Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 10:44:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79121 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1036 Members
Latest Member: Evgeny Vasilyev
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The War on Drugs
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print
Author Topic: The War on Drugs  (Read 33357 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #300 on: December 09, 2013, 05:40:56 PM »

http://www.upworthy.com/why-the-war-on-drugs-looks-even-stupider-when-you-see-what-other-countries-do-4
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #301 on: January 01, 2014, 12:23:18 PM »

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/31/marijuana-opponents-predict-hogwild-colorado-trainwreck
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #302 on: January 03, 2014, 08:20:42 AM »

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/19/drug-warriors-kidnap-and-sexually-assaul
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #303 on: January 03, 2014, 02:15:12 PM »

A rather thoughtful piece from a POTH columnist

Weed: Been There. Done That.
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 2, 2014 1459 Comments

For a little while in my teenage years, my friends and I smoked marijuana. It was fun. I have some fond memories of us all being silly together. I think those moments of uninhibited frolic deepened our friendships.

("At a certain point you realize that pot isn't really something to be proud of. ... One thing that definitely needs to be changed is jail time for its possession. That's just excessive."  JBClamence, NYC)


But then we all sort of moved away from it. I don’t remember any big group decision that we should give up weed. It just sort of petered out, and, before long, we were scarcely using it.

We didn’t give it up for the obvious health reasons: that it is addictive in about one in six teenagers; that smoking and driving is a good way to get yourself killed; that young people who smoke go on to suffer I.Q. loss and perform worse on other cognitive tests.

I think we gave it up, first, because we each had had a few embarrassing incidents. Stoned people do stupid things (that’s basically the point). I smoked one day during lunch and then had to give a presentation in English class. I stumbled through it, incapable of putting together simple phrases, feeling like a total loser. It is still one of those embarrassing memories that pop up unbidden at 4 in the morning.

We gave it up, second, I think, because one member of our clique became a full-on stoner. He may have been the smartest of us, but something sad happened to him as he sunk deeper into pothead life.

Third, most of us developed higher pleasures. Smoking was fun, for a bit, but it was kind of repetitive. Most of us figured out early on that smoking weed doesn’t really make you funnier or more creative (academic studies more or less confirm this). We graduated to more satisfying pleasures. The deeper sources of happiness usually involve a state of going somewhere, becoming better at something, learning more about something, overcoming difficulty and experiencing a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

One close friend devoted himself to track. Others fell deeply in love and got thrills from the enlargements of the heart. A few developed passions for science or literature.

Finally, I think we had a vague sense that smoking weed was not exactly something you were proud of yourself for. It’s not something people admire. We were in the stage, which I guess all of us are still in, of trying to become more integrated, coherent and responsible people. This process usually involves using the powers of reason, temperance and self-control — not qualities one associates with being high.

I think we had a sense, which all people have, or should have, that the actions you take change you inside, making you a little more or a little less coherent. Not smoking, or only smoking sporadically, gave you a better shot at becoming a little more integrated and interesting. Smoking all the time seemed likely to cumulatively fragment a person’s deep center, or at least not do much to enhance it.

So, like the vast majority of people who try drugs, we aged out. We left marijuana behind. I don’t have any problem with somebody who gets high from time to time, but I guess, on the whole, I think being stoned is not a particularly uplifting form of pleasure and should be discouraged more than encouraged.

We now have a couple states — Colorado and Washington — that have gone into the business of effectively encouraging drug use. By making weed legal, they are creating a situation in which the price will drop substantially. One RAND study suggests that prices could plummet by up to 90 percent, before taxes and such. As prices drop and legal fears go away, usage is bound to increase. This is simple economics, and it is confirmed by much research. Colorado and Washington, in other words, are producing more users.

The people who debate these policy changes usually cite the health risks users would face or the tax revenues the state might realize. Many people these days shy away from talk about the moral status of drug use because that would imply that one sort of life you might choose is better than another sort of life.

But, of course, these are the core questions: Laws profoundly mold culture, so what sort of community do we want our laws to nurture? What sort of individuals and behaviors do our governments want to encourage? I’d say that in healthy societies government wants to subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship. In those societies, government subtly encourages the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned.

