USA is number one in something, and it ain't freedom.

[bukowski72]

Despite the FBI and other law enforcement agencies asking for warrantless wiretaps and the end of encryption programs -- What percentage of wiretap applications were approved in 2015?

 

100% LOL
http://www.vocativ.com/336409/united-states-wiretaps/

4,148 wiretaps were asked for in 2015

"Of note is that despite FBI director James Comey’s repeated insistence of an endemic of terrorists and other criminals “going dark”—using chat programs that use end-to-end encryption, like iMessage or WhatsApp, making it impossible to easily understand a wiretapped message—only six federal wiretaps were reported encrypted in 2015, and two of those were successfully decrypted."

[MumblesBadly]

Druff opiates becoming a problem has just as much to do with the nature of that particular addiction as it does availability. Being "dopesick" is absolutely hell on earth and as far as i know only alcohol withdrawl can compare to it.

A little off topic, but when I had my full month of constant dental pain in October 2015, I actually quit the Vicodin about 2 1/2 weeks in, fearing a possible addiction developing.

I didn't feel addicted, but I didn't want to even start down that awful road. I kept thinking about Rush Limbaugh and it scared me away from taking another pill during that month.

I'll take Vicodin again in the future, but not for longer than that period of time.

Your personal experience with a potentially addictive drug should not be generalized to all people. Scientific research has shown that some folks are much more susceptible to becoming addicted to such drugs while the vast majority won't. The problem is that the science to identify those folks before they are perscribed such drugs hasn't been developed.

And the folks who don't get addicted to them then judge the addicts for being morally weak, then follow that up with supporting punishing drug users with jail or prison sentences...

Shit! The prisons are awash in illegal drugs! Much smuggled in by prison workers!!!

[GrenadaRoger]

Only a tiny percentage of those in prison didn't knowingly break the law.

Most of those complaining about the US incarceration rate are doing so from a societal standpoint, as if somehow society is supposed to stop the individual from deciding to commit crimes.

Furthermore, very few in prison are there because they were committing crimes in order to acquire basic necessities. For every guy in prison who was just trying to feed his starving family, there are 1000 who just wanted to get rich the easy way.

The privatized prison system needs reform (though not for the tinfoil hat reasons that judges are supposedly sentencing people in exchange for bribes), but I don't see what we're supposed to do about the incarceration rate.

Ignore crimes and just let people off? That's already happening too much as it is.

Release nonviolent recreational drug users? Okay, but they only make up a tiny percentage of those in prison.

Shorter sentences? I don't think that's a good idea, given that most criminals serve a short percentage of their sentence these days as it is.

Just legalize all drugs. Problem solved...




...or more precisely repeal the previous retarded laws that already ran the exact same cycle with a different substance between 1920 and 1933. That previous substance, alcohol, was much more popular so things escalated quite fast and it was fairly easy to see what piece of legislation, that was lobbied by idiots with good intentions, led to things like Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.

re: your chart--I would not draw the conclusion that the war on drugs was the sole cause for the expansion of the prison population...I believe also occurring during the time of increased prison population was the realization that most crimes are committed by a very few people and by putting those persons away for long times, the crime rate goes down...I recall a Rand Corporation study claiming that--I will see if I can find that on the web somewhere

***update***the study is available as a download PDF at the Rand Corpoation website, the report is named "Rand Research on Career Criminals: An Update on Progress to Date"

cliffs: up to 1970 the penal system focused on rehabbing criminals...but in the 1970's the focus moved to protecting the public by locking up career criminals for long periods of time; rehabbing wasn't working

[MumblesBadly]

...
It is a left-wing fantasy that today's drug dealers will morph into productive members of society if drugs are legalized.

...

Complete decriminalization of drugs in this country would simply lead to a much worse addiction problem than we already have.

Some questions...

(1) Druff, do you have any personal experience of knowing illegal drug dealers? And have all of them continued to deal in drugs?

(2a) What research or case studies of countries that have relaxed drug laws were what you predict here came true?

