The support for drug laws

[x cynic x]

So then you support drug laws. Why don't people worry about themselves, capitalism is better than communism. People must have the freedom to make the decision what to put into their body, the only posession that you should definitely be in charge of no matter what someone else wants you to do, why manipulate others. If you dont support drug laws why would you choose to enforce something against your morales as a profession?

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by x cynic x

So then you support drug laws...People must have the freedom to make the decision what to put into their body...

Uh, yes I support drug laws.

Look at history. People (AKA the gen. pop.) used to have the freedom to make the decision of what to put into their body. But when people GROSSLY abused that freedom it was taken away. Heroin and cocaine are prefect examples.

[x cynic x]

Who are you to make that decision for someone else? If they are aware of the dangers of a particular substance, they should be allowed to reap their desired effects. Just because something is illegal does not mean it will automatically destroy your life if you come into contact with it. Many people improve their lives with substances others do not want them to have. How would you like it if I tried to diminish the quality of your life? Swim said he doesn't like people who deprecate drugs based on their views of addicts, junkies, and people who are deserved of their self-inflicted fates. This is heading off topic though.

[psyki]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Uh, yes I support drug laws.

Look at history. People (AKA the gen. pop.) used to have the freedom to make the decision of what to put into their body. But when people GROSSLY abused that freedom it was taken away. Heroin and cocaine are prefect examples.

I think it's important to look at the word 'abuse' when using this argument. Are you implying that there is some universal scale that defines 'use' and 'abuse' that is inherent in all people? It's easy to look around the world and see different interpretations of "abuse". Even the history of the US has changed it's perspective on what is 'use' and 'abuse'. More realistically abuse became defined in the US as when a person's use of drugs began to affect the society around them in a negative way. For example perhaps joe blow's heroin addiction led him to steal money to provide for his habit. Not to go too far off the subject, but I can't help but see that as 100% a social issue and not a criminal issue, and should be treated as such.

Sorry, back on topic

[darawk]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Uh, yes I support drug laws.

Look at history. People (AKA the gen. pop.) used to have the freedom to make the decision of what to put into their body. But when people GROSSLY abused that freedom it was taken away. Heroin and cocaine are prefect examples.

But what's more interesting to point out about that is that that abuse was not very problematic until the drugs were made illegal. Only when heroin and cocaine were made criminal did people start regularly OD'ing, committing crimes to get their stash, or dying from impure product. Not to mention all the violence associated with a criminal underground where that much money is involved.

And anyway - when heroin was criminalized it had almost nothing to do with abuse. It had far more to do with manipulating trade with the Chinese(who supplied the raw opium).

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Look at history. People (AKA the gen. pop.) used to have the freedom to make the decision of what to put into their body. But when people GROSSLY abused that freedom it was taken away. Heroin and cocaine are prefect examples.

I don't care how grossly the freedom was abused (though you exaggerate), the government doesn't have the right to take it away. The only victim from drug use is the person who does it excessively, but if they do so that is their right.

How can you be so blind that you can't see the harm these drug laws are causing? Even if you refuse to consider alternative courses of action, for whatever reason, you have to be able to see how drug laws create so many new problems relating to drugs and their use, where there were only individual-centric problems before.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Uh, yes I support drug laws.

Look at history. People (AKA the gen. pop.) used to have the freedom to make the decision of what to put into their body. But when people GROSSLY abused that freedom it was taken away. Heroin and cocaine are prefect examples.

Let me fix your typo for you:

But when some people GROSSLY abused that freedom it was taken away from everyone.

Punishing the group for the actions of individuals. That's pure Marxism. Love it or hate it, it's not what the founders of this nation intended - nor what they wrote in that document that politicians and government officials pretend to care about.

They knew something you don't - the rights are not yours to take away. Human beings have individual rights, and it doesn't matter if the local warlord, king, pope, politician, or mob doesn't like it.

No law which violates an honest, peaceful individual's right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness is valid, no matter how popular it is. Those who create such laws are immoral; those who enforce those laws are not excused because they were just following orders.


ECL



I love you, but why must you love the law?
’Tis plain for all to see that she’s a whore
That virtuous persons have no need to woo;
That villains screw, then studiously ignore.

--Alan Moore (V for Vendetta)

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Excellent. I like the way you brought socio-economic theories into the arguments. :)
	Good reasoning

[x cynic x]

Swim thinks P.O finally realized that you cant protect people from their own will. Nowadays, the conduct of Cops has nothing to do with protection, its pure aggression. People like P.O should prioritize logic and freedom above the obligations of a profession.

Also, Swim realized the corruption of law-making that is enforced wrongfully. Well, in a republic, representing politicians are supposed to represent the ideas of the general population. This is how the system should work, but the truth is that when they vote to pass a law, what do you think they consider first? Their own opinion, or what they think might be what others believe in? Who would prioritize common notion above their own? Swim knows he would not, and suspects politicians of the same. Since law-makers attend law schools, the majority never experiences the magic of certain substances, so their opinion of them is greatly bias and opposed. Politicains should make decisions and laws based on experience and personal knowledge, none of which that actually possess. Then people are punished for common behavior, like altering perception, which is misinterpreted from unjust laws.

