Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo' recaptured after six months

Prohibition was repealed, and the murder rate and other crime rates dramatically dropped.

 

It so obvious, but many people miss it. You missed it.

 

But deaths from drug overdoses sky rocketed when organized crime went from bootlegging and speakeasies to becoming the pusher man, the merchants of the kiss of death.

 

You're going to have to show evidence of your "sky rocketed" overdose statistics in the 1930s-1940s. I am not aware of any at that time.

Would those be doctors?:

 

This thread and the "drug war" is a classic example of why the "conservative" Republican is an enemy of liberty. He advocates small government, but his attitude and actions belie that advocacy. The big government Republican is actually worse than the big government liberal. At least the liberal tells you where he stands.

The big government Republican also fails to recognize patterns. He grows government with drugs laws, aggressive foreign interventions, and many other archaic laws, but then complains when that same behemoth government challenges gun rights. He builds Frankenstein's monster, but is then baffled when that monster comes back to attack him.

 

Those too but they weren't referred to as the pusher man but just as Dr. Feel Good.

 

It was progressives who were behind the passing of the Volstead Act aka Prohibition.

It was also progressives who wrote and enacted America's first drug laws in particular making cocaine and marijuana possession and use a crime.

Lets keep it historically correct.

 

I was trying to remember if that was some Motley Crue song, so I looked it up. It was, sure enough. I have to think that term goes much further back, though.

Anyway, I found another use of that term, Dr. Feel Good from the Urban Dictionary:

Dr. Feelgood

When a guy puts his penis in his girlfriends ass and uses the friction from moving in and out to loosen her up when she is feeling constipated.

My girlfriend was feeling stuffed up so i gave her a Dr. Feelgood.

 

That's the first time I heard of that.

 

Volstead was a Republican. That might not be meaningful because I don't know his exact politics. Probably irrelevant overall because both parties were big government then, as they are today.

The entire movement could actually be described more as a motley conglomeration of people from all walks. Your "progressives" would include conservative Christians, cotton businessmen against hemp, doctors against alternative medicines, law & order police, etc.

Many of the progressive women were simply women trying to stop their man from drink and thin babes. These women run the political gamut.

It's even a good mix today. Lots of former hippy *******s side with government police.

 

First you have to understand, that those today who hide behind the progressive label aren't really progressives but Marxist, communist, internationalist socialist and just radical leftist.

Progressives prided themselves on their applications of emerging social sciences and scientific management techniques, believing that through science, societies ills could be cured.

Progressives were found in both political parties. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive and so was Woodward Wilson. Most progressives were nationalist socialist, very nationalistic and also racist. They despised internationalist socialist.

Todays progressives afren't progressives, they just hijacked the progressive label and when they dirty that label they'll find another label to hind behind.

But I digress.

Progressive Party Platform, 1912

I wonder where all of the real progressives are hiding today ???

There has to be more than a few. -> http://www.progressivebullmoose.party/

 

I think it's less a matter of understanding, and more about perspective.

I think people who use government for their selfish ends are often no different than organized crime. They especially don't like competition. The crime boss has his goon break your legs, just like the special interest group uses the government to force you to do something. Noncompliance with either one means your eventual demise.

Temperance women could not stand competition from young and pretty girls, so they used laws to keep their men away from drink and girls. The cotton industry could not stand hemp competition, so they used government to demonize weed. Doctors can't stand competition from nature, so they use laws and regulation to kill the competition. The list is endless.

It's also to protect jobs. Looks how furiously the DEA and others campaign against the tide of marijuana reform. Stop making drugs illegal, and half the po-lice are out of work.

Most people can't stand freedom.

 

Before Prohibition, half of America was walking around in a state of inebriation. It was actually pretty bad. Look at frontier towns some with a population of a couple thousand but one hundred saloons. In the 1890's and early 1900's small towns with 10,000 with 50 or more saloons. There were no local or state regulations, you gave your ten year old son a bucket and two bits and sent him down to the corner bar to get you a bucket of beer.