(2b) Are you aware of how use of marijuana by teens in the Netherlands dropped after it was legalized?

(2c) Are you aware that hard drug use in Portugal fell with the decriminalization of drugs?

(2c) Are you aware that alcoholism rates and alcohol-related deaths fell after Prohibition was repealed?

[adamantium]

...
It is a left-wing fantasy that today's drug dealers will morph into productive members of society if drugs are legalized.

...

Complete decriminalization of drugs in this country would simply lead to a much worse addiction problem than we already have.

Some questions...

(1) Druff, do you have any personal experience of knowing illegal drug dealers? And have all of them continued to deal in drugs?

(2a) What research or case studies of countries that have relaxed drug laws were what you predict here came true?

(2b) Are you aware of how use of marijuana by teens in the Netherlands dropped after it was legalized?

(2c) Are you aware that hard drug use in Portugal fell with the decriminalization of drugs?

(2c) Are you aware that alcoholism rates and alcohol-related deaths fell after Prohibition was repealed?

Remember lessons learned around the world does not apply to the US because you are such a young nation

[LarryLaffer]

I'm gonna bump this bc I really want Druffs response to the question I asked twice.

[gimmick]

You think drug abuse causes no tangible damage? Try talking to a family of a drug addict sometime. The fact that you're comparing it to sodomy (which causes no tangible damage except perhaps a prolapsed anus) shows how far you're reaching to vilify what you see as the "moral right". Try again. As I'm sure you know, I'm not a Christian, and I don't favor legislation related to morality or religious purity. Stop trying to group my arguments in with those whose points are easier to argue against.

I have no idea what you're rambling about here. Are you trying to say that the fact that the illegality of drugs hasn't stopped drug abuse, we should just give up and make it legal? When has anyone ever said that the illegality of drugs has completely eradicated the problem?

And yes, drug addicts of today do fall on society's lap. We will have many more of them if we legalize it. Again, this is why pill abuse is so rampant. It's much easier, less risky, and less stigmatized to abuse prescription pills. The same will happen if we legalize and tax all other drugs.

So why isn't alcohol use illegal? What makes it so special? Could there possible be cultural reasons why it's the only intoxicant that isn't illegal to use for recreational purposes? Western culture does not equate Christianity.

But anyway to get this right, are you saying that the war on drugs does absolutely nothing to lower the drug abuse in America? But if there wasn't a massive waste of money and resources from the government to hike up the price of drugs and the cartels profit margins there would be an increase in the number of drug addicts?

And what i was saying is that the fact that i can talk to family of a drug addict today more or less means that regardless of legislation the horrors of drug addiction exists. Therefore it's absurd that the "say no to drugs"-camp keeps using the very existence of addicts as a counterpoint to legalization, just like you have done here. Oh and if you really think it serves any purpose feel free to go chat up a family of an alcoholic.

Again, you are inserting words in my mouth that I didn't say, and are over-complicating a simple concept.

Those who work in the drug trade, whether the super-rich kingpins, the middlemen, or the street-level peons, are working in the trade because it's both easy and far better money than they could make otherwise. Again, they will resort to other means to make this money if taken out of the drug trade. These same people won't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well... back to McDonald's I go!", and return to flipping burgers for minimum wage.

Even if I accept your argument that legalizing all drugs would take a lot of these low-level dealers out of crime (and thus out of prison), the number of new addicts would be staggering, and the cost to society (both monetarily and otherwise) would not be worth it.

Yea go figure most complicated concepts become simple once you start making shit up. Drug treatment costs the government about 5k a year per addict (methadone maintenance) while incarcerating the same individual costs about 25k. So for every 1 prisoner we can afford to treat 5 brand new addicts.

