View Full Version : How to stay within the rules of the law.
For those of you who live in the US. Do you feel that you can trust the rules set in the law? That you will be safe following reason and didactics?Or do you think that anything may happen? Laws are applied with utter insanity and it's getting crazier month after month. I have stopped amazing myself overmad laws and infantile justice operationslong ago.
That they are trying to close the research chemical loophole I regret, but I can understand. Making information on drug production, spoons andpipesillegal shows bluntrandom prosecution, violation of freedom of speech and information. Rights that go beyond national law. It is not logical nor compliant with first first amendments or international law, so how can anybody be expected to know the law and not to break it?
<blockquote> Originally posted by Alfa on 12 August 2004<hr>
Do you feel that you can trust the rules set in the law? <hr></blockquote>
NO!
wizard warior
12-08-2004, 23:17
its about time they started giving people more responisblite over ther own decisions
Gahaba22
22-09-2004, 02:19
It is really unfortunate that we cannot be trusted to make the right decisions regarding our drug intake. Does it make any sense that Marijuana and GHB are both schedule I and Schedule 3 drugs. That's the biggest oxymoron ever!
geeb
crazyride84
03-10-2004, 21:13
the government expects its people to follow the law,but then they turn around and bend and turn a blind eye to the laws,and in return only one is punished,and to me if they went to get you they have there ways.What a sad,sad world we live in.
thydarkprevails
27-10-2004, 20:39
i cannot trust the laws of a government that will put a marajuana user in jail, and let a rapist out early with good behavior..
Skeptikon
28-10-2004, 05:27
That's a very good question. It seems that every time the government
tries to enforce ridiculous laws like that it ends up shooting itself
in the foot. Like when they have those benighted ads on TV about how
smoking one joint is like stabbing yourself in the chest with a
fireplace poker smeared with shit and peanut butter...when people find
out that they are full of crap about that, then they don't ever believe
them about other things that they might actually be right on. People
think, aw christ, what the hell is the government doing now? I don't
need to deal with that crap. It really decreases trust in the
government overall. Dumbasses.
windtraveler
28-10-2004, 21:24
How can you trust the law when you are treated like children by it? I want to use the graymatter that i was given, educate myself and not simply believe what i am spoonfed, and make decisions for myself. I trust that i can and will make the right decisions. No person or group of people can do that for me.
Sitbcknchill
28-10-2004, 22:49
See but usually there is some stupid fuck that ruins it for everybody. Some people can't make the right choices for themselves so there are laws governing what you can and can't do. For the rest of us that are reasonable people have to be punished because someone somewhere decided to do something very stupid so they make a law to prevent it from happening again. Problem being there are so many that you don't really know what they are. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the government, it sucks and I think it's just all a big scam. You can vote but shit man what's the difference. Do you actually think things will ever change for the better? We have no rights, the government('s) do what they want when they want and it's just going to go downhill from here.
But.....You actually do have freedom, we all have freedom of choice, you can do anything you want when you want but it doesn't mean there won't be a consequences.
WhiteRyan
02-11-2004, 07:18
I envy more tolerable places in the world. The United States needs the old ppl to leave and the new to step up. Im scared of our government, and its lawmen. If im clean I like to fuck with them.
P!MPJU!C3
03-11-2004, 12:13
American laws are allright. Its just the police that are so dangerous. I bet that if u cross the street in America without lookin youll get a fine. Some laws u gotta have. But u need policemen to be realistic and say. Ok u made a boo-boo. I wont beat u up because u r black or because im frustrated im just gonna look the other way. Everyboddy makes a bad sometimes. The police just oughta look the other way soemetimes because some things are really not important.
This is why dutch police r so cool. If u do something bad like rob people theyll just take u in in a reasonable way but should u be drunk in public its more likely theyll take u home then send u to jail.Edited by: P!MPJU!C3
thydarkprevails
04-11-2004, 02:28
some police in america absolutely rule...
in early september i got 3x the legal limit on booze, and ran my car into a pole..totaling it, and destroying the pole...the cop didn't give me a dui..and he said he knew i was drunk..he just understood my age and stupidity, and wanted me to have a second chance.....i thank him for this...now i refuse to drive drunk...
yet..if i had 8 or 9 grams of pot on me...i'd get slapped with possesion with the intent to sell..
Here in sweden there is a guy that had a bookshop.. he went to jail
because he sold books about cultivating weed. Then there is a well
known sweed that got into jail for selling seeds from his website. Both
of them were senteced for preparing illict manufacture (or how to say
it).
Myself.. I was busted for something. I don't like to say what drug I
was busted for (but I had over a months supply).. whatever, I confessed
and told them the whole truth about myself.. but lied about friends to
protect them. Two undercover police men questioned me for two days.
They were very nice to me.. and I am sure they knew I protected my
friends.. also it felt that they avoided to ask me difficult
questions... and in the end.. I didn't even have to goto court.. I
asked why, they said "case is sabbotaged".. well.
It seems one need lots of luck and that it is quite random if you
happen to meet a good cop. What strikes me, is that pherhaps some
realised some truth about humen?? They should learn about right and
wrong by working with criminals everyday. Still it is amazing how
brainwashed most of them can be. And talking about brainwash... the
most stupid people I know are customs, 50/50 they catch me on a airport
or seaport.. I don't know why.. I think it's my looks.. more stupid
guys are (un-)soldiers and guards at clubs. Why I think like this, does
pherhaps not belong to this forum. But swedes are always talking about
letting these stupids take some police roles... that thought makes me
shiver.
I can't understand how spliff is illegal while drink isn't, stick 5 guys in a room with a few crates of beer while in another room have 5 guys with a bag of weed. 1 room there will be 5 guys trying to fight each other while the other will be 5 guys laughing together over the funny sound of certain words
Here in sweden there is a guy that had a bookshop.. he went to jail
because he sold books about cultivating weed.
Is this for real?? Hey, if you have a link about this i wood appreciate if you could PM it to me. No use putting it here cause I guess it would be in Swedish.
Micklemouse
11-06-2006, 17:02
This is going to sound like a silly question, but - banning spoons? What are you going to eat/drink soup with?
On a more serious note, in Briton I trust the police a lot more than the legislators. Blatantly I don't trust the police that much either, but in my experience, in small numbers they are at least liable to be reasonable if a person is reasonable with them, & isn't blatantly being a dick - the older the cop the better also ime.
Of course it's a different matter when they swarm...
IHrtHalucingens
12-06-2006, 06:44
The only way i would feel safe in America is if i were a celebrity of some sort. It seems time and time again celebrities get caught breaking laws but have the money and fame to obtain the right lawyers and get the right publicity to get off with probation and community service for something that would land myself and most others in jail without question for years.
Even still, police in America have way too much power with out much to regulate it. They have the power to establish probable cause, just because they personally were suspicious, to search you and your vehicle at any time for no other reason than that. The courts weigh a police officers judgment, knowledge, and testimony over any suspect. Even when quite often the police officer is far less intelligent than who ever it is they are arresting.
Our whole government is set up on lies and fake freedoms, carefully worded and cleverly loopholed so they can do whatever they want. The whole innocent until proven guilty saying is complete BS. You're guilty until you pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to prove that you arent.
And i agree with you micklemouse the more cops that show up the worse it will turn out for you. In my neck of the woods cops love to blow things way out of proportion and cause a scene. It seems they are all rediculously bored all the time and feel the need to be a part of every traffic ticket given out. Its not uncommon to see 5 or 6 police cars, often with 2 cops in each one, respond to a speeder or someone with a gram of weed when our violent crime rate has gone up like 300% in the past 2 years. GET A LIFE AND GO CATCH SOME REAL CRIMINALS!
