Bwaaahahahaha! You fool. An over 35 year old clip of Biden being tough on crime is what you’ve got? Quit now. 😂

At that time Trump was publicly calling for the lynching death of 5 boys who were known to be innocent of all the charges against them, he still is. He had recently paid out millions in fines for racist redlining at his NY properties. Way to remind us of the public lynching supporting racist he is.
For a long time after this, Trump supported the democrats and these same drug policies.

Do you not know your party STILL wants MORE mandatory sentencing and MORE disparity between crack and cocaine….you actually think Don Jr shouldn’t ever be prosecuted for his blatant current full blown cocaine addiction despite it being obvious he was high as a kite as he did government business, but Hunter should get life for recovering from a private crack addiction 5 years ago (past the 3 year statute of limitations). 😂

Biden said jail for Hunter too…if he had been CAUGHT with the crack or if he had refused treatment in 2019…or if he’s convicted of a crime with a prison sentence.

He said all this about mandatory sentencing well over 30 years ago when the pitfalls of mandatory sentencing and underlying racism of considering crack different from cocaine weren’t as obvious.
Yes, his support of mandatory sentencing and different sentences for crack than for cocaine was misguided in hindsight. At the time the Regan CIA’s responsibility for flooding the inner cities with crack and causing the epidemic of crackheads wasn’t understood, but the damage it was doing was.

Dark Brandon has done not one thing to keep Hunter out of jail. Not a word of protest, no interference whatsoever. Rant and cry all you like, no one has presented a single word of evidence indicating he has. Not even the fake whistleblower actors the GOP paid to testify. 😂
You cannot say the same for Trumps or the Trump administration, which pardoned dozens of its own members for committing serious crimes against America and We The People for Trump and then were set free by decree.

Keep whining and crying Bobby boy. Every MAGA tear gives Dark Brandon more power, makes Trump weaker and sadder, and makes your friends see you as weak and someone to be cuckolded. Better keep an eye on your wife and kids, they think you’re a loser and a nutjob, and may be out the door already just like Melania.

Enjoy upcoming indictment 5, 6, and 7!
Enjoy the next 2 years of public trials with discovery exposing more disgusting, abusive, illegal subversion of the government by MAGA, more blatant lies they sold you, more avoidable deaths caused by divisive policies, and always more and worse debauchery. 😂 😂 😂

CDC says the increase in overdose deaths was cut nearly in 1/2 to 15% in 2021 from what it was in 2020, 30% increase.
The CDC numbers do not match yours.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/202205.htm

Also, note using your statistics it went from 54k total deaths to 92k deaths under Trump, and 92k to under 107k under Biden. Also, 1 month of 2021 was Trump….the worst month by FAR….indeed, the first half of the year was still under Trump’s policies, they changed mid summer to Biden’s border policy, and still he cut the increase in half. Wait for 2022 numbers and see, I bet they prove me right and increase rates drop again by near half once the entire year is under Biden border policy.

It’s more pronounced when you target opioids, where in 2019 overdose deaths were under 50k, and 2020 were up to 68.6k, up 19k or 38%…2021 had 80.4K, up 12k or 17%. FYI, 17% is less than 38% increases in overdose deaths. These statistics strongly imply more new fentanyl use under Trump both in total and per year so far….with rates of increase going down under Biden but doubling under Trump. Before Trump, I had hardly heard of fentanyl outside MJ’s death…now it’s as ubiquitous as meth. Yes, there is more now than last year, but the rate of increase is much lower.

Directly on topic, Heroin death rates involving fentanyl plummeted in 2021 from 13.1k to 9.1k, almost 1/3 lower. In 2016 they skyrocket from 13k to 15.5k…up near 20%. Clear evidence that Biden’s drug policies on his worst day are doing better than Trump’s on his best day.

you know I don’t click your links since you posted multiple links to fake sites that were virus hosts, but I found the same data.

