The Firing Line Forums
Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > S.W.A.T. Magazine

Thread Tools
Old December 13, 2007, 11:02 PM   #126
Staff Alumnus
Join Date: October 23, 1998
Location: DC
Posts: 3,274
a result of illegal, illicit narcotics.

The complexity of ill effects outlawed narcotics has on our society is almost beyond comprehension
That is an entirely incorrect statement. "...ill effects THE ABUSE of outlawed narcotics..." is a true statement. If you're going to be adamant, at least get it right. (You should REALLY have said "the illegal abuse of narcotics" to include using legal drugs in an illegal way. Next time, maybe.)

I would only ask how many doors to crack houses have you kicked in; how many meth labs have you raided; how many pot farms have you seized, and so on.

I've done all of the above and the was culmination of preceding investigations on, gasp, this so-called unconstitutional war on drugs. makes no sense for those of us who believe there is no Constitutional basis for these things to do them. Did you not think that statement out?

It is obviously beyond the comprehension of said staff members who believe the "war on drugs" is unconstitutional.
That's okay. I understand it's easier to insult than persuade when you don't really have an argument. Or perhaps the argument is beyond your comprehension.

Maybe staff members and others believe that because they have guns and some degree of training, they are not at risk from the fallout of the REAL drug war?
Actually, those of us most against this so-called war are in fact against it because we HAVE ALREADY experienced the fallout in a steady erosion of our liberties. If you haven't been aware of that erosion, you haven't been paying attention.

those who favor and wail about legalization have rarely thought it out very far.
Allow me to counter, since you're actually approaching this from the wrong end. These substances used to be legal. Those who criminalized their use obviously didn't think it out very far.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but it certainly helps to base them upon well thought out fact, research and experience.
I agree. Two years ago, I got an approximate figure on how many billion the U.S. spent per year on prosecuting this so-called war, and on related expenses. I also examined the numbers of folks behind bars for solely drug-related offenses. It was easy to conclude that we could be putting genuine criminals behind bars. You know...real crooks? The ones attempting to victimize people? On the horse you're riding, you should start screaming at McDonald's next.

Damned glad I'm a civilian now. Real damned glad.
We are also glad you are no longer an instrument of the nanny government.

John Shirley
Spectre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13, 2007, 11:16 PM   #127
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by Spectre
We are also glad you are no longer an instrument of the nanny government.

John Shirley
Your "responses" only prove that you read too much and experience firsthand too little--especially your take on "real crooks."

Tell us about all your felony arrests and how many of them had NOTHING whatsoever to do with drugs at any given point in the life cyle of the crime they were being arrested for?

Do you feel the same way about all the other "instruments" of the nanny gov't who stand watch over you while wearing the nation's uniform, colors and badges from posts all over the world? If so, why don't you and SWAT magazine publish that fine, outstanding view to the DoD (nanny gov't, you know), FBI's HRT (nanny gov't again), USBP (securing our borders is probably violating someone's liberties, right?), et al. Hell, why don't you just send those views to every single police department, sheriff's office and state police agency in America?

Just how firm DO you stand behind your views while representing a publication whose origins began in law ENFORCEMENT?

If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

So to those of you who are members of neither, thanks for nothing.
TexasSeaRay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14, 2007, 12:21 AM   #128
Staff Alumnus
Join Date: October 23, 1998
Location: DC
Posts: 3,274

Let me be crystal clear. The problem is not the uniform, the problem is the attitude- the overbearing, moralistic, "we know what's best for you" attitude. That's "nanny government" at its finest/worst. Not everyone is uniform displays this foolish and tyrannical attitude, thankfully.

Since you've obviously done a lot of research on this, you know the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. You want to talk about "real crooks"? Great. A "real crook" commits malum in se, an innately immoral act such as robbery, rape or murder. That's the barest definition possible of a real crook, and if you are who you say you are, you must admit (and HAVE to know) that.

Now, since you seem to have a fairly confused idea about who represents what (not surprising considering your stance on this issue), I represent myself, me, John Shirley. I have in the past helped moderate this site. If I or anyone else has an interesting or informative take on an issue, I can choose to see if SWAT magazine is interested in publishing what I have to say, but the opinion expressed is always my own.

