- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
America's War On Drugs on History channel now
Posted on 6/18/17 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 6/18/17 at 8:05 pm
quote:
America’s War on Drugs Was Designed to Fail. So Why Is It Being Revived Now?
While much of the media is focused on Trump’s Russian skullduggery, America has quietly found itself enmeshed in the worst drug epidemic in our history. Drug overdoses, mostly from increasingly lethal opioids, now kill more people than guns and traffic accidents. A recent investigation by The New York Times of local and state authorities across the country came to a staggering conclusion—that somewhere between 59,000 and 65,000 people died of drug overdoses in 2016, a nearly 20% spike in a single year, the paper estimates.
2017 is gearing up to be just as bad, or worse. ...
History Channel
5
Posted on 6/18/17 at 8:17 pm to chinese58
I've got it recording. I will check back in tomorrow, but I'm anxious to see it. Looks interesting.
Posted on 6/18/17 at 8:22 pm to chinese58
quote:
Drug overdoses, mostly from increasingly lethal opioids, now kill more people than guns and traffic accidents.
That's insane. The war on drugs is a terrific failure.
Legalize weed. Decriminalization of all other drugs. Couple that with pharmacy and prescription reform. Then make manufacturering and sale of narcotics illegal but being addicted shouldn't be a crime. That only furthers the problem
Posted on 6/18/17 at 8:32 pm to chinese58
War on drugs was a crime against humanity.
Arbitrary classifications and as absurd - more absurd given the far more damage alcohol does - than prohibition.
"I have not inquired at what period of time the use of intoxicating liquors commenced," he said, "nor is it important to know." It is sufficient to know that on first opening our eyes "upon the stage of existence", we found "intoxicating liquor recognised by everybody, used by everybody, repudiated by nobody". - Abraham Lincoln
The state of intoxication is a house with many mansions. Fourteen centuries before the birth of Christ, the Rigveda finds Hindu priests chanting hymns to a "drop of soma", the wise and wisdom-loving plant from which was drawn juices distilled in sheep's wool that "make us see far; make us richer, better". Philosophers in ancient Greece rejoiced in the literal meaning of the word symposium, a "drinking together". The Roman Stoic Seneca recommends the judicious embrace of Bacchus as a liberation of the mind "from its slavery to cares, emancipates it, invigorates it, and emboldens it for all its undertakings".
Martin Luther, early father of the Protestant reformation, in 1530 exhorts the faithful to "drink, and right freely", because it is the devil who tells them not to. "One must always do what Satan forbids. What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely, and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me."
The founders of the republic in Philadelphia in 1787 were in the habit of consuming prodigious quantities of liquor as an expression of their faith in their fellow men – pots of ale or cider at midday, two or more bottles of claret at dinner followed by an amiable passing around the table of the Madeira.
Frederick Marryat, an English traveller to America in 1839, noted in his diary that the way the natives drank was "quite a caution … If you meet, you drink; if you part, you drink; if you make acquaintance, you drink; if you close a bargain, you drink; they quarrel in their drink, and they make it up with a drink. They drink, because it is hot; they drink, because it is cold."
Americans have a history and hearty appetite to do as they please and for mind-altering substances...be it alcohol or plants or synthetic lab creations.
So again with the war that America has been waging for the last 100 years against the use of drugs deemed to be illegal. The war cannot be won, but in the meantime, at a cost of $20bn a year, it facilitates the transformation of what was once a freedom-loving republic into a freedom-fearing national security state.
The policies of zero tolerance equip local and federal law-enforcement with increasingly autocratic powers of coercion and surveillance (the right to invade anybody's privacy, bend the rules of evidence, search barns, stop motorists, inspect bank records, tap phones) and spread the stain of moral pestilence to ever larger numbers of people assumed to be infected with reefer madness – anarchists and cheap Chinese labour at the turn of the 20th century, known homosexuals and suspected communists in the 1920s, hippies and anti-Vietnam war protesters in the 1960s, nowadays young black men sentenced to long-term imprisonment for possession of a few grams of short-term disembodiment.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with our current federal drug policies, the basic idea is pretty simple. The government uses five “schedules” to classify drugs according to three properties — “potential for abuse,” “accepted medical use” and potential to lead to “psychological or physical dependence.” Schedule I drugs, for example, are deemed by the DEA and the Food and Drug Administration to have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical value and a high potential for dependence. This most serious category currently includes drugs like marijuana, LSD, psilocybin and MDMA.
