I'm fascinated by "conspiracy" films like this but I can never find any mainstream credible books or websites to really back up the claims made in the film. Anyone got any good sources to look more into the issues?
shareHave you even watched the movie? They mention more creditable sources than you can shake a conspiracy stick at
shareNot sources, blanket statements.
It's funny that a film maker that was the narator of this film admits his own drug addiction throughout the film. This point shows the bias in the film.
Notice there are no shots of Amsterdam at night?
No follow up when an inmate in Maricopa County Jail claims he was arrested for having one joint on him, but when the sheriff turns to him, the guy backs down but never explains.
The fact still remains. Not every Pot smoker is a hard drug users. But EVERY hard drug user has smoked pot. It is a gateway drug plain and simple.
And if you think legalization works, look at what happened with Alcohol. We have more laws governing the use of alcohol and the different circumstances related to crime commited while intoxicated. Because legalizing it didn't STOP the destructive consequences.
Imagine legalizing something so addictive that people will decide to not eat rather than get high. Or good people with good grades in school turning into tweakers that rob from their parents to pay for their habit. legalization may slightly take the desire to try it the first time, but it will only elevate the use of people that get hooked.
"It's funny that a film maker that was the narator of this film admits his own drug addiction throughout the film. This point shows the bias in the film."
--
So you think he wants it legalized so he can get high, guilt-free? That's laughable. I don't use any legal or illegal drug, but still want drugs legalized. Chinese riddle for you.
"Notice there are no shots of Amsterdam at night?"
--
I have been to Holland (and Amsterdam) to visit family, and it's probably one of the safest places I've been. I did not see one "visible" addict, like you do in any other city in the western world (because those addicted to hard drugs like heroin get it for free from the goverment--so their lifestyle does not revolve around chasing money for the drug 24/7). You should probably try visiting the country, or even life there for a while, before you critique it.
"No follow up when an inmate in Maricopa County Jail claims he was arrested for having one joint on him, but when the sheriff turns to him, the guy backs down but never explains."
--
I probably would, too. That crazy *beep* of a sheriff could easily make these guys life worse.
"The fact still remains. Not every Pot smoker is a hard drug users. But EVERY hard drug user has smoked pot. It is a gateway drug plain and simple."
-
Critical thought; ever heard of it? If I were to use your twisted form of logic, tobacco and alcohol are the real gateway drugs. Most addicts have used sugar, too--so it is perfectly clear this is just an argument based on faulty reasoning.
Most hard drug abusers tries pot first because it's the least harmful, and the most available. According to the UN, 80% of all illegal drug users only use cannabis (pot/hash) and never advance to harder drugs. Ooops, your little *beep* theory just went out the window just by citing some very simple statistics.
"And if you think legalization works, look at what happened with Alcohol. We have more laws governing the use of alcohol and the different circumstances related to crime commited while intoxicated. Because legalizing it didn't STOP the destructive consequences."
--
Not even the worst illegal drug have the negative effects we associate with alcohol abuse in terms of violence etc. The violence connected to illegal drugs are more as a result of the illegality creating inflated prices, and therefore making addicts fund their addiction with other crimes (theft, robbery etc.).
According to Milton Friedman 90% of the homicides in the US could be directly attributed to the fact that drug are illegal (people killing themselfs over the black market share). Judge Mike Gray, a conservative republican, says that we could (at the very least) cut all crime with about 60-80% if we were to legalize (most crimes today are in some way connected with the black market).
The negative consequences of the drug war FAR outweighs even the worst "worst-case-scenario" you could *beep* imagine under a legal regulation of these drugs.
"Imagine legalizing something so addictive that people will decide to not eat rather than get high. Or good people with good grades in school turning into tweakers that rob from their parents to pay for their habit. legalization may slightly take the desire to try it the first time, but it will only elevate the use of people that get hooked."
--
You watched this movie, and didn't even understand the simple point that it's the illegality of these products that inflate prices to such a degree that it makes addicts steal, rob etc. for money to sustain their abuse? Do'h!
