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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Drug Policy

RainDog

(28,784 posts)

26. thanks for those kind words

Reply to iscooterliberally (Reply #24)

Wed May 9, 2012, 08:40 PM

May 2012

I agree - the war on drugs has been a war on the American people and their civil rights. It's not simply about an individual right to choice, or the fact that the laws that exist were based upon and are now enacted based upon racism - or just the lies that have demonstrated what an utterly corrupt system the federal govt has become, just based upon this issue.

The war on drugs has systematically done away with so many constitutional protections the whole issue should make anyone concerned.

Anyone who thinks this sham has accomplished anything good is just a victim of propaganda.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Law Does Not Pre-empt State MMJ Law [View all] RainDog May 2012 OP

What next? Gay marriage? MannyGoldstein May 2012 #1

Now if we can just get the feds to quit ignoring state laws. Lionessa May 2012 #2

Sadly, this administration shares that knack with its predecessors villager May 2012 #3

The executive branch and Congress need to respond to the will of the American people RainDog May 2012 #4

i agree but not because a majority of people, that's a slippery slope I won't go near. Lionessa May 2012 #5

I agree - but the reason a majority want the law to change is because of the science RainDog May 2012 #6

Well we hope that's the reason, but in the end it doesn't matter, Lionessa May 2012 #7

Since the govt can no longer control information about this topic RainDog May 2012 #9

Thanks for fighting the good fight RainDog. iscooterliberally May 2012 #24

thanks for those kind words RainDog May 2012 #26

That's pretty much what Arizona is arguing at the SC in regard to SB1070 CactusJak May 2012 #8

Yes, however the OPs title is inaccurate. Fed law does outrank State law for Lionessa May 2012 #10

it is indeed a very tough road to walk - if you are a federal truedelphi May 2012 #14

Arizona is arguing against human rights RainDog May 2012 #11

You say: truedelphi May 2012 #15

here's a link RainDog May 2012 #16

I see this as a win for human rights, not because of the origin of the law. I'm encouraged by it. freshwest May 2012 #12

Same hear. And a big shout out to raindog for truedelphi May 2012 #13

It's from Dec. 2011 RainDog May 2012 #17

I'd have never known if you hadn't. This is the first I heard. Thanks! freshwest May 2012 #20

Misleading headline -- Actually, as stated in the story, "The U.S. Supreme Court REFUSED TO REVIEW AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #18

Excuse me but doesn't the USSC refusal to review a case mean bupkus May 2012 #21

Of course that's what that means. In contrast, it does not mean (as improperly implied by the AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #23

Does This Mean DallasNE May 2012 #19

Federal agencies can make arrests in states. RainDog May 2012 #22

Even though Meiko May 2012 #25

Do you know that Arizona has had to vote for the same law three times? RainDog May 2012 #27

kick b/c I'm so pissed at what is going on now. n/t RainDog Dec 2012 #28