My views? I stand firmly behind my views. Enough to step forward and be counted. Enough to take rounds so you can sit anonymously behind your computer screen. I believe firmly enough in protecting my fellow citizens of the United States of America- and the principles we hold MOST dear- and my fellow service members- to blow women and children to bits because there are guys with rocket launchers hiding just behind them. And I'd do it again.

THAT'S how firmly I stand behind my views. Now we can address the issue at hand- how helpful, or not, the drug laws are, or you can feel obligated to tell me how you're really a good guy despite your eagerness to arrest and prosecute folks for a malum prohibitum offense with dubious Constitutionality. Your call.

Spectre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14, 2007, 01:04 AM   #129
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
I have a question for you TexasSeaRay. You are against the legalization of drugs that are currently illegal. OK, fine. Here are some stats and a question for you.

In 2000 there were 17,000 deaths from all Illicit Drug use.

In 2000 there were 85,000 deaths from Alcohol use.

In 2000 there were 435,000 deaths from Tobacco use.

Now, are you in favor of baning alcohol and tobacco in the United States. If no, how are alcohol and tobacco different than drugs that are currently illegal? Both Tobacco and Alcohol are mind altering substances and addictive, tobacco highly so. Yet millions of people enjoy both in moderation with a minority who have a serious problem with one or both.

Here is another thought, when was the last time Bayer and Pfizer got into a shootout on the street? When was the last time one tried to kill the CEO of the other company? They take their disputes to the courtroom and not the street because they are part of the legal market.
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14, 2007, 12:58 PM   #130
Senior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 434
Take a look at what happened in the 20s with prohibition. Here is this perfectly legal substance that many enjoy and a few abuse and the political climate at the time had a moral objection to people using it. So they decide to impose their morals on the entire country by making criminals out of ordinary people. The result was motivated young men driving around in fancy cars and shooting at each other with automatic weapons. After 10 years it was apparent that people were going to drink one way or another and the added crime was clearly a result of the law imposed.

Now we have prohibition on a number of substances and the result once again is motivated young men driving around in fancy cars and shooting at each other with automatic weapons. It is apparent that people will use drugs no matter what the law says and the stiffer the penalty, the harder they fight to avoid arrest. Hell, the end of the drug war could mean the end of gun control as well since so much crime is drug related.
"Jack Bauer sleeps with a pillow under his gun."

"Bush is listening, use big words."
bushidomosquito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14, 2007, 03:25 PM   #131
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,220
The complexity of ill effects outlawed narcotics has on our society is almost beyond comprehension. It is obviously beyond the comprehension of said staff members who believe the "war on drugs" is unconstitutional.
The complexity of ill effects the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments have had on our society is beyond comprehension. Who knows how many killers and other violent criminals would be gone, or in prison for life, if they didn't have those "freedoms" to hide behind. And what would it matter if a few more innocent people got caught in the crossfire? Surely the greater good would be served if those already half-gutted amendments were finally disposed of?

We are not supposed to restrict citizens' rights simply because doing so has utilitarian benefits. We have a constitution -- at two levels, unless you're in D.C. or a territory -- for a reason. If you don't like constitutional restrictions, move to North Korea or Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure they both ban all the "hard" drugs you're likely to be concerned about, with draconian penalties. I'm also pretty sure that there's plenty of misery in both countries.

Please consider that for every "obvious" course of action to reduce crime, drug use, poverty, or other social pathologies, there tend to be less-obvious sociological effects that offset those "obvious" social gains.
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16, 2007, 01:10 PM   #132
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2007
Location: The Boonies
Posts: 424
Sometimes we have to do our best to balance individualism with altruism (like we do for our families).

I was a pot smoker for ten years and still keep my ears open to our small-town drug scene, so I'm not completely naive.

I truly believe the vast majority of people lack the ability to discipline their use of hard drugs (crack, meth, heroin) so we should continue to discourage their use and manufacture. Frankly, I'm sickened by knowing we have disfunctional welfare families where that father deals, or sits in jail while we pay for his room, board, and dentistry bills. That is a huge societal problem (not to mention moral apathy). Hard drugs are so physically addictive that they cloud judgement almost immediately.

