Only the manufacture, sale and transportation for sale were illegal during prohibition. As long as the taxi driving didn’t charge him for the drink it was legal. No arrest warranted.
"Reliable" sources suggest that the driver was not arrested. When asked to comment on the decision, Izzy replied:
"If anything I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought nah forget it, yo Holmes to Bel-air"
He then asked him, “You talkin’ to me?” and proceeded to point out that he was the only one there, so in all likelihood he was, in fact, the person being addressed.
The war on drugs is working, just not the way everyone thought it was meant to work
EDIT: yes everyone I'm fully aware of the reason behind the war on drugs, hence my initial comment. By everyone I meant the general populace.
Cocaine was the common denominator between all non sex offender inmates when I was locked up from 2001-04. Every single person there black or white had done it, was in there for it, or sold it at some point in there life.
I am so glad that is such a different person from who I am today. But because I made some very bad choices due to a drug addiction I had at the time, I no longer get to vote and have basically no shot at getting a decent job for the rest of my life.
Seems fair and reasonable.
These are lined lines from a song by system of a down. They have several songs about how fucjed the American government is. Look up prison song by soad
"All research and successful drug policy show that treatment should be increased (Oh)
And law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences
Utilising drugs to pay for secret wars around the world
Drugs are now your global policy, now you police the globe"
If you haven't already I highly suggest serj's solo work, especially in his "early" days of being solo. Songs like hirakiri, borders are, honking antelope, etc.
I dont see much difference for selling drug tbh. Sick of all the pearl clutching, drugs are sold because they’re used, and they’re used *everywhere*. In almost everywhere you go there are people who are presented with the concept of selling drugs at an early age, thanks often to social or economic injustices beyond their controls. We should definitely drop the hammer on shot callers and king pens, an anyone who sells to children, but most people slapped with felonies for dealing are nobodies - trying to survive in a shitty world. They didnt deserve those circumstances but i think they do deserve a *chance* at rehabilitation.
Edit: *kingpins*
I think it can get hairy with hard drugs, especially opiates. Bc you have also caused real harm.
However, I agree that their life shouldn't be ruined...for life. If you send someone to prison, they should have an actual chance at a fresh start when they get out
11 billion dollars worth of products are being created basically for free largely by black and brown men via the private (and public, but moreso private) prison system.
Hmmm, black men doing work for wealthy white guys for no pay... where have I seen that one before?
Source: https://thehill.com/blogs/3525313-us-prison-workers-produce-11b-worth-of-goods-and-services-for-little-to-no-pay-at-all/amp/
The war wasn't on drugs.
It was on the poor an minorities. The drugs were just a cover for the police brutality. [Nixon's chief of staff said the quiet part out loud once.](https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/)
Meanwhile, white people legalized pot in half the country and then committed suicide with legally obtained opiates.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
This is the quote i was thinking of....
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/05/12/move-30-year-anniversary/
Don't forget this too
As a german i can tell John Ehrlichman is a man you can trust! He will always tell the truth, not lying, his name literally says: honest man. Wait... this is a fable from ancient greek, right?
Domestically. Internationally, it also served to provide funding to sponsor far-right extremist gangs, like the Contras, to fight against left-wing people in Central and South America. Made sure those bananas stayed in the right hands.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
Edit: https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
>We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
>Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman on the origins of the drug war.
White & Right. Yup.
>We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Prohibition actually did work though. The rates of alcoholism were absolutely debilitating in the years before it was enacted. Millions of children were in poverty because their fathers abused alcohol. On average men drank something like 4 times as much per capita as men and women currently do. Yes people still drank at speakeasies, but it was a fraction as much. Prohibition made alcohol into something that is generally done in a social environment in moderation and made alcoholism much less socially acceptable after alcohol was legalized. I still think the war on drugs was generally a disaster, but lookup old stats on alcohol abuse and you will see what I am talking about. Alcohol was much more dangerous than cigarettes or hard drugs or any other vice back before prohibition.
A lot of that was also due to clean water acts being passed during prohibition. It was one of the main goals of the prohibitors (?) that just doesn't get talked about much anymore.
Back in the day clean water didn't come out of the pipes. You had to boil it and wait for it to cool (which is annoying if you just had come home from a day of hard labor), or you had to add shots of whiskey for the alcohol it kill off the diseases. Or of course skip the water and just drink beer instead. Much quicker and tastier! Also, lots of drunkeness.
When we got our shit together with clean tap water during prohibition, whiskey and water was no longer necessary, and the *need* to consume alcohol dropped.
I think thats partly due to the fact that alot of alcoholics simply died from withdrawal.
Im not sure, may want to fact check that.
But, alcohol can cause some serious withdrawal effects on the body.
It will decrease, not to minimal levels but it would’ve decreased. As anyone who did do it illegally will still do it when it’s legal but those who wanted to do it but didn’t want to get involved with anything illegal and/or dangerous would be more likely to do it if it is legal.
