Student Drug Informant Found With a Bullet in His Head and Rocks in His Backpack
When police found Andrew Sadek selling $80 worth of pot, they pressured him into being a confidential informant and told him to go after ‘harder drugs.’ Then he turned up dead. On Andrew Sadek’s 20th birthday, North Dakota police made him an offer: moonlight as a confidential informant and avoid rotting in prison. It was November 2013, and Sadek had never been in trouble before. Months earlier, he’d sold a small amount of pot—$20 and $60 worth—to a narc at his school, the North Dakota State College of Science. Sadek was in the crosshairs of a local task force, which searched his dorm room and found a plastic grinder with marijuana residue. A day later, he was in an interrogation room with Richland County sheriff’s deputy Jason Weber.
Weber warned the baby-faced student he was facing 40 years in prison and a $40,000 fine for peddling weed on campus. “Obviously, you’re probably not going to get 40 years, but is it a good possibility you’re going to get prison time if you don’t help yourself out? Yeah, there is,” Weber said during the recorded interview. “That’s probably not a way to start off your young adult life and career, right? “What I’m going to ask for you to do is do some buys for me… then depending upon how you do… a lot of this could go away,” Weber added. A frightened Sadek swore not to tell a soul about the undercover ops. He never spoke to his parents or a lawyer. He was encouraged to ferret out dealers and heavier drugs on his own, footage of the interview shows. The video was released to local media last year under open-records requests. Six months later, Sadek turned up dead. Authorities pulled his body, bound to a backpack full of rocks, from the Red River. There was a bullet hole in his head. Police tried to tell his parents, John and Tammy Sadek, he committed suicide, Tammy Sadek told The Daily Beast. Two years later, and the Sadeks still have no answers about how their son died—but they believe he was murdered as a result of the informant gig.
On Monday, the family filed a wrongful death suit against Richland County and Deputy Weber, who helmed the dangerous operation as part of the South East Multi-County Agency Narcotics Task Force, or SEMCA. When reached by phone, Weber declined to comment. His attorney, who also represents Richland County, also refused to speak. Tammy Sadek says she’s waited for details on her son’s undercover buys, and still hopes the same deputies who recruited him will nab his killer. “That’s why we’re forced into this lawsuit. A lawsuit is not the North Dakota way. But this is our last grasp at hoping to get some answers,” Tammy Sadek told The Daily Beast. “We’re not a sue-happy state. A man’s word means something here in North Dakota,” she added. “We trust that people are going to honor their word. We trust the police. It just didn’t happen in this case.” The Sadeks have asked the FBI to take over the case, which is being probed by Minnesota and North Dakota authorities. Tammy Sadek is also working with a Republican state lawmaker on legislation to protect informants and reduce marijuana penalties in North Dakota.
Not the first time I've heard of something like this. Being an undercover informant is already dangerous, and pressuring college kids into this seems like a terrible way to enforce the law/combat drugs.
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Edit: To clarify my thoughts, I do feel bad for the informant that got shot. Especially since he was pressured into doing it by local cops when he wasn't really qualified for it.But when the thread title is "Casualties on the war on drugs" and it's just about an American student in North Dakota it rubs me the wrong way. Especially since Americans are largely responsible for the violence in Mexico.
TheCustomLime wrote: So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).
Again, not saying his life is worth more than anyone else's, just that the "War on drugs" needs to find new ways of combating drugs that don't involve innocents getting murdered.
So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).
In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.
While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).
In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.
While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.
Sorry, but no. Did you the read the article? He got pressured in to being an informant by the cops saying he'd go to jail (he most likely would have gotten a fine and maybe kicked out college). Instead, he got in over his head and got murdered for $20 of weed.
Besides, calling an 18-20 year old an adult is iffy. Sure, they're legally an adult, but most are still new to the real world.
Glad to see another human's life means so much to you.
TheCustomLime wrote: So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).
Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding. And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).
In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.
While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.
It was pot and a small amount of it. Good thing you've never drank illegally before otherwise we could talk about us not caring when you got shot and killed
TheCustomLime wrote: So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).
Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.
Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.
And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.
Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).
In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.
While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.
Hrm, this characterization is probably a wee bit harsh methinks. He was 20, not exactly an age reknowned for critical thinking ability or great maturity. Likewise, $80 worth of pot isnt exactly a hardcore drug dealer, thats less than the legal maximum daily individual personal purchase amount in my state. A relatively minor offense. His suppliers were probably a local grow operation, probably not Cartel in ND.
The cops used this kid, and pressured him into an entirely different league of stuff for what honestly was a trivial offense, and it got him killed. That should be the end of someone's career.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).
In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.
While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.
Point of order: Cannabis/marijuana is not legally defined as a narcotic. The police in this case told him to pursue those dealers, which likely greatly increased the chances of him running into violent people. Cannabis is, quite literally, a weed and does not require the specialized growing, manufacturing and processing that "hard" drugs require. It is entirely possible that his supplier was a hippie who happened to own a camo tarp, or indeed, a locality where the sale is legal (though he is a smuggler at that point), as it was to be a drug cartel. The police provided no information on who they were interested in, didn't know if this person had any connection, it was basically "go find things and let us know" wherein this outcome was a high likelihood. The cartels haven't stayed in business this long without being aware that the police will try to infiltrate them in pretty much exactly this way.
To re-frame what the police did here, someone commits a low-level crime such as running a red light multiple times. In a deal, the police tell someone in an interrogation room without legal counsel that if they infiltrate a street racing ring they can make those things go away and they won't serve any time for their repeated offenses (which was unlikely to be particularly long if it even got that far, which a lawyer would have told him). During the process, the informant has to participate in a race, crashes and is killed in an illegal street race they otherwise would not have been in. While you can argue that running the red lights was still a traffic violation, the risk that the police "motivated" them to undertake seems wholly out of sorts with what was going on.
It was irresponsible of the police to do, though I doubt legally negligent. However, they should be held to account for the lies that they told the family after the fact to cover it up. Also, America's drug policy needs a massive revamp, because this is the smallest of casualties as has already been mentioned.
TheCustomLime wrote: So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).
Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.
Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.
And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.
Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"
I meant it in the sense that America's appetite for drugs outweighs Mexico's by a big margin. But you're right, Mexico and America do have a problem with drugs. It just seems that America's problem is getting little Jimmy to stop smoking dope and Mexico's problem is that little Jimmy is in a shallow grave while his dad's severed hand is sent to his family.
I agree that the Mexican government does share some of the blame in the current drug war. Corruption is rife even after Calderon's purges. Some of the top cartel leaders are ex-government officials.
TheCustomLime wrote: So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).
Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.
Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.
And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.
Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"
I meant it in the sense that America's appetite for drugs outweighs Mexico's by a big margin. But you're right, Mexico and America do have a problem with drugs. It just seems that America's problem is getting little Jimmy to stop smoking dope and Mexico's problem is that little Jimmy is in a shallow grave while his dad's severed hand is sent to his family.
I agree that the Mexican government does share some of the blame in the current drug war. Corruption is rife even after Calderon's purges. Some of the top cartel leaders are ex-government officials.
Agreed. For the record, I went to school with a great guy. He wanted to be a journalist and got an assignment in Mexico to report on some drug activity. They found him a week later at the bottom of an elevator shaft.
I wish there was more cooperation between Mexico and the US, I just don't know what the answer to that is.
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
I think weed is pretty harmless, and people getting locked up or charged for pot possession is a waste of our task forces time and money.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).
In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.
While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.
Point of order: Cannabis/marijuana is not legally defined as a narcotic. The police in this case told him to pursue those dealers, which likely greatly increased the chances of him running into violent people. Cannabis is, quite literally, a weed and does not require the specialized growing, manufacturing and processing that "hard" drugs require. It is entirely possible that his supplier was a hippie who happened to own a camo tarp, or indeed, a locality where the sale is legal (though he is a smuggler at that point), as it was to be a drug cartel. The police provided no information on who they were interested in, didn't know if this person had any connection, it was basically "go find things and let us know" wherein this outcome was a high likelihood. The cartels haven't stayed in business this long without being aware that the police will try to infiltrate them in pretty much exactly this way.
To re-frame what the police did here, someone commits a low-level crime such as running a red light multiple times. In a deal, the police tell someone in an interrogation room without legal counsel that if they infiltrate a street racing ring they can make those things go away and they won't serve any time for their repeated offenses (which was unlikely to be particularly long if it even got that far, which a lawyer would have told him). During the process, the informant has to participate in a race, crashes and is killed in an illegal street race they otherwise would not have been in. While you can argue that running the red lights was still a traffic violation, the risk that the police "motivated" them to undertake seems wholly out of sorts with what was going on.
It was irresponsible of the police to do, though I doubt legally negligent. However, they should be held to account for the lies that they told the family after the fact to cover it up. Also, America's drug policy needs a massive revamp, because this is the smallest of casualties as has already been mentioned.
Agreed. The cops made some inexcusably bad decisions in this instance. Just objectively looking at the risk/reward should have convinced the cops that there was no way a low level weed dealer was going to be able to deliver a much bigger bust for them. Those cops were stupid, lazy and excercised poor judgement.
Nobody should ever talk to the police without invoking their right to legal counsel. Doesn't matter why the cops want to speak with you, doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent, doesn't matter if you think the cops involved are your friends, speaking to police without a lawyer is never a good idea.
Legalizing drugs would go a long way to improving our country and the "War on Drugs."
Blaming the US for Mexico's narco terrorism is silly. The lack of economic and political stability in Mexico, the ineffectiveness and corruption of their police forces, and all the other myriad factors that make Mexico suspectible to domestic turmoil all contribute more to their trouble with narco terrorism than the US market. The market for drugs in the US is going to exist independent of whatever happens in Mexico and that market is going to be supplied by somebody, it certainly doesn't have to be Mexico that produces the drugs. The fact that a lot of drugs do come from Mexico has everything to do with internal Mexican problems and little to do with the US. That's like blaming the poppy fields in Afghanistan on the US. It's not America's fault that there are no better alternatives to making money in Afghanistan other than growing heroin. That country has been an anarchic mess with crippling poverty long before we ever got involved over there.
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
Sure there is. Legalization.
Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.
The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.
TheCustomLime wrote: So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Were the Mexicans people who got picked up for a baggie of weed and then turned into informants? I agree Mexico's drug problem is just as bad, but that also has to do with police corruption, which seems far more prevalent than America's (at least in terms of drug and gang payoffs).
