At issue is not the opinion of the documentary, but history itself, to which there is no need to see the documentary. It's all out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars Your convenient dismissal of a factual occurrence by labeling it a "conspiracy" is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Please be a little more specific when making accusations. I have been no more intellectually dishonest than you have. You're insistence that there is only one right interpretation of history smacks of narrow sightedness. Worse, you simply dismiss my point of viw as dishonest b/c you don;t agree with it. the facts are out there, perhaps you need a wider lens with which to view them.

tin hat wearing crazies? please find that quote. What I am saying is that you have taken it to the extreme Yes, these things did occur, but they were far form the only reason for the decline of streetcars in America...a point which you have not been able to address. You claim that I selected certain half truths (of course, they are full truths but selected) but that's exactly what you have done. History is generally far more complicated and you ahve shown no appreciation for historical context. Perhaps you never had grandparents. Mine were pretty excited when they first bought a car and were no longer dependent on the local transit monopolies. Additionally, thwhen I say monopoly, I mean, unfair domination of the business

Quote:

Almost as soon as buses became available, jitney services arose as competition to streetcars. Jitneys often traveled the same routes as streetcars, but increasingly moved away from the main roads to pick up passengers. (Economist William Fischel attributes the spread of zoning laws in the 1920s to the increased mobility provided to the poor by buses: because the transit-dependent no longer had to live within walking distance of a streetcar line, the construction of multifamily housing became viable in areas that had previously been inaccessible due to distance alone.[3]) In response, many streetcar operators sought—and obtained—monopoly power over public transportation on the routes they served. (For example, Pacific Electric successfully lobbied the Los Angeles City Council to ban jitneys from operating within the city.) With competition thus eliminated, many streetcar companies reduced or eliminated service on unprofitable lines and raised fares on others. Coupled with existing resentment of "traction magnates" such as Samuel Insull and Henry Huntington, these fare hikes and service cuts led many suburban municipalities to start their own jitney companies. For example, during the 1920s and 1930s, Pacific Electric fare hikes and service reductions led to the formation of municipal bus services in the Los Angeles suburbs of Santa Monica, Culver City, Montebello, and Torrance, among others. Movements also began to challenge streetcar monopolies in central cities. In Los Angeles, a labor-led coalition nearly succeeded in passing a referendum to establish a city-owned bus company. In New York, Fiorello LaGuardia railed against New York Railways and Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation, the city's principal streetcar operators, championing municipal operation of buses and expansion of the city-owned IND subway service. Municipalization in Chicago, for which calls began as early as the 1920s and which finally occurred in 1946, also led to the elimination of streetcar service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_A...eetcar_Scandal


This of course does not say they conspired to eliminate what was already a strong business.


utilities


At any rate, this has gone far enough. the argument itself is well represented on the wikipedia pages that have been cited and there's not really a need for us to rehash it here. Suffice it to say, it's not that you don't have a point, but you take the conspiracy too far. the history of the demise of streetcars is complicated, to say the least. At any rate, after interested parties read up on the site, they can post to another thread or one where this has been rehashed before..or they can watch the pbs special which, according to you, offers the one true history.
Back on topic: towelie-here it is
http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=221481

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlk01sxO_E
one of the things it mentions (aside from reminding us of what should be obvious that drugs used to be legal in America) is that cocaine, after a period of public acceptance and popularity (it was actually the favored substance fo the teetotalers) started to ebcome illegal in southern states. Southern states had made it illegal for blacks to consume alcohol so many blacks turned to readily available, and legal, cocaine. Some southern racist began to spread stories of "out of control negroes" or "cocaine craxed negroes" and began to get cocaine banned in southern states. cocaine distribution immediately switched from pharmacies to shoe shine booys selling it on the street. These southerners quickly realized a state by state ban wouldn;t work when people coudl easily import it from the north (harkening back to the days when Georgia was a dry colony and alcohol was smuggled in people's boots) so they began to spread their lies north. I had always known most of the bans were based on misinformation but had no idea it was based on good old fashioned racism as well.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