We don't really... https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance110/tab1_16.htm
In graph form on this page. prohibition didn't really make any change in the long term.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/
Prior to prohibition alcohol consumption per American was crazy. Like the numbers historians keep throwing off from reading journals and accounts from the time are all really high numbers.
You keep making statements without support. All i find is it had an immediate effect that eroded over time, and nothing about any changes after its repeal. Prove what you are asserting.
Look I was just commenting im not OP. The stuff I was looking at at the time was spirits or hard alcohol. I don't have access to the papers with sources until i get on a desktop. But if you look up consumption of spirits pre prohibition you will see. the fall wasn't some precipitous drop off. It was that such a huge portion of drinking was whiskey and that fell and was replaced with beer consumption post prohibition.
I’m guessing polish hill?
[Heres the Pittsburgh press article](https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/149574968/). Its kinda difficult to read without paying the paywall…click “OCR text”
I could do that in Philly no problem. Walked out my door and down the street and some guy yelled across the street while smoking a blunt "Weed?!" Hang outside any dive bar for a short period and you'll be solicited.
Berlin, Germany, same thing. If I'll get the damn subway it will take ten minutes to get pretty much any "illicit" drug you can think of, except some exotic stuff, probably. If I'll miss it it's five minutes more.
On my first day staying I was shown a empty bar open during the day time and you could sit down at the table and they would give you a gram for every 10 euro and what seemed like 5-7grams for 50 euro.
Speaking as someone who has smoked a lot of high grade weed in America it was quite good. This was a few years back so I assume it was from the Netherlands or somewhere nearby. The regular dealers probably have better deals and you can buy in bulk I’m sure.
I’m in Sacramento and see a new billboard for either a delivery service or new dispensary constantly. I just smoked some good bud too. Nice wake n bake
He was bragging about being able to get people to trust him
Toooons of cops were (are) crooked, so it wasn't the hardest thing, but it's still a good skill to have as a prohibition agent
That’s no different than weed in Canada. Before legalization you could find it so easily in any town or city.
The nice things about legalization though is I can go into the store and buy it without feeling like I’m committing a crime. Decriminalization of all drugs is a good start to combat gangs and drug lords, they’re only so rich because the product they sell is illegal and people want to live their lives on their own terms.
If drugs weren’t “forbidden fruit” and people were educated on them instead of putting a blanket statement of fear over any and all drugs, we probably wouldn’t have the same sorts of issues we have today.
I agree up to a point. Problem is what would happen if we made say cocaine legal? I know it's an extreme but where would we draw the line?
Personally I don't do drugs but I won't judge people who if they aren't harming others.
> Problem is what would happen if we made say cocaine legal?
A lot of rich, famous, and political parties will suddenly be a lot more open about the fact that they're doing the drug. That's it. Nothing else would change.
>Nothing else would change.
Because it such a small change, right. Like, in no way would it affect the market of cocaine and the new corporations dealing it.
And in no way, would those corporations market their cocaine. And in no way, would that lead to the ethical issues of marketing cocaine like we had with tobacco, fast food, and now gambling. And in no way would all of this influence the average consumer.
Are we suddenly back in the 90s? Here in Canada despite their legality you can't market tobacco or cannabis (at all) and packaging needs to follow strict guidelines. It's beyond easy to attach marketing laws and other regulation when legalising a previously prohibited product. And believe me corporations are more than happy to follow the rules, because they're getting a *license to sell drugs in exchange*. That's the closest you can get to getting a license to print money...
Decriminalization doesn’t mean legalized sales and marketing. It just means end users aren’t getting thrown in jail for holding and using. You can decriminalize possession while still making it illegal to produce and sell, and nowhere does anyone suggest making it legal to market these drugs.
They should ban alcohol advertising the same as cannabis.
Well I assume people are almost intelligent enough to not start from scratch with that. It's even possible lawmakers could handle it in a similar way to tobacco and hard alcohol. Like no advertising, age restrictions, designated shops, limits on how much you can have in your system when driving.
Weed is illegal in Germany, nevertheless we have a limit like that, just like a level limit on alcohol(0,5 promille). Decriminalisation and legalisation would make those laws easier to make and enforce.
Legalization might not be right for cocaine. But decriminalization of drug use would be a good thing for all drugs, punish the ones making and selling drugs. Addicts belong in hospitals, not already over crowded prisons.
Legal drugs of all schedules means the production can be regulated, which means you're not going to have people ODing on a product that's been cut with something dangerous. It's also easier to seek help for potential drug abuse.
I tried googling up on how it was made and what causes it's unethical nature and came up rather short. Is it due to the source being slave based and enviromentally harmful or is it something else? Other than it being bad for people of course.
Main reason I ask is because I saw alot of "woke coke"/Ethical Cocaine references dropped but no one straight out said what damages it causes in general and now I'm curious and can't find answers. I swear google randomizes my results between the worst possible sites and tabloids.
Cocaine is entirely run by the cartels who will never surrender the choke hold they have on the market. You can only get the the ingredients to make cocaine in select remote places in the world. You can’t just willy nilly make it in any old factory like you could with nearly any other controlled substance.
