Unintended consequences are a hallmark of the War on Drugs, even if you're a bear minding your own business in a Georgia forest. Tough policies that seemed smart on paper have harmed addicts and their families, destroyed communities, strained law enforcement resources, and fueled global conflict. It's been nearly 40 years since Andrew Thornton's surprise plane crash set off a chain of events that would eventually culminate in one of the most ridiculous films of the year, but the question remains: has the War on Drugs made us better off?
I don't see how legalizing drugs is going to make them safer, a person violently freaking out on hallucinogenic drugs would not any less dangerous if they got the drugs legally or not. Also comparing alcohol to drugs is a false equivalent, the number of drunk personalities is rather limited ( sloppy, angry, happy ) just to name a few, unlike drugs the reactions can be mercurial. Not harp too much but no one has ever died from their first shot of whisky, but that can't be said about some people first hit of cocaine.
@@Thog56 most of the violence involving drugs is not refer madness. It's gangs shooting each other over distribution networks and. And 99 percent of alcoholics and drug users are still functional, so making them all criminals doesn't seem all that of a good thing for the economy.
@@skm1091 I concede the fact that gang violence is a problem when talking about the drug problem, but I didn't bring up the gangs in my first post. I was referring to wilde range of reactions to the effects of hard drugs not " Reefer Madness" as you so put it. I have seen and talked to people whom are dealing with the horrors that drugs do to the body and mind. Such as the black rotten teeth and emaciated bodies of Meth users, destructive fits of rage from Steroid abusers, and watching a person violently lash out due to (and I quote) "The Smurfs are attacking me trying to get in my skin". My point is drug abuse or recreational use of drugs has far too many down sides than positive sides, and to your 99% comment two things. First of functional and productive are not the same. A functional person can take care of there personal needs with no help. A productive person works , helps others or the economy and in general a benefit to society. Second the ( hyperbolic) 99% you claim are functional or productive because of A.A., N.A. or other drug/ alcoholic treatment programs. Just think how much it would help the economy if there was no need for such programs.
My grandmother's uncle was a "Rum Runner" pilot for Al Capone. We found out recently because we found his photos and documents with and from Al Capone. I never got the chance to meet him, but I find that to be a funny thing to think about in my family.
You know the best part I found about this movie? Director Elizabeth Banks was concerned that this movie wouldn't make a profit and she had to take that seriously...after many of her previous projects crashed and burned at the box office in spectacular fashion that would've put her on a blacklist of "never hire again" for anyone else.
Actually it’s closer to “based on a true story” than most “based on a true story” movies. Exorcist- some kid got an exorcism, that’s it, that’s all there was. Good fellas? Based on Hills own account. He was never made (and not for the reasons he said) he was a schmuk, a hood, a useful idiot. He got kicked out of witness protection and the mob still didn’t think he was worth the effort We can go as far back as nannok of the north. Where the “documentary “ was basically telling this guy “you do this” and filming it. Or Disneys documentary and the poor lemmings So yeah, by Hollywood standards, it was practically into documentary standards simply because it was a real bear, a real plane crash and actual cocaine.
It is loosely based on a true story; most of what's in the movie up to and including the bear eating cocaine did in fact happen. But the bear didn't go on a cocaine-fueled rampage; it just died. The only death as a result of the cocaine bear incident was the bear.
The leaping toward an ambulance thing doesn’t even make sense. Your feet are what propel you when you run and jump, so it’s impossible to propel yourself faster with your feet off the ground than on it. You lose speed… not gain it. The bear is no different in that regard.
@@madtabby66 Yes, because it’s a ridiculously overused trope that they should be self conscious of instead of proudly displayed in the trailer. All I’ve seen is this and the trailer but, again, it’s about more than this movie alone. How many future writers will perpetuate this because they grew up thinking that you can catch up to something by leaping at it? Calling it out where you see it is how you make them self conscious about it and make viewers more inclined to notice the logical error wherever they see it.
Cats defy the laws of physics and pigeons have better marksmanship than an F-15 pilot. Who is to say that bears don't have anti-gravity properties when on cocaine?
