Prohibition and Victimless "Crimes" breed hate towards cops, against the fundamental principles of Civil Liberties and should be Abolished
Login to reply
|Mick 307 posts||
Rational the sum of your argument is that the present drug laws are evil, immoral and bad for society. I and many of my colleagues will agree with me on this is that your argument sounds very like the arguments I have heard from convicted paedophiles. They all so believe that laws that convicted them are evil,immoral and bad for society and that they were persecuted by an over bearing Government. My question is do we scrap child protection laws because a small minority of people feel hard done by? The same applies to the Drug Laws. The Law is there to protect society. Each and everyone of will feel hard done by one law or another at some time but 99.99% of us will suck it up and accept it as a necessary inconvenience for the good of society.
|COGrim 25 posts||
Whatever he’s on is some potent stuff. He can’t see the connection between crime and illegal drugs, but he somehow connects evolution with prohibition and for some reason has determined we’re cheering drunks. Poor guy. That brain is definately deep-fried.
|BossDogg 7 posts||
I also love how he thinks he has a monopoly on “common sense and reason” but can’t seem to grasp the connection between losers impaired by drugs to assaults and other crime. Looks like someone is just angry he keeps paying too much for his drugs and waking up broke, sticky and confused in a jail cell. I’ll lay odds his foil hat is full of residue.
|Correctionator 8 posts||
This troll is persistent, I’ll give him that. This one has established a good pattern of twisting replies to an absurd spin in order to validate his rhetoric. Shyster salesmen and politicians do the same thing. They stretch something to a preposterous conclusion to make themselves look more reasonable and their talking points more factual compared to other’s. See how he keeps saying "if you are FOR this, you are also FOR (insert much worse thing here). What a tool. The “let-me-educate-you-you’re-a-neanderthal” attitude is a great touch too. Prime example of a narcissistic zealot with an agenda. He’s definitely on something. I give him 6 months till he’s on a milk crate in a public park wearing a foil hat with his wiener hanging out and preaching about the coming apocalypse engineered by the government.
|RationalLaw 11 posts||
I personally make the choice not to do any drugs, not even coffee (caffeine) let alone alcohol, or tobacco. Some of you don’t seem to realize that prohibition is a non-partisan issue that has little to do with liberal or conservative labels;but rather common sense and reason. Prohibition is as un-scienitific and destructive of a philosophy than geo-centrism and creationism.
And for those of you who believe in prohibition there is a good chance you might also believe in other non-sense fairy tail, so check these to treat your un-scientific ignorance that has little to basis in reality;
Get out of the stone age and stop making law enforcement look like a bunch of vice law neanderthals! You prohibition advocates give a bad name to us working in the field. You paint cops as fascist freedom hating people when the true law cops amongst us just want to protect society from the REAL criminals (murderers, rapists, robbers, assaulters, fraudsters, ect.).
It’ ironic how some of you talk in such blanket terminology “drugs”. Be a bit more academically specific! So are you saying you are for the prohibition of alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine? If you’re going to be a prohibitionist, at least be consistent. What about the delirium intoxication of datura belladonna, and brugmensia, and the like? And power intoxicating and withdrawal effects of alcohol that are as bad as the withdrawal symptom of cocaine or heroin!
So what’s up with you people who aren’t for outright legalization of cannabis and other soft psychoactives? When alcohol and tobacco are far worse? One plus one does not equal three!
And for the record, all victimless crimes. Responsibly using anything without harming someone is not a victimless crime?
“He was high on something and had just beat the living daylights out of his wife and little girl.”
Let me try to educate you on fundamental civics my friend, which obviously you got very little of in your training. Beating up your wife and little girl is called assault. That’s a crime with a victim and would be illegal. Smoking a plant to relax or unwind after a hard days work is not the same as beating your wife and little girl. What kind of twisted comparison was that?? Are you trolling? People get drunk on LEGAL drugs (alcohol) and beat their spouses and family all the time, why aren’t you talking about this? The fact is that ALL drug abuse whether LEGAL or illegal, is as destructive as the prohibition of responsible drug use.
Datura and other delirients are notorious for causing criminal behavior even to a worse extent than alcohol and yet those are legal and ignored? You want to look at the pillhead (btw what “pills” was he using Mr. Blanket terms) and want to ignore the crime done under alcohol, delirient, and other legal drugs?
