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.
My prediction, and I'd be willing to bet a month's salary on it, is that someone got busted, had a couple of vicodin or some other class controlled drugs and told them they bought them from Granny for $20.00
The only thing that I'm surprised about is that they didn't assault her house with an APV and flash-bangs.
Excellent points. And at the same time the Gov't decrees that we're all competent to decide on other drugs (caffeine, cold medicines, herbal remedies, etc.).
Just the other day I was explaining to a friend that we often look for a reason, a logical rationale for why politicians create certain laws, many laws. But it's a fools journey because there's rational, logic or reason underpinning them. They merely create the illusion of logic and reason. It's surface logic. Sounds good until.... until a person digs deeper. The real reason, logic they create most laws is to justify their jobs and funding for their budgets. Mostly, it's to justify their unearned paychecks and unearned power and glory.
Seeing as it's all illusion of power and glory who or what holds real power? Well, 95++% of the people don't initiate force -- assault, theft fraud -- against other persons or their property. The reason is not political or because it's against the law. But rather, because they have respect for others and the nature of human consciousness abides the golden rule.
Despite almost every person breaking more than just traffic laws several times each year -- business owners each month if not week -- with that massive lawlessness persons and society have, year to year, decade after decade for over a century, increasingly. prospered.
The federal government alone creates on average 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. People and society increasingly prosper without the supposed benefits of future laws to come next year, five, ten twenty-five years away.
It should become obvious who has real power and earned paychecks and prestige. Their deflecting illusions are wearing ever thinner. Opposing directions, on the one hand there's more and more individuals waking up to the reality that they, themselves -- their conscious mind -- is the highest authority. Not the State. On the other hand the parasites -- politicians and bureaucrats gaining unearned power, prestige and paychecks off the backs of the real benefactors of society--the workers and entrepreneurs -- are increasingly more blatant in foisting their illusions on people.
The house of cards is collapsing with the momentum of a snowballing effect.
The key to survival is a persons ability to honestly/rationally answer these two questions:
Who is the value destroyer? Who is the value producer?
P.S. Think about the effects, consequences if next week the government was 100% successful in enforcing the WOD. Using the system they created. Hint: there's 40 million casual illicit drug users and 20 million regular illicit drug users.
This is what your "victimless crime" does to the rest of society, making it more un-civil, dangerous and expensive for the rest of us.
In almost every argument like this, an appeal for more socialism/authoritarianism is made because of the effects of earlier socialistic/authoritarian policies. Forcing others to pay for emergency medical care or welfare (socialist policies) is an excuse to enact still more authoritarian controls on the public.
It's a logical loop. Expose it, and expose the lie.
Easy on Wombat, please. He's intelligently discussing the issue.
"Legalizing some or all would minimize any drug turf war. End of fantasy 1. Fantasy 2 will take place any way because of the millions of illegals going to the hospitals for treatment with no insurance. Comon you can do better than that."
Faulty assumption, on both points.
You assume that once anything that falls under the category of "illicit" is legalized and taxed to death, nobody wants it anymore, and the problem solves itself. Well, this hasn't happened with booze and cigarettes and there's no evidence it ever will.
BTW, people get shot to death every day in this country over legal products, and somehow, you seem to have missed this. My father was an NYPD officer an ddetective for 24 years, and he could have told you all about people being shot over cigarettes (the Mob was big into "bootleg" cigarettes, a legal product!), or winos knifing each other over a bottle. Or even worse, kids killing each other for thei clothes and sneakers. The problem with drugs, SPECIFICALLY, is not that they incite violence by virtue of being "illegal"; it's that they incite violence by releasing the worst aspects of human nature.
243 great post. And some say I'm hard on politicians.
I love your signature.
I wasn't talking about guns. I was talking about your vaunted principles, like getting high -- even though it is against the law.
There was a similar movement (though not funded by that lover of liberty George Soros, like yours is) during the founders' day.
They thought it was wrong that making whiskey should be taxes (as a sin) whilst others were free to enjoy untaxed wine.
President Washington put his uniform back on, and together with a couple of other framers and 13,000 men (more than he ever headed in the Revolution, probably) -- and went after them.
He proclaimed that they should be hanged. These bravos fled into the woods.
And that's just one example.
"The house of cards is collapsing with the momentum of a snowballing effect."
