Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Bill_7154]

There is a group of current and former law enforcement officers (police offiers, under cover police, police chiefs, judges, dea, etc), mostly former law enforcement (IMO because of the strong political pressure put on active law enforcement to not only tow the party line when it comes to drugs, but also their ‘education’ or what I would call indoctrination that formulates their belief system when it comes to the drug problem and how it sould be best addressed.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or www.leap.cc believe that the war on drugs is one of, if not the most, destructive social policy that exists in the USA today. Their website is listed in the former sentence. They have links to video’s where members are giving speaches, engaging in debates, as well as articles and other information that supports their belief that the policy of drug prohibtion creates crime and violence and does not reduce drug abuse/addiction. Anyone can join LEAP, but only current or former Law Enforcement are allowed to do public speaking on behalf of their organization.

I have watched some of their videos and also researched some other countries approach to the drug problem and find their arguments compelling. Again, they do not maintain that ending drug prohibition would address the countries drug problem, they contend that the policy of drug prohibtion in the USA CREATES crime and violence, and that by ending drug prohibtion crime and violence would diminish and we as a nation would be in a much better position to actually address the countries drug problem in a way that would be effective, while maintaining that the ‘war on drugs’ is not at all effective in reducing drug use while at the same time creating crime and violence.

I find it very interesting, and very compelling that a group of current and former law enforcement officers would create and sustain an organization that advocates ending the war on drugs, and argues their postion, IMO, effectively.

Has anyone here heard of this organization before? Is anyone here willing to watch video’s on their website that support their views and discuss them?

They also advertize the speaking engagements that one or more of their members are booked for so if anyone is interested in hearing one of them speak live they can look up their booked events on their website.

Personally I hope that this oganization continues to grow and continues to impact the views of US citizens as I am a former drug and alchol counselor and IMO having drugs illegal does not effectively keep people from using drugs if they want to use them, but it does create a tremendous financial burden on taxpayers while not reducng drug use or access to drugs. It also breaks apart families and is responsible for the murder of thousands and thousands of people, including polie officers. Aside from this being horrible in and of itself, it also leaves thousands and thousands of children without parents.

If you choose to participate in this thread I ask that you reference material from this organizations website and then state your comments about their postion/views/etc.

This is a thread to discuss the organization LEAP and their impact on social justice, not a thread for poeple to regurgitate their previously head beliefs on the war on drugs or drug use.

It should be obvious, but I will state it, that LEAP does not condone or support drug use. They simply believe that the current approach, the so called ‘war on drugs’ is a failure, and a very costly one at that, on different levels.

So please do not get confused and think that they, or I, are in favor of drug use. I’m hoping that this thread can be positive and productive in exploring the potential merits of the postion of these current and former Law Enforcement Officers.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[datritle]

Yep, i am familiar with LEAP. I completely support their efforts to undo this grave injustice called prohibition. it didn’t work with alcohol, and it’s not working with drugs.

 

[Zimm3r]

Yep currently taking a class where my professor is having one of them speak this Tuesday, I understand what they are saying and agree with some of it but disagree with their final conclusion, still it is interesting and they definitely know what they are talking about.

 

[po18guy]

Does no one study behavioral science anymore? Economic theory? Legalize it and get more of it. Every time. Without fail. Think abortion.

Go to Vancouver BC and step over the heroin junkies on the sidewalk. Go to the beautiful parks in Zurich - but watch for needles. This is social justice? Are you kidding?

 

[Bill_7154]

Economic theory?

You mean like the law of supply and demand and static products? Yeah, I think they have that covered. And cost benefit analysis. Think they have that covered too.

Ever study criminal justice? Like murders and how they relate to black markets as compared to white markets? a la Al capone… I’ve heard that woman actually started drinking during prohibition, before that it was a ‘man’s’ drug. Then it became fasionable in the speak easy’s and women started drinking.

All we need to know about prohibition we have already learned from alcohol prohibition my friend.

BTW, which video’s on the site did you watch? I asked poeple to reference the site and make arguments against THEIR arguments. Please try and do that next time. Thanks in advance.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[datritle]

You mean like the law of supply and demand and static products? Yeah, I think they have that covered. And cost benefit analysis. Think they have that covered too.

Ever study criminal justice? Like murders and how they relate to black markets as compared to white markets? a la Al capone… I’ve heard that woman actually started drinking during prohibition, before that it was a ‘man’s’ drug. Then it became fasionable in the speak easy’s and women started drinking.

All we need to know about prohibition we have already learned from alcohol prohibition my friend.