I'm a Colombian here and I'm looking for ideas. From what I've seen, Plan Colombia and the efforts were the army actively participated in the war against drugs were actually successful. Using tactics such as air spraying of plant killers such as Gliphosate reduced the total number of acres of coke plants being grown in the country between 2002 to 2010, and it was one of the most peaceful times in Colombia, where things such as travelling from town A to town B on road became possible again. Now, the drug situation has become increasingly worse thanks to two presidents: Juan Manuel Santos 2010-2018 and Gustavo Petro 2022-Now. And certainly having a "hands off approach" where the government reduces the intensity of operations or completely ruling out air spraying has proven to backfire. Drug cartels have become more powerful as the crime rate has skyrocketed everywhere in the country. So if state prohibition of drugs is bad, but recent examples of having a softer hand have proven to backfire, what would the best approach be? Is there any documented case of any "full recreational drug legalization" being successful? Normally, I tend to lean to Free markets and libertarianism, but this is one case where I strongly doubt a non intervention attitude from the state.
@@roosterball69 Interesting. As for the cancer related to the glyphosate, that is still questioned and hasn't been completely confirmed to cause cancer. At least not how it was used there. As for legalization, I remember that I would only allow weed legalization so long it was heavily regulated, but apparently it is still useless, according to a video that John Stossel did of how regulation basically gives a competitive advantage to those who don't follow the rules. And the thing is that, for most of the local violence, the real consumption markets are in the US and Europe, so even if Colombia legalized it, the main consumers wouldn't get to enjoy it. Now, Colombia could follow an approach similar to how Liquor companies did in Cuba, where people would travel to drink booze during the prohibition era, but I would still be somewhat concerned of the quality of tourism coming to Colombia with that idea in mind. Not to mention that a lot of poor people who consume drugs wouldn't be able to go on "drug tourism" in that sense. Besides, I would hate to see people consuming that kind of stuff in the street, but I think there used to be some laws in the US or somewhere it was forbidden to drink alcohol on the street, so perhaps a legal consumption would be fine so long it is in designated places where people don't have to look at it in the public space. It is also worth mentioning that the US has done a terrible job in reducing the demand for the stuff.
@@roosterball69 Agreed, the US is getting worse. Culture plays an important role. In houses where kids are not properly disciplined they tend to get into trouble more often, and end up either as consumers or as drug dealers. I've also heard Ben Shapiro suggest that the difficulty to starting a family and the ever lower marriage rates are pushing men into getting into drug consumption more often, and that is another cultural factor. As for economics, agreed, the economy is the big thing to improve, the problem is that South America is full of fools that believe that state welfare and interventionism is the solution, even though it has proven to fail over and over in variying degrees, from the quasi socialist state of Colombia to the full communism of Venezuela and Argentina. Only Chile, the one who embraced full Milton Friedman neoliberalism, is the one that has had the most success, and even that has been faltering ever since the dictatorship left power. Honestly, I'd rather not legalize drugs because that would be another thing that would damage the overal culture. Having negative things becoming "socially aceptable" isn't necessarily a good thing, even if it reduces violence. The only other solution to the drug problem I see is Human Rights violations and "very hard hand approach", for which you can see El Salvador. They don't care about the rights of the brutal gang members anymore, and their crime rate has dropped completely.
@@roosterball69 Ohhhh, I see. What does CBDCs mean? Also, while liberty is desirable (specially economic freedom), liberty and freedom also requires some degree of responsibility and discipline, and truth is, not everybody is suited for it, some will use their freedom in wrong manners. So how can we teach discipline to the people without curtailing freedoms?
@@roosterball69 Marihuana has become legal in several states. And well, I certainly don't like it. I guess I'll have to wait and see what other negative consequences of Marihuana pop up, my hope is that the pendulim will eventually shift and people will start looking down at it. Studies are already popping up of how it makes its consumers (particularly younger people) dumber, so there's hoping that as more information comes out, the less people will see it as "harmless fun".
Reminds me of Adolf… ‘we didn’t want to make it too hard in the work camps, but they sabotaged us as we sent them there so we had to make it hard because we had no other choice’ - someone, probably. Remember next time you play wolfenstien or so on. :D Morals to ethics, ethics to actions, actions have consequences and consequences are objective.
While prohibition resulted in violent turf wars, legalizing booze has resulted in widespread DUIs, domestic violence, and a bar/club/dating culture rampant with SA. And unfortunately, addicts rarely do have the gumption to admit they have a problem and seek help, so just offering free destigmatized rehab has no significant effect either. The fact is that people can’t properly set their own limits in the first place, which results in harming others while under the influence. It means we have to choose between two bad options; be involved in gang violence or localized violence. No, choosing that everyone is educated and responsible is not an option considering we’re trying that one and it’s not working.
