Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Osborn F Enready]

For those of you who think the Drug War is a good idea, please click and watch the link on the web-page below. This video is put together by ex-DEA, ex-Sheriff, ex-Police and current law enforcement groups to explain to the public (minus the bureaucracy of government go-betweens) the lies of the Drug War, the failure it has become, and the faults of the logic. They explain it as ONLY they could, since they were THE enforcers of THE laws in question.

http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm

Even the enforcers understand what damage this prohibition is doing to our citizens and kids, as they see it each day with their own eyes.


STOP the war on drugs, STRIP the unconstitutional laws from the books, and PUT police, military and government back to the job they are supposed to be doing.

Read the mission statement from LEAP themselves:
http://leap.cc/about/index.htm


We must stop this 69 BILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR FAILURE! :(

( $69,000,000,000.00 per year equates to $230.00 PER HEAD in the nation at 300,000,000 people. NOT WORKING people, but PEOPLE, PER YEAR!!!!!! )

Absolute madness!!! :rolleyes:

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I couldn't agree with you more Osborn. Few realize the valuable resources we'd save, from billions and billions of dollars to an immense amount of manpower that could be used elsewhere. It would make our law enforcement more efficient and more unified. We wouldn't be so hated in South America, possibly lowering terrorist threats. There are so many positives that come out of this.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree, and you forgot to mention the respect it would earn from those who witnesses the change toward a MORE RESPONSIBLE government by all those who have been against prohibition since the outset.

I know people who lived through the late 60's and 70' peace and love era that smoked pot then, and still smoke pot now, and many of them still don't think it will become legal due to all the bureaucracy in Washington and the corporate ties to stop hemp from being legalized. Hasn't stopped them from smoking a single day though.....

[Osborn F Enready]

How many "anti-druggers" out there clicked on the movie link?

Change your minds, or not honest enough to view the opposition for its merits?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How many "anti-druggers" out there clicked on the movie link?

Well, I certainly don't fall into that catagory, but I did like the link.


The lesson to be learnes, as articulated in the link, is that after all is said, and done, the same 1.3 percent of the population that had drug problems before the War on Drugs are still reflected in the latest numbers. There has been zero reduction in the amount of users.


Drugs still get into the country ( those that are not domestically produced anyway ), and the Black Market created by prohibition still profits from drug trafficking 60 years after it's creation.


It's time for the government to confess that it has created another monster, and the War on Drugs is not the solution to that problem, or to the drug "problem" if you insist on using that terminology.

[Chancellor]

While I agree that the drug war has not worked, and I agree that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to engage in that war, what do you propose to do about the people who are addicted to these various substances? Do you propose (as the leftists would) to provide free treatment programs? Do you propose that people should be responsible for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choosing to use such substances (for which the leftists would accuse you of being cold, cruel and heartless)?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Chancellor While I agree that the drug war has not worked, and I agree that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to engage in that war, what do you propose to do about the people who are addicted to these various substances? Do you propose (as the leftists would) to provide free treatment programs? Do you propose that people should be responsible for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choosing to use such substances (for which the leftists would accuse you of being cold, cruel and heartless)?

Saving 69 billion dollars, you could easily do all of that...

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Why not legalise and tax? The "gangs" would immeadiatly lose income. Yes other means of exploitation would be found.

Most of the "fun" of taking them will be surpressed as it is no longer breaking the law. As with alchohol introduce testing and those whom are deemed unfit penalised.

Treatment programmes could be intialy funded from the gained taxes.

It is likely violent drug related crime would reduce.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Saving 69 billion dollars, you could easily do all of that...

Yes, but why should the government do any of it? Where does the Constitution give the government the authority to protect us from ourselves? Why should the taxpayers pay for the consequences of someone's choice to use such substances?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel Why not legalise and tax? The "gangs" would immeadiatly lose income. Yes other means of exploitation would be found. Most of the "fun" of taking them will be surpressed as it is no longer breaking the law. As with alchohol introduce testing and those whom are deemed unfit penalised. Treatment programmes could be intialy funded from the gained taxes. It is likely violent drug related crime would reduce.

Again, though, why must the government fund treatment programs?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, but why should the government do any of it? Where does the Constitution give the government the authority to protect us from ourselves? Why should the taxpayers pay for the consequences of someone's choice to use such substances?