BTW, which video’s on the site did you watch? I asked poeple to reference the site and make arguments against THEIR arguments. Please try and do that next time. Thanks in advance.

God Bless,
Bill

THANK YOU!! side note: in most cases where drugs have been legalized, things have improved. it allows addiction to be treated, not punished.

-Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft) would be reduced.
-Street justice related to drug disputes would be reduced.
-It could be a source of additional tax revenues.
-Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.
-Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business.
-The FDA or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs.

 

[Bill_7154]

Yep currently taking a class where my professor is having one of them speak this Tuesday, I understand what they are saying and agree with some of it but disagree with their final conclusion, still it is interesting and they definitely know what they are talking about.

I" curious, when you say you disagree with their ‘final conclusion’ do you mean you disagree with the legalization of drugs? If so, would that be all drugs or just some drugs? And why is that if you don’t mind sharing (and possibly discussing/debating, abeit politely and respectfully I hope).

And since you say you believe they know what they are talking about, why disagree with their conclusions? Is it out of fear? Do you think there would be massive increases in drug use if they were legalized?

Pot became decriminalized (up to one ounce) in my state, MA, about 8 or so years ago. I remember the day the law was going to go into effect. I was considering taking my cam corder and going downtown to videotape all the people that would be out on the streets smoking pot in celebration. I live in a huge college area (Boston, MA) and we all know that college kids are some of the biggest pot heads (I don’t smoke it myself).

I was very surprised that on the day it became legal, nothing changed as far as the way people conducted themselves in public. There was virtually NO ONE smoking pot in public that day.

There was also a lot of hype with the police force as they could give out civil tickets, but it wouldn’t be a crime. Lots of outcrys about LE not being prepared to ‘deal with the issue’ and what if someone is smoking it and not just possessing it (the law didn’t specify). Lots of anxiety and fear basically for the first few months in the press.

And you know what? In those 8 years I have probably only smelled someone smoking it in public one time. And our city, our society, went on and no problems seem to have come of the passage of this law. Even I, someone who is against drugs, but thinks the war on drugs is a failure and harmful and would like to see other approaches tried, was shocked that there was no massive pot smoking celebration the day the law went into effect.

It was as if the pot smokers didn’t really care and didn’t seem to behave any differently. But now they are not cirminals and not subjected to criminal records for possessing and I think this is a good thing. There used to be a law (not sure if it is still active) where someone convicted of mj possession was excluded from government grant money to attend college. This seemed very extreme to me. It’s my understanding that there were, and possibly still are, laws on the books where people loose their licenses to drive if convicted of possession of drugs even if they were not driving, or in a car, when the possession arrest took place. This kind of thing is very disturbing to me. I see it as yet another example of gov’t over reaching to control and punnish citizens who are basically law abiding (i.e. they are not robbers or violent).

God Bless,
Bill

 

[po18guy]

You mean like the law of supply and demand and static products? Yeah, I think they have that covered. And cost benefit analysis. Think they have that covered too.

Ever study criminal justice? Like murders and how they relate to black markets as compared to white markets? a la Al capone… I’ve heard that woman actually started drinking during prohibition, before that it was a ‘man’s’ drug. Then it became fasionable in the speak easy’s and women started drinking.

All we need to know about prohibition we have already learned from alcohol prohibition my friend.

BTW, which video’s on the site did you watch? I asked poeple to reference the site and make arguments against THEIR arguments. Please try and do that next time. Thanks in advance.

God Bless,
Bill

I do not have to view someone’s agenda-driven and biased videos to object to something on principle. There are videos and many arguments in favor of abortion. Does that make abortion a good thing? Please explain how increasing the amount of illicit drug use accords with:

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

 

[Bill_7154]

I do not have to view someone’s agenda-driven and biased videos to object to something on principle. .

‘biased’ is an assumption. And your refusal to listen to what law enforcement with decades of experience have to say on the matter tell me your closed minded on thie issue. Therefore I have no interest in engaging in any discussion on the matter with you.

Have a nice day and God Bless,

If you change your mind and decide that there may be actual, factual information on the subject that you have not encountered before and decide to be open minded and research that let me know. Information from people who have spent decades, day in and day out fighting this ‘war’, let me know.

As it stands now, I assume you support mass murder. As this is the result of the drug business when in the hands of criminals. I’m against mass murder.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[po18guy]

‘biased’ is an assumption.

And a correct one. It is clearly agenda driven propaganda. Seriously, you do not see this?

