We have no way of giving such an experience to those in power. The best we can do going forward is pick more well rounded people, and no, that doesn't mean great schools and great wealth. You must be experienced in life.
We have no way of giving such an experience to those in power. The best we can do going forward is pick more well rounded people, and no, that doesn't mean great schools and great wealth. You must be experienced in life.
When first watching that movie, I really didn't like it right until the last scene, with Michael Douglas and his daughter in rehab, with the line "My name is Robert. And my wife, Barbara and I are here to support our daughter Caroline. And we're here to listen."
It was such a simple yet clever way to end the movie and highlight a central theme in the movie, which is that the way to solve our problems isn't to demonize the people that caused them, but instead to listen to them.
It was weird, because it sort of retroactively made me really like the rest of the movie.
I feel like I'm willing to put up with a lot of the more slow-paced stuff if I know it's going somewhere. If I know that this is building up to an interesting theme, then I don't get bored.
It's now become one of my favorite films.
Shouldn't it be War on dug dealers?
What does this mean?
And you don’t need armored vehicles and SWAT teams to get to a better place.
But, making things illegal that (clearly) people will buy anyway just pours billions into criminal enterprises. The vast majority of crime is funded by drug money in one way or another. The same thing happened during US prohibition: people did not stop drinking alcohol, but all the money from alcohol suddenly poured into the criminal economy. This is a well-trodden path and we should know better by now.
Has "the war" worked out? We're several decades in with no win in sight.
Perhaps there's some weight to the idea that demonization of distributors harms consumers—but this doesn't seem to be an ideological barrier between being aware of the harms to users and the obvious economic boon of taking advantage of regulation to exploit the market advantage.
The "War on Drugs" is just a massive subsidy for the cartels via US markets. A sane approach to actually reduce drug use and fentanyl deaths would be to mirror the policies that have brought American tobacco use to a historic low and invest the tax revenue from legal narcotic sales into addiction treatment centers.
Anyway, Menendez has gotten off extremely lightly and everyone can see this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit...
I don't find exact numbers for 1990-2010 but the number from 1996-2015 was over 32 million according to drugpolicyfacts.org [1]
Instead, we'll get another 100 years of half-assed decriminalization, where it's still illegal to sell, dealers are still motivated to kill cops, deadbeats, and rivals, where 100,000 people die because it's laced with fentanyl and even decriminalized illegal street drugs can't be regulated. I eagerly await all the downvotes this opinion will get.
One more change I would like to see: get rid of advertising this stuff. Giant billboards pushing alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, are bad for all of us.
Besides, on a practical note, the war on drugs is what created large distributors. There weren't any when it started.