Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KeithHernandez]

Not to be an ass, but the police are part of a system that is really messed up.  I believe there are many fundamental problems with the way our society is run, and police are a facilitator to this.  I think it is because I can't respect someone who's job is power based and can take me to jail for possessing plants or substances that affect no one but me.  It could have something to do with the fact I may be facing some jail time, but I still have a fundamental problem with what they do for money.  They are also usually assholes, which doesn't help.

[miles]

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the possession of (some) drugs should be decriminalized.  But the idea that using drugs impacts no one but the user is wrong.  This doesn't mean that I think smoking marijuana should be a crime, but there are good reasons for laws that restrict or require actions that prima facie only impact the actor.

Anyway, I'm really sympathetic to cops.  First, the only reason they can take you to jail is because a legislative body (full of people with power-based jobs) voted for by the people wrote a law.  The police merely enforce it.  I agree that the system--criminal justice, legislative, whatever--is messed up in some ways, but cops are underpaid and sometimes overworked people with really shitty and important jobs.  I really don't think they have much to do with how the system is fucked up, even though some are corrupt and many are assholes.

I don't know, I'm a little drunk and really tired.  I'm going to bed.

[Drygioni]

I think it is because I can't respect someone who's job is power based and can take me to jail for possessing plants or substances that affect no one but me.

I'm pretty sure those plants and substances come from somewhere, and definitely do affect someone. Sorry for the diagram, I can't explain it succinctly otherwise.


Users They pay (hypothetically) £3000 for the full product of drugs (this is many people remember)
       |
The Dealers Might get around £50 profit for each load? Might be either hard done by or making a nice living on the side.
       |
Regional Dealers Move drugs onto local dealers, get more profit and probably live comfortably as long as they bully for more money.
       |
The Big International Dealers Send out drugs to the regional dealers, the middlemen. Make a lot of money. Mansions and such.
       |
Regional Collecter Collects drugs from the local 'collectors', pass up to B.I.D. Probably do alright by the standards of their country.
       |
Collectors Pick up the drugs from the farmers/processors. Do okay, depending on how much they can corrupt things.
       |
The Farmers/Processors At the end of the chain, these poor souls farm opium or the like, and if they're lucky they might make a bit of profit off the dealers. If they refuse to farm the drugs any longer, they may be shot, threatened or have their farms sabotaged, once again forcing them to work in poverty to produce drugs for richer people around the world to huff. They might farm a little bit of food for themselves if they have enough land.

Even by growing your own (where do the seeds come from?), someone's personal possession of drugs probably DOES affect someone, or even many people, thousands of miles away.

This is probably wrong, but I remember it fairly distinctly from a geography textbook. No rudeness intended to anyone.

[jough]

First of all, with the police bashing in this thread, I'd like to point out that the police are pretty necessary and often do a lot of good to protect your ignorant asses.

Having said that, there are some police officers who are frustrated stormtroopers looking to kick ass with impunity, and those few make the two percent who aren't that way look really bad.

[miles]

Judy:  Your diagram, I think, only applies to the black market drug trade, right?  A lot of that could be cut out if drug trade was legalized.  Not saying that there wouldn't be other drawbacks, of course, but it would be a different ballgame.

Even by growing your own (where do the seeds come from?), someone's personal possession of drugs probably DOES affect someone, or even many people, thousands of miles away.

But I think you are right about this.  Fact is, drugs can influence non-users in many ways.  This doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal, but it's naive to think that there isn't a substantial societal impact from drug use.

[Hobot]

I agree with miles and Judy.  If you want to place blame, the best people on which to do so are legislators who enact laws that criminalise drug possession.  Of course, this means that it is ultimately the fault of the constituents, meaning YOU.  So, I don't know, join NORML or something.  Sure, cops can be dicks, but so can anyone.  I mean, look at Jough; he's not a cop, and he's G.O.D.!

