Obama's position on pot
Posted by preimert1 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
The prez smoked a little paka lolo as a youth?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Consider this, the black market for drugs make it a multi billion dollar per year industry. Legalizing drugs of all kinds would send organized crime back several decades. At least to the Nixon years. That's just a part of the money around this issue. On the white hat side of the drug war there are billions of $$$ paid in salaries and gear purchased for the purpose of catching the bad guys. In reality, neither side of the war on drugs could exist without the illegality of drugs.
Consider freedom of choice. If you were walking down the aisle at CVS and came to the pain killer section, would you be drawn magnetically to the habituating narcotics, or would you just move along like so many other trips to pick up prescriptions. I can only speak for myself, but all of that stuff has no attraction for me. If it did, I could go to the east side of town and purchase any of it tonight without rolling back the law. People do it everyday.
Is it our place to be satisfied with the loss of our freedoms simply because addicted drug users exist and we must all pay a small price to look out for them? I say no. I say let them use what they want. Let them destroy themselves if that is their desire. Put all of that moocher money to work back in the taxpayer's pocket, where it rightfully belongs.
"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues."
Abraham Lincoln
I, for one, believe that more evil and harm to society has occurred as a consequence of being illegal.
1) Imprisoned hundreds of newspaper editors to force them to print his propaganda,
2) Had war protesters shot down in the streets of NYC,
3) Published an "Emancipation Proclamation" that didn't free anyone,
4) Imposed ruinous tariffs on the South to force them to buy manufactured goods from his northern industrial backers,
5) Precipitated a war to force the people of the South to remain under his control (something he called "preserving the union"). Note: Lincoln's war was the equivalent of Germany, Austria and France attacking Great Britain, Portugal and Spain because the latter three have announced they're leaving the European Union. NOTHING in the Constitution authorized Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression to FORCE states to remain in the Union,
6) Was directly responsible for more American deaths and depredation than any other president in history… rivaling American dead from all other wars combined.
Lincoln did all this - and much more - in an attempt to impose slavery on the people of the South and enrich his political backers in the North. John Wilkes Booth was a true American hero who simply arrived a few years too late.
Do you have the same animosity for Genghis Khan?
Regardless of the reasons or what you think of him, there has been more good that came out of the war between the states than would have occurred otherwise.
Are you a statist? Do you believe the government should run rough shod over your life? Do you like the idea of a dictator scripting your life? Do you hate the Constitution? The Bill of Rights?
Lincoln was a tyrant.
More good than otherwise? Are you oblivious? An apologist for despots? Uneducated? Stupid? What among the actions I've listed above do you APPROVE? Murdering war protesters in the streets? Locking up those who won't print a dictator's propaganda? Seriously… what "good" came of Lincoln's murderous war on Americans?
Instead of seething at history, perhaps you should focus your passion on what you can change today to prevent more tyranny. Just a helpful suggestion.
Non Sequitur:
Everything you know is in the past. Do you have the same comments about EVERYTHING YOU KNOW?
As for ending slavery… again, your knowledge of history appears to be defective (not just in the past, but also in the present). Slavery wasn't just an American institution. Slavery was world-wide. And it all died out at about the same time in the civilized world. The industrial revolution made slaves superfluous. Why feed, house, care for slave year-round when they're only really useful at planting and harvest? A machine doesn't eat when it's not being used. Slaves were nearly obsolete, but only in Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression do we see a tyrant and thug murdering hundreds of thousands of people - not to free anyone, but to enslave the people of the South.
By Lincoln's own words, he did not personally like slavery, but was equally willing to abolish it or keep it - whichever allowed him to maintain control of the South.
Have you ever read the "Emancipation Proclamation"? Can you tell me what slaves Lincoln "freed"?
Lincoln is just part of the big lie that government tells to show its "beneficence". His war is a useful teaching point: See? Even our government can be subverted and used to commit murder on a massive scale - no different from what Stalin did, or Mao, or Hitler, or any other dictator.
And the industrial revolution didn't end slavery. At the time it was more economical and productive to pick cotton, the primary crop that slaves were used for, by hand. It was the fact that slavery was abolished that forced innovation.
That's why all around the world, slavery ended (except where technology was absent). Technology is cheaper than slavery. The only person who demanded massive slaughter in association with ending slavery was Lincoln. The bloodshed was all about enslaving the South… not about freeing blacks.
The 13th Amendment was passed 8 months AFTER Lincoln was dead. Its passage had less to do with Lincoln than with a desire to punish the South. Oh, wait. That's what Lincoln wanted too. Never mind.
Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression wasn't about slavery in any case. It was about subjugating the People of the South and forcing them to buy Northern goods at ruinous prices.
Of course, because the North won Lincoln's War, the schools teach a fairy tale about what a great president he was. Stalin and Hitler lost, else they'd be remembered in much the same way.
Yeah, manual labor is so much more efficient and cost-effective that's why the cotton gin was never invented. Or the combine harvester. Or the typewriter.
A slave has to be fed, sheltered and given health care; or else you have to spend money on new slaves, and that ain't cheap. Not only is there the initial cost, but then there's the time and cost involved in training and conditioning them for your specific business, but also the cost involved in keeping them from escaping.
Thus, the labor saving/productivity improving invention existed for nearly 70 years before slavery was abolished. Thus, it was not the technology that caused the abolishment of slavery, it was the abolishment of slavery that demanded the technology.
I don't know where you got your education, but you really should ask for your money back.
The Romans had examples of the use of steam power before the birth of Christ, yet it wasn't until the 19th century that the first steam locomotive was developed.
The first repeating rifle was patented in 1860, yet at the turn of the 20th century soldiers were still being issued single-shot rifles. Not because of the technology, but because of prejudice.
That Whitney filed a patent didn't mean anything other than that he'd come up with the gin.
Why am I not surprised that you're justifying the carbon credit exchange and government mandated energy development?
And how is the south enslaved?
Secession is not addressed in the Constitution, so when SC declared that it had seceded, it was deemed an illegal act. Same with the other states that tried to secede.
The question was given more structure by Texas v. White, with the Supreme Court indicating that if the state wanting to secede could gain the agreement of the other states (one expects via a passed law from the US Congress), then it might be allowable.
Just how did Lincoln "demand massive slaughter?" To my understanding, the southern states committed an illegal act and took up arms to try to enforce it. The north took up arms to restore the union. Tragic loss of life ensued, a winner emerged, and the union has been restored.
Then the entire government of the United States of America was illegitimate, and the Confederate States owed allegiance, not to Washington, but to London.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
They didn't need the federal government's permission to leave the union of sovereign republics.
The Confederacy justly reclaimed a fort in their territory, using force when the foreign army occupying it refused to surrender it. The Union did indeed take up arms to force the Confederate States back into the Union, in order to restore the income their secession was costing the Union.
So, basically, Head of state Thompson would be perfectly in the right, in your view, to go into the gulch, burn Atlantis to the ground, decimate the population, and force them to return to giving the country the benefit of their minds and backs...
Here's what the average American today seems to miss: It's not that the Feral Government has powers only limited by the prohibitions in the Constitution, rather, the Feral Government ONLY legitimately exercises those powers specifically granted in the Constitution. Waging war to prevent states from secession? Not in the Constitution, therefore, not a legitimate power of the Feral Government.
The Federal Government was formed by the states. What state would join a union if one of the terms was that, no matter how abused they may be by the Feds, they could not leave? The States and the People are superior to the Federal Government and have determined those specific areas of where the Feds may legitimately exercise power. The fact that the Feds routinely go well beyond this grant of authority is one of the best arguments available for a Second American Revolution.
If you want the key, look again at your second last sentence. As you say, the war was about forcing southerners to buy northern products.
Guess what? Preventing secession is NOT on the list.
You got part of the tax issue correct. It was to keep the South in thrall to the North that the war was fought. Nice to see you agree with the fact that the reason Lincoln killed 750,000 people was to force the South to buy from the North.
The equivalent today would probably be something like bombing Ford owners to force them to buy GM… (because, you see, GM took the Federal bailouts and Ford didn't, so bombing people who buy Fords helps the government's "preferred" business.) Now that Michelle Obama has teamed up with Subway to spend government money promoting that business, MacDonalds, Burger King, KFC and Wendy's should expect commando raids… because it's in rlevewllen's "constitution".
You southerners really need to let go. It's been a hundred and fifty years for crying out loud.
Lincoln made all the others abuses possible. And he killed more than 750,000 people in his quest for control of the South.
He stands as the single most rapacious and despotic president in the history of America.
As for "letting it go" - you are perfectly welcome to carve a hole in your brain and forget history. I choose otherwise. Much of what is wrong with America today is a direct result of Lincoln's War.
If I may continue off topic- many members here would benefit by study of the role of religion in slavery.
