Chris Christie Video

nepa wrote

Harvey wrote

With regard to Christie, like I said I really don't like him. And I have no problem with the idea that he made it all up.

This I think is the core problem with American politics today... we accept the fact that a politician can say anything (in other words lie) to get elected.  If the story is fabricated, then it is a lie.  If he's lying now, then he will most certainly lie if elected president.  Obviously, this is nothing new... I bet we could find a web of lies in every past presidential campaign.

We need authenticity... We need leadership... We don't need bullshit stories.

What I was trying to say was that I can 100% believe he was making it up. Not that I think that is good or ok.

I'm to the point where I'd almost vote for anyone on either side who would speak the truth and stick to his/her guns.  At one point I thought Rand Paul was in that category but he folded.

JTG4eva! wrote

I may be off base on that, I'll admit, as I don't personally know any crack addicts.

That's exactly the point, innit?

Not sure we are making the same point ML.  I think your point is that it seems "off base" to look at crack and opiate addicts differently, correct?  It's hypocritical to throw one in the slammer and one into rehab.

Does your opinion hold true if one makes the sweeping generalization (aren't those lovely in a convo?) that the majority of opiate addicts are people who didn't start with the intention of engaging in a life of drugs and potential crime but got there after being addicted to something they legitimately obtained for legal medical purposes.......while the majority of crack addicts are people who generally lack a societal filter that keeps them from engaging in the poor decision to use certain illegal recreational drugs for the purpose of having a good time or escaping something, knowing full well that it could lead to further drug use and a life of potential crime?

Under those parameters, if true, I could see people coming down harder on the crack addicts.  They should still have every opportunity at getting clean and rehabbed, but are harsher consequences from poorer choices really that hypocritical?

My other point is that I'm not in the head of any of the addicts, so I don't know for sure how they got there.

JTG4eva! wrote

Not sure we are making the same point ML.  I think your point is that it seems "off base" to look at crack and opiate addicts differently, correct?  It's hypocritical to throw one in the slammer and one into rehab.

Does your opinion hold true if one makes the sweeping generalization (aren't those lovely in a convo?) that the majority of opiate addicts are people who didn't start with the intention of engaging in a life of drugs and potential crime but got there after being addicted to something they legitimately obtained for legal medical purposes.......while the majority of crack addicts are people who generally lack a societal filter that keeps them from engaging in the poor decision to use certain illegal recreational drugs for the purpose of having a good time or escaping something, knowing full well that it could lead to further drug use and a life of potential crime?

Under those parameters, if true, I could see people coming down harder on the crack addicts.  They should still have every opportunity at getting clean and rehabbed, but are harsher consequences from poorer choices really that hypocritical?

My other point is that I'm not in the head of any of the addicts, so I don't know for sure how they got there.

Maybe this is a little convoluted, but I see Opiate addiction is a euphemism for white addiction problems. For all of Christie's talk about pain pills blah blah blah <insert fake story>, people in suburban families in NJ know he's talking about Heroin too. Just like in the VT thread. This is a newish white problem, and affluent white people don't want their kids locked up. They see their kids as having value that maybe they didn't perceive in the youth of an urban area that was scary. There is no evidence that the majority of opiate cases come from treatment, it comes from people wanting to get high.

Do you think that pain treatment is really a more moving issue than getting high?

We romanticize having a beer after work, but it's all the same enjoyable dulling of real life and our problems. People make mistakes. People grow up and want different things, thankfully. I was in a lot of pain as a kid, thank goodness that stuff wasn't available to me -- I was miserable, so who knows. My friends little siblings have not all been so lucky, and have become addicted to this crap and it has life long consequences. These are good families that sent their spawn to Ivy League schools, high powered jobs, etc. Wealthy.

It's condescending to think that people can't comprehend the consequences when they make mistakes like trying opiates, even heroin, even drinking and driving. The reality is that people don't think about consequences. This is why the death penalty is not actually a deterrent anywhere (and is similarly pointlessly expensive).

Finally, if you do not think there is a racial element in these issues, why does cocaine use get a slap on the wrist (you can even become president!) and crack use carry mandatory incarceration penalties. I'll take my answer off the line.

I don't have much more to say. I want all addicts to have the ability to get their lives together because throwing people in prison is less than useless, usually counter-productive, and also expensive.

The NYTimes reported about this a bit last week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/heroin-war-on-drugs-parents.html

Fair enough, and well stated.  You make some very good points.

Sometimes I do have a hard time getting looking outside of my own experiences or frame of reference.  I try to think about consequences.  College in the late 80's, being in a frat, I had plenty of opportunity to do stuff, all kinds of stuff, but I always weighed the consequences.  Would have been easy to blow through an eight ball with the guys, probably pretty fun, but that was a road with potential consequences I wouldn't go down.  However, you are right, it seems nowadays many don't worry about the consequences.  

