perhaps especially interesting to LEO readers
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
- Status
Rob Pincus
New member
I agree that the comarison between pot smokers and pedophiles is a weak one, but the point is that we should be a little more critical (IMO) about who we embrace into our struggle for individual rights.
I interact with victims of drug use almost daily. I am not talking about the addict per se, I am talking about the girl who gets sexually assaulted after succumbing to peer pressure or the child who gets neglected while her parents abuse drugs "responsibly in their own home."
Of course, I see the same situations with alcohol... In fact, I see it much more often with alcohol.. and that is legal.
I deal every single night that I work with problems related to alcohol, so I undertstand just how laughable the argument about legalizing drugs to elimminate the problems caused by them is. Glenn posted above about the outrageous disparity between deaths involving Coke vs. deaths involving alcohol... thanks for making my point.
------------------
-Essayons
I interact with victims of drug use almost daily. I am not talking about the addict per se, I am talking about the girl who gets sexually assaulted after succumbing to peer pressure or the child who gets neglected while her parents abuse drugs "responsibly in their own home."
Of course, I see the same situations with alcohol... In fact, I see it much more often with alcohol.. and that is legal.
I deal every single night that I work with problems related to alcohol, so I undertstand just how laughable the argument about legalizing drugs to elimminate the problems caused by them is. Glenn posted above about the outrageous disparity between deaths involving Coke vs. deaths involving alcohol... thanks for making my point.
------------------
-Essayons
So, there was this big problem with LEOs being burned with flash-bangs and they had to go to masks to protect their faces?
I'm dubious.
Still, the larger question is why can't the ACCUSED (as in, not convicted yet) know who's arresting him? I would want to know, including badge numbers and seeing some photo ID. I'd also want to know WHO the witnesses against me were (that old Constitution thing getting in the way of "law enforcement" again).
This nonsense of a gaggle of black clad ninja types breaking down doors with MP5 in hand and arresting some idiot with $20 worth of crack is ridiculous. In Denver there were more than 100 of these types of raids last year and they netted, are you ready? TWO convictions. I posted the story here myself. Both were low-level dope heads already involved with "the system" (one on probation, one on parole). Why they had to bust down doors when all they had to do was have a Probation/Parole Officer call the suspect down to his office is a mystery. Perhaps the Denver PD needed "practice".
This kind of action is rarely necessary. I think it justifies budgets as much as anything. And I'm sure its a great adrenaline rush for the officers involved. Too bad every once in a while a completely innocent person gets shot in the process.
Some of the LEOs on this board have taken me to task to come show them how the job could be done better. I don't have all the answers, but its pretty plain that you shouldn't do stupid things like no-knocks for $20 worth of crack on the word of some junkie who's no better than the scumbag you're about to bust. It's common sense.
I'm dubious.
Still, the larger question is why can't the ACCUSED (as in, not convicted yet) know who's arresting him? I would want to know, including badge numbers and seeing some photo ID. I'd also want to know WHO the witnesses against me were (that old Constitution thing getting in the way of "law enforcement" again).
This nonsense of a gaggle of black clad ninja types breaking down doors with MP5 in hand and arresting some idiot with $20 worth of crack is ridiculous. In Denver there were more than 100 of these types of raids last year and they netted, are you ready? TWO convictions. I posted the story here myself. Both were low-level dope heads already involved with "the system" (one on probation, one on parole). Why they had to bust down doors when all they had to do was have a Probation/Parole Officer call the suspect down to his office is a mystery. Perhaps the Denver PD needed "practice".
This kind of action is rarely necessary. I think it justifies budgets as much as anything. And I'm sure its a great adrenaline rush for the officers involved. Too bad every once in a while a completely innocent person gets shot in the process.
Some of the LEOs on this board have taken me to task to come show them how the job could be done better. I don't have all the answers, but its pretty plain that you shouldn't do stupid things like no-knocks for $20 worth of crack on the word of some junkie who's no better than the scumbag you're about to bust. It's common sense.
westvirginia
Inactive
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob:
......
