# Mr. Pats "Drugs are Good" Very Own Thread.



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

*Re: Colorado Judge Orders Marijuana Returned To Owners*

Come on now, the war on drugs is a total failure.

Why are there gangs? Because of the war on drugs. Gangs are responsible for so many death and crimes its unreal. Its just like prohibition.

This so called war on drugs has been on going for 70+ years and its easier now then ever to get drugs.

LEO and Feds need to respect medical marijuana laws and go fight real crime and stop going after victimless crime.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

Mr. Pat - I have created this thread especially for you.
I took the liberty of moving your opening post here for all to read.
I'm sure our members are going to relish the chance to exchange ideas and viewpoints with you..
Best of luck to you Gobie!


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

This has to be hutch! I dont even know where to begin with you!There are all kinds of pro-drug sites you troll....so you come on a LE site to try and stir the pot....so to speak


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

*Cops all over the US and DEA Agents all over the world have died trying to interdict narcotics into the US. "Mr Pat The Asshat" would like us all to believe that decriminalizing marijuana would make all of society's ills go away. Why don't YOU just go away Mr Pat? Keep voting for your fringe candidates for Congress so that they can lead the lobby of stoners. Someday you'll be mugged by one of your criminal cohorts looking for money to buy drugs. Only then will you realize what an inarticulate asshole you've been your whole life. Then you can rejoin society with the rest of us, if we'll have you. *


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

JAP - I can assure you, unequivocally, this is not Hutch...
If you saw the IP address he's posting from you would shit.
Some people truly are dumber than a rock.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

KozmoKramer said:


> JAP - I can assure you, unequivocally, this is not Hutch...
> If you saw the IP address he's posting from you would shit.
> Some people truly are dumber than a rock.


They most certainly are.


----------



## Rock (Mar 20, 2005)

KozmoKramer said:


> Some people truly are dumber than a *rock*.


HEY! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?!?


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

Wow, I feel honored to have my own spin-off thread. Thanks

First off I never said drugs are good, they are not. I know countless people from my childhood who screwed there lives up using hard drugs. Secondly as for "fringe candidates" I vote 90% republican, not to fringe there.

But lets face the facts, the currant approach to the war on drugs is not working. We are spending tens of billions of dollars on the war on drugs (WOD), good hard working weople are killed every day and no one can point out to me a town, county or state that doesn't have a lower drug "problem" than before the WOD started. That being said, drug sales are lucrative business for the poor and middle class. The price of drugs are artificially high because of the prohibition. A great example is the price of pot. What other plant grown can fetch three thousand dollars a pound? This is fueling a multi billion dollar under ground economy. Now hard drugs are extremely, artificially, over priced. If dugs were legalized they would cost the same as aspirin. If that was the case it would the dealers would be cut out of it, the end users would not be stealing and robbing because they could afford the dugs. 



> *Cops all over the US and DEA Agents all over the world have died trying to interdict narcotics into the US. "Mr Pat The Asshat"&#8230;. *


*I have total respect for all those who serve and have giving the ultimate sacrifice. I work with people who have been on the front lines of the WOD in Central America, but lets face it, they don't have to die. If the prohibition would be ended they would not die in the line of duty.*


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

Wolfman said:


> ...and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a hoppin'.
> 
> The war on drugs needs to take a new tack. How about publicly executing dealers and traffickers, placing low level dealers in harsh and unforgiving gulags - seems to have a good deterrent effect in other nations. Better than rolling over and giving up, as you recommend there, Spicoli.


Sorry buddy, but we have a little document called The US Constitution. Your idea would never be found to be Constitutional, especially for non-violent victimless crime. BTW what countries are you referring to? Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand? I find it very scary you want the US to be more like them&#8230; very scary.


----------



## Macop (May 2, 2002)

Another liberal with no morales.


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

Macop said:


> Another liberal with no morales.


Negative, I am VERY right wing, conservative, but I have come to this conclusion. I don't frequent "drug site", I didn't come here to "stir the pot", and I don't use drugs. 
As far as no morally??? Trust me I am nothing but morals, integrity and doing what's right.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

For someone who said in their first post on the board that you are an Air Force 
Sgt. and your IP agrees, you must be one piss poor Airman with your outlook.
We realy need someone protecting our country that is a druggie.


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

Wow, do all you guys need to revert to name calling.... I guess you cant just argue your side of the issue... (maybe because you don't have a rational argument to wasting billions of dollars in enforcement of the drug laws, beside job security) And for the record, I am a highly rated, top notch Airman and why would I risk my career for drugs&#8230; very stupid. I have seen people get kicked out for far less, BTW I resent being called a druggie, pure slander.


----------



## Foxy85 (Mar 29, 2006)

Victimless crime, what about children born addicted to drugs.......moron....