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by x cynic x

...People like P.O should prioritize logic and freedom above the obligations of a profession...

Excellent point, and sadly the inability to do so is probably why he's abandoned this thread.

But I think there's hope for him yet. The fact that he's willing to enter this lion's den of logic and freedom indicates that there's a good heart at his core struggling against years of institutional conditioning.

:: reality sinking in ::

Or maybe he just shows these threads to his pals and they all have a good laugh before they go out for the next roundup. And that I'm just "kidding myself, buddy."

[Alfa]

Moved from here: I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH

[Alfa]

I do think the government has not only the right, but also the duty to regulate harmful things. But this implicates denying access, which in turn implicates regulation. And regulation usually needs repercussion to be uphold effectively.

So far the only thing I see is total prohibition. Which is utter stupidity IMHO. You can not honestly say that simple blanket prohibition of controlled substances is a solution to the need to protect citizens from harmful compounds.
Different drugs have different effects & levels of harmfulness. Therefor they need different solutions.

For example: I do not see how anyone can justify that a cannabis trader can go to jail for decades, while his/her customers nor society do not suffer. And the negative effects from the sales that the cannabis trader made are far less than those of a liquor trader.
At the same time, I do see how someone can justify a heroin trader going to jail for decades, because his/her and society certainly do suffer.

But there are few governments that have the balls to really touch the problem. I think the war on drug media propaganda plays a very large role in the political approach to this. Regulation of controlled substances would solve the problem in a sufficient way IMHO. The only thing I have seen so far is heroin prescription programs which are expanding in Europe.

In other words: your countries leaders are cowards who do not have the balls to solve the drug problem, simply because it's a delicate issue. And as a result you are busting dealers that will be replaced by someone else within days and traders that harm no one.

And at the other end drug use is not declining because of it. On the contrary: it is increasing because of it.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by Alfa

I do think the government has not only the right, but also the duty to regulate harmful things. But this implicates denying access, which in turn implicates regulation. And regulation usually needs repercussion to be uphold effectively.

I disagree with you here. I believe the government's duty is to protect us from each other, not ourselves. I think the government has the right to regulate the marketing and maybe the sale of these substances, but in NO WAY does ANY government have the right to regulate personal use or consumption. If I want to consume cyanide because it's thursday and i'm curious, I should be able to do so.

Basically i'd like to see the FDA remain and the DEA dissolve. I think the gov. needs to protect us from unscrupulous companies that will lie about whats in their products or the true risks/rewards of their use. But beyond informing us, I think the government needs to get out of the 'substance' field entirely.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Alfa

I do think the government has not only the right, but also the duty to regulate harmful things. But this implicates denying access, which in turn implicates regulation. And regulation usually needs repercussion to be uphold effectively.

This is...what we are doing. Take morphine for example. It is addictive. It is regulated. If you have a medicinal need then you are granted access.

Originally Posted by Bajeda

I don't care how grossly the freedom was abused (though you exaggerate), the government doesn't have the right to take it away. The only victim from drug use is the person who does it excessively, but if they do so that is their right.

How can you be so blind that you can't see the harm these drug laws are causing? Even if you refuse to consider alternative courses of action, for whatever reason, you have to be able to see how drug laws create so many new problems relating to drugs and their use, where there were only individual-centric problems before.

The government DOES have the right. A law was passed by legislators that you or your ancestors voted into office.

I have no idea what harm any drug law has ever done. I have though seen the harm that drugs do. Remember my job. I see junkies, I see OD's, I see broken homes, I see robbery victims, burglary victims, assault victims, rape victims.

If you and a small group of your friends get high all the time and stay out of trouble then you are the minority. The majority, however, needs "Big Brother" to make sure they dont turn into my customers.

Anyway, thats just how I see it. Just my opinion.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by darawk

I disagree with you here. I believe the government's duty is to protect us from each other, not ourselves. I think the government has the right to regulate the marketing and maybe the sale of these substances, but in NO WAY does ANY government have the right to regulate personal use or consumption. If I want to consume cyanide because it's thursday and i'm curious, I should be able to do so.

But then that also seems to imply that you feel that governments should not provide any help those suffering from the harmful effects of the use of these substances? Whether medical, addiction treatment, prevention and education, violence control, etc. etc.?
I say this because I do not believe it's reasonable to think that a government should on one side be totally passive and ignorant and let harm happen, while at the other side it would be responsible to clean up the mess.
Your thoughts please...

Originally Posted by Police Officer

This is...what we are doing. Take morphine for example. It is addictive. It is regulated. If you have a medicinal need then you are granted access.

OK. Lets follow that line of thought. Consider the situation of heroin users with a heavy addiction. If they do not get their next dose of heroin, they will get sick to a degree that they will suffer hell. If that's not a medical need, then I do not know what is.
But it is also a social need: because as you probably have seen, many heavy heroin users will go to great lengths and cause a lot of social, physical, financial and even forensic damage to avoid that situation.
So it has a medical, social and forensic need, but there is no regulation. Only blind oppression, which is obviously not working well.
This is only one example. We can consider many.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Alfa

OK. Lets follow that line of thought. Consider the situation of heroin users with a heavy addiction. If they do not get their next dose of heroin, they will get sick to a degree that they will suffer hell. If that's not a medical need, then I do not know what is.
But it is also a social need: because as you probably have seen, many heavy heroin users will go to great lengths and cause a lot of social, physical, financial and even forensic damage to avoid that situation.

