[Jeff White]

Now if we could just get them to take a Second Amendment Case. This decision is sure to be controversial with some members here.


Court Gives Police Victory in Waiting Time
http://www.yahoo.com/s/134861

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a victory for law officers, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that it was constitutional for police to wait 20 seconds before knocking down the door of a drug suspect.

LaShawn Banks was taking a shower when masked and heavily armed officers broke into his Las Vegas apartment in 1998 looking for drugs.

His case gave the court the opportunity to clarify how long police must wait before breaking into a home to serve a warrant. The court ruled 9-0 that a 20 second delay was ample, because any longer would give drug suspects time to flush evidence down the toilet.

The justices refused, however, to spell out exactly how long is reasonable in executing warrants for drugs or other contraband.

Officers knocked and announced themselves at Banks' apartment, then waited 15 seconds to 20 seconds before using a battering ram to break down the door.

Justice David H. Souter, writing for the court, said that because police believed there were drugs inside, officers had more reason to rush.

"Police seeking a stolen piano may be able to spend more time to make sure they really need the battering ram," Souter wrote.

He said while "this call is a close one, we think that after 15 or 20 seconds without a response, police could fairly suspect that cocaine would be gone if they were reticent any longer."

Smart drug dealers, he said, would keep their contraband near a commode or sink.

The Supreme Court has said that in most cases officers are required to knock and announce themselves, under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

In Tuesday's ruling, Souter said that generally courts have considered whether police moved too hastily "case by case, largely avoiding categories and protocols for searches."

The Las Vegas police and federal officers found 11 ounces of crack cocaine and three guns during the raid. Banks served four years of an 11-year prison sentence before his conviction was overturned.

Justices reversed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) ruling in Banks' favor.

The appeals court had said that officers should wait "a significant amount of time" before making a nonforced entry, and a "more substantial amount of time" between knock and entry if property would be destroyed.

Souter said that the appeals court was wrong to set up a multipart scheme for reviewing knock-and-announce cases.

The case is United States v. Banks, 02-473.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wonder if there'd be a market for safes that automatically incinerated their contents, and flushed the ashes down the drain, when your door was kicked down? :D

[TallPine]

Now if we could just get them to take a Second Amendment Case. This decision is sure to be controversial with some members here.
Controversial ...? Yeah, I guess.

I have now totally lost hope. We now officially live in a police state.

So a tip from a dubious informant will cause you to have your door busted down, if you are on the phone or in the shower ....?

How about at night when you are in bed? There is no damn way I can get decent and get downstairs in 20 seconds. And when you bust in, you will be met by a hail of gunfire from the top of the stairs. (that is, after you get past the dog)

I hope these justices can sleep well after condemining who knows how many citizens and law officers to death.

An unconstitutional search to enforce an unconstitutional law ... :rolleyes:

And you want them to rule on the second amendment ...?

[Graystar]

ugh...both courts decisions seem bad to me. I think this is another one of those instance that's going to require more experience and deep thought to finally get right.

[TheeBadOne]

Tallpine, are you a drug dealer? If not, how are they going to come to your house on a warrant? They need PC, and enough of it to get a Judge to sign off on it. Drug warrants are the result of an investigation. Are there errors made? Sure, just as there are errors made on anything in the world. The number of errors to warrants served is very minor (but still bears looking at to reduce it further).

All the best

TBO

[TheOtherOne]

Yeah, so if your neighbor thinks you stole that piano you are safe because the judge said the police may give you a little more time to answer the door (25-30 seconds?).

[TheeBadOne]

Yeah, so if your neighbor thinks you stole that piano you are safe because the judge said the police may give you a little more time to answer the door (25-30 seconds?).
No, they said in the case of a piano there is no urgency because it's not likely to be rapidly flushed down the drain, swallowed, or burned. Property warrants don't get no-knock status (unless the subject of the warrant is violent/armed etc).

[Ian]

They need PC, and enough of it to get a Judge to sign off on it.
In other words, they need a single informant to give them your name.

[TallPine]

Tallpine, are you a drug dealer?
No, I only use legal drugs like caffeine and chocolate.

But what if my neighbor is a drug dealer, and they mistakenly come to my house instead of his ...?

But since when did it become okay to violate the constitutional rights of suspected drug dealers?

Since today, I guess. :(

[Don Gwinn]

Tallpine, are you a drug dealer? If not, how are they going to come to your house on a warrant? Wrong house, wrong address, typo, faulty intelligence, mistaken identity, false affidavit sworn by some confidential informant who has no compelling incentive to tell the truth (from his point of view.)
Don't tell me these things don't happen until after you run a search at TFL and here.

They need PC, and enough of it to get a Judge to sign off on it.
Really? Run a search for "clerk sign warrants" on TFL. I can remember off the top of my head at least one case where it was discovered that court clerks throughout one Eastern state were keeping stacks of pre-signed, blank warrants which they would pass out to police rather than bother the judges at odd hours! :what:
Now, granted, if they're willing to do that, they won't follow any rules about how long to wait after they knock. But at least someone might witness it and do something about it--unless it's not against the law!

Are there errors made? Sure, just as there are errors made on anything in the world. I'm sorry, it may not be fair, but errors that result in government agents shooting innocent people are not the same as errors that result in some kid having to go to his school office to get his GPA corrected.
Requiring police to knock and wait rather than bursting in would fix it so that, while those same errors would still happen, they need not be fatal. That's worth doing even if it means the drug arrest rate drops. Notice that no one brought up officer safety? It's all about getting more cocaine arrests.

[TheeBadOne]

Notice that no one brought up officer safety?
That's because in the past it always brought up emotinal responses such as;

"So what? That's their job!

"If they don't like it they can quit"

Etc etc etc.

[TallPine]

Notice that no one brought up officer safety?
Actually, I did bring it up, but no one noticed.

These "bust-ins" are going to get some officers killed, and I would like to see that avoided.

[cordex]

TBO,
Officer safety is as important as non-LEO safety.
Neither are particularly served by dynamic drug raids.

[Jeff White]

The real culprit is the war on drugs. If we weren't fighting that futile battle this wouldn't be an issue.

The court is faced with a tough choice here. Require the police to wait for the suspects to answer the door (giving them time to destroy all of the evidence) or letting them knock and announce..then enter and allowing them to have a chance to seize the evidence.

The solution is to declare victory in the war on drugs and go home. Then we wouldn't have to make these kinds of decisions. The Bill of Rights will not survive the war on drugs and the war on terror combined.

We need to stop wringing our hands over decisions like this. The court is going to give the state a chance to seize the evidence. Anyone who thinks they won't is a dreaming. What we have to do to stop this is to take away the state's need to seize this kind of evidence.

Jeff

[treeprof]

If the real goal of the war on drugs is to keep them off the street, it seems like flushing them down the toilet pretty much accomplishes that. Shame to let all that cool black gear go to waste after knocking and everything, tho, I guess.

[TallPine]

You nailed it, Jeff :)

[Sippenhaft]

This is again the problem with finding comfort in the word "reasonable." In this situation, it is reasonable because the (flawed) circumstances that require a quick entry to be reasonable for enforcement. Reasonable should be implied, but being left implied have a strong presumption against the restriction (here, againt unwarranted search and seizure). Because reasonable becomes enumerated along with the protection, it now starts off as a balancing test bewteen protection and enforcement, rather than starting out form the position that protection outweighs concerns for enforcement, and the enforcement needs must meet a higher burden of necessity.

In this particular instance, I would agree that the drug war, being predicated on (in my estimation, without just cause) outlawing private activity, necessitates the govenrment have more powers of searching private areas to effectively enforce those laws. So while I don't agree with the outcome, given the circumstances I can't see any other plausible way for the Court to rule.

[Orthonym]

before it's ok for the policemen "serving a warrant" to go into full battering-ram, breaching-charge, home-invasion mode. That's according to a unanimous SCOTUS decision handed down today. I did a timed drill when I heard about it. Plunked my bottom on the can, imagined a knock, and started the stopwatch. By the time I'd done paperwork, donned and fastened lower garments, and gotten my hand on the doorknob, 45.69 seconds had lapsed.

What's wrong with this picture?

[tiberius]

Yeah it sucks. Try this thread though, its already being discussed.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52726

[Thumper]

Plunked my bottom on the can, imagined a knock, and started the stopwatch. By the time I'd done paperwork, donned and fastened lower garments, and gotten my hand on the doorknob, 45.69 seconds had lapsed. What's wrong with this picture?

I can't begin to tell you.

[Thumper]

You didn't wash your hands?

[Orthonym]

Could someone please stick my starting post above into the other thread on the same subject? Seems I was a little late off the blocks. I still think my title is cooler and more gripping, though.

[geekWithA.45]

Bottom line:

You're bashing in doors, wiping your butt with the B of R, endangering both the occupant and the entry team, and giving little old ladies fatal heart attacks*, over a small pile of chemicals.

Jeff hit it: Time to declare victory and vacate the field.



*yep, this really happened. wrong address.

[Orthonym]

I worked for a guy a few years ago who said (and I believe him) his cousin, a deputy Sheriff in a a small-population county in south Georgia, was poking around (Bad Boy!) in the Sheriff's desk one day, and found a stack of search-warrant forms already signed by the judge, with ALL other spaces left blank. It happens all the time, TBO.

[pax]

Treeprof made a great point for those not yet ready to give up the War On Drugs.

Think about it: what would be the cheaper and more reliable way to get drugs off the street? Investigations, stings,warrants, arrests, paperwork, court time and finally two weeks in Club Fed (out on parole two days later)? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to simply knock on the dealers' doors while wearing the uniform, and let them dispose of the drugs for you?

Heh.

pax

[spartacus2002]

[rhetorical question mode]

Can somebody tell me why the alcohol industry experiences no streetturf battles, no dangerously unsafe brews, very few sales to minors by licensed vendors, few sales in schools, or murders over market share?

[/rhetorical question mode]

Anyone who sings the praises of the War on Drugs needs to go read a few history books on the Prohibition Era. The cure is worse than the disease.

And by the way, for anyone denying we might be moving to a police state, how about that recent Supreme Court case where the Supremes said it was OK to keep questioning an injured, bleeding, screaming suspect even after he says he doesn't want to talk, so long as you don't use his statement at trial?

[Orthonym]

No, Thumper, I didn't wash my hands. It was a SIMULATION! Besides, I was simulating a hurry, as if the person who'd knocked had actually yelled "POLICE!" instead of mumbling, very quietly, "police?". (As I hear they tend to do.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not reasonable, even given the circumstances. Let 'em flush the drugs down the drain; Today's forensics can detect chemicals at the parts per billion level, flushing once or twice won't cut it, we're talking a couple of days, and a fair amount of drain cleaner to actually get rid of the evidence.

[Jeff White]

Brett,
The rules of evidence would never let you make a case on residue in drains. How would you prove the current occupants left it there? How could you prove how much they flushed? Are you ready for long prison terms for trace amounts?

Jeff

[Frohickey]

Remind me not to shake your hand... :p

Maybe we need to make a company that makes front doors that can withstand 1 minute of battering ram abuse.

[cracked butt]

If you cannot get to the door in time to answer, and they are going to break down your door with guns drawn, you might as well get even. Reach down into the can, grab something warm and stinky, and start smearing yourself with it. It won't fix your broken front door, but it will at least give you some satisfaction when you have a boot pressing on the back of your neck after they cuff you.:D

[Orthonym]

One was shot, almost, but not quite, to death, by drug pigs. The other was, as near as I can tell, deliberately and conspiratorilly murdered by drug pigs who wanted to steal his property.



Edit: After these things were investigated, by Govt. agencies, those agencies said that there never were any illegal drugs at either of these guys' places, and no reason even to suspect such.

[TheeBadOne]

drug pigs
And what, pray tell, are "drug pigs"?

[Beren]

Just don't THROW it at the officer, they might mistake it for a grenade (dare I say, a stink bomb?) or try to tack on additional charges for "assault with a deadly weapon."

This ruling is yet another example of how the War on Some Drugs has ravaged our civil rights.

[Orthonym]

Corrupt, thuggish, undercover narcotics detectives? Always well supplied with the best dope, because they get it free? People who just LOVE that there civil forfeiture, because it allows them to steal cash and nice cars with impunity?

C'mon, I'm quite sure you know EXACTLY what I mean.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Are you ready for long prison terms for trace amounts?"

I'm not ready for long prison terms for boxcar loads of cocaine. If letting the people stupid enough to use that stuff kill themselves is the price of liberty, pile 'em in windrows. I personally do not care if they drill holes in the top of their heads and pour in battery acid. It's evolution in action.

