Re: What it is llike to be a drug cop

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

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:53:08 -0400, "Tom Huxton"
wrote:

>Things may be different there in New York. Here in Michigan we can see the damage that drugs cause.

The drug trade, not drugs per se, which don't cause many problems in
medical use.....

>I'm not taking about your personal grass use; I mean the death and social damage which all revolves
>around the drug trade.

Just like with alcohol prohibition. These days, alcohol retailers
settle their disputes in court.

> A young person with a $100 (or more) daily drug habit wakes in the morning with the intent to score his load quickly --- every day. Burglary, assault, prostitution and various cons
>all are done just to score the daily bag.

What if the cost were just a couple of $$$ ? Even if someone had to
steal to score, it wouldn't be near as much.

>I suppose that you probably believe that all this crime could
>be stopped by lowering the cost of your daily bag, but such isn't the case. You will still be an idiot
>on drugs.

Perhaps, but that would be his problem, not everyone elses...

Dr P

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:40 -0500, Peter H. Proctor
wrote:

>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.
>
> 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."
>
>Dr P

Great analogies, doc. What's a few more kids here and there, right? He who
adds one more thing to defend may be the real culprit in the maxim that
there are ever unintended consequences. Public policy, USA style, is an
experiment. Why not just keep experimenting in all those unintended
matters?

Ever try to put a kid in a 5-gallon anything?

"flick" wrote in message news:...

> most people don't want to live in a world with even more loadies.

But even more people want to live in a world where they don't have to
worry about their 8-year-old daughter being shot by rival drug-gangs
when she goes down to the corner to buy an ice-cream. This happened a
few days ago in Oakland. That girl is a victim of YOUR desire to
wreak your vengeance on drug users.

Guido

On 27 Jun 2003 09:28:55 -0700, guidosjunkmail@yahoo.com (Guido Marx) wrote:



Some would outlaw the parks for kids. Your argument highlights the premise
of choice/no choice, accident/intent.

"Guido Marx" wrote in message
news:3d9f92bf.0306270613.78f84a18@posting.google.com...

> "flick" wrote in message

news:...

>
> > most people don't want to live in a world with even more loadies.
>
> But even more people want to live in a world where they don't have to
> worry about their 8-year-old daughter being shot by rival drug-gangs
> when she goes down to the corner to buy an ice-cream. This happened a
> few days ago in Oakland. That girl is a victim of YOUR desire to
> wreak your vengeance on drug users.

oh, yeah, sure .

those dopers are so irresponsible now. they aren't even responsible for
*their own actions,* according to you. you say it's the fault of THE LAW -
not the fault of the boob with his finger on the trigger.

somehow, when a druggie kills a kid, you say it's the fault of people who
want drugs to stay illegal.

I don't buy it.

tell me how these jerk dopers are suddenly going to become responsible if
drugs are legalized, hmmm?

maybe you don't realize that _one_ of the reasons these shoot-outs happen is
because the participants are high on their own product. which has nothing
to do with whether that stuff is legal or illegal.

or do you think that crack and heroin and meth are going to magically lose
their effects on people if they're legalized?

you seem to think that people against legalizing this poison have magical
powers over the dopers now - they're somehow responsible for these
individual crimes that dopers commit, according to you.

you pro-drug people are hilarious. on the one hand, you claim that drug
laws are failures because they aren't obeyed 100%. on the other hand,
you're telling us, as above, that somehow THE LAW is making dopers kill
8-year-olds on the street.

obviously, drugs rot the brain.

flick 100785

"flick" wrote in message
news:v7dLa.651$Fn3.198376570@twister1.starband.net...

> "Guido Marx" wrote in message
> news:3d9f92bf.0306270613.78f84a18@posting.google.com...
> > "flick" wrote in message
> news:...
> >
> > > most people don't want to live in a world with even more loadies.
> >
> > But even more people want to live in a world where they don't have to
> > worry about their 8-year-old daughter being shot by rival drug-gangs
> > when she goes down to the corner to buy an ice-cream. This happened a
> > few days ago in Oakland. That girl is a victim of YOUR desire to
> > wreak your vengeance on drug users.
>
> oh, yeah, sure .
>
> those dopers are so irresponsible now. they aren't even responsible for
> *their own actions,* according to you. you say it's the fault of THE

LAW -

> not the fault of the boob with his finger on the trigger.

Just like law enforce3ment to mischaracterize what womeone says. Testilying
is thier greatest power.


The law put the gun in the hand and the finger on the trigger. Without the
law, he would not have wanted the gun.

>
> somehow, when a druggie kills a kid, you say it's the fault of people who
> want drugs to stay illegal.
>
> I don't buy it.
>
> tell me how these jerk dopers are suddenly going to become responsible if
> drugs are legalized, hmmm?
>
> maybe you don't realize that _one_ of the reasons these shoot-outs happen

is

> because the participants are high on their own product. which has nothing
> to do with whether that stuff is legal or illegal.

So, now you know that ever crime related to drugs is because the person is
high? That must mean prohibitionist cops really ARE morons. Tens of millions
of cannabis users, and you idiots spend billions of dollars to arrest a tiny
fraction of them, and yet those arrests do nothing to stop anyone from
getting cannabis if theey really want it. All that crime out there, most of
it quite literally in front of your face, and you miss pretty much all of
it.

>
> or do you think that crack and heroin and meth are going to magically lose
> their effects on people if they're legalized?

Which effect do you mean? Getting high? You only wish you could control
people that effectively. Or do you mean getting the drugs? Well, yes, that
would have an effect. They would not have to commit crimes in order to get
drugs.

>
> you seem to think that people against legalizing this poison have magical
> powers over the dopers now - they're somehow responsible for these
> individual crimes that dopers commit, according to you.

Prohibitionists (the grown-up term for "people against legalizing") have
magical thinking. They deny thier ineffectuality in the same breath that
they illustrate their inffectuality. They can't do anything to change drug
users behavior (that is what you just said), but somehow they think that
they are changing drug users behavior.

Well, prohibitionists DO change drug user behavior. Since the drug user will
get the drugs in spit of the ineffectual laws and cops, what you have
managed to do is encourage them to commit ever increasing levels of crime.

>
> you pro-drug people are hilarious. on the one hand, you claim that drug
> laws are failures because they aren't obeyed 100%. on the other hand,
> you're telling us, as above, that somehow THE LAW is making dopers kill
> 8-year-olds on the street.

You prohibitionists are morons. You think that a complete lack of comliance
with a law does not illustrate that it is an ineefectual waste of taxpayer
money. You insist that by creating laws that force people into becomming
criminals are not responsible for the crimes the laws create.

>
> obviously, drugs rot the brain.
>
> Booger flick 100785
> admitted prohibitionist nose picker
>

The_right_wing@truth.com wrote:

hmmmm, outlaw parks for kids. sounds pretty easy ...

kid: mom, can i go to the park?
mom: no

a problem arises when the fearful mommy decides that *ther* kids shouldn't do
"risky" things like play. how are all these wimp kids being raised to be afraid
of everything ever going to defend america?

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