Then I'd prefer the title be "Drug dealer turned informant gets killed" or "Police corruption implicated in the death of drug informant". And no, Mexico's drug problem isn't as bad. America's more affluent population are the primary consumers of drugs and where the cartels gets most of their funding.
Note taken on the title. How is Mexico's drug problem not as bad? Yeah, they're not the ones using it, but if they're the source of the drugs and the basis of operations, they're part of the drug problem.
And frankly, when peopleare found in mass graves, when body parts turn up on peoples doorsteps and when entire cities erupt into warzones in the United States then you can say the drug problems are equivalent.
Again, that's due to A) the corruption of the police and B) Mexico being one of the basis of operations of the cartels. "Just as bad" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant that yes, Mexico and the US both have a problem with drugs, not "White people in America's lives are more valuable than Mexicans"
I meant it in the sense that America's appetite for drugs outweighs Mexico's by a big margin. But you're right, Mexico and America do have a problem with drugs. It just seems that America's problem is getting little Jimmy to stop smoking dope and Mexico's problem is that little Jimmy is in a shallow grave while his dad's severed hand is sent to his family.
I agree that the Mexican government does share some of the blame in the current drug war. Corruption is rife even after Calderon's purges. Some of the top cartel leaders are ex-government officials.
America's problem is not getting little Jimmy to stop smoking pot. America's problem is that only a few places can grow pot and that means there is a high demand from the rest of the country. Which means the Cartels can slip in and make a huge profit by smuggling large amounts of low grade and cheap weed.
Legalize weed and give people the ability to grow weed in the US, the Cartels weed business will die. Plus, we grow much better stuff here in the states. Brick weed is gak. It is like the difference between McDonalds and 5 Guys.
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
Sure there is. Legalization.
Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.
The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.
Everybody wins.
Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.
Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
Sure there is. Legalization.
Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.
The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.
Everybody wins.
Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.
Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?
Legalization doesn't solve every problem. It does change the set of problems from unmanageable ones to manageable problems. Nothing is ever going to be problem free.
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
Sure there is. Legalization.
Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.
The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.
Everybody wins.
Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.
Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?
So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?
Also, a lot of the chronic homeless who are addicted to alcohol have major mental health issues that cause them to be addicted to alcohol easier. The same way that certain mental health issues cause people to be more susceptible to nicotine addiction and so on and so forth.
Nobody is saying legalization will solve all of the problems, but it will reduce all of them in a major way. From there, they can be managed much easier. Instead we have a War on Drugs that we can never win that is continuing to spiral out of control, hurting large populations of countries that are mostly innocent in it. All because we have this fear of "druggies."
War on Drugs is fading away though. Look at how many states are thinking of legalizing "weed" for consumer use. Its going to change to Tax on Drugs.
Though the hardcore opiates I can see the fight going on for awhile.
Jihadin wrote: War on Drugs is fading away though. Look at how many states are thinking of legalizing "weed" for consumer use. Its going to change to Tax on Drugs.
Though the hardcore opiates I can see the fight going on for awhile.
Unless they were peddled by a doctor. The War on Drugs looks more like a bid for monopolization when Pharma, Cigarettes and Alcohol are considered.
Dreadwinter wrote: So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?
Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high. The only ones who win by making Meth legal are the ones who make and distribute Meth. The cost to society vastly exceeds any revenue that could be received by taxes. Same with crack cocaine.
Dreadwinter wrote: Nobody is saying legalization will solve all of the problems, but it will reduce all of them in a major way. From there, they can be managed much easier.
How? Show me specifically how Meth and Crack would be "managed easier" or that the problem would be reduced "in a major way".
The closest thing I have seen to a possible solution is Portugal's decriminalization of the addict's drug use and pushing them into treatment instead of prison. The problem with this in the US is that treatment centers are almost always full to capacity and drug offenses often include non-drug crimes such as theft, breaking & entering, etc. so the user is likely headed to prison anyway. Then there are the civil liberties issues. In the US, we simply cannot force people into treatment no matter how impaired they are or how many lives it would save. So what works in another country isn't easily imported to ours.
Jihadin wrote: War on Drugs is fading away though. Look at how many states are thinking of legalizing "weed" for consumer use. Its going to change to Tax on Drugs.
Though the hardcore opiates I can see the fight going on for awhile.
Unless they were peddled by a doctor. The War on Drugs looks more like a bid for monopolization when Pharma, Cigarettes and Alcohol are considered.
In Washington State, the revenue expected from pot sales isn't coming in as much as was anticipated. Illegal pot growers can still import their stuff to Washington and sell it cheaper than the legal growers can, thus the black market still exists and is a significant portion of sales in Washington State. Gangs and cartels haven't really been hurt by legalization. In other words, legalization isn't doing what was promised because the taxes are so high the criminals can easily undercut the legal stuff and make a lot of money. Also, downtown Seattle stinks. Seriously, it is not a pleasant odor.
As a side note, Washington and Colorado are being treated at as laboratory experiments by the Fed. Legalization/decriminalization hasn't been in place long enough to get good metrics on how effective it is which is why everyone is in a sort of holding pattern nationally. Also, the effects of pot use on people is another thing being looked at in these states and that will need a long term study to get the facts straight.
Dreadwinter wrote: So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?
Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high. The only ones who win by making Meth legal are the ones who make and distribute Meth. The cost to society vastly exceeds any revenue that could be received by taxes. Same with crack cocaine.
what does criminalizing these substances do for the users aside from inflate prison populations? A lot of these people get stuck in these substances after convictions for lighter substances kill job prospects. They get on meth and stay on it because they dont think they have any eay out or any better options. Some are too far gone to ever really help but by no means all. All criminalization does is gove them a record that'll haunt them forever and make breaking that cycle just that much harder. Having known active and former addicts, the people who get on these substances are in them because it's the only bright spot on their lives in most cases. Some are irretrievably lost, some arent, but tossing them in jail just for using isnt doing anyone any good.
In Washington State, the revenue expected from pot sales isn't coming in as much as was anticipated.
WA has collected over $200 million in tax receipts from marijuana
Washington's problem is that Oregon now made it legal too, decreasing some of the "tourist" revenue. Oregon took in more tax revenue in the first month of taxation than they were expecting for the entire year.
Dreadwinter wrote: So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?
Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high. The only ones who win by making Meth legal are the ones who make and distribute Meth. The cost to society vastly exceeds any revenue that could be received by taxes. Same with crack cocaine.
what does criminalizing these substances do for the users aside from inflate prison populations? A lot of these people get stuck in these substances after convictions for lighter substances kill job prospects. They get on meth and stay on it because they dont think they have any eay out or any better options. Some are too far gone to ever really help but by no means all. All criminalization does is gove them a record that'll haunt them forever and make breaking that cycle just that much harder. Having known active and former addicts, the people who get on these substances are in them because it's the only bright spot on their lives in most cases. Some are irretrievably lost, some arent, but tossing them in jail just for using isnt doing anyone any good.
As Breotan pointed out, it keeps them from committing criminal acts that often coincide with the consumption of Meth. 50-70% of property crime is committed by those on Meth. How much higher do you think that rate will get if we just give them free passage?
The new system has clearly not replaced, or even threatened, corner dealers either in Washington or Colorado. Rather, they fit into the cracks of a new world, where middle-class stoners are able to engage in a favorite pastime without fear of prosecution, and an expensive legal market keeps everyone else looking for a bargain. The result: Small-time, under-the-table dealing remains lucrative enough to entice young black men to cross the line, to be arrested far more frequently than their white peers. And the hustle continues.
Actually, the biggest fear I have with legal pot is that the tobacco companies will come in and take over the market. Once they start dumping chemicals into the pot, you'll see all the same health issues you see with tobacco but by then it will be accepted and society will have forgotten the lessons learned and paid so dearly for.
More people using and becoming addicted? I see it as staying relatively the same as a percentage of crime but that doesn't mean much to the victims or the addicts.
I wouldn't think legalizing drugs would give much of a spike in meth use. It's meth. Sure, maybe all that's holding back one or two people is the illegality, but I thought the appeal of the stuff was how it could be made comparatively under the radar from legal substances.
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
Sure there is. Legalization.
Illegal booze during Prohibition brought gangs and violence, repealing Prohibition brought Budweiser babes and increased government revenues through taxation.
The vast sums of tax money pissed away into the War on Drugs could be spent on Narc Anon and other rehab programs. The violence and gang activity would reduce immensely.
Everybody wins.
Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.
Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?
I know quite a few "weekend warriors" who only smoke crack/ meth on the Friday/Saturday night, and work five days a week to help fund that habit. Imagine your own party culture in your twenties, except they add hard drugs to the "fun".
Breotan wrote:
Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth.
Do you actually know any people addicted to meth or crack? In addition to the weekend warrior types, I know two girls who were full time crackheads who hated every second of it. One of them now lives halfway across the country to get out of the "scene".
Breotan wrote:
The closest thing I have seen to a possible solution is Portugal's decriminalization of the addict's drug use and pushing them into treatment instead of prison. The problem with this in the US is that treatment centers are almost always full to capacity and drug offenses often include non-drug crimes such as theft, breaking & entering, etc. so the user is likely headed to prison anyway. Then there are the civil liberties issues. In the US, we simply cannot force people into treatment no matter how impaired they are or how many lives it would save. So what works in another country isn't easily imported to ours.
If the the money currently wasted in the futile and destructive War on Drugs was put into treatment centres, the lack of capacity problem would cease.
The US can force people into prisons can't it? Why not treatment? Why not treatment centres in prisons?
The real problem is the massive Prison Industrial Complex that has sprung up in the US. I thought profiting from crime was illegal in the USA?
Perhaps legalisation of narcotics should not be in the form of leaving them up to private companies that have an interest in increasing consumption but handled by the state as a matter of national health.
That way we can stop throwing people into for-profit prisons and instead tackle the reasons for why people become and stay addicted.
Dreadwinter wrote: So just because it doesn't solve all the problems, only a majority of them, we should keep it illegal?
Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high. The only ones who win by making Meth legal are the ones who make and distribute Meth. The cost to society vastly exceeds any revenue that could be received by taxes. Same with crack cocaine.
Dreadwinter wrote: Nobody is saying legalization will solve all of the problems, but it will reduce all of them in a major way. From there, they can be managed much easier.
How? Show me specifically how Meth and Crack would be "managed easier" or that the problem would be reduced "in a major way".
