Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on January 26, 2007, 11:20:20 PM
-
...is the chronic stupidity of those individuals that operate our criminal justice system.
At lunch break today I went to my parent's house to eat dinner with them, as I often do on Friday's. When I arrived I found the folks sitting in shocked disbelief in their living room.
A local black girl from a hard-working and upstanding family had been savagely beaten and stabbed at her flower-shop shortly after opening for business. This shop was located beside my brother's home in a pecan orchard on the south end of the small delta town of Dermott.
When my brother arrived he was able to provide us with more information about the attack. He is the chaplin at the local prison, and hears a lot about such crimes on their radios. Evidently, the girl put up a fight that was one for the books. Flesh for the perp was found deeply imbedded under her fingernails. She had been so savagely beaten that she was blinded.
Her sixteen year old son was contacted at the school, and rushed to her side. She died in his arms while giving a description of her attacker. Black man...red truck.
A doper after money....with an accomplice in the truck.
Here's the kicker in all of this....the scumbag had been arrested twice within the last six weeks for two felony assaults. The first involved a break in of the home of two elderly residents, who he tied up and beat for fun, and then robbed. The other was the break-in at another resident in which a girl was raped.
He had also tried to persuade an elderly Chinese-American lady of my acquaintance to try to tutor him. She is a co-worker of mine who teaches GED classes at our juvenile facility. As it turns out, he was a former resident at our facility. He had turned 18 and been transferred to a state prison unit just down the road from us that handled young adult offenders.
Now...despite the fact that he had committed these other two felonies and been positively identified by the victims....the authorities LET HIM OUT! :mad:
I've been so angry about this today I've been sick to my stomach. My family has known hers for three generations. While I didn't know her personally my parents and my aunt and uncle did and they were all crazy about her. An absolutely precious person....whose life was cut short by an absolutely worthless animal released from jail by some crap-brained, nose-picking, thumb-up-their-arse public servant.
The judge that allowed this to happen couldn't garner two votes right now if he was up for reelection. Both white and black residents of this town are positively livid.
I am sick and tired of ivory-tower types in the justice system who have forgotten that, while their job may involve safeguarding the rights of the accused, it also requires them to temper that responsibility with some common sense. :t
Sorry for the rant, guys, but it's been a long time since I've been this angry.
Just had to blow off some steam.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Back of the head, double tap. Charge his family for the cost of the bullets.
-
Shuckins,
Sorry to hear that... very sad.
It seems to me that victims have no rights nowadays, while criminals rights are at an all time high. Our justice system needs a good hard over haul.
-
Welcome to liberal, politically correct America
-
Sin.
Regards,
hap
-
Sorry Shuckins
I dont buy that had he been charged with two violent home invasions in the last six weeks he would be out on bond.
Especially a CSC.
shamus
-
Forget it. Even drunk I cant live with joking about this.
Sorry to hear about it. Hopefully they get it right this time when they lock him up.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Welcome to liberal, politically correct America
Beaurocratic red tape America is probably more like it. I agree this is a travesty, but I did'nt see any political affiliation in Shuckins post. The criminal justice system is a spiderweb of procedure. Sometimes, it gets screwed up and something like this happens. I'd like to hear why he was'nt re-arrested on an additional charge if there were multiples.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Sorry Shuckins
I dont buy that had he been charged with two violent home invasions in the last six weeks he would be out on bond.
Especially a CSC.
shamus
I can. The whole situation is pathetic...... 50 years of "it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got" from any old syndicated cop show you care to mention, but with no real solutions.
Prison system is overloaded with criminals, while other new prisons sit empty due to lack of funds to staff them. No rhyme or reason to how the rotating door to some prisons and early releases are done sometimes.
Many benches sit empty, as politics prevent judges being seated. Becoming a Federal Judge comes down to one issue.... stance on Roe vs Wade.... and nothing else matters....
The legal system is getting bizarre. Case in point: The American Motorcyclists Association (of which I'm a member) is follow a couple cases in regards to the use of motorcycles on HOV lanes of hiways paid for in part by Federal Funds.
Federal statute since 1991 states motorcycles, which take up little space and help increase traffic flow due to small manuverable size, and good fuel mileage, CANNOT be banned from HOV lanes funded with ANY Federal funds.
BUT: Police in NY, PA, and other states have begun to fine motorcycles using federally funded HOV lanes. One women motorcyclists fought the ticket, took a copy of the Federal Statue with her to the hearing, and lost because the judge was of "the opinion" that the federal government would "not make special rules for motorcycles" and upheld the ticket---- this with a copy of the Federal Law in front of him. He just did what he wanted. Can you say "disbarred" ? ---- this joker should be....
America is often cited and condemned as one of the few Countries that still uses the Death Penalty, putting us on par with China, Iraq, Libya, and so forth......... but the reality is that most Countries don't NEED a death penalty due to the quality of their prisons. In many Countries, just being sent to a prison for a long sentence is a "death sentence" in it's own right..... but not reported as such. In America's case, the country's fighting soldiers often live in far worse conditions than the inmates do.
That this guy was out, and seemed to be on a spree........ I can believe it.
-
WAsn't the root cause of most crime slavery?
-
Is that a blue state?
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
I guess the only thing worse than having an innocent citizen brutally murdered is knowing that the murder could have and should have been prevented by our own justice system.
-
For whatever reason......There are a lot of people out there like this guy.
You might want to keep a 45 on the nightstand....
And that is where politics come into it. Some say that we are safer without guns.. that if we don't have guns then neither will the bad guy. This guy didn't need guns to beat and stab to death women and the elderly.
Is there anyone here who would not liked the story to have ended with the bad guy getting shot by the flower lady?
Happens every day.. it is the people who believe the anti second amendment politicians that end up the victims of such animals.
firearms stop between 1.5 and 3 million crimes a year... no telling how many would have ended in the same sort of story as shuckins relates without the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
If I seen this happening I woulda shot the guy. anyone who didn't is letting down his fellow citizens.
lazs
-
(http://www.a-human-right.com/s_fightback.jpg)
http://www.a-human-right.com/
-
If the flower lady was black as was stated...
There is about an 80% chance that she voted for politicians who take away her right to keep and bear arms. Or, for the right of any of her friends and neigbors to come to her aid with a firearm.
In essence... with her vote... she said.. I believe that we have no right to defend ouselves if it means regular citizens having the right to bear arms...
that she was willing to take her chances with the legal and police forces and was quite happy with the occasional rape and brutal murder by such a thug and felt that it was worth it to keep her fellow citizens unarmed..
and that a police report after her death was good enough.
that is harsh but it is the fact of the matter... when you vote for democrats you vote to put me in her place.
that is why I can't "compromise" with you. There really is no compromise on the issue and a vote for a democrat is a vote to remove my rights. If you do...you are simply my enemy.
lazs
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
well, at risk of being labeled as one who is "trying to capitalize on personal tragedy top turn this into partisan issue", I've got two comments...