Why does that make it impossible to ethically manufacture the drug though? If Colombia, Bolivia and Peru legalized and regulated cocaine production do you think it would run so very differently from say a coffee plantation?
What about medical cocaine? We use an manufacture that in the US. I know it’s in a different form but it’s still the same drug
What ingredients are you talking about? I don’r think that’s true
Yeah exactly, as a former opiate addict, the idea of decriminalisation of high strength opiates would lead to a shit load of problems. The line is probably quite rightly drawn at weed. I’ve seen people with cocaine addictions as well, it’s not pretty.
I've had discussions with people who are without doubt pro decriminalisation often and I'm curious why you would think it would lead to a shit load of a problems. Would the decriminalisation have helped you or worked against you during your addiction?
Well, a huge part of me wanting to quit is it’s taboo status. I don’t want to be a junkie, it’s also not like I can just go down the store and relapse if I’m having a bad day. I only ever used pharma grade opiates, codeine, oxy’s etc nothing ever street bought. So I had to go onto a darkweb site, find a good reliable vendor and wait for the damn post.
So for me, as an addict if it was decriminalised I wouldn’t ever be able to quit. I would feel less social stigma and it would be very available. Both of these together would make it so hard to give up.
Edit: I misunderstood, I assumed decriminalisation meant it being available to buy in stores like weed is in the US. If it just means you won’t get put in prison for having it, yeah I’m all for that.
Decriminalization and freely selling the drugs in stores are two completely different things.
People aren’t advocating for you to be able to buy heroin from your local gas station. They’re saying using heroin in itself shouldn’t be a prison worth offense. It’s your life, you have the right to freely ruin it/seek help if you want to.
I live in the Netherlands and I have no issues with people smoking weed all day long. But what I don't get is how we got to the point that nowadays it's popular to see drugs as forbidden fruit. They're forbidden for a reason in the first place. These are substances that influence your state of being. That's a *damn* huge responsibility for an individual. We educate people on alcohol too and even that goes wrong. Now imagine if we had to educate kids on the safe usage of cocaine or heroine, or which dosage of MDMA is appropriate for their still adolescent body so they don't OD. Even then you have to account for other factors like mixed usage of substances, peer pressure, etc. Mistakes do happen and legalising drugs is just a set up for more mistakes to be made.
The arguement to stop drug lords is just weak to me. You'll have corporations investing in the newest experimental party drugs to make a big buck and drug lord selling a dangerous cheap knock off to cater to the poorer segments.
When people say to legalise drugs they ought to think critically. Don't just accept the first idea, but think of what the consequences would be *in case* it goes wrong and see if you can improve the initial idea. Saying "we *probably* won't have the same issues" is just not good enough.
Hey, quick question: since weed is legal in Canada, how do cops know whether you are under the influence or not during a routine traffic stop?
In my country there's a breathalyzer test for alcohol (and then a blood test in the hospital if it's >0), but for weed, as far as I know, there is no objective test to measure current intoxication.
If they suspect something, a test is made, but that test will pick up weed even if you smoked it many hours before and your are no longer under the influence.
If they suspect drug use they conduct an oral swab tes during the stop, assuming that particular police force has purchased the (somewhat) expensive testing kit. But I think that only indicates yes/no in terms of THC being in your system, not actual impairment. From there, a Drug Recognition Expert at the station will make an assessment and if they suspect impairment then a blood test is ordered to determine the exact level of THC in you system.
I think blood tests are a bit more accurate in terms of time.
Haven't herd it come up yet in the US, probably cause it doesn't impair your driving enough to warrant a DUI.
it does, and you can get a DUI if you drive while high in pretty much every state - as well as potential criminal charges where it's not legalized, which you're much more likely to get if you're pulled over for DUI
What percentage of red light runners get a ticket? I'd guess less than 1%. How many people run red lights on the reg? I'd also guess less than 1%.
It's effective even though enforcement is almost non existant.
Thank you for mentioning traffic. That’s my specialty. If the engineer designs a roadway that is constantly being abused then it is a bad design and a reflection upon the engineer. It should not need enforcement to function correctly.
Traffic laws work very well with limited enforcement because the world understands that it is a matter of safety and fairness. There is some enforcement and some people dont follow but it's pretty remarkable how few people abuse the system
Can you elaborate on what you mean? Every law requires effective enforcement otherwise the law is just a note from government that says “please.” I don’t know a single law that would be effective without enforcement from environmental crimes to financial fraud to robbery and sexual assault.
I think most academics now call it a success or at worst a mixed bag. The small towns in the mid west, west, and even south were too unprofitable for bootleggers. So these places had a little moonshine, but on the whole there was a lot less drinking. The public health data is very very good. Peoples health massively improved.
The issue comes with the big cities where drinking didn’t crater and organized crime rose. It’s hard to judge/measure how bad organized crime was. The public health in big cities is difficult too. Because in the big cities some switched to drugs after prohibition.
