Quoted: Quoted: Was the raid made after dark? Fair game then ... cop or not. I cannot believe I just read the above from a Mod, with biblical references under his avatar. Cops work 24 hours a day, so between sundown and sunup they're fair game?

I agree with him...

wearing black with a mask, breaking into my home at night time...You deserve what you get, I dont care who you are.

I dont mind the police doing their job, If I were chief they would wear Nomex YELLOW suites with Scotchbrite letters that said Police...they can have all the body armor and Kevlar they want, Just make sure it is Yellow..I want no mistakes who they are, Im a firefighter, and we had to ditch out class B uniforms with a badge because people would mistake us for police...that was good sometimes, that was bad sometimes...

It is a moot point in this situation, the bust occured at 0700 in the morning, the used a PA to let everyone know who they were....I hope everyone pulls through it...

Quoted: Quoted: Nope.  We need to legalize it all.  MJ, alcohol, tobacco, Heroin.  Wipe all the laws related to any of them off the books.   But the guys who are crooks now will continue to be crooks. Dont kid yourself on that. Agreed. However, you have recognize that a fairly large percentage of people who use drugs (especiallly weed) are, aside from the pot, definitely not crooks.

True, but I assumed this Dallas SWAT raid was on drug dealers, not marijuana enthusiasts. If they were simple pot heads then they kinda proved you wrong when they started shooting.

I agree that the typical pot heads criminal conduct is limited to marijuana possession, occcasional sales to friends, public intoxication and impaired driving.

Quoted: Quoted: Four Dallas Officers Shot Updated: February 16th, 2006 11:17 AM EDT CBS11tv.Com DALLAS -- Four Dallas Police officers and another man were injured during a shooting in Oak Cliff. One of the officers was listed in serious condition while the other three were listed in fair condition. Three alleged suspects were taken into custody about an hour after the officers arrived on the scene. Lt. Rick Watson, public information officer, with the Dallas Police Department said officers were serving warrants at the address. Early reports show the shots were fired about 7:20 a.m. in the 1200 block of Oak Park, which is east of Highway 67 and south of Loop 12. During an address to the media from the neighborhood, Watson said the initial shots came from the home and the officers fired back, when one of the men in the house was hit in the leg. He was taken to Methodist Hospital. Officials said two of the officers were hit in their protective vests and the third was hit in his hand and arm. During a news conference outside Parkland Hospital, DPD Chief David Kunkle said detailed the officers' injuries. One was hit in the upper thigh, one hit in the chest and arm and the fourth was hit in the ear. "We are very fortunate," Kunkle said. All four officers remained at Parkland Hospital. The chief said all were alert and able to talk. He called their injuries "treatable." Authorities said the officers were experienced SWAT team members and some with more than 10 years of service. Kunkle said he did not find a problem with how the officers executed the warrants. He said the officers announced their presence in both English and Spanish before moving closer to the house. Watson said after the first shots were fired, the officers were pulled to safety and then tactical officers sent an array of chemical agents into the home, which forced the suspects out into police custody. This is fifth incident since Christmas that has placed Dallas officers in the line of fire, the chief said. There have been three occasions within the past two weeks that people have displayed weapons when officers have approached residences. Officials said a high-powered rifle was involved in this shooting. "APC" was used as a recue vehicle not a gun truck or breaking vehicle. The ironic thing is that this could have all been avoided if they were only going after them for marajuana.  If the government would just legalize the stuff these types of thing should not keep happening.

Nope.  The drug dealers would simply deal in other contraband. Black marketeers do not enter the mainstream workforce simply becuase one form of contraband is no longer profitable.

Quoted: Called my detective buddy, the one people here love to talk shit about, and he said Dallas SWAT went in with DEA, and that DEA had command of the mission.  DEA ordered them to announce their presence over a loud speaker as the SWAT guys went to the front door. Fucking dumbass DEA!

Well, judging on how the federales handle their screw-ups, it looks like we've just found the new deputy director of the DEA.

Quoted: Quoted: Nope.  We need to legalize it all.  MJ, alcohol, tobacco, Heroin.  Wipe all the laws related to any of them off the books.   But the guys who are crooks now will continue to be crooks. Dont kid yourself on that. Agreed. However, you have recognize that a fairly large percentage of people who use drugs (especiallly weed) are, aside from the pot, definitely not crooks.

HMMMM.

WG,

Do you partake in the weed by chance????

Semper Fi,
M60-E4

Quoted: Quoted: Was the raid made after dark? Fair game then ... cop or not. I cannot believe I just read the above from a Mod, with biblical references under his avatar. Cops work 24 hours a day, so between sundown and sunup they're fair game?

I can, even mods can be IDIOTS.

Semper Fi,
M60-E4

Quoted: HMMMM. WG, Do you partake in the weed by chance????