And here I thought it was just a poorly written ill executed film that couldn't decide what genre it wanted to be and suffered from heavy character bloat.
Sorry, but bad premise. You don't solve the drug crisis by making drugs easier to get. We tried that. Didn't work. You might want to do a little 'follow the money'. You might be surprised at what you find.
The Bluegrass Conspiracy is an amazing book. It goes into all of these details and tells a good story. The true events happened not far from me and I can tell you KY hasnt gotten any less corrupt 🙄
I don't think it's reasonable to compare simple booze with substances that can make you an addict in one dose. Also, I wouldn't say that companies that produce and trade alcohol and tobacco lost much after legalization. In fact, many of them are powerful corporations that mess with the environment and society on regular basis.
which companies or rather, which criminal organizations are you referring to? provide your source. 'Many of them' , which only require you to mention at least 2, in this case is just a loaded opinion without proper research.
I think you're spot on with your first point. Quite frankly, the amount of Americans who self-medicate with alcohol and drink irresponsibly is insane. Giving these same people access to hard drugs would be an awful idea. Libertarians too often rely on the idea that other people will be responsible like they are. Look at drunk driving and alcohol-related injury/death stats. People are dumb, and legalizing more powerful substances isn't about to make them smart. lol
@@TheSiprianus Yes, you are right - I didn't do proper research. However, just now I googled "USA alcohol companies" and, imagine that, got a list of corporations that deal with alcohol. I just looked up two, as you've asked, Diageo and Anheuser-Bush - both were caught in shady activity multiple times.
Slavery, Organ Harvesting, and so on are profitable. Should they be legal? Some things will never be legalized, no matter how profitable they are, and they shouldn't be.
This is where I strongly disagree with conservatives. I'm far removed from the left in politics, but the amount of damage done to prevent a small percentage of drug victims is definitely not worth it.
the thing he isn't telling you here is that cocaine was made illegal in 1901. it was doing plenty harm before that. and it is doing more harm in regions where the left's tolerance policies are in effect, making it legal makes it worse.
@@logical582 Yeah, I hate drugs, but I know that the war on Drugs hasn't worked, just like Prohibition, the War on Terror, and any potential war on guns.
Unintended consequences are a hallmark of the War on Drugs, even if you're a bear minding your own business in a Georgia forest. Tough policies that seemed smart on paper have harmed addicts and their families, destroyed communities, strained law enforcement resources, and fueled global conflict. It's been nearly 40 years since Andrew Thornton's surprise plane crash set off a chain of events that would eventually culminate in one of the most ridiculous films of the year, but the question remains: has the War on Drugs made us better off?
I don't see how legalizing drugs is going to make them safer, a person violently freaking out on hallucinogenic drugs would not any less dangerous if they got the drugs legally or not. Also comparing alcohol to drugs is a false equivalent, the number of drunk personalities is rather limited ( sloppy, angry, happy ) just to name a few, unlike drugs the reactions can be mercurial. Not harp too much but no one has ever died from their first shot of whisky, but that can't be said about some people first hit of cocaine.
@@Thog56 most of the violence involving drugs is not refer madness. It's gangs shooting each other over distribution networks and. And 99 percent of alcoholics and drug users are still functional, so making them all criminals doesn't seem all that of a good thing for the economy.
@@skm1091 I concede the fact that gang violence is a problem when talking about the drug problem, but I didn't bring up the gangs in my first post. I was referring to wilde range of reactions to the effects of hard drugs not " Reefer Madness" as you so put it. I have seen and talked to people whom are dealing with the horrors that drugs do to the body and mind. Such as the black rotten teeth and emaciated bodies of Meth users, destructive fits of rage from Steroid abusers, and watching a person violently lash out due to (and I quote) "The Smurfs are attacking me trying to get in my skin". My point is drug abuse or recreational use of drugs has far too many down sides than positive sides, and to your 99% comment two things. First of functional and productive are not the same. A functional person can take care of there personal needs with no help. A productive person works , helps others or the economy and in general a benefit to society. Second the ( hyperbolic) 99% you claim are functional or productive because of A.A., N.A. or other drug/ alcoholic treatment programs. Just think how much it would help the economy if there was no need for such programs.
The hardest part is trying to get the bears to stay in rehab
They do tend to lash out.