As to your assertion that these numbers “ All with fentanyl being the main reason for this upswing. ” that is a total lie. The numbers you list are for ANY substance caused death from drugs AND controlled substances including prescription drugs and include intentional suicides. The numbers for heroin/fentanyl are down. You didn’t, or couldn’t read.

Cut the increases in overdose deaths in half, yep, Joe did that.

Lol….burn? I think you burned yourself, dummy. People who can’t understand statistics shouldn’t try to use them in arguments. I got an A in statistics, how about you?

Your argument is like saying “sure, Joe cut the deficit by 2/3, but the debt still went up to the highest number ever so he’s clearly causing the all of the horrific debt problem, Trump had nothing to do with it.”…just idiotic.

Now, have you had time to prepare to discuss the rightly executed traitor Ashley Babbitt? You’ve had 2 years.

Congratulations! Your comment on 90s Anti-Drug Ad Gets A Redo - Your Brain On Drug Policy has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

90s Anti-Drug Ad Gets A Redo - Your Brain On Drug Policy has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.

No, the teabaggers invaded the republicans and took them mostly far right but really deep into insanity, where they aren't right or left, just angry and lashing out while accepting no responsibility for their parts in problems. They are anti tax, but pro spending, anti big government unless it's a government project they support, then big government is what's needed every time, anti regulation unless it's a regulation against something they dislike (like abortion, relaxing drug policies, marriage, equal protection under the law, etc).

Every teabagger I've met (and there are many) has been at least as if not more racist, homophobic, and bible thumping than the media makes the 'party' out to be, including (sadly) many of my own family members. They are not the fringe, they are the base, you're either lying or don't know your own group. They are also just as dumb and/or stupid as they are portrayed, my favorite slogan is "keep your government hands off my medicare", clearly the woman carrying it was so dumb she didn't understand that medicare is a government program, just like 1/2 of you don't know that the ACA is Obamacare, but HATED Obamacare with a passion while insisting the ACA is great. Not racist? Then what? Just brain dead? It's this disconnect from reality and sanity that made me run from them as soon as it was clear where the party was going....it didn't start out like it ended up, it started out more like OWS.

Haven't you been the one saying all left wingers are in perfect alignment with SJWs recently....repeatedly and smugly? Yes...that was you.

*facepalm

It's horrible that the conditions are that way. We are at fault also due to our drug policy being what it is. However, until the law changes, I can't support them coming. Now, once they are here, if they can prove that it is almost certain death for them to return, I think they could qualify for refugee status. It is a hard question to answer. I'm not a sociopath, I do have emotions. I believe the law should be blind, though, and should not be influenced by emotion.

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

What's also interesting is that nicotine, despite being legal, is about as addictive as crack cocaine or heroin... drug policy is really whack.

Essentially, if they want to be consistent they need to start sending swat teams into corner stores for distributing nicotine and alcohol - nicotine is nearly as addictive, and alcohol is more harmful to society (than heroin/cocaine).

You remind me of David Mitchell on "Would I Lie to You?" when he pointed out that often people will think that something sounds so out-of-place and rehearsed that it inevitably has to be true.

Do you perhaps think that might be something you're doing? Would this shit really be satisfactory, based on your logic, to a grieving family? He wasn't a saint, neither are you, neither am i... but no one deserves to die for that, especially at such a young age... none of us know who we are by that age.. he had not made the decisions that would shape his life yet. Who does it benefit to have the rehearsed official police story relayed to us by the only man who could explain what really happened? It's more of a slap in the face to the family, is my point.

I tell you what i'd want if i was American - not to have to fear the American police. Because at this point it doesn't even matter if Darren was "rightfully killed" - because the arse-covering propaganda had already started; which is an admission to racism by way of feeling guilty.

And that SHOULD be enough for Americans to demand change - i.e. not every cop should be carrying a gun, because quite clearly not everyone is capable of knowing when to use it. But if it isn't enough, there's Trayvon Martin too. And another, and another, and another.

This isn't a one-off thing, so don't try to suggest that people should judge the video independently of the track history of American police which is to kill young black men, hurting the communities and individuals that they are designed to protect.

