Is the cannabis ban a matter of racism and colonialism as claims made by the AOC?

There has been much debate over the cannabis ban since Sha’Carri Richardson’s suspension. One of the voices condemning the Olympic Committee’s decision was MP Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who called it “racist and colonial politics”.

As reported in Business Insider;

Although cannabis is not generally considered a performance enhancing drug, the World Anti-Doping Agency, a branch of the IOC, regards it as a “substance of abuse”.

The IOC is the International Olympic Committee that Ocasio speaks of.

“The criminalization and prohibition of cannabis is an instrument of racist and colonial politics,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter. “The IOC should reconsider its suspension of Ms. Richardson and all athletes punished for cannabis use.”

The final section of the Business Insider article asks a simple question – which also happens to be the inspiration for this article.

The move to ban Richardson is the latest in a series of decisions by Olympic Games organizers that have taken place dismissed as biased.

Is the prohibition because of prejudice?

As you may all know, I’m all for cannabis. My pseudonym is “Reginald Reefer!”

Nonetheless, I disagree with the view that the IOC made its decision based on prejudice. Prejudice would mean that his decision is based on a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

In a way, that might be true – but the truth behind the band stems less from prejudice than from politics.

The INTERNATIONAL BAN on a long list of psychiatric drugs has created an environment where the standard guideline is “If you have drugs inside you cheat, are a criminal, etc.”

This means that the IOC did not suspend Richardson out of “prejudice”, just out of legalism. It’s the exact same excuse the police use when they arrest you for pot.

It is not that you are posing a danger or doing something that will endanger the public, but because smoking is illegal and therefore you must be punished.

If that sounds ridiculous to you … WELCOME TO THE FUCKING CLUB!

It’s not that cannabis activists have been saying the exact same thing since prohibition began. Oh wait, they totally did!

What about the inherent racism of the cannabis ban?

One thing Ocasio-Cortez hits on the nose is the racial origins of the cannabis ban. The cannabis ban still serves as a tool of repression – I don’t think racism is at the heart of the modern ban.

I am not saying that there is no such thing as racism, nor do I deny the connection between racism and prohibition. I just don’t think the IOC’s decisions are based on racism.

I don’t think they said, “She tested positive for THC (and is black)” as a motivation for her suspension. In all likelihood, this is simply policy enforcement.

Are the “policies” for banning drugs racist?

Neither – it’s just out of date. You need to understand that the drug ban has shaped every other policy around it.

People were regularly examined for these substances in schools, workplaces and at international events. In sport, drug screening should promote “fair competition”.

But everyone knows that cannabis can hardly be described as “performance enhancing”.

Nonetheless, Olympic drug policy is a result of the ban, but not inherently racist, despite the overlapping history of racism and prohibition.

While Ocasio-Cortez is right in claiming the racist connection between cannabis and bans, it really doesn’t fit the narrative of this particular case. At least not to the public knowledge of what happened.

Perhaps Cortez is just flattering their base with Trump-like tactics to get an enemy out of anything that is “hot” in public.

News troll, if you will.

I MAY SAY!

What about cannabis and colonialism?

I don’t really understand the need to talk about colonialism in the context of the ban, but now that it has been brought up – let’s take a closer look at cannabis and colonialism.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, colonialism is defined as the policy or practice of gaining full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Under this definition we can see that;

1. The IOC is a non-political organization that does not represent any country / ideology and only focuses on upholding the ideals of the Olympic Games

2. No monetary profits can be made through the ban.

Even in the context of national prohibition, the idea of ​​colonialism is actually absurd. If Ocasio-Cortez points out that cannabis was a key commodity among the British, can we also describe colonialist activities as “tea and coffee”?

There was no clarification of these terms and so one can only rely on one’s own conclusions.

The violation of individual human rights is enough!

I’ve studied Ocasio-Cortez’s comment in depth for one purpose only – to remove the fluff.

Nowadays I read all the time about “modifier arguments” to legalize cannabis or end the ban. The most important thing we should focus on is the violation of individual human rights.

Well, regarding the Olympics – they don’t violate anyone’s human rights. You are not forced to go to the Olympics and as there are certain rules, if you violate them you will be banned.

It sucks, but as Biden said, “Rules are the rules”. I’m not a fan of Biden, but he’s right about that.

But let’s not cover up the arguments by packing up a number of issues. The cannabis ban is a violation of a person’s right to choose what they can and cannot put into their own body.

What else do you need?

It is true that the origins of the ban lie in racism, but that is no longer what modern prohibition is about. It’s about corporatism, intellectual property, government contracts, industries that grew out of prohibition, and much more.

Still, we don’t have to win on any of these fronts. The only front we must win on is ownership of our own bodies.

CANNABIS AND RACING, READ MORE …

IS SHA’CARRI RICHARDSON THE NEW FACE OF LEGALIZATION?

OR..

WHO IS THE NEW FACE OF CANNABIS LEGALIZATION? CLICK HERE!