The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 16, 2013, 09:59 AM   #26
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,118
Agreed.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 10:03 AM   #27
deepcreek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 320
Quote:
That is not the Dutch experience.
Much of the Dutch problem was "drug tourism" they were still surrounded by drug prohibition so the crime elements were still there and thriving.

Nothing in life is easy, milk sales are not easy or bread, water treatment, schools every thing in community has problems but non violent problems do not need sub machine guns and armies to fix them.
deepcreek is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 10:06 AM   #28
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
The "war on drugs" certainly has had little impact on drug use anyway either…
I respectfully disagree. The tons, literally tons, of illegal drugs confiscated by law enforcement yearly, would suddenly become available on the streets if the “War on drugs” came to a sudden halt. Those tons of drugs would escalate the overdose problems, family problems, societal problems common with drug abuse. There are those that say crime would drop if the “War on drugs” ended. I disagree. Okay, it would no longer be a crime to posses, transport, sell or use drugs. But, motor vehicle deaths, overdosing, family problems (domestic abuse) and societal problems (stoned people roaming the streets) would increase enough to make up for the once illegal act of position, sales and transportation.

Being in EMS, I have seen drug related problems that would make a normal person cringe with fear. Stop the “War on drugs” and those drug related problems would multiply out of control. Money saved by stopping the “War on drugs” would have to be spent on EMS and Hospitals. Also the morgue and funeral homes, but that part doesn’t bother me so much as it’s Darwin’s way of thinning the heard.

The answer? Unfortunately, I don’t have one, short of executing drug dealers / users on the spot, I’m of little help.
Mike38 is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 10:44 AM   #29
deepcreek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 320
Quote:
I respectfully disagree. The tons, literally tons, of illegal drugs confiscated by law enforcement yearly, would suddenly become available on the streets if the “War on drugs” came to a sudden halt. Those tons of drugs would escalate the overdose problems, family problems, societal problems common with drug abuse.
Even law enforcement and the DEA admits they only seize a small portion of drugs on the street. Drugs are ready available to those who seek them.

To think that the drug war is holding back a massive tsunami of drug abuse is false and outdated as "reefer madness".

Quote:
The answer? Unfortunately, I don’t have one, short of executing drug dealers / users on the spot, I’m of little help.
Many Muslim countries do this and still have massive drug abuse rates.

Many people in the day of alcohol prohibition wanted to do this with alcohol users. As we see today many productive members of society use alcohol in a safe manner, their is a difference between use and abuse.
deepcreek is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 11:59 AM   #30
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,107
Quote:
Legalize drugs and it would fade over night.
Its been years since I have debated this particular notion, but my opinion hasn't changed. In fairness, the explanation given to me by a dear friend who believes that fairytale, is that addicts commit crimes solely out of anxiety of getting their next fix. And her solution was not just to legalize the drugs but also to allow government to provide limited amounts of drugs. Thus taking away the 'need' for an addict to commit crimes in order to procure money for buying those drugs.

I don't know if she pulled that concept out of thin air, or had knowledge of such a system working in other countries, but I am convinced it would not work in American society.

Citizens of this country are enthralled with taking everything to the extreme. Doesn't matter if its a hobby or a sport or just entertainment, we want to see the biggest, the baddest, the fattest, the fastest, the super ultra mostest extreme of anything and everything.

That same mentality also applies to drug addicts.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 01:01 PM   #31
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
As Connecticut trooper suggested, we are not faced with any easy solutions, full legalization included.
Yet we have enforced solutions which are obviously failing and having devastating effects on our society.

If society cannot find a solution to a difficult problem, it should realize its limitations, and defer, rather than creating "solutions" which are as bad as, or worse than, the problems themselves.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 01:20 PM   #32
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 10,569
You will never solve the "problem" completely, until you can change the fact that people like to get "high". And that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Ancient people developed brewing and fermenting, and found plants that could be eaten or smoked to make them feel good. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

I see two separate, but intertwined problems. First, that (some) drugs are illegal, and second, how we go about enforcing those laws.

We are constantly hearing about the "costs to society", and while there is a validity to the concept, I think we have gone well overboard with our concern about it. We too often look at results from a group, without considering that the group is made up of individuals.

The focus on possession and use of drugs as criminal, is, I feel, the wrong way to deal with the problem. What people do under the influence is what causes the problem, not the possession of a plant or compound.