Originally posted by Shuckins
A doper after money....with an accomplice in the truck.
if drugs were legalized they'd be cheaper. If this guy could support his habit on a McDonalds salary this girl might be alive today.
Prison system is overloaded with criminals,
and many of them are NON-VIOLENT drug offenders who take up space better reserved for criminals who, you know, actually hurt people.
-
I learned over 2 decades ago that the criminal justice system isn't.
It's not a system, it's not justice but it IS criminal.
Anyone who thinks the Police will be able to see and stop an attack on anyone in their home is seriously deluded. The Police will respond to the call and take the report after the attack is over. They can't be proactive and stop a crime from being committed, they have to wait until the crime has occurred. Until they arrive you are on your own.
-
maverick... and that is why every cop I know or even talked to is a supporter of the second. (I don't count police chiefs as cops). It is a rare cop who gives up his gun after he retires even if he moves many states away from his former work.
bs... I agree that the war on drugs is probly causing a lot of the crime we see today and is probly unconstitutional.
lazs
-
bsaddict,
Horse****,
If you legalized pot, they'd just buy more of it....get more crap-brained...and be more useless.
As for legitimizing crystal-meth, crack, and the other dangerous mind-altering drugs....it aint gonna happen Magee.
This perp was driven to the lady's flower shop by one of the local drug dealers....so he could get money to make his buy.
Legalizing drugs would not prevent people like him from becoming addicted and violent. It would only make drugs cheaper...thus allowing them to build up even more dangerous and unhealthy addictions. Such addicts would still need tons of money to make their buys. And we know what that leads to....break-ins, holdups, muggings, and murders.
Lasz, as to the lady being black and voting Democratic...that's probably true, but it doesn't mean that she or her family were averse to owning or using firearms. Quite the opposite is true actually. I don't know if she had a pistol or shotgun in her shop, but probably so....in which case she simply didn't have time to get to it before she was assaulted.
I don't know for certain....the facts of the case are still coming out....so I'll post more about this later as they do.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
well, at risk of being labeled as one who is "trying to capitalize on personal tragedy top turn this into partisan issue", I've got two comments...
if drugs were legalized they'd be cheaper. If this guy could support his habit on a McDonalds salary this girl might be alive today.
and many of them are NON-VIOLENT drug offenders who take up space better reserved for criminals who, you know, actually hurt people.
Spot on, IMHO. The Drug War wastes resources that would be better used elsewhere.
-
back when pot was ignored by the cops pot was cheap and non-addictive and people didn't use the crazy chemicals, after the cops cracked down on pot it became expensive and addictive so people started using the crazy chemicals.
pot-heads are too laid back to rob anybody.
crackhead: "man i need a fix, lets go rob and kill somebody"
pot head: "not now man, i'm into this music"
-
"Restorative Justice" is pervading our liberal courts. While I think the concept is good, in practice it seems to be little more than an excuse for leniency. Leniency will not rehabilitate people like the murderer in this story nor will it serve as a deterrent for those perhaps at a pivotal point in their career as a criminal.
-
shuckins, do you have any idea how much drug prices are inflated due to them only being available on the black market? They're not inherently expensive or difficult to produce. They're expensive BECAUSE they're illegal. How many alcoholics steal and/or murder to pay for their drug habit? How many nicotine addicts steal/murder to pay for theirs?
-
I have to wonder how many more decades it will take before the realization occurs we are not 'winning' the war on drugs. I can truthfully say that taking drugs is bad and that people shouldn't take them. I also think prostitution is bad.
However, the reality is that they both have existed for centuries and will never be stopped. Hasn't the United Kingdom tried some 'decrimializing' techniques for serious addicts? I never hear much about the reuslts.
The root cause of crime is sin, and that's here to stay. There will always be crime. Even if decrimialization occurs and addicts don't have to steal, tragedies such as this will still happen either due to drug induced paranoia or something else.
Afterall, the main reason stated to outlaw drugs was the crimal behavior of drug addicts, which is well documented. However, the number of persons committing crimes on illegal drugs is still a much higher percentage than when the drugs were legal. I believe the main reason drugs are outlawed is to protect people from themselves and is a form of morality legislation. That would explain why it doesn't work.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
.... I believe the main reason drugs are outlawed is to protect people from themselves and is a form of morality legislation. That would explain why it doesn't work...
Ding, ding, ding!!!
Plus one other thing to consider, other than a "inebriation" test, there is no easy way to determine if you are stoned or not. It is much easier to whip out the breathalizer 9000, get a nice result and know if someone is leagally drunk. But with, lets say, pot, what is the instant read test???
Develope the instant test for pot and you will make some serious money ;)
Or you could just profile ;)
(http://info-ninja.net/media/2006/04/pothead.png)
-
Originally posted by stantond
Afterall, the main reason stated to outlaw drugs was the crimal behavior of drug addicts, which is well documented.
the movie "reefer madness, 1936", yeah that was "well documented".:rolleyes:
-
Take it Thrawn. Our system is messed up by judges who legislate from the bench and human rights activists who scream that felons should not be imprisoned but "treated".... law makers who make it difficult for the citizen to carry a gun legally when criminals have no qualms about breaking the law.
The judges and lawmakers are invariably liberals.... take it.
-
See Rule #4
-
if drugs were legalized they'd be cheaper. If this guy could support his habit on a McDonalds salary this girl might be alive today.
You seem to want to legalize all drugs. Do you want 10 million crack addicts in your country? Have you seen the stats on birth defects in crack users? Have you ever seen a person who has been doing crack for a while... what it does to them?
Many addicted drug users are not reliabel enough to hold a job so they would still turn to crime to get their money. In your world, there's millions more of tjhese people.
Also, if it's alright with you, I'd like at least a reasonable chance to have my Big Mac prepared by someone other than the crack junkie/needle sharer/prostitute whos' teeth are falling into the preapred food.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by stantond
Afterall, the main reason stated to outlaw drugs was the crimal behavior of drug addicts, which is well documented.
the movie "reefer madness, 1936", yeah that was "well documented".
yeah, propaganda like that was used to feed the public alarm over the "criminal behaviour of addicts", but IMHO the real reasons behind drug prohibition had more to do with racism, fear, greed, corporate protectionism, yellow journalism, and ignorant/corrupt politicians than any crimes actually committed by addicts/users.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
You seem to want to legalize all drugs. Do you want 10 million crack addicts in your country? Have you seen the stats on birth defects in crack users? Have you ever seen a person who has been doing crack for a while... what it does to them?
Many addicted drug users are not reliabel enough to hold a job so they would still turn to crime to get their money. In your world, there's millions more of tjhese people.