At the very least, the protection system is not working for the black community and needs fixing. At the most, there is a tendency towards racism and wild-west-justice in the American police, and that's not just a problem for black people.

P.S. American prison statistics for black people is a serious indictment of how black people are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. Who is really going to try and argue that black people are naturally, statistically more likely to be criminals to the tune of the prison imbalance? There is absolutely no way i am buying into that. The prison statistics remind me of this John Oliver video, perhaps police are being "fair" and stop/searching black people exactly as much as they do white people.. but that is an imbalance because they are not exactly 50% of the population.

(For the record: 60% of all prisoners are black but only 25% of total population. Incarceration at six times that of white people. 12% of the drug-using population are black, but account for 40% arrested for drugs and 60% in prison for drugs. Taken from the NAACP website, i've got to assume they're right. Don't get me started on antiquated drugs policies, or the history of slavery's affect on money/power in the modern world - meaning crimes committed in boardrooms and government go unpunished - let's not forget white leaders have led this world to the brink of complete collapse and we're not out of the woods - but let's stick to the issue.)

In the United States there is still a high prevalence of firearms, even in areas with some slightly more stringent restrictions. France is not the US is not Germany is not Spain is not Norway. They are more different from one another than Florida and Colorado are. Nevertheless it is possible to compare the countries. Comparing US drug policy with Columbia on its own may be foolish, but when you compare it to all the countries of Europe you are getting a better idea of what works and what doesn't. If decriminalization works in every European country it would be unusual if America was so different it would make things worse. On the other hand, you have been trying to compare Spanish speaking Caribbean islands with mainland USA, so I think you are hoist on your own petard there, I'm afraid.

However in the United States, the exact opposite is true, because, as I said above, the effect of a law is defined by the reaction of those who are subject to it. Not all people respond the same to laws everywhere around the world and, as we see, time and time and time again, in the United States, legislation does effect the amount of guns in circulation nor does it effect people's use of them.

Comparing gun control in other countries to gun control in the United States is about as fruitful as comparing comparing drug policies in Colombia with drug policies in the U.S.

But alas, this common sense notion continues to evade most people. Which is why this and every other debate on the subject has had and will continue to have exactly zero effect on gun control policies in the United States.

But, you can waste your time... nobody's trying to pass a law to stop you from doing that (yet)!

I have to hear the Fox News drivel every day blaring at ultra high volumes from downstairs every day. I can't wait to get out of this house again, just to escape the maddening stuff. Depressing so many people think that it is agenda free and all the others are the one that have the agenda because Fox News and often times the pulpit says so. Don't question authority, unless said authority is a demoncrat as they tend to think of the Dems...

Of course once upon a time I did too, then I started applying actual critical thinking rather than what they said, often by going "if you really think about it..." then apply some logical fallacy that sounds true enough that you repeat it and feel embarrassed later that not only did you believe it that you actually propagated the non-sense. I used to be a hardcore Christian Republican (even had posted on the Sift under another name, but could never recover the password for, defending Fox News saying how they may be to the right but that is just to balance out how far left the mainstream media's which I was lead to believe were near Pravda). Then I had problems with legislating morality, mostly Republican drug policy and became a Christian Libertarian. Then I had an issue with American style Free Market Capitalism, and felt we had to do more to help the needy and the poor as Jesus commanded us to, and I went more or less an independent leaning to the Green/Democrat.

My faith if God started waning as I had issues with so many Christians voting Republican as the party was clearly opposed to everything I was reading in the Bible, and if Jehovah was any more real than any other supposed god, such as Odin (who at least apparently got rid of the Frost Giants as I've never seen one or evidence of one), then He'd be screaming at them that is the wrong way (now to be fair, half of the Christians in this nation also feel the Dems are more Christian oriented than Republicans, and many of the more liberal of them would point out that the election and more importantly the re-election of Obama was God's way of saying just that).

