Drug War Victims

[KB1GXM]

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

A few of the victims of The War On Drugs.

John Adams
64 years old
Shot to death during a SWAT drug raid while watching TV. The house didn't match the description on the warrant.

Delbert Bonnar
57 years old
Shot 8 times by police in drug raid. They were looking for his son

Annie Rae Dixon
84 years old
Bedridden with pneumonia during a drug raid. Officer kicked open her bedroom door and shot her.

Lynette Gayle Jackson
29 years old
Shot to death in her bed by SWAT team.

Ismael Mena
45 years old
Mena was killed when police barged into his house looking for drugs. They had the wrong address.

ETC.

[WA5KRP]

There's a terrible toll all around. #Here's a crack addict that, through the years, has proved she can "handle it":

(Get's rough, huh?)

http://rock103.com/crew/pics/crack-ho.jpg

[KC9ETP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa5krp @ May 19 2004,00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's a terrible toll all around. #Here's a crack addict that, through the years, has proved she can &quot;handle it&quot;:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And I'm sure you could make a a picture just like that about someone abusing a legal substance (alcohol).

http://blogs.salon.com/0001381/images/wino.jpg

[KG4CGC]

GXM, do you have a solution? Prohibition is the status quo and I don't see it changing any time soon.
KG4CGC

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4CGC @ May 19 2004,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GXM, do you have a solution? Prohibition is the status quo and I don't see it changing any time soon.
# # # # # # # # # # # #KG4CGC[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't believe the post is against prohibiting narcotics but against outrageous police actions. Too many police agencies around the country have made use of federal largesse to create over-the-top &quot;swat&quot; teams that would make a USMC heavy weapons platoon jealous.

Many are badly trained and badly led. The number of erroneous raids resulting in death or injury has been growing over the years. Innocent people have been shot and killed, or, in the case of a Maryland man from about twenty years ago, parallyzed, because they tried to defend themselves against unexpected intruders (i.e. cops who had the wrong address).

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 19 2004,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4CGC @ May 19 2004,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GXM, do you have a solution? Prohibition is the status quo and I don't see it changing any time soon.
KG4CGC[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't believe the post is against prohibiting narcotics but against outrageous police actions. Too many police agencies around the country have made use of federal largesse to create over-the-top &quot;swat&quot; teams that would make a USMC heavy weapons platoon jealous.

Many are badly trained and badly led. The number of erroneous raids resulting in death or injury has been growing over the years. Innocent people have been shot and killed, or, in the case of a Maryland man from about twenty years ago, parallyzed, because they tried to defend themselves against unexpected intruders (i.e. cops who had the wrong address).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I no longer keep the articles so can't cite names or dates. But in Albuquerque, over the past year or so, there have been far more wrongful deaths by gang members protecting their drug turf than by police. A baby is shot during a driveby shooting. It dies. Eventually the two men who were charged with this crime were caught in, I think, Seattle, and returned, and are now serving time.

A woman is killed. The gang attacked the wrong house. A teenage boy is shot on his front porch. Whoops. Wrong house. A man is wounded in his living room (he survived) as a drive-by riddled his house with bullets. Wrong house. In several incidents in the past year bullets riddled houses or apartments and no-one was hurt. Some of those were wrong house attacks, some weren't, and I don't recall how many total, or how many were wrong house.

Anyone willing to research crime (drug related) in Albuquerque can find these stories and probably more that I missed, as they are so commonplace they don't even make a splash in the papers and only a ten second sound byte on TV. .

Wht's the point? The point is drugs are a problem, no kidding. And there are police who make mistakes. There are gangs who make mistakes. And there are gangs who don't make mistakes, but still kill, only this time they get the right house, car or person. (Of course, frankly, I have no regrets when gang members kill each other. Suits me fine. We need more of that, a LOT more. It is when they kill innocents that I get upset!)

Seems a lot of us blame the drug problem on the authorities, on the police. The drug problem is in the drugs. They are mind-altering substances. If they weren't, there'd be no reason to take them. But they are, and they do exactly that - they alter the mind, which includes altering one's ability to reason, to think, to act and live responsibly. What is the solution? Legalize them and let everyone be stupid and dangerous? Already the sane people of the world support, through taxes, the inability of the drugged-up people to work or fit in, even if they aren't committing any crime at all. If we get enough drugged-out misfits, there won't be enough sane people to support them.

