[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
The other thread is spinning dangerously into circularity.
So everyone here agrees that marijuana should at very least be decriminalized in reasonable quantities?[/quote]
Only in trade.[/quote]
Clarify please. What do you mean by trade?
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
The other thread is spinning dangerously into circularity.
So everyone here agrees that marijuana should at very least be decriminalized in reasonable quantities?[/quote]
Only in trade.[/quote]
Clarify please. What do you mean by trade?[/quote]
In my experience with pot-heads I’ve never met one who wasn’t a leftist. Which pretty much defeats the ‘it’s my body’ argument they always use. I’m willing to trade the right to make themselves feel and look dopey, if they’ll help me reclaim/protect more important freedoms. But, no until then. Example, when a government starts telling people they MUST purchase health-care. Example, when they dictate who we can hire and fire within our own businesses (our property). Example, when they mandate charity by force through redistribution…Well, I got more important freedoms to worry about than getting high. So, when all the liberal dopers are ready to make the trade, we’ll talk.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the MAIN QUESTION< PLEASE ANSWER THANKS
What did we get for the money and the negative feeling the police created trying to find these drugs?
[/quote]
I think I answered that. If this was all of that guy’s possession of marijuana, society wasted their money. We do it a lot anymore.
[/quote]
Even if it were meth , you spend money to send him to jail . He goes to jail and continues his meth use , his girlfreind picks up his meth customers and no one loses a beat . But the American tax payer just spent a 1/4 million dollars . What did American tax payer get for his 1/4 mil. ?
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I didn’t throw any comments with the video because there’s no real question where I stand. I just think it’s worth airing official misconduct. These things need to be seen by the public. But since I enjoy discussing these things with you I’ll add a few words. I don’t know how I feel about putting the blame on the dad. Wouldn’t that be akin to saying that if he buys nice stuff for his family, he’s failed to properly protect them by making his house attractive to thieves? I’m kind of on the fence on this one because I would want to avoid endangering my family, but at the same time cowing down to the state isn’t a great lesson to teach your children. Should John Adams have kept quiet for fear that General Gage may have sent redcoats into his home?
[/quote]
I can’t say I see your point there Mike. Making your home attractive to thieves by doing home improvements is a totally different thing than a guy knowingly going out and procuring a substance(or growing it or whatever he was doing) and putting his family at risk in the process. There are a lot of regulations all of us, myself included, would like to ignore. My point is that it is prudent and honorable to care for your family’s safety first.
Comparing this stoner, and his selfish wants, to John Adams is kind of out there. It may be bullshit to send a commando team into a guy’s house to because of weed, but he bears some responsibility for putting his family at risk like that. Perhaps if he was hiding Jews from the Nazis or something, I could forgive the trauma he placed his family through.
I grumble about it as much as anybody, but I play nice with our government as much as I can because I point has come to do otherwise. I know you understand this.
As far as police agents being complicit in this, to a point I can’t argue with you. I can only say that our job entails wide discretion and within limits, the individual officer decides the manner in which he is going to do his job.
Other than that, let’s just say I have had many philosophical battles with myself.
[/quote]
We do not know he is a stoner , they may have been at the wrong address
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
The other thread is spinning dangerously into circularity.
So everyone here agrees that marijuana should at very least be decriminalized in reasonable quantities?[/quote]
Only in trade.[/quote]
Clarify please. What do you mean by trade?[/quote]
In my experience with pot-heads I’ve never met one who wasn’t a leftist. Which pretty much defeats the ‘it’s my body’ argument they always use. I’m willing to trade the right to make themselves feel and look dopey, if they’ll help me reclaim/protect more important freedoms. But, no until then. Example, when a government starts telling people they MUST purchase health-care. Example, when they dictate who we can hire and fire within our own businesses (our property). Example, when they mandate charity by force through redistribution…Well, I got more important freedoms to worry about than getting high. So, when all the liberal dopers are ready to make the trade, we’ll talk.[/quote]
FWIW I have a hardcore tea bagger pot head friend.
