
I think you are trying to claim that someone, we don't know who, made a claim that "could have been interpreted as racist"
We know EXACTLY who it was -- Ansliger, the first man to hold the position later generations of American would call "Drug czar." And, yes, I'd say claims like "Negroes use marijuana to seduce white women" can be "interpreted" as racist, in much the same way "Hitler was right; let's kill all the Jews" can be "interpreted" as anti-Semitic.
You were the one to inject personal sexual preferences into this not I.
Hee hee! Yours was the first mention of sex on this thread, dear. Remember what Freud said about projection.
I also notice you never did provide any citation for your ludicrous claim that "Most children born outside of marriage are the result of drug use." These alleged facts you rely on to justify your belief -- where do these facts actually come from? Who collected the data? Where can it be found?
It is a waste of time to argue with trolls.
As for Hillary, I am afraid she is right. A brave person might stand up and speak for legalization of drugs, but given the current political climate (in which money is king) I don't think it is going to happen.
Legalizing drugs would knock a whole lot of people on both sides of the war out of their lucrative positions.
This argument isn't new. 40 years ago when I was a kid, we knew it was a stupid policy. Nothing has changed, except for the worse.
You can't argue with stupidity, it only encourages them. I am not sure how you deal with it, except give them an opposing slogan to chant. It has to be equally stupid however.
Anonymous might well be a troll, but I've known actual drug warriors who think that way. I remember a story I wrote about a medical marijuana legalization bill a couple years ago; I spoke with a paraplegic who smoked pot to control his leg spasms, then spoke with a drug warrior who was frothingly against the medical marijuana bill, and asked her point-blank how long she thought the paraplegic should spend in prison. She got huffy and refused to answer; called it a "ridiculous question" (actual quote).
Post a Comment
<< Home