Uncle Sam is Breaking Bad

reply to post by sulaw


Well, without violating T & C, I can simply state that your assumptions are 100% false.

I have sustained concussions, and been through PTSD from the death of my sibling.

The thing about being an "addict" is that it can only be assessed after the fact. It's a circular argument.

Those who are strong enough to go through the withdrawal on their own, are said to "not be an addict".

Those who are incapable of going through the process either ever, or without much support, and hitting "rock bottom", are a "true addict".

It's an entirely illogical label.

reply to post by Hefficide


The war on drugs had only one purpose and that was to militarize the police forces around the country. And the average people ate it up and never even noticed it.


I wonder how we will look back on the war on terror? How stupid and pathetic can we all be. Fear is the only thing that binds this sad world together. Everything else is just a sound byte.

reply to post by Hefficide


Then civilization is a loss, because that's always been the case.

Do you have a viable alternative which would do away with the "war on drugs" ??

If not, my point is valid. It's a rigged game, and only the fittest survive.

reply to post by Hefficide


I am very surprised we are "talking" about this. I was in the camp of your site, your rules. Seeing that we are dicussing it, I would like to add the medias role in all this. I am talking the shows, the movies, the glamorizing of it, and in our newest realm of TV shows, the "Reality" part of it. You touched on the "BIG MONEY", but it goes much deeper. The conditioning aspect of it.

I dont want to derail the discussion in any way, but I do believe the Media does play its part in all this. We do know how the media plays its part in Politics also.


S&F

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez


Again, absolutely!

Treat social issues as social issues and not as money generating crimes. Treatment beats incarceration in almost all cases.

The irony of criminalizing something that is categorized as a disease is what is actually criminal here.

**ATTENTION**

ATS is allowing the discussion of the FOLLOWING:

Conspiracies surrounding the war on drugs in the United States

The US (and international) drug laws that impose disproportionate penalties

The above does not imply that we are allowing discussion of recreational or personal use, nor are we allowing discussions regarding the legalization of currently illegal subjects.

Please be warned that staff have this forum under HEAVY scrutiny.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by Hefficide

 

The war on drugs had only one purpose and that was to militarize the police forces around the country. And the average people ate it up and never even noticed it.

I'd agree with that and add one thing to it. The War on Drugs has not simply worked to militarize our police but it's paid for it as well. Through Civil Forfeiture laws that quite literally make your money guilty until proven innocent, even if YOU are proven innocent yourself in many cases, they have made a tidy revenue. That money usually goes in part or in whole to the department(s) making the bust/seizure. This carries all the way back into the 80's for when it all really started.

So, it's really become the ultimate nightmare of self sustaining problems. They make the problem by the laws and high profile priority put on enforcing them at all costs, then profit DIRECTLY from the enforcement they do themselves, so they can then go on to do MORE of it and do it better.

reply to post by Hefficide


There's too much money to be made Heff. Its the truth.

Its sad and Pathetic. The Government, and local authorities get rich off of people, even if those people are actually innocent. From seizing property 'believed" to be involved in drug operations, To stopping you on the highway and taking your cash because they "believe" you were involved with some kind of trafficking.You cant make it up.

Its Orwellian, and a "We the People" have let it happen, because of the conditioning aspect of it all.

All in the name of SECURITY.

reply to post by Hefficide


Well I am with you that social issues should be treated as social issues, but I'm not sure that the standard treatment option currently available from the system is all that effective.

I think this penetrates many themes all at once, from economic disparity, deliberate class warfare, media corruption, heck even pharmaceutical corruption. Then you have corporate laws which make it illegal not to seek maximum profits for the shareholders.

When you put it all together, you see a system that's broken, a game that's rigged, and a few enlightened people who can choose to talk about the issue all they want, but ultimately everything is mostly grid-locked in place, and all that's left to do is be wise and slip through the cracks of codification, and deviate accordingly.

That's my take on it. I applaud that you're attempting to take on a small slice of the beast, but civilization will march on with or without our say.

I leave resigned, and apologize if my comments derailed the thread a little.

I am going to go against the grain here, not just to be a jerk, or to troll etc. I think the war on drug is something needed..

I have lived in the EU, hung out in Amsterdam, Germany etc. I really do not want to have to see Junkies passed out on stairs going to a subway etc. Speaking from real life experience. Now does the USA's war on drugs have its Corruptions hell yes it does.. Yet I would rather have a war on drugs, and yes I understand how it works, I also know how many drug offenders are doing time in a low level security detention center, and if it was a Federal drug offense they are on a club med type prison..

