At some point, everyone ought to throw his or her political theory—whatever it is—up against the wall of reality to see if it sticks. I ran smack into that wall when the state shackled Mark, one of my best friends, and hauled him off to a dank, violent, maximum-security prison for a 17-year stay. His crime: possession of a spoonful of… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (286)For those of you that wish to discuss this in a more enlightened way,you may like to check out alternet.org
they think this issue is important enough to devote a whole section of their site to it.
Not to change the subject but,here is some breaking news.
The Democrats kicked the public out,and held a closed session today.They shredded the Bush admin.and ripped the ASSES of the republican majority for not holding the neocons accountable for their lies and coersion!! You must read Harry Reids speech!http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2005/11/breaking_news_d.htmThe dems say they are going to do it EVERYDAY until they get some accountability and answers! check it out! (it is also linked through the alternet “mix” section through the artical “Dems got their groove back”
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 2, 2005 at 3:41 AM as always the link is a bit messed up.I think if you corect the gap and spelling of the word “breaking” in the link it should work.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 2, 2005 at 3:43 AM JAY, first I think if you really believe in your admonitions that “stepping up” the criminal justice and law enforcement responses would lead to a reduced level of drug production and distribution, you should really, seriously contact your local reps and also the DEA to let them know. The current strategies are as aggressive as any time in history, the legal penalties for drugs other than marijuana are at their most stringent in history and we still have no diminishing supply or demand.
The police and judges of LEAP have therefore concluded that regardless of the level of enforcement dollars, there will never be a reduction of sufficient significance to warrant continuation of drug Prohibition. Therefore we call for an end to Prohibition which of course means moving the distribution of currently illicit drugs off the streets and into a licensed and regulated setting. This is by no means “punting”. It’s a simple acknowledgement that risky and in-demand drugs are better distributed by licensed, regulated dealers than by unlicensed and completely uncontrolled dealers.
A $65 billion dollar a year business will not be shut down by any level of law enforcement when virtually ALL of that industry operates in secret and is controlled by mysterious, unidentified players.
LEAP has given about 2000 public presentations over the past 3 years, speaking mainly to local civic clubs, church groups and to police orgs. Out of those meetings, LEAP speakers (all cops and judges themselves) have spoken one on one with a couple thousand non-LEAP police and judges from around North America. When polled privately, just over 10% believe that LEAP is misguided. A bit less than 10% offer no opinion. The remaining 80% agree that drug Prohibition is a failed policy and also agree that it would be much better for our communities to end the drug war and move commercial drug distribution into a licensed, regulated market. Thanks for the feedback.
This is actually a bit higher percentage of support for our Mission Statement as that received by the public at large (non-LE attendees at our presentations). They express support for our Mission Statement at closer to a 70% rate following our presentation.
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 2, 2005 at 3:52 AM Kaw Valley Kid and others too
Click here to make tiny URLs.
Click here to learn about HTML.
It is easy . Questions? Please ask.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 2, 2005 at 3:56 AM What the cops and judges of LEAP realize is that if JAY’s proscription (which BTW is not uncommon…in the minority thinking it would work, but by no means uncommon) to “amp up” the level of enforcement were to be put into play, it would still not reduce the flow. Instead all it does is increase the price of doing business. It increases the level of violence in our neighborhoods against police and civilians who might try and intercede on the illegal operations. It increases the cost for end users and this increases related property and personal crime carried out to obtain needed finances.
Contrast this with legal drug dealers. They do not conduct violence against police or against civilians. They don’t hide from regulators or police. The legal, regulated commercial market assures competitive pricing which means that users won’t be motivated to commit personal or property crimes to fund their use.
One can promote a message of abstinence from drugs. One can actively promote education and services designed at reducing and/or ending drug use for those who want to quit. But one need not endorse a policy of drug Prohibition which guarantees that for as long as we have a significant demand for drugs, the system of distribution will amplify and magnify both the direct and the collateral damage done to our communities and to our people.
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 2, 2005 at 3:59 AM Only some HTML is allowed on this site:
italics, bold, block quotes (the boxes) and hyperlinks.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:00 AM A little feedback would be appreciated folks,I’ll check back tomorrow.
Posted by Dr.D on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:03 AM Right on Dr.D ! Not so sure about the illegal aliens thing though.Isn’t it better to ship ‘em back rather than fill our jails with them?Also,why are they hired here? because they do the jobs no one else wants to do.Who will clean pappa Bushes house and pool?who will keep up the gardens?
I do think what you said about drug users not being criminals by default is right on the money though!
MOST users are responsible.but not all,just as most people are honest,but not all…some drugs may make you inclined to try behaviors you normally wouldn’t.Alcohol comes to mind…
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:58 AM How about this.It is illogical,and probably unconstitutional to declare ANY substance to be illegal
Beautiful! Let me know how the arguments before the Court goes…
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:11 PM <blockquote></blockquote>
Ha! You got ‘em now, Dano! Make ‘em put his money where his mouth his!
Been there. Done that.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:13 PM So when are you enlisting, Jay ?
Ha! You got ‘em now, Dano! Make ‘em put his money where his mouth his!
Been there. Done that.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:14 PM The police and judges of LEAP have therefore concluded that regardless of the level of enforcement dollars,
First, Steve, let’s stop the misrepresenting here, shall we? Last time I check, LEAP represented 2000 LEs. How come the vast majority do NOT back you?
Second, you keep implying that the audiences that you talk largely support your goals. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that those audiences a actually a representative sample. You are quick to ridicule those “5 out 100”, yet you have yet to provide the statitistics, now thrice asked for, on just how large that “majority” is?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:20 PM SteveHeath : “The first question we ask is, “Do you believe that the American demand for drugs can be reduced by any significant amount?”
I was amazed that only 5% answer yes to this, but then realized it may simply be how the question is phrased. Perhaps the question should be reworded: “Do you believe that the American demand for drugs can be increased by any significant amount by making them legal?”?
It is clear to me the answer here is yes, but next meeting perhaps Sreve can gather some real statistics (as opposed to my cavalier conjuncture)?
Dr.D: “How about this.It is illogical,and probably unconstitutional to declare ANY substance to be illegal”Would this include plutonium or chemical weapons? I know that the publishing of how to build nuclear weapons is legal (thank you Mother Jones!), and feel much safer knowing thatat least information can flow freely (why not materials?). . .
Last - is it really true that some posters here only want to hear what they already believe to be true? I prefer to see all sides of an argument (preferably politely and cogently expressed). I suppose the desire to have diversity of opinion rates low on ideologically bound websites. Anyway, for all who i offend, please feel free to ignore my posts. Best not to disturb your inner convictions; at the rare moments when growth takes place, i can be both disturbing and painful. . .
Posted by wolf on Nov 2, 2005 at 4:37 PM It is cruel punishment to incarcerate non-violent offenders, imo, and it is good to see any press examining America’s “War on Drugs” as a gross infringement on personal liberty.
Hey, even if citizens vote to decriminalize the softest drug of all, God’s green herb, the State will still act like “Father knows best” and ignore the public’s desire for rational and humane law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5386972,00.htmlDenver Voters OK Marijuana Possession
Wednesday November 2, 2005 12:46 PM
By JON SARCHEAssociated Press Writer
“DENVER (AP) - Residents of the Mile High City have voted to legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults. Authorities, though, said state possession laws will be applied instead.
With 100 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, 54 percent, or 56,001 voters, cast ballots for the ordinance, while 46 percent, or 48,632 voters, voted against it.
Under the measure, residents over 21 years old could possess up to an ounce of marijuana.”
Bright side, the government gets lots of free labor and all our highway roadsides remain remarkably clean.
Posted by pick of the litter on Nov 2, 2005 at 5:40 PM wolf,
one thing you have to realize is that these “audiences” that Steve parades are at LEAP-sponsored events.
LEAP, being the operative word - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - I can’t see my Uncle of 30 years in the State Police attending one of those events.
I know I wouldn’t, so I guess my responses to Steve’s interrogation is truly irrelevant.
So, how many people at a Klan rally do you think would advocate white supremist attitudes?
more than 95%?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 5:47 PM We’ll reset the observation from an earlier post now:
LEAP has given about 2000 public presentations over the past 3 years, speaking mainly to local civic clubs, church groups and to police orgs. Out of those meetings, LEAP speakers (all cops and judges themselves) have spoken one on one with a couple thousand non-LEAP police and judges from around North America. When polled privately, just over 10% believe that LEAP is misguided. A bit less than 10% offer no opinion. The remaining 80% agree that drug Prohibition is a failed policy and also agree that it would be much better for our communities to end the drug war and move commercial drug distribution into a licensed, regulated market. Thanks for the feedback.This is actually a bit higher percentage of support for our Mission Statement as that received by the public at large (non-LE attendees at our presentations). They express support for our Mission Statement at closer to a 70% rate following our presentation.
It should be noted that those who attend a LEAP presentation are for the most part “new” to the message. They walk in with no pre-knowledge of who we are and what we do. See here: http://leap.cc/events/ for a schedule of events and if there is one in your area, feel welcome to attend and ask the speaker(s) the questions you are asking me here.
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 2, 2005 at 7:38 PM Pick of the Litter mentioned it and I will provide the scriptural reference.
From Genesis chapter 1 ....
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth ....... and, behold, it was very good.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 2, 2005 at 7:40 PM Hey Wolf,It seems that you have found a chink in my armor,but my main point is that denying a person’s rights to self determination and privacy is just plain wrong.People are fighting like hell to keep the right to own a firearm right now.Just as “guns don’t kill people,people kill people”,drugs don’t commit crimes,people(sometimes in altered states)commit crimes.We are turning into a police state as we speak,and the ramifications of these draconian drug laws goes much deeper than stopping a person from getting a buzz. Kaw Valley Kid, Do you have any idea how many minority and white citizens can’t get a job because of this horde of illegals that has invaded our country? Do you have any idea of how many hospitals are closing because these hospitals,by law,must treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay? Can you guess how many formerly eradicated diseases have been re-introduced by these people who haven’t been medically cleared to enter our country? Please check out Frosty Woolridge and Devvy Kidd on newswithviews.com.
Posted by Dr.D on Nov 2, 2005 at 7:58 PM “new” to the message
no pre-knowledge of who we are and what we do
So, how does that audience selection process work? Random sampling of people on the street? in their houses? is participation voluntary?
The statistics are meaningless without a frame of reference to the statistical validity of their representation of the public at large.
I have no objections to special interest groups working and advocating for their legitimate interests. That is what a democracy is.
But Steve has implicitly and continually (mis)represented his little group as representative of the LE community at large. The name alone defies his objection that they walk in with no pre-knowledge of who we are and what we do
Let me quote one piece of today’s Breaking Ranks article that illustrates that the support of the LE community towards Steve’s goals are not that pervasive,
Q. How have other members of law enforcement—including other police chiefs—reacted to your call for the legalization of drugs?
A.I’m not well-liked by many people in the field for saying these things.
Again, my query of polling Klansmen is appropriate and analogous.
and last I checked, their membership in 2005 ran about 3000.
Does that make them more relevant than LEAP?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 8:10 PM Again, for the fourth time (actually fifth, wolf has also called for more details),
Out of the “95%” of LEAP’s small sample space, how many actually agree, unequvically, that drugs should be legalized?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 8:12 PM According to the LEAP website, 80 out of the orginal 100 “agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition.”
So, how about the sample space itself? How representative is it of the general public at large?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 2, 2005 at 8:19 PM J Cline
Explain to me how locking people up for something that hurts only themselves benefits society.
How do you justify the financial and social costs?
Do you follow laws just because they are on the books, or because you believe they are just? Would you yourself break a law if you felt it were unjust and restricting your freedom? Or do you follow blindly like a good little sheep?
Please answer without using some appeal to emotion that labels drug users as ‘druggies’ or otherwise broken wheels in society (since you yourself profess to hate labels and doing so would make you a hypocrite).
Posted by Disseminator on Nov 2, 2005 at 11:35 PM also, if you think legalization is a marginal view not held by anyone in power, or anyone who knows what they are talking about than read this.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0122,kick,25146,1.html
Posted by Disseminator on Nov 2, 2005 at 11:56 PM perhaps the new Denver Laws reflect how many of the general public feel about it.
