This is interesting.

Powderman said:
The use of peyote and the datura root for ceremonies is long established. However, we never made a practice of becoming whacked out on the stuff on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're aware that the law does not distinguish between, shall we say, "casual" use vs abuse.

Powderman said:
As for cocaine use in the last century, you're a bit dated. If you ever check into a hospital for EENT surgery, guess what's put on the small blood vessels to keep them from bleeding? That's right, 99.9% pure Cocaine Hydrochloride, USP.
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly aware of medical uses of both cocaine and opiates.

Sulaco attacked everyone who was pro-drug-legalization as "druggies," presumably because everyone who wants drugs legal uses drugs, and everyone who uses drugs at all must be a "druggie." I was pointing out that a lot of people, including generally respected people, used to use drugs when they were legal, and I was wondering if he considered all of them "druggies" as well.
 
Sulaco2 said:
When did the TFL be come a pro drug forum anyway? Ya I know its the politic site but still how did this thread become hyjacked by the drugies. Seems to happen more and more recently.
Click to expand...

Wait...I don't support the "War on Drugs" so I'm a druggie? I guess I better call up my recruiter and let him know that I can't ship for RTC (Recruit Training Command) in 13 days since I'll fail the drug tests I have to take even though I've never touched anything other than alcohol (and I hardly have any of that.)

Sulaco2 said:
Not to mention the super drugs that have showed up in the last 15 like crack and meth. Drug use affects EVERYONE to state other wise is a lie.
Click to expand...

Alcohol abuse also seems to affect everyone. Maybe it should be prohibited...oh, wait wasn't that tried in the 1930s and failed horribly? Maybe it's because people focused on an object and not the user? Hey, that sounds almost like "gun control" legislation...

I would also hypothosize the reason "super drugs" are appearing is because people are unable to get the drugs they want and create new concoctions. Kinda like bathtub gin?

Sulaco2 said:
Powerman how would you write legislation that would violate the "rights" of a class of people based on employment? How bout bus drivers or those driving cars at 70 MPH or fly private planes or ride motorcycles....I thought the use was harmless and a "natural right" not to be denied. And we never did get that cuppu did we?
Click to expand...

I agree that Powderman's proposed legislation seems less then ideal to me (why not just leave it to the employers to screen and fire their employees?)

However, I must point out that any "full fledged" adults of 21 years of age or older can, usually, legally drink any amount of alcohol before performing those tasks you listed, but it doesn't make it any less stupid or reckless. So why should alcohol be permitted, but not other drugs?

I would also think that driving is probably a great deal more dangerous compared to getting high on clean, non-cut drugs assuming the subject doesn't overdose; amusingly enough (to me) many people seem to consider driving to be a "natural right."

To get back to the original story, I find it disturbing that the detective lied and went on a fishing expedition. Such measures seem to me to go against investigative procedures and damaging to the public's general perception of the police, but I readily admit I have no data or experience to back up my claims.
 
There was a TV Show on several years ago that used a catch phrase that pretty much sums it all up.

"If you cain't do the time, don't do the crime". (Baretta)
 
Last edited:
Wait...I don't support the "War on Drugs" so I'm a druggie? I guess I better call up my recruiter and let him know that I can't ship for RTC (Recruit Training Command) in 13 days since I'll fail the drug tests I have to take even though I've never touched anything other than alcohol (and I hardly have any of that.)
Click to expand...

Oh, you haven't heard? They're letting a bunch of stuff slide these days, seems they're short on men. While your CO might give you a little bit of a hard time for it, being a little dirty isn't something that merits a mandatory trip to the brig (like in the good ole days). Now, how bad your CO is and how 'dirty' you come back are probably determining factors, but generally speaking, uncle sam isn't being as picky as he used to be when it comes to getting people to the fronts...
 
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
FOURTH AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I start to believe that citizens of the United States think the Constitution was written to only protect criminal activity from government scruitny. It was in fact written for the benefit of private citizens to prevent government incursion into our private lives. Over the years I can't count how many times I've heard someone say: "I don't have anything to hide. The cops can search anything they want". The fourth amendment was written for us. We the people. It doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide. Anytime a cop asks permission to search your vehicle, your home or you, just tell them "Sure, just as soon as you show me a warrant." They are not there to be your neck hugging buddy. They just want you to ignore YOUR constitutional rights under the 4th amendment and make life easier for them. A good cop will understand and the rest don't matter. If only criminals exercise their constitutional rights then we don't need it at all. The more citizens refuse to exercise this right the sooner it will be lost; along with the rest of our rights.

