Mick, as of right now it is not WRONG to lock someone up for using drugs…I am saying that law needs to be questioned…that is all I am saying…and not only am I saying it, but a lot of policy and lawmakers are now looking at the sensibility of the laws…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43248071/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Jon you say that locking someone up for just using a drug is wrong if I understand you correctly. Those self same people chose and I repeat chose to knowingly break the law. They may not like or agree with said law. But the law is there. And they are being punished for choosing of their own free will to ignore the law of the land. And until such time the law is amended or repealed they will continue to be locked up. I have absolutely no sympathy for any drug user. They made that choice to use. As the old saying goes “They made their bed now they may lay in it”.

The most pressing point is this…What about the damage caused to person by incarcerating them for using a drug…I am not talking about a drunk driver…I am talking about using a drug…nothing else…

We label them a convicted felon…making it more difficult for them to gain a job and live a life free from future incarceration…we set them on a spiral, typically down a drain, further into the rabbit hole…

Mankind has been looking for a way to alter his mind and mood since we have been on this Earth…to think we are going to address this FACT effectively through the illegalization of mind and mood altering substances…well, I need someone to engage me in a non-name calling debate on that…

Some background: 25 years of experience within the correctional system…officer, sergeant, counselor, casework manager, substance abuse counselor.

Prohibition does not work. Any sober (please look up the definition) person KNOWS that prohibition does not work. Any person performing research into the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act cannot reasonably come to any other conclusion. The only persons who were in support of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were persons associated with organized crime. This includes the Kennedys, the Prescotts (read Bush), and other associated politically powerful families, who making their fortunes from maintaining control over the supply.

I totally agree with the concept that drug and alcohol abuse cause a TREMENDOUS amount of damage to families, homes, communities, society, and ultimately, the WORLD at large…we have fought, and continue to this day, to fight WIDESPREAD wars over the control and trade routes over illicit drugs in places where they are ILLEGAL.

PEOPLE WHO FAIL TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT!!!

Now, to those detractors who have resorted to name calling, I suggest you take a long look at why you are in the business you are in…I have seen comments where you indicate the only responsibility you have is to ENFORCE the law. If you believe you have no fundamental responsibility to question the ethical or moral basis of a law, or have not even given it a thought, then you are admitting to being a sheep.
For those of you ground in the fundamental and literal interpretation of the Bible, then I guess this is okay…after all, followers are characterized as “lambs to slaughter.”

I was reading this thread. Many who post here have a desire to bring about meaningful change in the country through their work. Tell me how resorting to pre-pubescent name calling fits in with this desire?

“It’s just hard for the people to vote away prohibition because the disproportionate representation among politicians..”

Politicians who are voted into office, that is by THE PEOPLE. So the majority of politicians are against legalizing drugs? Sounds like you druggie pinheads aren’t a majority after all. Hit that bong some more, junkie and GTFO.

You say the right to free speech etc. is inviolate. Because it is written into the Constitution. Have you ever heard of a Constitutional Amendment. Or a Referendum. There is no Law Local,State,Federal or Constitutional that cannot be changed.
So don’t fool yourself about that. Are you telling me that if the vast majority of a countries citizens wanted a Law changed that every politician in that country wouldn’t fall into line quick smart! As I said before why don’t you and those of your mind set, stand for election and see just how much popular support you actually have. Or do you actually know just how little support you really have and as such would rather not have it widely known.
Now lets have a look at your other point People have the right to damage themselves. Ah I don’t think so. If a person was pointing a gun at their own head don’t you think it’s the duty of every LEO or any right thinking person to try and stop them harming themselves. Are you saying that someone high on Meth is not a danger to themselves or anyone within range. That someone addicted to Crack would not lie,cheat and steal from everyone around them?

“Perhaps your not in America…”

Your: Possessive. Belonging to “you”. Example: Your drugs are killing your brain.
You’re: Contraction of “You” and “are”. Example: You’re a dummy.

You know, I’ve never seen anyone so utterly alone in an argument so convinced he speaks for a majority. And the repeating himself over and over and cutting and pasting the same dreck. I kinda feel bad for him now. I mean, once a person embarrasses himself to a certain degree it just becomes uncomfortable and awkward.

Correctionator, there’s no point debating anthing with you, ur just trolling illogic.

Mick, beer is a drug. If If you are for prohibition and even comparing the victims of prohibition to pedophiles then you should be doing the same with beer/liquor right? When I speak against drug prohibition, that includes the prohibition of currently legal drugs too. It makes no sense to continue prohibition for ANY drug when in it is a counter-productive policy that only makes the problem worse. All I am saying here is that people should have the right to drink a beer, smoke a bowl, or whatever, it’s not the business of the state or us law enforcement. People damage themselves with all sorts of junk foods and poisons, there’s no point to pick and choose the poison to imprison people for.