I'd say thats a great argument for promoting DARE and other programs like this. On a side note, they are both good programs even if you wholeheartely disagree with me about everything. Why are they good? They help to let our kids know that there are dangers that are associated with crack and meth. You know, those dangers that arent really talked about when the pipe's being passed around. I especially like the Above The Influence website.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by Alfa

But then that also seems to imply that you feel that governments should not provide any help those suffering from the harmful effects of the use of these substances? Whether medical, addiction treatment, prevention and education, violence control, etc. etc.?
I say this because I do not believe it's reasonable to think that a government should on one side be totally passive and ignorant and let harm happen, while at the other side it would be responsible to clean up the mess.
Your thoughts please...

I'd say no - at least, no more than they do to alcoholics. I don't think the societal cost of drug use would be nearly as large as it is if you could buy heroin at your local super market. If you are addicted to heroin or cocaine, it's not essential that you quit immediately, or that you quit on someone else's schedule. You can quit your habit at whatever rate you please, slowly tapering off. And most importantly, you don't have to hide it from the people around you. Family members and friends are generally much more aware of an alcoholics problem than a drug users problem because drug users feel the need to keep their drug use completely hidden from those around them(in many cases, anyway).

I don't really think the medical costs of drug use would wind up being too much greater than say, the medical costs of obesity or snowboarding.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

There are also plenty of people who have been put to death by the state for simply flingling a peice of lead using a peice of metal and polymer. Wordplay Bud, its still murder. What you're talking about is cultivation, or possession of a scheduled narcotic with the intent to distribute, or whatever its called in your state.

You are quite right that words can be and often are used to manipulate debates like these, but there is a fundamental difference between shooting someone and selling them drugs. You seem to be taking the viewpoint of "illegal therefore wrong", whereas I think most legalization supporters take the viewpoint of "it doesn't violate anyone else's individual free will, therefore it should not be regulated". So I ask you - what is it precisely about drugs that makes it necessary for the government to forcibly prevent you from asserting your right to ingest whatever you choose?

In other words...suppose for a second that every drug is legal. What would happen? Would society instantly deteriorate into an unfunctioning mass of heroin addicts?

Reputation Comments on this post:

very good.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

This is...what we are doing. Take morphine for example. It is addictive. It is regulated. If you have a medicinal need then you are granted access.

Just like the large number of people who feel that cannabis helps them medicinally better than any prescription medication they can get receive access to it?

Originally Posted by Police Officer

The government DOES have the right. A law was passed by legislators that you or your ancestors voted into office.

Well I say it doesn't have the right, and many greater and more judicious men who were legislators of this country would argue outright against a prohibition law and slap the legislators who enacted the current war on drugs in the face.

And we should support the law enacted by people our ancestors voted into office just because? Damn, I guess we better go and bring back the Jim Crow laws because our ancestors, in their infinite wisdom, elected the people who invented those!

The government DOES NOT have the right to regulate what I put into my body, and you are free to disagree if you'd like as that is a protected right, just like doing whatever the hell you'd like to your own body (including killing yourself if you want, making suicide illegal is stupid) should be a protected right. The constitution is slowly being trampled over as time goes on, and the War on Drugs and the War on Terror is fuelling this erosion of civil liberties.

The fact that you and so many other Americans are ok with it has been foreshadowed. Even the people of Nazi Germany thought they were free during the height of Hitler's power and authoritarian dominance. So shall we think we are free. Free to live a life of servitude to society, which has someone become more important than the individual. Free to a life of slavery to laws meant to enforce the morals of others upon the collective whole. Free to live the way others tell you because its for your own good. Many people would probably be able to accept a life like that, having been gradually conditioned to it... to accept the all-encompassing importance of society, money, our benevolent institutions, all without question. But I sure as hell aren't going to sit down and accept that just because a few so-called 'authority figures' tell me its best for everyone.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I have no idea what harm any drug law has ever done. I have though seen the harm that drugs do. Remember my job. I see junkies, I see OD's, I see broken homes, I see robbery victims, burglary victims, assault victims, rape victims.

Your job introduces a level of bias in and of itself I could imagine. You see all the bad effects of drugs, and none of the good. Have you ever talked to someone for whom cannabis allowed them to be physically able to live actively again, or at least without pain? Have you met someone with PTSD or some other terrible psychological affliction who was able to see the point in living life again thanks to some psychedelic or entactogen. Have you met anyone whose entire course in life was shifted away from a predetermined path to a new course that brought them much more happiness?

And all the gang wars and criminal activity you see associated with drugs, is from prohibition, just like the gang violence that swept Chicago and other cities during alcohol prohibition.

