Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:02:23 PM EDT
Officer, Suspect Shot In California Pot Raid

ASSOCIATED PRESS



LOS GATOS, Calif. (AP) -- A Department of Fish and Game warden and a suspect were shot Friday during an early morning marijuana raid and law enforcement officers were searching for a second suspect.

The warden, whose name was not released, was shot in the leg
and was being transported by helicopter to a local hospital, according to department spokesman Steve Martarano. His injuries were not life-threatening, he said.

The nature of the suspect's injuries were unknown, according to Santa Clara County sheriff's spokesman Terrance Helm.

A second suspect was being sought and was considered armed and dangerous, Helm said.

The men were ''watchdogs,'' camped out at the pot garden when officers arrived about 5 a.m., Helm said.

''More than likely everybody was probably surprised and that's when the shooting began,'' he said, adding all available deputies and San Jose police officers were ''scouring the hillsides'' for the second man.

The raid took place in Santa Clara County, near Umunhum Mountain, Helm said.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:05:25 PM EDT
But ... but ... but ... grass is like a mellow drug, man.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:08:12 PM EDT
. " I shot the game warden.........But I did not shoot the deputy"

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:08:32 PM EDT
I thought potheads were like non violent dude
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:10:07 PM EDT
The article doesn't give information on whether the shooter(s) were pot heads. They were guarding a pot field. They may or may not have been users of their crop.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:10:33 PM EDT
Drug addicts will do anything for their drug even if it means killing.

But marijuana is a "peaceful" drug.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:13:59 PM EDT
Ummm, yes. I see there are still some who aren't clear on the effects of the drug versus the effects of prohibition. Just to review:




Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:16:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Ummm, yes. I see there are still some who aren't clear on the effects of the drug versus the effects of prohibition. Just to review:



Uh what are the trend numbers from 1991 to today?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:18:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:
Drug addicts will do anything for their drug even if it means killing.

But marijuana is a "peaceful" drug.



I know you missed all the research on this so let me help you out. According to the US Department of Justice:


Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

. . . .

Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving buyers and sellers, property crimes committed to raise drug money and, more speculatively, social and economic interactions between the illegal markets and the surrounding communities.



That's from their own research "Psychoactive Substances and Violence", 1994

In case you have trouble understanding that, it means that alcohol is the only drug with any real connection to drug-induced violence. The violence related to illegal drugs is primarily the result of the fact that prohibition made the stuff more valuable than gold. The people are getting killed over money, not because of the effects of the drugs.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:21:55 PM EDT
Okay, so people are more willing to kill to avoid prosecution for criminal acts or maintain superioirty in illicit business. Are there charts showing rates of joblessness, illness, education, and other things that drug use have effect on?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:24:28 PM EDT
But we have to ban weed for teh children!?!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:25:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Ummm, yes. I see there are still some who aren't clear on the effects of the drug versus the effects of prohibition. Just to review:



Uh what are the trend numbers from 1991 to today?



Just did a quick check. It looks like the recent homicide rates per 100,000 are close to what they were during alcohol prohibition. You can find your own figures, I am sure, if you want to take issue with that.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:27:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
Okay, so people are more willing to kill to avoid prosecution for criminal acts or maintain superioirty in illicit business. Are there charts showing rates of joblessness, illness, education, and other things that drug use have effect on?



+1 Fvg potheads and every other drug user.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:30:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Ummm, yes. I see there are still some who aren't clear on the effects of the drug versus the effects of prohibition. Just to review:

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.gif

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/homic.gif


So what you're saying is that if you try to take drugs from the losers, they get really violent.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:37:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:37:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
Okay, so people are more willing to kill to avoid prosecution for criminal acts or maintain superioirty in illicit business. Are there charts showing rates of joblessness, illness, education, and other things that drug use have effect on?



Well, you can read some good contemporary references on what happened during alcohol prohibition at www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm

Here is one relevant quote:


When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.

Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever.