Also, if it's alright with you, I'd like at least a reasonable chance to have my Big Mac prepared by someone other than the crack junkie/needle sharer/prostitute whos' teeth are falling into the preapred food.
technically yes, I do think all drugs should be legalized. For many reasons. Primarily, the libertarian in me says "if they ain't hurting anyone it's ain't none of my business. Once they hurt someone (including stealing their property) throw the effing book at 'em."
Also, it's not that I think drugs are good, I think the War on Drugs is bad. The War on Drugs (or, as some put it, The War on the Users of Some Drugs) as a whole is ineffective and does more harm than good. It diverts funds that could be better utilized elsewhere and it serves as justification for many unconstitutional practices. Furthermore, the crack and meth epidemics are in part due to the crackdown on other, less harmful drugs. It's my belief that with other, legal alternatives many would turn away from the most harmful drugs. Those that continue to use drugs like crack and meth have a serious medical problem that isn't helped by locking them up, and after legalization 1/10th of the funds freed up by ending the WoD would more than suffice to address the medical issues.
Do I think full legalization will happen? Not really, not right away at least. We'll probably see a gradual decriminalization/regulation process. The tax implications of regulating marijuana IMHO makes it an issue that can't be ignored.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by lukster
"Restorative Justice" is pervading our liberal courts. While I think the concept is good, in practice it seems to be little more than an excuse for leniency. Leniency will not rehabilitate people like the murderer in this story nor will it serve as a deterrent for those perhaps at a pivotal point in their career as a criminal.
Sorry I stopped reading here, Something good might have been said after this post by lukster.
Lukster I was educated for 4 years at the University of Regina , SK Canada in the field of "BA Human Justice"
The big time focus was on "restorative justice"
The concept is INDEED sound.
The really bad part is that is takes a LONG time.
And just so you dont think i'm some book edjamacated tard. For 2 years i worked for a government funded youth day program for young offenders who were neither working or going to school. (Schools here wont take you if you have a criminal record with violent offenses. That is right, high schools.)
Of the 400 plus kids that I met during my job with that program one kid straightened out. 2 weeks into the program he punched me in the face (common assault) That should have sent him back to jail. I didnt say a word because i knew he was sorry. and from his upbringing that is all he knew, solve problems with violence. This kid finished the program and started an inner city youth centre.
That now feeds and provides positive activities for 200 youth daily.
Restorative justice does work.
And all it cost me was one punch to the face.
-
The problem here loser, as I alluded to, is that leniency is becoming the standard but without any real restoration. Many of these judges think it their responsibility only to give the offender another chance or a light sentence.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The problem here loser, as I alluded to, is that leniency is becoming the standard but without any real restoration. Many of these judges think it their responsibility only to give the offender another chance or a light sentence.
well that just proves lukster had a more peaceful upbringing, i was sure i was gonna see
Originally posted by lukster
-
Develope the instant test for pot and you will make some serious money
There is a saliva test for drugs now, including pot. Takes less than 20 minutes to view a video on how to administer the test to viewing the results. Only kicker is, even the best saliva test can only detect drugs used in the previous 24 hours, most are less than that though.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
There is a saliva test for drugs now, including pot. Takes less than 20 minutes to view a video on how to administer the test to viewing the results. Only kicker is, even the best saliva test can only detect drugs used in the previous 24 hours, most are less than that though.
Well if it's a DUI test, I don't think it matters what happened last thursday...
-
Originally posted by john9001
back when pot was ignored by the cops pot was cheap and non-addictive and people didn't use the crazy chemicals, after the cops cracked down on pot it became expensive and addictive so people started using the crazy chemicals.
Spot on. When the war on drugs started, coke was a hundred bucks a gram. It became harder to smuggle large quantities of pot, it was more profitable to smuggle coke. The market flooded and coke dropped to 25 bucks a gram with less cut. The average joe could now afford the rich man's asprin. They started cooking it, shooting it, you name it.
-
I just did a search on google, and was led to the DEA website. It is estimated by the federal government that 27% of all inmates in STATE prisons were there for POSSESSION. not trafficking, or distribution, but possession. Maybe if there were another alternative for those guilty of possession, there would have been room for the SOB in the origional post, and he wouldn't have ever been freed to add to his list of crimes.
I don't support drug use, nor do I use myself, but when over 1/4 of the state prison population is there for nothing more than having drugs in their possession, and serious offenders are turned away due to an overpopulated prison, something is seriously wrong, IMO.
Shuckins, my heart goes out to your family, and to your town as a whole, because obviously this is a big problem where you live.
-
technically yes, I do think all drugs should be legalized
I think this is a mistake. I strongly disagree w/ the "all" part of your statement.
IMHO:
A ready proliferation of highly addictive drugs would cause an enormous strain on our already messed up medical system, would lead to more overdose deaths, much more juvenile/child drug use, and would raise the level of violent crimes significantly.( PCP, crack, crank, speed, cocaine... all of these sorts can induce quite violent behavior)
I'm not trying to change your mind, just giving my thoughts.
If you want to talk about legalizing pot or ecstacy... we may be able to find a common ground.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I think this is a mistake. I strongly disagree w/ the "all" part of your statement.
IMHO:
A ready proliferation of highly addictive drugs would cause an enormous strain on our already messed up medical system, would lead to more overdose deaths, much more juvenile/child drug use, and would raise the level of violent crimes significantly.( PCP, crack, crank, speed, cocaine... all of these sorts can induce quite violent behavior)
I'm not trying to change your mind, just giving my thoughts.
If you want to talk about legalizing pot or ecstacy... we may be able to find a common ground.
I used to think like you, check out this video from LEAP, Law Enforcement against prohibition
http://leap.cc/Multimedia/LEAPpromo.php
You assume "millions" more will become addicted, based on what? if coke were legal tomorrow would you be a junky by weeks end?... walk into 7-11 and suddenly lose control "I need to smoke coke!". Probably not, and neither would "millions" of others. It doest work this way with Cigarettes or alcohol which are legal and kill more people than so called "illegal drugs".
We didn't have an illegal drug in the USA until 1914, at this time the .gov freaked out at 1.3% of Americans being addicted to drugs.
56 years later the .gov, once again looking out for you dontchya know, screamed "OMFG 1.3% of Americans are addicted to funny stuff... we must start a war on drugs!!!"
The war on drugs is a complete failure. Imagine if the police were free to investigate car theft as aggressively as murders, and subsequently car theft conviction rival that of murder... car insurance rates would plummet as prisons filled with car thieves. Keep in mind when you put a car thief in prison, the thefts where he operated stop.. arrest a drug user / dealer and business doest stop for a nano second.
edit: Wanted to add that the point of locking people up is to keep them form victimizind people... a murder in prison cant kill you, a rapest cant put his thingy in your wife / daughter / son..
When some pot farmer gets an ave of $60k tax dollars spent on the investigation / prosecution, then catches 65 years in prison, don't you feel safer? I a man who you never met and was as non violent as your average stoner, gets his time on earth ruined for growing a plant nature gave us.