Scud, I am afraid that I cannot comment on FL's laws, but perhaps there has got to be other cirucumstances surrounding the poss. of that 1/2 ounce. I find it hard to believe that 1st offense 1/2 oz would get you jail time anywhere in this country.
If you can't comment why are you so determined you're right?
Why Masks?
The Nomex masks look cool, don't forget that. Afterall, no point in meeting out justice if you can't look good doing it. Seriously, the intimidation factor is a viable reason for wearing the mask.. in addition to the more PC ones pointed out by SKN. LE in general and SWAT teams especially are trying to avoid resistance, stun grenades, strobe lights, yelling instructions and the look of the officers is all part of establishing "command presence", overwhelming the suspects and trying to leave them no option other than compliance.
I hope you like that option when they "no-knock" for your guns...
RKBAers often seem as eager to "believe what they want" from the media as the gun-controllers do. How about some critical thinking skills. Media is media, exaggeration and hype are exagerration and hype.. even when the hype is against your personal pet peeve, to wit: "No-Knock Searches by Nomex Hooded Militarized Civilian Peace Officers."
Press hype or no press hype, owning guns is a right. Being free from unwarranted search and seizure is a right. I believe it was George Washington who said he would rather a hundred guilty go free than one innocent be deprived of liberty. But you would rather take the risk of killing someone by an action that you initiated. This is not like the argument that "innocent people get killed by guns", guns don't kill, no-knocks do.
On the "War on Drugs" issue:
I was approached by a band a couple weeks ago, they wanted to be included in a charity event that I run every year. They offered to play for free, explaining that they were a Pro-Gun, politically motivated, modern rock band. They most recently played in DC at the Anti-MMM rally.
They sent a couple sample CDs and I listend to them... the music was very good. But I won't even entertain the idea of having at the event because of a couple songs they have about drugs and some excerpts from their liner notes about legalizing drugs.
Did I miss a newsletter?
When did RKBA become synonymous with Right To Get Stoned?
It's about doing what you want, how you want, whenever you want as long as you don't harm another through force or fraud. It's the same fight! Drugs are dangerous, guns are dangerous, but both are completely safe in controlled enviroments with individuals who have taken the time to obtain a modicum of information on either subject.
I think Pedophiles might resent the Govt's restrictions regarding sex with 12 year old boys, are we going to be defending that cause next?? Afterall, that is the same jack-booted govt that is threatening our rights so we should band together, no?
(perhaps you see my point?)
[/quote]
No, I don't see your point. What I see is someone using an emotional plea to create a false dichotomy. Witness - "Our children are killing each other with guns!" (are you really Rosie, Rob? ;-) ) The difference is that a 12-year old is understood to be to young to understand the consequences of sex with the pedophile. It is, therefore, a violation of said 12-year old's rights. Someone smoking pot, snorting coke, or shooting heroin isn't hurting anyone else. (Don't give me the BS about getting in a car - the problem is when they drive, steal, whatever. Not that they used the drugs. Just like the problems with guns used the wrong way.)
By the way, I'm no dope head. I personally think one is an idiot for using. I just don't think I should have to pay with my tax dollars and the loss of my rights to keep an individual from being an idiot.
------------------
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
......
Scud, I am afraid that I cannot comment on FL's laws, but perhaps there has got to be other cirucumstances surrounding the poss. of that 1/2 ounce. I find it hard to believe that 1st offense 1/2 oz would get you jail time anywhere in this country.
If you can't comment why are you so determined you're right?
Why Masks?
The Nomex masks look cool, don't forget that. Afterall, no point in meeting out justice if you can't look good doing it. Seriously, the intimidation factor is a viable reason for wearing the mask.. in addition to the more PC ones pointed out by SKN. LE in general and SWAT teams especially are trying to avoid resistance, stun grenades, strobe lights, yelling instructions and the look of the officers is all part of establishing "command presence", overwhelming the suspects and trying to leave them no option other than compliance.
