Third Generation Kennedy Fears Pot Would Lead To People Making Piles Of Money
Rich, huh? Considering the family fortune came from booze.
Anthony L. Fisher writes at reason:
Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) has just published an op-ed in Ozy titled, "What No One is Saying about Marijuana," where he sounds the alarm that "Addiction is big business, and with legal marijuana it's only getting bigger."A recidivist drug and alcohol abuser (who has miraculously avoided jail time despite committing crimes while under the influence that would send lesser mortals to prison on felony convictions) arguing for the continued imprisonment of adults choosing to responsibly consume a substance is rich in its own right. But for a third-generation Kennedy to argue against ending marijuana prohibition because major profits will be made off of it is head-exploding irony and hypocrisy.
Perhaps the ex-Congressman missed the just-concluded final season of Boardwalk Empire, which included a major subplot depicting his grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, shrewdly anticipating the end of alcohol prohibition and getting in on the ground floor of legally importing liquor into the United States. With that one move, the politically connected and ruthlessly ambitious Kennedy patriarch built the fortune which to this day affords the Kennedy scion the ability to avoid both work and prison.
...Essentially, a man who owes his money, power, and freedom to profits made off of selling the most toxic and deadly drug in existence, wants people to continue to be locked up for recreational drug use, lest other rich people make money off of selling drugs.
More he is currently making money on its prohibition and will say anything to keep it going.
Joe J at November 2, 2014 8:53 PM
Why no wonder kids as young as eight are injecting marihuana (Mary Jane) as we sit here doing nothin'.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 2, 2014 9:01 PM
Anyone remember when Clapton, himself by then a recovered addict and owner of an upscale treatment center in the Caribbean, did a series of beer commercials?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 2, 2014 9:43 PM
Gog- It would be great if people who were too young didn't smoke dope... But after all these years, the sarcasm of the drug war is still a lot of fun.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at November 2, 2014 9:47 PM
I need the Kennedy, Clinton, and Bush families to exit the scene. Please leave us alone.
JFP at November 3, 2014 6:14 AM
I don't think I'll ever understand the popularity of the Kennedys. Even among conservatives who think the liberals of today "hijacked the party of Kennedy."
Excuse me, but just what was so great about JFK?
Perhaps JFK was a good president, although he's a classic example of my pet theory: you can't be a good leader and a good role model at the same time. You can be one or the other, or you can be neither, but you can't be both.
Joe Jr., Jack, Bobby and Teddy inherited the same loathsome contempt for women as "the ambassador" (as Joe Kennedy insisted he be called, despite his utter failure as ambassador to England). To say nothing of his rampant antisemitism. JFK was a philandering bum and consequently a terrible role model for his children.
If not for his blatant sexism...maybe, just maybe, old Teddy would have gone back into the canal to see if Mary Jo Kopechne was okay.
Patrick at November 3, 2014 6:21 AM
Kennedy was a great president because he looked nice and died before he did much of anything. That way people can paint all kinds of pictures of what he might have done and not be encumbered by that pesky reality.
Ben at November 3, 2014 7:28 AM
I don't think I'll ever understand the popularity of the Kennedys.
Patrick, I've lived in MA my whole life. I have never & don't think I will ever understand their appeal.
Having said that don't much care for any family political "dynasties".
JFP at November 3, 2014 7:55 AM
Before he did much of anything?
In the little amount of time in which he didn't do much, he...
Despite the space race, an emphasis on civil rights, tax cuts to stimulate the economy, the Peace Corps, Kennedy, at best, has to be viewed as a mediocre president.
=========================
Good book on the Berlin Wall construction and the Kennedy-Krushchev dynamic: Berlin 1961.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004LRPDTQ?btkr=1
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2014 8:33 AM
"Kennedy was a great president because he looked nice and died before he did much of anything."
Reagan was a great president because he looked nice and died before he could be impeached for illegally arming Iran.
This is fun!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 3, 2014 8:42 AM
Gave up intermediate range US missiles in Turkey in order to bail himself out of the Cuban Missile Crisis
Which is a major factor in most of us being alive and able to critique the man. I personally enjoy the fact that most parts of Florida aren't so radioactive that you can't live there.
He didn't just bail 'himself' out either.
Your other points are quite good. But you missed this one by a few ballparks.
DrCos at November 3, 2014 9:18 AM
"Reagan was a great president because he looked nice and died before he could be impeached for illegally arming Iran."
?
This is one of those times when Crid's question is appropriate "how old are you?"
Dave B at November 3, 2014 9:49 AM
The missiles in Cuba were a chess move on the part of Krushchev and the Soviet Union. Castro wanted the US to ease off its harassment of him and the Soviets wanted the US missiles out of Turkey.