Marijuana should be decriminalized (not legalized) so that one can possess less than one ounce, and if authorities find 5-10 plants growing in a residence, they should kindly ignore it. Also, they should ignore pot paraphenilia instead of assuming it's a crack pipe in legal terms.

Hallucinogenic mushrooms should be decriminalized (laws vary on this one).

I believe in an individuals right to smoke cigarettes, but I personally hate them. Smokers almost never habitually blow their smoke upward like a considerate smoker would, plus most throw their butts all around with "the world is my trash can" attitude. The smell makes me sick; for God's sake smoke some decent tobacco (roll your own) because mainstream cigarettes are complete poison for EVERYONE.

BTW, Marijuana is NOT a gateway drug; for me it was alchohol and others cigarettes. The only context in which pot is a gateway drug is because it's illegality puts you in contact with other drug users with (GASP!!) OPEN MINDS!! (I'm not saying an open mind is an optimum state of mind, but it's better than being small/close minded completely).

Our Office of Drug Control Policy likes to focus on Marijuana and demonize it because they are trying to nip the drug problem in the bud amongst our youth; unfortunately, this discredits their entire campaign when teens learn that Marijuana is (relative to other illegal drugs) harmless.
AutoPistola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16, 2007, 10:00 PM   #133
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
The thing with some drugs, like meth, is that they are substitute drugs. Meth is often called "Poor mans cocaine" and for good reason. If cocaine was readily available very few people would do meth.
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2007, 04:25 PM   #134
Join Date: December 16, 2007
Location: DFW
Posts: 35
If you really support a war on drugs:

If you really want outlaw drugs, drug test congress, president, and welfare recipients. The other problem with highly taxed or outlawed drugs, forced competition to make stronger more addictive drugs.
newkahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19, 2007, 03:34 AM   #135
Long Path
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 1999
Location: N. Texas
Posts: 5,888
TexasSeaRay said:
Tell us about all your felony arrests and how many of them had NOTHING whatsoever to do with drugs at any given point in the life cyle of the crime they were being arrested for?
Jeff, I've made a few felony arrests in my time. You're right-- at least half of them were drug related. Oh. Wait: That's because about half of those were for mere possession, which the state decided to make a felony.

Felonies should only be for robbery, murder, aggravated assault, arson, major thefts... stuff like that. Making my family subsidize (through tax dollars) the ~$38,000 a year (old figure-- I'm sure it's higher, now) to house a state prison inmate for the mere possession of less than a gram of some illicit substance is just stupid.

But, yes, I know where you're going with it-- whenever I run a guy's criminal history and find out that he's got burglary in his past, it's an amazingly high likelihood that this guy also will have an addiction to some drug or another.

BTW, the most prolific burglar that I ever caught was burglarizing to feed his addiction to hydrocodone-- a LEGAL pharmaceutical.

Like guns, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. All we're doing is trampling human and constitutional (despite the SCOTUS ruling in Raitch) rights, with little demonstrable impact, other than that we're raising the prices of the illicit substance (which seems to create a profit motive for the dealers). Let's manage 'em more effectively, by managing them.

This from a cop who makes drug arrests, likes his beer on occasion, and never even once took a puff of pot.
"Welcome to The Firing Line, a virtual community dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership."T.F.L. Policy Page
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap? ____________ Better and Better, the blog. _____
Long Path is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20, 2007, 03:32 AM   #136
grey sky
Senior Member
Join Date: July 2, 2007
Posts: 324
What a debate, wow
I have worked in the addiction field all of my adult life. I have seen first hand the fallout of drug and alcohol abuse/addiction.
On the effectivness of the "war on drugs", I have never treated one addict because they could no longer obtain there drug of choice and frequently am told the reason for seeking help is the easy availability of said substance. Whether it be a manufactured pharmaceutical or other.
Bottom line is prohibition did not work the first time and still does not work.
I don't know the answer, does anyone?
grey sky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20, 2007, 11:03 AM   #137
Join Date: February 24, 2006
Posts: 49
Sorry if I missed it somewhere in the many pages of this debate, but as I see it the biggest problem is the crime that goes along with it.