Never so much as smoked a cigarette.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Was the raid made after dark? Fair game then ... cop or not. I cannot believe I just read the above from a Mod, with biblical references under his avatar. Cops work 24 hours a day, so between sundown and sunup they're fair game? I can, even mods can be IDIOTS. Semper Fi, M60-E4

If his (Paul's) comments are made in seriousness, then the title of "IDIOT" is way, WAY too kind.
Reserving full judgement until he chimes in about the "roll-eyes" icon, and if it renders the comment made sarcastically (even then, though....whatever).  What say you, Paul?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Was the raid made after dark? Fair game then ... cop or not. I cannot believe I just read the above from a Mod, with biblical references under his avatar. Cops work 24 hours a day, so between sundown and sunup they're fair game? I can, even mods can be IDIOTS. Semper Fi, M60-E4

M60-e4, So you think you are so hight and mighty because you have just proven that you not only have failed to think about what he is saying, but you can call a Retired Master Chief an IDIOT?...

Sorry, no respect points for you...

Sounds to me like the police acted reasonably throughout this situation.  I hope the wounded officers recover quickly and completely.  It's too bad for the 10 year-old kid.  Hope he gets past all this and grows up to be a productive member of society.

The more I have sit here a read a post frrm blackbag the more and more I sit here and wonder. Please tell me I am wrong in these statements, but I dont believe so. I am a Sheriff's Deputy and spent over 10 years in the military so I think I am def. qualified to make these following observations.

DALLAS (AP) -- Four police officers were shot Thursday as they tried to serve a federal drug warrant on a home in southwest Dallas.
One officer was in serious condition with a gunshot wound to the head, Dallas Police Lt. Rick Watson said. The others were in fair condition at Parkland Memorial Hospital.
The officers had approached the home in an armored personnel carrier, Watson said. When they announced the raid over a loudspeaker, someone inside the home started shooting, he said.
Four officers were hit, ever heard of cover? and Watson said the armored vehicle moved between them and the gunfire so they could be pulled to safety. why serent they behind the APC to begin with?The suspects later surrendered. Authorities said three people, including a 10-year-old boy i am sure CPS is much better for that little "drug lord" and a person who was wounded, were taken into custody.

Cover, huh? I am sure that was their intent, but sometimes there is no cover when you approach front doors, etc. I am sure they didn't get up this morning and decide, as Sr Swat Operators, to get 4 of their "brothers" shot today.

Why weren't they behind the APC? Well sometimes its just too damn difficult to get the APC on the front porch, and do your intial assault from there!!
The most important thing is the officers are all ok and the bad guy went to jail.

Did I miss an episode of Dallas SWAT?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Was the raid made after dark? Fair game then ... cop or not. I cannot believe I just read the above from a Mod, with biblical references under his avatar. Cops work 24 hours a day, so between sundown and sunup they're fair game? I can, even mods can be IDIOTS. Semper Fi, M60-E4 M60-e4, So you think you are so hight and mighty because you have just proven that you not only have failed to think about what he is saying, but you can call a Retired Master Chief an IDIOT?... Sorry, no respect points for you...

Hold on and I will try and work up a tear of concern........... nope!

Retired Master Chief or not, it was an idiotic statement....period!

Semper Fi,
M60-E4

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Was the raid made after dark? Fair game then ... cop or not. I cannot believe I just read the above from a Mod, with biblical references under his avatar. Cops work 24 hours a day, so between sundown and sunup they're fair game? I can, even mods can be IDIOTS. Semper Fi, M60-E4 M60-e4, So you think you are so hight and mighty because you have just proven that you not only have failed to think about what he is saying, but you can call a Retired Master Chief an IDIOT?... Sorry, no respect points for you...

So a Retired Master Chief's above being called an IDIOT?  He made an IDIOTIC statement, that's for sure.
What about the cop walking up to his door to inform him a loved one was just involved in an accident?  Or to tell him his car, which he didn't even know was stolen yet, was recovered?  This guy thinks it's OK to open up on 'em?

Retired Master Chief or not, I know those SWAT guys that were hurt today, and the one hurt the worst has seen his share of action, enough that only a combat veteran could possibly have seen more.  I don't how Retired Master Chief spent his career, but he gets no respect from me, for his military service or his Mod status.

Any word yet on the type of rifle used??

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys are on Crack if you think even for a moment that drugs are okay.  I have to deal everyday with this issue and we need to exicute the a$$wipes that make and sell drugs.  Recall what the Brits did to China about 150 years ago.  Look at history and you will see that even great nations fall from drug use.   When do we start executing the employees of Anhuiser-Busch, Miller, Coors, Seagrams, Jack Daniels, and all the wine manufacturers and distributers?  How about Philip Morris, RjReynolds, and Liggett?  Damn, evil drug makers! When vicious animals start gunning down convience store clerks because they need cash for a Budlite fix, or quick pack of smokes, we can start then.  Until then, let's focus on the shit that turns humans into  feral beasts.

Ha, yeah because drunk people have never killed anyone!  It's hilarious how some people think of alcohol as ok strictly because it's legal.  I have seen many many people look like "feral beasts" and it's almost always alcohol.  In fact, I've surely been there a few times myself.  

I have no idea how gun owners, of all people, think the government knows best when telling us what we can and cannot do to ourselves.  Freedom lovers, yeah right.

Quoted: Any word yet on the type of rifle used??

