"President Obama is sending a clear message to young people about how adults solve problems: they bond while using drugs."
Talking about the beer summit. I wonder if he would have said this had it been a coffee summit instead. This, to me, is the problem with lumping all drugs together. Caffeine and alcohol are both drugs. They are legal. If not abused, then they are great. Same with some other drugs (that are currently illegal)!
So, Ajai, do you think that Obama was sending a message to our youth that doing drugs is good because that was the bottom line of the letter? I don't think that the beer summit in any way told kids that getting high on crack is ok.
As a society and as parents we have the ability to teach kids the difference between beer and meth. Or prescription medications or aspirin and ecstacy for that matter.
Further, this sentence is ludicrous in so many ways:
"Unlike adults, 13 year olds can’t get beer and wine. They get street drugs..."
First off, Barrie's (maybe it's not JTB) logic is that kids will want beer, but they can't get it so they will take whatever drugs are available to them. This is stupid.
Second, the idea that a 13-year-old can get drugs but not beer is idiotic.
The first point is that it is ridiculous to prosecute a victimless crime. It is even worse to prosecute the victim, which is what happens. Why incarcerate people that are not hurting anybody?
That is an excellent point.
Then he makes a good point regarding tobacco and alchohol, both legal and dangerous or deadly.
The bottom line of the letter is reflected in the headline, 'Sticking with failed drug policy harms society.'
There was never a truer statement.
Prohibition does not work. We incarcerate more people than we educate, and for what? Society is no safer, in fact it is more dangerous.
Who wins? That's right, drug dealers. The black market makes these people rich. The prison industrial complex is similar to the drug dealers in that they profit from human misery.
Marijuana should be legalized for many reasons. The only reason it is illegal was for Dupont and William Randolph Hearst fearing competition from industrial hemp. It was made illegal through racist propaganda films that told people marijuana would make white women get raped by Blacks or Mexicans. This continued to be perpetrated by Richard Nixon who was pissed when the scientists he hired found the drug was rather benign. He supressed this information, it was a form of social control. Always has been. See the documentary 'Grass.' Also, it would help the economy considerably to tax it.
Laslty, this guy has been writing since at least before the nineties and he has never said anything about the second coming of Christ, so I am pretty sure this is not JTB. This guy's liberal, and not as much of a jerk.
I think he would make the same point if it was a 'coffee summit,' both being legal drugs, after all, his point remains the same: Adults do work things out with drugs.
Again, great letter, one of the best I've seen in a while. As rational Research states: 'I love the agreement hear from a crowd that doesn't always agree....'
It seems the letter makes alot of sense to alot of people, including me.
In the names of keeping the world drug free, people have been killed, tortured, or kidnapped. Out of fear of a substance, people have oppressed minorities in minority neighborhoods, people are willing to search people randomly, send police dogs into schools....etc. They say they are just trying to keep us safe, but they said the same thing about the War on Terror. They use fear to get people to voluntarily give up their civil liberties and their constitutional rights.
...and where are we, after all the zero-tolerance nonsense, and the Draconian measures, we are neither safer nor healthier.
From Soderbergs 1991 film Kafka:
Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you? Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt. Gabriela: They're authorities! That's reason enough.
I am not sure victim-less crime is exactly correct... What about the cars, houses, and businesses that are "victimized" in search of the next high?
I can tell you first hand that property crime is a large bi-product of drug use that leaves many "victims"... There are pawn shops out there that deal only in these victim-less items.
There are huge theft rings that deal solely in stolen property for drugs. A recent example is the ice-breaker case in Benton County two years ago.
I would also add that I have seen plenty of people or "victims" "hurt" by a drug addict(s) breaking into their house and stealing their porperty; while shattering their sense of security at the same time.
In this case the crime is the theft, not drug use. You can say it is a product of drug use, but then you could say the same about any crime. We prosecute crimes for themselves.
As Jeff wisely points out:
"The source of crime is black market profit margins -- caused by drug policy.'
Meth is a very dangerous, and horrifying substance. At street quality they are often times cut with toxic substances, which poisons a person slowly.
Perhaps a regulated market would be safer, perhaps not. It would not be perfect, but we can most assuredly see what we are doing now is not working.
Meth use is rampant! But it is only this way because it is a drug poor people can afford.
Ajai - I don't think there is any other quality than street quality where meth is concerned...it's pretty much turning a cold medication into something lethal.
