Doesn't answer my questions, both about how much is enough and whether or not the kind of laws that necessitate such tactics have any place in a free society. How can such raids be justified in a free society, especially when you confront the truth that they do nothing to stem the flow of drugs into society. They do diddly squat to squelch supply, and even if they contributed marginally it's been proven over the years to be a failed tactic. So, once more, how are such laws even permissable in a free society? How many 'mistakes', a euphemism for terrorized and dead citizens and destroyed property, are excusable to fight the good fight against drugs?
I'm not asking society, I'm asking you. How many dead grandparents, burned down homes, terrorized citizens is your limit? Mine is none.
Incorrect. Laws and freedom are not necessarily in opposition to each other. Laws that restrict aggressive action against other people's persons or property are perfectly in line with a free society. Freedom does not mean you get to do whatever pleases you at whatever time you want. That's an extreme definition and not the one normally used in this context.
At what point would you stop enforcing then? How far would such laws have to go before you said, "**** it, this isn't right"? And, if we assume you're representative of the average to upper average of the bell curve in regard to this issue, what does that say about how far such laws would have go before even a vocal minority of cops would raise objections or quit in response to unjust laws? And they can always be replaced by those more mutable to a drone's job.
All of it. Because they're already here, already using, and already committing whatever other crimes they're going to commit, so there's no flood gate of crime or users waiting to be opened by legalization. A few more would use, the costs and dangers and problems associated with the black market would quickly disappear. And users who committed other crimes like robbery, assault, etc., would still be arrested and convicted under those laws.
And this is based off of what? Using a similar size, population and culture;what model are you using to make this assumption that this is exactly what would happen?
I think he’s using the model of common sense.
You’re a prick (in ragards to your smart ass response).. and you have no idea what my background is.
Says you? lol.. If I ever enter a debate I’ll keep that in mind.
Why? I dont see any rule around here that says refusal to kiss jayhawkks ass is a ban worthy offence.
precccisseeely.
If the cop is in the wrong then that is exactly what should happen.
Excluding possession/selling charges, there is no evidence that it would drop, and in theory reality and theory are the same thing, but in reality, they're not.
Nor am I asking anyone to do so. I've been an activist on the issues I'm talking about, I've spoken with congress critters, I write letters to the editor whenever I can and a few have even been published. I donate money that I can, and I stick by my guns in public, even though it costs me at times. Recently more than I figured too.
Doesn't answer the question. How many are too many? How many mistaken raids that end up with terrorized or dead citizens and damaged property, not to mention torn up civil rights, are enough to make you say to hell with the laws necessitating the tactics?
Look up the Merriem Webster definition of freedom. The extreme definition you use where any law that lays down a shall not is not the common definition in a political context. What's more laws that are consistent with freedom don't restrict actions, they simply lay a groudwork for redress for victims of aggression. Our society has deviated from that ideal quite a bit. That is the problem.
The people enforcing the laws, present company excluded, are just as stupid. And they have guns and the power to imprison and kill.
Our culture. It's exactly what happened when alcohol prohibition ended.
1 is what would take to make changes to the procedure to try and ensure that this would not occur again.
I agree, present company excluded
That's because the drugs are ILLEGAL. If it were the fault of the drugs themselves than all new pharmacies and liquor stores would likewise go 'hand and foot' with a crime wave. You are attributing the problems of prohibition to drugs. Pfizer and Budweiser reps aren't killing each other in the streets, and each makes drugs that are just as addictive and cause just as much social trouble as any illicit drug. There was a time however when alcohol sellers in the area did mean high crime. It was during alcohol prohibition.
So if heroin was sold for a reasonable price down the road at a pharmacy users will still find it necessary to rob and steal to pay black market prices? Women will still feel it necessary to whore themselves out for a hit? It is an inevitable fact that drug related crime will drop because the cause of most of it is the black market on which they are sold, the contraband prices that result, and the legal and social risk associated with manufacture, distribution and use. Eliminate those and you eliminate a massive amount of the motive behind the crime.
Comical? I find it comical that your reasoning is "he did it first"
I explicitly excluded drug selling/buying related offenses in my argument. There would be absolutely no reason for black-market drug deals if drug sales were privatized. Prices go down, availability goes up and the gangsta goes out of business.
They won't be a problem because they're already happening in large part to the extent they would under legalization. Demand for drugs is inelastic. It doesn't change much if at all unless swings in price/availability are huge. That is, unless you start cutting off hands, most people aren't going to stop using. And likewise, if you lower the price people don't all of a sudden run out and become addicts. There are few if any people out there longing to be stoners or junkies and who are finding the only hitch in their plans to be availability and price.
Gawdammit shut yer oinker! :donut:
I am getting better at self control. It's the new meds.
What the hell is it with cops and donuts anyway? They wolf them down like there's no tomorrow, but if you bring a dozen to the station because you're dropping by, they take offense. Or at least they did when I went to see a friend. And I showed up with Krispy Kreme, the good stuff.
If me saying his post was common sense driven qualifies as *attitude * or getting personal with you then you and I live in different realms. You started with the attitude.. not me. If you thought my post came off as attitude thats fine... and whether my one line response added anything to the thread or not is your opinion.. nothing more.
I thought of sprinkling mood equalizers on my nachos. Didn't work. However the cissus is keeping my knee pain down enough that I can lift and walk without problems these days.
Oh I didn’t realize you were my authority figure.. my apologies. Moving on.
Still.. how many drug offenders would that get out of prison? Hundreds of thousands? How much does it cost to house these inmates? 50 grand a year? More?
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How to use blood work to know if gear is real | Anabolics | 16 | ||
|
CreaGAAtine: is the hype real? | Supplements | 15 | |
| Is this real and legit anavar? | Supplements | 23 | ||
| Is this real and legit anavar? | Supplements | 0 | ||
| the real attitude of all cops | General Chat | 12 |