Your arguments are ignorant, reactionary and completely unfounded, as is the case with most prohibitionists. If you're interested in this issue, you should probably take some time to familiarize yourself with the subject before you embarass yourself like this again.
Pete Guither (www.drugwarrant.org) describes being for the legalisation of all drugs pretty perfectly;
"Some days it feels like I'm watching a house on fire. And one idiot wants to put it out with a machine gun. The other one wants to use grenades. And I'm standing there with a bucket of water and they look at me like I'm crazy."
It seems to me that Peter Guither unfortunately, has no sense of smell and his bucket contains petrol. Either that or he's stoned. Imagine the poor b*****ds not taking drugs, supporting the millions of ex-drinkers being supported with state subsidised cocaine and heroin. I have no idea what hell looks like, but I'm sure there is sign on the gates saying "legal drugs inside".
Imagine the power the state gains, with millions of junkie zombies at their disposal. Stll with the substitution program in the U.K, junkie sell the methodone to buy heroin and steal to by more. You cannot regulate something so addictive, if you cave to the addicts craving for more, you risk harming them, if you deny them the extra, they go out and steal to satisfy the craving. Sweet jesus save us from do-gooders.I firmly beleive, inside every junkie there is a person desperate to kick the habit, and you think you are helping them.
By the way, I don't drink, smoke gamble or do drugs, if I take a couple of drinks, I lose my sense of rationality. I was once a two pack a day smoker, although I never smoked at work or when I slept. I know I am not a responsible gambler. Several of my old school friends have died due to drug abuse, several of my female schoolfriends became prostitutes to feed habits. I'm middle-aged, white, middle-England. Its not not about wealth, its not about race, its about human frailty.
The fact still remains. Not every Pot smoker is a hard drug users. But EVERY hard drug user has smoked pot. It is a gateway drug plain and simple.
Ha yea, i second that. I thought the movie explained why its considered a gateway drug. Because the gov't is telling people its as dangerous as heroin and cocaine so once a teen tries it and realizes its not as dangerous, they start to second guess other drugs are try them.
Yeah, you're probably right, so its only because hard drgs are ILLEGAL, that stops masses more people becoming addicted...
shareFirst of all, I'm not for making all drugs illegal. I think heroin, cocaine, and meth are illegal for good reasons. So don't go putting words in my mouth. I am for making marijuana legal for adults (18 or 21+).
It's because alcohol and cigarettes are REGULATED, it makes it harder for teens to obtain them. Ask any teenager any where, it's a pain in the ass to get alcohol or cigarettes, it's not impossible but you either have to know someone of age or have a believable fake id, but it's as simple as having money in your hand and making a phone call to buy illegal drugs.
It's about the hypocrisy of the policy, the government pretending that it gives a *beep* about your well being yet alcohol and cigarettes and now prescription medication kill more people than every other illegal drug combined. But like I said, I'm not for making heroin, cocaine or meth legal only marijuana. Why are these hard drugs legal and marijuana isn't? Why has the government allowed us to keep cigarettes and alcohol yet insisting that marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic? It's not that the government doesn't want you to do drugs, they just want you to do THEIR drugs. Is it a coincidence that alcohol, tobacco, and big pharma have lobbies that stuff campaign contribution funds into politicians pockets in exchange for less restrictions on their "business". It's okay to profit from death in America, just so long as you're white.
I don't drink and I don't smoke tobacco and I don't pop pills, I'm 20 years old and I should be allowed to smoke pot if I don't like any the of hard drugs my government provides me with.
lovetellslies, why don't you support legalising heroin, cocaine and meth? What are those 'good reasons'? If you've seen the film then you're no doubt aware that their illegality only pushes up street prices and hurts the addicts. It's very selfish to ask for fair treatment of pot smokers, and then to kick aside the real victims of this drug war, very selfish indeed.
shareI agree with you t jansky but its also important that its not glamorized and its treated as a disease instead of a simple "fix". Ive been around many a friends and have witnessed lives being destroyed by hard stuff. But I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon when the USA cant even recognize how safe cannabis is when used responsibly.
The only people that are against marijuanas legalization are people who havent tried it.
