Tangentially, this is what frustrates me the most about the far left. The Right's wackos get organized, put up candidates for election, and get involved in local and higher government. What do we get on the Left? Occupy Wall Street, twitter hashtags, and slacktivism. What would be the SWJ equivalent of the North Carolina and Mississippi laws? That's right, there aren't any, because the far left can't even get organized enough to get a city fucking ordinance passed, let alone a state law. They might actually get less mockery and more consideration if they actually managed to get some shit done.
I'll agree with you to a point; I specifically didn't mention BLM in my post for reasons you allude to, since BLM was founded by black people who have always been outside of established power structures. However I see a lot of twenty-something college-educated, materially privileged white people taking up a lot of space in SJW spheres, and that demographic absolutely has the general cache to facilitate organization the way the far right does. The problem is that such organizing takes a lot of work, and more crucially, it requires they stand in the background and allow marginalized groups to take center stage - and when push comes to shove a great many of them aren't willing to do that. For entirely too many of them it's more about projecting an image and being a part of something trendy.
Uh... what do they want to do anyway? I mean, they got gay marriage legalized, but that's part of the larger democrat goals. What exactly are the SJWs trying to even do other than bitch and complain about how terrible they have it? Sure, they have goals but the goals that are concrete just seem to fit in spheres well outside of their niche. Most SJWs goals seem to be just focused on what they happen to be whining about this week. Get this random fired and acknowledge your motherfucking privilege aren't very meaningful goals.
Now that I'm home... Here we are in the middle of a violence epidemic fueled by illegal drugs and how does Obama handle the situation? He starts commuting prison sentences. Of drug dealers. I don't know about all the cases that he's commuted, but I know of one from Memphis. The guy had bought a house specifically for the distribution of his drugs. This was not some bullshit charge against some kid selling dime bags of weed. This guy bought a house to run his business out of. How long before he's back in the game? A few months at most? How long before he or his associates start contributing to the violence as he starts to carve his niche again? Somehow this strikes me as very counter-productive.
You can't be arguing that the solution to the drug problem is more incarceration? The minority communities are already decimated by non violent drug possession convictions, and if the meth problem keeps up then white people will completely overwhelm an already taxed system. That, and what can Obama even do? All of the republicans and the senate and congress vote against him just because. He could suggest free milk for starving babies and they'd shoot it down.
Productive would be to legalize drugs, stop dumping bodies into prison and take all that saved money and funnel it into treatment and social services. That would also kick the legs out of the cartels, who are slaughtering Central America. Also, violent crime in America continues to go down yearly: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm The media feeds off making it seem otherwise. What I do believe is skyrocketing are drug abuse rates amongst the white lower and middle class, thanks to pills. And one more thing...I'd argue that guns are a bigger deal than anything else, but now that everyone has one you can't put the shit back into the donkey.
Sanders is going to take Wisconsin. He's won the last 6 states now. Of course the problem is he's still behind in California and New York. The win tonight should put him within 200 delegates of Clinton, which is manageable, but he really needs to win some of those big states and not by half a percentage point.
Let's take a look at this route. Legalize drugs. All of them. Take the criminals out of the loop. So what happens to those criminals then? Do they all realize the error of their ways and go get jobs? Or do they just turn to something else that gives them quick cash with a minimal amount of effort? And now that drugs are legal, folks can just go to their local drug store and purchase their fix. One small problem....where do they get their money for their now legal fix? Work? Have you ever seen someone messed up on heroin or meth? They are unhireable. I've watched several people go down that rabbit hole and it's horrifying to watch their quick descent into not caring about anything except their next fix. All that exists to them is the next fix. They don't want to be helped, they just long for the sweet numbness the drug provides them with. I've also watched a couple family members slowly but surely kill themselves with legal drugs. Trust me, it doesn't make it any easier to watch them die day by day. I'm not arguing more incarceration, but I do know when you have an out of control fire you don't add fuel to it. Your source only goes to 2014. In 2015 violent crime start climbing again. Rapidly. I know that in Memphis this year, murder is up from 35 last year to 62 this year and in Chicago it's up 88.6%, with a total of 860 people shot. (Chicago stats source: http://heyjackass.com/ ) I also know it's way up in several other major cities like Baltimore and St. Louis.