Leap is just one of many groups fighting for reform.here are a few.
Drug Reform Coordination Network
Drug Policy Alliance
Media Awareness Project
NAtional Organization For The Reform Of Marijauna Laws
Transnational Radical Party
BC Marijauna Party
US Marijauna
Many other countries have there own as well
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 2:28 AM I really don’t know too much about the immigration issue, but It sounds like a good cause for nationalized health care.
I think there is a wealth distribution problem going on too.Certainly the immigrents Aren’t afraid of work,and surely they"d rather stay at home and make a liveable wage. I don’t think many of the poor(here in the US) could live on the lower than minimum wage jobs being filled by said immigrents.Now I’ll go read from the link you provided,Dr D ,Thanks
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 2:36 AM Perhaps rather than picking apart one source of info Jay, you could actually GO to the LEAP website and get the answers for your questions!I’m sure Mr.Heath has gotten quite tired for your circular logic by now,I know I and a few others,(some of who you actually chased off!)are.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 2:41 AM KVK,I harbor no ill will towards foreign indigents(especially industrious ones),but they are here illegally,and are criminals.They DO in fact steal the livelihoods of millions of Americans,because they WILL work for peanuts.The only profit gained by these people being here is going to the cheapskate criminals that hire them for slave wages.Yes,it IS against the law to hire these people.It is also against the law to harbor them(because they are criminals).But strangely,the law enforcement community throughout the whole country has largely decided not to arrest these people when they cross paths.And at the same time,our jails are bursting with Americans caught with a half ounce of weed. Go figure.
Posted by Dr.D on Nov 3, 2005 at 3:32 AM Here is an excerpt from an editorial today in an Alabama Paper,the fact they even printed it says alot about how the tide of public opinion is turning. Link below
Alabama needs a clear-eyed look at all of its laws that are significant factors in the prison overcrowding that plagues the state. Serious thought has to be given to whether the laws as written really accomplish desirable ends.Accordingly, it was refreshing to see at least the possible beginning of a debate over Alabama’s marijuana possession law in the comments of two members of Gov. Riley’s prison overcrowding task force. Although Jim Hill, a St. Clair County circuit judge, and Robert Harper, a retired Lee County circuit judge, do not favor decriminalizing marijuana, they do question the wisdom of incarcerating people for possession.
That’s an issue well worth debating. Possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor in Alabama—for the first offense. With a second offense, it is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. About 500 people are sentenced to prison for this offense each year. to read more click here:
http://tinyurl.com/c67m2
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 3:57 AM JAY queries: According to the LEAP website, 80 out of the orginal 100 “agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition.”
So, how about the sample space itself? How representative is it of the general public at large?
At your next convenient time, attend a local Rotary club meeting. Then attend a local church meeting. Then go to a law enforcement professional conference. The combined demographic would be very representative of the audiences that LEAP presents to. And of course, you can use the link I provided to see when a LEAP presentation is scheduled for your area and you can check it out for yourself. Further inquiries of sincere nature are welcome at the email address I provided above. Thanks for all the discussion.
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 3, 2005 at 4:01 AM Here is another,no I’m not in AL.Just finding news about the drug war and the many who are questioning there value in public forums such as newspapers mags,web ect… So Jay can realize its not just a few fringe folks who think the war on a noun isn’t working.
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS AN INVESTMENT IN FUTURE
Alabama does not have a prison problem. It has a crime problem.
Rather than building more and bigger prisons or spending money to study the state’s prison-crowding situation one more time Alabama should revamp its sentencing guidelines to get non-violent offenders treatment and rehabilitation.
A report released Monday points out that drug-related offenses made up 31 percent of state prison admissions in 2004; nearly twice the number of robbery, murder, rape and manslaughter entries combined, according to figures supplied by the Alabama Sentencing Commission.
Between 1999 and 2004, prison admissions for drug and alcohol offenses increased by 21 percent, while admissions for crimes against persons fell 14 percent.
Alabama lawmakers will consider a series of sentencing reform bills when the 2006 regular session convenes.
Gov. Bob Riley’s task force on prison overcrowding has recommended reducing the prison population by alternative means of punishment, including transition centers, community corrections and drug-treatment programs.
Lawmakers would be wise to heed those recommendations.
We certainly don’t advocate the legalization of marijuana, as announced gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall has proposed. But community drug-treatment and rehabilitation programs make more sense than assigning pot possessors to prison beds.
Drug-treatment programs are expensive. But incarceration costs more in the long run.
Nor do community corrections programs work 100 percent of the time. Some who complete rehabilitation programs eventually return to illegal drug use. Often, addicts return to treatment several times before successfully kicking their habits.
Rehabilitation must be a goal of any criminal justice program. Locking up non-violent drug offenders together and with other criminals has proven ineffective in reducing recidivism.
Why change? The most compelling reason is that what the state has done historically hasn’t worked. Our prisons keep overflowing.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 4:02 AM Personally,I am for MAJOR reform on the Marijauna laws,as I have said.I feel each drug should be looked at individually,I think LEAP and Steve are ont the right track about VERY controlled distribution ect. for the Harder drugs.But Cannibis is far less dangerous than many drugs that are illgal,such as Alchol Check this out,as we know now,the Denver pot initiative Passed.
DENVER POT INITIATIVERe: “‘No’ for Denver pot initiative,” Oct. 25 editorial endorsement.
In its editorial, The Post said, “Colorado and the nation need to have realistic debate about decriminalizing marijuana, but ballot initiative I-100 in Denver doesn’t contribute much to that discussion.” In fact, the Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation ( SAFER ) campaign is the first major addition to the national marijuana debate in years.
There are two substances in this country widely used for recreational purposes - marijuana and alcohol. Despite the fact that every government study ever done has concluded that marijuana is safer - both for the user and society - it remains the illegal drug. This creates a tremendous incentive for people to use alcohol instead of marijuana. Making marijuana legal for adults would undoubtedly result in some people using marijuana instead of alcohol.
With alcohol causing about 85,000 deaths ( source: American Medical Association ) and factoring in more than 3 million violent incidents each year ( source: U.S. Department of Justice ), it is a “preposterous assertion” - to use The Post’s words - to say this should not be part of the debate over marijuana policy.
Steve Fox, Potomac, Md.
The writer is former director of government affairs for the Marijuana Policy Project.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 4:12 AM REHABILITATE THE PENAL SYSTEM
Are we under any obligation to rehabilitate the individuals who have been incarcerated for not adhering to the laws of society? Certainly we must be!
As of August 2003, approximately 5.6 million Americans were in prison or had served time there. This staggering number is equivalent to 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration rate in the world.
What has impeded the rehabilitation of prisoners before being released? Budget reforms, staff shortages, lack of educational and vocational resources, zero-tolerance laws, the war on drugs, get tough on crime laws, mandatory minimum sentences - the list is as long as the national budget and does not seem to be getting any shorter.
Ex-offenders are returning to the streets at alarming rates only to face the reality that they were not given the proper “tools” to survive in a society that will not tolerate crime. Recidivism rates have risen to 62 percent and continue to increase at alarming rates.
What happens when we incarcerate non-violent drug users and small-time sellers and place them into hateful and violent penitentiary environments? Are we providing an incentive for change or exacerbating the propensity for violence, theft and hatred, in addition to lack of societal and family contacts?
Prisons are reported to be high-crime “communities” where prisoners face a 1 in 5 chance of being assaulted, 1 in 20 chance of being robbed and a 1 in 3 chance of being a victim of theft. Studies show that jailing parents creates trauma and depression among children, forces them into foster care and increases the likelihood of future jail time for th children.
Since the vast majority of prisoners will be released back into society, it is the responsibility of both society and the prisoners to help in developing opportunities that reduce the recidivism rates and help those released t lead productive lives after prison.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that education is the most effective way to reduce recidivism rates, yet most prison extension classes have been abolished. Prisoners who do not take part in education or training are three times more likely to be reconvicted, while basic-skills education can contribute to a reduction in reoffending by around 12 percent.
Not only do prisoners need the opportunity to learn vocational skills but also they need assistance with developing thinking skills, social perspectives and moral reasoning. Behavioral programs such as parenting skills and anger management are also needed to assist with the reintegration into society.
There are many barriers to learning in prisons. They include long waiting lists to enter vocational or education programs due to the lack of opportunities, movement between prisons disrupting education, disparities in education funding between prisons, low rates of pay for attending education courses compared to prison work, and inconsistencies in procedures to assess educational needs.
Since we are going to continue to release prisoners back into the community, we need to assure that they are mentally prepared to do so. We need to make the resources available for both education and training comparable to those in society.
Rehabilitation of prisoners is not rocket science but it does take a commitment from society and government to assist in the funding of educational and vocational opportunities.
Programs such as a restorative justice program in St. Louis has helped 43 ex-offender “Care Team” members; first with housing, transportation, drug counseling and basic education, but also by placing them in jobs where they have a chance to serve people more needy than themselves. So far, reports board member Rosanne Bennett, not one participant has reoffended or returned to prison.
We have a right to serve and protect all citizens of the United States, and we must not forget that prisoners are entitled to the same rights!
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 4:18 AM DRUG TESTING THREATENS OUR LIBERTY Author: David J. Chapman
Note: Chapman is a Fargo attorney and occasional contributor to The
Forum’s opinion/commentary pagesUntil I tried my first federal drug crime case, I had never seen an illegal drug up close. I could not have differentiated between marijuana and tea leaves. I am not embarrassed by the naivete on this issue. I simply have no inclination to venture into the subculture of drugs it never even occurred to me.
As a drug na?ve citizen, I still find the trend towards mandatory, random drug testing in the workplace to be disturbing. Random drug tests mean just that. The workforce is targeted at random in the workplace and tested for controlled substances through urinalysis. The drug user and the drug na?ve are all caught in the same net.
The famous English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, opined that the power to regulate conduct should be used in such a manner as to create as little pointless imposition on personal liberty as possible. Nothing is more invasive of personal liberty than forcing all employees even those who have given no reason to suspect them of drug use to submit to random tests. All of us should be concerned by yet another imposition on our liberty.
Looking behind the justifications for testing, it appears that our medical community has latched onto a great money-making scheme by creating a furor over testing, but what does random testing achieve? As it is random there is no guarantee that the hard-core user will be caught. If you test three people out of 100, none of whom are users, and you leave the hard-core user on the job, then you have just achieved nothing more than filling the coffers of already rich medical organizations who conduct the tests. The workplace is not safer. The user is still there and is still a danger.
What is it with the use of illegal drugs that makes them so special? They are so special because selling testing to the public is easy to rationalize. Why not test for alcohol consumption? Let’s have a breath test station at the door of every workplace to test for alcohol. After all, alcohol kills too. The difference is that alcohol consumption is legal and drugs are not. Little argument will exist for invading the person of an employee for a urine test for something that is illegal, but employees and employers may balk at testing for alcohol use.
Why not body fat tests? Body fat is dangerous. Obesity causes heart attacks, increased medical premiums, lost productivity. However, once again, food is not illegal and neither is being fat.
In the end the medical community has found a tremendous source of income that produces little or no guarantee, namely performing medical tests on healthy people under the guise of workplace safety and liability.
But why not test for drugs when they are illegal? If you do not use then you should not be concerned. Shouldn’t we all do our part to detect illegal drug use? Maybe, but we should also be concerned when our government allows employers to step into a pseudo law enforcement role. Catching criminals is a police function. We would not let the government perform such invasions of privacy without proper justification and we should not allow our employers to do so either.
As individuals we have a certain level of liberty that is inherent in our natural rights as individuals. We should not falter in our defense of those rights and certainly should not surrender them lightly. We should fear the day that we simply submit to impositions on liberty by accepting the assurances of those who can profit from those impositions.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 4:34 AM I’m starting to get the feeling that you guys are trying to earnestly"help"all of those poor folks out there that are misguided enough to run afoul of our(wellmeaning)penal system.If that’s the case,I have a radical solution for you: Why not just leave people alone if they don’t infringe on anybody elses rights,all of these drug laws are bullshit,and you know it. Law enforcement in this country was originally intended to defend the weaker among us from criminal elements,and it is a noble undertaking,but a person’s right to privacy and self determination are also to be protected.