That's not entirely accurate. Methamphetamine and Cocaine are technically legal and controlled. Ever hear of Ritalin? Adderall, perhaps? Is it the same as bathtub crank? Not necessarily. But they are of a similar chemical structure and are Schedule 2 drugs, which means they have approved medical use. Ditto for Cocaine, another Schedule 2 drug, which is used mostly in hospital settings.
As for heroin, it is actually approved for medical use in the UK and Canada; but is not widely administered to anybody except the terminally ill. However, morphine does have a legitimate medical use and guess what? Morphine and Diamorphine (aka heroin) both are synthesized from the same alkaloid in the Opium poppy plant.
See the contradiction, yet? I agree that it is ridiculous that Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug and the government officially recognizes NO legitimate medical use for it, but you're still using selective reasoning for the supposedly hard drugs. Most of them are already legal in some form.
The problem is that there is a demand for these substances, and that demand will never go away. You can keep trying to believe otherwise while more people get killed and ripped off by desperate addicts. This is not a criminal issue. It's a public health issue, and it starts with education. I'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 people are unaware that methamphetamine and cocaine are already approved for medical usage.
So like i said, it starts with education. Tell the truth. Don't enact propaganda as a scare tactic. It doesn't work. Countries that don't blatantly lie to their citizens in an effort to keep them from thinking have far less drug abuse than the United States. The forbidden fruit theory. I'm not a religious person by any means, but I wonder what an all knowing God was thinking when he told Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of life using scare tactics. It simply doesn't work on any level, and only glamorizes the temptation.
EVERY hard drug user has smoked pot. It is a gateway drug plain and simple.
"Not every Pot smoker is a hard drug users. But EVERY hard drug user has smoked pot. It is a gateway drug plain and simple."
Everyone who have eaten candy isn't fat, but everyone who is fat has eaten candy. Eating candy therefore is a gateway to becoming fat and should be banned.
What do you mean happened to alcohol? The bann on alcohol leading to the greatest drunken feast in the history of Chicago?
Legalization doesn't solve anything, but bannin something makes the problem worse, way *beep* worse. The drug-problem has exploded constantly since the witchhunt began, all that the demonization of drugs has been is a huuuge freaking marketing campaign for the drugs.
It's the greatest crime against humanity within the western society since the days of slavery.... and I don't even think that slavery can top the systematic oppression against the drug-abusers.
The logic is great, try to get people who are addicted (because they are ill in one way or another, with depression being the leading cause) by beating them while they're down, over and over again.
Don't you realize that for every drug-abuser you bust, he has to commit more crimes etc in order to compensate for the drugs that got seized?
It's laughable how people tend to not think longer then their noses reach... "Drugs are bad, drugs should go away so therefore the way to go is to criminalize these people".
There was no drug-problem until the bann started.
The first criminalization of a drug was against opium as a part of ten or so laws passed in order to opresse the chinese in New York, another one of these laws for instance was against wearing your hair in a pony-tail while having a bald upper scalp, which was popular within the chinese community in those days...
"The fact still remains. Not every Pot smoker is a hard drug users. But EVERY hard drug user has smoked pot. It is a gateway drug plain and simple."
You might say the same about bicycles and motorcycles. Not every person that rides a bicycle will ride a motorcycle, but almost every person who rides a motorcycle have used a bicycle. Does that mean that bicycle riding causes motorcycle riding?
To quote Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morgan's book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts,
"In the end, the gateway theory is not a theory at all. It is a description of the typical sequence in which multiple-drug users initiate the use of high-prevalence and low-prevalence drugs. A similar statistical relationship exists between other kinds of common and uncommon related activities." (Like the example above)
Spinning in circles is the real gateway drug. You obviously listen to what you are told, and are a great clean-cut, tax paying, upstanding citizen. My recommendation is a commendation from the TV station, you stupid jag.
shareIt's to find someone who hasn't smoked POt at all, I"m the ONLY person in my family who hasn't.
Fact is over 90% of people in Prison for Drug offences have done Pot and Pot only.
Baldwin08.com
The next best thing to Ron Paul!