I hope you like that option when they "no-knock" for your guns...
RKBAers often seem as eager to "believe what they want" from the media as the gun-controllers do. How about some critical thinking skills. Media is media, exaggeration and hype are exagerration and hype.. even when the hype is against your personal pet peeve, to wit: "No-Knock Searches by Nomex Hooded Militarized Civilian Peace Officers."
Press hype or no press hype, owning guns is a right. Being free from unwarranted search and seizure is a right. I believe it was George Washington who said he would rather a hundred guilty go free than one innocent be deprived of liberty. But you would rather take the risk of killing someone by an action that you initiated. This is not like the argument that "innocent people get killed by guns", guns don't kill, no-knocks do.
On the "War on Drugs" issue:
I was approached by a band a couple weeks ago, they wanted to be included in a charity event that I run every year. They offered to play for free, explaining that they were a Pro-Gun, politically motivated, modern rock band. They most recently played in DC at the Anti-MMM rally.
They sent a couple sample CDs and I listend to them... the music was very good. But I won't even entertain the idea of having at the event because of a couple songs they have about drugs and some excerpts from their liner notes about legalizing drugs.
Did I miss a newsletter?
When did RKBA become synonymous with Right To Get Stoned?
It's about doing what you want, how you want, whenever you want as long as you don't harm another through force or fraud. It's the same fight! Drugs are dangerous, guns are dangerous, but both are completely safe in controlled enviroments with individuals who have taken the time to obtain a modicum of information on either subject.
I think Pedophiles might resent the Govt's restrictions regarding sex with 12 year old boys, are we going to be defending that cause next?? Afterall, that is the same jack-booted govt that is threatening our rights so we should band together, no?
(perhaps you see my point?)
[/quote]
No, I don't see your point. What I see is someone using an emotional plea to create a false dichotomy. Witness - "Our children are killing each other with guns!" (are you really Rosie, Rob? ;-) ) The difference is that a 12-year old is understood to be to young to understand the consequences of sex with the pedophile. It is, therefore, a violation of said 12-year old's rights. Someone smoking pot, snorting coke, or shooting heroin isn't hurting anyone else. (Don't give me the BS about getting in a car - the problem is when they drive, steal, whatever. Not that they used the drugs. Just like the problems with guns used the wrong way.)
By the way, I'm no dope head. I personally think one is an idiot for using. I just don't think I should have to pay with my tax dollars and the loss of my rights to keep an individual from being an idiot.
------------------
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Rob Pincus
New member
... as if "Black Clad Ninjas" isn't a phrase designed to elicit an emotional response...
WestVA, please see my follow-up post...
WestVA, please see my follow-up post...
Re the article by Dave Kopel that I posted, the range of response as well as what seems to be the heat of at least some of the responses is somewhat surprising.
I do not believe that Kopel was engaging in "cop bashing". Rather I believe that he was pointing out a real problem, one that in fact, unfortunately does exist.
There have been WRONG HOUSE RAIDS, there have been BAD SHOOTINGS, The War On Drugs is A TERRIBLE MESS, The Militarization of Police Depts IS A PROBLEM, and all of the forgoing DOES diminish the people's respect, trust and faith in, for and of the law.
If anyone asked him, I believe that Kopel would agree as to the nature of the problem.
I do not believe that Kopel was engaging in "cop bashing". Rather I believe that he was pointing out a real problem, one that in fact, unfortunately does exist.
There have been WRONG HOUSE RAIDS, there have been BAD SHOOTINGS, The War On Drugs is A TERRIBLE MESS, The Militarization of Police Depts IS A PROBLEM, and all of the forgoing DOES diminish the people's respect, trust and faith in, for and of the law.
