Who’s the new guy?

[Nagognog2]

Er...911? What is your point here? That one should either clean up their act and obey all laws, or go to jail? That laws will never be changed by protest and organisation? That your friends will rat you out? What are you doing here?

Most of the world doesn't give a flying fig! They are too worried about their governments getting them for some pile of bullshit. The large majority of Americans surveyed many times have made it clear that they want pot relegalized and available similar to alcohol. You sound like you've been reading too many pamphlets down at the D.A.R.E. office/police station.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Er...911? What is your point here? That one should either clean up their act and obey all laws, or go to jail? That laws will never be changed by protest and organisation? That your friends will rat you out? What are you doing here?

Most of the world doesn't give a flying fig! They are too worried about their governments getting them for some pile of bullshit. The large majority of Americans surveyed many times have made it clear that they want pot relegalized and available similar to alcohol. You sound like you've been reading too many pamphlets down at the D.A.R.E. office/police station.

Well, that was me. I decided to change my name to one that is more appropriate.

[VincentVan]

Dear mushroom911
you are wrong.
Not on all counts maybe, but at least on some very important points.
I want to start from your statement that the world population or as you say "society in general" is anti drugs; by which you must mean in favour of repressive policies towards drugs.
Well , fortunately , it´s just not so.
Fortunately in every country there are groups of people, usually organized in political parties, lobbies, pressure groups, associations ,NGOs,etc. that are pushing for antiprohibitionists policies.
In some countries they might be little , vocal but powerless groups , but in others they are well organized political parties with elected members in parlaments where they push for more liberal legislation towards drugs.
In my country for instance, the "antiprohibitionist league" , even if emarginated by the current conservative (read repressive) governement, is not a small nor a powerless group . They control a significant packet of votes, that in today´s fragmented danish politics and coalition governements, are often foundamental for the stability of parlamentary majorities.
Because of my job I closely follow the situation in southern Europe, and I can tell you that in Italy , the "Radical Party" , that many europeans have learned to know because of the excellent job done by EU-secretary Emma Bonino, has made the antiprohibitionist agenda its main feature.
They organized public "smoke-ins" where members of parlament and even the president and the secretary of the party (Mr. Pannella) distributed free hash and hemp and publicily smoked it with the citizens.
This party , that in some elections managed to collect 7% of the votes (about 4 % in the last election), and that has now changed its name to " Rosa nel pugno", (meaning "the rose in the fist"), is now part of the coalition governement that rules the country.
In Spain , the spanish anti-prohibitionists form an important current of the ruling Socialist Party , and their influence can be felt in the new social policies adopted by the governement of the country.
By the way , I just loved how the spanish prime minister , Mr. Zapatero, flatly refused to hear the speech by the visiting Pope yesterday; something that not even Fidel Castro or polish communist dictator Jaruzelsky dared to do.

Apart for all that , the very existence of this forum, is evidence that not all the world is anti-drugs.
Of course we are still a minority (for now) but nothing prevents us from becoming a majority in the future and in the meantime , to try to convince as more people as possible of our ideas .

Let´s get to another point of your post: the one where you complain that everybody here (apart for Alfa) "tweak and twists the laws until it fits their purpose". Well that´s exactly what laws are made for: it´s called interpretation.
All jurists: lawyers, judges, prosecutors etc. do just that: they "tweak and twist" the law to make it appropriate to a specific contest and to make it hold the thesis they want to prove. That´s most of what they teach in law school. A good jurist is , above all, a good interpreter of the law.
Interpretation of the law is what makes it possible to take some general principles expressed in the constitution of a country , and use them to defend some specific right of the citizenry, such as the right to the privacy of communications, the right to choose your doctor, or the right of that doctor to use the therapy he deems most appropriate, and many other legal issues that that require "twisting and tweaking" to be applied to everyday´s life.
It may surprise you but most laws are written purposedly in generic words so as to be interpreted by jurists and to avoid that they would quickly become obsolete.

Let´s now finish with the beginning.
You open your post with a vehement defense of cops and gumshoes saying that only a minimal percentage of these guys are "corrupt" and that the belief held by 99.9% of what you define as " criminal population" , is simply wrong.
Here the question is purely one of semantics. I think that to be corrupt is not just to take cash to protect illegal transactions. It may surprise you but the MAJORITY of cops, at some point in their careers,if not habitually, make the decision to to prosecute a certain "crime" and to close their eyes to some other one, basing this decision totally on their personal view of what´s right or wrong; or of what´s best for their personal career or interests.
Is this corruption? It´s a matter of perception. If you happen to feel wronged by such attitudes then you may well percieve it as corruption ; and I don´t think you would be wrong.


You go on by asking what prez. would legalize cannabis; but your question is wrongly put. You don´t have to worry about the prez. , what´s important in these matters is the position that parlaments take.
If a majority of senators and of people´s representants would vote for such a bill then the prez. would surely sign it.
If he would´nt he would be mad , because he would position himself against the opinion of the american people who elected its officials to represent their ideas.
That´s why such a huge effort is currently being deployed by the prohibitionist lobbies and centers of power, to make sure that the american public is constantly fed their dose of propaganda and is "protected from negative influences".
A change of attitude by amercan public opinion would jeopardize their vast budgets and their control powers, making them obsolete and useless.

There are some more things in your post I do not agree with, but this post is getting the size of "War and Peace" and I´ll try to avoid bad ratings for being logorrhoeic by cutting off here.
I doubt that I managed to change your opinions since I can see that they are tightly, almost ideologically held; but I hope that I could make you realize that those who hold different opinions on these matters haver their reasons too.
I would also like to suggest you to read a book: it´s "The pursuit of oblivion", by Richard Davenport-Hines.
You probably would´nt like it in the beginning, but if you will get to the end of it, maybe you will change some of your ideas.

