When recreational drugs are legal...

[celtic_crippler]

Hardly any...we get some asset forfeiture money but that cant be spent on positions, wages or benefits, only equipment and training. I drive a Ford minivan with all the assest we bring in. Lol.

Federal grant money to my PD strictly for dope? Nada. We have one detective on the DEA task force and they provide him with 6 hrs a week OT. Most federal funds are designed to fund gear and OT on initiatives like DWI checkpoints. 99% of it is directed at terrorism these days.

Of course what metro pds like NYC or State/County coppers are getting I don't know.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Sounds like you need a lobbyist. You're missing out on big time federal money. LOL

 

[Tgace]

Nice for them....did they actually get it?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[celtic_crippler]

Nice for them....did they actually get it?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you don't actually read my posts. Go back and read post #100

 

[Tgace]

Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you don't actually read my posts. Go back and read post #100

Come on...as if you have been reading all of ours Lol!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Come on...as if you have been reading all of ours Lol!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

jesus christ. is it any wonder the discussion goes nowhere?

Fwiw, I've read every post so far.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

the kind that you get when you criminalize benign things.

Please don't tell me there is not a good amount of resourced dedicated to combat 'under age drinking'.
Especially when it targets groups that otherwise can legally drive a ton of steel on public roads with 4 or 7 people as passengers....while on the way to die in a war or the voting booth, you know, people who are otherwise considered 'adult'

or the ATF officer hanging out at the liquor store...

It would actually be a state liquor authority officer. The ATF is a sledgehammer for a teen drinker fly.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

jesus christ. is it any wonder the discussion goes nowhere?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

When I'm checking in on my cell I'm not about to read every link posted as "evidence" and sometimes I'm simply responding to one post up instead of leafing through 5 missed pages on my phone during my coffee break. Sorry.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

Of 130 sworn officers in my PD, 5 of them are assigned to narcotics. Aside from the feds/DEA, most departments will go on business as usuall if pot were legalized overnight. We would be just as busy locking up all the robbers, rapists, domestic violence suspects as we always were. With all the legalized dope I'd wager we would be busier than ever.

How can we believe anything we hear from drug users and people with a television conception of law enforcement? Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic either.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Well look, it's essentially the same argument against public sector unions. People can vote themselves policies that benefit them at the cost of another group. Happens all of the time. I don't think the influence of this conflict of interest on ideology is something that can be overlooked.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Come on...as if you have been reading all of ours Lol!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I read yours. They're full of "I, I, I"... "Me, Me, Me"... and "My, My, My". All of your points are based on your limited personal views with no citations of sources other than your limited perspective and experience. I would love you to address my previous bullet points and actually cite a legitmate source for your data.

 

[Steve]

When I'm checking in on my cell I'm not about to read every link posted as "evidence". Sorry.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Not a judgement as much as it's an observation. If w are all"taLking" then no ones listening.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Well look, it's essentially the same argument against public sector unions. People can vote themselves policies that benefit them at the cost of another group. Happens all of the time. I don't think the influence of this conflict of interest on ideology is something that can be overlooked.

And you are comparing this to a discussion on a martial arts forum? Seriously?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

Well look, it's essentially the same argument against public sector unions. People can vote themselves policies that benefit them at the cost of another group. Happens all of the time. I don't think the influence of this conflict of interest on ideology is something that can be overlooked.

And what percentage of the voting population do you think we LEO's take up? Do you seriosly think we are big enough to stop legalization if it was truly the will of the people?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[celtic_crippler]

And you are comparing this to a discussion on a martial arts forum? Seriously?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

FYI... this thread isn't about martial arts. Bob apparently assumed that martial artists were capable of and willing to discuss other things. Are you capable of replying to a post with anything other than the equivilant of "yo momma"? I only ask because such quips aren't conducive to moving the thread along in a productive manner.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11148

"Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is president of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York City. He was President Lyndon B. Johnson’s top aide for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969 and Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Carter Administration."

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

What...you didn't read this? Lol!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

And what percentage of the voting population do you think we LEO's take up? Do you seriosly think we are big enough to stop legalization if it was truly the will of the people?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

A 40 billion dollar industry is nothing to sneeze at. I'm sure the economic ramifications spread it's wings over a large part of the public. Combine this with the prison industry which also hugely benefits from the drug war and now you have a legitimate special interest group.

 

[celtic_crippler]

What...you didn't read this? Lol!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Interesting…

I went beyond the article you cited from a biased on-line newsletter and went directly to the source the article cited, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

According to it, marijuana use has increased by about 6,600 new users a day.

That being said, their survey (which relies on the ones surveyed to be honest in their responses) only reflects 8.9% of the population. That’s a very small sample. But let’s take a look at what it actually reported anyway… shall we?

It states that the number of illicit drug users age 12 and older actually increased from 2008 to 2010.

