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.
Every thread.
Ten? Why not 11? Why not 100? Wouldn't his statement be equally true? Isn't it better to have 100 guilty persons escape than to have one innocent suffer? Surely you'd agree with that?
How about 1000? 10,000? Where would YOU draw the line? 1,000,000?
When it comes to dope they don't really care about the "one innocent"; they just want all of the guilty to escape.<<<<<
Exactly. They claim to want only what the forefathers wanted, which they believe was to let everyone do their own thing without consequence. They come across as extremist vigilante whack jobs or dopers who just want to use cheaply without having to skulk around.
It's ironic, the ones who equate all LE with stormtroopers who revel in killing little old ladies or snatching houses from innocents give fodder to the anti-gun legislators who don't believe the average citizen can handle owning a gun.
Correct. You said, "(Legalizing will) ... get rid of gangs".
rofl that.
Legal medical marijuana in Californis goes for $450/oz.
So much for your theory.
WHAT argument? You've admitted that ending the WOD would have no effect on either crime families or the black market, just as legalizing alcohol had no effect on them.
Give me the federated republic we had in 1787, the limited federal government we had back then, and the U.S. Constitution we had in place, and even I, robertpaulsen, might reconsider the drug issue.
Ie; either provide a more accurate link or stop posting to me troll.
http://wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=44304&provider=top
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10374909/detail.html
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2006/11/22/1123metshot.html
From the last one:
The basis for the search warrant was not known because State Court Administrator Stefani Searcy refused to release a copy of the warrant Wednesday. State law considers all such documents public record but Searcy cited "office policy" as her reason for withholding the warrant.
So much for cops obeying the laws. Also, lab tests on the "suspected narcotics" are still out. More than likely, it was either Able's heart medication or freakin baking soda.
So are you saying that alcohol should be illegal?
I'm saying that legalizing drugs will not rid our society of the gangs who sell them. We legalized alcohol, and the gangs switched to other illegal ventures, drugs among them.
It would not eliminate all of the gangs, but I am sure it would eliminate a lot of them. There are very few illegal activities that are as lucrative as drugs.
"Give me the federated republic we had in 1787, the limited federal government we had back then, and the U.S. Constitution we had in place, and even I, robertpaulsen, might reconsider the drug issue."
The Constitution is still there, being given lip service only, these days, but it's there. Working together we can reduce fedgov to its former size and power. Then we can restore the Republic we once had. Remember, it WON'T HAPPEN until we take the first steps. So now what's your excuse?
Ending the war on some drugs will at least get FEDGOV on the right track, if not get totally rid of the gangs right away. It WILL begin restoration of the Constitution with its limitations on government. Isn't that what you pretend to want? So, again, what's your excuse for wanting to continue the abomination known as the war on drugs?
You have been known to ask where the Constitution grants people the right to put things into their own bodies. I am telling you, that is the WRONG question. The Constitution limits GOVERNMENT, not We, the People. That is what made it unique on the Earth. So the question needs to be: Where does the Constitution specifically grant government the authority to ban one single stinking thing? The correct answer is: NOWHERE. (If you try to say that the Commerce Clause covers that, I will come over to your house and barf all over your keyboard. The Founders covered that specifically in their writings, telling us for all time what their intent was.)
Red herring. 99%+ of pot arrests are made under state laws.
So? And why do you ignore the rest of the post, Roscoe? Not to mention that whenever a State steps out of the Washington line, they get hammered down by the feds.
So?
So even if all of the federal pot possession arrests were eliminated, the number of arrests would still be 99%+ of what they are today. So much for your hyperventilating.
Not to mention that whenever a State steps out of the Washington line, they get hammered down by the feds.
Sourceless bloviation.
You would equate what goes on in CA as a free market system. AH yea.
Maybe you could enlighten me as to why my growing a weed could possibly lead to costs like 350$ an oz.
Again, how much money can you get for those excess zuchini.
First of all, who says that it will be legal to grow your own if marijuana is legalized? The government's going to want their piece, you know.
Second, although the 5% of the population that smokes marijuana wants it cheap, who says the other 95% do? Using cigarettes as an example, I can easily see the price being driven artificially high to discourage teen use.
"So much for your hyperventilating."
Actually, I gave up hyperventilating a whole long time ago. And as for "Sourceless bloviation," I bow to your expertise in bloviating. I notice it virtually every time you post, so as far as I can see, you are the unchallenged master at bloviating. I am humbled that you would even begin to equate me with you.
Here in beautiful, off-the-track a lot, Cali, we, the People, passed a Medical Marijuana law some years ago. No sooner had we done that than the Feds stepped in and started busting growers and users both. You surely recall, as you inhabited the threads about those cases as they were reported... full of glee, you were, you and your cohorts of evil. Same thing when Fedgov spent many taxpayer dollars fighting the Nevada initiative. Remember? Sure you do... so you KNOW what I said is hardly sourceless. But that's you, isn't it, Roscoe? Lie your butt off and hope no one notices. Yes, you're one of the world's champion bloviators, Roscoe, and the whole of FR (minus the other brain-rotted WODDIES) knows it. It's a pity, really, because all the energy you expend trying to defend the indefensible could be used to help dismantle the welfare state and shrink government back to its Constitutional limits. But I suspect that's NOT what you really want, is it, Roscoe? Be honest here, you LIKE big government, because without it you might have to dig deep to find a marketable skill, right? Because thuggery only goes so far in a free society... like just barely to your own doorstep.
Which contained the following ballot statement by the Proposition's proponents:
MARIJUANA WILL STILL BE ILLEGAL FOR NON-MEDICAL USEYou and facts are like oil and water.Proposition 215 DOES NOT permit non-medical use of marijuana. Recreational use would still be against the law. Proposition 215 does not permit anyone to drive under the influence of marijuana.
Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws.
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.