[INTroJect]

A conspiracy theory came to me the other day.

Regan came up with this war on drugs as a way to jail/marginalize democrat voters. It was all a ploy to shift the voting base. All the while he got to play the part of the hero, keeping america safe from those evil pot smokers. We now have the highest per cap prison population on the planet. If he was depending on the left for a vote it would have been a more treatment-centered approach.

Discuss.

[INTJRyan]

Well, Nixon actually "declared war" on drugs, and the marginalization of cannabis smokers goes way back before Reagan. So no.

Associating ganj with Black jazz musicians raping white women and dirty mexicans (why do you think it's called "marijuana" not cannabis?) have long been a tactic used to demonize herb and arrest and jail undesirables in the US. It's not actually a conspiracy. It's real life documented fact.

[INTroJect]

I dont know. I hear it more as Regan's war on drugs than anything Nixon had. Have a reference on that? Im not too familiar with anything Nixon did other than resigning and that Greenspan didnt like him.

[stasis]

It was Nixon who created the DEA. Executive Order 11727.

[INTroJect]

Aha. Reference noted. I hope you dont have all of the executive orders memorized.

So if Nixon started this why are the common people calling it Regan's war on drugs?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So if Nixon started this why are the common people calling it Regan's war on drugs?

Possibly because Nixon was in and out of there faster than a two dollar Thai prostitute his second time around. His drug initiative was interrupted by that abrupt resignation. I generally agree with INTJRyan; the outright criminalizing of so-called immorality has been a broader trend of the right wing in US politics in the last century. They openly campaign upon it.

[blueback]

This reminds me of that other thread a while back about Texas expanding the "drunk in public" laws to include people who take one drink inside of a bar. They only actually used it to raid and harrass gay bars.

There's no particular reason a person can't take advantage of a good idea their predecessor had yesterday to implement a bad idea they have today. I could see some plausibility to the idea that the "war on drugs" is a convinient way to always have something to prosecute undesirables for. It's obvious to anyone who looks that it's having the opposite effect from its stated purpose, so it must be kept around for some other reason.

[Desterion]

Sounds like there is a reason it's classified as a conspiracy theory.

[Amphorian]

So democrats or those that support them are the only ones that do drugs? You must haven't been to the South (predominantly Republican voters) then, where drinking and drugs are all the rage. Maybe you should also learn about Alaska and its problems with meth labs too (also been mainly Republican leaning for some time now).

Seriously, people of all ethnic groups, income levels, politic ideologies etc. do drugs of some sort.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously, people of all ethnic groups, income levels, politic ideologies etc. do drugs of some sort.

Some drugs are criminalized more than others. You can make the argument that there are good reasons for that, but drug use doesn't effect all ethnic groups or income levels evenly.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So democrats or those that support them are the only ones that do drugs?

No. Not only. Thats a bit definitive. We are talking statistically.

	Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You must haven't been to the South (predominantly Republican voters) then, where drinking and drugs are all the rage. Maybe you should also learn about Alaska and its problems with meth labs too (also been mainly Republican leaning for some time now). Seriously, people of all ethnic groups, income levels, politic ideologies etc. do drugs of some sort.

You should be aware that drinking was technically excluded from the war on drugs, and this only adds evidence because (generally) alcohol is soo republican. Here is a visual aid to assist you.

The INTroJect official drug preference chart

Pot - Democrat
LSD - Democrat
Heroin - Democrat?
Coke - tossup?
Meth - undecided, but based on your testimony, Republican?
Mushrooms - Oah please, soooo Democrat
Peyote - Democrat
Popping preseription pills - Republican
Alcohol - Republican
Ecstasy - Democrat



And this post has me thinking. Perhaps someone can look this up because im too lazy - My new addition to this theory is that prohibition was a policy of the democrats of that time. Republicans aren't smart enough to come up with this plan on their own, they took it from the democrats and are now using it against them. So thats why alcohol is "ok" but, of course, all the other drugs are not.

discuss.

---------- Post added 08-27-2010 at 01:36 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some drugs are criminalized more than others. You can make the argument that there are good reasons for that, but drug use doesn't effect all ethnic groups or income levels evenly.

Ah, yes. Good point. Ill have to think about this some more.

[Amphorian]

I want to see this "statistics" from a reputable source.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I want to see this "statistics" from a reputable source.

You are in denial. Here, what more proof do you need?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Booko]

Sorry if it seems picky but:

A. It's "Reagan" not "Regan."

B. It's "Democrats" or "Democratic voters" not "democrat voters."

That said, to the meat of your OP, this might be useful:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The criminalization of cannabis began during the 30s and there is much historical speculation and indeed some significant evidence that the intention was largely to harass poor people, mostly of black or Latino heritage, because those were the main users at the time. Cannabis grew in the U.S. like a <urm> weed, and so unlike alcohol, it was free.

