Re: What it is llike to be a drug cop

Thread has been splitted into sub-pages:     1      2      ›      »   

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:05 GMT, "Hempman"
wrote:

>
>"Peter H. Proctor"
>>
>> Not all of them are lies. Remember, "its for the children",
>> which justifies even marginal benefits. E.g., one LEO here
>> argues that, were it not for drug law enforcement, druggies would be
>> leaving used contaminated needles all over for the kids to step on.
>> And, there is no way to control this short of full prohibition.

>All you've done is demonstrate two of the biggest lies that prohibitionists
>spout. It doesn't make it the truth. An error does not become truth by
>reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody
>will see it.

Again, I learn that sarcasm doesn't work well on usenet....

>
>You just prove my point that prohibition is based on lies and that drug cops
>have to lie all the time to justify their jobs, even to themselves.

The shrinks call it "rationalization". People always like to think
they are the Good Guys and will go thru all sorts of mental gymnastics
to convince themselves of this. Again, its for the children....

Dr P

>

Peter H. Proctor wrote in message news:...

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:05 GMT, "Hempman"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter H. Proctor"
> >>
> >> Not all of them are lies. Remember, "its for the children",
> >> which justifies even marginal benefits. E.g., one LEO here
> >> argues that, were it not for drug law enforcement, druggies would be
> >> leaving used contaminated needles all over for the kids to step on.
> >> And, there is no way to control this short of full prohibition.
>
> >All you've done is demonstrate two of the biggest lies that prohibitionists
> >spout. It doesn't make it the truth. An error does not become truth by
> >reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody
> >will see it.
>
> Again, I learn that sarcasm doesn't work well on usenet....
> >
> >You just prove my point that prohibition is based on lies and that drug cops
> >have to lie all the time to justify their jobs, even to themselves.
>
> The shrinks call it "rationalization". People always like to think
> they are the Good Guys and will go thru all sorts of mental gymnastics
> to convince themselves of this. Again, its for the children....

As opposed to being irrational Doc? Too funny DOC, you're he one who
keeps holding yourself up as the high and almighty Doc with degrees
who has never spent a day on the street as a L.E.O. But I guess you
must be the only MD in the country? No it's for the children and for
those who have crimes perpetrated
against them by the losers aka dopers, because they are dopers. We put
them in jail to keep crime down. Guess what DOC you went to college
you know about psychoogical studies and how they use research and
Statistics right? Statistics say we've decresed crime substantialy and
locked up more dopers putting them away. Draw your own conclusions
DOC.

> Dr P
> >

CPK

Peter H. Proctor wrote in message news:...

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:15:34 -0700, The_right_wing@truth.com wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:30:07 -0500, Peter H. Proctor
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:40:43 GMT, "Hempman"
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Not all of them are lies. Remember, "its for the children",
> >>which justifies even marginal benefits. E.g., one LEO here
> >>argues that, were it not for drug law enforcement, druggies would be
> >>leaving used contaminated needles all over for the kids to step on.
> >>And, there is no way to control this short of full prohibition.
>
> >So a few needles and a few kids is OK? Just what is the tolerable limit in
> >your opinion?
>
> In the real world, there is a cost for everything. And
> every policy has unintended consequences, which become particularly
> important when potential gains are minimal. What is the tolerable
> limit for children drowned in 5-gallon pickel barrels ? There are
> always a few dozen every year. Or drownings in bathtubs and swimming
> pools, roughly 1200 a year or so. All of these totally unnecessary.

People getting into pools or bathtubs aren't out perpetrating crimes
on innocent victims Doc. Like Addicts are. Don't give me that because
it's too expensive crap either because most of the ones (addicts)
perpetrating crimes are on drugs wile they commit them and don't have
jobs. Not to mention cvrack is cheaper than cigarettes and alcohol. So
let's get more people high and have more addicts commiting crimes
because they have no other way to support their habit. While we're on
the subject since Cocaine is so safe as you claim, how much have you
snorted? If not do tell us all why...Enlighten us. Also tell us tat
Cocaine doesn't ave any long term effects including aggressive
paranoia makng te user dangerous. Go ahead Toxicologist/Pharmaclogist
let's see you refute all the other studies done by other quaified
medical personell.

> There is also the issue of maximum use of resources. If
> kiddies stepping on needles is the real issue, perhaps measures
> directed at this are more appropriate than blanket prohibition. A
> military maxim holds that "he who attempt to defent everything,
> defends nothing."

It defends our populous from criminal addicts. That's a given as the
crime statistics show it.! Our use of law enforcement is keeping
people safer from the selfish miscreants

> Dr P

CPK

wrote in message
news:6f261d02.0306271104.70f6923f@posting.google.com...

> Peter H. Proctor wrote in message

news:...

> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:05 GMT, "Hempman"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Peter H. Proctor"
> > >>
> > >> Not all of them are lies. Remember, "its for the

children",

> > >> which justifies even marginal benefits. E.g., one LEO here
> > >> argues that, were it not for drug law enforcement, druggies would be
> > >> leaving used contaminated needles all over for the kids to step on.
> > >> And, there is no way to control this short of full prohibition.
> >
> > >All you've done is demonstrate two of the biggest lies that

prohibitionists

> > >spout. It doesn't make it the truth. An error does not become truth by
> > >reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because

nobody

> > >will see it.
> >
> > Again, I learn that sarcasm doesn't work well on usenet....
> > >
> > >You just prove my point that prohibition is based on lies and that drug

cops

> > >have to lie all the time to justify their jobs, even to themselves.
> >
> > The shrinks call it "rationalization". People always like to think
> > they are the Good Guys and will go thru all sorts of mental gymnastics
> > to convince themselves of this. Again, its for the children....
>
> As opposed to being irrational Doc? Too funny DOC, you're he one who
> keeps holding yourself up as the high and almighty Doc with degrees
> who has never spent a day on the street as a L.E.O.

Oh, puh-leeze! That tired old "unless you've walked a mile in my shoes"
garbage is a ridiculous ploy.

On 6/27/03 9:20 PM, in article
6f261d02.0306271120.319ebf4c@posting.google.com, "cpk197@aol.com"
wrote:

>
> People getting into pools or bathtubs aren't out perpetrating crimes
> on innocent victims Doc. Like Addicts are.

All addicts? Including drunks, Chain smokers and prescription junkies?
This assumes that all use equals abuse.

If that is so, why not just eliminate the verb to use?

> Don't give me that because
> it's too expensive crap either because most of the ones (addicts)
> perpetrating crimes are on drugs wile they commit them and don't have
> jobs.

Evidence, please?
This is illogical and misplaced.

Alcohol is the -only- drug known to -cause violent behavior.

> Not to mention crack is cheaper than cigarettes and alcohol.

How can that be? With all those cops running all over?

> So
> let's get more people high and have more addicts commiting crimes
> because they have no other way to support their habit.

1. Assumes that more people will use under a non-prohibition. Not true.
2. Assumes that all drug users eventually end up as vegetables. Also not
true.

> While we're on
> the subject since Cocaine is so safe as you claim, how much have you
> snorted?

According to research by the Dutch Government, cocaine use does not become
problematic until its use exceeds 2 1/2 grams per week.

> If not do tell us all why...Enlighten us.

Say less than 10 grams total. Not my style. Now give me a sheet of acid.
;-)

> Also tell us tat
> Cocaine doesn't ave any long term effects including aggressive
> paranoia makng te user dangerous.

Since there are hundreds of thousands of cops who are -actually- out to get
the cocaine user, a certain amount of paranoia is understandable when using
coke.

One more reason to relegalize: This attribute of cocaine is -entirely- due
to the fox hunt for cocaine users.

Take away the fox hunt, and you have some people with a medical problem, and
a lot of other people who are uninvolved, remain uninvolved.

> Go ahead Toxicologist/Pharmaclogist
> let's see you refute all the other studies done by other quaified
> medical personell.

One doesn't need to be a doctor to refute the above with ease.

This took me all of ten minutes.


EJ

"flick" wrote in message
news:7HdLa.656$8X3.200616095@twister1.starband.net...

> "Yardpilot" wrote in message
> news:Kh4La.37865$3d.20587@sccrnsc02...
>
> > Oh, puh-leeze! That tired old "unless you've walked a mile in my shoes"
> > garbage is a ridiculous ploy.
>
> and it's equally ridiculous when Dr. Proctor uses it.
>
> Booger flick 100785
> admitted prohibitionist nose picker
>

Then why do you morons insist on using that meaningless bit of drivel?

cpk197@aol.com wrote:

neither are most drug users - surprise! despite ramping up the arrest rate
during the 90's, by 1999 only 4 percent of past year pot smokers got arrested.
the rest? oops, they didn't commit an offense against an unwilling other (you
know, a "crime") and they didn't have the misfortune of being caught in
possession the "wrong" kind of plant material. the miscreants!


"crack is cheaper than cigarettes and alcohol"? ever heard of someone paying $5
for a cigarette?


oops, you have the wrong information again. most people who get high are
already not committing crimes. as to the cost to support the habit, when (not if
-- so sorry) drugs are re-legalized, they will sell for a lot less money. if
they cost a lot less, then why will there be *more* people committing crimes to
get money for their drugs?

why should the drugs be selling for up 170 times their "real" market value?

how does your scenario of cheaper drugs with more users cause more people to
commit crimes?


not a whole lot -- not my cup of tea. i'm not into stimulants.


the crime statistics show that violent and property crimes have declined, while
arrests for drug possession (especially marijuana) have escalated dramatically.

more arrests have *not* put significant numbers of pot smokers in jail, however,
leaving them free to rape and pillage until they get caught.

the net effect of all this is that drug usage has remained flat for the entire
1990's.

most drug users don't commit crimes, but certainly some criminals use drugs.
criminals also drink coffee and eat bread.

of course it's good to arrest people who commit crimes -- but why make a "crime"
out of doing something to yourself? what sort of activities can we punish you
for?

i say we focus on punishing people who do things to unwilling others. real
simple.

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.

visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com

You can learn a lot from a teacher:
http://www.teachersagainstprohibition.org/

Ask these former drug warriors:
http://www.leap.cc/main.htm