Is there a solution? Well, yeah, actually. We should have learned in fighting our wars, especially Vietnam, that we can't fight a restricted war (we are paying that price in Iraq, too.) Fight to win, not to constrain. Otherwise, the war on drugs, or on terrorism or anything else, is an expensive, cruel and futile joke.

Ed

[KB9YCO]

The solution is not to &quot;fight a war and win&quot;, the solution is to find the root causes of addiction and vice. The simple solution of “bust 'em and put 'em in jail” doesn't work, hasn't worked, and never will work. Prohibition through more aggressive means will only further exacerbate the problem and cause more conflict on both sides.
We need to take the lessons of places like the Netherlands as a prime example of what to do with vice crime in general; compassionate rehabilitation, education, lack of criminality in simple possession or self abuse, and a structured health care system that covers the physical and mental needs of addicts.
Let’s stop deluding ourselves into thinking that we can solve this problem through more legislation or more aggressive tactics; that’s not only inhumane, it doesn’t solve the problem.

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 18 2004,23:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4CGC @ May 19 2004,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GXM, do you have a solution? Prohibition is the status quo and I don't see it changing any time soon.
# # # # # # # # # # # #KG4CGC[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't believe the post is against prohibiting narcotics but against outrageous police actions. Too many police agencies around the country have made use of federal largesse to create over-the-top &quot;swat&quot; teams that would make a USMC heavy weapons platoon jealous.

Many are badly trained and badly led. The number of erroneous raids resulting in death or injury has been growing over the years. Innocent people have been shot and killed, or, in the case of a Maryland man from about twenty years ago, parallyzed, because they tried to defend themselves against unexpected intruders (i.e. cops who had the wrong address).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Over the top police action is the status quo. Addicts are an easy target. Prohibition creates black markets and gives enforcement agencies another wepon to use in aquiring more money for their budgets. Wrong address? Just another casualty, collateral damage if you will. You've seen it on TV and for a lot enforcement officers, not all, it's just plain fun to shoot at fish in a barrel. It also shows society that they are doing their jobs.
To the poster that mentioned the Netherlands. Ask any law officer about that and they will tell you that it is a bad example because the Netherlands has such a high teenage suicide rate.
Prohibition or not, drugs will have the same effect. Our Puritan roots in this nation have given us these prohibitions. Not to mention that pharmaceutical companies don't want the competition from plant based drugs. Was it the backing of DuPont that created &quot;Reffer Madness&quot; in the 30's? Did they convince churches to jump on this bandwagon? Did they convince the government to do the same? There is even some racist aspects as to why we have these prohibitions.
Again, I ask GXM, do you have a solution to the question/topic you posted? Prohibition not withstanding.

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5HTW @ May 18 2004,07:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;there have been far more wrongful deaths by gang members protecting their drug turf than by police.&quot; #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Gang members who behave in this manner are nothing more than terrorists and should be treated as such.

Those who willingly violate the rights of others with little respect of life do not deserve the protections our system of government guarantee.

Those SOB's will use it against us every time.

For drug deals and terrorists -- apply the same rules. Take the gloves off and put these &quot;people&quot; out of business!

Whoops -- can't do that, may make the ACLU mad.

[KB1GXM]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 19 2004,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't believe the post is against prohibiting narcotics but against outrageous police actions. Too many police agencies around the country have made use of federal largesse to create over-the-top &quot;swat&quot; teams that would make a USMC heavy weapons platoon jealous.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My sediments exactly....

If I remember right the War on Drugs was the reason for the ban on an evil looking gun.
The GCA of 1934 was enacted because of the rum runners using Tommyguns. Prohibition ended in 1933.
I see a pattern here, do you? Can't let a Government agency close down, can we?

[KG4CGC]

Can't let a Government agency close down, can we?



Actually, no. Once the ball is rolling, it snowballs downhill. There is no end to the drug war any time in the near future. It's a money maker for all enforcement agencies involved.

[n0ov]

I'm sad those folks were killed.

However, which group is truely wrong here -- the folks trying to enforce the law with little resources or support or the folks violating the laws -- the ones who would not think twice for putting a bullet between the eyes.