But don't worry, his assets will go to good use.. the .gov helps itself to every last cent mr weed farmer used to have. San Jose PDs yearly budget from the city was $0.00. When the chief of police asked 'how can I run a police department with no cash?' the answer was simple, 'your dept made more than enough money in asset seizure'. You think any of that savings was passed on to tax payers?..lol, some loser politician got to reward one of his loser friends with the extra cash... which is why politicians love the war on drugs too.
-
Read the history of Chinese drug addiction during the time of The Opium Wars of the 1830s.
The British government fostered a dramatic expansion of opium use and addiction in China, where the use of opium was legal, in order to wrest political and trade concessions from the Chinese government. Before this British sponsored program was begun, the use of opium was limited.
The Chinese government launched a vigorous campaign to clean up the opium dens and arrest British merchants involved in the trade. In this, the Chinese government had tremendous success.
The British then began an aggressive military action to enforce their will on the Chinese government. When Chinese naval craft attempted to intercept British merchant ships carrying the drug they were fired on by British naval vessels. Eventually, the British invaded China and inflicted the most humiliating military defeat on China in it's entire history.
Among the many concessions wrung from the Chinese government by the Treaty of Nanking was the right to try British nationals guilty of breaking Chinese laws, (in effect, guaranteeing that such nationals escaped punishment by Chinese officials), and the legitimization of the opium trade and the public use of the drug.
In the years after the signing of the Treaty of Nanking opium use among the Chinese population TRIPLED. Almost an entire generation of China's young was lost to addiction.
______________
So gentlement, don't tell me that increased addiction won't happen or that it can't happen. It most certainly can happen because it HAS happened in the past. All it takes is for someone to aggressively market the product once it is legitimized. Steve's point about rampant addiction putting a tremendous strain on an already overburdened medical system is well-taken.
-
And let's not forget the ones in jail for not paying fees, fines, taxes or child support.
-
Ya know what... the most popular drug with the most potential for harm is crank... speed.
There is not one person that wants it that can't get it right now... those who are addicted to it will do $2,000 damage to your car to get $25 for your stereo.
If you legalized it then we would simply be out less..
By legalized tho.. I mean do all you want own all you want... for pennies... give it to children... go to prison.. drive on em.. go to jail... work on em... get fired.
shukins... so this black woman who voted democrat to have my guns taken away and or restricted... she felt it was ok for her to have a firearm? Sorry.. that isn't much better.
I think that democrat gun owners are probly worse than good honest democrats that admit they just want to take away my rights.
lazs
-
what a crummy thing to happen Shuckins :furious :(
some of you talking about drugs.. alot of that was covered here:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185638&perpage=50&highlight=legal%20drug&pagenumber=2
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And let's not forget the ones in jail for not paying fees, fines, taxes or child support.
God forbid someone who doesn't pay taxes. I say throw the book at them. That's our tax money, right?
-
Originally posted by loser
Restorative justice does work.
And all it cost me was one punch to the face.
Yeah, and all the flower lady in Dermott gave to the good cause was her life. That's nothing if you consider that the perp just might turn straight and perhaps even get an honest job at the McDonald's and thus contribute to the society.
They should hang his worthless bellybutton after the first offense.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
God forbid someone who doesn't pay taxes. I say throw the book at them. That's our tax money, right?
The goverment has to tax us in order to have money for jailing us if we ever decided not to pay taxes.
Simple, really.
-
Legalizing drugs would make petty crime go down? LOL!
You do realize this would mean that the people who steal to support drug habbits would just be able to steal drugs instead? Stereo theft would go down, car break-ins (looking in the glovebox?) would go up. Home break-ins would also go up.
Worthless members of society will be worthless members of society no matter what laws are in place.
People can support drug habbits while working. I've seen many do it. The problem is never a result of not being able to afford things, it's always a result of addiction or intoxication. Legalizing drugs would not solve any of that. There would be more addicts and there would be more homeless. There would be more petty crime.
The war on crime is actually silly. Establish real borders and make customs work and 90% of the problems are solved. Then you're just dealing with the grey market meth and pot. Keep it illegal so that people have some naughty vice to play with and everyone's happy.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You do realize this would mean that the people who steal to support drug habbits would just be able to steal drugs instead? Stereo theft would go down, car break-ins (looking in the glovebox?) would go up. Home break-ins would also go up.
I don't think this is accurate. All we can do is speculate though.
What I do know is that no one has ever broken into my car to steal a pack of cigs off the seat. Nor have they ever invaded my house to get into my liquor cabinet.
I am not an advocate of legalization, but if it were to happen, you'd be able to go to the gas station, or at least to the local ABC and pick up a pack of joints. What motivation would there be for someone to risk a break in.
I guarantee that Philip Morris would add pot as a new product to their line, so what need would there be to go rifling through someones car to find it.
Doesn't make any sense.
Once again, I'm not an advocate, I just don't think that what you are talking about is reality.
-
But all crime is to support drug habbits! Not alchohol, cigarettes or anything else!
The assumptions behind petty crime and drug use is simply astounding. I've noticed alot of people that really like using drugs seldomely are employable and steal. I know alot of 3-pack a day smokers that are still employed. I know alot of fifth a day drinkers that are still employed.
Why is it that people seem to think that somehow drug use is only supportable by petty theft? That is the fundamental fallacy in the situation. People that would rather sit around and do nothing all day are going to steal. If drugs are legalized, they'll still have to steal.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
But all crime is to support drug habbits! Not alchohol, cigarettes or anything else!
The assumptions behind petty crime and drug use is simply astounding. I've noticed alot of people that really like using drugs seldomely are employable and steal. I know alot of 3-pack a day smokers that are still employed. I know alot of fifth a day drinkers that are still employed.
Why is it that people seem to think that somehow drug use is only supportable by petty theft? That is the fundamental fallacy in the situation. People that would rather sit around and do nothing all day are going to steal. If drugs are legalized, they'll still have to steal.
If you were to legalize, say pot, it would then be in the same category as Cigs and alcohol. That was my point. It then becomes a readily available, legal drug.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Take it Thrawn. Our system is messed up by judges who legislate from the bench and human rights activists who scream that felons should not be imprisoned but "treated".... law makers who make it difficult for the citizen to carry a gun legally when criminals have no qualms about breaking the law.
The judges and lawmakers are invariably liberals.... take it.
...all of which has nothing at all to do with my point.
PS: "Take it"? What are you, a twelve year old?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
But all crime is to support drug habbits! Not alchohol, cigarettes or anything else!
rum runners, moonshiners, smuggling truck loads of cigs from north carolina to new york to bypass the NY sales tax.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
...all of which has nothing at all to do with my point.
PS: "Take it"? What are you, a twelve year old?
Nope, but your tired old liberal drivel isn't worth any more of an effort
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Nope, but your tired old liberal drivel isn't worth any more of an effort
Who knew that a call for decency was a liberal drivel...