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

MrPat said:


> Wow, do all you guys need to revert to name calling.... I guess you cant just argue your side of the issue... (maybe because you don't have a rational argument to wasting billions of dollars in enforcement of the drug laws, beside job security) And for the record, I am a highly rated, top notch Airman and why would I risk my career for drugs&#8230; very stupid. I have seen people get kicked out for far less, BTW I resent being called a druggie, pure slander.


Drugs are illegal,so why would you risk your carrer speaking up to make them legal.
Sounds like a druggies outlook to me.


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

kwflatbed said:


> Drugs are illegal,so why would you risk your carrer speaking up to make them legal.
> Sounds like a druggies outlook to me.


There is nothing illegal or wrong about speaking up about wanting to have laws changed.... that's what makes this county great, freedom of speech.


----------



## screamineagle (Jul 11, 2005)

you post that your all about doing right and Mr. morals, yet you want to legalize Marijuana? That makes NO sense to me.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2007)




----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*AMEN Mr.TV Repairman as ex Air Force he makes me sick.*


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2007)

Wolfie did you watch The Wire? MrPat is going to run "Hamsterdam".................  hahahaha


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2007)

I didn't even bother reading the OP yet, but I have a feeling someone just took their first college course. Congratulations. You might have a better argument if you wanted to discuss decriminalization (ie Nasty civil sanctions) vs. legalization. Maybe we wouldn't see so many CWOFs and people wouldn't like the sting in their pocketbook. I might go back and read your stuff if I get bored tonight...

The reality is that legalizing marijuana isn't the utopia that 'ivory tower' liberals think that it is. When a society makes something 'socially acceptable', it does have a huge impact on people's decision to try stuff. You sir, are wrong.


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

*Hey Mr. Ass, er I mean Pat,*
*On your airbase, are there any prop planes so you could walk into one and save us all from having to reply to your idiotic statements? Just curious. If this happens, the gene pool would thicken tremendously. *


----------



## Tuna (Jun 1, 2006)

Wolfman, you said it all and 50, your right Mrpat must have just finished up sociology 101 at MCC.


----------



## chiefwiggum (Jan 20, 2007)

I think you guys are being a little hard on him.
I'm not saying that we should legalize anything but my views did change on punishments a little while working in the jails seeing guys who were convicted of some of these drug charges doing mandatory years while violent criminals and skinners would litterally be out with good time and light sentences in half the time. 
I think we all know some good people that just like to smoke their weed. I don't advocate it and I myself have never evan touched the stuff. 
I still think the charges for possesion of pot should always be arrestable, but I don't think if you have a conviction for possesion of the delta you should become ineligable for student loans as the case is now from what I understand. 
I think that blasting this guy who apparently is a service member for his view on the subject is bullshit. 
I'd like to make it clear that I think that there will always be a gang problem and I don't think that gangs stem from drugs It's a totally different motivation of why people join gangs the drug stuff comes into play later.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

Hey chief, I agree with you about the sentences being really screwed up . The child molesters should NEVER see daylight. You touch a kid and it should be your last act. As far as violent offenders, they too should have minumum mandatory sentences. 5 years or 15 if thats what the sentence is thats what they should serve. Where to put em, We have lots of desert in Nevada, The Mohave, I believe we own several islands around Puerto Rico that the Navy uses for gunnery practice . I cant remember how many turds Ive seen that are repeat offenders , never mind how many crimes they commit that theyre not connected to or just not prosecuted for.
AS for being hard on the guy, this aint nothin...go on a "left wing" site like Salon.com, or Netscape. He came on a predominantly conservative LE site...what did he think was going to happen? Im pretty sure if you googled "pro legalize pot LE" you would find something. I wont even address the other ramifications because 5-0 put it succintly.


----------



## RodneyFarva (Jan 18, 2007)

"Where to put em, We have lots of desert in Nevada" -Jap

Great idea, how about building a giant facility on all that land where the government used to test nuclear weapons. i don't think anyone is using it.:mrgreen:


----------



## Foxy85 (Mar 29, 2006)

Whos that Sheriff who forces his prisoners to wear all pink and makes them live in tents in the desert? Is he still around and in business? He seems to have the right idea about running a correctional institute...


----------



## Barbrady (Aug 5, 2004)

Foxy85 said:


> Whos that Sheriff who forces his prisoners to wear all pink and makes them live in tents in the desert? Is he still around and in business? He seems to have the right idea about running a correctional institute...


Springfield's own Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County SO, AZ. Tha man..


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Foxy85 said:


> Whos that Sheriff who forces his prisoners to wear all pink and makes them live in tents in the desert? Is he still around and in business? He seems to have the right idea about running a correctional institute...