As far as “democracy” goes. Perhaps your not in America, but I think it is the best example to use since it started the war on drugs. America was intended to be a republic where individual civil liberties cannot be voted away. So no you can’t vote away free speech, right to lawfully bear arms, right to privacy, ect. The majority can’t take rights from a minority unless that minority was trying to do the same with the majority.

And I question your polling as well. Most people are against the war on drugs. It’s just hard for the people to vote away prohibition because the disproportionate representation among politicians, especially in NAFTA countries. It’s not even put on the table to discuss to begin with usually, although this has been changing recently.

I think it’s our job to lock up the murderers, rapists, robbers, fraudsters, ect. not the person who is not harming someone or using a substance like alcohol, pot, caffeine, shrooms, or whatever and not bothering anyone. It’s only when a person harms another entity, whether under the influence or not, is when we should step in. Let’s release these non-violent drug offenders and fill the cells up with child rapists and murderers!

He asked if I’m trying to imitate Arnold! I LOL’d and nearly spit my Coke on the screen when I read that! I’m imitating Arnold like he’s imitating someone babbling about RATIONAL law. This guy is priceless. Oh hey, look! He’s lumped himself in with Hawking and a host of other big brains and progressive-thinking geniuses. Yes, he’s fully tripping now. He should be riding unicorns with Bigfoot right about now.

Rational Firstly I am not in America to get out of it. Secondly I never once mentioned Beer drinking you did. Thirdly I have know idea who Rush Limbaugh is so I would be unlikely to have my Head up his ass as you so eloquently put it. And fourthly I never said that drug users were worse than paedophiles. What I did say is you are using the same lame excuses that I and many of my colleagues on here have heard before and used paedophiles as prime example. And If you were really in Law Enforcement you would have heard those selfsame excuses yourself. And as for going on TV I don’t need to. I am not trying to change anything you are. I support, uphold and enforce the Drug Laws. You refer to us a “Neo Fascists”. But it is you that wants to ignore the Democratic Will of the People that supports the present Drug Laws. It is you that wants to enforce your own views on the majority of society. Who is the Fascist? If you truly believe in in the rubbish you are spewing why don’t you run for public office. Place your faith in what you believe in the hands of those you want to crusade for! Joe Public.

BossDogg- And he’s not a hypocrite, either. I gues that “non-partisan” argument he was using earlier doesn’t apply to him. He’s got a real bug in his bum for Fox News and Rush (real relevant to this argument, right?) And he thinks that if I make up a college degree I’d pick Art and English. What a tool.

Rational, dont mistake freedom with a free-for-all. It is an insult to all those who have or are continueing to fight and die for your right to be an idiot. Freedom must have rules, regulations and laws to make sure that it is there for ALL people to enjoy without fear that the meth addict is going to freak out and try and burn your house down or the heroin addict is going to break in and kill your family so they can steal your TV to get more dope. I will admit that there most likely are people out there who can smoke a joint in their own home without bothering anyone just like there are people who can consume alcohol and not be out of control. BUT, as we see and hear every day, there are a large number who cant and a family who was at one moment enjoying their freedom is now destroyed, by alcohol, a substance that IS controlled and regulated. Now consider the ramifications of tossing all those other drugs into the mix. In my opinion this is an unacceptable price to pay and efforts need to be made to try and keep the chaos to a minimum in order for EVERYONE to have their chance to enjoy life and liberty. If this makes me a neo-fascist sockpuppet, then so be it but I will be a sockpuppet with honor, dignity and pride. I doubt you can say the same for your Chomsky, Hawking, Dawkins sockpuppet status.

Hey look! The hyper-intellectual educated genius made up a new word: “dumby”. Wow. It is quite obvious he is no dummy!

Gotta love these prohibitionist sock puppets on here lol.

To this day the prohibitionists have not demonstrated how drinking a beer or smoking a bowl in one’s free time not bothering anyone is not responsible. Mick I ask you, who compared a pot smoker or beer drinker to a pedophile. Get a life Mick. Get your head out of Rush Limbaugh or fox news or the private prison lobby’s ass! You are a joke, along with all the other prohibitionists who still can’t prove any of their war on drugs crap.

You wanna lock someone in prison for drinking beer or smoking pot? Move to Iran or Saudi Arabia and get out of America. And COgrim it’s doubtful you have any BA or a degree of any kind, you sound like some redneck creationist. You wanna call Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Penn Jillette, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, or myself druggies when we criticize your neo-fascist policies? It’s people like you who give a bad name to law enforcement, get out of the field dumby! ;) Same with Crakinheds sockpuppet and the “Correctionator” (trying to imitate Arnold??). And Bossdog are you stoned?