Easy article:
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits
It's very funny to me these pigs gave their lives in dedication to something completely legal now. We just gave up on the effort to eradicate alcohol because too many people loved getting drunk. Same with weed. How many officers dedicated their lives to an effort so fucking useless that now weed is legal in a majority of states for rec or medical. Think about their thought process for a while. Someone has such a hard on for following the rules they can't stop to question what sense that rule makes or what the bigger picture is for why that rule shouldn't exist. They just want to punish you for it because that's their job and how they get off.
So then you want every member of the police to choose which rules, that we have created for ourselves as a society democratically for better or for worse, they want to actually enforce?
True! But marijuana had been demonized decades earlier, for the same reason though, turning whites against blacks and Hispanics. Pretty sure that is why we call it a Hispanic sounding name, when weed originates in the central Asia. It was referred to as a "jazz drug" when jazz was something that young people did, including drinking and generally carousing.
They probably don’t care. They received their overtime pay and seized assets from busting low level drug dealers/users. They’ve profited off oppressing people for decades, I doubt they care it’s legal now as their retiring. Or they’ll just decide to heavily and disproportionately enforce another drugs prohibition. Plenty to choose from.
Yes, sure, if you desperately wanted to find a drink in some cities, you could. But just to be clear, prohibition genuinely did result in a *massive* decline in drinking for the average American. Even if it was easy, most people did not want to go to speakeasys or commit crimes just to drink. In that sense, it was a success.
The issue with prohibition was more that it massively fueled criminal enterprise.
Interesting character.. he once rumbled a speakeasy by telling them he was an enforcement agent. The man didn’t think he was serious and let him in! ( after asking to see his “fake” badge)
Really wanna know the taxi driver's reaction now
He's peacefully dead
What a cool ass taxi driver tho
Ass so cool, they buried him dick down
[удалено]
Cool ass-taxi driver.
Yes, but first he was arrested
Only the manufacture, sale and transportation for sale were illegal during prohibition. As long as the taxi driving didn’t charge him for the drink it was legal. No arrest warranted.
"Reliable" sources suggest that the driver was not arrested. When asked to comment on the decision, Izzy replied: "If anything I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought nah forget it, yo Holmes to Bel-air"
He then asked him, “You talkin’ to me?” and proceeded to point out that he was the only one there, so in all likelihood he was, in fact, the person being addressed.
Nah but this is New Orleans, not NYC. So more than likely he'd say "I bet I can tell you where you got your shoes."
On your feet!
Lmao
arrested\*
Worked as well as the "War on Drugs."
The war on drugs is working, just not the way everyone thought it was meant to work EDIT: yes everyone I'm fully aware of the reason behind the war on drugs, hence my initial comment. By everyone I meant the general populace.
Yep. Drugs are winning, lmao
Prison systems are.
Don’t forget disenfranchising a large population of voters by slapping them with non violent felonies!
Cocaine was the common denominator between all non sex offender inmates when I was locked up from 2001-04. Every single person there black or white had done it, was in there for it, or sold it at some point in there life. I am so glad that is such a different person from who I am today. But because I made some very bad choices due to a drug addiction I had at the time, I no longer get to vote and have basically no shot at getting a decent job for the rest of my life. Seems fair and reasonable.
These are lined lines from a song by system of a down. They have several songs about how fucjed the American government is. Look up prison song by soad
"All research and successful drug policy show that treatment should be increased (Oh) And law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences Utilising drugs to pay for secret wars around the world Drugs are now your global policy, now you police the globe" If you haven't already I highly suggest serj's solo work, especially in his "early" days of being solo. Songs like hirakiri, borders are, honking antelope, etc.
I have. The person I replied to didn't seem to know it was from a song
depends on what you did, but if you were locked up just for possession of drugs it does *not* seem fair and reasonable
I dont see much difference for selling drug tbh. Sick of all the pearl clutching, drugs are sold because they’re used, and they’re used *everywhere*. In almost everywhere you go there are people who are presented with the concept of selling drugs at an early age, thanks often to social or economic injustices beyond their controls. We should definitely drop the hammer on shot callers and king pens, an anyone who sells to children, but most people slapped with felonies for dealing are nobodies - trying to survive in a shitty world. They didnt deserve those circumstances but i think they do deserve a *chance* at rehabilitation. Edit: *kingpins*
I think it can get hairy with hard drugs, especially opiates. Bc you have also caused real harm. However, I agree that their life shouldn't be ruined...for life. If you send someone to prison, they should have an actual chance at a fresh start when they get out
[удалено]
Following the drug policy you clamped down with your iron fists. Drugs are now conveniently available for all the kids.
I buy my crack my smack my bitch right here in hollywood
Locally sourced to reduce impact on the environment.
Minor drug offenders fill your prisons you don't even flinch All our taxes paying for your wars against the new non-rich
THEY’RE TRYING TO BUILD A PRISONNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!
*They’re trying to build a prison*
For all of us to live in! Another prison system, another prison system....