A drunk driver nearly killed my family. It wasn't the beer that made that happen, it was the drinker. And what he choose to do after drinking.

In some ways, its a lot like gun control. The problem isn't the guns, its what some people do with them.

And what is the answer our govt and (some) segments of our society give us? A top down war on things, more than on harmful actions.

Of course, if you don't have a thing, you cannot do bad with it. So we all get forced to live so that stupid people are slightly less likely to be stupid?

As a people, we are kind, caring and considerate (of course individuals can be petty and spiteful). We dislike seeing anyone hurt or suffering, even through their own actions. This is a noble sentiment, but there are limits to which this is practical, or effective. AND those limits must be balanced against our personal liberties and freedoms.

We make compromises to our freedoms all day, everyday. That's how society functions. We have set rules, and generally follow them. About virtually everything. However, where one sets the rules, and how they are enforced is critical to our liberty.

Our history is full of things that are now crimes, that once were not.

We've tried a lot of things, and often the "solution" only made the problem worse, or actually created more problems than it solved. To my eyes, the war on drugs has created more, and worse problems than it has solved.

In war, when you consistently fail to achieve your objectives, its time to seriously consider changing tactics. I think that's quite apt to the war on drugs as well.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 01:28 PM   #33
warrior poet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2007
Location: Whereever Uncle Sam wants to put me
Posts: 411
Maybe making the penalty for having drugs something like... using every bit of drugs you are found with within 10 minutes... it would get rid of the market pretty fast, and make marijuana legal.

Yes, I am being sarcastic... sort of.
__________________
Trigger control: The skillful manipulation of the trigger, which causes the weapon to fire, while maintaining sight alignment and sight picture.
warrior poet is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 01:58 PM   #34
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
In some ways, its a lot like gun control. The problem isn't the guns, its what some people do with them.

And what is the answer our govt and (some) segments of our society give us? A top down war on things, more than on harmful actions.

Of course, if you don't have a thing, you cannot do bad with it. So we all get forced to live so that stupid people are slightly less likely to be stupid?

As a people, we are kind, caring and considerate (of course individuals can be petty and spiteful). We dislike seeing anyone hurt or suffering, even through their own actions. This is a noble sentiment, but there are limits to which this is practical, or effective. AND those limits must be balanced against our personal liberties and freedoms.

We make compromises to our freedoms all day, everyday. That's how society functions. We have set rules, and generally follow them. About virtually everything. However, where one sets the rules, and how they are enforced is critical to our liberty.

Our history is full of things that are now crimes, that once were not.

We've tried a lot of things, and often the "solution" only made the problem worse, or actually created more problems than it solved. To my eyes, the war on drugs has created more, and worse problems than it has solved.
One way in which this issue differs substantially from that of firearms possession is that it is quite easy to note all sorts of beneficial uses for firearms. On the other hand, I would be hard-pressed to note the benefits of smoking crack.

This issue contains some extremes that can cloak substantial agreement, and that when it ignored or conflated can stoke an illusory disagreement.

I would guess that very few people are enthused about locking up people who smoke marijuana. 30 years ago, Bill Buckley wrote about the injustice of sentencing a young man to 20 years of incarceration over a small amount of marijuana.

On the other hand, crack and methamphetamines are grotesquely addictive and all too often can be the first step on a short and ugly journey to death. I believe it would be difficult to persuasively argue that the prohibition on crack and methamphetamines is worse than the problems we would see from legalizing their use.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 02:13 PM   #35
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,982
Quote:
You will never solve the "problem" completely, until you can change the fact that people like to get "high". And that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
And those folks do that because their reality is, in their minds, too painful to deal with on a daily basis.

Too many are too concerned with what they DONT have and that leads to a lot of societal ills, envy, grudges, depression, etc., all feeding the drug abuse issue'.

Might as well tax it, regulate it, ala Nevada and prostitution, and use the police resources for better things. As to the title of the thread, the police where I live have been a paramilitary force for some time, including having APC's, breaching teams, SWAT, etc.

Maybe if they spent more time back walking beats, talking to the locals and getting to know them better, instead of waiting for something to go bonkers and then react like a SEAL team, they would have a better image, folks might get along better, and some of the crime issues might lessen
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 03:37 PM   #36
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Having lived in California for 5 years, the Marijuana, Coke, LSD, and Ecstacy/MDMA trade is practically a joke. While Mary J might be partially legal, the other three are far from it. Legalizing all 3 would not effect their consumption at all, it would only lower prices and get the financial leverage off illegal drug cartels.