The FNP2400 PuppySlayer .40 gauge machine pistol.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys are on Crack if you think even for a moment that drugs are okay.  I have to deal everyday with this issue and we need to exicute the a$$wipes that make and sell drugs.  Recall what the Brits did to China about 150 years ago.  Look at history and you will see that even great nations fall from drug use.   When do we start executing the employees of Anhuiser-Busch, Miller, Coors, Seagrams, Jack Daniels, and all the wine manufacturers and distributers?  How about Philip Morris, RjReynolds, and Liggett?  Damn, evil drug makers! When vicious animals start gunning down convience store clerks because they need cash for a Budlite fix, or quick pack of smokes, we can start then.  Until then, let's focus on the shit that turns humans into  feral beasts. Ha, yeah because drunk people have never killed anyone!  It's hilarious how some people think of alcohol as ok strictly because it's legal.  I have seen many many people look like "feral beasts" and it's almost always alcohol.  In fact, I've surely been there a few times myself.   I have no idea how gun owners, of all people, think the government knows best when telling us what we can and cannot do to ourselves.  Freedom lovers, yeah right.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys are on Crack if you think even for a moment that drugs are okay.  I have to deal everyday with this issue and we need to exicute the a$$wipes that make and sell drugs.  Recall what the Brits did to China about 150 years ago.  Look at history and you will see that even great nations fall from drug use.   When do we start executing the employees of Anhuiser-Busch, Miller, Coors, Seagrams, Jack Daniels, and all the wine manufacturers and distributers?  How about Philip Morris, RjReynolds, and Liggett?  Damn, evil drug makers! When vicious animals start gunning down convience store clerks because they need cash for a Budlite fix, or quick pack of smokes, we can start then.  Until then, let's focus on the shit that turns humans into  feral beasts. Ha, yeah because drunk people have never killed anyone!  It's hilarious how some people think of alcohol as ok strictly because it's legal.  I have seen many many people look like "feral beasts" and it's almost always alcohol.  In fact, I've surely been there a few times myself.   I have no idea how gun owners, of all people, think the government knows best when telling us what we can and cannot do to ourselves.  Freedom lovers, yeah right.

Unless I missed it, no one has extolled (in this thread anyway) the virtues of alcohol.  No one said drunks have never killed anyone (about 70% of crimes involve alcohol), that's why OUI saturation patrols exist.  And certainly no one has stated that "alcohol is ok strictly because it's legal".  Ask any cop, alcohol (while on the other end of it) sucks and makes the job much, much more difficult.  So, this begs the question:  should we compound the problem by legalizing drugs?  Will that somehow mitigate the already staggering problem that alcohol poses to society when abused?   Yeah, that's just what we need.  

This website is just for the same stupid people we see over at DUh, except that they are "conservative".  Almost everyone and I mean that, is nothing more than an opposite of their liberal conterpart.  2 sides of the same coin.  No one here appreciates freedom, no one here wants to risk anything other than carpal tunnel from typing what "they would do".  Fucking pussies.  Run your little menial minds into a goddman hypocrisy until your so confused you get numb.  Cope my little bitches, you fucking little ignorant facists.  

Quoted: This website is just for the same stupid people we see over at DUh, except that they are "conservative".  Almost everyone and I mean that, is nothing more than an opposite of their liberal conterpart.  2 sides of the same coin.  No one here appreciates freedom, no one here wants to risk anything other than carpal tunnel from typing what "they would do".  Fucking pussies.  Run your little menial minds into a goddman hypocrisy until your so confused you get numb.  Cope my little bitches, you fucking little ignorant facists.

How many times have you been elected to your state legislature? As the CEO of your local municipality?

Since 1993 I've served in both capacities for a total of six terms. In addition to earning two college degrees, raising a family, and running my own business.

What have you done in the last 13 years?

1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else.

2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society.

3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce and likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines.

When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact.

There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness.

For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but popularly) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (certainly of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves.

Quoted: Quoted: This website is just for the same stupid people we see over at DUh, except that they are "conservative".  Almost everyone and I mean that, is nothing more than an opposite of their liberal conterpart.  2 sides of the same coin.  No one here appreciates freedom, no one here wants to risk anything other than carpal tunnel from typing what "they would do".  Fucking pussies.  Run your little menial minds into a goddman hypocrisy until your so confused you get numb.  Cope my little bitches, you fucking little ignorant facists.   How many times have you been elected to your state legislature? As the CEO of your local municipality? Since 1993 I've served in both capacities for a total of six terms. In addition to earning two college degrees, raising a family, and running my own business. What have you done in the last 13 years?

Get'im, WG!  .   I'd make a Prozac joke here at NSFJojo's expense, but then I'd be a hypocrite, as I've gotten keyboard-rage myself a few times.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some believe that drug dealers would become accountants or computer programmers if drugs were legalized. But crooks are crooks and if drugs were legal they would just sell other contraband from stolen guns to hijacked cigarrettes. Perhaps we need to return to Prohibition, then? Nope.  We need to legalize it all.  MJ, alcohol, tobacco, Heroin.  Wipe all the laws related to any of them off the books.   But the guys who are crooks now will continue to be crooks. Dont kid yourself on that.

The CIA needs to get back in the drug business.

Cept this time they need to cut the heroin with cyanide. Problem solved.

Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines. When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness. For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but remuneratively) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (or maybe only of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves.

+1.

best post on the subject.  EVER.

would you mind if i saved this and distributed it as a letter or email?

Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines. When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness. For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but remuneratively) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (or maybe only of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves.

