JBTs, No-Knock, Drugs, A Rant

[Art Eatman]

Re "despair": One thing that has many sociologist-types somewhat puzzled is the amount of "there's no hope for a better future" extant even among the young of upper middle (ecoomic) class people. It's more obvious in our inner-city ghetto areas.

Those with no hope for a better future--as THEY perceive reality--feel they have nothing to lose, no matter what. Thus the hostility toward others, the disinterest in the laws...It's all part of the equation.

If you don't give a hoot about the future, then, why NOT be self-destructive as regards crime or drugs?

And for that, so far, nobody really has an answer. LBJ's Great Society efforts began right at 40 years ago, with gazillions of dollars spent and heaps and gobs of laws passed--but the problems get worse, no matter who's running the show. The sad thing is, as to percentage of the total US population, it's a case of the tail wagging the dog. And the splashback is hurting all of us.

Art

 

[TallPine]

If you don't give a hoot about the future, then, why NOT be self-destructive as regards crime or drugs?

ONLY because you have some personal standard about your own actions during your own lifetime, regardless of what else happens in the world.

Non Illegitamus Carborundum

 

[longrifleman]

But here's the question: Whose life is it, anyway?! If it's my life, where does the government, or anyone else, get off telling me what I can or cannot do with my life?

THE question at the base of all political philosophy. For all the talk about individual liberty in America, the older statist model of individuals being property of whatever ruler is in power (monarchy, communism, theocracy, fascism etc.) keeps trying to reassert itself. I don't see how a hybrid system of de facto ownership by the state with some individualism will ever work. The desire to control other's is too strong, wether "for our own good" or just old fashioned tyranny.

The unpleasant and unpopular truth is you either believe in freedom, with all it's warts, or you don't. If you don't, it is easy to come up with reasons for any type of govt control, wether the object is drugs or firearms.


On the root causes of drug use I think it is certainly a combination of factors but here's my take. Drugs make people feel good. A simple statement, but sometimes people overthink things. The problem is that overuse causes problems that compound over time. How many folks involved here have quit using (insert drug of choice) as we got older and realised the effects of drug use? That is one of the reasons the problem doesn't go away. Every generation has to learn for themselves how to deal with temptation. The unwilingness to allow people to make mistakes and learn from them is evident throughout our society, with drugs being one of the most obvious areas. This causes a long term inability to deal with life. If you don't make small mistakes the big mistakes will kill you. Kinda hard to learn much from that lesson.

Another more difficult problem is the increasing nihilism I see, especially from the leftist segments of our society. No surprise there, but I don't know how to counter it as the whole left is based on philosophy that leads inevitability to nihilism. At least that is where I end up when I try to follow it to it's logical conclusion.

 

[NMshooter]

Prescription anti-depressants are a huge growth industry in this country. I suspect a significant number of illegal drug users are "self-medicating" for the same reasons. I also suspect some of those reasons are the changes in our society to accomodate the increased number of rules and regulations we live with. Not sure which came first, but once you get that spiral started it goes only one direction, and that is down.

The original temperance movement starting at the end of the 19th century had legitimate complaints, but Prohibition turned out to be worse than the problems it attempted to fix. We are in a similar situation now.

 

[DMF]

This is all oversimpllified, of course. It would take a number cruncher with lots of time and access to lots of data to give meaningful numbers...

Ah, but I provided a link to the type of data you are looking for, and an excerpt from same. It showed that prevention and education spending is much GREATER than LE spending with regard to drug crimes. Oh well, maybe you are ignoring that info based on the source.

 

[Art Eatman]

DMF, that's a sort of "Oops! I missed it!" deal. Sorry. I've been sorta hit-and-run what with one thing or another...

If it can be shown that the anti-drug education stuff is effective where it is in place, I can surely go along with more money for that. One problem with being an Old Fart is that some details just don't get brought home from school by the kids...

One year I'll read that certain drugs are used less than before, by school-age kids; a year or two later, the opposite. Hard to tell about the efficacy of the programs.

Edit, add: DMF, that DEA info is based on a different set of assumptions than mine. First off, they're using "legalization", which I do not. Further, they speak only to federal costs.

One amusing point: The estimated lost productivity value, from their definition of employed drug user, is less than what some claim is the lost productivity value from employees playing on the Internet while at work.

Art

 

[DMF]

Art I was, as my old boss used to say, "just breakin' balls." In over 6 pages of posts I understand it's easy to miss some stuff. Plus I know you're busy watching all the posts and keeping everyone in line. Which with this crowd is like trying to herd cats.