A "large majority of studies" do not say this. Our current problem with prescription pain medication -- something that is LEGAL and is rapidly replacing the other drug problems of old -- proves this wrong. The prohibition of drugs may entice a small percentage of wannabe rebels to do it when they otherwise wouldn't have, but most people do drugs simply because they want to get high (or as a result of social pressures to get high), not because they are trying to give a fuck you to the law. Besides, drugs have been around since before we were born, and they aren't new and exciting. There is no thrill to doing prohibited drugs at this point, just for the sake of them being prohibited.

Studies about addiction are fairly conclusive about this. Is it really that hard to understand that vilifying drug addicts doesn't improve the quality of their lives? "Current" problem with prescription pain medication proves nothing. It's nothing new. Pharmaceuticals have been filling the demand for recreational use and addiction since forever. Only thing that's unique to pharmaceuticals are the people that get addicted from non recreational use. Once again nothing directly to do with the status of legislation. It really seems to be a running theme with "just say no"-camp.

If you want to correct the problem with pain medication it becomes an issue of education and reducing the barrier for treatment. Opiates are opiates. There are no good opiates and bad opiates. The addiction potential exists with pharmaceuticals just the same as it does with street junk. No one in history of drugs has been addicted to adulterants but plenty have died. If you aim to not die from an accidental overdose it really does help that you know the contents and strength of the drug of your choice.

"You can just pay for it", you say.

Money doesn't solve everything.

Why do you think so many kids of super-rich celebrities are so fucked up, even after their drug problems are identified and attempted to be treated? All the money in the world can't help some of these addicts once they're too far gone.

That's what we're trying to avoid here by NOT legalizing hard drugs and basically giving the government's stamp of approval for anyone to start doing them whenever they feel down, stressed, or lonely.

Your final statement does focus upon one area where we probably agree, though. I do think the authorities should stop wasting their time arresting users, and only go after the dealers. I don't feel that drug addicts (or even just recreational users who aren't addicts) are committing any crime worth prosecuting, and treating it as such is just a waste of taxpayer dollars and the court's time.

Unfortunately, while my approach involves the continued fight against the dealers who make these dangerous and addictive substances available to vulnerable people, your approach seems to involve a simple shrug of the shoulders and a blind faith that we won't become a basket case country of fucked up addicts.

Dunno for me money has always worked better than magic and hope. I just assumed it was a universal thing. So are you saying that the kids of the super rich in the current situation are having difficulties obtaining drugs or is this the case where more of them would be fucked up if drugs were suddenly legalized?

How many people in the USA aren't using drugs now that are just waiting for that stamp of approval to get their binge on? Is there a reasonable chance that it's more than 3?

Wasting limited resources to war on drugs is worse than doing nothing and that's the fucked up part. It's making the problem it's trying to correct much worse for the individuals involved and the society. Therefore doing nothing is better. It's not a novel concept. It isn't what i'm advocating though.

Just do what you did to tobacco and alcohol. If you look at alcohol prohibition, you will see very clearly what will happen to society with both models. Out of the western countries USA, Canada and Finland tried alcohol prohibition. They all failed miserably with the same results. And after they repelled prohibition, the sudden influx of alcoholics was nowhere to be seen. Alcohol is a drug. It has always been a drug and it will always be a drug. Like with any other drug, small amount of users will cause the large majority of all negatives associated with it.

You can't stop the supply. It will always meet the demand. There is no way around this in a world where magic doesn't exist. Best you can do is take control of it. Tax and regulate. Spend that money for treatment and education. That's about it.

[LarryLaffer]

Some great responses here. I'm happy with it.


but really,until Druff addresses the one fundamental question here: whether or not he agrees with cannabis being a schedule one controlled substance (meaning it's just as dangerous as heroin, and more dangerous than cocaine or alcohol) then this entire fucking discussion is a fucking fail.


here's why:

If Druff says he agrees with that, he looks more absurd than he already is (his posts in this thread are about as absurd as it gets) and if he says he doesn't agree, then basically everything he's saying is hypocritical.

The issue here is mass incarceration, and one of the reasons we have it is because of cannabis being a schedule one controlled substance.


he can't answer this question without looking like a goon. that's the point here.