Way to fail. To the responders who are for prohibition, stop trying to cover up your support of ignorance and injustice by calling any constructive criticism of your illogical freedom-hating faith based dogma “trolling”. There are plenty of decent people, from normal people to fellow correctionl officers that wouldn’t want to be in your club of prohibitionism (and probably creationism as well considering both are deduced using the same illogic). The folks at LEAP would call you a troll for supporting laws that are on par with the jim crow laws of old! Oh btw is it any surprise that blacks are disproportionately arrested for drug laws, as bad as the south africa apartheid? Pitty they weren’t using some nice white man’s whiskey eh, instead of smoking some brown man’s herb? If you are far the war on certain drugs you are also in favor a a racist policy as well!
You think it’s funny when some parent locks away for responsibly smoking some pot, leaving the children without parent(s), while hypocritically cheering some alcoholic who is far more likely to be abusive to their family while legally drunken. Is this the type of example you want to set for your society?
To all the prohibition on certain drug trolls, if you have nothing logical to back up your illogical beliefs on why you think it’s ok to violate the humans rights and civil liberties of the people, other than sketchy ancedotes filled with blanket terminology and stories that that have little to do with the real topic, then don’t even bother to respond. Assaulting someone while intoxicated on pills is worlds apart from someone who smoking some pot and playing the guitar. The former is a victim and therefore a crime, the latter is not. If you’re a prohibitionist that can’t understand that simple logic you need to educate yourself more.
|BossDogg 7 posts||
You guys might as well not waste your time on this drug troll. He’s just another lib drug user who is convinced everyone is a victim of tryannny (otherwise known as laws) and nobody is responsible for bad choices. It’s “The Man’s” fault people break the law and it’s “The Man’s” responsibility to coddle and take care of them when they wreck their lives and the lives of those around him. If we stop feeding his need for attention, maybe he’ll just GTFO.
|Correctionator 8 posts||
RationalLaw, you are in the wrong profession and posting in the wrong forum. Stop trolling and go spew your pro-drugs junk elsewhere because you wont get anywhere here. I really hope you aren’t in corrections for real with that attitude towards the law and your obvious love of drugs. I don’t have much regard for drug addicts either. My best friend’s brother was a dope burnout who killed himself on a motorcycle because he was too high to know what planet he was even on. My family has been effected too. My son-in-law was a pillhead who couldn’t keep a job because all he couldn’t stay sober long enough to work a single day. He lost everything and killed himself leaving a wife and a newborn son. The laws against drugs didn’t have anything to do with it and we tried everything to get him help. A week ago I had a knock-down, drag-out fight with an inmate who was dragged to the jail kicking and screaming. He was high on something and had just beat the living daylights out of his wife and little girl. Hows that for a victimless crime? They said he only gets that way when he’s using. So he just did that because of prohibition? Take your silly anti-prohibition crap and sit on it. I don’t have sympathy either for those who throw their lives away and if your bleeding heart is so in an uproar about it, good for you. You go on ahead and enjoy your drugs and preach your druggie sermons but go do it in a more receptive and appropriate place.
|COGrim 25 posts||
I’ll try to make this simple for you. Opposing laws is not the job of a “responsible” officer. I don’t care that your panties are in a wad because I’m not an outright advocate for legalizing pot. I agree with many of the arguments FOR legalization but you are here just to troll, posture and argue so that conversation won’t go anywhere.
You are right- I do NOT care about drug addicts. I don’t care about helping them. Not only is it not my job to help them, I’m just not concerned with spinning my wheels trying to help people who choose to mess up their lives. Their bad choices are THEIR bad choices and when things go south for them because they were stupid enough to get themselves hooked on junk they KNOW will mess them up, I don’t feel compelled to waste MY good life trying to get them out of it. If that’s your thing, go for it but don’t be so chagrined when someone else doesn’t. I’m all for people who, by no fault of their own, get addicted to prescription meds or WANT help and actually make an effort to kick their addiction, but I don’t waste a moment of thought on those who don’t.
More things I don’t care about: Your convoluted connection of my opinion on enforcing drug laws to supporting Al Capones, Pablo Escobars, pedophiles and murderers and your tendency to use wild assumptions and questioning other’s experience as a tool to argue.
