Yes, but doing it the right way isnt necessarily the easy way.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

 
 

Speed is given to Air Force pilots to improve their performance. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123779&page=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334411/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic

Those will get you started.

But, of course, if you did see a weed smoker who wasn't impaired, you would have no way of knowing, would you?

I didn't ask about a felony criminal history.

Good, we agree!  People with a felony can and have become LEO's in TN.

 
I agree, but I don't think a warrant should allow it either.   It is making a person testify against their will (imo).


The no refusal weekends have a judge on standby to sign the warrants as needed.

it's also how the country got to this point

that said, at this point, I'm good with anything that diminishes the authority of the state

ETA: (applied to domestic policy only)

From the Tennessee Bar Association:

http://www.tba.org/journal/crime-and-punishment-and-punishment




"For some convictions" and "may allow" is not exactly 100%.

Yes they got noticed hiring felons and yes they got embarrassed they got noticed.  Doesn't mean it has stopped.

Federal law grants an exemption for police and military who are felons to possess arms.  Learned that one when police groups were upset that LEO's that liked to abuse their family members did not get their customary exemption with Lautenberg.

You have not the first clue what Lautenberg does, do you?

It doesn't grant an exemption to police and military which police groups found very upsetting.  They had no problem with it applying to peons.  

Seriously?

First link made hot: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123779&page=1

This a story about the two pilots who mistakenly bombed and killed Canadian ground troops in Afghanistan while on amphetamines. From your linked article:
Dr. Robert DuPont, a former White House drug czar and one of the country's leading drug addiction authorities, says he was stunned to learn about the Air Force's use of amphetamines. "This is speed. This is where we got the phrase, speed kills," he said.

...
But DuPont's characterization of heavy amphetamine use suggests the "go pill" policy may be playing with fire. He said, "People who get strung out on amphetamines are, are usually crazy. They're paranoid, they stop eating. … Their judgment is impaired and they do very bad things. … They are among the sickest of all drug addicts."



At no point in that article does it ever state that amphetamine actually improves cognitive ability or reaction times. In fact, the article is pretty much anti amphetamine as written.

This is your first supporting link?


Second link made hot: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334411/

The abstract the link leads directly to actually states several times that cocaine injected into baboons actually REDUCED reaction times. Not once in the abstract is it stated that cocaine injections actually improve reaction times or cognitive abilities in the baboon test subjects.

Second link you provided to disprove your stated position...

Third link made hot: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic

2nd paragragh from the link:

There are only a few drugs that are known to improve some aspect of cognition. Many more are in different stages of development.[6] The most commonly used class of drug is stimulants, such as caffeine.[7]

These drugs are purportedly used primarily to treat cognitive or motor function difficulties attributable to disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and ADHD. Some researchers, however, report more widespread use despite concern for further research. Nevertheless, intense marketing may not correlate with efficacy. While scientific studies support the beneficial effects of some compounds, manufacturer's marketing claims for dietary supplements are usually not formally tested and verified by independent entities.[9]


This the best support you've provided for your position so far:

In 2015, systematic medical reviews and meta-analyses of clinical research in humans established consensus that certain stimulants, only when used at low (therapeutic) concentrations, unambiguously enhance cognition in the general population;[25][27][28][29] in particular, the classes of stimulants that demonstrate cognition-enhancing effects in humans act as direct agonists or indirect agonists of dopamine receptor D1, adrenoceptor A2, or both receptors in the prefrontal cortex.[25][27][29] Relatively high doses of stimulants cause cognitive deficits.[29][30]


And even it points out problems with stimulants.

There is more I could pick apart in your links, but I think I've shown that your own links dont support your position.

I've heard a number of folks that don't believe cannabis is a intoxicant.  I'm pretty certain somebody with "couch lock" is not going to be near as safe a driver as someone that just smoked a camel. Just saying.

I did when responding to JasonB's ridiculous assertation that a felon could become a police officer if he settled in a state that didnt prohibit felons from becoming police. You jumped in to defend his position when he was unable to do so, and are now defending something no one asked about. Why the strawman? Are you also unable to defend JasonB's bullshit claim?

What state(s) do(es) NOT prohibit felons from becoming police?


Regarding criminal history and LE...

Are there any crimes that a person could be convicted of that should NOT prevent them from becoming police officers later in life?

Hypothetical scenario:

A 19 year old Marine home from from a combat deployment is allowed to purchase and consume beer while on base. The Marine comes home on leave, buys beer, and is later arrested and convicted of Minor in Possession of Alcohol because was drinking a six pack of beer with a 21 year old.

The same Marine is drinking the alcohol in a County Park which closed for the night ,(unbeknownst to him), while he was inside it, drinking with the 21 year old female.  The Marine in this hypothetical scenario is now guilty of both Minor in Possession of Alcohol, and also of Criminal Trespass for being in a closed park after hours, committing a crime of drinking under age.

