If you mean the Food And Drug Act of 1906, this is wrong; that was a truth-in-labeling law. It didn’t ban outright, or require a prescription for, the sale of any drug.
Actual prohibition of smoked cannabis was usually done at the state level, thus it didn’t become illegal at the same time everywhere in the country. California was one of the first states to ban it, around 1914. Meanwhile, medicinal preparations continued to be sold until the early 1940s; I’m not sure what their status was with regard to prescriptions and such.
Me too, actually. My core political views haven’t changed; but it’s only natural that I’ve become more concerned about social security as I get closer to the age at which I expect to need it.
The $$$ problems we are facing in the world today are not from any one generation but as I see it more of a class problem. There were some really rich people who decided to get their representatives and congressmen to repeal the legislations put into place years ago. And they made bucks. And they are still making bucks from the “recovery”.
The war is from some reaction to a group of people with a beef with us. Whether we went after the right people is debatable and whether that reaction is correct is also debatable. But there it is, we are in it and unless people stand up and say “stop”, we will be in it or something similar.
My parents lived thru a world where $1/day wage some people were happy to get. Working for a few hours just for food was a good thing. Then they went off to a war caused by the shortsighedness of the finishers of the previous war.
Every generation has it rough. Every generation is left with a poor legacy. Life sucks for everyone.
And everyone generalizes the problems* and the solution seems simple and obvious but somehow isn’t simple and obvious.
But you reap what you sow. So if you do not treat the older generation with respect, you will be teaching your kids to not treat their older generation with respect and it will suck to be you in 20 or 30 years.
*irony noted on myself. Plus this thread is funny.
We didn’t adopt the term. Evidently it was originated 1950 by one Sylvia Porter. A popular economist and columnist for the New York Post, she was born in 1913.
Fuck the Boomers?
They are getting old and that would be a favor. It would make great internet porn.You guys can put that picture in your minds eye. Hope you like it.
Where in the world does this hate towards an entire generation come from?? Is it really so hard to understand that not all boomers are as you describe them? I agree with you on your criticisms of SOME of them. In fact, I judge SOME of my generation more harshly than you have, but not ALL of us are unethical, greedy and corrupt.
There are a lot of us out here who have worked very hard all of our lives to provide for our families, barely getting by, and must continue to work until age 70 or 75 because we DON’T have accumulated wealth. Not all employers paid so well, in fact most did not.
At age 57, I’ve been unemployed for 2 years now; I have just enough left in my 401kto get me through Nursing School, IF nothing goes wrong. I’m praying that I will be lucky enough to be able to support my sweet husband & me so that our dear sons don’t have to worry about their parents.
I would suggest that your anger would be better served if directed towards our self-serving government officials of the past 2 decades. They ARE the immoral whores responsible for where we are today, and where we will, unfortunately, be in the proverbial “tomorrow”.
Your question is a red herring. I know you have the brainpower to understand that those making all the noise back then were a vocal minority. 58,000 boomers died defending the government’s decision. Not all of us were marching in the streets, but rather understood our obligations, however misguided they may have been.
But is it any less of a red herring to claim that the anti-Vietnam protests a) actually made a damn bit of difference, b) were against a government that sent people to the meat grinder for some nefarious purpose, and c) that said government was later embraced wholeheartedly by these same anti-government protesters, thus showing little consistency?
I find it to be the epitome of hypocrisy that the Boomers have the nerve to try to rock the anti-establishment cred from 40 years ago when they are the establishment, and in reality always have been. As you said, it was a vocal minority. But they “ended the war”. Right.
I think you need to take all the posts in this thread with a grain of salt. I suspect most of the “we boomers were great” posts were written with some tongue in cheek. I know mine were. Anyone who is really that full of themselves is full of shit anyway.
A combination of protest demonstrations and news reporting ended the Vietnamese war. Whether you see it or not,the military did. That is why in Iraq the military controlled reporting with embedded reporters and daily briefings run by Rumsfield and selected generals. they were not going to permit reporters to do their jobs. They were going to provide the official messages . They would not permit the people to get the real story.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you see evil, are you only obligated to oppose evil if you are sure you will win? So, by that reasoning, Thomas Paine should never have written Common Sense, because what chance did a ragtag bunch of colonials have against Great Britain? Was he a traitor? More to the point, were we?
Yes. The regime of South Viet Nam was utterly corrupt, oppressive, and had entirely lost the support of its people. It had no legitimacy. Sending young men to kill for that regime, much less die for it, is close enough to “nefarious”.
What in the hell are you talking about, here? Had we surrendered our citizenship, somehow? Were no longer “Americans”? Fuck that shit! I am a red-blooded, all-American radical lefty and the only thing I love more than my country is realizing the promise of that country, the revolutionary dream of freedom, justice, and equality under the law. Its taking a lot longer than we thought, and we could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do…
“They are the establishment, and in reality always have been…”? What in the name of Bleeding Og are you taking about? If we were the “establishment”, how come it took so long? You realize, don’t you, that you are not making any sense, here?
Started out as a minority. Didn’t stay that way. Was that because we were “vocal”? Who knows? Did we “end the war”? Again, who knows. A case could well be made that South Viet Nam collapsed around the vacuum of its own corruption, and would have anyway.
To paraphrase Gandhi, it may well be that your efforts to further justice are futile. That in no way removes your obligation to resist injustice.
That may be a bit disingenuous. I think it was largely motivated by political expediency. Nixon did not want the war to be his legacy, and probably felt that if it kept on, another Republican didn’t stand a chance of getting into office. He needn’t have worried about his legacy, as it turned out.
Of course we were. The American Revolution was an armed rebellion against the rightful owners of the land (in the eyes of the law at the time). That’s practically the definition of traitor.
That said, comparing the Vietnam protests with the Iraq War protests is silly. 58,000 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War in a military that included two million drafted soldiers. The number killed in Iraq? 4,781 + another 137 during the initial invasion. There was also no draft.
16th among all Presidents for vision/agenda, and 12th among all for foreign policy leadership. That survey ranks him almost at the bottom for moral authority, so he ends up almost exactly median overall. I have a very liberal friend who considers Nixon the best President since Truman!
Yes, he was a crook, but I think there have been at least 2 or 3 other crooks since Ike, if the truth be known.