Your
VV.

"The desire to take medicines is perhaps the main feature that distinguishes man from animals"
(Sir William Osler)

[Alfa]

I'll merge your accounts.

[grandbaby]

Hey, P.O. Are you really a law-enforcement officer? I, for one, welcome you to DF dot com. Most of the forum users here have (as you have pointed out) a very one-sided view of the cops, and few have had any social dealings with people on the other side of the legal divide. Your presence here provides an opportunity for some (hopefully non-vituperative) dialogue with an honest-to-goodness ossifer of the Law.

You do, of course, realize that the fundamental divide here, one which you'll never budge most forummers on, is that most of us believe that the Drug War is a misguided, expensive, spectacularly harmful failure, and that victimless crimes should be stricken from the books. And you, of course, believe the opposite, I assume?

Questions from the floor?

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by grandbaby

Hey, P.O. Are you really a law-enforcement officer? I, for one, welcome you to DF dot com. Most of the forum users here have (as you have pointed out) a very one-sided view of the cops, and few have had any social dealings with people on the other side of the legal divide. Your presence here provides an opportunity for some (hopefully non-vituperative) dialogue with an honest-to-goodness ossifer of the Law.

You do, of course, realize that the fundamental divide here, one which you'll never budge most forummers on, is that most of us believe that the Drug War is a misguided, expensive, spectacularly harmful failure, and that victimless crimes should be stricken from the books. And you, of course, believe the opposite, I assume?

Questions from the floor?

I appreciate the friendly welcome Grand. I'm not here to try and trap anyone, or do any sneaky stuff. I'm just here to try to understand ya'll. Thats all.
I am a real cop Grand.
I do understand the divide between me and most posters, and I welcome the debate, the friendly debate.
I am willing to entertain most questions, as long as theyre not "shitty" questions.

[hh339]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I'm not here to try and trap anyone, or do any sneaky stuff. I'm just here to try to understand ya'll

Thank you for clearing that up.

You believe that only 0,001 percent of the coppers are corrupt, but are you actually considering the small things like manipulating reports and such, or just the taking-bribes-kind-of-coppers? My friend SWIM has been arrested prolly over 50 times on bullshit charges like walking around with a few spray-cans in a bag, only to have cops change it into things like destruction of property, resisting arrest and being drunk (while sober), and I would say that of all the cops SWIM has dealt with, the pig-percentage is like 85%. SWIM's dad's friend was murdered by cops, and years later it's still all over swedish media, with OBVIOUS proof of the coppers guilt. Still it's going nowhere legally due to the "fact" that the dead body "could" have been "dropped" on the way to the autopsy, and there's no way of "proving when and where the injuries occured". There's even an eye-witness for fucks sake. These crap-cops still have their jobs. The victim's name is Osmo Vallo. Considering these cops still have jobs and walked off free, imagine how easy coppers can walk on smaller crimes. Also, imagine the real % of dirty cops, even if you happen to be a good one yourself. Have you not seen cops reporting stuff like "resisting arrest" with - honestly - bullshit reasons? Would you report a cop doing that?

I'm not being an ass PO, i'm just taking the opportunity here to ask away since I hardly ever get the chance to ask cops these kind of things. At least not in a situation where they can provide me with honest answers without losing face. I think it's great that you are here to learn more about "us" and drugs, as long as it's for those reasons only.

[VincentVan]

I start to think he really is a cop.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
If he´s not a cop he must be an award winning actor.
VV.

FLAMING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. ONLY WARNING.

[VincentVan]

I hope they got some nasty disease.
My God, what a place is this where a person can´t even do what she wants with her body?

[Nagognog2]

"I am willing to entertain most questions, as long as theyre not "shitty" questions."

Not to worry, P.O. - your friendly moderators and administrators (the cops here) are here to make everyone play nice! Or we'll gas the lot of yez!

Is it just me, or did J. Edgar Hoover really look fetching in that dress he was wearing when the Mafia snapped his picture with his boyfriend?

[Alicia]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Is it just me, or did J. Edgar Hoover really look fetching in that dress he was wearing when the Mafia snapped his picture with his boyfriend?

??? that happend

[Nagognog2]

Yes, Alicia.

The Mafia snapped a picture of J. Edgar Hoover wearing a lovely dress - with flounces - in the arms of his number 2 man in the FBI, Tolson I think was his name. Seems J. Edgar was a homosexual cross-dresser - with a plethora of insecurities, such as his height. He was only about 5'4". So he kept a wooden crate behind his desk. When he addressed his minions, he would stand on the crate (which was hidden from view) so that he towered over those he was speaking to/at.

Regards the kinky photo, it is widely regarded as the major reason that the FBI publicly denounced the existance of La Cosa Nostra (Mafia) until the 1960's when gangland violence became so public that denial of such would make J. Edgar look even crazier than he did in his evening ensemble.

J. Edgar traveled to Toronto for some law-enforcement conference. While there, he and his boyfriend grabbed a young boy who was selling newspapers on the street. This was observed and reported to local police. The RCMP went to his hotel room and entered. There they found J. Edgar and his boyfriend. The newsboy was naked and handcuffed to the bed. The RCMP officer told J. Edgar that maybe he could do things like that back in the States - but he sure as hell couldn't in Canada. They kicked him out of the country. Though this made newspapers all over Canada, not a word of it was reported in the US press. The publishers/editors were too afraid of what J. Edgar would do to them if they did. This was during the McCarthy-era. When one word suggesting that one was a communist would destroy lives.

Reputation Comments on this post:

very interesting

[Alicia]

Disturbing and informative as always nag very good. shame do people like that always get away from there nastiess they inflict?