My grandmother's uncle was a "Rum Runner" pilot for Al Capone. We found out recently because we found his photos and documents with and from Al Capone. I never got the chance to meet him, but I find that to be a funny thing to think about in my family.
Cocaine is not rum buddy. You ever hear of crack? Should we be selling CRACK at the freakin' grocery store? What a bunch of easily fooled idiots.
A job was a job.
You know the best part I found about this movie? Director Elizabeth Banks was concerned that this movie wouldn't make a profit and she had to take that seriously...after many of her previous projects crashed and burned at the box office in spectacular fashion that would've put her on a blacklist of "never hire again" for anyone else.
This got funding from govt
Actually it’s closer to “based on a true story” than most “based on a true story” movies.
Exorcist- some kid got an exorcism, that’s it, that’s all there was.
Good fellas? Based on Hills own account. He was never made (and not for the reasons he said) he was a schmuk, a hood, a useful idiot. He got kicked out of witness protection and the mob still didn’t think he was worth the effort
We can go as far back as nannok of the north. Where the “documentary “ was basically telling this guy “you do this” and filming it.
Or Disneys documentary and the poor lemmings
So yeah, by Hollywood standards, it was practically into documentary standards simply because it was a real bear, a real plane crash and actual cocaine.
Even actual documentaries are often skewed to make them more entertaining or compelling.
It is loosely based on a true story; most of what's in the movie up to and including the bear eating cocaine did in fact happen. But the bear didn't go on a cocaine-fueled rampage; it just died. The only death as a result of the cocaine bear incident was the bear.
Ah yes, the good old days of running booze across the US/Canada border, also known as "How the Kennedy's got rich"
Now now
The Kennedys ran from Ireland.
The leaping toward an ambulance thing doesn’t even make sense. Your feet are what propel you when you run and jump, so it’s impossible to propel yourself faster with your feet off the ground than on it. You lose speed… not gain it. The bear is no different in that regard.
It was a completely CGI bear. It’s head changed shape to express emotion.
But a leaping bear is the problem you have?
@@madtabby66 Yes, because it’s a ridiculously overused trope that they should be self conscious of instead of proudly displayed in the trailer. All I’ve seen is this and the trailer but, again, it’s about more than this movie alone. How many future writers will perpetuate this because they grew up thinking that you can catch up to something by leaping at it? Calling it out where you see it is how you make them self conscious about it and make viewers more inclined to notice the logical error wherever they see it.
Cats defy the laws of physics and pigeons have better marksmanship than an F-15 pilot. Who is to say that bears don't have anti-gravity properties when on cocaine?
@@emmettturner9452 Who fucking cares, we all know it's not real anyway
Decriminalize all drugs means that big business (Pharma) will monopolize the market
Nonsense
You know what? If that’s what it takes to get pain meds that work and don’t fuck up my liver (thank you Tylenol) I’m all for it!
Pretty much 💯
@@madtabby66 you know damn well there will be huge retail markup for painkillers that effective
It also means less people in prisons to be used as slave labor, so of couse this will never happen.
glad you're back
I'm a Colombian here and I'm looking for ideas.
From what I've seen, Plan Colombia and the efforts were the army actively participated in the war against drugs were actually successful. Using tactics such as air spraying of plant killers such as Gliphosate reduced the total number of acres of coke plants being grown in the country between 2002 to 2010, and it was one of the most peaceful times in Colombia, where things such as travelling from town A to town B on road became possible again. Now, the drug situation has become increasingly worse thanks to two presidents: Juan Manuel Santos 2010-2018 and Gustavo Petro 2022-Now. And certainly having a "hands off approach" where the government reduces the intensity of operations or completely ruling out air spraying has proven to backfire. Drug cartels have become more powerful as the crime rate has skyrocketed everywhere in the country. So if state prohibition of drugs is bad, but recent examples of having a softer hand have proven to backfire, what would the best approach be?
Is there any documented case of any "full recreational drug legalization" being successful?
Normally, I tend to lean to Free markets and libertarianism, but this is one case where I strongly doubt a non intervention attitude from the state.
@@roosterball69 Interesting.
As for the cancer related to the glyphosate, that is still questioned and hasn't been completely confirmed to cause cancer. At least not how it was used there.
As for legalization, I remember that I would only allow weed legalization so long it was heavily regulated, but apparently it is still useless, according to a video that John Stossel did of how regulation basically gives a competitive advantage to those who don't follow the rules.
