There's no way that the police apologists can say with this one: "Well, we only have one side of the story, blah blah blah."
Incredible.
Incredible.
The war on hibiscus
- Thread starter atek3
- Start date
- Status
BTW,
Any DEA agent or narcotics cop who drinks alcohol or caffeine, or smokes tobacco, is a hypocrite, because those are dangerous substances, and people under the influence of those drugs can hurt themselves or others.
Think about it. It's for the children.
Any DEA agent or narcotics cop who drinks alcohol or caffeine, or smokes tobacco, is a hypocrite, because those are dangerous substances, and people under the influence of those drugs can hurt themselves or others.
Think about it. It's for the children.
Handfulls of those "little white rocks" could be thrown, causing nuisance, injury, or even blindness to multiple passers by or children. We must ban all these evil, "street sweeper" assault rocks immediately!
iapetus,
Why not? Sounds good to me. I mean, after all I remember hearing about some place (I don't remember where, when, or how far it got) that was talking about banning carrying baseball bats...even to the park to, uh...play baseball. Baseballs would logically come next.
One thing I can tell you for certain is that, at least around where I live, you cannot find toy guns, cap guns or any other sort of semi-realistic looking gun (I'm not sure about squirt guns) in any Toys-R-Us stores because some nutty parents who were rich and bored and had too much time on their hands put pressure on that chain of stores. I'm not sure about other toy stores...I haven't really looked. But they are considered "war toys"! I am so f***ing glad I did not grow up as a kid at this point in time.
Oh, I live in Kali...go figure.
seed.
Why not? Sounds good to me. I mean, after all I remember hearing about some place (I don't remember where, when, or how far it got) that was talking about banning carrying baseball bats...even to the park to, uh...play baseball. Baseballs would logically come next.
One thing I can tell you for certain is that, at least around where I live, you cannot find toy guns, cap guns or any other sort of semi-realistic looking gun (I'm not sure about squirt guns) in any Toys-R-Us stores because some nutty parents who were rich and bored and had too much time on their hands put pressure on that chain of stores. I'm not sure about other toy stores...I haven't really looked. But they are considered "war toys"! I am so f***ing glad I did not grow up as a kid at this point in time.
Oh, I live in Kali...go figure.
seed.
Treylis wrote:
So where are the police apologists? Page four now, and where is FedDC, DMF, et. al.?
So where are the police apologists? Page four now, and where is FedDC, DMF, et. al.?
"I don't expect the cops to be bontanists. "
OK, but, if they're going to have the authority and the power to have potentially life-altering encounters with suspects, and they're going to be arresting / shooting / kicking down doors based on possession of cannabis, then they damn well better know ENOUGH botany to be able to differentiate cannabis from not-cannabis.
The War on Drugs is immoral, unjust, and just another excuse for the government to steal from the citizenry. It's BS, and I don't buy it. If someone wants to self-medicate, it's their life, their body, and the gov't needs to pi$$ off.
STOP THE WAR ON (some) DRUGS NOW!
And yes, I find it curious that none of the police on this board have touched this one. I find it disturbing that (at least some of them) need to be right at all costs.
OK, but, if they're going to have the authority and the power to have potentially life-altering encounters with suspects, and they're going to be arresting / shooting / kicking down doors based on possession of cannabis, then they damn well better know ENOUGH botany to be able to differentiate cannabis from not-cannabis.
The War on Drugs is immoral, unjust, and just another excuse for the government to steal from the citizenry. It's BS, and I don't buy it. If someone wants to self-medicate, it's their life, their body, and the gov't needs to pi$$ off.
STOP THE WAR ON (some) DRUGS NOW!
And yes, I find it curious that none of the police on this board have touched this one. I find it disturbing that (at least some of them) need to be right at all costs.
The topic is of no interest to me, and the thread is full of the typical "stop the war on some drugs" types...sorry, but I support the war on illegal drugs. But theres no talking sense into a pothead or other drug user whose only interest is to warp his or her sense of reality because they can't handle their lives in an unaltered condition.
What do potheads have to do with this thread? (looks around) I don't see any potheads in here.
Or is "if you don't agree with the war on drugs you're a pothead" now the official pro-WOD slogan?
