Why is the USA still trying to wage a war on drugs?
Why is the USA still trying to wage a war on drugs?
Ryan Rivera
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Sebastian Reed
Honestly, jobs at this point.
The morality votes largely dried up years ago.
Dylan Morales
Because law enforcement employs a lot of people and private prisons depend on it for profit. Also, Christians don't like drugs.
James Ross
Because we make a metric fuckton of black market money when they're illegal?
Christian Green
Drugs expand consciousness.
The reason it started in the first place. Not good for totalitarianism.
Evan Price
Why do you link your post to a picture of Ronald Wilson Reagan? The war on drugs started well before his administration.
Or are you here to spread more lying leftist memes that Reagan is to blame for everything wrong with America?
Jack Sanders
We still are? couldve fooled me with how rampant drugs are now compared to a decade or 2 ago. Weed is legal and most places have a heroin epidemic.
imo, the war on drugs was best when they still did PSA's for kids.
Justin Brooks
Wasn't Reagan the man that turned it into the mega industry it is today?
Oliver Smith
nice distraction
Joseph Murphy
Private prisons and big pharma mostly
Blake Brooks
cannabis were almost made legal, til these stupid ass niggers with one of them hippie weed is lyfe sects letting children smoke...
This pissed off everyone, and it turned real hard. Otherwise it could have been made legal a long tymu ago, I believe 1980 or 79. Nixon started it? But yeah Reagan kicked in on it, Miami was fucked up that time
Luis Hernandez
Haven't the negative effects of the war of drugs shown themselves to outweigh any positive ones?As in giving the Mafia a relatively contraband product to smuggle while not doing much to hinder the negative effects of the drug.
Off to bed now, won't be able to answer anything more.
Chase Martin
The army has to keep it's skills sharp in relative peacetime, with the blood of spics and sandniggers.
Grayson Long
Because if everyone in the country was like we'd be living in caves again.
Aaron Long
>mfw this entire post
I have no idea how weed became illegal in Norway, but thats not how/why weed became illegal in America
Brayden Ross
That's some powerful projection based on a very short anonymous post.
Aaron Martin
This plus letter agencies enjoy large budgets >let drugs into America causing a nigger gangs to develop the distribution in the states,as well as increase American usage
all for the shithole know as el Salvador
Charles Brown
>Wasn't Reagan the man that turned it into the mega industry it is today?
No.
The War on Drug began with the categorization of substances into one of several 'schedules,' which goes back to 1961. Add to that the 'Controlled Substances Act' of 1970 and the 'Convention on Psychotropic Substances', dating from 1971, and you have your war on drugs.
All Reagan did to contribute to the anti-drug regime was to have a wife who's 'first lady thing' was to "Say No To Drugs."
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Aaron Robinson
I'm guessing he made sure they at least got more funding or something? War on drugs is the one thing I take away as a negative from Reagan. It would be cool if it wasn't even true. Even if he did though. Fuck 1988 was such a different time in regards to drugs compared to now. I couldn't even really bring myself to knock him for it.
Hunter Adams
Ok so i found this. This is all bullshit? Don't jump on me i actually like Reagan but i like the truth more.
Shortly after Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 he delivered a speech on the topic. Reagan announced, "We're taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts; we're running up a battle flag."[75] For his first five years in office, Reagan slowly strengthened drug enforcement by creating mandatory minimum sentencing and forfeiture of cash and real estate for drug offenses, policies far more detrimental to poor blacks than any other sector affected by the new laws.[citation needed]
Then, driven by the 1986 cocaine overdose of black basketball star Len Bias,[dubious – discuss] Reagan was able to pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act through Congress. This legislation appropriated an additional $1.7 billion to fund the War on Drugs. More importantly, it established 29 new, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. In the entire history of the country up until that point, the legal system had only seen 55 minimum sentences in total.[76] A major stipulation of the new sentencing rules included different mandatory minimums for powder and crack cocaine. At the time of the bill, there was public debate as to the difference in potency and effect of powder cocaine, generally used by whites, and crack cocaine, generally used by blacks, with many believing that "crack" was substantially more powerful and addictive. Crack and powder cocaine are closely related chemicals, crack being a smokeable, freebase form of powdered cocaine hydrochloride which produces a shorter, more intense high while using less of the drug. This method is more cost effective, and therefore more prevalent on the inner-city streets, while powder cocaine remains more popular in white suburbia.
William Lopez
It makes people money, even though it's a war that can't be won.
I don't get why they allow private prisons in the US, sounds like there could be a lot of conflicts of interest.
Jace Gomez
"Reagan is responsible for the war on drugs" is a leftist meme to tie negative publicity (in certain circles, especially black ones, as they get prosecuted for distribution and possession far more often; see your citation heavy on the debate over crack) for a thing the country had been doing for decades onto someone they really, really wanted to smear at all costs for those other policies he advanced (taxation, foreign policy, what have you). What you might say against Reagan is that he didn't stand against the war regime, which isn't anything unique to him, being a thing you can say about all presidents of the era up to the present time.
To be sure, Reagan did implement legislation pursuant to this policy, and international controls were re-codified during his tenure.
>I'm guessing he made sure they at least got more funding or something?
And there's that. But a thing in government which has a start and no end by definition gets increased funding the further along it goes. Investigate what gets spend nowadays and don't doubt that it dwarfs what Reagan had budgeted for. Only, there's likely no salacious wiki entries intending to further a political agenda.
I'd have liked him to be more true to the conservative-libertarian principles that his presidency represented, but I also judge him by his times.
Juan Young
>I don't get why they allow private prisons in the US,
1-Corporations profit from it, they even profit from state prisons where they privatized telephones, cartering etc
2-Cheap source of labor, prisoners are literally the best type of worker ever, no strikes, no demands etc. They compete with China thanks to the slave like conditions.
Private prisons and private companies who profit of prisons will not only stay but will going to increase imho
Jack Peterson
People talk about the dangers of private prisons becoming to massive and influencing government decisions regarding imprisonable
Joshua Cox
I don't know how much prison labor is going to "increase," as if its a new phenomenon. The US has a rich history of putting prisoners to work for the state (or to companies/private enterprises that are favored by the state; same thing), another thing that reaches back into hoary days.
Nathan Campbell
Mind you, this is not to imply that I approve, just to mention that it's been going on for a very long while, and is even specifically noted as being constitutional. The 13th amendment freed the slaves, but didn't end forced labor. You'd need a new amendment to the constitution to ban the practice.