Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurora_Bell

I did not say I was a user at all. All I said that was a pretty broad brush, and for you to say you can spot a user in a crowd, well is just silly. I'm not for legalizing it, I'm for de criminalizing it.

---

Spend 35 years around pot smokers who don't make great sercrets of it... and meet people that you later find out really are... I have. I didn't grow up in a cave. I can smell it if the wind blows right and someone is a block away smoking it. I can smell it if the car in front of me has someone smoking pot in it (same with cigarettes or cigars)... and every few weeks that does happen with the pot.. daily with cigaretts.. every few days with cigars.


I can spot them literally across the room at what I guess is 90% or better accuracy. Based on experience at parties with large numbers of people I don't know... and where usually the weed comes out an hour or two into the party. See who partakes... and who doesn't. Its really predictible most of the time.

I don't smoke, don't live with a smoker, or work in a smoking environment... so my nose isn't dulled to the odor of any kind of smoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

How many Men are sitting in jhail for sleeping with their girlfriends who happened to be 16 or younger?

---

I don't know. What point are you trying to make here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

. . . Pot, Heroin, Crack, Crank, black market OxyCodone, doesn't matter which drug....they all make criminals rich.

---

Correct. That's why they should be legalized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

. . . legalizing it isn't going to help anything. Except making it easier to make it worse.

---

Wrong.

First rule: if you treat someone, anyone, like a criminal, they will become a criminal. It's called labeling theory.

Drug-related crime is more prevalent than alcohol or tobacco-related crime because drugs are a scarce resource. It's not as common as alcohol or tobacco and you're not supposed to have them in the first place, hence, the associated value for drugs is very high and owners will do what they have to buy and protect them, some will go as far as stealing and murder.

Ya, legalizing will make drugs more accessible but that doesn't mean there will be more users, as there are people who choose not to drink or smoke. And, even if there are more users, they're less likely to turn out to be bad apples because they won't have to worry how, when and where their next fix is coming from and won't have to guess on the quality of product. It's the stress from all of this that makes them go nuts, not the heroin, that just makes them sleepy. It's true, the bad apple users exist only because it's so difficult to get a fix.

This is basic micro-economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

What makes Pot heads special.....How about Pedophiles....Crackheads, Meth heads.....Rapists....wife beaters....Human trafficers...Prostitution....shouldn't their special vice be made legal too?

---

You have no idea what a vice is. Gambling is a vice, smoking is a vice, drinking is a vice, sex can be a vice, spending too much time on AMHD is a vice.. . A vice is something someone does for himself for fun, but sometimes he goes overboard with it. With the exception of prostitution and drug usage, what you listed are sicknesses that affect other people. A rapist doesn't rape for kicks, he rapes out of anger and hatred.

Your arguments would be much more solid if you knew what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

And Incidently.....exactly WHERE is caffine regulated as a drug. Not in the USA.....Not in Europe....where do they control sale of caffine containing products to minors? As of today.....a 3 year old could walk into any store and buy any soft drink they sell. Even "Jolt" brand soda. Or Red Bull.

---

Id like to address this question. One of the places that this so called non drug is regulated in in our schools. Yep, They seem to think that it might affect the children if taken in liquid form. I believe they used to call it soda machines back in my day. That's in many many places all across the U.S.
Now for those energy drinks your talking about they are coming under fire in many communities. Also caffine is recognised as a performance enhancing drug by the Olympic commission. So yes it is regulated in that sense world wide.

If pot was made legal then 90% of the illegal trade and what goes with it disappears. And if taxed it could pay for healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapshot_oi

I dunno. What point are you trying to make here?

Correct. That's why they should be legalized.


Wrong.

First rule: if you treat someone, anyone, like a criminal, they will become a criminal. It's called labeling theory.

Drug-related crime is more prevalent than alcohol or tobacco-related crime because drugs are a scarce resource. It's not as common as alcohol or tobacco and you're not supposed to have them in the first place, hence, the associated value for drugs is very high and owners will do what they have to buy and protect them, some will go as far as stealing and murder.