May want to think this one through a bit. Kind of like saying the Police and Fire Officials in NY are guilty because people died in the twin towers on 911.

[KG4CGC]

Once a law is on the books it is very rarely changed unless it beifits big business etc. etc. etc.

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ May 19 2004,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many are badly trained and badly led. The number of erroneous raids resulting in death or injury has been growing over the years.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What I have noticed lately is the ARROGANCE of law enforcement. Before anyone gets me wrong here, I have the utmost respect for law enforcement in general but it seems that they can get away with just about anything these days. Some of the things I have have seen in the last 10 years is down right [I]~scary~[/I. It's mostly the younger guys that are the problem. It seems that they are taught &quot;I'm in your face and I can do what I want and if you don't like it I will arrest you.&quot; (Had that happen to me in the City of Folsom after a police officer caused me to be in an auto accident, I was threatened with arrest if I complained) The older ones seem to have a completely different attitude.

As for the drug war? Mandatory death penalty for the drug dealers and manufacturers. Particularly for methanphetamine. Satan's personal brew.

[W3MIV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ May 19 2004,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the drug war? #Mandatory death penalty for the drug dealers and manufacturers. Particularly for methanphetamine. Satan's personal brew.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That will bring the ACLU (see parallel thread by same initiator) down on you, Monty. They are even more arrogant than the cops.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KC2HJN]

A solution?

Well no, but here's my thoughts.

Like some others posted, the 'war on drugs' is a big money maker....for all, both LE and the dealers. The LE agencies get funding and the dealers get paid more for their substance because of the demand and risk involved.

Legalizing will not solve all the problems but my thinking is this....everytime (or most of the time) you hear &quot;drug related shooting (or some such statement) it is drug 'related' but it is mostly MONEY related. Gangs and dealers kill each other for the PROFIT they can get from controlling an area. By legalizing the drugs, that profit is taken away. I think many addicts would rather get a prescription from a doctor and get their drugs from a clinic rather than risk arrest, being killed, bad drugs, etc.....

Once these people start going to doctors, the effort can be made to wein them off the drugs. Will it work 100%? Probably not, but it can't be any worse than it is now.

What about the few holdouts who still rob people and comit crimes to obtain their drugs?

That's one of the reasons we have a second amendment...self protection. We Americans have, in many parts of the country, been stripped of our rights to protect ourselves. Here in NYC the criminals are bold because they know the average person on the street is most likely unarmed and defenseless.


Perfect solution...no, but you get the idea.

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 19 2004,13:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's one of the reasons we have a second amendment...self protection.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats a fine theory but what do you when it's a burglary ($20,000 worth) rather than a robbery? The kicker is that I KNEW who did it and could prove it but LE refused to act. The perp is a well known methaphetamine addict.

I had to walk away as any other action would have made me no better and I would have been the one to go to prison.

(For the record, I'm a NRA lifer and a highly skilled marksman)


MIV: Gotta luv the good ol' ACLU....... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

As long as drug activity is tolerated in neighborhoods - BY THE VERY PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO COMPLAIN 'THE GUMMINT AIN'T PROTECTING ME!' - then it will continue.

As has been QUITE VIVIDLY DEMONSTRATED.. when a NEIGHBORHOOD chooses to stand up to - and attack - those in the neighborhood who deal drugs.. the druggies WILL move.

YES.. the druggies WILL try terrorist tactics to frghten the neighbors.. but you know... like cancer.. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO do what you need to do to cut it out and kill it.. it will remain. It may go into remission.. but it will remain.

If you want to get the kids off the 'kick that drugs are OK'.. the you need to get the PUNISHMENT phase back in play.

you are a school/college/workplace person.

you use drugs. You get caught. You get prosecuted. You are guilty.

Guess what.. you are BOOTED OUT OF SCHOOL, COLLEGE, or FIRED! NO reprieve.. no '2nd chance'.. no 'just one more time'.

You get caught.. you get convicted.. you get EXPELLED/FIRED.

Do that with SOME consistency and HOW QUICKLY do you think kids/adults would NOT want to do drugs?

It would be painful.. quite a few people would have to DeAL with the CONSEQUENCES of their choices.. but you know what?...

it wouldn't take LONG before 'drugs ain't cool!' would be hte mantra.

