Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Have you ever heard of them?

http://www.leap.cc/

In my opinion, this is exactly what is needed to help sensible legalization.

I would think if so called "news" organizations really depended on ratings, they would be scooping stories like this, yet they aren't. I wonder if there is other pressure as to why they aren't?

I support this group, and I support their message. As a citizen I commend the people who take part, as a Libertarian I respect their views and approach to educate America.

What do you all think?
 
Well If it's what I think it is, no thanks. I could'nt get the link, but the thought of encourageing the decline of morality and responsibilty can't be a good thing. This Country is what it is because we choose it to be, we must not slip any further.
 
Jibjab,

You can't exercise morality or responsibility if you aren't free to choose between right and wrong. Completely aside from the stupidity of the war on drugs, your suggestion that good citizenship comes only from the writ of law is anethema to anyone who thinks of themselves as "free".


Osborn,
I doubt this is news because this is just another small organization on the legalization bandwagon - which has produced no legislation or other tangible effects to report on. It is a shame, but news largely reports events, not positions.
 
I saw this website about a year ago, I think.

A lot of people you might not think would consider Prohibition II to be a massive waste of money and to be a crimp on our freedoms. And that includes some LEOs.
 
One thing that differentiates drugs from alcohol in terms of prohibition is that alcohol was perfectly legal and in wide use when it was prohibitied. It ultimately failed because taking away one's "rights" (as a person perceives it) is only asking for that person to become a criminal....reference gun control in the US.

Drugs have never been openly marketed and used by the mass public. Once you open that door however, you pretty much have to buy into the fact that you will never again be able to close it effectively. The point being that you'd better be REALLY certain of the effects before you "legalize" it. And that's where I tend to have my problems with this type of thing.

I recognize there are a great number of valid arguments that support such a move, and they sound very compelling. On the other hand there is the personal toll this sort of thing extracts on individuals and individual family members that, at least under current law, allows them to have some recourse since drugs are illegal. Eventually a family member that is addicted will end up in jail, or be placed into rehab, or some other action that can potentially spare the family the hearache and pain of having an addicted love one. Granted, there are alcoholics and there are treatments for them, but why invite a larger societal problem when you don't have to. There are not a lot of things I think are valid items that government should be involved in, but anything that can potentially increase damage to us as a society, or reduce our capacity to live an enjoyable life because of bad choices by a few people is something worth legislating and enforcing.

We all know drugs are very different from alcohol in the degree to which one can use one over the other. It's not uncommon for me to have a beer with my dinner and I'm not affected at all. That same paradigm doesn't apply to drugs. Their SOLE purpose is an escape from rational, conscious thought. It's not reasonable that anyone that takes drugs will do so for any reason other than to get high. It is perfectly reasonable that people will consume alcohol and still be in compete control of their faculties. There is a HUGE difference.

I have lived with having an addicted loved one. Aside from the cost to me, the cost to society in terms of a contributing citizen, and the cost to him in terms of his future and his health were extraordinary when it's all added up. If you think for one minute that taking a recreational drug doesn't reduce your capacity as a human being you are either a fool or happily ignorant.

Bottom line, you open this up, it's an experiment. If the experiment fails there's no backup plan that will work. Why open Pandora's box?
 
Drugs have never been openly marketed and used by the mass public

Uhmmm... you might want to do a little research on that one. Look up what company (still in business today by the way) used to sell Herion as a cure for morphine addiction. Look at the original recipe for Coca Cola, and there is a wine made from Cocaine that used to be popular in Europe and was used by at least one of the popes.

We all know drugs are very different from alcohol in the degree to which one can use one over the other.

I am sorry but I would like a reference for the above. Alcohol has the worst withdrawal symptoms of any drug that I have personally seen

" If you think for one minute that taking a recreational drug doesn't reduce your capacity as a human being you are either a fool or happily ignorant."

Just curious does this include alcohol, cafeine, and nicotine ?

Oh and by way I'v been working in the Hospitals (including psych and substance abuse units ) for over 30 years so I do not think that I am "Happily ignorant". Guess that makes me a fool. :rolleyes:

I would like an intelligant discussion on this subject with references and a knowledge of history.

NukemJim
 
We all know drugs are very different from alcohol in the degree to which one can use one over the other. It's not uncommon for me to have a beer with my dinner and I'm not affected at all.

Back when we had Cocaine-Cola, same thing.

That same paradigm doesn't apply to drugs. Their SOLE purpose is an escape from rational, conscious thought.

Not true. In fact, everybody's bogeyman, methamphetamine, and its cousin amphetamine, can be taken to enhance awareness. When taken so, it does not give an escape from rational, couscious thought. It just speeds up your actions.


It's not reasonable that anyone that takes drugs will do so for any reason other than to get high.

Ask a truck driver or a student studying for an exam. You'd have to be a pretty stupid student to take a drug with the purpose of getting high while studying for an exam.