Shefiff Joe and he is still around in AZ.
If he was still in Springfield running a jail his hands would be tied by the lefist liberals in this state.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

Foxy85 said:


> Whos that Sheriff who forces his prisoners to wear all pink and makes them live in tents in the desert? Is he still around and in business? He seems to have the right idea about running a correctional institute...


 My x sis in law was a guest of his for three years


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

justanotherparatrooper said:


> My x sis in law was a guest of his for three years


I bet she has some stories to tell


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

kwflatbed said:


> I bet she has some stories to tell


 nothin you would understand...ever talk to a methhead? like listening to a scrambled cable signal


----------



## Barbrady (Aug 5, 2004)

justanotherparatrooper said:


> nothin you would understand...ever talk to a methhead? like listening to a scrambled cable signal


I bet she looks purrty too....with the scabs and teeth that look like they chew on rocks. If there are any teeth remaining.


----------



## GodblessThearmy (Aug 15, 2006)

justanotherparatrooper said:


> nothin you would understand...ever talk to a methhead? like listening to a scrambled cable signal


Like this thread?


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

MrPat,

the bottom line is evidenced right in front of your face...ALCOHOL, it's legal and has been forever. Now lets speak about the cost for *abuse* of this legal "drug". Plenty of studies out there talking about the economic impact on the business world and the healthcare and insurance industries.

Now let's talk about the social impact on families and the ultimate deaths caused by OUI's etc...

Ever hear the term "gateway drug"? Now please accept that as a veteran I appreciate your right to your opinion. You need to take it elsewhere now dude...


----------



## GodblessThearmy (Aug 15, 2006)

mpd61 said:


> MrPat,
> 
> the bottom line is evidenced right in front of your face...ALCOHOL, it's legal and has been forever. Now lets speak about the cost for *abuse* of this legal "drug". Plenty of studies out there talking about the economic impact on the business world and the healthcare and insurance industries.
> 
> ...


As a veteran I agree.

This isn't some crap I want to deal with while I am here and certainly not when I get back home.


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

Ok let's straighten a few things out. First off my original post was a reply to a news story about a couple in CO. who were arrest for position of medical marijuana, which is legal in Colorado. They were found not guilty and the LEO was told to return their possessions, plants and grow system.

Now here is my position, marijuana IS a victimless crime. Our country is wasting 10's of billions of dollars on investigation, prosecution and incarnation of people charged. This is a waste of everyone's time and money. LEO and Fed's could use this time better by going after terrorist and real criminals. This money could be used better in treatment of substance abusers and education.

As for hard drugs, I believe these should be regulated by the Govt. The current model of prohibition is only financing criminal organizations. You have to admit 90-99% of gangs use the drug trade to make money. If it wasn't for the drug trade, most would not have an income and would have no reason engage in organized crime. If the Fed took it over, regulated it, and taxed it 90%+ of gangs would cease to exist.

As far us users go, with the Govt running things, they would keep the price low. That way end users would not have to rob, hook, steal etc. to support their habits. We could then focus on rehabilitation and treatment of users.

Now with these new billions of dollars freed up LEO and Feds could be freed of to combat the remaining gangs that make money on exploitation, human trafficking, terrorism, etc&#8230;

I have come to this conclusion after seeing the war on drugs go on for seven decades now with no positive effect. Drugs are readily available in all towns and cities. Our jail population is exploding. Purity and availability are on the rise according to the DEA. There are terrorist cells, in this country that use drug sales to finance other cells. We need to cut the criminal element out of the equation.

And to be totally honest with you I would feel safer walking Iraq, or Afghanistan then the street of most of our big cities and towns at night.

And to those that are saying I should die? Walk in to a propeller etc&#8230; That's very mature of you. I hope and pray you don't die in the line of duty or whatever profession you do. You do make me laugh with your ignorance&#8230;.


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

MrPat said:


> And to those that are saying I should die? Walk in to a propeller etc&#8230; That's very mature of you. I hope and pray you don't die in the line of duty or whatever profession you do. You do make me laugh with your ignorance&#8230;.


*Yeah, that was me asshat. I still stand behind my statement. And if you need a push, I'll only be happy to lend a hand. HC*


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

MrPat said:


> You do make me laugh with your ignorance&#8230;.


Your ignorance on this subject makes me laugh.
Feel free to join the real world where cops patrol and see shit you couldn't conjur up in a nightmare. Your reasoning makes it clear you've read, talked and watched the news but I find it hard to believe that you've ever SEEN anything.

I guess if it's too hard or takes too long, it's not worth it and we should give up?
Gee, my 11 yo kids would LOVE your attitude. I'm sure they'd get far in this world, huh?
Your attitude makes me sick.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Do you display this same attitude on the base preaching this to the troops ??

Does your CO know about your crusade ??

You still make me sick.