Ya, legalizing will make drugs more accessible but that doesn't mean there will be more users, as there are people who choose not to drink or smoke. And, even if there are more users, they're less likely to turn out to be bad apples because they won't have to worry how, when and where their next fix is coming from and won't have to guess on the quality of product. It's the stress from all of this that makes them go nuts, not the heroin, that just makes them sleepy. It's true, the bad apple users exist only because it's so difficult to get a fix.

This is basic micro-economics.

You have no idea what a vice is. Gambling is a vice, smoking is a vice, drinking is a vice, sex can be a vice, spending too much time on AMHD is a vice. . . a vice is something someone does for himself for fun, but sometimes he goes overboard with it. What you listed are sicknesses that affect other people. A rapist doesn't rape for kicks, he rapes out of anger and hatred.

Your arguments would be much more solid if you knew what you were talking about.

---

Typical Drug users theory... legalize it and the crime rate goes down...


Well legalize murder... and the murder rate goes down... not the rate of people being killed by other people... that will go up.

Give junkies acess to free or cheap drugs and they use more... NOT less. Prove otherwise. Currently they use what they can afford.


I've known for more drug users in the last 49 years than you have... Unless you work in a rehab center.

You make the assertion YOU are an expert on the topic and I don't know squat... well, I say you are full of crap... prove you aren't!

You want Cheap Heroin... move to Afghanistan... have all you want. Commit the crimes over there, not here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

There ARE victims with any illegal drug...and they are illegal for good reason....

---

Hello again, smoothy:

Just SAYING I'm wrong, smoothy, doesn't make it so. It truly doesn't.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Typical Drug users theory...legalize it and the crime rate goes down....

---

Lol.. . Oh come on man, read a history book! Al Capone, Bugs Moran and every crime syndicate made a lot of money bootlegging liquor during Prohibition. Once they repealed the law, there was no business in bootlegging anymore. It's not a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Well legalize murder...and the murder rate goes down....not the rate of people being killed by other people...that will go up.

---

All this does is show us how little faith and trust you have in people. Do you honestly believe every citizen in this country makes a judgment call based on law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Give junkies acess to free or cheap drugs and they use more....NOT less. Prove otherwise. Currently they use what they can afford.

---

Okay, when I wrote that I was speaking about all drugs and not specifically heroin, but you took what I said out of context.

William Burroughs said "Junk is quantitative and accurately measurable. The more junk you use the less you have and the more you have the more you use", and he was a addict for 15 years so I believe his words. What you refuse to see is junkies don't enjoy being hooked, they don't keep doing it because it's fun they do it because the opiate receptors in their brain require it. Burroughs writes how badly he wanted to kick it even six months into his addiction but he just couldn't. He wrote an essay called the "Algebra of Need" in which the premise is how someone would do anything do get something in a time of absolute need. It's this need that turns a man wrong, and when you need something that's hard to find, you would do anything just to get it. So, my point, again, is make drugs readily available so it won't be seen as a scarce commodity and people won't have to fight over them and junkies will have a peace of mind that the pharmacy will always have some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

I've known for more drug users in the last 49 years than you have....Unless you work in a rehab center.

---

So, you had a birthday since we last argued? Well, happy 49th! And no, I don't work in a rehab center and I never have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

You make the assertion YOU are an expert on the topic and I don't know squat...well, I say you are full of crap....prove you aren't!

---

I never made that assertion, ever, and who cares? What does this have to do with the argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

You want Cheap Heroin....move to Afghanistan....have all you want. Commit the crimes over there, not here.

---

Well, smoothy, if it's a crime over there it would still be a scarce commodity now wouldn't it?

Illegal drugs, we are not shown in the video how much drugs were in the house, or where in the house and what evidence of his crimes they had. Enough to get a warrant.

And if you were going though a door of a drug user to arrest them, and a loud dog was coming at you, what would you do ? Again after he is biting you is too late, you have to decide what to do before the dog gets to you. Shotting a possible dangerous dog is very acceptable.

Since many drug users have dangerous dogs,

So the only person at fault here was a drug user or seller who keep it at home around his kids.