To uncut the sh*t, you would be turning it back into it's origninal intent - a drug for cold symptoms =).
It is a drug poor people can afford, simply because it can be made from ingredients that are common and are difficult to regulate.
If you look at the drug busts, more often than not their is a child endangerment charge on top of that - that pretty much tells you where kids are getting there influences to use.
I mean, you are correct about people making it from the good stuff in cough syrup, but there are varying qualities....rat poison DOES make a difference. It wasn't invented on the street.
Ajai - I read a bit of your link. I guess I'm not understanding your point.
Even as described by your link - that would not stop people who want it from taking very simple, common items and making it themselves -vs- having the government control.
Government control is not going to stop the illicit making of the product, because people have already shown that they care nothing for the purity of what is going into their body - they only care about the "high" - as cheaply as they can get it.
The Department Of Human Services pdf I posted does not give a complete breakdown of substance for you.
You can trust me when I say that out of the protective custody cases - drugs would be approximately 7-1 over alcohol.
BTW - the 42% does not reflect the child endangerment cases where by a juvenile is released to the custody of a relative -vs- CPS.
I would disagree that I am incorrect about it's properties, btw - but hey, I'm willing to agree to disagree.
Rat poison. Bleach. Paint thinner. This changes the substance, and makes it even worse.
The government already has control, I am talking about regulation. There is no evidence that this would stop anything, but it would take out the profit incentive.
Alcohol is taxed heavily, has a huge profit incentive, ruins millions of lives a year, and is legal...
I have seen first hand how the use of Mary Jane leads to smoking meth, which then leads to using needles to inject the meth. Sexual favors are exchanged as well as who knows what. After a few years this just isn't enough to get the fix any more and an upgrade is made to coke, and/or herion of course all while continuing to use meth, and, wait for it.... Pot.
Treatment is a great option, but you have to want to quit for it to be effective.
I am not sure what the solution is. I would say that a more even ratio between treatment and punishment might be a start...
I do not believe in the gateway theory. People are generally more complex than that. We prosecute people for the crimes they commit, not crimes they may do in the future. There are too many degrees of separation, correlation does not equal causation.
...a more even ratio between punishment and treatment. That's a good start. An egalitarian justice system that prosecutes offenders fairly would be even better.
http://tinyurl.com/l8hlb5
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1784
http://tinyurl.com/m23jcp
http://tinyurl.com/kuyzex
http://tinyurl.com/mdd24t
They could be smarter and more efficient concerning how police resources are delegated.
We also can't forget that the purpose of the police; or law enforcement is vastly different from the role of the Court or justice system...
I do tend to believe in the gateway theory as I've seen it over and over.
Here in Oregon we have de-criminalized weed. It is a violation to posess less than an ounce of the drug. It doesn't seem to have an effect. Where do we go from there? Do we make possesion of less than a pound?
If we are just using anecdtotal evidence I must submit that I know thousands of people who smoke weed and DO NOT use methamphetamine, or prostitute themselves, as I am sure you also do. Most people do, hell, EVERYONE does.
I also have met meth addicts who don't, and never have, smoked weed. So there you go. My andectdotal evidence contradicts yours. I can see your experience makes you biased, but you don't really believe most people who smoke weed become meth prostitutes, do you? That is 1930s REEFER MADNESS schtick. While I am sure you have met people who have made bad choices after smoking weed, this is incidental. There is no evidence that weed MADE them engage in this behavior, it was just what happened. You could just as easily say it was alcohol, or cigarettes, or the shows they watched, or the food they ate. Again take every person who has ever smoked weed, I would bet my house the VAST MAJORITY do not become prostitutes for meth.
I am sure making less than an ounce a violation has cleared up alot of jail space, and court time. Again, WHY INCARCERATE SOMEONE WHO IS NOT HURTING ANYBODY!!!!! Police respources should be used to fight real crime.
Jeff seems to be pretty well informed as he is not misled by flase information, it seems to be propaganda indoctrinated state employees that lack the clue.
"Jeff seems to be pretty well informed as he is not misled by flase information, it seems to be propaganda indoctrinated state employees that lack the clue."
To recap, all of Jeff's points remain. Emotional pleas about child abuse and prostitution are noteworthy, but they are emotional pleas that REAFFIRMS his point about the systems failure.
"It seems to be propaganda indoctrinated state employees that lack the clue."
Dang man, you had to go with this... I thought you were accepting of others views... Talk about condescension! Is this all I am to you? Really? A clueless indoctinated State employee? By the way I don't work for the State...