IMO, the requirement for search warrents serves two, count 'em, TWO purposes, equally important. First, to make sure that the cops don't search my home without convincing a judge they've got reason to believe I've broken some law. And, second, to convince me that the guys in uniforms they might have obtained from a costume shop really ARE cops who have a legal right to make that search.

And it can't serve that second purpose if the cops don't give me a chance to look at the warrent. And ideally call my lawyer to have him confirm with the judge that it did get issued. Any yahoo can dress in ninja gear and yell "Open up, we've got a warrent!" And even wave a piece of paper around in the process. It's not an unknown form of home invasion.

And if that makes life tough for cops, so what? The Bill of Rights isn't there to make their lives easy. You know what they call a country arranged for the convenience of police? A "police state".

Thebadone, "drug pigs" are narcs. Obviously.

[Orthonym]

Sorry TBO, would like to rant with you and get thread locked, but SO jst called. First things first. ;)

[Don Gwinn]

Just so everyone's clear, I don't think we'll be referring to the police as "pigs" in this forum. Spare me the angry PMs about how it only applies to the few cops who deserve it; I don't care. Let's be better than that. If you're not better than that, pretend. ;)

TheeBadOne, am I to presume that you agree with the rest of my post, since you only bothered to respond to one sentence?

I'm done debating. If you want to know my opinion, read Jeff's post. He said it better anyway.

[jimpeel]

Look at the Donald Scott case. In the time it took them to enter his house and kill him he apparently had enough time to dispose of the tons of marijuana he was supposed to be growing on his 200 acre ranch they so wanted to seize. They found nothing so that must be the reason. Time is of the essence after all.

[Intune]

It's all about CONTROL. "We'll" tell you what to do, how much of it to do and when to do it. Prohibition lasted 13 years and look at all the trouble it caused. The WOD is into what, 70-80 years? The only people who come out on top is the drug dealers and various LEO agencies. Why the hell should the gov give a rat's butt what I do to myself in the privacy of my own home? My doc gave me some percocets for an injured knee. If I take some three months later and listen to some music I am "abusing" drugs. But three or four glasses of a good cab & a cigar are o.k. 'Cause 'THEY" said so. Pure, unmitigated BS. I have NEVER heard one argument for the "war" that made any sense. Not ONE. It creates crime and criminals. One CANNOT legislate morality no matter how many rights one tramples. Just can't do it. Too bad. We all continue to suffer because of it. B... S...

[TheeBadOne]

The WOD is into what, 70-80 years? :rolleyes:

[Intune]

Would you care for me to look up the first person jailed or fined for it TBO? Better than that, YOU look it up. :rolleyes:

[TheeBadOne]

No thanks, you made the statement. :cool:

[Intune]

In that case... You're right, I was off by a few years. It has been going on longer than that.

"It was against this background that the Senate in 1914 considered the Harrison narcotic bill. The chief proponent of the measure was Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, a man of deep prohibitionist and missionary convictions and sympathies. He urged that the law be promptly passed to fulfill United States obligations under the new international treaty.

The supporters of the Harrison bill said little in the Congressional debates (which lasted several days) about the evils of narcotics addiction in the United States. They talked more about the need to implement The Hague Convention of 1912. Even Senator Mann of Mann Act fame, spokesman for the bill in the Senate, talked about international obligations rather than domestic morality."

Let me guess... "But we're winning now! A few more cars, houses & cash and we'll have this problem licked! Gotta break a few eggs to make omelets, eh? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge." Bah!

:rolleyes: :barf:

[jimpeel]

Intune, TBO is correct. You are wrong. The war on drugs has been going on for 89 years. :D

It started with the Harrison act in 1914. Fiorelo LaGuardia commissioned the first study on Marijuana in 1937. The interesting thing is that the results of the LaGuardia commission were exactly the same as the 1972 President's Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse commissioned by Richard Nixon. Both studies stated that Marijuana was an innocuous mildly narcotic substance which should be legalized.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

The Harrison Act

The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today.

Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.

The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine.

The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?

It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date -- 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call "states' rights" and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That's why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.

In the face of possible Constitutional opposition to what they wanted to do, the people in Congress who supported the Harrison Act came up with a novel idea. That is, they would masquerade this whole thing as though it were a tax. To show you how it worked, can I use some hypothetical figures to show you how this alleged tax worked?

There were two taxes. The first (and again, these figures aren't accurate but they will do to show the idea) tax was paid by doctors. It was a dollar a year and the doctors, in exchange for paying that one dollar tax, got a stamp from the Government that allowed them to prescribe these drugs for their patients so long as they followed the regulations in the statute. Do you see that by the payment of that one dollar tax, we have the doctors regulated? The doctors have to follow the regulations in the statute.

And there was a second tax. (and again, these are hypothetical figures but they will show you how it worked.) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs. Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition. Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street. What would be the Federal crime? Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance. What was the crime? Tax evasion.

And do you see what a wicked web that is going to be? As a quick preview, where then are we going to put the law enforcement arm for the criminalization of drugs for over forty years -- in what department? The Treasury Department. Why, we are just out there collecting taxes and I will show you how that works in a minute.

If you understand that taxing scheme then you understand why the national marijuana prohibition of 1937 was called the Marihuana Tax Act.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Early State Marijuana Laws

But before we get to that next big piece of Federal legislation, the marihuana prohibition of 1937, I would like to take a little detour, if I may, into an analysis of the early state marijuana laws passed in this country from 1915 to 1937.

Let me pause to tell you this. When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before. And, secondly, the few people who had even conjectured about it went back to the 1937 Federal Act and said "Well, there's the beginning of it." No. If you go back to 1937, that fails to take account of the fact that, in the period from 1915 to 1937, some 27 states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What Professor Bonnie and I did was, unique to our work, to go back to the legislative records in those states and back to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed to try to find out what motivated these 27 states to enact criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What we found was that the 27 states divided into three groups by explanation.

The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana.

Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."

Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it.

A second group of states that had criminal laws against the use of marijuana were in the Northeast, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York -- had one and then repealed it and then had one again -- New Jersey. Well, clearly no hypothesis about Mexican immigration will explain the genesis of those laws because, as you know, the Northeast has never had, still doesn't really, any substantial Mexican-American population. So we had to dig a little deeper to find the genesis of those laws. We had to go not only to the legislative records but to the newspapers in the state capitols at the time these laws were passed and what we found, in the early marijuana laws in the Northeast, we labeled the "fear of substitution." If I may, let me paraphrase an editorial from the New York Times in 1919 so we will get exactly the flavor of this fear of substitution.

The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times, "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."

Well, from state to state, on the theory that this newly encountered drug marijuana would be substituted by the hard narcotics addicts or by the alcohol drinkers for their previous drug that had been prohibited, state to state this fear of substitution carried, and that accounted for 26 of the 27 states -- that is, either the anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas or fear of substitution in the Northeast. That accounted for 26 of the 27 states, and there was only one state left over. It was the most important state for us because it was the first state ever to enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana and it was the state of Utah.

Now, if you have been hearing this story and you have been playing along with me, you think "Oh, wait a minute, Whitebread, Utah fits exactly with Colorado, Montana, -- it must have been the Mexicans."

Well, that's what I thought at first. But we went and did a careful study of the actual immigration pattern and found, to our surprise, that Utah didn't have then, and doesn't have now, a really substantial Mexican-American population. So it had to be something else.

Come on folks, if it had to be something else, what do you think it might have been? Are you thinking what I was thinking -- that it must have had something to do with the single thing which makes Utah unique in American history -- its association with the Mormon church.


With help from some people in Salt Lake City, associated with the Mormon Church and the Mormon National Tabernacle in Washington -- with their help and a lot of work we found out what the genesis was of the first marihuana law in this country. Yes, it was directly connected to the history of Utah and Mormonism and it went like this.


I think that a lot of you know that, in its earliest days, the Mormon church permitted its male members to have more than one wife -- polygamy. Do you all know that in 1876, in a case called Reynolds against the United States, the United States Supreme Court said that Mormons were free to believe what they wanted, but they were not free to practice polygamy in this country. Well, who do you think enforced that ruling of the Supreme Court in 1876? At the end of the line, who enforces all rulings of the Supreme Court? Answer: the state and local police. And who were they in Utah then? All Mormons, and so nothing happened for many years. Those who wanted to live polygamously continued to do so.

In 1910, the Mormon Church in synod in Salt Lake City decreed polygamy to be a religious mistake and it was banned as a matter of the Mormon religion. Once that happened, there was a crackdown on people who wanted to live in what they called "the traditional way". So, just after 1910, a fairly large number of Mormons left the state of Utah, and indeed left the United States altogether and moved into northwest Mexico. They wrote a lot about what they wanted to accomplish in Mexico. They wanted to set up communities where they were basically going to convert the Indians, the Mexicans, and what they referred to as "the heathen" in the neighborhood to Mormonism.

By 1914, they had had very little luck with the heathen, but our research shows now beyond question that the heathen had a little luck with them. What happened apparently -- now some of you who may be members of the church, you know that there are still substantial Mormon communities in northwest Mexico -- was that, by and large most of the Mormons were not happy there, the religion had not done well there, they didn't feel comfortable there, they wanted to go back to Utah where there friends were and after 1914 did.

And with them, the Indians had given them marijuana. Now once you get somebody back in Utah with the marijuana it all becomes very easy, doesn't it? You know that the Mormon Church has always been opposed to the use of euphoriants of any kind. So, somebody saw them with the marijuana, and in August of 1915 the Church, meeting again in synod in Salt Lake City decreed the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion and then -- and this is how things were in Utah in those days -- in October of 1915, the state legislature met and enacted every religious prohibition as a criminal law and we had the first criminal law in this country's history against the use of marijuana.

That digression into the early state marijuana laws aside, we will now get back on the Federal track, the year is 1937 and we get the national marijuana prohibition -- the Marihuana Tax Act Article goes on with more ... MUCH more. Too much to post here.

[Intune]

The effects of this policy were almost immediately visible. On May 15, 1915, just six weeks after the effective date of the Harrison Act, an editorial in the New York Medical Journal declared:

As was expected ... the immediate effects of the Harrison antinarcotic law were seen in the flocking of drug habitues to hospitals and sanatoriums. Sporadic crimes of violence were reported too, due usually to desperate efforts by addicts to obtain drugs, but occasionally to a delirious state induced by sudden withdrawal....

The really serious results of this legislation, however, will only appear gradually and will not always be recognized as such. These will be the failures of promising careers, the disrupting of happy families, the commission of crimes which will never be traced to their real cause, and the influx into hospitals to the mentally disordered of many who would otherwise live socially competent lives.

Six months later an editorial in American Medicine reported:

Narcotic drug addiction is one of the gravest and most important questions confronting the medical profession today. Instead of improving conditions the laws recently passed have made the problem more complex. Honest medical men have found such handicaps and dangers to themselves and their reputations in these laws . . . that they have simply decided to have as little to do as possible with drug addicts or their needs. . . . The druggists are in the same position and for similar reasons many of them have discontinued entirely the sale of narcotic drugs. [The addict] is denied the medical care he urgently needs, open, above-board sources from which he formerly obtained his drug supply are closed to him, and he is driven to the underworld where lie can get his drug, but of course, surreptitiously and in violation of the law....

Abuses in the sale of narcotic drugs are increasing. . . . A particular sinister sequence . . . is the character of the places to which [addicts] are forced to go to get their drugs and the type of people with whom they are obliged to mix. The most depraved criminals are often the dispensers of these habit-forming drugs. The moral dangers, as well as the effect on the self-respect of the addict, call for no comment. One has only to think of the stress under which the addict lives, and to recall his lack of funds, to realize the extent to which these . . . afflicted individuals are under the control of the worst elements of society. In respect to female habitues the conditions are worse, if possible. Houses of ill fame are usually their sources of supply, and one has only to think of what repeated visitations to such places mean to countless good women and girls unblemished in most instances except for an unfortunate addiction to some narcotic drug-to appreciate the terrible menace.

In 1918, after three years of the Harrison Act and its devastating effects, the secretary of the treasury appointed a committee to look into the problem. The chairman of the committee was Congressman Homer T. Rainey; members included a professor of pharmacology from Harvard, a former deputy commissioner of internal revenue responsible for law enforcement, and Dr. A. G. Du Mez, Secretary of the United States Public Health Service. This was the first of a long line of such committees appointed through the years. Among its findings 10 were the following:

Opium and other narcotic drugs (including cocaine, which Congress had erroneously labeled as a narcotic in 1914) were being used by about a million people. (This was almost certainly an overestimate; see Chapter 9.)