And your refusal to listen to what law enforcement with decades of experience have to say on the matter tell me your closed minded on thie issue. Therefore I have no interest in engaging in any discussion on the matter with you. If you change your mind and decide that there may be actual, factual information on the subject that you have not encountered before and decide to be open minded and research that let me know. Information from people who have spent decades, day in and day out fighting this ‘war’, let me know. As it stands now, I assume you support mass murder. As this is the result of the drug business when in the hands of criminals. I’m against mass murder.

Question: Do you, de facto, ascribe all opposing viewpoints as being of the “closed-minded”? I could be wrong, but you seem to default to your position as being reasonable and correct, while others are misinformed or ignorant. Your post is replete with marginalizing and condescending language. Aside from the implicit insults (Forum rule #1), I believe that such behavior creates a prima facie case for an agenda (Forum rule #4). Forum Rules.

I worked in law enforecement for 31 years (26 on the street), so I have a tiny bit of experience. During that time, I noted that a good percentage of upper-level administrators seemed to support the concept of less laws to enforce. I always wondered about that. Rhetorical: Could it be that they are politicians more than they are cops? (IME, yes.) And, why is it that they seem always to fall on the side of firearms prohibition, but never on the side of drug prohibition? I thought “prohibition” was always and everywhere a bad thing(?) Isn’t this inconsistent behavior?

As well, does it concern you that many of the legalization organizations trace, directly or indirectly, to billionaire George Soros? It is clear that there are many witting and unwitting sock puppets for this man and his ideology.

According to your profile, you are Catholic. Does Church teaching inform your views on drug legalization?

 

[Bill_7154]

It is clearly agenda driven propaganda.

Then explain to me how you have come to the conclusion that the information on LEAP’s website is ‘propaganda’.They have video’s where opposing parties debate them I believe. This would nullify it being propaganda.

Question: Do you, de facto, ascribe all opposing viewpoints as being of the “closed-minded”? I could be wrong, but you seem to default to your position as being reasonable and correct,

My defalut postion is that I want to discuss the ideas, views, and facts presented by LEAP. When referring to you as close minded it was because you asserted a vewpoint that I assume you have held for more than a few days… and also (I could be wrong) without delving into the vast ammt’s of information available on the LEAP website. Not becuase you choose a viewpoint different than mine, but that you avoided (I’m assuming) investigating and discussing the views of LEAP, as was clearly stated as the intention of this thread in the OP.

I worked in law enforecement for 31 years… George Soros? QUOTE]

I have happened to have had email discussions with the co-founder of the organization, Jack Cole. He is a man of integrity. He is a very reasonable man and is doing what he is doing becaue he believes in it, not becuase he is soros sock puppet. I am quite sure of that. I have studied Soros back when he was an investor along with Jim Rogers and they both made their fortunes as I had an interest in investing.

Also, soros pushes mj legalization, he’s been approached to support funding to study other drugs, etc and has refused. I’m not up to speed on all of the details of what he does and does not fund, but LEAP is definitely not his sock puppet.

Do you think it’s possible that one or more members of LEAP have something to say about the policy of drug prohibition that you have not thought of?

Wouldn’t you agree that police trainee’s are propagandized against drugs (which is fine IMO), the problem comes in when they are propagandized to see drug users and sellers as scumbags and propagandized that they are making a difference for the better when targetting drug users and small time dealers. Do you deny there is one heck of a lot of propaganda that takes place where the police as new recruits are indoctrinated into what to believe?

Are they presented with all of the various potential ways to look at drug use, potential solutions to drug use, information that calls into question the effectiveness or moral correctness of the war on drugs, etc?

I believe there is well in excess of a ton of propaganda that supports the war on drugs thrown into the public since Nixon than there is propaganda FROM ACTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT calling into question the war on drugs. I think that one would be hard pressed to make a legitimate case for that not being true.

So your either open to listening to what these police have to say on the war on drugs or your not. If your not this leads me to believe you have made up your mind on the matter, and have decided that your views are correct and are not open to exploring alternate views via info from other law enforcement officers who are members of LEAP. This is what I meant when I said you were close minded on the issue. How is this not close minded on the issue. I support your right to hold your views, whatever they may be. It’s OK with me.

But in this thread I’m interested in discussing the views of LEAP. Either your interested in discussing their views or your not. And for me it wont’ sufice to simply engage in a me vs you discussion on the feasiblity of the war on drugs. We can certainly do that in ANOTHER thread though.

In this thread I want to have the viewpoints put forth specifically by LEAP disucussed. I’m a reasonable person. If you don’t want to do that it’s fine with me as I already stated. But if you want to discuss the pro’s and con’s of the war on drugs in GENERAL let’s start another thread and do that. It won’t be the first time I’ve engaged in such discussions, it happens to be an interest of mine.