Posted by Dr.D on Nov 3, 2005 at 4:54 AM Jay says
His stance is the same reflected by about
5 people in 100 when we give public presentations at
LEAP.
So, laws are being implemented by a minority vote of
5%??Wow! I didn’t realize I was part of such an elite
powerful group…Of course, SH’s own logic that the minority viewpoint
is irrelevant only leads to the conclusion that since
the majority of Americans don’t believe in the
legalization of drug use, his own view is superfluous.
KVK: No he is talking about the groups of people the LEAP folks give presentations to. Not the general public.If the general public all got the presentation, instead of all the anti drug propaganda thrown upon them through the media,(paid for with our tax dollars).He contends they would largly agree with Leaps’ paltform.I think he is correct on that assumtion,based on partially on the fact that many of the people who attend Leaps’ presentations,are the very hardest to convince,ie: LE, the folks who have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal,as their paychecks come from inforcing those laws!
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 4:54 AM Once again KVK, Every cop in this country will be ensured of a steady gig if they would only use their vast resources to rid us of ILLEGAL aliens,and the slimeballs that hire them and enable them to remain in OUR country.Politicians be damned,they cannot stop cops from enforcing the law of the land.And they can’t make cops arrest some poor slob whose only crime is to be caught with a little weed either. Think about it.
Posted by Dr.D on Nov 3, 2005 at 5:20 AM Jay:Of those 95% of people you talk to, how many think we should just stop enforcing the laws and legalize it?
KVK:Nobody is saying stop inforcing the laws,we are saying CHANGE the laws, and control the flow of drugs legit!taxes,oversite ect… not just say “hey its legal now, lets PARTY!!!”
Jay:But Steve has implicitly and continually (mis)represented his little group as representative of the LE community at large.KVKI haven’t seen this at all, he has just stated that the group is made up of Judges and cops!and has had to remind you of that a few times,Jay
You should check out one promenent member Norm Stampers new book"Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Expose of the Dark Side of American Policing” http://tinyurl.com/7majn Link is to amazon page, Mr.Stamper is a former Seattle Chief of police and former San Diego deputy chief
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 5:23 AM You guys are dense, why don’t you LEAP off a bridge. goodnight.
Posted by Dr.D on Nov 3, 2005 at 5:30 AM Politicians be damned,they cannot stop cops from enforcing the law of the land.And they can’t make cops arrest some poor slob whose only crime is to be caught with a little weed either. Think about it.
I’m not sure what you mean be this Doctor.Its the politicians that Make the laws,right?And I think they DO make cops arrest folks with a little bit of weed.In fact,Weed arrests have gone up tremendously in the last oh,5 years or so,you know since the neocons took over the fed.Not that use has gone up any.Maybe kicking out the illegal aliens would keep the cops busy,I don’t know.THAT is one “war” we probably could win though,if we put all the drug war resorceses toward it.I’m not much of an Isolationist though,I’m more concerned about the fate of OUR planet then I am about OUR country,though I do care about America too.I just worry about those who put Patriotism before common sense.(not necessarily refering to you Dr.)You have some good points.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 5:56 AM People really need to start reading before they spout.
Dis’ - As I explained in quite detail a few times, it is the impact of drugs on society that I worry about. Read the posts. And before you criticize someone’s manner of speech a priori, clean up your own act.
KVK - ditto - How do you think I got the stats after waiting forever for Steve? And having a membership of 2000 amongst a community of a couple hundred thousand does not mean overwhelming support in the LE community. I have heard what Steve is saying far better than you have.
Steve - you are the master of aversion. You stand up for all of LE who opposes prohibition, yet your base is extremely thin. You have said nothing new, certainly nothing to counter my linear arguments that you do not represent the depth and breadth of LE that you claim to. How many church goers would say they believe in God? You preach to the choir before audiences who already agree with you. Those hardbitten LE people that oppose legalization that KVK refers to aren’t going to your meetings. Why should they? The Klan holds regular meetings around the country, yet they are a joke.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:18 AM Jimmy Carter
Former U.S. President“Penalties against a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana for personal use. The National Commission on Marijuana . . . concluded years ago that marijuana use should be decriminalized, and I believe it is time to implement those basic recommendations.”
source: speech to Congress, August 2, 1977——————————— ;———————————&# #8212;——————————R 212;——————
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:40 AM Jay:As I explained in quite detail a few times, it is the impact of drugs on society that I worry about.
KVK:The impact on society is creativity!In the large part.Most of the musicians and many Authors actors and such are drug users,not to mention sports stars. As far as the negative impacts they are mostly side effects of the illegality of the drugs.ie Property crime and violence.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:48 AM Cline,
I agree with you totally. It is so annoying when people dodge questions.
Posted by Disseminator on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:58 AM But what is really annoying are those who even when they get the answers, don’t hear them.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:03 AM The impact on society is creativity!
Creatively executed drug-related crimes?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:05 AM repost - apologies, but I was asked…
(1 of 2)
wolf,
First, let me clear the decks of what I believe are non-arguments for the legalization of any narcotic and/or hallucinatory drug.
I reject the notion that simply because people break a law and fill up our prisons, that we should legalize the activity.
And as I not-quite flippantly indicated earlier, I am not a libertarian. I do not concede that libertarian thought is the final defender of liberty. When a political philosophy comes to the conclusion that we should privatize everything, when it refutes the very real benefits of collective organization, albeit as potentially dangerous that could be, then that is not a philosophy I would care to study in much detail, much less follow.
Finally, the current drug laws are just. Contrary to the hyper-rhetoric seen here, we do not live in a police state and our prisons are not American versions of Saddam’s hellholes, the Soviet’s Gulags or Vietnam’s Hanoi Hilton. Our society is just, and it is fair. Compliance with the law is not an option.
Fighting for legislative change, however, is certainly a viable, and rightly protected, choice. But until change is effected, it is still against the law. If it can be shown to be a violation of our constitutional rights, if it can be shown before the Supreme Court that the Tyranny of the Majority is stomping on the Rights of the Minority, then the legislative “tyranny” can be bypassed and vetoed by that Court .
But the rule of law is irrelevant if each person can pick and choose which laws to follow. The South tried to ride that horse to secession. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. That would be, in my estimation, a clear example of the Tyranny of the Minority.
To dismiss wholesale the arguments that are against legalization of drugs, as white supremacy racist conspiracies, to cast those who would argue against such legislation, a priori, as racist and undemocratic, is counterproductive and, dare I say it, counterdemocratic.
There is certainly a strong argument that can be made for legalization with regards to the failed attempts of the prohibition of alcohol. But I believe this to be comparing apples and oranges. Prohibition failed, not because of any simpatico argument with drugs, but because alcohol consumption, for better or worse, has been a universally and widely accepted practice and custom since before recorded history.
True, drug use has a similarly long history, particularly with regards to primitive medicine and religion, but for the most part, the use of narcotics and hallucinatory drugs have not been so universal or widely practiced.
Why not?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:11 AM The klan IS a small group(thank god)and LEAP to may be relatively small too per se,but considering WHO the members are its pretty notable that they even exsit.However,Jay fails to acknowledge that they are but one specialized part of a much larger movement expressed partially by the list I posted earlier,of groups more approperiate for non LE.I didn’t even mention any of the other specialized groups simialr to LEAP such as Familys against Mandatory Minimums.Among many many others.In Short there is tons of support for reform,but it is political suicide for those in power at local levels,and the feds Don’t want to change things.Just look at Medical Marijauna,made legal in many states, yet the DEA goes in those states and but the suppliers!
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:12 AM (2 of 2)
In fact, there are very clear differentiations throughout history between the two generic substances. I would argue that the evolutionary forces of history have already decreed that drug use is far more dangerous to society than alcohol use and I believe it is unwise to spuriously dismiss history (thus my affinity for a “conservative” appellation to any moniker I am associated with). Prohibition failed because the vast majority of the American public thought it was, well, stupid. If illicit drug use enjoyed that level of popularity, they wouldn’t be illicit.
My objections to legalizing drug use is that is counterproductive to society as a whole. Some have argued the libertarian position that what one does in the privacy of their own home should be their inviolate choice. But typically when drug use has stepped outside its traditional medicinal and religious practices, it has often devastated that culture.
As an aside, it has been argued, in defense of legalization, that even the CIA has used drug trafficking to further their interests. Assume for the sake of the argument that is true. If the use of narcotics and hallucinatory drugs doesn’t devastate society, then how can that argument be squared with its attending argument that the CIA-sponsored drug trafficking has devastated the African American community? If it doesn’t cause gross devastation, then what’s the big deal if the CIA used it to finance operations? Because of the taint of hypocrisy? Since when does hypocrisy legitimize an opposing argument?
Over a hundred years ago, the British did the same to Chinese society with opium, until the Chinese got fed up with the opium-induced devastation and triggered the Opium Wars. Much of the hostility from Asian societies towards Western culture comes from that opium-hazed devastation.
I have no qualms with the legalized drug industry in a few (but not all!) countries of Europe. Their culture is not our culture. If it works for them, fine. But this is not Europe and our laws are not European laws.
With regard to my confession that this isn’t an issue that I have a real opinion on, I think it is now very apparent that it is because I am happy with the status quo, not because I have no interest in the matter.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:12 AM I will simply quote Bill Hicks (not verbatim).
If you don’t think drugs have done good things for us than go home get all your albums, tapes, and CD’s and burn them. Because the musicians who made those records were real high on drugs.
Posted by Disseminator on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:12 AM kvk, until you can provide hard numbers on the actual extent of the support for legalization, you can list a thousand generally unknown organizations of 2000 members each and it is still a drop in the bucket.
By your logic, no one on this site should be complaining about the impact of the religious right on politics.
How many churches are there, and what is THEIR average membership?
The logic holds water like a sieve. If you want to argue, as Steve is trying, that drugs should be legalized because of a broad based support, pony up the numbers.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:15 AM Dis, your logic is as impeccable as KVK’s.
So, because gansta rap is so creative, we should legalize all that is propounded in those lyrics?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:17 AM luv to stay, but my morning bus leaves in 6 hours.
see you later
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:18 AM See, this is what I mean.
If illicit drug use enjoyed that level of popularity, they wouldn’t be illicit.
Really? Where do you live? As far as I am concerned Marijuana use is incredibly popular and even somewhat accepted by many people who do not smoke.
Your logic seems to be that drugs are bad because they are illegal. And why are they illegal…....because they are bad. And why are they bad…..
Posted by Disseminator on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:20 AM Four legs good. Two legs bad.
Four legs good. Two legs bad.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:24 AM “The impact on society is creativity!”
“Creatively executed drug-related crimes? “
DR.D said earlier:People are fighting like hell to keep the right to own a firearm right now.Just as “guns don’t kill people,people kill people”,drugs don’t commit crimes,people(sometimes in altered states)commit crimes.
I guess you didn’t read the second half of my post where it says “As far as the negative impacts they are mostly side effects of the illegality of the drugs.ie Property crime and violence.”
Let me lead you through it since you’ve already proven your logic is screwy.
The drug war lords and gangs and such exsist because drugs are illegal.People rob and steal because the illegal drugs are expensive.If people had reasonably priced legally perscribed to licenced or whatever,they could stop killing each other over the stuff and spending all their time and money persueing it,thus freeing up time to be productive citizains who could use their drug of choice (hopefully cannibis the least harmful).During there freetime if they so choose.Much as the exec unwinds with a martini after work.Instead of going to the bootlegger and whatchin out for the G-man.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:29 AM Jay I’m not going to do anymore research for you.I’ve listed a few of the major groups you can check the numbers if you like.Just because YOU haven’t heard of any of them in your limited knowledge as you admitted at the begining of the thread,doesn’t mean they are “generally unknown” I’m pretty sure most people have heard of NORMAL for instance.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:33 AM It’s probably just a coincidence, but the few people I run into who make an earnest effort to defend the failed policy of Drug Prohibition always provide me with at least one nugget that indicates I have little to worry about.