Lincoln was an even worse military commander than JD his opponent, the real hero was Robert E Lee who was opposed to slavery. Lincoln did have good qualities, great speeches. Churchill says that without those two or three the outcome of the war would have been the same but faster, and with a casualty figure far lower.
We think of WWI, WWII and Vietnam as huge wastes of lives, and yet none of them come close to Lincoln's carnage. Sherman was of course ordered to burn and sack everything in his march to the sea, but what is not generally recorded in the Yankee history books is the fact that all the other Yankee generals were under similar orders to destroy the lives of civilians. These war crimes extended to looting towns of everything the Northern armies could use and carry away - food, livestock, valuables. What could not be stolen was destroyed. Things like mirrors and pianos were routinely hauled out into the town squares and smashed for the pure meanness of it. More critically, any livestock not stolen was usually killed. Fields were burned. Mill stones were smashed. (Modern people can scarcely appreciate the importance of this, but without the millstone, there was no mill. Without the mill, no bread.) Even fence posts were ripped up and fences destroyed and when entire towns were burned to the ground, the only thing left was "Sherman's Sentinels", the naked fireplaces standing in silhouette looking a bit like soldiers on guard duty.
Lincoln routinely ordered his generals to commit war crimes. And he waged a form of war on the people of the North as well, suppressing free speech, suspending habeas corpus, even driving elected legislators out of the Country.
Lincoln was evil. But if you can imagine Stalin or Hitler winning out, and their supporters crafting history for the next 50 years, you can see how such a POS was canonized in an age where data flowed at a trickle compared to today.
Make no mistake - the man responsible for killing more than 1 in every 50 people was a monster with nothing whatsoever to recommend him. (Killing on a proportional scale today would involved the deaths of more than 7 MILLION people.)
I believe that the Constitution as written, without interpretation is a better world.
Then tell me what slaves Lincoln freed.
It also declared that most forms of slavery, except for wage slavery, were illegal in places within the United States where it was already illegal.
But maybe he presided over the process as Jeremy Bentham has over the Bentham Society? I understand he attended a University College London board meeting at age 181.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865.
The time lapse from January to December was for ratification by the states.
In his own words...
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." - Lincoln
Lincoln spoke against slavery for more than 20 years before he became president.
>Lincolns words
Lincoln was trying to keep the country together.
>What do you present as evidence that Lincoln wanted to enslave the South?
The various indian tribes broke treaties repeatedly as well, but you don't hear about that because it never got reported as treaty violations. After all, how can you hold breachclouted savages to the same standards as white men? /sarc
But had he not moved them, they would have been totally eliminated.
Why didn't he protect them like Johnson did with the kids going to school.
I don't want to get into a discussion on integration - it was the wrong solution to the problem - just saying that killing half of the Indians was also not the only way to deal with the issue.
Lincoln did.
Testament to your indoctrination is the fact that you are unwilling to hold responsible the individual most responsible for the largest mass murder of Americans in history. Abraham "Butcher" Lincoln.
I like truth.
So I was given a fairly good grounding of much of the truth of what those men knew of the motivations of both sides of that conflict. It was not what was written and touted in the winner's histories. Rather than relying on what I was taught, I found that in doing some of my own research and study., I've found, invariably when digging beneath the surface of popular written histories, that the truth is often quite different.
Lincoln and the Civil War is one such case.
If you were adding something to the discussion, I'd continue. You aren't. I won't.
Stalin didn't believe in slavery as it had existed prior to the 20th century. He believed in enslaving all to the state. Unlike Jackson.
And I don't have as big a problem with Jackson marching thousands of non-Americans on the trail of tears as I do with Lincoln who killed 600,000 Americans and one-time Americans.
Hiraghm, do you truly know that it robs your "ability to reason and be productive". I find that it increases creativity.
What gives a government the right to control us in this manner?
Hey, why waste time with pot, then? Go straight to six or seven tabs of LSD an hour and really let your creativity loose...
It has been shown that pot makes (some) people stupid and lazy. If you doubt this, consider a good friend of mine who got caught, twice, trying to walk onto his Marine Corps base with a joint behind his ear.
I agree that it's probably no worse than alcohol, but did we really need to legalize another vice? Look at how much money is being thrown at casinos and lotteries (the gambling vice) before you try to answer that one.
What they do NOT have a right to expect is that others be forced to pick up the pieces. What would happen if the stupid/lazy/worthless elements of society were just left to starve/freeze/die? Sure, it's Darwinian - but we don't have lazy/worthless POS because they smoke pot. We have those who smoke pot because they're lazy/worthless POS.