The closest thing I have seen to a possible solution is Portugal's decriminalization of the addict's drug use and pushing them into treatment instead of prison. The problem with this in the US is that treatment centers are almost always full to capacity and drug offenses often include non-drug crimes such as theft, breaking & entering, etc. so the user is likely headed to prison anyway. Then there are the civil liberties issues. In the US, we simply cannot force people into treatment no matter how impaired they are or how many lives it would save. So what works in another country isn't easily imported to ours.
Jihadin wrote: War on Drugs is fading away though. Look at how many states are thinking of legalizing "weed" for consumer use. Its going to change to Tax on Drugs.
Though the hardcore opiates I can see the fight going on for awhile.
Unless they were peddled by a doctor. The War on Drugs looks more like a bid for monopolization when Pharma, Cigarettes and Alcohol are considered.
In Washington State, the revenue expected from pot sales isn't coming in as much as was anticipated. Illegal pot growers can still import their stuff to Washington and sell it cheaper than the legal growers can, thus the black market still exists and is a significant portion of sales in Washington State. Gangs and cartels haven't really been hurt by legalization. In other words, legalization isn't doing what was promised because the taxes are so high the criminals can easily undercut the legal stuff and make a lot of money. Also, downtown Seattle stinks. Seriously, it is not a pleasant odor.
As a side note, Washington and Colorado are being treated at as laboratory experiments by the Fed. Legalization/decriminalization hasn't been in place long enough to get good metrics on how effective it is which is why everyone is in a sort of holding pattern nationally. Also, the effects of pot use on people is another thing being looked at in these states and that will need a long term study to get the facts straight.
Depends on the addict. Some want out, some want more. Lets try not to assume everybody is the same. So what will legalizing meth do? Fewer arrests, safer manufacture, and higher grade product. That means fewer meth lab explosions and less death because of gakky product. This also means you will be freeing up a lot of money we can also put towards rehab centers for those that want to quit. Pretty easy question. Actually, I just answered both your questions, very easily! Wow!
As for your black market argument, there is a black market for everything. It shows that the product is not accessible to everybody. The problem is that not everybody can grow their own, like it should be. instead, only a certain amount of places are given the OK to grow and sell. That causes a low supply. But if the demand is high, people are going to be paying more. The problem isnt with legalization, it is with half-assed legalization.
The new system has clearly not replaced, or even threatened, corner dealers either in Washington or Colorado. Rather, they fit into the cracks of a new world, where middle-class stoners are able to engage in a favorite pastime without fear of prosecution, and an expensive legal market keeps everyone else looking for a bargain. The result: Small-time, under-the-table dealing remains lucrative enough to entice young black men to cross the line, to be arrested far more frequently than their white peers. And the hustle continues.
Actually, the biggest fear I have with legal pot is that the tobacco companies will come in and take over the market. Once they start dumping chemicals into the pot, you'll see all the same health issues you see with tobacco but by then it will be accepted and society will have forgotten the lessons learned and paid so dearly for.
That's the problem with "sin taxes" they are punitive by nature so it doesn't discourage illegal sales. Eric Garner was a habitual offender of illegally selling individual cigarettes so people could avoid the taxes. Marijuana is more popular than tobacco so if people can get it easily without having to pay heavy taxes they'll do it. Making something legal and then taxing it heavily to discourage it's use is bad policy. It makes no sense to punish people for choosing to do something that's perfectly legal and it incentivizes black markets and illegal behavior. If states/municipalities with legal marijuana only levied the normal sales tax on it the legalization would have a larger positive effect.
Smoking cigarettes is a declining behavior. It's still legal but fewer people are choosing to smoke because we know it's bad for you. If drugs like meth were legal but we all still knew it was a terribly destructive habit I don't see why usage would significantly increase just because of legalization. All of the crimes associated with drug additction would still be illegal and still be prosecuted, we'd just stop punishing people just for using/possessing drugs.
djones520 wrote: Everyone knows Meth is a terribly destructive habit. Hell, one of the most popular tv shows ever was showcasing that very fact.
Meth growth is still climbing though.
If the prohibition against meth is already proven to be wholly ineffective then what's the positive in continuing it? We can legalize it and regulate it while increasing education about it and get the govt trying to put users into rehab instead of prison. If we've reached the point where widespread meth use is inevitable then our policies should reflect that reality.
Like all stories, there's another side to this. Most of the time the drug dealer who got pinched is begging to provide information to our narcotics guys in exchange for a good plea deal or a dismissal of their charges. He isn't even approached by our narcotics people. Having a felony on your record is a strong incentive to help law enforcement. Even more so if it isn't your first one and will likely face a prison sentence if you were distributing.
Most of the time they promise the world but only deliver one minor dealer, then act like they don't know anyone else in the area. Then we prosecute them anyway because they failed to deliver. I've done this dance so many times I know all the steps. And I'd rather have the risk be on them than an undercover officer.
For those of you complaining about not funding treatment, that isn't entirely true. Often I'm revoking peoples' probation for drug offenses that refused to go to court ordered treatment. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Every now and then someone surprises me and successfully completes their treatment, but most go right back to using and/or dealing. Some even have great jobs, but deal on the side. Nothing is sadder than seeing someone who makes more than me dealing. The poor people I can at least understand.
I don't understand how people can throw their lives and families away for this junk. There's a popular myth these days about the non-violent drug offender. Drugs almost always lead to more crime. Be it burglaries, theft, credit card fraud, drug induced traffic accidents, or domestic violence. I've seen young kids sent to the emergency room by drugs. It will always be my express pleasure to prosecute habitual drug offenders, as I want none of them in my community.
For some reason few manage to use in controlled amounts in the privacy of their own homes without bothering others. If this was the case I wouldn't have a problem with it. I always shake my head when I get another report of dumb kids with drugs in their cars. If you're going to use, do it in your home and don't bother anyone. You won't find yourself in a situation like that described in the OP.
Safer manufacture is another popular myth. In California marijuana simply is no longer enforced. BHO (butane hash oil) can be produced if you get a permit. The trouble is these permits are just a cheap tax to raise money, and don't impose any safety restrictions. The last drug conference I went to we watched dopers light themselves on fire making that stuff legally. Meth is even more volatile. That's why we have a specially equipped response team for meth labs. The last thing I want is my neighbor getting a permit to produce a volatile narcotic.
Most people do use in the privacy of their own homes. You are only catching the ones who have either done something stupid or got incredibly unlucky. The vast majority of drug users never get in to trouble with the law. You have a bias because you see "so many people" go through the system but in reality, it is a small percentage. I, personally, have never been in trouble with law enforcement in any way. Despite my drug use.
I find it ridiculous in a country where freedom is supposed to be the most important thing, we take it away from people who make personal choices about drugs. Then when we make life as hard for them as possible, we get upset when they resort to crime to survive.
Dreadwinter wrote: Most people do use in the privacy of their own homes. You are only catching the ones who have either done something stupid or got incredibly unlucky.
My point exactly. We don't go hunting for private users. They come to us frequently.
Dreadwinter wrote: You missed my entire point that it is not as frequently as you think it is.
I had to go to college twice. I think I've got a firm grasp on the amount of recreational users that never get pinched. Many of them are now practicing lawyers.
For some reason few manage to use in controlled amounts in the privacy of their own homes without bothering others.
Really? Because this comment directly contradicts what you said.
As far as BHO manufacture, it is pretty safe in a well ventilated or outside area. The problem comes when you are forced to do it in an area that is not either of these so you do not get caught. Considering it is still not legal to do a lot of these things in California, I assume they were attempting to do it without being caught.
However, most extracts are made in labs in legal states like Colorado, they are also not made with Butane as the way of collecting the THC from the plant.
You know, I read the OP post and thought maybe there'd finally be a wonderful discussion on OT. We could talk about not drugs, but the way we fight them. How police bully people into situations that are incredible dangerous, and that they have no business being in, and how there's near no accountability of police for when these people get hurt or even killed. We could talk about the reality that someone has been killed over $20 of weed without debating drug use, because how in the hell is there even a question about the how wrong it is that someone wound up dead over a Jackson.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would you assume a thread involving a kid killed directly because of our war on drugs would not talk about the war on drugs?
I don't think the thread is talking about the drug war, hence why I said;
We could talk about not drugs, but the way we fight them
This thread reads like a check off list of a generic "why do people do drugs, and why isn't weed legal" conversation. It stopped being about the drug war, or even the original topic a dozen posts in, and half of those posts were a really bitter and defeating discussion about whether America or Mexico has it worse, because lets not talk about why people die lets talk about whose death(s) was more depressing
TheCustomLime wrote: So what? Thousands of Mexicans died because of the cartels. Am I supposed to feel bad for one white kid?
(Apologies if I come off as incensed. I have family ties to Mexico.)
Edit: To clarify my thoughts, I do feel bad for the informant that got shot. Especially since he was pressured into doing it by local cops when he wasn't really qualified for it.But when the thread title is "Casualties on the war on drugs" and it's just about an American student in North Dakota it rubs me the wrong way. Especially since Americans are largely responsible for the violence in Mexico.
Exalted to the nth degree. The Latinos I know tell me the Gringos don't give a gak aboutBrown people dying as long as they get their drugs. Let one Gringo get killed and it's suddenly a catastrophe. This is something I've said for years and why I have no problem with Latinos coming to this country in order to escape the hell hole down there the drug users here were accomplices in creating.
I don't know the right way to get rid of drug cartels, but America's current policies obviously aren't working.
There is no magic bullet solution to the drug problem. You can't force people who don't want help to get help. All I'll say, is that people who think we're losing the war on drugs, don't realize that we could be losing a whole lot worse than we are.
While I agree that there is no magic bullet, I do think we can look at what other similarly industrialized/civilized countries have done, and at least emulate it. By that I mean, take a look at what Portugal and Spain have done, see that it works and actually has cut down on other types of crime on top of clearing out a bunch of prison space.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... let me get this strait. A young narcotics dealer gets busted for peddling his supply on school grounds. He directly contributed to a cruddier society and likely funded worse guys (his suppliers).
In order to save his own rear from the punishment he new awaited him he decided to be a rat instead.
While I feel sympathy for his family I don't think the world is necessarily worse off without him. He knew the risks going in and he was an adult.
Point of order: Cannabis/marijuana is not legally defined as a narcotic. .