I am simply saying that drug use including Marijuana "Can" and "Do" have a negative aspect on society.
I was trying to show from my point of view and set of experiences that there are bi-products including "Real Crime", and "human tragedies" directly caused by drug addiction.
You take things too personally. It's not all about you.
Marijuana can have a negative impact on society, though far less than alcohol, but most people realize it is the prohibition that makes it harmful, and multiplies it's potential for harm exponentially.
Laws that make no sense undermine the entire legal system.
I do not require an apology, but I will offer one here shortly. My tone only echoed yours, so if you were offended it is for the same reason why I might be offended, if I was.
Sorry...I've been reading alot about surrealist filmakers, lately.
Well, the topic fluctuates....I thought I answered, I believe marijuana is very different from meth. It should be legalized, in my opinion, but that is my bias.
We are biased by our experiences. Whereas you see devastated families, I see abuse of authority and injustice. These experiences are not abstract, to me, they are as concrete as your experiences. I have respect for public servants who serve the public, but that, shall we say, has not always been the case, in my experience.
I respect your perspective, as well as COEs. I do not doubt that meth can be harmful, one of my first lovers was a meth addict, and somewhat abusive.
Yet, I do not trust the drug war. It's a system built upon prejudice and theft. Many corrections workers and lawyers use illegal drugs.
Legal drugs can be just as harmful, if not more so. I know this, also, from personal experience. Yet we attach a stigma to narcotics.
It is a system of social control, that has overstepped it's boundaries. It's fine to save an abused child, but but not to take the liberty of a person who isn't hurting anybody. The way this system operates does not make sense to me, and I believe it could be better.
I'm glad you wrote back, for attempting to block communication, I am sorry.
"A fundamental police role is to enforce and uphold the rule of law, and to do so equitably without regard to race, ethnicity, or social or economic status. Sadly, for much of the Nation’s history, the legal order has not only countenanced but sustained slavery, segregation, and discrimination. And the fact that the police were bound to uphold that order set a pattern for police behavior and attitudes toward minority communities that has persisted until the present day.
...
In no arena is this continued discrimination more apparent than in America’s "war on drugs." Police chiefs have enough problems dealing with misconduct and abuse of authority by some officers without the added burden of having to enforce laws that are themselves mechanisms for discrimination, in the tradition of the Jim Crow era in American history. Obligating the police to enforce unjust laws, most often in inner-city and minority communities, perpetuates the legacy of fear and mistrust, and further erodes relations between the police and the community.
Not only is current drug policy targeting minority citizens in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the general population and the drug-using population, but these policies are driving differential enforcement policies in many communities. Police are making more arrests than ever for non-violent drug offenses.
...
For the police to be effective, they must have the trust and cooperation of the citizens they serve. Often the communities most in need of effective policing because of high crime rates are the very communities most distrustful of the police. Progressive police executives have come to understand that, in order to generate community support, the police must think and act like they are a part of the community they serve...."
Gays and lesbians in the United States, historically, have not been treated well. Starting as early as the colonial era, one could be executed by the government for sodomy. (7) By the mid-twentieth century, the medical profession began considering homosexuality a mental illness. (8) As such, many gays and lesbians were in fear of being institutionalized. (9) In the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government started to openly treat homosexuals adversely. (10) Congress dealt with homosexuals through the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and the Senate's McCarthy Hearings. (11) Homosexuals were considered a national menace, a threat to national security, and a threat to the stability of the country. (12)
Congress, however, was not the only branch of the federal government that treated homosexuals poorly. President Dwight Eisenhower "issued an executive order listing 'sexual perversion' as disqualifying anyone from a federal job." (13) This prompted J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to lead a "national crackdown" on outing homosexuals. (14) At that time, the federal government was the nation's largest employer. (15) It was believed that homosexuals were easy targets of blackmail and could be coerced into revealing national secrets or joining the communist party. (16)
As a result of this crackdown, it became open season on homosexuals. This overt discrimination by the federal government led to more and more private discrimination. Private employers followed Eisenhower's lead and started firing anyone they believed was homosexual. (17) In addition, police across the country started to act as if they had been given a '"no-holds-barred' signal to harass, abuse and arrest homosexuals." (18) They would blackmail, entrap, and commit other abuses on them. (19) The police traditionally have been violators of gay and lesbian civil rights. (20) As such, attacks on gays and lesbians had gone unreported because victims actually experienced or perceived the police to be anti-gay. (21)
...
