Marijuana Raid Leads To Cops Shooting The Family's Dogs

Off Topic
281

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Do you even know about drugs? So do you actually believe that Alcohol has less side effects than weed or other “illegal” drugs?

Dude if you don’t know what you’re talking about please don’t comment.[/quote]

Oh you gotta love the fucking straw men in this thread.

Where did I say anything about alcohol? Where did I say I actually believe that alcohol has less side effects than weed or other illicit substances? That’s right, I didn’t. Stop putting dicks in my mouth. [/quote]

giggles

282

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Do you even know about drugs? So do you actually believe that Alcohol has less side effects than weed or other “illegal” drugs?

Dude if you don’t know what you’re talking about please don’t comment.[/quote]

Oh you gotta love the fucking straw men in this thread.

Where did I say anything about alcohol? Where did I say I actually believe that alcohol has less side effects than weed or other illicit substances? That’s right, I didn’t. Stop putting words in my mouth. [/quote]
I miss read your point. I apologize.

283

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.

As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?

If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]

Good post. This whole thing turned into a debate over legalization which has nothing to do with the orginal post.

BTW I’ve lost a friend and had two injured during a “low risk” marijuana warrant.

284

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

LOL no, actually, it’s not like that.

The person I quoted said if weed is demonstrably harmful it should be illegal. Alcohol is demonstrably more harmful than the majority of illicit drugs and it is legal. Therefore, health reasons are not sufficient justification for a substance’s legality.

Let’s shh with the analogies, they confuse you too much.[/quote]

lol…pure win. And for people that think pot causes lung cancer:

and

[quote]
“We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” he said. “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”

lol about the below:

/hijack

edit: I failed at quotes -.-

285

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
The question I asked had nothing to do with the bill of rights. I asked for an example of laws that arent smart to follow but you went off m a tangent and didn’t answer my question.

I never said anything about respnses to “the same level” crimes in many states I said when has someone gone 7mph over the speed limit and been shot at for it?

You obviously can’t stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand which is:

A. The police raided the house because illegal narcotics were believed to be on site.
B. They found illegal narcotics in the house.

What can you argue about that? (hint: nothing. So I’m sure you’ll try to change it around and bring up some other issue to try to pigeon hole me but I’m done debating you cause you seem to not be able to stay on topic here)

.greg.[/quote]

We can argue about the quantity. The quantity they were expecting suggests operations of organized crime and you could probably expect to find weapons and money on the premises also. This scenario merits SWAT

The quantity that they did find indicates that this guy likes to occasionally smoke weed as do millions of other americans. This scenario does not merit SWAT.

Furthermore they did not take precautions to safeguard the innocent. I find this indicates arrogance and sloppy police-work. Im sure you can think of a dozen ways they could have done this better. They could have knocked on the door during daylight for example. They could have set up a sting where they wait for the guy outside of his house.
[/quote]

How are they supposed to know exactly how much the guy has? If their intel suggests a large quantity they need to prepair for that eventuality. Why is that so hard to understand?[/quote]

What difference would the amount have made for tactics. Its not like hes going to be able to destroy the evidence if its a large quantity. The situation wouldnt be anymore or less dangerous if there had been more or less weed.
[/quote]

Large quantities of drugs cost money and the owner usually does his darndest to protect them. Every warrant that I’ve ever executed where large amounts of drugs were found there also weapons.

This is obviously not something you have any experience with.

286

[quote]Mettahl wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

Did you know that both of those are illegal? Yeah. That was an excellent example.[/quote]

Did you know that alcohol used to be illegal? And people made the same arguments you’re making to get it legalized?

287

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

LOL no, actually, it’s not like that.

The person I quoted said if weed is demonstrably harmful it should be illegal. Alcohol is demonstrably more harmful than the majority of illicit drugs and it is legal. Therefore, health reasons are not sufficient justification for a substance’s legality.

Let’s shh with the analogies, they confuse you too much.[/quote]

Your argument is basically “let’s add fuel to the already burning alcohol fire”.

288

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

LOL no, actually, it’s not like that.

The person I quoted said if weed is demonstrably harmful it should be illegal. Alcohol is demonstrably more harmful than the majority of illicit drugs and it is legal. Therefore, health reasons are not sufficient justification for a substance’s legality.

Let’s shh with the analogies, they confuse you too much.[/quote]

Your argument is basically “let’s add fuel to the already burning alcohol fire”.[/quote]

Your argument is basically nonsensical at this point.