OK, I get it- drugs are only bad because they’re illegal. Heroin would be as dangerous as candy if legalized, addicts will suddenly become productive, responsible members of society with good judgement and no inclination to do stupid, dangerous and illegal things. Meth will no longer make teeth fall out and ravage people’s bodies. Crack addicts will no longer smoke themselves into homelessness and joblessness and, like you said, NONE of them will commit robbery or any crimes- because drugs would be OK. People only commit crimes because things are against the law. The solution is to just legalize everything instead of punishing people for breaking the law. Yea, that’s the ticket. Your work is done here. Now get the heck out of law enforcement (if you really are), take your act on the road and start on that compound already.
|RationalLaw 11 posts||
"""Well now you’ve gone from half-way sensible debate to ranting name-calling lunatic. You toss around words like “unscientific” and “hypocritical” and then you yourself make all kinds of assumptions and completely ignore the reality of what exactly drug abuse and drug addiction does to people, to the abuser AND those around him. And typical of your ilk, when faced with logic you resort to name-calling and emotion-based rhetoric. You even pretty much ignored some key points of my post- I SAID I am open-minded in the marijuana legalization debate. I’m pretty open-minded in general where it comes to more benign drugs. But if it’s illegal, my job is to do my part in it’s enforcement. Sorry you don’t like that. Talk of decency and honor coming from you is just plain ironic comedy so play another card."""
If you read your original post, it’s filled with far more emotion-based rhetoric than the logical passion I put into my post. Arguing for any type of prohibition is no different than arguing for creationism or anything else that is not grounded in logical science or human rights. Be open-minded to marijuana legalization is hardly equivalent to being open-minded, that’s like saying someone who is for the theory of gravity is open-minded. It’s fundamental logic to be in support of marijuana legalization, and the fact that you are not outright in support of this relatively benigh herb, when given the hard science on the subject only shows you are only trying to pose as open-minded. Besides there are loads of far right-winger who will say they are open-minded to marijuana legalization. It’s one way neo-cons try to appear to be less radical than they actually are.
You completely ignore the reality of what exactly drug abuse and drug addiction does to people by ignoring the fact that prohibition only makes drug problems worse if you did not notice. Take cannabis prohibition for instance…before cannabis was prohibited it was something only done by mexican immigrants, jazz musicians, and the like; when prohibition came around it turned into a very popular recreational act by both adults and young people alike. Alcohol prohibition made it more popular for women to drink when women never usually drank before prohibition. Crack cocaine was invented because of prohibitionist demand. Heroin users are far more at risk under prohibition from getting a bad batch of illegal unregulated products and sharing needles, all because there is no control over it’s use. I can go on and on. The fact here is that you have no idea how much hell it is for a person to be a drug addict and how much wore this disease is made with prohibition. And the fundamental thing you need to grasp is that drug abuse is a public health/medical issue, NOT a criminal justice one. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Go ahead and do your job, not like you can change what type of prisoners you guard that come in. But if you are a responsible officer you would oppose irrational prohibition laws that infringe on fundamental human rights and make drug abuse issues worse. Not much “name-calling” at all in my post, only pointing out the hard fact that you should accept. I am sorry if my post seems so harsh for you, but I don’t like to beat around the bush with the cold heart truth bro.
"""No, I am not a freedom-hating fascist. I LOVE freedom from drugged-out losers destroying our society. Now, I don’t give a rip about one person’s freedom to abuse drugs when that abuse makes him steal and rob to support his habit because he can’t even work a menial job. I have no real opinion on prohibition of alcohol because 1: I don’t drink and 2: There is currently no law against it. My job relates to things that ARE illegal and I believe in upholding the law. I do hate alcoholics who get behind the wheel and kill and maim as much as I hate meth-heads. My arguments carry no weight with YOU because you aren’t concerned with the effects drug abuse has on people, you’re only concerned with some hippie emo-feely sentiment of letting everyone do whatever drugs they want regardless of what it does to society. Your argument that bus drivers can drive drunk really is a flimsy argument for letting them drive stoned."""