And before you say 'it can't bedone'.. all it takes in one school.. or one business.. to enact it.. and see how it spreads.

K3FT

[k6pme]

That would work great in a city neighborhood. What if the &quot;neighborhood&quot; is 3 or 4 hundrend square miles of mountains? They grow and/or manufacture in some of the more remote canyons.

[N0PU]

QQL:

That is a tough one...

Buddy of mine had a farm in the hills of Tennessee that had been in his family for many many years... Nice little place, half on one side of a small mountain and half on the other side...about a 120 acres or so... He didn't use the north side except as a wood lot... They used wood heat in the winter so each fall he would go around and cut a few cords for the following winter... He grew a some food crops and lived on the south side and he and his family made ends meet selling veggies through the local Coop...

Well some wise guys used his north side to grow a crop of mary-jane [I can't spell mary-G-wanna] and they got them some swell plants going... the feds flew over and discovered it... confiscated it, the farm, all the equipment connected to the farm, my buddies bank accounts and effectively destroyed him...

The feds sold the farm and stuff... then my buddy was found innocent of the charges and tried to get his farm and stuff back and was told... &quot;sorry about that&quot;... Feds kept the money from the sale, the bank account and all...

Today, as far as I know, the guy is working at some piddling job making minimum or less wages and his family is on food stamps and nearly eligible for welfare... No way will he ever be able to get anything going again without somekind of windfall... And all he really knows is farming...

Yessireee... I support the war on drugs... Lets see if we can get the CIA outta the drug business... that'll take a BIG bite out of the availability...

[k6pme]

OUCH! And I thought I got hit by the druggie's. Thats a real shame no doubt. Unfortunayely that is the result of the zero tolerance policy of Bush Sr. (or was it Reagan)

Looks like another example of the REAL victims of the drug war that GXM first posted about. Getting the Feds out of anything domestic would be a good thing but that went out the door with the 10th amendment in 1863.

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ May 19 2004,17:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 19 2004,13:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's one of the reasons we have a second amendment...self protection.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats a fine theory but what do you when it's a burglary ($20,000 worth) rather than a robbery? The kicker is that I KNEW who did it and could prove it but LE refused to act. The perp is a well known methaphetamine addict.

I had to walk away as any other action would have made me no better and I would have been the one to go to prison.

(For the record, I'm a NRA lifer and a highly skilled marksman)


MIV: Gotta luv the good ol' ACLU....... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's a shame it happened that way, but if you could prove it like you say, the problem was with the LE agency for not acting.

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ May 19 2004,13:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Legalizing will not solve all the problems but my thinking is this....everytime (or most of the time) you hear &quot;drug related shooting (or some such statement) it is drug 'related' but it is mostly MONEY related. Gangs and dealers kill each other for the PROFIT they can get from controlling an area. By legalizing the drugs, that profit is taken away. I think many addicts would rather get a prescription from a doctor and get their drugs from a clinic rather than risk arrest, being killed, bad drugs, etc.....

Once these people start going to doctors, the effort can be made to wein them off the drugs. Will it work 100%? Probably not, but it can't be any worse than it is now.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The problem I see with legalized drugs is that legalizing them does not negate the effect on the human mind. As I noted earlier, the reason people take drugs is to alter the mind. In that altered state of consciousness, people do strange things, often very dangerous or deadly things.

Let's say a hit of cocaine costs 25 bucks. The user needs to get high more often, so under the present system he goes out and robs the convenience store so he can support his habit for another few hours.

Now let's give him that same drug for one dollar, sold in Mama's Corner Drugstore. He goes down there, and for a buck, buys that same drug, same quantity. It wears off and he goes back. That wears off, and he goes back again.

First, he is no longer anything resembling a productive member of society. Well, nothing has changed there; he wasn't before, either. He can't hold a job, he can't support his family, and he is quite likely to jump behind the wheel of his car and kill someone (and if we're lucky, include himself.) All we have done, by making the drug cheaper, is accelerate his demise and turn him into a walking (or falling down) zombie.

Did we take the pusher off the street? Why gosh, no! He's down at the local elementary school making sure the second graders get their first sample. And thanks to us, he has plenty of supply at very cheap prices.