Wrong. On a Federal level Marijuana is still classified as a schedule one narcotic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, apparently there is a little snag that might pop up at some point. States that are legalizing weed might be in for shock. Regardless of what they say, there is NO legal sale of recreational weed in the US. It is still illegal under federal law. What does that mean? Technically states can not tax it, as it is proceeds from an illegal sale. If the Federal Government ever got a stick up its butt, they very well could force the states to cough up every cent they have ever collected in taxes. Those taxes are technically proceeds of the sale of illegal drugs and the DEA can confiscate them.
For some reason few manage to use in controlled amounts in the privacy of their own homes without bothering others.
Really? Because this comment directly contradicts what you said.
As far as BHO manufacture, it is pretty safe in a well ventilated or outside area. The problem comes when you are forced to do it in an area that is not either of these so you do not get caught. Considering it is still not legal to do a lot of these things in California, I assume they were attempting to do it without being caught.
However, most extracts are made in labs in legal states like Colorado, they are also not made with Butane as the way of collecting the THC from the plant.
Allow me to clarify. The ones that wind up in front of me are the ones I'm referring to. I realize there are plenty that don't get caught. Just like there's plenty of drunk drivers that didn't get caught this weekend.
And no, BHO isn't perfectly safe outside. One doper lights up like an idiot and kaboom! And every single BHO fire I watched at laughed at occurred in a permitted operation. Despite the law not caring about it in California the DEA has plenty of pictures in their slideshow from that state. Some put it in their refrigerator because they think it will be more potent. The gas seeps out, falls to the bottom, then the compressor kicks on. Instant dead dopers.
You can pretty much pick the posters in here who've never dabbled in their lives. They're always the first ones to shout that drug users are nasty criminals and society is better off for having them shut away for good.
Outside of America many countries are moving from a 'drug addiction is acriminal offence' to 'drug addiction is a sickness' and are seeing usage rates and prison numbers drop.
I'm currently in Thailand where the penalties for drugs are some of the worlds harshest. It's easier to get drugs here than back home in New Zealand.
Thanks to the OP for sharing that first story. It's a pretty powerful story about what is wrong with treating very minor drugs like marijuana as criminal offences.
Breotan wrote: Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high.
None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.
Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.
I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.
For some reason few manage to use in controlled amounts in the privacy of their own homes without bothering others.
Really? Because this comment directly contradicts what you said.
As far as BHO manufacture, it is pretty safe in a well ventilated or outside area. The problem comes when you are forced to do it in an area that is not either of these so you do not get caught. Considering it is still not legal to do a lot of these things in California, I assume they were attempting to do it without being caught.
However, most extracts are made in labs in legal states like Colorado, they are also not made with Butane as the way of collecting the THC from the plant.
Allow me to clarify. The ones that wind up in front of me are the ones I'm referring to. I realize there are plenty that don't get caught. Just like there's plenty of drunk drivers that didn't get caught this weekend.
And no, BHO isn't perfectly safe outside. One doper lights up like an idiot and kaboom! And every single BHO fire I watched at laughed at occurred in a permitted operation. Despite the law not caring about it in California the DEA has plenty of pictures in their slideshow from that state. Some put it in their refrigerator because they think it will be more potent. The gas seeps out, falls to the bottom, then the compressor kicks on. Instant dead dopers.
Nowhere did I say it was perfectly safe outside. I did say it is safe outside. I also assumed that people would understand that butane is flammable and you cannot have fire near it. You are really only proving that people need to take a basic chemistry class or read the bottle of butane before attempting to make BHO. But, this would all be a non-issue if it was not illegal and people used the alcohol extraction method or common sense.
Monkey Tamer wrote: And no, BHO isn't perfectly safe outside. One doper lights up like an idiot and kaboom! And every single BHO fire I watched at laughed at occurred in a permitted operation. Despite the law not caring about it in California the DEA has plenty of pictures in their slideshow from that state. Some put it in their refrigerator because they think it will be more potent. The gas seeps out, falls to the bottom, then the compressor kicks on. Instant dead dopers.
We best ban all flammable substances then to protect all the idiots
LordofHats wrote: You know, I read the OP post and thought maybe there'd finally be a wonderful discussion on OT. We could talk about not drugs, but the way we fight them. How police bully people into situations that are incredible dangerous, and that they have no business being in, and how there's near no accountability of police for when these people get hurt or even killed. We could talk about the reality that someone has been killed over $20 of weed without debating drug use, because how in the hell is there even a question about the how wrong it is that someone wound up dead over a Jackson.
Then I read the thread.
Why was I so optimistic about this topic?
When the thread is titled "Casualties of the war on drugs" instead of say "Police bully kid into becoming informant, gets shot" it's hard not to fall into a discussion framed as a debate of the overall drug war.
But I think I'm going to stay out of this thread from now on as I don't believe I can remain (Even on the surface) unbiased in this discussion as, again, it hits too close to home.
Ya i was going to respond to the poster that blamed Americans for Mexico's problems. I mean it's not like "white kids" are holding guns to they're heads and making them cartel members. But I'll just leave it alone too.
Everybody except those killed by drunk drivers. Or those who's employment/families are ruined by alcoholism. Or the cost to the economy of the chronic homeless who are alcoholics, those who need medical care for alcohol related conditions such as liver failure, etc.
Now add to that all the extra problems from all the other drugs legalized. Robberies and muggings will still be a thing because meth addicts can't hold down a job to afford drugs even if they were legal. And prostitutes? What about them? Many women do it voluntarily but many more do not. Countries that legalized prostitution still have problems with human trafficking - how is that possible if legalization solves everything?
Would any of that go away if alcohol became illegal again?
MarsNZ wrote: You can pretty much pick the posters in here who've never dabbled in their lives. They're always the first ones to shout that drug users are nasty criminals and society is better off for having them shut away for good.
Outside of America many countries are moving from a 'drug addiction is acriminal offence' to 'drug addiction is a sickness' and are seeing usage rates and prison numbers drop.
I'm currently in Thailand where the penalties for drugs are some of the worlds harshest. It's easier to get drugs here than back home in New Zealand.
I've never dabbled in alcohol, tobacco and harmful drugs. I count that as a win for me. You seem to disagree? Tell me how engaging in harmful illegal activity makes your opinion on harmful illegal activity less biased and more valuable than mine.
I know people who have used drugs who are close friends and not nasty criminals. They have supported criminal enterprise through their use of illicit substances, with all that entails. They are not using drugs now but they were not blameless innocents when they were.
The issue is that while users are victims in a sense, and 'sick' in a sense, they are also responsible for demand and therefore supply.
yellowfever wrote: Ya i was going to respond to the poster that blamed Americans for Mexico's problems. I mean it's not like "white kids" are holding guns to they're heads and making them cartel members. But I'll just leave it alone too.
It's also not like violence is isolated to just those within the cartels. The drug users here in this country, through buying the cartels product, have given them the money they need to turn Mexico into a hell hole. Not that the drug users give a damn about it, or the tens of thousands of lives lost per year down there, of course.g
As far as your statement about White kids not holding guns to people's heads goes, people in Mexico and other countries south are murdered in large numbers by the cartels if they refuse to work for them.
yellowfever wrote: Ya i was going to respond to the poster that blamed Americans for Mexico's problems. I mean it's not like "white kids" are holding guns to they're heads and making them cartel members. But I'll just leave it alone too.
It's also not like violence is isolated to just those within the cartels. The drug users here in this country, through buying the cartels product, have given them the money they need to turn Mexico into a hell hole. Not that the drug users give a damn about it, or the tens of thousands of lives lost per year down there, of course.g
As far as your statement about White kids not holding guns to people's heads goes, people in Mexico and other countries south are murdered in large numbers by the cartels if they refuse to work for them.
Gee, like I said, it's almost like there's some sort of rampant police corruption and poverty that fund these cartels. Again, this is not "white people vs. brown people", this is "the war on drugs is failing".
None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.
Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.
I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.
As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.
I guess yet another problem with the war on drugs, is the serious misinformation and poor understanding of the issues that goes on. Just as how the US government circulated anti-Latino papers in its campaign to make marijuana illegal (by extension, this campaign included African-American people as well), basically creating certain myths about both groups that I STILL see to this day.
Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.
That wealth is based on many things, illegal drugs being a portion. To that include: human trafficking; mass racketeering and intimidation; and control/taxation through murder of the lime industry, and entire sections of Mexican territory now.
Frazzled wrote: Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.
That wealth is based on many things, illegal drugs being a portion. To that include: human trafficking; mass racketeering and intimidation; and control/taxation through murder of the lime industry, and entire sections of Mexican territory now.
But poverty drives that. It happens in America too. Why work McD's for $8 an hour when you can make $1000+ selling rock? If it wasn't so profitable, why is it in every rap song? Look at Rick Ross. The guy started with a couple friends and $300 from stealing a car. By his prime, he was selling $2 to $3 million in crack a day. There's a reason this happens in poor communities, and that demand is what drives the cartels. The cartels bring it in, then guys like Rick Ross peddle it to their dealers, who sell it to the public.
You're also forgetting the lead part of the essential "silver or lead" transaction, and the fact that drugs are just a part of cartel criminal empires now.
Informant got wacked. A Christian feels sad at this. On the other hand as my Chicago wife would say: "snitches get stitches and songbirds get their necks broken."
Frazzled wrote: Thats not poverty. Thats extreme levels of cash.
You're also forgetting the lead part of the essential "silver or lead" transaction, and the fact that drugs are just a part of cartel criminal empires now.
Okay, if you can't see that relation, then I can't explain it to you. Whatever.
Informant got wacked. A Christian feels sad at this. On the other hand as my Chicago wife would say: "snitches get stitches and songbirds get their necks broken."
Really? Really? He was an 20 year old kid, not just an informant. Also, that's the stupidest motto I've ever heard. That's what kept crime and gangs running those areas for so many years. Such a fething stupid sentiment.
Frazzled wrote: Thats not poverty. Thats extreme levels of cash.
You're also forgetting the lead part of the essential "silver or lead" transaction, and the fact that drugs are just a part of cartel criminal empires now.
Okay, if you can't see that relation, then I can't explain it to you. Whatever.
I see the relation, and we're not disagreeing. The money being offered is greater than profits from other employment opportunities. Outside of professional sports, the money is greater than what others are comparatively at every level.
Then the "lead" portion of the equation comes in.
Informant got wacked. A Christian feels sad at this. On the other hand as my Chicago wife would say: "snitches get stitches and songbirds get their necks broken."
Really? Really? He was an 20 year old kid,
Thats not a kid. Thats an adult who could have been tried as an adult in most jurisdictions for six years. You seem to gloss over that in 99% of the world, thats an adult male with children.
not just an informant.
