Storm swirls around drug sweep

Charleston Post & Courier ^ | 11/11/03 | STEVE REEVES AND ALLISON L. BRUCE

[Cap'n Crunch]

LOL... I don't think people in this country will pull their guns. We'll just let them legislate us into slavery.

We'll slide and slither right down to Gamorrah.

[bc2]

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. MAYBE NEXT TIME THESE KIDS WILL THINK TWICE ABOUT BRINGING DRUGS TO SCHOOL. Oh, no drugs were found?

Liberty, we hardly knew ye...

[Skywalk]

You gonna stop buying diamonds too?

[philman_36]

No, I'm just tired of the cops getting the bum rap all the time on this forum.
And if they're deserving of that "bum rap"? What then? Should it all just be ignored and chalked up as "a simple mistake"?
I don't make it a habit myself of jumping on cops, or teachers, for what they do right. When cops do bad, or go bad, though...

[eno_]

...but believe every word from the media when its a story about cops

I'd believe the media more if they named the cops involved in the raid. The students get named. The school administrators get named. Not the cops. Funny that.

[philman_36]

Strange how people here never believe the media when they talk about republicans or conservatism but believe every word from the media when its a story about cops.
BTW, the key thing in any of these things is checking and verification. I don't believe "everything" the media says by a long shot. That is partly what is meant by thinking freely.

[robertpaulsen]

And what percentage of those "patented, marketed and issued with a prescription "legal" drugs" are used for recreational purposes? .0001%?

So what's your point?

Besides, legalizing all drugs includes "legalizing" prescription drugs (ie, making then as available as any other drug).

Big difference between a legal drug and a legal drug only available by prescription.

[Jack Black]

Your post is exactly why cops are in the schools, because no one thinks anyone can put a hand on their kid.

No one can "put a hand" on my child, except my wife or I. That is the law in our state. On a practical level I think that is a good law. On a personal level I was beaten by a psychopathic teacher in first grade, as were all the "bad boys" in my class, as had all the "bad boys" in her first grade for the two previous years. She was fired as a result of parents complaints, but hired by a nearby school district anyway. Thus, I would not support corporal punishment by teachers in general.

Despite this I have raised two daughters to ages 20 and 14 without either *needing* to be hit by anyone. Neither has been suspended, arrested, accused or participated in anything that concerned the school. The youngest is a straight A student.

My post is about what I consider the appropriate response of a concerned parent to out of control school administrators and police. My only concern, in such a situation would be to ensure it never happened again. What happened was very, very dangerous. An innocent child could easily have been shot by a police officer who mis-handled his weapon, mistook a pager for a gun, or what ever other excuse they commonly use.

My response to this really is probably not enough for you to speculate on my ability to raise kids, which I assure is is excellent!

[robertpaulsen]

So you're saying that even if a product is legal, buying that product still funds terrorism?

Well, no sense in legalizing drugs then, is there?

[robertpaulsen]

So you're saying that even if a product is legal, buying that product still funds terrorism?

Well, no sense in legalizing drugs then, is there?

[philman_36]

And what percentage of those "patented, marketed and issued with a prescription "legal" drugs" are used for recreational purposes? .0001%?
I have no way of knowing that and you don't either. I doubt if anybody does. Besides, that question would be a little hard to answer as nobody in their right mind would say that they wanted them for "recreational purposes". How many would answer it in the manner in which you're implying? .0001%?
Also, it is none of my damned business what the person wants to use them for as long as they don't do harm or damage to others!
So what's your point?
I made it and you still don't get it...
Besides, legalizing all drugs includes "legalizing" prescription drugs (ie, making then as available as any other drug).
How can something already legal, ie prescription drugs, be made more legal?
Big difference between a legal drug and a legal drug only available by prescription.
No kidding and you're absolutely right! A legal drug not needing a prescription would be an over the counter drug like aspirin, which can kill you, or a sinus medicine. A legal drug needing a prescription would be one like Desxyn, also known as methamphetamine.
I seem to have made my point again, which you'll probably miss again

[tacticalogic]

I had one once, but the wheels fell off.

[philman_36]

Oops...that's Desoxyn in case you're interested. Missed an "o".

[xrp]

Well, no sense in legalizing drugs then, is there?

I guess not! So looks like we need to outlaw gasoline, motor oil, plastics, etc.

[xrp]

Well, no sense in legalizing drugs then, is there?

Except for the fact the legalized and commercialized, thus cultivated, manufactured and sold by drug companies like Merck and Pfizer. This would create new jobs and also a new tax base to be taxed generating more revenue for the government and also removing the need for the tens of billions of dollars a year spent on fighting the WoD and allow federal law enforcement officers to focus on protecting Americans from terrorists rather than trying to protect them from themselves.

Protecting someone from themself is a battle that can never be won. I'd drill that into your head if I could, but I doubt then you'd still get the point. You'd rather still try to use government to force people to live their lives a certain way, send cops into schools to shakedown students, ransack innocent Americans' private properties in botched drug raids (oops, wrong address or bad tip! So sorry!) and even execute American citizens without trials.

[Travis McGee]

"or, perhaps more simply "this is not the USSR"."

It's getting closer.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Whew, took some digging but I found it. The title of the thread was "SWAT team quells high school "gangs"... posted on 9 14 2000 by gjeiii.

Same thing happened, someone posted a little bit of information and the knees started jerking.

I got a good laugh out of the thread though, brought back some memories.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I'm happy to hear that you raised your children to be respectful, upstanding members of society.

Sadly many don't. They give birth to them and release them into the wild.

They terrorize the schools that they can't be thrown out of and tell administrators and police to their faces that there is nothing that anybody can do to them.

It will take someone wiser than me to figure the mess out.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I just wish they'd put the cops side of the story before they put the complainants story. But I guess sensationalism sells newspapers.

We're taking another hit (the last one was about the cop ordering the 9 year old to the ground at gunpoint) in the paper today for "treating 8 year olds like criminals."

The reporting newspaper is a rag. After the incident with the 9 year old they printed an editorial on Sunday pretty much siding with the officer. Somehow they managed not to print a few things, like the mother having a warrant for her arrest, the toy gun spray painted to look more like a real gun, and probably most importantly, they didn't print the account of an older couple who was coming out of another store and saw the whole thing, siding with the officer that he never pointed his gun at the kid when he saw it was a child.

[eno_]

It isn't a matter of sensationalism. If cops involved in these raids were routinely named in newspapers, their names could be searched to see if they were involved in more than one such clusterf--k, to see if there is a pattern in their behavior.