If most of the opiate addicts are people who got there just looking for a good time they really aren't any different than the crack addicts (just a different substance of choice/opportunity)....and the two shouldn't be looked at differently.

ml242 wrote

The NYTimes reported about this a bit last week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/heroin-war-on-drugs-parents.html

That article makes me shake my head in disbelief. How in the HELL do people get to the point where sticking a needle in their arm seems like a good idea. I don't care if your addicted to pain pills or not. If you are there's nobody to blame but yourself, right?

Man_0_Man I'm ready for my vacation. Need to get centered again. This place we live in is fucked up!

campgottagopee wrote

How in the HELL do people get to the point where sticking a needle in their arm seems like a good idea. I don't care if your addicted to pain pills or not. If you are there's nobody to blame but yourself, right?

I think you're missing the point.  When Heroin was a "black" issue, addicts were low-life junkies, and the policy makers favored a "zero tolerance" approach.  Since it is now a problem in "white" America, we now have to take a more gentle approach.  

The fact is: Drug laws were born from racism.  They should all be repealed.

nepa wrote

campgottagopee wrote

How in the HELL do people get to the point where sticking a needle in their arm seems like a good idea. I don't care if your addicted to pain pills or not. If you are there's nobody to blame but yourself, right?

I think you're missing the point.  When Heroin was a "black" issue, addicts were low-life junkies, and the policy makers favored a "zero tolerance" approach.  Since it is now a problem in "white" America, we now have to take a more gentle approach.  

The fact is: Drug laws were born from racism.  They should all be repealed.

Yeah, you're right. I missed that. Prolly because I don't agree with it. I know / have known some heroin addicts and they are all white. I don't care what color people are, eventually somewhere, somehow, each individual makes a choice to do it or not. How that's dealt with shouldn't matter whether one is black or white or whateverthehellcolor.

nepa wrote

campgottagopee wrote

How in the HELL do people get to the point where sticking a needle in their arm seems like a good idea. I don't care if your addicted to pain pills or not. If you are there's nobody to blame but yourself, right?

I think you're missing the point.  When Heroin was a "black" issue, addicts were low-life junkies, and the policy makers favored a "zero tolerance" approach.  Since it is now a problem in "white" America, we now have to take a more gentle approach.  

The fact is: Drug laws were born from racism.  They should all be repealed.

Sorry buddy but I think your "facts" are all fucked up. Opiates became a problem in the late 1800s with the Chinese immigration, it was not a black problem. Drugs really got on the radar screen during the late 60's and early 70's not due to blacks but due to all those white hippie kids, Nixon wanted to crack down on all that shit. The drug issue is not a white versus black, rich versus poor issue. So you are opposed to the drug laws, are you also opposed to the gun laws? The death rate from drugs is pretty close to the death rate from gun homicides.

PeeTex wrote

Sorry buddy but I think your "facts" are all fucked up. Opiates became a problem in the late 1800s with the Chinese immigration, it was not a black problem. Drugs really got on the radar screen during the late 60's and early 70's not due to blacks but due to all those white hippie kids, Nixon wanted to crack down on all that shit. The drug issue is not a white versus black, rich versus poor issue. So you are opposed to the drug laws, are you also opposed to the gun laws? The death rate from drugs is pretty close to the death rate from gun homicides.

Correct me if I am wrong here PT, but it sounds like your definition of racism is purely black & white?  If I discriminate against Jews, Chinese, or Arabs, I'm not a racist?

I know the history. You don't have to try to educate me.  You are correct: Laws were passed in the 1800s that discriminated against Chinese migrants in San Francisco.  They were opium smokers.  It wasn't because there was a drug problem.  It was xenophobic legislation. In my opinion, these laws were born from racism.

PeeTex wrote

The drug issue is not a white versus black, rich versus poor issue.

Again.  You are correct.  The drug problem does not discriminate, but the laws do.  

Tell why someone will go to prison longer for smoking crack as opposed to snorting cocaine?

Usually someone goes to prison for selling not using or they go to jail for the crimes they commit to support the addiction.

Crack is one of those drugs designed solely to destroy lives. Dealers in crack deserve the death penalty - no questions asked, Texas justice - convict them and hang them the next day - no mercy.
The real issue is that today prison is the last resort for forced rehabilitation. Get over it - it is not a racial issue per say, it is an issue that results in the perceived lack of alternatives.

Marijuana is illegal for mostly racist reasons. Henry Anslinger is the ahole who was the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics . Here are a few quotes attributed to him:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”"

Anybody who has smoked or witnessed pot smokers knows that the last quote about violence is complete BS.

Mary jane info

You didn't answer my question:

Tell me why someone will go to prison longer for smoking crack as opposed to snorting cocaine?

So I actually went out and educated myself.  The sentencing difference used to be a 100:1... I didn't realize that the O-man pushed legislation in 2010 to make is fair again:

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 implemented the initial disparity, reflecting Congress's view that crack cocaine was a more dangerous and harmful drug than powder cocaine. In the decades since, extensive research by the United States Sentencing Commission and other experts has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the sentencing disparity is unwarranted. Further controversy surrounding the 100:1 ratio was a result of its description by some as being racially biased and contributing to a disproportionate number of African Americans being sentenced for crack cocaine offenses.[2] Legislation to reduce the disparity has been introduced since the mid-1990s, culminating in the signing of the Fair Sentencing Act.