Is that a joke? Do you want to take away the CIA, FBI, local/state police, etc.? That is a great example of the government protecting us from ourselves...we need that protection from ourselves. Let's not lie to ourselves either, humans are unpredictable.

A lot of it involves the environment you grow up in. Addiction occurs too quick and before you know it, you're spending all your money on booze, cocaine, and herion. A chance at a program could even spur the economy as well as help our own people. No one wants to get addicted to drugs or alcohol.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Is that a joke? Do you want to take away the CIA, FBI, local/state police, etc.? That is a great example of the government protecting us from ourselves...we need that protection from ourselves. Let's not lie to ourselves either, humans are unpredictable. A lot of it involves the environment you grow up in. Addiction occurs too quick and before you know it, you're spending all your money on booze, cocaine, and herion. A chance at a program could even spur the economy as well as help our own people. No one wants to get addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Taking away federal law enforcement isn't a bad idea. The purpose of local law enforcement is to protect law-abiding citizens from the criminals.

It doesn't matter that people don't want to become addicted to drugs or alcohol (or tobacco or caffeine, for that matter): show me where the Constitution says it's the government's responsibility to treat people who have become addicted to substances they chose to take.

As for the environment in which one is raised, I was one of those Welfare kids who ran the streets unsupervised. I didn't start using drugs when I was 11, I stopped using them when I was 11 - and without the help of some government program.

[Amuse]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How many "anti-druggers" out there clicked on the movie link? Change your minds, or not honest enough to view the opposition for its merits?

I can't watch the video cause I'm on dialup and drugs will be legalized by the time it downloads! But I have said for years the reason government doesn't legalize controlled substances is too many government employees would be out of work. I also think the religious right still has way to much influence in Washington. Our pres being one of them.
Think about this: How many laws do you think are on the books at the state and federal level that are a direct result of religious influence? How many laws are targeted to benifit select groups over the majority of others? Anti discrimination laws is a good example. Other stupid laws for example is I live in an area where you can't purchase alcohol on Sunday before noon. I know, you're thinking so what, buy it on Sat. right? Well I like to do my shopping on Sunday while everybody else is in church- less crowded. Other counties in my area you can't buy alcohol at all on Sunday. The books are full of oppressive laws.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Chancellor Taking away federal law enforcement isn't a bad idea. The purpose of local law enforcement is to protect law-abiding citizens from the criminals. It doesn't matter that people don't want to become addicted to drugs or alcohol (or tobacco or caffeine, for that matter): show me where the Constitution says it's the government's responsibility to treat people who have become addicted to substances they chose to take. As for the environment in which one is raised, I was one of those Welfare kids who ran the streets unsupervised. I didn't start using drugs when I was 11, I stopped using them when I was 11 - and without the help of some government program.

Please back up your first idea of removing law enforcement. That is a commie move that would go down the drain in a matter of days. It won't even get that far because people aren't stupid enough to take away law enforcement.

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights states that any areas not covered in the constitution or the amendments are left up for the state's to decide (i.e. abortion).

Don't get me wrong, I think welfare is totally inefficient and only does worse damage to the character and work ethic of the family on welfare. BUT, just because a program doesn't work, doesn't mean the goal of the program is flawed, just the program itself. Therefore, I think a good revisiting into how we can spend low amounts of money while offering (paid?) programs to educate and motivate lower class citizens on drugs and offer assistance in how to quit addictions. Careful attention could be paid to locate progress in some people, and lack of progress in others. See, that took like 3 minutes and there's a few ideas right there. Flaws? Sure, but it won't take a braniac to figure a better system out--you just need a drive to achieve the same goal.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said: While I agree that the drug war has not worked, and I agree that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to engage in that war, what do you propose to do about the people who are addicted to these various substances?

I say:
I propose to let THEM live as THEY see fit with respect to their rights, and the rights of others.

I think a person should be able to choose to die also. Why shouldn't they be allowed to die from a drug overdose, or abuse, as opposed to other methods?

It is their right to choose what they consume, as long as it only affects themselves.

Chancellor said: Do you propose (as the leftists would) to provide free treatment programs?

I say:
NO! If a city, township, commune, church or individual wished to offer treatment programs, they could of their own volition, and based on their peoples votes or governing bodies and funding limitations. I as a citizen can not constitutionally be forced to pay for treatment of another for ANY ailment, birth defect or bad decision that individual makes, or is dealt by nature.