Nice fairy tale.  The only things missing are the "Once upon a time" in the beginning, and "They all lived happily ever after" at the end.  This is pure BS from start to finish.  It is nice, though, to see something that is eloquently and artfully written (in all seriousness, it is a well written piece), despite the fact that it is based on pure conjecture, with zero real-time, current empirical data to back it up.  The above is nothing more than an idealistic diatribe which is, or would only be, espoused by those who are either blind, or choose to be, about the fact that coelescing to the virus that is illicit drugs would only compound the problem.  I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate and refute your essay, point by point; however, many arguments to the contrary have been posted prior to this in this thread.  Bad guys/drug dealers will NEVER turn good, or non-violent.  More people who might otherwise never use or even try drugs might fall victim to its now easy access, and become another boil on the ass of society.  The list against this goes on and on and on and on.  It is such a tired argument that I considered not even responding to it, and now that my mind is fatigued from even typing the above, I'll just sit back and await further verbose persuasions and propaganda from the "green party"  

Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines. When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness. For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but remuneratively) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (or maybe only of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves. Nice fairy tale.  This is pure BS from start to end.  Boy, it's nice to see something that is so eloquently and artfully written, despite the fact that it is based on pure conjecture, with zero real-time, current empirical data to back it up.  The above is nothing more than an idealistic diatribe which is, or would only be, espoused by those who are either blind, or choose to be, about the fact that coelescing to the virus that is illicit drugs would only compound the problem.  I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate and refute your essay, point by point; however, many arguments to the contrary have been posted prior to this in this thread.  Bad guys/drug dealers will NEVER turn good, or non-violent.  More people who might otherwise never use or even try drugs might fall victim to its now easy access, and become another boil on the ass of society.  The list against this goes on and on and on and on.  It is such a tired argument that I considered not even responding to it, and now that my mind is fatigued from even typing the above, I'll just sit back and await further verbose persuasions and propaganda from the "green party"

Compare and contrast the experience with alcohol prohibition on the one hand with the experience with drug prohibition on the other. Withe drugs we are 2/3 of the way through the cycle we experienced with alcohol (i.e., legality/prohibition/legality; with drugs we have covered only legality.prohibition). Do they match or not? What was the level of violence attending the trade in heroin before prohibition?

Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property.

They did. Over a PA and in two languages even.  So don't try to make this out to be some no-knock thing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines. When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness. For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but remuneratively) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (or maybe only of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves. Nice fairy tale.  This is pure BS from start to end.  Boy, it's nice to see something that is so eloquently and artfully written, despite the fact that it is based on pure conjecture, with zero real-time, current empirical data to back it up.  The above is nothing more than an idealistic diatribe which is, or would only be, espoused by those who are either blind, or choose to be, about the fact that coelescing to the virus that is illicit drugs would only compound the problem.  I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate and refute your essay, point by point; however, many arguments to the contrary have been posted prior to this in this thread.  Bad guys/drug dealers will NEVER turn good, or non-violent.  More people who might otherwise never use or even try drugs might fall victim to its now easy access, and become another boil on the ass of society.  The list against this goes on and on and on and on.  It is such a tired argument that I considered not even responding to it, and now that my mind is fatigued from even typing the above, I'll just sit back and await further verbose persuasions and propaganda from the "green party"   Compare and contrast the experience with alcohol prohibition on the one hand with the experience with drug prohibition on the other. Withe drugs we are 2/3 of the way through the cycle we experienced with alcohol (i.e., legality/prohibition/legality; with drugs we have covered only legality.prohibition). Do they match or not? What was the level of violence attending the trade in heroin before prohibition?

The question you should be asking was was was the level of violence attending the trade of contraband before prohibition.  Heroin dealers deal in contraband becuase it is profitable.  if heroin is no longer profitable they will dealer in stolen motorcycles, prostitution, stolen cars &parts, hijacked cigarettes, diverted Rx drugs, bootleg DVDs, stolen or ilegal guns.  they will not stop selling contraband just because their current product is legalized.  they will simply offer a different product but conduct business in the same criminal manner.

Quoted: They brought the APC in case they had to face a deadly gang of hot skater chicks in black miniskirts

nope is was texas with a fed warrent, they needed the apc to punch holes in the house and pump in tear gas

Quoted: The question you should be asking was was was the level of violence attending the trade of contraband before prohibition.  Heroin dealers deal in contraband becuase it is profitable.  if heroin is no longer profitable they will dealer in stolen motorcycles, prostitution, stolen cars &parts, hijacked cigarettes, diverted Rx drugs, bootleg DVDs, stolen or ilegal guns.  they will not stop selling contraband just because their current product is legalized.  they will simply offer a different product but conduct business in the same criminal manner.

so, uh, did violent crime go down after alcohol prohibition ended?  or did the bootleggers and gangsters just go into other illicit businesses and keep on murdering people at the same rate?

Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines. When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness. For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but remuneratively) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (or maybe only of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves.