I don't ever recall anyone hearing of a pothead committing robbery or any other aggravated felony in order to support his habit.

It's the harder drugs that are causing all the crime so the users can feed their addictions.

I don't have a problem with legalization.
Legalize it all. If you want to dig a ditch and snort some cocaine, well, I guess you can dig a little faster then.
Just don't allow addicts to be responsible for public safety, like bus drivers, etc.

If it was legal and the addicts didn't have to spend every penny they earned/stole on the drugs, we'd have a lot less crime in our country.

The war isn't working, it's about time to try a different approach.

And to all those worried about keeping it out of our children's hands,

Make severe penalties for supplying children with these life in prison.

Bottom line is you can't legislate morality, people are going to do what they want to do.

If all of this has been covered already, excuse me.
NRA, VCDL, US Army-15Echo Pershing Missile Crewmember
klambpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2008, 01:51 PM   #138
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2007
Location: Forney, TX
Posts: 725
Make it legal, tax it, and use tax revenue for drug rehab programs and fighting the black market of illegal drugs for those that fall out.

I lived in Alaska where drug laws were more lax than here in Texas. Every so often, Alaska puts legalization(decriminalization?) of marijuana on the ballot. It gets knocked down with 40% vote.

Read up on heroin users in England. The idea they had was that the user eventually matures or grows out of the user mentality. But most users die from overdose of heroin from bad mix. So they try to treat the user medically with legal dosages until they get themselves off.

It's a pragmatic solution.

I think smoking marijuana is not the healthiest of pastimes. But, eating fatty foods is prolly more dangerous to your health than smoking a doobie in your backyard.
When all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done.
ForneyRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27, 2008, 12:05 PM   #139
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Estados Unitas / United States
Posts: 972
However, alcohol which the majority of drinkers consume in a moderate amount or at least an amount which their bodies can tolerate and drink for the taste of the alcoholic beverage and for social reasons,
Agree to disagree. Statistically around half of traffic fatalities and up involve alcohol. I have done some bartending in a fairly upscale bar on the eastern shore. Not too many folks coming in and just having one for the taste. Most bar patrons drink enough to feel it. And it shows.

BY state law in that venue we had to be trained and licensed to serve alcohol. We were required not to serve once people had ingested enough to be legally intoxicated by a mathematical formula. People are at increased risk behind the wheel to themselves and others long before they are legally drunk.

MY main problem with marijuana being illegal is the crime it's legal status engenders. Also resources spent on pot fighting that could be used elsewhere.

You have to remember, I was present at a raid involving over forty officers to take down four potheads who all held regular jobs and other than pot did nothing illegal. There were murder suspects at large when all those officers were getting Navy Seal'd and Ninja'd up. They could have sent three guys with a warrant and accomplished the same thing.

Somebody started to point an MP5 at me and I was the licensed on duty SO, in Uniform for crying out loud. I was nowhere near the apartment they had the warrant for. When I see exuberance like this legalizing marijuna seems a better alternative.

The tax income could be astounding and put to good use. Organized crime and gangs don't sell marijuana for altruistic reasons. They recognize the huge amount of cash involved. I would like to see this cash move way from the underground economy.
Perldog007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26, 2008, 11:04 AM   #140
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
Well, I used to work in the drug business.

Instead of a lab cobbled together in a kitchen, we had a dedicated facility, with what seemed like miles of stainless pipe. We had hazmat rules in place. We had secure storage of everything. A sterile clean-room atmosphere.

Oh yeah - it was in the pharmaceutical industry...

Take the black market away, and industry will take over. It'll be clean, regulated, and of known quality/dosage.

Then, let idjits do whatever they want. Tax the stuff somewhat, and use that money for education and treatment, if necessary. I suspect that -most- "drug crime" will go away. You'll still have some "domestic" type stuff, but you already have that... You sure won't have Acme Corp doing a drive by on Zebra Corp...

