> I wish I had lived my life half as well as this man

Including the dark heroin/methadone years?

Heroin is indeed a nasty drug. However, when it's managed, people can actually lead normal, even productive lives and still be addicts. It was legal in the UK up to the 1950s as diamorphine and we didn't see anything like the kind of problems we have with it now.

That said, I'm in favour of decriminalising it, not legalising it. It might sound like a non-distinction, but there's a difference between allowing anyone to go out and buy heroin from a pharmacy and prosecuting some poor fool who made some bad life choices.

As for Trance, he continues to push his childish agenda in the face of reality. That Tolstoy quote is cute and sounds great, until you realise that it is completely and utterly wrong.

As to the amount of heroin being important, I think it is. $40 worth is obviously consistent with 'personal use' not an amount for sale. That does make a difference. It's certainly not enough to allow seizure of 3rd party property because of what he's been doing (secretly) at someone else's home he's staying at, IMO. If he had $100 grand/million worth of heroin, it would be hard for the home owners to say they had no idea, it would have to be willful blindness to not notice that amount in your home, or the strung out people coming and going.
The reasonable/normal thing that should happen in these cases is the owner is notified about the criminal activity and given a chance to remove the perpetrator/stop the activity, not treated as if a tenant/family member is the owner. That's an over-reach that will likely win this family their home back and restitution in the end.

so many components to this video. Trance's arguments may be worthless, but the video itself is great.

you have the class aspect. Here we are shown this nice upper class home of a hardworking man (which alone opens up the sub-argument of whether or not he really does work hard or does he just reap the benefits of his employees' work,) and we're supposed to feel bad because the police confiscated their house over something relatively trivial. Would you care if it was a lower class home? middle class? or would you just assume the lower class family are probably guilty and deserve it?

Then you got the whole war on drugs component, which is even more nuanced because heroin is a nasty drug which I would agree should remain illegal. But then weigh that against the idea that it was a trivial amount of heroin. Would you feel bad for the family if the son wasn't small time and had a couple grand worth in the house? how about a 100 grand? a million?

All completely separate from the police abuse and corruption issue that's already been discussed. This video is crazy dense with issues that need to be addressed

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Unknown

Out of the Unknown.

I've seen 'Liar' which is from "I Robot". It was excellent, in a Dr.Who vibe.
There is another "The Prophet" that I would love to see, with a score by BBC Radiophonics heroine Delia Derbyshire. But the film was destroyed. Soundtrack exists.



These are the Asmiov Eps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_%28Asimov%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_Guaranteed_%28short_story%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucker_Bait

Other notable episodes are "The Machine Stops" and “Thirteen to Centaurus” (J.G.Ballard!!).
Simply amazing sci-fi

My point is that even with regulation, alcohol and cigarettes are causing plenty of harm to society. Check the statistics for drunk driving incidents and health issues caused by smoking. If alcohol and cigarettes were banned, they would be harder to obtain and therefore the harm they cause would be decreased.

Conversely, if you legalize hard drugs like cocaine and heroin (which are scientifically proven to be detrimental to your health and livelihood in general), the usage of said drugs and their destructive effects will only increase. Marijuana is irrelevant to this argument, as it isn't addictive and its effects aren't harmful. If you only want to legalize marijuana and not heroin, cocaine, PCP, meth, LSD, etc, I'm in full agreement.

Regulation will never be completely effective, as people will often ignore laws if they really want something (see the current drug situation). But by banning something, you at least make it slightly harder to obtain. It's a tricky situation with no perfect solution. By banning something, you are empowering the criminals who can supply it. But by making something legal and easily obtained, you are also promoting its use. Sure, the government makes a lot of money from liquor and cigarette taxes but those two products have ruined many lives in the process.

How do you regulate highly addictive substances? You can't. If people can't get it legally, they'll just get it illegally. Our current situation has already proven that. Making drugs legal and easy to obtain will only exacerbate the issues already caused by substances with similar effects (like alcohol). In 2010, over 10,000 people in the U.S. were killed in drunk driving incidents. Throw in PCP, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc, and those numbers will only rise.

It's easy to say "oh, just legalize and regulate it" but it's pretty obvious that regulation doesn't work when it comes to drugs or alcohol. People still get addicted, people still do whatever it takes to get more and lives are still destroyed as a result.

1) As I mentioned earlier, implementing border control for each state is never going to happen. As I also mentioned, border control has already been proven ineffective at stopping both drugs and illegal immigrants so why would guns be any different?

2) My drug analogy is perfectly valid. Drugs are banned yet they are still smuggled into the country. And no, people aren't growing cocaine or heroin in their backyard. And yes, smuggling a small packet of cocaine by hiding it in your ass is easier than smuggling a gun through the same means but guns don't have be smuggled intact. They can easily be disassembled and the individual parts smuggled separately. Many of these pieces would be small enough to hide in your ass. But this is all largely irrelevant because the bulk of drugs are not transported via anus.