If anyone asked him, I believe that Kopel would agree as to the nature of the problem.
There appears to be at least some concensus here that the "militarization" of our police forces has been due to the drug problem. Let's accept that premise.
Marijuana, heroin and cocaine were all available prior to the 1960's, but it was at the end of the 60's and the beginning of the 70's that the use of these drugs--cocaine in particular--began to skyrocket. And along with that came the crime wave that we as gun owners are paying for. My question is, what caused the increase in demand for cocoaine?
We've had ghettos for as long as we've had cities, but we've never had a level of drug use such as we've experienced in the last 30 years. Why?
Whoever can answer that question should be elected President.
Dick
Marijuana, heroin and cocaine were all available prior to the 1960's, but it was at the end of the 60's and the beginning of the 70's that the use of these drugs--cocaine in particular--began to skyrocket. And along with that came the crime wave that we as gun owners are paying for. My question is, what caused the increase in demand for cocoaine?
We've had ghettos for as long as we've had cities, but we've never had a level of drug use such as we've experienced in the last 30 years. Why?
Whoever can answer that question should be elected President.
Dick
Jeff Thomas
New member
Rob, you're a better debater than to draw an analogy between the drug war and pedophiles ... 
Recognizing the Drug War for being a failure has nothing in common with 'cop bashing'. That is an absurd straw man argument in my book.
Rob, the point many of us are trying to make is that the Drug War does do more damage than legalization because:
1. It is directly damaging the Bill of Rights.
2. It is indirectly damaging the Bill of Rights by escalating violence, and thereby putting more pressure on the RKBA.
Regards from AZ
Recognizing the Drug War for being a failure has nothing in common with 'cop bashing'. That is an absurd straw man argument in my book.
Rob, the point many of us are trying to make is that the Drug War does do more damage than legalization because:
1. It is directly damaging the Bill of Rights.
2. It is indirectly damaging the Bill of Rights by escalating violence, and thereby putting more pressure on the RKBA.
Regards from AZ
Juan Hunt Greer
New member
Back to harp & carp on the mask thing; by all old tradition &most cultural response, any sudden intruder with his/her face covered in such a way as to preclude recognition or id is AUTOMATICALLY presumed to be a bad guy! No matter what he may have yelled or be yelling or what labels are velcroed to his clothing! And there have been too many " wrong addresses " and " phony cops " to react otherwise. As far as The face coverin allowing the LEO, physcologically to act in ways he otherwise would not, all the more reason to NOT mask! Blood pressure warning! time to stop!
crankshaft
crankshaft
I never heard cop bashing by RKBA people until I logged on to this board a few months ago. It has definately left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't have a problem debating someone that has logical arguments or just a difference of opinion. But what gets me going are the same guys over and over who CONSTANTLY talk crap about LEOs and use inflamatory statements.
If we want to fight the gun grabbers we need to stick together. The only thing some of you guys is doing is pissing people off. Before you jump on your keyboard to flame, PLEASE think about what I am saying!
If we want to fight the gun grabbers we need to stick together. The only thing some of you guys is doing is pissing people off. Before you jump on your keyboard to flame, PLEASE think about what I am saying!
Rob Pincus
New member
Okay, I already took back the pedophile comparison.. but my point was that we have to draw the line somewhere, often times the line is drawn at the point where one's chosen behavior causes harm to someone else.
My premise is that drug abuse does, very often, hurt people. Not just through crime caused by a drugs illegality or price, but directly through the loss of control which results from being drunk/stoned/high/etc. The loss of control, both physical and mental, is what I am concerned about.
The War on Drugs is not fighting a victimless crime, as many people often claim.
A gun, used properly, cannot adversely affect anyone except in defense.
An illegal drug used properly (or legal drug used improperly), adversely affects at least the user and often others as well.
I don't see how so many people can draw a comparison between the RKBA and the movement to legalize many drugs. To me it just doesn't exist.
