Ex-officer: War on drugs 'far worse' than a failure

I dont know about you guys but that vehicle makes me smile from ear to ear

 

pmose I have given up on you. You really seem to be a fanatical religious warrior troll who probably believes she is doing Gods work. Prove to me that there is an all knowing spirit in the sky that cares about you pmose and wants you to hurt other people in the name of saving them and to continue to troll this board.. actually dont bother I just going to ignore you.

 

Well that's what we were really discussing. Developing sound reasoning which could capture more votes.

The reasoning's more than there, it's about spreading what's already there, not dressing it up IMO. But if you wanna go that route, the obvious strategy is medical mmj / recreational permissions for mj, then after ppl seeing how benign it was, they'll be more rational about others like, say, mushrooms/mdma**. I'd expect a much softer line towards maintenance products for opiate users, although I'm not sure I'd ever expect to see, for example, crack available freely.
(as an aside to that, I think that legalization of the better drugs - cannabis, mdma, etc - would be an incredible disincentive to ppl using shitty narcotics like heroin/crack, for 2 reasons:
1 - most ppl will be able to properly enjoy all the time they'd like to spend intoxicated on proper, good stuff, leaving little reason to use 'what's available' when their drug of choice cannot be found, and
2 - the true effects of the 'better' drugs, as compared to the harder ones, would become more widely understood, significantly chipping away at the old chestnut of "well, pot and acid were fine, i'll give percocet a try"
/didn't I unsubscribe from this one? lol

[edit: **I'd like to add that, w/ cannabis being recreationally available in some areas now, and w/ MAPS's work giving some hope of *some* stronger, but non-addicting / relatively safe compounds a chance in legit medicine perhaps being on the not-too-distant horizon, this really could be a fantastic decade of change in terms of the culture dropping the unreasonable hysteria surrounding some of these drugs. It's very clear the intoxication of the illegal ones is not why ppl are scared, this is a culture that loves getting wasted every weekend and is fully accepting of that as one's choice; the fear of the other drugs is just institutional/propagandized/whatever, so it doesn't just benefit those who wanted to use and were demonized, it benefits those who never did, and never will, care to use them, because they'll shed some ridiculous precepts they'd held most of their lives]

 

I constantly waiver between the enjoyment of arguing someone who I think is just playing devil's advocate, and the sheer burden of stating obvious stuff over&over.
/hah! Didn't unsubscribe last time cuz now you gotta check a box, no more unsubscribe button... not that that's an excuse lol, but yeah am legitly unsubscribing now, been fun in this thread

 

Use is influenced by availability, although I am uncertain as to the result this influence has on personal choice. There is a perception of value attributed to scarcity, and organizations profiting off illegal drugs want you to think their products are extremely valuable.

1. This assumes a drug is available for every person's need. Some may have perfect lives chomping percocets but that doesn't mean any people will stop looking for something to fix their problems. Such as tiger penis. How many people does this help? That is the entire concept of a drug being illegal. It is either not useful medicine, commonly abused, or both.

2. This is some type of theory like stepping stone or a gateway; which, in my limited experience, are not proven models.

Statistics do not support the idea of everyone out getting wasted. Perceptions like these are a major factor in "personal"choice. This perception is influenced by few personal experiences and possibly propaganda.

 

Tiger penis???? What in the FLYING FUCK are you talking about??? Do you have a mental deficiency?

 

it's made w/ bits of real panther, so you know it's good
/WAS unsubscribed, but one of my last posts had a quote from anotehr who also wanted out of this troll-baiting pmose is doing, so came back to edit that out so we can all just ignore him (til the next thread :/)

 

And we have a dedication going out to our good friend and hard fought advisory.


[video=youtube;DVg2EJvvlF8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?vVg2EJvvlF8[/video].

 

[video=youtube;BCVim78vmUM]http://youth.be/BCVim78vmUM[/video]

 

Is that a threat? You will be on the entire board's ignore list before too long. You're just like Tony Abbot, every time you open your mouth (figuratively speaking) the ignore count goes up.

 

Is that a threat? You will be on the entire board's ignore list before too long. You're just like Tony Abbot, every time you open your mouth (figuratively speaking) the ignore count goes up.

That is too much. Thank you.

Dead Meat is a joke. It is dead serious. It is an enjoyable song.

You'll have to learn you can mix messages.

You can take it as a threat, that I am not leaving.

 

It really sucks that the war on drugs and privatized prison systems are supporting an overwhelmingly non violent prison population. These institutions create lifelong criminals and could care less about rehabilitation. It's just plain ridiculous and sad.

 

What is the definition of violent?

I ask because I have had some confounding conversations in the past because of the word violent.

Violent
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation>
b : extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult>
b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>

I tend to think of violence in terms of the 1st definition.

People call the government violent. Probably closer to definition 3. Saying it uses the threat of violence to enforce laws.

I could not disagree more with that sentiment. Violence, in my opinion, is a description of the kind of action and a difference in tact. It is physical. One could, in a non-violent manner, stab a body 50 times.... it would be weird, sure, but you could also violently hang a curtain, presumably after the delicate method failed to work.