Testimony of Andrew Furuseth, President of the International Seamen's Union of America, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926"



If you want to read an excellent before and after history of the laws on other drugs, I suggest you read the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

If you read it, you will find that before these drugs were prohibited, most drug addicts were law-abiding ordinary citizens. "Drug-related" crime and violence (except for that related to alcohol) was essentially unknown. The first chapter of the CU Report, titled "19th Century America - A Drug Fiend's Paradise" concludes:


Nevertheless, there was very little popular support for a law banning these substances. "Powerful organizations for the suppression ... of alcoholic stimulants exist throughout the land," 25 the 1881 article in the Catholic World noted, but there were no similar anti-opiate organizations.

The reason for this lack of demand for opiate prohibition was quite simple: the drugs were not viewed as a menace to society and, as we shall demonstrate in subsequent chapters, they were not in fact a menace.



Now, if your question was in relationship to marijuana specifically, all the evidence on joblessness, etc. indicates that marijuana users are no different than their non-using peers, and there are at least a few billionaires who are known to be marijuana users. For marijuana specifically, your question is basically meaningless.

If you really want a drug that wins all the prizes for joblessness, illness, education, etc., then alcohol is the Grand Prize winner by a magnitude of at least ten to one over all the illegal drugs combined. Take deaths for example -- about 100,000 per year for alcohol, versus about 10,000 per year for all the illegal drugs combined. None for marijuana, of course.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:39:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Ummm, yes. I see there are still some who aren't clear on the effects of the drug versus the effects of prohibition. Just to review:

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.gif

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/homic.gif


So what you're saying is that if you try to take drugs from the losers, they get really violent.



No, you missed the very obvious lesson of Al Capone. Let me review it for you, it is very simple.

People fight over something that is more valuable than gold. Prohibition makes it more valuable than gold.

Got it now? If not, read some histories of alcohol prohibition and get back to us.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:41:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Officer, Suspect Shot In California Pot Raid

ASSOCIATED PRESS



LOS GATOS, Calif. (AP) -- A Department of Fish and Game warden and a suspect were shot Friday during an early morning marijuana raid and law enforcement officers were searching for a second suspect.

The warden, whose name was not released, was shot in the leg
and was being transported by helicopter to a local hospital, according to department spokesman Steve Martarano. His injuries were not life-threatening, he said.

The nature of the suspect's injuries were unknown, according to Santa Clara County sheriff's spokesman Terrance Helm.

A second suspect was being sought and was considered armed and dangerous, Helm said.

The men were ''watchdogs,'' camped out at the pot garden when officers arrived about 5 a.m., Helm said.

''More than likely everybody was probably surprised and that's when the shooting began,'' he said, adding all available deputies and San Jose police officers were ''scouring the hillsides'' for the second man.

The raid took place in Santa Clara County, near Umunhum Mountain, Helm said.


I don't see anything in the article that states that he was under the influence at the time of the shooting. He might have been a grower but was not a pot head.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:41:36 PM EDT
The phony War on Drugs is just that.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:45:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Ummm, yes. I see there are still some who aren't clear on the effects of the drug versus the effects of prohibition. Just to review:

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.gif

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/homic.gif


So what you're saying is that if you try to take drugs from the losers, they get really violent.



No, you missed the very obvious lesson of Al Capone. Let me review it for you, it is very simple.

People fight over something that is more valuable than gold. Prohibition makes it more valuable than gold.




and if we further decriminalize marijuana the Al Capones of the world will simply sell another black or gray market product.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:50:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
Ummm, yes. I see there are still some who aren't clear on the effects of the drug versus the effects of prohibition. Just to review:

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.gif

druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/homic.gif


So what you're saying is that if you try to take drugs from the losers, they get really violent.



No, you missed the very obvious lesson of Al Capone. Let me review it for you, it is very simple.

People fight over something that is more valuable than gold. Prohibition makes it more valuable than gold.




and if we further decriminalize marijuana the Al Capones of the world will simply sell another black or gray market product.