The history of cocaine is a bit different, but even so the pattern remains that the cheaper form (crack) used by PoC still carries harsher penalties.

And then there's the more general pattern -- nothing in this country is *really* a problem until it hits the white middle class. That's true whether it's mind-altering drugs or diseases or other problems.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sorry if it seems picky but: A. It's "Reagan" not "Regan." B. It's "Democrats" or "Democratic voters" not "democrat voters."

Yes. For some reason my grammer and spelling went down the drain in the process of learning 3 other languages. When I typed it I was thinking, for example, if this guy was a democrat, what would he be? A pot smoking democrat.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


However, since it IS referring to the plural body of "pot smoking democrats", you are right. I get your point.

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That said, to the meat of your OP, this might be useful: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The criminalization of cannabis began during the 30s and there is much historical speculation and indeed some significant evidence that the intention was largely to harass poor people, mostly of black or Latino heritage, because those were the main users at the time. Cannabis grew in the U.S. like a <urm> weed, and so unlike alcohol, it was free. The history of cocaine is a bit different, but even so the pattern remains that the cheaper form (crack) used by PoC still carries harsher penalties. And then there's the more general pattern -- nothing in this country is *really* a problem until it hits the white middle class. That's true whether it's mind-altering drugs or diseases or other problems.

Yes, it is useful. But actually, it looks like criminalization began before the 1930's when California enacted the first prohibition law in 1913 and then some other states followed. The first draft of the Uniform State Narcotic Act was in 1925. However, I have the notion that the investigation of this theory is not a matter of when something began, its a matter of its scale. It really doesnt look like it wasnt taken too seriously until 1970...

In its 1969 Leary v. United States decision, the Supreme Court held the Marihuana Tax Act to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.[17] In response, Congress repealed the Marihuana Tax Act and passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which repealed the Marihuana Tax Act.[18]

Just in time to get these liberals (democrats) under control:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



I think that Reagan even beefed it up even more. I remember all the "war on drugs" talk on TV during that era.

[Silent type]

Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense when you consider abortion laws:

Liberals (Democrats) are pro-abortion. Conservatives (Republicans) are anti-abortion. Liberals are more likely to have abortions, which keeps their numbers down when you consider that parents have significant influences on the political leanings of their offspring. A lot of potential future liberals are aborted every year.

If conservatives really wanted to keep the number of liberals down, then conservatives would support abortion laws, especially since conservatives wouldn't be getting the abortions themselves anyway.

Why go through the effort of creating and enforcing laws to arrest liberals when you can nip them in the bud before they're even born?

[Alderamin]

I thought this would be about all the FEMA camps he was getting ready to detain people in the event of protests against an invasion of Nicaragua.

[lurk]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some drugs are criminalized more than others. You can make the argument that there are good reasons for that, but drug use doesn't effect all ethnic groups or income levels evenly.

I can read a couple of possible meanings in to this:

1. We should decide which drugs to criminalize based upon who's taking them (ergo it's racist to outlaw drugs used primarily by minorities), or
2. The fact that the majority of people convicted of drug crimes are minorities is an artifact of the fact that they are the predominate users of illegal drugs.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The criminalization of cannabis began during the 30s and there is much historical speculation and indeed some significant evidence that the intention was largely to harass poor people, mostly of black or Latino heritage, because those were the main users at the time. Cannabis grew in the U.S. like a <urm> weed, and so unlike alcohol, it was free.

Is it ever possible to criminalize anything without the question of racism rearing its ugly head?

[Amphorian]

Originally Posted by Silent type To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense when you consider abortion laws: Liberals (Democrats) are pro-abortion. Conservatives (Republicans) are anti-abortion. Liberals are more likely to have abortions, which keeps their numbers down when you consider that parents have significant influences on the political leanings of their offspring. A lot of potential future liberals are aborted every year. If conservatives really wanted to keep the number of liberals down, then conservatives would support abortion laws, especially since conservatives wouldn't be getting the abortions themselves anyway. Why go through the effort of creating and enforcing laws to arrest liberals when you can nip them in the bud before they're even born?

You might be interested in abortion stats then.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Liberals aren't necessarily more likely to have an abortion then their conservative counterparts.