Did we take crime off the street? Well, that first fellow we mentioned has spent his salary (or what he was able to borrow) on coke, and now he waits until someone comes out of the drug store with coke and he mugs them.

Did we eliminate organized crime? Who is going to import the drugs? The Federal government? State government? The DEA? Or are we going to allow private companies to buy it in Colombia and ship it in by the shipload to the US? If so, well, now we're back where we started; competition.

Is the drug legal in Mexico? How about in Canada? No? If not, we have created a new border-smuggling operation, and, therefore, a new mob operation; smuggling drugs OUT of the US instead of into it!

But it all boils down to something I said in a an article back in 1984. &quot;Drugs are not bad because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are bad.&quot; We can legalize them, but we can't make a law concerning their chemical reaction on the brain. Too many people think we can. Chemicals don't work that way; they do what they do, regardless of man's laws.

Legalized drugs? Next time you get on an airplane or a train, or on a city bus, what do you know about what substance the pilot or driver or engineer has taken? You won't smell alcohol. Next time you call a cop to your house, what makes you so sure he isn't going to stand there and watch you situation and giggle because, in his altered state, he thinks it's funny? How about the fireman who decides, while he's under the influence, he loves fires and wants them bigger and brighter? What about the nurse who is going to give you a shot? What about the construction worker swinging the arm of the crane with a steel beam hanging down? Do we want a nation of inept, drugged-out, &quot;normal&quot; people, who are holding down good jobs (if they can show up for work) costing us more in lost time, accidents, poor judgement?

Already we face the drunk driver on our highways. With legalized drugs he may not only be drunk but too high to realize it, and he thinks the lights of your oncoming car are a wonderful challenge.

What we forget in this entire argument about drugs, is they DO have an effect, whether they are purchased from some shady character in an alley or from your local super market.

There is another reality to the drug problem that is rarely discussed. Anyone who takes drugs does so with the full awareness of the dangers. That very first hit of cocaine or heroin comes AFTER a blitze of media advising how bad drugs are. Every child who has seen a TV has seen anti-drug ads. Every adult who consideres popping a pill of PCP or a shot of heroin, has seen plenty of times the dangers of drugs. So they go into it knowing. It is a choice, and a conscious one.

Actually I do not think we should fill our prisons with addicts. The users are the losers. We need to concentrate our efforts on the dealers, pushers and smugglers. Yet we have proven over and over again, that the typical user will always be a user. Treat him in a methadone clinic and as soon as he has enough money to buy drugs, he will. For most, it is a permanent addiction, making them a permanent cost to society. Perhaps what we need is a shot that can be injected that will make it impossible for a person to take drugs; a vaccination!

I don't see it on the horizon!

Ed

[K3UD]

Good Post Ed!

Anyone here remember the name Ricky Gates? Give you a hint... Amtrack.

73
George
K3UD

[KA8NCR]

The war on drugs is a complete and utter failure. The fact that those people were murdered in their beds is a testiment to the incompetence and arrogance of our government.

The war on drugs is as much a red herring as the patriot act. It's nothing more than a method to allow the government to further strip away our individual rights and take away all recourse and due process.

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ May 18 2004,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">. It's mostly the younger guys that are the problem. It seems that they are taught &quot;I'm in your face and I can do what I want and if you don't like it I will arrest you.&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
As &quot;Ex Police&quot; ever notice the difference between town or city cops and the county or state ones? You'll find the ones who don't normally have lots of backup close usually don't come off as agressive. They keep control of the situation, just not in a way that can get their but kicked. (Same can be said for the more experienced city cops -- they realize backup may be close but not close enough)

Police have a rough job. $28k a year for the privilage of being shot at and sued? I'll pass. That type of committment makes me appreciate the good ones even more.

[n0ov]

Hey anyone ever visit Amsterdam? I did, back in 73 and again in 87.

In 73 it was a really cool place to be -- hash houses all around and the city and police turned a blind eye to heroin and some of the harder drugs.

Went back in 87 -- found the city had over 50,000 registered heroin adicts. You couldn't park your car anyplace within the city limits without having it broken into. At least they were nice about it -- they carefully removed your radio without trashing the dash.

If anyone has any doubt if trying to do something about drugs is worth while take a trip. As for the Netherlands -- great people, very interesting culture, and just like any country -- what where you go and stay out of the bad areas.

