Three Winnipeg LEO's injured serving prohibition warrant

[Osborn F Enready]

Three Winnipeg police officers hurt by gunshots while executing drug warrant

WINNIPEG (CP) - Grim, determined Winnipeg police officers spent early Friday trying to figure out what went wrong when three of their colleagues were shot while executing a drug warrant. The officers were being treated for gunshot wounds at the Health Sciences Centre hospital, police said. The suspect in the shootings was also injured and taken to hospital. More than two dozen police cars were scattered throughout a cordoned-off neighbourhood on the city's south side as officers scoured the area and interviewed witnesses in the aftermath of the shootings late Thursday.

When are we going to demand we stop putting our fine law officers in these dangers over drug related issues?

This happened in Canada, but it happens in the U.S. and many other places everyday.

Illegalizing drugs strengthens and adds financial support to the black market, and creates these problems. Common sense legalization laws only make sense.

[brien]

Only when the majority of voters demand that illegal drugs, and their deleterious effects, are handled as a social health problem rather than a criminal problem, which forces the government to prosecute offenders under criminal statutes, will law enforcement be able to direct its efforts in dealing with other violent crime(s). Remove the criminal element from illegal drugs by making them legal, and one removes the violence from the mix. This also will free up law enforcement to redirect its efforts in dealing with more serious violent crime. Legalizing all drugs is a win / win situation for society.

[Kamehameha34]

Yes, let's remove all law while we're at it, then we wouldn't even need law enforcement! -.-

[Osborn F Enready]

Who said that?

I respect law, and our Constitution.

I don't respect a legal system, or police enforcement that enforces UNCONSTITUTONAL LAWS, which drug prohibition CLEARLY is.

[Kamehameha34]

I don't see how it is unconstitutional. Enlighten me.

[Osborn F Enready]

Its called, the history of our nation, and its Constitutional Limitations.

We have always taken a stance against prohibition in this country, as it is our individual rights that protect us from "government prohibition", by being U.S. citizens. We are Constitutionally recognized as individuals capable of making choices, that alter our own destiny, in all areas of our life.

Our constitution protects us from prohibition of free speech by limitation on government.
Our constitution protects us from prohibition of relgious beliefs by limitation on government.
Our constitution protects us from prohibition of a free press by limitations on government.
Our constitution protects us from prohibition to assemble and petition government, by limitations on government.
Our constitution protects us from prohibition of arms by limitations on government.
Our constitution protects us from prohibition of privacy by limitations on government.
Our constitution protects us from prohibition of trial by our peers by limitations on government.
Our constitution protects us from prohibition of rights not even enumerated, and clarifies the reservation of those rights for the people, by limitations on government.

We have a right to pursue happiness, as long as that pursuit does not infringe on the rights of another.

Self medication, or control of our own "physical state", is our responsibility alone, our decision alone, and our perogative, alone.

They outlawed, and took control of drugs under a specific venue of application, which was built on false information, especially concerning the "effects" of marijuana. They then used this fraudulent information to start a propaganda campaign, to illegalize hemp to empower the paper industry.

To put this in perspective:
They lied, and used those lies as a basis for legislation that OVER-reached governments ability to govern. Not ONLY a power grab, but a power grab built on fraudulent information, as well as a hidden incentive to create unmonitored, and fluid cash income via taxes, confiscation, incarceration of property of those who "went against" the law.

Their basis for prohibition was false, which really doesn't matter because prohibition has shown to fail ALL goals that were set for it, when created, over historical evalutation.

Hemp was once a national crop.
Alcohol was once a national drink.

Here is the best link I have found on the failures of prohibition, of all types, that is mainly focused on fixing the problems of drug prohibition, by legalization.
History of Alcohol Prohibition

Heres a link to a CATO report, on the failures and consequences of prohibition.
Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure

Heres a good link to a book that shoots down the "economic theory" of prohibition, using factual data and historical examples.
Economics of Prohibition, The

Here is a link to Law Officers AGAINST Prohibition:
- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

The dangers and threat of prohibition, FAR outweigh the dangers of any drug known to man.

So, perhaps a better question: Can you show me under what authority prohibition of any substance is constitutional, other than a substance that creates a "DIRECT" threat to those around it? (Nuclear material, WMD, etc.)

Can you know show me how that authority applies to drugs, or alcohol?

[samsara15]

At the very least, make drugs a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, and end this stupid War on Drugs and stop this greedy government seizure of property.