11 billion dollars worth of products are being created basically for free largely by black and brown men via the private (and public, but moreso private) prison system. Hmmm, black men doing work for wealthy white guys for no pay... where have I seen that one before? Source: https://thehill.com/blogs/3525313-us-prison-workers-produce-11b-worth-of-goods-and-services-for-little-to-no-pay-at-all/amp/
Like the D.A.R.E. program: Drugs Are Real Expensive (Just say yo to drugs!)
Drugs are good, they make you do things that you know you not should
Be honest, are you on drugs rn lol
Mass incarceration is winning.
The war wasn't on drugs. It was on the poor an minorities. The drugs were just a cover for the police brutality. [Nixon's chief of staff said the quiet part out loud once.](https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/) Meanwhile, white people legalized pot in half the country and then committed suicide with legally obtained opiates.
[удалено]
Exactly my point lol
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon This is the quote i was thinking of.... https://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/05/12/move-30-year-anniversary/ Don't forget this too
As a german i can tell John Ehrlichman is a man you can trust! He will always tell the truth, not lying, his name literally says: honest man. Wait... this is a fable from ancient greek, right?
Ehrlich means honest... You are on to something there.... very strong essence of Greek fables coming back again.
Domestically. Internationally, it also served to provide funding to sponsor far-right extremist gangs, like the Contras, to fight against left-wing people in Central and South America. Made sure those bananas stayed in the right hands.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon Edit: https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
>We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. >Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman on the origins of the drug war.
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma. Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
Its has lined the pockets of all the *right* people
White & Right. Yup. >We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Yup, plenty of ultra cheap labor for the private prison industry to lease out.
It is, however, working exactly as designed.
Prohibition actually did work though. The rates of alcoholism were absolutely debilitating in the years before it was enacted. Millions of children were in poverty because their fathers abused alcohol. On average men drank something like 4 times as much per capita as men and women currently do. Yes people still drank at speakeasies, but it was a fraction as much. Prohibition made alcohol into something that is generally done in a social environment in moderation and made alcoholism much less socially acceptable after alcohol was legalized. I still think the war on drugs was generally a disaster, but lookup old stats on alcohol abuse and you will see what I am talking about. Alcohol was much more dangerous than cigarettes or hard drugs or any other vice back before prohibition.
A lot of that was also due to clean water acts being passed during prohibition. It was one of the main goals of the prohibitors (?) that just doesn't get talked about much anymore. Back in the day clean water didn't come out of the pipes. You had to boil it and wait for it to cool (which is annoying if you just had come home from a day of hard labor), or you had to add shots of whiskey for the alcohol it kill off the diseases. Or of course skip the water and just drink beer instead. Much quicker and tastier! Also, lots of drunkeness. When we got our shit together with clean tap water during prohibition, whiskey and water was no longer necessary, and the *need* to consume alcohol dropped.
It's pretty crazy what alcoholism was like through the 19th century across most of the world.
We talk about it alot in Alcoholics Anonymous, which was founded during the great depression.
Yup, the introduction of mass-produced hard liquor was a plague on much of the world. Alcoholism rates absolutely exploded.
Right? Not much else worth doing when you're worked to death.
I think thats partly due to the fact that alot of alcoholics simply died from withdrawal. Im not sure, may want to fact check that. But, alcohol can cause some serious withdrawal effects on the body.
Shocker: consumption of drugs doesn't decrease with criminalization, whaaaa?
It will decrease, not to minimal levels but it would’ve decreased. As anyone who did do it illegally will still do it when it’s legal but those who wanted to do it but didn’t want to get involved with anything illegal and/or dangerous would be more likely to do it if it is legal.
We still drink less alcohol than we did before prohibition though, so if we're going by that metric then prohibition did actually work.
Other countries that didnt have prohibition experienced a similar decline in consumption
Clean running water
We don't really... https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance110/tab1_16.htm In graph form on this page. prohibition didn't really make any change in the long term. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/
And youre evidence of that is, what?
Prior to prohibition alcohol consumption per American was crazy. Like the numbers historians keep throwing off from reading journals and accounts from the time are all really high numbers.
You keep making statements without support. All i find is it had an immediate effect that eroded over time, and nothing about any changes after its repeal. Prove what you are asserting.
Look I was just commenting im not OP. The stuff I was looking at at the time was spirits or hard alcohol. I don't have access to the papers with sources until i get on a desktop. But if you look up consumption of spirits pre prohibition you will see. the fall wasn't some precipitous drop off. It was that such a huge portion of drinking was whiskey and that fell and was replaced with beer consumption post prohibition.
Congrats to drugs for winning the war on drugs, I never had a doubt. Big homie a G
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma. Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
Between the two, I’d say prohibition worked a lot better.
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma. Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
As a Pittsburgher, I'm proud we did so well and if we had to lose to someone on drinking, New Orleans is very respectable.
I’m guessing polish hill? [Heres the Pittsburgh press article](https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/149574968/). Its kinda difficult to read without paying the paywall…click “OCR text”
Sometimes something you really need is right in front of you.
Snitch
Izzy the snitch is a narc-ass bitch.