----------



## WaterPistola (Nov 4, 2007)

HousingCop said:


> *Yeah, that was me asshat. I still stand behind my statement. And if you need a push, I'll only be happy to lend a hand. HC*


would you really want to get showered with Mr. Pat's remains though?


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Mr. Pat:

1. You are a naive fool.
2. When you start thinking you aren't a naive fool refer, to #1.

This is going to take a while, so pull up a chair and grab a mug of hot chocolate.



> Ok let's straighten a few things out. First off my original post was a reply to a news story about a couple in CO. who were arrest for position of medical marijuana, which is legal in Colorado. They were found not guilty and the LEO was told to return their possessions, plants and grow system.


So...in your opinion..if someone is found with some illegal material or contraband, yet they get the evidence suppressed, it should be returned to them? What if an alleged bombmaker gets his explosives suppressed due to questions on a search? How about a gangbanger with an illegal pistol? Whatever your opinion on pot, right now, in the US possession of it is _illegal_. By flagrantly violating the laws this judge swore to uphold, he creates a mockery of the constitution. A judge could no more return illegal substances then he could give you ten years in prison for jaywalking.



> Now here is my position, marijuana IS a victimless crime. Our country is wasting 10's of billions of dollars on investigation, prosecution and incarnation of people charged. This is a waste of everyone's time and money. LEO and Fed's could use this time better by going after terrorist and real criminals. This money could be used better in treatment of substance abusers and education.


Marijuana is what people call a "gateway" drug. I have yet to arrest a drug user who said they started with crack or heroin. And no, not everyone who smokes pot becomes a hard drug user, just as many people who drink do not become alcoholics. But you would hard-pressed to admit that it doesn't impair you. As others have said, driving, for instance, while high probably isn't a good idea, on par with being drunk while driving. Because of the high occurance of drunk driving in this country there is a refined machine for testing, arresting and prosecuting offenders. If marijuana were legalized a whole new set of critera would have to be invented to establish impairment, machines would have to be designed and created to scientifically test that impairment. Laws would have to be rewritten, and millions of officers would have to be retrained to look, find, test, arrest and be able to testify about marijuana impairment in court. And this is just with driving! This says nothing about likelyhood of skyrocketing accident, injury and deaths on our nations highways and roads. Most people do not use drugs because they are illegal and are afraid of the consquences if they are caught. What you propose is akin to national bedlam! Use what you want! Get it from Uncle Sam! It's even CHEAPER!!!

You mention using better treatment and education programs? Who's going to pay for the tens of millions of more Americans who become addicted according to your utopia plan? What about the effect on the workplace? Loss of worktime, injuries or companies paying for drug treatment? What a great way to help our economy.



> As for hard drugs, I believe these should be regulated by the Govt. The current model of prohibition is only financing criminal organizations. You have to admit 90-99% of gangs use the drug trade to make money. If it wasn't for the drug trade, most would not have an income and would have no reason engage in organized crime. If the Fed took it over, regulated it, and taxed it 90%+ of gangs would cease to exist.


Gangs would not "cease to exist" if there were no drug trade. There was crime and gangs long before the "seventy year war on drugs", and they'll be here long afterwards. To say that gang exist because of drugs is to ignore the social and psychological reasons they exist. Most gangs start out a social club to reinforce disaffected youth's weak egos. More simply put, they use gangs as a proxy for a maladjusted or non-existent family life. Most gang members are unemployed and exist at the bottom rung of the socio-economic chain. Gangs sell drugs to make money, if for some reason, that no longer was profitable, they would find other illicit trades to deal in to make money. Gambling, prostitution, straight robbery, child trade, loan sharking, home invasions, protection rackets, car thievery all would still offer excellent chances for profit. Gangs don't exist because of illegal drugs, they simply use illegal drug because they offer excellent profitability.

For the government sell and tax drugs like cocaine and heroin is akin to saying "its okay to use it." This class of narcotics, unlike marijuana or alcohol, use WILL cause addiction. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. Its been proven time and time again in research, which is why these drugs were declared illegal in the first place. This seems like a good way to build a nation of addicts. And this "treatment" you keep talking about. Why treat something if its legal? Maybe being stoned out of your mind can become the norm and being "straight" would be considered abberent behavior.



> I have come to this conclusion after seeing the war on drugs go on for seven decades now with no positive effect. Drugs are readily available in all towns and cities. Our jail population is exploding. Purity and availability are on the rise according to the DEA. There are terrorist cells, in this country that use drug sales to finance other cells. We need to cut the criminal element out of the equation.


Have you come to this conclusion from years of experience as a counselor in drug treatment centers? An experienced CO walking a tough turn in a super-max? Decades on the streets as a police officer? A stint serving as a prosecutor trying to put criminals in jail? Your opinion is not one formed of hard experience dealing with drugs, drug users and drug dealers, but from the safe confines of your room reading issues of "Newsweek" or "Time", or watching movies like "Traffic."