Gays and lesbians have always had to endure violence against them, whether at the hands of law enforcement or private citizens. When people think of anti-gay violence, most think of personal attacks.
...the government's action or inaction toward secondary discrimination conveys the message to "perpetrators ... and the rest of society that anti-gay hate crimes will not [go] punished and that secondary victimization of gay people is acceptable....
...in the wake of harsh treatment by law enforcement, homosexuals were and still are reluctant to report the attacks on them. (46) This reluctance could go as far as acting as a motivating factor for gays and lesbians to hide their victim status because of the perceived lack of support among law enforcement and the general public...."
But it's okay, I'm also treated poorly by clerks, secretaries, the city manager, and the newspaper.
Maybe it's not prejudice, maybe everyone is a jerk.
For that matter, maybe it's not profiling, maybe we live in a police state, I'm not sure.
To be clear, I have had guns pointed at me, though I own or carry no gun. I have had physical force against me, though I have used no physical force save resistance, I have been threatened with tasers, though...well you get the idea.
First let me say I am sorry if you have been treated badly in your life. That is not cool, and I feel badly for you. I too have been treated badly, while not making it okay or the same, I am sorry.
I do have to add, cliche' or not... Some of my best friends are "gay(s)" and "Lesibian(s)" and work in Law Enforcement.
Where do these people fit in? Are they like Black cops who work in the inner cities? Looked down upon because they, you know, just work for the man!
I can honestly say that in my entire career I have never cared if a person was or wasn't gay.
I have never gone out and looked for the gay people to harass, taze, use force against, or point my weapon at. These things are action specific with me, and all Officers and Deputies. I would be curious to hear about the incidents and what lead to the actions you describe.
The only reason I would do any of these things would be because of the actions of the (for lack of a better term) threat. Again, I could care less if they were gay or straight.
I can also say I did not vote for Dwight Eisenhower :)
I would like to get the full account from your point of view about what happened. I mean, I know vaquely from what you've said about running into Cox.
We all need to get together for coffee, or breakfast or something. Once School starts it will be easier for me. Once Tom comes out of the basement we'll have to set something up! I look forward to it!
Just to be clear what I'm talking about:
ReplyDelete"President Obama is sending a clear message to young people about how adults solve problems: they bond while using drugs."
Talking about the beer summit. I wonder if he would have said this had it been a coffee summit instead. This, to me, is the problem with lumping all drugs together. Caffeine and alcohol are both drugs. They are legal. If not abused, then they are great. Same with some other drugs (that are currently illegal)!
I read the editorial letter this morning and simply didn't know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteThis evening, I still have *uhhhh* stuck in my head.
This is going to take me awhile......
I don't think it is the same JTB that comments online. JT Barrie has been writing against the drug war for years.
ReplyDeleteI think this letter is pretty spot on.
I'm curious. Which drugs should be legalized?
ReplyDeleteSo, Ajai, do you think that Obama was sending a message to our youth that doing drugs is good because that was the bottom line of the letter? I don't think that the beer summit in any way told kids that getting high on crack is ok.
ReplyDeleteAs a society and as parents we have the ability to teach kids the difference between beer and meth. Or prescription medications or aspirin and ecstacy for that matter.
Further, this sentence is ludicrous in so many ways:
ReplyDelete"Unlike adults, 13 year olds can’t get beer and wine. They get street drugs..."
First off, Barrie's (maybe it's not JTB) logic is that kids will want beer, but they can't get it so they will take whatever drugs are available to them. This is stupid.
Second, the idea that a 13-year-old can get drugs but not beer is idiotic.
After going back and reading this letter again, I'm with momofthree. It is very unclear and leaves on going, 'uuhhhhh'.
ReplyDeleteThe first point is that it is ridiculous to prosecute a victimless crime. It is even worse to prosecute the victim, which is what happens. Why incarcerate people that are not hurting anybody?
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent point.
Then he makes a good point regarding tobacco and alchohol, both legal and dangerous or deadly.
The bottom line of the letter is reflected in the headline, 'Sticking with failed drug policy harms society.'
There was never a truer statement.
Prohibition does not work. We incarcerate more people than we educate, and for what? Society is no safer, in fact it is more dangerous.
Who wins? That's right, drug dealers. The black market makes these people rich. The prison industrial complex is similar to the drug dealers in that they profit from human misery.
