WP: As opioid overdoses rise, police officers become counselors, doctors and social workers

[Riggo-toni]

9 hours ago, balki1867 said:

 

It was a tongue-in-cheek joke about how our federal government leadership is suddenly responsible for drug addiction. For whatever reason this wasn’t the case when crack cocaine swept the nation. 

Ah, my apologies - I forgot to turn on my sarcasm detector.

[LD0506]

When the money was going to brown guys in other countries it was a war, a big damn deal that demanded military intervention. Now that the profit stream has been diverted to old white guys who own American companies, ehhhh, we need to change the focus............

 

The Sacklers et. al. have supplanted Escobar as drug lords and you won't see any "solution" even considered that cuts into corporate profits, the same way everyone ignores the insurance companies for driving healthcare costs through the roof. 

 

Pure capitalism at work, we need to get the government off their backs and cut regulations because, you know, 'Murica!

[Riggo-toni]

[PeterMP]

On 1/18/2018 at 3:42 PM, Riggo-toni said:

 

I'm doubtful.  The quote was "released" in 2016 by a pro-drug legalization person supposedly from an interview of Ehrlichman in 1994 and Ehrlichman died in 1999.  If he had such an explosive quote, why did he sit on it for 12 years?

 

(And doesn't everybody pretty much admit that heroin is bad?)

Edited January 22, 2018 by PeterMP

[Riggo-toni]

[Gamebreaker]

On 1/18/2018 at 7:45 PM, PeterMP said:

 

I'm doubtful.  The quote was "released" in 2016 by a pro-drug legalization person supposedly from an interview of Ehrlichman in 1994 and Ehrlichman died in 1999.  If he had such an explosive quote, why did he sit on it for 12 years?

 

(And doesn't everybody pretty much admit that heroine is bad?)

 

I'm not doubtful. In fact, a lot of sources lead me to believe that is exactly what happened and then some. 

 

"The CIA admit­ted in 1998 that guerilla armies it actively supported in Nicaragua were smuggling illegal drugs into the United States-drugs that were making their way onto the streets of inner-city black neighborhoods in the form of crack cocaine. The CIA also admitted that, in the midst of the \;\far on Drugs, it blocked law enforcement efforts to investigate illegal drug networks that were helping to fund its covert war in Nicaragua."

 

That quote is from The New Jim Crow, and the author's sources on that tidbit about the CIA come from at least three separate sources. 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

I'm not doubtful. In fact, a lot of sources lead me to believe that is exactly what happened and then some. 

 

"The CIA admit­ted in 1998 that guerilla armies it actively supported in Nicaragua were smuggling illegal drugs into the United States-drugs that were making their way onto the streets of inner-city black neighborhoods in the form of crack cocaine. The CIA also admitted that, in the midst of the \;\far on Drugs, it blocked law enforcement efforts to investigate illegal drug networks that were helping to fund its covert war in Nicaragua."

 

That quote is from The New Jim Crow, and the author's sources on that tidbit about the CIA come from at least three separate sources. 

 

 

I think it is largely admitted that there was an intersection between drug smugglers and Contras and groups the US government was helping.  60 Minutes did a whole thing on it once upon a time.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-cias-cocaine/

 

And there is a wikipedia page on it:

 

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

 

People that tend to be involved in one highly illegal activity (gun running) tend to be involved in others (drug smuggling).

 

I'm not at all sure why that has anything to do with Nixon-era drug policy, especially as I'm pretty sure that both drugs were already illegal at the time Nixon took office.

Edited January 22, 2018 by PeterMP

[Gamebreaker]

27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not at all sure why that has anything to do with Nixon-era drug policy, especially as I'm pretty sure that both drugs were already illegal at the time Nixon took office.

 

I'm sorry, I thought the association was obvious. I mentioned it because Reagan's drug policy was really no different. This was something that started with Nixon, and continued on with the "War on Drugs". You said you were doubtful of that quote, and I can understand that if you are viewing it in a vacuum. But with everything we know about how drugs got into the urban city communities, and the policing that followed, it falls in line with a lot of evidence that supports it. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

I'm sorry, I thought the association was obvious. I mentioned it because Reagan's drug policy was really no different. This was something that started with Nixon, and continued on with the "War on Drugs". You said you were doubtful of that quote, and I can understand that if you are viewing it in a vacuum. But with everything we know about how drugs got into the urban city communities, and the policing that followed, it falls in line with a lot of evidence that supports it. 

