"Douglas Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Back in the 1970s, all politicians who were pro-choice on abortion felt >> >obligated to make the statement "I am personally opposed to abortion but >> >..." That has certainly changed. At this point, no one cares about a >> >candidate's "personal" views on abortion, but only about the public >>policy
>> >stance that person takes. Perhaps the same will happen with the drug >>issue. >>Perhaps, but that won't be enough. Unfortunately in the labor-saving >>process of political categorizing, room has been made in most people's >>minds for only a few categories, and the one that has drug policy reform in >>it is the one that says, "anti-establishment", "pro-counterculture" which >>in many cases means "anti-YOU". >That's what things were like on the abortion issue back in the 1970s and >even into the 1980s. I saw the politics of abortion in the USA as a very different picture. I don't recall either side of the issue being considered counter-cultural. But abortion is very anomalous because its politics were short-circuited by a judicial decision. Its political alignment did change over the time period you mention, settling into its current pattern by the early 1980s, but it doesn't seem to have anything like the same flavor as drug issues. What it DOES share is a symbolic content, but of a different type. Politicians can comfortably take a stance on the issue while being confident that for all practical purposes they can have no effect on gov't policy. > And if 70-80% support medimar, it seems unlikely that >they would oppose a candidate who supports it, though obviously that would >turn off the 20-30% who don't. In a close race, I can see why candidates >would voice a position they oppose, but what about the blowouts? Or the >people who run unopposed? You're unlikely to see the candidates differ vocally on the issue. In the recent NJ election for governor, both major candidates stated their support for med mj, and it turned out to be a blowout. So you can get candidates to come out "pro", but only if their opponents do too. >> >Why are they so motivated? >> >>This is one of probably a very few (maybe only this one) important areas of >>gov't policy thinking which I have to attribute to malice. In general I >>think most people are of good will, and don't intend harm to innocent >>persons, although they may cause them harm as a by-product of the policies >>they promote. However, I've concluded that drug prohibitionism is driven >>by a small minority of highly motivated sadists. What they've managed to >>do is confuse enough other people in high and low places as to the real >>issues that they've gotten a much larger number of people to think they're >>doing good by promoting this policy, and they also benefit by the interests >>of some people who are not malicious but who gain monetarily or power-wise. >> Both the sadists and the non-malicious gainers argue disingenuously; I've >>heard enough of it to have figured it out. >That was what motivated Prohibition. The buttinskies plus the profiteers. Well, yeah. My analysis applies to all hedonic substance prohibitions. Keep in mind that some state legislatures have legalized medimar; however, it was not an issue the legislators had campaigned on. It's generally thought that elections and proximity thereto are bad for that position -- that it's better to wait until after the election to lobby for it. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
