The US Constitution is Incapable of Dealing with Racism in America.

[aociswundumho]

Post #71. You appear to have a problem with progressive ideas such as guaranteed equal rights for all people.

No, I stated that the CRA, signed into law by a documented racist, was a complete failure. If you believe that there is widespread systemic racism in the US, then how could you disagree?

There is nothing racist in pointing out progressive failures.

 

[bongsaway]

Yep, just like alcohol prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. Both are on the long list of progressive failures.

You look at it that way I look at it as a step forward for society as a whole. If it were up to republicans and so called libertarians we would still be living in caves. Wasn't prohibition a conservative push by the religious right?

 

[Rich2018]

California already opened that door by a toe width of legalizing drugs. We'll see how it works in the upcoming months and years. I support the idea.

California has legalized marijuana - that is a can of worms in itself

You can make a very persuasive case that marijuana is no more dangerous that alcohol or nicotine - but not so for harder drugs

Hard drugs destroy lives, they make people unemployable and in most cases will have to turn to crime to feed their habit. This creates more victims

Secondly, while I don't care if you wreck your own body, I do car about the lives of your dependents that society will have to take care of, because you no longer can.

 

[aociswundumho]

You look at it that way I look at it as a step forward for society as a whole.

Do you view the drug war as a step forward as well? They both derive from the same precepts.

Wasn't prohibition a conservative push by the religious right?

Catholics were against prohibition. It was pushed by progressives, many of whom were religious, but what they had in common was they believed the state should have total control over society - including intimate, personal, things like what adults should be allowed to put into their own bodies.

 

[aociswundumho]

You can make a very persuasive case that marijuana is no more dangerous that alcohol or nicotine - but not so for harder drugs

Alcohol is a "hard drug", and you could also make the case that alcohol is worse than all of them.

Experts: Alcohol More Harmful Than Crack or Heroin

Alcohol abuse is more harmful than crack or heroin abuse, according to a new study by a former British government drug advisor and other experts.

www.webmd.com

Yet I don't hear mommy-statists like yourself calling for alcohol prohibition.

 

[bongsaway]

Do you view the drug war as a step forward as well? They both derive from the same precepts.
The war on drugs was nixon's doing, it had nothing to do with a grassroots movement it was strictly political. Law and order and all that crap.


Catholics were against prohibition. It was pushed by progressives, many of whom were religious, but what they had in common was they believed the state should have total control over society - including intimate, personal, things like what adults should be allowed to put into their own bodies.

It seems the tide has turned now it's the R's who want to tell people what they can and can't do, like abortion and I would also credit the R's with carrying on the war on drugs.

 

[aociswundumho]

The war on drugs was nixon's doing,

Nope, it actually started with the scumbag democratic socialist FDR:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

it had nothing to do with a grassroots movement it was strictly political.

It's all "strictly political". Drug laws are predicated on two leftist ideas. The first is mommy-statism - the idea that the state is a metaphorical parent to the people it rules over. The second is authoritarianism, which is defined as "strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." I can't think of a more basic personal freedom than putting what you want into your own body.

It seems the tide has turned now it's the R's who want to tell people what they can and can't do, like abortion and I would also credit the R's with carrying on the war on drugs.

There are no leftists who support a free market in all drugs. The only place on the political spectrum where you find people who support ending this obscene war on people who choose to use politically incorrect drugs is on the far right, like myself.

 

[code1211]

It's all indicating a breakdown of the US system and the US Constitution has no way of dealing with the issue.

Of necessity to hold the union together, the US Constitution was devised and written to appease all of the individual states/ parties. It's quite likely that made it incapable of dealing with racism in a sure and final way.

Other countries lost their right to hold slaves and were able to deal with the issue more thoroughly. America didn't put the matter to bed and now it's stuck with the problem in the 21st. century, where demands of humanity are calling for the issue to be rectified. And America seems to be resisting coming to an answer.
Hence, the tyranny of the Trump regime that has rode the issue into the WH, to his advantage.

Can the US Constitution save the country? Is it equipped with the necessary means to stop an authoritarian who is intent of fascist rule? Or will some other mechanism need to deal with the problem?

Your post uses some words that seem to indicate rationality, but when they are strung together, the resulting thought is nonsense.

 

[bongsaway]

Nope, it actually started with the scumbag democratic socialist FDR:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

It's all "strictly political". Drug laws are predicated on two leftist ideas. The first is mommy-statism - the idea that the state is a metaphorical parent to the people it rules over. The second is authoritarianism, which is defined as "strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." I can't think of a more basic personal freedom than putting what you want into your own body.



There are no leftists who support a free market in all drugs. The only place on the political spectrum where you find people who support ending this obscene war on people who choose to use politically incorrect drugs is on the far right, like myself.