The "underground" traffic in narcotic drugs was about equal to the legitimate medical traffic.


The "dope peddlers" appeared to have established a national organization, smuggling the drugs in through seaports or across the Canadian or Mexican borders-especially the Canadian border.


The wrongful use of narcotic drugs had increased since passage of the Harrison Act. Twenty cities, including New York and San Francisco, had reported such increases. (The increase no doubt resulted from the migration of addicts into cities where black markets flourished.)


To stem this apparently rising tide, the 1918 committee, like countless committees since, called for sterner law enforcement. it also recommended more state laws patterned after the Harrison Act.

Oh the joy. More, tougher laws. And more. And even more... YOU MUST STOP THIS BEHAVIOR! WE DO NOT APPROVE! Next thing ya know doors will start kickin' in and Rights which have been ours for hundreds of years as citizens of this great republic will fall by the wayside. MORE EGGS, WE NEED MORE EGGS! Do another door. Do it for the children. Notice how it is not about laws or policies which involve one's interactment with the public, DUI, drunk in public? These make too much sense Noooo, total control. "We know what is best for you." Again, I say :barf:

[Intune]

I got the distinct impression that he thought I was exaggerating. Like he thought it began in the '60's or '70's, hence the sarcastic smiley. Which is it TBO? Did you think I was off by 9 or so years or were you thinking more like off by fifty?

I love honor, makes folks do the strangest things...

[gtd]

My opinion . . .

LEOs have superior personnel, training, communications, equipment, etc., etc.

They should have inferior weaponry in general. Why? To keep them humble, to ensure they act with their brains and their training rather than with their bullets and adrenaline.

Carpenters "measure twice, cut once." LEOs should act in the same manner -- think, think, think, then act.

20 seconds is OK, I suppose, but only if second 21 involves thinking and acting carefully and responsibly rather than banging and shooting. Ordinary people can't react in 20 seconds, so any mistake is likely to be fatal.

[dustind]

Does anyone have any evidence that we are winning? I thought drugs continue to get cheaper thus indicating the supply is rising vs demand compared to years past. That would show we are loosing despite all the freedom we lost and money spent on this thing.

I still can not get over how much freedom we have lost directly related to the war on drugs.

EDIT: reading a few posts above that just popped up: If someone would have asked me yesterday on the street "when did the drug war start?" I would have guessed the 1930's when alcohol was banned (or was it earlier? who cares), I know drugs went at about the same time, that or I would look at the amendment to the BOR to find when it started at the federal level.

89 years sounds right to me.

[Intune]

gtd, first of all let me give you my welcome to THR! I understand what you are saying but must respectfully disagree. I want them to go in with superior force and numbers and come out alive and uninjured. Same with the homeowner. They are professionals and most have a professional attitude.

However, I want to make their jobs MUCH easier and have them going after murderers, rapists and serious warrant violators. If you took the drug trade and its ancillary criminal conduct out of the equation I believe law enforcement would come out smelling like a rose. We have given them an impossible task. Impossible. "We" ask it of them yet they bear the brunt of the blame when things go awry.

[El Rojo]

So how do you balance the rights of innocent civilians and still protect society from bad people? That really is the question. I think all arguments about the cops getting the wrong address due to the war on drugs are pretty pointless. That is a big what if, that could be used for any scenario, not just the war on drugs. Sometimes life just doesn't go your way. If the cops and I blast each other in a hail of gunfire due to some unfortunate placement of circumstance, not much I can do about that. I don't worry about it.

[dustind]

El Rojo: Mnay large cities have policies in place because they break down the wrong doors so often. Cases of people being killed because of no knocks are pretty common. Even when no one is physicaly hurt, having a group of people with guns storm your house has to be tramatizing to most people.

[cordex]

El Rojo,
I think all arguments about the cops getting the wrong address due to the war on drugs are pretty pointless. That is a big what if, that could be used for any scenario, not just the war on drugs.
Reserving ubertactical, dynamic "no knock" raids for real emergencies helps avoid the problems of wrong addresses. Very seldom is the wrong house or business raided by SWAT in the case of an active shooter, hostage taker or the like. Staging such a raid every time there is a concern that some druggie is going to flush a few ounces of a chemical they've chosen to destroy themselves with increases the chances that they'll transpose a few digits on the address and come no-knockin' on my door.

[El Rojo]

Staging such a raid every time there is a concern that some druggie is going to flush a few ounces of a chemical they've chosen to destroy themselves with increases the chances that they'll transpose a few digits on the address and come no-knockin' on my door. Quite true. It raises the odds from not going to happen to one in a million. 2nd, how many THR members live next to drug members? Yeah, I know that is besides the point, but do you get the idea I am bringing across. It just sounds to me like a pretty much non-issue. Yeah it happens sometimes, but all sorts of crap happens sometimes. I think people try and make a bigger deal out of it than it is. Cases of people being killed because of no knocks are pretty common. A pretty broad statement made based upon what would appear to be your general opinion. What do you mean by "pretty common" and what are your sources? Are we talking about one of every 10,000 cases? How often does this happen? Once every three months, once every year?

I mean the way you guys talk it could easily be said that assault weapons are the biggest threat to law enforcement officers and it occurs pretty frequently that innocent people get shot by them. We ought to outlaw assault weapons to reduce this from happening. Right? I mean we know that some stupid, bad people have done horrible things with assault weapons, so we should get rid of them all so that the good people that do things correctly with assault weapons never get the chance to be a stupid person right? Yeah I know that the odds are pretty slim you are going to get shot with one, but it reduces the odds that it is going to happen right?

[TallPine]

how many THR members live next to drug members?
Well, just how would we know if we did or not ...? It's not my business to keep up on my neighbor's activities. For all I know, the little old man on SS next door (literally) might be a major drug dealer. He does seem to have a lot of visitors, mostly younger males. (I won't speculate on THAT any further)

Besides, it doesn't matter if "Cases of people being killed because of no knocks are pretty common" or not, if you are the one who happens to get killed.

And now on top of everything else (car wrecks, heart attacks, etc) we have to worry about an out of control govt breaking into our houses. I thought only criminals did that .....:confused:

Anybody that breaks into my house while I am home probably will find some crack .........



CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!

[Glock-A-Roo]

About 2 years ago I was riding in a van on the way to a firearms training class. The driver was the man running the class, a LEO that many of you here either know personally or have read about. He is one of the premier firearms/self-defense trainers in the country.

This LEO has worked narcotics from every angle, including undercover buys, meth lab busts, and full-on SWAT raids. And he has been at it for over a decade.

He told me "I have enjoyed fighting the war on drugs. I've busted a lot of bad people and got to play with a lot of fun toys. But it hasn't mattered a damn bit. Glock-A-Roo, can you tell me any place in the country where you can't easily buy illegal drugs if you want them? No. They're purer and cheaper than ever. The war on drugs cannot be won."

Folks like TBO can write this story off if they like, but I know what I was told, and the man who told me this knows more about the WoD than all of you naysayers combined.

[TheeBadOne]

The war on drugs cannot be won."
For some reason drugs are the only thing looked at with a "zero sum" balance? Sure, it'd be nice if no drugs were used, ever, just as it would be nice if murder, theft, assault, rape, etc never happened. Control of a problem is the goal. Eradication does not happen over night. This country didn't get a drug problem overnight, it won't end overnight. Also, I don't think this country has really comitted to the WOD. Believe it or not, some laws were stiffer on some drug offenses in the 60's and early 70's then they are now. I think that speaks volumes for what we are seeing. This thread can now go on 5 more pages about the WOD, but it's all been said and done many times before (nice and civally) so I justed added my thougths one more time.

All the best

TBO

[dustind]

Glock-a-roo: There are a few organizations for former leos against the war on drugs around the country. Stories like the one you told are very common.

TheeBadOne: If we can not keep drugs out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? If the supply is getting cheaper that means there are more drugs per user, it is estimated that only a tiny percent is caught coming into the country. I do not know how you can say we are not committed, look at the dollar cost, prisons, laws, all the fancy federal acts and police powers just to fight it. Our dear president uses the term "drug dealer" and "terrorist" interchangibly.

[TallPine]

The war on drugs cannot be won.
That is because the drugs won't ever agree to unconditional surrender :neener:

[MicroBalrog]

According to the Israeli Defence Force, a combat soldier can get fully dressed in 7 minutes.

[El Rojo]

And now on top of everything else (car wrecks, heart attacks, etc) we have to worry about an out of control govt breaking into our houses. We do? How many drug warrants get served around your neighborhood? You don't have to worry about it. You already said you are not going to worry about it. You specifically stated Anybody that breaks into my house while I am home probably will find some crack ......... Your mind is already made up, anyone coming into your home without permission is going to get shot. So why worry about it? This is my point. Everyone talks a big game about how wrong it is that these action thirsty cops are violating everyone's civil rights and busting down doors and provoking armed confrontations by serving these drug warrants. Yet no one can give but a few isolated incidents where this happens. No one has offered real statistics of the number of no-knock or 20 second knock warrants have been served and how many have resulted in a shot being fired. Instead they offer the good old it doesn't matter "if you are the one who happens to get killed." Right same logic used behind, "As long as it saves one child's life." Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My main point is stuff happens. When it is your time, there is nothing you can do about it. Yeah, if there were no war on drugs, the odds would be better that the cops wouldn't crash into your house and cause an old west shoot out. Big deal!!! Maybe they will find another reason to have to enter your house in a hurry. Or just maybe they will have learned from all of the mistakes other departments have made and they will verify the address first. "But what about the criminal who provided your name and you have nothing to do with drugs?" Maybe they will have done good survailence and know that you are heavily armed and that you would be best approached on your way home from work or at work in a non-confrontational manner. Maybe, just maybe, they will actually check out the lead first and realize there is no way in heck you are selling 5 kilos a day out of your suburban or small town neighborhood and that the guy lied to them.

My gosh people. Give some credit to LEOs. They are not compeltely stupid. Some of them make mistakes. Show me a professional group who doesn't make mistakes? They learn from them and they move on to do a good job because that is what they are paid for. Sorry to disappoint everyone's morbid fantasy that law enforcement suspects everyone of drug dealing or that they rashly bust into random homes on a regular basis. It just doesn't happen. If you disagree with that statement, prove me wrong. No one has offered to back up their paranoia with any sort of statistics or reasoning other than fear and emotion.

[gtd]

If you took the drug trade and its ancillary criminal conduct out of the equation I believe law enforcement would come out smelling like a rose.

Intune,

You're right on the money, but for the "drug trade" statement. That pointless crusade causes all kinds of problems for innocent people caught in the crossfire.

I support the LEOs, I appreciate their risks and contributions, and I want them to have what they need. Unfortunately, we can't or won't take the drug trade out of the equation, and that causes an imbalance that sometimes puts innocent families (or non-innocent but nevertheless nonviolent people) at significant risk.

I just think a good LEO will have enough resources to compensate very well for a slightly lesser amount of firepower. The resulting increased effort in planning, coordinating, and identifying themselves, could maintain some balance helping to prevent mistakes.

Just my opinion, and it's no better than yours. Maybe we can agree to disagree?

Thank you kindly for the welcome!

[GSB]

If we can not keep drugs out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

I think you discerned the answer the WoD has come up with without quite realizing it...

[TheeBadOne]

If we can not keep murder out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind If we can not keep rape out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind If we can not keep theft out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind If we can not keep fraud out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind If we can not keep depression out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind If we can not keep profanity out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind If we can not keep rudeness out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More "food" for thought...

[Glock-A-Roo]

TBO sarcastically mentioned:
[quote]If we can not keep (whatever) out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? [quote]

Since when can my home be invaded, my property seized, and my life ended or ruined solely because an anonymous informant claims I am a

murderer
rapist
thief
cheat
depressed person
profane person
rude person

...? The system requires much more than a jailhouse snitch's word to even begin to move against me for the above accusations.

A child murderer has more protection under today's law enforcement system than a punk kid selling a $5 bag of pot.

[TallPine]

How many drug warrants get served around your neighborhood?
So it's okay to do this in other people's neighborhoods ...?


"They came for the drug users, and since I wasn't a drug user ...."

[davera]

An actual drug DEALER is likely to have a lot more than can be flushed in 20 seconds or even several minutes.