JAY declares: Steve - you are the master of aversion…
Heh…Reminds me of the line from Fezzik (played by the late, great Andre the Giant) in The Princess Bride.Speaking to The Sicilian (Wallace Shawn), Fezzik says, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
As an self-confessed obnoxious English major, I’ll forgive Jay the malaprop and presume he intended to accuse me of being the Master of Evasion. Although I do confess having an aversion to the destructive policy of drug Prohibition.The Reader at large has been presented with a variety of feedback in this now 3-page discussion. Those who agree with JAY that Prohibition is a policy worth retaining need do Nothing. Most jurisdictions are operating just they way you want already. As for the rest of us, you now know where you can find qualified, experienced and expert information on how the policy of drug Prohibition destroys our communities far more than it ‘save’ them. I’ve received a couple emails already and am happy to discuss this topic further with anyone I can assist in pointing to legitimate reform actions.
I’ll be speaking in Long Beach CA this coming week (Nov 10) at the Drug Policy Alliance national conference and I’ll be in Seattle Dec 1 meeting with the King County Bar Association, a countywide group of lawyers who directly call for an end to drug Prohibition. See http://www.kcba.org for more information. Emails and phone calls welcome. You can get my contact information by going to my primary enclave at The Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/resource
I’m the handsome guy (so sez my wife) you’ll see when you click the MAF link.
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:33 AM I just came to realize,Jay is insane.
those last to points,um, hmmm,I think its Your logic that is askew.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:37 AM KVK, where are you located, if you don’t mind my asking?
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:41 AM Its great to hear you’ll be speaking at the DPA conference Steve!I was invited,can’t afford to go.But my friend Laura will be there!You may have heard of her,she’s the one working on the laws in Lawrence Ks. and was in National news and the DPA newsletter recently. Maybe you’ll meet her!
The draft going before the commission will:
Move prosecutions to municipal court
Remove the mandatory KBI lab fee of $400.00 from the total court costs
Allow for diversions for first time offenders
Protect students from losing access to financial aid
Reduce the number of persons losing federal and state public assistance for felony drug convictions
Free-up city police officers from having to drive to the out of town jail to charge and book suspects
Mirror the penalties of the statue statute, which call for 0-1 year in jail, and a fine of 1-$2,500
Mandate a drug assessment and a one day alcohol and drug abuse class
Include ‘simulated controlled substances’ as part of the language for paraphernalia
The first draft had a $300.00 fine and this has been removed, due to conversations I’ve had with the mayor and city prosecutor.
The mandatory drug class is not in the state statute. I do think if someone does have a substance abuse problem, they do need to get assistance from a licensed professional—however this class is not going to do that. At this point, I don’t think I can get it out though, without proving the class is useless.
I do not want to leave in the simulated controlled substance language. The alternative is to have it prosecuted in District Court. I can’t validate whether or not it has truly been ever charged here-so it may not be an issue.
The ordinance does not:
Make marijuana a low priority for law enforcement
Direct law enforcement to always use the ordinance instead of sending prosecutions to District Court
It will not be possible to get the commission to make marijuana a low priority. They are 3-2 in favor of not including this language.
It may be possible to get the to add language directing law enforcement to always use the ordinance-I will have to see if I can argue this at the meeting.
Send me any comments or concerns you have, and please come to the meeting and speak up during the public comment time!
Thanks for your support,
—Laura
Laura A. Green
Executive DirectorThe main pupose of this action is to protect students from losing their financial aid under the feds “one strike and your out law” Is it really wise to denigh kids of an education from one pot bust?
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:51 AM I don’t mind you asking at all however I am a bit reserved about revealing it online.But the above post should give you a good idea.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 7:54 AM George Schultz
Reagan’s Secretary of State“We need at least to consider and examine forms of controlled legalization of drugs.”
source: Associated Press, November 6, 1989
Thanks for the tiny URL link David,very helpful html I’m not so up on.my computer skills are pretty much self taught,so I’m doing good just to post!
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 8:10 AM I live in British Columbia, Canada. Marijuana is very common here. I think that alcohol is more harmful, on any level, than marijuana. I enjoy both every now and then.
Kaw Valley Kid mentioned the BC Marijauna Party. Hate to break it to you KVK but those guys are mostly morons. One of their most vocal members is running for political office here (again). He got only a handful of votes last time and will do no better this time. Most people who use marijuana will not vote for him because he is a one trick pony. When the BC Marijauna Party started up, their idea of politics was to hold smoke-ins that would attract a few dozen stoners (best word to describe them). These “political rallies”, and they still have them occasionally, usually have a police presence but the police don’t arrest them for smoking marijuana. The police just observe and the dopes know they will probably not get arrested so they taunt the police. They stand around smoking rope and acting like dopes for the ever present TV cameras. The antics of these dopes ruins it for the rest of us. The Cheech and Chong image they portray is not helping. Everyone laughs at their antics, even the police, and rests assured that almost nobody votes for them. The BC Marijauna Party is trying to improve their image lately but you know what they say about first impressions.
But, despite the actions of these guys there is improvement. Our police and courts up here are lenient with marijuana charges and sentencing. The political will to enforce the marijuana laws is weaker every day. The political will to decriminalize or possibly regulate marijuana is stronger every day.
My best friend’s grandparents grew a couple plants in their back yard this past summer. They are really nice old people and they were growing it for their youngest son, my friend’s uncle, who has Multiple Sclerosis. I have smoked with him and have seen the results. He has tremors, spasticity and some pain. When he has a few puffs the tremors disappear within minutes, spasticity is lessened and pain is relieved. The effects last for a few hours.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:13 AM Well,I listed them because I saw them listed on Pot-TV.com The excellent resource of all things Cannibis,and because Marc Emery Had mentioned them.Somebody up ther must be very effective if not them then who is it,cause I know some things are getting done up there.Is it just Marc and his bunch?BTW,what is the latest on the DEAs efforts to extradite him to the US to face charges of selling seeds in Canada?I hear there is a lot of outrage up there about it.Seeing how he has donated what about 400 million dollars toward the reform efforts,I can see how the US feds would want him!He is a true champion of the cause!
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:43 AM David, if you would like to be connected to some other folks in BC doing yeoman work and who are well educated and professional in their presentation, contact my friend Phil Lucas of the Vancouver Compassion Club
Interesting that the site here won’t allow me to print Phil’s email address in full…So just use this but push the pieces together…phil at drug sense dot org…You can tell him Steve Heath reefered you.
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:30 AM As far as I am concerned Marijuana use is incredibly popular and even somewhat accepted by many people who do not smoke.
Good luck with the elections, then..
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 1:29 PM Disseminator - have you thrown out your records yet?”
Not yet. Do i have to throw out my classical albums too, or just the stuff from the 60’s and later (i assume i can keep my wife’s Amy Grant albums too?)? :)
More seriously, i think Jay has valid worries on the effects on society of legalizing soft drugs. I have no doubt drug use would rise and many bad things would occur as a result (driving offfenses, even more underage usage, some people would probably become unable to function, money misspent on drugs instead of necessities/kids, etc etc). However, i think the benefits outweigh the detriments, so i am in favor of legalization.
I have a hard time seeing such a complex issue as black/white. Seems to me that good arguing points exist - and have been exposed - on both sides.
Posted by wolf on Nov 3, 2005 at 5:22 PM The elections went well in Denver. Thanks.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-denver-mari ijuana,0,15427.story?track=mostemailedlink
Posted by Disseminator on Nov 3, 2005 at 5:27 PM Cool.
I have no objections if that is what voters want.
My only real objection here on this site has been the disingenuous salesmanship and misrepresentation by LEAP.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:11 PM KVK&SH;, After visiting LEAP’s website,I find myself agreeing with you folks that this organization is definitely a step in the right direction,if only to expose the somewhat insular LE community to differing views and ideas,and encourage healthy debate in the rank and file.Private citizens like myself can only profit from this discourse. Thank You.
Posted by Dr.D on Nov 3, 2005 at 6:59 PM (i assume i can keep my wife’s Amy Grant albums too?)? :)
Don’t be too sure about that wolf!Being a stagehand who has worked well over 100 musical events,I can assure you,many bandmembers use or have used drugs no matter what kind of music they play.and if you think being religious clashes with drug use you might want to check out a book by Chris Bennet"Green Gold the Tree of Life: Marijuana in Magic & Religion. “It is $75 used though,so you might want to check out his online collections of articles such as “Cannibis and Christ” ,“Kaneh Bosm:Cannibis in the old Testament”“Marijauna and the Goddess” or many of the others.Chris is an execellent and well respected resreacher and writer. go here : http://tinyurl.com/9rsgy to get to his Forbidden Fruit Publishing web site. I highly(no pun intended) recommend his writtings to anyone wanting to know the history of Cannibis use in humanity!
As far as social impact of legalization,you are probably right for the most part,however those are the people who are most likely on the verge of not functioning anyway,and there will be tremendous resources Freed up from not persueing the former drug crimes.Which can be used to focus on the new problems that show up.The thing about use going up,at least as far as Cannibis goes,it simply doesn’t happen.In places like Amsterdam for instance,use by citizens has actually gone down.As it isn’t forbidden anymore,the people lose interest.Folks do so like to rebel and all.They do however get a LOT of tourists that come to smoke though!Drug money is already mis-spent and familys not being taken care of ect…But the drugs would become much cheaper,and those who can’t pass a pee test now and get a job,would be able to work and support themselves.I’m not trying to be arguementitive here.But things might turn out even better than we could imagine.Oh I hope your not into Jazz from the 20s and 30s on, because Most of the greats were Vipers too! (viper being slang for a pot smoker). One tune I like is “minnie the moocher” being sung about the neighborhood pot seller.There is a very interesting video about drugs and the history of music on Pot-TV.com, I believe it is in the “High Socitey"Series.check it out if you are so inclined. http://www.pot-tv.com/
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:49 PM Hell people, Rabbit is back. There have been problems with computer death and resurrection, and re-death followed by replacement problems. Rabbit is still working through things putting things in the new one and assembling bits and pieces.
The old Wonky Computer had been getting worse and worse until it became serious enough for Rabbit to take action. Resetting and re-starting wasn’t enough anymore, so having been a technician for fifteen years Rabbit did the next logical step, and wacked the Wonky computer. To Rabbit’s surprise the wonky computer starting getting worse then, so naturally Rabbit wacked it again, and once more before decideding this was not a way forward.
Now Rabbit pulled the computer to pieces and blew compressed Air into it, out with the dust and clean it’s little brain. This made it stop working altogether. The only thing left was to go see the Rabbit’s computer doctor who sold Rabbit another computer. We found that the Wonky computer has been the victim of some substantial hacking, (Natty and Ramjet’s mates, probably).
The lousy hackers had left all folders in the registry open, probably because as I suspected the wonky computer was crashing on them too.
Anyhow, the Rabbit is back in the field. It is SO predictable what dittoheads are going to say. JAY Decline is sputtering and spewing his half assed ideas with no experience, no reference and not a single sensible viewpoint even.
Wolf who is redeeeming himslef largely, and showing that long dormant reason, is falling a bit, to the call of the Moron. Wolf, this thread is the best chance you are going to have to see clearly what an absolute brainless sack of pre-conceptions JC is. He is not talking sense when he speaks of legalizing drugs as causing more use of them. This is WRONG!
History has shown that decriminalising Drugs, whether it be the Worst like Alcohol or Tobacco or the safest like Cannabis and LSD, has never caused a sustained increase in the pattern of use.
Of course JC wouldn’t know the difference between a non-addictive drug like LSD and a highly addictive one like Cocaine, who wouldn’t know the difference between a dangerous drug like Aspirin and a safe one like Cannabis.
For the information of anyone who doesn’t already know, Cannabis has never caused a single death and it has been used for longer than probably any other intoxicant on the planet. All drugs are easy as anything to get, anywhere in the world. JC who is one of those ignorant SHEEPLE who is an essential part of the HUGE world illegal drug trade, thinks that law enforcment is the way. JC is a patent idiot, which is nothing new.