The first drug law passed in america was against the chinese in san francisco. They were banned from using their own opium dens but not americans. I notice you like so many others blame everything on the dems. Maybe after the supreme court led by conservatives overturns the election trump can carry out his second term agenda. Remind us if you would, what was trump's second term agenda?

 

[Mircea]

It kind of assumed how they would think.

It made no assumptions, save for the fact that people did now want a monarchy.

Yep, just like alcohol prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. Both are on the long list of progressive failures.

Prohibition was a success.

More than 95% of Americans did not consume alcohol and 95% is an "A" and an "A: is success.

 

[Bodi]

It's all indicating a breakdown of the US system and the US Constitution has no way of dealing with the issue.

Of necessity to hold the union together, the US Constitution was devised and written to appease all of the individual states/ parties. It's quite likely that made it incapable of dealing with racism in a sure and final way.

Other countries lost their right to hold slaves and were able to deal with the issue more thoroughly. America didn't put the matter to bed and now it's stuck with the problem in the 21st. century, where demands of humanity are calling for the issue to be rectified. And America seems to be resisting coming to an answer.
Hence, the tyranny of the Trump regime that has rode the issue into the WH, to his advantage.

Can the US Constitution save the country? Is it equipped with the necessary means to stop an authoritarian who is intent of fascist rule? Or will some other mechanism need to deal with the problem?

What an interesting contradiction... because the only way to stop racism is to have an Authoritarian State.

1984 anybody?

 

[Bodi]

Prohibition was a success.

More than 95% of Americans did not consume alcohol and 95% is an "A" and an "A: is success.

No... it was not a success.

" Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. "

Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure

www.cato.org

 

[Montgomery]

What an interesting contradiction... because the only way to stop racism is to have an Authoritarian State.

1984 anybody?

Authoritarianism is force and that option has been briefly brushed upon here on this thread. It is the current approach to curing the racism problem.
It's held up the murder of George Floyd in plain view on the street by a police officer who telegraphed the pleasure he was gaining out of the process.

It was a very clear warning to black men that they had no rights and would be murdered by America's police with impunity if they continued to resist the white population's authority.

That relates to 1984 in a more or less indirect way but is close enough to be applicable to America's racism problem.

The answer to the racism problem is still however being explored by a few that recognize it as a problem that is destroying their country.

 

[Montgomery]

Your post uses some words that seem to indicate rationality, but when they are strung together, the resulting thought is nonsense.

Pay no more attention to anything I have to say.

 

[Montgomery]

De-criminalizing drugs is hardly an extreme idea.

Legalizing all drugs would be a bold step to take though, and I don't think Congress could walk it back if it proved to have adverse consequences.

De-criminalizing some drugs is not an extremist idea in Canada or the world's other democratic countries that maintain a high quality of life.

De-criminalizing all drugs, as you suggest, is a solution that could never be applied in America because it's extremist. Americans would be either extremely in favour of it, or most would be extremely opposed to it.
You offered nothing as a solution. You probably don't even believe you need one!

 

[Tigerace117]

You know what would do more to help rid us of institutional racism then just about anything else right now? Just end the War on Drugs and legalize everything. Forgive all felonies for drug related convictions, let non-violent offenders out of jail and help them learn skills and get jobs. Secondly, reform the police nationally so that they are held accountable not to their peers but to independent review boards. If we did those two things, we would make being a minority much less of an anchor. Then we can move on to the next hurdles.

So you’d let drug cartel sicarios and leaders and gang members who committed murders out of jail? Why? There’s no reason to “forgive all felonies“; that is far too broad a brush.

 

[Montgomery]

I am an atheist (secular Humanist), unlike most Americans.

That still does not exempt you from a basic code of morality such as the ethic of reciprocity in an interdependent society.

Do you think there are very many atheists like us two who are racists? I think there are fewer racists among atheists. The Christian's bibles promote racism and other medieval acts of murder and cruelty to other people based on their skin colour. The entire Zionist apartheid state upholds systemic racism!

 

[Lisa]

Do you think there are very many atheists like us two who are racists? I think there are fewer racists among atheists. The Christian's bibles promote racism and other medieval acts of murder and cruelty to other people based on their skin colour. The entire Zionist apartheid state upholds systemic racism!

I am not a racist. I treat everyone the way that I want to be treated, regardless of their religion, race, skin color, gender sex, or otherwise. It is conservative religion of all faiths that allows people to defend their racism and bigotry behind the claim that god commends them to act in that manner, so it's not their fault, it's not wrong and you cannot force them to change without trampling on their claimed religious rights.

I am not a fan of the current state of Israel. All people deserve the absolute equal right to live in peace and harmony in that area and everywhere else, be it Jew, Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Christian, or any other religion or lack thereof. I see the current Zionist Israel as little different than apartheid South Africa under P.W.Botha.