Prohibition gave America a time to sober up. When Prohibition was repealed along came the first regulation on alcohol. Age limits, hours when alcohol could be served. One law that most states adopted was alcohol couldn't be sold or served on election days until the polls closed. Politicians sure didn't like that one. Two free beers was worth one vote at the polls. I can remember as a child in California during the 1950's and early 60's lock and chains on all of the beer coolers doors at the stores until the polls closed on election day. I believed that law was repealed in California by 1964.

 

I don't see that as much different from today. I just read some coffee numbers a couple of months ago. About 2/3 of American adults drink coffee every day. Two-thirds of those consume within an hour of waking up. One quarter of American adults drink 13 OR MORE cups per week. 100 million Americans drink coffee. I can find the source, but I think it was the trade industry group National Coffee Association.

Prescription drug use has increased over the decades, especially for kids. Boys with normal energy are labeled ADD or ADHD and then medicated. People take all kinds of pills to pep themselves up, calm themselves down, sleep, relieve pain, etc.

If you're going to make a statement that half of 19th century Americans were walking around drunk, then I can say that half the people I talk with are walking around in a haze. I can even make the argument that a shot of alcohol was really not that much different from today's dope. The difference is that America grew during the 1800s and first half of the 20th century. We're now on the decline. We must have done pretty well back then for half the people to be walking around in a stupor.

Consumption of substances has only changed in the aspect of regulation. People are equally doped up today, but now there is government bureaucracy and money-making. Marinol makers fear actual marijuana. Government even displays the arrogance of running liquor stores. It even goes beyond that because pharmaceutical companies demonize natural remedies.

If you don't comply with government, then they will bust your kneecaps. Just like the mafia goon.

The x factor is freedom. If you don't want to drink, then don't do it. No one is twisting your arm.

 

Are there any Starbucks in Utah and how many per capita compared to other states ?

 

I don't know. Why?

 

Practicing Mormons don't drink coffee or drink beer or smoke, just lots of sex.

 

I just look at Starbucks site. There are quite a few Starbucks in Utah.

State-----# of Starbucks-----------Population


Utah.......51.......2,942,902

Iowa.......34.......3,107,126

Arkansas..23......2,966,369

Mississippi...4......2,966,369

Kansas.......4.......2,904,021


This is not even a good indicator of consumption, but I was just using your criteria.

I still don't understand your point. Religious people, in general, smoke and drink less than non-religious people. That would be related to the voluntary institution of religion, not the mandatory institution of government.

 

Apache Rat,

The link below is sort of interesting. I was thinking that Utah had to be near the bottom in coffee consumption. Sure enough, the article says they are the lowest. Utah probably has more Starbucks than some other states because of it's proximity to Seattle, the home of the company.

I was also surprised to see that coffee consumption was higher during the 1940s-1950s than today. Looks like it has tapered off. The article does however, discuss these new-fangled items like coffee pods, lattes, sugar drinks, caffeine-laced drinks, etc. Maybe those replaced coffee drinking, so it might be hard to compare this type of consumption.

I'd have to find stats on pop consumption, but it sometimes seemed like pop was a treat in the old days. Now, you have these oversized drinks, 2 litre containers, etc. On the other hand, Dr Pepper encouraged consumption of their product at 10am, 2pm, and 4pm.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-explain-pretty-much-everything-about-coffee/

 

Addition to above post:

I am wondering if Utah is become much more secular. If so, then I would apply the theory that more government is directly related to more secularization.

In the old days, there were religious institutions that addressed societal issues. Yesteryear meant visiting a church, but today you visit a social service agency. Yesteryear meant discussing a problem with your preacher, but today you go to the psychologist. Yesteryear meant church groups as a source of support, but today you go to a non-religious support group. The list goes on.

The difference is that religious institutions are voluntary. Government institutions are paid by tax dollars, which are not voluntary. Big government advocates, in my view, see the government or secular institution and it's staff as a replacement for church and God. For some, government IS their god.

 

So you think your right to take drugs supersedes the innocent girls right to live correct?