Drug "Warriors" Reap What They Sow

[cracked butt]

To change laws you have to change the opinions of a majority of the people.

If the article did anything to sway opinion, only a drug addled fool would think that the article swayed anyone to their side.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

It must be nice to sleep walk through life asleep......

Some of these comparisons are not sound.....Drugs ARE the same as guns even if not numbered among the bill of rights, you know why? Because drug use does nothing to infringe another persons rights, period ! Public drug use is another story.... You should have a right to carry your crack pipe with you everywhere you go, IMHO. DISCLAIMER for the STUPID!!!!! Doing the afore mentioined will get you arrested anyway!!!!! Comparison: You should have a right to carry a gun with you everywhere you go,IMHO. Now dishcarging a firearm in public will get you arrested......same way with drug use in public.....or alcohol use in public....period! Rigths are not determined by the masses only where I can exercise that right....I have a right to get drunk, doped on crack or morphine, to whatch porn, smoke cigarettes, and get into a fight......Just not in PUBLIC.....while all these things send moral pin ball machines into "tilt" mode they are still rights of the people ! So yes the public can decide not to allow firearms to be shot in the city(life and death sit. excluded), alcohol or drugs to be consumed in public, pornography to be shown in public, or even smoking in public, but not in your own home....To "new" liberals this is what is wrong with the Constitution and to BOR lovers it is what is great.....

 

[jsalcedo]

Drugs have absolutely no redeeming value in society.

Neither do Ferarri's, skateboards, cigarettes, booze or pornography.

It goes back to the need versus want.

No one "needs" assault weapons. No one "needs" drugs.

You can have a 30-30 winchester and a bottle of Jim Beam instead.

The war on drugs is economic machine. It has nothing to do with morality or saving the children.

 

[Shield529]

I will say this loudly since the first post regarding this has been ignored;
THEY WERE THERE FOR THE STOLEN TRUCK CHOP SHOP.
This is very relevant since the first poster conveniently excluded it in his drug induced rage of hate.
The Mounties were there still guarding the trucks and parts. The drug investigation had concluded and the drugs were gone from the property at the time of this incident.
The Mounties were only called there to assist a bailiff on a Court ordered vehicle repossession after the suspect released dogs on the bailiff. The drugs were discovered after the chop shop and trucks. There was never any drug war issues, they were discovered by chance.

I personally am torn on the drug issue. I dislike gov. intrution, but have seen total devestation caused on many familys by drugs. Drug are not now and have never been harmless.

P.S. You may be at war with law enforcement, but we are not at war with you.

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

Great post!

Drug freedom is perhaps almost as important as gun freedom - drugs effect the mind and people controling the way your brain works is as horrible as them taking your rifle.

The hunt for witches in colonial New England had nothing on the hunt for drug users and traders in 21st century America.

Many scientists and others(like me) think that witch burnings had to do with the witches using drugs such as Atropa belladonna. Good think we have safer ethogens these days!

 

[cracked butt]

drugs effect the mind and people controling the way your brain works

The person who is using drugs is not controlling the way their brain works. More apt would be to say that the people who produce drugs are the ones who control how drug users' brains work.


Comparing drug use and gun ownership is silly, one is about irresponsibility the other is about responsibility.

 

[JohnBT]

"Threads like this one, celebrating the deaths of four people who were working in a legal capacity, make me want to leave the THR."

Don't leave, stay and help me point out the error of their ways.

"not even evil men like George W. Bush and his band of liar-killers"

Who is this nut case?

John

 

[Sir Aardvark]

This attempt to "spin" the deaths of 4 honorable men into some political diatribe and propaganda piece certainly shows a character worthy only of the low road.

 

[glockman]

gun and drug war

shooting police officers guarding a chop shop is simply murder. however imho, based on studies of the constitution, the difference between guns and drugs turns out not to be so huge. Your right to keep and bear arms is indeed constitutionally protected. So is your right to participate in activities that the constitution bars the fedgov from prohibiting. Try reading the 10th amendment," The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " In other words the whole drug war probably is unconstitutional. Anyone with a differing viewpoint, please post I would be curious as to what your opinion would be.

