What went wrong during the 1970's?
>terrible economy, high unemployment and stagflation
>widespread terrorism
>extremely high crime rates
>massive heroine epidemic, and the start of the failed war on drugs
>absolutely horrendous aesthetics
>optimistic 50's and 60's science fiction replaced by environmental apocalypticism
>many large western cities cities became slums
>muslim world begins to adopt extremism
>>332866
Reagon
Reagan
Reagan
it was the hippies
the war on drugs has not failed. Anyone who says otherwise is a meming faggot. The reason crime rates increased is a direct consequence of increasing drug use/addiction and repression tactics were the only logical means to staving off the problem
Fuck off op
>>334027
>select all images with grass.
the war on drugs absolutely failed.
>>334027
The crime rate has fallen due to lower fertility rates and the increased availability of abortion. Fewer unwanted kids are being born than ever.
>>334115
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/health/feat-teen-drug-use-down/
compare and contrast with portugal. You fags don't know the first thing about this shit
>>334129
Yes but also selective statistics. Crime rates are still higher than 1960's levels
>>334160
>just regurgitating r/drugs
Yeah man, how's college?
>>334252
>r-reddit!
>attacking a strawman source instead of the argument
hedonists eat shit
>>332866
>environmental apocalypticism
That stuff was so much better than optimism, only an autist would think otherwise
Also rock music was in its heyday, Metal and Punk were GOAT at the time, Bowie was at his peak, all the flower children were either dead or dependent on cocaine, you had Clapton, Zeppelin, Sabbath, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Ramones, Television, Lou Reed, The Stooges, MC5 and 1000 other bands I forgot to mention all at the same time.
Serial Killers were fun, they had manifestos and patterns, unlike serial killers today who just shoot up a school and post on /r9k/
Sex was just becoming something we could talk about, so we actually got porn instead of the striptease and no pussies of Playboy and Penthouse in the 60s.
All the best TV, All in the Family, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, The Jeffersons.
The ABA was around, the NFL was starting to get good, cable TV started to exist.
There is literally nothing wrong with the 70s
>>334160
>Whatever works in Portugal would work here
Thanks for your input
>>334293
hear, hear.
shit was just comfy then. everything was earthtones and large and padded and visceral. shag carpet, overstuffed furniture. the stripped-down, minimal aesthetic came in in the 80s, along with jarring, bright primary colors/neon, and miniaturization of everything. electronics in the 70s had big ol knobs and dials and switches that could be accurately manipulated without having to give your full attention to finessing a bunch of tiny buttons and scrolling thru 3 menus to get to the fucking graphic equalizer.
also, Rocky Horror.
>>332866
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
>>334420
remember how a contributing factor to the fall of Rome was lead in the plumbing and it's use in wine production driving them all insane? the 70s were when we outlawed lead in gasoline and paint, i.e. in the air we breathe and no babies jamming lead paint chips into their mouths when their minds were developing. After the 70s, crime started going down. Abortions/the pill also contributed as the other anon said.
you're partly right about the drug thing, but the epidemic was fundamentally enabled by the CIA importing coke and heroin by the boatload to get off-the-books money to fund their secret operations around the world, place blame where blame is due.
https://web.archive.org/web/19961220020751/http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/day1main.htm
>>332866
A lot of the anal births of the 40s and 50s were entering social prominence.
>>334027
>the war on drugs has not failed. Anyone who says otherwise is a meming faggot
mmk
>The reason crime rates increased is a direct consequence of increasing drug use/addiction and repression tactics were the only logical means to staving off the problem
Contriving criminality directed at drug users in itself spurs crime, as it directs penal force towards a group which, in bulk, would have never committed crime in the first place. Most users of 'heavy' drugs (e.g. cocaine, heroine) are not addicts and never become addicts. Most addicts do not resort to violent or coercive criminality. Criminal classification of addicts, and the ensuing punishment, does nothing at all but waste legal resources and make desperate lives even worse.
>>>/pol/
>>334443
Rocky Horror was fucking terrible. Yeah, I know it was terrible on purpose, but it failed to even be likeably bad.
>>334920
no. it is awesome.
>>334420
no. I'm saying the Portuguese experiment actually increased drug use rates. The decline in drug usage associated with it is purely a coincidental result of worldwide declines in drug use and or puncturing the meme drug bubble
ffs please use your critical reading skills
>>334588
I'm not denying the CIA is an extremely corrupt organization. What does frustrate me however is this "crime is falling" meme. It's inaccurate and selective, as you can clearly see here that 2015 crime levels in canada (my country) are higher than 1950
>>334891
you are providing zero statistical evidence to support your case. Furthermore, if you were to look at what I have posted you would see drug use rates are DECLINING whilst under prohibition. Singapore is an effective antidrug model with a use rate of ~1%. If these same practices were followed in any developed western country along with clean administration drugs would not be a problem. They're a meme spread by users and if targeted on a political level may be suppressed. As for users, these are simply harmful practices costing the country millions in mitigation and lost labor. Even non-addicts contribute to this effect
eat shit
>>335306
Your own chart is pretty compelling evidence if you consider that the War on Drugs started under Nixon and intensified under Reagan.
Of course, the simplest way to BTFO this shit is to point out that the street prices of most common drugs never went up, indicating that supply reduction was totally ineffective.
>>335315
the chart is a crime rate and Canada was not governed by Reagan.... used for brevity because to my awareness it's a shared north american thing
supply reduction is a retarded strategy without demand reduction, friend. Cost /=/ use rates
>>335381
The way I see it, the US is in the middle of the road, when either side would be better.
You could do the European strategy of harm reduction. Drug use is considered a medical issue instead of a criminal justice issue. Of the public funds that are spent on drug policy, almost all of them are spent on treatment, education and research rather than law enforcement. Thus, demand is reduced, and harm from existing drug use is reduced.
On the other hand, you could do the East Asian strategy of punishing drug users directly. Since the users create the market, they're the ones who bear responsibility for the havoc wrought by the narco economy. Because drug use becomes much more dangerous, demand goes down.
At the moment, we're concentrating on reducing supply, oblivious to the fact that for every drug dealer we put in prison, one more will take his place. We are neither reducing the overall rate of drug use, or minimizing the harm that comes from drug use.
>>335381
>>335306
You're missing the point entirely, whether or not prohibition works or does not work is absolutely besides the point.
Does drug prohibition, if effective at all, improve society more than a legalized and regulated industry?
>muh Singapore
Drug use in general is not as endemic in developed NE Asian countries, for reasons likely unrelated to government policy. Japan has less than 3% use of illegal drugs in the general population.
I know this is a trite argument, but alcohol causes equivalent, if not more physical harm and rates of addiction than many controlled substances and some street drugs.
Does drug prohibition, under its current legal framework, victimize morally innocent people en masse?
Drug addicts are not moralistic criminals, and the degree the drug industry is bottlenecked and stigmatized by government regulation and prohibition is mostly arbitrary.
>>335315
>the simplest way to BTFO this shit is to point out that the street prices of most common drugs never went up, indicating that supply reduction was totally ineffective
The reason for that is is because drugs are now even "dirtier" than they used to be in addition to there being even more different types of drugs out there. Want some coke? 99% chance it will be cut with speed or meth or some stimulant. Want some psychedelics? They often won't even be the real thing and will instead be extremely unsafe "research chemicals".