Excellent post.  However, there is one thing I would like to add.  Its not just the interested people in the legal system that are keeping drugs illegal.  A whole lot of middle America doesn't want legalization, even if they agreed with that post.  Why?  Because most of the problems associated with the war on drugs, especially the most visible ones like the shootings, are largely contained to the ghetto.  I remember making roughly the same argument to my mother, who is about as typical middle class as you can get (school teacher in Omaha, NE) and she basically said "you may be right, but if drugs were legalized there is a greater chance that you or your brothers might try them.  Frankly, I don't care what the people in North Omaha [our ghetto] do to one another, I care what happens to my boys."  I think a lot of middle America feels the same way.  

Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines. When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness. For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but remuneratively) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (or maybe only of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves. Excellent post.  However, there is one thing I would like to add.  Its not just the interested people in the legal system that are keeping drugs illegal.  A whole lot of middle America doesn't want legalization, even if they agreed with that post.  Why?  Because most of the problems associated with the war on drugs, especially the most visible ones like the shootings, are largely contained to the ghetto.  I remember having the same argument with my mother, who is about as typical middle class as you can get (school teacher in Omaha, NE) and she basically said "you may be right, but if drugs were legalized there is a greater chance that you or your brothers might try them.  Frankly, I don't care what the people in North Omaha [our ghetto] do to one another, I care what happens to my boys."  I think a lot of middle America feels the same way.

I agree with both of you.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. Nice fairy tale.  This is pure BS from start to end.  Boy, it's nice to see something that is so eloquently and artfully written, despite the fact that it is based on pure conjecture, with zero real-time, current empirical data to back it up.  The above is nothing more than an idealistic diatribe which is, or would only be, espoused by those who are either blind, or choose to be, about the fact that coelescing to the virus that is illicit drugs would only compound the problem.  I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate and refute your essay, point by point; however, many arguments to the contrary have been posted prior to this in this thread.  Bad guys/drug dealers will NEVER turn good, or non-violent.  More people who might otherwise never use or even try drugs might fall victim to its now easy access, and become another boil on the ass of society.  The list against this goes on and on and on and on.  It is such a tired argument that I considered not even responding to it, and now that my mind is fatigued from even typing the above, I'll just sit back and await further verbose persuasions and propaganda from the "green party"   Compare and contrast the experience with alcohol prohibition on the one hand with the experience with drug prohibition on the other. Withe drugs we are 2/3 of the way through the cycle we experienced with alcohol (i.e., legality/prohibition/legality; with drugs we have covered only legality.prohibition). Do they match or not? What was the level of violence attending the trade in heroin before prohibition?

Ahh, I think if you really looked, REALLY LOOKED, you would find drug abuse is a common factor in parents not being able to take care of thier children. Not enough income, neglect, or just outright abuse.

Alcohol or Marijuna are fairly weak intoxicants. A person that gets drunk, can't stand walk, etc. so thier capacity to act on thier alcohol induced schemes is often kept in check. MJ.................. yeah, I guess munchies and giggles.

It's an entirely different game with meth, crack, PCP, LSD, etc. The person's ability to reason is DESTROYED, and thier ability to do physical acts may actually be intensified. Mindless violence often results. Self control, inhibitions, etc, all GONE.

Next, I have met many "functional alcoholics". They work during the day, and are regularly sloshed shortly after getting off work. Other could probably say the same about MJ users. Of course neither group will be capable of reaching their full potential.

Show me a crack or meth addict that holds a regular job.

Next, do you want to pay for all the meth, crack, LSD, user's medical bills or addiction related disability payments? Gee you think medicare/medicaid costs a lot now........................

"the war on drugs"............ aside from the DEA, it's more like a fist fight behind the barracks. I work for a 400+ LEO dept. We have 4 people assigned to drugs+gangs........................ Gee that's 1%. We have far more resources devoted to DUI or domestic abuse. But the big three causes of homicides locally are DUI, drugs, and domestic abuse, in that order. Often times the DUI homicides are drug related, not just booze. Some of the domestic homicides also have a drug component to them.

EDIT SO I'M NOT QUOTING A PAGE WORTH OF STUFF.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some believe that drug dealers would become accountants or computer programmers if drugs were legalized. But crooks are crooks and if drugs were legal they would just sell other contraband from stolen guns to hijacked cigarrettes. Perhaps we need to return to Prohibition, then? Nope.  We need to legalize it all.  MJ, alcohol, tobacco, Heroin.  Wipe all the laws related to any of them off the books.   But the guys who are crooks now will continue to be crooks. Dont kid yourself on that.

+1
Whether you legalize drugs or, keep them illegal, criminals will be criminals.
They aren't about to work at Mcdonalds for minimum wage.

OLY.....IM inbound.

Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. They did. Over a PA and in two languages even.  So don't try to make this out to be some no-knock thing.

Christ, you, too? That was a response to the people who criticized the fact that an announcement was made. Read a little, and don't try to make this out to be some no-knock thing, OK?

This happened right down the street from me.  I hope the officers that where wounded are doing ok.  

Quoted: Ahh, I think if you really looked, REALLY LOOKED, you would find drug abuse is a common factor in parents not being able to take care of thier children. Not enough income, neglect, or just outright abuse. Alcohol or Marijuna are fairly weak intoxicants. A person that gets drunk, can't stand walk, etc. so thier capacity to act on thier alcohol induced schemes is often kept in check. MJ.................. yeah, I guess munchies and giggles. It's an entirely different game with meth, crack, PCP, LSD, etc. The person's ability to reason is DESTROYED, and thier ability to do physical acts may actually be intensified. Mindless violence often results. Self control, inhibitions, etc, all GONE. Next, I have met many "functional alcoholics". They work during the day, and are regularly sloshed shortly after getting off work. Other could probably say the same about MJ users. Of course neither group will be capable of reaching their full potential. Show me a crack or meth addict that holds a regular job. Next, do you want to pay for all the meth, crack, LSD, user's medical bills or addiction related disability payments? Gee you think medicare/medicaid costs a lot now........................ "the war on drugs"............ aside from the DEA, it's more like a fist fight behind the barracks. I work for a 400+ LEO dept. We have 4 people assigned to drugs+gangs........................ Gee that's 1%. We have far more resources devoted to DUI or domestic abuse. But the big three causes of homicides locally are DUI, drugs, and domestic abuse, in that order. Often times the DUI homicides are drug related, not just booze. Some of the domestic homicides also have a drug component to them. EDIT SO I'M NOT QUOTING A PAGE WORTH OF STUFF.

Do you know of anyone who wants drugs who (aside from spot shortages) can't get them? I don't. The entire edifice of prohibition - all the money, all the violence, all the risks to cops and neighbors - has as its upside occasional inconvenience for people who want dope. What a great way to spend a few billion bucks. We're already paying for the street kids, the rehab, the whatever. We are just adding to those costs the expense of ineffectual prohibition.

Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. 2. In the absence of articulable reason to believe that in the specific circumstances at hand (i.e., "this raid," not "raids like this") the risk of violence or destruction of evidence will be increased by doing so, the Constitution demands that the police give due notice of their presence, authority, and purpose before breaking into property. The fact that there are people on this board who seem to think that in America the presumptively appropriate means of entry is dynamic and without warning speaks volumes about the corrosive effect  the war on drugs has on our society. 3. It is inescapable that legalization of drugs would vastly reduce or more likely eliminate the violence that attends the drug trade. When alcohol was subject to prohibition, violence and corruption were a feature of the alcohol business. The price of whatever Prohibition did to reduce alcohol consumption was a vast increase in the net amount of violence in society. People did not stop breaking legs for loan sharks and enlist as soldiers for liquor distributors; the loan sharks had their enforcers right along. What happened was that new career opportunities opened up for the mindlessly violent as workers in an industry which when legal (before and after prohibition) involved little or no commercially-driven violence. The well-intentioned law added bombs, guns, and knives to the liquor distributor's tool cabinet; before and after Prohibition, all he needed were trucks, handcarts, and adding machines. When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. There are two choices with respect to drugs. The first choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them. The second choice is that anyone who wants any drug can get it, and we will have to deal with the health and behavioral problems of people who overuse them, along with private wars over the networks of distribution, midnight police raids, official corruption, billions of dolars in costs of incarceration for sellers and users alike, and in addition to the violence directly flowing from the illegal trade, the incidental violence that arises from having incubated through public policy a subculture that values brainless machismo and violent idleness. For many reasons - including the fact that it makes work for policemen, lawyers, and judges, and allows legislators at every level to crusade hypocritically (but remuneratively) against evils they created and could solve with the stroke of a pen - we have chosen the latter. Most dishearteningly, the choice has become so ingrained that many otherwise rational people are incapable of recognizing (or maybe only of accepting) the fact that the law has created the monster we claim to fear. The evil consequences of drugs under prohibition are graver than the evil consequences of drugs alone, but vast numbers of us are incapable of responding to that fact with anything other than bleated denials, false dichotomies between hippies and decent folk, and an ever-greater willingness to sacrifice our liberties in the cause of a war we declared on ourselves. +1. best post on the subject.  EVER. would you mind if i saved this and distributed it as a letter or email?

+1

People are in the "trade" because of the money. Criminals are criminals? Nonsense. Robbing liquor stores and banks is a super high-risk, low profit, endeavor. Selling drugs on the other hand has all of the mechanisms of the market in its favor and is unimaginably profitable. It is not hard at all to see why those with the least in the way of opportunity choose this lifestyle. End those astronomical profits and yes those people will go out and find something else to do, it's called progress.

The drug addicts will be able to get their drugs out in the open and at record low prices, allowing them to easily afford their downward spiral in the comfort of their own dwelling. Crimes to pay for drugs will plummet with the cost of the drugs themselves. Not to mention the tax revenue benefits.

As a bonus we can have our money and our rights back. Plus the law enforcement recourses to lock up the predators that kill, rape, or steal from innocent people every day of the week.

America, Wake the fuck up. We need to start working smart, not just working hard.

Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, * * * a war we declared on ourselves. +1. best post on the subject.  EVER. would you mind if i saved this and distributed it as a letter or email?

Go ahead, now that I've done a little editing of paragraph 3 for clarity.

Quoted: <Snip> When the drugs from which we now recoil in pavlovian government-induced horror were legal, the dope dealer had no need for machine guns; he was a dry-goods merchant or a pharmacist. Uncle Sam turned him into a murderous braggart with gold teeth and a Glock. That is a fact. <Snip>

How dare you bring the truth into this perennially divisive and worn out topic?!  Henceforth, authors of such audacious forays into common sense will be brutally browbeaten into submission!  Your perspicacious diatribe will NOT be tolerated!  