Your argument carries no weight whatsoever, because you don’t care about the even worse damage prohibition created does with drug abuse. I and other rational people on the other hand are for a harm reduction and tackling the REAL problems of drug abuse. You bring up people robbing and stealing to support their habit, without even realizing the fact that such theft stems from prohibition and cost of drugs being so high and availability being so low. No reason to go rob and steal for heroin when it’s sold and regulated in a store, is there? Now try applying your flimsy logic to other drugs, let’s say tobacco for instance. Tobacco is one of the most addicting drugs around, can you imagine the amount of robbing that would occur from tobacco addicts who can’t get there fix if it became illegal? No reason to rob and steal for tobacco if it is legal and regulated in a store, is there? Your argument make no sense whatsoever….if you legalized and regulated other drugs like what is done with legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, there wouldn’t be likely any drug-addicting based robbing at all. So by supporting prohibition you only support the robbing that you claim to be against. And for the record, robbing a store for any reason, whether it be to get money to buy drugs or robbing to get money to buy a new car, house, ect. will always be illegal. The point of the law is to punish the robbers regardless of the reason why they robbed (which if it had to do with drug anyways it has to do with prohibition).
You have no opinion on alcohol because you don’t drink…so is this your attitude towards other drugs too? You don’t have an opinion towards meth because you don’t do it? It doesn’t sound like that is your stance, it seems you want to nit-pick certain illegal drug and ignore the problem than big legal drugs like alcohol do. Like I said if you are going to be for prohibition you should be for alcohol prohibition, as it is up there with cocaine, meth and heroin as one of the most abused drugs and the potential of alcohol addiction is certainly as high as with heroin addiction. Not sure what any of this logic and reason has to do with “hippy-emo” sentiments….and I’m no drug advocate….I’m an advocate rational sane legal policy. Policies that actually and realistically tackle the problems of drugs instead of turning it into a witch hunt (it’s no wonder prohibitionist advocates tend to be on the religious fundamentalist side more often than not).
Driving a bus or any vehicle drunk is FAR FAR FAR worse than driving a vehicle stoned. They’re not even in the same category. Instead of getting your facts from some reefer madness propaganda, why don’t you read a basic neuro-pharmacology reference or textbook or something? BTW if people can drive drunk as they can drive stoned why aren’t you for banning alcohol then? Your keep dis-crediting your opinion by having no consistent opinion on dangerous legal drugs like alcohol or datura. You are beginning to really show how much your opinion is based off no facts what-soever. BTW driving impaired due intoxicated will always be illegal, no matter what becomes illegal. No bs prohibition law is needed to control impaired driving.
"""You really reveal just how dubious your critical thinking skills are with your last two paragraphs. I re-read my post and I just can’t seem to find any references to religion or supporting the release of pedophiles and murderers. And nope, no indication that I support Al Capones or Pablo Escobars (those guys were criminals, you know. AND are currently quite dead.) No, it is not illogical to support laws that restrict the ability of morons and lowlifes to damage our society. Again, you are in the throes of a delusion that drug abuse and addiction is a “victimless” crime. I almost daily have to wrangle and fight a crackhead or stoner who just came in off the street with one or several victims in his wake. So take your libtard rhetoric elsewhere. You won’t make any headway with anyone here in this forum. Go build yourself a nice compound in a desert somewhere and gather yourself some hippies and stoners and “freedom” loving followers and have yourself a perfect utopian society. You aren’t happy obeying laws and have all the answers so go show us all how it’s done in a place where you’ll just be a danger to YOURSELF."""
How much more foolish do you want to make yourself sound? If you didn’t understand the point of the last two paragraphs perhaps you should go back to grammar school. The point I was making with those is that being in support of prohibition is no different than being a creationist or a flat-worlder geo-centrist. It’s just as illogical, irrational, and un-scientific. And not to mention at it’s core being fundamentally un-constitutional.
When you support prohibition you are supporting pedophiles and murderers to a degree since there are many over-crowded prisons across america who are releasing such real criminals and filling them up instead with non-violent victimless drug offenders. If that isn’t anymore proof of support of the real criminals, when you support a law that makes it easier for pedophiles, murderers, robbers, ect. to be released for freeing up of prison space for victimless crime offenders, then what is?
You also don’t seem to realize how much you support the Al Capones and Pablo Escobars (BTW if you didn’t notice I’m using them to refer to prohibition-based drug lords in general, living or dead), since you support their illegal business by creating it in the first place. BTW it’s usually the small-time drug dealers that are caught, very rarely are the big bosses caught. Not surprising at all is that drug lords, much like Capone and Escobar of old, support drug laws as much as folks like you do. Gee I wonder why? Maybe because you are both out to make a buck at the cost of people’s suffering. There you go, that’s the real reason why you support prohibition. Many in the more privatized correctional industry are especially in support of more prohibition in order to maximize profits.
