Another Victim of the War on Drugs

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you live a criminal lifestyle or hang out with those that do, it's bound to catch up with you sooner or later...

I wonder how many people really equate the casual pot smoker with a "criminal lifestyle".

Does it also apply to jaywalkers, litterers, and people who smoke closer than 20 feet to the entrance? I mean, a fellow I hang out with ran a stop sign on his bicycle yesterday. Hopefully when that "catches up with me" I won't be killed for it.
 
It certainly makes Ms. Hoffman look like a foolish, naïve inexperienced dolt.

The best thing we can say about her is that there is a person who should have kept her nose clean and avoided putting herself at risk to be ensnared in the criminal justice system.

Ah well, that's the way the cookie crumbles in the real world despite the many hours folks spend online gazing at screens and tapping keys.
 
It's not casual users who become CIs. It's people who are far deeper involved then that and have a lot to use. If she was willing to roll over and snitch to get out of a misdemeanor possession charge, then she was doubly stupid. But 22 years on the front lines of the so called drug war leads me to believe that she was in far deeper then most of you think.

The woman decided of her own free will to try to work off her charges. No one held a gun to her her head or forced her to. Plenty of people in her position just say no and take the rap. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The woman is only a victim of the poor choices she made in life, nothing more.

She had to know that what she was doing was dangerous, yet she did it anyway for who knows what reason. There are two people to blame here, the woman herself for making poor choices and the person who shot her. No one else is at fault.

Jeff
 
Well, the black market economy is a dangerous one. Regardless of what the substance or location involved.

Personally, I'd rather see our police concentrating on violence and property crimes, rather than spending the "war on drugs" budget on what should be a taxed and regulated area.

After all, if guns became illegal on January 21st, criminals would still get them. As it is, they are regulated in such a fashion as to make acquisition by felons somewhat difficult, but not to the point where a back market on a large scale would actually be sufficiently profitable.

However, we've created that system with our current drug laws. And if we go back to the 1930s on them (notice a parallel?), we're going to have a LOT of infrastructure suddenly wondering what to do...
 
At least when they outlawed alcohol it took a Constitutional Amendment. the War on Drugs took a few acts of congress and some executive orders. Can we at least pretend that the constitution still trumps "good ideas"?
 
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The woman is only a victim of the poor choices she made in life, nothing more.

I assume this would also apply to DC residents who possessed unregistered pistols two months ago as well? And if one of them was murdered in some botched police sting trying to buy their way out of a charge (which was blatantly unconstitutional to begin with) it would just be "too bad, shouldn't get a gun if you don't want to get murdered"?
 
But 22 years on the front lines of the so called drug war leads me to believe...

The culture of victimization sure comes out when it fits someone's political agenda....


Does keeping a job for 22 years count as a political agenda?;)

Thats part of the problem I see with the whole "war on drugs". The government has used it as a multi-bilion dollar public works project...that has little or nothing to show for all that money spent. Police departments get federal aid, bigger budgets, and the benefit of civil forfeiture. A lot of government jobs have been created (at taxpayer expense) by the war on drugs which wouldn't otherwise be there. And the fun doesn't end there - then the taxpayer gets saddled with the expense of putting non-violent drug offenders in prison. A lot of people owe their government jobs to the "war on drugs", so there is a financial incentive for many to support it. But heck, at least we can sit back and have a beer and a cigarette while cheering the government on for getting those dirty druggies, right?
 
I assume this would also apply to DC residents who possessed unregistered pistols two months ago as well?

You assume correctly. The law is the law until a court declares it unconstitutional. If you don't have the guts to stand on your principles and take the punishment if you violate it, then you shouldn't violate it.