Several years later, with no additional criminal charges or convictions, should this Marine be allowed to obtain a waiver and become a police officer?

I fully support the right of a person to alter their brain chemistry using any drug they so choose, as long as doing so doesn't put anyone else at risk.



Driving stoned is the same as driving drunk.



You are impaired, and it's stupid.

No we do not agree.

As I stated above,(which you so politely quoted),
Felons were ILLEGALLY hired in Tennessee, contrary to Tennessee State law.

They still cannot, but they have in the past, even though they were prohibited from doing so.

it was prohibited when it happened. The fact that it was prohibited, and it was done anyway, did NOT make it so that Felons were no longer prohibited by Tennessee from becoming police.

For example : It is illegal to murder someone. If I murder someone, I have broken the law, and doing so does not suddenly make murder legal.

I can get to "X" before being stumped.

Sarah Bradys troll account?

If you get acquitted of DUI here, you get your car back and your license.

 WHY are you bothering???  That one is a lost cause, it doesnt matter how many facts you confront him with he Knows what He Knows.  Point, Laugh, and move on

So first you say it does grant an exemption, now you say it does not. You STILL don't know what Lautenberg does.

Oh I know, he's just so amazingly pathetic.  Sort of like the leper at a carnival side show.

Federal law grants an exemption for police and military who are felons to possess arms.  Learned that one when police groups were upset that LEO's that liked to abuse their family members did not get their customary exemption with Lautenberg.


I didn't even have to type that since it was already quoted by John.  Damn glad he is  retired and no longer writing up questionable tales under the color of law.

OMG.....

I understand your argument, but disagree with regard to blood draws with a warrant.

Just for my clarification, where do you stand on:

Driving while Impaired - should it be illegal per se, only in the event death/serious injury, or not illegal at all?

If you feel that driving impaired should be illegal per se, how should impairment be proven if a driver refuses to perform SFST's?

If you feel that Driving While Impaired should only be illegal in the event of serious injury/death, how should impairment be proven if tge driver refuses to perform SFST's?

I'm not asking out of malice or hostility, genuinely trying to get an understanding on how you feel impairment should be proven or if you even feel that Driving While Impaired should be illegal in the first place.

Again, WHAT STATE(S) DO NOT PROHIBIT FELONS FROM BECOMING POLICE????

You made the bullshit statement, the burden is incumbant upon you to prove.

Prove it or shut up.

I wish every drug was legal (and Im an LEO). However, with that said, I wish that implied consent laws were covered for blood draws. Therefor if I can articulate that you're impaired (SFST's, a crash, other pc) you have to provide a blood sample.

I don't care what people do in their homes, but if you get fucked up and decide to drive, you're endangering everyone on the road or sidewalk or home (have you seen a DUI plow through a house?...I have). So if you're found to be impaired, in my utopian "all drugs are legal to use world"....you go to prison. No plea deals, no probation, you get mandatory prison time.

But hey, that's rational thinking and common sense....

What law?
Please cite.

He isn't going to do either.

Serious question:

Do you HAVE to read the instructions on the back of a shampoo bottle, or do you know what it's for and how to use it?

I'm beginning to wonder because you havent actually answered a single question put to you in this thread.

that combined with being high on weed.

 

I can remember back in the late 1980s, anti-abortion activists were outside the courthouse advocating jury nullification.  

I haven't looked at the implied consent law here, in many years....

 

The old version, just had a penalty of Losing your DL for XX years.

It said you had to provide a Breath, Blood, or Urine sample on demand.

At that time, the choice of sample provided, was the Drivers.


I didn't mean they could take a sample by force.....

In that hypothetical scenario, I'd be worried about the police that gave the 19 year old Marine a criminal record for that.

Murder?  Good lord man why the strawman?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 exempts mil/LE from it's prohibition on felons possessing firearms.

Found out about that when police groups were complaining they weren't getting their customary exemption when Lautenberg came up.  They had no problems with the law providing new punishments for private citizens retroactively, they just wanted police to be able to keep abusing their families without affecting their LE status.

Once again, felons were hired and only canned when the media got involved.  No exemptions for police to violate traffic laws for fun, but they tend to get a free pass on those and other laws as well.

The whole driving while high thing needs to be studied further.    Thousands of people or more drive under the influence of prescription amphetamines or opiates every day and are probably safe to do so.  You once in blue moon hear about someone crashing their car who was legitimately on opiates, but almost never on amphetamines.   A lot of people take opiates for pain management or amphetamines for ADHD.   I know a couple of good people who used prescribed marijuana during cancer treatments and had no issues with their driving.  There is a big difference IMO with people who do dumb shit recreationally and those that are have a legitimate illness or disorder and use the prescribed amount for treatment.  