You see, Druff, you can't have the cake and the cookies at the same time. what do i mean? like i said before, you break the law all the time, by playing online poker in a state where it's not legal. If you're so fucking gung ho about following the laws, then you'd be in Nevada playing legal online poker, instead of wherever the hell you are in CA.



so yeah, until you can answer this simple question

[sah_24]

Fucking hilarity, mumbles cousin or dupe reveals hes a wife beater on accident in epic shit thread . Only on PFA

[LarryLaffer]

Fucking hilarity, mumbles cousin or dupe reveals hes a wife beater on accident in epic shit thread . Only on PFA

I don't know what your deal is, but if you don't like me or what I post then either block me, or just don't open my threads and read them. it's so simple.


in other words: people who continously open their mouths and troll then bitch that "PFA is unreadable blah blah blah" are the real fucking hypocrites. so go fuck your cousin or something you inbred piece of dog shit.



oh and learn to read above a 5th grade level bc I never said once im a wife beater

[MumblesBadly]

Truth telling time...

For about a 30+ year span, including when I was smokin the Jane quite frequently for a spell until the mid 80s, I was a law-and-order Republican, loving the War on Drugs and how it was just a matter of time and a commitment of more resources before that damn dirty drug trade would be effectively shut down.

But in grad school in the later half of the 90s, one of my PhD committee advisors off-handedly mentioned how he thought the War on Drugs was futile. His reasoning? Economics (, dummy)! And even though this guy was kind of a superstar there, and had earned his PhD at Stanford, I wasn't quite buying his pat answer.

But then I got curious and starting read papers by this guy, now an economist at Harvard who specializes in, among other subjects, the economics of the drug business. And promotes legalizing all recreational drugs.


http://scholar.harvard.edu/miron/biocv

A scholarly white guy whose facial expression quietly screams how boring he prolly is in real life. Meaning, someone I could relate to. And I won't bore you with his scholarly credentials. (But if you have a penchant for such things, here's a direct link to his CV:
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mir...ted_2_2013.pdf)

And while his arguments seemed economically sound, I wasn't willing to let go of my love of the War on Drugs just yet.

No, it took running across the YouTube vids and website of the organization founded by these two guys:



Who are they? Well, unlike the boring Harvard egghead with his crazy Ivory-tower ideas about legalizing drugs, these two other white guys are former long-term members of law enforcement who actually fought for years on the front line of the War on Drugs. And their names are Jack Cole and Peter Christ, respectively.

And their organization? Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP): www.leap.cc

And the name of LEAPs YouTube channel? CopsSayLegalizeDrugs https://www.youtube.com/user/CopsSayLegalizeDrugs

Now, for those still on the fence, or outright hostile to the notion of legalizing (and regulating) recreational drugs, take a few moments to watch this video that introduces folks to their organization, message, and the movement they have been so very instrumental in advances: Dismantling the appealing-but-futile-and-very-harmful War on Drugs.

And if you feel like red repping the shit out of this post, or all of my posts -- I don't give a fuck about that inanity. Just watch this video. And the others on that YouTube channel. For the love of our country.



And, again, this plea is coming from someone who loved the get-tough policy on drugs that Reagan put into overdrive in the '80s. And Poppy Bush advanced further after him. And Bill Clinton, too, during his time in the White House, believe it or not. But not anymore.

So, please, Druff. Watch the video. (TIA)

[varys]

Wrench your crusade here is really weird. If hes telling the truth he certainly is guilty of being a dumbass/addict but i dont see why he cant complain.

Druff is coming off much worse imo. Saying he has no problem throwing half the population of our supposedly free nation in prison (hes willing to cough up that jewgold just to make room!) for selling bags of weed for essentially minimum wage seems absurd to me.

[wrenchjockey]

How many people have died from cannabis? ZERO POINT ZERO.

Directly? You're probably right. Indirectly....well I just saw this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/07/05...e-fatal-crash/


So there's at least two. Shrug.