That source goes from 1960 - 2014. Drug addiction is hell, but the War on Drugs is straight up a cash grab for certain industries (why the fuck are prisons private companies turning profits?) I'm really going to blow your mind here, but for hardcore addicts who meet specific criteria, I'd have the state supply the drugs. Western countries that have done that have seen upward of 60% decrease in violent crime, petty crime and overdose deaths in the first year. It's cheaper on the healthcare system AND the judicial system. It is quite literally cheaper and safer for the state to be a drug dealer. When addicts are not burdened with threat of jail by seeking help, have regular contact with doctors and no need for cash to fuel their habit, they also tend to go back to being way more functional members of society. In fact, the only reason this practice is not executed or even studied very often? The USA threatens trade relations when countries suggest it. We need to drop the idea that drugs are a crime and start thinking about mental and social health.
The problem I have with legalizing drugs is it's implicitly telling people it's not that bad for you. I know, who's so stupid they think heroin isn't that bad for you? Well, 18 year old kids are really that stupid, and I have no doubt some of them would interpret it that way. DCC, has any country totally legalized drugs? Portugal decriminalized everything, but it's still far from completely legal. Their results, while not too bad, aren't all that great either. They actually have more people using drugs than the point of decriminalization, and it almost doubled in the first six years. But more recent use has gone down, slightly. Results are pretty mixed. I hear this all the time. That there's this overwhelming evidence showing drug legalization makes everything better, but I've yet to see the evidence. Where is it? Although, the overdose rates are probably the best argument from Portugal.
Legalizing all drugs is tough. Alcohol is dangerous, but it's not going to string you out after 1 beer like heroin or crack will.
The Swiss did it. They had a soaring intravenous drug problem. It was so bad that thousands of needle users a day would gather in the city parks and shoot up in the open. In addition to that, the overdose rates and HIV infections were out of control. They elected to decriminalize drug use and, for users that fit the criteria, supply them with opiates as well as clean needles and medical supervision: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-drugs-idUSTRE69O3VI20101025 That ^ is not the link I read a few years back, but it addresses the issue. The documentary I'm thinking of interviewed the doctors working the front lines as well as the police. The decrease in petty crime, violence and theft was absolutely shocking. This program also acts as an entry point for addicts looking to get clean to enter the system and seek treatment programs. It's safer, cheaper and so much more effective than any "drug punishment" program I can think of. You cannot legislate away bad behaviour. People will do whatever they want; your best to make a system that can get people healthy, if they choose it.
I fully agree. However, the causality in your logic is false. If heroin was made legal today, I would not go and shoot it tomorrow. Drug users will use what they will (or what they can find), regardless of the laws of the land. A better correlation would be this: how well was alcohol abuse and distribution controlled during Prohibition? The answer was: it wasn't. At all. What it did do was create a thriving black market, organized crime and cartels. EDIT: I want to add again this thought: any spike you see in drug use over the last five years is likely, IMO, the result of big pharma pushing the opiate pain pills without reservation. It's created a TON of new addicts. The state is catching on and forcing doctors and drug manufacturers to smarten up, but the damage is done. Why go through all the hoops to con your doctor into 30 more pills of Oxy, when you can buy smack for $10? The other scourge right now is meth. Not only is it way more neurochemically binding than lightweight stuff like coke or pot, but you can cook the shit in your own garage, using god knows what. The super addictive properties of it combined with the easy access are making it the drug of choice in the poorer areas. Again, I don't think the solution to either of these drugs is harsher penalties for users. It certainly won't deter a meth addict from scoring.
I agree with you on that. And any power we can take away from Mexican cartels is a positive outcome by itself. I would like to see it tested in a single location (in the US) as a pilot program before its rolled out nationally. If it works, it works. Fair enough. And if we are honest with ourselves, marijuana doesnt really lead to harder drugs. Maybe it does for some people, but its not an overwhelming percentage. The real gateway drugs are prescription pain killers as others have mentioned, but I dont think thats going to be curbed anytime soon.