We cannot leave our border open to drugs, narcotics really screw people up man, Designer drugs are the worst.. We have to have laws against it hard drugs like narcotics, stimulants like coc aine, opiates, addictive destructive drugs need not be on our streets legally. I think Society would really take a strong hit if these drugs were not regulated, in so many ways.

There are some serious problems with the war on drugs, and their is corruption, there is more good then bad thou in my opinion..

When there is more bad then good, then I would be more concerned with how we are conducting the war..

I feel weird talking about drugs on ats..

reply to post by sonnny1

Its Orwellian, and a "We the People" have let it happen, because of the conditioning aspect of it all. All in the name of SECURITY.

If "We the People" created this problem. And we did.

Let's fix it. The Government is made up of "We the People".

I reject the notion that these bastards have won.

Just look at what we have done to the beautiful nation of Mexico.

We have all but destroyed their workforce and their nation.

That reason alone is enough to end this ridiculous Police Action.

I understand the "war on drug's" includes many drugs... but I want to share what most of the public don't understand about the war on Hemp/Marijuana.

This war was mostly fueled by Randolf Hearst and and the Mellon and Dupont familys.

As we always say... follow the money.

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings and reports. In 1936 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) noticed an increase of reports of people smoking marijuana, which further increased in 1937. The Bureau drafted a legislative plan for Congress, seeking a new law and the head of the FBN, Harry J. Anslinger, ran a campaign against marijuana.

Newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst's empire of newspapers began publishing what is known as "yellow journalism", demonizing the cannabis plant and putting emphasis on connections between cannabis and violent crime.

Several scholars argue that the goal was to destroy the hemp industry, largely as an effort of Hearst, Andrew Mellon and the Du Pont family.

They argue that with the invention of the decorticator hemp became a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry.

They also believe that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings.

Mellon was Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America and had invested heavily in nylon, DuPont's new synthetic fiber, and considered its success to depend on its replacement of the traditional resource, hemp.

According to other researchers there were other things than hemp more important for DuPont in the mid-1930s: to finish the product (nylon) before its German competitors, to start plants for nylon with much larger capacity, etc.

Wiki

reply to post by whyamIhere


I agree.

But when do "we the people" break from actually doing something, when you have great TV like COPS Intervention, and Breaking Bad on?




We have a dishonest Government hell bent in Taxing us to death, and ANY answer to any of this involves a Tax.

Boston Tea Party ring a bell?

The Hypocrisy abounds. Just think of how much money is raised by Tax for Liquor and Cigarettes? The stats are out there.

I just dont think America is ready for what needs to be done. Government is TOO damn big, and anyone saying otherwise either works for it or is too blind to see it.

It's only the liberal interpretation of law in the Western World that sees drug addiction as a "disease".

I'm far from a Conservative supporter, but starting drugs is a personal choice bought on by peer pressure, environment, and opportunity. Once people are ON drugs (at least certain ones like heroin) then yes, there is some degree of body chemistry changes that can account for the need for increased usage, and can be treated like a disease.

But the initial choice to take the drug in the first place is still personal responsibility, nothing more.

The more I learn about this, the more I lean toward decriminalization of pretty much everything.

First reason, it would open a ton of doors for legitimate research on the industry and effects of the drugs themselves. The legality issues severely limit out society's ability to educate ourselves about certain substances. There could be a more open and intellectual attitude toward drugs in school instead of an irrational NEVER! followed by the young's inclination to push boundaries. We'd have far fewer first time users going in blind.

Second reason, the persecution is out of control. Jail populations are wayyy to high and it's just the tip of the iceberg. Because so many go to jail and because such a higher rate come from distinct segments of the population- in particular poor minority communities- we have a splash effect on even those that avoid incarceration. Cities with no trust of law enforcement and a culture of avoiding police contact at all cost. "The cops are my enemy."

Third reason, I think drugs have been over-blamed for societies problems at large. I think in many addiction cases the addiction is more of a symptom of an underlying psychological issue. The two feed and breed on one another and the person can become powerless. Maybe by backing off the drugs as the primary problem, we can look at individuals and focus on improving mental health and environment as the main goal with sobriety or responsible use being a positive secondary outcome.

reply to post by babybunnies


I disagree to an extent. While personal responsibility definitely plays into it... there is strong evidence to suggest that predisposition to addiction can be genetic. Also environmental factors come deeply into play among a great many other factors.

