[tete]

Given the secrecy on this topic, the anti-democracy that was revealed by Snowden and how the US government (and other institutions) deals with this makes that sound very naive. As sad as this might make me I do not see ordinary democratic ways working anymore in the US. However I'd love to see someone proving me wrong.

[shitehawk]

>However I'd love to see someone proving me wrong.

Legalization of marijuana. The government is absolutely against it but helpless to stop it.

[tete]

I have been thinking about this, but it actually seems kinda weird.

So we see a country where there is capital punishment, but it's fine to smoke weed. It feels a bit like government are more in favor of drugs than they want to pretend, not only for the good of drugs being legal, but because someone who is under influence of drugs - any kind of - is less likely to be politically active or reject orders. This has been used in military and in many authoritarian governments.

It could be even worse. It's a topic, like many others that are mostly artificial. It's not a complex topic at all. It's a good distraction from other things.

When it comes to people dying, be it the death penalty or wars then the US looks like a one-party system. Republicans tend to be for death penalty, but even Obama is according to Wikipedia.

When it comes to war politics it remains the same. Most anti war movements are killed off in many ways: controlled media, violence and arrests at demonstrations, infiltration of social networks (as outlined by Edward Snowden releases), the suicide letter to MLK, that just was on the front page, COINTELPRO, overthrowing (democratic and non-democratic) governments, ... There has been no change in more than 50 years on these.

There doesn't seem to be strong opposition to marijuna, just it gives you a bad image to start out with.

[shitehawk]

Occam's razor. People wanted to make it legal and voted that way. The mental contortions needed to support your theories are too great.

[tete]

Wait, what? What theories?

I just don't think that politicians care that much about legalizing marijuana. Why would they?

And the other statement that I made is that legalizing marijuana isn't something successful politicians start out with alone. Usually that worsens there image.

Theories?

The other (unrelated) things I pointed out was that the US has a history of oppressing opposition, which is history. See the mentioned COINTELPRO. Known history.

Then I pointed out the the US overthrows governments in multiple ways. Also a well-known fact. Obama mentioned it once. The CIA released the documents on it last year. Nothing new. Known history again.

Martin Luther King Suicide Letters. That just was on HN. Official documents again. Again known history.

I am confused about where you see a theory.

[shitehawk]

>It feels a bit like government are more in favor of drugs than they want to pretend, not only for the good of drugs being legal, but because someone who is under influence of drugs - any kind of - is less likely to be politically active or reject orders. This has been used in military and in many authoritarian governments.

[tete]

As for the government being more in favor than they want to pretend: I live in Europe. Here every now and then the legalization of marijuana comes up. However when a politician or a political party agrees the public opinion about that person tends to go down, because he gets that "drug junky" image that has no important topics to talk about. Happened like three or four times in the last decade. Therefor if you are a politician you don't want to look like active supporters. I guess in the US it is similar.

The second part of the statement was that it has been used in military and to calm populations. If you think that statement is bold already then you probably don't know about various projects like MK Ultra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Oh and the effect of drugs being illegal can again be read up in history. There has been prohibition.

If I sounded like marijuana was a conspiracy I am sorry. That's not what I meant. Like I said I just think that the image of a politician who publicly states that marijuana tends to drop. I think that is because a big portion of the population doesn't have a really strong opinion on that topic, but are careful about it. That's a theory now. ;)

There also was a something on political activism of population in relation to the state of legal (or cheap/available) drugs here on HN at some point.