 

[itgoesboom]

John,

I would love to stay and help, unfortunatly, I think if people think that it is ok to murder someone over a law they disagree with, not even over a valid constitutional argment, but they just disagree with it, than I think that this forum is possibly too far gone for me to be able to help.

With that said, I have now been encouraged by two people to try and help reason with people, so I will try.

Glockman,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.​

ERRRRR Sorry, wrong answer. The people have elected officials that have voted on and passed laws prohibiting these drugs. That means the people (as mentioned in the 10th amendment have spoken.

A few people have said that there is no difference between drugs and guns, but they always miss the most obvious reason why drugs have been regulated, and will continue to be, until a solution can be achieve. This is in addition to the fact that drugs are not constitutionally protected.

While it is true that a crack pipe in your pocket is no more dangerous in your pocket than a pistol in mine.

The difference is that I can go out to a range, or a forest, and responsibly fire my weapon, safe it, and then continue back to society without being a danger to society. If someone takes a hit on that crack pipe, and then heads back out in to society, they are, because of their altered state of mind that is inherent in all drugs, dangerous to people around them. They are under the influence of the drug, they are no longer in control of themselves, their emotions or their behavior.

If people would agree to only do drugs in a controlled environment where they can't be a threat to the rest of us, I would 100% agree with repealing all drug laws. But someone on meth or crack or PCP, with the added sense of paranoia, anger, and emotional unstability that comes with all those drugs coupled with the altered sense of reality and possible halucinations that many experience on drugs makes people on many drugs to be a very real threat to the rest of us. And that threat doesn't just go away after a few hours. What about people who have taken X or LSD or other drug that induces halucinations that can come back after being clean for days, weeks or years. From the information that I have read, albeit years ago, a person who took LSD years ago but has been clean for a year can have a sudden flashback, an unexpected trip, and during that trip could be extremely dangerous to anyone they are around.

And what makes people think that if someone who can go and buy meth for just a few bucks but has to steal to get that money will actually get a job rather than steal for his fix if the laws have been repealed? That junkie will still steal, but will now be able to buy even more.

Now I am not 100% personally in favor of the WOD. I think that MJ use is not nearly as bad as the .gov makes it out to be, and I wouldn't be opposed to it being legalised, and regulated like alcohol.

Make no mistake about it though, the constitution does not protect drug use, and the constitution allows the people, through their elected representatives to make laws, which have been done. Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it morally right for you to shoot a cop.

I.G.B.

 

[itgoesboom]

One more thing that I think is relevent, and important to this discusion.

Many people here seem to be of the viewpoint that they are at war with the police.

If you as a gunowner declare war on the police, pretty soon, they will declare war on all of us.

I.G.B.

 

[Combat-wombat]

law enforcement is there to enforce laws. They don't make the laws, they enforce them. Let me repeat that: law enforcement is there to enforce laws. They don't make the laws, they enforce them. Again: law enforcement is there to enforce laws. They don't make the laws, they enforce them.

And neither did members of the Nazis, but I'd still kill a whole lot of them if I was a Polish Jew during the occupation.

Don't take me wrong, I'm definitely not supporting the deaths of these officers. I don't agree with the WOD, but it doesn't deprive people of their basic human rights as the Nazi Regime did. I'm just trying to show the other point of view.

Of course officers only enforce the law, but they know what laws they'll have to stand by when they join the force.

 

[GhostRider66]

The hyperbole is overwhelming :banghead: NO ONE is saying that is was, is or ever will be a good thing to kill police officers or anyone else for that matter. I think the subtle point that is trying to be made is that there are consequenses for every ban or regulation put in place by government. The more restrictive the ban, the more extreme the consequenses. We probably should have learned that from Prohibition and the repeal thereof. Honestly, when is the last time you say two beer truck rolling down the street shooting at one another? Crack cocaine and crystal meth are most likely the bathtub gin of the modern drug prohibition. They would probably not exist were it not for the war on drugs.