 

But what was happening under Reagan had nothing to do with winning elections.  It had to do with supporting and funding the Contras.  It wasn't not aggressively stopped, allowed, or assisted (depending on who you believe) because of Reagan needing to win an election.

 

If a decision was made at a high level (which isn't clear to me), there's no evidence it was done with the idea that it would allow Reagan to get re-elected vs. they wanted the Contras to win.

 

You are trying to claim that event A done that was done for reason B is supportive evidence for event X happened for reasons Y.

 

Which makes no sense.

[NoCalMike]

As far as drug policy ago. I think a big part of it is where in the timeline did mandatory minimum sentencing come along and how does it correlate with the popping up of privatized prisons that profit from having a large prisoner pool.  It didn't all necessarily happen over night probably.

[Gamebreaker]

56 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But what was happening under Reagan had nothing to do with winning elections.  It had to do with supporting and funding the Contras.  It wasn't not aggressively stopped, allowed, or assisted (depending on who you believe) because of Reagan needing to win an election.

 

If a decision was made at a high level (which isn't clear to me), there's no evidence it was done with the idea that it would allow Reagan to get re-elected vs. they wanted the Contras to win.

 

You are trying to claim that event A done that was done for reason B is supportive evidence for event X happened for reasons Y.

 

Which makes no sense.

 

It makes perfect sense when you're not interjecting useless talking points. Nowhere in the quote about Nixon and his administration, or the quote and sources from The New Jim Crow mention winning elections. That has little to do with an agenda to undermine black people. An agenda that has been in play since slavery ended. If the influx of drugs was affecting white communities, those contras would've simply needed to find a different avenue to fund their war because it would've been shut down. Yet since it was affecting black communities, and since those communities had already been targeted regardless of the current administration in charge, it was welcomed. 

 

But if you're casting doubt on the Nixon quote without any evidence to counter it, I'm sure you're more than willing to ignore obvious parallels.

[Gamebreaker]

38 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

As far as drug policy ago. I think a big part of it is where in the timeline did mandatory minimum sentencing come along and how does it correlate with the popping up of privatized prisons that profit from having a large prisoner pool.  It didn't all necessarily happen over night probably.

 

From what I can find, the first private prison was established in 1983, a year after Reagan's war on drugs began. But it really didn't take off until the mid-90s, right around the time Clinton signed the Crime bill. 

[PeterMP]

29 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

It makes perfect sense when you're not interjecting useless talking points. Nowhere in the quote about Nixon and his administration, or the quote and sources from The New Jim Crow mention winning elections. That has little to do with an agenda to undermine black people. An agenda that has been in play since slavery ended. If the influx of drugs was affecting white communities, those contras would've simply needed to find a different avenue to fund their war because it would've been shut down. Yet since it was affecting black communities, and since those communities had already been targeted regardless of the current administration in charge, it was welcomed. 

 

But if you're casting doubt on the Nixon quote without any evidence to counter it, I'm sure you're more than willing to ignore obvious parallels.

 

The quote talks about the Nixon campaign.  The function of the Nixon campaign was to win an election.  The enemies of the Nixon campaign were people against Nixon winning a re-election.  Minorities and the anti-war movement were enemies of Nixon because they didn't want him to win re-election.

 

Clearly, the Reagan administration cared more about defeating communism than the poor, people living in inner cities, and minorities (and jnot ust blacks, but also homosexuals and other minorities (e.g. military funding was favored over funding of HIV/AIDS research).  That was clear at the time he was running for President.

 

Lots of people interviewed Ehrlichman and he did live for years after the time he was supposedly quoted, you don't think it is a little odd that he never said anything resembling that to anybody else?  Other people in the Nixon administration and the campaign say that quote does not reflect their memory of decisions driving policy at the time.

 

Clearly, marijuana and heroin were stigmatized and made illegal well before Nixon was President and clearly states were vigorously enforcing those laws.

Edited January 22, 2018 by PeterMP

[Springfield]

What president wants to appear weak on crime?  And drugs are crime.

[PeterMP]

You can add his children as people that don't believe the quote is real.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

 

I'm also not sure what lies they told.  Does anybody really believe that heroin and marijuana usage wasn't more common among African Americans and hippies?

[The Sisko]

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

You can add his children as people that don't believe the quote is real.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

 

I'm also not sure what lies they told.  Does anybody really believe that heroin and marijuana usage wasn't more common among African Americans and hippies?

So let’s put this in context. First, we know from the Watergate tapes that Nixon wasn’t exactly a fan of blacks, Jews, pretty much anything other than whites. Second, we also know from Watergate that Nixon was involved in “dirty tricks”, i.e. illegal **** to help him win an election. Finallly, it’s also well established that Nixon was paranoid about reelection, among other things.