289

If someone can prove Marijuana is harmless or benign with a long term, properly funded non-biased study, I’m quite happy for it to be legalized. However, I’m not a fan of the blanket “legalize everything” attitude. People are generally idiots at the best of times, and some substances are far too potent to have easy access to.

But, I can understand that by legalizing drugs, the government can impose it’s own control methods that would deter people from abusing heroin and such.

290

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
If someone can prove Marijuana is harmless or benign with a long term, properly funded non-biased study, I’m quite happy for it to be legalized. However, I’m not a fan of the blanket “legalize everything” attitude. People are generally idiots at the best of times, and some substances are far too potent to have easy access to.

But, I can understand that by legalizing drugs, the government can impose it’s own control methods that would deter people from abusing heroin and such. [/quote]

There are such studies.

You might not know this, but outside of designer drugs, pretty much every chemical and its effects on the human body have been researched. All of them.

You might not be a fan of legalizing everything, but some of us believe in freedom and when you believe in that you believe your “wouldn’ts” are not everyone else’s “can’ts”.

What’re these potent drugs you mention that people shouldn’t have easy access to? I really don’t think you understand drug potency.

291

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.

As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?

If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]

Good post. This whole thing turned into a debate over legalization which has nothing to do with the orginal post.

BTW I’ve lost a friend and had two injured during a “low risk” marijuana warrant.[/quote]

I’m sorry for your loss. But, I would think you would be for decriminalization of marijuana in that it would take LEO’s out of harms way. You know there is a never ending supply of this stuff right? It literally grows out of the ground. As long as there is abject poverty in our inner cities and rural areas there will be no shortage of people willing to risk their worthless lives to sell it.

292

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Mettahl wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

Did you know that both of those are illegal? Yeah. That was an excellent example.[/quote]

Did you know that alcohol used to be illegal? And people made the same arguments you’re making to get it legalized? [/quote]

Yeah it was called prohibition. And they lifted it because it was retarded. People were drinking moonshine at going blind. It made Al Capone rich(er). It was the same law that made marijuana illegal. It was never lifted for marijuana because it was associated with blacks, mexican migrant workers, “reefer madness” and jazz music and all of that was very scary to the powers that be.

Now that we know its not dangerous, might be time to think about lifting that prohibition?

293

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
What’re these potent drugs you mention that people shouldn’t have easy access to? I really don’t think you understand drug potency.[/quote]

Highly addictive substances like Heroin for starters. PCP, methamphetamine etc. Not a big fan of cocaine in certain forms either.

I understand people wanting total unadulterated freedom, and that “if it doesn’t harm anyone else, why not?”, that’s fine if you live by yourself in the middle of nowhere, but that doesn’t gel as well in a society like ours. Everything has a cause and effect, one person’s substance abuse gets out of hand, suddenly they can’t function properly at their job, in turn that effects something else and so forth.

294

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
What’re these potent drugs you mention that people shouldn’t have easy access to? I really don’t think you understand drug potency.[/quote]

Highly addictive substances like Heroin for starters. PCP, methamphetamine etc. Not a big fan of cocaine in certain forms either.

I understand people wanting total unadulterated freedom, and that “if it doesn’t harm anyone else, why not?”, that’s fine if you live by yourself in the middle of nowhere, but that doesn’t gel as well in a society like ours. Everything has a cause and effect, one person’s substance abuse gets out of hand, suddenly they can’t function properly at their job, in turn that effects something else and so forth.[/quote]

Weed man. Weed.

295

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

LOL no, actually, it’s not like that.

The person I quoted said if weed is demonstrably harmful it should be illegal. Alcohol is demonstrably more harmful than the majority of illicit drugs and it is legal. Therefore, health reasons are not sufficient justification for a substance’s legality.

Let’s shh with the analogies, they confuse you too much.[/quote]

Your argument is basically “let’s add fuel to the already burning alcohol fire”.[/quote]

Your argument is basically nonsensical at this point.[/quote]

Believe whatever you want. You’re just in denial.

296

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

LOL no, actually, it’s not like that.

The person I quoted said if weed is demonstrably harmful it should be illegal. Alcohol is demonstrably more harmful than the majority of illicit drugs and it is legal. Therefore, health reasons are not sufficient justification for a substance’s legality.