[TheeBadOne]

An actual drug DEALER is likely to have a lot more than can be flushed in 20 seconds or even several minutes.
Based on...?

To those who don't have knowledge or experiance with how the drug trade is conducted, dealers are no dummies. They usually keep their main stash of drugs in one place and sell from another. They only keep a certain amount of drugs in the sale place. An amount they can dispose of quickly if need be. That is often still enough to convict them of the highest level of drug offenses (sales). If they can hit the main stash they do, but that is ususally a very closely guarded secret (known only to the dealer, not to informants/customers).

[TallPine]

Oh, that's just great ...

So by bashing someone's door down, we take a few ounces of dope out of circulation and leave who knows how much more to be sold by someone else. Don't you think they plan for that, too?

[TheeBadOne]

Oh, that's just great ...

So by bashing someone's door down, we take a few ounces of dope out of circulation and leave who knows how much more to be sold by someone else. Don't you think they plan for that, too?

The dealer gets taken out of circulation along with the dope. Sometimes they offer deals (reduced time) for giving up the rest of the dope, getting it out of circulation or getting a bigger bust somewhere else. And that is great. :cool:

[TallPine]

Just one more question ...

Which constitutional amendment enacts federal drug prohibition?

I must have missed that one somewhere.

[jimpeel]

I remember several years ago, a city in CA found 22 tons of drugs, Marijuana, I think, in a house. The authorities, in the finest "Little Jack Horner" tradition claimed "Look what a good boy am I" while ignoring that the drugs were allowed to get there in the first place.

The government has turned down two offers, that I am aware of, from Drug Lords who have offered to sell ALL of their wares directly to the government at bargain basement prices -- and I am talking in the millions, not billions, of dollars under thirty million. In both cases, the government has turned these offers down and stepped up interdiction efforts against these Drug Lords.

If the true goal was to eliminate drugs from our streets, the government would leap at such offers. The goal, however is bigger budgets and greater power. Why have a budget in the millions, and a few officers to buy and destroy the drugs at the source, when you can have a budget in the billions and your own little army?

Imagine, if you will, if the DEA were to send forth their officers to places like Bolivia, Columbia, Afghanistan, et al, with the funds, and the will, to buy the drugs at the source for destruction at the source. The majority of the drugs would never enter our shores.

Instead, we wait until they have crossed the border and then we declare "war" on them.

Any commander of any army on the face of the Earth will tell you that you never, never, never wage a war on your own shores if it can be prevented. We could prevent the war from being waged on our shores if we had leaders with the spine to do it.

[jimpeel]

The dealer gets taken out of circulation along with the dope. Don't know how old you are but you may remember the fact they used to tell us, in the fifties and sixties, about the Chinese population. This was simply that if the Chinese, as a nation, were to march four abreast over a cliff with one row per second going over, the column would never stop as they could outbreed attrition.

The same is true of the drug trade. You bust one guy, you fill one cell, and his former minions set up three more Crack houses as drug dealers in their own right.

P.S. No wry comment about how they would be too busy marching to breed.

[TallPine]

It is impossible to wage war against a substance. How would you know when you won ...? When the substance surrenders ... :rolleyes:

What the govt is doing is waging war against people (using certain drugs). Our own people, none the less. So what we in effect have is a guerilla war in our own backyard. And there IS being collateral damage to innocents.

BTW, about 10-15 years ago, I had the same views as TBO and a few others. "Drugs are BAD, and do anything you have to do to go after the dirty bastards."

It took a long time, but I gradually came to the conclusion that the War on (people using) Drugs should never have been started. But, I still thought that it would make things worse to stop now.

I have a horrible aversion to users and sellers of substances that are currently illegal. This comes from having worked with such people. I had an employer once that tried desperately to get me to accept drugs instead of dollars for the legitimate work that I was doing. Those people are proselytizers of the highest degree - they cannot stand to have anyone around that isn't part of their lifestyle. I didn't stay at that job very long, but I worked in the same industry in the same area for a number of years, much of the time as a competitor to that guy.

But I have finally come around to see that the War on (people using) Drugs is doing far more harm than good. And not the least of the harm is the loss of other civil liberties such as protections from search and seizure.

Why should I care about the guy in the shower that had coke in his house? I don't, really. But the fact that he was guilty of something our laws forbid doesn't mean that breaking down doors after 20 seconds is the right thing to do.

How many "wrong address" or "bad tip" bust-ins are there? I don't know, but I read about several each month nationally. Sometimes people just get terrorized and property destroyed/damaged, and sometimes people get hurt. So what, you say?

Well, a home invasion has to be one of the most traumatic things that I can imagine. Once you have been violated in your sanctuary, I can't imagine ever getting a good night's sleep again. But it was only the police? Gee, that has to make it a hundred times worse - to think that those who are supposed to "protect and serve" committed the violence.

And now the Supreme Court has just put their stamp of approval on this nonsense. For the purpose of preventing some good-for-nothings from medicating themselves into oblivion.

I hope you're just as happy about it when they start busting down doors to look for guns that have just been made illegal ...

[TheeBadOne]

The government has turned down two offers, that I am aware of, from Drug Lords who have offered to sell ALL of their wares directly to the government at bargain basement prices -- and I am talking in the millions, not billions, of dollars under thirty million. In both cases, the government has turned these offers down and stepped up interdiction efforts against these Drug Lords.

JimPeel, source please.

Thank you

[Frohickey]

Drugs instead of money for legitimate work that you did?

but... you can't buy guns and ammo with drugs :p

[TallPine]

you can't buy guns and ammo with drugs
You can't buy food or gasoline, either.

I was sitting in his truck, while he rolled some joints "for the road" and he hemmed and hawed around about writing me a check. I guess he figured that I would finally say "just give me some of that, instead"

I didn't, and it is hard to believe the animosity of druggies against those who don't partake.

But that still doesn't justify the Wo(pu)D - some people will always be jerks.

[Orthonym]

I believe (no, no references handy) that there were some racist grounds for starting the thing in the first place, i.e., "Negroes with cocaine in them are likely to go after our pure White women!"

I think I also recall reading somewhere that police departments went from the .32S&W to the .38Special because they believed the former cartridge was not sufficient to stop a cocaine-crazed Afric person.


I'll try and find evidence to support the above if no one here beats me to it, but don't hold yer breath. Maybe someone else has it at his fingertips?



As Sigmund Freud wrote (as I recall) "What's a frail little girl like you going to do against a big strong man like me who has cocaine in his body?"

[MicroBalrog]

didn't, and it is hard to believe the animosity of druggies against those who don't partake.

Never encountered that in any of the druggies I meant.

[jimpeel]

There was a Frontline program back in 1972 that was about the Golden Triangle Burmese drug trade. A Burmese Warlord offered Peter Bourne, the head of the DEA at that time, all of his wares, which was 1/3 of the world supply of Heroin, for 12 million dollars per year.

Bourne stated that he would not do business with warlords and, in an effort to capture this man, gave the Burmese government three fixed wing -- yes, fixed wing -- aircraft to patrol the dense jungle cover.:rolleyes: He was captured through a ruse that they wanted to discuss the proposal and was sentenced to death.

An updated version of that show aired May 20, 1997.

Here is a transcript of that show.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/script.html

[voice-over] The revolutionaries now hoped -- with the king of opium's help -- to control the opium trade at its source in the field and to propose a radical alternative to the traffic. They insisted he sell his narcotics to the United States for burning. They hoped the U.S. would then apply pressure to stop the Burmese oppression of the Shans.

SAO BOON TAI, Vice President: These proposals we have just signed are to the U.S. Narcotics Bureau and to any organization which is prepared to buy and burn the opium in the Shan State. We are also prepared to bring in narcotics agents into Shan State and to check on anything they want to check. But, of course, if our proposal is not accepted, then the needs of our people and the need of our revolution will force us to go on with the opium trade.

ADRIAN COWELL: The king of opium already controlled more than half the traffic and was sure the other opium militias would join him.

[interviewing] [subtitles] How much opium do you handle a year?

LO HSIN HAN: [subtitles] Roughly, and on average, 180 tons a year.

...
[voice-over] As the combined armies took the proposals to Thailand, the opium king told us they were carrying five tons of morphine, enough to provide six months' heroin for all the addicts of America. As he approached the border of Thailand, the king of opium seemed confident the Americans would welcome his proposals. What he didn't foresee was that the American Drug Enforcement Administration would have his proposals suppressed. With Lo Hsin Han, the five tons of morphine were to wait in the jungle. And as he was nervous of approaching the DEA, I agreed to deliver the proposals.

Our first car ride, our first traffic jam for a year and a half. Monday morning, the U.S. embassy, Bangkok. I delivered the Shan offer: a third of the world's heroin for only $12 million.
...
[April 16, 1977] As we had introduced Joe Nellis, chief counsel of the Congressional committee, we were allowed to film this historic meeting, for the second king of opium had asked the United States to plan the long-term eradication of the poppy and, in the meantime, to buy up the crop.

JOE NELLIS: Let me ask Khun Sa what would have to be done to eliminate opium production in the Shan State?

KHUN SA: [through interpreter] We want you to help make contact to the persons, you know, who can come and collect all the opium grown in our country, either to throw it or to burn it.

ADRIAN COWELL: In the summer of 1977, the narcotics committee of the U.S. Congress took the Shan opium proposals to the White House of the new president, Jimmy Carter.
...
ADRIAN COWELL: Over the coming weeks, the debate would resolve into two clearly defined arguments. Lester Wolff, Joe Nellis, and their committee wanted to buy up Shan opium, as the first stage to negotiating an end to its cultivation. But Peter Bourne and his government departments were against negotiations. They wanted to give the Burmese army airplanes to attack Shan convoys. The debate continued until the White House took its all too predictable decision to the Congress.

Interview with Adrien Cowell http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/interviews/cowell.html

There are also interviews with Bourne, Martinez, Brown, and Mccaffery http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/crackdown/

Doubt me no further oh ye of little faith. :D

[TheeBadOne]

Jimpeel thank you for the info. I can see why they turned his offer down.

[Orthonym]

though I only saw her once, and then only on TV. Her name was Petra Baden, and she was really just an ordinary constable in Frankfurt (am Main) on an A&E program years ago. What endeared her to me, besides her looks and the cute German uvular r sounds, was the way she handled the drug problem on HER beat. There was a problem with junkies passed/nodding out on the sidewalks there.

Here's what she did: She'd walk along the sidewalk in the morning, and if she found a junky blocking the public footpath, she'd kick'em right into the gutter (hey, it's an anesthetic, shouldn't hurt you to get kicked) with these words; "Fixenmachen ist hier Verboten! (kick) " She did not haul them off in chains, nor steal their money or other property, she just kicked them into the gutter. She was real cute, too. "Fixenmachen ist hier Verboten!" Snork!

[Brett Bellmore]

Back to the original topic, the one good thing I can say is that, while the Court will let the government bust down your door without letting you see that warrent that's supposed to prove to you that they've got the RIGHT to bust down your door, it's at least still legal to have a door that's very difficult indeed to bust down. We haven't reached the low of Japan, where you keep a copy of your house key on file with the police so they they can just walk in when they feel like it. (Or so I've heard, anyway.)

You suppose that's coming next?

[Orthonym]

I was watching that TV show a while back, the one in which guys with cameras go out with policemen, and I think I recall having seen the L.A. cops rig some seriously large cables between the barricades/bars on windows and doors and their big powerful vehicle, so as to pull the former loose.

Well, guess what? Among the charges brought against those fellas in the building was one which read something like this (operating from memory here, so may not be accurate) "Fortifying a building so as to impede the entry of Law Enforcement Officers"

[t-stox]

All i have to say is with each Horror story and tale of abuse the public comes one step closer realizing this war on drugs is wrong! so every time I hear one I don't get angry I cheer! sometimes your worst enemy can be your best friend!:)

[jimpeel]

I can see why they turned his offer down.Elaborate please. Do you mean that you can see how bad his offer was; or how such an offer would threaten the power structure of the DEA?

In my heart of hearts, I believe the latter.

[Cactus]

jimpeel,

The offer was blackmail! Do you really want the government to respond to blackmail by criminals?

"Pay me a million dollars and I won't kill my neighbor." "Pay me $50,000 and I won't rob the bank."

If we started paying criminals to NOT commit crimes, we couldn't print money fast enough. It's the same reason you don't negotiate with terrorists; you don't decrease terrorism by negotiating, you increase it!