No, you hit a nerve with people who thought the line "pursuit of happyness" wasn't a joke and included in the declaration for good reason.
Click to expand...

I'm not attempting to be trite or cute and I certainly mean no offense but...we may have the "right" to pursue "happiness" but their is not guarantee or right that we will catch it.
 
Esquire M Busterbury...I mean, look at the netherlands. They must surely be in utter chaos, with their right to go about & do as they please...The NERVE of some people!
Click to expand...

In 1976, the Netherlands decriminalised possession of soft drugs such as cannabis. To cater for demand, outlets quickly cropped up in around the country, specifically in the capital, Amsterdam.
Technically, the sale of cannabis remains an offence in Holland, and dealing in the streets remains illegal. Even so, possession of less than 30 grams for personal use carries only a minor punishment, and coffee shops are restricted to flogging no more than five grams per person.
Coffee houses don't take kindly to punters who come in looking for something other than weed. Why? Because drug policy in the Netherlands makes a broad distinction between hard and soft drugs. Their tolerance towards soft drugs such as cannabis basically frees them up to devote more effort to counter the trade in harder substances like heroin and cocaine, and maintain addiction recovery programmes. It means no legitimate coffee shop will supply or even stock anything other than hash, so don't ask.
Click to expand...

http://www.thesite.org/travelandfreetime/travel/beingthere/amsterdamdruglaws- this links for you Esquire

Just FYI. Saw lots of drunks and druggies in the military. Sent a lot home in body bags...but what the hell they felt no pain and were dead before they knew they were hit. It ain't about your "right" to indlulge in the drug of your choice. It's about having a clear mind and a keen eye when the time comes to defend yourself with a firearm.
 
Get rid of the drug war and a lot of these sticky issues go away.
Click to expand...
(in a whiny voice) but but how else will we become a police staaate. ;)

IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME DON'T DO THE CRIME!
Click to expand...
Exactly Jews in Germany shouldn't have been Jews unless they were willing to pay the consequences! (sarcasm off)
 
Actually I was referring to those who's whole life focus seems to be getting drugs, thinking about drugs and talking to others about drugs while claiming some kind of lofty debate and attackaing anyone who might get in the way of that agenda wheither on TFL or on the street. If your not one, then the term does not apply to you I would think. As to booze its "legal" because the majority of citizens decided through the democratic process to make it so. The majority of citizens now are much less sangine about hard drugs because like me they have to often had to scrape up the results from the streets. Convince them and change the laws and you will be on your way. But don't start attacking those that disagree and will fight against it and then claim to be a victim.
 
Umm, you're the one who said,
Sulaco2 said:
Ya I know its the politic site but still how did this thread become hyjacked by the drugies.
Click to expand...
Could you kindly point out one of these alleged "druggies" so that he or she may defend his or her honor?
 
Exactly Jews in Germany shouldn't have been Jews unless they were willing to pay the consequences! (sarcasm off)
Click to expand...
And of course the obligatory credibility killing Nazi reference.

Trying to anoint drug users and dealers and other common street criminals who choose that lifestyle with the same victim status as those persecuted for their religion is ridiculous
 
Knowingly & voluntarily is not the same thing as voluntarily. Knowingly implies full disclosure. Voluntarily standing alone could embrace deception, coercion or fear. Let's add knowingly to the phrase!;)

This doesn't need a supreme court decision. It can be stapled to your forhead on a local level. Ask me how I know. As it tured out, It would have been a felony for me (or any citizen) to lie to the police, but just 'in the course of their duties' for an officer to lie to a citizen.

Quote by the CSPD; "Officers are allowed to say anything they want to, to further their investigation and get someone to do what they want them to do"

I kept my word. They did not. It wont happen again.
 
And of course the obligatory credibility killing Nazi reference.

Trying to anoint drug users and dealers and other common street criminals who choose that lifestyle with the same victim status as those persecuted for their religion is ridiculous
Click to expand...
I was trying to make a point that just because its a crime doesn't mean that its wrong or that you should go to jail for doing it. sorry maybe I should have made reference to something else to get my point across.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top