Some people here need to go back to freshman civics or senior government and learn some basic lessons on how our system works. Basically it's like this. We elect representatives who write and pass bills. The executive we elect either signs the bill into law or vetoes it. If one thinks the law is unconstitutional, one acquires standing (either by being arrested for a criminal violation of the law or by suing if the law has harmed you) then the courts (who are either elected in some states or appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature in others and in the federal system) review it. Then and only if the courts say so is it unconstitutional. That my friend is how it works. The DC gun ban was constitutional for the 30 some years it stood, no matter what you, me or anyone else thought of it.

We have a system. We do not have 300+ million supreme court justices. You and I do not get to say what laws are constitutional which ones aren't. That is the job of the court. So until a court rules it unconstitutional it is, in fact constitutional. Like it or not, that is how things work in this country and if you feel a law is unconstitutional, but the court hasn't yet ruled it as such, then you need to be man enough to take the punishment without whining if you are caught violating it.

Thats part of the problem I see with the whole "war on drugs". The government has used it as a multi-bilion dollar public works project...that has little or nothing to show for all that money spent. Police department get federal aid, bigger budgets, and the benefit of civil forfeiture. A lot of government jobs have been created (at taxpayer expense) by the war on drugs which wouldn't otherwise be there. And the fun doesn't end there - then the taxpayer gets saddled with the expense of putting non-violent drug offenders in prison. But heck, at least we can sit back and have a beer and a cigarette while cheering the government on for getting those dirty druggies, right?

If it were up to me, I'd declare victory in the war on drugs today and end it, legalize everything and tax it. You can never stop a market for a substance there is a demand for. But just try to get public sentiment built up for that. Mr. and Mrs. America would just as soon sell off more of their rights in order to keep the guy down the street from having a joint after work.

But that is straying from the topic which is, who is responsible for the woman's death. No one but the woman and the person that shot her. She knew what she was doing was illegal and chose to anyway. Then she chose to rat out her friends to make things go easy on herself after she was caught..and obviously the friends didn't take well to that idea.

Well, it's a tough world out there and when you play with fire, don't be surprised when you get burned. Too many people here are blinded by their own dislike of the drug laws to see the reality of the situation she put herself in.

There are plenty of good arguments for ending the drug war. But this isn't one of them. The fact that too many criminals are dying in the drug war isn't a reason. The fact that too many people are willing to surrender their rights is a good reason.

Jeff
 
The law is the law until a court declares it unconstitutional. If you don't have the guts to stand on your principles and take the punishment if you violate it, then you shouldn't violate it.

Agreed. But (and you knew there would be a but :) ), there is a big difference between legal and moral. Legally, these cops are wholly in the clear (based on what is in the article). Morally, I think they are despicable. Right up there with people who get tired of a pet dog and dump it in the forest to starve to death. This woman wasn't ratting on friends (she refused to do that, according to the article). She probably got her weed from a friend, not some shady guy in a dark alley (at least, that's how my friends who smoke get theirs - I've had the privilege of seeing some gorgeous growing operations). My suspicion is that these cops first browbeat her into cooperating by threating the most dire consequences, and then threw here totally unprepared into a very dangerous situation promising that they would be there, watch her back, etc.

Then they just abandoned her to die.

Did they pull the trigger? No. Are they criminally liable for anything? No. Do they bear some moral responsibility for what happened? Absolutely. Anyone who would deliberately place an unprepared and desperate human being in potentially lethal danger and then fail to at least TRY to protect them is slime.
 
The DC gun ban was constitutional for the 30 some years it stood, no matter what you, me or anyone else thought of it.

Well I disagree - even if that is the way it works out in practice.

If the law is un-constitutional now, then it was un-constitutional the very first day that it was enacted. It just took the courts that long to get around to addressing the issue.

Of course that doesn't help those who fell victim to the law during those three decades. :( Though those convictions should all be overturned and the records expunged.
 
These cops have been watching to many movies... This whole thing was a joke.

Well I disagree - even if that is the way it works out in practice.

If the law is un-constitutional now, then it was un-constitutional the very first day that it was enacted. It just took the courts that long to get around to addressing the issue.