As far as the Constitution, I believe and I think most honest people would agree that the federal government simply does not have the constitutional authority to regulate any drug or beverage or food. Taxation? Maybe. The states? Again maybe. I would still argue that the reprecutions of doing so would always be greater than the good that is gained if any.

 

[itgoesboom]

As far as the Constitution, I believe and I think most honest people would agree that the federal government simply does not have the constitutional authority to regulate any drug or beverage or food. .

Ghost,

Why do you say that?

As pointed out above, the consititution doesn't protect drug use anywhere in it, and as mentioned in the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The people have spoken. The people have elected officials who have passed laws against these drugs. Where does the constitution prohibit this?

I.G.B.

 

[Parallax]

The war on drugs is economic machine. It has nothing to do with morality or saving the children.

^ 100% accurate.

the consititution doesn't protect drug use anywhere in it

drugs are not constitutionally protected.

So what? What if the 2nd Amendment was repealed one day? Does that mean we don't have the right to keep and bear arms anymore?

We have other rights besides those recognized in the Constitution. The War on (some people's) Drugs is no different than the War on (some people's) Guns. They are both violations of basic human rights.

The people have spoken.

If "the people" actually had their way, most drugs would have been re-legalized long ago. They have not been because the government profits from them being illegal (at the expense of the people).

Why is it that some people feel that it's perfectly alright for the government to tell you what you can and can't put in your body, but it's not alright for them to tell you what guns you can and can't own?

The right to do whatever you want with your body, and the right to keep and bear arms, are both basic human rights. Neither is more important than the other.

Someone explain to me how the cops coming to take your drugs is any different from them coming to take your guns? If they come to take your guns one day, are you just going to hand them over because "they're just doing their jobs"?

 

[Third_Rail]

drugs are not constitutionally protected.

And neither is your RKBA. It's simply stated. Whether stated or not, you have that right - control over your own body and what goes in is also your right.




Could it be that the Founding Fathers simply could not have imagined banning something like ordinary drugs?

 

[Unisaw]

Is Adam Sterling the new nom de plume of Ward Churchill?

 

[LawDog]

Since this tragedy was the result of police enforcing laws against chop shops, let's re-do this article properly.

Police Reap What They Sow

by Adam Sterling

Who is worse, a murderous criminal in civilian clothes, or a murderous criminal wearing a government uniform? To my mind the answer is clear: The government employee is a far greater threat to society, because he has official sanction. And who are you going to call when uniform-wearing goons come aggressing against you?

I read today of the killing of four Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Accompanying the article are the inevitable platitudes, such as "This terrible event is a reminder of the sacrifice and bravery of the men and women who serve in our national police force, and of the dangerous circumstances which they often confront, in order to make Canada a safer place."

What unmitigated bull????!

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm sorry those four men are dead. I don't wish premature death on anyone, not even evil men like George W. Bush and his band of liar-killers. I'm sure that all four Canadians left behind grieving families. They may have been nice people themselves, when they weren't engaged in official duties. They may have been brave.

But the fact is, these RCMP had gone where they didn't belong. They weren't chasing after rapists, murderers, con-men, or anybody guilty of a crime. Rather, they were attempting to bust an alleged chop-shop. Oh yes, I know, stealing cars is "against the law" in Canada, as it is in the United States. But this law is absolutely illegitimate. It is no business of anyone, including government employees, what property other adults trade amongst themselves and ultimately consume. Free men and women don't ask for permission in such matters, and any person who presumes to interfere violently is in the end asking to be shot or otherwise stopped by force.

The hysteria surrounding vehicle theft is almost beyond belief. One cannot help but wonder what drugs those who support such laws must be taking. The hunt for witches in colonial New England had nothing on the hunt for car-jackers and traders in 21st century America. And not just here: The entire world has joined in the madness. Many pat themselves on the back for their wonderful "compassion" if they think that maybe, just maybe, it might be all right to allow someone who owns a vehicle to prevent another person from using that car, under strict controls of course. What hubris!