Let’s shh with the analogies, they confuse you too much.[/quote]

Your argument is basically “let’s add fuel to the already burning alcohol fire”.[/quote]

Your argument is basically nonsensical at this point.[/quote]

Believe whatever you want. You’re just in denial.[/quote]

Of what? Your last claim didn’t mean anything. Now you’re making assertions you have not rationally proven.

297

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
What’re these potent drugs you mention that people shouldn’t have easy access to? I really don’t think you understand drug potency.[/quote]

Highly addictive substances like Heroin for starters. PCP, methamphetamine etc. Not a big fan of cocaine in certain forms either.

I understand people wanting total unadulterated freedom, and that “if it doesn’t harm anyone else, why not?”, that’s fine if you live by yourself in the middle of nowhere, but that doesn’t gel as well in a society like ours. Everything has a cause and effect, one person’s substance abuse gets out of hand, suddenly they can’t function properly at their job, in turn that effects something else and so forth.[/quote]

Heroin is by no means a “potent” drug.

You’re scared of PCP because of media hype. It’s almost as if you don’t realize it’s not JUST the drug, it’s the PERSON who determines their behavior on a substance. This is why many people have used PCP and not ran down a street naked or whatever. Outlier cases.

And, again, just because you’re “not a fan” of a drug does not mean it should be illegal.

A user’s substance abuse is generally a problem today because of the illegality of the activity, not the activity itself. There are so many functioning users and addicts out there that your argument holds no weight.

298

For the moron(s) in this thread who can’t seem to keep up, the argument for weed is simple. Unless you actively campaigning for alcohol to be banned, you are a hypocrite. The health and well being reason will not wash here because this LEGAL substance is much much much much worse.

Take a handful of Paracetamol tablets (that stuff you can get from the supermarket or chemist with no prescription) and tell me how that works out for you. I’ll try to overdose on Marijuana.

Better yet, I will smoke weed heavily most days of the week for the next 5 years and you do the same with alcohol. Tell me how that works out.

Take some anti-depressants (it’s not hard to get a prescription these days), and I’ll smoke some pot. Tell me how that works out.

The big concern here is the OVERreaction by the police. If you are planning on arresting a stoner, you only need one cop (dressed in an elephant suit and he should say “If you want to know the secret of being, come with me”).

I typed the above REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLY slowly for you to keep up.

299

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
What’re these potent drugs you mention that people shouldn’t have easy access to? I really don’t think you understand drug potency.[/quote]

Highly addictive substances like Heroin for starters. PCP, methamphetamine etc. Not a big fan of cocaine in certain forms either.

I understand people wanting total unadulterated freedom, and that “if it doesn’t harm anyone else, why not?”, that’s fine if you live by yourself in the middle of nowhere, but that doesn’t gel as well in a society like ours. Everything has a cause and effect, one person’s substance abuse gets out of hand, suddenly they can’t function properly at their job, in turn that effects something else and so forth.[/quote]

Heroin is by no means a “potent” drug.

You’re scared of PCP because of media hype. It’s almost as if you don’t realize it’s not JUST the drug, it’s the PERSON who determines their behavior on a substance. This is why many people have used PCP and not ran down a street naked or whatever. Outlier cases.

And, again, just because you’re “not a fan” of a drug does not mean it should be illegal.

A user’s substance abuse is generally a problem today because of the illegality of the activity, not the activity itself. There are so many functioning users and addicts out there that your argument holds no weight.[/quote]

I have been around just about every drug there is. The one that always scares me is alcohol. When alcohol shows up to the party you know something is going to happen. No other drug makes people as crazy and as violent than alcohol does. I know people who have done coke since the 70’s and they are educated, have jobs and families and are generally average jane’s and joe’s. Being around people like this make you realize how exaggerated the propaganda against drugs is. Even according to the feds 75% of all drug users are employed. Something like 80% of all drug crimes are due to prohibition, not the use of the drug. The other 20% are property crimes to support those expensive habits(prohibition tends to inflated the prices) The drug war isn’t about the drugs, it is about mass incarceration and stripping the rights of citizens(Jim Crow anyone?)

300

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

I have been around just about every drug there is. The one that always scares me is alcohol. When alcohol shows up to the party you know something is going to happen. No other drug makes people as crazy and as violent than alcohol does. [/quote]

Really? Maybe you just hang around assholes. The last 10 parties I went to had alcohol. People drank, some got drunk off their ass and there were no problems. Nothing “happened”. Yeah, alcohol is worse than weed. But if people are drinking responsibly, which most of my friends do, it’s not a problem. So let’s stop with the blanket statements.