~Fed up mom beats up drug dealer with baseball bat~ - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: ~Fed up mom beats up drug dealer with baseball bat~

  1. Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    the problem Ron Paul has is that everyone thinks exactly the same thing about him: half his positions are perfect and the other half are crazy.
    I can accept that much easier then a R or D being re-elected.
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The drug sealer is responsible for her son's addiction?
    Lol.....never met a drug sealer.

  4. #13
    Drug dealer is supplying a demand. Not creating a demand. She should have beat the addiction out of the addicted. Stupid story.

  5. #14
    cmhbob,
    I would like the opportunity to respectfully address the concerns you have brought up without completely redirecting the OP's thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob View Post
    My comparison with alcohol prohibition was that we still 80-odd years later have problems with alcohol: drunk drivers; underage usage; binge drinking; addicts. Those aren't going to go away if we legalize drugs. In fact, I suspect it will get much worse than we have now, for several years.
    Yes, I agree that we have problems with alcohol and we still have a black market (moonshiners). However, that market and violence has been greatly reduced and some of those moonshiners do become legal producers and operate within the law because it is more lucrative and legal.

    Drunk drivers are DEFINITELY a problem and for that I believe education has taken some very big steps to help in the prevention and we should continue to invest in that.

    On your next two points I begin to disagree. I was lucky enough to attend to a decent college (by taking college loans) where I was given the freedom to make decisions and sometimes learn the hard way. My parents gave me some pretty strong morals but let me go my own way. Let me tell you I drank when I was "underage" in college. I could have been drafted to fight for our country but I could not have a beer or 12 (haha). I drank a lot and I learned what a hangover really felt like and what throwing up felt like and what falling down steps felt like. But I was learning for myself. I did not cause a problem for anyone else because I did not want to disappoint my PARENTS and what they had instilled. I learned that binge drinking did not feel good when, as an adult, I had responsibilities that I had to attend to and could not do them drunk or hungover.

    As far as addicts are concerned, my opinion, is there there will always be addiction. I am addicted to this app on my phone. My opinion is that, it is a matter of directing that energy towards something useful. Parenting is the first line of defense followed by lifetime of education because legalizing alcohol didn't make alcoholics.

    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob View Post
    Other thoughts regarding legalization: where's the roadside test (and lab-tested accepted intoxication level) for marijuana, or heroin, or coke? What are the international cartels going to do when there's no black market any more? Are they going to suddenly straighten up and start obeying import laws? What about all the anti-drug task forces? What are those cops going to do when their raison d'etre goes away? It's going to be hard to turn them off.
    The roadside test to me is not a valid concern because there has not always been a hand held breath test. A free market will develop a product to meet the need when the time comes, until then we will have to depend on solid police work to detect the people driving under the influence of drugs. Which is already a crime just to be under the influence and operating a vehicle.

    My question is, does there have to be an "accepted level"? Personally I think the accepted level should be - using drugs = no driving - and if you do you are treated just like a DUI. Just my thought on a way forward.

    For the international cartels all I can say is that they will have to find another market to supply with their products. Once drugs can be legally produced, bought, sold and taxed within our borders the demand for their services will disappear and with it so will they.

    The US is one pretty hefty consumer of illegal drugs and if we disappear from that market it will be a significant blow to the drug business.

    Lastly, comes the drug task forces. Yes, they can go away and get a job in the newly legal drug business. The money the taxpayers save can be put into the education systems for our children to help them make the right decisions. Maybe the government will give it back to us... (sarcasm)

    In my opinion, the "answer" is not control of the populace by a government entity but control of the government by the people. My suggestion is that we begin by parenting and educating our children, instilling a moral compass, and then letting them experience the world and make their own mistakes.

    I apologize if this takes the thread way off course but I think cmhbob had some good discussion points and I would like to hear what others think.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Keysville Va.
    Posts
    304
    Why are the Police blamed for the drug users. The Police are not takeing the people out to buy drugs nor are they helping them snort or put a needle in their arm's. All the Police can do is make arrest and then watch as the powers to be let them out of jail with time served and or no jail time at all. They then return to the street's to start all over again. It is an endless circle of event's with no winners and no cure that seem's to work in any way.
    Bill
    Det. Sgt.
    Retired ACPD

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    2,825

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by sgtbill View Post
    Why are the Police blamed for the drug users. The Police are not takeing the people out to buy drugs nor are they helping them snort or put a needle in their arm's. All the Police can do is make arrest and then watch as the powers to be let them out of jail with time served and or no jail time at all. They then return to the street's to start all over again. It is an endless circle of event's with no winners and no cure that seem's to work in any way.
    Bill
    Det. Sgt.
    Retired ACPD
    At the end of the day it is indeed those that are in power, the lawyers, the judges, & the politicians who are to blame.
    This 'endless circle of events' is designed to bring in an 'endless flow of cash' to those people.
    Crime = $$ for the entire corrupted machine of so called 'justice'.
    Fascist's are Magicians...They can make our Property, our Freedom's & even our Children 'Disappear'.
    ~Outlaw~

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob View Post
    Is that what I said? :)

    My comparison with alcohol prohibition was that we still 80-odd years later have problems with alcohol: drunk drivers; underage usage; binge drinking; addicts. Those aren't going to go away if we legalize drugs. In fact, I suspect it will get much worse than we have now, for several years.

    Other thoughts regarding legalization: where's the roadside test (and lab-tested accepted intoxication level) for marijuana, or heroin, or coke? What are the international cartels going to do when there's no black market any more? Are they going to suddenly straighten up and start obeying import laws? What about all the anti-drug task forces? What are those cops going to do when their raison d'etre goes away? It's going to be hard to turn them off.