......................more
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 5, 2005 at 1:15 AM If you add up all the amount of Heroin, Cannabis, Cocaine and AMPHETAMINES which is busted on a yearly basis, and then divide that by the number of people in the country, you will be astonished at the figure at which you arrive. Now if you consider the following.
There is no law enforement which catches even half of what is going. Rabbit has actually been “Very” involved with certain activities over the years, all history now, but it means I know what I’m talking about kids, Law enforcement does not even stop one tenth of drugs from getting through. That is a fact. A logical consideration will show this to be likely. Consider how often you speed in your car, and how correspondingly often you get caught. Well in the car you are driving around in the open, no where to hide. Drugs are a very profitable business for every level of the industry and it is an industry. Amphetamines are controlled by Bikies in Oz and probably are too in most countries. The bikes own the police, at least the Drug Squad is completely crooked here. That is probably universally so. Many of the larger busts you see on the news, were actually decoys. No matter how big those amounts look they are nothing compared to thye real shipments. If you believe anything different then you are a babe in the woods.
The ONLY reason most drugs are illegal is because of profits. IT is an enormously profitable industry. Why do you think the US government has always been so heavily into the Global Drug scene?
JC won’t have a clue about this, but EVERYONE else knows that the CIA under BUSH senior, created the Asian Herion trade. The Golden Triangle. Organised the Chinese nationalists, trained them and set up the supply and delivery lines. What about the Iran-Contra affair? What about Laos and Air America in the seventies? There is so much more to this than IDIOTS like JC could even comprehend with their Mickey Mouse Minds. The BIG money, the really evil and powerful ones at the top, and they are bastards, are closely allied with government, and they are often one and the same.
The prohibition works by making the drug unreasonably expensive (The risk factor) this in turn makes the profits correspondingly huge. Most people who get nabbed are only using the stuff and the fact that so many people get done committing crimes and who also have some illicet drug in their systems is enough of an excuse to claim that it causes crime, which is of course stupid. The criminality, the theft and violence is solely a product of the arbitrary prohibition. Alcohol was freely available during prohibition, there were at least as high a percentage of people who had alcohol problems, but the stuff was expensive and suspect due to lack of controls. the same thing exactly is happening with other drugs.
..............................more
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 5, 2005 at 1:32 AM The problems caused by the abuse of some drugs, namely Cocaine, Heroin and Amphetamines are not as severe as propagnada would make out. The fact is that there are many complicating factors like nutriion and the lifestyle into which many sink when it is all they can do to get enough money to buy these stupidly expensive drugs. The few people who would have abuse problems would not be worse than alcohol and they can be identified and helped properly if they were not also automatically criminals.
There is every reason to believe that in the case of Cannabis, the number of people using it may even drop with legalisation. The most interesting thing about Pot as a Drug, is just the fact it is illegal. Anyone who smokes knows this much and they belong to closer to a majority than JC would believe.
You see one thing that comes from knowing in FACT about something, you can recognise others who know. JC lives in an imaginary world where he is in a majority, a Moral majority. We outside his little box, can see he is among a minimum of incredibly deluded people, who are as funny as they are annoying.
The biggest BOON for the World Drug Industry and it has pissed a lot of South American druglords off, is the recently re-started Afghani Heroin Megalith. Heroin, has been in short supply for years, until the Taliban was removed form power. The Taliban stamped out the Afghani Heroin trade, and of course the Great Afhgani Hashish is long since history as well. Sine the US set up the Heroin traders again this particular drug has literally flooed the streets, displacing other drugs with the stupid youth who will try anything. The stuff is cheap and of a purity beyond what was once seen.
Thankyou USA, the worlds Number One Drug Cartel.
By the way, Steve….................Thanks for the info and keep up the good fight. Rabbit is personally VERY aware of how lives can be destroyed by the law about drugs not the drugs themselves. The injustice is something which will burn inside my heart forever, and the hearts of my friends and my family.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 5, 2005 at 1:34 AM Thanks Rabbit. Drop me a line if you get a chance. Maybe there’s a way we can turn up the heat in your area. I’ve got a lot of good reform contacts all across North America, Europe and Down Under.
Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 5, 2005 at 7:18 AM Rabbit will wander back up the thread and find the ad sure, but in truth I don’t think with other things being as bad as they are, there is much chance for this issue unless the big ones get sorted out first. The big ones being the Masters of War. War Oil Drugs all equals POWER. Not real power, but the fragile self defeating power of brute force. Until the equal and opposite force is met, a mass resistance for example, or more likely the ground, a fall will do it, things are not likely to change on a broad front, thinks Rabbit.
Am in West OZ it is a backwater too by the way. Eastern States are five to ten years more progressive than Westren Australians. Maybe more…............We don’t yet have daylight saving. Despite about ten referenda about it over the years.
Mate, things on the freedom and emlightenment scale are going all to hell, and Rabbit doesn’t think anybody is likely to accept the WOD (War of Drugs) is any less Important than the WOT, (War of Terror).
Did Rabbit make a mistake there,..........Looks back…....no it looks right to me…....War of Drugs….....WOD…....................War of Terror…...........WOT…..................................Hop Hop
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 5, 2005 at 9:43 AM The WOD is fought by Mr Plod
The WOT by Gi Joe.
The people pay for both these jobs
The WOD and WOT seem never to slow.......................................................^^.................... ............................
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 5, 2005 at 9:54 AM A few points regarding drug laws.
Federal drug laws are unconstitiutional under the 10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. “
Any rights not limited by the rest of the constitution CANNOT be restricted by the federal govt. At best the states can regulate, though I would ague that it is not the business of the state what I choose to imbibe.
If the state is asserting that it needs to “protect” me from harmful substances, how come they allow various poisins in my air,food,and water ? For example, every human being has dioxin and plutonium in their bodies, And even if we allow that this is a benign effort by the state what is their remedy? Place a non-violent victimless offender in a state prison where he is likely to be raped and beaten? (and where you can get all the drugs you want). They cure is worse than the disease!
Finally there is massive injustice in how these laws are applied: Oliver North runs a coke ring out of the white house and now has his own TV show. Rush Limbaugh is caught with a quantity that constitutes possession with intent to distribute and is treated as a “poor addict”. The presidents niece is caught a SECOND time with perscription pads (a serious federal offence) and is “sentenced” to treatment. Where’s the equal protection.
Posted by Prospero on Nov 5, 2005 at 5:50 PM I say again, and again, and again.
If federal drugs laws are, and have been unconstitutional since the Founding of the Republic, why has not one drug conviction been overturned on THAT unconstitutionallity?
What? The ACLU isn’t doing their job? Didn’t I read somewhere on this page that there were at least one million people in prison for drug offenses?
All it takes is one ruling and they all become free men and women.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 6:00 PM I couldn’t find a central phone number for the ACLU, but here is their contact page,
http://www.aclu.org/Affiliates/subsitesmain.cfm
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 5, 2005 at 6:05 PM Jay Cline -
You (as well as the courts and fed govt.) seem to have a literacy problem. What part of the 10th don;t you understand ? Since the civil war It was always legal for blacks to vote in the south, but the judges and police refused to enforce the laws they were sworn to protect. Does this make the law untrue ? The 1st amendemt prohibts cencorship, but for many years “pornography” was outlawed and movies were once sbjected to “decency” codes that included such absurdities as the prohibition of a man and woman sitting on a bed together. Are you arguing that the 1st amendment does not mean what is says because the govt got away with this for years?
Posted by Prospero on Nov 5, 2005 at 6:31 PM y Cline is living in a dream world. He is either completely devoid of reality, or his is extremely young and believes anything his parents told him. Jay the system is all screwed up, it is corrupt and it is being hijacked by the most horrible criminal thugs we’ve seen in any of our democratic countries.
That you worthless sack of stock unfounded opinions is WHY things are not as they should be.
Don’t worry about it Jay. You are not erxpected to help with the solution, you are so obviously a part of the problem. You don’t need to help us eliminate injustice and corruption and stupidity, hubris, arrogance and Hypocrisy. You are actually part of the problem which needs to be elliminated.
Fortunately people such as you are going to be the first to go, when the current situation reaches it’s climax. You lack the vision, the versatility of thought or the imagination, courge or skills to survive in the vicious Dog eat Dog world you have allowed to be created in your name. Before long things should reach the point where you and all the brain dead sheeple will be left standing alone and naked, wondering where all your dreams went.
Don’t expect any sympathy from those of us who tried to stop it, who tried to make you wake up. We can see clearly what you will not until it is too late. Nobody will be interested in helping you then, expcet to be knocked over the head, by people who find you are in their way for survival.
You are going to perish, in ignominious shame, Jay, that is a prediction. Good riddance when the time comes. Good bloody riddance. You are a worthless selfish and ignorant creature in life, you will be remembered as no more than part of the most deluded and foolish people who ever brought the race to the edge of ruin.
Don’t make any presumtions about Rabbit’s unfriendly Liberalness. I would have no hesitation in clocking a clown like you over the head, to get around you and to safety for my family. Others here on this thread would be easily recognisable as valuable souls and Rabbit would stop his caravan and help them aboard in the same situation.
You want to hope that you are right about everything JC because if you are not, then when the time comes, there will be no room in anyone else’s caravan for you. You will get to stay with your masters, or go with them, whichever the case may be.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 6, 2005 at 2:44 AM Mescaline is shown to be cool in a study of Native American Indian Peyote users.
Cannabis, Mushies and LSD, in fact all the Hallucinogenics are given a clean bill of health as far as harming physically or Psychologically.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 6, 2005 at 7:45 AM -“Cannabis, Mushies and LSD, in fact all the Hallucinogenics are given a clean bill of health as far as harming physically or Psychologically.”
That’s a tad short-sighted. Smoking weed definitely has harming effects: atmotivational syndrome, repiratory disease, and impaired perception. LSD causes flashbacks, though usually mild and short in duration. Also, there is always the potential for harmful effects that haven’t been documented for lack of sufficient research. However, I’m all for using these drugs. The user simply needs to be informed and responsible, NOT worried about doing crazy time in jail simply for wanting to experience a change in perception.
Posted by lostlib on Nov 6, 2005 at 12:33 PM I am arguing that the 10th Amendment says nothing about drugs. I am arguing that if your contention that it is self-evident that the 10th Amendment unequivocally declares federal drug laws as unconstitutional, then why is no one going through the motions on that legal slam-dunk?
You got the ACLUs address.
Prove me wrong.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 1:46 AM The user simply needs to be informed and responsible
I agree. Best comment yet.
I eat bacon and eggs everyday.
Harmful but beneficial. Beneficial but harmful.
I enjoy bacon and eggs. I enjoy a beer and a puff too.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 7, 2005 at 1:52 AM Rabbit has just lost a long and involved post to Lostlib and he is mortified. It was so detailed and covered so much it is a tragedy.
Well I can’t be bothered writing it all again.
LSD “flashbacks” are more urban myth than anything, just like the stupid claims of hallucinations, that is rubbish. Rabbit knows that what these idiots who describe Hallucinations are seeing, is their brain in action for the first time. For unimaginative, limited awareness type people, the experience of having all those synapses switched on at once is what they imagine hallucination is all about no doubt. Rabbit has used lots of LSD and of the very best for years in Europe. He has seen many others do so also, and has seen people claiming hallucinations, only upon Rabbit examination is found nothing more than a superheightened sensitivity to light, which is common, and other such sensory “amplification”. Rabbit will submit an Opinion, based upon many years experience and observations, that no such thing as Hallucinations, the seeing of things which are not there, occurs with LSD or Psilycobin or THC. It just doesn’t happen and if you tell Rabbit it does, he doubts you know what you are talking about, or you have the affliction described above. No harm in that, the world needs unimaginative limited awareness sheep like it needs…....wars. In fact both are favorites of the establishment.