That is true +1
 
"Why where the police sending an armed, untrained civilian in to buy drugs? The same thing could have happened if they where sending her in to buy stolen copper pipe."

cause she was trying to avoid going to prison after getting caught twice once while on parole

she was 23 aqnd knows the rules of the game. tough game tough rules
 
If the law is un-constitutional now, then it was un-constitutional the very first day that it was enacted. It just took the courts that long to get around to addressing the issue.
Too true, but you won't get many in the "justice" system to agree. It might cut into their budget.
 
" assume this would also apply to DC residents who possessed unregistered pistols two months ago as well? And if one of them was murdered in some botched police sting trying to buy their way out of a charge (which was blatantly unconstitutional to begin with) it would just be "too bad, shouldn't get a gun if you don't want to get murdered"?"

in the real world in dc unless you pulled the trigger on that gun you could plead your way out assuming it wasn't no papered for expediency.
 
They took this poor girl who had the integrity to not rat on her friends (


in your world working undercover isn't ratting ? wemove in different circles.and curious what makes youthinkshe hadn't already given up her friends? all the guys i knew that chose to do deals toget off volunteered.
 
Jeff White said:
So until a court rules it unconstitutional it is, in fact constitutional.

How so? Why should a law be presumed to be "factually constitutional" if it hasn't be declared so by the Courts?

Then she chose to rat out her friends to make things go easy on herself after she was caught..and obviously the friends didn't take well to that idea.

Unless you know something we don't, this is patently false. At least, according to her friends, who said, "she refused to inform on friends who smoked grass."

Cassandra said:
in your world working undercover isn't ratting ? wemove in different circles.and curious what makes youthinkshe hadn't already given up her friends?

Ratting on your friends for smoking weed and working undercover to bust a stranger by buying a gun from them are not the same thing, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I don't even know if doing undercover work against someone you don't even know can even be considered ratting.


And what makes me think she didn't already give up her friends? Well, the fact that her friends, who would presumably be in jail or on trial right now if they were already given up, said, "she refused to inform on friends who smoked grass," is a big reason for me to think that...
 
Linking guns/gun ownership to drugs is a smooth way to kill two birds with one stone. A particular right makes LE agencies uncomfortable?... say it has something to do with drugs and voila! you have an excuse to disregard it and wage "War" on it too.

I really don't know why people are shocked by this story. I mean the War on Drugs is a war being waged against the American people. It's all about Government control over their own population: a civil war of sorts. American citizens are deprived of their lives, liberties and properties while foreign "businessmen" grow rich.

It's hard to put your boot on a free man's neck, but label him a criminal and you own him. So, it's not only about budgets and jobs, but systematic encroachment of Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights, aimed at perpetuating power and control of Governmental institutions over otherwise "innocent" and free citizens.

It is so sad that we have to repeat the same mistakes we made less than a century ago, but laws are laws and the only way to straighten out the crooked ones is by voicing, voting and educating your fellow citizens so that the idiotic law makers eventually get thrown out along with their idiotic laws.
 
It's not casual users who become CIs. It's people who are far deeper involved then that and have a lot to use. If she was willing to roll over and snitch to get out of a misdemeanor possession charge, then she was doubly stupid

Well, Police can be intimidating to some and can scare a noob into narcing. I believe that does happen (seen it). However, you are spot on with the "doubly stupid" comment. It amazes me how people wont just take the slap on the wrist and be on their merry way. It was freaking weed, who cares? When I got popped and the detective was grilling me, first thing I thought of was "Hmmm...should I risk my life on the streets wearing a wire or get Non-Reporting Probation and a fine?" The choice was obvious. Take the damn fine.

Now, about the incompetent police. I've seen people go CI. Noone talks to them anymore and their life is over (socially). If they won't/can't produce evidence on somone, the police put pressure on 'em and start to say things like "You better come up with something or we're puttin' you in the slammer". This appears to be the case here so she "volunteered" for their case they were working on. However, They should have been fully aware of her college student mentality and NEVER allowed her to be involved in a gun sting. Only the hardest mofo's try to make profit on selling illegal guns. Penalties are too severe for most people to consider as a viable source of income. I've known coke dealer's that would never touch a hot piece, let alone try to sell one.
 