[El Rojo]

So it's okay to do this in other people's neighborhoods ...? I think it is Ok in anyone's neighborhood. My point is that everyone likes to make a big deal about how horrible this is, but no one has really given any evidence that it is some nation wide epidimic that threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your average joe. All I hear are emotional, evidence free pleas from people that don't even have to deal with the local evil DEA or ubertactical wanna bees knocking down doors on a regular basis in their neighborhood. I guess it might not matter if it is your neighborhood or not, but I figured at least if it were happening a lot in your area, that would at least explain why so many people are afraid of this happening without much evidence to say how frequent this happens.

Which constitutional amendment enacts federal drug prohibition?
Its right next to the one that says you can't rape, murder, or steal on federal land. :rolleyes: The point of the constitution is to fill in the blanks where Congress wants to as long as the filling in doesn't violate what the document clearly says you can't fill in. Rather than making some vague reference to something we clearly know is not there, why not make a case why you think the WOD is unConstitutional supported by reference? You might convince a few more people with that than with unsupported generalities that are instantly blown off.

[TallPine]

Rather than making some vague reference to something we clearly know is not there, why not make a case why you think the WOD is unConstitutional supported by reference?
Suppose you explain why a constitutional amendment was required to enact & repeal alcohol prohibition?

Oh, but "drugs" are so much worse than alcohol that we don't have to bother with that pesky constitution, right ...?

Your statements sound exactly like those of the anti-gun crowd. Is there a technical term for "drug-phobia" analogous to hoplophobia?

[jimpeel]

The offer was blackmail! Do you really want the government to respond to blackmail by criminals?It was NOT blackmail. It was an offer to sell the "product" to a different consumer than those to whom he had previously been selling it to.

It is no different than any product supplier approaching any consuming business to supply their product at a lower price than the supplier they currently do business with.

We are talking about 1/3 -- one third -- of the entire world supply of heroin! We are talking about getting rid of 1/3 of this scourge worldwide!

I have advocated for years that the DEA send agents to buy drugs at the source, for pennies on the hundreds of street dollars, and destroy them there. Instead, they spend billions on the millions of street dollars to confiscate them here.

The drug war is nothing more than a nationwide government jobs program.

Let me repeat that ...

The drug war is nothing more than a nationwide government jobs program.

[TallPine]

no one has really given any evidence that it is some nation wide epidimic that threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your average joe.
Thinking along that line, what is the harm to me, "the average joe", from the recreational use of certain substances ...? None that I can see, except for harm induced by the War on (people using) Drugs: property crime to get money to buy black market drugs, drug dealer turf war violence, etc.


Look at it this way:
Suppose we consider the problems of teenage sexual activity: teen pregnancy, various nasty diseases, and "it's just naughty so you shouldn't be doing that." So to prevent or control all these problems, let's pass a law making it a felony for anyone under 18 to have sexual relations - that should take care of it. :p

How do you enforce such a law? Easy in some case! Now when your 15 year old daughter gets pregnant, she not only has the associated medical and social problems, but she gets arrested and imprisoned. Maybe they will send her to a "sex-treatment" center, also. :rolleyes: Now she has a felony record for life. Is this going to help? Is this what you want?

But that only catches a few of them. Maybe we could offer your daughter a reduced sentence if she rats out on her boyfriend. But what about the times that the girl doesn't get pregnant???

Then we need to make "sex paraphenalia" illegal - items such as condoms and cars with back seats.

And I'm sure that you can find a locker-room informant to give the cops a "tip" - especially if he's jealous. So the police approach the house, and you don't want to give these dangerous criminals a chance to get dressed and hide their crime, so they bust down the door 15 seconds after knocking.

Sure you might terrorize a few innocent people that way, but heck it's worth it for all of the good that we are doing, right? After all, the War on Teen Sex doesn't threaten the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your average joe.

[Intune]

For some reason drugs are the only thing looked at with a "zero sum" balance? Sure, it'd be nice if no drugs were used, ever, just as it would be nice if murder, theft, assault, rape, etc never happened. Control of a problem is the goal. Eradication does not happen over night. This country didn't get a drug problem overnight, it won't end overnight. Also, I don't think this country has really comitted to the WOD. Believe it or not, some laws were stiffer on some drug offenses in the 60's and early 70's then they are now. I think that speaks volumes for what we are seeing. This thread can now go on 5 more pages about the WOD, but it's all been said and done many times before (nice and civally) so I justed added my thougths one more time.

All the best

TBO
It would be “nice if no drugs were used…” Why? Have you discussed this with your doctor? I refer you back to my post about percocet and my bum knee. Does it somehow affect you if I take those prescription pills for entertainment purposes in the privacy of my own home? How? Murder, rape, theft, etc. are crimes AGAINST other people, no comparison. Did you mean illegal drugs? Same case. If I decide to smoke a joint in my house how exactly is that affecting the general public? Now if I go out & drive stoned or stagger around in public causing a nuisance THEN I should be dealt with.

“Control of a problem is the goal.” CONTROL being the telling word. It wasn’t a “problem” until the behavior was made illegal. Now that a worthless plant is prohibited it becomes extremely valuable. There’s the “problem” in a nutshell.

“Eradication does not happen over night. This country didn't get a drug problem overnight, it won't end overnight.” No, it took 89 YEARS of prohibition for it to get this bad. Look at our prison population, it is comprised of something like 75-80% with people who committed a drug or drug affiliated offence. And you want to do MORE? Why? Where does it stop? If you could eliminate 80 percent of the crime taking place today would you? Decriminalize drugs. A worthless plant will revert back to a worthless plant and the user won’t have to smack one of our grandmothers over the head to fuel his need. The DEA’s ’03 budget is around 16 BILLION dollars. You want to do MORE? I’m tired of paying taxes to legislate morality. Ones BEHAVIOR in public, their interaction with fellow man is all that should be judged. If we could wave a magic wand and have every illegal drug disappear overnight we’d better be ready to make the following disappear a year later- Gasoline, spraypaint, deodorant, glue, PAM and any other number of products that these idiots snort & huff.

Obesity kills far more people annually, if “they” really cared the door would come crashing down amid shouts of “LARD POLICE, GET ON THE $#&*^@$ FLOOR! O.K. where are the Krispy Kreme doughnuts?”

gtd, I am more in agreement with you than disagreement! Let's go with that!
:D

[El Rojo]

Suppose you explain why a constitutional amendment was required to enact & repeal alcohol prohibition? A Constitutional amendment was not "required" to enact alcohol prohibition. In fact, early as 1916, a total of 23 out of 48 states had already passed antisaloon laws (http://id.essortment.com/historyprohibit_pmh.htm). What started as mainly a states movement became large enough that the Congress decided to make prohibition an amendment rather than just another law. That is what Congress does, they make laws. They don't have to make laws a Constitutional amendment in order to get things done, that just so happened to be the way the prohibitionists of the late 1910's chose to do it. Now once it became an amendment, then it was clear that another amendment would have to cancel out the first one. If Congress wanted to pass through and could get the states to get 3/4 radification, they could ban guns. That is what we put them in office to do, make those decisions. Now we all know that little scenario isn't going to happen and if they really tried it, there would probably be some violence. However, that is the reality of politics. There is your explination.

"Your statements sound exactly like those of the anti-gun crowd." Again, care to give me some examples based upon logical conclusions to back up that statement? I give reasons why some of your arguments run parallel to anti-gun sentiments, you give none.

I am not all for letting people ruin their lives at will. Sorry. If they want to do drugs and screw up their lives, it eventually effects us all. Could we legalize it and try and reduce the illicit part of the drug trade? Sure. At what cost? Anyone care to tell me how great it is to be on crack or heroin? Anyone care to elaborate on how that has a positive physical effect on your body and increases your job performance? So now that this person is addicted to drugs, can they keep performing for their family? Will they have to go on government assistance because they can't hold a job? Will they resort to theft and robbery to support their habbit? "If we make it legal the price will go down!" Interesting point, but still, where do the positive effects of these drugs kick in?

You might be able to argue the point that my statements above sound like the anti-gun argument. In part they might. I am concerned about the negative effects that drugs have on individuals and society in general. The difference between drugs and guns is simple. When used properly, guns are not inherently bad for your physical well being. One could argue I suppose that guns are addictive and that shooting them wthout ear protection is similar to the addiction of drugs and the physical breakdown of the body. However, how severe is the addiction to drugs compared to a possible addiction to firearms? What are the "ear plugs" of drugs that prevent your brain from suffering long term damage and short term loss of function? Oh wait, there are none. So the anti's can give us the trying to save lives defense, but sorry, guns save lives more often than they take lives and preserve liberty. Illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin do not. Marijuana might aide cataracts, but save lives? That would be a good one for someone to try and defend. Alcohol and tobacco? Not even. These illegal drugs mainly serve the purpose of recreational activity. Someone brought up the point about some pain medication that they take in the comfort of their own home. Again, there is a reson doctors don't want you getting addicted to it. It has negative effects on your physical body and that can start effecting the rest of your life.

Sorry, I just don't see these addictive illicet drugs as being a positive contribution to society. The Founding Fathers did not appear to think they were crucial to the security of a free state, hence no drug amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, they did feel firearms were essential to the security of a free state and we got the 2nd Amendment. I can use my firearm solely for good. I can use it for recreational purposes and it will have zero effect on my decision making ability or have as serious of a consequence for my long term health.

So lets not compare illegal illicet drugs to guns. I don't even know if we should compare them to alcohol or tobacco. Each case is different. The drugs, alcohol, tobacco debate can possibly be lumped together, but not the three and guns. Recreational substance use cannot be compared to a fundamental right to protect one self and the pursuit of life and liberty.

[Sergeant Bob]

TallPine Your statements sound exactly like those of the anti-gun crowd. Is there a technical term for "drug-phobia" analogous to hoplophobia?
I don't know if there is a word for it but, in the end , they're all nothing more than control freaks. They feel they're not in control of their own lives, so they compensate by trying to control the lives of everyone around them.

[TheeBadOne]

El Rojo Damn credible post. :cool:

[Brett Bellmore]

"What started as mainly a states movement became large enough that the Congress decided to make prohibition an amendment rather than just another law. ... They don't have to make laws a Constitutional amendment in order to get things done, that just so happened to be the way the prohibitionists of the late 1910's chose to do it."

And it had nothing to do with the fact that they didn't, constitutionally, have the AUTHORITY to enact that "just another law"? That they'd tried enacting that federal "just another law", and had it struck down by the Supreme court? :rolleyes:

Nobody's disputing that the states had the authority to enact Prohibition. The point was that the federal government didn't, without that constitutional amendment. And by exactly the same reasoning, the federal government today lacks the authority to enact the war on drugs, though the states could, if they chose to.

Except that, of course, today's Supreme court is just barely willing to admit that there are any limits to what the federal government can do, at all.

[TallPine]

[El Rojo] I am not all for letting people ruin their lives at will. :(

[Sargent Bob] I don't know if there is a word for it but, in the end , they're all nothing more than control freaks. :)
Sounds like the shoe fits ...

[cordex]

I am not all for letting people ruin their lives at will.
Very interesting.
And I suppose you get to tell people what is ruining their lives. There was recently a study that claimed that poets tend to live shorter lives due in large part to a tendency towards depression. Should they be forced into another career because poetry will ruin their lives?
Unhealthy foods? Open to all kinds of interpretation.
Driving without seatbelts?
Promiscuous sex? Again, open to all kinds of interpretation.
Hazardous, unnecessary careers? Race car driver, football player, boxer, etc.
Living at the poverty level? How will you make that illegal?
And ... maybe ... just maybe ... alcohol, perhaps?

I guess I don't understand someone who wants to demand that everyone else live for them.
Anyone care to tell me how great it is to be on crack or heroin?
Dunno. Never tried the stuff.
Anyone care to elaborate on how that has a positive physical effect on your body and increases your job performance?
Pretty sure they tear you up something awful. But isn't their job performance an issue between the employer and employee? Where do you come into the equation? Are you taking drugs? (Almost certainly, but no doubt most are legal.) Are your drugs adversely affecting your job performance? Are you employing druggies? Is their work quality unacceptable? If so, fire 'em and be done with it.
If not ... why are you wringing your hands over this?
So now that this person is addicted to drugs, can they keep performing for their family?
Who knows.
Will they have to go on government assistance because they can't hold a job?

Will they resort to theft and robbery to support their habbit? "If we make it legal the price will go down!" Interesting point, but still, where do the positive effects of these drugs kick in?
Theft and robbery are crimes (and validly so!). Punish those.
A drug user stealing to support his drug habit is no more vile than a non-drug dealer stealing to have more stuff.
Do actions, devices or substances have to have a positive effect before they should be legal?