The effects of and the results from prohibition/legalization seem to suggest that it's not that simple.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:52:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
and if we further decriminalize marijuana the Al Capones of the world will simply sell another black or gray market product.



I always liked this argument. In other words, marijuana prohibition is really a full employment plan for criminals. By God, if they didn't have that to sell then they would sell something worse.

The first question that comes to mind is: Like what? What else has the universal appeal and the unending market? What else can you grow in your yard that is worth that much?

I heard a talk show host ask "Like what?" from someone who called in and made the same argument. The guy stuttered and stammered trying to think of something and finally said "Kiddy porn!" Yeah, right.

It also brings up another question. What the hell would we ever do if ever did manage to stamp out pot? All those guys would then be doing something worse. We would then have to start a government program to distribute pot illegally to the major dealers, while we kept busting them to keep the prices up.

Face it. When Prohibition ended, organized crime lost one huge source of income that they didn't make up anywhere else until illegal drugs came along. Yeah, it didn't stop them from all their illegal activities but it made one HUGE dent in their bankroll.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:55:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
I thought potheads were like non violent dude



until you mess with their dope

Flashback, Do you remember when weed was sold by fingers. Man the good o'l days of a four finger bags, I think they were call lids
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:04:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
and if we further decriminalize marijuana the Al Capones of the world will simply sell another black or gray market product.



I always liked this argument. In other words, marijuana prohibition is really a full employment plan for criminals. By God, if they didn't have that to sell then they would sell something worse.

The first question that comes to mind is: Like what?



Untaxed alcohol, hijacked cigarettes, diverted Rx meds, Meth, cocaine, heroin, stolen firearms, stolen cars, stolen motorcycles, stolen auto/bike parts, pie, conterfeit CD's, personal identity information, stolen electronics, counterfiet watches.

It's nieve to think that marijuana dealers suddenly placed out of business by legalization would go get real jobs. They will just sell a different product.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:09:55 PM EDT
So let's get this straight... in an effort to protect people from themselves (and the ill effects of pot, which seem rather minor compared to legal alcohol) we spend multiple billions of $ over the course of 40- some years... to no good effect. People still seem to smoke pot, the laws regarding posession are perceived as some sort of joke because they are so widely ignored, and people wid up shooting at other people over it. This makes sense how?
I don't smoke it, but I just can't see how we should spend all this money to try to keep someone from smoking weed.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:21:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Seamaster:
So let's get this straight... in an effort to protect people from themselves (and the ill effects of pot, which seem rather minor compared to legal alcohol) we spend multiple billions of $ over the course of 40- some years... to no good effect. People still seem to smoke pot, the laws regarding posession are perceived as some sort of joke because they are so widely ignored, and people wid up shooting at other people over it...



If pot had never been prohibited this guy still would have got shot. It would have been a counterfiet DVD raid or a chop shop raid instead of a pot raid. The guy guarding the marijuana grow is a criminal, He will do crime reguardless of marijuana laws. He has chosen to operate in the black/gray market.

To argue that marijuana should be further decriminalized becuase it will make this guy get an office job is delusional.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:22:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
and if we further decriminalize marijuana the Al Capones of the world will simply sell another black or gray market product.



I always liked this argument. In other words, marijuana prohibition is really a full employment plan for criminals. By God, if they didn't have that to sell then they would sell something worse.

The first question that comes to mind is: Like what?



Untaxed alcohol, hijacked cigarettes, diverted Rx meds, Meth, cocaine, heroin, stolen firearms, stolen cars, stolen motorcycles, stolen auto/bike parts, pie, conterfeit CD's, personal identity information, stolen electronics, counterfiet watches.

]b]It's nieve to think that marijuana dealers suddenly placed out of business by legalization would go get real jobs. They will just sell a different product.