What differentiates those of us who can have one drink from those of us who cannot stop once they begin ( as an example ) don't really come into play here. They are semantic. A disease is a disease regardless of whether or not some are more prone to it than others.

The social stigma involved in these issues only serves to reinforce the cycle of abuses discussed in the OP.

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

Well, without violating T & C, I can simply state that your assumptions are 100% false.

My apologies if I came off abrasive, that was not my intention nor my assumption just how you posed the response via thread.

The thing about being an "addict" is that it can only be assessed after the fact. It's a circular argument.

Circular at best and a dead end debate as both sides hit a brick wall after all resourcres are exhausted and either a perception changes or stays the same. Though I would pose that an "addict" can be seen from a mile away and doesn't have to be after the fact.

Those who are strong enough to go through the withdrawal on their own, are said to "not be an addict".

To an extent, though I've seen even those who would be considered the strongest fall to addiction. Addiction and the lines drawn are very skewed as some people can be addicted to Asprin or even sleeping pills.

Those who are incapable of going through the process either ever, or without much support, and hitting "rock bottom", are a "true addict".

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this statement. Please clarify~

Is it the process of withdrawl without support equivelent to "hitting rock bottom" which would = a true addict? What about families that don't have a support process or just equally lack support? So destructive behavior is a cry for help and processed through such addictive substances but just the same the family doesn't condone said behavior so black ball the said person thus creating a more toxic and volitile scenerio?

Just a perception with a toss of a penny~

When the Nicaraguan rebels began flooding the streets of L.A. with coc aine in the early 80's, and selling it to the bloods and crips gangs, the pipeline was established for the funneling of mass amounts of drugs.

The CIA and it's army financiers established a meaningful connection with Ricky Donnell Ross, or better known as Freeway Rick, who then transformed the drug into crack coc aine which exploded into an epidemic. The money then provided the LA gangs cash to buy weapons, and also provided the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense guerrillas equipment and weapons to overthrow the revolutionary socialist government.

The enormous profits made, provided the LA based gangs with weapons and means to arm themselves and spread across the entire country, turning entire blocks of major cities into occasional war zones.

This can still be seen today.

If any argument is to be made on behalf of our inner city youth, it should be the affects and introduction of this drug and it's proliferation, and how it has created the disproportionate effects so common amongst minorities in urban America.

I want to expound on my last response~

Addiction can be seen not just in illegal and just the same legal substances (via doctors and pharmacists) it's all around us.

One can be addicted to Monster Energy drinks.

Originally posted by sulaw

Those who are incapable of going through the process either ever, or without much support, and hitting "rock bottom", are a "true addict".

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this statement. Please clarify~

Is it the process of withdrawl without support equivelent to "hitting rock bottom" which would = a true addict? What about families that don't have a support process or just equally lack support? So destructive behavior is a cry for help and processed through such addictive substances but just the same the family doesn't condone said behavior so black ball the said person thus creating a more toxic and volitile scenerio?

Just a perception with a toss of a penny~

No, hitting rock bottom happens before the withdrawal. Rock bottom is essentially the point that an unwise individual who has been using drugs to their detriment, finally gains insight into the extent of damage the continued use of said substances is causing them. Such individuals usually have a series of obviously horrific incidences within a relatively short period of time, as they are oblivious to any slight detriments, obviously to have put their selves in such a situation in the first place.

When I say, "support", I'm not necessarily referring to the family. By the time an addict "hits rock bottom", their family, regardless of initial support or lack there of, will often have turned their backs on them. The "support" is usually a program, either issued from being busted and thrown in the system, else sought out from a non-profit, or a church, or whatever, after something terribly wrong happens to them, or a user they know.

I can see your reasoning with the last sentence, and it is valid, though in no way excuses the actions of individuals who become "true addicts". There is essentially a risk/benefit cost analysis that goes on, both of one's actions towards their selves, their family, and community, which in said, "true addicts" is simply not operating well. That's why services like, "correctional thinking" focus on objectively assessing situations, and critically thinking them through.

People who can develop this critical thinking on their own, will simply see no good reason to put their selves in a position to be labeled a "true addict". Period. It's simply not in their MO. Yes, they understand that there will be pain to withdrawal, and pain to confront whatever emotional, or physical suffering they have going on, but they will also see beyond this for the long-term goal of becoming well without the roller-coaster that is drug abuse, and all the insane baggage that tends comes along with it.