 

[Rich2018]

Alcohol is a "hard drug", and you could also make the case that alcohol is worse than all of them.

Alcohol is not a "hard" drug - not like cocaine, meta and heroin

Granted it can be taken in excess and is potentially damaging (as is nicotine Btw)

Yet I don't hear mommy-statists like yourself calling for alcohol prohibition.

That was tried once - and resulted it catastrophic failure

Which reinforces my point
I'm all for de-criminalizing drugs, but am cautious about legalizing all drugs

Because once you've legalized it, then like prohibition and alcohol, you can't easily outlaw it again.

 

[Rich2018]

It made no assumptions, save for the fact that people did not want a monarchy.

Absolutely the framers of the Constitution made sweeping assumptions

A topical one would be the assumption that the president would only grant pardons to those who deserved them
Not to grant favors for those who helped him (legally or otherwise) or the pardon those whose actions/testimony might be used against him

It assumed no state would ever want to leave the union

It assumed people would understand what the intention of things like the 2nd Amendment was

It assumed the blacks, Indians and women were not fit to vote

It assumed that if the Senate voted in an impeachment trial, senators would vote with integrity, and not on party political lines



And how do you know the people didn't want a monarchy - was that option ever offered to them ?

 

[Bodi]

Authoritarianism is force and that option has been briefly brushed upon here on this thread. It is the current approach to curing the racism problem.
It's held up the murder of George Floyd in plain view on the street by a police officer who telegraphed the pleasure he was gaining out of the process.

It was a very clear warning to black men that they had no rights and would be murdered by America's police with impunity if they continued to resist the white population's authority.

That relates to 1984 in a more or less indirect way but is close enough to be applicable to America's racism problem.

The answer to the racism problem is still however being explored by a few that recognize it as a problem that is destroying their country.

There is no way to "solve racism" in a free society any more than there is a way to solve jealousy, anger, contempt, sexism, against religion X. etc.

 

[Rich2018]

De-criminalizing some drugs is not an extremist idea in Canada or the world's other democratic countries that maintain a high quality of life.

De-criminalizing all drugs, as you suggest, is a solution that could never be applied in America because it's extremist. Americans would be either extremely in favour of it, or most would be extremely opposed to it.

Why is de-criminalizing drugs extremist in the USA, but not elsewhere in the developed word ?
Where is your evidence of that ?
Why would no American citizen take a pragmatic view ?

You offered nothing as a solution. You probably don't even believe you need one

Why isn't the de-criminalization of drugs not a solution ?
What are the drawbacks in your mind - and what evidence do you base those on ?

 

[aociswundumho]

Alcohol is not a "hard" drug - not like cocaine, meta and heroin

Yes, it is. If it were discovered today, people like you would be screaming for prohibition.

People being drunk, falling flat on their faces, vomiting, pissing themselves, starting fights, etc. and on top of that alcohol damages every organ in the body, whereas opioids are extremely safe when used responsibly.

That was tried once - and resulted it catastrophic failure

Yes, it was a progressive failure.

Which reinforces my point I'm all for de-criminalizing drugs, but am cautious about legalizing all drugs

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Decriminalization describes alcohol prohibition of the 20s, which you called a "catastrophic failure".

 

[Bodi]

And how do you know the people didn't want a monarchy - was that option ever offered to them ?

Some people did want the monarchy and the idea was floated to them...

...there was the the Newburgh letter/conspiracy in which George Washington was to be the King.

... and Alexander Hamilton wanted to have an Elective Monarchy... were there would a ruler for life, unless impeached.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, it is. If it were discovered today, people like you would be screaming for prohibition.

No it's not
And why would I scream for a policy that utterly failed like Prohibition ? - the most stupid piece of legislation in the history of the developed world
Seriously no other country (in the developed world) would even consider it. Only rabid American right-wingers

People being drunk, falling flat on their faces, vomiting, pissing themselves, starting fights, etc. and on top of that alcohol damages every organ in the body, whereas opioids are extremely safe when used responsibly.

So is alcohol, when used responsibly
Do you need a list of effects from an overdose of drugs ? (shared needles, the spread of AIDS)
(most DUI convictions now do NOT involve alcohol Btw)

Yes, it was a progressive failure.

A complete and utter disaster that saw the growth of organized crime
The most STUPID piece of legislation, EVER

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Decriminalization describes alcohol prohibition of the 20s, which you called a "catastrophic failure".

No, alcohol was legal. Prohibition made it illegal. The end of prohibition made it legal (mostly) again

There was never a move to de-criminalize alcohol in the prohibition years.

You could not be more wrong..and you talk of not knowing what you're talking about

It's clear you don't understand what de-criminalization is and are unable to distinguish it from legalization

It is YOU who haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.