And the thing is that, for most of the local violence, the real consumption markets are in the US and Europe, so even if Colombia legalized it, the main consumers wouldn't get to enjoy it. Now, Colombia could follow an approach similar to how Liquor companies did in Cuba, where people would travel to drink booze during the prohibition era, but I would still be somewhat concerned of the quality of tourism coming to Colombia with that idea in mind. Not to mention that a lot of poor people who consume drugs wouldn't be able to go on "drug tourism" in that sense.
Besides, I would hate to see people consuming that kind of stuff in the street, but I think there used to be some laws in the US or somewhere it was forbidden to drink alcohol on the street, so perhaps a legal consumption would be fine so long it is in designated places where people don't have to look at it in the public space.
It is also worth mentioning that the US has done a terrible job in reducing the demand for the stuff.
@@roosterball69 Agreed, the US is getting worse.
Culture plays an important role. In houses where kids are not properly disciplined they tend to get into trouble more often, and end up either as consumers or as drug dealers.
I've also heard Ben Shapiro suggest that the difficulty to starting a family and the ever lower marriage rates are pushing men into getting into drug consumption more often, and that is another cultural factor.
As for economics, agreed, the economy is the big thing to improve, the problem is that South America is full of fools that believe that state welfare and interventionism is the solution, even though it has proven to fail over and over in variying degrees, from the quasi socialist state of Colombia to the full communism of Venezuela and Argentina. Only Chile, the one who embraced full Milton Friedman neoliberalism, is the one that has had the most success, and even that has been faltering ever since the dictatorship left power.
Honestly, I'd rather not legalize drugs because that would be another thing that would damage the overal culture. Having negative things becoming "socially aceptable" isn't necessarily a good thing, even if it reduces violence.
The only other solution to the drug problem I see is Human Rights violations and "very hard hand approach", for which you can see El Salvador. They don't care about the rights of the brutal gang members anymore, and their crime rate has dropped completely.
@@roosterball69 Ohhhh, I see.
What does CBDCs mean?
Also, while liberty is desirable (specially economic freedom), liberty and freedom also requires some degree of responsibility and discipline, and truth is, not everybody is suited for it, some will use their freedom in wrong manners. So how can we teach discipline to the people without curtailing freedoms?
@@roosterball69 Marihuana has become legal in several states. And well, I certainly don't like it. I guess I'll have to wait and see what other negative consequences of Marihuana pop up, my hope is that the pendulim will eventually shift and people will start looking down at it. Studies are already popping up of how it makes its consumers (particularly younger people) dumber, so there's hoping that as more information comes out, the less people will see it as "harmless fun".
Legalize all drugs and let Darwinism take over. Give addicts all they want. The herd will be thinned.
What if those consequences were not actually unintended?
Fully on board with you, dividing people, creating fear, diverting founds from improving society to a phony "war" are INTENTIONAL.
Reminds me of Adolf… ‘we didn’t want to make it too hard in the work camps, but they sabotaged us as we sent them there so we had to make it hard because we had no other choice’
- someone, probably.
Remember next time you play wolfenstien or so on.
:D
Morals to ethics, ethics to actions, actions have consequences and consequences are objective.
A great many "based on a true story" movies are stretched beyond recognition.
AMAZING ..... I love the 6 minutes format. Long enough to get interesting facts, short enough to be efficient. ♥
The movie is unbearably funny.
Booooo!
Cocaine Bear also has to bear the weight of the entire film industry because most movies today aren't up to snuff.
@@bradleyhite3476 Booo! Hiss!
@@jharris0341 Roar!
@@jharris0341 You mean - Boo Boo. (Yogi the Bear reference).
How was this a tragedy? It's incredibly funny.
The cubs are still in therapy, 20 years later .🤣🤣🤣
Lets go you found a way to make amazing videos again.
Unintended consequences? Like how humanitarian aid to third world countries somehow winds up in the hands of dictators and warlords 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Shhh they dont wanna talk about ukraine 😆
Bruh my Monster Hunter mind thought that this was a Nargacuga
While prohibition resulted in violent turf wars, legalizing booze has resulted in widespread DUIs, domestic violence, and a bar/club/dating culture rampant with SA. And unfortunately, addicts rarely do have the gumption to admit they have a problem and seek help, so just offering free destigmatized rehab has no significant effect either. The fact is that people can’t properly set their own limits in the first place, which results in harming others while under the influence. It means we have to choose between two bad options; be involved in gang violence or localized violence. No, choosing that everyone is educated and responsible is not an option considering we’re trying that one and it’s not working.
