ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Best documentary at Sundance this year, and in many years.
It's interesting that you would serve a link like this up for scrutiny, considering how bad it reflects on the 80s and Ronald Reagan (and Clinton).
What in God's name do people think Iran-Contra was even about? Keeping the gravy train well lubricated under the guise of "fighting the communists." Drug trade brings some $600-800 billion in liquid cash into the global banking system every year. If that stopped tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the global banking system?
My favorite quote from the trailer: "That's MY money now!" - ATF agent (or some such) admiring his catch after a bust. Really sums the whole thing up, doesn't it? Which way do you think that cop votes? When no one's watching, corruption thrives. Unfettered capitalism REQUIRES corruption. This aspect of it is absolutely NO different.
Reagan's "War on Drugs" was never meant to be won, only sustained. It's the biggest reason his near God-like stature behind the rose-colored glasses of cons is so abhorrent. Oliver North was ultimately a drug runner. Does anyone actually still dispute this? Reagan and his henchmen all knew the score.
An author I once read put it best:
"When Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs in 1972 the federal budget allocation for the war on drugs was $101 million. Today (1999) the federal budget allocation is $20 billion. And yet today there are more drugs in this country, they are less expensive, and they are of better quality than they were in 1972.
There were only two plausible ways to interpret that amazing fact. One could assume that a twenty-seven-year failure, despite a budget almost 200 times greater than when it began, and despite the application of the best minds in politics and law enforcement, was somehow the result of a collective and contagious stupidity. Not only had these people been negligent and incompetent, their budgets had been increased as a reward.
On the other hand, one could infer that this state of affairs — having been
managed by the most educated and influential elite in the country — reflected
exactly what was intended: a global drug economy that generated an estimated $600 - $700 billion a year in liquid cash profits from which someone was deriving great benefit. Who?"
Yeah, that would be option No. 2.
We don't even need to get into the feed loop of corporate incarceration that the "law enforcement" aspect of this paradigm creates. But we will.
The War on Drugs has been functional and profitable for many.
One of the reasons for our pension crisis in many states is due to this failed effort, police, prosecutors, judges and correctional officers all demand salaries and benefits.... and retirement systems.
Then there is the privatized function, and companies like Corrections Corp of America and others whose bottom line is profit.
All the while this whole "war" has been discriminatory, consider the recent supreme court ruling on possession of crack cocaines vs. possession of cocaine...
It has fueled violence near the border, and in many ways is the root cause of the violence in the streets..
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
Best documentary at Sundance this year, and in many years.
I have heard it did really well and I personally cant wait to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Pullo
It's interesting that you would serve a link like this up for scrutiny, considering how bad it reflects on the 80s and Ronald Reagan (and Clinton).
Why is that interesting? I think all presidents, regardless of the letter behind their name, are up for scrutiny. Was the you in your statement "me" or you in a general sense?
If it was you=me, you may have my views confused for someone else, as I certainly am not a con, as you put it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Pullo
What in God's name do people think Iran-Contra was even about? Keeping the gravy train well lubricated under the guise of "fighting the communists." Drug trade brings some $600-800 billion in liquid cash into the global banking system every year. If that stopped tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the global banking system?
It's pretty obvious what would happen if you removed that much money from the global banking system, but that would only be bad for the machine, certainly not for you and me (short of increased costs for products at the POS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Pullo
My favorite quote from the trailer: "That's MY money now!" - ATF agent (or some such) admiring his catch after a bust. Really sums the whole thing up, doesn't it? Which way do you think that cop votes? When no one's watching, corruption thrives. Unfettered capitalism REQUIRES corruption. This aspect of it is absolutely NO different.
I agree completely. That single line tells me all I need to know about the other side of this travesty.
As for your point about capitalism requiring corruption, I would counter that it is no different than the other two systems I personally have seen.
The junta in Indonesia and the the corruption I saw when my dad lived in Zhuhai China (Communism) both had levels of corruption which seemed more corrupt than the US, if only because it is so overt comparatively speaking.