In legalizing weed, citizens of Colorado are, indeed, enhancing individual freedom. But they are also nurturing a moral ecology in which it is a bit harder to be the sort of person most of us want to be.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #304 on: January 04, 2014, 12:00:44 PM »

I double checked before posting and found this is a HOAX.  Not very funny IMO.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/overdose.asp

Marijuana Overdoses Kill 37 in Colorado On First Day of Legalization
January 2nd, 2014

893242-drugs-overdoseColorado is reconsidering its decision to legalize recreational pot following the deaths of dozens due to marijuana overdoses.

According to a report in the Rocky Mountain News, 37 people were killed across the state on Jan. 1, the first day the drug became legal for all adults to purchase. Several more are clinging onto life in local emergency rooms and are not expected to survive.

"It's complete chaos here," says Dr. Jack Shepard, chief of surgery at St. Luke's Medical Center in Denver. "I've put five college students in body bags since breakfast and more are arriving...

"We are seeing cardiac arrests, hypospadias, acquired trimethylaminuria and multiple organ failures.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #305 on: January 04, 2014, 07:04:21 PM »

New York State Is Set to Loosen Marijuana Laws

Joining a growing group of states that have loosened restrictions on marijuana, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York plans this week to announce an executive action that would allow limited use of the drug by those with serious illnesses, state officials say.

The turnabout by Mr. Cuomo, who had long resisted legalizing medical marijuana, comes as other states are taking increasingly liberal positions on it — most notably Colorado, where thousands have flocked to buy the drug for recreational use since it became legal on Jan. 1.

READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/nyregion/new-york-state-is-set-to-loosen-marijuana-laws.html?emc=edit_na_20140104

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #306 on: January 18, 2014, 12:58:29 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/17/man-gives-75-cents-to-a-homeless-man-minutes-later-he-was-in-handcuffs-in-the-back-of-a-police-cruiser/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #307 on: January 24, 2014, 09:55:06 AM »

USA Today seems to think this statement from this politician is shocking . . .

The Republican governor of Texas supporting less jail time for pot users?

Gov. Rick Perry, a staunch conservative, riled the Lone Star state Thursday when he told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he supports the decriminalization – though not the legalization – of marijuana use.

"As the governor of the second-largest state in the country, what I can do is start us on policies that can start us on the road towards decriminalization" by introducing alternative "drug courts" that offer treatment and softer penalties for minor offenses, Perry said during an international panel on drug legalization at the summit. Perry was speaking alongside former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.

Perry emphasized that he is not for the legalization of marijuana but defended states' rights to make those choices. He said it's perfectly constitutional for states like Colorado to experiment with decriminalization and that Washington should stay out of those decisions.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #308 on: January 24, 2014, 07:52:18 PM »

"by introducing alternative "drug courts" that offer treatment and softer penalties for minor offenses,"

Offer treatment?  What does he mean?  What treatment?  Who pays for that?  For smoking dope?

How the hell do you treat that?

Minor offense?   

This sounds ridiculous. 

Why bother with half measures.  It is either legal or not. 

Perry is trying to have it both ways and at least to me sounds even more absurd by muddying the issue even more.
Might as well make it legal.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #309 on: January 25, 2014, 10:16:09 PM »

Addendum clarification to my previous post:

The thought of having legalized pot does not bother me.  The thought of government regulating it from top to bottom (yes, I know the funds could go to drug treatments, education, and more wonderful ladeedaa things for "our children")  gives me a headache. 

Is there any cure for government metastasizes?

Government regulation really is a societal cancer.  No cure but slow and painful death.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #310 on: January 26, 2014, 12:00:19 AM »

Let them smoke all the pot they want, maybe they will get less done!

"The one good thing about taxes is that we don't get all the government we pay for."  Will Rogers
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #311 on: January 26, 2014, 11:05:39 AM »

"Let them smoke all the pot they want, maybe they will get less done!"

I would rather this then a new giant divisions of the DEA, ATF (Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ? marijuana?) regulating everything about it along with hoards of State government bureaus, and endless cottage industries designed for now better purpose then to make money off the expanded bureaucracy and how to circumvent it.