3) The motivations of mass shooters is highly debatable. I'd argue that they want to feel empowered and the easiest way to do that is in schools which are undeniably the least likely places for people to be armed. If they tried to go on a shooting spree in a police station or military base or gun convention, they probably wouldn't get many kills. Instead, they'd be shot and killed by someone else and that's something no shooters seem to want (hence the reason why they always commit suicide after the spree instead of letting themselves be arrested or killed by the police). In fact, if you look at the history of school shootings in the U.S., many of the shooters were adults. The Sandy Hook shooter was 20 years old and he primarily targeted first-graders who obviously weren't his peers. When it comes to mass shootings, it's all about quantity and targeting people who can't defend themselves is the most effective way of achieving that.

4) Do you have any statistics to support your claim? I seriously doubt suicide rates plummeted in countries or states where guns were banned. Japan and South Korea both have extremely strict gun laws yet they also have some of the highest suicide rates in the world (South Korea is #3, Japan is #8, the U.S. is #33). If you weren't serious about killing yourself and just wanted attention, you wouldn't use a gun in the first place. You'd stand on the ledge of a building and wait for the news vans to appear. Like you said, guns are the quickest way to kill yourself so you wouldn't use them if you had any doubts or hesitations.

1) The problem is that the U.S. is so large that even a single state is often larger than entire European countries. As such, there's a large amount of income and crime disparity between states. Michigan, for example, has a high crime rate because it contains Detroit, which would qualify as a third-world country by most standards. Other states have significantly lower crime rates. Just as in Russia, some regions are far more prosperous (and safe) than others.

For example, Minnesota has a comparable population to Norway. As of 2012, it had a murder rate of 1.8, which is admittedly higher than that of Norway. However, Louisiana had a murder rate of 10.8 and actually has a smaller population than either of the aforementioned regions. The murder rates per state ranged from 1.1 to 10.8. That's a huge range in this context. Both states are part of the U.S. If the U.S. only consisted of one state, the murder rates would be radically different based on which state it was. That's the inherent problem with comparing small countries to the U.S. The sample size of the European countries is so small that you can't derive any meaningful data for comparison.

2/3) A large amount of violence is the result of drugs. Either people committing crimes to obtain drugs, people committing crimes because they are on drugs or cartels committing crimes to distribute drugs and maintain their stranglehold on the market. Would legalizing narcotics alleviate these issues? Maybe. They might also cause a rise in other issues, like traffic accidents. Alcohol already causes an absurd amount of lethal and non-lethal accidents on the road and no doubt legally-obtainable PCP, cocaine, heroin, meth, LSD, etc, would only exacerbate that.

How do you define "small" when it comes to narcotics? If I have a pound of cocaine, is that small? What about meth? PCP? LSD? Heroin? Narcotics are banned because they are harmful. Not just to yourself but to others. They are also addictive. Do you really think a junkie will be satiated by the small portions allowed by your proposed law? Nope. They'll always be looking for more and will do anything to get it. That's why drug-dealing is such a profitable business. A better solution is execution. If you're convicted of possession or abuse (no trial necessary if there's irrefutable evidence), you're dead. No further expenses beyond the execution (via cow puncher or some other cost-effective means) and body disposal (incineration seems most efficient). Zero chance of relapse.

As for money, sure, we could cut military funding. That would give us some money, though most of it would go towards rehabilitating criminals and paying off our numerous debts. We could increase taxes on the rich, even though they already pay the majority of taxes in the country. We could increase taxes for everyone, which we would inevitably need to do if we want top-quality education and healthcare for everyone.

As to your other points, we already have free healthcare. Well, relatively free in the form of Obamacare. We already have free education too. Public schools are free and available in almost every city. Said schools already offer sex education as well. The issue isn't really about education. Any dunce knows that having unprotected sex will result in babies. The problem is apathy. Some people just don't care. They don't think in the long-term. They don't plan ahead. They don't consider the long-term repercussions of their actions. All they care about is the here and now. It's not hard to find a condom. It's much harder to convince an apathetic and irresponsible person to actually wear it. You can tell them about the risks but if they don't think the condom is comfortable or convenient, they won't wear it. On the other hand, put a gun to their head and they'll definitely wear it.

I interviewed the head of NORML a few years back for an op-ed I wrote. And while I was unable to use any of the information he provided at the time, he said that one of the first things Congress did was to exempt alcohol and tobacco from the Controlled Substances Act. Afterword, it didn't take much to vilify marijuana alongside heroin and LSD.

Oh, I watched this on tv around 2001 or so on CBC I think it was, I always remembered the name, the video is very great and something a person would watch on a friday night before bed with the kids type thing, or in the afternoon after triscuits and cheese tea party. or after bong hoots and heroin overdoses while you lay there twitching this could be on in the back ground.

I may pass on this one BECAUSE it's a Sucker Punch redux (with a hotter heroine).

So no Heroin shipped out of Southern East Asia side deals. I guess non you would mention.

I like a whole shmozle about it. Hurruh.