[7thOF7th]

The Substance was the impetus for the act sir! Under the current conditions and laws this contraband will always provoke people to violence to get possession of it. Hence, it possess a risk to the community. I submit that YOU are the one who is blinded by your own desire to assert that MJ in innocuous. If it became legal tomorrow I would not care one bit and maybe it should never have been made illegal but that is our lawmakers fault and not law enforcement.

You don't know me and you have no idea about my ideology. All you think you know about me is my position on the need to protect and defend law abiding citizens. Reality is what I live by everyday, your obfuscation of reality is what has predicated your ill informed position.

[Know your rights]

The Substance was the impetus for the act sir!

Ditto for robberies of jewelry stores ... I guess you want to ban those too.

[Know your rights]

The Substance was the impetus for the act

Come to think of it, this is another argument for legalization: legalization would slash the price, thus the Substance would no longer be the impetus for the act of robbery.

[coloradan]

The Substance was the impetus for the act sir! Under the current conditions and laws this contraband will always provoke people to violence to get possession of it.

You just contradicted yourself ... if "current conditions and laws" "will always provoke people to violence" to get it, then it is the laws and not the substance itself that provokes violence. Unless you consider violence to be an objective good, you should oppose these laws that you yourself state are what provoke it.

Hence, it possess a risk to the community.

No, "current conditions and laws" are what provoke the violence, and so possess the risk to the community.

I submit that YOU are the one who is blinded by your own desire to assert that MJ in innocuous.

I don't think it's innocuous, and never stated so. What I have implied before, and will explicitly state now, is that the drug war is far more harmful than the drugs it has been waged to eliminate. (And, the war hasn't even done that.)

If it became legal tomorrow I would not care one bit and maybe it should never have been made illegal but that is our lawmakers fault and not law enforcement.

I half agree. It is the legislators fault for passing bad laws, but LE also bears responsibility for the way in which the war is waged. Separation of powers demands that police have the discretion to not enforce, and that the judiciary not prosecute (and, that juries not convict) or otherwise, all the power rests with the legislative branch and none anywhere else.

You don't know me and you have no idea about my ideology.

That is true. What I do know, however, is that you bend over backwards to defend the thuggish behavior of the police power, even in very questionable cases. I don't know what else I need to know about you in order to take issue with your statements. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

All you think you know about me is my position on the need to protect and defend law abiding citizens.

If you think sending in paramilitary assault squads in the middle of the night into residential communities, somehow serves to "protect and defend" them, I will stand by my above comments. Thanks but no thanks, I think society will be better protected and defended without that kind of "protection." And I think there is plenty of evidence that when governments wage war against their own citizens, very, very bad things happen.