However, concerning the four drugs I just mentioned, legitimate research conducted by third-parties and the government itself has consistently shown this classification system to be utterly spurious. According to a 2010 British study published in the Lancet, these particular substances are actually some of the least harmful of all recreational drugs. Their impact on society and potential for addiction is miniscule compared with alcohol and tobacco — which, of course, are entirely legal.
Particularly sickening is the fact that this prison-industrial complex is completely subsidized by John Q. Taxpayer. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that state and federal governments spend more than $46 billion a year fighting the war on drugs.
And let’s not forget the obvious detail that making drugs illegal doesn’t get rid of drugs. Outlawing them simply creates an extremely lucrative black market, since criminal gangs derive the exclusive right to deal. The profitability of selling illegal drugs acts like a magnet that uproots hundreds of thousands of teens from their communities every year and lures them into a life of crime. And the violence created by our drug laws is certainly not entirely contained within our borders. Drug cartels in Latin America, fueled by our guns and our money, have murdered thousands of innocent people and continue to destabilize the region in their quest to supply our demand for illegal drugs.
To solve the problem, our government doles out more of your hard-earned cash in the form of “aid” — that is, weaponry and combat training — to these countries, enabling the U.S. to fight a proxy war, thus exporting the externalities created by this thriving industry of violence.
Even if we won this war on drugs, it still demonstrates what hypocrites we really are. Think about it for a second — what liberty is more fundamental than the right to explore and experiment with one’s own consciousness? If, while under the influence of drugs, I steal a car or assault someone, I’m going to be punished for that wrongdoing regardless. What, then, are the grounds for making drug use itself a crime? If the logic is that it’s the state’s duty to shape the moral conscience and worldview of its citizenry — well then, hello, 1984.
Arbitrary classifications and as absurd - more absurd given the far more damage alcohol does - than prohibition.
"I have not inquired at what period of time the use of intoxicating liquors commenced," he said, "nor is it important to know." It is sufficient to know that on first opening our eyes "upon the stage of existence", we found "intoxicating liquor recognised by everybody, used by everybody, repudiated by nobody". - Abraham Lincoln
The state of intoxication is a house with many mansions. Fourteen centuries before the birth of Christ, the Rigveda finds Hindu priests chanting hymns to a "drop of soma", the wise and wisdom-loving plant from which was drawn juices distilled in sheep's wool that "make us see far; make us richer, better". Philosophers in ancient Greece rejoiced in the literal meaning of the word symposium, a "drinking together". The Roman Stoic Seneca recommends the judicious embrace of Bacchus as a liberation of the mind "from its slavery to cares, emancipates it, invigorates it, and emboldens it for all its undertakings".
Martin Luther, early father of the Protestant reformation, in 1530 exhorts the faithful to "drink, and right freely", because it is the devil who tells them not to. "One must always do what Satan forbids. What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely, and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me."
The founders of the republic in Philadelphia in 1787 were in the habit of consuming prodigious quantities of liquor as an expression of their faith in their fellow men – pots of ale or cider at midday, two or more bottles of claret at dinner followed by an amiable passing around the table of the Madeira.
Frederick Marryat, an English traveller to America in 1839, noted in his diary that the way the natives drank was "quite a caution … If you meet, you drink; if you part, you drink; if you make acquaintance, you drink; if you close a bargain, you drink; they quarrel in their drink, and they make it up with a drink. They drink, because it is hot; they drink, because it is cold."
Americans have a history and hearty appetite to do as they please and for mind-altering substances...be it alcohol or plants or synthetic lab creations.
So again with the war that America has been waging for the last 100 years against the use of drugs deemed to be illegal. The war cannot be won, but in the meantime, at a cost of $20bn a year, it facilitates the transformation of what was once a freedom-loving republic into a freedom-fearing national security state.