That's an impressive argument for outlawing marijuana. . On par with saying "It's better than alcohol" to support legalization.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:25:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Untaxed alcohol,



Great example. Care to compare the market in illegal alcohol today, and the various effects on society, today versus the 1920s?


hijacked cigarettes,


That's a lot of work compared with growing something in your yard, a lot of risk, and you might want to compare the number of people employed in that occupation versus those employed during prohibition.


diverted Rx meds, Meth, cocaine, heroin,


All of which didn't happen before these drugs were outlawed.


stolen firearms, stolen cars, stolen motorcycles, stolen auto/bike parts, pie, conterfeit CD's, personal identity information, stolen electronics, counterfiet watches.


All of which are more work, involve more danger, and which involve other crimes before they can happen. And most of which don't have the steady supply and market that marijuana does.


It's nieve to think that marijuana dealers suddenly placed out of business by legalization would go get real jobs. They will just sell a different product.


You haven't established that, and your own example of untaxed alcohol argues against you. You really want to argue that we were better off with the overall crime situation during alcohol prohibition? Get real.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:27:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
The phony War on Drugs is just that.



+1
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:29:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
If pot had never been prohibited this guy still would have got shot. It would have been a counterfiet DVD raid or a chop shop raid instead of a pot raid.



Uuuuh, right. Never mind that both of those are a lot more work and risk than growing pot.


The guy guarding the marijuana grow is a criminal, He will do crime reguardless of marijuana laws. He has chosen to operate in the black/gray market.


I happen to have met a pretty fair number of pot growers over the years. With all but a handful of exceptions, growing pot was their only crime.


To argue that marijuana should be further decriminalized becuase it will make this guy get an office job is delusional.


Who, besides you, ever asserted anything that stupid? Let's see if you can get it if we explain it another way.

Ending alcohol prohibition didn't make Al Capone and his buddies get an office job. However, it did hugely reduce their bankroll and their resulting ability to cause problems.

Ending prohibition also hugely reduced the number of people who were making bathtub gin -- the 1920s equivalent of the marijuana grow. Most of those people were ordinary folk whose only real crime was violation of the prohibition laws -- like most modern pot growers.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:30:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Seamaster:
So let's get this straight... in an effort to protect people from themselves (and the ill effects of pot, which seem rather minor compared to legal alcohol) we spend multiple billions of $ over the course of 40- some years... to no good effect. People still seem to smoke pot, the laws regarding posession are perceived as some sort of joke because they are so widely ignored, and people wid up shooting at other people over it. This makes sense how?
I don't smoke it, but I just can't see how we should spend all this money to try to keep someone from smoking weed.



Because it makes Government.org feel like they're doing something.........and it justifies BIG BUDGETS and makes neat SWAT pictures for the evening news.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:32:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
That's an impressive argument for outlawing marijuana. . On par with saying "It's better than alcohol" to support legalization.



No, more like, if the excuses used to outlaw marijuana were real then alcohol would be even more illegal. Therefore, the excuses given for the marijuana laws are obvious bullshit and hypocrisy.

Furthermore, if prohibition didn't work for alcohol -- the worst of the drugs -- then there is no reason to suppose it would work for marijuana.

Prohibition doesn't work - even for really bad drugs like alcohol. That's the point.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:39:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Seamaster:
So let's get this straight... in an effort to protect people from themselves (and the ill effects of pot, which seem rather minor compared to legal alcohol) we spend multiple billions of $ over the course of 40- some years... to no good effect. People still seem to smoke pot, the laws regarding posession are perceived as some sort of joke because they are so widely ignored, and people wid up shooting at other people over it. This makes sense how?
I don't smoke it, but I just can't see how we should spend all this money to try to keep someone from smoking weed.



+1

But making sense has nothing to do with it. The truth is, beyond the naive support of religious zealots and old ladies, that have nothing better to do then try to prevent others from engaging in the vice dejure, the real pressure to fight the war on drugs comes from the law enforcement community. What the hell would they do all day if not drug busts? All that money and fancy equipment, lawyers, judges, jail guards, the entire DEA, what are they going to do if we pull the plug?