...AND any time an actual crime has ever been committed, involving me or my family being the victims, of course the cops are absolutley incompetent. My house was broken into a few years back and 2 cars responded and spent a total of 30 mins looking around the place when the whole house was torn apart and obviously burglarized. We had to determine the point of entry and show the retards where the fingerprints were. But of course if a car with 3 teenagers is pulled over 10 cops show up and spend hours stripping the car down looking for drugs, because they thought they smelled something.
As much as i take for granted here in America i cannot stand our officials and plan on getting the hell out of here as soon as its monetarily a good time. I definately do not trust a single cop or politician in America, nor will i ever.
Nagognog2
12-06-2006, 07:01
There are only a few enclaves in the US where there are decent politicians who are actually working for the people they represent. I live in one of them. Otherwise I'd have left years ago.
I was called to jury duty a little while ago. We were asked if we had any relations or friends who were in law enforcment. Four hands went up. Then we were asked if we believed that cops are likely to tell the truth. Two hands went up. And these six people were sent home. I ended up on the jury - despite my SHOOT BUSH FIRST button on my headband and my ONE NATION UNDER SURVEILLANCE t-shirt.
Blissfully, the case was dismissed the night before I had to go and watch the parade of idiots.
Moral of story: Democracy is possible. But democracy is like having a shiny, new car. If you leave it unattended - some asshole will come along and steal it from you.
America is rushing down the road to third-world nation status so quickly that the federal, state and local governments love the growth in the criminal justice sector. It employs otherwise untrainable individuals who have lost their jobs to India or China while providing a walk-on spring camp environment for the hundreds of thousands of young high school graduates and college-bound individuals looking for work every year. They take individuals who have never had an ounce of power in their lives and turn them into superheros literally overnight. Similar to the "esprit de corp" instilled in our military, these gung-ho jarheads hit the streets every day and night of the week looking for unsuspecting "criminals" to express their concern to.
How many years have we seen politicians roll out the numbers for crime in their districts as a campaign platform and vow to "get tough on crime?" The result has been an entire industry built around keeping their fellow man down. The US justice system preys on the poor and less fortunate, literally forcing the majority to "regain their freedom" just by pleading guilty, ignoring their criminal records which just get longer and longer.
The criminal justice system has grown out of control, until reaching its present state of bloated existence. There are more Americans under lock and key than any other nation in the world. Many more are "on deck" and are only awaiting the testimony of a "confidential informant" to send them to meet their friends. Probation has captured many more potential residents of the grey-bar hotel, eager to return them to their rightful home.
Police officers, judges, baliffs, corrections officers, court reporters, probation officers, lawyers, they ALL have a vested interest in keeping America locked up. You show me ONE of the individuals above who says they would like to see a reduction in the crime rate, and I'll show you a bold-faced liar. A high crime rate is job security for these people. They don't want to see anything that could mean their jobs.
Now, thanks to the latest trend in terrorism, the America public is dumbly going along with everything they hear on TV. You are just one step away from being arrested and being forced to accept a plea bargin. You don't have to do anything to plead guilty for, but you damned sure better believe the DA is going to be focusing on his conviction rate.
If that means bastardizing justice, bending the rules, planting a little evidence, lying under oath, so be it. After all, it's all for the continuation of the American Way...
old hippie 56
12-06-2006, 15:44
As having experience with the justice league, they really don't want you but your money. Add up the probation fees, fines, court costs, it adds up quick. Then the jails are selling bed space to states that have overcrowding. Big business as usual.
It is really unfortunate that we cannot be trusted to make the right decisions regarding our drug intake. Does it make any sense that Marijuana and GHB are both schedule I and Schedule 3 drugs. That's the biggest oxymoron ever!
geeb
Marijuana is S1 and GHB is S3. GHB (brand name Xyrem) is extremly useful in the treatment of narcolepsy.
------------------------------------------------------------
In general I trust the police to follow the law. There have been a lot of times when they violate it, but it is not something that my friend worries about when he sees a police officer and has something on him.
Police offers usually rely on tricking people into confession. This is especially true regarding undercover drug dealers. For example, in Washington Square (NYC) there are usually undercover cops who say "Smoke Smoke" to people walking by in an effort to get them to buy drugs. If a police officer clearly acts in a way that suggests he wants to sell drugs to you (before you aproach or say anything to him or her) and you buy them you will most likely be not found guilty in a court of law by a jury or judge (if you waive the right to a trial).
The police verry often arrest people on evidence that would be easily defeated in court by a jury. The excuse "I would not buy drugs if the police offer didn't offer them to me" works very well. Usually when police "catch" someone buying drugs in a situation like that they will say they will be lenient if they confess, writing them an order to appear in court instead of arresting the. But because they confess they will be found guilty. If they do not confess they will be arrested, but the DA will not be able to recieve a guilty verdict, so they drop the case.
Does anyone here from the Netherlands have any information about our law system? SWIM sure knows there must be some information from the governement itself on the internet? Because we don't work like the people in America so what works in America might not work here.
~lostgurl~
13-06-2006, 20:18
The Injustice System. Between the crooked cops and the loop holed laws, the stigmatizing by society with their prehistoric principles based on media misinformation and uneducated interpretation, the wrongs and rights, blacks and whites, oooh and grays.... The Government has one policy, which is then interpreted by other entities to best fit their own needs and/or standards. The police have their own standard procedures, the Courts another and the health system another. Add to that the personal discriminations, beliefs and experiences of a Judge, a Jury, a Parole Officer, a Prison Guard, a Police Officer, a Dr, a Teacher, a Parent etc. and the outcome is bound to be erratic and untrustworthy. To top it all off, throw in a few career criminals, a couple of narks and the odd psychotic drug fuelled rampage, and you'll find even the smartest of scholars brainwashed against all drug usage. The more I think about injustice, the more frustrated I get, it’s like teaching Physics to a child who has just learnt how to count…. Though I personally think the psychologically handicapped are worse off then the intellectually handicapped…..
Myazrael, that would be a good question for a new topic.
TheTrueBlackMeat
22-06-2006, 22:49
Anyone that tries to shove you around and tell you what to do should never be trusted unless necessary... 'Cause they're assholes. They may be considered socially immoral but they have guns, and we don't.
Police Officer
12-07-2006, 06:01
i cannot trust the laws of a government that will put a marajuana user in jail, and let a rapist out early with good behavior..
Marijuana users only go to jail when the marijuana charge is accompanied with a felony, like manslaughter. Possession of marijuana is 99 out of 100 times a misdemeanor.
I guess if you have several pounds, or are distributing it, you could land yourself in jail.
radiometer
12-07-2006, 09:07
Marijuana is S1 and GHB is S3.
Actually, he was close. GHB is indeed (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ghb/ghb_law.shtml) in both Sched. I when illicit, and in Sched. III when prescribed as Xyrem. It's a weird one. Certainly, marijuana is Sched I in US federal law, though maybe the poster was referring to Marinol (the scheduling status of which I'm unsure)?
Police Officer
14-07-2006, 05:07
As having experience with the justice league, they really don't want you but your money. Add up the probation fees, fines, court costs, it adds up quick. Then the jails are selling bed space to states that have overcrowding. Big business as usual.
Fee's and fines are punishment and a deterant at the same time. Ask a drunk who's about to drive drunk again about his fines from his last DWI right as he is about to drive drunk again. Odds are he'll call a cab.
Court costs are the guilty payin' the piper after they're found guilty.
bewilderment
14-07-2006, 20:30
Marijuana users only go to jail when the marijuana charge is accompanied with a felony, like manslaughter. Possession of marijuana is 99 out of 100 times a misdemeanor.
I guess if you have several pounds, or are distributing it, you could land yourself in jail.
Or if they happen to have one or two plants for personal use (so they don't have to go through shady street-dealers) then the marijuana user will go to jail even though the activity was only for personal purposes.
