mpw
Member
But is it 100% effective?
JBTs, No-Knock, Drugs, A Rant
- Thread starter Art Eatman
- Start date
- Status
No, its not, but nothing is.....but its a lot more than 0% effective, in my experience.
I have said it before....I dont have near the problem with weed as the rest. I dont condone it by any means, but most potheads Ive dealt with arent an issue....as long as they dont drive. i would even go so far as to support a partial, very restricted legalization if it were brought forward. So far, I havent seen aything like that. Like I said, if they arent truly affecting anyone but themselves, chances are they wouldnt get caught, as they wouldnt make themselves known.
Our department, as any other I know, spends much more money on prevention and education than actual enforcement, and that does make a whale of a difference, in my opinion.......
I have said it before....I dont have near the problem with weed as the rest. I dont condone it by any means, but most potheads Ive dealt with arent an issue....as long as they dont drive. i would even go so far as to support a partial, very restricted legalization if it were brought forward. So far, I havent seen aything like that. Like I said, if they arent truly affecting anyone but themselves, chances are they wouldnt get caught, as they wouldnt make themselves known.
Our department, as any other I know, spends much more money on prevention and education than actual enforcement, and that does make a whale of a difference, in my opinion.......
mpw
Member
Your department should be doing it's mandated job, which is enforcing the law. Prevention and education? That's parenting... And just how much money are we talking about? And where is this money coming from? How many LawEnforcementOfficers are busy nanny stating down at the K-12 (also run by the government) when they should be out catching people busy committing theft, fraud, and violent acts?
In a department of 12 full time officers..its not much money. We dont have a full time school officer yet, but its something we are looking into.
Yes, it is parenting to some degree, but if the parents are absent, whos left? The mony comes from the State, and from the schools...but like I said, its not a lot fo cash to begin with..not as much as wed like.
BTW, we do our job enforcing laws and busting bad guys...trust me. Busy damn town for as small as it is.
Yes, it is parenting to some degree, but if the parents are absent, whos left? The mony comes from the State, and from the schools...but like I said, its not a lot fo cash to begin with..not as much as wed like.
BTW, we do our job enforcing laws and busting bad guys...trust me. Busy damn town for as small as it is.
mpw
Member
Sounds like you need more funding...perhaps the legislature will pass a law that allows you to seize money and property from "drug dealers" or anyone guilty of a "drug crime" and then keep part of the proceeds?
mpw
Member
I'm not laying any traps...I'm just taking your viewpoints (insofar as I understand them) to their logical conclusions. If the WOD is 100% righteous, and not in need of any serious policy changes, then how could I be "laying a trap"? Are you afraid of explaining things clearly?
If I have misrepresented your viewpoint or quoted you out of context in any way, please correct me.
If I have misrepresented your viewpoint or quoted you out of context in any way, please correct me.
I never once said that the policy is not in need of change, but that the war itself is righteous. Policy is the real of beauracrats, therefore is never perfect.
I wish we had more funding for education and awareness training...I wish we had more avenues to assist those with drug problems. I would much rather see the methhead we busted last week be sentenced to rehab, and get help, and return to the state that he was in before the drugs screwed his life over, than for him to go to jail....those are the changes that I would like to see.
I would very much like to make clear, at least in my case, that I am not out trying to bust people with drugs to out them in jail, and ruin their lives...I want the drugs to go away, not the people. I cannot count the people I used to run around with whom I see know whose lives are ruined by meth, mainly...its sad. I would much rather them get help then spend time in the pen...however, either is better then them running the streets, committing all kinds of crimes..
From my viewpoint, the war on drugs is just that...we are fighting DRUGS, not people.
I wish we had more funding for education and awareness training...I wish we had more avenues to assist those with drug problems. I would much rather see the methhead we busted last week be sentenced to rehab, and get help, and return to the state that he was in before the drugs screwed his life over, than for him to go to jail....those are the changes that I would like to see.
I would very much like to make clear, at least in my case, that I am not out trying to bust people with drugs to out them in jail, and ruin their lives...I want the drugs to go away, not the people. I cannot count the people I used to run around with whom I see know whose lives are ruined by meth, mainly...its sad. I would much rather them get help then spend time in the pen...however, either is better then them running the streets, committing all kinds of crimes..
From my viewpoint, the war on drugs is just that...we are fighting DRUGS, not people.
mpw
Member
One other thing, numbers of drug arrests is not a measure of effectiveness. NOT having to arrest people for drug offenses is the true measure of the effectiveness of the "war on drugs" as well as well as the rate of drug abuse in the general population.
I'm sure that we can agree that the end goal here is to reduce drug abuse.
I'm sure that we can agree that the end goal here is to reduce drug abuse.
CannibalCrowley
Member
liliysdad
Why do you feel so? Why is it okay for the government to take away our freedoms because they fear some narcotics enough to outlaw them, while only placing restrictions on others?
That may be true for your departmental budget, but in the grand scheme of things prohibition costs more than education. Every person who you bust has to make his way through the legal system which costs money. If he's sentenced to prison, then the costs of that bust skyrocket. The government can easily spend a few $100K because they caught someone growing an "evil plant".
The WoSD is worse than 0% effective. It's actually made drugs a serious problem by making them taboo and encouraging a criminal element to take part in the drug trade.
mpw
Member
I posted before reading your reply, I'm glad that we're on the same side.
MPW, I do agree 100%. If I never made another drug arrest, Id be happy...trust me, I would.
Case in point; earlier this year, Oklahoma passed a law which greatly restricts the availability of ephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetimine...since that law went into effect, our meth arrests have plummeted...no one, especially me, is complaining. That is, after all, the goal, is it not?