This twisted failure is all about the money, pandering aside. It’s a truly pathetic state of affairs. Hell if the people on this board, knowledgeable as they are, people who seem to truly believe in the sanctity of liberty, are split on what to do, the immediate future seems grim; the drug war will live on till the next generation gets power.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:42:12 PM EDT
LIfe in prison is reason to go down shooting, Wana bet one of the pair was going to use his/her 3RD strike. Too many laws compound things. Back in the old days when they took you out back and beat the shit out of you seemed to work just fine for a few 100 years
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:48:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunplay:

Originally Posted By Seamaster:
So let's get this straight... in an effort to protect people from themselves (and the ill effects of pot, which seem rather minor compared to legal alcohol) we spend multiple billions of $ over the course of 40- some years... to no good effect. People still seem to smoke pot, the laws regarding posession are perceived as some sort of joke because they are so widely ignored, and people wid up shooting at other people over it. This makes sense how?
I don't smoke it, but I just can't see how we should spend all this money to try to keep someone from smoking weed.



+1

But making sense has nothing to do with it. The truth is, beyond the naive support of religious zealots and old ladies, that have nothing better to do then try to prevent others from engaging in the vice dejure, the real pressure to fight the war on drugs comes from the law enforcement community. What the hell would they do all day if not drug busts? All that money and fancy equipment, lawyers, judges, jail guards, the entire DEA, what are they going to do if we pull the plug?



Decriminaliztion will not result is one less cop. if you tax it, sell it in Govt licensed stores, to people over 18 you still need the same DEA to enforce the tax regs, monitor the stores, arrest the people selling untaxed weed or diverting it to underaged persons. You still have cops busting people for using it at the schools, driving under the influence of it. If your arguement for decrimina;lization is based on it will save money by requiring less cops than you have not thought it through. Only complete legalization, meaning the absence of any regulation, results in the need for less cops.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:51:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By choad33:
LIfe in prison is reason to go down shooting, Wana bet one of the pair was going to use his/her 3RD strike. Too many laws compound things. Back in the old days when they took you out back and beat the shit out of you seemed to work just fine for a few 100 years



That's always a possibility. California sends more people to prison for life for 3rd strike marijuana offenses than any other category of crime. Kinda dumb.

While the vast majority of people I have known who grew pot were regular, otherwise sensible citizens, I will have to agree with anyone who says this particular guy is an idiot. In the Los Gatos area there are so many marijuana grows, so few cops, and so few prosecutors that they generally don't waste much time on anything under 100 plants. The situation there (and other places) is totally out of control by law enforcement. That's not going to change any time soon, either. They could call in the Marines and do a raid bigger than Fallujah and it still wouldn't change. Even if they caught this guy standing there with his arms full of pot, he still probably wouldn't get prosecuted in that area.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:58:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Decriminaliztion will not result is one less cop. if you tax it, sell it in Govt licensed stores, to people over 18 you still need the same DEA to enforce the tax regs, monitor the stores, arrest the people selling untaxed weed or diverting it to underaged persons. You still have cops busting people for using it at the schools, driving under the influence of it. If your arguement for decrimina;lization is based on it will save money by requiring less cops than you have not thought it through. Only complete legalization, meaning the absence of any regulation, results in the need for less cops.



You wouldn't care to compare the situation with the repeal of alcohol prohibition would you?

Let's see, there were fewer cops who got into fewer gunfights. Fewer arrests for home stills and bathtub gin. Fewer gangsters getting into gun fights. Al Capone's gang lost control of Cicero, Illinois. They no longer had uniformed cops escorting their shipments. We didn't send corrupt cops to prison literally by the trainload anymore.

And, as far as underaged use goes, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among US children is anti-drug campaigns. During alcohol prohibition, the age at which people started drinking dropped dramatically. Teen admissions to hospitals for alcohol-related problems soared. Kids were busted for alcohol offenses in record numbers. Schools had to cancel dances because so many kids showed up drunk. Bootleggers discovered that kids made excellent couriers and actively recruited them. In fact, some of the early supporters of prohibition turned against it because they said Prohibition made it easier than ever for their own kids to get alcohol.