It states that the number of marijuana users age 12 and older increased from 14.4 million in 2007 to 17.4 million in 2010.

It states that the rate of current use of illicit drugs among young adults aged 18 to 25 increased from 19.6% in 2008 to 21.2% in 2009 and 21.5% in 2010.

It states that among those aged 50 to 59, the rate of past month illicit drug use increased from 2.7% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2010.

Um… how is this supposed to support your argument that the War on Drugs is actually working again?

Would you care to address any of my bullet points now? ROFLMAO

 

[celtic_crippler]

Really? From the same source...

The estimates of drug use prevalence from the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health (NSDUH) are designed to describe the target population of the survey—the
civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 or older living in the United
States. This population includes almost 98 percent of the total U.S. population
aged 12 or older. However, it excludes some small subpopulations that may have
very different drug use patterns. For example, the survey excludes active
military personnel, who have been shown to have significantly lower rates of
illicit drug use. The survey also excludes two groups that have been shown to
have higher rates of illicit drug use: persons living in institutional group
quarters, such as prisons and residential drug use treatment centers, and
homeless persons not living in a shelter. Readers are reminded to consider the
exclusion of these subpopulations when interpreting results.

 

[Steve]

Really? From the same source...

I posted a link to the actual report earlier as well.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[celtic_crippler]

I posted a link to the actual report earlier as well.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Yeah... it's pretty bad when your source actually supports that of the opposing viewpoint. ROFLMAO :bangahead:

 

[ballen0351]

According to it, marijuana use has increased by about 6,600 new users a day.

Your proud of that? That great logic well we have 6,600 new users a day so lets just make it all legal.
If its so good "get a better lobbist" to fight to make it legal.

That being said, their survey (which relies on the ones surveyed to be honest in their responses) only reflects 8.9% of the population. That’s a very small sample. But let’s take a look at what it actually reported anyway… shall we?

It states that the number of illicit drug users age 12 and older actually increased from 2008 to 2010.

It states that the number of marijuana users age 12 and older increased from 14.4 million in 2007 to 17.4 million in 2010.

How much higher will the numbers go if its no longer illegal?

It states that the rate of current use of illicit drugs among young adults aged 18 to 25 increased from 19.6% in 2008 to 21.2% in 2009 and 21.5% in 2010.

It states that among those aged 50 to 59, the rate of past month illicit drug use increased from 2.7% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2010.

Um… how is this supposed to support your argument that the War on Drugs is actually working again?

Would you care to address any of my bullet points now? ROFLMAO

there are several factors which can lead to the rise in drug use. #1 the legalization of "medical" marijuana in many west coast states which has created a much greater availibility of the product. Most of the Marijuana we have now in this state is sent thru the mail, UPS, and FEX EX from the west coast. #2 the economy has gone down and unemployment has gone up and there is a feeling of "giving up" from the young adults that cant find work that also applies to the other age group of fired older workers 50+ that now cant find jobs. #3 since 2001 Law enforcement prioritys have shifted from Gang violence and Drug enforcemnt to terror operations. Most of our grant money come directly from Homeland Security and is to be used to combat terror. It useless crap that we dont need but we keep getting money for stuff. Every year we get free boats, Chemical suits, radiation detectors, cameras, ect and when I say free I of course mean the tax payers paid for it. Our "intellegence" unit is 3 times the size of our Narcotics unit and has the same amount of people as our violent crimestask force which I am now a member of. When I was in Narcotics our entire budget was from drug seizures we were the only revenue positive unit in the department. The federal drug asset seizure laws allow local departments so seize drug money and use it to fund other drug fighting programas. When we starting keeping track of amounts of money and assets seized my LT who just retired a few months ago had a total lifetime seizure from his cases of over 1.9 million when we figured it out he worked 18 years and before retirement and his adverage salary for his 18 years was $63,000 per year so he made the city money (now we didnt figure in benefits to the salary because basically we were to lazy and didnt care). So since 2001 not only has drug use gone up so has gang violence because its no longer the prority it once was.

I just think its interesting if we used the same logic for other crimes people would be outraged but because people want to smoke pot they can twist the numbers however they want.
Your upset that the drug use number are up yet at same time are upset that we have record high number of people in jail for drug crimes. Well if drug use is on the rise it would also show more people would be caught right? More users = higher jail numbers

If we said Domestic assaults between spouces were up 20% over the last five year the War on domestic violence is a failure we need to just make it legal. After all its my wife why is it any of your concern if I want to smack her around a bit. She stays with me so she doesnt care. I only beat her at home so it does not bother anyone else and look at the super high numbers of guys in jail for beating his wife and they are still married so obviously the wives dont care so why should you. It was legal after all for years remember the "rule of thumb" Ive even got case law to back it up 1868 case, State v. Rhodes, where a husband was found innocent because, the judge said, "the defendent had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb,"
Its the same argument different crime and it sounds insane