 

So this is the guy you’re gonna cape for? There is nothing about the Ehrlichman quote that doesn’t jibe with things we know about Nixon for a fact. And you want to throw a Hail Mary that this guy, a disgraced, lying, racist POS, would *gasp* never do such a thing? ??? You might wanna pick a better hill to die on because this one is a lost cause.

 

As for Reagan, the only differences between him and Nixon is that he didn’t have two working brain cells left, there was no smoking gun and Ollie North was willing to take the fall for him. Otherwise, he’d have probably ended up like Nixon.

 

Nixon used the tough on crime angle as part of the southern strategy. He realized that it was a very effective way to get what he wanted, i.e. to win AND something southern whites and probably he himself wanted, i.e. a suitable replacement for segregation that wouldn’t move the needle of public opinion domestically or make the country look bad overseas. Subsequently, Dem politicians became sensitive about looking soft on crime so they sold us out and continued the policy - even up through the Obama administration. This is why many POC don’t see the Dems as perfect, just the lesser of two evils. So pulling the lever for Hillary was easier for us since we’ve been choosing the lesser evil in pretty much every election.

 

So no, I couldn’t care less about Connor and JimBob’s heroin problem. Karma’s a ****.

[nonniey]

52 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

So let’s put this in context. First, we know from the Watergate tapes that Nixon wasn’t exactly a fan of blacks, Jews, pretty much anything other than whites. Second, we also know from Watergate that Nixon was involved in “dirty tricks”, i.e. illegal **** to help him win an election. Finallly, it’s also well established that Nixon was paranoid about reelection, among other things.

 

So this is the guy you’re gonna cape for? There is nothing about the Ehrlichman quote that doesn’t jibe with things we know about Nixon for a fact. And you want to throw a Hail Mary that this guy, a disgraced, lying, racist POS, would *gasp* never do such a thing? ??? You might wanna pick a better hill to die on because this one is a lost cause.

 

As for Reagan, the only differences between him and Nixon is that he didn’t have two working brain cells left, there was no smoking gun and Ollie North was willing to take the fall for him. Otherwise, he’d have probably ended up like Nixon.

 

Nixon used the tough on crime angle as part of the southern strategy. He realized that it was a very effective way to get what he wanted, i.e. to win AND something southern whites and probably he himself wanted, i.e. a suitable replacement for segregation that wouldn’t move the needle of public opinion domestically or make the country look bad overseas. Subsequently, Dem politicians became sensitive about looking soft on crime so they sold us out and continued the policy - even up through the Obama administration. This is why many POC don’t see the Dems as perfect, just the lesser of two evils. So pulling the lever for Hillary was easier for us since we’ve been choosing the lesser evil in pretty much every election.

 

So no, I couldn’t care less about Connor and JimBob’s heroin problem. Karma’s a ****.

OK let put this quote even more in context.

 

The guy publishing a book  criticizing the war drugs uses an Erlichman quote as the lead pitch to drive sales of his new book. A quote that only he heard. A quote during an interview for a book he was writing 22 years earlier but didn't use then. A quote he that he forgot about until he reportedly found notes on it just in time to help the sales of his new book;. A quote from recently found notes that the author Baum refuses to provide for examination.  A quote that can't be refuted by the man he is quoting because that man died 15 years ago. A quote that surviving members of the Nixon administration called rubbish.  A quote that Erlichman's children called rubbish. 

 

You might wanna pick a better hill to die as well.

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by nonniey

[The Sisko]

Lol. You guys remind me of my Jr. High history teacher who basically explained away all of Nixon’s transgressions.

 

So you really think Ehrlichman’s family or any of the Nixon folks would cop to this? I also find it a bit telling that the author was actually very understanding of Ehrlichman and Co.  instead of trying to crucify him. Given that he doesn’t seem to have an axe to grind, isn’t a crook like Nixon et al, I find him a more credible source. That said, I’ll give you that he does have an obvious motive in releasing this info, but you’d also have to agree that there’s an equally compelling motive on the part of Ehrlichman’s family and colleagues to continue to lie about it. Who would want to look even worse to history than they do already?

Edited January 23, 2018 by The Sisko

[Llevron]

On 1/18/2018 at 3:42 PM, Riggo-toni said:

 

I mean even if you dont believe this quote this is exactly what happened isnt it? 

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, The Sisko said:

Lol. You guys remind me of my Jr. High history teacher who basically explained away all of Nixon’s transgressions.