    I'm not against legalization per se. I have grave concerns over the apparent naivete being shown when discussing the idea. People supporting the idea tend to be long on strategy and short on tactics. Few that I've discussed the idea with can or want to rationally or believably answer the questions I've posed.
    1911_Marine I noticed you do not make many posts, but when you do, I like what you say. I would like to add just a couple things, if you do not mind.

    Yes we will continue to have problems with people that use drugs/alcohol, it just does not make sense to me to add the violence that is created through the illegal sale of those products. Innocent people caught in the cross fire, much of the killing in the inner city is drug sale related. Portugal basically legalized all drugs, and even the most skeptical critics were surprised at the results, less drug use, major drop in violence. We should be holding people responsible for their actions. I do not know for sure how the rest of the country handles DWI`s, but here in Wisconsin, we hear about someone with multiple DWI`s still driving. Paul Harvey was for legalizing drug, but he also said the users should be held responsible for their life. They could not come back later and ask us to support their life style, and if they rob someone, they go to jail or worse. I know some will say drug addiction/alcoholism are diseases (they are wrong), we have to take care of them, no we do not! They are choices, and people have to be held responsible for the choices they make in life. The drug war has been a financial disaster. They can not keep drugs out of jails and prisions, yet they think they can keep them out of a country, especially with an open southern border.
    Even though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no Evil, for YOU are with me; Remington 44 Mag:

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911_Marine View Post
    The roadside test to me is not a valid concern because there has not always been a hand held breath test. A free market will develop a product to meet the need when the time comes, until then we will have to depend on solid police work to detect the people driving under the influence of drugs. Which is already a crime just to be under the influence and operating a vehicle.

    My question is, does there have to be an "accepted level"? Personally I think the accepted level should be - using drugs = no driving - and if you do you are treated just like a DUI. Just my thought on a way forward.
    I said roadside to suggest "immediate." Officers can detect impaired drivers, but they have to prove they're impaired, which usually requires a blood, urine, or breath test. The problem is that marijuana for example isn't metabolized the same way alcohol is. Metabolites can be detected days or even weeks later, but the intoxication has long worn off. How can we address that? It's a concern as much for finding people innocent as proving them guilty. If you rely on the existence of metabolites, you're going to show people intoxicated who aren't, and that's an injustice.

    And we have to have the standards in place before we legalize things. Otherwise you're creating a period when no once can be charged because there's no legal standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911_Marine
    For the international cartels all I can say is that they will have to find another market to supply with their products. Once drugs can be legally produced, bought, sold and taxed within our borders the demand for their services will disappear and with it so will they.

    The US is one pretty hefty consumer of illegal drugs and if we disappear from that market it will be a significant blow to the drug business.

    Lastly, comes the drug task forces. Yes, they can go away and get a job in the newly legal drug business. The money the taxpayers save can be put into the education systems for our children to help them make the right decisions. Maybe the government will give it back to us... (sarcasm)
    Exactly my point. It will be a HUGE blow to the cartels' bottom line, and I can't believe they will let it happen quietly. And imagine what it's going to do to agents and officers who have worked years undercover. What does that say to their sacrifice?

    I don't think drug task forces are going to go away, either. They'll just be "repurposed," into inspection teams to make sure drug production is being done properly, etc. Lots of states have alcohol enforcement agencies, for example.

    Well said, sir. I'd almost forgotten what civil discussion was like here. :)
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  10. #19
    cmhbob,

    You have swayed my opinion on the need for an immediate test for "intoxication" to provide the burden of proof. I did not consider it from the prosecution standpoint but I am sure there is a person much smarter than me that has or can develop it. You make a good point of having the plan for the legal standard in place before we take the leap. The other hard part is the effects of all of these drugs have different effects on fine motor skills. Alcohol has a very different effect on a persons ability to drive than marijuana (presumably) so the field sobriety test has to be different as well.

    If the cartels want to remain in the drug business they will be welcomed with strict regulation from the FDA and taxed by the US Government for their service of importing their goods. Joking aside, I do feel that the agents who have worked so hard in a very tough war have sacrificed but just like any soldier when their war is done they go home. They do the job because they enjoy the work and the mission. They have worked hard and done well but the fight is over and they should be appreciated by the American public for their service and sacrifice.

    Well said to you as well. I appreciate the conversation.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Keysville Va.
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob View Post
    I said roadside to suggest "immediate." Officers can detect impaired drivers, but they have to prove they're impaired, which usually requires a blood, urine, or breath test. The problem is that marijuana for example isn't metabolized the same way alcohol is. Metabolites can be detected days or even weeks later, but the intoxication has long worn off. How can we address that? It's a concern as much for finding people innocent as proving them guilty. If you rely on the existence of metabolites, you're going to show people intoxicated who aren't, and that's an injustice.

    And we have to have the standards in place before we legalize things. Otherwise you're creating a period when no once can be charged because there's no legal standard.


    Exactly my point. It will be a HUGE blow to the cartels' bottom line, and I can't believe they will let it happen quietly. And imagine what it's going to do to agents and officers who have worked years undercover. What does that say to their sacrifice?

    I don't think drug task forces are going to go away, either. They'll just be "repurposed," into inspection teams to make sure drug production is being done properly, etc. Lots of states have alcohol enforcement agencies, for example.

    Well said, sir. I'd almost forgotten what civil discussion was like here. :)
    Very Well said, thank you.

    sgtbill

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast