It won't happen because minor drug offenses make too much money for cities, counties, and especially the prison industrial complex.
Private prisons? Seriously?
Private prisons? Seriously?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
War on Drugs
- Thread starter DagoMaino
- Start date
Invalid Link Removed
Why has no one brought up Portugal yet? Seems like legalizing it is working for them even though we Americans thought it would flop
Why has no one brought up Portugal yet? Seems like legalizing it is working for them even though we Americans thought it would flop
No...this...
Invalid Link Removed
Oh and BTW, the 3 cops who claimed ill effects were examined and released.
Can happen when people become aware of info like you just shared.
If we start paying taxes to local and state and fed 2nd it would help a lot.
If we start paying taxes to local and state and fed 2nd it would help a lot.
Sorry, I (as usual) failed to adequately convey my point.
I did not mean it was not worth sorting out and getting rid of the so called "lab". my point was spending 1.5 million tax dollars to send a single guy into a motel room to carry out 2 soda bottles full of chemicals.
There were three people living in the room and they suffered no ill effects from whatever term exposure to it and the 3 cops who said they were harmed by the fumes were examined (no treatment required) and released.
Again, not trying to minimize the danger of cooking meth, but to over react to this degree is not only counterproductive, it does nothing to stem the demand for meth. You can't kill demand by removing supply. All you do is open the market for a new supplier.
When was the last time you saw a working pay phone? They are scarce these days because there is no demand for them any more.
The way to reduce the demand for meth and other dangerous drugs is education, not incarceration. If the 1.5 million tax dollars wasted on this gross over reaction had been spent on education, we will eventually reduce demand for meth to the point where it was no longer profitable to cook and the only people cooking would the fools using it.
A couple police cars for an hour to keep people back and a guy in a paper jumpsuit would have been plenty to remove the 2 soda bottle "lab", but the local LE decided instead to make a huge show of their diligent battle in the war on drugs.
We can't even afford to buy toilet paper for our public schools in Alabama, but we have 1.5 million to spend so the combined LE and firefighting resources of a city and county can stand around with their thumbs up their butt on a job that could have ben done with 4 of those people?
I despise meth as much as anyone, but I also dislike grandstanding in the name of job justification, especially if that grandstanding is being funded with my tax dollars.
That question was answered in the video. From a federal level, they don't play any role. At a state level, however, allow them to address the issue as they see fit. If it becomes successful enough to tax drugs (like alcohol) then it will eventually spread nation wide.
Right - understanding gov's role in regulation after legalization isn't too complicated. What I meant was gov's role (if any) in building a society that has the freedom to choose, and chooses against abusing drugs. (ain't nothin' wrong with a taste!
) I think the same problem exists with a number of other "choices" - drugs aren't the only way we destroy ourselves.
That's an interesting article...
It seems as though the balancing of the stats in the article seem to point out that there is less of a social stigma attached to seeking help for people that need it... which is a huge hurdle in our society cause people hide it until they are stealing money and their families are in shambles.
this is one of those instances where people will see what they want to see.
Those in favor of marijuana use will claim that the only thing wrong with it is the laws against it, and it is the very substance which could cure all diseases, fix the economy, and reverse global warming.
Those against it will point out that medical marijuana laws increased crime in CA, because the gangs started competing for a shrinking market, and concentrating on harder drugs. They can point out that there currently are no unbiased studies because as a schedule one intoxicant, it is against federal law to spend taxpayer money on studies.
People will read the "facts" that they want to believe, and rationalize how they are absolute, and not subject to interpretation or manipulation.
Those in favor of marijuana use will claim that the only thing wrong with it is the laws against it, and it is the very substance which could cure all diseases, fix the economy, and reverse global warming.
Those against it will point out that medical marijuana laws increased crime in CA, because the gangs started competing for a shrinking market, and concentrating on harder drugs. They can point out that there currently are no unbiased studies because as a schedule one intoxicant, it is against federal law to spend taxpayer money on studies.
People will read the "facts" that they want to believe, and rationalize how they are absolute, and not subject to interpretation or manipulation.