Just make it legal already.  Enforcing the law as it is now is and has been a farce anyway since the 60's.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #312 on: January 28, 2014, 01:37:26 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/28/drugs-vs-the-drug-war-a-response-to-michael-gerson/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #313 on: January 28, 2014, 08:35:48 PM »

Sativa or Indica?   Say what?  In my day (I heard rumors) it was Mexican, Jamaican, Columbian, Panama Red, Thai sticks, Hash, or Hash oil.  Somewhat in that order, so I was told.

I think the THC content was at most 2 to 10 %.  Only oil was more.  Now the THC content in the run of the mill stuff is more.  A lot more.

From the Economist:
 
****Marijuana legalisation

High time

Colorado embarks on an unprecedented experiment
 Jan 11th 2014  | DENVER  | From the print edition

Sativa or indica?

FOR reasons as hazy as a cloud of Sour Diesel smoke, the number 420 is cherished by America’s stoners. So it was fitting that on January 1st, 420 days after Coloradans awoke to discover that, along with Washington state, theirs had become the first jurisdiction in the world to vote to remove the criminal prohibition on recreational marijuana, around 40 state-licensed pot shops flung open their doors to all-comers. Four-hour queues snaked along the streets of Denver and other cities. Swamped by newbies, many from out of state, shop staff toiled to explain the difference between sativa (which delivers a “cerebral”, energetic high suited to daytime use) and indica (a depressive effect; better consumed late).

“Should’ve done it 40 years ago!” growls a middle-aged man making his first purchase at Medicine Man, one of Denver’s biggest retail outlets. (A home-grower, he later confides that he got bored smoking the same old strains.) For optimists, the votes in Colorado and Washington suggest that America’s war on drugs is finally winding down. The casualties have been legion: 750,000 people are arrested each year for marijuana alone; the subsequent blotted records can derail lives. Some 40,000 people languish in prison for pot-related offences. Murderous gangs fill the supply gap created by prohibition.

Public opinion appears to have reached a tipping point. Most Americans now favour legalisation; something that was unthinkable a generation ago (see chart). Advocates have waged savvy campaigns, gaining footholds by legalising marijuana for medical purposes (so far in 20 states and Washington, DC) and presenting a clean-cut, besuited image worlds away from the tie-dyed stereotypes. More states may free the weed before long.

Yet legalisation is just the beginning of a process, and Colorado and Washington have taken different routes. Colorado has built on the foundations of its medical-marijuana system. Until October (and 2016 in Denver) only medical-marijuana operators may receive licences to serve recreational customers, which is why many of the shops that welcomed newcomers on January 1st have names like Citi-Med and Evergreen Apothecary. (Retailers exult that they are no longer obliged to speak of “medicine” and “patients”.) During this time Colorado’s retailers must grow at least 70% of the marijuana they sell.

Washington, by contrast, is creating a recreational market from scratch; this is why its shops are not expected to open until May or so. It will have a three-tier system, with separate licences for cultivation, processing and retail. The state will determine, Soviet-style, consumers’ annual needs in advance and cap overall production. The fate of its medical system, more chaotic than Colorado’s, is uncertain.

Under federal law, marijuana remains illegal. The feds have pounced on dispensaries in states with badly run medical systems. But in August the Department of Justice suggested it would let the experiments in Washington and Colorado proceed if they did not impede eight “enforcement priorities”, including stopping pot from being trafficked by gangs, sold to minors or smuggled into other states.

Worryingly for Colorado, its record in these areas is not stellar. Plenty of teenagers are getting their hands on medical marijuana procured by adults. Police in neighbouring states such as Kansas complain of Coloradan marijuana flooding border areas. Colorado has a fat rule book and most dispensaries are well run, but they can do little about customers passing pot to children or taking it across state lines. And in Colorado (but not Washington) anyone may grow up to six marijuana plants without a licence.

Legalisation may prompt people to smoke and eat more marijuana. Prices for recreational pot are comparable to those in the illicit market ($55-$60 for an eighth, according to Darin Smith of the Denver Kush Club, a retail outlet). Some non-tokers will surely be tempted to take up the habit now that they need not deal with intimidating criminals in dark alleys; others may get high more often.

