Olddog04 – Well, speaking as the child of an addict, and my 26 years in medicine I will disagree that sending someone to jail for marijuana possessions is most certainly not ridiculous.
I’ve taken care of children who are using their parent’s weed, or who got ahold of the used joint and swallowed it. We’re seeing a massive spike of it in medicine:
Then there’s the increase in DUIs:
Marijuana is by far not purely safe. Safer perhaps than opioids, meth, etc…,
Marijuana legalization has become far more about being profit driven (for the state) when legalized by politicians. But you apparently only care about profit from prison.
So maybe, just maybe there is a reason for it in some cases.
Wahl’s book documents this evolution: “Ideologies of [today’s] radical right emphasize social and economic threats in the modern and postmodern world (e.g., globalization, immigration). The radical right also promises protection against such threats by an emphatic ethnic construction of ‘we’, the people, as a familiar, homogeneous in-group, anti-modern, or reactionary structures of family, society, an authoritarian state, nationalism, the discrimination, or exclusion of immigrants and other minorities … While favoring traditional social and cultural structures (traditional family and gender roles, religion, etc.) the radical right uses modern technologies and it does not ascribe to a specific economic policy; some parties advocate a liberal, free-market policy, but other parties advocate a welfare state policy. Finally, the radical right can be scaled by using different degrees of militancy and aggressiveness from right-wing populism to racism, terrorism, and totalitarianism.”11
Ultraright groups, as The Radical Right definition states, are normally called “far-right” groups,12 but they may also be called “radical right” groups.13 According to Clive Webb, “Radical right is commonly, but not exclusively used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and the John Birch Society… [T]he term far right … is the label most broadly used by scholars … to describe militant white supremacists.”14
Egidus: Even more fun is the very first sentence or two that don’t even define it:
Among academics and social scientists, there is disagreement over how right-wing political movement should be described, and no consensus over what the proper terminology should be exists, although the terminology which was developed in the 1950s, based on the use of the words “radical” or “extremist”, is the most commonly used one. Other scholars simply prefer to call them “The Right” or “conservatives”, which is what they call themselves. The terminology is used to describe a broad range of movements.5 The term “radical right” was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset and it was also included in a book titled The New American Right, which was published in 1955.7 The contributors to that book identified a conservative “responsible Right” as represented by the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower and a radical right that wished to change political and social life.8 Further to the right of the radical right, they identified themselves as the “ultraright”, adherents of which advocated drastic change, but they only used violence against the state in extreme cases. In the decades since, the ultraright, while adopting the basic ideology of the 1950s radical right,9 has updated it to encompass what it sees as “threats” posed by the modern world. It has leveraged fear of those threats to draw new adherents, and to encourage support of a more militant approach to countering these perceived threats. A more recent book by Klaus Wahl, The Radical Right, contrasts the radical right of the 1950s, which obtained influence during the Reagan administration, to the radical right of today, which has increasingly turned to violent acts beginning with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.1210
Egidius – so after all of your whining, complaining, protestations, p!ssing, and moaning that seems to have taken you just a few seconds to find.
zxcar1 – It’s not about having the last post. I don’t play your little game where you whine about someone having a last word, but then feel the need to go out of your way to respond to my point, while ranting about how you have other things that are more important in your life to do than respond to me…….but do so while you are responding to me.
I didn’t link an article. I didn’t reference an article. When I do, I try to ensure that I point the link with it. If I don’t, and someone calls me on it, I will then post said link and apologize for not doing so. Not whine about it.
But once again, you keep doing you.
tabby – I also never accused you of saying it. I was making a clarifying point. See, if you stopped making assumptions you might not perceive your words as being twisted around. Take what I write as black and white.
tabby – The totality of events on 6 January have been described collectively as an insurrection. It is the media and politicians and left that use the all inclusive descriptor.
IF, and I have never said there isn’t one, IF there is a direct link from the President or ANYONE in the Trump administration before or during the protest and riots that show they were pushing for violence or harm to anyone in the Capitol then I’ll be right there in line calling for the buffoon that is Trump to be tried. That has not existed. In 32 months not one single, solitary shred of direct evidence has shown this link. The FBI, DOJ, and congressional investigation has shown NO link. It’s hopes and dreams and wants and needs and desires to put Trump away. But NOTHING has been shown. Most we get is a story of a story told before Congress that Trump jumped between two seats of an armored Suburban to grab the wheel (yet the USSS has denied this with agents REQUESTING to testify that this did not occur), and he just might have been ticked off enough to flip a plate of spaghetti against the wall. Oooooooooh.
I don’t twist your words. I use EXACTLY what you write. If you don’t like it, then don’t engage. But I guess we’ll see you next time. Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, just MAYBE you should write more appropriately.
zxcar1 – So you admit to doing a web search and got a whole page supporting your position….Oooooh. But you couldn’t be troubled to cut and past the link to article…but you did post the article.
Class or not, it’s pretty accepted to back something up.
Excuse me for having some level of expectation you choose to not meet, no matter how low that level is.
zxcar1 – You did provide the source, no actual link to articles. But you had to be asked to do it.
tompet. Please provide a link to support your assertion that 30% are in prison for marijuana.
I did a nice little search and found that about 40,000 are in prison for it. Now, I went to public school but even my unenlightened non-elite mathematics teaching tells me that 40,000 doesn’t even come close to 30% of the prison population.
You really ought to correct your ignorance. Or if you aren’t ignorant, you ought to stop posting known lies just to make your hyperbolic point. But that’d be just silly wouldn’t it?