This is coming from someone who does not use drugs and HATES drunk drivers.  I got hit by a drunk driver a while ago and have called 911 or the state police on lots of them.

To an extent they did.

Missouri v. McNeely

My apologies for stating you were defending him. It did appear that way since you replying directly to my question toward him.

In the years I've been here and you and I have been sparring, I'd like to think you've got an idea of who I am, (assumption on part, I know), and an idea of how I view certain things...

I dont like bad cops, and I have no problem calling them out when I see them, or see actions by cops that I feel are wrong and or criminal. I've publicly stated so here several times, and I like to think I'm fairly consistent in my views, but that's what I like to think from my side of the keyboard. I dont know if it looks like that from your side of the keyboard or not...


Felons should NOT ever be cops. I dont care if it's a non violent felony or not.

Felons should NOT be cops.

I've seen stories where city officials have advocated lowering the hiring standards to allow for certain felons to become cops to fill man power shortages. That's flat out, the wrong concept.

If the only applicants you can attract all have felony records, then you need to figure out why that is, and change it.

Hiring a bad cop is worse for EVERYONE than not having a cop.

The officials in Tennessee who knowingly hired felons to work as cops...I'd hit them with all applicable punishments, and hold them all responsible for their felon's illegal actions.

If there is no teeth, (punishment/consequences) written into the law prohibiting felons from being police, then I'd go after them in civil court. I doubt you'd find a single judge who was unwilling to hold the officials responsible for their felon's actions. Both criminally and civilly.

And I'd make everything absolutely public for two reasons:

Attempt to restore the public's faith in their police by burning out the corruption involved.

Make such a public spectacle about all of this that no one ever thinks about doing this again, anywhere in the US.



Having said all of that, those officials in Tennessee violated the law.

Tennessee did not allow convicted felons to work as police officers,  those officials did, in violation of the law.

Their violation of the law did not suddenly make it legal for felons to work as police officers.

Which is what JasonB said,  and what I've been calling him out on.

JasonB's statement is wrong, and he knows it, which is why he's been hiding from it like a scared little child who peed in his underwear and is ashamed.



ETA - regarding the Marine in my hypothetical scenario....

Could you please answer the question, should the Marine with the criminal history of Minor in Possession of Alcohol and Criminal Trespass be allowed to seek a waiver for his previous crimes in order to become a police officer?

It was just an extreme example using the same logic you were applying above...

Cite (Mirriam Webster)

Full Definition of cite
2:  to quote by way of example, authority, or proof <cites several noteworthy authors>


In order to support my statement of what a Cite is, I quoted, and linked you to the definition I was using.

Please do the same with your statement. Find the relevant section of the GCA of 1968 (ought to be simple since we have the internet and that is a pretty major piece of legislation) and Cite (then provide a link) to the section that supports your statement.


Then go do the same with your bullshit claim about State(s) not prohibiting felons from being police.

Professional courtesy is as good as an exemption in a law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/925

18 U.S. Code § 925 - Exceptions: Relief from disabilities

(a)
(1) The provisions of this chapter, except for sections 922(d)(9) and 922(g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p), shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1117-restrictions-possession-firearms-individuals-convicted

"One of the provisions of this new statute removed the exemption that 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) provided to police and military. Thus, as of the effective date, any member of the military or any police officer who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction is no longer able to possess a firearm, even while on duty. We now have the anomalous situation that 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) still exempts felony convictions for these two groups. Thus if a police officer is convicted of murdering his/her spouse or has a protection order placed against them, they may, under federal law, still be able to possess a service revolver while on duty, whereas if they are convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor they are prohibited from possessing any firearm or ammunition at any time. Currently pending before Congress are at least two bills that would substantially modify the impact of the amendment to this section."

As I stated previously, officials who violated the law did not suddenly change the law, they violated it.

Cite and support your bullshit statement about State(s) not prohibiting felons from being police, or admit you made it up.


Regarding cops violating traffic laws for fun?

You basing that off of the documentaries "Super Bad" or "Super Troopers"?

I've issued citations to cops before, and I've arrested cops before.

I've also giving warnings to non cops, and not arrested people who I could have before.

Pretty sure you'll find the same of all the cops on this thread and many of the cops on this board.

And giving warnings to cops and not arresting non cops happens far far more often than stopping cops for traffic violations and not citing them for them.

So who exactly are we favoring? Who exactly is getting more special treatment?

That's the case I was thinking of. I knew that it had been ruled on at the Federal Appellate level, just couldnt remember if SCOTUS had ruled on it yet.

Thank you.

For the record, I agree with that decision...not that my agreement matters in the slightest....SCOTUS decided, and they've got more pull than me.