The ill-effects of marijuana, including cognitive impairment and a risk of dependency, are fairly well documented (though more research would help). Around 20% of users account for 80% of consumption; as Mark Kleiman, an analyst, points out, it is in a profit-seeking industry’s interest to target these problem users. Set against this is the genuine pleasure that smoking or eating marijuana brings millions of adults. Moreover, increased marijuana use may turn out to be a net positive for public health if, as some studies suggest, it replaces some consumption of alcohol—a far more destructive drug by most measures.

That is not the only reason for officials to welcome legal weed. Hefty excise and sales taxes will boost state coffers. In Colorado the Department of Revenue oversees regulation; this, says Sam Kamin, a law professor at the University of Denver, is good news for the industry, for “marijuana may not be addictive, but money certainly is”. The costs of enforcement—including 22 field inspectors—will be more than covered by the fresh revenue.

Perhaps the biggest sign of change is that even foes of legalisation accept the need to try to make it work. All-out drug warriors are hard to find in Colorado. For their part, campaigners now focus on technical matters. For example, many pot businesses struggle to obtain basic financial services because banks fear violating federal money-laundering rules. Colorado’s experiment will doubtless hit many hurdles along the way, but if it looks like working, others will copy it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #314 on: February 06, 2014, 12:21:42 AM »

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/fatal-car-crashes-involving-pot-use-have-tripled-in-us-study-finds-1#scpshrjwfbs
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #315 on: February 08, 2014, 06:34:32 AM »

http://benswann.com/federal-government-legalizes-hemp/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #316 on: February 15, 2014, 10:11:20 AM »

The world wide marijuana movement.  Stamp out soda and smoke this instead:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-drug-policy-fuels-push-legal-pot-worldwide-130121981.html;_ylt=AoeN_rK_rDWzNjRpynun2yvQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsNGg1aHNnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHNlYwNzcg--
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 12:11:43 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #317 on: February 17, 2014, 07:03:50 PM »

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/17/why-we-have-drug-scares
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #318 on: February 23, 2014, 10:55:13 AM »

Meth Mouth and Other Meth Myths
Jacob Sullum|Feb. 23, 2014 8:00 am

Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush's attorney general, called it "the most dangerous drug in America." A physician quoted by The New York Times described it as "the most malignant, addictive drug known to mankind." A police captain told the Times it "makes crack look like child's play, both in terms of what it does to the body and how hard it is to get off."

Meanwhile, doctors routinely prescribe this drug and others very similar to it for conditions such as narcolepsy, obesity, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). If these drugs are as dangerous as Gonzales et al. claim, how can millions of Americans—including schoolchildren—safely consume them on a regular basis?

Columbia neuropsychopharmacologist Carl Hart explores that puzzle in a new report that aims to separate fact from fiction on the subject of methamphetamine. Hart and his two co-authors—University of North Carolina at Wilmington philosopher Don Habibi and Joanne Csete, deputy director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program—argue that hyping the hazards posed by meth fosters a punitive and counterproductive overreaction similar to the one triggered by the crack cocaine panic of the 1980s, the consequences of which still afflict our criminal justice system. "The data show that many of the immediate and long-term harmful effects caused by methamphetamine use have been greatly exaggerated," Hart et al. write, "just as the dangers of crack cocaine were overstated nearly three decades ago."

The report, published by the Open Society Foundations, begins by considering the addictive potential of methamphetamine. Despite all the talk of a "meth epidemic," the drug has never been very popular. "At the height of methamphetamine's popularity," Hart et al. write, "there were never more than a million current users of the drug in the United States. This number is considerably lower than the 2.5 million cocaine users, the 4.4 million illegal prescription opioid users, or the 15 million marijuana smokers during the same period." Furthermore, illicit methamphetamine use had been waning for years at the point when Newsweek identified "The Meth Epidemic" as "America's New Drug Crisis."

Although methamphetamine is commonly portrayed as irresistible and inescapable, it does not look that way when you examine data on patterns of use. Of the 12.3 million or so Americans who have tried it, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), about 1.2 million (9.4 percent) have consumed it in the last year, while less than half a million (3.6 percent) have consumed it in the last month (the standard definition of "current" use). In other words, more than 96 percent of the people who have tried "the most addictive drug known to mankind" are not currently using it even as often as once a month. A 2009 study based on NSDUH data found that 5 percent of nonmedical methamphetamine consumers become "dependent" within two years. Over a lifetime, Hart et al. say, "less than 15 percent" do.