Marijuana should be legalized for many reasons. The only reason it is illegal was for Dupont and William Randolph Hearst fearing competition from industrial hemp. It was made illegal through racist propaganda films that told people marijuana would make white women get raped by Blacks or Mexicans. This continued to be perpetrated by Richard Nixon who was pissed when the scientists he hired found the drug was rather benign. He supressed this information, it was a form of social control. Always has been. See the documentary 'Grass.' Also, it would help the economy considerably to tax it.
Laslty, this guy has been writing since at least before the nineties and he has never said anything about the second coming of Christ, so I am pretty sure this is not JTB. This guy's liberal, and not as much of a jerk.
I think he would make the same point if it was a 'coffee summit,' both being legal drugs, after all, his point remains the same: Adults do work things out with drugs.
Again, great letter, one of the best I've seen in a while. As rational Research states:
'I love the agreement hear from a crowd that doesn't always agree....'
It seems the letter makes alot of sense to alot of people, including me.
In the names of keeping the world drug free, people have been killed, tortured, or kidnapped. Out of fear of a substance, people have oppressed minorities in minority neighborhoods, people are willing to search people randomly, send police dogs into schools....etc. They say they are just trying to keep us safe, but they said the same thing about the War on Terror. They use fear to get people to voluntarily give up their civil liberties and their constitutional rights.
ReplyDelete...and where are we, after all the zero-tolerance nonsense, and the Draconian measures, we are neither safer nor healthier.
ReplyDeleteFrom Soderbergs 1991 film Kafka:
Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you?
Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt.
Gabriela: They're authorities! That's reason enough.
I am not sure victim-less crime is exactly correct... What about the cars, houses, and businesses that are "victimized" in search of the next high?
ReplyDeleteI can tell you first hand that property crime is a large bi-product of drug use that leaves many "victims"... There are pawn shops out there that deal only in these victim-less items.
There are huge theft rings that deal solely in stolen property for drugs. A recent example is the ice-breaker case in Benton County two years ago.
I would also add that I have seen plenty of people or "victims" "hurt" by a drug addict(s) breaking into their house and stealing their porperty; while shattering their sense of security at the same time.
Just saying...
In this case the crime is the theft, not drug use. You can say it is a product of drug use, but then you could say the same about any crime. We prosecute crimes for themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs Jeff wisely points out:
"The source of crime is black market profit margins -- caused by drug policy.'
Meth is a very dangerous, and horrifying substance. At street quality they are often times cut with toxic substances, which poisons a person slowly.
Perhaps a regulated market would be safer, perhaps not. It would not be perfect, but we can most assuredly see what we are doing now is not working.
Meth use is rampant! But it is only this way because it is a drug poor people can afford.
Or how about a compromise? If we decriminalized marijuana the police would have more resources available to go after the meth labs.
ReplyDeleteAjai - I don't think there is any other quality than street quality where meth is concerned...it's pretty much turning a cold medication into something lethal.
ReplyDeleteTo uncut the sh*t, you would be turning it back into it's origninal intent - a drug for cold symptoms =).
It is a drug poor people can afford, simply because it can be made from ingredients that are common and are difficult to regulate.
If you look at the drug busts, more often than not their is a child endangerment charge on top of that - that pretty much tells you where kids are getting there influences to use.
Sorry - I don't think Jeff has a clue..
http://dhsforms.hr.state.or.us/Forms/Served/DE1535.pdf
ReplyDeleteWell I, however, do.
ReplyDeletehttP://www.martyangelo.com/meth_use10.htm
I seems from your link that alcohol is also a large contributor to abuse and neglect.
ReplyDeleteWell said MO3...
ReplyDeleteIs it okay if I refer to you as MO3?
Sorry but you are incorrect about it's properties.
ReplyDeleteI mean, you are correct about people making it from the good stuff in cough syrup, but there are varying qualities....rat poison DOES make a difference. It wasn't invented on the street.
ReplyDeleteAjai - I read a bit of your link. I guess I'm not understanding your point.
ReplyDeleteEven as described by your link - that would not stop people who want it from taking very simple, common items and making it themselves -vs- having the government control.
Government control is not going to stop the illicit making of the product, because people have already shown that they care nothing for the purity of what is going into their body - they only care about the "high" - as cheaply as they can get it.
The Department Of Human Services pdf I posted does not give a complete breakdown of substance for you.
You can trust me when I say that out of the protective custody cases - drugs would be approximately 7-1 over alcohol.