How so? Why should a law be presumed to be "factually constitutional" if it hasn't be declared so by the Courts?

Because there is no provision in the constitution for immediate judicial review of everything signed into law. It is presumed to be constitutional until a court rules otherwise. That is the way the system works. Sometimes as in the DC gun ban, it sucks..but that's the way it is and no amount of whining, and crying about it on the internet is going to change it. Want it changed? Elect someone who will work to change it to a system you like better.

Ratting on your friends for smoking weed and working undercover to bust a stranger by buying a gun from them are not the same thing, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I don't even know if doing undercover work against someone you don't even know can even be considered ratting.

What makes you think she didn't know the seller? You can't just introduce anyone into these situations. Everyone has to know someone, introductions are made...if they could have just sent anyone to buy that gun, they wouldn't have needed her, they could have done it themselves.

I've read the article twice and I can't find the part where she didn't rat out her friends. Maybe it's in this story:

Grand Jury To Probe Controversial Death of Police Informant
Rachel Hoffman Was Killed While Operating as an Informant During Sting Operation in Florida
By JUSTIN ROOD
June 11, 2008

A grand jury is being convened that will investigate the controversial death of a 23-year-old Florida woman who was killed while acting as a confidential police informant in a sting operation last month.

Lawyers for the state and for the two men facing possible murder charges will be allowed to submit questions for potential jurors to the judge, but will not get to question them directly before they are sworn in Wednesday.

The panel is expected to look into the case of Rachel Hoffman, whom Tallahassee city police recruited to work as a confidential informant in April after raiding her house and reportedly finding marijuana and ecstasy.

The police have said they offered Hoffman a deal: if she worked as a confidential informant, the state attorney would "decide how to balance your assistance with your crime."

But State Attorney Willie Meggs has said his office was not informed of the deal, and it was inappropriate for police to offer such an arrangement without a prosecuting attorney involved.

Lance Block, an attorney hired by Hoffman's father after his daughter's death, said flatly he doesn't believe the deal went down the way the police have described. According to friends of Hoffman's in whom she confided, Block said, police told her she faced as much as four years in prison if she did not accept the offer.

"They told her 'it will all go away,' if you help us get some bad guys off the street," Block said.

The Tallahassee police did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.

Drug court officials have criticized the police's use of Hoffman as an informant. At the time they searched her house, Hoffman was in a court-ordered drug treatment program after police found 26 grams of marijuana in her car.

"It is my strong preference that the people who are in drug court not be around this kind of thing," state prosecutor Owen McCaul told the Tallahassee Democrat. And a local public defender told the paper there was an "informal practice" that people in drug court don't act as informants, "the thinking being that someone in drug court is trying to get away from drug activity and drug use."

Hoffman was never booked into jail after the raid on her apartment. She began to work with a Tallahassee police investigator, and police have said she offered two men, Andrea Green and Deneilo Bradshaw, as possible arrest targets.

Attorney Block said Rachel had no prior relationship with the men, as he believes the police have suggested, but learned of them through an intermediary, who told her about them while she was assisting the police.

Police have confirmed they gave Hoffman $13,000 in cash and set her up to buy 1,500 hits of ecstasy, cocaine and a gun from Green and Bradshaw. A police spokesman has said he was not sure why a gun was involved.

The deal was set to occur on May 7 at 7 p.m. in an area chosen by police. But the alleged dealers changed the location twice, according to police. Police told Hoffman the first change was safe, but when Hoffman called police to tell them the two men had chosen a new location, her liaison reportedly told her not to follow them.

Hoffman did not respond. The police say Hoffman ended the call, but her family and friends dispute that, according to Block. The semi-rural area in which she was driving is known to have spotty cellular coverage, the lawyer said. Around the same time the call ended, the wireless listening device Hoffman had on her stopped working, according to a police report.