 

So you really think Ehrlichman’s family or any of the Nixon folks would cop to this? I also find it a bit telling that the author was actually very understanding of Ehrlichman and Co.  instead of trying to crucify him. Given that he doesn’t seem to have an axe to grind, isn’t a crook like Nixon et al, I find him a more credible source. That said, I’ll give you that he does have an obvious motive in releasing this info, but you’d also have to agree that there’s an equally compelling motive on the part of Ehrlichman’s family and colleagues to continue to lie about it. Who would want to look even worse to history than they do already?

 

Nobody's trying to white wash Nixon's transgressions.  Nobody is saying that Nixon wasn't a general bigot and more specifically a racist (he was).  Nobody is arguing that Watergate wasn't a bad thing or even made any sense (it was illegal, stupid, and wasteful as he was going to easily win the election).  Nobody has even said that Nixon didn't know about Watergate ahead of time.  Nobody said his Vietnam war policy made much sense or was a good thing (I think there he was in a bit of a tough spot, but they still did a lot of things that didn't make much sense and were bad out of a sense of a pride and and saving face).  Nobody is arguing that the price controls on things like oil and gas he instituted or his general managing of the economy was good (it wasn't).  I think he was wrong with respect to one of the things he gets lots of credit for today still as a good thing- moving to normalize relationships with China.

 

I've got no problem saying that Nixon was a bad person and overall a bad President.

 

But I'm still doubtful this quote is real.

 

If you were getting older, had something like this to say, and wanted it out there (get it off your chest), wouldn't you tell more than one person?  Especially after you  told the person and several years passed and it still wasn't out there.

 

And it isn't uncommon for kids to report the sins of their parents, especially if their parents are repentant later in life.  Especially when you have multiple kids, it isn't uncommon for different kids to tell different stories about their parents where some of them have negative stories to tell.

 

From there, the quote doesn't even make much sense.  What did the Nixon White House lie about?  Does anybody want to claim that drug use wasn't more common among hippies and minorities?  Does anybody really want to claim the heroin isn't bad?  Marijuana (for many Americans) had been stigmatized decades earlier.  And does anybody really want to argue that heroin addiction isn't a bad thing?

 

As a reporter, if somebody told you something like that, wouldn't you say something like, "can you give me an example?"  As a reporter, if somebody said something like that to you, wouldn't you get it reported sooner?

 

Also, not every racist wants to see the deaths of a large number of the people they are racist against.  Not every racist is Hitler-like and to not make that sort of distinction does fights against racism a disservice.

 

Nixon also hated the press and saw them as an obstacle to being re-elected.  If somebody released a quote by supposedly by Ehrichlman tomorrow that there was an effort to specifically criminalize activities that the press tended to be heavily involved in as a way to eliminate the press as an obstacle to get re-elected, I'd be dubious.

 

And for even for a racist not every action is motivated by racism.  Are we going to claim that Nixon's visit to China was really motivated by creating a path to out sourcing of jobs to eliminate American inner city industrialization and erode minority employment and wages?

 

Because that's what happened.  That must have been his secret objective.

 

Lastly, Nixon actually appears to have relatively enlightened with respect to drug policy (just from reading a little).  He worked to eliminate minimum mandatory sentences to give judges and prosecutors flexibility to deal with addicts, he started at federal methadone treatment program, and put a lot of money into drug treatment.

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/

 

"At a press conference Nixon names drug abuse as "public enemy number one in the United States." He announces the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), to be headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe, a leading methadone treatment specialist. During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement."

 

It appears that a lot of what people want to peg on Nixon in this thread actually started with LBJ.  But that LBJ was trying to punish minorities to win elections doesn't tell as good of a story.  And not that there have been issues with politicians and the general public thinking about drug addiction as a disease and issues with separating the criminal component of addiction and drug economics from drug addiction in many cases are difficult to get a handle on.

Edited January 23, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

I mean even if you dont believe this quote this is exactly what happened isnt it? 

 

Is it?

 

I'm not aware of any Civil Rights leaders or anti-war leaders that were arrested on federal drug charges during the Nixon administration. 

 

I'm not aware of any Civil Rights organizations or anti-war movements that had their headquarters searched based on federal drug enforcement policy (it isn't like Watergate was covered up as a DEA raid).

 

Maybe I'm lacking in knowledge on domestic events at the time (I know about Watergate and I know a little about Nixon's economic policy (things related to price controls and the gold standard, etc) and am pretty knowledgeable of his Cold War related foreign policy, but we are venturing into an area where I know less.)