Once again;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Efficacy

You can’t argue with numbers so be quiet.

Hey Mick why don’t you go on television and announce to everyone how you are going to free up prison space that houses pedophiles for pot smokers and beer drinkers and talk about how they are as worse as pedophiles. You must be trolling.

BossDogg- I’m right there with ya bud. I have a BA with a double major in Art and English. I was too busy with my studies to get into mind-altering substances and now I’m in corrections so, like Crakinheds, I have a low tolerance for stupid along with a low tolerance for condescending self-important druggies preaching legalization. Crakinheds- I don’t think you upset anyone with what I see is one of the most intelligent posts yet.

Ok, I’ll be the bad guy and say it. Rational law, please, for the love of god STFU and go jump off that bridge Mick was telling you to build. Sorry if I have upset anyone, not you Rational, but I have a very low tolerence for stupid.

I was going to have a go at RationalLaw’s silly little game myself but it appears at this point that we are lampooning a mentally handicapped individual. I cannot in good conscience do that. I mean, he’s got a death grip on that “war on drugs is a failure” and “drugs as a victimless crime” lie and he’s not going to let it go. And he even thinks drug users are “responsible”. You just can’t debate someone who operates under delusions hard-wired into their drug-addled brains. All we can hope for is he’ll burn enough brain cells up and forget all about the internet.

Wow. COGrim, you hit the nail on the head there. But there is NO WAY that I’m going to waste all that time typing, copying and pasting. This guy apparently has a lot of dope and a lot of time on his hands. And he does try really really hard to appear so much smarter and educated- which makes me wonder what high-school grade he dropped out of. I mean, MY college degree is in Criminal Justice. I’m currently in school to get my B.A. in Education. I think that stacks up nicely against RationalLaw’s Phd. in Watching Movies With the Volume Turned Down and Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon Album Cranked Up.

“Responsible Drug Users” Are you serious? Don’t make me laugh.
The simple question about Prohibition is this. Do the Vast Majority of people want the Growing,Manufacturing,Sale,Supply and or use be de-criminalized? Answer NO. So What do you say. Ignore the Will of the Majority because it doesn’t fit your beliefs. Not going to happen so as I have already said Build a bridge and get over it

"""Rational the sum of your argument is that the present drug laws are evil, immoral and bad for society. I and many of my colleagues will agree with me on this is that your argument sounds very like the arguments I have heard from convicted paedophiles. They all so believe that laws that convicted them are evil,immoral and bad for society and that they were persecuted by an over bearing Government. My question is do we scrap child protection laws because a small minority of people feel hard done by? The same applies to the Drug Laws. The Law is there to protect society. Each and everyone of will feel hard done by one law or another at some time but 99.99% of us will suck it up and accept it as a necessary inconvenience for the good of society."""

YOU are the one who just compared responsible drug users to pedophiles. That pretty much shows that you must be using some dumb creationist type of logic. Or are you on something?

Tell me Mick? So a person who drinks beer or smokes pot in his house not bothering anyone is equivalent to someone who rapes kids? Like I said…..you said it! Stop disgracing our field with your insane school logic. If you think it’s ok to throw responsible drug users, be it alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, cannabis, ect. into prison while equating them to pedophiles, you need to get your head examined.

“Whatever he’s on is some potent stuff. He can’t see the connection between crime and illegal drugs, but he somehow connects evolution with prohibition and for some reason has determined we’re cheering drunks. Poor guy. That brain is definately deep-fried.”

So everyone who is against prohibition is automatically a drug user? You my friend exhibit far right bigoted view on people who disagree with your small dogmatic brain.

So does Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Penn Jillete, ect. appear like drugged out hippies when they speak against your racist bigoted prohibition on certain drugs? Even though they have never used drugs and don’t intend to? You my friend need to get an education. POs/COs tend to work far more efficiently with a college education. Perhaps you should get one. It’s a shame they don’t mandate at least a bachelors in many US states for COs.

Oh and if your for the prohibition of drugs be consistent and be for the prohibition of all drugs including caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol. Otherwise your flimsy straw man arguments is flawed. It is you my friend who has probably had their brain fried with drugs if this is the type of illogic you use.

"""I also love how he thinks he has a monopoly on “common sense and reason” but can’t seem to grasp the connection between losers impaired by drugs to assaults and other crime. Looks like someone is just angry he keeps paying too much for his drugs and waking up broke, sticky and confused in a jail cell. I’ll lay odds his foil hat is full of residue."""

