• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Lowered Fentanyl overdoses

Climber said:
I think that criminalizing marijuana and declaring it to be just as bad as heroin was largely influenced by the liquor lobby, they didn't want people moving to Marijuana from alcohol.

Our lobbying system at work.

It was likely influenced by racism back in the 70's, as well.
Click to expand...
The criminalization of marijuana in the US started in the 19-teens. It was absolutely based on racism. It became defacto enemy number 1 when Henry J Anslinger became the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930. Anslinger was a white supremacist and he hated the new "negro music, jazz". He firmly believed that weed and jazz could, would and did lead white women to climb on and under black men. This was a huge fear of white men. Anslinger constantly lied to congress about marijuana, and since weed was the drug of choice for Mexicans and black folk at the time, he had to make it more frightening than heroin, the white man's first drug of choice. In a Ways and Means Committee hearing he claimed, "Here we have a drug(weed) that is not like opiom. Opiom has all of the good of Dr Jeckyll and all of the evils of Mr Hyde. This drug(weed) is entirely Mr Hyde, the harmful effects of which cannot be measured. " In 1933 Anslinger again lied to congress when he used the case of Victor Licata. Victor was a teenager and used an ax to murder his entire family. Police found weed on him when they arrested him and Anslinger took that fact and ran with it, claiming that weed had caused this young white boy to murder. The kid, locked up until his suicide in 1950, was diagnosed as suffering from Dementiia Praecox with homicidal tendencies. Anslinger was a driving force in getting the movie Reefer Madness made in 1936. Prior to being made illegal all over the US, marijuana was a large part (as was alcohol prohibition) of what was making black and Italian mobsters (not considered white in the 20's and 30's) rich and powerful in cities like Chicago, Kansas City, New Orleans and New York. Making marijuana illegal was a convenient way to keep arresting black people, Mexicans and Italians after prohibition ended in 1933. One cannot study the history of Jazz, as I have extensively done, and at the same time, not study the history of the war on drugs in this country. Because Jazz is black art, and the war on drugs is deeply rooted in white supremacy and the oppression of anything coming out of the black experience in this country.
 
augustiron said:
Wtf California?

Also, 15-16? Ew
Click to expand...

One of my sisters was married at 16. One day when she was 15, she came home from school and told our mother that she had just met the guy she was going to marry. More than 40 years later they have grown children and they remain happily married.
 
Sure, actually more than half of romantic marriages fail but people who have abided their own arranged marriages by and large won’t abide divorce. Forced into marriage and bound there by the same uber controlling socio-religious system doesn’t mean the marriages are better or even good, just nearly impossible to extract oneself from. Thus not divorcing is not always equivalent to a happy marriage and an unhappy marriage is worse than divorce, imo.
 
Rtmac said:
Religion.
Click to expand...

maybe … :dunno

otoh:

IMG_1204.jpeg
 
Xylazine adulterates many street drugs theez daze. Cocaine, meth, all the pills, sometimes even weed. No reversal for humans, just need FDA to approve the animal reversal for humans but it’ll be awhile. Narcan can’t save them from this
And most have no clue that fentanyl or xylazine are already in their preferred drug of choice but because xylazine is cheaper, prolongs the high and is very relaxing it is popular.
 
elbacalao said:
The criminalization of marijuana in the US started in the 19-teens. It was absolutely based on racism. It became defacto enemy number 1 when Henry J Anslinger became the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930. Anslinger was a white supremacist and he hated the new "negro music, jazz". He firmly believed that weed and jazz could, would and did lead white women to climb on and under black men. This was a huge fear of white men. Anslinger constantly lied to congress about marijuana, and since weed was the drug of choice for Mexicans and black folk at the time, he had to make it more frightening than heroin, the white man's first drug of choice. In a Ways and Means Committee hearing he claimed, "Here we have a drug(weed) that is not like opiom. Opiom has all of the good of Dr Jeckyll and all of the evils of Mr Hyde. This drug(weed) is entirely Mr Hyde, the harmful effects of which cannot be measured. " In 1933 Anslinger again lied to congress when he used the case of Victor Licata. Victor was a teenager and used an ax to murder his entire family. Police found weed on him when they arrested him and Anslinger took that fact and ran with it, claiming that weed had caused this young white boy to murder. The kid, locked up until his suicide in 1950, was diagnosed as suffering from Dementiia Praecox with homicidal tendencies. Anslinger was a driving force in getting the movie Reefer Madness made in 1936. Prior to being made illegal all over the US, marijuana was a large part (as was alcohol prohibition) of what was making black and Italian mobsters (not considered white in the 20's and 30's) rich and powerful in cities like Chicago, Kansas City, New Orleans and New York. Making marijuana illegal was a convenient way to keep arresting black people, Mexicans and Italians after prohibition ended in 1933. One cannot study the history of Jazz, as I have extensively done, and at the same time, not study the history of the war on drugs in this country. Because Jazz is black art, and the war on drugs is deeply rooted in white supremacy and the oppression of anything coming out of the black experience in this country.
Click to expand...
That was an interesting read. I've always wondered about the vehemence behind the demon weed propaganda.
 