-
the judge should give the eulogy.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Who knew that a call for decency was a liberal drivel...
That's it... stay consistent... like the "fairness doctrine" call it a pretty name.... still smells like poop. "call for decency" *derisive snort*
-
mini... not sure I follow... are you saying that the current drug addicts have plenty of money for drugs but are stealing to pay for food and rent?
I don't think you know how widespread the hard drug problem is and how easy, yet expensive, they are.
If they were legal and cheap then the addicts would not be stealing to buy them... crime would indeed go down..
Put em in a section eight housing track and give their worthless selves food stamps and enough money to buy a few pounds of crank or heroin a month and let em overdose..
With all the room you save in the prisons you can put violent criminals and theives in jail.
Anyone who watched would know that doing the drugs would make you unemployable so not choose that lifestyle. it could be stigamtized instead of "bad boy criminal hero". It would just be "laughable loser".
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
The problem here loser, as I alluded to, is that leniency is becoming the standard but without any real restoration. Many of these judges think it their responsibility only to give the offender another chance or a light sentence.
You are trying to state your opinion as fact and it just isn't so...if you don't like the way that your local judges do business then go get your own law degree and change it.
-
Originally posted by SwS
You are trying to state your opinion as fact and it just isn't so...if you don't like the way that your local judges do business then go get your own law degree and change it.
yeah, and if the car mechanic rips you off, do not complain. Get the car mechanic training and fix your car yourself.
-
A thing like this happens in many countries.
I wonder why. Okay getting through the system takes a while, but in cases like this, the guy is facing a sentence for granted when he commits the crime, and if you think about it he is certainly facing some sentence as an absolute minimum. So why can't he be put away IMMEDIATELY for that time?
In my country, the authorities sometimes go into the grey zone, putting people into custody (sp?) for a while, the time is then later on subtracted from the final sentence decided in court.
Thoughts?
-
As more of the facts become public, this whole affair becomes more sordid.
The punk was paroled from prison at some point within the last two years. He had transferred to a young adult offender unit from our juvenile facility when he turned 18.
Since that time he apparently committed four rapes in various communities in southeast Arkansas. These offenses predate the ones he committed in the Dermott area. According to the information I received today, at the time he committed the assault on the elderly couple and the rape of a black woman he was being sought by the local and state police, as well as the feds.
Now, after raping the black woman, he was apprehended and held for identification by the victim and questioning by the police. Despite a positive identification by the woman, the authorities performed a polygraph test....which he passed.
On the basis of the results of the polygraph, he was RELEASED! This is unbelieveable, considering the fact that a polygraph test result cannot be used as evidence in court, and that the perp was being actively sought by three different law enforcement agencies for a lengthy series of crimes....and was a former convict.
This is nuclear-powered incompetence! It is beyond moronic! It is CRIMINAL!:furious
-
Originally posted by Angus
A thing like this happens in many countries.
I wonder why. Okay getting through the system takes a while, but in cases like this, the guy is facing a sentence for granted when he commits the crime, and if you think about it he is certainly facing some sentence as an absolute minimum. So why can't he be put away IMMEDIATELY for that time?
In my country, the authorities sometimes go into the grey zone, putting people into custody (sp?) for a while, the time is then later on subtracted from the final sentence decided in court.
Thoughts?
It is that way here as well. It's called "credit for time served". If you sat in jail for a year before being convicted and sentenced to 3 years, you only have 2 years left to go.
-
That "credit" could be used more perhaps. Similar stuff happens around the world, but luckily not often so bad.
-
Angus,
That credit is used all the time. Many defendants are not allowed bail as they are either a flight from prosecution risk, or they are simply too dangerous to be allowed out to prey on either victims or witnesses. The "time served" issue also applies to the sentence they receive at the end of the trial.
In addition to reducing the sentence with time served, there is another little bit of joy. It's called "good time" vs "bad time". If the convict behaves themselves thery get 2 for one credit on time served. In other words, every good behavior day counts as if he had served 2 days not just one. This further cuts the time spent in incarceration. It helps avoid overcrowding of prisoners so they can be released to prey on victims again.
-
So this is a screwup case, or so it looks.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Angus,
That credit is used all the time. Many defendants are not allowed bail as they are either a flight from prosecution risk, or they are simply too dangerous to be allowed out to prey on either victims or witnesses. The "time served" issue also applies to the sentence they receive at the end of the trial.
In addition to reducing the sentence with time served, there is another little bit of joy. It's called "good time" vs "bad time". If the convict behaves themselves thery get 2 for one credit on time served. In other words, every good behavior day counts as if he had served 2 days not just one. This further cuts the time spent in incarceration. It helps avoid overcrowding of prisoners so they can be released to prey on victims again.
LA County jail gives 3 days credit for every 1, 5/1 days for trustees, they wont accept outstanding warrants unless the total is $10k+. An average traffic citation warrant is about $250. Some folks get the option to spend the weekend in jail which consists of 6hours being booked in, then booked out.
Now imagine non violent drug offenders were kicked out, there just might be room to hold rapist scum.
Keep in mind how inefficient the illegal drug market is.. which inflates prices. If drugs were made legal you can bet corporate America would churn them out at 1/100th the price, the .gov would tax the mofo out of them. Coke could offer their original formula with just enough stimulant to give a buzz, RJRs pack'o pot cigs would be $4.00, opiate teas sold like beer with ID over the counter.. etc These smaller more pure dosages are controlled, just like beers can only have a certain alcohol %..
Why do junkies get so desperate?, to avoid withdrawals.. which is physical torture, rather than steal your radio.. the addict can go to 7-11 and buy a 6-pack of Coke with coke for the same price as beer.
-
I would say less than beer... sell him a pound of crank or coke or heroin for what it costs to make... or... if he can't afford it just give him a pound. If he gives it away or sells it... put him in prison.
lazs
-
The idea of legalizing dangerous drugs has a seductive logic to it, but I'm against it for a couple of good reasons.
1. the nature of recreational drug use is escapism. this will inevitablely spill over into pursuits that contribute to society - sometimes called "gainful employment". for many recreational users, addiction will occur whether intentional or not. bad for production.
2. if dangerous drugs are more available, there will be more emotionally and intellectually impaired, and more intensely impaired, people around - not a good thing as far as I'm concerned. legalizing dangerous drugs makes their use more socially acceptable, therefore, numbers of users will increase.
3. legalizing drugs would inevitablely turn us into a socialist country.
-
define "dangerous drugs " please.
-
this maggot should be executed for what he did, not for what he is. Does not matter why he did it.
It is a disgrace that the people working for the system have the power to simply turn a vicious animal loose and not be responsible in any way.
-
define "dangerous drugs " please. - John
I'm not an expert in pharmacology, but I'll try. I am generally referring to illegal drugs that are proven to be destructive, addictive, also powerful hallucinogenics, crystal meth or crank, all forms of cocaine, morphine, heroin and all its illegal derivatives, barbiturates and all prescription drugs used illegally that have a high potential for abuse/addiction. There are other dangerous drugs that should also remain controlled. I am basically referring to any currently illegal drug that you would associate with the words addict, junkie, or monster.