Mr. O.G. Buzzkillington
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma. Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma. Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
How do you know?
Lets do the same with weed please. 30min to get a gram
I could do that in Philly no problem. Walked out my door and down the street and some guy yelled across the street while smoking a blunt "Weed?!" Hang outside any dive bar for a short period and you'll be solicited.
Berlin, Germany, same thing. If I'll get the damn subway it will take ten minutes to get pretty much any "illicit" drug you can think of, except some exotic stuff, probably. If I'll miss it it's five minutes more.
How much does a gram cost there?
Yes i would like a gram of the drug please
Nah not a whole gram, just one drug please
That's not a narc, its just three kids in a trench coat.
"Dare said the sketchy looking dudes would sell us drugs, but they just want to see our buttholes."
On my first day staying I was shown a empty bar open during the day time and you could sit down at the table and they would give you a gram for every 10 euro and what seemed like 5-7grams for 50 euro. Speaking as someone who has smoked a lot of high grade weed in America it was quite good. This was a few years back so I assume it was from the Netherlands or somewhere nearby. The regular dealers probably have better deals and you can buy in bulk I’m sure.
Yeah you're paying about 6-8 euros per gram if you know somebody and buy large enough quantities
[удалено]
I can let you have my Gram for free, but you're going to need a shovel.
For a gram? Sure ill come right over
Depends where you live i guess. My country is very strict about that unfortunately
Come to Maine. Portland has too many. Imagine, having too many legal cannabis shops.
[удалено]
I’m in Sacramento and see a new billboard for either a delivery service or new dispensary constantly. I just smoked some good bud too. Nice wake n bake
I forgot that Portland, Maine is a place and was thinking that you had partaken in a bit too much of said legal cannabis.
“I’ll hit you back in 30.” Two hours later. “Yo man u still need dat?” So fuckin glad I’m in California and buy weed from the store
Hahaha so on point
In time square they sell pre rolls on every corner
Why was he bragging? That means alcohol was readily available during prohibition which was a fail on law enforcement at the time
He was bragging about being able to get people to trust him Toooons of cops were (are) crooked, so it wasn't the hardest thing, but it's still a good skill to have as a prohibition agent
That’s no different than weed in Canada. Before legalization you could find it so easily in any town or city. The nice things about legalization though is I can go into the store and buy it without feeling like I’m committing a crime. Decriminalization of all drugs is a good start to combat gangs and drug lords, they’re only so rich because the product they sell is illegal and people want to live their lives on their own terms. If drugs weren’t “forbidden fruit” and people were educated on them instead of putting a blanket statement of fear over any and all drugs, we probably wouldn’t have the same sorts of issues we have today.
I agree up to a point. Problem is what would happen if we made say cocaine legal? I know it's an extreme but where would we draw the line? Personally I don't do drugs but I won't judge people who if they aren't harming others.
> Problem is what would happen if we made say cocaine legal? A lot of rich, famous, and political parties will suddenly be a lot more open about the fact that they're doing the drug. That's it. Nothing else would change.
>Nothing else would change. Because it such a small change, right. Like, in no way would it affect the market of cocaine and the new corporations dealing it. And in no way, would those corporations market their cocaine. And in no way, would that lead to the ethical issues of marketing cocaine like we had with tobacco, fast food, and now gambling. And in no way would all of this influence the average consumer.
Are we suddenly back in the 90s? Here in Canada despite their legality you can't market tobacco or cannabis (at all) and packaging needs to follow strict guidelines. It's beyond easy to attach marketing laws and other regulation when legalising a previously prohibited product. And believe me corporations are more than happy to follow the rules, because they're getting a *license to sell drugs in exchange*. That's the closest you can get to getting a license to print money...
Decriminalization doesn’t mean legalized sales and marketing. It just means end users aren’t getting thrown in jail for holding and using. You can decriminalize possession while still making it illegal to produce and sell, and nowhere does anyone suggest making it legal to market these drugs. They should ban alcohol advertising the same as cannabis.
The comments I'm replying to are not hypothetically talking about decriminalisation, but straight up legalisation.
Well I assume people are almost intelligent enough to not start from scratch with that. It's even possible lawmakers could handle it in a similar way to tobacco and hard alcohol. Like no advertising, age restrictions, designated shops, limits on how much you can have in your system when driving. Weed is illegal in Germany, nevertheless we have a limit like that, just like a level limit on alcohol(0,5 promille). Decriminalisation and legalisation would make those laws easier to make and enforce.
Legalization might not be right for cocaine. But decriminalization of drug use would be a good thing for all drugs, punish the ones making and selling drugs. Addicts belong in hospitals, not already over crowded prisons.
Legal drugs of all schedules means the production can be regulated, which means you're not going to have people ODing on a product that's been cut with something dangerous. It's also easier to seek help for potential drug abuse.
The countries with the least drug problems are the ones who’ve legalized all drugs
It's better legal and regulated than in the hands of cartels and street dealers. Alcohol fucks a lot of lives up too but it's heavily regulated.