1781279596742.png
1781279596742.png


This is such a beautiful painting, so full of imagery aside from the religious aspect.

God is leaning forward with an outstretched arm and wrist trying to connect with Man.
Man is in a lackadaisical posture, not fully extending his arm or finger, not quite making the connection with the divine despite God's entreaties, content with his life on earth.

Ok, back to fentanyl overdoses
 
Last edited:
greenmonster said:
Aside from the religious aspect, it's a great painting full of imagery.

Ok, back to fentanyl overdoses.
Click to expand...

:thumbup

probably the most famous religious painting ever, within the primary residence of one of our most famous religious leaders, and the painting also includes nude images. so there ya go. :laughing

be that as it may … besides art, I also have an interest in how our society chooses to implement policy to address substance abuse issues, which appear to be something with us, always. so let the struggle proceed.
 
Climber said:
Why does only god have cloths?
There is a lot to unpack in that painting, hard to say if everything is intentional in how it's interpreted.
Click to expand...

:thumbup

art history, ftw:

”The Creation of Adam” by Mr Michelangelo—Nudity in Renaissance art often symbolized heroism or a pre-fallen state of innocence. While Adam is completely unadorned, god is draped in a light, flowing tunic, symbolizing god’s elevated status and god’s proximity to humanity.”​


so, in addition to art and substance abuse disorder policy in teh USA, I have an interest in this concept of god’s “proximity to humanity.”

my betters tell me that there is a theory that we humans have a desire to seek altered states by taking substances that activate systems in our bodies that are already there (eg opioid receptors, etc), because utilizing a substance is quick and easy, as opposed to relying on activating these systems otherwise (using prayer or meditation or fasting or exercising/training, or whatever).

which, imo, is why we struggle so much with finding effective policy solutions to the seemingly eternal problem of substance abuse? idk.

anyway … to provide an anecdote about god’s proximity to humanity, and finding altered states, and just saying no to illegal drugs (we keep some handy in the house, cuz why not?) I’m off ona motorcycle trip where I’ll fast for days, not take drugs, meditate, and see if I can see god. of course, that’s never happened, yet. :clown

probably a little bit of a personal approach to be implemented effectively as a societal anti-drug policy, but there it is. :ride
 
Last edited:
Abacinator said:
No there isn't
Click to expand...
Well, I don't mean forced arranged marriages.
I'm talking about cultures where both sets of parents are in alignment, shared values and socio-economic status are the same. If the girl or boy doesn't want to proceed they shouldn't be forced. Of course that would be wrong.

The parents can analyze the matchup in practical terms without love and lust getting in the way. Kids can't see the long-term benefits of hard work, good education and drive. Plus it's huge if both sets of parents like each other and agree to help the newlyweds get started.
Love will come later.

As an example, my 22 year old daughter was dating a guy in SF for 6 months who had a degree in finance from Texas A&M, worked for a big bank in the finance dept and was involved in a startup.
He would pay to Uber her from our home in Pleasanton to his place in SF, and back when the date was over. Treated her like a princess.

She'd never been treated that way before but broke up with him because he was "boring". She'd rather go to a Snow Strippers concert and party with friends and he wasn't into that scene.

I told her he sounds like marriage material to me.

I think she'll come to regret this in a few years. He had 10X more going for him than anyone else she's ever known.
 
Abacinator said:
All arranged marriages are forced :laughing
Click to expand...
They are absolutely not all forced. Years ago, around 2007ish I dated an Indian girl, Rajani. Prior to our dating, she had decided not to have her husband picked out for her, she married a man she loved and they later divorced. Her sister WILLINGLY let her parents choose her husband, and at the time we dated, Rajani's sister was still married and had been together for quite a few years and had children. As someone already stated, arranged marriages statistically last longer than "self chosen' marriages. This has much, if not everything, to do with certain expectation(s), the acceptance of traditional roles, and the understanding that romantic love may not play any part of the marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top