No progress? Crime is a never ending battle, as police learn to fight more effectively, criminals constantly come up with new ways to confound us. We fight as best as we can and just because the fight is tough doesn't mean you quit. Just because people speed we should stop enforcing traffic laws? Because underage kids drink we should stop enforcing alcohol laws?

The number one reason drugs are profitable is because of demand. If the demand didn't exist, there would be no profit. Drug education is the key to stopping demand, but, maybe due to some genetic flaw in some of our people, we can't seem to stop wanting the next high. We've been dealing with it for thousands of years and will continue to deal with it. But simply abandoning civility and law and order because you think its too difficult to police, seem like a step backwards rather than forwards.


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)

kwflatbed said:


> Do you display this same attitude on the base preaching this to the troops ??
> 
> Does your CO know about your crusade ??
> 
> You still make me sick.


Hey buddy I am here as MrPat, john Q public. I am here representing myself only and my own personal views. I never brought up my career, it is irrelevant. But one of your mods decided he needed to out me based on my profile&#8230; That's fine whatever but I am here only representing my own personal and political views and looking for alternative ways to solve our current social problems. From this point on I will not discuss any military issues in this thread, its inappropriate. 

My crusade??? My only "crusade" was to reply to a posted message on this board and post my view on it and engage in a discussion about laws, social issues and politics of the subject matter with those that work in LE&#8230; I don't hang around with cops, jail guards, security guards, campus cops, future LE, and wana-be's that couldn't pass a test. I wanted to see what the law enforcers of the country have to say about it. That is my so called crusade. I posted here in the hope to engage in a civil discussion. I was really hoping to lean something from you, but the only thing I seen is people saying I should die, name calling etc&#8230; I hate to say it but it really goes to should some perceived notions that non LEO people have may be true(not for all of you I am sure, just the vocal few). Sad really I though you would be more professional. I guess I am wrong.

As far as my "other crusades" I believe the current system of taxation should be repealed and personal income tax should be abolished. I believe the Dept of Education should be dismantled because its failing our youth, I believe the GCA of 68, and NFA and MOST gun control should be repealed, I believe the speed limit should be change from 75 to 80. These are just a few things I believe should be changed with our country. 

I am tired of opening the paper and seeing the same arrests with just different names and addresses for the last 20+ years. The only thing the WOD is doing is locking up people who have treatable problems. It's the source of a HUGE, untaxed, unregulated underground economy. Its the fule behind most murders. I was really hoping to see it from your point of view&#8230;.

O well&#8230;.


----------



## honor12900 (May 9, 2006)

MrPat

You say drug use is a victimless crime. I bet you never saw a newborn drug addicted baby. That my friend, is the definition of innocent victim. Take it from me and the people on this site who are cops (they have seen what drugs do first hand) you could not be more wrong on something.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

Just to keep the record straight, the Mods hade nothing to do with it, you outed yourself.


MrPat said:


> Hello I am a SSgt in the Air Force. Here is the reg on tat's
> www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-2903/afi36-2903.pdf
> goto table 2.5
> Hope this helps, Mr_Pat


 http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22646


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

MrPat said:


> Hey buddy I am here as MrPat, john Q public. I am here representing myself only and my own personal views. I never brought up my career, it is irrelevant. But one of your mods decided he needed to out me based on my profile&#8230; That's fine whatever but I am here only representing my own personal and political views and looking for alternative ways to solve our current social problems. From this point on I will not discuss any military issues in this thread, its inappropriate.
> 
> My crusade??? My only "crusade" was to reply to a posted message on this board and post my view on it and engage in a discussion about laws, social issues and politics of the subject matter with those that work in LE&#8230; I don't hang around with cops, jail guards, security guards, campus cops, future LE, and wana-be's that couldn't pass a test. I wanted to see what the law enforcers of the country have to say about it. That is my so called crusade. I posted here in the hope to engage in a civil discussion. I was really hoping to lean something from you, but the only thing I seen is people saying I should die, name calling etc&#8230; I hate to say it but it really goes to should some perceived notions that non LEO people have may be true(not for all of you I am sure, just the vocal few). Sad really I though you would be more professional. I guess I am wrong.
> 
> ...


HEY DUMB ASS!!!!!! THIS IS THE INTERNET. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE DISCUSSING SOCIAL ILLS WITH ARE EVEN COPS?

YOU STUPID MORON!

I HOPE SOME TEENAGERS HIGH ON WEED SET YOUR POODLE ON FIRE.


----------



## Foxy85 (Mar 29, 2006)

Until you see a child struggling for its life in the NICU because some douche bag mother couldn't help but put her fix off for 9 months, your arguments are shit...