And here I thought it was just a poorly written ill executed film that couldn't decide what genre it wanted to be and suffered from heavy character bloat.
Pretty sure that this is the actual reality of the film.
At least it's not a crack Honey badger
That's what you get for dumping Jabba's shipment of spice
You should get the mayor of Knoxville County to talk about it
0:00-6:11 lol ❤😂😅😅!
When I clicked on this I first thought it was going to be about the tragedy of the movie getting made.
Sorry, but bad premise. You don't solve the drug crisis by making drugs easier to get. We tried that. Didn't work.
You might want to do a little 'follow the money'. You might be surprised at what you find.
I was upset at how good this movie was ngl
How the heck did they get the necessary permissions?
Ha ha lol ❤😅😅😅!
yes
If alcohol and marijuana can be sold safely...
if the penalty fifor drug smuggling in americ was detah there would be no drug smuggling like in asia or the middle east
1:06 Look at the date it died 😱
The Bluegrass Conspiracy is an amazing book. It goes into all of these details and tells a good story. The true events happened not far from me and I can tell you KY hasnt gotten any less corrupt 🙄
Singapore is drug free, is it not? What would it take for the US to mimic their strategy?
Who in the world is calling this a tragedy? This was hilarious. I say we give more animals cocaine and just see what happens.
I don't think it's reasonable to compare simple booze with substances that can make you an addict in one dose. Also, I wouldn't say that companies that produce and trade alcohol and tobacco lost much after legalization. In fact, many of them are powerful corporations that mess with the environment and society on regular basis.
There's a reason that there is a trope of moonshine that can make you go blind. And stills that can blow up, just like meth labs.
Alcohol is actually worse statistically. And no substance makes you an addict with one dose, thats just some shit the dea pushed
which companies or rather, which criminal organizations are you referring to? provide your source. 'Many of them' , which only require you to mention at least 2, in this case is just a loaded opinion without proper research.
I think you're spot on with your first point. Quite frankly, the amount of Americans who self-medicate with alcohol and drink irresponsibly is insane. Giving these same people access to hard drugs would be an awful idea. Libertarians too often rely on the idea that other people will be responsible like they are. Look at drunk driving and alcohol-related injury/death stats. People are dumb, and legalizing more powerful substances isn't about to make them smart. lol
@@TheSiprianus Yes, you are right - I didn't do proper research. However, just now I googled "USA alcohol companies" and, imagine that, got a list of corporations that deal with alcohol. I just looked up two, as you've asked, Diageo and Anheuser-Bush - both were caught in shady activity multiple times.
Slavery, Organ Harvesting, and so on are profitable. Should they be legal? Some things will never be legalized, no matter how profitable they are, and they shouldn't be.
Cocaine is most popular in Europe :)
You got a like out of me a rip a fat bump
Things can be available buy still taboo I feel like people assume that making drugs permissible is the same as encouraging thier use.
This channel is the living embodiment of a schizo rant
My god that was such a bad movie. Not a single joke landed. Who ever wrote the script should be slapped
No, people making money off of hurting people and people thinking mind-altering drugs are safe and a way to "enjoy" life is the problem.
Prohibition was largely effective
This is where I strongly disagree with conservatives. I'm far removed from the left in politics, but the amount of damage done to prevent a small percentage of drug victims is definitely not worth it.
the thing he isn't telling you here is that cocaine was made illegal in 1901. it was doing plenty harm before that. and it is doing more harm in regions where the left's tolerance policies are in effect, making it legal makes it worse.
This is a pretty Libertarian take, some Conservatives, including me, I know agree with you
@@logical582 Yeah, I hate drugs, but I know that the war on Drugs hasn't worked, just like Prohibition, the War on Terror, and any potential war on guns.
@@shorewall true
Check out libertarian. It’s the wonderful world of think for yourself.
Which is also why we can’t get anywhere.
I'm not in favor of the war on drugs, but the liberal approach isn't working either. As you briefly showed a clip of a tent city full of addicts.
Wouldn't have the problem if it wasn't illegal.
Oh, okay 🤦🏻♂️
And we wouldn’t have murder if we made it legal
@@toolegittoquit_001 people drink less now than they did in prohibition.
0:08 Notice how the movie inserts the gay rainbow where it doesn’t belong? It wasn’t a part of his gear coming out of the airplane.
Who cares