I am sure to his family he was important. To everyone else he is a small time loser druggie informant. Got it. And? Its because he's a white boy right? Where are your posts on the dozens of same age or younger shot in Chicago this last weekend? How about Detroit, L.A.?
Also, that's the stupidest motto I've ever heard. That's what kept crime and gangs running those areas for so many years. Such a fething stupid sentiment.
Is it stupid? He died for it. Evidently it wasn't stupid to him now was it, or else you wouldn't be foaming at the mouth. if you ran your mouth about a drug dealer would you think it was stupid when he blew your brains onto the concrete? Thats reality. Thats "the lead" of the equation. Thats why people don't testify.
Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.
None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.
Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.
I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.
As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.
To clarify a bit, powder cocaine (for snorting) was the cocaine of choice for the upper classes, while crack cocaine (for smoking) was the cocaine of choice for the lower classes. Crack is smokeable and provides an easier, faster high, making each high cheaper to get compared to powder cocaine (as you need less of it). The stereotype you refer to exists because of the crack cocaine scare of the 80s, resulting in harsher penalties for crack (which, functionally, is no more or less dangerous than powder, but when have politicians ever really cared about facts when the rallying cry is "think of the children!") which impacted the African American community more. But that's another story in itself.
Thats not a kid. Thats an adult who could have been tried as an adult in most jurisdictions for six years. You seem to gloss over that in 99% of the world, thats an adult male with children.
An adult who can't drink. So he's old enough to be held responsible for crimes, but not old enough to drink alcohol. Guess what? I knew a guy who had a kid at 15. Does that make him an adult?
not just an informant.
I am sure to his family he was important. To everyone else he is a small time loser druggie informant. Got it. And? Its because he's a white boy right? Where are your posts on the dozens of same age or younger shot in Chicago this last weekend? How about Detroit, L.A.?
A "small time druggie informant" pushed into it by the police. Again, pulling the race card? Really? This isn't "whites are more important than blacks", this is "the criminilization of drugs as violent crimes is a bad tactic to fight drugs" which, guess what, involves blacks and latinos too! What a crazy concept.
Also, that's the stupidest motto I've ever heard. That's what kept crime and gangs running those areas for so many years. Such a fething stupid sentiment.
Is it stupid? He died for it. Evidently it wasn't stupid to him now was it, or else you wouldn't be foaming at the mouth. if you ran your mouth about a drug dealer would you think it was stupid when he blew your brains onto the concrete? Thats reality. Thats "the lead" of the equation. Thats why people don't testify.
It's a stupid motto because it keeps gangs in power through fear of retribution. Just because "that's the reality of it" doesn't make it right. Isn't that what America is supposed to fight for, justice, equality, etc? Or no, just roll over and don't snitch because you'll get your head shot off.
None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.
Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.
I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.
As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.
To clarify a bit, powder cocaine (for snorting) was the cocaine of choice for the upper classes, while crack cocaine (for smoking) was the cocaine of choice for the lower classes. Crack is smokeable and provides an easier, faster high, making each high cheaper to get compared to powder cocaine (as you need less of it). The stereotype you refer to exists because of the crack cocaine scare of the 80s, resulting in harsher penalties for crack (which, functionally, is no more or less dangerous than powder, but when have politicians ever really cared about facts when the rallying cry is "think of the children!") which impacted the African American community more. But that's another story in itself.
Part of the cheapness and danger of crack cocaine comes with what you're able to cut it with, though. Cocaine is usually pure or at least to a certain level. Crack can be cut with all types of substances and basically watered down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: 60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.
Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.
And most people are sick of it. The problem is how do you combat rampant poverty, the for profit prisons, lack of community ties, and poor criminal rehabilitation?
Thats not a kid. Thats an adult who could have been tried as an adult in most jurisdictions for six years. You seem to gloss over that in 99% of the world, thats an adult male with children.
An adult who can't drink. So he's old enough to be held responsible for crimes, but not old enough to drink alcohol. Guess what? I knew a guy who had a kid at 15. Does that make him an adult?
He can vote.
He can drive a multimillion dollar attack helicopter and legally kill you with it.
He can drive a multimillion dollar tank and kill you with it.
He can navigate a ship.
He can vote.
He can run for elected office.
He’s old enough to be the cops that he was an informant to.
not just an informant.
I am sure to his family he was important. To everyone else he is a small time loser druggie informant. Got it. And? Its because he's a white boy right? Where are your posts on the dozens of same age or younger shot in Chicago this last weekend? How about Detroit, L.A.?
A "small time druggie informant" pushed into it by the police. Again, pulling the race card? Really? This isn't "whites are more important than blacks", this is "the criminilization of drugs as violent crimes is a bad tactic to fight drugs" which, guess what, involves blacks and latinos too! What a crazy concept.
How is it crazy. Where are your posts on the deaths that occurred in Chicago yesterday? Ever? Why not? Why a 20 year old white guy?
It's a stupid motto because it keeps gangs in power through fear of retribution.
Its not stupid. Its effective.
Just because "that's the reality of it" doesn't make it right. Isn't that what America is supposed to fight for, justice, equality, etc?
There is no justice. There is just us. Whether or not its right is not the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And most people are sick of it. The problem is how do you combat rampant poverty, the for profit prisons, lack of community ties, and poor criminal rehabilitation?
Thats not a kid. Thats an adult who could have been tried as an adult in most jurisdictions for six years. You seem to gloss over that in 99% of the world, thats an adult male with children.
An adult who can't drink. So he's old enough to be held responsible for crimes, but not old enough to drink alcohol. Guess what? I knew a guy who had a kid at 15. Does that make him an adult?
He can vote. He can drive a multimillion dollar attack helicopter and legally kill you with it. He can drive a multimillion dollar tank and kill you with it. He can navigate a ship. He can vote. He can run for elected office. He’s old enough to be the cops that he was an informant to.
So, once you're 18 (hell, 17 for some crimes) you're immediately responsible for any/all actions, even mistakes? Good to know the world's so kind. Effective immediately, all laws are now punishable by death.
A "small time druggie informant" pushed into it by the police. Again, pulling the race card? Really? This isn't "whites are more important than blacks", this is "the criminilization of drugs as violent crimes is a bad tactic to fight drugs" which, guess what, involves blacks and latinos too! What a crazy concept.
How is it crazy. Where are your posts on the deaths that occurred in Chicago yesterday? Ever? Why not? Why a 20 year old white guy?
Oh feth right off. So because I don't adress every drug related death, I'm automatically a racist? Also, guess what?!? It's not just him, it's happened to lots of other kids at other colleges
It's a stupid motto because it keeps gangs in power through fear of retribution.
Its not stupid. Its effective.
So was the Holocaust. Does that make what Hitler did okay? He was very effective at keeping people in fear.
Just because "that's the reality of it" doesn't make it right. Isn't that what America is supposed to fight for, justice, equality, etc?
There is no justice. There is just us. Whether or not its right is not the issue.
Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.
So, once you're 18 (hell, 17 for some crimes) you're immediately responsible for any/all actions, even mistakes? Good to know the world's so kind. Effective immediately, all laws are now punishable by death.
Yes. This is news to you?
Oh feth right off.
You don’t say it nearly as well as the wife. She has a complete “FU dance” for just this occasion. It’s the kicks that really sell it.
So because I don't adress every drug related death, I'm automatically a racist? Also, guess what?!? It's not just him, it's happened to lots of other kids at other colleges
Don’t worry, wealthy judges usually agree with you and give substantially less time to the wealthy.
So was the Holocaust. Does that make what Hitler did okay? He was very effective at keeping people in fear.
Don’t change the subject. You said it was stupid. Its anything BUT stupid.
There is no justice. There is just us. Whether or not its right is not the issue.
Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.
“There is no justice, just us” is an old saying from the Chicago PD actually. I believe you’re attempting to argue morals, but the subject was a drug dealer-who by nature had no morals. Sounds like karma. Maybe the best morality is don’t be a criminal in the first place.
Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.
“There is no justice, just us” is an old saying from the Chicago PD actually. I believe you’re attempting to argue morals, but the subject was a drug dealer-who by nature had no morals. Sounds like karma. Maybe the best morality is don’t be a criminal in the first place.
Yep, this about sums about what I've been arguing with you. I refuse to argue further with you, as I think you're literally killing my brain cells, so I'll leave you with this: Things aren't that black and white. Yeah, it'd be great if people didn't commit crimes, but they do. There's a reason some crimes are misdemeanors and some are felonies.
Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.
“There is no justice, just us” is an old saying from the Chicago PD actually. I believe you’re attempting to argue morals, but the subject was a drug dealer-who by nature had no morals. Sounds like karma. Maybe the best morality is don’t be a criminal in the first place.
Yep, this about sums about what I've been arguing with you. I refuse to argue further with you, as I think you're literally killing my brain cells, so I'll leave you with this: Things aren't that black and white. Yeah, it'd be great if people didn't commit crimes, but they do. There's a reason some crimes are misdemeanors and some are felonies.
You're the one arguing black and white concepts like justice, not I. He was a drug dealer and got turned by the police, correct? Other drug dealers found out correct? Thats murder and they should be prosecuted for such if they can be found. But, despite it "being stupid" odds are they won't be because there aren't any witnesses.
Its ok though. The drug dealers were likely younger than 20 and as such impressionable youths who should be shown leniency due to their tender years. I mean you can't consider someone under 30 an adult and responsible for their actions now can you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Yall need to watch the movie traffic. Splendid performance from Benicio Del toro.
This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.
I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.
My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".
Frazzled wrote: A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...
WWII was won by 19 and 20 year olds.
And America never made mistakes, right? Right, Vietnam?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.
I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.
My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".
In that case: I think anyone not born after 1989 should be locked up for being a crotchety old fart. Aren't generalizations fun?
Frazzled wrote: A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...
WWII was won by 19 and 20 year olds.
And America never made mistakes, right? Right, Vietnam?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.
I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.
My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".
In that case: I think anyone not born after 1989 should be locked up for being a crotchety old fart. Aren't generalizations fun?
I'm not calling out all youth. You have to admit that many of them want this rather unique double standard. So, what do you honestly think? Is someone "mature" enough at 7 to be transgender and decide to have an abortion at 12? If they are, why are they not mature enough to be an informant at 20?
Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.
I am sick of it!
So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.
Frazzled wrote: A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...