Whoa there mr tcsd1236. I take exception to you calling the members on THR potheads. If you support this crap then you are no different then NAZI storm troopers. This is your war on drugs.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
Second as a FF and EMT I am required to have drug test, I see the damage done by drugs anf it does not justify the above actions and I am not and I am sure others on this board are not pot heads. If you can't add anything of value to this board other than name calling go somewhere else.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
Second as a FF and EMT I am required to have drug test, I see the damage done by drugs anf it does not justify the above actions and I am not and I am sure others on this board are not pot heads. If you can't add anything of value to this board other than name calling go somewhere else.
I did not specify that the people defending the growing and use of pot here are potheads, but there certainly enough threads on this subject elsewhere that it is apparent that at least some of the posters partake of the substances they are defending. I would not doubt that at least soem of those defending the use of pot here partake personally. Are you saying otherwise? You think its all just awonderful acaddemic defense of the practice based on a personal freedom platform?
Illegal drugs are the downfall of a civilized society and a pet peeve of mine. I cannot stand illegal drug users.
If that puts us at odds, oh well.
llegal drugs are the downfall of a civilized society
_______________________________________
Which one???
_______________________________________
Which one???
And you have some evidence of this, beyond your own prejudices?
Again, what evidence do you have that it is not? Not that I particularly care whether my fellow anti-WOSD advocates partake, but if you're going to make broad accusations then you'd better have some facts to back them up.
I cannot stand minivans, but that doesn't give me the moral license to ban them. I'm mature enough to understand that just because I dislike something, doesn't mean that it should be illegal.
It puts you at odds with freedom. Not to be offensive, but supporting the drug war really does make you opposed to individual liberty, and you really should think about that.
- Chris
There are limits on every freedom.This is one that is in the interests of society in general and one I can live with.
llegal drugs are the downfall of a civilized society
which one?
_______________
I thought so…. There are far better ways to fight the war on drugs than using a hammer as I stated in a previous thread. Education and rehabilitation. By education I mean education of society and parents in bringing up there children. Also some people are predisposed to addiction, So do we lock them up or simply exterminate them?? I opt for helping them but that’s probably the EMT in me.
For additional reading
Incentive-sensitization and addiction. Terry E Robinson and Kent C Berrige in Addiction Vol 96 No ! Pages 102-114 January 2001
Or
Molecular Basis of Long Term Plasticity underlying Addiction, Eric J Nestler in Nature Reviews Neuroscience Vol 2 No 2 Pages 119-128 February 2001
Also I see no comment on the colateral damage of the war on drugs. Lets just avoid that nasty.
which one?
_______________
I thought so…. There are far better ways to fight the war on drugs than using a hammer as I stated in a previous thread. Education and rehabilitation. By education I mean education of society and parents in bringing up there children. Also some people are predisposed to addiction, So do we lock them up or simply exterminate them?? I opt for helping them but that’s probably the EMT in me.
For additional reading
Incentive-sensitization and addiction. Terry E Robinson and Kent C Berrige in Addiction Vol 96 No ! Pages 102-114 January 2001
Or
Molecular Basis of Long Term Plasticity underlying Addiction, Eric J Nestler in Nature Reviews Neuroscience Vol 2 No 2 Pages 119-128 February 2001
Also I see no comment on the colateral damage of the war on drugs. Lets just avoid that nasty.
Sounds like an issue of job security to me.
As one person asked - Name One.
That said the major damage done to society by illegal drugs is caused because they are illegal. Because they are illegal it is the seedier side of society that takes it upon itself to distribute them to the weak willed and useless f***ks who use them.
High distribution costs resulting from the risks involved in illegal distribution cause the users to have to commit crimes of their own in order get the money to pay for the drugs. I read somewhere that 70% of all crime in the US would just go away if drugs were legalized and the cost of acquiring them brought down to some reasonable level.
The only downside to legalization is that it is inevitable that our society would find it necessary and moral to support the dopers who go too far and destroy their lives with drugs. (personally I'd just let 'em die - they die they don't breed and eventually the genes responsible for the addictive behavior just disappears from the gene pool).
But like I said the War on Drugs primarily just represents job security for cops and is just one more way the government inserts itself into and controls the lives of its citizens.
You know, the thread ain't about the War on Nouns.