-
if alcohol is not dangerous, why do we have so many laws controlling it?
and why could we not have laws controlling pot and cocaine?
-
how about a drug that you would associate with the word "alcoholic"? that's just peachy with you I take it? are illegal drugs illegal because they're dangerous, or are they dangerous because they're illegal?
-
if alcohol is not dangerous, why do we have so many laws controlling it?
and why could we not have laws controlling pot and cocaine?
Alchohol can certainly be dangerous. So can water, or caffiene or many OTC drugs.
Why couldn't you have laws controlling pot and cocaine? I suppose you mean less restrictive laws than you have now?
Its partly a relative question. In Alaska pot laws are far less restrictive than those in many other places. but any amount of cocaine, when used illegally, is a felony amount. Why? Maybe it has to do with its potential for damage. Why couldn't you have less restrictive laws for cocaine? Ask the legislators. I'm sure it has something to do with public opinion.
-
and "public opinion" is formed/controlled by who?
-
how about a drug that you would associate with the word "alcoholic"? that's just peachy with you I take it?
I intentionally didn't refer to alcohol, being as how it is legal - even though it is the cause of untold human misery, it is also very benificial to the human race. Just like fire.
are illegal drugs illegal because they're dangerous, or are they dangerous because they're illegal?
my post is concerned with the reasons why i think dangerous illegal drugs should be kept illegal. if you disagree, simply tell me why... i don't know what meaning you are trying to get across with the riddle...
-
and "public opinion" is formed/controlled by who?
you. along with everyone else in society. however, it sounds like you were outnumbered
;)
-
the problem with illegal drug laws...is that they're are written by people who have no idea or experience with them.
if you want efficient drug laws ...let reformed junkies and addicts write them.
-
Smartest statement ever...
handsomehunk.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
my post is concerned with the reasons why i think dangerous illegal drugs should be kept illegal. if you disagree, simply tell me why... i don't know what meaning you are trying to get across with the riddle...
I was just trying to make a point. according to you we've got "dangerous illegal drugs" (meth, coke), so we must also have "dangerous legal drugs" (alocohol, tobacco). it's pretty obvious to me that the dangerousness (lol) of a given drug isn't the sole reason for it's legal status, otherwise alcohol and tobacco (which kill MANY, MANY more of it's users than any other drugs in existance) would be illegal as well.
I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I
I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.
The part that you have to remember is the "I dont do that so therefore you shouldn't either" or the favorite argument of control freaks that it may indirectly cost them money in the long run.
When these are acceptable reasons for modifying others personal behavior, as they are now in the good old US of A, anything goes, just work like hell to keep your majority in place in this soon to be democracy.
shamus
-
I was just trying to make a point. according to you we've got "dangerous illegal drugs" (meth, coke), so we must also have "dangerous legal drugs" (alocohol, tobacco).
I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.
'it's pretty obvious to me that the dangerousness (lol) of a given drug isn't the sole reason for it's legal status, otherwise alcohol and tobacco (which kill MANY, MANY more of it's users than any other drugs in existance) would be illegal as well."
i agree. it isn't just the potential danger of a substance that dictates its legal status. Substances are controlled according to its potential for damage weighed against its benificial uses.
I've stated why I'm for legalization earlier in this thread. basically boils down to two main reasons. 1) an individual is free to excersize his liberty however he so chooses. it's his body. it's none of my business until he tries to hurt me or take any of my stuff. 2) the War on Drugs is a) ineffective and b) its social and economic costs far outweigh its benefits.
[/i]
sorry, didn't see it. I don't see your first reason as valid because it does not address reality. It fine to talk about freedom and liberty - until the impaired individual somehow effects you negatively.
The reality is that individuals on heavy hitting drugs always effect society, and you, negatively. whether in lost productivity, impaired function, impaired relationships, health, dui, bankruptcy, lack of child support or any of the train wrecks that addicts and those around them experience.
if you agree that legalized dangerous drugs will result in more users and more addicts, you will agree that there is an increasing negative impact on society. before you know it, our legal drug users will begin to pay the price in declining health, increased exposure to disease, pretty soon the addicts will learn to use their votes, impaired tho they are, to vote themselves support from liberals in exchange for hand outs. liberals of course enable these voters with the hand outs, subsidies, housing, harm reduction clinics, free needle programs, free health clinics, child care, gov't subsidized this and that, increased crime and so on. Believe me, you and society will pay, one way or another.
As far as the war on drugs is concerned, i really don't know what that is any more - just like the war on poverty. i think it is just a slogan, except with the DARE program in elementary education.
I agree that enforcing laws against dangerous drugs, their possession, use, manufacture and distribution is like shoveling ***** against the tide, a job that will never be finished. So?
i'm not going to let somebody mess with my pursuit of happines just because they want to get high on dangerous drugs. Screw em.
-
The part that you have to remember is the "I dont do that so therefore you shouldn't either" or the favorite argument of control freaks that it may indirectly cost them money in the long run. - Shamus
i think getting jacked up by a legal meth addict or run over by a legal LSD user might be a bitter dose of reality for you, Shamus, even more potent if it was due to your vote to legalize that substance.
The cost imposed on your so-called "control freaks" isn't only in dollars. People who use these substances are characterized by their lack of self control. Do you have children? Do you imagine that a legal meth user for instance, or a legal LSD user is a responsible member of society who will have the self discipline or concern for others, or clear thinking - to not drive his car in your neighborhood while tweaked to his eyeballs? Past where your child plays?
You are talking about pie in the sky, not reality.
-
you claim cocaine is a "dangerous drug", you know this how? from personal experience or by "public opinion"?
public opinion thinks "speed kills".
-
you claim cocaine is a "dangerous drug", you know this how? from personal experience or by "public opinion"?
public opinion thinks "speed kills".
John, are you serious?
I know that cocaine, powder, and crack form, are dangerous drugs both from personal experience and the combined world-wide experience of addicts, doctors, pharmacologists, scientists, and law enforcement - experience that has formed a body of knowledge about the drug that is freely available to everyone, and has therefore become public opinion.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
sorry, didn't see it. I don't see your first reason as valid because it does not address reality. It fine to talk about freedom and liberty - until the impaired individual somehow effects you negatively.
"effects you negatively"? like what for example, hurt your feelings? sorry, your feelings aren't protected by law. rights are. what I really don't get is why we can't just punish the offenders when they "effect you negatively", assuming that constitutes real crimes of the rights-violating sort. If a person steals to support his habit he's a criminal, treat him as such. until he's hurt someone or someone's property they haven't really committed a crime. broken a law yes, but noone's getting hurt, except arguably the user hmiself.