Swim thinks that the marijuana laws in Ann Arbor, Michigan are a good standard for other communities in the US who are pro-marijuana to follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_laws_in_Ann_Arbor%2C_Michigan
As for drug laws in general, swim believes that the last chapter of the narrative part of Pihkal answers the question brilliantly.
Every person is a sovereign entity in the country they live in, itself a sovereign entity. So long as what the person does doesn't affect the sovereignity of other people in the country, the person shouldn't be prevented from doing such a thing. I alone have the right to choose what goes into my body and what doesn't, not the government. And I alone have the right to choose what decisions are best for me and what decisions aren't, not the government.
I think the government has taken paternalistic measures too far, and used the excuse of protecting the public to make certain mind altering substances illegal when the true reasons have to do with politics, racism, religion, and personal morals. These things should not dictate health measures, and it is indeed amazing that the American public let their rights be taken away like this simply because of the xenophobia with which they view drugs.
The sad thing is that many Americans truly believe the US policy on drugs is right, thanks to the many propaganda programs started to support the war on drugs. The war on drugs isn't working, and its time for the US government to try a new policy.
How bout telling the truth and following the guidelines of the constitution for a change?
Police Officer
18-07-2006, 07:29
Every person is a sovereign entity in the country they live in, itself a sovereign entity. So long as what the person does doesn't affect the sovereignity of other people in the country, the person shouldn't be prevented from doing such a thing. I alone have the right to choose what goes into my body and what doesn't, not the government. And I alone have the right to choose what decisions are best for me and what decisions aren't, not the government.
I think the government has taken paternalistic measures too far, and used the excuse of protecting the public to make certain mind altering substances illegal when the true reasons have to do with politics, racism, religion, and personal morals. These things should not dictate health measures, and it is indeed amazing that the American public let their rights be taken away like this simply because of the xenophobia with which they view drugs.
In theory, I agree. But then you get all the junkies that have to break into places to pay for the drugs. Then there are the crimes that are directly related to drug use. Prostitution is a prime example. Did you know that a great majority of prostitutes sell their bodies to support their drug habbit?
The government must take paternalistic measures. Anyone know the history of heroin or cocaine in the US? How about China? Here's some good reading, find out what led up to the criminalization of these drugs.
Talking a little more about paternalistic measures. What about welfare, blueshield, bluecross, and HUD housing? It would be much easier if we could just tell the dredges of society to clean themselves up and get a damn job. Alas, that doesnt work. So, the only way those four kids who live across town in the one bedroom apartment are getting fed..is by the government taking paternalistic measures.
And as far as the American public believing that drugs are bad. Everyone over here knows someone who is, or has been strung out on meth. They see what it does to families and loved ones. That makes them believe that drugs are bad, not commercials on television. Remember this, the whole war on drugs campaign went out the window when Reagan left office in the 80's.
How bout telling the truth and following the guidelines of the constitution for a change?
^Not really sure what you meant.
Lunar Loops
18-07-2006, 14:03
In theory, I agree. But then you get all the junkies that have to break into places to pay for the drugs. Then there are the crimes that are directly related to drug use. Prostitution is a prime example. Did you know that a great majority of prostitutes sell their bodies to support their drug habbit?
Yes, but I think the important bit of the posting by bajeda was this "So long as what the person does doesn't affect the sovereignity of other people in the country, the person shouldn't be prevented from doing such a thing."
I for one am sick and tired of hearing the lame excuses for prohibition on substances such as cannabis that eminate from governments across the globe (mainly to make sure they don't upset the American machine).
"BY smoking that joint you become part of organised crime, you are partly responsible for the gun deaths that occur amongst drug gangs." GARBAGE. So if SWIS grows a few plants for his own personal use and nothing more, he is still a criminal. SWIS truly is a drug lord with an empire of crime laid out before him.
You can not use extremes to justify the general.
~lostgurl~
18-07-2006, 14:46
In theory, I agree. But then you get all the junkies that have to break into places to pay for the drugs. Then there are the crimes that are directly related to drug use. Prostitution is a prime example. Did you know that a great majority of prostitutes sell their bodies to support their drug habbit?
Well if the drugs weren't illegal they wouldn't cost so much, and the cost of the drugs is what has led to the criminal behaviour, this has been proven in the countries that have set up heroin clinics (crimes rates in the areas dropped up to 80%) so who's to blame? Personally I think the government for trying to control what we can and cannot put into our bodies.
bewilderment
18-07-2006, 18:10
In theory, I agree. But then you get all the junkies that have to break into places to pay for the drugs. Then there are the crimes that are directly related to drug use. Prostitution is a prime example. Did you know that a great majority of prostitutes sell their bodies to support their drug habbit?
The government must take paternalistic measures. Anyone know the history of heroin or cocaine in the US? How about China? Here's some good reading, find out what led up to the criminalization of these drugs.
Talking a little more about paternalistic measures. What about welfare, blueshield, bluecross, and HUD housing? It would be much easier if we could just tell the dredges of society to clean themselves up and get a damn job. Alas, that doesnt work. So, the only way those four kids who live across town in the one bedroom apartment are getting fed..is by the government taking paternalistic measures.
And as far as the American public believing that drugs are bad. Everyone over here knows someone who is, or has been strung out on meth. They see what it does to families and loved ones. That makes them believe that drugs are bad, not commercials on television. Remember this, the whole war on drugs campaign went out the window when Reagan left office in the 80's.
How bout telling the truth and following the guidelines of the constitution for a change?
^Not really sure what you meant.
Prostitutes are most likely those who were introduced to the black market through drugs. If drugs were not illegal then they probably would not have made the shady connections to become a prostitute in the first place, not to mention the outrageous prices of things which are illegal. And, what's wrong with prostitution anyway? If that were made legal and organized then much of the violence that occurs with prostitutes could be prevented using legal measures. I will never, ever understand the nature of consensual crimes, the term should not even exist.
I know much about the history of drugs and how they came to be criminalized, but never have seen any rational reason why: would you care to explain the reason behind drug laws in your opinion?
ADDICTION is bad, drugs are not bad. I say this while most of my family are addicts. My cousin has hit meth psychosis a few times, my other cousin is in jail for trafficking heroin (he was being greedy, I admit. But, there shouldn't have to be illegal traffickers in the first place if everything was as it should be). My father is an polydrug addict as are some more of my aunts, uncles, cousins. One can see the significan impact on their life and what they have lost as a result of ADDICTION and not drug use. Making drugs illegal doesn't help addicts, they are going to get their drugs one way or another. My cousin OD'ed in jail for example although he didn't die. The criminalization of drugs only hinders the lives of addicts who are already suffering and hinders the lives of responsible drug-users as well. I would say that instead of arresting people and throwing them in a cell then they should be treated (as some are) but a drug user never quits until he or she actually makes that choice. If the drug war was more efficient, I'm sure that my entire family would be in jail and who would that be helping?
And, yes, much of the public's view of drugs is a result of the propaganda spewed by the government. Even among those who use drugs, you still hear all those lies told..."Hey man, did you know acid stays in your spine Forever?!?!" Then, the family of the addict is even more freaked out by these devil drugs they have heard about. Their vision of the addict is obscured by misinformation and makes them view the situation as worse than it actually it although many times, it is pretty damn bad but usually not the end of the world. Now, if one were to get into legal trouble then one's future would be in jeopardy having that sort of thing on their record. But, if one is to just stop using excessively and never be arrested then they can still have a so-called "bright future".
"It's not a war on drugs. It's a war on personal freedom, keep that in mind at all times."
--Bill Hicks
Marijuana users only go to jail when the marijuana charge is accompanied with a felony, like manslaughter. Possession of marijuana is 99 out of 100 times a misdemeanor.
I guess if you have several pounds, or are distributing it, you could land yourself in jail.
Swim knows a person in the US who spent 32 days in jail for one joint. It was the persons 3rd time to get caught with cannabis. Always very personal amount The same place where this person is from if one is caught with even 1 seed it is mandatory 72hours in jail for the first time. and increases with each acount. And from swims understanding 3 misdemeanor = felony. It all depends on the DA
fatmanstan
19-07-2006, 16:58
In regards to addiction and the criminality that conpulsive use combined with prohibition brings, I for one would like to hear, from Police Officer's point of view, why hallucinogens are illegal? Why is LSD so high up on the US government's hit list? The entire class of hallucinogens is defined as having the ability to alter one's perception, having essentially no addictive properties, and having extremely low toxicity.
LSD wil NOT make one think they can fly and jump out of a window. PCP can cause problems, but most users of hallucinogens hardly even consider it a hallucinogen anyway, it falls in the dissociatives class. Mushrooms are magical, and have been used religiously for thousands of years before the US government even came into existance. Same goes for peyote and san pedro.
Addictive drugs carry with them the desire to do more. That, coupled with the fact that mere possession of them is illegal, sets up an entire cycle of criminal supply. As has been mentioned, it is in most cases the act of criminalizing substances that leads to the criminal lifestyle associated with them. In that, with the system currently as it is, the use of drugs like meth or heroin will lead to criminal acts once addiction sets in.
Please explain to me why cannabis, LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc are illegal.
wednesday
19-07-2006, 18:56
The government must take paternalistic measures. Anyone know the history of heroin or cocaine in the US? How about China? Here's some good reading, find out what led up to the criminalization of these drugs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlk01sxO_E&search=hooked%20history%20channel%20crack%20coke%2 0cocaine%20drug%20drugs%20illegal%20and%20how%20th ey%20got%20that%20way
yes please research the truth
don't let anyone tell you how it came to be. find out for yourself
VincentVan
19-07-2006, 19:03
Iīve been in doubt if it was worth to waste my time answering to PoliceOfficerīs propagandistic objections since all his arguments are a mere recitation of neo-con prohibitionist ideas often proved to be wrong, hypocritical excuses for ideological or financially motivated policies otherways impossible to giustify.
Iīm even convinced that he doesīnt belive them himself ,or that if he does itīs only because he just refuses to see the huge gaping holes and the contraddictions upon which are built the arguments he repeats in his posts.
One of the most hateful things I have read is undoubtly his defense of a system that makes it possible only for the rich to afford the costs of a trial, depriving the majority of citizens even of the hope of ever obtaining justice and protection from the authorities abuses, thereby granting these agencies the powers they normally enjoy only in the most dispotic regimes.
P. O. goes on by claiming that the high costs of fines and of court costs act as a deterrent against criminal behaviours, not mentioning the fact that these costs are the same for everybody : homeless or billionaires.
The obvious consequence is that you can break the law if you can afford it , (and often for the rich is more convenient to pay the fine than to respect the law,) but you canīt ask for your rights to be defended unless your bank account is fat enough.
Since in the US judges are elected and therfore require expensive campaignes to land their jobs, if you are very rich you can even effectively "buy" the judges that you suspect that sooner or later will be called to decide on cases you are involved with.
Basically then you are innocent as long as you can outspend those who think otherways; and you are always guilty if you canīt pay to buy your innocence.
If really he is a cop then this is the system he decided to serve as watchdog.
This is enough for the moment. Iīm bored.
Iīll take a walk with my dog , then maybe Iīll adress some more nonsense from P.O. posts, unless I finally decide that really isīnt worth the effort.
VV.
" People say law, but they mean wealth"
(Emerson, Aforisms )
fatmanstan
19-07-2006, 19:34
I actually enjoy hearing the points of view from the "other side." {edit: which isn't to say that I necessarily agree, just interested to see what those points of view are} For PO to even be here and be actively joining in discussion of things that I'm sure many of his collegues would consider a waste of time is commendable. His stances on some issues do appear to be a little dogmatic at times, but I look forward to having some frank discussions regarding LE's policies and "beliefs".
I really am curious about the hallucinogen issue, and if PO is here to discuss, let's discuss. Surely you can't believe that the current policy is the most effective, if it is even working at all. It has been said here on the board that possession of a single tab of LSD is grounds for conspiracy to commit manslaughter. Is that true, and if so, can you please explain the reasoning behind this?
He appears to have a mind that is at least a little more open then a good majority of the LE, at least in the US, by even taking the time to register and reply to some of the posts here, rather than just lurking.
bewilderment
20-07-2006, 01:49
VincentVan, yes things are very dependent upon what kind of defense one can afford. I did this speech a little while back against the death penalty and turned up cases where the lawyers which were assigned (the people could not afford one) in cases where the punishment could be death...well, the lawyer FELL ASLEEP during hearings. When some other "good" lawyers became aware of this they complained, but were told basically "yes, one is entitled to representation by a lawyer, but no one ever said that lawyer had to be awake."
Wednesday, those shows are absolutely great and give an excellent unbiased take on the history of drug prohibition. I certainly do hope people, especially those who have legal authority take a chance to watch these shows...they're accurate as well and are shown on the history channel.
I also enjoy hearing things from the other side of the fence.
Police Officer
20-07-2006, 02:56
Swim knows a person in the US who spent 32 days in jail for one joint. It was the persons 3rd time to get caught with cannabis. Always very personal amount The same place where this person is from if one is caught with even 1 seed it is mandatory 72hours in jail for the first time. and increases with each acount. And from swims understanding 3 misdemeanor = felony. It all depends on the DA
Remember when you were 16, and got busted for the third time in three weeks by your parents for staying out past midnight? Ya got two weeks punishment instead of one, right? Same theory. Persistent offenders face more severe corrective actions.
Police Officer
20-07-2006, 03:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlk01sxO_E&search=hooked%20history%20channel%20crack%20coke%2 0cocaine%20drug%20drugs%20illegal%20and%20how%20th ey%20got%20that%20way
yes please research the truth
don't let anyone tell you how it came to be. find out for yourself
Excellent find Wednesday. I have seen these, and they are VERY informative. The one that talks about marijuana is especially interesting. Good advice to everyone on this website would be to:
Click on the links above!!!!!!
Police Officer
20-07-2006, 03:18
I really am curious about the hallucinogen issue, and if PO is here to discuss, let's discuss. Surely you can't believe that the current policy is the most effective, if it is even working at all. It has been said here on the board that possession of a single tab of LSD is grounds for conspiracy to commit manslaughter. Is that true, and if so, can you please explain the reasoning behind this?
Wow. I would have to say that possession of a controlled substance is not grounds for conspiracy to commit murder. I would suggest that there is maybe a little more to the story, like in the LSD tazer death (the guy was not just simply minding his own business, was super high on a couple dif drugs, and had a pre-exsisting heart problem).
Fatman, do you have a link where I could check out the story that you're refering to?
fatmanstan
20-07-2006, 03:32
Police, I tried to go to that website you posted a link to, and it was a broken link. SWIM's parents were very good people to grow up under. They are by no means a part of any kind of counterculter. Both have honestly never used any illicit drugs of any kind and always tried to encourage SWIM from taking such an interest, both good, blue-collar type folk who respected others' beliefs and challenged SWIM to question things, to get an understanding of how things work. Well, SWIM says thank you to his parents, and believes he is living a good life.
As a career, he has chosen a profession in which he helps every person in every walk of life accomplish things that would otherwise be impossible, and he is generally a good and decent person. He interferes with no man's (woman's) god-given right to their own opinion, does not jugde or chastise people, and genuinely goes out of his way to help anyone who asks for help. He does not contribute to criminality or the delinquency of others.