Honor said it as well, those are clearly victims of drug abuse.....they had no say in it, they had no defense to it.....but its a victimless crime right?

How do schmucks like this get into the Air Force? Please tell me what your MOS is...

Though the sweet irony would be him being a Security Police officer....


----------



## Crvtte65 (May 19, 2002)

MrPat said:


> Ok let's straighten a few things out. ...which is legal in Colorado...You do make me laugh with your ignorance&#8230;


You make me laugh with yours. If something is illegal federally, it is illegal in all states forever and ever until otherwise. Drugs (legal and illegal) are federally controlled. That's it, nothing further.... NO... stop... just stop... it is federal law, the state law means dick if it went to federal court. States can also create state laws that punish for possession etc etc, but a law making it legal does not even come CLOSE to trumping federal law.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2007)

Hello everyone...Long time reader - First time poster.

I had to reply to this subject because as it so happens I have been researching the "War on drugs". 

First I would like to say that drugs are not good or bad. We all use drugs every day and that will never change. Don't think so? Who had coffee today? Anyone have a smoke? How about a drink with dinner tonight? Got a headache?

Now, what is bad is PROHIBITION! The people that thought they were doing a good thing when they wrote the 18th amendment found out the hard way after 13 years. Don't believe me? Go check out the 21st Amendment. How easy do think it is the amend the constitution? They did it twice! 

Check out this video...www-leap-cc-link-120

Replace the first dashes with a . And the second dashes with a /

Sorry for the work around, but I have not posted before so I cant insert the atcual link 

My 2Cents

JR


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

jrfixer said:


> First I would like to say that drugs are not good or bad. We all use drugs every day and that will never change. Don't think so? Who had coffee today? Anyone have a smoke? How about a drink with dinner tonight? Got a headache?
> JR


Here's hoping your kids someday decide to "socialize"
with heroin.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

Active and former Police against the WOD. Utterly amazing.
http://leap.cc/cms/index.php



JR said:


> First I would like to say that drugs are not good or bad.


 So drugs unilaterally are neither good nor bad huh? You mention caffeine, analgesics and tobacco in the same vein as that which the WOD targets.
By your statement (opinion) if I decide to procure street drugs; opiates, benzodiazepines, methylamphetamine, whatever, I should be free to, just as freely as I can buy an aspirin or a cup of coffee?
Please, for the sake of this country, tell me I missed your point. (But I don't think I have.)


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2007)

I know it sounds radical, but you have to look at the facts about the WOD. 30 years and a trillion dollars and drug are just as plentiful, and people are still using.

By prohibition we have created a rich market place for criminals who can set any price they want, and sell them anywhere they want to. Just like back during the alcohol prohibition. Due some research and you'll see.

If the government controlled and regulated these drugs we would be better off. Try this, you pick the school and we'll both go there. You try and buy a bottle of beer and I try for some illegal drugs. See what I mean now. If we make all drugs legal you will put the punks/dealers/gangsters out of business the next day, just like back in 1933 with amendment 21. Then the government can gain control. 

You say "Oh my, lets put a crack machine at all the schools then." That's right, we'll put it right between the beer and cigarette machine in the cafes. But wait; there are no beer and cigarette machines in the cafes. That's correct, because the government has control of those drugs!

We will never arrest our way out of the drug problem!

JR


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

jrfixer said:


> Hello everyone...Long time reader - First time poster.
> 
> I had to reply to this subject because as it so happens I have been researching the "War on drugs".
> 
> ...


*Another social asshat heard from. Please do us a favor and wait another 325 days before posting again. If you like, I could push you too along with Mr Pat.* 
*You equated a migrane headache with a yearning for a spike of heroin.* 
*You one-post wonders astound me. "Better to be thought the fool than to type an opinion on Masscops and remove all doubt" HC*


----------



## Inspector (Nov 13, 2006)

Relax Koz, as you I believe know, drugs is my area of specialization. It's obvious Mr Pat has spent lots of time with selective readings and speeches while most of us have spent years out in the field with the victims. Surely more attention to prevention and treatment programming are vitally needed but to just give up arresting people who are responsible for the sale and importing of these drugs would offset the other two important 
parts of a needed comprehensive offensive. Mr. Pat has obviously allowed his mind to open up to slanted opinions which is equivalent to participating in mental jenkem


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

I'm sure that being in law enforcement and being on the streets day and night you have an excellent firsthand look of what is going on. In your view are we making progress? 

Do you think that prohibition is fueling the business for the dealer? 

What do you think needs to be done in order to end the drug problem? 

Sure kids are getting their hands on alcohol and tobacco, but they are also getting everything else too. 

Maybe we fear the unknown from a change in drug policy. Like how anti-gun people view guns and think they all should be banned, but we all know that will never happen. 