Even heavy methamphetamine users have more self-control than is commonly thought, as Hart's own research shows:

Under one condition, methamphetamine-dependent individuals were given a choice between taking a big hit of methamphetamine (50 mg) or $5 in cash. They chose the drug on about half of the opportunities. But when we increased the amount of money to $20, they almost never chose the drug.

Laboratory research also has found that "d-amphetamine and methamphetamine produce nearly identical physiological and behavioral effects," Hart et al. write. "They both increase blood pressure, pulse, euphoria, and desire to take the drug in a dose-dependent manner. Essentially, they are the same drug." That observation helps put methamphetamine's risks in perspective, since d-amphetamine, a.k.a. dextroamphetamine, is one of the main ingredients in Adderall, a stimulant widely prescribed for ADHD. Hart et al. note that methamphetamine, like dextroamphetamine, increases heart rate and blood pressure, but "well below levels obtained when engaged in a rigorous physical exercise."

When given to research subjects, "the drug didn't keep people up for consecutive days, it didn't dangerously elevate their vital signs, nor did it impair their judgment." Contrary to tales of meth-induced murder and mayhem, "There is no empirical evidence that suggests that even long-term users of methamphetamine pose a threat to those around them." Hart et al. note that "incredible anecdotes are usually disseminated uncritically by the popular press and accepted as sound evidence by an undiscerning public." One example from my book Saying Yes: In 1994 Reader's Digest described the rape and murder of an 18-month-old girl in California as a "meth-related child killing." Yet neither newspaper coverage of the case nor the California Supreme Court's 87-page decision rejecting the murderer's appeal made any mention of the drug.

What about long-term effects? Shocking as it may be to anyone who has accepted at face value the gruesome images featured in anti-meth propaganda, the drug does not make you ugly. "Meth mouth"—the extreme tooth decay supposedly characteristic of heavy users—is said to be caused by meth-induced dry mouth. Yet widely consumed prescription stimulants such as Adderall produce the same side effect, Hart et al. note, and "there are no published reports of unattractiveness or dental problems associated with their use." Allegedly meth-related physical characteristics such as rotten teeth, thinning hair, and bad complexions, they say, "are more likely related to poor sleep habits, poor dental hygiene, poor nutrition and dietary practices."

Hart also questions research linking heavy methamphetamine use to brain damage. He argues that studies in which large doses are repeatedly given to animals that have never been exposed to the drug before bear little resemblance to human consumption patterns, which feature gradual escalation. "This difference is not trivial," Hart et al. write, "because the harmful neurobiological and behavioral changes that occur in response to repeated large doses of methamphetamine can be prevented with prior exposure to several days of escalating doses."

In studies of people, Hart says, researchers exaggerate the practical significance of their findings and fail to properly control for pre-existing difference between meth users and the general population. "The brain imaging literature is replete with a general tendency to characterize any brain differences as dysfunction caused by methamphetamine," Hart et al. write, "even if differences are within the normal range of human variability."

Over-the-top warnings about methamphetamine—encapsulated in the slogan "Meth: Not Even Once"—aim to scare people away from a drug that might harm them (but probably won't). By contrast, Hart argues, exaggerating the hazards posed by methamphetamine causes definite damage by encouraging harsh criminal penalties (such as a five-year mandatory minimum for five grams), fostering distrust of accurate warnings about drugs, suppressing useful information that could reduce drug-related harm, driving users toward more dangerous routes of administration (as efforts to reduce meth purity, if successful, predictably would do), and justifying ineffective policies that impose substantial costs on large numbers of people for little or no benefit (such as restrictions on the methamphetamine precursor pseudoephedrine, a cheap, safe, and effective decongestant that is now absurdly difficult to obtain). In other words, hyperbole hurts.

This article was originally published by Forbes.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/23/meth-myths-exposed
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #319 on: February 23, 2014, 06:43:22 PM »


Breaking not-so-bad? I guess all the really horrific things I've seen from meth never really happened.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #320 on: March 04, 2014, 01:22:57 AM »


Breaking not-so-bad? I guess all the really horrific things I've seen from meth never really happened.