If such a person ever wanted to tend to some houseplants, and then be able to sample the fruits of his labor in any responsible way he sees fit, should he not have the right to do so? If he was completely responsible in such use, such as making sure that there is an option just incase an emergency comes up, if he was able to withdraw his responsiblities and be able to deleagate others on a temporary basis, if he was able to control himself in the consumption of said fruits and not wind up in trouble because of overuse or irresponsible use, should he not be able to explore what's on the inside, what makes us us, contemplate exactly what his purpose is? And if his practices allow him to bypass criminal sources, and in such withdraw from any part of criminal activity except possession, if he in no way contributed to the harm of other, would you consider that man a criminal? And if so, please justify your answer.
Thank you,
FMS
Edit: PO, I was referring to a post that was on this board or one like it a while ago, I can't remember where. You could likely search for it, not sure how often the term "manslaughter" would come up on this board. It had no source, just a comment. I was just curious about the issue in general.
fatmanstan
20-07-2006, 03:36
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18478&highlight=manslaughter
This is what I was referring to.
Police Officer
20-07-2006, 04:03
"First of all each hit of LSD is a conspiricy to manslaughter charge." :confused:
The person who wrote this was banned after 16 posts. About a third of his posts were about how he was going to wear his hair. So...
If you manufacture, or sell LSD (or any drug for that manner) which you know to be altered in a manner which you know will kill someone, well then I can see a charge of attempted/conspiracy to commit murder 1st, or murder 1st because of the premeditation.
Remember when you were 16, and got busted for the third time in three weeks by your parents for staying out past midnight? Ya got two weeks punishment instead of one, right? Same theory. Persistent offenders face more severe corrective actions.
Swim understands the reason behind 32 days just disagrees. Just pointing out users do go to jail. Even if the user may have a medical need, but not medically allowed in the state he/she lives in. Even some medical users go to jail You stated 99 out 100 do not go to jail. This is a false statement Swib is sure there are many others like swibs friend. Or casual users who get pulled over on his/her way home from buying a bag. Also as stated 72 hours is mandatory for the first offence, this is going to jail even if a short time. Users go to jail all the time. Are the jails where you are at not over crowded with "users"
If you manufacture, or sell LSD (or any drug for that manner) which you know to be altered in a manner which you know will kill someone, well then I can see a charge of attempted/conspiracy to commit murder 1st, or murder 1st because of the premeditation.
LSD does not kill people the manslaughter charges are a myth
fatmanstan
20-07-2006, 05:37
I never said it was true, I simply brought it up. PO, I happened to notice that you never really stated your opinion on drug laws as applied to psychedelics. I am not American, so I was unsure about the validity of that guy's claim, especially since, as you pointed out, he didn't really have alot of intelligent input on this forum. I did not, however, take the time to look it up myself.
However, it was really satisfy my curiousity if you could tell me if you believe that someone who is possession of something like cannabis or magic mushrooms which were produced on a small, personal scale for personal use should be treated the same as someone who is in possession of a similar quantity of say meth or crack. Or hell, someone who got drunk and beat up their significant other.
Can you give me some kind of clue as to why all drug infractions are painted with the same brush? Why is something like LSD or mescaline in the same schedule of substances as heroin, as far as sentencing is concerned. Hell, both coke/crack and meth are legal to possess if you have lisence or perscription allowing you to do so. (source: erowid). Does that really make any kind of sense?
Please, I would really like to hear your thoughts on this, you keep dancing around the issue.
bewilderment
20-07-2006, 06:05
Marijuana is in the same schedule as heroin as well which is ridiculous. Alcohol (as well as MANY of the drugs in lower schedules)does more damage and has a higher potential for abuse than LSD, mescaline, and marijuana.
Forthesevenlakes
20-07-2006, 09:09
Marijuana is in the same schedule as heroin as well which is ridiculous. Alcohol (as well as MANY of the drugs in lower schedules)does more damage and has a higher potential for abuse than LSD, mescaline, and marijuana.Its true! Think about the average drugs that will lead to long term physical harm, making people act violently, etc. Most of them will be schedule II or below, if not unscheduled (alcohol). Its rare that a schedule I drug will make a person dangerous to themselves or others, with the possible exceptions of GHB and cathinone.
joechip666
20-07-2006, 10:32
As a career, he has chosen a profession in which he helps every person in every walk of life accomplish things that would otherwise be impossible, and he is generally a good and decent person. He interferes with no man's (woman's) god-given right to their own opinion, does not jugde or chastise people, and genuinely goes out of his way to help anyone who asks for help. He does not contribute to criminality or the delinquency of others.
If such a person ever wanted to tend to some houseplants, and then be able to sample the fruits of his labor in any responsible way he sees fit, should he not have the right to do so? If he was completely responsible in such use, such as making sure that there is an option just incase an emergency comes up, if he was able to withdraw his responsiblities and be able to deleagate others on a temporary basis, if he was able to control himself in the consumption of said fruits and not wind up in trouble because of overuse or irresponsible use, should he not be able to explore what's on the inside, what makes us us, contemplate exactly what his purpose is? And if his practices allow him to bypass criminal sources, and in such withdraw from any part of criminal activity except possession, if he in no way contributed to the harm of other, would you consider that man a criminal? And if so, please justify your answer.
Thank you so much! :)
SWIM can really see that these arguments contained here come from the heart and deserve a good answer!
bewilderment
21-07-2006, 03:26
Its true! Think about the average drugs that will lead to long term physical harm, making people act violently, etc. Most of them will be schedule II or below, if not unscheduled (alcohol). Its rare that a schedule I drug will make a person dangerous to themselves or others, with the possible exceptions of GHB and cathinone.
Yep, even meth is a schedule II. It makes one wonder what the government has against marijuana...swim typically uses marijuana as a substitute for alcohol because it's safer and because it's more enjoyable (she does drink, but gets almost no enjoyment when just drinking and if she drinks when she smokes she usually has one drink and is done...unless it's some sort of special occasion). It seems that the government simply has something against things which alter (or expand based on one's opinion) consciousness...maybe because those drugs are more likely to make the person question the existing norms of society? I know a number of people who smoke and drink and they became violent...their temper became a problem so they gave up the drinking but not the marijuana and guess what? Their life and their situation improved significantly and they learned how to better manage their anger.
Although, I will admit that people using psychedelics sometimes sound and act crazier than those on lower scheduled drugs (ever watched vids of hippies back in the day? They look pretty crazy), but it's no harm unless they're just dumb in which case they would probably get themselves into more trouble on coke or meth. If swim had never taken hallucinogens and watched someone else trip then they'd probably think that they were doing a lot of harm and were damaging their minds, but studies say otherwise. I think the law-makers just need to chill out, smoke a blunt, drop a tab, and get to work on rewriting these messed up laws.
Forthesevenlakes
21-07-2006, 04:31
It seems that the government simply has something against things which alter (or expand based on one's opinion) consciousness...maybe because those drugs are more likely to make the person question the existing norms of society? I know a number of people who smoke and drink and they became violent...their temper became a problem so they gave up the drinking but not the marijuana and guess what? Their life and their situation improved significantly and they learned how to better manage their anger.So true. most of the drugs which could expand consciousness are very illegal. This is done under the guise of them having no medicinal value, but with all the work being done by MAPS recently, hopefully this will change. SWIM doesnt smoke marijuana, but he has noted that several friends who do are alot more well behaved now. For some people it seems to even them out...swim would like to see a study done on the effects of marijuana on bipolar disorder. Could be a safe alternative to lithium with fewer unpleasant side effects.
If swim had never taken hallucinogens and watched someone else trip then they'd probably think that they were doing a lot of harm and were damaging their minds, but studies say otherwise. I think the law-makers just need to chill out, smoke a blunt, drop a tab, and get to work on rewriting these messed up laws.Same here. Luckily there are facts on the side of hallucinogens endorsing their safety. SWIM figures there is probably alot more negative aspects to long term use of desoxyn (prescription meth!) or coke than the average hallucinogen.