BTW - the 42% does not reflect the child endangerment cases where by a juvenile is released to the custody of a relative -vs- CPS.
I would disagree that I am incorrect about it's properties, btw - but hey, I'm willing to agree to disagree.
Corvallisoreugene - absolutely =)
Rat poison. Bleach. Paint thinner. This changes the substance, and makes it even worse.
ReplyDeleteThe government already has control, I am talking about regulation. There is no evidence that this would stop anything, but it would take out the profit incentive.
Alcohol is a drug.
http://tinyurl.com/ljnkez
ReplyDelete'drugs would be approximately 7-1 over alcohol.'
ReplyDeleteThat would make sense, considering 'drugs' are illegal.
Alcohol is taxed heavily, has a huge profit incentive, ruins millions of lives a year, and is legal...
ReplyDeleteI have seen first hand how the use of Mary Jane leads to smoking meth, which then leads to using needles to inject the meth. Sexual favors are exchanged as well as who knows what. After a few years this just isn't enough to get the fix any more and an upgrade is made to coke, and/or herion of course all while continuing to use meth, and, wait for it.... Pot.
Treatment is a great option, but you have to want to quit for it to be effective.
I am not sure what the solution is. I would say that a more even ratio between treatment and punishment might be a start...
I do not believe in the gateway theory. People are generally more complex than that. We prosecute people for the crimes they commit, not crimes they may do in the future. There are too many degrees of separation, correlation does not equal causation.
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/kneazu
http://tinyurl.com/n3buks
...a more even ratio between punishment and treatment. That's a good start. An egalitarian justice system that prosecutes offenders fairly would be even better.
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/l8hlb5
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1784
http://tinyurl.com/m23jcp
http://tinyurl.com/kuyzex
http://tinyurl.com/mdd24t
They could be smarter and more efficient concerning how police resources are delegated.
http://tinyurl.com/n6me8a
http://tinyurl.com/mjuuvf
We also can't forget that the purpose of the police; or law enforcement is vastly different from the role of the Court or justice system...
ReplyDeleteI do tend to believe in the gateway theory as I've seen it over and over.
Here in Oregon we have de-criminalized weed. It is a violation to posess less than an ounce of the drug. It doesn't seem to have an effect. Where do we go from there? Do we make possesion of less than a pound?
I will check out the links. Thanks!
If we are just using anecdtotal evidence I must submit that I know thousands of people who smoke weed and DO NOT use methamphetamine, or prostitute themselves, as I am sure you also do. Most people do, hell, EVERYONE does.
ReplyDeleteI also have met meth addicts who don't, and never have, smoked weed. So there you go. My andectdotal evidence contradicts yours. I can see your experience makes you biased, but you don't really believe most people who smoke weed become meth prostitutes, do you? That is 1930s REEFER MADNESS schtick. While I am sure you have met people who have made bad choices after smoking weed, this is incidental. There is no evidence that weed MADE them engage in this behavior, it was just what happened. You could just as easily say it was alcohol, or cigarettes, or the shows they watched, or the food they ate. Again take every person who has ever smoked weed, I would bet my house the VAST MAJORITY do not become prostitutes for meth.
I am sure making less than an ounce a violation has cleared up alot of jail space, and court time. Again, WHY INCARCERATE SOMEONE WHO IS NOT HURTING ANYBODY!!!!! Police respources should be used to fight real crime.
Jeff seems to be pretty well informed as he is not misled by flase information, it seems to be propaganda indoctrinated state employees that lack the clue.
All that money fighting marijuana use, and it hasn't done a lick of good for society.
ReplyDeleteFocus on real crime, help people.
'It doesn't seem to have an effect.'
ReplyDeleteIt has a huge effect to the people victimized by the police.
"Jeff seems to be pretty well informed as he is not misled by flase information, it seems to be propaganda indoctrinated state employees that lack the clue."
ReplyDeleteuh...wow. ok
Your post is very unclear, and leaves one going 'uhhh,' if you cannot debate without condescension I would sooner drop the subject.
ReplyDeleteTo recap, all of Jeff's points remain. Emotional pleas about child abuse and prostitution are noteworthy, but they are emotional pleas that REAFFIRMS his point about the systems failure.
ReplyDelete"It seems to be propaganda indoctrinated state employees that lack the clue."
ReplyDeleteDang man, you had to go with this... I thought you were accepting of others views... Talk about condescension! Is this all I am to you? Really? A clueless indoctinated State employee? By the way I don't work for the State...