Funny thing about the internet use at work. In later years my Dad had a lot of people reporting to him. He's hired, promoted, and unfortunately fired people over the years. In the last two years they have fired 3 people for abusing the company access to the internet. In one case they had a person who in one work week spent over 30 hours on the internet on non work websites. In that time he only fired one person for using drugs. Sure would like to see that data comparing internet productivity loss to drug use. Do you remember where you saw that? Dad would get a kick out of reading it too.

However, amusing story about the drug stuff, in addition to the guy he fired, they had one guy quit over drugs. Company policy was if there was ever an accident at work that caused a work stoppage or injury, anyone connected to the incident had to provide a urine sample for drug testing. So they had an accident one day and one of the folks started asking all kinds of questions, and making objections about the drug test. My dad informed him he had two options, fill up the cup or get fired. The guy went with all the other folks and provided a sample, and immediately upon his return walked over to his immediate supervisor and quit. Dad asked the supervisor what the deal was, and was told the guy was ranting about the "stupid urinalysis policy." Three weeks later his result came back clean. I guess doing drugs certainly can make someone stupid!

 

[firearms_instructor]

For me there is. I object to people who cannot grasp or handle reality and seek to escape it. Their problems don't go away while they are impaired, and if anything increase. These are weak-minded and weak-willed people.

SO WHAT?!

So, it's your job to 'fix' these people? Or you feel somehow justified in stomping their doors in because they are weak-willed? Sound's like a bully's mindset to me. How is their weak-mindedness any of your business? If they were stong-willed, you'd have some real problems that you'd probably deserve for sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Here's a clue, mister: if someone isn't depriving someone else of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, they're not committing a real crime, and you should mind your own business. Otherwise, you're no better than the average criminal.

Fed up with meddling statists.

 

[liliysdad]

First off, our job isnt to choose what laws to enforce.

Secondly, if the user was not harming anyone but himself, chances are we would never catch them, as they wouldnt do anyhting to draw attention to themselves.

if you dont like the current laws, get them changed through the democratic process..until then, myself, DMF, TCSD, and others are going to do our damndest to win this war, a war very much worth waging, in my opinion.

 

[fallingblock]

I've heard that sentiment before, liliysdad....

"if the user was not harming anyone but himself, chances are we would never catch them, as they wouldnt do anyhting to draw attention to themselves."
************************************************************


My daughter recently arrested an old guy for DWI. He was 73 years old and it was his 77th arrest since 1949 for DWI!

In answer to the defense plea that the guy was 'just a harmless old alcoholic', she observed (correctly, I believe), that there was no such thing as a "harmless" alcoholic behind the wheel of a car.

It is a vexing social problem.

The use of so-called "recreational drugs" often tends to be by those with a diminished capacity for sound judgement (certainly while under the influence of their chosen poison) and/or a tendency to anti-social behavior.

 

[Art Eatman]

DMF, I'm always running across little squibs of info. I rarely pay much attention to the specific source. I've always said I have a crossword-puzzle mind, full of unrelated facts--and every now and then something pops up out of memory.

I don't have a clue on how somebody would figure a national number for a lot of stuff, unless there's been some extensive survey. I can believe there's a lot of time wasted in stray browsing. Used to be, it was long coffee breaks or romance novels...Maybe, those are still part of the wasted time.

There's more than one way to alter one's reality...

, Art

 

[Sindawe]

DMF pointificated:

However, amusing story about the drug stuff, in addition to the guy he fired, they had one guy quit over drugs. Company policy was if there was ever an accident at work that caused a work stoppage or injury, anyone connected to the incident had to provide a urine sample for drug testing. So they had an accident one day and one of the folks started asking all kinds of questions, and making objections about the drug test. My dad informed him he had two options, fill up the cup or get fired. The guy went with all the other folks and provided a sample, and immediately upon his return walked over to his immediate supervisor and quit. Dad asked the supervisor what the deal was, and was told the guy was ranting about the "stupid urinalysis policy." Three weeks later his result came back clean. I guess doing drugs certainly can make someone stupid!

Hmmmm...sounds to me like the fellow was living up to his stated principals. Would that more people did that, 'specially those in position of authority and power. He had an issue with drug tests by employers, and felt strongly enough about it to leave his source of income over it. For that I offer accolates apon the wind. I do wonder about your assesment of his intelligence.

No issue with your father or his companies policy, their business, their rules.

Ya know, back in the 80's when all this dren about urine testing for drug use stated, I vowed I'd never pee in a frelling cup for any one but my physician, and not even him/her for a drug screen. The ONLY kind of test requesters would ever get from me would be a freash off the tap taste test. Preferably apon their bruised and unconscious visage.