Case in point; earlier this year, Oklahoma passed a law which greatly restricts the availability of ephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetimine...since that law went into effect, our meth arrests have plummeted...no one, especially me, is complaining. That is, after all, the goal, is it not?
mpw
Member
Decrease in numbers of arrests do not equate with success, in my opinion. But, I hope that they are an indication that less people are choosing to use meth, rather than a temporary decrease which will disappear when criminals find alternate sources of precurser supply. The law in question creates burdens for lawful users/suppliers of ephedrine, and while it may have caused a temporary reduction in the local supply of meth (which is why less people are getting caught with it) if the underlying demand is still there, it will ultimately have had no effect since the criminals will steal or import what they need in order to supply their customers. Meanwhile, innocent people will still be burdened and the increased costs of legal products containing ephedrine will be passed onto the consumer.
Carlos Cabeza
Member
Thank you Stevelyn, that was refreshingly positive. I've met guys like you, albeit rarely.
Education is a much better alternative than incarceration. Through education it is possible that some of the dealers could utilize their efforts to more suitable and less dangerous means of financial support.
Education is a much better alternative than incarceration. Through education it is possible that some of the dealers could utilize their efforts to more suitable and less dangerous means of financial support.
longrifleman
Member
Then put the drugs in jail and leave the people alone.
Here is where the obvious problem with our approach shows up. If the goal is to help people not hurt themselves then using incarceration to deal with a medical and character problem is just plain foolish.
This is a typical govt attitude. The only tool govt is comfortable using is force and coercion so that is what we will use even if it doesn't work. And since there are obvious benefits to govt from the War on (some) Drugs even if it is failing there is no incentive to actually reduce drug use.
I have no doubt that the LEO's on the street are sincere in their desire to help society with a difficult problem; the cynical calculation happens higher up the ladder.
The solution to this is simple but won't be seriously considered: eliminate all Federal drug laws as there is no justification for them under the Const.(don't get me started on the Commerce and Gen. Welfare clauses) and let each state come up with their own solutions and the marketplace of ideas will decide which works best. We've already seen that the Feds absolutely won't give up the authority to regulate drugs no matter what so this is just silly wishful thinking.
mpw
Member
Sort of like State gun laws...except the feds won't ever give up the gun controls they now consider their right.
The Real Hawkeye
member
This is an excellent point, and one too rarely made. The reason they required a Constitutional Amendment for prohibition #1 is that they understood at that time that the Federal Government has no legitimate powers not delegated to it by the words of the US Constitution, all other powers belonging to the states and the people, respectively. By the time of prohibition #2 (i.e., on other drugs) the Federal Government had long since abandoned the "quaint" notion that they are a government of limited and delegated powers. Tyranny had already acquired a foothold by then, and the Constitution had become a mere symbol rather than an actual limit on federal power. That is to say, the Federal Government had ceased being a legitimate government under law, no longer considering itself bound by its Constitution. We have ceased being under the rule of law, and have come to be under the rule of men. That's what happens when government disregards its own basic law. The Founding Fathers called this state of affairs "tyranny," and did all they could to prevent it. America has failed them and dishonored their memory by permitting this to take place and by continuing to sit idly by while this condition escalates.
mpw
Member
welcome to the Homeland
TallPine
Member
That's a start!
The Real Hawkeye
member
As far as the issue of liberty is concerned, this is no comfort. Why should one man's whims have any effect on what another man may do in the realm of activities that do not harm others?
longrifleman
Member
I thought I was the only one who felt this way. At least I'll have good company in the gulag.
Dibs on the lower bunk.The Real Hawkeye
member
LOL
Interesting rant Hawkeye.
Since you're so concerned about the "standing federal army," and have channeled the "Founding Fathers" to get their take on the issue, why aren't you huffing and puffing about the US Coast Guard, US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, and US Air Force?
Reminds of an earlier discussion you and I particpated in, and it's obvious you are still spouting your BS rhetoric. :banghead:
Here is more of the same rhetoric. All coming from someone who doesn't seem to understand the Constitution, as proved by earlier discussions about the first three (especially the third) Articles of the Constitution.
The Real Hawkeye
member
DMF, I have made a practice of keeping a copy of the US Constitution at hand for many years now. I am on my second copy, and even it is practically falling apart from constant reference. I know most of it by heart.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Fortunately for us, there is no need to "channel" the Founding Fathers, as they were prolific writers. As for standing armies, as I have often expressed, I favor the system the Founders intended (naturally, making allowances for new technologies such as airplanes), which is to maintain a Navy and Air Force capable of repelling any nation on earth in either naval or air warfare, along with the Marine Corps, including special forces subdivisions with the best equipment in the world. As for the Army, there should be maintained a skeletal command structure with a small regular contingent of fighting men sufficient to defend our boarders from sudden attack while reserve forces are called up to fill their ranks. Considering the might of our Air Force and Navy, supported by the Marine Corps, however, it is unlikely that such a sudden attack would ever take place, thus the reason for having most of our Army in the form of reservists.
Naturally, there would not be the extensive network of tripwires around the world, i.e., the various military bases we maintain across the globe, as this is a characteristic of an empire not a republic. If our national defense were actually reoriented towards national defense (rather than maintaining a world-wide pax americana) we would require only about 10% of the total military personnel we have currently.
The Founder's solution was to keep the standing army very small in relation to the population, and to ensure that no law would ever be passed which would create a disparity between the sorts of small arms possessed by the military and those possessed by the civilian population. That is the solution I favor as well. The Founders feared large standing armies, not standing armies per se.
- Status