To say that stopping the "War on Drugs" would result in a loosening of restrictions on gun owners is also a line of logic that I can't seem to follow.
Jared,
Do I think we should bring back prohibition? No.
But, I really don't see how people can have it both ways on the issue of Drugs vs. Alcohol. I mean, if we are going to say that Alcohol is a much bigger problem than drugs are... why should the conclusion be that we should treat drugs more like we treat alcohol? I would think that it should be vice-versa.
Being "Drunk in Public" is a relatively inconsequential crime... if it were treated more seriously, I think that Alcohol Abuse would drop. Furthermore, I think that any crime committed while one is drunk should carry a stiffer penalty.
The answer is not to take away alcohol, the answer is to get people to use it more responsibly...
Monkey,
I am not sure that there is a consensus. I was in the military, and I can assure you that LE is not being "Militarized" as much as it is being better equipped and trained to deal with violent criminals. Training an LEO to use an SMG does not mean you are training him to be a Green Beret. Training a group of LEOs to execute a dynamic entry is not the same as training them to be an Infantry Squad.
Someone brought up Community Policing grants... our dept has taken advantage of some of those grants and we haven't gotten any M-16s yet. This is some of what we have gotten:
1 Falcon RADAR unit
Hundreds of overtime hours for patrol in certain parts of the city.
1 Domestic Assault Investigator position
2-3 Bicycles for bike patrol.
We also have a Weed & Seed grant which subsidizes Officers living in "bad" neighborhoods for a certain period of time, and is curently covering the salary of one of our SGTs.
No black masks, no tanks.
The only thing our dept has in common with the military right now is that we don't have enough training ammo!
My premise is that drug abuse does, very often, hurt people. Not just through crime caused by a drugs illegality or price, but directly through the loss of control which results from being drunk/stoned/high/etc. The loss of control, both physical and mental, is what I am concerned about.
The War on Drugs is not fighting a victimless crime, as many people often claim.
A gun, used properly, cannot adversely affect anyone except in defense.
An illegal drug used properly (or legal drug used improperly), adversely affects at least the user and often others as well.
I don't see how so many people can draw a comparison between the RKBA and the movement to legalize many drugs. To me it just doesn't exist.
To say that stopping the "War on Drugs" would result in a loosening of restrictions on gun owners is also a line of logic that I can't seem to follow.
Jared,
Do I think we should bring back prohibition? No.
But, I really don't see how people can have it both ways on the issue of Drugs vs. Alcohol. I mean, if we are going to say that Alcohol is a much bigger problem than drugs are... why should the conclusion be that we should treat drugs more like we treat alcohol? I would think that it should be vice-versa.
Being "Drunk in Public" is a relatively inconsequential crime... if it were treated more seriously, I think that Alcohol Abuse would drop. Furthermore, I think that any crime committed while one is drunk should carry a stiffer penalty.
The answer is not to take away alcohol, the answer is to get people to use it more responsibly...
Monkey,
I am not sure that there is a consensus. I was in the military, and I can assure you that LE is not being "Militarized" as much as it is being better equipped and trained to deal with violent criminals. Training an LEO to use an SMG does not mean you are training him to be a Green Beret. Training a group of LEOs to execute a dynamic entry is not the same as training them to be an Infantry Squad.
Someone brought up Community Policing grants... our dept has taken advantage of some of those grants and we haven't gotten any M-16s yet. This is some of what we have gotten:
1 Falcon RADAR unit
Hundreds of overtime hours for patrol in certain parts of the city.
1 Domestic Assault Investigator position
2-3 Bicycles for bike patrol.
We also have a Weed & Seed grant which subsidizes Officers living in "bad" neighborhoods for a certain period of time, and is curently covering the salary of one of our SGTs.
No black masks, no tanks.
The only thing our dept has in common with the military right now is that we don't have enough training ammo!
Rob said:
"Do I think we should bring back prohibition? No."