What's your point? A ten year old can kill you with a car/knife/gun, intentional or accidentally. Just because somebody can talk a life they suddenly are a responsible person? Or is their capacity to be responsible somehow bound to them being able to enter the military and get the legal right to kill people (under special circumstances)? Military recruiters literary prey on the stupidity of young people to get their signature. Or impulsiveness, patriotism, or financial problems, anything really. This has been one of the longest wars for the US and they need more people to keep this running. If all these young people were as responsible as you want them to be the US military would be lacking in qualified personnel for both wars since about 2007. Even laxer recruitment standards were introduced to combat the low numbers. "Somebody is of military age" seems like a really bad justification for anything.
I read articles about young drone pilots and the the process a lot of them go through: From initial video gamey feelings and abstractions that help to masquerade the reality of it, to the realization that real lives are lost on the other side of that screen (and questioning of the usefulness of their orders, jobs, and lax requirements), to alcoholism, PTSD, and depression (and then getting out of the military once it becomes unbearable). The idea of them being able to do this and it being a good (or useful) criterion for responsibility baffles me.
Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.
I am sick of it!
So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.
I think on of the best things that ever brought crime rates down was focusing on where and who the problems are. Unfortunately, this often makes it look like the police are racially profiling people and neighborhoods. Regardless of how it looks, it WAS and IS effective.
yellowfever wrote: Ya i was going to respond to the poster that blamed Americans for Mexico's problems. I mean it's not like "white kids" are holding guns to they're heads and making them cartel members. But I'll just leave it alone too.
It's also not like violence is isolated to just those within the cartels. The drug users here in this country, through buying the cartels product, have given them the money they need to turn Mexico into a hell hole. Not that the drug users give a damn about it, or the tens of thousands of lives lost per year down there, of course.g
As far as your statement about White kids not holding guns to people's heads goes, people in Mexico and other countries south are murdered in large numbers by the cartels if they refuse to work for them.
Gee, like I said, it's almost like there's some sort of rampant police corruption and poverty that fund these cartels. Again, this is not "white people vs. brown people", this is "the war on drugs is failing".
It's more like drug users up here, White, Black or any color in between, don't care who down there gets killed as long as they get their drugs.
So, I've heard this from a number of political talking heads. They have stated that we can't blame the Mexicans for our drug problems, as it is our demand that is fueling their supply.
So why is it when they demand guns, for some reason Americans are to blame? Isn't their demand fueling our supply?
sebster wrote: Thanks to the OP for sharing that first story. It's a pretty powerful story about what is wrong with treating very minor drugs like marijuana as criminal offences.
Breotan wrote: Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high.
None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.
Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.
I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.
I think the problem is US policy has led to people believing outright lies about drugs. Most heroin users aren't addicts, like between 75-90% aren't addicts, they're casual users. Now compare that statistic with what people think about heroin. The reality doesn't match the perception. Not even touching the fact we give amphetamines to children and stronger opiates than diacetylmorphine to anyone.
Most drug users are just that, users. Abusers are a small subset of the population, much like most people that drink aren't alcoholics. People know that, but yet still conflate drug use with drug abuse.
Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.
yellowfever wrote: Ya i was going to respond to the poster that blamed Americans for Mexico's problems. I mean it's not like "white kids" are holding guns to they're heads and making them cartel members. But I'll just leave it alone too.
It's also not like violence is isolated to just those within the cartels. The drug users here in this country, through buying the cartels product, have given them the money they need to turn Mexico into a hell hole. Not that the drug users give a damn about it, or the tens of thousands of lives lost per year down there, of course.g
As far as your statement about White kids not holding guns to people's heads goes, people in Mexico and other countries south are murdered in large numbers by the cartels if they refuse to work for them.
Americans don't care because its another country, not because they're brown. Strong anti-drug measures are often in the purview of the American Right, no? That same group that doesn't care about tens of thousands of dead Muslims because "collateral damage"?
Frazzled wrote: Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.
That wealth is based on many things, illegal drugs being a portion. To that include: human trafficking; mass racketeering and intimidation; and control/taxation through murder of the lime industry, and entire sections of Mexican territory now.
But poverty drives that. It happens in America too. Why work McD's for $8 an hour when you can make $1000+ selling rock? If it wasn't so profitable, why is it in every rap song? Look at Rick Ross. The guy started with a couple friends and $300 from stealing a car. By his prime, he was selling $2 to $3 million in crack a day. There's a reason this happens in poor communities, and that demand is what drives the cartels. The cartels bring it in, then guys like Rick Ross peddle it to their dealers, who sell it to the public.
And then you get into the Regan Administrations direct involvement in getting Freeway his cocaine and the War on Drugs just looks even more of a farce.
DutchWinsAll wrote: [Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.
.
Technically, all illegal drug users are drug abusers. Unless you are following the legally prescribed administration of the drugs it is abuse, by definition.
Also, pot isn't exactly harmless. There are new links that show that exposure to it before the age of 25 can lead to mental impairment regarding enthusiasm, motivation, and short term memory. Another study shows that pot can cause inheritable genetic corruption. A user won't notice anything to themselves, but their children could have increased chances of genetic abnormalities (anemia, heart murmur, early-onset cataracts, spina bifoda, cleft pallet, club foot). Also these genetic disruptions can increase with each successive generation if each generation is exposed.
cuda1179 wrote: I think on of the best things that ever brought crime rates down was focusing on where and who the problems are. Unfortunately, this often makes it look like the police are racially profiling people and neighborhoods. Regardless of how it looks, it WAS and IS effective.
Was it? US police tactics of that nature peaked in the 70s, and it didn't stop the rising crime wave. In fact the crime wave decrease in the 90s coincided with a general scaling back of "where and who" street policing (assuming of course that you and I are thinking of the same kinds of police tactics mind you). I think reducing crime is infinitely more complex than anything the police can/should do. Even now, why crime in the US started to rise in the late 60s and started to drop in the 90s is not understood. There's dozens of credible arguments (and dozens of uncredible ones) posting why it happened. Police are a last line in law and order. Not the beginning. Their presence makes us feel safer, and it certain gratifies us when we see them perp walking the accused, and heavily patrolling crime heavy neighborhoods etc etc. But I think that over the past century, there's no real evidence that the police are as effective at reducing crime as we liked to think.
Some people think modern society too easily damns police for making judgement cal;s. Some people think the police have too little accountability. Maybe we should all consider that we've been putting to much onto law enforcement officers, and its reached a point where no human being could ever live up to the expectations we've built up in our collective mind.
DutchWinsAll wrote: [Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.
.
Technically, all illegal drug users are drug abusers. Unless you are following the legally prescribed administration of the drugs it is abuse, by definition.
Also, pot isn't exactly harmless. There are new links that show that exposure to it before the age of 25 can lead to mental impairment regarding enthusiasm, motivation, and short term memory. Another study shows that pot can cause inheritable genetic corruption. A user won't notice anything to themselves, but their children could have increased chances of genetic abnormalities (anemia, heart murmur, early-onset cataracts, spina bifoda, cleft pallet, club foot). Also these genetic disruptions can increase with each successive generation if each generation is exposed.
No. A substance being illegal does not make someone using it suddenly abusing it. Drug abuse is using it to deleterious effects to your health or life. Use is simply that, use. Drinking a few beers on a Friday night is use. Drinking 12 beers everyday is abuse. Taking 100ug of LSD is 3-4 times a year is use. Taking heroic doses several times a week is abuse.
And I'll have to see some really hard data that cannabis increases genetic "corruption". That reeks of the pseudo-science BS peddled by the media on myriad topics to gain hits. Just like some cannabis users claim it cures cancer, it doesn't; nor does it cause "genetic corruption. One study is not gonna change my mind about that. And when compared to alcohol, tobacco, motorsports, swimming, sex, etc. its harmless. The only reason its still illegal is decades old racism, lazy law enforcement that like stealing from easy targets and the inability of governments around the world to admit that they were wrong, and therefore opening a whole can of worms about other drugs.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.
Coke was largely seen as a white people drug while crack cocaine was largely seen as a black people drug. And so despite being less potent, penalties for crack cocaine were much higher than penalties for similar amounts of cocaine.
I guess yet another problem with the war on drugs, is the serious misinformation and poor understanding of the issues that goes on. Just as how the US government circulated anti-Latino papers in its campaign to make marijuana illegal (by extension, this campaign included African-American people as well), basically creating certain myths about both groups that I STILL see to this day.
Remember how terrified we were about the crack babies that were going to destroy society? That was the combining the racist myth that the higher birth rate among blacks is going to overwhelm society, combining it with the racist myth that only black people take crack, and putting the two together to make one massive super-racist myth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.
If purely wealth drove the issue then the criminal groups in the US would just cut out the middle man and produce in the US. Or other developed countries would start up their own drug creation industries.
But that doesn't happen for the simple reason that in wealthy countries it's fairly straight forward to get a job that pays an okay wage, and so a lot less people are willing to accept the risk of prison and death by working in illegal narcotics.
There's also lots of other factors, of course, police corruption and non-police areas are major ones. But those are also driven by the wealth of the country.
DutchWinsAll wrote: [Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.
.
Technically, all illegal drug users are drug abusers. Unless you are following the legally prescribed administration of the drugs it is abuse, by definition.
Does that mean all cigarette smokers are drug abusers because the surgeon general suggests not to smoke?
I don't mean not to smoke sometimes, it is suggested to never smoke cigarettes. Ever.
Was it? US police tactics of that nature peaked in the 70s, and it didn't stop the rising crime wave. In fact the crime wave decrease in the 90s coincided with a general scaling back of "where and who" street policing (assuming of course that you and I are thinking of the same kinds of police tactics mind you). I think reducing crime is infinitely more complex than anything the police can/should do. Even now, why crime in the US started to rise in the late 60s and started to drop in the 90s is not understood. There's dozens of credible arguments (and dozens of uncredible ones) posting why it happened. Police are a last line in law and order. Not the beginning. Their presence makes us feel safer, and it certain gratifies us when we see them perp walking the accused, and heavily patrolling crime heavy neighborhoods etc etc. But I think that over the past century, there's no real evidence that the police are as effective at reducing crime as we liked to think.