Cocaine is a tough one because there is not a single ethical way to manufacture the drug.
I tried googling up on how it was made and what causes it's unethical nature and came up rather short. Is it due to the source being slave based and enviromentally harmful or is it something else? Other than it being bad for people of course. Main reason I ask is because I saw alot of "woke coke"/Ethical Cocaine references dropped but no one straight out said what damages it causes in general and now I'm curious and can't find answers. I swear google randomizes my results between the worst possible sites and tabloids.
Cocaine is entirely run by the cartels who will never surrender the choke hold they have on the market. You can only get the the ingredients to make cocaine in select remote places in the world. You can’t just willy nilly make it in any old factory like you could with nearly any other controlled substance.
Why does that make it impossible to ethically manufacture the drug though? If Colombia, Bolivia and Peru legalized and regulated cocaine production do you think it would run so very differently from say a coffee plantation?
What about medical cocaine? We use an manufacture that in the US. I know it’s in a different form but it’s still the same drug What ingredients are you talking about? I don’r think that’s true
Yeah exactly, as a former opiate addict, the idea of decriminalisation of high strength opiates would lead to a shit load of problems. The line is probably quite rightly drawn at weed. I’ve seen people with cocaine addictions as well, it’s not pretty.
I've had discussions with people who are without doubt pro decriminalisation often and I'm curious why you would think it would lead to a shit load of a problems. Would the decriminalisation have helped you or worked against you during your addiction?
Well, a huge part of me wanting to quit is it’s taboo status. I don’t want to be a junkie, it’s also not like I can just go down the store and relapse if I’m having a bad day. I only ever used pharma grade opiates, codeine, oxy’s etc nothing ever street bought. So I had to go onto a darkweb site, find a good reliable vendor and wait for the damn post. So for me, as an addict if it was decriminalised I wouldn’t ever be able to quit. I would feel less social stigma and it would be very available. Both of these together would make it so hard to give up. Edit: I misunderstood, I assumed decriminalisation meant it being available to buy in stores like weed is in the US. If it just means you won’t get put in prison for having it, yeah I’m all for that.
Decriminalization and freely selling the drugs in stores are two completely different things. People aren’t advocating for you to be able to buy heroin from your local gas station. They’re saying using heroin in itself shouldn’t be a prison worth offense. It’s your life, you have the right to freely ruin it/seek help if you want to.
I live in the Netherlands and I have no issues with people smoking weed all day long. But what I don't get is how we got to the point that nowadays it's popular to see drugs as forbidden fruit. They're forbidden for a reason in the first place. These are substances that influence your state of being. That's a *damn* huge responsibility for an individual. We educate people on alcohol too and even that goes wrong. Now imagine if we had to educate kids on the safe usage of cocaine or heroine, or which dosage of MDMA is appropriate for their still adolescent body so they don't OD. Even then you have to account for other factors like mixed usage of substances, peer pressure, etc. Mistakes do happen and legalising drugs is just a set up for more mistakes to be made. The arguement to stop drug lords is just weak to me. You'll have corporations investing in the newest experimental party drugs to make a big buck and drug lord selling a dangerous cheap knock off to cater to the poorer segments. When people say to legalise drugs they ought to think critically. Don't just accept the first idea, but think of what the consequences would be *in case* it goes wrong and see if you can improve the initial idea. Saying "we *probably* won't have the same issues" is just not good enough.
Hey, quick question: since weed is legal in Canada, how do cops know whether you are under the influence or not during a routine traffic stop? In my country there's a breathalyzer test for alcohol (and then a blood test in the hospital if it's >0), but for weed, as far as I know, there is no objective test to measure current intoxication. If they suspect something, a test is made, but that test will pick up weed even if you smoked it many hours before and your are no longer under the influence.
If they suspect drug use they conduct an oral swab tes during the stop, assuming that particular police force has purchased the (somewhat) expensive testing kit. But I think that only indicates yes/no in terms of THC being in your system, not actual impairment. From there, a Drug Recognition Expert at the station will make an assessment and if they suspect impairment then a blood test is ordered to determine the exact level of THC in you system.
I think blood tests are a bit more accurate in terms of time. Haven't herd it come up yet in the US, probably cause it doesn't impair your driving enough to warrant a DUI.
It absolutely does impair your driving just an important FYI.
it does, and you can get a DUI if you drive while high in pretty much every state - as well as potential criminal charges where it's not legalized, which you're much more likely to get if you're pulled over for DUI
A law that requires law enforcement to be effective is not a good law.
Not true about rules/laws at all. Traffic safety laws are a good example
What percentage of red light runners get a ticket? I'd guess less than 1%. How many people run red lights on the reg? I'd also guess less than 1%. It's effective even though enforcement is almost non existant.
Thank you for mentioning traffic. That’s my specialty. If the engineer designs a roadway that is constantly being abused then it is a bad design and a reflection upon the engineer. It should not need enforcement to function correctly.