Ok. We agree that prohibition failed against alcohol. So why do we think that prohibition will work any better against drugs? It hasn't so far, IMHO.
"But, I really don't see how people can have it both ways on the issue of Drugs vs. Alcohol. I mean, if we are going to say that Alcohol is a much bigger problem than drugs are... why should the conclusion be that we should treat drugs more like we treat alcohol? I would think that it should be vice-versa."
Ok. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Drugs are bad. Drugs are prohibited. Alcohol is bad. Alcohol should be prohibited. But didn't we already agree that prohibition didn't work?
"The answer is not to take away alcohol, the answer is to get people to use it more responsibly... "
Ok. So what's the answer for drugs? Our current answer is to take it away. Which gives rise to the drug gangs and the drug war, which has corrosive effects on our civil liberties. So, if, as you say, alcohol is a bigger problem than drugs, why should drugs be outlawed? If, as you say, the answer for alcohol is not to take it away but to get people to use it responsibly, then why shouldn't that be the same answer for drugs? Legalize it, tax it, regulate it, fund substance abuse counseling.
I'm sorry, but I think that you're the one who is being inconsistent on this.
Jared
"Do I think we should bring back prohibition? No."
Ok. We agree that prohibition failed against alcohol. So why do we think that prohibition will work any better against drugs? It hasn't so far, IMHO.
"But, I really don't see how people can have it both ways on the issue of Drugs vs. Alcohol. I mean, if we are going to say that Alcohol is a much bigger problem than drugs are... why should the conclusion be that we should treat drugs more like we treat alcohol? I would think that it should be vice-versa."
Ok. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Drugs are bad. Drugs are prohibited. Alcohol is bad. Alcohol should be prohibited. But didn't we already agree that prohibition didn't work?
"The answer is not to take away alcohol, the answer is to get people to use it more responsibly... "
Ok. So what's the answer for drugs? Our current answer is to take it away. Which gives rise to the drug gangs and the drug war, which has corrosive effects on our civil liberties. So, if, as you say, alcohol is a bigger problem than drugs, why should drugs be outlawed? If, as you say, the answer for alcohol is not to take it away but to get people to use it responsibly, then why shouldn't that be the same answer for drugs? Legalize it, tax it, regulate it, fund substance abuse counseling.
I'm sorry, but I think that you're the one who is being inconsistent on this.
Jared
I have many comments to make, however I'll just ask one question of you libertarians who want to legalize everything - explain to me how this will eliminate or even reduce gang violence, drive-by's, etc, etc. ???
Regulate it, tax it, great - you've just increased the price, and introduced the black market into the equation of your now legalized substances. Once you defer resources away from interdiction, do you really think the Columbian cartels (Coke, Pot) or the outlaw bikers (meth) or every other bathtub chemist out there is going to line up at the local tax office to pay up ?!?! Gimme a break ! You think CVS is going to put the Crips out of business ? C'mon now ! The only reason bootlegging of alcohol is not very prevalent is that you can't do it cheaper or better at home. Mass production has led to a consistent, quality, affordable product, tax or no tax.
As an added bonus, we'll see the GOV'T turn around and sue Merck in 20 yrs. because their pot gives people lung cancer.
Regulate it, tax it, great - you've just increased the price, and introduced the black market into the equation of your now legalized substances. Once you defer resources away from interdiction, do you really think the Columbian cartels (Coke, Pot) or the outlaw bikers (meth) or every other bathtub chemist out there is going to line up at the local tax office to pay up ?!?! Gimme a break ! You think CVS is going to put the Crips out of business ? C'mon now ! The only reason bootlegging of alcohol is not very prevalent is that you can't do it cheaper or better at home. Mass production has led to a consistent, quality, affordable product, tax or no tax.
As an added bonus, we'll see the GOV'T turn around and sue Merck in 20 yrs. because their pot gives people lung cancer.
- Status