To date I've lived up too that vow. My response to the whole idea is still the same. Drug tester,...well, Art's Grandma is reading, so...but you should get my intent.

 

[cordex]

First off, our job isnt to choose what laws to enforce.

You damn sure better!
A more accurate statement (I hope) would be that to date you've never had to enforce a law that violated your principles to the point that you were willing to stand up against it.

I can let the "Just following orders" crap slide to a point (couldn't do it myself, but that's why I'm not wearing a badge), but I sincerely hope that there is a point at which you would refuse to enforce a more blatantly immoral and vile law.

edited because I mistyped

 

[mpw]

Perhaps you LEOs should be spending more time catching criminals guilty of crimes of theft, fraud ,and violence. If that was your main concern then your excesses would be more excusable.

Laws are not the end, they are supposed to be the means. Justice is the end. Is your precious WOD furthering Justice, or not? That's what we are really debating... Regardless of the answer to that question, it is a fact that the government as well as criminals profit from the WOD. I don't believe that LEOs hold the moral high ground here. They have a vested financial interest in continuing the current WOD policies.

You aren't making a war on drugs, you're making a war on US citizens. You don't put drugs in jail, you put people in jail. How many more people do you intend on jailing or killing before we can declare victory? If your answer is "as many as it takes" then perhaps your cure is worse than the disease.

I encourage everyone here to read: http://www.bigeye.com/warstate.htm

Why has there been a the militarization of our police?
When did "peace officers" become "LEOs"?

 

[mpw]

One other thing, I'm not afraid of LEOs kicking down my door on purpose because I don't violate any drug laws. However, I am a gun owner...and if the WOD intensifies and drug criminals start to resist because they have less to lose, how long is it before the State decides to declare a "war on guns"? After all, it's about officer safety, right?

How many LEOs here are "just going to do my job and enforce the laws" then?

Then ask yourself this: is there any concievable law which you will NOT enforce?

 

[tyme]

liliysdad,

First off, our job isnt to choose what laws to enforce.

Secondly, if the user was not harming anyone but himself, chances are we would never catch them, as they wouldnt do anyhting to draw attention to themselves.

This is disgusting. "It's okay for LEOs to enforce bad laws because only a few otherwise innocent people are ever punished under them."

Innocent people do do things that attract attention. Take for instance MVpel. Is his exercise of his rights justification for, if he had had victimless contraband on him, sending him to jail?

It doesn't take someone exercising marginalized rights for police to decide to search. One can get searched for *anything* these days. You yourself have supported running background checks on non-suspects and utilizing "officer safety" and "proximity" searches to the maximum allowed under supreme court decisions, even when you do not suspect the person of a crime.

 

[stevelyn]

First off, it isn't our job to decide which laws to enforce.

Uhhh.. Wanna bet? You would enforce an unjust or onerous law because you don't think it's your job to question it? Tell me would you/do you enjoy living under unjust/onerous laws yourself?
I don't want to hear the argument on changing them through the system. Look at states like IL,MD, NJ, NY, MA, and lastly but not leastly the PRK. Where has working in the system helped them?
We have a lot of descretion on which laws to enforce or how to enforce them. The only ones we don't are the offenses that specifically mandate enforcement (arrest) by statute.
If we decide to enforce laws just because they're on the books regardless of the justness (is that a real word) we as LEOs are a part of the problem and the so called "cop haters" on this forum and others are morally justified in their opinions. That makes us no better than the Nazi SS just following orders.
Believe me I have no problem throwing peoples @$$e$ in jail who've victimized others. There are plenty of wife/gf beaters, rapists, and pedophiles that have gotten that message. Most I deal with are return customers. Funny thing is they're mostly alcohol related.
I can tell you right now there are enforcement lines I absolutely won't cross, agencies I won't assist and I'll drop my badge on the chief's desk if ever forced to compromise my principles. I've taken my oath to defend the Constitution and to serve the people seriously.
At least the AK legislature has come to the aid of state and local LEOs forbidding assisting the feds w/ PATRIOT Act actions and the state court of appeals thinks it's okay if John/Jane Q. Alaskan keeps 4 oz. of weed around for medicinal/personal use.And that's okay too. Those are doors that won't have to get kicked in and 4A gets a little breathing room for once.
I do not condone nor do I recommend the use of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. I've been a DARE officer for since 1996 and have tried to educate young people on the dangers of substance abuse. Alcohol and inhalent abuse are particularly prevelant in jurisdictions I've worked in.... some more than others.
Substance abuse is a problem nationwide, but the way we're dealing with it is just:banghead:
All of the interdiction actions combined only intercepts about 2-5% thats getting on the streets. Even that is a cheritable number. And lets not forget that our very own U.S. Gubmint has financed and backed drug traffiking into the U.S. until the purpose and people involved no longer suited them (Noriega and other South/Central American tinpots).
Addictions are a bio-medical problem not a criminal one and should be treated as such.
So what do we have to lose by changing our tack and 1) Legalizinging and taxing it to finance safe houses and treatment centers. 2) Freeing up prison space for the violent offenders who really need to stay locked up. 3) Returning some of our freedoms back to us. Especially those that have encroached on 4A in the name of the mighty WOD?
I'll make my argument for taxing and legalizing other vices on another thread if the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Stand_Watie]

