According to today's news, the Reagan Foundation is threatening legal action for a sale that reportedly contains a sample of former President Reagan's blood following the assassination attempt of 1981. Sure, maybe from a Capitalistic sense it might be a good idea since it is currently a lot of money; but in a moralistic sense, it doesn't appear ethical at all.
If that blood sample undoubtedly contains Reagan's blood, it is not only a sample of someone's DNA, but also a sample of history. Images of a young Jodie Foster and a very trouble John Hinckley Jr. is his beyond-homely appearance comes to mind, even to that of a person who didn't necessarily have a very conscious life in the 1980's. Flash. Flash. Suddenly I think of the 1970's movie "Taxi Driver" as a reference, with Robert DeNiro played a 26-year-old disturbed man who suddenly wants to help society even with his detachment from it. Go back to 2012. I am a 26-year-old woman who didn't exist in 1981 and who spend pre-Kindergarten years in the remaining "Decade of Excess". Which brings me to the question, "Why Was Reagan a Good President?" (Or Was He?)
I currently live in a part of Southern California that contains many Conservative / Republican communities. I have often heard the discussions about, "Why can't the GOP go back to the days of Reagan?" while putting Reagan on this pedestal as this untouched pedigree that today's GOP couldn't touch. He was a tall, extremely handsome Hollywood actor with a speaking voice that was easy on the ears. He and his wife Nancy represented morality, with a perfect American image that makes me think of red gingham picnic tablecloths, apple pie, and sunshines by the lake (for some reason). Reagan, especially since his 100th birthday wouldn't have been too long ago, is nearly hailed as a demi-god in the realm of politics. It can be argued that his deregulation of Wall Street helped pave the way to Clintonomics, an age in which a country could easily be outraged over a stained blue dress from Gap instead of a noticeably dire unemployment rate and emptying shopping centers, and he did provide amnesty in 1986- but other than that, what would make him so great? There are many factors and facets of his two-term Presidency, but one part I would like to target... that tarnished his own image, was the "Just Say No!" campaign.
The War on Drugs is a very touchy subject that easily correlates to the Reagan Administration. Who can forget those simple, three words as an alleged answer to a deeply complex, layered problem? Even Mexican Congress contender Natalia Ruiz (seen in the blog entry right before this one) talks about legalizing drugs in her own nation, and while her own political issues in Mexico seemingly aren't linked to Reagan, they really are. I remember speaking to an older political activist in Downtown Los Angeles (not an Occupier, by the way) who lived through the 1980's, saying that, "Because of the 'Just Say No' campaign, Ronald Reagan helped build the image of the black 'Welfare Queen', when in reality, it is mostly (statistically) whites who are on Welfare". This same political activist who shared this information also happened to be white. Racial stereotypes were implemented, amplified. If drugs weren't so criminalized, the black market wouldn't be so vast, drug-related violence over the border would cease to exist or at least be lessened, and gangs would quickly diminish. In 2011, "A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy (argued) that the decades-old worldwide war on drugs has failed, with
devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the
world." (Reuters) Click here to read that report.
The legalization of drugs in the United States wouldn't necessarily bring more drug use to its society and culture- as a matter of fact, the opposite is most likely to happen. In 2009, Time Magazine did a feature on Portugal regarding its decriminalization on drugs: "Illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled". In America's case, the same could happen- if only politicians were more open and aggressive about it. Drug addicts are often jailed and sent to prison for mere possession and usage- but if they lived in a society that made treatment more accessible and more effective, than there would be a lot less people in prison. There would be more focus and emphasis, I believe, on drug-related violence and those who inflict harm on other people- and even that would diminish if there was legalization and regulation. There may even be less prisons. Less tax money would be going towards prisons, and that is something that everyone in the Middle Class wouldn't mind having, even if they aren't using drugs whatsoever. That is a concept that Former First Lady Nancy Reagan, respectively, did not have, unless there was another motive altogether. Prohibition failed within the same century- and that should have been taken into account.
That is not say that the War on Drugs did not exist before Reagan, or that he single-handedly created it, because he did not- but his administration did worsen the situation altogether. The current administration, with its liberal views on some issues, doesn't help with the War on Drugs- who remembers the recent federal raids on marijuana dispensaries?
And don't get me started on why weed is federally illegal while alcohol is perfectly okay to buy when you're age 21 in the State of California. And why are cigarettes legal if they are known for its many carcinogens, second-hand smoke, cause of lung cancer, etc.?
No comments:
Post a Comment