The reality is that individuals on heavy hitting drugs always effect society, and you, negatively. whether in lost productivity, impaired function, impaired relationships, health, dui, bankruptcy, lack of child support or any of the train wrecks that addicts and those around them experience.
only real crimes there are dui and child support. there's laws covering both of those already. the rest are none of my business. what are you, the relationship police? the health police? etc, etc... none of those are lockupable offences, yet you want to lock up users so they don't commit those "crimes"?
if you agree that legalized dangerous drugs will result in more users and more addicts...
I don't agree. you're assuming the war on drugs is stopping people from using drugs, that we're somehow "winning" that war. it's not and we're not. something around 3% of the US population were addicts before drug prohibition, around 3% are now. some percentage of the population will always abuse drugs, it's human nature. IMHO the humane thing to do is to accept that, treat it as a medical issue and take it from there.
you will agree that there is an increasing negative impact on society. before you know it, our legal drug users will begin to pay the price in declining health, increased exposure to disease, pretty soon the addicts will learn to use their votes, impaired tho they are, to vote themselves support from liberals in exchange for hand outs. liberals of course enable these voters with the hand outs, subsidies, housing, harm reduction clinics, free needle programs, free health clinics, child care, gov't subsidized this and that, increased crime and so on. Believe me, you and society will pay, one way or another.
well, as I said I don't agree that the number of users of hard drugs will skyrocket, so with that said... you're making a lot of assumptions. I'm with ya on the out-of-control liberal spending, not suprising considering my libertarian views. However, if the WoD did end do you realize how much money would be saved? a 1/10th of it would pay for all the "clinics, needle programs, child care..." needed. Milton Friedman, champion of free market economics, said "ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year." that's a lot of clinics...
As far as the war on drugs is concerned, i really don't know what that is any more - just like the war on poverty. i think it is just a slogan, except with the DARE program in elementary education.
it's prohibition. didn't work the first time, not working now. it's also propaganda that serves to keep the general public scared enough to justify budgeting $7.7 Billion a year. that pays a lot of salaries, buys a lot of equipment, etc...
I agree that enforcing laws against dangerous drugs, their possession, use, manufacture and distribution is like shoveling ***** against the tide, a job that will never be finished. So?
so end the war! we're not winning, we're not gonna win. end the bloody mess and let's try to address the problem, addiction.
i'm not going to let somebody mess with my pursuit of happines just because they want to get high on dangerous drugs. Screw em.
???
if someone is "effecting you negatively" enough to violate your right to the pusuit of happiness, I'm sure there's an existing law that covers the specific offense. otherwise, by simply getting high they're not hurting you.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i think getting jacked up by a legal meth addict or run over by a legal LSD user might be a bitter dose of reality for you, Shamus, even more potent if it was due to your vote to legalize that substance.
The cost imposed on your so-called "control freaks" isn't only in dollars. People who use these substances are characterized by their lack of self control. Do you have children? Do you imagine that a legal meth user for instance, or a legal LSD user is a responsible member of society who will have the self discipline or concern for others, or clear thinking - to not drive his car in your neighborhood while tweaked to his eyeballs? Past where your child plays?
You are talking about pie in the sky, not reality.
oooooh, we can't forget the children! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! :O and don't forget the boogeyman, he'll get ya too... :noid
-
Gunther, I'd be really interested to hear your take on the LEAP vid that was posted earlier in this thread.
-
what I really don't get is why we can't just punish the offenders when they "effect you negatively", assuming that constitutes real crimes of the rights-violating sort. If a person steals to support his habit he's a criminal, treat him as such. until he's hurt someone or someone's property they haven't really committed a crime. broken a law yes, but noone's getting hurt, except arguably the user hmiself. - bs
lets say we legalize all those dangerous drugs that you think are so necessary for our personal freedom.
it is foreseeable that people who smoke crack will want to continue smoking due to it's addictive nature. so in your world, we legalize it, i guess, simply to satisfy those who want to be high in order to escape themselves (the addictive personality).
it is foreseeable that when the crack is smoked up, the user will want more. it is foreseeable that the user will then do what they have to do to obtain the crack. This is science, having to do with nerves, synapses, and body chemistry. This is also history. We all know of people who have tried crack and fell off the precipice into total dissolution of personality and morals.
Bsaddict, is this really a substance that you want to legalize? And then stand back and watch the fun begin?
-
Originally posted by SwS
You are trying to state your opinion as fact and it just isn't so...if you don't like the way that your local judges do business then go get your own law degree and change it.
I don't need a law degree to have the same voice in how our courts enforce our laws.
There is plenty of hard evidence to support exactly what I said. Damn bleedin' hearts, if there is any justice or karma they will eventually be victims of those they would turn loose on society.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
lets say we legalize all those dangerous drugs that you think are so necessary for our personal freedom.
ok, but I didn't say that.
it is foreseeable that people who smoke crack will want to continue smoking due to it's addictive nature. so in your world, we legalize it, i guess, simply to satisfy those who want to be high in order to escape themselves (the addictive personality).
THEY'RE ALREADY SMOKING CRACK
it is foreseeable that when the crack is smoked up, the user will want more. it is foreseeable that the user will then do what they have to do to obtain the crack. This is science, having to do with nerves, synapses, and body chemistry. This is also history. We all know of people who have tried crack and fell off the precipice into total dissolution of personality and morals.
and it's happening today, and will tomorrow, and the day after that, and the next... drug addicts historically find a way to mess themselves up. jailing them doesn't help their medical problems. addressing those medical problems is cheaper than locking them up, enforcing prohibition laws, etc...
Bsaddict, is this really a substance that you want to legalize? And then stand back and watch the fun begin? [/B]
pfft, don't patronize me. I've repeated myself enough already and you're ovbiously too emotionally attached to this issue to reason with, so I'm done debating this with you. Watch the LEAP vid I suggested and then maybe we'll talk... :)
-
i'm not patronising you, bsdaddict. I have seriously thought about this for the past thirty years. i respect your opinion, just don't agree.
-
fair enough, sorry for overreacting then. I'm very suspicious of people who try to sway me with emotional arguments. The "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" crys are a pet peeve of mine. I hear that and I tend to discount anything else that person has to say.
I'd still like to hear what you have to say about that LEAP video. :)
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i think getting jacked up by a legal meth addict or run over by a legal LSD user might be a bitter dose of reality for you, Shamus, even more potent if it was due to your vote to legalize that substance.
The cost imposed on your so-called "control freaks" isn't only in dollars. People who use these substances are characterized by their lack of self control. Do you have children? Do you imagine that a legal meth user for instance, or a legal LSD user is a responsible member of society who will have the self discipline or concern for others, or clear thinking - to not drive his car in your neighborhood while tweaked to his eyeballs? Past where your child plays?
You are talking about pie in the sky, not reality.
Yes Gunthr, I know many things are possible, and I dare say that I personally deal with as many of the dregs of society and danger posed in life as you do.