Krushchev needed something to trade. So, he agreed to Castro's request for missiles in Cuba to deflect US harassment.
The 1961 conference in Vienna left Krushchev convinced Kennedy was weak and could be pushed around.
In exchange for removing the missiles from Cuba, Krushchev got the US missiles removed from Turkey and a declaration that the US would not invade Cuba without direct provocation.
Krushchev got everything he wanted.
Kennedy got less than the status quo. He returned to an un-missiled Cuba, but now his hands were tied to do anything about a semi-belligerent Communist country 90 miles of his coast. So much for the Monroe Doctrine.
Only Che Guevara actually wanted to launch nuclear missiles at the US. He became such a liability for the Castros that they shipped him to Africa and then, when the Africans got tired of him and sent him back, to Bolivia where the Bolivian Army shot him.
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2014 10:25 AM
"This is one of those times when Crid's question is appropriate "how old are you?""
Old enough to evacuate war refugees from Vietnam.
This IS fun!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 3, 2014 10:30 AM
"The 1961 conference in Vienna left Krushchev convinced Kennedy was weak and could be pushed around."
This is where I jump in to say how damned lucky we are that Khrushchev didn't live any longer than he did, and that his replacement was the doddering Leonid Brezhnev. Khrushchev was as belligerant as Putin but a lot smarter. He repaired a lot of the damage that Stalin did to the Soviet military; he invested a lot of resources in weapons development and didn't usually let doctrine stand in the way of what worked. He would have played the American Left like a violin; with his support they probably would have succeeded in getting Eugene McCarthy (the 1960s version of Obama) elected President in 1968, and we wouldn't be here having this discussion now.
Cousin Dave at November 3, 2014 1:05 PM
I agree with you Conan that Kennedy was a fairly piss poor president. But as I said the JFK love in comes from him dying before the end of his term allowing people to paint all kinds of 'what could have been' narratives.
Obama used a similar tactic in his first presidential campaign. He spouted tons of meaningless phrases that could be construed to mean anything. He avoided any clear policy positions like the plague. And his presidency has been covered in non-decision. Be it 'lead from behind' or the crafting of O-care.
Ben at November 3, 2014 1:08 PM
Krushchev delayed releasing Gary Powers until after the US election. He called the delayed release "voting for Kennedy."
Krushchev feared a Nixon presidency. Both on the grounds that Nixon had bested him in the Kitchen Debates and on the grounds that he wanted to forego confrontations with the West to concentrate on the Soviet economy, which was teetering on the brink of collapse. Propping up Eastern Europe came with a high price tag.
Nixon was a hardened cold warrior whose goals included preventing the spread of communism. Krushchev, despite his internal focus, was still a communist at heart and dedicated to the spread of international communism.
In order to concentrate on internal economics, he needed to neutralize the West militarily and secure the Soviet Union's military security (which, to the Russian mind, meant achieving a superior position on the chess board).
Kennedy and his Ivy League advisors were outmatched by the street thug, Krushchev, who came up through the ranks of a brutal party apparatus and played to win in a way that Kennedy's people, forged in academic politics, couldn't comprehend.
Unfortunately for Nikita, his brand of pragmatism didn't sit well with other communist power blocs who preferred a more assertive worldwide movement at the expense of internal economics.
In 1964, Krushchev was removed from power peacefully - which he considered the fruit of his de-Stalinization efforts:
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2014 1:49 PM
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
ALL HAIL INGSOC!
David at November 3, 2014 2:43 PM
Conan,
I would have to disagree with most of the conjecture you offer in your post. Neither Kennedy nor Kruschev got 'everything they wanted' in the aftermath.
The removal of the missiles from Turkey happened months later, and was not immediately known to be part of the deal between the two.
Also, it is widely believed that the Soviet missile commanders had launch authority, which could have easily led to at least much of the Southeast (as well as Cuba) being radioactive.
So I think that ending the whole mess was a good thing overall, no matter who "won" in the end.
DrCos at November 3, 2014 3:35 PM
Alcohol is "most toxic and deadly drug in existence"? Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot! On what planet?! Its toxic and can be lethal, but that assertion is a steaming pile of bovine feces served neat. Hyperbole can be effective, but it can also cause people concerned with facts to wonder if you've been... drinking. Or worse, proving Mark Twain correct vis-a-vis statistics!