[misterqueue]

My best friend's dad is the Captain of one of our police forces (Berkley, which is a city on the very edge of the main part of St. Louis but well within the Metro Area.)  This has not only meant I had pretty kickass fireworks every year (from the confiscated bin), but also that I know a lot of cops.  (which of course makes me an expert?  Hell I dunno.. just giving my .02 here)

Cops have a pretty tough job really as they are the front line enforcers of what people supposedly want to enforce.  (I say supposedly because with the low voting averages in the country we can't really pretend it's majority rule.  Maybe majority rule of "those who care/know enough/etc."  However, I will also concede that most people (I use most because with all generalities there are always exceptions) who are actually drawn to be cops should never be allowed to do so.  It's like politicians, the people that have a desire to do that thing should be allowed nowhere near such a job if life made sense.  It's usually for all the wrong reasons.  Most of the cops I know like this really are good guys, but put them in the squad car and woooo  it's on like Donkey Kong!

That being said, there are a number of honest and decent cops who are just doing their job and they get as frustrated as the rest of us when the dickular ones pound the pavement.

[KeithHernandez]

Yea, Judy, that is circular logic.  I believe in personal freedom, which means people should be able to do what they wish.  It is a provable fact that the reasons some drugs are illegal and others aren't is based on economics and racism.

Police apply the laws.  Without them, they cannot be carried out.  I understand cops are underpaid, but so are teachers, firefighters, soldiers, and pretty much everyone who has a public service job.  But that doesn't mean I have symphathy for any of these people.  Well, that is a lie, firefighters are cool.  However, cops apply poor laws, meant to protect the rich, while the rich fuck them over.  Teachers are paid to teach government propaganda that helps put children into a game with rules that only ruin life.  Work hard to get to the top, or work hard because the powerful need their pawns to give them as much as possible? while the fools live off of wal-mart.  Soldiers are okay, but standing armies are horrible.  They are hired killers and are scum.  You can say what you want, but it is true.  Some have to either rob or go to the army to make a decent life, but I have more respect for the one that steal, deal, whatever they have to do to survive.  And why do these soldiers fight?  To gain resources or friendly governments for the rich and powerful, what a surprise.  If you think the United States is good, then you are a fool.  Your tax money, and mine, had gone to killing thousands of innocent lives since WWII, keeping the whole region of south america down so we can rob their land for our profit.  Here are some things that detail that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_plan
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/cia-track2.htm

Are all instances of the United States using economic or military power to keep people that they don't care about down.  I understand that is the way it works, and has for like the last 2000 years, but they never talked about freedom and took my money to do it.

But I think you are right about this.  Fact is, drugs can influence non-users in many ways.  This doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal, but it's naive to think that there isn't a substantial societal impact from drug use.

Who says that the impact would be bad?  Maybe people would realize that societies are based on cultural norms, not like scientific laws or something.

 

First of all, with the police bashing in this thread, I'd like to point out that the police are pretty necessary and often do a lot of good to protect your ignorant asses.

Having said that, there are some police officers who are frustrated stormtroopers looking to kick ass with impunity, and those few make the two percent who aren't that way look really bad.

Like that lawyer joke.  99% of lawyers give the good ones a bad name or something.  I have always liked lawyers.  They are the only ones that tell you like it is.  I find them to be the least sleazy of all professions.  Also, the only ones that will fight for your rights and against the government, even if you have to pay them.

[theinevitable]

actually, they did a study, and figured out that they were wrong in assuming a "normal" curve to police brutality. 10% of police generate 90% of police brutality complaints (maybe the actual numbers aren't this perfect. I don't remember.) It follows something called, ironically enough, power law (as opposed to the "bell curve").

"How can you know the societal impact would be bad?"
Have you ever met a heroin addict?
Or a crack addict?
Have you ever met a heroin addict's kid?
These are not people who are good for society (I mean, the kid was an example of impact. I don't mean that kids are bad for society.)

Personal freedom doesn't mean getting to fuck up other people's lives.