It is perfectly reasonable that people will consume alcohol and still be in compete control of their faculties. There is a HUGE difference

Not really. Drugs and alcohol can all be used and abused.
 
Well If it's what I think it is, no thanks. I could'nt get the link, but the thought of encourageing the decline of morality and responsibilty can't be a good thing. This Country is what it is because we choose it to be, we must not slip any further.

There's not as much wrong with this country as you think, other than the gradual erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
 
A matter of degree

Interesting thread, but I have to bring up a couple of points. Apparently some people think that drug users only use drugs to get wacked out of their minds. Some do, but many use drugs just like most people use alcohol, just to get a "buzz", a slightly enhanced sensation. I have known a number of drinkers, and drug users, and combinations of the two. Some people handle them well enough to lead 'normal productive lives", and some don't.

It is tragic when someone destroys their life by substance abuse. Bad for them, bad for the people who care about them. But to me, it is a worse tragedy when someone has their life ruined because they get caught in the system, when all they are doing is trying to enjoy themselves.

I'm not talking about the people who do irresposible things like driving impaired, or reprehensible things, like robbery and assault, but the people who are not harming anyone else, being sent to jail, or even sometimes killed for the tremendous "crime" of having a forbidden plant, or a few ounces of a prohibited chemical.

It is especially irksome to me, to see that, inspite of the lofty ideals, and all the good intentions that prohibit these things to people, how often the system fails to help those who need it, and punishes those who don't.

I have personally seen people living on welfare, who dealt drugs for their spending money. They also had a couple of small children. They lived in a house the government paid for. They got busted. Their children were taken away. What happend to these destroyers of the fabric of society? Within TWO WEEKS, they were back in their house (that we pay for), dealing drugs again, and within a month, their children had been returned to them.:eek:

In another case of which I have personal knowledge, a couple lived a modest middle class life, three small kids, husband worked steadily, but like to drink. He never got in trouble for drunk driving, or drunk in public, but did ocasionally have loud arguments with his wife. A "concerned councilor" at the children's school got one of the children to make some statements about the arguments, and then had social services take the children from the home. Because the husband refused to attend (and pay for) the counciling he "needed" for his "drinking problem", the children spent several years being bounced from one foster home to another, the marriage failed, lives wrecked.

System failures. Tragedies. I know the system has its' successes, but I am coming to the point where I cannot but wonder if the price we are paying for them is higher than the cost of doing something else.

My personal view runs basically, "and ye harm no one, do as ye will". I don't think it is right for anyone else to make my decisions for me. I want to make my own decisions, and I will accept the cost of my mistakes. I don't care what you do for entertainment, if you are not hurting anyone else. If you are hurting yourself, that to me is your choice. You have free will, if you use it badly, it is you that should pay the price.

Remember, your right to do what you want stops at the end of my nose. I am sick of people who think they have the right to control everyone else, for their own good, because of the cost to society, or whatever. I think it is just wrong. If you harm some one else, then you have violated their rights, and for that, punishment is appropriate. Other wise, let me live the way I want, own what I want, believe (or not) what I want. And you do the same. As long as you neither cause me pain, or cost my money, why should I care.

As for the other point, ALL the illegal drugs were at one time legal.
 
those are mostly washed up ex cops who probably left with a bad taste in their mouth, or dealt with very few people who actually use drugs.

narcotics are regulated and classed based on their addictive qualities. hydrocodone is one of the most abused drugs out there, and it's perfectly legal. i've seen people steal crap and do some really messed up stuff for it. the drug is just so addictive, that people go to extremes to get it.

take your typical meth head. they start out with the weekend high. then they start getting high and staying high. then all they want to do is be high. i've seen straight guys rent out that booty for a hit. it's just a sad deal all the way around. look up "meth mouth" in google images. that's what it does to you and meth heads just don't care. they quit taking showers, they don't ever change clothes, and their skin just eats away.

legalizing drugs like that is not the answer. i'm not a fan of marijuana, and despite what people who use it seem to think, it doesn't make you drive better or heighten your senses. there are usually two types: the casual user and the absolute pot head whose life revolves around getting tanked; those are the ones who have all the little trinkets and frequent the pot shops. for most casual marijuana users, i don't have that big of an issue. other than people carrying large quantities, i can't really remember arresting someone who had a little weed on them. a ticket was enough when they lied to me. (don't say you don't have any on you when i could smell it coming out of your car while driving behind you with my windows up)

as for the hardcore dopers like meth and crack, it needs to stay illegal. i don't have a good answer to solve the problem, because the only ex-addicts i know are the ones who made the decision on their own to quit. throwing them in prison keeps them from walking off with my stuff and selling it for a quick fix. that's all i care about. i bet i can count on one hand how many burglars and theives i arrested who were not addicts. the ones that were addicts, i wouldn't even know where to start there are so many.

