Posted on 11/22/2006 7:35:17 AM PST by Dick Bachert
Atlanta police went to a home on Neal Street in Atlanta last evening to execute a search warrant. When they kicked the door in the only occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, started shooting. She hit all three police officers. One in the thigh, one in the arm and another in the shoulder. All police officers will be OK. The woman will not. She was shot and killed by the police.
I'm not blaming the cops here. Not at all. They had a valid search warrant, and they say they were at the right address. Shots were fired, three cops hit, and they returned fire. A 92-year-old woman who was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she had burglar bars on every door and window, is now dead.
The blame lies on this idiotic drug war we're waging. We have all the studies we need, all of the comprehensive data is in. We can do a much more effective job of reducing drug use in this country if we'll just take a portion of this money we spend for law enforcement and spend it on treatment programs. A Rand study showed that we can reduce illicit drug usage in this country a specified amount through treatment programs at about 10% of the cost of reducing drug usage by that same amount through criminalization and law enforcement.
There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated. We think they're stupid and ignorant for getting mixed up with those drugs in the first place. And you know what? We're right? But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.
"probably this country's first example of how you should never question the power of the state, especially when it comes to taxes."
It was an example of how laws passed by the country's duly elected representatives should be obeyed, even if some people have objections based upon "high minded" (ahem) principles.
Our society has decided -- repeatedly so -- that it does not want to support drug addicts and the several generations of their progeny.
You lovers of liberty (funded by George Soros) want to take away our society's basic right to decide such things.
Who are the tyrants? Who is the Taliban?
P.S.:
""I have worked in government over 30 years."
Tells me just about all I need to know...
"Who would have hanged them? George Washington? He owned a HUGE pot farm."
All the crackpots have come out.
These threads are the roach motels of FR.
I called the prosecutor's office and said "Since you're currently working on this guy's sentencing guidelines for his recent extortion arrest, I thought you might want to know what I found in his apartment". She wasn't interested. So, I said "Seeing as this place is one block from a high school, do I still have to put his drug stuff (syringes, foil packets, etc. and KIDDIE PORN out on the street?". She said "I don't know, you have to ask your attorney". I said "WHAT????!!!!". She absolutely didn't care one bit! I said "Can I quote you on that?" She said "Yes". Sheesh!
Well to be honest wasn't George growing hemp??? Hemp ropes used to be the thing before they made mary jane illegal. It really does make some of the best rope.
Where does George Soros come into all of this? I think he's a piece of human excrement and he certainly doesn't fund me. That's a pretty lame ad hominem attack don't you think?? Plus you've posted it like 6 times, come up with some new material, you're boring me.
"The number of opiate addicts in the Netherlands — between 26,000 and 30,000 — is stable, and low compared to other EU countries (2.6 per 1,000 inhabitants in the Netherlands; 4.3 per 1,000 inhabitants in France; and 6.7 per 1,000 inhabitants in the United Kingdom)."
Source: Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 8.
The ratio of drug-related deaths in The Netherlands is the lowest in Europe.
Sources: Johnston, Philip, The Daily Telegraph, "International Conventions: UK Regime Among the Most Severe in Europe" (London, England: The Daily Telegraph, March 31, 2000.), and van Dijk, Frans, and de Waard, Jaap, "Legal Infrastructure of the Netherlands in an International Perspective: Crime Control" (The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice Directorate of Strategy Development, June 2000).
According to "Netherlands Drug Situation 2000," a report prepared for the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, "Cannabis is by far the most popular illicit drug in the Netherlands. The total number of cannabis users in the Netherlands is estimated at some 320,000. The estimated number of cannabis dependent persons may vary between 30,000 and 80,000. Until 1996 cannabis use showed a steep increase among pupils. However, between 1996 and 1999 prevalence rates stabilised. Prevalence rates of hard drugs, such as cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy and opiates are much lower. Use of these drugs also stabilised among pupils. Changes in policies, availability, attitude or lifestyle have been put forward to explain these trends but the precise factors remain to be determined. Drug use is higher certain subpopulations [sic], including visitors to house-parties, discotheques and cafes (particularly ecstasy), young people with multiple psychosocial problems and (juvenile) delinquents in judicial institutions. There are indications that cocaine sniffing is increasing among 'outgoing' youth in Amsterdam. The number of opiate addicts is estimated at between 25,000 and 29,000. Most of these users also consume other substances. Cocaine is becoming the main drug in smal networks of (young) marginalised drug users."