Clearly, I'm not talking about people who control themselves, who drink or smoke pot in moderation. But if someone is a waste of protoplasm, why should we make any effort to save them from themselves? We should encourage them to self-destruct… preferably before they reproduce. Make heroin, cocaine, pot, LSD, meth readily available. Add a drug-knowledge segment to standard education - something kids have to pass before they can get a drivers license. Once they're informed - let them choose. If they decide on 10g of cocaine a day - buh-bye!
The only issue is when said user's proclivities impinge on those who do not wish to or be a part of those imbibing. My case in point here is Meth - a tweaker loses the inhibition not to sneak, steal, scheme or do violence against others who are not part of the "culture" of the tweak. It's a by-product of the psychosis reaction of the drug, one so bad that I have a saying - You show me a tweaker, I'll show you a liar. The few who do escape the grip of addiction to it successfully recognize this more than those who have not, for they lived through the psychosis, and can sense it in others.
It's like the habitual drunk who gets behind the wheel and in the process of Darwinning itself kills innocents. Or, as usually is the case, Kills innocents without darwinning itself. This is the problem - how do you let people have the freedom to do this without impacting others who have no coin in the game other than to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Even if the government could reduce the amount of drug violence, it would never be enough. Further more, the fewer the incidents, the more shocking it is to see it, and the more people demand an immediate solution that the government is glad to offer.
Trying to prevent tragedy through government action will always be a greater tragedy.
But today, we don't even hold people accountable when they're caught, and there's a sliding scale standard depending on who the defendant is. (Take the recent drag-racing arrest of Justin Bieber… puh-lease!)
As for drunk drivers/meth tweakers killing others… in many cases it's after multiple arrests.
Even more surprising (given the Obama administrations' "war on guns") is the fact that over 70,000 people a year lie on the background check forms to buy guns. That's a crime. How many prosecutions are there? Fewer than 20.
I suspect that the process of drunk/tweaker killing someone generally includes many prior arrests for related crimes where trivial sentences were imposed.
So I do apologize for the "hateful language", but that's why your comment drew such a negative reaction from me...
I'm no leftie socialist, rather a Constitutional Libertarian.
Or, as Stefan Molyneux would put it, "The government is a transfer payment system from us to single mothers". And oh, by the way, 80% of rapists are the offspring of single mothers.
Link, please.
Okay, here's a link to click.
https://www.google.com/search?client=saf...
And here's one that provides the cite.
http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress...
Just imagine what kind of world it would be if men were driven from their traditional roles as parents and women ran things. Ooops! We're there! Women have voted to replace men with government programs, and here are the results (from the second link - so you don't have to go to the great effort of clicking):
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
Father Factor in Education - Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.
Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse - Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
When you make such a blunt, controversial comment as "80% of rapist are raised by single mothers”, you should provide sources.
I think you are incredible bright and worth reading, but I keep tripping over your caveman way of dragging women by the hair over the coals around here. Make sense, not war.
Thanks. That’s a lot of data to shift through. No comment at this time. Still reading.
It appears you're claiming to be offended by the FORM of my statements. Well, then, how would you say that women are responsible for the general collapse and destruction of our society, our economic system, the notion of morals and this Country (which was built by MEN)?
There has been a long and ever-expanding history of not holding women accountable for their actions. Part of it's biology. Men are biologically programmed to protect women. Society reinforces this. And for most of history, women weren't' a problem… until they got the vote.
Today they are THE major problem with America. In fact, today's women may be the biggest threat to freedom and functional society in history.
When a bright light is brought to bear, it shocks some and of course, the first thing women tend to do is dismiss the facts with the claim that the commentator is "anti-woman". Facts mean less to women than feelings - and women don't want to "feel" responsible for destroying America - so of course they "aren't responsible".
Just for the record, it's not my fault that women have completely screwed up our society and our Country and are pushing agendas around the world that will destabilize and perhaps even destroy other societies as well. If you wish to fault me for publishing the data - feel free. But the destruction belongs to the women.
Or, as Stefan Molyneux would put it, "The government is a transfer payment system from us to single mothers". And oh, by the way, 80% of rapists are the offspring of single mothers.
Or, as Stefan Molyneux would put it, "The government is a transfer payment system from us to single mothers". And oh, by the way, 80% of rapists are the offspring of single mothers.
And others like Carl Sagan and Wm. F. Buckley were inspired.
Prior to the 1950s, it was never part of American culture, except among generally accepted lowlifes (like Hollywood celebrities) who were ostracized from decent society.