Prohibition was passed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Alcohol". It was repealed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Prohibition."

And the cops that enforce the current alcohol laws are tax collectors who do their work pretty peacefully compared to Eliot Ness and his crew.

Or maybe you want to argue that alcohol prohibition was a good idea for the same reasons you stated above. How about it? Do you think alcohol prohibition was the right thing to do?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:16:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
That's an impressive argument for outlawing marijuana. . On par with saying "It's better than alcohol" to support legalization.



No, more like, if the excuses used to outlaw marijuana were real then alcohol would be even more illegal. Therefore, the excuses given for the marijuana laws are obvious bullshit and hypocrisy.

Furthermore, if prohibition didn't work for alcohol -- the worst of the drugs -- then there is no reason to suppose it would work for marijuana.

Prohibition doesn't work - even for really bad drugs like alcohol. That's the point.



I wasn't taking exception to your comment. I was taking exception to AR15's post. And no I don't smoke pot. I get tested randomly every quater, so there's no point. Smoke away, just do it on your property and stay off the roads.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:31:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 3:40:25 PM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By choad33:
LIfe in prison is reason to go down shooting, Wana bet one of the pair was going to use his/her 3RD strike. Too many laws compound things. Back in the old days when they took you out back and beat the shit out of you seemed to work just fine for a few 100 years



That's always a possibility. California sends more people to prison for life for 3rd strike marijuana offenses than any other category of crime.




any evidence to back that one up. I find it hard to believe since the average sentance for marijuana sales IME is 90 days county jail.

Perhaps you meant marijuana related offenses, like getting arrested with a pound of weed in a stolen car then fighting with the cops. High Times would have you believe that person went to prison for weed. But in that example he went to prison for auto theft, possession of stolen property, and assaulting a peace officer.

In fact the two prior felony convictions must be violent crimes, specifically.

Violent and serious felonies according to California statutes:

Violent felonies

Murder or manslaughter.
Mayhem.
Rape by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Lewd act on a child.
Any felony punishable by death or life sentence.
Any felony resulting in great bodily injury or in which a firearm was used.
Robbery of an inhabited dwelling, vessel or trailer coach in which a deadly or dangerous weapon was used.
Arson that causes great bodily injury.
Penetration by a foreign object.
Attempted murder.
Explosion with intent to commit murder.
Out-of-state kidnapping transported to California.
Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
Serious felonies

Murder or involuntary manslaughter.
Mayhem.
Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years.
Any felony pubishable by death or imprisonment for life.
Any other felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person or personally uses a firearm.
Attempted murder.
Assault with intent to commit rape or robbery.
Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer.
Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate.
Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate.
Arson.
Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure.
Exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily injury or mayhem.
Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder.
Burglary of an inhabited dwelling, house or trailer coach as defined by the Vehicle Code or inhabited portion of any other building.
Robbery or bank robbery.
Kidnapping.
Holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison.
Attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon selling, furnishing, administering, giving or offering to sell, furnish administer or give to a minor, heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), a methamphetamine-related drug, or a presursor of mehtamphetamine.
Any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Grand theft involving a firearm.
Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault.
Continuous sexual abuse of a child.


Do you see H&S 11359 Possess marijuana for sales on that list?
Here is the text of pour three strike s law. Note that marijuana sales does not qualify.

"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 667 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
667. (a) (1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.

(2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitment for this subdivision to apply.

(3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement of sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof.

(4) As used in this subdivision, "serious felony" means a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(5) This subdivision shall not apply to a person convicted of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any methamphetamine-related drug or any precursors of methamphetamine unless the prior conviction was for a serious felony described in subparagraph (24) of subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.

(c) Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following:

(1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction.

(2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense.

(3) The length of time between the prior felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence.

(4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.

(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision(e).

(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.

(8) Any sentence imposed pursuant to subdivision (e) will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law.

(d) Notwithstanding any other law and for the purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a felony shall be defined as:

(1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior felony conviction for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior felony for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive:

(A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence.

