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.
"We're from the gov'ment and we's here to help!"
___________________________________________________
In the words of Ronald Reagan, those are the 9 scariest words in the English language. Although his grammar was just slightly better than that.
"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)"
BS. The end of prohibition didn't end gangs, illegal alcohol or the profits. The feds slapped on a large tax and the black market thrives to this day. Same with cigs. Legalization doesn't take the profit out and doesn't take the crime out.
ROFL I never said it ended all gangs, illegal alcohol and all profit; but that doesn't mean it didn't cut down on all 3 tremendously with the repeal of alcohol prohibition or are you trying to re-write history?
For the longest time, I was against drug decriminilization. I've catigated Libertarians about being obsessed with drug legalization more than once.
Now, I'm no longer sure that legalization is a bad idea. __________________________________________________________
These Libertarian pings are really entertaining.
If my idol Milton Friedman was against the "War on Drugs", that's enough to interest me.
Thankfully, the only drugs that agree with me (alcohol and nicotine) are still legal.
I'm reading and learning here.
"Ounce of weed grown in my garden legally, probaly not more than a couple bucks"
What makes you think legalization would permit you to grow weed in your garden? You can't distill alcohol legally without jumping through federal hoops. Taxes would be heavy on legal drugs, thus a continued black market. Did you think you were the first person to think of do it yourself dope?
What % of the market for alcohol is illegal vs legal currently? I imagine marijuana would be similar. You fail to rationalize a huge reduction vs complete elimination which isn't possible under ANY ruleset today.
"Ounce of weed grown in my garden legally, probaly not more than a couple bucks"
You've obviously never grown your own weed, or at least none of any quality.
"What % of the market for alcohol is illegal vs legal currently? I imagine marijuana would be similar. You fail to rationalize a huge reduction vs complete elimination which isn't possible under ANY ruleset today"
Don't know the numbers on legal vs illegal alcohol, but taxes are high enough to make it still a highly profitible enterprise. Drugs nor any other black market will EVER be eliminated. The only hope for civilized people is to reduce the demand. Legalization won't do that
Keep living in a delusional world. I know about 2 people that can get me 'illegal' alcohol within the next month. Neither would make much if anything on it. I know about 50 people who could score marijuana tomorrow and make at least 1000% markup from the cost to make it. Your beliefs simply are not grounded in reality.
Keep deluding yourself. Local restaraunt/bar was burglarized and set ablaze recently. Arson investigators were surprised to find a storeroom full of untaxed liquor. Bootlegging ain't just white lightning,it's stolen, counterfeit and any number of illegal means. Go do another bong hit and have yourself a great case of munchies for Thanksgiving Day
Drugs nor any other black market will EVER be eliminated.
The repeal of alcohol prohibition eliminated 95% of the black market for alcohol and 95% of the crime violent crime that prohibition facilitated.
The only hope for civilized people is to reduce the demand. Legalization won't do that
...So Proclaims Chicken Little.
The federal government alone creates on average 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. Almost every person breaks more than just traffic laws several times each year -- business owners each month if not week. That's massive lawlessness. In spite of that year after year, decade after decade for over a century individuals and society have increasingly prospered.
In other words, increasing prosperity is the nature of conscious beings. That occurs without the supposed benefits of new laws to come the next year, five, ten, fifteen or twenty-five years down the road. Got that? In spite of massive lawlessness individuals and society increasingly prosper.
Meaning, most laws and regulations are useless at best and counter productive at worst. Yet Chicken Little cries for evermore laws and regulations as he tries to defend useless, counter-productive laws of past.
Reality check: 95++% of the population doesn't initiate force against persons or their property. The reason for that has nothing to do with politics or laws. It has everything to do with self-respect and respect of their fellow man. In short, the golden rule prevails in man's consciousness -- it's not derived from the State.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas
Since 1990 tobacco use has dropped 50%. Tobacco, specifically nicotine is highly addictive. How was the decrease accomplished? Education.
Exposing the WOD Hoax -- WOP (War On People)
The New LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) Promotional video:
"End Prohibition Now"
I don't think it would, Gubmint will want their share of the pie.
My example is to illustrate the ridiculous fact that prohibition leads to huge profits. IE 350$ oz weed.
Well yes, I indeed have. If citizens were allowed to grow and ingest that which they choose then I do believe it would not be worth more than a couple bucks.
Ever tried to sell excess Zuchini.:)
Control the border and you will control a lot of the drug problem. Put up a fence instead of kicking down doors.
Instead of a two-fer, Congress passed a law which was a feelgood measure with no requirements that the appropriations be spent constructing a physical barrier.
I think you meant "Fountainhead"
Bong? The only drug I do is alcohol. I've already offered the piss test challenge to another name calling moron with no facts and all derogatory word slinging. I'll do it to you as well.
I'll take a piss test ANY time you choose. I guarantee I'll come up clean. I'll bet the deed to my house I come up clean. The only caveat to you is that I require you hold the cup and when you lose you have to buy my dinner of my choosing.
You should be. Why, if someone breaks down your door is the onus on you to determine whether they have a "legal" right to be there before you commence firing? They have the responsibility to come up with some way of enforcing a search warrant without asking their employer (the homeowner) to risk his own safety by doing less to them than he would to anyone else who kicks in his door unannounced.
With the additional advantage that someone's Constitutional rights are very seldom violated by a drug treatment program in which someone else is enrolled.
So how do we get these people to go to drug treatment centers?
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.