You see all the crime directly associated with drug use, but that accounts for only a few percentage points of the costs of the war on drugs as a whole. Look at Columbia, at Afghanistan, other places in South America. Entire countries have been messed up because of prohibition creating a massive and extremely profitable illegal market. Think about all the police officers and criminals and bystanders killed in shootouts over the years, would that have happened if drugs were a legal and regulated commodity. Do you think growers of coca would be gunning each other down in the streets then? Just like you see owners of bars or rival resteraunts blowing each other up to get more business now

Do you see how the US has the biggest prison population in the world? Forget the military industrial complex, we now have the prison-industrial complex, with the prison industry growing at an extremely fast rate. You miss segregation and jim crow laws? Maybe even slavery? Don't worry, thanks to mandatory sentencing laws we are taking away the votes and livelihood of thousands upon thousands of black men dealing drugs to make a few bucks an hour to try and survive in their squalid socioeconomic conditions that our nations "leaders" couldn't give a fuck about. Yay! throw the darkies in prison! I'll bet the enactors of the original drug laws would be proud that their creations are still keeping true to their original racist intentions.

And as you see tougher and tougher laws enacted to help "fight" the unwinnable drug war, and society conditioned to accept more and more intrusion into and dominance over their lives, all in the name of "security", we will come closer and closer to a totalitarian state. A state in which democratic institutions are completely useless if a small elite has control over the hearts and minds of the people, and if your heart and mind isn't under their control then you are going to get screwed over and have a little blurb in the paper saying how you were shot or imprisoned for the sake of "security". I'm not saying this is an inevitable conclusion of our current path, but if you look at the road we are heading down currently I'd say it isn't too improbable to see this sooner than you'd think, not that most people would notice though. They are fine accepting the definition of "freedom" other people decide to give them.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

If you and a small group of your friends get high all the time and stay out of trouble then you are the minority. The majority, however, needs "Big Brother" to make sure they dont turn into my customers.

I wouldn't say we are the miniority. Do you know how many Americans have tried cannabis? Close to 40% of the country's population now I believe. Maybe because you see the bad side all the time you miss the huge amount of people who use drugs without problems. Did you ever think we don't know about all of them because they hide their use and don't mess up their lives so we just don't notice?

Just for a fun fact, do you know what percentage of people in the Netherlands have used cannabis? I'll give you a hint (and let you search the answer), its much lower than in the US.

Tell a child they can't have a cookie and what do you think they are going to be determined to get?

And we, as a society, never will 'need' big brother to come watch over us. Big brother can go straight to hell. I will never accept having a paternalistic government that thinks it knows whats best for its citizens. Its job is to protect its citizens from outside forces (to a reasonable extent, not all this fear mongering crap the War on Terror brings), and from each other, and from the government itself. Its job isn't to protect citizens from themselves, and the point of the drug war isn't to do so anyways, as making drugs illegal encourages far more harm than making them legal and properly (key word) regulated would.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Anyway, thats just how I see it. Just my opinion.

Well, I'm going to venture to say that you see "it" from a very limited perspective. I am sure that your job is responsible for that to a great extent, which is understandable. I still think you should look outside your current zone of experience and explore a little further. If we all constrained our knowledge to our direct personal experiences we wouldn't have advanced so much as a species. Learn from others, and especially others mistakes.

And since I doubt you care to take what a bunch of potential "drug-users" say to you at face value (not that anyone on this site uses drugs), here is the opinions of some of your colleagues, most of whom have had more direct experience with drugs and their negatives than you I'd guess.

Take a look. See what cops who dedicated their lives to the drug war found out after so long in the field. If the earlier link doesn't work, at least see the short verision here.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good post Baj, honest people don't need laws nor do they try to fight their way around it.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Just like the large number of people who feel that cannabis helps them medicinally better than any prescription medication they can get receive access to it?

Medicinal pot is legal. It’s reserved for people with medical needs, like cancer. If its legal and you’re prescribed it, go on with your bad self.

Originally Posted by Bajeda

And we should support the law enacted by people our ancestors voted into office just because?

Well that’s what makes us a civic society. You just can’t arbitrarily go breaking laws that you disagree with. Ya know, that’s what makes the US awesome. If you don’t like something then do something to change it. You don’t like marijuana being illegal? Do something to change it. I say this to a lot of dopers: “Its your fault marijuana is illegal.”

Originally Posted by Bajeda

The government DOES NOT have the right to regulate what I put into my body…The constitution is slowly being trampled over as time goes on, and the War on Drugs and the War on Terror is fuelling this erosion of civil liberties.

Ok, but it does have the right to outlaw what you possess. The Constitution is not being trampled on. I love the Constitution. I love the Bill of Rights. They are living, breathing things. They evolve with the US, the world, times, technology, crime, and I could go on.

There’s a new threat. This one is where people are planning to kill loads of people in every way imaginable. They want to kill us using planes, trains, automobiles, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, bombs, etc. The laws have to change when you have that type of person against you. As much as many people want to complain about it, The Patriot Act is something that was born out of necessity. Necessity. I guess my questions to you are this: Should any new laws have been enacted post 9/11? What new laws should have been enacted to combat the threat of terrorism?

Originally Posted by Bajeda

So shall we think we are free. Free to live a life of servitude to society, which has someone become more important than the individual. Free to a life of slavery to laws meant to enforce the morals of others upon the collective whole. Free to live the way others tell you because its for your own good. Many people would probably be able to accept a life like that, having been gradually conditioned to it... to accept the all-encompassing importance of society, money, our benevolent institutions, all without question. But I sure as hell aren't going to sit down and accept that just because a few so-called 'authority figures' tell me its best for everyone.