VincentVan
21-07-2006, 16:41
Iīm sorry to see that Nagong has censored my post and decided that it should fall into the "Flaming" category.
Of course I accept that his judgement as moderator is not questionable nor I intend to question it , I just would like to make clear, particularly to PoliceOfficer that the post, while surely not flattering, did not include any profanity of any sort.
It was just a somewhat "ironic" analysis of the behaviour PO exibited in his posts and his answers.
While the intention of my post could surely be defined as polemic no offense was intended.
As soon as I have an half an hour time I will explain why I am convinced that no cop could be trusted in any situation, why even when he might sound to be reasonable and wanting an honest exchange of opinions and points of view , in reality his goals and intentions will necessarily always be different from those of the rest of the population; and why hypocrisy is an incouraged, necessary, and prominent feature of the character of any cop; as inevitable as belief in God is for a priest, or an interest in animals for a zoologist.
This is not flaming , these are reasoned conclusions to which I arrived after many years of reasoning, experiences and study and that surely are not held by me alone.
I promise I will explain why I reached these conclusions as soon as possible.
VV.
"My revenue is the silly cheat.
Gallows and knock are too powerful on the highway.
Beating and hanging are terrors to me."
( Shakespeare.- "The Winterīs Tale."-)
VincentVan
22-07-2006, 02:11
I logged on some moments ago to keep my promise of explaining why I arrived to the conclusions I mentioned above.
Before I started writing however, I received some PM that asked me to desist explaining the reasons for this request.
While I do not agree with these reasons and I stand by my opinions 100%, Iīm also aware of my status here as a low ranking guest and besides I donīt see the point in starting a useless polemic, therefore I bow to the higher authorities and I obey.
I really donīt want to be any trouble.
VV.
"It is perhaps as difficult to write a good life as to live one"
(Lytton Strachey)
grandbaby
22-07-2006, 03:52
Well, geez, Vince, I just read your censored post and considered giving you negative rep for it because it bordered on flaming... glad I didn't. I'm sure your analysis would be interesting, and I'd like to read it; this thread is not where it belongs, though. WAAAAY off topic. Might it be more appropriate in Political Interest or some other forum? I shall defer to the mods in this, as in all things, Allfah be praised. :)
korky8097
23-07-2006, 11:04
I too would like to see PO's opinion on psychadelic drugs in which no brain damage, no bodily damage, no damage to society, and no addictive properties occour. LSD i believe has never caused any legitimate deaths, every report I have read in which somebody died on LSD was caused by the persons stupidity or another drug mixed in (usually downers and tranq's such as thorazine).
My theory of why these substances are illegal is this: back in the 1960's the Gov. made the connection that these drugs were causing these hippies to act the way they do and think the way they do, which was geared against them. And that their open minds were more difficult to govern. Now we know that every situation is more complicated than we can comprehend, and in no way could substances be the only reason for the peace movement. Most people were just angry as hell at war.
The way things are portreyed (sp) to the public through the media has its faults. When an extreme event happens like somebody jumping off something while tripping, that is the only drug news the majority will see. They dont get to see the good. They dont see people having a good trip and enriching their lives spiritualy. Becuase to the majority, thats not interesting. But this only delivers a small glimps of the story. Many laws are passed just because of a few small extreme cases. Law makers use the idea that this is a pattern. But what only few seem to see is that there is no such thing. The future can and will happen in unpredictable ways, and trying to predict it is foolish. Plus patterning is a very good example of simplifying an event or situation that is more complex than can be fully understood.
I hope these are some valid points, i tried to maintain as unbiased as possible. Oh and BTW PO, you should look deeper into the begining of drug prohibition in america, way before the 60's. Most if not all drug laws started as very racist concepts. Opium was made illegal because they viewed it as something that made the chinese railworkers lazy and good for nothing. Cocaine was viewed as something that created "crazed negro's". Really very interesting stuff, i believe you can run a search on here and find a thread about it, i will look for the link.
PS, thought i would add this: I in no way intend this as anything against PO, i think it is such a great and important thing to get the other side's opinion, really juices up threads and makes officers a little more 3d to me. Thought i should put this as the whole post kinda challenges PO's thoughts and i can see in some places where it could be interprited as sinical and condisending(sp), just to clear that up.
fatmanstan
24-07-2006, 21:26
SWIM remains curious as to why he has still seen no reply from PO regarding his view on the criminalization of certain drugs which have been proven to carry with them essential no harm to an individual or society in general. In fact, as far as SWIM can tell, the only harm that would come from them would be to be caught in possession of them. One would lose financial aid (for students), prospects of certain jobs, get a criminal record for what? Something that amounts to far less harm than alcohol has caused for mankind over many centuries?
Still curious PO.
Perhaps your personal opinion contradicts your professional opinion, and you would rather not jeopardize career by stating what you know is right.
Perhaps you don't want to get into a discussion with "drugged out losers" about how mushrooms and LSD melt one's brain because you really have no proof to back yourself up? SWIM doesn't know. He really means no offense, but is desperatly seeking your opinion on such things.
Thank you PO.
Police Officer
25-07-2006, 05:18
SWIM remains curious as to why he has still seen no reply from PO regarding his view on the criminalization of certain drugs which have been proven to carry with them essential no harm to an individual or society in general. In fact, as far as SWIM can tell, the only harm that would come from them would be to be caught in possession of them. One would lose financial aid (for students), prospects of certain jobs, get a criminal record for what? Something that amounts to far less harm than alcohol has caused for mankind over many centuries?
Still curious PO.
Perhaps your personal opinion contradicts your professional opinion, and you would rather not jeopardize career by stating what you know is right.
Perhaps you don't want to get into a discussion with "drugged out losers" about how mushrooms and LSD melt one's brain because you really have no proof to back yourself up? SWIM doesn't know. He really means no offense, but is desperatly seeking your opinion on such things.
Thank you PO.
Fatman, ya have to give me a little time to respond. Job, family, house, posting on here is a leisure that I rarely have time for.
OK...I only have a personal dislike for certain drugs that I have personally seen ruin peoples lives. The drugs that I personally think are distructive are:
Meth
Heroin
Crack
Cocaine
Meth is really a bad drug.
Now I know you want me to talk about Marijuana ("The harmless drug"). Have I worked an accident where the driver was intoxicated by marijuana, and he killed a mom and her 3 year old daugher, both who were survived by the dad and two older brothers? Yes, I have. Fatman, that little girl was one of the most adorable people I have ever seen. I seen her picture at her wake. She looked different at the accident because she was ejected from the car.
As for the other stuff? I dont care. I know its illegal to have acid, shrooms, etc. So if its illegal, you have to get arrested. Thats my stance I guess.
Do I personally get offended when people use drugs? Nope, not in the least. People are going to continue to wreck their lives with meth, heroin, crack, etc., and there is nothing I can do about it.
Do I personally get offended when people use drugs? Nope, not in the least. People are going to continue to wreck their lives with meth, heroin, crack, etc., and there is nothing I can do about it.
And an overzealous anti-drug government will continue to wreck the lives of many people who choose to expand their minds with lsd, dmt, mdma, etc. and it appears there isn't anything we can really do about it.
Police Officer
25-07-2006, 05:31
I hope these are some valid points, i tried to maintain as unbiased as possible. Oh and BTW PO, you should look deeper into the begining of drug prohibition in america, way before the 60's. Most if not all drug laws started as very racist concepts. Opium was made illegal because they viewed it as something that made the chinese railworkers lazy and good for nothing. Cocaine was viewed as something that created "crazed negro's". Really very interesting stuff, i believe you can run a search on here and find a thread about it, i will look for the link.
Yes, I am more than aware of that. I pride myself in knowing quite a deal about the history of drugs in America. You should really watch the documentaries that the History Channel airs. They seem to be pretty close to the truth as I understand it. Go to Historychannel.com, and type in "hooked" in the search engine.