For anyone that is older and doesn't believe me, go to an electric music carnival. 90% of the people there are on Acid or Coke or Ecstacy, or a combination. That's not even including pot or alcohol. Mind you the one I went to (I was the designated driver, I have a severe dislike for real drugs like this) had over 100,000 people. EDC in Las Vegas brought 4-5 times as many people. These concerts get these numbers all over the country.

I want you all to realize how much Ecstacy/Pot/Acid is being consumed, just on special bi-annual events. Millions of pills at each show.

One of my best friends is an associate at PWC and another at NY Life. They are in the minority of those who don't do coke on a regular basis.


Anyone who thinks the War on Drugs is anything more than a moneypit sham is going to extensive lengths to remain delusional. I'm sorry if I sound terse and confrontational, but it is literally the least effective enforcement of law in the country.


"If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."-Milton Friedman
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 03:38 PM   #37
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,566
As a general matter, I cannot agree that the "War on [....]" formula can be problematic to the degree it invites a suspension of our ordinary caution.

Quote:
Cops firmly believe in one thing.
This kind of statement is rarely accurate.

I have yet to encounter the group who do not mirror the basic bell curve of humanity generally with a small number of extraordinary people at one end, and a small number of people one would rather not meet at the other end.

POs, like attorneys, have an inherent PR problem: when most people encounter one, they are not having a good day.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 03:38 PM   #38
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,103
Folks, a generalized insult to all police doesn't do us any good. We have members who are police and serve.

Saying that all police are XYZ is as useful as saying all gun owners are rabid nuts.

So let's skip that. I've deleted some. Next time is an infraction.

Thanks

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 03:49 PM   #39
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 529
I can not remember a single burglary, scrap metal theft, or shoplifter in my 17 years in LE that was not to buy drugs. I have arrested a heroin addict that was doing 6-10 burglaries a day. Every day, he got up and went stealing to buy heroin. Thats it. I had one that I investigated where he stole the jewelry box of an 80+ year old man. Took what he thought was worth money and chucked the rest in a dumpster. That jewelery box cam from India. The victim brought it back from WW2 and had it for 60 years, until a heroin addict stole it, and then tossed it in the trash. That is one arrest out of many.

Making drugs legal is not the answer.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 04:45 PM   #40
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Quote:
I can not remember a single burglary, scrap metal theft, or shoplifter in my 17 years in LE that was not to buy drugs. I have arrested a heroin addict that was doing 6-10 burglaries a day. Every day, he got up and went stealing to buy heroin. Thats it. I had one that I investigated where he stole the jewelry box of an 80+ year old man. Took what he thought was worth money and chucked the rest in a dumpster. That jewelery box cam from India. The victim brought it back from WW2 and had it for 60 years, until a heroin addict stole it, and then tossed it in the trash. That is one arrest out of many.

Making drugs legal is not the answer.
How a person lives their life is their problem

How the government wastes my money is my problem
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 04:53 PM   #41
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 529
It could be your problem when they steal from you, rob you, etc.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 04:53 PM   #42
deepcreek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 320
Quote:
I can not remember a single burglary, scrap metal theft, or shoplifter in my 17 years in LE that was not to buy drugs. I have arrested a heroin addict that was doing 6-10 burglaries a day. Every day, he got up and went stealing to buy heroin. Thats it. I had one that I investigated where he stole the jewelry box of an 80+ year old man. Took what he thought was worth money and chucked the rest in a dumpster. That jewelery box cam from India. The victim brought it back from WW2 and had it for 60 years, until a heroin addict stole it, and then tossed it in the trash. That is one arrest out of many.

Making drugs legal is not the answer.
Most popular drugs are very cheap to produce the high cost is because they are contraband. Would someone be doing doing 6-10 burglaries a day to support a $18 a day alcohol habit? No. A $10 a day legal drug habit ? No they would be next to the winos getting high under a bridge.

yeah it is a waste of life but at least it is only theirs and they would not be robbing innocent citizens to support the contraband business.
deepcreek is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 05:00 PM   #43
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 529
I just don't see how making it legal will drive the price down. Heroin is $8.00 a bag by me. There is no way that making it legal, making it FDA inspected and compliant, taxing it, and selling it in stores and storefronts will make the cost go down. I just don't see that working.