@INTroJect: It goes the same with drug usage. Liberals aren't necessarily more likely to use drugs then their conservative counterparts. I'm not saying the stats are completely equal, just pointing out the fact conservatives do have a fair amount of drug use and abuse among their ranks.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Also larkin is correct with this statement

	Some drugs are criminalized more than others. You can make the argument that there are good reasons for that, but drug use doesn't effect all ethnic groups or income levels evenly.

meaning one has to take in account the peer pressure and acceptance of certain type of drug usage among different groups as well. However, drug usage and drug abuse in general is common place among a wide vareity of individuals. The drug war is against certain people using certain kinds of drugs.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


It's also quite obvious that the conservatives weren't really targeting actual drug use, but certain drug use associated with certain groups in order to jail people they deemed inferior and this bring America back to what they believe to be a healthy state. This was the similar idea behind alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. That I will agree with; however, I don't agree with the fact it would effect the voting block of the two major parties. The groups that were targeted didn't usually vote to begin with. Nor do I agree that drug use and abuse is only a "liberal" or "Democratic voter" thing.

This wasn't a conspiracy theory, but blatant discrimination against certain individuals.

[INTroJect]

Originally Posted by Silent type To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense when you consider abortion laws: Liberals (Democrats) are pro-abortion. Conservatives (Republicans) are anti-abortion. Liberals are more likely to have abortions, which keeps their numbers down when you consider that parents have significant influences on the political leanings of their offspring. A lot of potential future liberals are aborted every year. If conservatives really wanted to keep the number of liberals down, then conservatives would support abortion laws, especially since conservatives wouldn't be getting the abortions themselves anyway. Why go through the effort of creating and enforcing laws to arrest liberals when you can nip them in the bud before they're even born?

Interesting point, going to have to think about this some more. My initial impression is that the abortion issue is not connected. Even if liberals are more likely to have abortions (?), I would suspect that the birth rates would still be on par. Also unsure about conservatives producing conservatives and liberals producing liberals, I cant think of many examples to the contrary but maybe big-picture-statiscally that is going to be the case.

[Amphorian]

Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Interesting point, going to have to think about this some more. My initial impression is that the abortion issue is not connected. Even if liberals are more likely to have abortions (?), I would suspect that the birth rates would still be on par. Also unsure about conservatives producing conservatives and liberals producing liberals, I cant think of many examples to the contrary but maybe big-picture-statiscally that is going to be the case.

In general stats do show children later on in life holding the same view of their parents and voting in similar patterns as their parents. Certain factors like an increase in education or income can change that fact though (there is other factors obviously, but trends can be seen a bit in general information given).


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'll try to get another good link while rummaging through my Government notes.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it ever possible to criminalize anything without the question of racism rearing its ugly head?

Well, Blago, we can further criminalize the selling of senate seats and that might pass without such consideration?

---------- Post added 08-28-2010 at 05:35 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

@INTroJect: It goes the same with drug usage. Liberals aren't necessarily more likely to use drugs then their conservative counterparts. I'm not saying the stats are completely equal, just pointing out the fact conservatives do have a fair amount of drug use and abuse among their ranks. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Also larkin is correct with this statement

You are making very definitive assertions and then provide links with statistics, but these are all just general drug stats. It will be interesting to go through but I have not been able to find where it is backing up your statements? Are these just general FYI stats?

Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's also quite obvious that the conservatives weren't really targeting actual drug use, but certain drug use associated with certain groups in order to jail people they deemed inferior and this bring America back to what they believe to be a healthy state. This was the similar idea behind alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. That I will agree with; however, **1**I don't agree with the fact it would effect the voting block of the two major parties. **2**The groups that were targeted didn't usually vote to begin with. Nor do I agree that drug use and abuse is only a "liberal" or "Democratic voter" thing. This wasn't a conspiracy theory, but blatant discrimination against certain individuals.

For point 1. I think that considering that we have the highest incarceration rate on the planet, the possibility is there that it could effect the voting block, you dont need to skim that many voters away to change the result of an election. My leaning is that there is a likely probability there but it still needs to be confirmed or denied.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS): "In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year-end — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults." 2,304,115 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails in 2008.[3][7] In addition, according to a December 2009 BJS report, there were 92,854 held in juvenile facilities as of the 2006 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

(source:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

I also remember something in the news that the state of Texas has the highest incarceration rate...and we could probably all agree that its satunchly republican. Maybe there could also be a correlation amongst the states?

For point 2. You might be right about that.

---------- Post added 08-28-2010 at 05:42 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In general stats do show children later on in life holding the same view of their parents and voting in similar patterns as their parents. Certain factors like an increase in education or income can change that fact though (there is other factors obviously, but trends can be seen a bit in general information given). To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'll try to get another good link while rummaging through my Government notes.

wow. I like this census report. This will take some time to marinate through this.

[Amphorian]

My problem is with the liberal verse conservative thing that is getting mixed with Republican and Democrat. I haven't brought up any further related stats on those two figures because of this.