Its nice how you compromise your beliefs out of spite though.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I didn’t throw any comments with the video because there’s no real question where I stand. I just think it’s worth airing official misconduct. These things need to be seen by the public. But since I enjoy discussing these things with you I’ll add a few words. I don’t know how I feel about putting the blame on the dad. Wouldn’t that be akin to saying that if he buys nice stuff for his family, he’s failed to properly protect them by making his house attractive to thieves? I’m kind of on the fence on this one because I would want to avoid endangering my family, but at the same time cowing down to the state isn’t a great lesson to teach your children. Should John Adams have kept quiet for fear that General Gage may have sent redcoats into his home?
[/quote]
I can’t say I see your point there Mike. Making your home attractive to thieves by doing home improvements is a totally different thing than a guy knowingly going out and procuring a substance(or growing it or whatever he was doing) and putting his family at risk in the process. There are a lot of regulations all of us, myself included, would like to ignore. My point is that it is prudent and honorable to care for your family’s safety first.
Comparing this stoner, and his selfish wants, to John Adams is kind of out there. It may be bullshit to send a commando team into a guy’s house to because of weed, but he bears some responsibility for putting his family at risk like that. Perhaps if he was hiding Jews from the Nazis or something, I could forgive the trauma he placed his family through.
I grumble about it as much as anybody, but I play nice with our government as much as I can because I point has come to do otherwise. I know you understand this.
As far as police agents being complicit in this, to a point I can’t argue with you. I can only say that our job entails wide discretion and within limits, the individual officer decides the manner in which he is going to do his job.
Other than that, let’s just say I have had many philosophical battles with myself.
[/quote]
How is wantin to be free not a selfish want?
It seems to me that you have a rather arbitrary cut off point as to what “selfish wants” are acceptable and what “selfish wants” are not.
That however does not equate to freedom for other people, but to bowing to a, hopefully benevolent, tyrant.
Then, his example is spot on. Let us say he bought a nice car and installed a swimming pool which attracts armed thugs.
How is the situation different when the armed thugs ramming down his door are payed by the government?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I didn’t throw any comments with the video because there’s no real question where I stand. I just think it’s worth airing official misconduct. These things need to be seen by the public. But since I enjoy discussing these things with you I’ll add a few words. I don’t know how I feel about putting the blame on the dad. Wouldn’t that be akin to saying that if he buys nice stuff for his family, he’s failed to properly protect them by making his house attractive to thieves? I’m kind of on the fence on this one because I would want to avoid endangering my family, but at the same time cowing down to the state isn’t a great lesson to teach your children. Should John Adams have kept quiet for fear that General Gage may have sent redcoats into his home?
[/quote]
I can’t say I see your point there Mike. Making your home attractive to thieves by doing home improvements is a totally different thing than a guy knowingly going out and procuring a substance(or growing it or whatever he was doing) and putting his family at risk in the process. There are a lot of regulations all of us, myself included, would like to ignore. My point is that it is prudent and honorable to care for your family’s safety first.
Comparing this stoner, and his selfish wants, to John Adams is kind of out there. It may be bullshit to send a commando team into a guy’s house to because of weed, but he bears some responsibility for putting his family at risk like that. Perhaps if he was hiding Jews from the Nazis or something, I could forgive the trauma he placed his family through.
I grumble about it as much as anybody, but I play nice with our government as much as I can because I point has come to do otherwise. I know you understand this.
As far as police agents being complicit in this, to a point I can’t argue with you. I can only say that our job entails wide discretion and within limits, the individual officer decides the manner in which he is going to do his job.
Other than that, let’s just say I have had many philosophical battles with myself.
[/quote]
How is wantin to be free not a selfish want?
It seems to me that you have a rather arbitrary cut off point as to what “selfish wants” are acceptable and what “selfish wants” are not.
That however does not equate to freedom for other people, but to bowing to a, hopefully benevolent, tyrant.
Then, his example is spot on. Let us say he bought a nice car and installed a swimming pool which attracts armed thugs.
How is the situation different when the armed thugs ramming down his door are payed by the government?
[/quote]
It is not an arbitrary point at all. It is very specific in this instance.