I also don't see the Gov making it legal and not doing all of the above. Just let the drugs come in, and be sold, and be legal with no Gov regulation or taxation. Not happening, IMHO.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 05:33 PM   #44
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,458
General drug policy is off-topic for this forum. Let's stick to the article and its arguments.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 06:38 PM   #45
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,982
Quote:
I can not remember a single burglary, scrap metal theft, or shoplifter in my 17 years in LE that was not to buy drugs. I have arrested a heroin addict that was doing 6-10 burglaries a day. Every day, he got up and went stealing to buy heroin. Thats it. I had one that I investigated where he stole the jewelry box of an 80+ year old man. Took what he thought was worth money and chucked the rest in a dumpster. That jewelery box cam from India. The victim brought it back from WW2 and had it for 60 years, until a heroin addict stole it, and then tossed it in the trash. That is one arrest out of many.

Making drugs legal is not the answer.
So why didn't the legal system in CT put him behind bars instead of letting him out to rob over and over again? This attitude is what feeds into the police becoming a military force - it is called job security. Arrest them, waste money prosecuting them, minimal incarceration, let them back out to do more crimes, and the cycle starts all over again

Sounds like the liberal education system -completely self-serving

These folks COULD be doing something, but too much politics/empire building going on - at payer's expense
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 06:41 PM   #46
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 529
I don't know why he wasn't in jail. He should have been. But he wasn't.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 06:42 PM   #47
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 529
And I just read Tom's warning. No more drug talk.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 11:00 PM   #48
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper
Making drugs legal is not the answer.
The anecdote you shared occurred under drug prohibition. Will drug legalization lead to world peace and enlightenment? No. That's not the point. Will it lead to some scattered increase in problems that don't exist now? Maybe. Will it reduce profits in the drug trade to the point where drug cartels and gangs that run drugs are not creating a lot of the "crime problem" in the United States? Almost certainly. But that's not the point either.

Drug prohibition is unconstitutional. We had a constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition. Where's the constitutional amendment for drug prohibition? The legislative branch is not permitted to pass whatever laws they think will be popular, and the executive branch is not permitted to enforce them. That's not rule of law, and it's not how a constitutional republic is supposed to work.

The Legislative and Executive can pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, and they have, but if you want to know why people disrespect the rule of law or why certain social constructs are crumbling, Government not respecting the highest law of the land figures into it somewhere. I would say complexity of the law is another. The idea that you have to go look a substance up on the DEA's website before growing, buying, selling, or ingesting it is... well, I don't have words for it that are appropriate in polite company.
__________________
OOOOOOOO.OOOOO...OOO......OOOOOOO.OOOOO (8ob5o3b3o6b7ob5o!)
“Compleχity is a symptom of confusion, not a cause.” —Jeff Hawkins
tyme is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 11:22 PM   #49
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 958
tyme, if I can respectfully go down the line of conversation you've opened (sorry Mr. Servo!), what makes you think it is unconstitutional? I am quite curious to hear.

I realize that may sound sarcastic but I really am interested in hearing your opinion.

Anyways, I think it's very easy to see how DEA and many other police organizations are becoming paramilitary. This does not mean that they abide by the same rules, but with their armored cars, automatic weapons, sniper rifles, breaching tactics, confiscation, raiding, lockdowns, patrols (i.e. Boston), I think the argument could be made.

However, is having military qualities enough to establish a military? Does it need to be a standing militia? Are the police expected to help take up a fight if there is a war? On American soil? Off? Are they subject to martial law?

If not, are they overstepping their boundaries by acting like the military without operating under the same constraints?

I think these questions will help clarify the initial question.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 11:51 PM   #50
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,133
I hope that arguing that drug laws are unconstitutional isn't off topic.

What do you mean, why? Isn't the argument crystal clear based on the constitutional amendment that was required for alcohol prohibition?
__________________
OOOOOOOO.OOOOO...OOO......OOOOOOO.OOOOO (8ob5o3b3o6b7ob5o!)
“Compleχity is a symptom of confusion, not a cause.” —Jeff Hawkins
tyme is offline  
Reply

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 Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13968 seconds with 7 queries