The effects of Pot smoking are not even close to as bad as the worst claims by some researchers. Rabbit has seen so many reports about Cannabis health effects but not one which has been of sufficient credibility or conclusive enough to have any major bearing on the debate. Especially when there is so much medical literature of a positive nature already and there has been since the Sixties and seventies when it was being put to the test at least. These days governments discourage research into effects of drugs, it is the usual, keep the debate from getting any actual facts to deal with. Emotional and ill informed debate is the order of the day if an issue is likely to go the wrong way given the the real facts.
JC thinks he is arguing? He is clucking like a silly chook, fresh from his last kicking. Already putting up a new, utterly meaningless point, unfounded in principle or logic.
Rabbit has smoked weed daily for 25 of his 42 years and is in excellent health. Despite a fairly sedentary lifestyle, Rabbit is fitter and stronger than most of his peers. Had serious Asthma as a child, but have always since had good lung capacity. Once Rabbit smoked for a year, for reasons of necessity, rather than pleasure. Rabbit hated the stuff, and had to pretend to like it. But after that year, breaking the habit of Tobacco was the hardest thing I ever tried to stop. Pot, amphetamines and alcohol, Rabbit has abused all but always could take them or leave them. Smoking Tobacco for a year seriouly damaged Rabbit’s healtrh, lung capaity and fitness were demolished and even began to get some Asthma back Tobacco is the most addictive and downright harmful Drug I ever encountered. Tobacco also makes Rabbit’s head go all wonky for a minute or two, and if driving a car, it would make him lose control for that moment.
Despite having operated all manner of complex machinery including piloted and driven vehicles and made complex repairs to machinery, often while smoking a joint, Rabbit has never been one who screws things up, but who is renowned for being able to fix or build anything. True story.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 7, 2005 at 2:22 AM The “Atmotivational Syndrome” is rubbish thinks Rabbit too.
Lazy is not an illness, it is LAZY. The problem comes when people start using anything to excess, such that it crowds out other things in their lives. It comes to dominate and it calls the shots on everything finally, from you job, to family relationships and sometimes health. These effects are not confined to any drug, they can as easily be religion, politics business and even a sport. These things are all of benfit in their own contexts, and a happy healthy life can be enjoyed and partake of any or all these things. The problem comes when any one of those areas become the point of our lifves. This is the unbalanced situation that comes to dominate and it grows from within your life to first fill empty spaces, and then it begins to fill the occupied places. Occupied by your career, your family etc. All the above can do these things. Pot smoking can be something a lazy person does as an alternative to doing anything else. That is him allowing the weed to take over the rest of his life too.
It is not the plant, which has lived among us as an as yet unrealised technological boon, an Angel in humble disguise, for thousands of years. The plant does not even exert such a strong influence as the much more agressive and also contrastingly bad Tobbaco plant, it does not employ the blatant addictive properties of Coca, and it chooses to impart a more subtle message than the All Powerful Fungi. (Ergot and Psylicibin).
It does not seem prudent to control peoples access to religion, or to their careers, why should it be a matter of regulation about what people do with their lives. If we make all these laws and exceptions, we are subconsciously imparting the message that some things are OK to do to excess while others are not.
Rabbit would like to see the day when we take the matle of responsibility for our own lives back onto our own lives. It is not for the state to regulate what we do in the privacy of our own lives. So long as we don’t cross other peoples freedoms with ours we should be free to exercise any freedoms at all.
It is as usual that the “Conservative” voice who thinks he argues for smaller government, and less government regulation generally, is the one to be crying for more government regulation of things which have nothing to do with him. Hypocrites and fools the world needs tools.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 7, 2005 at 2:41 AM My first altered state was when my parents taught me to spin in a circle until I was dizzy and fell down.
It was for laughs then. I still do it now.
Spinning and otherwise. For laughs and ???
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 7, 2005 at 4:40 AM JC -
As I pointed out, the judges and police have often been perfectly willing to ignore the law when it suits them. The actions or inactions of the ACLU nonwithstanding. I suspect that they recognize that such a condition exists with respect to the “war on some drug users”. As I mentioned earlier, by your logic, blacks in the Jim Crow south had no right to vote because no one raised a successful challenge at the time.
Could it perhaps have something to do with the economic status of those being disenfrachised then and those being prosecuted today ? (Or maybe it was the systematic terror waged against them.) It costs a fortune to raise a constitutional case in the federal courts. Some additional points:Because of the 10th amendment, congress had to amend the constitution in order to enact alcohol prohibition. How is it that they had to do this for one particular drug and not any other?
Law enforcement malfeasance/nonfeasance is going on as we chat. Recent congressional testimony relates the FBI ‘s unwillingness to arrest people engaging in torture right before their eyes. Although the “liberal media” don’t seem aware of it, torture is a federal crime as defined in TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I—CRIMES CHAPTER 113C—TORTURE
Sec. 2340. Definitions ( see: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? )dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2340 and codiified in TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I—CRIMES CHAPTER 113C—TORTURE
Sec. 2340A. Torture ( see: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=C Cite:+18USC ). Although they were witnessing a pontential death penalty offence, they just walked out of the room. Now you’re going to tell me torture isn’t a crime because they don’t enforce it ?The law means what it says, regardless of what Judges, prosecutors, or cops do.
Posted by Prospero on Nov 7, 2005 at 5:34 AM Could it perhaps have something to do with the economic status of those being disenfrachised then and those being prosecuted today ? (Or maybe it was the systematic terror waged against them.) It costs a fortune to raise a constitutional case in the federal courts.
And that is why the ACLU was founded. The ACLU decides on what cases to take based on merit, not cash value of the defendent’s assets. Had the ACLU been around at the time of Jim Crow, they probably would have stepped in a whole lot sooner. In fact, Jim Crow and the financial difficulties mentioned are exactly why the ACLU formed.
And as an aside, the ACLU is not in any way connected with Big Government. What a perfect example of private citizens getting something done without the onerous direction or control of BG.
Here is the link to donate to the ACLU, if you think that is why they have not stepped up to the plate.
http://www.aclu.org/Contribute/Contribute.cfm
I say again. Step up to the plate and prove me wrong.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 8:59 PM For those who are disturbed that the only course of action being promoted here on the War against Drugs is abject surrender, let me note that the Minneapolis StarTribune, one of the most Liberal major circulation dailies in the country, posted an article in last Sunday’s paper about the successful efforts at combating domestic meth labs.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/467/5710482.html
By requiring cold remedy drugs that contain pseudophedrine to be sold behind the counter, meth lab busts in the state have dropped radically. Similar results in Iowa (meth lab busts dropped 75%) and Oklahoma (80%) show that it doesn’t take a whole lot of money.
Just common sense and practical legislation.
Two traits that seem in short supply on this website.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 7, 2005 at 9:04 PM I’ve done some research and it seems that the 10th amendment agruments have been brought before the courts more than once. The judges have had a case of the sort of selective constitutional illiteracy that I cited previously in the cases of Jim Crow and the “decency” codes. They refer to the interstate commerce clause as a rationale for congress to regulate anything and everything.
(Is’nt this an example of “onerous direction or control of BG” ?) This was most recently exemplified in the California medical marijiuana case. California has responded by changing their supply system from authorized individuals to a state agency. Let’s see if the Justice Dept. attempts to bar the state itself.JC, you have yet to tell us what you think the 10th amendment means. Perhaps you’d be good enough to enlighten us.
Your mention of amphetamines is especially telling. I would agree that they are very nasty and that meth labs are an incredible danger to the community. A few points come to mind. If amphetamines are so awful why do we force our soldiers and airmen to take them and then prosecute them when they screw up under the influence. (Remember those pilots who bombed allied troops by mistake had been forced to take amphetamines to “generate more sorties” and then take downers to sleep at night. Then they get prosecuted for screwing up while high.) One of the best arguments for legalization is harm reduction. By making illicit meth labs uneconomical, we can ensure that innocent bystanders are not put at risk. Give the addicts their drugs (along with counseling), as they do in Britan with heroin, and you keep 3rd parties from harm.
Eradicating contraband in one place only moves it to another. Coke production moved from places such as Bolivia and Peru to Columbia and elsewhere when we applied pressure. It certainly did not “eradicate” the illicit supply. In fact, the more partial or temporary eradication takes place, the more expensive the drugs become, and the suppliers profit even more. As long as there is money to be made, someone will make it. Can you cite a single example of long term supply reduction ?
As to “surrendering”. Why do we surrender in the cases of Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh, and Noel Bush? Certain politics or genetics seems to put the forces of “good” at bay.
Posted by Prospero on Nov 8, 2005 at 12:18 AM JC who knows even less about this subject than most other things, is no more than an annoyance on this issue. Prospero don’t bother debating with JC he is just a house troll.
Amphetamines lab busts are NO indication of how many are operating fool. They just get better, they learn with time how to avoid busts. The main ones are “protected” anyway.
Rabbit knows a lot about this subject from first hand knowledge, so don’t start your crap here. Actually Amphetamines are used plenty in the military and have been since WWII. The third reich marched on Amphetamines especially and special forces use them regularly. Used properly, with the right extras like Tyramine and Lysine, there is no reason to expect people under it’s influence to be less that competant. It and it’s most popular precurser Pseudoephedrine are the most common classes of drugs dispensed by pharmacists. Pseudoephedrine is in nearly half the OTC medications on the shelf, and it is available in huge quantities this way, and via the large amounts smuggled out the back door of the big phrmaceutical manufacturers. In fact the big drug companies are always introducing new products with the stuff in and the method for extracting it is always just around the corner. There are many who believe their chemists even tip off the underground on methods to extract when the underground chemists are a bit slow.
One of the reasons why Amphetamines use has peaked a bit at the moment, is because of the previously mentioned world wide glut of cheap Heroin from Afghanistan. The main result of the US attack of that country.
These are FACTS on the ground, JC, they are not theories, or propaganda from a system trying to justify its existence. They are observations from the front line. Rabbit is no longer involved in any way with such things, but once was and does know what he is talking about.
The corruption is too high, the profits are too big, the sheeple are too stupid to see it, so Rabbit does not expect any serious changes to the insane and counterproductive Drugs war, unless it is a diversion from something big coming up. The massive support from LEAP is interesting and even a little scary for this reason.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 12:53 AM The judges have had a case of the sort of selective constitutional illiteracy that I cited previously in the cases of Jim Crow and the “decency” codes. They refer to the interstate commerce clause as a rationale for congress to regulate anything and everything.
Isn’t it great when you can selectively dismiss Supreme Court rulings that you happen to disagree with?
In fact, it IS the commerce clause that defeats your 10th Amendment argument.
I am just finishing up the argument. Give me a couple minutes.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 1:02 AM The 10th Amendment, far from making federal drug laws unconstitutional, actually justifies them, albeit indirectly.
The 10th Amendment says,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
and the appropriate provision that gives Congress its powers is Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 18 (if I counted right)
They say,
(para 3) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
(para 18) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Drug trafficking is commerce. If you can refute that, then you can refute the commerce clause argument.
Congress has been given the explicit right, and validated in the 10th Amendment, to regulate such commerce. And it has the explicit right to make Laws to Execute those Powers.
Now, granted that meth labs and pot fields locally grown and distributed entirely with the borders of a single state might not be covered under such federal laws, but it cannot be logically or legally disputed that the 10th Amendment gives the states and the peoples of the several States, all rights not explicitly given to the federal government.
State governments and the people themselves have the right to legislate drug use and drug trafficking within their borders.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 1:12 AM Then how does the federal govt keep me from growing pot or opium in my backyard FOR MY OWN CONUMPTION (BTW - not something I actually do). This is not commerce.
Your interpretation implies that the tenth amendment means nothing at all. As I stated earlier, congress seemed to think otherwise when they found it necessary to amend the constitution to ban booze. Why one drug and not others?
As to state laws I have made the agrument that thay are absurd and cruel. Let me reiterate: If it is the “responsibilty” of state governemnt to “protect” me from dangerous subtsances, why do they allow the poisining of my food, air, and water? If their intentions are benign why do they place offenders in prisons that are more harmful than the drugs in question and where drugs are available anyway?
Posted by Prospero on Nov 8, 2005 at 1:44 AM Don’t know. Never claimed to have intimate knowledge of every law in every state or at the federal level.