The policies of zero tolerance equip local and federal law-enforcement with increasingly autocratic powers of coercion and surveillance (the right to invade anybody's privacy, bend the rules of evidence, search barns, stop motorists, inspect bank records, tap phones) and spread the stain of moral pestilence to ever larger numbers of people assumed to be infected with reefer madness – anarchists and cheap Chinese labour at the turn of the 20th century, known homosexuals and suspected communists in the 1920s, hippies and anti-Vietnam war protesters in the 1960s, nowadays young black men sentenced to long-term imprisonment for possession of a few grams of short-term disembodiment.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with our current federal drug policies, the basic idea is pretty simple. The government uses five “schedules” to classify drugs according to three properties — “potential for abuse,” “accepted medical use” and potential to lead to “psychological or physical dependence.” Schedule I drugs, for example, are deemed by the DEA and the Food and Drug Administration to have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical value and a high potential for dependence. This most serious category currently includes drugs like marijuana, LSD, psilocybin and MDMA.
However, concerning the four drugs I just mentioned, legitimate research conducted by third-parties and the government itself has consistently shown this classification system to be utterly spurious. According to a 2010 British study published in the Lancet, these particular substances are actually some of the least harmful of all recreational drugs. Their impact on society and potential for addiction is miniscule compared with alcohol and tobacco — which, of course, are entirely legal.
Particularly sickening is the fact that this prison-industrial complex is completely subsidized by John Q. Taxpayer. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that state and federal governments spend more than $46 billion a year fighting the war on drugs.
And let’s not forget the obvious detail that making drugs illegal doesn’t get rid of drugs. Outlawing them simply creates an extremely lucrative black market, since criminal gangs derive the exclusive right to deal. The profitability of selling illegal drugs acts like a magnet that uproots hundreds of thousands of teens from their communities every year and lures them into a life of crime. And the violence created by our drug laws is certainly not entirely contained within our borders. Drug cartels in Latin America, fueled by our guns and our money, have murdered thousands of innocent people and continue to destabilize the region in their quest to supply our demand for illegal drugs.
To solve the problem, our government doles out more of your hard-earned cash in the form of “aid” — that is, weaponry and combat training — to these countries, enabling the U.S. to fight a proxy war, thus exporting the externalities created by this thriving industry of violence.
Even if we won this war on drugs, it still demonstrates what hypocrites we really are. Think about it for a second — what liberty is more fundamental than the right to explore and experiment with one’s own consciousness? If, while under the influence of drugs, I steal a car or assault someone, I’m going to be punished for that wrongdoing regardless. What, then, are the grounds for making drug use itself a crime? If the logic is that it’s the state’s duty to shape the moral conscience and worldview of its citizenry — well then, hello, 1984.
This post was edited on 6/18/17 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 6/18/17 at 10:52 pm to chinese58
Just read the whole thing. Holy shite.
I already knew of just about every one of those stories separately, but reading that story of it all connecting really made it hit home.
I'm recording the midnight showing
I already knew of just about every one of those stories separately, but reading that story of it all connecting really made it hit home.
I'm recording the midnight showing
This post was edited on 6/18/17 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 6/18/17 at 11:22 pm to funnystuff
Watched it, really interesting.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 3:32 pm to chinese58
All of the stuff about how heroin was getting in to the US through the military makes me feel like I'm watching American Gangster again.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 3:48 pm to TigerLunatik
yea, no kidding.
I watched some of this last night before falling asleep. up through the laos drug smuggling with tony pao (sp)
the stuff about the cia buying LSD from Switzerland and using it to try and control minds in the 60s was pretty neat.
overall I thought it was good, and will continue to watch.
I watched some of this last night before falling asleep. up through the laos drug smuggling with tony pao (sp)
the stuff about the cia buying LSD from Switzerland and using it to try and control minds in the 60s was pretty neat.
overall I thought it was good, and will continue to watch.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 3:54 pm to jefforize
I'm not sure what kind of show I was expecting, but I wasn't expecting a history lesson.
Posted on 6/20/17 at 7:00 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
All of the stuff about how heroin was getting in to the US through the military makes me feel like I'm watching American Gangster again.
or Who'll Stop the Rain (1978).
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News