You obviously don't understand the reality of the drug scene.  When was the last time you bought "illicit" drugs?  

I grew up in a wealthy suburban family back during the height of the "Just Say No" era.  The fact is, Just Say No made me often say Yes!!  I had access to plenty of powder cocaine, but never was able to find any Crack.  Why? Crack was made for the poor [mostly black] people in the projects.  Obviously, being a rich white kid, I was stuck with pricey, low quality, Powder Cocaine.  (I'm being facetious here... I didn't really want to smoke crack... I was perfectly happy snorting powder cocaine)

Crack is cheap, Powder is expensive.  The Drug Abuse Act was built around Crack.  The overarching goal of the legislation: White people get a slap on the wrist... Black people get punished.

Why would there be the need for the "Fair Sentencing Act" if the law was fair in the first place?

I understand that you don't go to prison for using drugs.  Who sells the majority of Crack on the city streets?  Rich white people?  

nepa wrote

Who sells the majority of Crack on the city streets?  Rich white people?

So tell me again what your point is, we should not prosecute minorities for selling Crack to white people?
I agree that justice should be blind but I don't agree that we don't need drug laws.

x10003q wrote

Marijuana is illegal for mostly racist reasons. Henry Anslinger is the ahole who was the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics .

Anslinger was in his 60's back in the daemon weed era of the 1950's, hardly a relevant argument for today, I would contend that the focus got shifted off blacks in the early 60's and onto the white hippies in the late 60's. The focus on minorities did not happen because people were using drugs as a tool for racial oppression, rather it was an outcome of racial profiling - which is a whole other matter. The fact is that on a per capita basis, minorities are more likely to be involved in crime. Not because they are genetically deficient but more because of social reasons which could be a very long topic of discussion. These are not reasons to throw out the drug laws, they are reasons to improve society. In an ideal society, we would have no need for these drugs.

PeeTex wrote

Usually someone goes to prison for selling not using or they go to jail for the crimes they commit to support the addiction.

Crack is one of those drugs designed solely to destroy lives. Dealers in crack deserve the death penalty - no questions asked, Texas justice - convict them and hang them the next day - no mercy.
The real issue is that today prison is the last resort for forced rehabilitation. Get over it - it is not a racial issue per say, it is an issue that results in the perceived lack of alternatives.

I'm glad you have such a depth of understanding on this issue, Nelson Rockefeller.

PeeTex wrote

So tell me again what your point is, we should not prosecute minorities for selling Crack to white people?
I agree that justice should be blind but I don't agree that we don't need drug laws.

When drugs are legal, you don't have to prosecute anyone.... makes things a whole lot easier.

My point: Enforcement of today's drug laws has caused many more problems than it has solved.  If you don't understand what those problems are, then you are not paying attention. The laws are part of the problem.

Let's list some of the "positives" that have resulted from the drug laws that you seem to be in love with?

I'll start...

How about: A bloated government bureaucracy called the DEA

Oh wait... that's a negative...

Obviously, I'll need your help on this... you start.

PeeTex wrote

These are not reasons to throw out the drug laws, they are reasons to improve society. In an ideal society, we would have no need for these drugs.

Spoken like a true prohibitionist living in a fairytale world.  

What happened PT?  You and I have butted heads on this in the past, and I actually thought you were in favor of extreme legalization.

PeeTex wrote

x10003q wrote

Marijuana is illegal for mostly racist reasons. Henry Anslinger is the ahole who was the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics .

Anslinger was in his 60's back in the daemon weed era of the 1950's, hardly a relevant argument for today, I would contend that the focus got shifted off blacks in the early 60's and onto the white hippies in the late 60's. The focus on minorities did not happen because people were using drugs as a tool for racial oppression, rather it was an outcome of racial profiling - which is a whole other matter. The fact is that on a per capita basis, minorities are more likely to be involved in crime. Not because they are genetically deficient but more because of social reasons which could be a very long topic of discussion. These are not reasons to throw out the drug laws, they are reasons to improve society. In an ideal society, we would have no need for these drugs.

Marijuana became illegal at the Federal level in 1937 due to the efforts of Anslinger and with an assist from WR Hearst. Anslinger spent the next 25 years lying about marijuana all while having a huge Federally supported platform and the ears of legislators in Washington. By the time he retired as commissioner in 1962 the die was cast. The idea that enforcement shifted off blacks onto "white hippies" in the 1960s is laughable.

As long as the US classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, which includes heroin and LSD, the US drug laws about marijuana have  zero credibility.

x10003q wrote

The idea that enforcement shifted off blacks onto "white hippies" in the 1960s is laughable.

As long as the US classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, which includes heroin and LSD, the US drug laws about marijuana have  zero credibility.

Laugh all you like - you were probably not even a gleam in your daddy's eyes in the 60's - I lived through it.
You can make an argument that the current classification of MJ is not correct, but trying to defend that position by saying it continues due to racism is pure BS.