Wonder if he let the kids take a hit and pass it around with them. Perhaps give the doggy a "shotgun from the roach"

This is such a horrifying video I could not watch it twice. ANY DOG WHO BARKS AT MEN BARGING IN WITH GUNS BLAZING IS JUST DOING WHAT A GOOD DOG SHOULD. The poor dog. If a civilian treated a dog like that they'd be arrested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello drug warriors:

I've heard you wingers say they're not busting pot smokers any more - but you lie. Here's a video of what's being done to people in YOUR NAME, in the war on pot.

WARNING - It’s horrifying. Nonetheless, I’d urge you to watch it, and to send it to the drug warriors in your life. This is the blunt end result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years - cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door in the middle of the night, slaughtering the family pet, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime.

They found a small amount of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

Lemme see if I understand this... Smoking pot = child endangerment. Storming a home with guns blazing, killing the family pet as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone’s safety.

Just so we’re clear.

excon

---

I don't consider myself a winger of any type,I haven't heard that they weren't arresting pot users less, or more, or whatever...

I AM considered an expert on addictions though.

Even without the status,I have been in,on or around drugs and alcohol abuse,treatments,12 step calls,watching the withdraws of those hooked,sat in meetings with them,and their spouses,and their children,and so on,and so on.

I have watched the dealer with the camera on his front door(and back door),with loaded weapons at each point of the home(with kids and dogs,etc),I have witnessed things not mentionable on this site.

Needless to say,pot is illegal.

The actions law enforcement take to stop the trafficking and distribution of illegal substances can be looked at as harsh and over the top,or just and correct,perception is in the eye of the beholder.

The narcissistic mind says,perception is fine,as long as it's mine.

How does the alcoholic look at drinking/sales of alcohol if it is brought into question?He/she becomes defensive, their 'vice' is being attacked,the security for their use is becoming a possible problem,and they don't like change, they want what they want.

I have been where you are in the 'pot legalization' fight, when I was a user.

I would have liked cocaine to become legal too, for many years.

The society we live in doesn't see things that way,they say no,we MUST follow that ruling,or end up behind bars.. etc.

If we put our children in harms way and the law has to step in, we can't put blame on the law for doing it's job.The responsibility(which most users are greatly lacking in)lies in the persons who have it,sell it,house it,etc.

I am totally against this post from the get go.Bad rep for cops doing their best in the situation given them.

Hello K:

Thanks for your post. Nobody said pot is harmless. The reason to legalize it, is because the harm the cops do by enforcing the law, is by magnitudes, more harmful to society than possessing pot is. Just because they wrote it down in a book, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

excon

What would be wrong with serving the warrant on the suspect while he was away from home, transporting him back to his home and doing a peaceful search with the suspect in handcuffs? The man has a family. Granted he wouldn't qualify for father of the year if he is a drug dealer, but his family, could safely be spared this kind of trauma. And doing a peaceful search would spare any need to shoot an innocent animal too.

I wish it was that easy thisisit. I honestly think it is power happy people. They could so they did.

To legalize a gateway drug because it would end law enforcements 'harm' just doesn't float.

The law would still have to enforce certain facets of pot usage/growing,etc.Legalizing doesn't mean making it farm-able to the public,it would mean that the government would have to produce,process,distribute,regulate,etc... this isn't a step in the right direction.They would still have to stop the illegal manufacturing,sales,set up special tax usages for the taxes taken in(for the treatment of the new phase of drug users, those who move on from weed to the other drugs, which you and I both know happens)

And to still stop the drugs coming in from Mexico,Columbia, Thailand,etc.. C'mon,we know the trades wouldn't stop,they would just find ways to offer their product for less than the USA does, marketing theirs to outdo the USA.

Keeping this stuff illegal doesn't require any changes.(and by the looks of the country right now, changes wouldn't be a real good idea)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

What would be wrong with serving the warrent on the suspect while he was away from home, transporting him back to his home and doing a peaceful search with the suspect in handcuffs? The man has a family. Granted he wouldn't qualify for father of the year if he is a drug dealer, but his family, could safely be spared this kind of trauma. And doing a peaceful search would spare any need to shoot an innocent animal too.

---

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I am not in law enforcement and to second guess their tactics would be questioning their abilities to carry out their duties.