Am I saying that everybody should steal cars? No. I'm saying that everyone is responsible for his own decisions in matters that are personal and private. Cars are neither good nor bad. They are inanimate objects which, like anything else, can be used in ways beneficial or harmful.

Am I saying that everybody should shoot cops? Not at all. Killing another is rightfully a crime except under the most dire of circumstances. I AM saying that if a gang of criminal thugs is breaking down your door and you sense that your life is in imminent danger, force is justified in response.

It is easier to see such matters in clear perspective when thinking of other countries at other times. When Stalin sent his minions in the dead of night to spirit away dissidents, would today's "moralists" lecture those who were about to be taken that it was their duty to respect the rule of law, and to submit without resistance? When Hitler (who, let us not forget, was democratically elected to do whatever it took to make Germany strong again) sent his storm troopers to round up Jews, Gypsies, and the "mentally defective," were the people targeted duty-bound to go off and be gassed with nothing more than a feeble protest in reply? Nonsense!! A crime is a crime, no matter what the perpetrator's uniform or lack thereof, and resisting crime is both a right and a moral duty.

Therefore, to officers in Canada, the United States, or anywhere else, I say that if you take part in the enforcement of illegitimate laws that brutalize peaceful citizens, you deserve no protection whatever from those who are defending their rightful property against theft and their persons against bodily harm.

The war agaisnt criminals is an abomination; it is the antithesis of civilization. It has left in its wake millions of lives ruined by incarceration, injury, and death. It has exploited all that is worst in human nature for its support. Shame on all who participate in it!

Remember, if you don't bust a chop-shop, you won't find a pot patch, and you won't deserve to get killed.

LawDog

 

[beerslurpy]

Please read this post

Shooting the bastards is an obsolete tactic anyway...haven't we learned anything from the current conflict in Iraq?

But guns are easy to get, explosives are hard to get. If the situation were reversed, my house would sport lots of mechanical ambushes instead of a gun safe.

Also, it takes at least a small amount of capital and tooling to begin manufacturing stable explosives and electric detonators, and most people with such resources and knowledge have more profitable and legal ways to spend their time. Also, when was the last time you saw an engineer thrown in jail for pot? The WOD passes this social class by entirely.

The WOD today exists almost entirely as a mechanism for removing destabilizing elements from the lower rungs of society. Instead they get put in prison where they made to perform useful slave labor. The widespread use of drugs in society just makes it a more reliable tool.

When you combine the comfortable position of those with the technical and financial resources necessary to sustain a revolt with the fact that the WOD is indirectly sustaining their comfortable situtation in society (by removing those who might upset the social order) it is easy to see why the WOD continues and will neither succeed nor end. The end to the WOD will have similar effects to the end of slavery (this has nothing to do with race by the way)- the lower rungs of our socioeconomic system will be freed from one set of chains that bind them- chaos will ensue while more politically acceptable chains are found to replace them. This has played out numerous times in american history already.

 

[Joejojoba111]

That article is total bull????. Total bull????.

Freaking media loves to mix drugs and guns, they just love it. Freaking media.

It WAS NOT A GROW OP. THE RAID WAS NOT A GROW OP RAID,

The cops were just escorting a repo-man to repo a pickup truck the guy hadn't been paying installments on. Not a drug raid. Furthermore the pictures show a big hanger and say "massive grow op". Freaking media. There was 12 plants. The big deal was that he had car parts from tons of stolen vehicles!

Freaking media they have these stories written before they happen, I bet they just insert the name and place and then print it. A week later when it's clear they were wrong they print the real story on page 15, when it's already burned into everyone's mind that every second building is a drug house with assault rifles.