You are saying it is “not illogical to support laws that restrict the ability of morons and lowlifes to damage our society”, yet the law only targets certain morons and lowlifes who in your words “damage society”. What about the alcoholics? So they are free to be morons and lowlifes that damage society but somehow a cocaine addict is different? Your entire argument falls apart, due to the very thing that I have been trying to point out to you that you lack: consistency in your position. There is very little consistency whatsoever. Your opinion is like, for example, targeting rapists and not targeting murderers. You are just picking and choosing which “morons and low lifes” to go after. BTW drug addiction is a disease, not a sign o moral defect, unless that person did something morally defecting while under the influence. Your logic is no different than calling victims of heart disease, cancer, ect. low lies and morons. And for the record, tons and tons of people waste away their life sitting in front of a tv or some other representation of life. They can easily be considered on par with the “moron low lifes” you are nitpicking. Does your logical call for prohibition of tv as well then? Where do you draw the line?
It’s obvious that you don’t care about the drug addicts and it is obvious you don’t want to help them when you talk about them in such crude terms. We don’t automatically say an alcoholic is a scumbag unless he did something scumbaggy under the influence. Much in the same way an addict of any other drug is not a scumbag until he actually does something dangerous under the influence. An alcoholic, like any other drug addict, has a medical issue and should be treated as such.
Finally, the statement that dismantles everything you have to say. “Wrangle crackheads and stoners”? Lmao, this statement just shows how ignorant and illogical you are. I can understanding wrangling a crackhead, alcoholic, or opiate addict/abuser……..but “stoners”? Oh please, are you even a correctional officer? I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a “stoner” pot-smoker causing mayhem or having several “victims in their wake”. You are obviously basing your opinions on reefer madness propaganda, not true scientific facts. And if you want to claim that pot-smokers are a menace in your prisons then I strongly question whether you have any experience what-soever as a correctional officer.
I’m not surprised you are using such logic. After all you are trying to turn the movement against prohibition and towards rational drug policy into something that in your mind is nothing more than “libtard rhetoic”. You must be on the far right if you think that, being against prohibition is not a partisan issue at the very least. The folks at LEAP (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php) are not a bunch of libtard hippies, they are cops from all over the political spectrum who want to go after real crime, not some vice crap that has nothing to do with true criminal justice. All you do is damage the reputation of law enforcement when you support the type of un-scientific rhetoric you do.
|COGrim 25 posts||
Well now you’ve gone from half-way sensible debate to ranting name-calling lunatic. You toss around words like “unscientific” and “hypocritical” and then you yourself make all kinds of assumptions and completely ignore the reality of what exactly drug abuse and drug addiction does to people, to the abuser AND those around him. And typical of your ilk, when faced with logic you resort to name-calling and emotion-based rhetoric. You even pretty much ignored some key points of my post- I SAID I am open-minded in the marijuana legalization debate. I’m pretty open-minded in general where it comes to more benign drugs. But if it’s illegal, my job is to do my part in it’s enforcement. Sorry you don’t like that. Talk of decency and honor coming from you is just plain ironic comedy so play another card.
No, I am not a freedom-hating fascist. I LOVE freedom from drugged-out losers destroying our society. Now, I don’t give a rip about one person’s freedom to abuse drugs when that abuse makes him steal and rob to support his habit because he can’t even work a menial job. I have no real opinion on prohibition of alcohol because 1: I don’t drink and 2: There is currently no law against it. My job relates to things that ARE illegal and I believe in upholding the law. I do hate alcoholics who get behind the wheel and kill and maim as much as I hate meth-heads. My arguments carry no weight with YOU because you aren’t concerned with the effects drug abuse has on people, you’re only concerned with some hippie emo-feely sentiment of letting everyone do whatever drugs they want regardless of what it does to society. Your argument that bus drivers can drive drunk really is a flimsy argument for letting them drive stoned.