Chancellor said: Do you propose that people should be responsible for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choosing to use such substances (for which the leftists would accuse you of being cold, cruel and heartless)?

I say:
I believe all people are born with inherant rights, some of which are ENUMERATED in the Constitution. Of those rights, is an ability to pursue happiness with respect to the rights of others.
Happiness can only be defined by the individual, whereas rights are enumerated and when not enumerated left up to an INFORMED JURY of the individuals peers, based on the inherant rights of man we hold to be self evident truths.

Prohibition of any substance violates those inherant rights, and the fight against alchohol prohibition PROVED it beyond a reasonable doubt both in outcome, and in effects of creation of the black market. This is why the bi-partisan conspirators circumvented the Constitution under the "commerce clause" to make illegal all drugs after the failure of alchohol prohibition.

As far as being deemed hard, cruel, harsh and heartless?

FOCK THEM. If they refuse to admit the laws of nature, they are the ones not being realistic, reasonable or worthy of my attention or respect. As a reasonable man, I can only be expected to reason with those CAPABLE of reason. An individual that denies they are an individual, and not a collective, is not rational.

We see the laws of nature all around us in every specie, including humans, regardless of laws. Mans failure is the depth of his compassion. Once the individual allows his compassion to "allow him to believe" he knows what is better for another, than that person themself, they have been fooled in a fools game.

The reason the saying "you don't bite the hand that feeds you" exists, is because it is a lesson never learned, and it is endlessly repeated to those that bite the hand that feeds them. In nature, when you bite the hand that feeds you, and you are DEPENDENT on that hand, YOU STARVE, hence no need for a lesson.

Political Correctness, "time and place" laws, victimless crimes, and the "nanny-state" mentality brought on by socialism is what has ruined this nation because people have been allowed the freedom, the ability, the wealth creation ability, the idle time and the FREEDOM of thought, to become lazy, ignorant and dependent.

We have removed responsiblility from people, therfore, we get more irresponsible people.

I have a quote for those nanny-staters who claim I am cruel, heartless and thuggish because I WOULD FIGHT FOR ALL PEOPLES rights to decide what is best for themselves, with the only clause being it must be WITHIN RESPECT OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERs.

This is the quote:
“All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upward on the miseries or credulities of mankind.”
-Joseph Conrad

As an individual, I can control the level of "force" I am initiating against others. As a collective part of a system that I am FORCED to pay into, I have no control over the level of force THOSE I PAY TO ISSUE FORCE must adhere to.

This would be being FORCED to pay protection money, when the only protection needed is that from those that seek payment for protection.

So far in all of history, there have only been two base roots of economics that I can find.
Socialism and Capitalism. This would mean the world and all its people have been a "living experiment" in economics, since this is all we know. So far, I think it is safe to say that capitalism has by far shown to be superior in its ability to foster ideas, growth, incentive, technology, improve life, lengthen life, and allow the greatest amount of freedom at the same time as stability.

Any time either is applied, it works if seperated from any other ideas, since with no other ideas there is NO DIFFERENCE, NO REASON FOR REBELLION. However, since the collectivist idea is only beneficial to the collective as a whole, individuals over history have shown to drive themselves away from that theory of their own will, and desires for property, self enrichment of education and personal wealth(food, luxury, quality of life items). Now that "incentive" has been discovered by the individuals in all societies, the concept of individual liberty will NEVER die. It was a necessary part of human evolution, and I think that right now we are experiencing another wave of human evolution, in understanding that the individual is the core of all things, man/nature/universe. We will have transcended that leap of evolution when individual liberty takes precedence over dogma, politics and national isolation of the principle.

You want the secret to world peace and unity?

In this order:
1) If all nations respected the rights of all people as equals in the eyes of the law, based on inherant human rights (as listed in the United States Bill of Rights, not the U.N. charter)
2) If all nations governments only jobs were to enforce those rights, by being limited to non-infringement of those rights by the people, armed to remove it if necessary, accountable through a system of total transparency.
3) A free market between all nations citizens, removal of all taxation except by local cities or states, and if the entire worlds nations were viewed as Independent states, based within the framework of a Constitution much like the United States original version, with exception to racism and gender based laws.