Now, begin drooling, ranting, and denying reality like you're supposed to!  Fall in line!  Toe the mark!  Chop-chop!

Quoted: Do you know of anyone who wants drugs who (aside from spot shortages) can't get them? I don't. The entire edifice of prohibition - all the money, all the violence, all the risks to cops and neighbors - has as its upside occasional inconvenience for people who want dope. What a great way to spend a few billion bucks. We're already paying for the street kids, the rehab, the whatever. We are just adding to those costs the expense of ineffectual prohibition.

Nope, not ALL of the money. Again MJ is non-toxic, grow, process, ship, even if it was legal tomorrow, and not taxed, it would still cost money to grow and ship.

Cocaine, crack, Meth, are not non-toxic. Meth labs are very toxic, and explosive. Even of meth labs suddenly became legal, the costs to run them without being a hazardous waste site would be very high. Do you think that would encourage other's to continue to cook illegally??? -hazardous, explosive?--

The violence surrounding "dealing" might lessen. I doubt it would go away. It has to do with addiction, and what people will do to feed their habits. There will always be someone that is addicted to something like crack or meth, that doesn't have any way to pay for it, and will try to use violence to get it.

The violence that users do because they are high, have drug induce psychosis, etc. won't go away whether or not the drugs are legal

If the drugs became legal, more people would use. If the drugs became less expensive, those that use would tend to use more.

The societal cost would soar.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some believe that drug dealers would become accountants or computer programmers if drugs were legalized. But crooks are crooks and if drugs were legal they would just sell other contraband from stolen guns to hijacked cigarrettes. Perhaps we need to return to Prohibition, then? Nope.  We need to legalize it all.  MJ, alcohol, tobacco, Heroin.  Wipe all the laws related to any of them off the books.   But the guys who are crooks now will continue to be crooks. Dont kid yourself on that. My gret-grandmother who ruined her life and destroyed her family by using cocaine when it was legal thanks you.   Not really a personal attack...but....: Idiot

and if it had been illegal would it have magically kept her from taking it?

I don't do drugs now because I have no desire to, not because they are illegal. I could get any drug I want if I spent a day or two making contacts

Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. ---EDIT--- a war we declared on ourselves. Nice fairy tale.  This is pure BS from start to end.  Boy, it's nice to see something that is so eloquently and artfully written, despite the fact that it is based on pure conjecture, with zero real-time, current empirical data to back it up.  The above is nothing more than an idealistic diatribe which is, or would only be, espoused by those who are either blind, or choose to be, about the fact that coelescing to the virus that is illicit drugs would only compound the problem.  I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate and refute your essay, point by point; however, many arguments to the contrary have been posted prior to this in this thread.  Bad guys/drug dealers will NEVER turn good, or non-violent.  More people who might otherwise never use or even try drugs might fall victim to its now easy access, and become another boil on the ass of society.  The list against this goes on and on and on and on.  It is such a tired argument that I considered not even responding to it, and now that my mind is fatigued from even typing the above, I'll just sit back and await further verbose persuasions and propaganda from the "green party"

You sound just like the "Green Party." Just scream the loudest and hope people will be brainwashed. No intention of competing in the arena of ideas.

We all want the same thing. To be safety, happy, and free. We have to look at the world as it is, and take the appropriate steps to make it better while preserving what we hold so dear. Legalization provides that hope in this case. If you disagree, which it seems you do, it is incumbent upon you to respond and tell us why we are wrong, otherwise you are no better then the obstructionist politicians we all hate.

Quoted: Quoted: In a nutshell, I'd rather see someone sell drugs than be on welfare. Wow.

unreal just unreal

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. ---EDIT--- a war we declared on ourselves. Nice fairy tale.  This is pure BS from start to end.  Boy, it's nice to see something that is so eloquently and artfully written, despite the fact that it is based on pure conjecture, with zero real-time, current empirical data to back it up.  The above is nothing more than an idealistic diatribe which is, or would only be, espoused by those who are either blind, or choose to be, about the fact that coelescing to the virus that is illicit drugs would only compound the problem.  I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate and refute your essay, point by point; however, many arguments to the contrary have been posted prior to this in this thread.  Bad guys/drug dealers will NEVER turn good, or non-violent.  More people who might otherwise never use or even try drugs might fall victim to its now easy access, and become another boil on the ass of society.  The list against this goes on and on and on and on.  It is such a tired argument that I considered not even responding to it, and now that my mind is fatigued from even typing the above, I'll just sit back and await further verbose persuasions and propaganda from the "green party"   You sound just like the "Green Party." Just scream the loudest and hope people will be brainwashed. No intention of competing in the arena of ideas. We all want the same thing. To be safety, happy, and free. We have to look at the world as it is, and take the appropriate steps to make it better while preserving what we hold so dear. Legalization provides that hope in this case. If you disagree, which it seems you do, it is incumbent upon you to respond and tell us why we are wrong, otherwise you are no better then the obstructionist politicians we all hate.

