Whatâs wrong with war on hippies?
That Nixon? Honestly, Iâm not surprised.
So if I wanted to [hypothetically] declare a war on wealthy white males but couldnât call it that should I just start a war on Income inequality? Get Bernie Sanders elected? Or call for gender, race, and income equality in United States Congress?
EDIT: This comment has been massively edited.
It used to be called the War on Poverty.
Oh⌠fair point. Hold on let me fix thatâŚ
Why not just negate all legislation on Cannabis that was based on lies. The result would be full legalization.
If there were a hell, Gerald Ford would have been there for just about a decade now for pardoning this guy.
Everything.
Yeah, but weaseling from the incumbents around relative and absolute poverty meant that a clarification was required. Iâd rather that it was âThe War on Inequityâ since total leveling of means isnât the goal - leveling of opportunity is. Also, âInequityâ sounds very similar to âiniquityâ which is a Bad Thing, but also somehow appropriate.
Nixon wasnât a punk.
You really think the War on Poverty was a war on white men?
Wow.
see @TailOfTruth above Nixon started the War on Drugs because he couldn't declare war on black people and hippies
Iâm not quite following your reasoning hereâŚ
Not that your reasoning is particularly in evidence. But hey you can always move the goal post.
Everything is wrong with a war on hippies. Attacking peaceful and harmless people is one of the few proper uses of the term âevilâ, as is implying theyâre a danger or a threat.
Whatâs unclear?
Maybe he was confusing hippies with hipsters?
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare - called the Geneva Protocol - has generally been interpreted to include patchoulli, given that both Ricin and Mustard Gas are used in its production and continue to be present in measurable amounts.
Getting the populace to believe that hippies are âpeace-lovingâ and âfriends of the earthâ is one of their greatest accomplishments.
I just canât let this one go uncommented on. That opening few paragraphs document that Nixonâs War on Drugs was a racist crime against humanity and a literal act of political fascism. Amazing that the author could open on that and not let that determine the rest of the piece. In fact, we could all use a little waking up to the scale of that crime, particularly on our black and Hispanic brothers and sisters.
The articleâs not bad but the author continues to perpetuate the Big Lie that all categories of illegal drugs are to be treated as a problem. Particularly pernicious is his blind acceptance of the lie that cannabis (despite his own casual use) holds all kinds of potential danger such that it needs to be heavily regulated by the same government that has prosecuted the above-documented racist, fascist crime against humanity for decades. The DEA itself ruled in 1988 that cannabis is âone of the safest therapeutically active substances known to manâ and âsafer than many foods we commonly consume.â Cannabisâ extraordinary benefits for mind, body and spirit were suppressed when it was prohibited but are now beginning to be revealed thanks to a global flowering of scientific research. Suffice it to say that cannabis deserves not regulation but promotion, tax breaks rather than taxes.
And the author lumps the psychedelics with opiates and meth under the âdrugsâ banner. At that point, can the term get any more meaningless?
If thereâs a group thatâs committing chemical warfare that we need to worry about, thatâd be âthose who eat spicy food and share the gasesous aftereffects with the rest of usâ.