Not quite so. I'm not for legalization because I think its all great. I've never tried it. I don't see any justification for throwing a peaceful person in a cage or shooting their dog or taking their property. I think victimless crimes are socialist ideas we should do without.
Right - understanding gov's role in regulation after legalization isn't too complicated. What I meant was gov's role (if any) in building a society that has the freedom to choose, and chooses against abusing drugs. (ain't nothin' wrong with a taste!
Gotcha
Believe me, I try to consider both sides, and appreciate contradictory perspectives that are thought provoking as well.
In terms of the particular argument about gangs competing more for market share of harder substances. Gangs are gangs. I would argue that they will have violent intentions regardless of product... It's a power identity, not a profitability issue. I grew up doing the violent straight-edge thing and think that the responsibility for the violence lies with the people not the substance. Gangs, like drugs, biggest deterrent is going to be education.
One aspect to consider is that it detaches the normal citizens from violent culture... instead of going across town to buy weed from a shady house, walking around a neighborhood like a mark... Joe Shmo can purchase from a safe environment without fear of getting ripped off, walking in on an incident, or walking out to get robbed.
Until the place has been fully inspected, you don't know what all is in there. There are plenty of cases where there are large amounts of toxic and volatile chemicals.
It's a single bed hotel room my friend. If the door to the head is open there is nothing you can't see from the front door unless it's in a drawer, pretty much negating the chance of any large amounts of toxic chemicals. Also, large quantities of chemicals, especially toxic or volatile types give off a very strong odor but the people on both sides of the "lab" had no clue they were next door to it. No one smelled a thing hinky until the cops went there to pick up a juvenile who was overdue returning from visitation. Last of all, if the threat was so great, why didn't the cops evacuate any other people but those in the two adjacent rooms before they sent in the guy in the white paper jumpsuit to clear the "lab". There were so many LE, fire fighting, and emergency first responder rolling stock called it created a traffic jam in and around the place for several hours after everything was secured.
I'm not arguing they shouldn't seek out this kind of stuff or that it should not be disposed of properly, but this was drama for the sake of it, or it was proof the people in charge were totally clueless in how to best respond to the discovery of a 2 soda bottle shake and bake meth lab.
Either way it was stupid big money to spend for the result.
I have no doubt it could have been handled just as safely and as effectively with no more than 10~15 man hours and three vehicles.
Maybe they werent all there to grandstand the war on drugs as you think they were and they all just showed up because theywere bored and wanted to kill some time?
I was in a car accident once. I was tboned by a guy who ran a red light. A police car pulls up and two officers get out to take our statements. A fire engine shows up to make sure no one was hurt (no one was hurt, we were all fine). Another squad car pulls up. Then another. All in all there were 4 cop cars and a fire engine. One dude is sweeping up the debris. Our statements have been taken. Im waiting for a ride to pick me up. The other party has gone. 6 cops are standing on the sidewalk bs-ing for about an hour. I guess they had nothing better to do...
A lot of labs are small and confined spaces like garages and sheds, my friend.
Until the place is inspected, it's only a guess of what is in there and how much. The small and confined space also makes the fumes much more concentrated and potentially more dangerous.
Could be, I once got threatened by a cop at an accident scene because the light I was sitting turned green and the lane was clear so I took off. There was a circle of cops standing off to one side BSing, and when I started across the intersection one of them flagged me down and asked if I wanted to go to jail. I said of course not, but why would he be asking me that? He said when I saw a cop in the street I was to wait for instructions before moving. It was obvious to me this guy was looking for a reason to do something besides just standing around and would have been glad to show me what his authority could accomplish, at least in the short term.
So yes, it would be possible they were engaged in the LE equivalent of mutual wankage, but around here they take their LE duty (and themselves) VERY seriously and I've managed to avoid any problems with them by doing exactly the same thing.
Here is an interesting take on why federal legalization could be bad for users. Can you imagine if Philip Morris got in on the game?
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-legalized-marijuana-might-be-bad-pot-smokers/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-legalized-marijuana-might-be-bad-pot-smokers/
Most of those points are only applicable to a discussion of legalization without regulation... I could see state govt. growing contracts leading to some corruption opportunity, but most of these points are moot.
