Ronald Reagan - War on Drugs (1 Viewer)

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Oh, absolutely.  You'll get no disagreement from me.  All one has to do is look at Bernie, Warren, Biden and Obama to see how one profits.  They go in poor and come out mega-rich.  But, that in and of itself isn't evidence that Reagan was personally profiting of of the prisons - which was my issue (and Tim's for that matter).

Also, you didn't directly mention Trump.  I said "I'm GUESSING that this is really about Trump, anyways.".  "GUESSING" being the operative word.

Of course we can accuse left wing politicians on whims of fantasy, but with right wingers we need EVIDENCE and FACTS. Got it. If you are going to distract with nonsense, Be consistent man.

 

[BladeRunner]

You missed the meeting about certain posters who just lob grenades. There is NO interest in substantative discussion. Make their point over and over again for lolz and no interest in the main issue

In future I would recommend avoiding incendiary comments in an OP. I know your point, but it counters a legitimate discussion. Its a great second or third rebuttal down the line. Discussing Reagan and his failures needs to be fact, fact and fact. There are plenty of them. 

Look at this gaslighting grenade thrower. 

I love it when you guys can't handle disagreement and then just claim "troll".

 

[BladeRunner]

Of course we can accuse left wing politicians on whims of fantasy, but with right wingers we need EVIDENCE and FACTS. Got it. If you are going to distract with nonsense, Be consistent man.

It's like missing the point and/or context is your entire objective.

 

[rockaction]

The War On Drugs was started by Nixon and was a pure bipartisan effort (besides civil libertarian dissent, mostly from the left and some fringes of the right). 

This is a grossly mischaracterized OP and a grossly mischaracterized subject. 

Asking us to "read an article" to figure this out is insulting in a ton of ways. It presupposes ignorance of the Drug War, first of all. 

Second, it presupposes some of us may not have devoted serious resources and time in our former lives to studying just this issue. 

Third, forget it. Your tone is way off. This thread is way off. 

 

[pantherclub]

Any "failure" designation is opinion, opinion, or opinion. Facts are different than value judgments. You'd need a whole bunch of premises before you hit "failure" as a "fact." 

The "fact" that you don't know that seems like you're both headstrong and footloose. 

Its a fact that Reagan pushed for private prisons and its a fact that the prison population exploded under him.

 

[pantherclub]

Look at this gaslighting grenade thrower. 

I love it when you guys can't handle disagreement and then just claim "troll".

How is it a "disagreement" when you pull some crap from thin air and bring Trump into a thread?

 

[BladeRunner]

Its a fact that Reagan pushed for private prisons and its a fact that the prison population exploded under him.

Okay, Michael Moore.

 

[pantherclub]

The War On Drugs was started by Nixon and was a pure bipartisan effort (besides civil libertarian dissent, mostly from the left and some fringes of the right). 

This is a grossly mischaracterized OP and a grossly mischaracterized subject. 

Asking us to "read an article" to figure this out is insulting in a ton of ways. It presupposes ignorance of the Drug War, first of all. 

Second, it presupposes some of us may not have devoted serious resources and time in our former lives to studying just this issue. 

Third, forget it. Your tone is way off. This thread is way off. 

Again, are you saying the prison population didnt explode during his term?  I mean those are facts.  And are you really arguing that Reagan didnt escalate the War on Drugs?  I mean I can give you a link where he hammers it home but you frown on that obviously

 

[pantherclub]

Okay, Michael Moore.

So yeah, troll.  I will ignore you from here on out.  But continue with your "OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!" trope

 

[BladeRunner]

How is it a "disagreement" when you pull some crap from thin air and bring Trump into a thread?

I didn't bring Trump into this thread.  Had you actually read any of the responses to your disingenuous OP you would have seen that. 

Hell, I even provided a link!

 

[rockaction]

Its a fact that Reagan pushed for private prisons and its a fact that the prison population exploded under him.

And how does that place him relative to the U.S. Presidents throughout history? 

When were there private prisons? When have they been since? When did they get curtailed? Etc.?

