"Not to criticize, but before you attack me with your "well its my life I can do what I want, when I want" or "I pay taxes, I can do what I want in the privacy of my own home" excuse, think about what you are doing to yourself." -inimical
I don't think he was really attacking you per se...but...how is it your/the law's decision what someone else does in their own home. It doesn't really matter what they decide to do, as long as they aren't negatively affecting others with their actions. If a person decides they want to smoke pot every day, or even shoot junk or use coke, it is possible to control one's use.
You aren't a total coke head now? You've used it...lots of it, apparently, and you're not raping babies and killing women, that we know of anywho... (jk,
)
Until a person commits an act which directly influences others (robbing, stealing, killing, burning down someones house...) why should the law have jurisdiction over them? Especially if it is in one's own house. The poster was correct in saying we (tax payers) help to pay for police budgets, alot of the rest of their budget comes from seizures and forfeitures of drug dealers property (ever think about a dealer's family? What do they do when everything they've ever owned is gone, now in possession of the US govt.?) Not only do police screw us once, they seem to take pleasure in doing it twice, no option of KY.
If I want to poison myself with something, I should be able too, so should everyone else for that matter. Keep in mind, I want to be an addiction counselor when I get out of school, I've expierienced addiction and know how bad it can be, still, it's everybodies own body.
Your above argument could also be applied to over weight folks. Should we lock them up and force them to do calisthenics and go to Jenny Craig? I'm pretty sure everyone would say no, but it is essentially the same issue (without the correlational increase in crime.)
Also, you made a very good point in recognizing the big issue, that drug abuse is defined as a judicial issue, rather than a public health issue. How does locking up people who've done the same things you have going to help them? We need rehabilitation for non-violent users, not incareceration.
I guess I don't understand your post. If you don't believe in what you will be upholding, how can you? Why not become a politician? A lobbyist? As it's been said, by picking and choosing what laws you follow/enforce you will be just as much a prat as the other cops that people have had difficulty with before.
Where can you draw the line? Do you enforce laws only against certain subclasses (as you've alluded to, such as junkies/crack heads,), certain types of people? Once you start picking and choosing you've corrupted the ideal of law.
It's not dumb at all actually. The primary function of law is to protect property and privelage. The primary function of the police is to uphold law. Since property and privelage is determined by the amount of capital one possesses in a capitalist society, thie function of the police is arguably one of protecting the interests of the rich from the demands of the poor. -SteveElektro
Incredible, incredible quote. Very awesome Steve!
M