The point being, the result and the method are not necessarily linked. So how exactly is violence defined and why should I care whether the activity is violent?

Was anything ENRON did violent?

Did a black kid selling crack in New York stay in prison longer than the white executive at ENRON that same year? Possibly. But that is an entirely different matter. What I am talking about is violence. Just because something isn't violent doesn't make it right.

A person carrying a shotgun at a school is not violent. I don't care that it is not violent and I do not care there were no victims; it is still a crime worthy of punishment.

 

I really hope America wakes up soon. All we have to do is look at other countries, that have legalized and installed systems for users, to end instances of over-dosing and programs that help with addiction and dependency. A lot of great points have been in this thread, but the United States of America needs to change its "War on drugs" cause we are losing.

 

Drug Legalization would be so much better for society. Education and the better quality of drugs would make everything far safer. Educated drug use is as important as having safe sex! And of course it is every person's basic right to put whatever they want in their body and the government shouldn't interfere.

 

Drug Legalization would be so much better for society. Education and the better quality of drugs would make everything far safer. Educated drug use is as important as having safe sex! And of course it is every person's basic right to put whatever they want in their body and the government shouldn't interfere.

Are we speaking terms of the United States (I assume we are)?

What does "legalization" mean?

How much is "so much"?

Safety will be better. Anything else?

Which is more important, the quality of drugs or the education (I assume you mean public education)?

What, in particular, needs to be taught or not taught at schools?

The government can not interfere, do other people have a right to interfere?

Do State Rights differ?

Would safe sex be important without sexually transmitted diseases?

Should I have the right to advertise suicide or insanity?

 

you made an excellent point which i never would have even considered to of been a possibility before reading this, thank you for the thought about how if everyone stopped for 5 years they'd be fucked from not getting their revenue lol

"It's not like cops are walking around looking for kids smoking pot." - Mr. Evans

I beg to differ, I'd have to say that a very large part of what cops do is simply drive around, see if there's anything suspicious on the road, and if they can get an in through a traffic stop, the main thing they want to do is try and search the car, or the people in the car, for drugs and/or drug paraphernalia.

And, obviously, more to the point in response to David Evans, YES, the cops are looking around for kids smoking pot, what the fuck do you think drug prohibition means???? When cops are driving around, they are actively looking around at the other cars around them and if some people are blatant enough to be smoking pot in their car in plain sight, the cops will pull them over. I almost feel dumb writing this out because it's so obvious...

Also just wanted to point out how much the government does not want the war on drugs to end. There are two ways for it to end, IMO - legalization of all drugs, is 1st, and the vastly easier option, BUT, what about if all drug users suddenly stopped using at the same time for a period of 5 years (like one of Stalin's 5 year plans)?? 5 years without any drug arrests of any kind would cripple police forces across the nation with immediate effects - the devastation would be lovely. This is totally hypothetical, but if you think about the situation like this, you have to admit police actually want people to be using drugs in droves, so then they have plenty of chances to arrest and catch at least a fraction of users/dealers, like has been going on for decades now.

 

you think bringing a gun onto a school for protection is worthy of punishment holmes?

fuck that i dream of a world where married gay couples can guard their weed fields with ak 47s (stole that quote)

think about that for a minute

What is the definition of violent?

I ask because I have had some confounding conversations in the past because of the word violent.

Violent
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation>
b : extreme, intense <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult>
b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>

I tend to think of violence in terms of the 1st definition.

People call the government violent. Probably closer to definition 3. Saying it uses the threat of violence to enforce laws.

I could not disagree more with that sentiment. Violence, in my opinion, is a description of the kind of action and a difference in tact. It is physical. One could, in a non-violent manner, stab a body 50 times.... it would be weird, sure, but you could also violently hang a curtain, presumably after the delicate method failed to work.

The point being, the result and the method are not necessarily linked. So how exactly is violence defined and why should I care whether the activity is violent?

Was anything ENRON did violent?

Did a black kid selling crack in New York stay in prison longer than the white executive at ENRON that same year? Possibly. But that is an entirely different matter. What I am talking about is violence. Just because something isn't violent doesn't make it right.

A person carrying a shotgun at a school is not violent. I don't care that it is not violent and I do not care there were no victims; it is still a crime worthy of punishment.

 

pmose- you're playing dumb and it doesnt work. legalization can reduce incidents of overdose by producing drugs locally instead of relying on black market imports. Portugal pulled it off and that was almost 15 years ago.

 

pmose- you're playing dumb and it doesnt work. legalization can reduce incidents of overdose by producing drugs locally instead of relying on black market imports. Portugal pulled it off and that was almost 15 years ago.

Let's not pretend this is a fresh conversation all of a sudden.

you think bringing a gun onto a school for protection is worthy of punishment holmes?

fuck that i dream of a world where married gay couples can guard their weed fields with ak 47s (stole that quote)

think about that for a minute

No. It should be legal for people to carry a gun on school property.

 

pmoseman ,
after reading some of your comments in this and other threads , I am beginning to re-assess my belief in the notion of the cognitive harmlessness of recreational drugs ....

Or are you a bored pathetic individual with nothing better to do than troll and wreck one thread after another ??