When police eventually arrived at the second meeting site, they found one of her flip-flops, a spent bullet round and skid marks, according to the police report. They did not find Hoffman, her car, the two men or the $13,000 cash.

Police eventually arrested Green and Bradshaw, who reportedly led them to Hoffman's body. The two have been charged with armed robbery – a kidnapping charge brought against them has been dropped. The men have pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors before the grand jury are expected to pursue first-degree murder charges against the two.

"Rachel made some mistakes, but she is the victim," a police spokesman told ABC News two weeks ago. "What killed her is Green, Bradshaw and drugs. That's what killed Rachel."

Attorney Block disagreed. "It was a bad plan" the police had drawn up, he said, with Rachel in the middle. "The execution was even worse."

Nope, not in that story, however that story tells us that she was in drug court and instead of staying clean was still involved in the lifestyle. If the police raided her apartment and caught her dirty, where did they get the information to apply for the warrant? Seems to me that someone ratted poor Rachel out and the police showed up when she was holding. 26 grams isn't a felony amount in Illinois, I don't know what it is under Florida law....which brings up the question; "What was she convicted of and trying to work off in drug court?" Seems to me like she was getting her chance to go straight and decided she'd rather live like she had been living, but the prospect of going to prison on the original charge wasn't too appealing.

Hmmm more info here:

Fla. Cops Under Fire After Informant's Murder
Young Woman Who Agreed to Help Police in Leniency Deal Killed When Stakeout Sours
By DAVID SCHOETZ
May 13, 2008

Tallahassee police officials are on the defensive after the killing of a young Florida woman who was serving as a confidential narcotics and weapons informant in a sting operation that ended with her death.
A woman is killed after agreeing to work with Florida police as an informant.

The body of Rachel Morningstar Hoffman, 23, was found Friday in rural Taylor County, southeast of Tallahassee, after a two-day search that began when she decided to meet Deneilo Bradshaw, 23, and Andrea Green, 25, at a location that was not the agreed-upon spot for a staked-out drug and weapons buy.

Authorities were planning to arrest Bradshaw and Green after the pair unloaded 1,500 pills of ecstasy, crack cocaine and a gun to Hoffman, who agreed to work undercover for police in exchange for possible leniency in an April drug charge that came one year after she was involved in a marijuana bust.

Instead, Hoffman left the public park where the deal was supposed to occur and met Bradshaw and Green somewhere else, a choice that Tallahassee police spokesman David McCranie said made her vulnerable to attack.

"Safety is paramount," McCranie told ABC News. "The investigator said 'Don't do it.' We call these things off all the time. But Rachel went ahead and met Green and Bradshaw and that ultimately lead to her murder."

Tallahassee police were joined by the Florida State Department of Law Enforcement and sheriff's offices in four counties. They recovered her car about 30 miles south of Tallahassee and then, with tips from the community, tracked down Bradshaw and Green near Orlando.

The two were arrested without incident and charged with kidnapping and armed robbery. After interviews with investigators from Tallahassee, the pair reportedly led authorities to Hoffman's body. They remain behind bars at the Leon County Jail and are expected to face additional murder charges in Hoffman's death.

McCranie declined to say exactly when and how Hoffman was killed, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

Hoffman, meanwhile, was buried this afternoon after a funeral service at a synagogue. In a family statement released to the media, she was described as a recent college graduate from Florida State University who planned to attend culinary school and lived her life by the words of the Beatles' song "All You Need Is Love."

But it has been descriptions of Hoffman by Tallahassee police, as well as a reluctance to answer certain questions, that have left her family heartbroken and have riled defense attorney Johnny Devine.

"We've been asking questions since the get-go as to what happened that night and the Tallahassee Police Department is trying to point the arrow in every other direction," he said. "They took a defensive step from the start."