Not all Democrats are liberals and not all Republicans are conservatives. Also there is a differences among the definitions of liberal and conservative. Are we talking about progressive liberals? Socialists? Or Libertarians (liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues)? Are we talking about economic conservatives? Libertarians? Religious conservatives?

People keep on claiming they are this or that, but many fall into the moderate catagory, or moderately conservative or moderately liberal. I pointed out overall drug stats for this reason. Drug use effects a high percentile of all Americans. Over the years certain drug use has decreased; however, drug use in general is still a wide spread issue.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	53% of the teen population has tried illegal drugs. 41% of teens used illegal drugs in the past year. 25% used illegal drugs in the past 30 days. 48% of the teen population has tried marijuana. 36 % used marijuana in the past year. 21% used marijuana in the past 30 days. 78% have used alcohol. 57% have smoked cigarettes. 12% have used inhalants.

^Drug use among teenagers


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The United Nations International Narcotics Control Board reportedly announced that overall teen drug abuse in the U.S. has decreased by 24 percent since 2001. Unfortunately, the U.N. also reported that more people are abusing prescription drugs than before. Highlights of the news include: - “After cannabis, prescription drugs are the most commonly abused substances.” - “Among young adults, aged 18-25 years, abuse fell in all drug categories except pain relievers.” Despite the good news of an overall decline, drug addiction is still a major problem in the United States. Even with the decline, there are still an estimated 19.9 million people aged 12 and up who suffer from drug addiction. An INCB representative also stated: “. . . the problem of substance abuse among United States teenagers continues to be widespread, as nearly half of United States students aged 17-18 (47 percent) have tried an illicit drug by the time they have finished secondary school.” That means just before going off to college, half of all students have used drugs. Drug trade doesn’t just affect our nation’s children – it impacts our society as a whole. In 2002, the cost of health care and lost productivity due to illegal drug usage was estimated at $181 Billion. Just today, the U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory warning recommending American travelers to stay away from drug related. Reportedly, about 6,000 people were killed in Mexico from drug violence. Even though it is great news that drug abuse is starting to decline, it’s only because of the efforts made by parents, friends, communities and law enforcement that progress is being made. Our country cannot afford to stop taking addiction seriously.

^That is just "illegal" drug use and over dosing among teenagers. This doesn't show the abuse of alcohol and tobacco stats.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


^This chart shows the death related to these common place drugs that are legal and illegal. You may notice that deaths related to legal drugs are higher then that of illegal drugs. I'm not saying illegal drugs should be made legal or are less worse then alcohol and tobacco, but alcohol and tobacco do have enough usage abuse related to them to be considered a huge problem among a wide set of demograhics.

Illegal drug use isn't the biggest problem that needs to be faced. Common drug use needs to be clearly educated on instead of constant absentience rhetoric being given.

Actual drug use in general wasn't targeted by those that claim to be conservatives. Instead it was fought against namely hippies and certain groups. Reagan rallied people that were against this new drug use and other issues (like blatant sexual acts) that was effecting American youth by the droves. This is why they claim to be conservatives (since they are conservative on those issues). Reagan was fighting whole subcultures and rallying the "average" American to his side.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


One should also note Reagan won a large percentage of voters during his adminstration. This comes from that fact many voters are normally older and had conservative leanings on those issues at that time in history, be they previously Democrat, Republican, Independent or other when they voted for Reagan.

It is just an effort to impose morals on others. No conspiracy.

Edit: I apologize but apparently I threw away my papers that had the excellent polling site url on them. It might be
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
though. It looks similar.
Edit2: Yes, yes it is pollingreport.com. It can definitly show you that many children follow the same ideology as their parents later on in life. This polling site need to be used in tandem with the census and voting records though.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can read a couple of possible meanings in to this: We should decide which drugs to criminalize based upon who's taking them (ergo it's racist to outlaw drugs used primarily by minorities), or The fact that the majority of people convicted of drug crimes are minorities is an artifact of the fact that they are the predominate users of illegal drugs.

Or, the obvious inference - that we already have decided which drugs to criminalize drugs based on who's taking them. And before you roll your eyes at racism once again (don't you just hate how that keeps coming up?), I think income level is the far more relevant statistic.

In short: poor people drugs carry more moral stigma and stronger penalties than rich people drugs. You can argue whether that's justified or not, but you'd have to be particularly naive to pretend it doesn't happen.

[lurk]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or, the obvious inference - that we already have decided which drugs to criminalize drugs based on who's taking them. And before you roll your eyes at racism once again (don't you just hate how that keeps coming up?), I think income level is the far more relevant statistic. In short: poor people drugs carry more moral stigma and stronger penalties than rich people drugs. You can argue whether that's justified or not, but you'd have to be particularly naive to pretend it doesn't happen.

Or rich people have better lawyers and more 'juice'.