BTW any drug dealer who really cares enough can have their drug made legal. Just need 300million$ and a symptom of a disease that it sort of alleviates! Then make sure to pay kick-backs to enough people. Exstacy was a prescription drug in the 1980's! The problem was it was overprescribed, and it was invented at the turn of the century (20th), so no company was making the profits. If someone had changed the formula a little bit and renewed the patent for another 14 years shrinks would still be prescribing exstacy today, might even rival viagra.

 

[beerslurpy]

Hey lawdog, if pot growing wasnt such a serious offense, people wouldnt feel compelled to murder in an effort to escape capture. That doesnt make murdering cops any more justified, but giving people incentives to do it is probably not wise, especially when its over something retarded like pot.

Thats one of the main enforcement risks in the WOD- getting involved in drugs doesnt involve the same level of mental abonormality that becoming a habitual murderer does. However, the penalties for drug posession are often MORE SEVERE than for killing other human beings.

When cops go after a murderer, they know he is the type of person likely to kill someone since he has already done it before. He certainly has a reason to kill the cops, as they are coming to capture him for trial and punishment. Thus, they are alert and careful and everyone is playing by the same rules.

When cops go after a pot grower, he is possibly not the type of person likely to kill someone. The arresting officers cant really be sure if he is a killer or just a regular guy trying to make a buck on the side. Often it is the latter. However, the severity of the penalty can make people do stupid things like fight back. If you are willing to catch a bullet in the name of prohibiting harmless chemicals, then by all means, lets continue the war on drugs.

 

[rock jock]

The author of this article is an idiot. I just hope he is infesting the socialist utopia of Canada, rather than our own free country.

 

[NHBB]

there is no question the writer of this article is a complete moron.

however, I do agree with pax's reasoning about those sent to do the dirty work of those who pass these rules and legislation. even with the revolutionary war... none of those redcoats, or nazis on the front line made the policy to fight... but they were enlisted to do so. I think the same goes for any police state type activity, BUT I also believe that this article has nothing to do with that concept.

 

[cordex]

George W. Bush and his band of liar-killers.

I don't like liars either, but isn't execution a little much?

In the reports I've heard, there is no justification for the murders of the 4 RCMP officers. Maybe there will be another report indicating that the officers were in the middle of gang-raping the suspect's daughter, or doing their level best to summarily execute him for halitosis, but as of now it appears to be an ambush of officers serving a warrant not even related to drugs. The intial article is, therefore, completely wonky and the author an imbecile of Biblical proportions.

The assertion that because police don't write laws they are not morally responsible for the actions they take is as patently ignorant as the initial article.

Gunowners who rely on Constitutional protection as the end-all, be-all of arguments for RKBA will no doubt sing a very different tune if and when the Second Amendment is repealed. Seems to me that it is really dumb to rely on an amendable law as one's ultimate moral justification. What do you do when that law changes? Give in to popular demand?

And speaking of popular demand, it seems even stupider to cite popular opinion as the ethical rationalization for controlling people's lives. Sure, it's easy to do when you're on the winning team, but what happens when the other side is holding the cards? Does "majority rules" still apply when the roles are reversed?

What someone does to willfully harm and/or endanger themselves is none of my business. I don't care if you choose to smoke, drink, take drugs, have promiscuous sex, eat unhealthy foods, drive fast in circles, practice martial arts, climb mountains, hunt dangerous game, ride horses, ride angry bulls, fly aircraft, tinker with electricity, get too little sleep, juggle chainsaws or own venomous snakes. My preferred suicidal tendency is motorcycles and I don't want you or your agents messing with my dangerous pasttime either.

I am increasingly unable to make a meaningful distinction between the different flavors of statism that are prominent in this country (and on this forum, for that matter).

 

[DMF]

If you blame the deaths of Law Enforcement on themselves and not the criminal pulling the trigger, you live in bizarroland. Its the criminal that made the conscient decision to pull the trigger, not government, not law enforcement, but the criminal themselves.

Lets just keep blaming the victim and not the perpetrator shall we?

I hope you, and everyone else, can remember that the next time the topic of Vernon Howell and the ATF comes up on this forum.