I am simply saying that drug use including Marijuana "Can" and "Do" have a negative aspect on society.
I was trying to show from my point of view and set of experiences that there are bi-products including "Real Crime", and "human tragedies" directly caused by drug addiction.
You take things too personally. It's not all about you.
ReplyDeleteMarijuana can have a negative impact on society, though far less than alcohol, but most people realize it is the prohibition that makes it harmful, and multiplies it's potential for harm exponentially.
Laws that make no sense undermine the entire legal system.
'Talk about condesension...'
ReplyDeleteYes, it's called an 'in kind' response, using the language of another to show how they sound.
As a wise man once said: Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
What offended you so much Ajai?
ReplyDeleteI'm not very open minded about certain illicit drugs simply because of my years experience. It has nothing to do with (training) propaganda.
Training didn't prepare me for most of the conditions or damage I've seen done to families specifically with children.
No amount of training could.
So - what is the discussion.
I asked you several posts prior what drugs you felt should be legalized.
Are we discussing marijuana? Meth or opiates?
Or how intolerant you are of public servants?
Normally I will apologize when I offend someone.
I've read and re-read the postings, and I simply do not see where an apology for any condescending language is needed.
I do not require an apology, but I will offer one here shortly. My tone only echoed yours, so if you were offended it is for the same reason why I might be offended, if I was.
ReplyDeleteSorry...I've been reading alot about surrealist filmakers, lately.
Well, the topic fluctuates....I thought I answered, I believe marijuana is very different from meth. It should be legalized, in my opinion, but that is my bias.
We are biased by our experiences. Whereas you see devastated families, I see abuse of authority and injustice. These experiences are not abstract, to me, they are as concrete as your experiences. I have respect for public servants who serve the public, but that, shall we say, has not always been the case, in my experience.
I respect your perspective, as well as COEs. I do not doubt that meth can be harmful, one of my first lovers was a meth addict, and somewhat abusive.
Yet, I do not trust the drug war. It's a system built upon prejudice and theft. Many corrections workers and lawyers use illegal drugs.
Legal drugs can be just as harmful, if not more so. I know this, also, from personal experience.
Yet we attach a stigma to narcotics.
It is a system of social control, that has overstepped it's boundaries. It's fine to save an abused child, but but not to take the liberty of a person who isn't hurting anybody. The way this system operates does not make sense to me, and I believe it could be better.
I'm glad you wrote back, for attempting to block communication, I am sorry.
Perhaps, I did get offended, while I respect your perspective, I am no so certain you respect mine.
ReplyDelete"A fundamental police role is to enforce and uphold the rule of law, and to do so equitably without regard to race, ethnicity, or social or economic status. Sadly, for much of the Nation’s history, the legal order has not only countenanced but sustained slavery, segregation, and discrimination. And the fact that the police were bound to uphold that order set a pattern for police behavior and attitudes toward minority communities that has persisted until the present day.
ReplyDelete...
In no arena is this continued discrimination more apparent than in America’s "war on drugs." Police chiefs have enough problems dealing with misconduct and abuse of authority by some officers without the added burden of having to enforce laws that are themselves mechanisms for discrimination, in the tradition of the Jim Crow era in American history. Obligating the police to enforce unjust laws, most often in inner-city and minority communities, perpetuates the legacy of fear and mistrust, and further erodes relations between the police and the community.
Not only is current drug policy targeting minority citizens in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the general population and the drug-using population, but these policies are driving differential enforcement policies in many communities. Police are making more arrests than ever for non-violent drug offenses.
...
For the police to be effective, they must have the trust and cooperation of the citizens they serve. Often the communities most in need of effective policing because of high crime rates are the very communities most distrustful of the police. Progressive police executives have come to understand that, in order to generate
community support, the police must think and act like they are a part of the community they serve...."