the first time you walk in on a 25 year old drug overdose and see her lying in the floor of some ratty house or apartment (or even a shed in the backyard where they were living). then you look at her body and see the needle still hanging out of her arm. look a little closer and see those strips of skin torn off of her body where the roaches were eating on her. and then see her fingers chewed down to the bone where the rats were feasting. and she'd only been there for a couple of hours, but the guys who gave her the dope (one being her boyfriend) took off because they didn't want to get in trouble, you'll see what i mean.
 
those are mostly washed up ex cops who probably left with a bad taste in their mouth, or dealt with very few people who actually use drugs.

some of in your opinion "washed up" guys who share the same philosphy...

http://www.libertybill.net/np.html

Im not really sure about where along the line I fall on this subject. I dont think some of these folks are "washed up" as you see. As 2A supporters we know that the prohibiton of assualt weapons and firearms will not work. The same can be applied to the "War on Drugs". Reform is needed in this area.
 
44AMP:

You have it right, in my view. I have never said let's have a free-for-all. When drugs are legal (with controls), there will of course be tragedies. Like there already are.

But driving motor vehicles is legal and look at those tragedies.

There is a middle ground somewhere in all this. No free-for-all, and no zero-tolerance suspension of 8-year-olds for bringing an aspirin to school.

but the guys who gave her the dope (one being her boyfriend) took off because they didn't want to get in trouble, you'll see what i mean.

Now, why do you suppose they took off? It could be argued that drug LAWS, not drugs, actually killed that girl.
 
invention 45 wrote:

Now, why do you suppose they took off? It could be argued that drug LAWS, not drugs, actually killed that girl.

What? Now I was sorta with your line of thinking until you made that statement. Fact is, if she had not taken the drugs, she would be alive plain and simple. The LAW didn't kill her....her chioce of drugs did.....

44 AMP wrote:

My personal view runs basically, "and ye harm no one, do as ye will". I don't think it is right for anyone else to make my decisions for me. I want to make my own decisions, and I will accept the cost of my mistakes. I don't care what you do for entertainment, if you are not hurting anyone else. If you are hurting yourself, that to me is your choice. You have free will, if you use it badly, it is you that should pay the price.

Remember, your right to do what you want stops at the end of my nose. I am sick of people who think they have the right to control everyone else, for their own good, because of the cost to society, or whatever. I think it is just wrong. If you harm some one else, then you have violated their rights, and for that, punishment is appropriate. Other wise, let me live the way I want, own what I want, believe (or not) what I want. And you do the same. As long as you neither cause me pain, or cost my money, why should I care.

Pretty close. Other people trying to run your life FOR YOU, in "your or societies best intrest", is one of the major problems in this country. People sticking thier noses in other peoples business, out of their overblown piousness, or holier than thou attitude.......after all....they know whats best for you don't you know......:rolleyes:
 
>look a little closer and see those strips of skin torn off of her body where the roaches were eating on her. and then see her fingers chewed down to the bone where the rats were feasting.<

Yes, but we're talking about drug laws, not the girl who died for trying to leave Scientology.

Tragedies happen: welcome to reality, currently in progress. Are those tragedies a good enough reason to give up our Constitutional Rights? By your arguements, you think so. I'd rather come down on the side of freedom...
 
What? Now I was sorta with your line of thinking until you made that statement. Fact is, if she had not taken the drugs, she would be alive plain and simple. The LAW didn't kill her....her chioce of drugs did.....

I ask again. Why do you think they took off? (instead of taking an obviously ill friend to a hospital).

Could it be they didn't want to be arrested?

Could it also be that if heroin had been available in quality-controlled form she would be less likely to have overdosed in the first place? Could it also be that if she herself were not worried about being arrested she might have taken her drugs in a more controlled setting?

It's the existence of draconian laws that create a good part of the danger that gets attributed to the drugs themselves.
 
LEAP is just another response to unjust laws. It speaks volumes when the ones enforcing the law are against it.
 
There are people from all walks of life opposing the war on drugs and supporting drug legalization. They are not all stupid. There are former US presidents, Nobel Prize laureates, cops former and current, Congressmen and Senators former and current... the point I'm trying to make here that you cannot really discount drug legalization as 'just another wacky' idea. It is an idea that has to be considered on its merits.
 
(2000): "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)." (Note: According to a correction published by the Journal on Jan. 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000 (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories." Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.)
 
Wow Eghad. I went to the site you linked. I'm quite surprised to see Joe McNamara in the same company as the rest of those people.

During his tenure as SJPD chief he was an outspoken supporter of gun control and the "authority" that the Brady/VPC trash ponied out when they made statements regarding LE's position on guns.
I don't understand how his logic can conclude that banning guns is good and banning drugs is bad. Neither are in themselves are bad or good, they only reflect the intent of the people who use them.
I'm not in disagreement with his position on drug legalization, I'm just surprised he's on our side in this issue. Maybe he's wised up a bit in his old age.
I'm also pleased to see that I'm in good company on the drug issue myself. I don't think you could call any of those folks washed up or stupid.
 
Back
Top