Like I said I have never posted on here before, but have read this site just about every day for the past couple years. I registered about a year ago because I could not see the links or pictures in the posts. I will be honest, that I was hesitant to post here because of some of the less than adult replies I have seen by some. I guess I will have to refrain from going to that level, because I will be easily beaten by the experienced ones.

JR


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

I really enjoy the 'Let the government take control of it' argument. Name 1 thing (Besides the Military) that the government can manage without completely screwing it up-- Some people might not even give them that much credit. A lot of people mention the fact that cigarettes and alcohol are legal, and that allows the government to tax it and control it. Great. Does the taxing of it offset all of the healthcare costs and insurance issues that it has caused? (The answer is no). Would as many people smoke if it were not sactioned by all forms of government? We'll never know. Believe it or not, the fact that drugs are illegal has an effect on societal norms. Legalizing stuff is not the answer. You will not instantly undercut the drug runners in this country. You will create another industry (a la Tobacco) that states and the Feds will publicly decry, but privately drool at the amount of tax revenue it brings in, and they will not care that the damage to society outweighs the money pouring in. 

I had a professor bring up Denmark once as the model for drug legalization... He looked really stupid when I asked him how many times he had been there. Then he looked more stupid when I told him how many times I have. Hint: It's a complete shithole.

There is no doubt that things need to change in the war on drugs, but it's not legalization. It's making it hurt (with civil sanctions) where it really matters to people. Maybe we create felony status for crimes committed under the influence of drugs or correllated to drug purchase. Maybe we actually make prison completely MISERABLE (With chain gangs, no frills, and they have to watch Public Television) while at the same time shortening the sentances a bit. Maybe we stop making excuses for people at every turn, and get back to the personal responsibility that made this country great? It would be really cool if we held people accountable for shoving multiple toxins into their body for a lifetime, and then expecting my kids to finance their healthcare? Legalizing drugs is going to reduce that burden for them? 

ps... sorry if this post is a jumbled mess. I am essentially on the last 1/3 of a triple.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

5-0....you still make more semse tired them these idiots! Be safe bro.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

justanotherparatrooper said:


> 5-0....you still make more semse tired them these idiots! Be safe bro.


Right back at ya jap.


----------



## Barbrady (Aug 5, 2004)

jrfixer said:


> In your view are we making progress?
> Do you think that prohibition is fueling the business for the dealer?
> What do you think needs to be done in order to end the drug problem?
> Sure kids are getting their hands on alcohol and tobacco, but they are also getting everything else too.


Kid, we are not gonna do your school work for you but good for you you made it through ConLaw. =D>
Amen Wolfie!


----------



## Mikey682 (May 2, 2002)

A-F*ckin-Men, broseph! I have a new respect for TV repairmen.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

AMEN WOLFMAN!


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

jrfixer said:


> Do you think that prohibition is fueling the business for the dealer?


 I wouldn't bet against that assertion.
There is a market for every substance, item, consumable, mineral, chemical, service known to man.
I don't think we want to make that which is inherently destructive easier to obtain simply because we haven't taken the battle seriously enough.
And by that I don't mean the cops on the street (many of which are now in the cold ground for their efforts in the WOD), I'm referring to the liberal courts that release small timers and casual users with a fine or probation instead of locking their asses up.
The same courts that trivialize the seriousness of narcotic offenses and put suppliers and pushers back on the street before they complete their sentences.


jrfixer said:


> What do you think needs to be done in order to end the drug problem?


  Let me quote Wolfman; _How about publicly executing dealers and traffickers, placing low level dealers in harsh and unforgiving gulags.._
Too harsh? Unconstitutional? Yes, it is for the left-wing of this country who ignore victims rights in deference to the villain. Who continually try to throttle LE in deference to the criminal.
Who condemn minimum sentencing so soft on crime liberal judges can release the pushers and suppliers back into society before they finish their sentence.
Remember, _Cruel and Unusual_ meant something completely different on July 04, 1776 than it does now. Why? It's the same piece of parchment paper.
I have no problem executing serious drug traffickers, none. I bet the Founders wouldn't either.
And users would get 1 pass. 1 chance for rehab, at their expense not mine. And should they re-offend; prison.



jrfixer said:


> Sure kids are getting their hands on alcohol and tobacco, but they are also getting everything else too.


So your argument is if they can get it anyway we should accept it as the way things are?
My 6 year old would eat Oreos for 3 meals a day if I let him. Should I because the pantry is unlocked?


jrfixer said:


> Like how anti-gun people view guns and think they all should be banned, but we all know that will never happen.


Don't bet on that Jr.
We have a Supreme Court case coming up in March that could be devastating to personal gun ownership in this country. If you doubt that you are delusional.


jrfixer said:


> Maybe we fear the unknown from a change in drug policy.