So what do you say friend?
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

According to your profile, you are Catholic. Does Church teaching inform your views on drug legalization?

IMO a more appropriate question would be: Does the Church teaching on mass murder conform to your views of drug prohibition.

Certainly widespread murder of thousands and thousands of people is the more serious sin. Does anyone disagree?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

. Does Church teaching inform your views on drug legalization?

www.leap.cc

click on ‘watch a video’. Go to page 5. Watch the video titled ‘Christians and Cops say Legalize Drugs’

 

[TimeEntrance]

LEAP is doing good work. Good for them.

Bill, I was persuaded by another guy from the arguments he made, that the price of a drug like crack cocaine would plummet to phenomenal degrees if decriminalized. Imagine what is now a $10 bag of crack falling to roughly 10 cents to 35 cents. What is costing a low wage worker that is a father of one or more children, $100 dollars for 10 dime bags of crack would then coast him $1 if legalized and going for the price of 10 cents a bag.

That means such a price drop would only further help tax payers by financially burdening them less through the overall welfare state benefits. Plus, that father would have more expendable money to use in the circular flow of the economy, consequently helping keep more people in his local community employed.

Also, legalizing it takes out the violent thugs and replaces them with legit business people. During prohibition the mob broke legs over debts and in Chicago the mob invented the drive-by shooting. Now, with the end alcohol prohibition, small liquor stores at times gives certain customers alcohol on short term credit. But they don’t bust knees with bats if the debt isn’t paid on time. Store owners don’t do drive-by shootings on each other in competition over geographical markets.

 

[Bill_7154]

Here are a few more video’s where you get to hear people on either side of the issue discussing this subject:

www.leap.cc

click watch a video. Go to page 16 and watch the video titled “Two Cops Debate Legalizing Drugs”.

page 18, watch “Retired Cop talks about criminality after leglaization”

page 21 “Fed Agent Debates Bush’s Drug Czar”

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve heard that woman actually started drinking during prohibition, before that it was a ‘man’s’ drug. Then it became fasionable in the speak easy’s and women started drinking.

All we need to know about prohibition we have already learned from alcohol prohibition my friend.

Agree in part. Disagree in part.

Does anybody really think that before Prohibition women didn’t drink in the U.S.? Maybe a lot of protestant women didn’t, but Irish-American, Italian-American, French-American and German-American women sure did. They did before Prohibition, during it, and after it. Not 20 miles from here is the arguably oldest commercial winery in the U.S. It never went out of production during Prohibition. It was in a close-knit ethnic community and nobody ever ratted them out.

I do agree that we learned something about prohibition of alcohol too. When it became legal again, the moonshiners still made and sold moonshine. Why? Because it’s cheaper for the ultimate consumer, and some people just like it. I could drive no more than 30 miles from where I sit right now and score some moonshine, and probably less than that if I knew where to go. Of course, one has to have a reliable supplier, because some moonshiners’ product is dangerous…just as drugs will be if they’re legalized. There will always be freelancers for a product that’s addictive. Always. Does anybody really believe “licensed meth” will be as cheap as kitchen-manufactured meth? And does anybody believe illegal meth will fail to have additives or contaminants in it then, just as it does now?

And when people become hopelessly dependent, as some are now and many will be if drugs are legalized, and ruin their lives, does anybody really think they’ll fail to turn to the cheaper product when they no longer can make a living due to their addiction?

 

[po18guy]

Agree in part. Disagree in part.

Does anybody really think that before Prohibition women didn’t drink in the U.S.? Maybe a lot of protestant women didn’t, but Irish-American, Italian-American, French-American and German-American women sure did. They did before Prohibition, during it, and after it. Not 20 miles from here is the arguably oldest commercial winery in the U.S. It never went out of production during Prohibition. It was in a close-knit ethnic community and nobody ever ratted them out.

I do agree that we learned something about prohibition of alcohol too. When it became legal again, the moonshiners still made and sold moonshine. Why? Because it’s cheaper for the ultimate consumer, and some people just like it. I could drive no more than 30 miles from where I sit right now and score some moonshine, and probably less than that if I knew where to go. Of course, one has to have a reliable supplier, because some moonshiners’ product is dangerous…just as drugs will be if they’re legalized. There will always be freelancers for a product that’s addictive. Always. Does anybody really believe “licensed meth” will be as cheap as kitchen-manufactured meth? And does anybody believe illegal meth will fail to have additives or contaminants in it then, just as it does now?

And when people become hopelessly dependent, as some are now and many will be if drugs are legalized, and ruin their lives, does anybody really think they’ll fail to turn to the cheaper product when they no longer can make a living due to their addiction?