Any man with half a brain in his head knows that illicit drug procurement, production or distribution can very likely result in the wrath of the government coming down on you. I already said I don’t agree with it, especially in the case of marijuana. My point is simply that I would never put my family at risk in that way, no matter how bad I wanted to get stoned. The line where I would risk incurring the government’s wrath is far above that when my family’s well being would be involved.
This is simple prudence and sacrifice of your own wants for the safety of your family.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the MAIN QUESTION< PLEASE ANSWER THANKS
What did we get for the money and the negative feeling the police created trying to find these drugs?
[/quote]
I think I answered that. If this was all of that guy’s possession of marijuana, society wasted their money. We do it a lot anymore.
[/quote]
Even if it were meth , you spend money to send him to jail . He goes to jail and continues his meth use , his girlfreind picks up his meth customers and no one loses a beat . But the American tax payer just spent a 1/4 million dollars . What did American tax payer get for his 1/4 mil. ?
JD430, the point remains: buying shiny stuff that attracts all sorts of robbers and lowlifes should be frowned upon, because according to you:
“This is simple prudence and sacrifice of your own wants for the safety of your family.”
Of course, it’s even easier to blow this argument up concerning freedom of speech (“hush son, no political jokes under my roof”!) or going to political rallies. This kinda reminds me of good ol’ GDR.
Strange, as I thought the rightwingers here view all kinds of civil disobidience as ultimate moral highground.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
JD430, the point remains: buying shiny stuff that attracts all sorts of robbers and lowlifes should be frowned upon, because according to you:
“This is simple prudence and sacrifice of your own wants for the safety of your family.”
Of course, it’s even easier to blow this argument up concerning freedom of speech (“hush son, no political jokes under my roof”!) or going to political rallies. This kinda reminds me of good ol’ GDR.
Strange, as I thought the rightwingers here view all kinds of civil disobidience as ultimate moral highground.
[/quote]
I have no idea what you guys are trying to convince me of.
I draw the line of disobedience/resistance to government at a certain point, especially where the safety of my family is involved. Using illicit drugs is below that line in my opinion. It would be a different story if he only put himself at risk.
You’re characterization of me at the end assumes a lot too, but I expect as much here.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
FWIW I have a hardcore tea bagger pot head friend.
Its nice how you compromise your beliefs out of spite though.
[/quote]
Great. You have a hardcore tea bagger pot-head friend. I’m not compromising my beliefs. This is my belief. Boo-hoo, they took our right to smoke a bowl, man. If the druggies would focus half the energy into stuff that’ actually important, I doubt we’d have entitlement programs. So, when they’re ready to set down their pipes and syringes, put away the ho-ho’s and the black lights, pull themselves off the couch, and put the same energy into far more important rights issues, we’ll get around to allowing them to toke themselves goofy, legally.
As it is now, I know damn well what would happen. After decades of listening to them bitch about their rights, about self-governance, the majority of these burn-outs would be supporting single-payer health-care and other welfare programs. Once they got what THEY wanted, the concept of self-governance would mysteriously vanish for anything else. “Like, dude, it’s, like not cool that people are, like, poor and stuff. Like, at some point you’ve got enough money, so, like, the government should be able to spend the excess on helping people. I mean, like, we are the world, dude.” Tear down the nanny state, first. When we’re actually a people who are willing to accept the consequences of our lifestyles, without demanding others be forced to subsidize them, come and see me for my support.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the MAIN QUESTION< PLEASE ANSWER THANKS
What did we get for the money and the negative feeling the police created trying to find these drugs?
[/quote]
I think I answered that. If this was all of that guy’s possession of marijuana, society wasted their money. We do it a lot anymore.
[/quote]
Should I assume , you do not have an answer to the what benafit to society the war on drugs is , or hould I assume you agree with me completely
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/09/swat-episode-rouses-critics/
Misdemeanor amounts of Marijuana
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the MAIN QUESTION< PLEASE ANSWER THANKS
What did we get for the money and the negative feeling the police created trying to find these drugs?
[/quote]
I think I answered that. If this was all of that guy’s possession of marijuana, society wasted their money. We do it a lot anymore.