Want to know something thats really interesting? Find out about the marijuana tax stamp.
~lostgurl~
25-07-2006, 05:37
As for the other stuff? I dont care. I know its illegal to have acid, shrooms, etc. So if its illegal, you have to get arrested. Thats my stance I guess.
Are you saying that as a police officer who's job it is to enforce laws, that you don't "actually care" whether the laws that you are enforcing are justified?
Also, I am curious as to why you became a police officer? Do you enjoy your job? Do you ever feel that certain things you do as part of your job have long term negative effects on people that may not deserve it? I realise that there must be a great deal of satisfaction in putting away some of the truly evil people in this world, but when it is the opposite do you find it difficult or do you right it off as just being part of the job?
I am not judging you at all, am just very curious as to whether your beliefs as a person affect your chosen profession, and I wonder how many people do things in their jobs that go against their beliefs, and how many people do their jobs without questioning the reasonings behind their duties.
Yes, I am more than aware of that. I pride myself in knowing quite a deal about the history of drugs in America. You should really watch the documentaries that the History Channel airs. They seem to be pretty close to the truth as I understand it. Go to Historychannel.com, and type in "hooked" in the search engine.
Want to know something thats really interesting? Find out about the marijuana tax stamp.
Me too, though I know more about the ancient and international history of drugs than specifically in the US, but the US is sort of my home as well (if only in name) so I try to learn as much about it as I can.
I like learning about the beginnings of the drug prohibition movement, but what I find more interesting is how the government tip-toed around legally to create the scheduling system so they could make lsd and other drugs illegal, which also helped make MDMA illegal so fast after it became popular.
Another good set of programs that aired recently, though a bit more in favour of the drugs (though it does show consequences), is "The Drug Years" on VH1 and the Sundance Film Channel. These were particularly well done and did a good job of showing the cultural movements that went with the drugs and how society as a whole changed with the drugs and spurred on the use of the drugs. Check it out if you haven't seen it already.
Though there are plenty of great shows/videos posted in the video section of this website so most people should be set for a while.
~lostgurl~
25-07-2006, 05:44
You should really watch the documentaries that the History Channel airs. They seem to be pretty close to the truth as I understand it. Go to Historychannel.com, and type in "hooked" in the search engine.
The link below (from multimedia - movies about drugs - drugs-forum) has 2 of the above mentioned history channel documentaries on the history of drugs:
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/local_links.php?action=jump&id=807&catid=43
~lostgurl~
25-07-2006, 05:49
Another good set of programs that aired recently, though a bit more in favour of the drugs (though it does show consequences), is "The Drug Years" on VH1 and the Sundance Film Channel. These were particularly well done and did a good job of showing the cultural movements that went with the drugs and how society as a whole changed with the drugs and spurred on the use of the drugs. Check it out if you haven't seen it already.
do you have a link for this? I checked vh1.com but there was no free viewing, and I have read about it somewhere else and am keen to view for myself. Cheers
do you have a link for this? I checked vh1.com but there was no free viewing - (I don't have a credit card) and I have read about it somewhere else and am keen to view for myself. Cheers
http://www.torrentportal.com/details/617539/VH1+-+The+Drug+Years%2C+Part+1of4+-+Break+On+Through+%282006.TVRip.SoS%29.html
http://www.torrentportal.com/details/618456/VH1+-+The+Drug+Years%2C+Part+2of4+-+Feed+Your+Head+%282006.TVRip.SoS%29.html
http://www.torrentportal.com/details/619295/VH1+-+The+Drug+Years%2C+Part+3of4+-+Teenage+Wasteland+%282006.TVRip.SoS%29.html
http://www.torrentportal.com/details/619475/VH1+-+The+Drug+Years%2C+Part+4of4+-+Just+Say+No%21+%282006.TVRip.SoS%29.html
Thats the best I could do on short notice. There are a decent amount of seeders so it shouldn't be too long to download. I recommend you use uTorrent.
fatmanstan
25-07-2006, 07:05
Thank you for your reply, PO. SWIM agrees with you on your selection of "destructive" drugs, and he believes he mentioned something about addiction earlier on in this thread. All four of those fit the bill. This is not to say that there aren't people out there who are completely in control of their use of such drugs (at the moment).
SWIM also mentioned something about the responsible use of the drugs he mentioned. Operating a motor vehicle does not fit this type of use. Yes, SWIM would agree that it would be a terrible tradgedy to witness an accident scene where the driver was intoxicated, but why is it still legal to buy and be in possession of alcohol, if the majority of devastating collisions are caused by the US's good taxable drug? What about sleep-deprived drivers? Or those on perscription pills? Marijuana can intoxicate a person, there's no debate on that. Not everyone thinks its right to climb behind the wheel, though. Just like not everyone who enjoys a few cocktails gets out on the freeway for a "booze cruise". Responsiblity. <-- That's key right there.
SWIM also does not seem terrible convinced as to your position either way with the "that's my stance I guess" comment. This leads him to believe that you may question some of the laws that you are employed to enforce. Is this a common thing in your profession, or are most of the people you work with of the "duhhh... drugs are bad" camp? Don't get SWIM wrong, there should always be controls, but prohibition simply DOES NOT WORK. Was that not learned with respect to alcohol in the earlier part of last century?
Again, thank you very much for your time, PO.
Nagognog2
25-07-2006, 15:30
"Have I worked an accident where the driver was intoxicated by marijuana, and he killed a mom and her 3 year old daugher, both who were survived by the dad and two older brothers? Yes, I have."
I have no real problem with this answer as a matter of perspective and what might have been causative in the situation. However:
There is a person who ran the Drug Task Force for the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union to those across the imaginary lines) by the name of John Holmes (no relation to the porno star - he gets asked that at least once a day). I had occasion to do a radio interview with him, and this same situation came up as a reason why pot should remain illegal (it was a call-in show). He simply replied that "I don't care if you've been drinking whiskey. I don't care if you've been smoking dope all night. I don't care if you just had a fight with your wife. If you can't make 10,000 in Pacman - I don't want you on the road." That settled that in the simplest and most eloquent way! Some people should have their driver's permit torn up in their face - with no blame attached to a substance or a emotional response. They are a menace at any speed behind the wheel of a two-ton shopping cart.
While it is quite possible that some people's motor skills are reduced from smoking a joint, it is equally possible that they are impaired without the joint. This possible connection between pot and a fatal car accident exists - but this does not excuse a law passed in the 1930's, using racism as it's method to pull the public heartstrings, that was passed at the behest of two major corporations with a vested interest to get rid of hemp (Hearst Paper and DuPont Chemical), to make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding and intelligent citizens. We might as well pass a law making it illegal to get behind the wheel if you had a fight with your spouse within the last 72 hours.
Instead of spending taxpayer's dollars scaring kids in school with ghastly horror stories of marijuana being the devil's weed - the money could be better used to launch a no-nonsense educational awareness campaign to teach young people the wrong times to go driving down the road and possibly endanger others. Social Responsibility 101.
And Police Occifur (grin) is quite right. The series on the History Channel is excellent. Very much worth looking for and recording on your VCR if you are out those nights.
Tokyo-expat
25-07-2006, 17:38
For those of you who live in the US. Do you feel that you can trust the rules set in the law? That you will be safe following reason and didactics?Or do you think that anything may happen? Laws are applied with utter insanity and it's getting crazier month after month. I have stopped amazing myself overmad laws and infantile justice operationslong ago.
That they are trying to close the research chemical loophole I regret, but I can understand. Making information on drug production, spoons andpipesillegal shows bluntrandom prosecution, violation of freedom of speech and information. Rights that go beyond national law. It is not logical nor compliant with first first amendments or international law, so how can anybody be expected to know the law and not to break it?