Do you know anything about American history aside from a few articles you've read? 

Do you know about the criminal justice, inside and out, up to and including the early 20th Century? 

You seem obviously to not know about private prisons and their role in American history, do you? 

In fact, I don't know for sure, but I'd read some about it and know more than you do. Private prisons have existed in America since before 1850. 

Forget this, this is stupid. You obviously have a bone to pick and an axe to grind. Grind away. 

 

[pantherclub]

I didn't bring Trump into this thread.  Had you actually read any of the responses to your disingenuous OP you would have seen that. 

Hell, I even provided a link!

You accused me of starting this thread to bash on trump.  I am not going to say anymore because Joe will ban me at the drop of a hat so you keep being you brother.  adios

 

[BladeRunner]

So yeah, troll.  I will ignore you from here on out.  But continue with your "OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!" trope

Seriously?  What is it with you guys ignoring context and history here?  Have you even read anything besides your posts in here?

 

[pantherclub]

And how does that place him relative to the U.S. Presidents throughout history? 

When were there private prisons? When have they been since? When did they get curtailed? Etc.?

Do you know anything about American history aside from a few articles you've read? 

Do you know about the criminal justice, inside and out, up to and including the early 20th Century? 

You seem obviously to not know about private prisons and their role in American history, do you? 

In fact, I don't know for sure, but I'd read some about it and know more than you do. Private prisons have existed in America since before 1850. 

Forget this, this is stupid. You obviously have a bone to pick and an axe to grind. Grind away. 

ostrich emoji comes to mind here

 

[BladeRunner]

You accused me of starting this thread to bash on trump.  I am not going to say anymore because Joe will ban me at the drop of a hat so you keep being you brother.  adios

I literally provided a link to the poster who brought in Trump.  Hint:  it wasn't me.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

The War On Drugs was started by Nixon and was a pure bipartisan effort (besides civil libertarian dissent, mostly from the left and some fringes of the right). 

This is a grossly mischaracterized OP and a grossly mischaracterized subject. 

Asking us to "read an article" to figure this out is insulting in a ton of ways. It presupposes ignorance of the Drug War, first of all. 

Second, it presupposes some of us may not have devoted serious resources and time in our former lives to studying just this issue. 

Third, forget it. Your tone is way off. This thread is way off. 

I sure would love to be educated. Always learning.

Many policies start with a genesis in one administration and another administration sees alternative uses for the policy, expands it, changes it etc. I understand the central premise is that drugs were viewed as bad and society would be better off without them. It also leads into the Reagan policies regarding Central America. There is no black and white, but the downstream effects have been devastating. 

I will hang up and listen if you have a knowledgeable take on this. 

 

[rockaction]

ostrich emoji comes to mind here

Yeah, I've never been critical of Ronald Reagan's role in the War On Drugs. 

Thing is, I don't trust someone of your temperament or lack of knowledge of history to be the bearer of any news. 

 

[pantherclub]

Yeah, I've never been critical of Ronald Reagan's role in the War On Drugs. 

Thing is, I don't trust someone of your temperament or lack of knowledge of history to be the bearer of any news. 

So are you arguing that the prison population didnt coincide with Reagan and his  "war on drugs"  What exactly are you trying to argue here?

 

[rockaction]

I sure would love to be educated. Always learning.

Many policies start with a genesis in one administration and another administration sees alternative uses for the policy, expands it, changes it etc. I understand the central premise is that drugs were viewed as bad and society would be better off without them. It also leads into the Reagan policies regarding Central America. There is no black and white, but the downstream effects have been devastating. 

I will hang up and listen if you have a knowledgeable take on this. 

The War On Drugs and the prison systems of America is not my expertise actually, but I know it's a lot more complicated than either you or pantherclub are making it out to be and would require a ton of knowledge to debate efficaciously. 

You've already got your mind made up anyway. Peace go with you. I won't listen to either to of you is all I'm saying. 

 

[rockaction]

So are you arguing that the prison population didnt coincide with Reagan and his  "war on drugs"  What exactly are you trying to argue here?