I won't say your arguments are like the gun prohibitionists, but I cannot distinguish them from the arguments of the alcohol prohibitionists.

[El Rojo]

Yeah call me slightly liberal if you want (actually please don't :eek:), but I see no reason to make it legal to throw your life away at other people's expense. I understand Cordex's libertarian view and respect it, but darn it, why should we keep paying for this crap? If drugs are going to screw you up so bad you end up in jail, who has to pay for that cushy existence? We do! Do you guys like sending all your tax dollars to prison? I work there, we spend way too much on the bastards. If the law discourages some people from getting involved with a highly addictive and dangerous substance that serves no productive purpose, I think that is a good thing. We can't treat alcohol and tobacco the same as hard core narcotics. They are not the same. Yes I think alcohol and tobacco serve little purpose too, but that has nothing to do with this argument. You can smoke a cigarrette and still drive a car, operate work machinery, and watch over your kids responsibly. Alcohol obviously effects the system and abuse causes long term damage, but it can also be used responsibly.

And by exactly the same reasoning, the federal government today lacks the authority to enact the war on drugs, though the states could, if they chose to. Not true. The Federal Government gets their authority to exercise this so called "War on Drugs" from the Constitution. Section 8; Clause 3 "Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" and Section 8; Clause 17 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings".

Essentially what that says is the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign nations. So they decide that they don't want to let drugs into the country and that it shouldn't be moved from state to state and that it is illegal on all federal lands. The state's could technically produce it locally and have laws saying they will do what they want. However, the states don't do that and chose to outlaw the stuff too. Now you could make the argument that the states were coerced into going along with the feds and I would back you up on that. Anyway, my point is there are federal and state crimes. You don't automatically get a federal crime unless you do something on, over, or across federal land or state boundries.

Where I am having a hard time formulating my argument is hasn't the supreme court or some other body struck down say the PRK's medical marijuana law? This would be a good time for someone to inform me with sources on what extent the feds actually have taken on the war on drugs. I just re-read the Constitution and it is clear that the feds mainly wanted to have their hands on finance and keeping the peace among the states, but they left most things to the states to decide. Obviously our federal government has ballooned in their time and no longer allows as much local control to the states as was once intended. This unfortunately is something we have to live with and can only make progress against on an individual level by voting and writing to your federal representatives.

I guess it comes down to this. The world is not how it was when the Constitution was written. Back then it would be very easy to let drugs be legal and let people sink or swim. However with FDR we created a huge welfare state and with technology the way it is today, you don't really have to work that hard to stay alive and survive. Therefore, if someone wants to ruin their lives with drugs, they can do so and they can receive government assistance to help them stop or punish them. Say in the 1800s if you did so and you ended up being worthless, maybe your family, friends, or church might help you, but for the most part, if you weren't growing crops or working in a factory, you had no means of income and no means to survive. You would die and that would be that.

Now these same people go on government assistance. They collect my tax dollars and become leeches on the system. They know that if they don't work hard, they can steal from a grocery store, have the government take care of them, they have options. Back then they didn't have many options. Last case scenario they go to a nice comfy prison where they can still get drugs (yes, not a good point for making drugs illegal).

The bad thing is now that the federal government is so big and we have created this welfare state, there really is no way to go back. People keep trading liberty for security and there is no turning back. Yes, in some aspects, I am doing the same thing by saying we shouldn't encourage drug abuse and should make it illegal. Part of my reasoning is because of the societal cost of having to treat and support these addicts that become a strain on society. Were it a sink or swim situation, I might not have this reasoning, I might just let them sink or swim. But they don't sink or swim, they get assistance or they swim. However, the sink or swim rationale is sort of hard for me to justify when I actually care about others and I know firsthand the negative effects these substances have on families and individuals. Why should we want anyone to suffer through these horrible addictions? Isn't that why we outlaw rape and murder? I think it is a far strectch when you say illegal drugs are victimless crimes. Maybe if you are single and you are independent from any other human being and you do drugs and never interact with others during this time.

I ramble on now. I think what it really comes down to is the Federal government is too big and now every thing we want to do has some form of control. I agree about that. The bad thing is there is no way to get rid of that control in a lawful manner. They won't let go. Once they have it they keep it. The more society gets used to the idea of government assistance and control, the more they won't stand up against it because that is the way it has always been. Also what has been lost is regulating only what is strictly detrimental to society and regulating anything that "can" be detrimental to society. Our guns are regulated. I might accept the marijuana issue. Seatbelts, bicycle helmets, building codes. And the only reason we can't say, "let people live and take risks if they want" is because when these people do get hurt, everyone has to pay for it. Why? The government welfare system runs deep. I wonder how much of this was just progression and circumstance and how much was planned. Tin foil hat on now.

[Art Eatman]

Rojo, if drugs were totally uncontrolled and free gratis fer nuttin', it wouldn't affect my own behavior one iota. I'm totally uninterested.

That said, I think the WOD is a giant shuck. It's only a war on the Bill of Rights. The majority of anti-gun BS stems from drug wars which spill over onto honest people, e.g. We budget ever more money, year by year; we put more and more people in jail: But the street price of cocaine is still around $100 a gram, same as 20 and 30 years ago. Seems to me there's a message there.

The way we're "fighting" this war has become ever more Draconian. IMO, the trouble is that the war was lost some 30 years back. I agree with the notion that insanity is repeating some effort while expecting a different result. Duh? What we're now doing is not working. It is not efficacious. So, why keep on with the same old keeping on? It just flatout doesn't make sense.

And the honest citizen taxpayer is the Big Loser, while Big Brother gains ever more power over all of us.

Art

[carpettbaggerr]

El Rojo -
The only problem with your argument is that it cannot possibly become any easier to obtain drugs. Heroin/cocaine/marijuana are freely available for anyone -- without any regulation whatsoever. Prohibition does not work. Did not work with alcohol in the 20's, and it is not working with drugs now. We may have to pay for those who are sinking, but there won't be any more people on assistance if drugs are legalized.

[El Rojo]

I don't agree Carpetbagger. Making something illegal goes a long ways towards restricting its use. For instance, I wouldn't want to try drugs for a couple of reasons, one of which is because they are illegal and I don't want to go to jail for it. How many machine guns do we all own? Yeah maybe one or two spread out amongst all of our members. Would I buy a machine gun if I could? Yeah, why not. Why don't I buy one anyway? It is illegal and not worth me going to prison for. The same reason more people don't use drugs now? Are you telling me if they are legalized you think more people won't use them? No more drug tests at work are going to reduce the number of people using? For some reason I don't think so.

Someone else in an early post made a good point. We outlaw murder, rape, robbery, and all sorts of other crimes, but do those things continue to happen? Yes they do. By some of the logic used here, since people are still murdering and raping, why fight it? People will always do it, so why not make it legal right?

I don't really have time right now, but this is most certainly not a war on drugs. If it were, we would be killing people over it more than what we already are. We would be going to Columbia and hitting the enemy strategically. No, this "war on drugs" is like Vietnam, just plugging holes where we can with no real means of really making a strategic difference by fighting a limited war.

I agree Art, maybe this isn't working exactly as efficiently as it could. However, I think saying some drugs are illegal is a good thing as I have already pointed out. And it isn't about control for me. I want bad drugs to be illegal because they don't have a positive contribution to the citizens of my country. They bring ruin and destruction. It has nothing to do with my controling other people as some others try to point out. If it didn't effect me financially, I guess I could say I could care less if my neighbors wanted to get wasted and ruin their lives. Then that wouldn't make me a very good neighbor though would it? If you know it is bad and you know it is wrong, why not stand up against it?

Ok, I gotta go decorate the Christmas Tree/fire hazard device. The wife beckons! :rolleyes:

[cordex]

I understand Cordex's libertarian view and respect it, but darn it, why should we keep paying for this crap? If drugs are going to screw you up so bad you end up in jail, who has to pay for that cushy existence? We do!
I feel very similarly on the WosD. Why should we keep paying for this crap?
If drugs are illegal, and you throw people in jail for possessing an infinitesimal quantity of a chemical who has to pay for that cushy existence? We do!
And have you looked at the price tag for our fearless drug warriors recently? Good night!

You don't throw people who sell and drink alcohol in jail because they might drink and drive, do you? Why then, should you throw druggies in jail because they might get so messed up that they'd rob someone?

Prior restraint isn't cool, pal.
The bad thing is now that the federal government is so big and we have created this welfare state
Agreed. That is the bad thing.
People keep trading liberty for security and there is no turning back. Yes, in some aspects, I am doing the same thing by saying we shouldn't encourage drug abuse and should make it illegal. Part of my reasoning is because of the societal cost of having to treat and support these addicts that become a strain on society.
Okay, so why stop at a few drugs?
Again, why not ban unhealthy foods, professions or sex? Your arguments apply just as well to those areas as to drugs. Do you pay any less to support a grossly obese man who cannot walk much less work, and suffers from a host of medical conditions than you pay to support the cracked out junkie on welfare?

As with Art, the legality and availablity of drugs does not affect my behavior. They could pass them out willy-nilly and I'd still avoid 'em. Interestingly enough, the laws don't seem to affect the behavior of those who choose to poison themselves either, except to .
Someone else in an early post made a good point. We outlaw murder, rape, robbery, and all sorts of other crimes, but do those things continue to happen? Yes they do. By some of the logic used here, since people are still murdering and raping, why fight it? People will always do it, so why not make it legal right?
And someone else made a good point that murder, rape and robbery are things that directly harm someone else. Drug use is not inherently harmful to anyone but the user, something that is not your business.
And it isn't about control for me. I want bad drugs to be illegal because they don't have a positive contribution to the citizens of my country. They bring ruin and destruction. It has nothing to do with my controling other people as some others try to point out.
Should anything which does not contribute something positive to your society be outlawed? I can think of an awful lot of things that I don't think are particularly positive. I mean, seriously - what positive is added by professional basketball? It often results in rioting and violence, doesn't it?
*runs from the Hoosier lynch mob*
Or is recreation positive, even if it can harm you? *thinks about a buddy who used to box, and another who does full-contact karate*
If it didn't effect me financially, I guess I could say I could care less if my neighbors wanted to get wasted and ruin their lives. Then that wouldn't make me a very good neighbor though would it? If you know it is bad and you know it is wrong, why not stand up against it?
They can get wasted and ruin their lives! They just go buy a few liters of hard alcohol and plaster away. They can down sleeping pills until they pass out.

[El Rojo]

Should anything which does not contribute something positive to your society be outlawed? I can think of an awful lot of things that I don't think are particularly positive. I mean, seriously - what positive is added by professional basketball? It often results in rioting and violence, doesn't it? And here lies the problem. I make a statement and it is changed to an all or nothing stance. Professional basketball? You hardly could have picked a worse example. Professional basketball, even though not either of our favorites I would assume, is a positive activity. Professional basketball generates jobs and revenue. Basketball provides the players with a good dose of physical exercise that provides healthier bodies. Professional basketball provides millions of fans a means of entertainment that has no inherent negative effects. Then just like many of the arguments made here, rather than relying on some solid theories, you make an outlandish statement, "It often results in rioting and violence". It does? Care to back that up with a ratio of rioting and violence to total number of professional basketball games? I think we would find that number extremely small, just like the number of 20 second knock warrants that result in a shooting. Be sure that your evidence takes into account the possible causes of such incidents. Might these rioters possibly be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol when they engage in this unruly behavior? No, I doubt it. :rolleyes: Again, arguments are made on assumptions and generalizations, not substancial evidence.

You know what? What it really comes down to is this. I think it is wrong. I am not going to support drug abuse. Sorry. I think it effects more than just the person using it. I think drug abuse effects the family and friends of an abuser as well as innocent people. I would hate to see my neighbor get hooked on crack and watch his whole life go to crap because of it. I will not support his right to do so and I will not support the industry that would do it by legitimizing it by making drugs legal. I will not just turn my head the other way.

Further, it is a moral issue. Sure some might say you can't legislate morality. So should we allow people to have sex with their kids? Afterall, it is possible for a man to procreate with his daughter or a woman to bear the children of her son. No, we say that is wrong for some reason. Why on earth would we claim such a thing is wrong, after all it is physically possible for it to happen? Why? Because we have a moral code and this country was founded on it. Some things are right and some things are wrong. You bring up examples of over eating. Eating in itself supports life. Its abuse is wrong. Tell me how crack and heroin support life? Firearms can kill, but they can also save lives. Tell me how PCP can save a life?