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3UD @ May 18 2004,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good Post Ed!

Anyone here remember the name Ricky Gates? #Give you a hint... Amtrack.

73
George
K3UD[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ouch -- I remember

Good Point!

[KB9YCO]

I don't know Dan, I spent some time in Holland, in Amsterdam a large part of the time, not long ago and it seemed like the situation was well under control. There were some obviously seedy areas like any city, but really no problems with people breaking in to my car, house, robbing me on the street, etc. Hell, I even walked home late one night, by myself, from right along the edge of the notorious red light district and didn't have any problems. Perhaps things have changed? I'm not sure since it's been about 5 years, but the way that the Netherlands deals with vice makes much more sense than the backwards way we try to deal with it here and then make it worse.

[n5rfx]

This is such a complex issue, and we as humans have been trying to deal with it for some time. #The one thing that bothers me about our drug laws are their inconstancy. #Why are the alcohol and nicotine drugs treated differently than the illicit drugs?

With respect to alcohol, isn’t the primary purpose to catch a buz? #Nicotine gives us a lift. #Heck we might even throw caffeine in there too. #All can be addictive.

I am not suggesting a prohibition on alcohol, we tried that and it didn't work. #There are certainly some similarities between the current illicit drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition.

I think we really need to examine the motives of the war on drugs and are the real motives to stop the illicit drug trade? #Unfortunately history is not our friend in this case because humans have always gravitated toward mind altering drugs. #Heck why not it makes you feel good.

One final note, I refuse to blame law enforcement for the problem. #Law enforcement has a job to do, I would be more dismayed to find that law enforcement was not enforcing drug laws and were participating in selective enforcement.

Mark N5RFX

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ May 19 2004,07:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know Dan, I spent some time in Holland, in Amsterdam a large part of the time, not long ago and it seemed like the situation was well under control. There were some obviously seedy areas like any city, but really no problems with people breaking in to my car, house, robbing me on the street, etc. Hell, I even walked home late one night, by myself, from right along the edge of the notorious red light district and didn't have any problems. Perhaps things have changed? I'm not sure since it's been about 5 years, but the way that the Netherlands deals with vice makes much more sense than the backwards way we try to deal with it here and then make it worse.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Different culture, different perspective. #Like I said, lived there in 87 and 88. #(You're correct on one aspect, job did take me into some seedy places)

You do any traveling to Switzerland or Austria? #They had similiar problems too. #If what you say is true (and I don't doubt it -- someone had to deal with that mess), perhaps you can find out what Amsterdam had to do to clean up the mess and make the city a little more safe.

(Besides broadcasting watch your wallets in sixteen different languages in the shopping areas)

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kramrellim @ May 19 2004,09:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is such a complex issue, and we as humans have been trying to deal with it for some time. #The one thing that bothers me about our drug laws are their inconstancy. #Why are the alcohol and nicotine drugs treated differently than the illicit drugs?

With respect to alcohol, isn’t the primary purpose to catch a buz? #Nicotine gives us a lift. #Heck we might even throw caffeine in there too. #All can be addictive.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Mark

Think your close on this one. Guess the difference is how addictive and how out of control a person is when under the influence.

Money does play into this equasion. Law enforcement efforts asside -- health costs, insurance costs when those stoned cause harm or injury also play into the equasion. Guess the more agressive the addiction and severe the damage, the more drive to get specific things band.

Seen both sides of the equasion -- freedom to do what you want and the impacts (both from a human and social stand point)

Hard to way what is worse -- curing a problem once it has occured or doing what is needed to prevent it.

One thing is certain -- someone is making big money to supply this garbage and it sure isn't the cops.

[KI4BOO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?

The Clash - Guns of Brixton
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[kc7jty]

There should be no controlled substances for people over the age of 21. Now you are going to have figure if that is LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE.

&quot;SAVE THE BABY HUMANS&quot;: The baby humans don't need saving.....the baby wales however don't fit that category.

[k6pme]

Liberatarian, Conservative and Liberal respectively.

[KB9YCO]

I'm a member of the use logic and common sense party; something the 'big two' seem to be lacking in.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ May 20 2004,12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Liberatarian, Conservative and Liberal respectively.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
BINGO!! Now here is someone with insight. I have to concur with you.