Firstly, there are numerous drugs that are more toxic than alcohol. However, most of them are restricted or outright illegal (heroin, GHB, etc). Nutmeg, which is legal, is more toxic by volume than alcohol and was, for that very reason, once used as an abortificant. We just don't use very much of it in our egg-nog! Nicotine also has a higher toxicity by volume. We just have a lower per-capita nicotine overdose rate per 100,000 because there are far fewer chain cigar smokers and heavy tobacco chewers in the general population that rowdy binge drinkers.
Which raises another question: how are we measuring lethality. Yes, more people die of alcohol overdoses than any other drug in the US every year overall -- but what about per 100,000 users? And in what city? The alcohol overdose rate for the US is 1.6 in 100,000. In the past two years the per capita heroin overdose per 100,000 in the US has risen to 2.1. And In NYC, its 8.4! But, one could of course insist we only discuss legal drugs because the outrage is over a scion from a booze-legend complaining about legalizing a little Mary Jane.
Fair enough, but then, let's compare alcohol *related* deaths to tobacco *related* deaths. By that measure, that nicotine-laced tobacco is like, golly gosh gee-wish and darnit, the most lethal legal drug ever. My point is not that Herr Kennedy isn't a raving hypocrite on the MJ legalization front -- I would expect nothing short of rank hypocrisy from Jack The Haircut's kith and kin -- but stupid (or at the very least suspect) assertions don't help.
David at November 3, 2014 3:41 PM
Conjecture? The word you're looking for is "insight."
That was Krushchev's blunder.
There were two reasons for the secrecy:
Reportedly, Kennedy was also worried that the US military would overthrow him if he didn't do something quickly to resolve what was perceived as a very grave threat to the US.
Krushchev, not as self-aware as Kennedy, nor as sensitive to political winds in his own government, thought he was untouchable and could afford to take a public hit. He wanted the outcome, not the façade. Ultimately, however, the impression of defeat was one of the factors that led to his downfall.
From the New York Times "Khrushchev's Human Dimensions Brought Him to Power and to His Downfall" dated September 12, 1971:
And
Krushchev fell from power before he could explain that he had "won" the exchange (or at least come out even).
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2014 4:21 PM
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm
Dobrynin's Cable to the Soviet Foreign
Ministry, 27 October 1962:
AND
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2014 4:33 PM
One other thing to keep in mind is that the Jupiter medium-range missiles removed from Turkey as part of the deal were considered obsolete with the introduction of Polaris missile submarines.
The really tricky part of removing them was they were considered a prestige item to the Turks - symbolic of the country's importance to NATO.
The missiles were considered a provocation by the Soviets since NATO missiles based in Turkey could reach deeper inside the Soviet Union than the same missiles based in Western Europe. The Soviets wanted them gone.
Unbeknownst to the Soviets (and to the Turks and NATO), the US was making plans to remove them since Polaris submarine-launched missiles gave the same capability and presented less of a retaliation or first-strike target than land-based missiles.
Kennedy defenders maintain that, because of this obsolescence, it was no major sacrifice on the part of Kennedy to give them up.
Conan the Grammarian at November 3, 2014 5:10 PM
Does anybody know the background of JFK's physical health?
From what I understand, he had Addison disease and his back was trashed, and was given a wide range of pain killers, antihistamines, cortisone, etc. on a daily basis.
This was all a big secret or something. Some people even believe he was given methamphetamine, regularly, by a close, clandestine doctor. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
And, yeah, Patrick Kennedy's argument is rather absurd knowing that his family's fortune comes from the alcohol trade. Why is alcohol decriminalized, and other substances remain prohibited, anyway?
Jason S. at November 3, 2014 5:59 PM
"This was all a big secret or something. Some people even believe he was given methamphetamine, regularly, by a close, clandestine doctor. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true."
He could give it to himself, if he wanted. Methamphetamine was handed out like candy without a prescription in the 1960's.
It was used by everyone. Truck drivers, women who wanted to lose weight, the military, etc.
Strict controls were put in place in 1972 I think.
Isab at November 3, 2014 6:33 PM
Actually I liked JFK for serving in WWII, and Reagan TRIED to join the fight but they put him to work making movies instead (nearsightedness).
Unlike so many of the MF'ers who refuse to serve, then park their tax-fattened asses in the seats of power, wave the flag, and send everyone else off to fight.
And yes this applies to both sides of the aisle, certain radio hosts, and pants-crapping draft-dodging Motor City madmen.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 3, 2014 7:09 PM
"Strict controls were put in place in 1972 I think."
It was later than that. When I worked for Boeing, the old-timers used to talk about being able to go to the company dispensary and get "greenies" for the asking, as recently as the mid-1980s. I'm halfway serious when I tell people that Starbucks owes its existence to Boeing getting rid of the greenies.
Cousin Dave at November 4, 2014 7:45 AM
Leave a comment