Authorities began the process Friday of explaining how Hoffman became a police informant, a relationship initiated when police executed a search warrant at her apartment April 17 and recovered more than 200 grams of marijuana as well as ecstasy.

Hoffman was already part of a drug court program after a 2007 traffic stop in which police found enough marijuana to arrest her.

As police wrote up the probable cause affidavit, McCranie said, an officer offered Hoffman, whom he described as "very bright" and "very talented," a chance to potentially reduce the punishment for the new drug case against her by acting as an informant.

It's a deal, McCranie said, that's offered to "countless" drug defendants. "A lot of people say 'no,'" he added.

Hoffman took the deal, however, which McCranie said did not guarantee that the charges would be dropped against her. "We're not saying we're dropping the charges," he said. "Whatever you can provide, the state attorney will decide how to balance your assistance with your crime."

Hoffman was never booked into jail after the raid on her apartment. She began to work with a Tallahassee police investigator and reportedly offered Green and Bradshaw as possible arrest targets.

McCranie said that police did not know the two men. Police set up a meeting at a park May 7 at 7 p.m. and set up what they considered a safe and secure area to watch the deal unfold. Hoffman's police liaison, however, got a call from the informant who said that the location of the drug and gun deal was moving, per the sellers' request.

He instructed her not to go, McCranie said, but she did not listen.

McCranie said he was not sure why a gun was involved in the deal. He also said that Hoffman, as a confidential informant, had received some instructions, which he declined to describe, but not necessarily training.

"We're asking her to do what she already does," he said. "She's involved in the drug trade. She's already familiar with how to act in these cases."

In addition to the 2007 drug charge, authorities also released information about an underage drinking charge Hoffman faced in 2003, as well as multiple instances in which she was targeted by thieves -- crimes he said are often related to drugs.

"They're basically pointing the finger at Rachel," said Devine, who served as Hoffman's attorney after the 2007 bust, in an interview with ABC News. "What does her underage drinking charge have anything to do with what happened to her?"

Hoffman wanted to know why, as her attorney, he did not know about this offer from police -- something McCranie said was not uncommon.

"They're asking her to do something that would put her in a life or death situation," Devine said. "I have never had any time where the police department has not called me to tell me this is what's happening."

Further, Devine said, Hoffman did not have any previous experience with firearms, but authorities knew from the terms of the deal that she would be confronted by a pair of men -- one of whom had a violent criminal past -- who were carrying at least one gun.

"She had never worked as an undercover agent," he said. "She had no experience or training in this matter."

Finally, Hoffman challenged police reluctance to at least share with her family members some details from the murder scene to allow them to grieve.

"They are left to speculate and guess about the cause of her death," he said. "Was she tortured? Was she beaten?"

While the police continue to defend the decisions that drew Hoffman into her role as an informant, even William "Willie" Meggs, the state's attorney in Tallahassee who will ultimately prosecute Green and Bradshaw, said that his office should have known about the April raid at Hoffman's apartment and her subsequent deal with authorities.

"We would have liked to have known and we did not," Meggs told ABC News, stressing that as a participant in the drug court, Hoffman already had a relationship with a case worker in the program and should not have any kind of drug interaction involving police without his office knowing.

Sandi Copes, a spokesman for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, confirmed to ABC News that his office will conduct an independent review of "internal policies and procedures" used by the Tallahassee police involving informants.

McCranie, who repeatedly said that Hoffman is the victim of a murder, said that when the investigation is complete, two killers will be charged with murder and the public will see that the Tallahassee Police Department did its job.

"Rachel made some mistakes, but she is the victim," he said. "What killed her is Green, Bradshaw and drugs. That's what killed Rachel."

Ok, from all three articles we can put together this much:

2007 she's caught with 26 grams in her car. She gets into drug court where if she successfully completes the program, it all goes away, she graduates from the program and has a clean record. But while in the program she stays in the lifestyle and on April 17, 2008 the police serve a search warrant on her home and recover 200 grams of marijuana and ecstasy.....So who was she dealing to who ratted her out? The info for the warrant had to come from somewhere. So now she's looking at facing the consequences of the 26 gram bust and the 200 grams and the ecstacy.