Yes because anecdote justifies a war on drugs that has utterly failed by any sane measure. Let us double down on failed methods using the same propaganda techniques over and over that always prove grossly inflated in hindsight. For the children.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #321 on: March 04, 2014, 06:57:23 AM »

My opposition to most of the War on Drugs is on record in this thread, but FWIW my sense of things is that meth is really destructive.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #322 on: March 04, 2014, 08:00:05 AM »

Is it a war on alcohol to enforce laws on DUI or public consumption or underage consumption/sales?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #323 on: March 04, 2014, 09:17:35 AM »

Is that an answer or a change of subject?  If the former, please do flesh out your thought process a bit  , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #324 on: March 04, 2014, 09:46:14 AM »

The war on drugs can mean different things. Should a drug dealer face legal jeopardy for selling to middle school kids? Is it the war on drugs if school authorities for forbid students from getting high at school.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #325 on: March 04, 2014, 09:50:33 AM »

Not sure why it became necessary in the middle of my agreeing with there being some areas where the law has a place, but yes your rhetorical point acknowledged. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #326 on: March 05, 2014, 05:58:07 PM »

The key point being that even if illegal drugs are decriminalized/legalized, there will still be law enforcement enforcing laws related to illegal drugs.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #327 on: March 05, 2014, 06:11:58 PM »

Umm , , , not sure that anyone was saying otherwise, but yes your statement is true.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #328 on: March 05, 2014, 06:15:23 PM »

Umm , , , not sure that anyone was saying otherwise, but yes your statement is true.

Oh, the Big L Libertarians are convinced that everything will be wonderful when you kid can buy meth at the corner store. What could go wrong?
Logged
DDF
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 63


« Reply #329 on: March 05, 2014, 06:24:35 PM »

I'm wondering what happens when the US starts having cartel style violence happen on the scale that it does here, you know, where daughter's fingers start getting cut off while they're on the phone with you...

I'm just saying, law enforcement doesn't stop anything, especiall once the criminals figure out that there are just better ways to keep law enforcement officers in line, longarms, soft targets, etc. It's all a charade.

The thing that I would worry about, is fixing the economy. That is the ony thing that keeps crime in check. I've found out all about it living and working here. It certainly isn't "The LAW:"  afro
Logged

We all die. The second one accepts that, only then are they capable of living.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #330 on: March 05, 2014, 06:31:56 PM »

I'm wondering what happens when the US starts having cartel style violence happen on the scale that it does here, you know, where daughter's fingers start getting cut off while they're on the phone with you...

I'm just saying, law enforcement doesn't stop anything, especiall once the criminals figure out that there are just better ways to keep law enforcement officers in line, longarms, soft targets, etc. It's all a charade.

The thing that I would worry about, is fixing the economy. That is the ony thing that keeps crime in check. I've found out all about it living and working here. It certainly isn't "The LAW:"  afro

We may just find out. However, there is nothing new about badguys targeting cops. There were old school responses to such things that established lines that were respected. Borders can be crossed both ways.
Logged
DDF
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 63


« Reply #331 on: March 05, 2014, 06:34:00 PM »

I'm wondering what happens when the US starts having cartel style violence happen on the scale that it does here, you know, where daughter's fingers start getting cut off while they're on the phone with you...

I'm just saying, law enforcement doesn't stop anything, especiall once the criminals figure out that there are just better ways to keep law enforcement officers in line, longarms, soft targets, etc. It's all a charade.

The thing that I would worry about, is fixing the economy. That is the ony thing that keeps crime in check. I've found out all about it living and working here. It certainly isn't "The LAW:"  afro

We may just find out. However, there is nothing new about badguys targeting cops. There were old school responses to such things that established lines that were respected. Borders can be crossed both ways.

Indeed. It's all about who has the most to lose, wins. That, or the most brutal. Most people don't belong in law enforcement. Not really. Especially when they aren't targeting cops, but their families. The economy is key... give everyone a chance to win... at least a chance, and I hate Obama...not saying to give it away, but at least make it possible. I don't know though...economics aren't my thing. I <3 my FAL.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 06:36:34 PM by DDF » Logged

We all die. The second one accepts that, only then are they capable of living.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!