Then hundreds of Christians shouted "let them die! Let them die!" over and over again at the Republican debate and Christianity lost me forever. The Republican right wanted to see people like me and my children die because my employer doesn't offer an affordable health care plan and they don't want their taxes to help with getting health insurance either. And it wasn't just about me, because even if I got a better job, somebody has to work that job, somebody has to sacrifice health insurance so some rich guy who can more than afford to pay living wages and affordable health care for all who work for him, chooses not to in order to make himself rich, and over half the Christians in this country support the position, they vote for people who want to give that rich guy more tax cuts, and cut all aid to the people he employs. They want those people to die, as they said at the debate. Confront them and they'll say no, they don't want them to die, but the people who work there should take responsibility for their own selves, and ignore the fact somebody has to work there. They seem to think that people only work where they want to work at, and that everybody at that big box retailer is working there because its what they want rather than the fact it was who called and offered the job. They seem to think that in fact, no, nobody needs to work that spot if I didn't work it, that anybody needing affordable health insurance and a living wage simply wouldn't work the people working, or I, weren't too lazy to do so, that somehow everyone working jobs not paying living wages and not having affordable health care took those jobs out of laziness and not necessity.

I think Brand is in general, a reasonably funny guy who doesn't have a clue about politics, and should shut the fuck up about hand-wavy, airy-fairy notions of revolution without anything solid to back them up. I disagree with @Sagemind. Revolution is meaningless without a goal. That's why occupy failed (and if you think it didn't fail, please enlighten me as to what they actually achieved).

Destruction can be a wonderful catalyst for change. You can't make an omelette, etc. But if you don't actually make an omelette, all you're left with it is raw eggs and shell.

Now, all that said, Brand is completely in the right here. He actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to drugs and in particular rehabilitation from them. Current drug policy is an abject failure by every metric imaginable.

And Snow should know better. As hard as it is for those of you accustomed to the likes of Fox and MSNBC, he's actually a respected journalist.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I love how the Sift suddenly believes in small government as soon as the topic shifts to drugs.


I love how the right suddenly believes in big government as soon as the topic shifts to drugs (or reproductive medicine for that matter).

>> ^mxxcon:

If this movie will talk about a solution on the drug problem beside jails, that's good.
If this movie will just talks about how many people are sitting in jails, they should be released and drugs legalized, then it's nothing more but a surrenderist propaganda.


WTF is "surrenderist propaganda"? Surrender to who? The drugs themselves? The people on drugs?

Or is it those evil ambiguously South American drug lords?
<mcbain>MEEEEEEENNNNDOOOOOZZAAAA!!</mcbain>
Ya know, the ones that only exist because of our drug policies?

Peter Hitchens makes a good point about Brand not being able to deal in anything other than generalities though... good will, benevolence, etc are attitudes not plans/strategies... and aren't easily tied to a dollar figure... which is what the CRUX of the debate is about... some people place more value on $, some on compassion


Peter Hitchens tries to feign compassion by saying if drug addiction affects one family of course they care... well, compassion isn't compassion if you limit it only to yourself or those that directly affect you... REAL compassion isn't delimited by whether or not you know the person in question or not... REAL compassion is self-less

when the jingle in your pockets affects your "compassionate" view... you don't have a very compassionate view in the first place ( i guarantee some blockhead will try to take this to an extreme, such as "then why don't you give up all your money to help those less fortunate than you" instead of realizing that's not then end of the spectrum where my arguement comes from... it actually comes from reality where people don't wanna have to give up luxury [as opposed to necessity] to help someone that they can just as easily ignore or vilify)

and while the comment earlier about incarceration in the US is "somewhat" on the mark, lets not forget that the US prison system exists as it is primarily because its a private, for profit, industry... which shapes drug policy (gotta have your customer base - i mean inmates)

criminalization has always had an impotent effect on controlling drugs... from prohibition to THE WAR ON DRUGS (and the resulting chaos one finds in Mexico because of it)

there are PLENTY of countries that currently use legalization/rehabilitation as a much better deterrent/control; but we don't want to talk about those... because someone is making money of keeping them illegal, and where'd the poor politicians get their kickbacks from then?