Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[ringil]

Harmless, huh?

Who is that and why is he breathing fire?

 

[cornbread_r2]

** 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.**

Unless you advocate for the re-criminalization of alcohol in this country, I don’t see how you can use this CCC quote and be consistent.

It is an observable, repeatable, and measureable aspect of human behavior that, as the costs of participating in a given endeavor are decreased, human participation in it will increase. We must not make the mistake of assuming that there are only monetary costs involved here. As an example, one can cite the social taboos against cohabitation and unmarried pregnancy, both of which have pretty much dissolved. You will kindly note that there has been a concomitant increase in both activities. The penalties for illicit drug use and sales have dropped measurably over the past 4 or 5 decades. As a natural consequence, drug use and sales have increased. This behavior also has its associated monetary costs that is entirely separate from the enforcement of laws in contra.

Can you provide a reference for the assertion in bold? All I’m finding on the net seems to indicate that there is no significant correlation between drug use and the severity of penalties.

And, for those who seem to think that “treatment” offers some sort of societal panacea, note that there must first be a life which is out of control (perhaps for years) due to drug use before treatment is required. If that person lived in a societal vacuum, one could argue that no one else was affected. Yet, the illicit drug user must also purchase the drug from someone who is violating the law, and that person must either manufacture the drug, or obtain it from someone else who is also violating the law. The purpose of penalties for any given human behavior is primarily to punish transgressions of that law, but also to allow the rational mind to ponder, ahead of time, the cost of violating the law.

I wouldn’t argue that treatment offers any kind of panacea, but I would argue that education has been demonstrated to be very useful in reducing drug use through prevention. For instance, consider the reduction in the use of tobacco in this country that didn’t involve a single arrest.

Would we have more homicide if it was decriminalized? Who could possibly argue in the negative? It is inarguable that we would eventually have a much more polite society for those few who were left. But, who would want to pay this sort of cost?

IMO, radically disproportionate analogies are rarely useful.

 

[po18guy]

Who is that and why is he breathing fire?

Admitted chronic pot-smoker Al Gore.

 

[po18guy]

Unless you advocate for the re-criminalization of alcohol in this country, I don’t see how you can use this CCC quote and be consistent.

Can you provide a reference for the assertion in bold? All I’m finding on the net seems to indicate that there is no significant correlation between drug use and the severity of penalties.

I wouldn’t argue that treatment offers any kind of panacea, but I would argue that education has been demonstrated to be very useful in reducing drug use through prevention. For instance, consider the reduction in the use of tobacco in this country that didn’t involve a single arrest.

IMO, radically disproportionate analogies are rarely useful.

You like drugs. I don’t. Simple.

 

[po18guy]

Po,

From the Truth About Addiction…

“What is truth?”

I can quote from a document entitled “The REAL Truth About Drugs”. So what?

 

[po18guy]

Po,

From the Truth About Addiction…

According to Steven Wright, 42.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[CopticChristian]

“What is truth?”

I can quote from a document entitled “The REAL Truth About Drugs”. So what?

Po,
It would appear that you have a difference of opinion and your opinion is not the status quo.

 

[po18guy]

Unless you advocate for the re-criminalization of alcohol in this country, I don’t see how you can use this CCC quote and be consistent.

That’s because you are not Catholic. Alcohol is a necessary ingredient in Christian liturgy. Weed and meth are not.

Can you provide a reference for the assertion in bold? All I’m finding on the net seems to indicate that there is no significant correlation between drug use and the severity of penalties.

Economics 101. Gas prices go up, driving goes down. Have you studied any of the behavioral sciences?

I wouldn’t argue that treatment offers any kind of panacea, but I would argue that education has been demonstrated to be very useful in reducing drug use through prevention.

A drug task force Lieutenant that I worked for claimed that the problem with education is that you cannot educate a drug dealer out of making $250,000 tax-free per year.

IMO, radically disproportionate analogies are rarely useful.

You didn’t say they are untrue, just that you do not like them.

