Forums | MacLife

radarman wrote:

user wrote:

So why do we have a Federal Police Agency responsible for pursuing only one area of crime anyway? If we were going to do that, wouldn't an agency responsible for pursuing only murder cases be more important?

There's no money in murder. With drug laws, they can sieze all your assets, and sell them at auction (or just use them themselves, a lot of police departments convert seized vehicles into police cars).

Yeah that's another nice bit of unconstitutionality as well as stupidity: requiring citizens prove their innocence in order to get their property back AND creating a profit motive for pursuing a case.

All because smurfing Nixon wanted to get the anti-war activists.

Last edited by user (2007-08-24 3:11 pm)

It was easier to persecute them for smoking pot than for protesting against the war. Nixon ramped up drug prosecutions.

I just came here to post this.  It bothers me that so many people can sleep at night while doing smurf like this to people all over the country.  Why are only a handful of people upset about these actions that our government is taking?  These people had their lives stolen from them by the DEA in a blatant act of vengeance.  Even if they had been growing pot themselves, did they really deserve this?  Does anyone even understand the impact that the drug war has on the minority of citizens unlucky enough to get caught in the government's net, let alone the overall impact this effort has on African Americans (a matter mostly separate from this story, but an important and especially harmful component of the drug war)?

It is utterly ridiculous.  I wish every American would just read this article, as a start.  I wish people would understand that our government has been waging a war against its own people and against so many poor communities abroad under the noble guise of the War on Drugs.  I wish people would understand who truly benefits from the billions of dollars spent in this futile and sinister effort.  And I wish people would force their representatives to put an end to this nightmarish bullsmurf once and for all.

Would anyone care to defend the government's drug policy?  The concept of "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" only applies to just laws, not victimless crimes driven by ideological persecution.

My fantasy?  National "I Smoke Pot" Day!

All the people who smoke herb should walk out onto the street and announce that they do so.  Then we would see that there are doctors, judges, attorneys, teachers, professors, house-wives/husbands, soldiers, sailors, actors, singers, dancers, musicians, garbage collectors, construction workers, writers, mathematicians, chefs, waiters, waitresses, business owners, computer programmers, physicists, astronomers, psychiatrists, social workers, biologists, chemists, nurses, fire-fighters and even cops who smoke pot regularly, and it will prove that it is not the scourge of our existence that the so-called "War on Drugs" makes it out to be.

dreamkast0r wrote:

Would anyone care to defend the government's drug policy?  The concept of "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" only applies to just laws, not victimless crimes driven by ideological persecution.

Note:  sometimes I mean it when I say that, but most the time I'm being a wiseguy.

JakeTheTall wrote:

dreamkast0r wrote:

Would anyone care to defend the government's drug policy?  The concept of "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" only applies to just laws, not victimless crimes driven by ideological persecution.

Note:  sometimes I mean it when I say that, but most the time I'm being a wiseguy.

That is really relieving to know actually, thank you.

me.

I'm for legalization of pot.
Not coke though.

resedit wrote:

The concept of "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" only applies to just laws

So who decides what laws are just?

Well I guess technically the courts do in the US, but I think in a more basic way, the people who are victimized by unjust laws make that decision.  Any law that creates victims where there previously were none is unjust in my mind.

I have a different philosophy than you.
I'm not looking at it the same way.

People sometimes die after their first use of cocaine and cocaine derivatives.
Cocaine often causes extremely irradic behaviour that results in harm to other people.
Cocaine is also highly addictive.

I believe a society should be able to decide a substance is dangerous enough to be banned from recreational use.

Marijuana I don't think is dangerous enough for such a ban.
Cocaine I think is.

I don't believe that the government has the ability to change people's taste. Your assumption is completely wrong.
I do believe that the government should punish those who engage in activity the society has decided is detrimental to the society - such as cocaine use, heroine use, meth use, etc.

resedit wrote:

I have a different philosophy than you.
I'm not looking at it the same way.

People sometimes die after their first use of cocaine and cocaine derivatives.
Cocaine often causes extremely irradic behaviour that results in harm to other people.
Cocaine is also highly addictive.

I believe a society should be able to decide a substance is dangerous enough to be banned from recreational use.

Yeah, because alcohol isn't as dangerous or addictive.  Let alone illegally made alcohol can be just as deadly as any poorly made batch of coke.

My understanding is that heroin is very addictive, but if alcohol is the standard for a drug with terrible side-effects, I'm not sure even heroin should remain illegal.

resedit wrote:

Marijuana I don't think is dangerous enough for such a ban.

In Canada: It isn't, providing you have a medical condition that requires it.

I don't do anything stronger than Alleve, but I am sick and tired of the "war on drugs" I can't watch COPS with my wife anymore, because I start getting angry. Every time I see some hick redneck get all high and mighty cuffing some poor bastard over a joint in their car, I want to scream. About the only time I can tolerate that show is when they arrest someone for spousal abuse, or drunk driving.

I think it's insane to heap even more trouble on people who are already in trouble. The addiction alone is a sad, pathetic tale - but now these people are unemployable due to their criminal convictions, which means they will have to resort to crime when they get out.

I am convinced that the war on drugs has done FAR more harm to this nation than the drugs themselves. Fundamentally, though; I believe it's none of the governments damn business what people do to themselves, so long as they aren't hurting others.

If some smurf wants to smoke crack and blow his brains out, let him. If he steals from stores to support his habit, arrest him - but arrest him for the theft, not the drugs. Better yet, get send the guy to rehab instead of prison.

Last edited by radarman (2007-08-27 12:09 pm)