This is the exact reason I left the US for greener pastures... I promised those who would listen that if Bush got re-elected I would leave the US and not come back until sanity and freedom were the order of the day. Until that day comes I will be and remain "Tokyo-Expat"
Once upon a time there was a dream called the United States of America.. which was a beacon of freedom in a cold and dark world. That day has since passed since those drunk on their new found power after WW2 realized they could rule the world. The dream has now become a nightmare.. and those that live within it dont even realize it from the daily dose of propaganda and distraction they are fed by the main stream media...
For those who are interested in the true begining of the American Dream I recomend reading the Constitution of The Untied States of America.. and the Declaration of Independence (with a dictionary).. and realize how far the US has drifted from its begining. (and the Federalist Papers for those who are really intersted). It will make you sick to see what America has become.
I find it funny (in a sick way) that the president who has sworn to uphold the Constitution has done nothing but shit on it since taking office.
old hippie 56
25-07-2006, 18:01
Damn good reason to leave, you might be one of the lucky ones. Swim found this quote the other day, and seems to fit this thread as well.
"If we choose to ignore the rule of law and subvert the Constitution in the name of "safety", we will raise the specter that, in the loss of American values and American freedoms, America will become a place name rather than an ideal to be emulated" by District Judge John Murphy
Nagognog2
25-07-2006, 18:57
"This would be a lot easier if I could be a dictator." - G. W. Bush (2001)
TheTrueBlackMeat
28-07-2006, 07:16
The majority of the human populace has always required someone else to do their thinking for them and set their values. Our society caters to weak people who have their personalities dictated by their environment/television. If society didn't cater to these people, the people at the top would have less power.
As for staying within the rules of the law... Be smart. 99% of bad things that happen to you in life are a direct result of a choice you make. There is a saying... If you keep all the small rules you can break the big ones.
As for the government... Don't trust it, take advantage of it like it takes advantage of you and everyone else.
There's no revolution, no salvation coming. Everything is just going to get worse.
Take what you are able to and enjoy it while you are still able to.
The majority of the human populace has always required someone else to do their thinking for them and set their values. Our society caters to weak people who have their personalities dictated by their environment/television. If society didn't cater to these people, the people at the top would have less power.
As for staying within the rules of the law... Be smart. 99% of bad things that happen to you in life are a direct result of a choice you make. There is a saying... If you keep all the small rules you can break the big ones.
As for the government... Don't trust it, take advantage of it like it takes advantage of you and everyone else.
There's no revolution, no salvation coming. Everything is just going to get worse.
Take what you are able to and enjoy it while you are still able to.
You do know that optimists tend to live longer right? :p
Winston Churchill said that "Democracy means that when there's a knock in the door at 3 am, it's probably the milkman.".
Unfortunately thats not quite true in the US today if you are a drug user. You never know what could happen.
Political action is the only way to change things. It may take time but I believe if the conditions are right and people work for it we can achieve a better environment for recreational drug use in the nation.
I saw a kid get sent up for having a zip lock bag of the nootropic Piracetam which he split with a friend. So this kid has 350grams of white powdery Nootropics in a zip lock just driving home. From what I heard he had just put the bag on the passengers seat and he stopped at a gas station for whatever and a Sheriff saw the bag.
The guy let him have the bag asap because it wasn't a big deal, just Piracitam but the Sheriff thought it was Crystal and took him in.
Poor guy had to spend 4 hours in lockup and then had to get his car out of impound because he had spiked red hair and seemed shady. Never got the Piracetam back either.
I guess he should be glad it wasn't some 2c-i or something. Honestly SWIM feels odd when the San Pedros get 5 foot tall. SWIM is waiting for the day when a law can be made on the fly aka Judge Dredd.
Well, the way I see it, drug use will never go away, and illicit manufacture, along with criminal behaviors to supply, purchase, and control them as long as they remain illegal. A black market and organized crime networks can only survive if their businesses are illegal. The history channel documentaries are very accurate and unbiased, and I think they demonstrate that many drugs were outlawed for political reasons (ie - cannabis because of the possibility or competing with paper pulp - read about William Randolph Hearst, who helped father the DEA). I loathe heroin, cocaine and meth. I have had bad habits with all three in the past, and it took years to fix the damage these addictions caused. However, the greater damage done are the legal ramifications, including felonies, jail time, and seizures of property to name a few, all of which may deter a reapeat offence, but leave behind an individual who will have difficulty resuming a meaningful life. All this effort on enforcing the laws (and I understand and agree that police officers like Police Officer are not paid to interpret them) could be redirected towards controlling other crime. This would make room for more violent offenders so that they are not released early or at all, and allow many addicts to have their habit, and a life. The black market is what ruins lifes, and the laws that allow it to exist.
Also, as far as the example cited about driving under the influence of cannabis, how many more scenarios have you seen involving alcohol, a legal intoxicant? I'm not condoning driving under the influence of anything, but how is cannabis different from legal intoxicants in this respect?
In the end the problem of prohibition is a difficult one. I will say that though I think most drugs should be legal, meth, coke and dissociatives (ie-PCP) would be difficult to manage due to the violent behavior all three can perpetuate in certain people. Still, this is not the case with most users, and creating people who are disgruntled, unable to find a job or vote, and whose support group has been a bunch of other criminals in jail does not make for a responsible citizenry.
I guess it is easier to be a law enforcer, because you don't need to make any of these decisions, but I have witnessed equal trajedy with the enforcement of drug laws on people close to me as you describe by use. I also have found that most 'hard' drug users I have known are responsible and productive members of society. The majority of the social fringe that causes trouble on drugs is the same that would cause trouble without them. they are the ones who should go to jail and that is what jails are for...
History is cyclic. Did Rome fall?
After this upcoming broadcast 24/7 - CNN BBC - World War III nuke fest widescreen 5.1 DTS ... I'm gonna sit down under a tree and eat a mushroom.
bewilderment
18-08-2006, 16:39
In the end the problem of prohibition is a difficult one. I will say that though I think most drugs should be legal, meth, coke and dissociatives (ie-PCP) would be difficult to manage due to the violent behavior all three can perpetuate in certain people.
Dissociatives in general? Swim has not tried PCP so she cannot comment on that one, but she has tried four other dissociatives: DXM, Ketamine, Salvia Divinorum, and Nitrous Oxide. None of these seem to increase the likelihood of violent behavior, and if anything in most cases it will significantly decrease the likelihood. In fact, on most of these drugs the small, quirky things that are likely to set off any sort of "incident" will seem of no consequence whatsoever because one is being dissociated from the material world in which such matters reside.
Specifically PCP and some of its close analogs which can increase psychotic behavior. Ketamine, nitrous and DXM lack that property. Salvia is a kappa agonist, so is more of narcotic than a true dissiciative, which inhibits NMDA. I should have left that one out, but PCP does seem to perpetuate some really dangerous behavior in some people.
Specifically PCP and some of its close analogs which can increase psychotic behavior. Ketamine, nitrous and DXM lack that property. Salvia is a kappa agonist, so is more of narcotic than a true dissiciative, which inhibits NMDA. I should have left that one out, but PCP does seem to perpetuate some really dangerous behavior in some people.
Not to mention that it is quite easy to slip into other substances without people knowing, as swim found out to his dismay once.
Not fun!
bewilderment
19-08-2006, 13:39
Specifically PCP and some of its close analogs which can increase psychotic behavior. Ketamine, nitrous and DXM lack that property. Salvia is a kappa agonist, so is more of narcotic than a true dissiciative, which inhibits NMDA. I should have left that one out, but PCP does seem to perpetuate some really dangerous behavior in some people.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing that PCP may cause psychotic behavior (it surely has before in others, but swim can't comment on the substance from experience). I was simply disagreeing with the statement that lumped all dissociatives into a category of drugs which are more likely than others to precipitate violent behavior.