 

[CopticChristian]

According to Steven Wright, 42.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Po,

You don’t like Government statistics? Made up on the spot? If it causes you consternation then you object.

 

[po18guy]

Po,
It would appear that you have a difference of opinion and your opinion is not the status quo.

The truth remains the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

I was down and dirty with drugs and drug users for three decades, with the scars as evidence. Thus, I have a slightly different outlook on it than you do.

 

[CopticChristian]

“What is truth?”

I can quote from a document entitled “The REAL Truth About Drugs”. So what?

Po,

Please quote and provide the document so that I may read it. You can read The Truth about Addiction and I pray everyone else does as well. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to believe it, you don’t have to accept it…but it is true…so let’s have access to your document…

 

[CopticChristian]

The truth remains the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

I was down and dirty with drugs and drug users for three decades, with the scars as evidence. Thus, I have a slightly different outlook on it than you do.

Po,

I find your thoughts fascinating. Do you read my mind? You were down and dirty? Whatever that means. Your outlook is different than mine, well I hope so since I have no idea what it is your outlook is. So then what is it you percieve to be the truth?

 

[cornbread_r2]

You like drugs. I don’t. Simple.

I’m requesting that you either prove that assertion or retract it.

That’s because you are not Catholic. Alcohol is a necessary ingredient in Christian liturgy. Weed and meth are not.

Peyote used by Native American groups for religious purposes is exempt from drug laws as was wine used by Catholics at mass during Prohibition times. You know I’m referring to alcohol used recreationally, but can’t bring yourself to admit that the Church, despite that CCC reference, would never advocate for its re-criminalization for fear of offending the millions of its members who are fortunate enough to prefer that particular drug. Can you imagine even one priest strolling into his local Knights of Columbus hall and even meekly suggesting that they should stop selling alcohol because of the harm it does to its members, their families and society at large? I can’t.

Economics 101. Gas prices go up, driving goes down. Have you studied any of the behavioral sciences?

So you don’t have any references to studies related to drug use and severity of penalties that support your previous assertion? I just want to clear about that.

A drug task force Lieutenant that I worked for claimed that the problem with education is that you cannot educate a drug dealer out of making $250,000 tax-free per year.

Did this task force Lieutenant have an opinion about the value of education in reducing drug consumption? – because that would be actually relevant to the point I was making.

 

[po18guy]

Po,

Please quote and provide the document so that I may read it. You can read The Truth about Addiction and I pray everyone else does as well. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to believe it, you don’t have to accept it…but it is true…so let’s have access to your document…

I haven’t written it yet. I see a cut and paste in your post, but who wrote it?

Again, I do not like drugs because I have observed and documented on their destructive influence for 30 years. Nothing you present will overturn a career’s worth of negative experience with the effects of drugs on society. Simply giving up and redefining drug crime as a disease or other social problem does in no way reduce the trauma that it produces.

Neither am I dissuaded by the often disingenuous objections to the costs of incarceration. Incarceration saves lives. Who cares what it costs? Compared to the massive extent of federal, state and local waste, it is a drop in the bucket.

 

[po18guy]

I’m requesting that you either prove that assertion or retract it.

You are the one arguing for legalization. How else is one supposed to take that? Do you mean that you hate drugs, but want them legalized anyway? How does that make sense? Please pardon my incredulity, and any offense that I may have caused.

The rest of this is all academic and means nothing as a practical matter. We can delve into studies until we drop dead. They all conflict and you and I pick the ones we agree with. Nothing is accomplished. I have tried, and apparently failed, to argue on principle alone.

 

[cornbread_r2]

You are the one arguing for legalization. How else is one supposed to take that? Do you mean that you hate drugs, but want them legalized anyway? How does that make sense? Please pardon my incredulity, and any offense that I may have caused.

Your first mistake here is asserting that I have argued for legalization.

Your second is to imply, yet again, that I must like drugs because I argue for decriminalization. Please forgive me for not believing that you’re sorry about a defamation that you just repeated.