Which federal law prohibits you?
btw - my interpretation does not imply the 10th Amendment is not relevant to the argument.
I say it explicitly. It is not relevant.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:27 AM I never said drug laws were meant to protect you from yourself, but I have said they are meant to protect the rest of us from you.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:34 AM Who protects the innocfrom Nazis like you Jay decline? Your views are behind the illegal invasion and massive acts of fraud used to achieve it of a sovereign nation, it is your views which are the excuse used to destroy lives and damgae good people, who never did or would have hurt you or anybody. You are the dumbest piece of SH*T I have ever come across. You really are the most ignorant turd worshipper Rabbit could concieve of who could exist independantly of it’s own arsehole.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 4:48 AM Those lives Rabbit refers to, apart from the innocent civilians being murdered by Jay’s ideas, are those people who did nothing more than choose to smoke some weed rather than another weed, or who prefer to party on less destructive and dangerous drugs than alcohol and whatever else sickos like you think should be legal. I’ve said it before JC you are the lowest common denominator. You just love to wallow in shame or you would not subject your pitiful few ideas to the ridicule they automatically attract from informed and rational people.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 4:52 AM FROM Madsen. Posted to annoy the trolls.
Bush trip to Latin America an unmitigated disaster. Although the corpo-media is painting George W. Bush’s trip to an Americas Summit in Mar del Plata, Argentina and his visits to Brazil and Panama as a “nothing lost, nothing gained” venture, in reality, it was a total disaster. Bush was clearly afraid to personally confront Latin America’s most popular leader, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez Frias. Instead, Bush waited until he arrived in Brazil to accuse Chavez of not providing for his people. Bush and his support team carefully choreographed Bush’s movements at the summit to prevent any encounter between him and Chavez. The Venezuelan leader emerged from the summit as the clear victor, Bush as a dejected loser.
Ironically, while poverty, long-term unemployment, and savings have plummeted for Americans during Bush’s term, Chavez has shared his nation’s oil revenues with its poorest citizens. The only Venezuelans who have had to make a sacrifice are Venezuela’s wealthy elite, the natural allies of Bush and the neo-cons who tried to overthrow Chavez in a coup in April 2002. Chavez and a group of other populist leaders, including the presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay, managed to scuttle Bush’s Free Trade Area of the Americas. That plan is now as dead as Bush’s social security reform initiative and his plan for an outbreak of democracies in the Middle East.
Bush’s visit generated massive street protests in Argentina, Brazil, and Panama. Observers believe that Bush’s visit to Panama was sending a message to Latin American leaders who oppose Bush. It was in December 1989 that Bush’s father invaded Panama and overthrew its leader, one-time Bush family drug and arms smuggler Gen. Manuel Noriega.
After his disastrous trip to Latin America, Bush arrives back in Washington just in time to see his party take an anticipated drubbing in off-year elections on Nov. 8 and the arrival in Washington of Iraqi National Congress head and Iraqi Oil Minister Ahmad Chalabi, the source of much of the bogus intelligence that was used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 4:54 AM Protect the “rest of us” from what exactly? (driving, piloting, surgery, etc. under the influence are and should be crimes but if I come home from work and light up a joint who needs protection?)
PS - take it easy rabbit, JC is not behaving like a troll, we’re having a reasonable debate.
Posted by Prospero on Nov 8, 2005 at 6:49 AM That is an illusion, Prospero. Rabbit knows Jay and he is an established house troll, so with respect Rabbit will wack him as he sees fit. He is both a nazi and a fool. He is worse for the fact he isn’t without brains, because much of his ignorance is due to intellectual laziness. You think you are having a debate with him, but as the logic and reason become at issue, you will see, he lacks both.
Rabbit always extends a tolerant paw of respect, but once someone sinks so low as to be subject to Rabbit’s scorn, it is not like Rabbit will pretend otherwise when he sees the fool again.
JC is always behaving like a troll, it is just not always obcious. See what you say in a few days, OK, and if you feel Rabbit is still harsh on the Troll, then he will re-visit the matter. Once Rabbit has even given JC a second chance, but he blew it. He cannot help himself, Ignorance is his strength. Others have been this course with rabbit by the way, and they all call JC a troll and similar now, they invariablty end up saying to Rabbit that now they understand, and it has been said that Rabbit was being relatively polite after all.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 8, 2005 at 10:26 AM Prospero,
I was being flippant, and that wasn’t fair, especially to myself.
What I object to is arguments that are not logical. Saying the 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from legislating against drugs, while denying what the Commerce clause says about Congress’ explicit right to legislate commerce is, in my opinion, disingenuous.
What I have objected to in some of the postings to this article are organizations supporting legalization who do so through misrepresentation of themselves and the issue.
What I object to is the notion that because we have not completely shut down the drug trade that we should just surrender.
My resistance to legalization is not because of the intoxicating effects, but the rationale I posted at the beginning. Namely, that drugs are in fact currently illegal, as decided in Congressional debates and legislation, in accordance with their rights under the Constitution, and no one has presented me with any convincing argument why they shouldn’t be.
The oft-repeated criticisms of my “blind adherence” to the laws of this country seem to ignore or forget how laws are created.
Also, I have an admittedly knee-jerk reaction against most libertarian arguments.
But, I have also offered my congratulations to those who support legalization and have won their victories at the ballot box. For me, on this issue, that is crucible.
All that is evident by reading my previous postings.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 1:13 PM Prospero,
Jay-Jay, is a not just a troll, he is a flippant crucible. Knee jerk reactions are about all he is capable of since his mouth is not connected to his brain. Intellectual honesty is a foreign concept to the likes of Jay. His ‘logic’ is only of the circular non-sequitur kind. He admits of no evidence in any matter that doesn’t a priori agree with his assumptions. It doesn’t matter how thoroughly and explicitly one explains his errors, he will never concede a point. He is more likely to project them on his interlocutor. Witness his interaction with SteveHeath in this thread. Engage him if you will, but be forewarned; you would be better off talking to the walls.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 8, 2005 at 2:49 PM “My resistance to legalization is not because of the intoxicating effects, but the rationale I posted at the beginning. Namely, that drugs are in fact currently illegal”
They should be illegal because they are illegal? You don’t object to people getting intoxicated in a victimless manner.
So why punish people who do? What is an appropraite “punishment” for getting intoxicated in an unapproved manner ? Surely sentences greater than those for rape or murder are excessive. This seems to be a case of the “tyranny of the majority” ?The dangeerous drug trade is the result of creating a contraband. For all of human history, there have been and always will be black markets.
I guess we’ll never agree on the 10th, but IMHO this is a case of willfull blindness by govt. as exemplified by the cases I mentioned earlier. BTW - You still have’nt mentioned why alcohol prohibition required an amendment but not other drugs.
rabbit & beauty - The only way we’re going to change the laws is to engage those with whom we disagree (even vehemently) - without name-calling. There are more of them than there are of us. Not everyone will be convinced, but I’m always willing to talk to anyone who’ll listen and respond in kind.
Posted by Prospero on Nov 8, 2005 at 3:49 PM No, it is not that they should be illegal because they are illegal. It is merely that they are illegal. It was made illegal by just and proper and legal means. And until the electorate decides otherwise, or until it can be shown the laws are an unconstitutional trampling of minority rights, then they are simply illegal.
“Should” implies morality, and I don’t see anything moral or immoral about the legal status of drugs.
The argument I have against any imposition of a libertarian argument is that preferences do not necessarily or inevitably mean rights.
I prefer to cross the street here where my house is, not at the corner. Yet it is not unconstitutional to require people to cross at the corner. I prefer not to come to a complete stop at a four-way stop sign at three in the morning, but the moving violation I would get if caught is just and proper. I would think it great if I could purchase liquor on a Sunday, but the fine that a liquor store would get (at least in my state) is not unconstitutional.
Individuals have rights, but so does society. If society does not have the right to govern by majority rule, then there is no society.
If basic human rights are violated by majority rule, then that law is unconstitutional. If it is, challenge it court. Call the ACLU. They do lots of pro bono work.
Why is drug use a basic human right? And not simply because of a petulant “but, I want to”.
The prohibition of alcohol was similarly cast in law. The argument for or against alcohol was never about the constitutionality, except for the vehicle chosen to prohibit it. Society decided that alcohol should be prohibited. Then it decided it was stupid. Neither arguments had anything to do with constitutionality or human rights.
I don’t know the history of Prohibition, but logically it can’t be because the Constitution forbade prohibition. If it did, then you would have had a conflict in the constitution and Prohibiton could not have been enforced.
Yet it was. Successfully. Despite popular resistance. Why was that prohibition never successfully challenged in court?
The last time I checked, the wording of that Amendment did not override any other wording of the Constitution, so I fail to see your implication that before Prohibition, the Constitution somehow recognized alcohol consumption as a right. Any more than it recognizes drug use as a right.
If alcohol prohibition was unconstitutional, why was it necessary to pass a second amendment to rescind the prohibition?
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 4:23 PM Here you go Jay.
The ACLU speaks for itself.For long pursued legal challenges to the marijuana laws specifically you would be best informed by going to NORML . All these lawyers have been working this issue for decades. But that doesn’t make a whittle of difference in your closed little mind, does it Jay? The black hole where reason is forbidden.
Propero, name calling is pointless but I think you will find making *****‘s like Jay the butt of relevant joking is if not productive, helpful in maintaining one’s psychic balance. You are being reasonable, but tell me; is Jay responding in kind? Just look at his last question. Could anyone really be that stupid?
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 8, 2005 at 5:27 PM There is interesting news on the medical marihuana front:
Cannabinoids have antiproliferative effects on cancer cells and may one day represent a new class of anti-cancer drugs, according to a scientific review published in the October issue of the journal Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry.
The administration of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids - particularly in larger concentrations - have been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth in rodents and in human cell lines, including the inhibition of lung carcinoma, glioma (brain tumors), lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer, the review found. It noted that cannabinoids, including the non-psychotropic cannabinoid CBD (cannabidiol), appear particularly capable of killing glioma cells by causing apoptosis (programmed cell death). Glioma brain tumors are an aggressive, lethal form of brain cancer that is typically unresponsive to traditional cancer treatments.
“Cannabinoids possess some anticancer activity [and may] possibly represent a new class of anti-cancer drugs that retard cancer growth, inhibit angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels), and the metastatic spreading of cancer cells,” the review concluded.
The implications of this bit of research are compelling as well.
But the law is the law as Jay says so any criticism of the law on ethical grounds is pointless or something. It is hard to tell with Jay exactly what his point is. Even when you ask.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 8, 2005 at 6:04 PM And just in case you are thinking of dismissing such as insignificant Jay, these aren’t isolated studies. They are being confirmed by both laboratory and epidemiological research. Do a little research. It won’t hurt you to be informed.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 8, 2005 at 6:19 PM You are deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
I have repeatedly objected to the rationale of the constitutional arguments presented. I have not said SHUT THE F* UP.
That was KVK and Rabbit.
I have not attempted to shut down the debate with adolescent name-calling, harassment and poor attempts at ridicule.
That is you and Rabbit.
Suffice to say, I have repeatedly said that if the electorate decides to legalize drug use, then so be it. If recent medical benefits of that drug use persuades the electorate to legalize drugs, so be it.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 8:08 PM Well, I am glad that someone is attempting change in a constructive manner. I wish the best for ACLU and NORML.
Let me know when they win their argument, after “working (on) this issue for decades”
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 8, 2005 at 8:11 PM No Jay, you haven’t the wit for repartee. You instead try to derail the discussion with inane and irrational drivel presented in a manner of thinly disguised arrogance and superiority. One would think one would familiarize oneself with the Constitution and the legal process a teensy wee bit before objecting to others arguments, don’t ay think?
Exactly!Please forgive my poor attempts at ridicule. I shall strive to make them more robust. It’s hard work to misrepresent statements that are so utterly lacking in meaningful context and content.