Here’s some common sense logic for you. There is a difference between responsible drug use (eg drinking liquor in the privacy of your house) and doing crime under the influence (getting into a drunken fight). If you do the crime you do the time, it doesn’t matter if you are under the influence. Now saying all people who get under the influence is automatically going to do criminal things is an absurd idea. Most people get drunk in private and don’t get behind the wheel, rob, or rape.

Irresponsible drug abuse, like doing crime under the influence, will stay as illegal post-prohibition as it will during prohibition. So the drunk brawlers or coke robbers would still go to prison. That doesn’t sound like a bad idea does it?

“This troll is persistent, I’ll give him that. This one has established a good pattern of twisting replies to an absurd spin in order to validate his rhetoric. Shyster salesmen and politicians do the same thing. They stretch something to a preposterous conclusion to make themselves look more reasonable and their talking points more factual compared to other’s. See how he keeps saying “if you are FOR this, you are also FOR (insert much worse thing here). What a tool. The “let-me-educate-you-you’re-a-neanderthal” attitude is a great touch too. Prime example of a narcissistic zealot with an agenda. He’s definitely on something. I give him 6 months till he’s on a milk crate in a public park wearing a foil hat with his wiener hanging out and preaching about the coming apocalypse engineered by the government.”

My friend, the numbers speak for themselves. Is there something wrong with bring in raw data? The war on drugs is a complete failure and so is all victimless crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Efficacy

"""But Mick, he posted links to evolution and heliocentrism. Don’t look at the tired, bitter grapes pothead hippie ramblings, look at the links. They show how smart he he is so he MUST be right. One plus one does not equal three!"""

Aw come on you can’t handle a little humor on the side? The point of posting those links is to show you that the war on drugs/prohibition is as un-scientific as creationism and geo-centrism. Snicker all you want friend, doesn’t change the facts. ;)

“Well played, BossDogg. Well played.

EXCEPT your post was 42 paragraphs too short. You demonstrated excellent narcissism and scorn but need to be much more blustery, shrill and long-winded."

Yup, just like you. I’m not the one who said that everyone who doesn’t agree with your dogmatic views of prohibition is a drugged out hippy. You fail again friend. Milton Friedman (right winger), Noam Chomsky (left winger), Penn Jillette, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, and myself are all against prohibition and we don’t use any drugs. Same with the officers in LEAP. Just hard facts and logic. This isn’t a left-right issue or a partisan issue.

"""Ok, I’ll play your silly little game.

You people who are for drug legalization are brain cell hating nazis! If you are against enforcing laws against drugs, you are also against enforcing laws against pedophilia, necrophilia, murder, arson and tax evasion. Get out of the Cretaceous period and get some science book learning, of which I have more than you. Despite what you might think, the Scarecrow was WRONG when he said “The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.” The actual Pythagorean Theorem is: The sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. So you see, you are not as smart and are therefore WRONG. Here is further proof that you are wildly misguided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_weaving

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

You cannot argue with science. So if you have an ounce of decency and self-respect, you would stop supporting vicious drug lords and pushers and yakuza bosses and telemarketers and oppose the infestation of the poisons that are killing children and Camaro-driving mullet-wearing Lynyrd Skynard fans alike."""

To this day you have not demonstrated how responsible drug use is wrong. Your myopic satire of doesn’t address the fact that it is quite logical that prohibition does not work and that is is quite un-scientific. The efficacy of the war on drugs is easily seen, it doesn’t work. Time to treat all drugs like we treat alcohol, legalize for adults, regulate the quality, tax, the profit,and focus on keeping drugs out of children rather than responsible adults. Harm reduction and treating drugs as a medical issue shows far better results than making victimless crimes.

Well played, BossDogg. Well played.

EXCEPT your post was 42 paragraphs too short. You demonstrated excellent narcissism and scorn but need to be much more blustery, shrill and long-winded.

Ok, I’ll play your silly little game.

You people who are for drug legalization are brain cell hating nazis! If you are against enforcing laws against drugs, you are also against enforcing laws against pedophilia, necrophilia, murder, arson and tax evasion. Get out of the Cretaceous period and get some science book learning, of which I have more than you. Despite what you might think, the Scarecrow was WRONG when he said “The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.” The actual Pythagorean Theorem is: The sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. So you see, you are not as smart and are therefore WRONG. Here is further proof that you are wildly misguided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_weaving

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

You cannot argue with science. So if you have an ounce of decency and self-respect, you would stop supporting vicious drug lords and pushers and yakuza bosses and telemarketers and oppose the infestation of the poisons that are killing children and Camaro-driving mullet-wearing Lynyrd Skynard fans alike.

But Mick, he posted links to evolution and heliocentrism. Don’t look at the tired, bitter grapes pothead hippie ramblings, look at the links. They show how smart he he is so he MUST be right. One plus one does not equal three!

(snicker)