The adoption of these exotic drugs parallels the attack on traditional American culture (Leave it to Beaver), and is part of that attack.
I look at America and the world today, and I look at America and the world of the 1940s, and my resentment for what was done *on purpose* is unbearable.
Therefore, in my world, it would be a capital offense to even say the "m-word" in public, sentence carried out immediately, preferably using a pair of motor vehicles and four lengths of rope...
Then you're no longer free.
The US imprisons a larger percentage of it's population than any other on the planet or in history, and for crimes without victims.
Part of the reason we have such a large incarceration is the long prison sentences that politicians like.
Other places with lower incarceration amounts almost certainly give out shorter sentences, and have alternative punishments.
My punishment for drunk drivers could be expanded to more serious crimes. The convict would be given a choice of a period of weekends in the stocks, or if the crime was severe enough, a public whipping (or both),OR he could choose a long jail sentence.
What President Obama is saying is that it is okay to add more death and economic malaise to our economy because we already tolerate the costs of alcohol!
This sounds to me like someone saying that since it's okay to jump off a bridge to your death, it's also okay to drive your car off a bridge to your death. It's okay as long as you want death, I guess, but as a logical argument, it's sheer stupidity.
I'm amused at the general attitude for stinkweed around here. Objectivity, which relies on rationality, based on rationality, steeped in rationality... I would think such people would loathe any substance that robbed one of one's ability to reason and be productive.
we could have a philosophical argument about wanting freedom to use substances that possibly rob you of the freedom to think clearly. But the fact (ha found a use) remains that freedom of choice is something I value very highly and our Government loves to rob us of those freedoms!
I have never smoked pot, or eaten it, or anything really that has to do with it but I am a supporter of legalizing it in a similar way to alcohol's legalization because it is a freedom of choice that I would like to have. I also feel strongly about other scenarios, seat belts, health insurance, etc.
I would rather be able to make the choice to lose my mind than to be told my mind is not mine to lose.
I noticed you picked up on the "productive" and not the "reason" part of it.
Do you feel the need to escape your reason, khalling?
Alternatives to productivity: errands, exercise, video games, card/board games, movies, romance (or, if your name is Galt, spell "romance" as "stalking"), bathing, cooking, sports....
bathing is productive
And my bigotry is particularly advanced today. Until 2 years ago I believed in the "nobility" of the "common man". But having had to associate with the Halfred P Doolittles who haunt Walmart has soured me on the species.
I'm productive now, I'm just unpleasant to be around.
Whatever - but wash your hands before touching the keyboard wil ya' soes not to spread it here. ;<|
If you cannot afford a doc, try hot chicken soup, add curry.
I quit drinking around the same time I realized that being a libertarian appealed to me, some years ago. I don't know which one may have caused the other to happen, and it doesn't really matter.
I wonder if the (former) Soviet Union government helped provide vodka to their citizens in order to keep them from understanding the tyranny that they imposed over the "workers". I wonder if this is the intent of the current US administration, letting our citizens smoke all their troubles away.
And yet, most people DO sleep about 1/3 of their life… an activity during which they do NOT "think clearly".
But, everyone has a choice about being a pink-eyed scumbag.
Of the five people we "bagged", one was a worthless POS. He tried to falsify his test, so we were able to fire him (union or not). He was the only one who tested positive for anything but pot - and he had about 4 different drugs in his system. He was also caught mixing meth while driving down the highway BEFORE we fired him - but we didn't know that at the time. Was he a worthless POS because he was a druggie? Or a druggie because he was a worthless POS?
The other four were: 1 average performer, 1 above-average performer and 2 of my top workers, one of whom had been singled out for EXCEPTIONAL contributions to the company the month prior to the drug test.
Fortunately, we were able to retain the four who took the test straight. Unfortunately, two of them tested positive a few months later and had to be fired.
The lesson I draw is that some people use drugs and are out of control. Others use drugs (pot, anyway) and are more worthwhile than those who don't. It seems likely to me that it's not the drugs that screwed people up, but rather the screwed up people who use drugs. The fact that other people use drugs (pot, alcohol) and aren't screwed up advises it's not the drugs that are the problem.
I smell bullshit.
The Federal government was accorded NO POWERS with regard to secession. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the power to secede rested with the States or the People, respectively. The South voted to secede - which was entirely Constitutional. Lincoln then waged war on the South to assert control over the Southern states. Is that not clear enough for you?
According to Churchill's history, Lincoln proposed far reaching reconciliation, he may have been sincere, but it did not happen. and the plight of the blacks did not improve for decades.