One article that we read in my last Poli-sci class gave decent "evidence" for one positive police tactic that the author believed helped to lower crime in NYC.... in the late 80s, early 90s, NYC was viewed as a real hell hole, a godless sort of criminal wasteland (now, whether that's true or not is not really for me to say... I've never been there)
NYC got a new police commissioner who began instituting policies to combat crime at its lowest levels... Basically, traffic cops were told to enforce EVERY gate jumper in the subway. The MTA was told to scrub graffiti off of subway cars, even if it meant doing the same car multiple times in 12 hour shifts (the cars were to be inspected and fixed as soon as they got into the storage/transfer HQ yard), warehouses with broken windows were to have their windows repaired, broken streetlamps were to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. On top of this, NYPD were to make notes of where crimes happened more often and patrol there. Apparently all of these things combined to create an image that the government "cared" about the people, and that the police were there to actually enforce laws, and crime dropped.
Personally, I've also seen credible arguments that we could "solve" a large number of crimes by dealing with our economic issues more appropriately. Economic despair has been linked as a driving force for a number of types of crime. Obviously something like discussing wages, welfare and the like are really OT for this topic, but I think that that, going hand in hand with better drug policy could go a fair distance to helping on a lot of fronts.
cuda1179 wrote: This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them.
Ah yes, 'the youth of today'. As opposed to 'the youth of yesterday'.... who always took personal responsibility for their own choices, and always accepted authority
It's called growing up, mate. It's always been difficult to know how much or how little responsibility a person should have as they move from childhood to adulthood.
Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want?
Medical procedures like abortion almost universally require parental consent and heavy involvement. Abortion is exempted because there is concern that some children would be in danger if they had to tell their parents they were pregnant. It's a really bad situation, but quite irrelevant as a comparison to this issue.
Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender?
They can't. There's a long and in-depth psychological review, in which many kids are actually denied.
Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18?
Lots of people do question it. They can't stop it, because it's a right we grant early in life for the simple reason that we are more lenient in passing on decision making to people when those decisions are more easily undone.
The only real response was "but that's different".
Because they are different things. You seem to be working on the assumption that once you hit a certain point of maturity then all decision making should come to you. If that were true then age for voting, for driving, for drinking, for joining the army would all be the same. But they aren't because things are actually different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I'm not calling out all youth. You have to admit that many of them want this rather unique double standard. So, what do you honestly think? Is someone "mature" enough at 7 to be transgender and decide to have an abortion at 12? If they are, why are they not mature enough to be an informant at 20?
I think you're confusing the individual with the collective. Individual kids pretty much never say 'don't make me responsible, I'm not mature enough!'
Instead what you see is kids arguing for more responsibility, and at the same time many adults will be looking at when kids have done bad or irresponsible things and saying 'he's just a kid, let him make some mistakes without punishing him forever over it'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchWinsAll wrote: Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.
Definitely this. If government and greater society wants to have an authority that is actually heard and respected by kids, then it needs to make what it says about drugs accurate and honest. Scare campaigns work on 10 year olds, but are laughed at by 15 year olds because they're so far from the reality they can see around them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: NYC got a new police commissioner who began instituting policies to combat crime at its lowest levels... Basically, traffic cops were told to enforce EVERY gate jumper in the subway. The MTA was told to scrub graffiti off of subway cars, even if it meant doing the same car multiple times in 12 hour shifts (the cars were to be inspected and fixed as soon as they got into the storage/transfer HQ yard), warehouses with broken windows were to have their windows repaired, broken streetlamps were to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. On top of this, NYPD were to make notes of where crimes happened more often and patrol there. Apparently all of these things combined to create an image that the government "cared" about the people, and that the police were there to actually enforce laws, and crime dropped.
Yeah, it was the 'broken window' theory. This is the idea that if an area looks neglected, ie has broken windows, then people think it's okay to commit crime there. Whether that's because people think it's more acceptable morally, or because they're less likely to ge caught I can't remember. Anyhow, there was an effort to remove the signs of crime around NY, so graffiti and stuff like that, and it had an amazingly positive effect.
There were also lots of other factors. NY was in a significant economic upswing. There was a huge amount of federal, state and city money put in to more policing. Penalties for crimes were increased. Technology was changing (immobilisers came in and just smashed quickly smashed the rate of car theft). And the centre of NY was radically transformed, the old XXX movie houses were forced out in favour of legit but very boring corporate stores.
The problem with the broken windows theory is that crime fell everywhere over that timeframe, and to a greater degree in some places - places which did not utilize broken windows style policing.
Ouze wrote: The problem with the broken windows theory is that crime fell everywhere over that timeframe, and to a greater degree in some places - places which did not utilize broken windows style policing.
Yeah, I think it probably played a part, but was far from the major driver. But I know a lot of criminologists have made pretty decent arguments that it had no effect, with the studies you've referenced above. It probably does have an effect though. But if you want a really big effect just spend the money on more cops.
Does anyone remember which city it was where the police department and city were facing two simultaneous lawsuits?
On one hand one person was suing them because they didn't have enough police presence in their minority community, so crime was bad.
In the other lawsuit someone was suing them because there was too much police presence, because a disproportionate number of minorities were being arrested.
Frazzled wrote:
A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...
WWII was won by 19 and 20 year olds.
And America never made mistakes, right? Right, Vietnam?
Irrelevant. Also, those “mistakes” weren’t caused by 20 year olds firing for effect, but Democratic Presidents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote:
This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.
I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.
My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".
In that case: I think anyone not born after 1989 should be locked up for being a crotchety old fart. Aren't generalizations fun?
You’re the one claiming special status because of his age.
Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.
I am sick of it!
So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.
Thunderdome? Quit voting for the same party over and over and over with nothing changing?
Frazzled wrote: A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...
What's your point? A ten year old can kill you with a car/knife/gun, intentional or accidentally. Just because somebody can talk a life they suddenly are a responsible person? .
No, its that they can be legally empowered by the US government to do that. The 10 year old, not so much.
20 is adult, deal you spoiled younglings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If purely wealth drove the issue then the criminal groups in the US would just cut out the middle man and produce in the US. Or other developed countries would start up their own drug creation industries.
They have. meth, and bath salts (now thats crazy stuff), and a variety of other drugs are done here). Weed is grown here.
Cartels have been pushing out much of the home made stuff.
cuda1179 wrote: Does anyone remember which city it was where the police department and city were facing two simultaneous lawsuits?
On one hand one person was suing them because they didn't have enough police presence in their minority community, so crime was bad.
In the other lawsuit someone was suing them because there was too much police presence, because a disproportionate number of minorities were being arrested.
And, in all but the smallest cities, that could be absolutely true on both counts. While that seems like a logical contradiction that you can't have too many police and not enough police, once you add in that police presence will not be evenly distributed across any given geographic area it can be readily apparent that they could be lots of police in the "nice" neighborhood where minorities are being hassled and next to none in the "ghetto" where crime is rampant and the police don't go for a variety of reasons (safety, lack of community cooperation, etc.).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: NYC got a new police commissioner who began instituting policies to combat crime at its lowest levels... Basically, traffic cops were told to enforce EVERY gate jumper in the subway. The MTA was told to scrub graffiti off of subway cars, even if it meant doing the same car multiple times in 12 hour shifts (the cars were to be inspected and fixed as soon as they got into the storage/transfer HQ yard), warehouses with broken windows were to have their windows repaired, broken streetlamps were to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. On top of this, NYPD were to make notes of where crimes happened more often and patrol there. Apparently all of these things combined to create an image that the government "cared" about the people, and that the police were there to actually enforce laws, and crime dropped.
I'm aware of this. I'm also aware of the argument that these strategies didn't really reduce crime. They simply shifted where it was happening which worked out to make statistics look better, but didn't actually reduce crime as much as was thought. When the same police commissioner went to Chicago, he tried the same strategies and they didn't have the same results as they did in NYC.
Which is kind of my point. I don't think we understand crime nearly as well as we like to think we do, especially not with regard to law enforcement.
Personally, I've also seen credible arguments that we could "solve" a large number of crimes by dealing with our economic issues more appropriately.
I think that's fair too. Poverty is something police can do absolutely nothing about. In many ways, they can't even do much about the Drug War. So much about what is wrong with the Drug War is outside their hands and in the hands of politicians who use it as a campaign platform, and administrators who use anti-drug programs to boost their credentials which I don't say to demonize politicians and administrators. I think the Drug War has radically spiraled out of anyone's control. All parties are just passengers on a runaway train that this point imo. It's a mess.
I'm aware of this. I'm also aware of the argument that these strategies didn't really reduce crime. They simply shifted where it was happening which worked out to make statistics look better, but didn't actually reduce crime as much as was thought. When the same police commissioner went to Chicago, he tried the same strategies and they didn't have the same results as they did in NYC.
Which is kind of my point. I don't think we understand crime nearly as well as we like to think we do, especially not with regard to law enforcement.
This was pretty much the argument I made in that class as well (I generally loved to play the devil's advocate in that one, professor loved it, not sure about other people )
Personally, I think that while something like the broken window theory may help the people and the police, it cannot be done in a vacuum. When you have situations like we constantly see today, when a white person does largely the same crime under the "same" circumstances as a minority, but the minority receives double or more punishment for it, many people are going to become disenfranchised with the whole thing, which certainly doesn't help with public order. Obviously, I absolutely hate the private prison industry that we have, and I know most of us have seen the newspaper articles about how that's already having some backlash (see: maryland or virginia juvenile courts judge who was receiving kickbacks from a privately owned juvenile prison for sending kids there)
Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.
I am sick of it!
So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.
I don't have the first damn clue.
Blackmailed, untrained informants is probably not it, though.
House to house raids isn't it.
It has to start with the community, though. It can't be top down through strong-armed enforcement. That will never work.
Education is a starting point. About the violence in general, the dangers that slinging drugs and joining gangs entail, and also basic education. My wife works with the truancy department in northern IL. The stories of kids missing tons of school days and their parents not giving a flying feth are sad.
Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.
I am sick of it!
So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.
I don't have the first damn clue.
Blackmailed, untrained informants is probably not it, though.
House to house raids isn't it.
It has to start with the community, though. It can't be top down through strong-armed enforcement. That will never work.
Education is a starting point. About the violence in general, the dangers that slinging drugs and joining gangs entail, and also basic education. My wife works with the truancy department in northern IL. The stories of kids missing tons of school days and their parents not giving a flying feth are sad.