You really reveal just how dubious your critical thinking skills are with your last two paragraphs. I re-read my post and I just can’t seem to find any references to religion or supporting the release of pedophiles and murderers. And nope, no indication that I support Al Capones or Pablo Escobars (those guys were criminals, you know. AND are currently quite dead.) No, it is not illogical to support laws that restrict the ability of morons and lowlifes to damage our society. Again, you are in the throes of a delusion that drug abuse and addiction is a “victimless” crime. I almost daily have to wrangle and fight a crackhead or stoner who just came in off the street with one or several victims in his wake. So take your libtard rhetoric elsewhere. You won’t make any headway with anyone here in this forum. Go build yourself a nice compound in a desert somewhere and gather yourself some hippies and stoners and “freedom” loving followers and have yourself a perfect utopian society. You aren’t happy obeying laws and have all the answers so go show us all how it’s done in a place where you’ll just be a danger to YOURSELF.
|RationalLaw 11 posts||
Mick, Like I said our system is meant to be a republic that protects the rights of individuals from a minority or majority. And besides, a lot more people are against prohibition than you think. Prohibition goes against the principles of democracy and individual liberty. Period. And no amendment was ever passed to ban other illegal drugs, so the drug laws in existence today are unconstitutional in reality. Same with many measures in the Patriot Act. So prohibition is not only immoral but unconstitutional to the core.
COGrim, you sound like some far right wing nutjob. Prohibition is NEVER ok, it’s un-scientific. You my friend are a freedom-hating facsist….and for the record are you for alcohol prohibition too? Since alcohol is far more destructive than cannabis for instance? Seriously dude, read some science instead of your bs.
“High thugs” what are you on crack? You sound like hypocritical drug abuser yourself. Alcohol is more dangerous than many illegal drugs, so are you consistent in your philosophy and want to ban those? How about datura, jimson weed, tobacco, dxm, and other legal poisons? School bus drivers can’t drive drunk? Being drunk is worse than being stoned, your arguments carry no weight. Your pathetic defense of illogical tyranny has no basis in science. Harm reduction nations have less problems with drug abuse over all than America.
BTW the earth is not flat, the center of the universe, or 6,000 years old. Religious fundamentalists like yourself COGrim need to grow some decency and honor or just leave the field. Your not much different than a neo-fascist when you advocate unconstitutional victimless crimes.
The fact that you support measures that release rapists, pedophiles, and murderers to free up prison space for drug use is sickening. Your attitude on role of law enforcement makes our society more dangerous. You really should be ashamed that you support the Al Capones and the Pablo Escobars as well with your illogical rantings.
|COGrim 25 posts||
I’m always very leery of those who advocate the abolishion of drug laws- particularly of those working in law enforcement. It makes me wonder what illegal drugs they are currently under the influence of while on duty. Look, RationalLaw, there are some very compelling reasons why most illegal drugs should be illegal. I could waste a lot of time here educating you on the myth that illicit drugs are a “victimless” crime. If you can look at the devastation drugs cause in individuals, families and whole neighborhoods and say there are no victims, you are delusional. And I’m not talking about devastation due to the legality of the thing either. I’m talking about the outright destruction of lives due to the terrible effects of the drugs themselves AND the addiction that goes with them. Comparing it to alcohol abuse is trite and myopic. I’m all for “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness.” But I haven’t seen a single meth-head who feels free and happy when he’s on the street. And I should be free from stoned school bus drivers endangering my kids and high thugs fighting my police brethren as they respond to disturbances in the public streets. Get real- people who use drugs may start out doing so “responsibly”, but we know that changes in a hurry once the drugs take hold of a person. I understand there are drugs that are somewhat more benign- like marijuana. I know there are many, many benefits to the use thereof and I am very open-minded in that debate. But in general, I’m with Mick here- if you have a problem doing your part in enforcing the law, you should get out of the business- that is, if you REALLY ARE in law enforcement at all and aren’t some drug advocate troll with an agenda posting this stuff in forums. If you ARE in the business, maybe Liberal Socialist Bleeding-Heart Defense Lawyer is more your calling.
|Mick 307 posts||
So what would you suggest as an alternative to the Democratic system that is in use at the moment? Anarchy? Monarchy? Dictatorship? No one will tell you the system is perfect but it’s the fairest form of government around.
|RationalLaw 11 posts||
They were elected by free and fair elections? You must be living in some fantasy land (read the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky). You fail to realize that America was intended to be a republic, not a mobocracy where individual rights can be voted away. By your logic Hitler was voted in a free and fair election, and those rights he took away from the jews was the will of the People and through Hitler the people have spoken right? Your logic does not pass. By your logic we can vote any right away by voting in a corrupt freedom-hating politician.
Remember when alcohol prohibition was passed? It took a constitutional amendment to get it passed because the certain fear-mongering politicians at that time knew that the right to put whatever what wants in their bodies is protected by the US constitution. This is also why the first bureau of narcotics was created under the treasury department and other drug laws were handled through there. And how were those first drug laws passed? Through yellow journalism and racism (eg think reefer madness).
