medicineman
New Member
Uh OK, But nevertheless, you are still an asshole.
Revolution ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Here's my favorite example of Modern American Fascism: Hemp/Cannabis. U.S. drug policy is inherently pro-special interest (Law enforcement and significant elements of the legal system, criminal cartels, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and the liquor consortium), racist and fascist. BOTH parties not only heartily support it, but have strengthened it over the decades. Since 1937, Democrats have been just as complicit as Republicans. FDR signed the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger, America's first drug czar (and arch-villain bureaucrat), was re-appointed by Presidents Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Anslinger retired in 1964 during President Lyndon Baines Johnson's tenure. But, the baby boom generation was transformed when the Beatles changed everything and their music achieved an entirely new level after experimenting with cannabis. LBJ ignored the hippy roar of the counter-cultural movement and it's embrace of cannabis. President Jimmy Carter mentioned ending cannabis prohibition, but did nothing. President Bill Clinton chickened out and didn't inhale after all. I'm sure the Obamanation will not feature the end of cannabis prohibition. Neither will the third Clinton term, if Hillary manages to steal the nomination and somehow win the general election.
Republican drug policies have been worse, but the Democrats steadfastly refuse to reverse Republican drug war escalation when given the opportunity. Republicans and Democrats BOTH expoit the War on Drugs as a means to an end. Just as the National Socialist German Workers Party exploited anti-semitic animosity as an excuse to persecute Jewry - Germany first, but eventually world-wide, which suited their goal of acquiring power. Power they used to scapegoat, imprison, enslave, and eliminate millions: Jews, political dissidents, homosexuals, gypsies, and the disabled like the mentally ill and mentally infirm. All this was fine with the average German living under the Third Reich because life was good long as it did not consider you a threat. As long as the average German went along they were not a threat.
Both parties use fascist tools to further their goals of acquiring and remaining in power. I can't think of many prominent Democrat political officials (elected or otherwise) who openly denounce cannabis prohibition. Fascism plagues societies world-wide. Sadly, it's part of the human condition. Shouldn't ending the fascism of cannabis prohibition be a prominent Democratic goal towards a better, more open, and tolerant society?
ViRedd
New Member
Well thought out post, Johnny.
I've often said that totalitarian governments must create internal enemies in order to gain and maintain control over the people. In Nazi Germany, as you said, the internal enemy was the Jew, the homosexual, the Catholic and the infirmed. Here in the U.S. the internal enemy is the drug user/dealer/grower/producer. Now that the people are wising up and passing Medical MJ laws, have "terrorists" replaced the drug user as the internal enemy?
Vi
I've often said that totalitarian governments must create internal enemies in order to gain and maintain control over the people. In Nazi Germany, as you said, the internal enemy was the Jew, the homosexual, the Catholic and the infirmed. Here in the U.S. the internal enemy is the drug user/dealer/grower/producer. Now that the people are wising up and passing Medical MJ laws, have "terrorists" replaced the drug user as the internal enemy?
Vi
We TaRdED
Well-Known Member
Ya, good post johnny..
The funny thing about the war on 'terror'(as you guys know) is that as long as we are invading other countries their will be "terrorists" fighting back. I don't know about you guys, but if another country bombed the shyt out of my my homeland and then came in with soldiers, I would be looking to join some kind of militia(al qauada) to protect my land/family from the invaders. So as long as there are people in Iraq and outside soldiers, there will be people(Iraqis) resisting the change being imposed on them, and hence the "terrorists" in our eyes. The American people are so arrogant, some of them believe that because our soldiers are dying over there its innately because of the savage "terrorists" that plague the middle east/earth.
Look what happened to prohibition. The gov't would/will take anything they can away from the American people, and they use the propaganda box/TV to brainwash the sheeple. Why do we call these people our "representatives"? What right do they have telling us that we can't smoke pot when its not harming anyone, including ourselves. What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do you know that back roughly a hundred years ago that you could be jailed if you didn't grow hemp?
IDK, I'm just ranting I guess.
RON PAUL REVOLUTION
~PEACE~
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Obviously not. Look at my post and see for yourself. I responded to DankDude's post. Med was not mentioned at all.
I'm not permitted to comment on posts in threads Med has posted in when I have a counterpoint? Am I not allowed respond to his posts?
Last edited:
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Earlier this week I made a promise to someone here that I would confine my posts to the thread topic. I promised to return Med's fire only at the Go For It thread. That does not mean I cannot respond to Med elsewhere. It does not mean I stand mute when I can easily shoot holes through his logic. It does mean that I will present my case in a civil manner. If I have a comment germane to the post I am addressing, I will submit it whenever I choose. Go cry to the Mods if you have a problem with it, or me for that matter.
Last edited:
arabmobster
Well-Known Member
couldnt of said it beter myself, there would be no terrorist or resent , towards america if they just stop invading countries for no reason
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Well.. to play the devil's advocate, we (the U.S.) are invading for a reason. That reason is the very same reason why we don't go into other countries ruled by dictators or stricken with civil strife. The reason may not be such a good one, may not be very altruistic, may even be flat wrong. But, there is a reason.
medicineman
New Member
And what would be your reason('s)? Mine would be greed. Mainly by the arms and oil companies and the government contractors.