Don’t sit down and take it. If you don’t like it then do something to change it. I personally enjoy the freedoms that I have. I cant imagine anywhere else that has greater freedoms, or living somewhere else and feeling such a great sense of freedom. Aside from illegal drug use…When have you felt restricted in the past year where you would liked to have done something that you felt was accepted in a civil society?

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Your job introduces a level of bias in and of itself I could imagine. You see all the bad effects of drugs, and none of the good. Have you ever talked to someone for whom cannabis allowed them to be physically able to live actively again, or at least without pain?

You don’t even know.

No, I haven’t. I am all for legally prescribed medication that helps a person live a normal life.

Originally Posted by Bajeda

And we, as a society, never will 'need' big brother to come watch over us. Its job isn't to protect citizens from themselves, and the point of the drug war isn't to do so anyways, as making drugs illegal encourages far more harm than making them legal and properly (key word) regulated would.

Part of the Governments job most certainly is to protect us from ourselves. Many people cant survive without government assistance. The vast majority have put themselves in that position because of very stupid decisions that they made.

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Well, I'm going to venture to say that you see "it" from a very limited perspective. I am sure that your job is responsible for that to a great extent, which is understandable. I still think you should look outside your current zone of experience and explore a little further. If we all constrained our knowledge to our direct personal experiences we wouldn't have advanced so much as a species. Learn from others, and especially others mistakes.

Partner, I see “it” everyday, and I’ve seen it from every perspective. I’ve seen rich, poor, white, black, smart, and dumb. From all that I’ve ever seen, I’ve never met a heroin addict who’s doing great. If I were to look outside my current zone of experience, where would you suggest that I look. Keep in mind that I grew up in the city, and I wasn’t just born a Cop. I actually had a life before I did this. (Hard to believe, I know lol)

Originally Posted by Bajeda

And since I doubt you care to take what a bunch of potential "drug-users" say to you at face value...

Says who? I enjoy the debates, and I’m surprised that there are so many well spoken and obviously very intelligent people on here. (Don’t ask me why, you won’t like the answer.)

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Take a look. See what cops who dedicated their lives to the drug war found out after so long in the field. If the earlier link doesn't work, at least see the short verision here.

I’ve seen the leap video before. It’s a joke in my opinion. I can’t believe that anyone who’s walked in my shoes would think like that. It actually shocks me. I really wonder what type of job they did coming up, what period of time they worked the beat, and just about a million other things.

[Coconut]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Well that’s what makes us a civic society. You just can’t arbitrarily go breaking laws that you disagree with. Ya know, that’s what makes the US awesome. If you don’t like something then do something to change it. You don’t like marijuana being illegal? Do something to change it. I say this to a lot of dopers: “Its your fault marijuana is illegal.”

Yes, because the minority of people who regularly smoke marijuana are completely at fault for it being illegal. I'm assuming you've heard of the global movement to decriminalise/legalise cannabis use?

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Ok, but it does have the right to outlaw what you possess. The Constitution is not being trampled on. I love the Constitution. I love the Bill of Rights. They are living, breathing things. They evolve with the

Originally Posted by Police Officer

US, the world, times, technology, crime, and I could go on.

Many, many would argue that you are wrong, that your Bill of Rights has been slashed to pieces. I, for one, would tend to agree with this. They are not living, breathing things.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

There’s a new threat. This one is where people are planning to kill loads of people in every way imaginable. They want to kill us using planes, trains, automobiles, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, bombs, etc. The laws have to change when you have that type of person against you. As much as many people want to complain about it, The Patriot Act is something that was born out of necessity. Necessity. I guess my questions to you are this: Should any new laws have been enacted post 9/11? What new laws should have been enacted to combat the threat of terrorism?

This is absurd. I live in a country that has been torn apart by war and terrorism for eight hundred years, almost non-stop. The Patriot Act was not born out of necessity (one reason being that it was written up before 9/11 and no member of Congress was allowed to read it before passing it, according to Ron Paul) neither were the draconian laws which were enacted in my country during the British MI5-funded IRA campaign. Such laws introduced summary detention without trial (aka internment) and the abolition of many necessary human rights. More people die of peanut allergies every year than terrorism. Nobody can justify taking away my rights, or anyone elses, because of the extraordinarily slim chance I/they might die from a threat from the CIA-created al-Qaeda - a threat which many argue is a fraud.

Laws do not have to change because of any kind of external threat, real of manufactured, because it almost always leads to totalitarianism. If you think that's fine, good for you, but I don't.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Don’t sit down and take it. If you don’t like it then do something to change it.

The people are trying to change things. Your belief that we aren't is just ridiculous. Anti-war, drugs legalisation, 9/11 truth, civil liberties. All of these movements are dedicated to bringing about positive change and reversing the damage our governments have done.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I personally enjoy the freedoms that I have. I cant imagine anywhere else that has greater freedoms, or living somewhere else and feeling such a great sense of freedom.