(B) The stay of execution of sentence.

(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.

(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.

(2) A conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if:

(A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense.

(B) The prior offense is listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or described in paragraph (1) or (2) as a felony.

(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law.

(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court within the meaning of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(e) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a prior felony conviction:

(1) If a defendant has one prior felony conviction that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.

(2) (A) If a defendant has two or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of:

(i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior felony convictions.

(ii) Imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years.

(iii) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046.

(B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.

(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a prior felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior felony conviction except as provided in paragraph(2).

(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation.

(g) Prior felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior felony convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).

(h) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, are to statutes as they existed on June 30, 1993.

(i) If any provision of subdivisions (b) to (h), inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.

(j) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.

SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious or violent felony offenses, and to protect the public from the imminent threat posed by those repeat felony offenders, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately."

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:43:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By choad33:
LIfe in prison is reason to go down shooting, Wana bet one of the pair was going to use his/her 3RD strike. Too many laws compound things. Back in the old days when they took you out back and beat the shit out of you seemed to work just fine for a few 100 years



That's always a possibility. California sends more people to prison for life for 3rd strike marijuana offenses than any other category of crime.




any evidence to back that one up. I find it hard to believe since the average sentance for marijuana sales IME is 90 days county jail.

Perhaps you meant marijuana related offenses, like getting arrested with a pound of weed in a stolen car then fighting with the cops. High Times would have you believe that person went to prison for weed. But in that example he went to prison for auto theft, possession of stolen property, and assaulting a peace officer.




Twice As Many Defendants Imprisoned For Marijuana Possession
Under Tough 'Three Strikes' Law Than For Violent Crimes, Study Indicates
March 6, 1996, San Francisco, CA: More than twice as many defendants have been sentenced to stiff prison sentences under California's "three strikes and you're out" law than have murderers, rapists, and kidnappers combined, according to a recent study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco.
Overall, the report concluded that 85 percent of those sentenced under the law had been convicted most recently of a non-violent offense. Of those 85 percent, 192 individuals were sentenced under the law after being convicted of marijuana possession while in custody (a felony offense in California) as compared to only 40 who were convicted of murder, 25 of rape, and 24 of kidnapping.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:47:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
[Twice As Many Defendants Imprisoned For Marijuana Possession
Under Tough 'Three Strikes' Law Than For Violent Crimes, Study Indicates
March 6, 1996, San Francisco, CA: More than twice as many defendants have been sentenced to stiff prison sentences under California's "three strikes and you're out" law than have murderers, rapists, and kidnappers combined, according to a recent study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco.
Overall, the report concluded that 85 percent of those sentenced under the law had been convicted most recently of a non-violent offense. Of those 85 percent, 192 individuals were sentenced under the law after being convicted of marijuana possession while in custody (a felony offense in California) as compared to only 40 who were convicted of murder, 25 of rape, and 24 of kidnapping.




Boo hoo. 192 people previosly convicted of violent felonies got a third strike for possession weed in prison/jail.

Show me a third strike conviction for H&S 11359 since you stated that was what most three strikers are in for.

In fact the most common third strike is petty theft with a prior or possessio of stolen property.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:51:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Boo hoo. 192 people previosly convicted of violent felonies got a third strike for possession weed in prison/jail.



They served their time and paid their debt to society. And that still doesn't make it a good idea to waste any money imprisoning someone for marijuana.


Show me a third strike conviction for H&S 11359 since you stated that was what most three strikers are in for.


When did I say any specific code section?



In fact the most common third strike is petty theft with a prior or possessio of stolen property.



And your facts are?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:53:16 PM EDT
tagged for later
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:57:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

In fact the most common third strike is petty theft with a prior or possessio of stolen property.



And your facts are?




www.threestrikes.org/Walsh%20monograph.pdf
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:04:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

In fact the most common third strike is petty theft with a prior or possessio of stolen property.



