Monday 24th of September 2018

as time goes by....

time...

Time 1981... 37 years ago... 

1998.... then the apps came in....

supply and demand...

The war on drugs in the United States has been a failure that has ruined lives, filled prisons and cost a fortune. It started during the Nixon administration with the idea that, because drugs are bad for people, they should be difficult to obtain. As a result, it became a war on supply.

As first lady during the crack epidemic, Nancy Reagan tried to change this approach in the 1980s. But her “Just Say No” campaign to reduce demand received limited support.

Over the objections of the supply-focused bureaucracy, she told a United Nations audience on Oct. 25, 1988: “If we cannot stem the American demand for drugs, then there will be little hope of preventing foreign drug producers from fulfilling that demand. We will not get anywhere if we place a heavier burden of action on foreign governments than on America’s own mayors, judges and legislators. You see, the cocaine cartel does not begin in Medellín, Colombia. It begins in the streets of New York, Miami, Los Angeles and every American city where crack is bought and sold.”

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/opinion/failed-war-on-drugs.html?

the decline...

For Thierry Meyssan, the policy of the United States since the fall of the Soviet Union has been a combat between two schools of thought. On one side, the partisans of prosperity, and on the other, the partisans of imperialism. Money or Power. This cleavage exists within each party, Republican and Democrat. However, time flies, and the United States is now on the edge of inner collapse. As of now, Donald Trump finds himself in the uncomfortable position of Mikhaïl Gorbachev.

.....

Over the last sixteen years, the very old problems of US society have developed exponentially. For example, the use of drugs, which until recently concerned mostly the minorities, has become an epidemic for white males [8]. To the point where the struggle against opioids has become a major national cause. Or again, the possession of fire-arms has become an obsession. The cause is not a question of the constitutional right to bear arms in order to protect oneself from eventual abuse by the State, nor the behaviour of cowboys gunning for potential criminals, but the fear of generalised riots. During the most recent Black Friday sales, weapons became the best sellers, overtaking portable phones. 185,000 guns were bought in one day, in 2015 and 2016, and more than 200,000 in 2017 [9]. Finally, as soon as they have the financial possibility, US citizens now group themselves in compounds with people of the same cultural origins [10] and the same social class.

As from now, international relations are dominated by this question – will the United States accept its current position or not. [11]. Today, Donald Trump finds himself in the same uncomfortable position that Mikhaïl Gorbatchev once occupied.

Thierry Meyssan
Read more:http://www.voltairenet.org/article199471.html

The very difference between Gorbachev and Trump is that Gorby was coming from the bottom up while Trump's America is coming down the rungs at a million miles an hour... Taking the middle of the road aka Putin would be best, but because he is demonised in the USA, no-one there in the US understand how their own system works apart from grabbing whatever one can and screw everyone else...  Read from top...

arm up...

Although a seemingly simple concept, the issue of polarization has long frustrated political scientists. A superficial examination of the American political scene suggests an intensely polarized electorate, divided along partisan and ideological lines. Watching cable news, we see competing camps that have few points of agreement, with anger the dominant emotion. Yet a dive into public opinion on questions of policy tells a different story. 

In 2004, Stanford University political science professor Morris Fiorina and his colleagues persuasively argued that Americans are not bitterly divided on the most contentious policy questions, that in fact Americans lack true ideological convictions. Their argument today remains as sound as ever.

The claim that most of us have a coherent bundle of ideological constraints that inform our policy preferences and voting choices has little empirical support. The number of consistent liberals and conservatives in the electorate remains very small. The Bible-thumping, pro-war, free-market purist is a rare creature. So is the gun-grabbing, abortion-loving, socialist atheist. Perfect conservative and liberal stereotypes are hard to find in the real world. 

Especially on economic issues, Americans exhibit a remarkable consensus, for better or for worse. Across the partisan divide, most people endorse a form of welfare capitalism—we just disagree on the minutia of tax policy, regulation, and the strength of the social safety net.

 

Read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-polarization-ha...

 

See also:

Where to Invade Next is a 2015 American documentary film written and directed by Michael Moore.[3][4] The film, in the style of a travelogue, has Moore spending time in countries such as ItalyFranceFinlandTunisiaSloveniaGermany, and Portugal where he experiences those countries' alternative methods of dealing with social and economic ills experienced in the United States.[5]

Moore's first film in six years, Where to Invade Nextopened on December 23, 2015, in the United States and Canada,[6] in a limited run for one week only in a Los Angeles and New York City theater to qualify for the Oscars. It re-opened on February 12, 2016, across 308 screens. The film received generally positive reviews from critics.

 

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_to_Invade_Next

 

... "generally positive reviews from critics"???  whatever this means!... The problem is no-one busy in Yamerika REALLY understood the doco's messages... especially not the media, the bosses and everyone else — not even the poor who could not stage a lazy Sunday afternoon arm-up, considering they're all in prison already.

business alla americana...

An explosive New York Times report has revealed that manufacturers of the drug OxyContin knew it was highly addictive as early as 1996, the first year after the drug hit the market. The Times published a confidential Justice Department report this week showing that Purdue Pharma executives were told OxyContin was being crushed and snorted for its powerful narcotic, but still promoted it as less addictive than other opioid painkillers. This report is especially damning because Purdue executives have testified before Congress that they were unaware of the drug’s growing abuse until years after it was on the market. Today, drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for Americans under age 50. While President Trump claimed Tuesday that numbers relating to opioid addiction are “way down,” the latest statistics show there was an increase of opioid-related deaths and overdoses during Trump’s first year in office. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drug overdose deaths involving opioids rose to about 46,000 for the 12-month period that ended October 2017, up about 15 percent from October 2016. The epidemic has been so widespread that life expectancy is falling in the United States for the first time in 50 years. We speak with Barry Meier, the reporter who broke this story for the Times, headlined “Origins of an Epidemic: Purdue Pharma Knew Its Opioids Were Widely Abused.” Meier was a reporter at The New York Times for nearly three decades and was the first journalist to shed a national spotlight on the abuse of OxyContin. His book “Pain Killer: An Empire of Deceit and the Origin of America’s Opioid Epidemic” was published this week in an updated and expanded edition.

 

Read more:

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/6/1/origins_of_the_opioid_epidemic_pur...

 

 

"Origins of the Opioid Epidemic"????    Read from top.