The key here is "sense of freedom". You are a police officer - you work for the establishment, so you are going to feel far more free than those who do not. I am going to argue that your freedom is an illusion. The Patriot Act. The Military Commissions Act. Various executive orders. They have all served to set your Bill of Rights on fire. We even have our own version here; it's called the Criminal Offences (Terrorism) Act, and the British have theirs as well: the Terrorism Act.

All of these pieces of legislation erode our freedom in the Western World.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Aside from illegal drug use…When have you felt restricted in the past year where you would liked to have done something that you felt was accepted in a civil society?

Hm, let's see.. I would have liked to have gone on a holiday to Florida but of course, that'd mean giving your government my photograph and fingerprints, so no thanks. I would have liked to have attended a protest in London near the Houses of Parliament but of course, now you can be arrested under the Terrorism Act for protesting within one kilometre of the buildings. They are two examples. Whether or not it affects me personally is irrelevant. My country, your country, the United Kingdom and others in the West are sliding down the path to totalitarianism. You can sit around in denial if you want. You can think to yourself "I enforce the law so I don't have to worry". But I think you're abhorrently mistaken if you ignore the signs.

You should do some research on why civil libertarians and people who actually value human rights think we're transforming into police states.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Part of the Governments job most certainly is to protect us from ourselves. Many people cant survive without government assistance. The vast majority have put themselves in that position because of very stupid decisions that they made.

This is silly. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy in favour of government: people have their lives ruined by drugs because drugs are illegal and, therefore, cut with toxic substances, yet you say these people can't survive without government assistance once their lives become ruined.

I do not need a government. I do not needs it to protect me from anyone, especially not myself. I can survive perfectly fine on my own or with my family and friends. The only reason most people would suffer without government is because they've been conditioned into thinking it is necessary. They wouldn't know what to do. But it's not necessary - we can live without people telling us what to do.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

From all that I’ve ever seen, I’ve never met a heroin addict who’s doing great.

Then let them ruin their lives themselves. I propose that you have no right to interfere. There are plenty of people on heroin who lead perfectly normal lives - they are the ones you'll never find, therefore distorting your view of the drug world.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Says who? I enjoy the debates, and I’m surprised that there are so many well spoken and obviously very intelligent people on here. (Don’t ask me why, you won’t like the answer.)

Probably because the ones you catch are the morons - there are thousands of intelligent drug users out there that you will never catch.

Reputation Comments on this post:

great post, if a little strident.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I personally enjoy the freedoms that I have. I cant imagine anywhere else that has greater freedoms, or living somewhere else and feeling such a great sense of freedom.

THAT is the American arrogance that drives people insane. So America is the freest, bestest place in the entire world? Guess it's a good thing those Canadians don't know or we'd have as big a problem with our northern border as our southern one. It's a good thing the Atlantic is so big or we'd have Western Europe trying to invade our country as well.

I wonder how many people who don't live in America agree with you.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Well that’s what makes us a civic society. You just can’t arbitrarily go breaking laws that you disagree with.

Sure you can. It's called "civil disobedience," and it's an American tradition. Anyone who refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws was practicing it.

Note that America was founded by a much more violent sort of resistance. They called people like yourself "loyalists," back then.

Ok, but it does have the right to outlaw what you possess. The Constitution is not being trampled on. I love the Constitution. I love the Bill of Rights. They are living, breathing things. They evolve with the

US, the world, times, technology, crime, and I could go on.

You are fucking wrong, soldier.

The Constitution is the social contract America was founded on. There is a process to amend it - this process was actually used in the case of Prohibition. It's been ignored in the case of other drugs. Why do you suppose it was needed for alcohol, but not cannabis or heroin? All were equally legal at one time. If anything, heroin was less regulated than alcohol (and had less problems associated with it).

No one is obliged to obey a law that goes against the contract. No one is obliged to submit to officers who enforce laws that break the contract. To make this claim is to give politicians and their enforcers arbitrary power.

That's not liberty; it's tyranny.


ECL

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Medicinal pot is legal. It’s reserved for people with medical needs, like cancer. If its legal and you’re prescribed it, go on with your bad self.

Medicinal marijuana is legal? Not federally it isn't, as the forced shutdowns of medicinal marijuana dispenseries in San Diego demonstrate.

Of course it doesn't matter that the Feds were circumventing state and local medicinal marijuana laws voted for by popular referendum....

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Well that’s what makes us a civic society. You just can’t arbitrarily go breaking laws that you disagree with. Ya know, that’s what makes the US awesome. If you don’t like something then do something to change it. You don’t like marijuana being illegal? Do something to change it. I say this to a lot of dopers: “Its your fault marijuana is illegal.”

I would agree that going around and breaking laws just because you disagree with them isn't the best policy, but I do think civil disobedience is an appropriate strategy to take at times, and while I can easily see you disagreeing due to your occupation, I believe that in a democracy people should feel the need to act out against legislation they feel is unjust and against the principles upon which the country was founded.

And its our fault marijuana is illegal?

Would you say that its the fault of the anti-war activists that we are in Iraq right now?