I'm trying to tell you that you don't know ####, policy-wise. Trust it coming from someone who spent five years neck deep in policy, including having friends who spent it neck deep in drug policy. 

In places that matter other than message boards. 

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

And how does that place him relative to the U.S. Presidents throughout history? 

When were there private prisons? When have they been since? When did they get curtailed? Etc.?

Do you know anything about American history aside from a few articles you've read? 

Do you know about the criminal justice, inside and out, up to and including the early 20th Century? 

You seem obviously to not know about private prisons and their role in American history, do you? 

In fact, I don't know for sure, but I'd read some about it and know more than you do. Private prisons have existed in America since before 1850. 

Forget this, this is stupid. You obviously have a bone to pick and an axe to grind. Grind away. 

This is a good start at decent discussion. Except for the last line lol. 

What is your opinion on Reagans policies on the war on drugs and the explosion of Private prisons?

You bring up legitimate arguments about other administrations not being cleans skins in this area. Its a good point. 

 

[rockaction]

The finest minds in policy spent twenty years doing this but pantherclub got you all hooked up with the nuances of legal cocaine. 

So be it. 

PrIvAtE PRiSoNs DuDe. 

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

The War On Drugs and the prison systems of America is not my expertise actually, but I know it's a lot more complicated than either you or pantherclub are making it out to be and would require a ton of knowledge to debate efficaciously. 

You've already got your mind made up anyway. Peace go with you. I won't listen to either to of you is all I'm saying. 

Now, now. We are getting somewhere.

I am in full education mode. I am not a fan of the Reagan administration. I am all ears. I know you are smarter than me, so I wish to take advantage of the opportunity to learn something. 

Maybe Reagan gets unfairly tainted when it comes to the War on Drug and Prisons, maybe he doesnt. I know you can discuss things sensibly and fairly. Please get this thread back on to something worthy of discussion

 

[pantherclub]

I love the "I know more then you but I am not going to talk about it" shtick  

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

ostrich emoji comes to mind here

Not helpful. If someone wants to come and legitimately counter your narrative, hear them out. Get their full story. Im not talking about the other guys who dont want to discuss an issue. We need to learn more about issues and get fully formed opinions. Not hot takes. 

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I love the "I know more then you but I am not going to talk about it" shtick  

Give him a chance, dont drive him away. Echo chambers are useless for knowledge.

 

[BladeRunner]

Not helpful. If someone wants to come and legitimately counter your narrative, hear them out. Get their full story. Im not talking about the other guys who dont want to discuss an issue. We need to learn more about issues and get fully formed opinions. Not hot takes. 

See this is a problem because you knew the original premise was bunk to begin with, but then piled on and acted as if it was other posters NOT wanting to listen or debate.  You yourself attacked IN DEFENSE of the original bad premise and now you sit acting as if you were above it all and you just "want to learn".  C'mon, man.

I would suggest if you want decent conversation, don't defend posts where it's CLEAR the OP isn't interested in finding out the truth and then attack posters who question that.  You're actually "the other guys" that you reference in your own quoted post above, believe it or not.

I'm all ears when the posts are legit, but it's clear that this one was NEVER one of those.  And you knew that.

 

[zoonation]

No he is doing the only thing he knows how to do and trolling...

Put him on ignore.  It has been glorious.  First time user of the ignore feature but am now a big fan.

 

[rockaction]

There's really nothing even to debate. Nobody has provided a jumping off point, a premise, anything...

It's just been RAEGAN AND CENTRAL AMERICA AND PRIVATE PRISONS!!! SEEEE!!!

There's been no premise declared, nothing that is arguable. It's just a lot of grief and anger. There's no way to debate grief and anger. 

For instance, if one had said, "There have been private prisons in America since America was founded, but they were expanded exponentially by Reagan in response to the drug war and its aims," then nobody would likely argue that. 

Instead we got the grievance of the OP mixed with certitude about something, not to mention castigations and anger. 