[deleted]
[deleted]
THAT is a blanket statement based soley on your opinions, not facts. There are literally tens of millions of perscription painkiller and benzo-addicts out there and a good portion of them don't even realize they are drug addicts.
I was put on methadone and norco (a slightly better version of vicodin or lortab), as well as 2mg of clonazepam each day. Several months ago someone stole my norco and methadone and I couldn't get them replaced for 10 days. I seriously almost shot myself, I had to give my guns to my friend because I was such a withdrawal-ey
wreck that I just couldn't think straight anymore. It is one of the worst sensations I've ver felt and I maybe got 24 hours of sleep in those 10 days.
And the only reason I was able to eat/sleep was because of marijuana and the way it helped me out.
The same logic that people use to say marijuana is a "gateway drug" could be applied to tobacco or alcohol, as well. Which kill hundreds of thousands worldwide each year, yet are legal. Hmmmm...
The fact still remains. Not every Pot smoker is a hard drug users. But EVERY hard drug user has smoked pot. It is a gateway drug plain and simple.
And you call this film biased and unsourced? Where is your source for such a ridiculous statement?
How many deaths have been attributed to pot use?
Obviously I watched the movie if I commented on it. And credible sources in the film are powerless people making claims without backing. The only stuff he really proves is that the drug war is *beep*
shareI realize you probably saw it, but it is obvious you didn't understand it. Addiction is a human condition, constant in every society. Fighting it with law enforcement makes no sense at all.
"Until the early 1900s, the federal government did little to regulate or control the sale or use of alcohol or drugs - except for taxing alcohol.
It may be hard to believe today, but early in the 20th century a 10-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy a bottle of whiskey or a packet of heroin. She didn't need a doctor's prescription or even a note from her parents. Any druggist would sell to her without batting an eye; he would assume she was on an errand for her parents."
Do yourself a favor and read the rest of the article here; http://www.populistamerica.com/free_from_the_nightmare_of_prohibition
The Iran/Contra gate was real though and there is plenty of evidence out there, that alone makes it very feasible to believe what the film is trying to convey.
Here is a site of one of the guys mentioned in the film http://powderburns.org/, he was the one that actually found out about the secretly funded drug profits used by the CIA to help the Contras in Nicaragua.
if you want to believe, watch this short video from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, i think you should be able to believe cops who were/are in drug enforcement
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=28
And also, when you're stone, you don't get into fights like when you're drunk. Two stones can't fight effectively.
sharewhen you get right down to it, it's just a question of pure economics.
how can you possibly stop people from dealing when the profit margins are as high as 2000%? High risk and high reward. For every dealer killer or arrested, there are 10 to take his/her place.
rather than wasting billions of dollars on a "drug war" they should be "really" rehabilitating serious addicts and taxing the drugs they legalize. obviously that raises a serious question on what becomes legal, with marijuana it's pretty easy because so many people from all walks of life do it in some quantity. but what about harder more harmful ones?
If you've never been around drugs or people who are in the business and the policeforce than you can't honestly say whether this film is true or not. Trust me, this movie is about 95 percent true. Look at our budget, we have the freedom of information act you can get documents that will say how much cash we waste on the war every year and i dont know the exact number but its in many billions. If you even know the statistics of drug use in your own neighborhood you would probably be shocked.
Do your own research on the drug war statistics but not from a DARE site or any kind of national institute or a high times website. Look for neutral sites.
The war is useless theyve been fighting it for years and it hasnt even slowed down the business. They brought down Pablo Escobar and the Godmother Griselda Blanco and it was still business as usual. There is such a huge amount of profit especially from the harder drugs. And I can practically guarantee the government is in on it because everyone knows where drugs come in (Miami=coke, Baltimore=heroin etc)
If marijuana was legalized the government should keep the prices the same and tax it. Its cheap to grow, so if the prices stayed the same it would be practically all profit. Not to mention hemp can be user for paper (1 acre of hemp yields the same amount of paper as 4 acres of lumber) and no damage is done to the environment for paper with hemp. It can also be used for fuel for Ethanol (its true no BS).
¡Usted es ignorante y olor de los pescados de la tu madre
Twin Peaks rules
[deleted]