People are working to change the laws on cannabis, and its an uphill battle but we aren't giving up. But anyways, cannabis is illegal because of racist, greedy, powerhungry, and ethically deficient people who were able to heavily influence public opinion and public policy a long time ago. Don't blame it on smokers for being lazy and letting marijuana be made illegal. Its been illegal a long time, and thanks to the utterly ignorant and single minded attitude of the government towards drugs (do you know how many times its ignored scientific data and even the entire scientific community as a whole?) it has stayed that way, to the lament of many people who have worked very hard to change it.

I might as well tell you its your fault there are drug addicts out there robbing people and stealing and causing all the crime you have to deal with. Entirely your fault. You aren't doing your job.

See how well that logic works? But don't worry, we aren't giving up.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Ok, but it does have the right to outlaw what you possess. The Constitution is not being trampled on. I love the Constitution. I love the Bill of Rights. They are living, breathing things. They evolve with the US, the world, times, technology, crime, and I could go on.

It may be technically sound to outlaw drug posession but it isn't ethically, knowing the consequences as we do now.

And yes the constitution is being trampled on. The 'War on Drugs' is eroding our civil liberties step by step.

I would elucidate further but as I am more constrained by time these days I'll direct you towards this very interesting report by the Cato Institute -----> A Society of Suspects: The War on Drugs and Civil Liberties

I also suggest you glance through the Drug News and Law & Order sections a bit. I have no clue as to how you can't see the tightening choke hold the War on Drugs is applying to our civil liberties.

And the constitution really hasn't evolved that much since the early days of the United States, as politicians are too afraid to touch it, though with some of the leading politicians we have had in the past (and currently) it may be a good thing that it isn't altered too often.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

There’s a new threat. This one is where people are planning to kill loads of people in every way imaginable. They want to kill us using planes, trains, automobiles, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, bombs, etc. The laws have to change when you have that type of person against you. As much as many people want to complain about it, The Patriot Act is something that was born out of necessity. Necessity. I guess my questions to you are this: Should any new laws have been enacted post 9/11? What new laws should have been enacted to combat the threat of terrorism?

Ok, you'd do best to stay away from the War on Terror and anything to do with the Middle East.

This 'threat' we are facing isn't new, and it has evolved over the past century greatly thanks to US foreign policy (after WWII), as well as general Western imperialism (start of the decline of the Ottoman Empire to WWII).

The Patriot Act was not born out of necessity. The attacks the US was subjected to, however tragic, were small on the overall threat scale when looking at things realistically. The fact that we decided to invade AND THEN OCCUPY several countries to try and defeat the sociopathic terrorists who have a desire to kill Americans was utterly stupid and counterproductive.

Post 9/11 we should have opened a fucking history book and realized how idiotic our policy in the Middle East is and tried to do something about it.

I've heard so much talk since 9/11 in the media (and before 2000 as well) about the US trying to bring democracy to the Middle-East and make it a 'better' place to live. Its the most hypocritical bullshit I've ever heard, considering US political and economic policy in the Middle East is the biggest threat to democracy in the region.

I've lived there most of my life, and the region is the focus of my academic field of study. I understand if you don't have the necessary background or motivation to study in order to better understand the region and our policies there, but make no mistake, the so called 'War on Terror' is just as hypocritical as the 'War on Drugs' and is just as big a threat to the peoples' freedom too.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Don’t sit down and take it. If you don’t like it then do something to change it. I personally enjoy the freedoms that I have. I cant imagine anywhere else that has greater freedoms, or living somewhere else and feeling such a great sense of freedom. Aside from illegal drug use…When have you felt restricted in the past year where you would liked to have done something that you felt was accepted in a civil society?

In many ways the US does allow a great amount of freedom, and I truly appreciate that. I'm not suffering from the delusion that it is somehow the 'most free' place on earth though.

Just because you don't have explicit restrictions placed upon you doesn't mean you are totally free. The social, political, and economic environments in the US are becoming more restrictive in a range of areas, maybe not by direct legislation, but by other socio-economic forces that are empowered by it. The noose can tighten without you actually feeling it until it is too late.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

You don’t even know.

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know what I know and have seen either.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Part of the Governments job most certainly is to protect us from ourselves. Many people cant survive without government assistance. The vast majority have put themselves in that position because of very stupid decisions that they made.

When the government provides social welfare is it protecting people from themselves, or protecting them from economic forces they can't deal with? Or maybe its a bit of both....

I think its very presumptive of you to declare that the 'vast majority' of people who need government assistance to get by are in that position because of their own decisions. For some that is probably true, and those are probably the people you meet and put in jail. For the rest, your apathy rationalized by "they probably did something stupid to get themselves into such a bad state" is an insult.


Anyways, I guess the government should make skateboarding, bicycling, climbing, swimming, skydiving, snowboarding, cheerleading, basketball, football, and anything else that people injure themselves doing illegal.

Just kidding. I'm just illustrating that there are inherent risks in many activities that are perfectly legal. Why? Because the people who participate in them do so of their own free will and acknowledge the risks involved, not to mention these activities don't tend to hurt or kill other people, which is why something like drag racing on the freeway would be illegal while having a footrace wouldn't be.