LOL
Have another toke.
"Forcing others to pay for emergency medical care or welfare (socialist policies) is an excuse to enact still more authoritarian controls on the public."
Nothing of the sort enters my mind! Why is it when you speak about a more civol society, you're automatically advocating a Stalinist police state? Now who's engaging in hyperbole, Dead?
If it were left up to me, hard-core addicts would be left to die in the street. Those that want to break the habit will always find their own motivation, and should be encouraged, but you can't round them up and force them into rehab.
In the meantime, if the general consensus of society is that "drugs are bad (as Mr. Mackey would say), then they are. If the same consensus decides that police should be given the tools to interdict and disrupt (if not outright end) the drug trade, then they should have them.
When that consensus changes, and makes it's wishes known, then those powers should be taken away. But not before then.
A large portion of the profits are from the risk the sellers take in going to jail. Their will be profit but it will plummet. Just like gangs rose up during alcohol prohibition and then dropped off the face of the earth after, so too would be the case with the drug war. The drugs are everywhere and not THAT hard to get. Everyone I know who wants to use, does. Legalizing won't increase consumption will put an end to wasting billions every year on a failed WOD, put liberty back in its place and get rid of gangs and drug pushers in school (ever see the Budweiser man in middle school pushing alcohol? I have with cocaine)
"I love your signature."
Thank you. We aim to please here at Wombat Central.
It's called the Whiskey Rebellion and was probably this country's first example of how you should never question the power of the state, especially when it comes to taxes. Just ask Wesley Snipes.
The New LEAP Promotional video:
"End Prohibition Now"
"In four years we went from five founding police officers to a membership of over 5,000. We are no longer just police. Now LEAP is made up of police, parole, probation and corrections officers, judges, and prosecutors. We even have prison wardens, FBI and DEA agents who help make up our bureau of over 100 speakers. LEAP has members and supporters across the United States and in fifty-six other countries, which is fitting since U.S. drug policy has ramifications that affect the entire world.
LEAP presents to civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, as well as at public forums, but we target civic groups; Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, etc. The people in these organizations are conservative folks who mostly agree with the drug-warriors that we must continue the war on drugs at any cost. They are also very solid members of their communities; people who belong to civic organizations because they want the best for their locales. Every one of them will be voting in every election. Many are policy-makers and if they are not, they are the people who can pull the coat tails of policy-makers and say, "We have someone you must hear talk about drug policy."
After making more than two-thousand presentations where LEAP calls for the government to "end prohibition and legalize all drugs--legalize them so we can control and regulate them and keep them out of the hands of our children," we have discovered that the vast majority of participants in those audiences agree with us. Even more amazing is that we are now attending national and international law-enforcement conventions where we keep track of all those we speak with at our exhibit booth. After we talk with them, only 6% want to continue the war on drugs, 14% are undecided, and an astounding 80% agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition. The most interesting thing about this statistic is that only a small number of that 80% realized any others in law enforcement felt the same.
This also holds true for policymakers. In August 2005, five LEAP speakers staffed an educational booth at the National Conference for State Legislators in Seattle, Washington. We spoke with 450 of the 5,000 attendees on a one-on-one basis and 86% of them agreed that we should legalize drugs--only 4% wanted to continue the war and the other 10% were undecided. If we can show these legislators that they won't lose one more vote than they will gain by backing drug policy reform, they will end drug prohibition.
The way to do that is to show them LEAP has a huge membership. By November 2008, we want to be able to say we have ten thousand members of law enforcement calling for an end to drug prohibition and a MILLION private citizens who agree this is the correct policy." -- About LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
I should've said just ask Wesley "I'm never leaving Africa again in my entire life" Snipes.
Who would have hanged them? George Washington? He owned a HUGE pot farm.
"I have worked in government over 30 years. I found many times no matter how logical you make your point they all seem to get Alzheimer's on command."
Considering you planted this little gem of wisdom after holding ujp my reply to Dead as an apparent example, just what in the hell are you talking about?
Who's "they"?
Who's got "Alzheimer's on Command"?
Who said either your or Dead had made a logical point?
I see an awful ot of bile from you Phantom, but no logic. If you have an issue with me or my opinions, make your case, please, otherwise, I would appreciate you not use my words as some sort of foil for your stupidity.
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.