Have you ever watched a raid happening?Some go very smooth,while others(which would be like this one,making news),have problems.Same with any other news stories, the ones that go wrong are always the ones publicized.Would you have watched this story if the kids and dogs weren't in the picture?Probably not,it wouldn't have made a YouTube video.

Yes, my daughter and I saw a raid happening in progress down the street from our house about 10 years ago. It was sort of like this one, over kill. No shots were fired, but the house was stormed and destroyed. The squad (or whatever they are called) had a large bus size van parked closer to my house and about six unmarked cars lining the street. The men with the guns did not have uniforms on and they had ski masks on their faces. The occupants were arrested and taken away and the police or swat team or whatever left the front door of the house wide open, every light in the house on, every piece of furniture broken and overturned, lamps, TVs, coffee tables upended and tossed around. It was frightening to watch and rather horrifying to see that they would leave the house wide open too.

I don't know what they were looking for and I don't know what they found. We moved out of that neighborhood shortly after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

The men with the guns did not have uniforms on and they had ski masks on their faces. The occupants were arrested and taken away and the police or swat team or whatever left the front door of the house wide open, every light in the house on, every piece of furniture broken and overturned, lamps, TVs, coffee tables upended and tossed around. It was frightening to watch and rather horrifying to see that they would leave the house wide open too.

---

I was on a contract,it was an urban redevelopment project, the occupants were all crack users, we all knew this,but our job was for the exterior only(We weren't bothered by them), till the drug enforcement team showed up, 8 of the largest black officers got out of 2 of the smallest cars(the springs rose as they exited their vehicles), 2 came to me and began asking why I was there,what I was doing,etc.. I had the contract with me and it was clear I was working on the property(ladder set up,tool belt on,etc)they left me alone... the people in the house though... wow, the destruction was total.. we hardly had to gut the inside, besides cleaning up all the broken furniture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

To legalize a gateway drug because it would end law enforcements 'harm' just doesn't float.

---

The "gateway drug" label I take issue with. In my experience over the decades, the only gateway provided by marijuana is proximity. Using it doesn't provide any sensations similar to other drugs. Dealers, however, prefer to sell less bulky material at higher profits so coke/crack are often offered, or pills. They're going to do less time for rocks or pills than they do for grass, so it's in their best interests to steer their market that way.

As for government regulation of legal marijuana, American Tobacco Company has been ready to change its name since '72, and pay taxes.

Tit for tat,, the 'changing' of corporate labels,like American tobacco, to American weed farmers, etc.

The gateway is directly attributed to the proximity effect.Once in the 'drug culture',all the 'other vices' and drugs you think you'd NEVER do become,well, less scary,less difficult to access,exposure to crack for the average(if there is such a thing as average) teen is low,until they take that first step towards the drug using culture.

It isn't just for the profits of less time for the crime, weed has been 'socially accepted' in the drug culture,crack(freebasing),Heroin,Cocaine,were the heavy hitters, looked upon(from the novice)as something to fear, only the real druggies use those, till they want to try it(Gateway) ,speed(ampheds.etc),Downers(Valium,barbs.. etc),and the such were for the pill heads, less respected in the drug culture, until they want to try it(gateway)

I think you get the meaning that I have for a gateway drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

Heroin,Cocaine,were the heavy hitters, looked upon(from the novice)as something to fear, only the real druggies use those, till they want to try it(Gateway), speed (ampheds.etc), Downers (Valium,barbs.. etc), and the such were for the pill heads, less respected in the drug culture, until they want to try it(gateway)

I think you get the meaning that I have for a gateway drug.

---

Hello again, KBC:

So, if somebody DIDN'T try a new drug, after they guy next to him did, would that debunk your gateway theory? It SHOULD, but it won't.

Quote:

---

The law would still have to enforce certain facets of pot usage/growing,etc.Legalizing doesn't mean making it farm-able to the public,it would mean that the government would have to produce,process,distribute,regulate,etc...

---

Nahhhh... The government doesn't produce, process, or distribute tobacco. They DO regulate it, just like they would pot. But you make it sound like regulating is something the government has no experience doing. Really?

Excon