The point is that your reasoning that drugs should be illegal because people need to be protected from hurting themselves using them is illogical because you are assuming that illicit drugs only have the capacity to harm people. Drug use is practically the same as the other activites listed above. It can be fun, it can be beneficial, yet it also involves risks to the self, ones that need to be extremely seriously considered so far as some drugs are concerned.

I could understand implementing harm reduction measures to reduce the harm stemming from drug use, just as more and more skateboarders wear protective gear and skate in parks made specifically for that purpose. Instead the government has made drugs illegal, which makes them MORE dangerous and INCREASES the potential for harm to arise from their use. So I guess its a brilliant policy if the government wants drugs illegal to protect people from themselves.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Partner, I see “it” everyday, and I’ve seen it from every perspective. I’ve seen rich, poor, white, black, smart, and dumb. From all that I’ve ever seen, I’ve never met a heroin addict who’s doing great. If I were to look outside my current zone of experience, where would you suggest that I look. Keep in mind that I grew up in the city, and I wasn’t just born a Cop. I actually had a life before I did this. (Hard to believe, I know lol)

Exactly what I was saying throughout my earlier post.

You mention you've seen all sorts of economic and ethnic groups, but then you refer to heroin addicts in particular. What about the people who use any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of psychoactive substances out there? What about the people on these forums? Or maybe.... the people you never see, and never have seen, because you were never into drugs and these people don't get into such a wretched state that they have to meet with you.

I still stand by my belief that your job has instilled a bias in your perception of drugs and drug users in general, regardless of the variance in their personal qualities. You never met the ones who are still respected or at least average members of society (whatever the hell that means) who manage to use drugs without inflicting harm upon themselves.

And I simply can't see the logic in trying to help people with disturbing problems such as powerful drug addiction by locking them up. Remember the 'it' we are talking about was basically in reference to reducing the harm to individuals and society from drug use, and all the evidence points towards prohibition increasing the harm rather than reducing it, so I still believe you don't see or get "it", as evidenced by your comments on the leap videos quoted below.

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I’ve seen the leap video before. It’s a joke in my opinion. I can’t believe that anyone who’s walked in my shoes would think like that. It actually shocks me. I really wonder what type of job they did coming up, what period of time they worked the beat, and just about a million other things.

Maybe they finally woke up and smelt the coffee eh?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Another brilliant riposte. Too bad his ears are made of granite.

[GenaroXVIII]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Part of the Governments job most certainly is to protect us from ourselves. Many people cant survive without government assistance. The vast majority have put themselves in that position because of very stupid decisions that they made.

Right now I am in an area not far from Fort Drum, an army base near Watertown, NY. I don't mean any disrespect to the people of this area, and this is certainly not a judgement of them, but it is a depressed area. Economically it is not a thriving area. At one time Watertown was the home of more millionaires than almost any other city in America. Because of Fort Drum there is a very large percentage of families lacated there by the military. The families there are suffering because of the multiple and extended deployments of their husbands and fathers (in most cases it is men serving.) Breadwinners in families that were already struggling to make ends meet saw an opportunity to spend one weekend a month and two weeks a year, and thought it would be a little extra gravy for their family. Now they are in Iraq or Afghanistan and no longer get their regular paychecks. The military does not pay well enough to replace the people that are sent away, and then they dont send weekly paychecks either. (I have been told that they get checks when they return from duty.) This is leading to families increasingly going to loan sharks. Which as you can see wouldn't help overrall. Not a great situation in Jefferson County, but still very hard working people is keeping everything from falling apart.

You can see how the government does not always alleviate people's problems as some would like to claim.

So while America was freeing Afghanistan from its opium prohibition it was forcing hardship on its own people.

One small point I would like to add about PO's comment on the "terror threat." - Would America need to make so many restrictions on its citizens to protect them if the money allocated to "fighting terror" in the Middle East was spent to protect us at home?

[Bajeda]

The FDA, EPA, and USDA need serious overhauling. The DEA could be eliminated entirely, but the other three need to either be scrapped or completely reworked.

[Nagognog2]

I saw a family living in the town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts. Their name was/is the Farmers. In 1988 the police came to their home and told them they had to come to court. The police had found a couple (4) scrawny pot plants growing on their property out back. Chelmsford is a crowded, little town between Nashua, NH and Boston, MA. A backyard is smaller than a 1/4 acre. Whaetever. They went to court. They said okay - save some money. We are paying off our mortage.

6 months unsupervised probation. $50 fine. End game.

ENTER: The War On Drugs in 1991!

The police arrive at the Farmer house. They have paperwork. They are taking their house under the Federal Forfeiture Act.

There is no legal recourse. No appeal - they could try that later. They have 30 days to vacate the property. The house will be sold, by the police, through a bank auction (now the house has been paid for fully - no more mortgage). OUT! OUT! OUT!

1/2 the money from the bank sale of the house/property goes to the Federal gov. 1/2 to Chemlsford P.D.

Now you have the audicity to say "I have no idea what harm any drug law has ever done"?

Think about the Farmer's little girl - 6 year's old, ending up sleeping in other people's guest rooms (very angry supporters of this family) and changing schools and growing up telling her friends she used to live in her own house. And now lives on charity while her mom & dad try to work enough to get a deposit together for a new home! For 4 scrawny pot plants they didn't even know about.

That is criminal.