Officers taser 86 old disabled woman in bed

TheClosing wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Perhaps thats how we should have handled those damn slaves when they wanted more freedom? You know that murder rates from black people have shot up since slavery ended? Should we bring it back? Your argument makes no sense. If I don't like the government I should just leave? That's so antithetical to any morality I know of or even a cursory examination of our political tradition in this country. That has to do with poverty, and the educational system. Legalizing drugs won't solve the issue, and in return will have much bigger issues than we do already.

Edited by JLocke - June 27 2010 at 16:32

JLocke wrote:   Then give proof. Show some numbers, past similar events, something tangible that proves we would be thrown into chaos if drugs were legalized. The only example I can personally think of that is similar to this is when alcohol was illegal. And guess what? The crime rates involving the substance went DOWN, not up, once it was legalized.

For the love of ... once again, you can't compare alcohol to narcotics. Please do research on the "first opium war." Case closed. 

Dalezilla wrote: Look what happened when Portugal decriminalized drugs: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Decriminalization is something we need to be looking at rather than flat out legalization. As was pointed out in the article Portugal is a much smaller country, but we do need to start thinking about proper reform instead of throwing criminals in a cell with other criminals, doomed to become habitual offenders. 

JLocke wrote:   What the hell?

Edited by TheClosing - June 27 2010 at 17:26

TheClosing wrote: JLocke wrote:   Then give proof. Show some numbers, past similar events, something tangible that proves we would be thrown into chaos if drugs were legalized. The only example I can personally think of that is similar to this is when alcohol was illegal. And guess what? The crime rates involving the substance went DOWN, not up, once it was legalized.  For the love of ... once again, you can't compare alcohol to narcotics. Please do research on the "first opium war." Case closed.

Edited by JLocke - June 27 2010 at 17:05

1. In America at least, always follow the orders of police officers as long as they're acting how they should and not violating rights (Miranda, search and seizure, etc). If possible, have a way of videotaping the interaction unless it's against the law (in some states it is now).

2. Some cops are on a power trip, plain and simple. Even the best ones are no Andy Griffith, and they'll intimidate the hell out of you. Have a backbone and don't be a sobbing baby in interactions, but at the same time don't be threatening.

3. A lot of drugs are neutral or positive for society, or at least by themselves mostly harmless (marijuana, LSD, ecstasy) and should be completely, 100% legalized (to the extent alcohol is ). Meth is not one of those. Meth, like crack cocaine, is a scourge on society and should be contained.

stonebeard wrote: 3. A lot of drugs are neutral or positive for society, or at least by themselves mostly harmless (marijuana, LSD, ecstasy) and should be completely, 100% legalized (to the extent alcohol is ). Meth is not one of those. Meth, like crack cocaine, is a scourge on society and should be contained.

Exactly.  Anyone from the Midwest can tell you that comparing the effects of marijuana to methamphetamines is like comparing a papercut to a large, bloody gash.

Edited by UndercoverBoy - June 27 2010 at 18:18

JLocke wrote: stonebeard wrote: 3. A lot of drugs are neutral or positive for society, or at least by themselves mostly harmless (marijuana, LSD, ecstasy) and should be completely, 100% legalized (to the extent alcohol is ). Meth is not one of those. Meth, like crack cocaine, is a scourge on society and should be contained. But how do we do that? I'm not opposed to it, but the way we've been trying to 'contain' it is not working. So what do you suggest?

lol I don't know. I'd leave that up to law enforcement people who actually know more about drug trafficking than me. It should be contained, but tat doesn't mean it can be or will be, but it does mean we can try.

stonebeard wrote: JLocke wrote: stonebeard wrote: 3. A lot of drugs are neutral or positive for society, or at least by themselves mostly harmless (marijuana, LSD, ecstasy) and should be completely, 100% legalized (to the extent alcohol is ). Meth is not one of those. Meth, like crack cocaine, is a scourge on society and should be contained. But how do we do that? I'm not opposed to it, but the way we've been trying to 'contain' it is not working. So what do you suggest?  lol I don't know. I'd leave that up to law enforcement people who actually know more about drug trafficking than me. It should be contained, but tat doesn't mean it can be or will be, but it does mean we can try.

JLocke wrote: stonebeard wrote: JLocke wrote: stonebeard wrote: 3. A lot of drugs are neutral or positive for society, or at least by themselves mostly harmless (marijuana, LSD, ecstasy) and should be completely, 100% legalized (to the extent alcohol is ). Meth is not one of those. Meth, like crack cocaine, is a scourge on society and should be contained. But how do we do that? I'm not opposed to it, but the way we've been trying to 'contain' it is not working. So what do you suggest?  lol I don't know. I'd leave that up to law enforcement people who actually know more about drug trafficking than me. It should be contained, but tat doesn't mean it can be or will be, but it does mean we can try. Not good enough. You're arguing against making all drugs legal and manageable, yet you can't come up with a better solution. It's very easy to just say 'it should be contained' and just leave it there. We both agree that the current war on drugs is ridiculous and doesn't work, correct? So tell me, if we are going to pick-and-choose which narcotics should be legal or not, what do we do in those special cases where some drugs are still banned?

I don't know about The War On Drugz (capital letters--serious business). I believe some drugs are safe and relatively nondestructive to society while others are not. I think it's stupid to acknowledge something is a public scourge and not do anything about it, and I also think it's stupid to try to expect someone who knows practically nothing about the drug trade to come up with a working solution to an incredibly complex problem. An appeal to authority is not a fallacy if they need to be appealed to.


Edited by stonebeard - June 27 2010 at 19:36