I tried to disagree on principle, but was considered an ignorant rube until and unless I throughly searched, considered, and gave (here’s the clue) equal weight to the propaganda in the link. Many times have I seen such attempts to both control and direct the discussion. Life is too short, and questions are replied to with hyperbolic insults.

By the evidence, I see this not as an invitation to a discussion, but the furtherance of an agenda.

 

[Bill_7154]

because some moonshiners’ product is dangerous…just as drugs will be if they’re legalized. There will always be freelancers for a product that’s addictive. And when people become hopelessly dependent, as some are now and many will be if drugs are legalized, and ruin their lives, does anybody really think they’ll fail to turn to the cheaper product when they no longer can make a living due to their addiction?

Are you seriously suggesting that legal drugs are MORE dangerous than illegal drugs? Legal drugs go through a series of tests, etc. They are REGULATED. Pharmacies don’t dispense drugs mixed with random products, drano, whatever.

If drugs were legal, and no one was risking their lives, or lives in prison, for making or transporting them…it would be just like importing coffee. No huge markup. So the cost would be affordable, just like it is now for alcohol and cigarettes. Those addicts don’t steal to support their habits or engage in prostitution because, since they are legal, they are affordable.

And no random schmuck would be able to compete with multi-national corporations with a business model to produce a cheaper product. Ever heard of economies of scale?

Drugs would be reglated and therefore much, much safer. You would actually know what your getting.

Sure, people can choose to roll up dried up grass and smoke it instead of tobacco and it’s cheaper, but how many actually do it? People can make their own beer and wine now, how many actually do it? Not many because, since it’s legal, it’s not cost effective time wise because of the economies of scale that the major beer and wine manufacturers have at their disposal.

This is basic economics.

You think some schmuck in a trailer park is going to be able to compete with multi national drug companies whose drugs are dispensed by licensed pharmacists?

How many random dudes make pairs of shoes and sell them in the ghetto and are a threat to nike?

Think about it.

Not to mention that trillions of dollars would not be wasted on the drug war, and thousands would not be murdered each year…

God Bless,
Bill

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The textile industry has been legal for centuries (or thousands of years depending on how you define legal), yet it is still plagued with criminal elements. If you really think drug criminals are going to magically stop engaging in criminal behavior just because drugs are legal than you are just fooling yourself.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you seriously suggesting that legal drugs are MORE dangerous than illegal drugs? Legal drugs go through a series of tests, etc. They are REGULATED. Pharmacies don’t dispense drugs mixed with random products, drano, whatever.

If drugs were legal, and no one was risking their lives, or lives in prison, for making or transporting them…it would be just like importing coffee. No huge markup. So the cost would be affordable, just like it is now for alcohol and cigarettes. Those addicts don’t steal to support their habits or engage in prostitution because, since they are legal, they are affordable.

And no random schmuck would be able to compete with multi-national corporations with a business model to produce a cheaper product. Ever heard of economies of scale?

Drugs would be reglated and therefore much, much safer. You would actually know what your getting.

Sure, people can choose to roll up dried up grass and smoke it instead of tobacco and it’s cheaper, but how many actually do it? People can make their own beer and wine now, how many actually do it? Not many because, since it’s legal, it’s not cost effective time wise because of the economies of scale that the major beer and wine manufacturers have at their disposal.

This is basic economics.

You think some schmuck in a trailer park is going to be able to compete with multi national drug companies whose drugs are dispensed by licensed pharmacists?

How many random dudes make pairs of shoes and sell them in the ghetto and are a threat to nike?

Think about it.

Not to mention that trillions of dollars would not be wasted on the drug war, and thousands would not be murdered each year…

God Bless,
Bill

And yet, moonshine is cheaper than alcohol you buy at a store. It’s cheaper because the regulations and taxes are ignored and the ingredients and processes are inexpensive.

And some of the highest quality marijuana in the U.S. is grown right here where I live. It’s easy to grow and easy to process.

And meth is inexpensive to make. I definitely think some schmuck in a trailer park will be able to sell it cheaper than some conglomerate manufacturer. I most definitely do. That’s because the schmuck would not have to obey any FDA regulations or pay taxes, either on his sales or on his profits.

No, I was not saying legal drugs would be more dangerous than illegal drugs. It would be the other way around, just as is the case with moonshine, the manufacture of which still continues despite the fact that alcohol is legal. If prosecution of moonshining ended, the “legal” sources would be the ones having a hard time competing with the moonshiners.
Economies of scale are there only with certain things, not with all.