In other words, if all people respected each others rights as individuals, the world would be a pretty damn nice place. Probably as close to Utopia as one could wish for, since all states would be able to be completely different, independent, and free of threats of violence from "other nations" based on rights issues, as well as free from economic threat, since all would have equal rights in respect to law and limitations, trade and tariffs.

Total political, ideological, and economic freedom.

Almost too simple isn't it?

[Osborn F Enready]

Arawn-Ap-Hywel said: Why not legalise and tax?

I say:
Because it would be unjust, and unconstituional taxation.

[Osborn F Enready]

Soccerfreak said: Is that a joke? Do you want to take away the CIA, FBI, local/state police, etc.?

I say:
CIA, YES! FBI, YES get rid of them BOTH. There is a need for national security, but both of these programs are corrupt from the ground up, and any realistic attempt must be started with full complaince to constitutional ability and limitations. The Military is responsible for national security outside the border, and the State and Local police are for the rest.

Soccerfreak said: That is a great example of the government protecting us from ourselves...we need that protection from ourselves. Let's not lie to ourselves either, humans are unpredictable.

I say:
Totally flawed theory here.

Humans are unpredictable, so we need to put humans in charge of other humans, having greater power to use force, to protect other humans from themselves? The obvious question.....If all humans are unpredictable, how do you appoint those to power, to protect the ignorant and be guaranteed they are free from corruption? You can't. You must give them power and then "wait and see" what they do with it. Why not give all people the power to do as they wish WITH RESPECT to the rights of individuals, and LET THEM make that choice, and use LAW ENFORCEMENT for what it is MEANT to be used for, which is to enforce the LAW once a LAW has been broken?

Your argument doesn't make sense.

Soccerfreak said: A lot of it involves the environment you grow up in. Addiction occurs too quick and before you know it, you're spending all your money on booze, cocaine, and herion. A chance at a program could even spur the economy as well as help our own people. No one wants to get addicted to drugs or alcohol.

I say:
The reason there is an infatuation with drugs and alchohol is because they have been outlawed and demonized by a society that is riddled with users, who know the facts.

The argument that marijuana is harmful, addictive, and dangerous is laughable to 90% of those that try it, and the other 90% are either highly succeptible or liars. ( in both cases the exception by majority ) NO person has EVER died from a pot overdose, yet we arrest Millions of people for its possesion, distribution, consumption and growth. Millions of people have died from liquor overdose, yet it is legal to purchase, consume, brew and distribute.

The enitre argument is flawed.

Either people can think for themselves, or they can't. Government is not a mom, or a dad, it is a FIRE OF FORCE, to be used only when absolutely necessary to STOP the infringement of rights.
This would be an intitation of force to INFRINGE on rights, not protect them.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Please back up your first idea of removing law enforcement. That is a commie move that would go down the drain in a matter of days. It won't even get that far because people aren't stupid enough to take away law enforcement. Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights states that any areas not covered in the constitution or the amendments are left up for the state's to decide (i.e. abortion). Don't get me wrong, I think welfare is totally inefficient and only does worse damage to the character and work ethic of the family on welfare. BUT, just because a program doesn't work, doesn't mean the goal of the program is flawed, just the program itself. Therefore, I think a good revisiting into how we can spend low amounts of money while offering (paid?) programs to educate and motivate lower class citizens on drugs and offer assistance in how to quit addictions. Careful attention could be paid to locate progress in some people, and lack of progress in others. See, that took like 3 minutes and there's a few ideas right there. Flaws? Sure, but it won't take a braniac to figure a better system out--you just need a drive to achieve the same goal.

I said take away FEDERAL law enforcement. I really wish you'd read what was actually written.

There is nothing in what I posted to contradict the amendment leaving those things not enumerated in the Constitution either to the states or to the people.

As for Welfare, the goal of the program is arguably unconstitutional.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Chancellor Again, though, why must the government fund treatment programs?

They could use the money from the new taxes on drugs. But hey let everyone go cold turkey

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Arawn-Ap-Hywel said: Why not legalise and tax? I say: Because it would be unjust, and unconstituional taxation.

Osborne F Enready It's constitutional status I would not know. Unjust , do those in the US not already pay some form of tax on alchohol/cigarettes? If not then hey it would be unjust :)