It's like one of the other posters said. The Drug War and its attendant goals and aims are subject to heavily moderated, lengthy debate. 

Not this set-up. 

 

[BladeRunner]

There's really nothing even to debate. Nobody has provided a jumping off point, a premise, anything...

It's just been RAEGAN AND CENTRAL AMERICA AND PRIVATE PRISONS!!! SEEEE!!!

There's been no premise declared, nothing that is arguable. It's just a lot of grief and anger. There's no way to debate grief and anger. 

For instance, if one had said, "There have been private prisons in America since America was founded, but they were expanded exponentially by Reagan in response to the drug war and its aims," then nobody would likely argue that. 

Instead we got the grievance of the OP mixed with certitude about something, not to mention castigations and anger. 

It's like one of the other posters said. The Drug War and its attendant goals and aims are subject to heavily moderated, lengthy debate. 

Not this set-up. 

Y'know, the problem isn't with the OP and all of it's defenders, it's with "trolls" like you. 

To the ignore list you go!!

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

See this is a problem because you knew the original premise was bunk to begin with, but then piled on and acted as if it was other posters NOT wanting to listen or debate.  You yourself attacked IN DEFENSE of the original bad premise and now you sit acting as if you were above it all and you just "want to learn".  C'mon, man.

I would suggest if you want decent conversation, don't defend posts where it's CLEAR the OP isn't interested in finding out the truth and then attack posters who question that.  You're actually "the other guys" that you reference in your quoted post above, believe it or not.

I'm all ears when the posts are legit, but it's clear that this one was NEVER one of those.  And you knew that.

Dude, weve been on these boards for 20 years plus. You can be a fantastic poster. I wish you were more often. You like an argument and arent afraid of i-confrontation. Good for you.

I think I made it relatively clear I didnt agree with the profit angle of the OP. You made that point and I agreed with it. All good. The main topic the OP wants to talk about, thats a different story. I never have my mind made up about anything. I have an opinion, as do others. I am however open minded enough to listen to someone who knows more than me. Rockaction seems to indicate he does. Im trying to get at what rock knows. The mud being flung around outside it doesnt interest me

My own opinion is that the war on drugs was detrimental, despite what I believe were good intentions. Like a lot of good intentions they are naive. Good intentions usually have unintended and poor consequences. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Dude, weve been on these boards for 20 years plus. You can be a fantastic poster. I wish you were more often. You like an argument and arent afraid of i-confrontation. Good for you.

I think I made it relatively clear I didnt agree with the profit angle of the OP. You made that point and I agreed with it. All good. The main topic the OP wants to talk about, thats a different story. I never have my mind made up about anything. I have an opinion, as do others. I am however open minded enough to listen to someone who knows more than me. Rockaction seems to indicate he does. Im trying to get at what rock knows. The mud being flung around outside it doesnt interest me

My own opinion is that the war on drugs was detrimental, despite what I believe were good intentions. Like a lot of good intentions they are naive. Good intentions usually have unintended and poor consequences. 

I appreciate this response.  Let me regain my composure before I post more.

Also, I've only been here for a couple years.  It may SEEM like 20 with the knowledge and depth I bring, though. 

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

There's really nothing even to debate. Nobody has provided a jumping off point, a premise, anything...

It's just been RAEGAN AND CENTRAL AMERICA AND PRIVATE PRISONS!!! SEEEE!!!

There's been no premise declared, nothing that is arguable. It's just a lot of grief and anger. There's no way to debate grief and anger. 

For instance, if one had said, "There have been private prisons in America since America was founded, but they were expanded exponentially by Reagan in response to the drug war and its aims," then nobody would likely argue that. 

Instead we got the grievance of the OP mixed with certitude about something, not to mention castigations and anger. 

It's like one of the other posters said. The Drug War and its attendant goals and aims are subject to heavily moderated, lengthy debate. 

Not this set-up. 

Ok. This thread isnt the one for you to discuss the intended premise. Look forward to the day where it can be discussed with honest intentions.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I appreciate this response.  Let me regain my composure before I post more.