 

(I've heard the story (not exactly sure of the evidence) that the Marion Barry prosecution was (somewhat) politically motivated (federal officials didn't like how he was running the city), but that's well after the Nixon administration and using laws that were created for other reasons to obtain a desirable political out come is very different than crafting criminal laws for the main purpose of obtaining a desirable political out come.)

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Is it?

 

I'm not aware of any Civil Rights leaders or anti-war leaders that were arrested on federal drug charges during the Nixon administration. 

 

I'm not aware of any Civil Rights organizations or anti-war movements that had their headquarters searched based on federal drug enforcement policy (it isn't like Watergate was covered up as a DEA raid).

 

Maybe I'm lacking in knowledge on domestic events at the time (I know about Watergate and I know a little about Nixon's economic policy (things related to price controls and the gold standard, etc) and am pretty knowledgeable of his Cold War related foreign policy, but we are venturing into an area where I know less.)

 

(I've heard the story (not exactly sure of the evidence) that the Marion Barry prosecution was (somewhat) politically motivated (federal officials didn't like how he was running the city), but that's well after the Nixon administration and using laws that were created for other reasons to obtain a desirable political out come is very different than crafting criminal laws for the main purpose of obtaining a desirable political out come.)

 

That quote said nothing about federal drug charges and I wasn't trying to bring that up at all so im not sure where you are going here. 

 

But "Getting the public to associate hippies with marijuana and black with heroin, then criminalizing both heavily" is basically how it went down is it not?  Same playbook the GOP uses now with immigrants = murder = democrats are killing people now that I think about it.  

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

That quote said nothing about federal drug charges and I wasn't trying to bring that up at all so im not sure where you are going here. 

 

But "Getting the public to associate hippies with marijuana and black with heroin, then criminalizing both heavily" is basically how it went down is it not?  Same playbook the GOP uses now with immigrants = murder = democrats are killing people now that I think about it.  

 

 "We could arrest their leaders..." etc.

 

How would they be arresting their leaders?  Federal drug crimes, right? 

 

The implication of the quote was that they affected public attitudes to create drug laws so that they could arrest people and interfere with organizations for political orginizations.

 

Marijuana and heroin were already criminalized when Nixon took office (and again, from the little I read, it appears that Nixon tried to relax penalties by eliminating mandatory minimums and heavily funding treatments.

 

Clearly, there has been a racist component to Republican support for drug laws where many of the laws and drugs in generally have been biased against minorities.  But that's not at all what that quote is saying.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

 "We could arrest their leaders..." etc.

 

How would they be arresting their leaders?  Federal drug crimes, right? 

 

The implication of the quote was that they affected public attitudes to create drug laws so that they could arrest people and interfere with organizations for political orginizations.

 

Marijuana and heroin were already criminalized when Nixon took office (and again, from the little I read, it appears that Nixon tried to relax penalties by eliminating mandatory minimums and heavily funding treatments.

 

Yea I get that could be the extrapolated meaning behind it. Thats not how I took it though. The drugs where just the means to an end. They changed public attitudes to get rid of their enemies without consequence. Black people and the anti war people. Just the suspicion was enough to get the job done. They didnt need to formally charge anyone with anything. Least of all blacks and hippies. 

 

Again exactly what is happening now. Trump cant charge the Democrats with anything. But he sure can make his voters see them as murders. Once they accept it they will let him take them away in cuffs and they wont think twice about it. Its the same ****, you are watching it happen today.   

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

Clearly, there has been a racist component to Republican support for drug laws where many of the laws and drugs in generally have been biased against minorities.  But that's not at all what that quote is saying.

 

This is where the disconnect is. I'm not disagreeing with anything else you are saying outside of the above. I think thats exactly what the quote is saying. I honestly find it surprising you can argue otherwise. 

 

We see differently here. No big deal. I just dont understand your POV on this one at all. 

[Gamebreaker]

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

If you were getting older, had something like this to say, and wanted it out there (get it off your chest), wouldn't you tell more than one person?  Especially after you  told the person and several years passed and it still wasn't out there.

 

This is literally what Carolyn Bryant, the woman who falsely accused Emmitt Till, did. She held her tongue for 62 years. Then as times changed, and old age softened her heart, she comes out with the truth. As if even whistling at her, which he didn't do, would've justified the brutal murder that occured. I don't think determining whether these quotes can be believed, based on what you or I would say years after the incidents, and not being the kinds of people who take took those kind of actions, makes much sense.