 Yeah, I do absolutely. The last thing I need in the multitude of worries I have from the minute my eyes open in the morning is the notion of the free trade of narcotics et al in America.
As it is my heads on a swivel because of drunk drivers, I don't need to be dodging some fool on his 5th vallium, or hit of smack because it's legal or decriminalized.


jrfixer said:


> I will be honest, that I was hesitant to post here because of some of the less than adult replies I have seen by some. I guess I will have to refrain from going to that level, because I will be easily beaten by the experienced ones.


 Maybe thats because some of those guys just got off a shift where maybe they had to notify a parent their kid was killed in a drunk driving accident.
Or their kid was found blue and stiff from an overdose of H.
Or had to finish the report of the elderly lady stabbed for her $89.00 social security check so some crumb can buy crack.

So please, don't come here and disparage these folks for a sharp tongue, or intolerance to ill informed, pie-in-the-sky progressive perspectives.
They carry a burden heavier than you will ever imagine.
Not to mention the fact they would probably be there to help you someday if you ever needed it.
Maybe you should hear the words they write, not just read them.


----------



## Inspector (Nov 13, 2006)

A pretty bleak picture Wolfman. I'd not be so dark in our outlook. Yes, we cannot allow drugs to flow freely onto the streets. That's the job of the police, and a job we can do well with the resources and support of our communities. We must also as community members (and leaders) encourage and support extensive, multi-based continuous prevention programs which will utilize media and schools to stop children from experimenting with the drugs in the first place. One only needs to look at the anti-smoking campaign to see it can be effective. Lastly we need to cut through the bull and provide effective treatment for addiction. Right now insurance companies fight like hell to avoid paying rehab costs, especially long-term in-patient treatment. This is the very thing needed by many of the people we see. Those who have no insurance are dumped onto waiting lists for a paltry number of beds in questionable public programs or thrown back onto the streets with a hand full of methadone (for heroin addicts) or some other substitute to avoid the real situation for another day. When we fight wars we throw around billions of dollars. When you look at the amount we are really spending on the drug problem you realize there is really no war on drugs, just a few million bucks being spent to make people feel like something is being done.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks Wolfman for the time to give a good reply.

I must agree that when I read about the ideas that LEAP is suggesting I was quite shocked. But, they seem to be in agreement that we need to make changes to the current policy.

I guess we have to decide which is the lesser evil, the criminals having control of the drug market or the government.

Thanks again...Take care and stay safe out there!!

JR


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

I call Hutch troll via proxy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2007)

No, not a Hutch(had to do some searching to see what you were referring to). Like I said I was researching info on the WOD due to some political issues I have seen in the news recently. 

Again, I would like to thank everyone that replied to my questions.
JR


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Amen, Wolfman...the ship is going down and only a few people see the water filling up the lower decks.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Killjoy said:


> Amen, Wolfman...the ship is going down and only a few people see the water filling up the lower decks.


Too true. I fear the "american people", so-called, have lost the intestinal fortitude to secure their liberties. It appears to me they would rather stick their collective head in the sand and ignore the realities of this world. I believe this will be illustrated by the actual candidates for POTUS that the parties field for the next election, and the person who wins the office. Another indicator will be the decision regarding the second amendment that the SCOTUS makes, as another poster noted previously. Hopefully I will be retired and secure in my redoubt as the adherents of the "Religion of Peace" are lopping off heads here in the US (I think you will be surprised by how few "Christians" their actually are in the west, once "the bleeding" starts).

As to the actual topic of this thread, it is reasonable to debate the merits of decriminalization/legalization of alcohol/drugs. I think a better policy could be hammered-out by such a debate. There are many facets that have to be addressed, such as punishment for crimes committed under the influence, treatment and most importantly a reinterpretation of the fourth amendment regarding offences committed in public places (including operating motor vehicles). This cannot happen in this venue as some of the previous responses have shown. The question, however, may be moot...see my first paragraph.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Simply put if the courts would fully enforce the laws that are now on the books
and back law enforcement 100 % with their decisions from the bench we would 
not have the problems that we have in this country.

Abolish groups like the ACLU hang the idiot defense lawyers that make the
plea deals.

Give us back the fundamental rights that our forefathers fought for and the
right to bring up our children the way they should be,not coddled by the liberals.

Turn the clock back a few years and teach children the fundamentals of the
three R's in school without all of the electronics so they can add 1+1 and
know it adds up to 2, not have a read out tell them.

Untie the militaries hands and let them end the terror threats like we did in WW2

Some of this may be off topic but nothing is going to change in this country
until we go back to the basics.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Harry, the lawyers at the general court are making laws for the benefit of the practicing lawyers: I don't expect any changes on that front. It is a conflict of interest, so lawyers should be forbidden from serving as legislators.

I expect that will happen when pigs fly.


----------