You and I differ on the cause and effect.
I have a problem with most proactive laws, thats why I made the statement that I did, I think there has to be a victim or injured party for a crime to have occurred.
When I hear that the victim is "society", I look at that with a jaundice eye.
You can stand there and say what if this shamus and what if that shamus, but it means nothing, you have no idea what will happen.
BTW, I am not in favor legalizing all drugs, but I am of the opinion that the "war on drugs", even tho you don't believe it is going on anymore, has done more harm to the country than anything else thats happened in the last 40 years.
shamus
-
Yes Gunthr, I know many things are possible, and I dare say that I personally deal with as many of the dregs of society and danger posed in life as you do.
You and I differ on the cause and effect.
I have a problem with most proactive laws, thats why I made the statement that I did, I think there has to be a victim or injured party for a crime to have occurred.
When I hear that the victim is "society", I look at that with a jaundice eye.
You can stand there and say what if this shamus and what if that shamus, but it means nothing, you have no idea what will happen.
BTW, I am not in favor legalizing all drugs, but I am of the opinion that the "war on drugs", even tho you don't believe it is going on anymore, has done more harm to the country than anything else thats happened in the last 40 years.
shamus
It looks like we have to agree to disagree about the "effects on society" thing. The discussion about legalizing dangerous drugs has been around a long time, and I think most of us who are interested in the issue know both sides of the argument by heart.
I think the crux of it is whether or not you believe that legalizing dangerous drugs like crack will make it easier to experiment with and more socially acceptible because of the decriminalization, resulting in more crack addiction than we have now, and whether or not you agree that it has a negative impact on people who have to live around it.
Even so, I'm not necessarily flying the flag for the "War on Drugs." (I'm not sure it even exists as it was in the 70's.)
I agree with some aspects of it concerning foreign policy, but i'm against enforcement emphasis on possession as opposed to trafficking - if that exists anywhere.
I can tell you that a roach found in your ashtray on a traffic stop in the '70s would have been field tested with reagents and would land you in the hoosgow, whereas today, it may cause a K-9 officer to stop by for a walk around your vehicle, but the roach - if that is all you have - will likely be field stripped and thrown down. Nobody has time for that stuff anymore. This does not sound like Nixon's "War on Drugs."
-
I think that every meth addict that would exist already does.. no law will stop future meth addicts from existing in the same numbers as no law.. if they still have their licence they will run into you law or no law.
prohibition didn't stop drunks or drunk driving.. what does have an effect is stiff penalties for using any drug (including booze) in a manner that is dangerous to society.
We have perhaps all heard the arguments for and against legalization but to think that you are protecting drivers by the war on drugs is pretty silly.
If the "war on drugs" were working and keeping meth heads off the road then we wouldn't need the DOT program for truckers would we?
lazs
-
I think that every meth addict that would exist already does.. no law will stop future meth addicts from existing in the same numbers as no law.. - Lazs
i dont buy that. who came up with this idea that the numbers of addicts to any drug will always remain at some certain magical percentage of the population regardless of factors like availability, price, legal status, quality, and level of social acceptance??? was there a study or something?
active crack addiction, for example, fluctuates wildly relative to availability - just observe your local crack town. everybody knows when somebody is cooking up a big batch, and you can see the crack potatos start walking almost overnight. they smoke that crack up untill its gone. you can extrapolate that to the entire population of the united states. if its there for people to try with no fear of legal consequences, there are going to be more people trying it. and because there are no casual crack users, the more available it is, the more addicts there will be. the more addicts there are, the more socialist your world will become.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i dont buy that. who came up with this idea that the numbers of addicts to any drug will always remain at some certain magical percentage of the population regardless of factors like availability, price, legal status, quality, and level of social acceptance??? was there a study or something?
looking for the official study, but found this...
"In 1910, officials estimated that about 1.3 percent of the American public was addicted to drugs. When President Nixon called for the current war on drugs, he said 1.3 percent of Americans were addicts. Today, after spending a trillion dollars and arresting millions the estimate is...1.3 percent!
What has changed is the millions of lives ruined, not by drugs, but by drug prohibition. Thousands of students have been denied financial aid for college because of a drug conviction. Countless families have been torn apart, countless children have been orphaned and entire neighborhoods have been ruined. Prisons are overcrowded, courts are clogged, police are corrupted, countries have been invaded and civil rights have been taken away. All this in the name of drug prohibition."
active crack addiction, for example, fluctuates wildly relative to availability - just observe your local crack town. everybody knows when somebody is cooking up a big batch, and you can see the crack potatos start walking almost overnight. they smoke that crack up untill its gone. you can extrapolate that to the entire population of the united states. if its there for people to try with no fear of legal consequences, there are going to be more people trying it. and because there are no casual crack users, the more available it is, the more addicts there will be. the more addicts there are, the more socialist your world will become.
everybody knows, eh? sounds like pure speculation to me.
-
bsdaddict, im starting to think you might be brain damaged from too many drugs. First you tell me this in an earlier post:
fair enough, sorry for overreacting then. I'm very suspicious of people who try to sway me with emotional arguments. The "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" crys are a pet peeve of mine. I hear that and I tend to discount anything else that person has to say.
[/b]
And now, apparently on a cut 'n' paste rampage, you tell me this:
...countless children have been orphaned and entire neighborhoods have been ruined.
[/b]
I hear that, and I'm starting to discount anything YOU have to say. :)
Besides, didn't you tell me in an earlier post:
pfft, don't patronize me. I've repeated myself enough already and you're ovbiously too emotionally attached to this issue to reason with, so I'm done debating this with you.
Why are you debating with me, and making those "pfft" noises?
-
Incidently, the issue at hand is the question of whether the percentage of Americans addicted to drugs would be constant whether they were LEGAL or ILLEGAL, not the percentage of addicts BEFORE THE WAR ON DRUGS or AFTER THE WAR ON DRUGS.
-
blah blah blah
you got me. debate's over.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
everybody knows when somebody is cooking up a big batch, and you can see the crack potatos start walking almost overnight. they smoke that crack up untill its gone.
i don't know where you live but you better move NOW, i have never seen anything like that. ok, i saw it on one of them cop shows on TV, but not in real life.
-
i don't know where you live but you better move NOW, i have never seen anything like that. ok, i saw it on one of them cop shows on TV, but not in real life. - John
well, that is how it is. i don't live there though. :)
-
gunthr... all I am saying is that anyone who wants any kind of drug can get it now... If they are prone to addiction then they are already addicted.
At least, as a former addict.. that is my experiance.
lazs
-
Laz,
If as you claim, you are a former addict, what prompted you to change?
I suppose the same question would apply to Nash as well.
-
I was wondering about that too, Lazs.
-
All they need is a pick axe and a floor drain.
-
The same personal inclinations that have, when drunk, certain people "become" stupider, and others merely physically impaired.