Source: Report to the European Monitoring Center on Drugs and Drug Addiction by the Reitox National Focal Point of The Netherlands, Trimbos-institut, "Netherlands Drug Situation 2000" (Netherlands: Trimbos and EMCDDA, December 2000), p. 6.
According to a report in the British Medical Journal in September of 2000, "Cannabis use among Dutch schoolchildren aged 10-18 years has fallen for the first time in 16 years, a national survey of risk behaviour among 10,000 young people has shown." The story notes that according to Trimbos, the Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction ( www.trimbos.nl ), "about one in five young people had used cannabis at some point in their lives but less than a tenth had used it in the previous four weeks ("current users")."
Source: Sheldon, Tony, "Cannabis use falls among Dutch youth," British Medical Journal (London, England: September 16, 2000), vol. 321, p. 655.
Yes, he was - and it does. That's why we had a "Plant HEMP for VICTORY" campaign in WWII. But also note that the Fed doesn't distinguish between the two, under our current laws - so GW was, by federal definition, a drug dealer.
bump
Actually, it wasn't for me...it's for the weekend social/recreational drug addict.
Do you really think most of us libertarians on here do drugs? Are you that naive? Care to take a urine sample? I'll provide one anytime you want and bet my house on it that it will always come up clean. The only caveat to you is that I require that you hold the cup.
He pointed out that there is an extreme lack of information being presented.
The article makes an assertion that the police are completely at fault, without substantiating that accusation.
He asks for more information, points out the obvious holes in the information that's been presented, and points out that the facts might very well point to the woman not being as innocent as she's made out to be, but the comment is conditioned on needing more information.
You jump in and insist that the person who is asking for more information needs to prove what he's asking for more information about so he can form a reasoned opinion on the situation.
Of course he can't prove it or disprove it. That's why he's asking for more information.
You're very concerned that he might deduce that she's a drug dealer on the basis that there was a no-knock warrant served on her address, yet you appear to have no problem with the accusations that these police officers burst in on her without cause and without properly identifying themselves without any evidence provided.
It doesn't appear to bother you that they are basically being accused of murder under the color of law, and he shouldn't dare ask things like if the address was correct, and sufficient evidence was provided to get a no-knock warrant, were drugs found? Was she involved?
You are correct that we shouldn't assume her guilt or innocence based on the information provided. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't question the situation the author depicts and propose different scenarios as possibilities.
How's your aim???
I love this land, I love liberty, I served many years as a soldier, I still serve in a civilian capacity - and I find you and your ilk a greater danger than terrorists. You are blinded, sir, to reality, and wish to impose your phantasies on the rest of us.
In short, you are a democrat.
"It's all propaganda to insure they have a large enough force on hand to CONTROL it's citizens."
As if the citizens are sufficiently conditioned already?
We're numbered, catalogged, enumerated, registered, folded, spindled and mutilated from the time we're born, and when it isn't government that does these things (like assigning social security numbers and issuing various licenses), we're doing it for ourselves (giving out our e-mail adress willy-nilly, or voluntarily providing information to our banks, insurance companies and credit card issuers). By the way, this trend towrads centralization oif information by governments has been with Western Civilization since the beginning of time. It's simply just more efficient now than it was in the time of the Domesday Book.
You assume that at some point there will come a day when the US Government will turn on it's citizens and that there is no way we will survive the process. True, in some rgards: I can't defend against Predator drones, cruise missiles and nuclear submarines, but I'm also not totally convinced that all law-enforcement/military types are mind-numbed robots who blindly follow orders, either.
They have families too, you know. And if ordered to do something that seemed strange to them, I could promise you that a great many of them would think about it and the consequences, before they did it. In fact, a good many of them would refuse to simply obey without clarification or explanation. So, your "the government is out to get us" theory has a series of logical flaws in it.
But then again, you've worked for the government for 30 years....
By the way, why do you continue working (are you still a government employee?) for an organization you are dead certain is plotting your doom?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.