If you would not touch drugs, if you would not get involved with them if they were legal, why not? What makes you afraid of drugs? What makes you want to avoid them? Think of those reasons and tell me how you plan on supporting your children's drug habbit. Afterall, if it is good for my kids, it should be good for your kids right? You do want my kids to do drugs don't you? Why else would you want to make it legal?

Sure I don't like golf. Sometimes people get struck by lightning playing golf. They assume that risk and I will accept their playing golf and I am willing to pay for it if they get zapped playing golf. People like boxing or karate. Let em box or play karate. It often builds the body and mind and it provides a source of income. When was the last time you saw a rich crack addict in excellent physical condition? No drug abusers are not like any of your examples.

What is the purpose of drug use? Why would you want to smoke some crack? Why shoot some heroin? To preserve liberty? To get in better shape? To nurish your body? The only reason is to escape reality. To obtain an artificial high that doesn't last a real long time. And what is the side effect of this? Negative health results, addiction, poor judgement and motor skills. Is this something you plan on showing your children? Do you plan on showing them the benfits of getting high? Why not? If you wouldn't expose your kids to these substances, why do you advocate exposing my children to it? Why do you advocate exposing my parents? My siblings? By making these substances legal you might as well say, "It is ok. Go ahead and do it. It only effects the individual right?"

And that will be my checker from now on. If I could physically or morally do something or have my children do it without reservation, then it should be ok. I don't like ice skating too much, but I could do it, I wouldn't mind my kids doing it. I don't want to get an ear ring, but I guess it wouldn't kill me or negatively effect my health as long as I maintain it. I guess it is ok. I don't want to get addicted to heroin, but I guess I could do it and I wouldn't mind my children doing it. No, that one doesn't pass the test.

[cordex]

I make a statement and it is changed to an all or nothing stance.
You stated that was the reason you wanted drugs to be illegal was because they didn't make a postive contribution to your country. It was the defining factor, so I figured it could be applied elsewhere. I'm a fan of consistant principles.
I think drug abuse effects the family and friends of an abuser as well as innocent people.
Okay, fine. Let's stick with drugs. Why do you think that alcohol abuse is so much better than drug abuse? Or do you support the illegalization of alcohol too?
I would hate to see my neighbor get hooked on crack and watch his whole life go to crap because of it. I will not support his right to do so and I will not support the industry that would do it by legitimizing it by making drugs legal. I will not just turn my head the other way.
Two things.
1. Do you think so little of your neighbor that he will do anything bad for him if it is legal, but not do it if it is illegal?
2. Is your only contact with your neighbor with the arm of the law? Can you help your neighbor keep from being an alcoholic by any means other than banning alcohol?
If you would not touch drugs, if you would not get involved with them if they were legal, why not? What makes you want to avoid them?
Because I have no interest in damaging myself through their use.
I'm willing to accept the risks of lead poisoning that accompanies my shooting habit, however.
Think of those reasons and tell me how you plan on supporting your children's drug habbit. Afterall, if it is good for my kids, it should be good for your kids right? You do want my kids to do drugs don't you? Why else would you want to make it legal?
Ahh ... I see. You think that because I oppose the government's meddling in a private citizen's affairs, I must support the abuse of drugs.
You're wrong.
I don't want my kids to do drugs. I will teach them about how drugs can harm their bodies and I will enforce my own prohibition on them until they have left my home, and if after that they decide to do drugs anyway, I will do my best to get them to stop, but I will not go running to Mommie.gov and ask her to ban drugs to keep them out of the hands of my kids. My failure as a parent isn't a valid reason to enact a law.
[quote]And that will be my checker from now on. If I could physically or morally do something or have my children do it without reservation, then it should be ok. I don't like ice skating too much, but I could do it, I wouldn't mind my kids doing it. I don't want to get an ear ring, but I guess it wouldn't kill me or negatively effect my health as long as I maintain it. I guess it is ok. I don't want to get addicted to heroin, but I guess I could do it and I wouldn't mind my children doing it. No, that one doesn't pass the test./quote]
No offense, but that is a silly test.
"Sex. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my eight year old doing it?"
"Alcohol. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my twelve year old drinking?"
"Driving. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my six year old doing it?"

Gotta go. Got me an appointment with Bambi and a smokepole. Have a great day.

[El Rojo]

No offense, but that is a silly test.
"Sex. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my eight year old doing it?"
"Alcohol. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my twelve year old drinking?"
"Driving. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my six year old doing it?" I knew that was going to come up. Use your best judgement as a parent.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by cordex:
No offense, but that is a silly test.
"Sex. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my eight year old doing it?"
"Alcohol. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my twelve year old drinking?"
"Driving. Could I do it? Sure. Would I mind my six year old doing it?"

All of these questions you pose regarding minors ARE prohibited by law, precisely because they are deemed to be harmful to the participants and possibly to others.

To be consistant, would you support legalizing these activities?

[cordex]

All of these questions you pose regarding minors ARE prohibited by law, precisely because they are deemed to be harmful to the participants and possibly to others.
El Rojo didn't suggest that drugs be illegal for children. He said that his test for whether something should be legal or not is whether he would do it himself and if he would let his kids do it.
In other words, if he wouldn't let his kids poison themselves with tobacco, smoking should be banned outright.
To be consistant, would you support legalizing these activities?
To be consistant: For consenting adults, yes.

El Rojo said:
Use your best judgement as a parent.
I agree.
I don't agree that the rules I set for my kids should be applied to the country as a whole.

"Sorry, Senator. Staying out past 10:00 on a school night is grounds for arrest."

[El Rojo]

Actually I said "or" not and. Here is my exact quote.
"If I could physically or morally do something or have my children do it without reservation".

I never took an issue against tobacco. I have not taken an issue against alcohol. Those two items can be used responsibly with minimal effects against others. I don't agree with them, but hey I don't see people killing over tobacco or stealing a whole lot to go buy cigarrettes. Sure your life might be shortened by them and it could effect your health, but not nearly to the level of illicet drugs. As you perfectly pointed out, I don't think kids are ready to make the decision to have sex, smoke, or drive at an early age. Therefor I would suggest it be illegal. It seems America agrees with me. You are getting the hang of the model.

"I don't agree that the rules I set for my kids should be applied to the country as a whole." We aren't talking about curfews and dating rules. We are talking about a very addictive substance that retards your physical growth, kills brain cells, and limits your potential. Drug abuse is serious business. That is why in good conscious I can't take such a cavalier attitude toward it like it is a curfew. Your kid might be able to handle the responsibility of hanging out until 11:00 PM vs. my child's 9:00 PM. Which one do you think can handle their heroin addiction more repsonsibly?

This issue is much too complicated to have an all or nothing attitude. You can't just use a blanket to say that all things are wrong or all things are right. You keep trying to force that. I don't think drugs serve a legitimate or positive purpose in society. I think they are highly addictive and their effects are overwhelmingly negative for the users and the people around them. I do not want to see people I care about go down the sinking hole of drug abuse. I believe that making these substances legal gives their use legitimacy and that the good that might come from it would outweigh the bad. There is no right to do drugs guarenteed by the Constitution. Sorry. The government can limit it based upon the will of the people. There is a 2nd Amendment that says you can't limit the minority's right to keep and bear arms.

[carpettbaggerr]

Those two items can be used responsibly with minimal effects against others. I don't agree with them, but hey I don't see people killing over tobacco or stealing a whole lot to go buy cigarrettes.

So no problem with people growing their own marijuana? No killing or stealing involved there. Although you haven't been looking very hard if you don't know organized crime is involved in running cigarettes.

There is no right to do drugs guarenteed by the Constitution. Sorry. The government can limit it based upon the will of the people. There is a 2nd Amendment that says you can't limit the minority's right to keep and bear arms.

No right to TV or movies in the Constitution. No right to books either. Do you think that means they can be banned by the will of the people? What about fatty foods? Shall we ban all-you-can-eat buffets? Require helmets to walk on the street? After all if you fall and hit your head we'll have to pay for you to be hospitalized.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by carpettbaggerr:
No right to TV or movies in the Constitution. No right to books either.

UHHH, actually there is! Remember the First Amendment?

[spartacus2002]

you know, until this comment, I thought your comments were thoughtful. This comment here betrays a significant amount of ignorance

There is no right to do drugs guarenteed by the Constitution. Sorry. The government can limit it based upon the will of the people.

The Constitution does not GRANT or GUARANTEE rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees several rights (free speech, RKBA, freedom from unreasonable search/seizure, right to counsel), but in the context of guarantee of restrictions upon the govt -- and the 9th guarantees the rest of the unenumerated rights.

The Constitution is not the fount of the people's rights. The Constitution spells out the framework and function, and delegated duties, of the Federal government. Our system of law is based on our common-law heritage that predated the Constitution.

[Orthonym]

Crime: Something you do to someone else.

Vice: Something you do to yourself.

[El Rojo]

The Constitution does not GRANT or GUARANTEE rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees several rights (free speech, RKBA, freedom from unreasonable search/seizure, right to counsel), but in the context of guarantee of restrictions upon the govt -- and the 9th guarantees the rest of the unenumerated rights. Spartacus I believe we are getting into semantics here. If I stated the Constitution does not address the right to abuse drugs, I would also include the Bill of Rights. I sort of link them both together.

Yes the people are given the rights not listed in the Constitution by the 9th Amendment, unless the state legislature or the Congress decide otherwise. If the people want to ban drugs, they can go to Congress and do so. True, it might not be the way the Founding Fathers and libertarians don't want things to run, but it is possible and it is set practice. They could even repeal the 2nd Amendment with another Amendment. Nothing is absolute.

True we can make the argument that we have God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those three things were important and thus the Bill of Rights came about. Restrictions on the government to respect its people. However, if people do not exercise their opinions and take action, those things are not guaranteed. Sure we have a 2nd Amendment, but if we let them take away our guns, we let them take away our guns. That is it, it is over.

I think I see that mainly you were getting onto me for lumping the Constitution and Bill of Rights together. That has been noted and I will try not to make that mistake again.

The "war on drugs" is a hard subject. Do I want to support the expanded instrusive powers of the federal and state governments? Do I want to regulate other people's activities. Do I want to spend money on something that could be legalized, regulated, and generate money?

Do I want to legitimize a group of substances that have such negative effects on others they often enslave their victims. Do I want to become an apathetic individual that says if someone wants to completely throw their life and their family's life down the drain at the expense of these drugs that is their right?

And this is not a simple issue, but people try to make it a simple issue. Carpettbaggerr brings up food and walking down the street. Eating food is a very necessary and legitimate means of sustaining life. Everyone eats food, it is pretty much required. Some people abuse food and we sometimes have to pay for the costs of that abuse. The same for the 2nd Amendment. There are millions of positive experiences with firearms. From recreation, hunting, self-defense, and deterance. Just about every counter issue people bring up with me, there is a legitimate use of that substance or object that in my mind makes the sometimes negative effects unfortunate, but necessary.

Can someone make that case for cocaine, heroin, PCP, and all of the other abusive drugs (include marijuana if you want just because I am on the border with that one). Please someone tell me what positive benefits people will get from using these drugs. And please be sure that these positives outweight the negatives. It would also persuade me if you could reason out that the highly addictive nature of these types of drugs can enable a user to keep a good job, be a good father or mother, and not enable the abuse to a "crime" where it effects others, but merely a "vice" that only effects the user. That is really what it comes down to for me, I see not one positive reason to use these drugs other than to gratify your own needs and wants at the expense of your loved ones.

And be reasonable. Sure I could make the argument that firearms are the same way. I get so wrapped up in shooting events, buying guns and reloading supplies, and I really don't share in that with my wife. I do share it with my friends occassionally. But wait! There is that whole self-defense and the defense of my house and immediate area. See that makes firearms not just a vice, but a necessary activity that I beleive is justified to make everyone's life happy.

[Daniel T]

Can someone make that case for cocaine, heroin, PCP, and all of the other abusive drugs (include marijuana if you want just because I am on the border with that one).

Actually, things like crack, heroin, PCP, etc, all of the drugs usually named as the most harmful, probably would not have a market if drugs were made legal. They are extremely cheap and easy to make, so they cost the least, and so are bought the most. If a real drug company starting turning out good-quality cocaine and a decent price, who would buy crack? Cocaine is nowhere nearly as dangerous or physically addictive as crack. Yes, it isn't exactly heathly, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as it's been demonized to be.