http://www.policefoundation.org/docs/061600.html
" II. HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF GAYS AND LESBIANS
ReplyDeleteGays and lesbians in the United States, historically, have not been treated well. Starting as early as the colonial era, one could be executed by the government for sodomy. (7) By the mid-twentieth century, the medical profession began considering homosexuality a mental illness. (8) As such, many gays and lesbians were in fear of being institutionalized. (9) In the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government started to openly treat homosexuals adversely. (10) Congress dealt with homosexuals through the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and the Senate's McCarthy Hearings. (11) Homosexuals were considered a national menace, a threat to national security, and a threat to the stability of the country. (12)
Congress, however, was not the only branch of the federal government that treated homosexuals poorly. President Dwight Eisenhower "issued an executive order listing 'sexual perversion' as disqualifying anyone from a federal job." (13) This prompted J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to lead a "national crackdown" on outing homosexuals. (14) At that time, the federal government was the nation's largest employer. (15) It was believed that homosexuals were easy targets of blackmail and could be coerced into revealing national secrets or joining the communist party. (16)
As a result of this crackdown, it became open season on homosexuals. This overt discrimination by the federal government led to more and more private discrimination. Private employers followed Eisenhower's lead and started firing anyone they believed was homosexual. (17) In addition, police across the country started to act as if they had been given a '"no-holds-barred' signal to harass, abuse and arrest homosexuals." (18) They would blackmail, entrap, and commit other abuses on them. (19) The police traditionally have been violators of gay and lesbian civil rights. (20) As such, attacks on gays and lesbians had gone unreported because victims actually experienced or perceived the police to be anti-gay. (21)
...
Gays and lesbians have always had to endure violence against them, whether at the hands of law enforcement or private citizens. When people think of anti-gay violence, most think of personal attacks.
...the government's action or inaction toward secondary discrimination conveys the message to "perpetrators ... and the rest of society that anti-gay hate crimes will not [go] punished and that secondary victimization of gay people is acceptable....
...in the wake of harsh treatment by law enforcement, homosexuals were and still are reluctant to report the attacks on them. (46) This reluctance could go as far as acting as a motivating factor for gays and lesbians to hide their victim status because of the perceived lack of support among law enforcement and the general public...."
http://tinyurl.com/m2pduf
So how do you feel you are treated ?
ReplyDeleteI mean your personal experiences?
Poorly, but it might be a mistunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteBut it's okay, I'm also treated poorly by clerks, secretaries, the city manager, and the newspaper.
Maybe it's not prejudice, maybe everyone is a jerk.
For that matter, maybe it's not profiling, maybe we live in a police state, I'm not sure.
To be clear, I have had guns pointed at me, though I own or carry no gun. I have had physical force against me, though I have used no physical force save resistance, I have been threatened with tasers, though...well you get the idea.
No it's not okay...
ReplyDeleteYou seem like a highly intelligent, compassionate, and sensitive individual.
Not all of us have those combined qualities.
I do not think that everyone is a jerk, though I think that everyone, at times, can be a jerk...
I think when we are different, and treated differently, then defenses go up.
Years of that makes it difficult to break down the barrier, for both the person that is different, and the person treating someone differently...
First let me say I am sorry if you have been treated badly in your life. That is not cool, and I feel badly for you. I too have been treated badly, while not making it okay or the same, I am sorry.
ReplyDeleteI do have to add, cliche' or not... Some of my best friends are "gay(s)" and "Lesibian(s)" and work in Law Enforcement.
Where do these people fit in? Are they like Black cops who work in the inner cities? Looked down upon because they, you know, just work for the man!
I can honestly say that in my entire career I have never cared if a person was or wasn't gay.
I have never gone out and looked for the gay people to harass, taze, use force against, or point my weapon at. These things are action specific with me, and all Officers and Deputies. I would be curious to hear about the incidents and what lead to the actions you describe.
The only reason I would do any of these things would be because of the actions of the (for lack of a better term) threat. Again, I could care less if they were gay or straight.
I can also say I did not vote for Dwight Eisenhower :)
oops, should have been "other" Officers, Deputies instead of "all"...
ReplyDeleteYou are both nice people and I believe what you say.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I always voted for tax levies to fund public safety, but no longer in Corvallis.
I walked past a nice looking African-American female police officer in Detroit. I had a lot of respect for her, because it was Detroit.
..and also I will eventually move. It shouldn't be like the border crossing when I am simply driving home.
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly a choir boy, but I'm definitely not a threat.
ReplyDeleteYou don't remember ever meeting me, do you? My would that be weird....
I'll tell you about it sometime, COE. I'd also be happy to get your perspective.
ReplyDeleteAjai,
ReplyDeleteNo, I can't say I remember meeting you.
I would like to get the full account from your point of view about what happened. I mean, I know vaquely from what you've said about running into Cox.
We all need to get together for coffee, or breakfast or something. Once School starts it will be easier for me. Once Tom comes out of the basement we'll have to set something up! I look forward to it!