That same thing happened with Mexican Immigrants and grass. The original laws created had tons of racist agendas. I just can't think of why these issues never make it to the Supreme Court and we still base some of these laws off completely fabricated and proven lies. I just read recently that the different sentencing for Cocaine and Crack was found to be racist, and they reversed the laws. I am not an expert on Cocaine so I can't really make an informed opinion on the laws, but I would like to at least see some more intelligent debate, as was done with the Cocaine/Crack case.



If you enjoyed those history channel documentaries, I suggest you watch this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0214730/

Its a well done film explaining how Harry J Anslinger (The first secretary of narcotics) forced legislation through McCarthian tactics. And follows all the way up to current day.

Its interesting to compare the tactics to today's war on drugs to the past. The movie shows some commercials they used back in the day of how smoking pot helps the Communist party. Anyone remember a few years ago the commercial where "your pot comes from Al Qaida's Afghanistan?"


For such a Blue state, I would like to see Pennsylvania at least open up the medicinal use debate.

I wasn't aware that legalization was a Democratic priority. It always seemed like the libertarians were the only ones with it on the table. There are much bluer states like, say, CT and they haven't made any progress have they?

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

Well Cal, VT, Co and I belive Wa are making progress through local legislation, and I always related liberal to Blue/Democratic states.

I agree....it IS all out there...the documentary contains a part of history (primary source documentation and testimonials as I noted) that you choose to IGNORE because you regard it as simply conjecture and hyperbole. Your own myopic stance is what I'm referring to as intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not discounting your points and I agree the history of streetcars is "complicated" but just because the issue is complicated doesn't mean one is supposed to stop thinking and researching. This is flawed logic. Moreover, just because it is complicated doesn't mean that history ends when and where you say it does. I'm expanding the debate to include a valid historical source that you are choosing to ignore because it challenges your assessment of a situation in terms of preconceived notions that ignore or reject contrary signs. Indeed you are the one narrowing the debate and hence historical interpretation and integrity by sticking primarily to a nice tidy and orthodox history of the streetcar scandal via Wikipedia. In doing so, you are attempting to control the parameters of the debate by dismissing my attempt to expand it because you consider your "complicated" interpretation as dogma. Then you call for an end to the debate because "it's all out there" ...on Wikipedia

Just as you want to apply labels to my argument by insinuating it's conspiratorial and hence "extreme" I can do the same by labeling yours as simplistic and incomplete. As a history major I'm well aware there is no one right interpretation of history. This is why, unlike yourself, I'm not narrowing the range of thought. I'm expanding it to a source that you want to conveniently discount. How exactly is what you are doing contextualizing history? You would make a fine prosecutor or defendent in court because any evidence that would run contrary to your case would be thrown out of court. You want to rig the jury, perhaps you need a wide angle lens yourself as well as mirror....

Can we stick to the thread topic here?

I am really interested in what party's focus on the war on drugs is.

Was I wrong to think a Blue state is more my view?

I think you need to consider the Green Party Platform....I'm not so sure about Libertarians with regard to legalizing drug use although Dr Ron Paul may be a proponent due to his medical background. Look up the party platforms. Democrats and Republicans are more Calvinistic with regard to legalization of drugs. I don't think we could follow a Denmark model here unfortunately. Our culture wouldn't accept such a modality...the whole criminalizing of pot thing is just a big joke...

Here you go.....that's why they call them the Green party...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Green_Party_Drugs.htm

As sad as this sounds for our country, I can't waste my vote either.

Depends on how you look at it....voting for the lesser of two evils just continues the status quo. You'll most likely be arguing about unfair drug laws for 4 or 8 more years. The electoral college and special interests and in the case of the 2000 election... the Supreme Court SELECT the president anyway...