I know we have a lot of back and forth between law enforcement and anti-law-enforcement people on this board, and a lot of times it may seem as if there is no middle ground in the arguments.

With that in mind, I'd encourage anyone with a fair mind, who might be inclined toward making statements that sound as if they are bashing all law-enforcement, or painting with too broad a brush regarding LE's and civil liberties, to read Stevelyn's post directly above mine and keep it in mind in the future.

I can understand the antagonism toward statists and JBT's, but if we're overly-broad in our characterizations of who these people are, we risk alienating what I believe to be at least a very sizable minority, if not an outright majority of peace officers who don't believe in state policed morals.

We know who our enemies are, let's not alienate our friends.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hmmmm...sounds to me like the fellow was living up to his stated principals. Would that more people did that, 'specially those in position of authority and power. He had an issue with drug tests by employers, and felt strongly enough about it to leave his source of income over it. For that I offer accolates apon the wind. I do wonder about your assesment of his intelligence.

That was my reaction too, Sindowe.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

How many more people do you intend on jailing or killing before we can declare victory?

MPW, as it stands, 25% of the world's jailed population is jailed in the United States. The U.S. has more of its population in jail than any other nation on earth. We need to reserve prisons for real criminals, i.e., those who wrongly do harm to others.

 

[Art Eatman]

And remember this too-long thread is about new options for dealing with drugs, not about who done what to whom, and why.

liliysdad's notions about enforcing the law are irrelevant to the thread, as are the objections to his views.

Art

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I know we have a lot of back and forth between law enforcement and anti-law-enforcement people on this board, and a lot of times it may seem as if there is no middle ground in the arguments.

Most who you characterize as anti-law-enforcement are anti statist JBT, not anti-law-enforcement, per se. Law enforcement has become a system divorced from the people they are sworn to serve. This is because, unlike the system as originally established in our nation, law enforcement is now carried on by other than an elected local official. That's right, at one time in this nation, the only law enforcement that most people ever had contact with were people hired by a local elected official (i.e., the Sheriff). That's as it should be. Every official with a gun and arrest power needs to be subject immediately to the vote of the people, and under local control. This is the problem with non-elected police chiefs and federal agencies with tactical teams coming in contact with regular US citizens.

Armed federal forces amount to an arm of the standing army that the Founders feared so much. The reason a federal standing army was feared was precisely because of the tendency of such organizations to tyrannize the people they were established to protect. Everything the Founders feared about standing armies is manifesting itself in the form of Federal Law Enforcement. Part of the problem is that we call armed federal forces "law enforcement agencies," when they are actually (in the world view of the Founders) a part of a standing federal army. They are the branch of the standing army that is turned inward to control our nation's population rather than outwards to defend us from invasion. They are our Gestapo. The solution is to support local law enforcement which is answerable to the people through the ballot box, and work at getting every other agency out of law enforcemnt. Anything else is a recipe for tyranny. It will only get worse the more power they acquire. Keep in mind that the more power they acquire, the less liberty we enjoy, and the more tyrannical becomes our government.

 

[liliysdad]

Ahh, hell, never mind.....

 

[TallPine]

if you dont like the current laws, get them changed through the democratic process..

That's what we are trying to do.

But first we need to sway public opinion that the WOD isn't necessarily a good thing. What better place than an internet forum .....?

Your attitude seems to be that "since it's a law, it must be right, and since it is right then there has to be a law."


The FIRST thing that needs to be done is get the federal drug laws repealed, and let the states handle it like they should be doing in the first place. I find it very interesting that federal alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, but other drug prohibitions do not.

The SECOND is for some states to decriminalize marijuana usage, and find out that the world didn't come to an end. From there maybe we can arrive at some sensible balance.

 

[liliysdad]

Thats great, but you wont get my support. I feel the WOD is 100% righteous, as do a lot of my fellow peace officers.....a few dont, but they are not the majority. Come the day it is legalized, I will stop making pot busts...but I dont see that day happening, at least in my little world.