Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, Ron Paul is bad. [View all]girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)48. Actually he has said it's racist and wrong.
Ron Paul: Drug War In U.S. Has Racist Origins
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/ron-paul-drugs-drug-war_n_1170878.html
Paul, in a speech aired at the time on C-SPAN went on. Before the 20th Century there was none of that and it was the medical profession as well as many other trade groups that agitated for the laws. And you know theres a pretty good case made that this same concept was built in with racism as well. We do know that opium was used by the Chinese and the Chinese were not welcomed in this country, Paul said. We do know that the blacks at times use heroin, opium and the laws have been used against them. There have been times that it has been recognized that the Latin Americans use marijuana and the laws have been written against them. But lo and behold the drug that inebriates most of the members of Congress has not been touched because they're up there drinking alcohol. (In the same speech, Paul delves into drug trafficking and the CIA, which Ill cover in a follow-up article.)
For the book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America, I looked into the type of historical analysis Pauls comment, which comes at roughly the 16-minute mark, represents, given that it is a fairly common interpretation of the origins of the drug war among its critics.
It holds up. The reaction of the American government, and its people, to drug use was -- and still is -- a complex mix of factors, involving lobbying by the medical community, pharmaceutical companies, the alcohol industry, temperance advocates, and religious movements. Historically, the argument has played out -- and continues to play out -- amid a backdrop of racism and class antagonism. Racism and bigotry were generally not the drivers of prohibition movements, but instead were the weapons used by temperance advocates to achieve their ends. The movement to ban alcohol, for instance, gained its strongest adherents without resorting to bigotry, but when World War I broke out, the movement was quick to tie beer and booze to instantly despised German immigrants, pushing the effort over the Constitutional hump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/ron-paul-drugs-drug-war_n_1170878.html
Paul, in a speech aired at the time on C-SPAN went on. Before the 20th Century there was none of that and it was the medical profession as well as many other trade groups that agitated for the laws. And you know theres a pretty good case made that this same concept was built in with racism as well. We do know that opium was used by the Chinese and the Chinese were not welcomed in this country, Paul said. We do know that the blacks at times use heroin, opium and the laws have been used against them. There have been times that it has been recognized that the Latin Americans use marijuana and the laws have been written against them. But lo and behold the drug that inebriates most of the members of Congress has not been touched because they're up there drinking alcohol. (In the same speech, Paul delves into drug trafficking and the CIA, which Ill cover in a follow-up article.)
For the book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America, I looked into the type of historical analysis Pauls comment, which comes at roughly the 16-minute mark, represents, given that it is a fairly common interpretation of the origins of the drug war among its critics.
It holds up. The reaction of the American government, and its people, to drug use was -- and still is -- a complex mix of factors, involving lobbying by the medical community, pharmaceutical companies, the alcohol industry, temperance advocates, and religious movements. Historically, the argument has played out -- and continues to play out -- amid a backdrop of racism and class antagonism. Racism and bigotry were generally not the drivers of prohibition movements, but instead were the weapons used by temperance advocates to achieve their ends. The movement to ban alcohol, for instance, gained its strongest adherents without resorting to bigotry, but when World War I broke out, the movement was quick to tie beer and booze to instantly despised German immigrants, pushing the effort over the Constitutional hump.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
179 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Im ALL FOR legalizing marijuana but PLEASE keep heroin and cocaine less accessible.
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#97
Do you know how exactly Paul would effectively 'end' the war on drugs as POTUS?
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#29
I agree with you on some points and I am just asking for realistic, rational discussion.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#40
I agree. If you follow the current logic that Paul is pushing, that is exactly what would happen.
stevenleser
Jan 2012
#92
The ONLY reason states are passing laws is because a) The Feds do; and b) it's profitable for
ixion
Jan 2012
#151
And SOME states would decriminalize Pot Growing, regulate and tax the Hemp industy,
bvar22
Jan 2012
#179
The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy that Obama appointed is 'right', too.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#22
No, he's not. But that's the only thing he isn't wrong about and that's just not enough.
tavalon
Jan 2012
#154
Yep, I often wonder similar ... The damn drug war does not work, but this country remains
RKP5637
Jan 2012
#3
They are such an evil force in this country, religious right. I'm not a religious person, but
RKP5637
Jan 2012
#87
I agree that it should/could be reigned in. Current Director of the Office of National Drug Control
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#21
Obama has to support the war on drugs because if he doesn't then the republicans might accuse him of
limpyhobbler
Jan 2012
#8
He's also talking out of his ass cuz he couldn't do SHIT as POTUS to end the war on drugs.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#42
Well, since he's been against the Drug War going back eons, I wouldn't worry that he's 'out to get
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#68
Really, you think the racist, Ron Paul, is 'against' the WOD because it's racist?
Spazito
Jan 2012
#26
I don't have a problem with the way the post was created, I have a problem with...
Spazito
Jan 2012
#130
The only reason Ron Paul is being 'used' if you want to call it that, is because he is the only
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#136
The demographics are changing, if he was elected in 2016 he'd have been all for it.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#33
I'm sure he does, however, Obama has spent much of his political career campaigning.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#32
Look at the upside to Obama supporting drug legalization from the Oval Office.
JohnnyRingo
Jan 2012
#53
One does not have to believe him to push Democrats in this area. If the old crazy bigot
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#58
Ron Paul's supporters are the best argument against the legalization of marijuana
Galraedia
Jan 2012
#46
Do liberals, Democrats, moderates and independents put cannabis before country?
Galraedia
Jan 2012
#103
Because he thinks the only thing the government should ban is abortion. He doesn't
pnwmom
Jan 2012
#66
I'm with you. I don't recall President Obama trying to be like Ron Paul EVER.
stevenleser
Jan 2012
#118
Obama is not for permanent war. I have no idea why anyone would think he is. He just ended one AND
stevenleser
Jan 2012
#119
That was one of the things they were talking about, they were also talking about Iraq and Afghanista
stevenleser
Jan 2012
#123
exactly. you can't get elected as POTUS if you don't support failed drug policy
RainDog
Jan 2012
#129
Sure they would. They would build more corporately funded prisons where slave labor is done
stevenleser
Jan 2012
#137
We've left Iraq. A large embassy doesnt qualify as a war. Nice try though. Next? nt
stevenleser
Jan 2012
#122
What makes you think that Obama does not believe the drug war is racist and wrong?
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#142
Of course he has by his actions. He's busting medical, that says it all and there is no
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#144
I just recall his responses about it during the campaign and he seemed really, excruciatingly...
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#145
I really don't care about his personal thoughts but his policies and appointments
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#146
Anyone could've predicted a staunchly moderate post-partisan would've made those appointments.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#147
Doesn't Ron Paul think it's ok for Businesses to discriminate against people based on Race
JI7
Jan 2012
#149
from the last stats I saw, 800,000 were arrested in 2007 for simple POSSESSION
RainDog
Jan 2012
#178
Yeah I find it odd that someone who I'm pretty sure is racist, has admitted racism is the driving
Puregonzo1188
Jan 2012
#167
Ron Paul is a racist...I sincerely believe he finds the drug war racist against whites. n/t
vaberella
Jan 2012
#174
Well at least he and the President agree that marriage equality is all nasty and wrong
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2012
#177