So as far as “free and fair elections” goes there was never a chance for such, nor a big scientific inquiry for other prohibitions started nor was there any adequate time to discuss efficacy of such prohibitions.
I don’t understand why certain law enforcement officers are so obsessed with gaining a few extra bucks that they have to resort to enforcing corrupt unconstitutional laws when all it does in breed hate and contempt for cops and disrespect of the law. Such laws not only make cops look like un-trustworthy freedom haters, it also makes us look racist, as blacks and hispanics are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated for drug laws.
There is no “crying” here; only stating the obvious logical facts. Some research and education will show anyone how ineffective and counter productive prohibition and other vice laws are. You are welcome to disagree but it doesn’t change the cold hard facts.
|Mick 307 posts||
First Off If you don’t want to Enforce “Unjust Laws” then either leave the Job or don’t join in the first place. As I said you have a vote. Stop crying about “Corrupt Politicians”. They were elected by the People in a free and fair election. You may not like their polices or even them personally but the people have spoken so live with it.
|RationalLaw 11 posts||
“Rational Law, You have your opinion and I have mine so I won’t get into a political debate over the rights and wrongs of Drugs. "
Ok, you are entitled to your own opinion on how drugs should be handled politically and have the right to not discuss it. I just want to point out one thing though. If you are for the prohibition of “drugs”, you have to be for the prohibition of alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine, otherwise your position would not be consistent and there would be hypocrisy within it (not saying you are for prohibition, just pointing this out). Other legal drugs such as datura, belladonna, brugmansia, dxm, ect. should all be considered as well since many of these very legal drugs are far dangerous than most illegal drugs, much like alcohol and tobacco are more damaging than many illegal drugs.
“But the fact remains that we as Law Enforcement Officers join the Job with the full knowledge that we are employed to Enforce the Law.”
Is that the only responsibility though? If the laws was unjust should cops really enforce them? I understand that law enforcement officers are there to do their job and get out, go home, and have a normal life like everyone else. But just “doing the job” seems to ignore the ethics of the job being done in favor of just the pay. If for instance a officer was forced to enforce a “law” that violated the bill of rights of the constitution, eg freedom of speech for instance; should the officer just stand by and enforce the unjust deed? Well I imagine he/she would feel forced to, since they could loose their job if they don’t listen to certain senior officers. So maybe the problem is certain people in upper management within the field. This still doesn’t justify bindly enforcing unjust laws. Furthermore the Constitution and freedoms it enshrines overrides any other laws that claim to be the real law. So I think the main issue here isn’t so much the real law, but rather the phony laws that violate the constitution that the politicians have cooked up and what the senior officers are forced to enforced. So perhaps I’ll move on to your next point;
“Politicians are elected by you and me to make the Law. So would your comments not be better aimed at your elected representatives who have the power to change and/or amend the laws to what you feel would be a more suitable alternative.”
Yes, you are right that politicians are elected to make the law. However like in any nation in history there are many corrupt politicians that don’t have slightest interest of the people in mind. Hitler was elected by popular vote into power and he made many laws that his officers should have not enforced. The same is true in America for the many politicians who create irrational anti-freedom laws to get votes and gain money. If the law said all minorities should be treated like second class citizens should such a law be ever enforced (which many drug laws try to do anyways)? If a law is created by another politician that says that certain forms of free speech are prohibited, should cops even try to enforce such an unjust law?
This all may come back to officers just “doing their job”. But I think law enforcement no matter what rank should take a more active responsibility to oppose such irrational unfair laws. It’s quite clear that America was never meant to be a “prohibitionist” nation. This goes against the very principle core of freedom that Americans want to claim as one of their most precious; the right to do what one wants as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. The right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I suppose the main problem though is that cops make a lot of money on victimless crimes like drug and prostitution laws. This is why or instance that the private correction corporations lobby for more victimless crimes and tougher laws for victimless crimes. After all; more than half of the country locked up in prisons are there for drugs. It’s all about money, never mind the morality and ethics of such laws.The whole system of prohibition is corrupt. It’s very easy for law enforcement to accept such corruption in order to gain a few extra bucks. But I think this is where officers need to resist the urge of corruption and stand up for what is right when the politicians don’t. This would really increase public opinion and respect for cops which right now is not very good on both sides of the political spectrum. Even if it’s these corrupt politicians making the laws, it’s the officers that the people have to deal with. So it’s mainly the law enforcement that feels the full force and danger of enforcing prohibitionist laws.