It's about one particular instance of Drug Warriors being able even to identify the commonest of the illegal substances they are paid to try to eradicate.
Be interesting to hear comments about that. You folks could debate the overal idea of the WoD in another thread, mebbe.
pax
My brother's experience with the same basic ignorance: http://www.thearmedcitizen.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=203
It's about one particular instance of Drug Warriors being able even to identify the commonest of the illegal substances they are paid to try to eradicate.
Be interesting to hear comments about that. You folks could debate the overal idea of the WoD in another thread, mebbe.
pax
My brother's experience with the same basic ignorance: http://www.thearmedcitizen.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=203
tcsd1236, I think you're assuming the antipathy against the methodology of the "War on Drugs" is the same thing as approval of the use of now-illegal drugs. Nope. Wrong.
I have observed this nation's efforts against illegal drugs for some forty years. The laws have become ever more restrictive, and the punishments ever more Draconian. Yet, we're interdicting the same old ten percent of drugs that we always have.
Drive-by shootings are the primary cause of much of the anti-gun sentiment extant. Yet, drive-by shootings are a direct result of behavior created by the black market in drugs.
Sequestration of property without a court order and "arrest the money" are as evil a pair of concepts as I've ever heard about. The automatic suspicion of somebody who likes to carry large amounts of cash is childish, at best--but it is directly caused by our war on drugs.
Heck, we'd save billions by just buying all the raw coca and poppy-ooze directly from the growers. We'd spend billions less money, and easily outbid the drug lords. But, that's outside the box...
Medically, we lose some 700,000 people per year from the effects of booze and 'baccy. We lose about 30,000 from drug-related health problems.
The mindset of the folks who passed the 21st Amendment was of much higher intellectual quality than what we have in today's Congress.
And in the meantime, folks get harassed over nothing at all...
, Art
I have observed this nation's efforts against illegal drugs for some forty years. The laws have become ever more restrictive, and the punishments ever more Draconian. Yet, we're interdicting the same old ten percent of drugs that we always have.
Drive-by shootings are the primary cause of much of the anti-gun sentiment extant. Yet, drive-by shootings are a direct result of behavior created by the black market in drugs.
Sequestration of property without a court order and "arrest the money" are as evil a pair of concepts as I've ever heard about. The automatic suspicion of somebody who likes to carry large amounts of cash is childish, at best--but it is directly caused by our war on drugs.
Heck, we'd save billions by just buying all the raw coca and poppy-ooze directly from the growers. We'd spend billions less money, and easily outbid the drug lords. But, that's outside the box...
Medically, we lose some 700,000 people per year from the effects of booze and 'baccy. We lose about 30,000 from drug-related health problems.
The mindset of the folks who passed the 21st Amendment was of much higher intellectual quality than what we have in today's Congress.
And in the meantime, folks get harassed over nothing at all...
, ArtWow. I didn't think many LEO's had such a narrow view of the societal hazards of drugs. In case it slipped your mind, alcohol and tobacco are two legal drugs that cost our society orders of magnitude more than weed, cocaine, ecstasy, etc. I only need to talk about drunk drivers and lung cancer to trump your sense of outrage over illegal drugs.
I just don't see how you can get all gung-ho about the war on drugs. The hypocrisy is insane.
Your life might have been touched by someone who was harmed because of use of illegal drugs. For that I feel bad for you. It doesn't mean our society is in decay because of it. We have plenty of other causes. Did you ever investigate the historical use of various drugs? I'll reiterate the question above, what society did it harm?
The war on drugs harms more citizens than drugs themselves. It is not worth even one erroneous-no-knock-warrant death. I'm in favor of legalizing but not because I'm a user (I'm not. I get drug tested at work). I just want to tax users so that underground economy can contribute. Time was, weed was California's #1 cash crop. Not sure if that's still true but the $$ implications are staggering. So instead of spending billions on a useless cause (see above) we could gain millions (billions?) in revenue.
I just don't see how you can get all gung-ho about the war on drugs. The hypocrisy is insane.
Your life might have been touched by someone who was harmed because of use of illegal drugs. For that I feel bad for you. It doesn't mean our society is in decay because of it. We have plenty of other causes. Did you ever investigate the historical use of various drugs? I'll reiterate the question above, what society did it harm?