And now daddy in his grief wants to sue the deepest pockets, the Tallahassee Police Department...why his little drug dealing daughter had no responsibility for what happened to her. She was victimized by the mean old policemen:barf:

Sorry dad, wake up and smell the coffee! Your sweet little daughter who only wanted to live out her life to the lyrics of a Beatles song :rolleyes: was a drug dealer, got caught up in a deal that went bad and now she's dead.... I think you'd better learn to accept the hard fact that your sweet little daughter is the victim of the choices she made.

Jeff
 
Bad things happen when you do --DOPE!
I have worked with dopers Its No fun as soon as they findout you dont -TOK UP= they mess with you and cause you problems --!
Drug shootings are Used extensivly by antis as a reason we need more Gun laws!
 
Remember the good old days when laws were supposed to be just and serve some public good as opposed to some arbitrary rules that you could convince enough legislators was in their self interest?

Yeah, me neither.

Ah well, she ingested a substance that the state told her she shouldn't so death was the appropriate punishment. Good riddance. S'the law, and she broke it. I for one am breathless with anticipation over one day having firing squads for people that eat trans fats. Perhaps public beheadings for smuggling unpasteurized milk across state lines. What I do find curious is how the police need body armor, automatic weapons, APCs, helicopters and overwhelming force in order to assure their safety, but the 23 yo CI/red shirt only needed an intermittently functional radio.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
 
"Ah well, she ingested a substance that the state told her she shouldn't so death was the appropriate punishment
"

she sold the substance while on parole and some of the other "victimless criminals" killed her



'
 
I wonder how many people really equate the casual pot smoker with a "criminal lifestyle".
You know, it amazes me to find out just how many "casual pot smokers" there are around. Our culture really has deteriorated that far. There are apparantly quite a few potheads on THR as well.

Normally I don't respond to stuff like this, and I'm not really going to comment on the war on drugs in general, but I'll never be able to understand why seemingly intelligent people will do such stupid things like smoke pot or even just get drunk every night. Are their lives actually that meaningless that they do these self-destructive things because it feels good, not caring that they are killing themselves?

Personally I have never used drugs, and don't even use alcohol or tobacco. I don't think there is anything inherently immoral in the moderate use of alcohol or tobacco, or perhaps even marijuana (I don't know-as much as I personally hate the stuff), but why, why do people with great potential feel they have such pathetic lives that they have to throw it away to "feel good", get high, drunk, whatever.

You can never stop a market for a substance there is a demand for.
This is true. It also makes me really sad, and I worry about what kind of world my kids will live in. When the culture rots from the inside out, you can't fix it with a law.

I'm sorry if I've offended the stoners among us. Perhaps I'm a little worked up about the subject because I recently found out that a friend of mine has smoked pot for many years. He also has a lot of other self-destructive habits and can't figure out why his life is in the downward spiral it's in. His selfish, feel-good habits are destroying him and his family. It's frustrating to watch and try to help him, only to see him make one stupid decision after another.

OK, to make a meager attempt at making my post gun-related: do all you pot smokers buy your guns private-party, or do you just commit perjury on the 4473 form?
 
she sold the substance while on parole and some of the other "victimless criminals" killed her


No, real criminals (hardened ones) selling guns that she had no connection to, and pressed into service to catch, killed her, not the pot smoking college friends of her's that she was SUPPOSED to be narcing on.
 
OK, to make a meager attempt at making my post gun-related: do all you pot smokers buy your guns private-party, or do you just commit perjury on the 4473 form?

Do you lie on your form, as well? Have you ever had any mental conditions? Never been depressed? Ever? Because depression is a mental illness and if you have ever been depressed (according to the form) then you would be prohibited from owning firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top