Kampf/Juice - I see your point but I tend to agree with Dcc. As the saying goes, it's crazy to continue to do the same things over and over but expect different results. We have tried incarceration with stiffer and stiffer penalties for possession and distribution and it has gotten us nowhere. You would be hard pressed to find a single positive from the war on drugs and any positive you did happen to find would be overwhelmed by the negative done by the war on drugs. We have to start thinking about this problem from a different angle. I truly believe that people are going to do drugs no matter the cost to them personally. There are people you just can't reach and others who are too stupid to know any better. That is life. Instead of giving people felonies and paying to put them in prison, I would rather give them the drugs, treatment if they want it and allow them to work towards being productive citizens. The way the system is set up now, once they are convicted once, life as a productive member of society is pretty much over. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure that problems like meth and heroin would start to diminish over time. I have a hard time believing that people would choose heroin or meth if they were given a easily filled prescription for pharmaceutical-grade opium, cocaine or morphine.
Thats cool - I think I need to change my thinking on it, I agree with what DCC says too. The drug war didnt work, so its time to try something new to see if it sticks. If it doesnt, then we need to come up with something else. I was watching Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown's episode on Massachusetts recently. The second half of the episode where he went to western Mass was personally a bit heartbreaking. The town he went to that was heavily afflicted with heroin users, Greenfield and Turners Falls, were places I used to visit all the time when I was a kid. My great grandmother, my great aunt, and my grandparents all grew up and lived in that town their entire lives. Even as a kid I remember the town slowly getting worse over the years. I used to frequent the diner Bourdain went to all the time. It was packed every day. Now the entire town is a desolate wasteland full of drug addicts. Sad.
HBO has a documentary called something like Heroin: Cape Cod. You'd think that area would be pretty high end and affluent, and I guess maybe it is. But they followed eight local people addicted to heroin for a period of time (I'd guess a few weeks). By the end of the shooting, two of them were dead and all of them were still hooked.
Why I Think the Media Needs Reform: Part One. Today, the 'big story' is Cruz and Sanders. The headlines act as if the race is reset and 'momentum.' The reason? They have to keep it that way so they can turn profits. The worst thing to happen to the Fourth Estate is the public allowing it to become for profit. Here's what's really going on: Yes, Trump lost by 13% in Wisconsin. The reality is, Cruz will not beat him in delegates. Trump supporters are much more prevalent in the Northeast, and that's where we're headed next. If Wisconsin is such a 'bellweather' state - and frankly the media acts as if each state is, but they're not. Wisconsin is filled with morons. I lived there. They have elected a terrible governor three times in the last five years. So here's the story, Trump will either have the most delegates, or reach 1237 by the convention. Cruz is waaaaay behind and coming into states that will not vote for him. Yes, Trump says ridiculous things, but the fact is his voters don't care. They're not going to care, because when you support a cult of personality, facts don't matter. Yes, Bernie won. Here's the thing, he needs to gain 66% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Even with his big win in Wisconsin, at 57%, he actually has fallen behind because he now needs more than 66% to win the nomination. I know everyone wants this to be a story, but barring a major misstep by Clinton, the nomination is pretty well locked up. Which is why she's doing the right thing (by her party) and talking about the general election - and more importantly, downticket Senate races. Oh, and the whole 'Bernie just needs the superdelegates.' Yeah, you know WHY there are superdelegates? The Republican primary is why. They are a hedge on the electorate voting for someone who's crazy. Like Trump. While I don't think Bernie is crazy at all, the fact remains he is not nearly as well vetted as Clinton. Yes, his numbers (like Kasich's) are better right now, but trust me, the moment the full focus is on them, they will lose some support. They both have long histories. Clinton has not capitalized on this because she understands that no matter what, having a Democrat in office is in her interest. But the Republicans will not hold back during the general. While I love Bernie, there are a lot of controversial positions he's taken over the years. While those positions work in a very liberal state like Vermont, the reality is electorate wide they won't. Hence the superdelegates. They are concerned with the party first, and all nonsense to the contrary, they're going to back the sure thing that's best for the party, and that's Clinton, end of story. So the only story remaining is the Convention for the Republicans. Not sexy, not superfun, but that's the news.
Reince Pribus: "If you don't like the party, then sit down. The party is choosing a nominee." Considering the rest of the delegate talk this past month, it implies the GOP considers a Trump vote useless. If they even have an inch to play with, they will make sure Trump loses the nomination during convention. This is going to be chaos. I agree it won't be sexy or fun, but it will be a disaster.