Best wishes to you, too. And the ‘argument’ is already over. Re-read what Steve has said above in his bracingly clear elegant and respectful manner. Try and understand it this time. It is now only the glacial process of overcoming the mindless ineptitude and inertial decrepitude of the political process.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 8, 2005 at 10:26 PM Jay Rabbit is as always willing to give anything anyone is entitled to. It is in this spirit that Rabbit admits your attitudes towards this issue are relatively reasonable for your type. Quite surprising actually. That is not to say you have an enlightened or even intelligent response to the issue , just that contrary to your habit, you are not actually the lowest common denominator. Not that there is one yet, but the position taken by such is not evident in your postings.
Having said that Rabbit feels obliged to point out that you earn the scorn of Rabbit and others not for your views, but for the dishonest and dissembling tactics, not least of which is the absolute refusal to take on an issue directly, and back up your words with something resembling provable facts and logic. You may have been told to shut up, by one or more of us, but this was clearly in pique at your pigheadedness or in anticipation of one of your more assinine comments, as was originally predicted by Rabbit. Rabbit expected you would be a distraction to the issue, and he often makes that mistake. As Lume points out, you are a useful vehicle for expounding the truth, for we are forced to do so in response to your gabbling. In this regard Natalie is quite useful too. The name calling, which has become a habit of Rabbit’s in regards to you, is a bit immature, but Rabbit is a bit immature. You did try it yourself quite early on if anyone recalls, you just turned out to be not very good at it. Bunny face is about the best you managed and Rabbit must admit that he only feigned that shock and horror at the time. The pompous know it all look suits you better.
You are as always talking yourself round in circles, and as always your view is one of supporting the status quo at all costs and sitting on the fence about the issue meanwhile.
The behaviour of an abject craven coward.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 9, 2005 at 5:24 AM Although I may not phrase things quite as Rabbit does,He is correct in nearly everything he has to say!Yea! Rabbit!Such A gift you have in your phrasing! As you say and The Kid must agree,Jay is a fool,And Nazi,in his thinking,and Nat too Of course…......
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 9, 2005 at 8:41 AM Yup,It was me that said “shut the fuck up” You didn’t listen Jaay,and thus you faced the wrath of rabbit and LB,and others that see how pigheaded you are! i normally wouldn’t have been so harsh,but seeing the way you post on other topics,I could see you are a moron,and had hoped to save you from being shredded in one topic,many of us have studied,and actually thought through!Where as you are happy to say whatever pops into your narrow little mind,Please go away Jay,and leave the thread to those of us that actually THINK,rather than just spout the Now out dated status que.The war on Drugs is a failure!! Get over it and look to the future!Drug users are not going to cause you non users any harm,unless you are part of the Elite Powers that be! which,though you may align yourself with them,You are not part of! They will leave you searching for food and water,just like the rest of us!While they hide away in their underground fortresses!Wake up! you fool.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 9, 2005 at 9:24 AM Yeh for the Kid is in town. ..........................^^......................................
That Valley is a peaceful one with no bullshit allowed bets the Rabbit.
As always you fine cousins of Rabbit are his immediate concern and he is sorry that so much harsh words are poured upon your poor suffering country, by himself and others. You know we do it for love of the same things that even these morons think they hold dear.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 9, 2005 at 10:51 AM There will be peace in the valley for me, some day
There will be peace in the valley for me, oh Lord I pray
There’ll be no sadness, no sorrow
No trouble, trouble I see
There will be peace in the valley for me, for me
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 9, 2005 at 3:56 PM Gather round folks Rabbit has a re-post and a link.
This is too good not to see live.
JAY DeCLINE says:
Seriously, beowulf, if there is a question that I haven’t addressed, please restate it. I think it is obvious to all that I don’t shirk from a difficult question even, or especially, if I have a response that will inevitably be unpopular. Fear is not in my vocabulary.
............................................................ ...............^^........................................... ......Poor Rabbit.
The Rabbit has just gotten up off the floor. His sides and tummy hurts. . .......................... This is the most PERFECT Self Irony ever. Rabbit must confess, he had previously bestowed the title of King of self Irony on Scoop. But no. JC has just Trumped them all.
Rabbit just read it again and he is almost dead from laughter. Such a mean and sneaky way to injure Rabbit, making him laugh his poor Ears off.
This is so good that Rabbit is off to find others. Lume owns JC, since claiming him, as a favorite, while Rabbit only has Scorpy. This was Rabbit’s choice before, but now he looks jealously at Lume’s troll, such a fancy one it has turned out to be. Clever Lume, how could you have known. JC up until now you have been more like a caterpillar when Rabbit thought you to be no more than a crippled Moth. But NO, dear JAY you are a beautiful Butterfly, a veritable gift to internet debate. No wonder you never reference anything, it all makes sense now…...................................Wow…............. ^^...........................Impressed and still hurting a bit the Rabbit hops away to find the others.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 10, 2005 at 2:38 AM “If alcohol prohibition was unconstitutional, why was it necessary to pass a second amendment to rescind the prohibition? “
It WAS unconstitutional (under the 10th) so they had to AMEND the constitution to make it constitutional. If prohibition had been a federal power , they could have just modified the federal code. Once they had made it constitutional, the only way to undo it was further amendment. I contend that such an amendment is needed to make the prohibition of other drugs constitutional.
“Why was that prohibition never successfully challenged in court ? “
Because they made it part of the constitution.
“Then it decided it was stupid”
Just like drug prohibition.
Why is drug use a basic human right?
9th amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ” (the rights mentioned in the constitution are not a comprehensive list)in conjunction with
10th amendment: (yes- again)
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” (any right not mentioned is the province of the state or the individual)
Declare that, at best, it is a matter for the state. I contend that it is in fact an individual right. It certainly is not the province of the federal govt, given the above. Even if it is a state matter, most states enforce it in a cruel and absurd way. Note that for years, Alaska, California, and other states had legalized individual pot production and posession, even in the face of the federal Controlled Substances Act and they were not challenged successfully in court.(to use your criteria)
Posted by Prospero on Nov 10, 2005 at 3:48 AM Well, forward that on to the ACLU and NORML.
They seem to be having problems making that point.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 10, 2005 at 5:16 PM Jay, the problem they have is that you aren’t the only one out there who is denser than dirt. Go to a LEAP meeting and try to pay attention. There is the remote chance you might learn something.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 10, 2005 at 5:45 PM The 9th is irrelevant to the issue since the Constitution unequivocally gives Congress the right to regulate commerce.
The 10th is irrelevant to the issue since the Constitution unequivocally gives Congress the right to regulate commerce.
I ask again,
How is drug trafficking not commerce? Product is manufactured, transported, bought and sold.
Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 10, 2005 at 6:06 PM O Jay-Jay,
The question de jure is the right of personal use, not commercial use. Put that straw man back in your pants.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 10, 2005 at 6:21 PM I hope it wouldn’t be too much to ask of you Jay to consider the more enlightened policies of some
European countries such as for example:Germany
There is no distinction between hard and soft drugs in German law. Drug use itself is not a criminal offense, however acquisition of drugs is a crime, regardless of the amount acquired, resulting in one month to four years imprisonment and an “appropriate” fine. In practice, the courts often waive prosecution if drugs are obtained for personal use. The amount which qualifies as acquisition with a view to personal use is left to the court’s discretion. Possession for personal use can carry a penalty of up to four years, depending on the type of drug possessed and the degree of risk involved are factors taken into account by the courts. For a first offense with a small quantity of cannabis, the courts may not impose a penalty. Subjectively, the court decides what is considered “small.” There is no amount or weight assignment given to a “small” amount nor a “significant” amount. The judge’s interpretation, given each cases’s circumstance, is the definition. Severity of the punishment is also dependent upon the controlling political party in the state where the offense occurs. In general, northern states are less conservative and tend to issue lesser punishment.
Germany’s Supreme Court overturned its federal laws outlawing cannabis in April of 1994. This Supreme Court decision is in contrast with the legislation on drugs. Therefore, the legislation is still in effect, but low priority is given to prosecuting people in possession of cannabis for personal use.
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 10, 2005 at 6:48 PM Lume that is a good link. Rabbit likes it and has added it to his favorites.
Rabbit is quite familiar with Christiania, in Copenhagen. There is where he bought his first Hashish when first Rabbit arrived in Danmark, and knew nobody. A virtual free hippy state, within the city and it is pretty much an institution.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 11, 2005 at 4:16 AM I don’t believe this story. Something doesn’t add up, doesn’t pass the smell test. This story seems to be either totally made up or stretched a bit.
First of all, no one gets 17 years in prison for a spoonful of cocaine unless they are on probation, parole or who have 2 strikes. Also, the “Maximum Security” Prison sounds fabricated. They don’t send inmates with a simple possession charge to Maximum Security Prison ... it doesn’t happen. Was this guy (Mark) on probation or parole? Did he have 2 strikes on him?
Second, if this story was true .... you would think that I could find something on Google about it ... but I can’t. The only thing I find is the same exact story on another blog.
During Hurricane Katrina there were all kinds of stories that were made up ... which makes me very leary about what is posted on the Internet. And especially leary when it’s a story on a message board or blog. Look at the stories that were false during Katrina .... one of the better stories was that the Orleans Parish Jail was taken over by the inmates and the Warden and his wife were being held hostage and thousand of inmates were just let go ... they were running free. None of that was true, the Warden was held hostage and no inmates escaped. There are many stories, but back to the topic.
Unless this story can be backed up with from something other that a message board or blog ... it’s probally not true.
PS - I’ll be checking back for proof, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Posted by tina1 on Dec 26, 2005 at 5:35 AM Hi Tina. I don’t have time to scroll back through the almost 300 posts in this thread. But perhaps you can isolate the referenced claim and I’ll check it out from my end.
In short, I’ll note that here in Florida, a “spoonful” of cocaine (4 grams is equal to two SweetnLow packets) can easily merit years in state prison and of course a permanent felony record. Note that Florida has some of the harshest drug law penalties in the free world. Since I don’t know the story you’re referring to, I can’t comment with authority otherwise.
Best regards for the year end holiday season….Steve Heath http://leap.cc/tbay
Posted by SteveHeath on Dec 26, 2005 at 7:48 PM I’ve seen many episodes of COPS when they are in Florida. Several times when they arrested people with cocaine they said the sentence for 1-ounce of cocaine is 3-years in Prison.
If someone gets 3-years for an ounce cocaine in Florida, then I doubt that someone in Maryland would get 17-years for a spoonful of cocaine. This is why I said this guys story doesn’t add up and I don’t believe it. The story I’m referring to is the beginning of the thread.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2374/
Here is a guy in Florida that was arrested with 5 ounces of cocaine and he got 10 years. This really proves that the story is false.
http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/8BD9E9FC614622C5852570AB00 06D3AE7
Posted by tina1 on Dec 27, 2005 at 6:25 AM This doesn’t “prove” anything. It only cites a single example from Florida to compare to the author’s story.
4 grams in Florida can trigger felony charges and sentencing. Maryland is no different in that once the threshold is reached, the sentence for a “spoonful” (likely 5-10 grams) is just as stiff as for several ounces.
It should be noted that while the author of this piece appears to be comfortable with “liberal” politics, the War on Americans - aka the so-called War on Drugs - is by no means a liberal or a conservative battlefront. Rather, it is primarily a war waged by the users of more popular drugs against the users of less popular drugs. Unfortunately, the root premise means that hundreds of billions of dollars in drug trafficking is left completely unregulated and out of control. This recipe is disasterous for our communities and for our citizens, whether or not they are users of the illicit substances
Thanks for the feedback.
Steve in Clearwater
http://leap.cc/tbay
Posted by SteveHeath on Dec 27, 2005 at 6:43 PM The reason you can’t find anything on this particular story via a Google search is that it would be very unusual for such a story to make its own news story. Over 3500 Americans are arrested every single day for simple drug possession offenses. That’s 150 per hour; over 25,000 per week and of course over 1.3 million per year. Newspapers could not possibly track every single bust and/or conviction.
Posted by SteveHeath on Dec 27, 2005 at 6:46 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ryan Grim
- Liberalisms Brain on Drugs
Where does drug policy fit into the debate on liberty? - Revolution in Bolivia
The government's failure to nationalize its natural gas industry has led to an explosive situation
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