I have a funny feeling that no matter what I say, how many reasons against it I give, or how right I actually am, nothing I type here tonight will convince you, or anyone in your stoner camp, that drug legalization is a lose-lose proposition.  People who are so bent on the legalization of drugs are already lost.  Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, however passionate and fervent that disagreement is.  And by the way...IF I WERE SCREAMING LIKE YOU ALLEGE, I'D HAVE TYPED MY PREVIOUS POSTS IN CAPS........<--------LIKE THIS!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Do you know of anyone who wants drugs who (aside from spot shortages) can't get them? I don't. The entire edifice of prohibition - all the money, all the violence, all the risks to cops and neighbors - has as its upside occasional inconvenience for people who want dope. What a great way to spend a few billion bucks. We're already paying for the street kids, the rehab, the whatever. We are just adding to those costs the expense of ineffectual prohibition. Nope, not ALL of the money. Again MJ is non-toxic, grow, process, ship, even if it was legal tomorrow, and not taxed, it would still cost money to grow and ship. Cocaine, crack, Meth, are not non-toxic. Meth labs are very toxic, and explosive. Even of meth labs suddenly became legal, the costs to run them without being a hazardous waste site would be very high. Do you think that would encourage other's to continue to cook illegally??? -hazardous, explosive?-- The violence surrounding "dealing" might lessen. I doubt it would go away. It has to do with addiction, and what people will do to feed their habits. There will always be someone that is addicted to something like crack or meth, that doesn't have any way to pay for it, and will try to use violence to get it. The violence that users do because they are high, have drug induce psychosis, etc. won't go away whether or not the drugs are legal If the drugs became legal, more people would use. If the drugs became less expensive, those that use would tend to use more. The societal cost would soar.

No need to discuss this abstractly. Ever been to Amsterdam? The crime rate has not soared. Your account is simply untrue. People don't make choices about whether or not to do drugs based on legality; period.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Do you know of anyone who wants drugs who (aside from spot shortages) can't get them? I don't. The entire edifice of prohibition - all the money, all the violence, all the risks to cops and neighbors - has as its upside occasional inconvenience for people who want dope. What a great way to spend a few billion bucks. We're already paying for the street kids, the rehab, the whatever. We are just adding to those costs the expense of ineffectual prohibition. Nope, not ALL of the money. Again MJ is non-toxic, grow, process, ship, even if it was legal tomorrow, and not taxed, it would still cost money to grow and ship. Cocaine, crack, Meth, are not non-toxic. Meth labs are very toxic, and explosive. Even of meth labs suddenly became legal, the costs to run them without being a hazardous waste site would be very high. Do you think that would encourage other's to continue to cook illegally??? -hazardous, explosive?-- The violence surrounding "dealing" might lessen. I doubt it would go away. It has to do with addiction, and what people will do to feed their habits. There will always be someone that is addicted to something like crack or meth, that doesn't have any way to pay for it, and will try to use violence to get it. The violence that users do because they are high, have drug induce psychosis, etc. won't go away whether or not the drugs are legal If the drugs became legal, more people would use. If the drugs became less expensive, those that use would tend to use more. The societal cost would soar. No need to discuss this abstractly. Ever been to Amsterdam? The crime rate has not soared. Your account is simply untrue. People don't make choices about whether or not to do drugs based on legality; period.

most of his argument still stands.  meth, crack, etc are not legal in amsterdam.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. In many LE circles, "DEA" is said to stand for "Don't Expect Anything." The agency is not noted for its usefulness, or for much of anything else. ---EDIT--- a war we declared on ourselves. Nice fairy tale.  This is pure BS from start to end.  Boy, it's nice to see something that is so eloquently and artfully written, despite the fact that it is based on pure conjecture, with zero real-time, current empirical data to back it up.  The above is nothing more than an idealistic diatribe which is, or would only be, espoused by those who are either blind, or choose to be, about the fact that coelescing to the virus that is illicit drugs would only compound the problem.  I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate and refute your essay, point by point; however, many arguments to the contrary have been posted prior to this in this thread.  Bad guys/drug dealers will NEVER turn good, or non-violent.  More people who might otherwise never use or even try drugs might fall victim to its now easy access, and become another boil on the ass of society.  The list against this goes on and on and on and on.  It is such a tired argument that I considered not even responding to it, and now that my mind is fatigued from even typing the above, I'll just sit back and await further verbose persuasions and propaganda from the "green party"   You sound just like the "Green Party." Just scream the loudest and hope people will be brainwashed. No intention of competing in the arena of ideas. We all want the same thing. To be safety, happy, and free. We have to look at the world as it is, and take the appropriate steps to make it better while preserving what we hold so dear. Legalization provides that hope in this case. If you disagree, which it seems you do, it is incumbent upon you to respond and tell us why we are wrong, otherwise you are no better then the obstructionist politicians we all hate. I have a funny feeling that no matter what I say, how many reasons against it I give, or how right I actually am, nothing I type here tonight will convince you, or anyone in your stoner camp, that drug legalization is a lose-lose proposition.  People who are so bent on the legalization of drugs are already lost.  Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, however passionate and fervent that disagreement is.  And by the way...IF I WERE SCREAMING LIKE YOU ALLEGE, I'D HAVE TYPED MY PREVIOUS POSTS IN CAPS........<--------LIKE THIS!!!

We unfortunately do not have the luxury of "agreeing to disagree" because your "drug war" is daily stealing my money, law enforcement resources, and liberty. If drugs were legalized you would be free to disagree and choose to have no part.