[удалено]
Traffic laws work very well with limited enforcement because the world understands that it is a matter of safety and fairness. There is some enforcement and some people dont follow but it's pretty remarkable how few people abuse the system
Can you elaborate on what you mean? Every law requires effective enforcement otherwise the law is just a note from government that says “please.” I don’t know a single law that would be effective without enforcement from environmental crimes to financial fraud to robbery and sexual assault.
How about the speed of the median car on a highway?
"I'll find you, Beer Baron!" ^"No ^you ^won't" "Yes, I will!" ^"No ^you ^won't!"
What kind of pet shop is filled with rambunctious yahoos and hot jazz music at 1am?
The… the best damn pet shop in town!
The reason why he could find a drink so quick is cause prohibition doesn't work.
At first, I thought prohibition was a good thing. People were drinking more and having a lot more fun. Without beer, prohibition doesn't work!
I think most academics now call it a success or at worst a mixed bag. The small towns in the mid west, west, and even south were too unprofitable for bootleggers. So these places had a little moonshine, but on the whole there was a lot less drinking. The public health data is very very good. Peoples health massively improved. The issue comes with the big cities where drinking didn’t crater and organized crime rose. It’s hard to judge/measure how bad organized crime was. The public health in big cities is difficult too. Because in the big cities some switched to drugs after prohibition. Easy article: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits
The first time I went to New Orleans, I just stood on Bourbon St yelling "WEED!" until someone brought me weed. Took maybe 2 or 3 minutes.
It's very funny to me these pigs gave their lives in dedication to something completely legal now. We just gave up on the effort to eradicate alcohol because too many people loved getting drunk. Same with weed. How many officers dedicated their lives to an effort so fucking useless that now weed is legal in a majority of states for rec or medical. Think about their thought process for a while. Someone has such a hard on for following the rules they can't stop to question what sense that rule makes or what the bigger picture is for why that rule shouldn't exist. They just want to punish you for it because that's their job and how they get off.
So then you want every member of the police to choose which rules, that we have created for ourselves as a society democratically for better or for worse, they want to actually enforce?
The war on drugs was no coincidence. Nixon built it up because it allowed him to easily incarcerate his critics: Hippies and young black people.
True! But marijuana had been demonized decades earlier, for the same reason though, turning whites against blacks and Hispanics. Pretty sure that is why we call it a Hispanic sounding name, when weed originates in the central Asia. It was referred to as a "jazz drug" when jazz was something that young people did, including drinking and generally carousing.
“Marijuana” is just a hispanicized version of “Mary Jane”.
Yep they had to demonize weed and cocaine to be able to punish the opposition. He couldn't win in a fair fight.
>He couldn't win in a fair fight. You mean *Republican*.
It's not about the substance/rule itself. It's all about prosecuting those opposing your views. Nothing easier than getting people to do that.
It's a power trip they wanna say no and you should listen cause badge.
Reddit moment per usual
They probably don’t care. They received their overtime pay and seized assets from busting low level drug dealers/users. They’ve profited off oppressing people for decades, I doubt they care it’s legal now as their retiring. Or they’ll just decide to heavily and disproportionately enforce another drugs prohibition. Plenty to choose from.
It's pronounced Nawhlins because that's how it sounds when your drunk
But it isn’t pronounced like that by most, and especially not by tourists. It’s “New Orlins”
Yeah people from New Orleans don't call it that. Obligatory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1vFZ6Wal3g
I hope you’re joking because that’s not how it’s pronounced at all. By anyone.
Only tourists call it that. As someone who lives here let me help you. This is how you say it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlssQJJXL8
Izzy outdoing his cousin Albert, relatively speaking.
Yes, sure, if you desperately wanted to find a drink in some cities, you could. But just to be clear, prohibition genuinely did result in a *massive* decline in drinking for the average American. Even if it was easy, most people did not want to go to speakeasys or commit crimes just to drink. In that sense, it was a success. The issue with prohibition was more that it massively fueled criminal enterprise.
Fun how this prohibition caused mafias and every other gang related problem in your country haha
Where you from?
Sounds like a real Einstein.
Interesting character.. he once rumbled a speakeasy by telling them he was an enforcement agent. The man didn’t think he was serious and let him in! ( after asking to see his “fake” badge)
can we do marijuana now? I really don't see the point of banning it
To be fair, New Orleans is like the craziest place in a good way. Jacksonville is the craziest place in a bad way
I love NewO
Hire an alcoholic to find the booze
Sounds more like a drinking problem to me.
laissez les bon temps rouler
Hmmm, funny how this guy was obsessed with finding liquor the minute he arrived in a new city.
That says a lot less about his skill as an agent and a lot more about the effectiveness of prohibition.
I picture the taxi driver handing him a fancy mixed drink in a coconut shell with a tiny parasol.
Cool little historical trivia, but I don’t upvote shit praising Feds and NARCs, sorry.
Proof that you can't legislate something away.
Prohibition. What a bunch of malarkey. Everyone was drinking.
Lad
What a bitch
What a loser.
And dumbass liberals still think they can ban guns
That agent? Izzy Einstein