What we have been doing, essentially prohibition, has NOT been working. Time to look in another direction. Of course, this will mean a major segment of the law enforcement community will be looking for new/different jobs. Guys, there's a coupla things out there - crime and terrorism.
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist.

And making the world's greatest bottle openers!
Bogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26, 2008, 12:21 PM   #141
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 1,040
I ask, would you want to be riding in a plane with the crew stoned out of their gourds?
Would you want to be shooting at the range with everyone else around you high?
Would you want to eat at a establishment where the cooks were stoned?
Would you want to go in for surgery where the surgeon is high?
Would you want to drive if pot was legalized?
You probably already do more than one of these. Then again, if drugs were legalized, not everyone would do drugs.
ActivShootr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27, 2008, 11:51 PM   #142
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
I ask, would you want to be riding in a plane with the crew drunk off their butts?
Would you want to be shooting at the range with everyone else around you drinking?
Would you want to eat at a establishment where the cooks were drunk?
Would you want to go in for surgery where the surgeon is drunk?
Would you want to drive if alcohol was legalized?
There - fixed it...

Prohibition didn't work.

Peer pressure does.
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist.

And making the world's greatest bottle openers!
Bogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2008, 01:12 AM   #143
Junior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2008
Posts: 6
legalizing drugs

Ifind it interesting that there's all thistalk of a "war on drugs". There has never been a war on drugs. Only a war on minorities under the lie of being a war on drugs.
Lookat histroy. When Dewey was in charge of New York, I believe in the
1930s,he wanted a study on marijuana. He wanted the report to show that marijuana was a "gateway drug" and that most drug addicts were black. Thedoctor who did the study found the complete opposite to be true. Dewey didn't like that so he smeared the doctor in the papers and got a new lacky to write what he wanted in the first place.
Later the police wanted to go from the 38 S&W to the 357 magnum. Their rationale? "Drug crazed negroes". That due to cocaine they needed harder hitting weapons to stop them.
What is the most dangerous drug in the world? Alcohol. And it is never even discussed. So 535 people, of who many are alcoholics, tell epeople what is and isn't OK to use.Rather hypocritical.
And to answer one writer. We already have doctors stoned in hospitals, lots of them. We have had pilots flying 747s while drunk. Judges that are drunk or stoned on the bench.
America currently has about 20% of it's population either stoned via self-medication or legally addicted by their doctors. America has about 4 to 5% of the world's population and takes more legal mind numbing narcotics than the entire world combined. And now all these new wonder drugs like Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Xanax,etchave been found far more destructive than ever thought. Far more addictive and dangerous.
will legalization work? probably not. But decriminalization and far more money for treatment would be the answer. And please do not use the tired "war on terror" analogy. There's no war on terror. THere's merely a huge profit for weapons contractors, gold investors, oil companies, and private and criminal security companies.
bobbo56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2008, 02:03 AM   #144
Shadi Khalil
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,157
Uh, yeah, legalize it?

but really, I'm just chiming in beause i read this gem qouted by one KSfreeman:

Everyone knows sleep gives you cancer." Neil, The Young Ones.
I thought I was the only one who knew about that show and its greatness...Any line on DVD's?

Sorry to break the subject but maybe I can weigh in a bit...Maybe just decriminalize pot and let the sick people have it. Cancer, AIDS adn crohns patients who use it say it works. Who are any of us to argue with sick people then jam syntheic herion down their throats for pain? Whats the difference between a bottle of oxy's and a bag of smack? not much. Whats the difference between a bag of pot and the other two? A whole lot.
Shadi Khalil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2008, 03:12 AM   #145
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 240
Supply and demand

Ok my 2 cents As long as there is a demand there will be a supply Legal or otherwise. Some people are in control of the drug and some people are controlled by the drug thats just the way it is. Should we legalize them? not sure on that one good and bad on both sides of that coin, maybe lesson the criminal charges on some of the more mellower stuff say like fines instead of prison. but some of the hard core stuff like pcp and the like should never be turned loose seen that stuff in action (SCARY) Finaly people should be responsable for their own actions I'm tired of (I spilled hot coffee on my lap so I will sue McDonalds for my own stupidity.) type stuff, or (I wasn't loved enough as a child ) Get over it deal with it and get on with your life. ok my rant is over
Accuracy over volume
fbrown333@suddenlink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2008, 08:36 PM   #146
Join Date: May 12, 2008
Posts: 22
My 2 cents on an old thread......