Ultimate power corrupts ultimately, regardless of what form that power is in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Pullo
Reagan's "War on Drugs" was never meant to be won, only sustained. It's the biggest reason his near God-like stature behind the rose-colored glasses of cons is so abhorrent. Oliver North was ultimately a drug runner. Does anyone actually still dispute this? Reagan and his henchmen all knew the score.
I was born during the Reagan years, so I obviously didn't have a mature understanding of the world around me. But I can remember the "Just Say No" campaign; and it was a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titus Pullo
An author I once read put it best:
"When Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs in 1972 the federal budget allocation for the war on drugs was $101 million. Today (1999) the federal budget allocation is $20 billion. And yet today there are more drugs in this country, they are less expensive, and they are of better quality than they were in 1972.
There were only two plausible ways to interpret that amazing fact. One could assume that a twenty-seven-year failure, despite a budget almost 200 times greater than when it began, and despite the application of the best minds in politics and law enforcement, was somehow the result of a collective and contagious stupidity. Not only had these people been negligent and incompetent, their budgets had been increased as a reward.
On the other hand, one could infer that this state of affairs — having been
managed by the most educated and influential elite in the country — reflected
exactly what was intended: a global drug economy that generated an estimated $600 - $700 billion a year in liquid cash profits from which someone was deriving great benefit. Who?"
Yeah, that would be option No. 2.
We don't even need to get into the feed loop of corporate incarceration that the "law enforcement" aspect of this paradigm creates. But we will.
Utterly disgusting.
IMHO - it is the least defensible and least moral of any "war" we have been in in the last 150 years.
My only fear is there will never be a true, honest debate of what it really is vs the perception of what it is. It is a war that should have been ended long ago, and if everyday people saw what it really looked like, and maybe this film will do that, I think there would be more outcry to end it.
However, the beast "has" to be fed. I think we have too many groups who rely on it now for their existence, physical or economical, for it to be ended.
The War on Drugs has been functional and profitable for many.
It does certainly seem that way. Whats the saying, the US government will never make drugs legal because there is too much money to be made by keeping them illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrylS
One of the reasons for our pension crisis in many states is due to this failed effort, police, prosecutors, judges and correctional officers all demand salaries and benefits.... and retirement systems.
Then there is the privatized function, and companies like Corrections Corp of America and others whose bottom line is profit.
All the while this whole "war" has been discriminatory, consider the recent supreme court ruling on possession of crack cocaines vs. possession of cocaine...
It has fueled violence near the border, and in many ways is the root cause of the violence in the streets..
Took a Drugs and Society class at UMass, was an eye opener for sure. To your point, many of our drug laws were formed with a race slant to them. For instance for the push to ban pot had to do with Mexicans and as you noted the, the old 100:1 rule when it came to coke (a predominately white drug) vs crack (a predominately black drug).
As for your last point, it is one the bigger reasons I am pro legalizing drugs. By having them illegal, the trade of them is worth much much more. Similarly to Prohibition, those who trade in them have risen from street pick pocket petty thieves into very power "gangsters"
If you made them the same as other drugs; booze and smokes, there would be no power to trade in them and the violence would drop over night.
It does certainly seem that way. Whats the saying, the US government will never make drugs legal because there is too much money to be made by keeping them illegal.
Took a Drugs and Society class at UMass, was an eye opener for sure. To your point, many of our drug laws were formed with a race slant to them. For instance for the push to ban pot had to do with Mexicans and as you noted the, the old 100:1 rule when it came to coke (a predominately white drug) vs crack (a predominately black drug).
As for your last point, it is one the bigger reasons I am pro legalizing drugs. By having them illegal, the trade of them is worth much much more. Similarly to Prohibition, those who trade in them have risen from street pick pocket petty thieves into very power "gangsters"
If you made them the same as other drugs; booze and smokes, there would be no power to trade in them and the violence would drop over night.
I can dream right Darryl ?
Dreams are good, another thing to consider is the three strikes rule.. which was focused on minorities as well..
Just wait until all those guys hit their 70's, it will get extremely expensive to meet their medical needs in a prison complex.. you have to protect them from others, and somehow meet their often complicated medical needs.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
1Likes
The House I Live In
?
Linear Mode