Its all good mate. Thanks for letting me know you are a good person.

This isnt the thread now. Too far off the rails. Like Rock said the set up is off. I agreed with the angle, but didnt appreciate the toxicity in the OP and my first response. 

 

[rockaction]

To be clear, I do not support the drug war. All of my friends who were policy-focused did not support the drug war. It was, back then, like the third rail of American politics. It still is, in a way. 

But then the question, without a moderated debate, becomes a straight, to-the-point question. What would you do in lieu of the WoD? Legalize? Decriminalize? Would you have cocaine on the streets? What exactly would you do or would you have done instead of the WoD? 

Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? 

Questions could be asked and answered, but it would take a long, thought-out debate that I don't think this forum is ready to have. I don't think any forum is ready to have it. It requires experts in 

• criminal justice and its history in America
  
• constitutional rights, checks, and balances
  
• foreign policy, especially South and Central America
  
• immigration laws and refugee status
  
• regulation of the production and dissemination of harmful produect
  

the list would go on...

it's not the province of this message board to really do any of these with any sort of quality

 

[rockaction]

Ok. This thread isnt the one for you to discuss the intended premise. Look forward to the day where it can be discussed with honest intentions.

What was, exactly, his intended premise? Because it seemed sweeping, sentimental, and angry. With no real point. It veered from the incarceration/rehabilitation drug war debate to ancillary profiteering, to poverty policy, to...I don't know what else.  

What he was trying to say is that Reagan was the worst president we've ever had based off of one article. 

DIDN'T YOU SEE THE ARTICLE? 

That's what the intended premise was, in my estimation. 

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

What was, exactly, his intended premise? Because it seemed sweeping, sentimental, and angry. With no real point. It veered from the incarceration/rehabilitation drug war debate to ancillary profiteering, to poverty policy, to...I don't know what else.  

What he was trying to say is that Reagan was the worst president we've ever had based off of one article. 

DIDN'T YOU SEE THE ARTICLE? 

That's what the intended premise was, in my estimation. 

Yep,  but I get that anger. Why is he angry? Anger can be used constructively if it is based on first hand experience and knowledge. If someone has stoked it or it has no basis in something other than ”I read this” its useless. 

I also understand your reluctance to get into the depth a good discussion needs. I disagree it needs experts, but knowledge and an open mind helps. The five points you start with are deep, deep subjects that require nuance and patience. Its incredibly easy to say the War on Drugs is all Reagans fault. Im guilty of that. The best thing is to take a step back and look at the why did they escalate, who was involved in the decision making all the way back, where are we now, how can we make it better and what have we learned. 

Its simpler to say Reagan = Bad, but its not that easy. I acknowledge that. It’s a snowball that turned into an avalanche though and worthy of discussion. Just will be time consuming and it needs honest actors to play fair to discuss with reason. 

 

[timschochet]

You missed the meeting about certain posters who just lob grenades. 

I hope you don’t think I’m one of those. 
I regard this issue as a very worthy discussion, and I generally agree with most others here that the war on drugs has been an abysmal failure. My objection centered around the characterization of Reagan’s intent but it was actually a much bigger objection than that: I don’t like this constant need, on the part of both liberals and conservatives, to accuse the other side of the worst possible motives. @pantherclub focused on monetary greed; most of the articles he linked focused on racism. But for either accusation to be true you need intent. 

My own assumption is that Reagan, Biden and others fought the War on Drugs because they honestly believed it would make a better, safer, healthier nation. In other words their goals were largely altruistic and idealist. That it resulted in a perpetuation of already existing racism was something that they failed to consider. That it would lead to an explosion in private prisons, with huge profits for some, was something that they also failed to consider. Am I 100% sure that my assumption is correct? Of course not; I tend to be too trusting about this stuff. But I will continue to assume it until somebody shows me evidence to the contrary. 

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

I think he went the private route because it was his ideology. Reagan wanted to shrink the size of the government. Private prisons was just one more way to do that.

As well as mental hospitals which has been a horrible disaster.