The war on drugs harms more citizens than drugs themselves. It is not worth even one erroneous-no-knock-warrant death. I'm in favor of legalizing but not because I'm a user (I'm not. I get drug tested at work). I just want to tax users so that underground economy can contribute. Time was, weed was California's #1 cash crop. Not sure if that's still true but the $$ implications are staggering. So instead of spending billions on a useless cause (see above) we could gain millions (billions?) in revenue.
tcsd1236,
Would you feel the same if the current drugs that are illegal were made legal? It makes sense that if you hate "illegal drugs" and feel that "illegal drugs" are the downfall of a mysteriously missing from history civilization, that legalizing them would remove the hate and their threat to society.
Would you feel the same if the current drugs that are illegal were made legal? It makes sense that if you hate "illegal drugs" and feel that "illegal drugs" are the downfall of a mysteriously missing from history civilization, that legalizing them would remove the hate and their threat to society.
Gee - what an interesting thread!
Art , pax as usual , thanks for keeping things on track.
The way I see it folks have always done what they are going to do - no matter if a law says you can't. In any profession or business we have bad representatives. We have a lack of money for training and too much "politics" - be it in house, gummit, media spin or fear of litigation.
Now I really don't give a hoot about what folks do in private, none of my business. I do get a bit ticked about "suggestions on being nosy on neighbors" as some ....err...acronyms that meddle with Rights and Freedoms.
Heck - I'd be given thought to parking a VW Jesus Bus out front with Peace symbols, and Greenpeace stickers,doing my best Cheech & Chong impersonation and inviting folks over dressed the same....planting this hibisicus, haveing on window sills....
A few Nosy Neighbors gets sued for Slander, Libel and defamation of character... "maybe" all this hub-bub about the ratting out for safety of the State ...well so I'm tacky. History tells us and we have pics of those whom final resting place was mass grave after thier services to keep the State safe were no longer needed. I'd probably make this history lesson required reading for the folks that lose the suit...have 'em do a report in the community, local schools or something.
I'd probably go so far to crank up Jerry Jeff Walker ..."anybody wanna get high?"...
I don't even have to take tacky pills to think this way.
Art , pax as usual , thanks for keeping things on track.
The way I see it folks have always done what they are going to do - no matter if a law says you can't. In any profession or business we have bad representatives. We have a lack of money for training and too much "politics" - be it in house, gummit, media spin or fear of litigation.
Now I really don't give a hoot about what folks do in private, none of my business. I do get a bit ticked about "suggestions on being nosy on neighbors" as some ....err...acronyms that meddle with Rights and Freedoms.
Heck - I'd be given thought to parking a VW Jesus Bus out front with Peace symbols, and Greenpeace stickers,doing my best Cheech & Chong impersonation and inviting folks over dressed the same....planting this hibisicus, haveing on window sills....
A few Nosy Neighbors gets sued for Slander, Libel and defamation of character... "maybe" all this hub-bub about the ratting out for safety of the State ...well so I'm tacky. History tells us and we have pics of those whom final resting place was mass grave after thier services to keep the State safe were no longer needed. I'd probably make this history lesson required reading for the folks that lose the suit...have 'em do a report in the community, local schools or something.
I'd probably go so far to crank up Jerry Jeff Walker ..."anybody wanna get high?"...
I don't even have to take tacky pills to think this way.
Ah, A nice afternoon of trap, cut my lawn and now for my last say in this thread. To pax I think it is impossible to disassociate the war on drugs with the actions of these officers. To do so is like discussing a BATF raid or Jim Crow laws without discussing the 2nd amendment, racism or due process. Or the gas chambers of Auschwitz without discussing racism. But thats my opinion.
I can only say given the aggressiveness of some of these raids this person is lucky to be alive. That’s all I have to say.
I can only say given the aggressiveness of some of these raids this person is lucky to be alive. That’s all I have to say.
They have no benefit to society. What benfit do cocaine, heroin, meth, etc have?Hmmm?Any positive ingredients can be extracted, synthesized, etc.
I will NOT get into a legalization debate. No good can come of it, and will simply be another indicator of the decline of society, should it ever occur.
- Status
Similar threads
