Jay Z: The War On Drugs Is An Epic Fail

[Sarcastic]

http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion...epic-fail.html

[Real Men Wear Green]

True, and has been true for years.

[UK2K]

True, and has been true for years.

Big government has become so dependent on it though, it'll never end.

That's why I vote for smaller government every chance I get. Because big government hasn't created or been able to un-**** anything in it's existence. Everything it touches turns to shit, and this is no different.

Now, too many jobs depend on it. Too much tax revenue is dependent on it. Too many promises and deals have been made for it to ever end.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Big government has become so dependent on it though, it'll never end.

That's why I vote for smaller government every chance I get. Because big government hasn't created or been able to un-**** anything in it's existence. Everything it touches turns to shit, and this is no different.

Now, too many jobs depend on it. Too much tax revenue is dependent on it. Too many promises and deals have been made for it to ever end.

So you are voting for Johnson or Stein?

[Nick Young]

So you are voting for Johnson or Stein?

The desperate one appears.

Prepare to live in one nation under Trump my friend.

[UK2K]

So you are voting for Johnson or Stein?

I'm likely not voting at all...

But if I did vote, I'd vote for Johnson out of spite. He seems like someone cool to hang out with (aka he surely smokes weed). I actually agree with the majority of his policies but...

Trump will carry IN anyway so it won't really matter.

[~primetime~]

The "war on drugs" isn't supposed to end or be "won". That's a silly misconception that many people have.

There will always be drug users and dealers...

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them on or combat them.



Has the war on drugs punished dealers???...if so its not a complete fail

[Real Men Wear Green]

I'm likely not voting at all...

But if I did vote, I'd vote for Johnson out of spite. He seems like someone cool to hang out with (aka he surely smokes weed). I actually agree with the majority of his policies but...

Trump will carry IN anyway so it won't really matter.

I'm planning on voting for Johnson myself. Strange that we'd almost have that in common ("almost" because you said you probably won't vote).

[UK2K]

I'm planning on voting for Johnson myself. Strange that we'd almost have that in common ("almost" because you said you probably won't vote).

Like I said, Trump will crush in Indiana so my vote is pointless.

I agree with pretty much everything Johnson says though:

[QUOTE]Energy[edit]
Johnson favors building new coal-fired and nuclear power plants. He supports private sector research and development of renewable energy, but does not believe doing so is the government's job.[8]

Federal Reserve[edit]
Johnson has said the Federal Reserve "needs to be reviewed and managed effectively"[18] by congressionally auditing it,[11] and that its actions "should be transparent". He has stated that Congress should "take a close look at how the Federal Reserve Bank is operated and regulated. If changes need to be made within the Federal Reserve Bank, they should be made."

Health care[edit]
Johnson believes that the "costs of health care are out of control and something needs to be done to return health care to fiscal solvency." He does "not believe that government should be taking over the health care system." Instead, he believes that a "market-based approach should be the foundation of any solution. A health care insurance system that is privately owned and managed is the best approach to solving our health care problems." He favors tort reform and control of frivolous lawsuits as means cutting costs of health care.[22]

Labor unions[edit]
Johnson says his only issue with trade unions, including teachers' unions, is that they require both good and bad workers to be treated the same. He believes businesses should be allowed to reward good workers and fire bad workers, without collective intervention. He views public-sector unions that contribute to political campaigns as "dangerous."[8]

Afghanistan[edit]
Johnson initially supported the war in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 attacks, reasoning "We were attacked, and we attacked back." However, he opposes continued military involvement in Afghanistan, stating that "after being in Afghanistan for six months I think we effectively wiped out al Qaeda."[32] He also believes the United States "should not be borrowing money to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in foreign countries, especially when such help is currently needed at home. Non-military foreign aid around the world is something we cannot currently afford."[24] On April 9, 2012, Johnson told The Daily Caller that while he would withdraw military forces, he would not rule out putting U.S. military bases in Afghanistan.[26]

Civil liberties[edit]
Johnson believes the "government should protect the value of individuals and their civil liberties" and "should not intervene in the private lives of individual citizens unnecessarily. Personal liberty and freedom from unwarranted governmental control or regulation should allow law-abiding individuals to pursue their own desires as long as they are not causing harm to other people."[41] He believes the role of government is to "protect us from individuals who might or do us harm," but "should be out of our lives for the most part." He believes "our civil liberties are being eroded" and that Americans are "giving up [their] civil rights in the name of fear."[41]

Gun rights[edit]
Johnson does not believe in limiting the types or sizes of guns that private citizens can own. He believes the Second Amendment is "clear," and establishes an individual right for citizens.[8]

States' rights[edit]
Johnson says, "After great deliberation, the Founders clearly based the blueprint for our government on the fundamental idea that there must be strict constraints on Federal power

[Real Men Wear Green]

The "war on drugs" isn't supposed to end or be "won". That's a silly misconception that many people have.

There will always be drug users and dealers...

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them on or combat them.



Has the war on drugs punished dealers???...if so its not a complete fail

I challenge the notion that punishing a drug dealer is a worthwhile goal. It is not. If a drug dealer is a murderer, thief, etc. I fully support punishing that. But otherwise we have created this enormous class of criminals (users as well as dealers) and are spending enormous resources to combat a victimless crime.

[~primetime~]

Jay's video just states there is racial bias in the war, and focuses on pot.

His points are probably valid but that doesn't mean no good has ever come from it.

Pot laws will eventually be eased off completely...that issue is coming around.

[~primetime~]

I challenge the notion that punishing a drug dealer is a worthwhile goal. It is not. If a drug dealer is a murderer, thief, etc. I fully support punishing that. But otherwise we have created this enormous class of criminals (users as well as dealers) and are spending enormous resources to combat a victimless crime.

If you're flooding the streets with heroin then IMO you deserve fcking death.

I love that drug dealers are forced to live out violent lives that usually result in death or prison. It needs to stay that way.

Pot is another story...

[Real Men Wear Green]

Jay's video just states there is racial bias in the war, and focuses on pot.

His points are probably valid but that doesn't mean no good has ever come from it.

Pot laws will eventually be eased off completely...that issue is coming around.

The war on drugs does far more harm than good. It takes anywhere from 30 to 50 thousand dollars to lock up an inmate for a year depending on the state. 46% of federal inmates are there for drug offenses. And we are locking these people up for what? Because they get high or get others high? Why is this any of our business? How does this help me?

[UK2K]

I challenge the notion that punishing a drug dealer is a worthwhile goal. It is not. If a drug dealer is a murderer, thief, etc. I fully support punishing that. But otherwise we have created this enormous class of criminals (users as well as dealers) and are spending enormous resources to combat a victimless crime.

The drug DEALERS need to be punished.

The drug USERS need to be punished, and given rehab. The users aren't (generally) killing people. Or destroying lives.

[UK2K]

The war on drugs does far more harm than good. It takes anywhere from 30 to 50 thousand dollars to lock up an inmate for a year depending on the state. 46% of federal inmates are there for drug offenses. And we are locking these people up for what? Because they get high or get others high? Why is this any of our business? How does this help me?

Doesn't have to though. That's liberal soft hearted polices that cause that.

Bet you I could do it for 1/3 of that.

[QUOTE]Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has planned a particularly economical meal for the roughly 7,500 to 10,000 inmates in his jail system this Thanksgiving.

[B]The meal comes in at a cost of just 56 cents per inmate, and its main entr