And your facts are?




www.threestrikes.org/Walsh%20monograph.pdf



The numbers seem to have changed over the years. Not that it makes much sense for even one person to go to jail for life for a marijuana offense.

But let's go back to some other points you seem to have glossed over. Do you want to argue that alcohol prohibition was a good idea?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:25:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

In fact the most common third strike is petty theft with a prior or possessio of stolen property.



And your facts are?




www.threestrikes.org/Walsh%20monograph.pdf



The numbers seem to have changed over the years. Not that it makes much sense for even one person to go to jail for life for a marijuana offense.

But let's go back to some other points you seem to have glossed over. Do you want to argue that alcohol prohibition was a good idea?



Give it up. Most see the site-supported trolls here for what they are. If you didn't come here as a LEO basher or LEO apologist you aren't going to leave as one. There are few on the fence.

Ignore the troll, and he will go away.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:29:08 PM EDT
wrong jackass, he made a claim and now that he is being called on it he is the one glossing over things.

Besides I have no problems with the third strike law. Anybody that hasn't learned after two felony strikes, isn't the kind of guy we need on the streets. Or are you going to try to argue that they were just poor dumb fucks that got busted on the only two crimes they ever committed and that their lawyers were unable to get them reduced?

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:30:56 PM EDT
Santa Clara County, near Umunhum Mountain

You know how that mountain got named? They asked a pothead who they busted where his plantation was and he pointed at the hills and said "umunhum mountain?"
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:35:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
wrong jackass, he made a claim and now that he is being called on it he is the one glossing over things.

Besides I have no problems with the third strike law. Anybody that hasn't learned after two felony strikes, isn't the kind of guy we need on the streets. Or are you going to try to argue that they were just poor dumb fucks that got busted on the only two crimes they ever committed and that their lawyers were unable to get them reduced?




No, I am arguing that it is a waste of tax dollars and causes more problems than it solves to put people in jail for drug offenses in general.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:03:03 PM EDT
www.LEAP.cc

Law EnForcement Against Prohibition

(781) 393-6985

Current and former members of law enforcement who support drug regulation rather than prohibition.

Mission Statement

Founded on March 16, 2002, LEAP is made up of current and former members of law enforcement who believe the existing drug policies have failed in their intended goals of addressing the problems of crime, drug abuse, addiction, juvenile drug use, stopping the flow of illegal drugs into this country and the internal sale and use of illegal drugs. By fighting a war on drugs the government has increased the problems of society and made them far worse. A system of regulation rather than prohibition is a less harmful, more ethical and a more effective public policy.

The mission of LEAP is to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition.

LEAP¹s goals are:
(1) To educate the public, the media, and policy makers, to the failure of current drug policy by presenting a true picture of the history, causes and effects of drug abuse and the crimes related to drug prohibition and
(2) To restore the public¹s respect for law enforcement, which has been greatly diminished by its involvement in imposing drug prohibition.

LEAP¹s main strategy for accomplishing these goals is to create a constantly enlarging speakers bureau staffed with knowledgeable and articulate former drug-warriors who describe the impact of current drug policies on: police/community relations; the safety of law enforcement officers and suspects; police corruption and misconduct; and the financial and human costs associated with current drug policies.

The Law Does More Harm Than The Drugs Do.

Seek The Truth, Liberate Your Mind.

United States Of America________________________
www.LEAP.cc/ -- www.Cures-not-wars.org/ Truth Will Liberate Earth. -- Law EnForcement Against Prohibition
www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-masterAllege 1993 feinstein/hci PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation.
www.digitalangelcorp.com/ Revelation 13:18 BAN Human Power ID-GPS-MONEY Implant Micro-chip.Patent 5,629,678

FIXED BAYONETS -- FORWARD
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:09:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
The phony War on Drugs is just that.



Yep, phony shooting, phony kids hooked on drugs, phony homicides, phoney crime rates, phoney thefts due to drugs, phoney ................hmmmmmmmmmmmm......I'm seeing a trend here..................................


Yep, your phoney support of law and order.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top