It's easy to say "fuck the police" when your ass is sitting in a warm house, with food, and there isn't anyone trying to kill you/rob you/rape your women/kill your children.

[AugustWest]

I have always liked lawyers.  They are the only ones that tell you like it is.  I find them to be the least sleazy of all professions.  Also, the only ones that will fight for your rights and against the government, even if you have to pay them.

Selah.

[AlohaDawg]

I can't agree more with some of you and less with others.

KH's premise about some drugs being legal and others not due to economics is confusing....the enforcement of the laws is probably different, and the courts may deal with people differently for these reasons but I can't think of a drug that is legal (or illegal) and only available to certain people. It's a market and it's pretty much about affording the drugs.

That's why they are illegal, too. Drugs themselves, and even possibly most of the users are harmless when using. But the ultra-libertarian premise that people should be allowed to freely act can't work because human beings have varying levels of self control and respect for others' persons and property. Which is why there are laws and also why drugs are illegal. In communities where drugs are most rampant you often have the highest levels of property and personal crime. Chronic drug users become liabilities on the medical system. Unfortunately, there are people who use drugs, don't work, and cost money to maintain with public programs. Drug use costs employers in downtime and shoddy work, and health insurance and professional liability premiums. They may not be a large proportion of the users, but they are the most visible.

In many, many cases, like the bar on the corner where you might go for a beer after work, there is no crime. You have your drink or two, get on a bus or a train or even drive home little the worse for wear. 90% of us. But there are also those guys who drink for hours and get in the car and kill people. Same goes for marijuana - a few idiots make it bad for everyone. And every time you move down the continuum toward more addictive substances, the proportion of people interfering with others liberty and safety in some way goes up - because it's easy to victimize people, it's easy to take stuff, and a criminal can make his own hours.

[smick]

I recently purchased a drug user a hit of his drug of choice.

I didn't do this intentionally, I performed this service by failing to take personal responsibility.   I neglected to close my garage door.   It remained open over night, and when I left for work the next morning, my hedge trimmers were gone.

An open door is an invitation.

[V-Adore]

Wow, I go away from the board for a few days and there's an interesting, civil discussion on drug legalization. Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles!

I somewhat favor legalization, but I can really understand both sides of the argument. On one hand, it is true that drugs affect more people than just their users and can have a detrimental effect on society; on the other hand, many of those effects are byproducts of drugs' illegality in the first place (things like high prices and the black market). Furthermore, we already have laws in place designed to protect others from being negatively affected by others' use of recreational substances -- drunk driving laws, anyone? I guess I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to make marijuana legal like alcohol and tobacco are legal: legal, but regulated, with punishment if you use those substances in a manner harmful to others.

The other problem with this debate is that you get the juxtaposition between basically harmless recreational substances like marijuana and things like cocaine and heroin, which are pretty bad news even in a context where they're legal. While their illegality still creates problems of organized crime and black-marketeering, it's still pretty hard to make an argument that they're benign enough to legalize totally... they present an interesting problem in this debate, one I don't know entirely how to reconcile. The first possible solution that comes to mind is "legal on a prescription basis," but vanishingly few people have any legitimate medical uses for these drugs. Hmmm.

[AlohaDawg]

I haven't studied the phenomenon in depth, but it seems to me that a lot of people think that the illegal drug trade would go away if you legalized it.

I suspect that the underground market would persist - it seems to me that legalization would include controls, possibly registration, and other necessary regulations (not to mention taxes) that would keep people away from the legitimate market. Unless there is some sort of massive culture change that would make it OK (non-stigmatic) for people to use drugs and be known as drug users, it seems to me that there will always be that secondary market.

[wombat]

But isn't the problem that even if drugs were legal, drug addicts would still not be good at holding down jobs? So they'd still have to steal smick's hedge trimmers to make money to buy drugs.  So you might get rid of the kind of criminal who breaks the law by selling drugs, but there'd still be the kind of drug-related crime that directly affects the average person.