As an analogy, zip guns are most common where legal firearms are prohibited. They are popular in places where real firearms are hard to get, mostly because they are cheap and easy to make. How common are zip guns in places like Texas, or any other state that has as good or better gun laws?

[TheeBadOne]

Actually, things like crack, heroin, PCP, etc, all of the drugs usually named as the most harmful, probably would not have a market if drugs were made legal. They are extremely cheap and easy to make, so they cost the least, and so are bought the most. If a real drug company starting turning out good-quality cocaine and a decent price, who would buy crack? Cocaine is nowhere nearly as dangerous or physically addictive as crack. Yes, it isn't exactly heathly, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as it's been demonized to be.
Aye! Where to begin! :rolleyes: Making good high quality cocaine would help? :rolleyes: Duh, why do you think crack is such a big hit. It's a way of concentraiting the cocaine by getting rid of some of the impurities making it stronger! So pure cocaine would somehow be "better"? :banghead: Cocaine, period, is one of the most addictive substances known to man.

[Daniel T]

Aye! Where to begin! Making good high quality cocaine would help? Duh, why do you think crack is such a big hit. It's a way of concentraiting the cocaine by getting rid of some of the impurities making it stronger! So pure cocaine would somehow be "better"? Cocaine, period, is one of the most addictive substances known to man.

Crack is made by cooking baking soda with cocaine, then the resulting "rocks" are smoked. Normal cocaine cannot be smoked because the active ingedient decomposes when burned, but cooking it with the soda fixes this problem. The vast majority of a "rock" is nothing more than baking soda. Crack is popular mostly because it is cheap (mostly baking soda) and the initial "high" is "higher", if much, much, much shorter. The way it is used is what causes different effects on the brain that make it more addictive.

So yes, pure cocacine would be better and less physically addictive. Notice that I never said it was not addictive at all. Also, please note the difference between a physical addiction and a psychological addiction (OCD). Psychological addiction depends solely on the user.

[cordex]

Do I want to become an apathetic individual that says if someone wants to completely throw their life and their family's life down the drain at the expense of these drugs that is their right?
El Rojo,
No one can question your motives. I believe wholeheartedly that your intentions are the best and your desire for the well-being of others is honorable.
By the same token, I know some die-hard anti-gunners and alcohol prohibitionists that feel the same way. We may disagree, but I do not question that your desire of control is not for personal gain but out of true desire for others to live well.

I don't disagree with your goals, I simply disagree with your methodology from ideological as well as practical perspectives. Today, people who want to poison themselves do so regardless of law, or they follow law and slowly kill themselves with a legal chemical. When they are caught abusing an illegal chemical, they are imprisoned. I don't see this as really helping anyone.

Just about every counter issue people bring up with me, there is a legitimate use of that substance or object that in my mind makes the sometimes negative effects unfortunate, but necessary.

Can someone make that case for cocaine, heroin, PCP, and all of the other abusive drugs (include marijuana if you want just because I am on the border with that one).
Cocaine hydrochloride works well as a topical anaesthetic.

Heroin (diamorphine) is a synthetic opiate derived from morphine, a commonly used painkiller. Both are closely related to Codeine - a weaker opiate that is also commonly prescribed.

PCP or phencyclidine is an animal tranquilizer.

Most illegal drugs have a good, worthwhile use that is not more harmful than prescription medications. It is abuse that causes damage.

I can't think of a beneficial use of tobacco, though. Despite all its dangers. Maybe we should outlaw that.

[Beren]

Aside from my philosophical disagreements with the War on Some Drugs (it is not my place to use force to prevent another consenting, rational adult from engaging in a vice), what it comes down to is a case of the cure being far worse than the disease.

We've managed to spend billions of dollars, trample on our civil liberties, and pump up violent crime while accomplishing...what? All the War on Some Drugs has accomplished is to increase violent crime, fund criminal syndicates, and make drugs look "risky and cool" to kids. We have created a "zero tolerance" mindset which prompts schools to expel students if they're caught with so much as a Tylenol caplet!

[Derek Zeanah]

I can't think of a beneficial use of tobacco, thoughSchizophrenics (sp?) are encouraged to smoke -- they can self-medicate somewhat using tobacco.

[Art Eatman]

There was some research in the 1950s/1960s which concluded that there is a direct connection between nicotine and increased brain activity. (Better neuron connections? Dunno.) I do know that when I do simple physical things such as run my backhoe or road grader or hunt, I have little urge to smoke. When I get into conversations with bright people and ideas are flowing, I smoke much more.

As for heroin, it's the only pain-killing alternative to cutting the spinal cord, to alleviate pain during the final stages of some cancers.

Art

[TallPine]

Schizophrenics (sp?) are encouraged to smoke -- they can self-medicate somewhat using tobacco.
So ... do they smoke two or more cigarettes at once .....?

:D

[cordex]

Schizophrenics (sp?) are encouraged to smoke -- they can self-medicate somewhat using tobacco.
Thanks Derek. I didn't know that. Is it the act of smoking (repeating a familiar action) that helps or does tobacco itself actually help treat the disorder?
There was some research in the 1950s/1960s which concluded that there is a direct connection between nicotine and increased brain activity.
*breaks out the meerschaum and a packet of burley*

[carpettbaggerr]

And this is not a simple issue, but people try to make it a simple issue.

Sure it is. I am not a slave. No one has the right to tell me what to do for my own good. Neither you nor society should be able to telll me what is my best interest, whether it be what I eat, the car I drive, or what I wear.

I see not one positive reason to use these drugs other than to gratify your own needs and wants at the expense of your loved ones.

So what? As I said, Americans are free people. If someone wants to gratify their own needs, it should be none of your business. And none of societies business. At whose expense? That is between the individual and their loved ones if they have any.

Please someone tell me what positive benefits people will get from using these drugs.

I assume they like the way they feel when they take them. That they want to take them is enough. They aren't slaves, no one owns them, and anything they want to do which does not hurt anyone else is solely their business.

[El Rojo]

They aren't slaves, no one owns them, and anything they want to do which does not hurt anyone else is solely their business. Maybe I am wrong, but I keep pointing out that I believe that drug abuse is not a victimless crime. If you are too busy spending your time and energy getting high, how do you support your family. What say does a 10 year old have in their parent's abuse of drugs? When those kids are taken from the home and placed into the system that affects us all. True back in the day family would take over that responsibility and that was a good thing, but not anymore. I just don't view drug abuse as a victimless crime.

Ok, we have doctors prescribe drugs to alleviate pain, sure I am all for that. If they think a patient needs heroin to reduce the pain, sure why not. Doctor's can for the most part be pretty good about issuing prescriptions with the intent not to start an addiction. If someone is on their last breath and doesn't have a hope and they want to go out a zombie, I think that might be warranted.

When they are caught abusing an illegal chemical, they are imprisoned. I don't see this as really helping anyone. As much as I think drugs should be illegal, I might be more liberal on my views of incarceration due to my working in a federal prison where there are a substantial number of drug offenders. First, there are treatment programs and inmates can receive up to a year off their sentence for participating. Might many of them participate just to get a year off, you bet. However, there is something. Second, I agree that spending 10 years in a federal prison for having some crack on you and running from the cops seems a bit severe to me. Especially if you consider that someone who illegally imports prostitutes into the country by force and rapes them can get the same time. I would be a firm advocate of making prison timer served harder with less niceties and shortening sentences. Hell, the prison I work at is pretty much easy street. If you cut those sentences in half or even more and made prison a really bad place to be rather than just a bad place to be, I think it would have the same deterrent factor at a reduced cost. Third, making drugs illegal is a deterrent in itself. Yes, getting caught and getting sent to prison might not cure the offender; however, how many people might be discouraged from trying drugs because it is against the law vs. the number of people who might try drugs and get hooked because they are legal? I think this is a very interesting point. Maybe there is some research out there on this or maybe some correlations can be drawn from the information war on tobacco. After all, the federal and state governments are pulling a no holds barred campaign against smoking. I wonder how well that is working. Could the same thing go for legalized drugs? As I have said before, just because people are still doing drugs doesn't mean that the law is not working. After all, we still have murders and we still have rapes and those two activities have been illegal for a long time.

I am by no means a bleeding heart, but sticking some guy in prison for 10 years of his most productive life and then releasing him doesn't seem to give him many options. It just seems to me to make him pretty likely to be back. Just because I think drugs should be illegal, doesn't mean you can't lighten up the sentence. Hell, make it like getting a ticket for speeding if you want. The main idea for me is a deterrent. No it is not perfect, but no deterrent really is.

[spartacus2002]

You confuse 3 concepts: drug use, drug abuse, and drug trade violence.

Not all drug use is drug abuse.

The vast majority of drug trade violence would end if the stuff were legalized, because legitimate companies with access to police protection and court enforcement of property rights and contractual obligations would sell the stuff.

Ever wonder why, since the end of Prohibition, you never see turf battles between Miller Brewing Co. and Anheuser-Busch?

Ever wonder why tobacco-selling stores don't want to sell to minors? Because they will lose their license. Where are the restrictions for drug dealers today?

[TallPine]

I keep pointing out that I believe that drug abuse is not a victimless crime
That's fine, believe whatever you want - just don't try to cram your beliefs down everyone else's throats, using the laws of society as a battering ram.

[Art Eatman]

I'm as bad as anybody at THR about thread drift. But either let's go back to the original topic, or start a new thread about how the WOD is not done right, or is a war on civil rights, or is a war on gun ownership--or let's let me close this sucker.

:), Art

[TallPine]

The WOD is a war on civil rights as evidenced in part by the SC decision to allow police to bust down a door 15-20 seconds after knocking.

That's my thesis, and I'm sticking to it. :neener:


However, there are a few that think that is just fine and dandy, so I'm not sure there is any point to continue ....

Use your best judgement, Art :)

[El Rojo]

That's fine, believe whatever you want - just don't try to cram your beliefs down everyone else's throats, using the laws of society as a battering ram. I never understood this argument. The entire point of legislation is attempting to get what you feel is correct to be the policy. Using the above argument, an anti-gun person could say the same thing. "Believe what you want, but don't try and force it upon everyone else by having free access to machine guns and endangering the lives of everyone else." Yeah that sounds rediculous right? You can't just say believe what you want, but do nothing about it. If I believe that drug abuse is wrong and that I should not sit back and watch others die, what kind of character would I have if I do exactly what you ask? What kind of character would you have if you sat back and watched me erode your civil rights? Yes, the original idea behind our way of government was to sit back and let people pretty much have their say on what they think is right and wrong. Now that we have the welfare state and instant communication, we can't really do that anymore. Now it is a battle in Congress. One side against the other. Each side convinced that they are correct and that they know the best way things should run. I am not cramming my beliefs down anyone's throats. You have a choice to listen and decide. If you don't feel the same way I do, then vote against me. Organize people and have them vote against me. If I believe drugs are wrong and I don't want to see them legitimized in society, I don't have the option of "just letting it be". My fundamental belief is that I don't want them to be legal. And your argument is, "Go ahead and believe that drugs are wrong and should be illegal, but make them legal." It makes no sense.

Back to topic. The Bill of Rights protects against unreasonable search and seizure. After receiving a proper warrant from a judge (checks and balances) if an agency has reasonable cause that there is illegal activity going on in the house at the time of the warrant being served, they can legally expidite entry into the house in order to collect evidence. Any damage to the door of the house should be paid for out of the department's drug seizure budget regardless of what is found in the house because you are innocent until proven guilty. If judges or law enforcement agencies do not go through the proper procedure for obtaining a warrant in the first place, those people should be disciplined for abuse of power and hopefully fired. Just because a few gun dealers make bad sales, doesn't mean you should punish the rest. Punish those who break the law and give the rest of the honorable professionals the credit they deserve.

[TallPine]

The entire point of legislation is attempting to get what you feel is correct to be the policy.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

[Orthonym]

Democracy is voting to kill Socrates because he told the silly boneheads exactly what he thought about them.

[Justin Moore]

The drug war is nothing more than a nationwide government jobs program.

The drug warriors are indeed 'addicted' to the WoSD. Can anyone say civil asset forfiture? ;)

Does anyone know: are there anymore of those old Titan III missle silo's still up for sale? I've read that people have turned them into rather nice domiciles. I'd like to see somebody in their nice shiny black uniform try to kick THAT door in. :)

Between this, and the Campaign Finance Incumbent Protection Alien Sedition act decision, I just don't know what to think anymore.