LEAP is one law enforcement organization that is trying to move towards the end of prohibition…but there certainly should be more done by law enforcement all over the country and even globally…one organization isn’t enough.
|Mick 307 posts||
Rational Law, You have your opinion and I have mine so I won’t get into a political debate over the rights and wrongs of Drugs.
|RationalLaw 11 posts||
“The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.” — Albert Einstein
I wanted to start with the quote above as it sums up a major problem in our criminal justice system. This problem is of course prohibition and victimless “crimes”. The war on drugs is a phony failure that defies any scope of human reason. Likewise victimless crimes such as prostitution has been around since the pre-history and it makes no sense to prohibit it when this industry is in high need of regulation. The sex and drug industry will never be eliminated, no matter how harsh you legislate. These services are based off some of the most fundamental drives of the human species and indeed nearly all other multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the biological kingdom Metazoa.
It should be first pointed out that prohibition and such victimless crimes goes against one of fundamental principle that many Americans want claim as one of their country’s most precious attributes: freedom and liberty. If you do not have sovereign control over your own body and mind what sort of rights can you claim you have? A person who cannot put whatever one wants in their bodies or minds cannot claim to live in a free nation. What a person does especially in the privacy of their own homes is no business to the state, as long as they are not harming another individual.
People who abuse illegal drugs like cocaine or heroin should be treated the same as those who abuse legal drugs like alcohol. We don’t lock up alcoholics for possession of their drug. As with alcohol people should be held accountable for their actions while under the influence, but there should otherwise be no anti-freedom penalties for responsible use that does not harm anyone. Illegal drug abusers like legal drug abusers need medical treatment, not prison. You don’t throw alcoholics or any other type of abuser in prison when they can go to rehab.
While there has been some reform in this area, such as diverting non-violent drug offenders to treatment, but this is still a total violation of civil liberties to have a criminal record for merely using drugs or being forced into when no real crime has been done. The person should only be forced into treatment is they are using drugs irresponsibly (ie risk of getting intoxicated and harming others).
And as we all know certain illegal “drugs”, like cannabis and psilocybin; are far safer and healthier than popular legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. If you are for the prohibition of these safer psychoactives then you should be for the prohibition of the big legal killers too.
Prostitution is another such law. Most of the developed world has legally regulated prostitution and have far more success fighting STDs in the industry. Running prostitutes underground only puts them at greater mercy to illegal brothel owners and such that will abuse them. Many women enter prostitution because they cannot pay make ends meat some other way. Many of them are victims because of the illegal underground nature of their profession.
Our prisons are filled with these non-violent victimless crime offenders, especially with drugs offenses. More than half of the prisoners today are there for such offenses. Crime is far more than ever before and our criminal justice system is far more susceptible to corruption now as it has ever been.
Alcohol prohibition did not work so why do these power hungry politicians insist on continuing the prohibition of other drugs? They use irrational fear-mongering to scare the public into voting for them and then try to make laws that cannot be enforced.
And one of the biggest victims here is not even the drug offender who should not be in prison. Another major victim here is cops, correctional officers, ect. Cops were one of the most respectable public workers for a long time. Then when prohibition came things change. People want murder, rape, robbery, fraud, ect. to be stopped but they don’t like their fundamental liberties being taken from them. Prison is for REAL criminals, why does America insist on releasing rapists and robbers early and replacing them with drug possessors? Does this make any public safety sense at all? If you take out the victimless crime laws there would be an overwhelming amount more resources to lock up the real criminals longer. Releasing a child rapist early to fit the new drug offenders does not make the people like them anymore.
There are cops now that have been fighting prohibition and to put an end to the insane war on drugs. I suggest any correctional officer or otherwise here interested in learning how to help repeal drug prohibition check out this site;
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has gotten more vocal in recent times, even making it to the top of the youtube Q@A with the president. When Obama was asked whether he would be in support of ending the drug war, much like many other sold out politicians he said no. This is far more than a party issue though, both republicans and democrats need to stand up for their rights as they do with any other civil liberty.
* For speed and versatility, Corrections.com has been relaunched in opensource. Some older postings dates may be affected.