As for my weird 'crusade', I just find it disingenuous to blame his predicament on anything other than himself. Sure, you have the right to disagree with any law, but since its a current law, you are bound to follow it, or face the punishment. One of the biggest problems in society today is this new concept that nobody is responsible for their own behavior.

[LarryLaffer]

How many people have died from cannabis? ZERO POINT ZERO.

Directly? You're probably right. Indirectly....well I just saw this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/07/05...e-fatal-crash/


So there's at least two. Shrug.

As for my weird 'crusade', I just find it disingenuous to blame his predicament on anything other than himself. Sure, you have the right to disagree with any law, but since its a current law, you are bound to follow it, or face the punishment. One of the biggest problems in society today is this new concept that nobody is responsible for their own behavior.

pretty sound reasoning there. because all laws are just and should be followed right? Re: the Nazis were just following laws. Re: shop owners in the south who refused colored people because of the law were totally right in following the law.

the list goes on and on. there are laws that just shouldn't be laws my friend. But you go ahead and follow them all. please. follow them to a T. stop at every stop sign, don't speed. pay your speeding tickets.

[NaturalBornHustler]

"Nothing is more American than breaking an unjust law"

[wrenchjockey]

Directly? You're probably right. Indirectly....well I just saw this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/07/05...e-fatal-crash/


So there's at least two. Shrug.

As for my weird 'crusade', I just find it disingenuous to blame his predicament on anything other than himself. Sure, you have the right to disagree with any law, but since its a current law, you are bound to follow it, or face the punishment. One of the biggest problems in society today is this new concept that nobody is responsible for their own behavior.

pretty sound reasoning there. because all laws are just and should be followed right? Re: the Nazis were just following laws. Re: shop owners in the south who refused colored people because of the law were totally right in following the law.

the list goes on and on. there are laws that just shouldn't be laws my friend. But you go ahead and follow them all. please. follow them to a T. stop at every stop sign, don't speed. pay your speeding tickets.

Comparing laws like MJ possession, speeding and stop signs to Nazi Germany and pre-civil rights America is probably one of the most idiotic things you could do to lend credibility to your argument. You're smart enough to understand that, right? I get it, you think MJ should be legal. I used to smoke up a little myself. I'm with ya. But unless you're wiling to move to CO or WA, or wherever else it's legal now, you are bound by the law in your state. You break it and get caught, you get the punishment. And probation. And court ordered drug testing. >snicker<

[DJ_Chaps]

WHAT A FUCKING NARC.

[wrenchjockey]

WHAT A FUCKING NARC.

Says the guy who gave his Skatz login creds to Druff?


Credibility. You have none.

[MumblesBadly]

Directly? You're probably right. Indirectly....well I just saw this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/07/05...e-fatal-crash/


So there's at least two. Shrug.

As for my weird 'crusade', I just find it disingenuous to blame his predicament on anything other than himself. Sure, you have the right to disagree with any law, but since its a current law, you are bound to follow it, or face the punishment. One of the biggest problems in society today is this new concept that nobody is responsible for their own behavior.

pretty sound reasoning there. because all laws are just and should be followed right? Re: the Nazis were just following laws. Re: shop owners in the south who refused colored people because of the law were totally right in following the law.

the list goes on and on. there are laws that just shouldn't be laws my friend. But you go ahead and follow them all. please. follow them to a T. stop at every stop sign, don't speed. pay your speeding tickets.

And what about those local laws that allowed good white Christian folk to keep Jews from buying houses in their towns? (I've visited more than a few, trust me. And lived in one in the early 2000s that had figured out a way to get around laws preventing such discrimination. HTFG!)

[Dan Druff]

WHAT A FUCKING NARC.

Says the guy who gave his Skatz login creds to Druff?


Credibility. You have none.

In his defense, Chaps' actions resulted in both a HOF thread and the end to the longrunning skatz/Druff wars.

In hindsight, it was a great thing he did.