The rest of this is all academic and means nothing as a practical matter. We can delve into studies until we drop dead. They all conflict and you and I pick the ones we agree with. Nothing is accomplished. I have tried, and apparently failed, to argue on principle alone.

Perhaps you should reread your submissions on this topic. Wedged in there along with your so-called principles, red herrings and false dichotomies were assertions that were made, I suppose, to make it appear as though you had some hard data to back up your argument. Now that you’ve failed to support those assertions you claim that hard data’s worthless anyway. Smooth

 

[Bill_7154]

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.

It is meant to be a discussion, and MY agenda is quite clear.

Tell me if you disagree with this: Society has been inundated with propaganda supporting the drug war for decades, with little to no info put forth by government of the police looking at ‘the other side’ of the issue.

Now, we have a group of LAW ENFORCEMENT who are against that agenda. So adding up all the past propaganda I do not think it’s unreasonable to ask people to view the one sided agenda of LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION before engaging in discussions about the issue.

We are not talking about some pot heads advocating the use of pot or other drugs. Nor are we talking about advocating THE USE OF DRUGS AT ALL. What we are talking about is the POLICY of Prohibition against drugs. And I think it is of critical importance to listen to Law Enforcement who have educated views on that topic that don’t go along with the mainstream.

What I do not want to see is people simply putting forth their beliefs based on propaganda they have been subjected to over the years without looking at and taking into consideration what these law enforcement officers, judges, dea, etc have to say on the matter.

And I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.

If you, or anyone else thinks that’s unreasonable, please explain why in detail.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

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…

So aren’t cigarettes bought in one state where taxes are minimal, and sold illegally in states where taxes are higher.

Also, what is safer, alcohol bought by gov’t aproved and regulated stores, or moonshine?

What % of the overall sales of alcohol in the usa would you say constitutes moonshine when compared to gov’t approved alcohol?

I’d like an answer to each of those questions, thank you.

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. .

Yes, so?

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…

It will be impossible for some schmuch in a trailer park to compete with a pharmacutical company that produces products by the ton. This is basic economics and referred to as economies of scale. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics can understand this.

As far as him not obeying FDA regs, his product is going to be potentially poisonous rather than ‘safe’ in so far as it will be actual meth and not some garbage mixed with meth or something like meth.

As far as taxes go, people sell things under the table all the time to avoid paying taxes. This is not a reason to make all products that some small % of are sold under the table to avoid taxes illegal.

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.

Maybe and maybe not. But the government isn’t ever going to give up taxing something that brings in millions or billions of $ every year, is it?

 

[Bill_7154]

Organized crime got out of the alcohol business (not really completely out by the way) because of the drug business, not because alcohol was made legal again…

This is simply not true. The reason they got out is because a main component of their business model is to use violence to accomplish it’s ends. Look at organized crime and all of the businesses they are involved in. Violence and intimidation are their main tools of getting the job done. Eventually they may open legitimate businesses, but this is done with money gained by threatending, beating, and killing people to make the money to open the legit businesses.

As for ridiculous arguments, that would be assuming criminals who have no issue killing people and taking on governments are going to abandon already established unregulated farming, smuggling routes, distro networks, money laundering networks, and etc so that they can start paying taxes and having governments heavily involved in their business.

I don’t know what this means.

 

[Bill_7154]

The moonshine and illegal meth labs are good examples.

1. Tax it? The illegal dealers don’t have to worry about the EPA, government regulations or paying taxes. It’s called a tax dodge. The money goes in their pockets and nobody knows.

This is the same with any product where the dealers either sometimes or all the time sell stuff and dodge regulations to do so. This is not a reason to outright ban all the products (or any product) in which this happens.

1. Our war on car theft is ongoing and robbery in general. Waste of time?

I am against violence and theft and think those things should be illegal. The main difference with drugs is when 2 people are engaging in a transaction, there is no COMPLAINING VICTIM.