My rights are not negotiable. There was no drug prohibition until 1914 in this country while drugs were around before the invention of firearms. I find it odd that gunowners, who are generally strong supporters of individual liberty, resort to the same arguments as gun grabbers when rights other than to arms and personal defense are at stake.

Are you afraid that if are rights are restored you will start taking now banned drugs?

Too often the focus of this discussion is on "street drugs".If you were suffering from an incurable disease would you take a promising therapeutic drug that was banned by the FDA? Should the State be able to tell you you can't take an experimental cancer drug for example (they do)? If you lost your health insurance should you have to pay $150 for a doctors visit to buy a $10 prescription for a known medical condition? (or just walk in the pharmacy and buy it as was our right until 1936)

Ending drug prohibition is not a matter of social policy but a restoration of property rights and individual liberty.
acr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2008, 09:10 PM   #147
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2008
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 113
I condone the legalization of Marijuana ONLY, not heroin, cocaine, etc.

1) Extensive medical tests have proved that our LEGAL drugs are actually much more harmful than marijuana (i.e. tobacco, alcohol).

2) Legalizing marijuana would free-up funds wasted on (as someone else put it) harassment and incarceration (court costs, the officers wasted time) of harmless pot smokers, funds that could be diverted to getting the really bad stuff off our streets.

3) It would provide yet another taxable product that our government would make BILLIONS from.

4) It would GREATLY lessen the financial burden our prison system shoulders by incarcerating harmless pot smokers. Think of how many people would THAT empty out of our already over-crowded prison system making room for the ones who really need to be there.

5) Marijuana was actually first made illegal in this nation as a means of ridding NYC of their Black and Hispanic population. The idea being, Blacks and Hispanics LOVE to use marijuana therefor if we illegalize it, they will leave. (This is entirely true! Mayor Laguardia fought the new law tooth and nail). It was a very racially motivated law back then.

Those of you worried about people at the shooting range being high, cooking your meals in restaurants high, becoming burdens on us through abuse of our welfare system, etc. ... what's the difference between them being high or drunk? I wish I had a nickel every time I saw a fellow employee at work drunk and out enjoying lunchtime cocktails! I cannot offer anything to make any of you feel better about having "stoned" people shooting next to you at the shooting range save for this: most pot smokers do not pay memberships at or frequent shooting ranges as far as I know. For the welfare fears ... that is easy to control and actually, there are already laws regarding drug use and receiving welfare. Just U/A everyone who applies for assistance. I know many of you will complain about the cost of THAT but if you think about it, it wouldn't really be that expensive. Once people knew that applying for benefits meant being U/A'd, they either wouldn't apply or would clean-up before they did. SOME of those who cleaned-up might actually enjoy NOT being high for a change and do something with themselves.

Just food for thought.
David L.

"The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they are when you kill them."
Wyldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23, 2008, 08:19 AM   #148
Junior member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Posts: 176

Last edited by gruntrus; August 23, 2008 at 09:52 PM. Reason: Wrong website I guess.
gruntrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25, 2008, 12:11 PM   #149
Guido B.
Junior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Wilder, Idaho
Posts: 1
Hello, I was reading this thread with great interest and it reminded me of a documentary I recently watched on showtime entitled:American Drug War: The Last White Hope.
This Documentary had a lot of interesting information in it from various sources including Judges, DEA Agents, LEO's , Drug Dealers, Drug users, etc...

For those interested the entire Documentary can be viewed at

I would also like to say I love this forum and thx to everybody who make it so great!
Guido B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25, 2008, 01:16 PM   #150
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Add to this mix the debate going on right now about lowering the legal drinking age to 18....
Creature is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Page generated in 0.16683 seconds with 7 queries