[/quote]
Should I assume , you do not have an answer to the what benafit to society the war on drugs is , or hould I assume you agree with me completely[/quote]
I lean toward agreeing with you completely but I haven’t closed off my mind in total due to the reservations I listed earlier (mostly that the individual user should bear all the costs of their actions should things go badly. This is often where the more socialistic type’s argument against the cost of the war on drugs goes off the rails.)
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the MAIN QUESTION< PLEASE ANSWER THANKS
What did we get for the money and the negative feeling the police created trying to find these drugs?
[/quote]
I think I answered that. If this was all of that guy’s possession of marijuana, society wasted their money. We do it a lot anymore.
[/quote]
Should I assume , you do not have an answer to the what benafit to society the war on drugs is , or hould I assume you agree with me completely[/quote]
I lean toward agreeing with you completely but I haven’t closed off my mind in total due to the reservations I listed earlier (mostly that the individual user should bear all the costs of their actions should things go badly. This is often where the more socialistic type’s argument against the cost of the war on drugs goes off the rails.)[/quote]
Thanks for the reply
And yes, if you endanger your family over drugs, you’re a crappy father. There are things for which you simply try to change the law, by changing minds. Then there are things which might be important enough to endanger yourself, and yes, your child. Getting high isn’t one of them. Change the law before bringing it into your family’s home. When you’re a husband and a father, those are your priorities. Your juvenile habits aren’t even close.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]JD430 wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I didn’t throw any comments with the video because there’s no real question where I stand. I just think it’s worth airing official misconduct. These things need to be seen by the public. But since I enjoy discussing these things with you I’ll add a few words. I don’t know how I feel about putting the blame on the dad. Wouldn’t that be akin to saying that if he buys nice stuff for his family, he’s failed to properly protect them by making his house attractive to thieves? I’m kind of on the fence on this one because I would want to avoid endangering my family, but at the same time cowing down to the state isn’t a great lesson to teach your children. Should John Adams have kept quiet for fear that General Gage may have sent redcoats into his home?
[/quote]
I can’t say I see your point there Mike. Making your home attractive to thieves by doing home improvements is a totally different thing than a guy knowingly going out and procuring a substance(or growing it or whatever he was doing) and putting his family at risk in the process. There are a lot of regulations all of us, myself included, would like to ignore. My point is that it is prudent and honorable to care for your family’s safety first.
Comparing this stoner, and his selfish wants, to John Adams is kind of out there. It may be bullshit to send a commando team into a guy’s house to because of weed, but he bears some responsibility for putting his family at risk like that. Perhaps if he was hiding Jews from the Nazis or something, I could forgive the trauma he placed his family through.
I grumble about it as much as anybody, but I play nice with our government as much as I can because I point has come to do otherwise. I know you understand this.
As far as police agents being complicit in this, to a point I can’t argue with you. I can only say that our job entails wide discretion and within limits, the individual officer decides the manner in which he is going to do his job.
Other than that, let’s just say I have had many philosophical battles with myself.
[/quote]
How is wantin to be free not a selfish want?
It seems to me that you have a rather arbitrary cut off point as to what “selfish wants” are acceptable and what “selfish wants” are not.
That however does not equate to freedom for other people, but to bowing to a, hopefully benevolent, tyrant.
Then, his example is spot on. Let us say he bought a nice car and installed a swimming pool which attracts armed thugs.
How is the situation different when the armed thugs ramming down his door are payed by the government?
[/quote]
It is not an arbitrary point at all. It is very specific in this instance.
Any man with half a brain in his head knows that illicit drug procurement, production or distribution can very likely result in the wrath of the government coming down on you. I already said I don’t agree with it, especially in the case of marijuana. My point is simply that I would never put my family at risk in that way, no matter how bad I wanted to get stoned. The line where I would risk incurring the government’s wrath is far above that when my family’s well being would be involved.
This is simple prudence and sacrifice of your own wants for the safety of your family.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
I know it’s not Columbia swat , but here is another example of that fUCKING WAR ON DRUGS