That's the key problem right there. It's not that difficult to provide people with information and education on a subject and I think for the most part people understand the violence and tragedy inherent in gangs and criminal behavior. The real problem is that no matter what information we know, no matter how we try to desseminate it to the public, no matter what programs are offered to people, it's really really hard to convince apathetic people to actually start giving a feth. The truancy dept cares more about those kids' education and well being than their parents. That's sad and gakky. The dept can do what it can to push the kids back into schools but the dept can do very little to push the parents to start caring and getting involved with their kids' education. Once the problem becomes generational it becomes very ingrained in the culture and the environment and that makes it very difficult for somebody from the outside to create a catalyst that breaks the cycle. Increasing law enforcement, prosecuting more crimes, locking people up in prison for longer sentences, it treats a symptom but it doesn't make the schools better, make the parents more involved, or make the community more committed to giving their kids a brighter future. Those underlying problms remain and then we add an acrimonious distrustful relationship with police and authority on top of it.
People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.
Monkey Tamer wrote: People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.
Monkey Tamer wrote: People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.
Why stop with addicts? We should also disown and excommunicate LGBT, people that have had abortions, people that have had premarital sex, people that masturbate, people that don't go to church every Sunday, people that don't root for the Goddam Houston Texans, people that don't vote Republican, etc.
a condition called hikikomori, a type of acute social withdrawal.
Good read till this part and then it got really interesting afterwards. Though from my experience in Asian countries, South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and other side hops I've done, drugs were not the major issue but alcohol is a major culprit.
Monkey Tamer wrote: People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.
Why stop with addicts? We should also disown and excommunicate LGBT, people that have had abortions, people that have had premarital sex, people that masturbate, people that don't go to church every Sunday, people that don't root for the Goddam Houston Texans, people that don't vote Republican, etc.
Thankfully, we don't follow India's dumbass laws and practices.
It's a sign of good fortune if cross dressers show up at your wedding there. They've got to be whacking off like mad men because they don't get married until they're done with school, which means late 20s for most of them. Most are Hindu, so they don't go to church. Have we been to the same India? We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.
Monkey Tamer wrote: People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.
Why stop with addicts? We should also disown and excommunicate LGBT, people that have had abortions, people that have had premarital sex, people that masturbate, people that don't go to church every Sunday, people that don't root for the Goddam Houston Texans, people that don't vote Republican, etc.
Thankfully, we don't follow India's dumbass laws and practices.
The current generation of young adults are fighting the old establishment for change. "Honor Killing" was the spark for the drive to do away with old cultural grip to current society of today
Monkey Tamer wrote: We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.
This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.
We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.
We are the prison nation.
We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.
Monkey Tamer wrote: We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.
This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.
We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.
We are the prison nation.
We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.
Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.
Educate yourself.
How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.
And I don't listen to the radio or watch any cable tv news shows. Nice attempt at trying to paint me as a right wing sycophant, but no points for you.
Monkey Tamer wrote: We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.
This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.
We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.
We are the prison nation.
We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.
Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.
Educate yourself.
How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.
And I don't listen to the radio or watch any cable tv news shows. Nice attempt at trying to paint me as a right wing sycophant, but no points for you.
Ofcourse. Your 1% of experiences outweighs everyone else in the United States. Good show.
Monkey Tamer wrote: We indulge crime in this country and wonder why we get the results we continually get.
This is a very uneducated sentence, and you should feel bad for posting it.
We have more people incarcerated than any country in the world. We have zero tolerance for crime here. I have no idea how much Limbaugh and Glenn Beck you're listening to on a daily basis, but you should reduce it.
We are the prison nation.
We have corporate run, federal prisons. We have more people in jail (2,239,751) than there are people in 60 other countries.
Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.
Educate yourself.
How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.
And I don't listen to the radio or watch any cable tv news shows. Nice attempt at trying to paint me as a right wing sycophant, but no points for you.
Ofcourse. Your 1% of experiences outweighs everyone else in the United States. Good show.
My first hand experience tells me the articles are slanted bullsh!t.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't believe the guy that's actually working in the field, guys. The Vox and Huffington post will lead you to the path of righteousness. We lock people up in DOC all the time for personal use amounts of pot and public defenders are utterly useless because articles told you so. I've been in multiple counties within Illinois, and even the most draconian right wing judge I've been in front of rarely incarcerates.
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.
Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.
Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?
At last we are in agreement about something. Some states offer tax rebates for hiring felons. Several felons in the area now work as roofers or do manual labor for contracting companies. It is difficult, yes, but not impossible. Some of these people had bad parenting, and would have been better served going to the military to escape their life and start a career, but many of them are dragged down by their fellows and wallow in the same filth until they catch a case. But it isn't all bad even if you have a felony charge. First offender probation is a popular disposition for first time offenders with felony drugs. But as I've said before you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink. Many of them re-offend, don't indulge in the free treatment, or pop on a urinalysis. I'm sorry I get worked up about this, but I've had way too many meetings with victims where I have to tell them what they found on the internet just isn't true. The guy that broke into their house isn't going to prison. Yes, he has a criminal history, but their version of bad and the judge's version of bad history is different. Sometimes we quite literally have to wait until they kill or try to kill someone. It's often a thankless profession and the media's false information certainly isn't helping. Some people just can't get right, and there is no other way to deal with them other than remove them from society. Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.
Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?
At last we are in agreement about something. Some states offer tax rebates for hiring felons. Several felons in the area now work as roofers or do manual labor for contracting companies. It is difficult, yes, but not impossible. Some of these people had bad parenting, and would have been better served going to the military to escape their life and start a career, but many of them are dragged down by their fellows and wallow in the same filth until they catch a case. But it isn't all bad even if you have a felony charge. First offender probation is a popular disposition for first time offenders with felony drugs. But as I've said before you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink. Many of them re-offend, don't indulge in the free treatment, or pop on a urinalysis. I'm sorry I get worked up about this, but I've had way too many meetings with victims where I have to tell them what they found on the internet just isn't true. The guy that broke into their house isn't going to prison. Yes, he has a criminal history, but their version of bad and the judge's version of bad history is different. Sometimes we quite literally have to wait until they kill or try to kill someone. It's often a thankless profession and the media's false information certainly isn't helping. Some people just can't get right, and there is no other way to deal with them other than remove them from society. Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.
The military can be a good choice for some but it's really not geared towards teaching useful job skills or civics. The veterans that I know got their jobs based off of going to college on the GI Bill or having been in a MOS that happened to be easily translatable into a good job, and there's no guarantee of the later happening.
The states need to do a better job of getting people who want to get out of the ghetto out of the ghetto. Nobody should have to live in that kind of detrimental environment. I'm against the govt forcibly relocating people but if we're going to give people housing assistance we should do all we can to move the ones that care about their kids' education and future into neighborhoods that don't promote and condone truancy and crime.
Monkey Tamer wrote: I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
I find that any profession with very specific definitions for terms that differ from their usual usage run into this hard, and the law has lots of jargon and uses lots of words with very specific meanings in mind. And that's not taking into account that people can just understand a profession very poorly. I'm a historian, and there's always a chuckle when people use "historical revisionism" as an insult
well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Monkey Tamer wrote: I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
I find that any profession with very specific definitions for terms that differ from their usual usage run into this hard, and the law has lots of jargon and uses lots of words with very specific meanings in mind. And that's not taking into account that people can just understand a profession very poorly. I'm a historian, and there's always a chuckle when people use "historical revisionism" as an insult
A lot of Latin Words in law. Though it is interesting how much of the Roman Era influence us today. Also the medical field to.
We talking about the State Prison pop right? How many states have the three strikes your out approach to jail term?
Asterios wrote: well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.
But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.
Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?
At last we are in agreement about something. Some states offer tax rebates for hiring felons. Several felons in the area now work as roofers or do manual labor for contracting companies. It is difficult, yes, but not impossible. Some of these people had bad parenting, and would have been better served going to the military to escape their life and start a career, but many of them are dragged down by their fellows and wallow in the same filth until they catch a case. But it isn't all bad even if you have a felony charge. First offender probation is a popular disposition for first time offenders with felony drugs. But as I've said before you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink. Many of them re-offend, don't indulge in the free treatment, or pop on a urinalysis. I'm sorry I get worked up about this, but I've had way too many meetings with victims where I have to tell them what they found on the internet just isn't true. The guy that broke into their house isn't going to prison. Yes, he has a criminal history, but their version of bad and the judge's version of bad history is different. Sometimes we quite literally have to wait until they kill or try to kill someone. It's often a thankless profession and the media's false information certainly isn't helping. Some people just can't get right, and there is no other way to deal with them other than remove them from society. Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.
The military can be a good choice for some but it's really not geared towards teaching useful job skills or civics. The veterans that I know got their jobs based off of going to college on the GI Bill or having been in a MOS that happened to be easily translatable into a good job, and there's no guarantee of the later happening.
The states need to do a better job of getting people who want to get out of the ghetto out of the ghetto. Nobody should have to live in that kind of detrimental environment. I'm against the govt forcibly relocating people but if we're going to give people housing assistance we should do all we can to move the ones that care about their kids' education and future into neighborhoods that don't promote and condone truancy and crime.
The skills I learned in the military kept me fed until I got my law degree. Maybe being a grunt doesn't translate well into many useful civilian jobs, but there are plenty of technical jobs that do. I'm kicking myself for not going into something medical while in the military. Larger municipalities have programs for free job training for criminals. You can learn a trade for free99, paid for by the taxpayers, which in theory will reduce recidivism. Some cities have free taxi services for juvenile offenders to ensure they attend school, often a condition of supervision or probation. Some people want the world handed to them worse than the stereotypical college graduates. Without Matrix style direct injection training some people will not avail themselves of outstanding tax payer programs.
Monkey Tamer wrote: I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
I find that any profession with very specific definitions for terms that differ from their usual usage run into this hard, and the law has lots of jargon and uses lots of words with very specific meanings in mind. And that's not taking into account that people can just understand a profession very poorly. I'm a historian, and there's always a chuckle when people use "historical revisionism" as an insult
A lot of Latin Words in law. Though it is interesting how much of the Roman Era influence us today. Also the medical field to.
We talking about the State Prison pop right? How many states have the three strikes your out approach to jail term?
This is another hot button fodder topic for journalists. It isn't any three strikes and you're out in Illinois. First, it must be a class 2 or greater felony. And the conviction for the third offense must be after the conviction for the second, and after the conviction for the first. A personal use amount of pot will not qualify. i. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95
Asterios wrote: well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.
But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).
where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.
Not at all what you said.
Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned.
You want them all ex-communicated.
Don't cry poor little me and my job get talked badly about in the media.
Quote where I stated I believe all of them should be ex-communicated. Point to where I said absolutely all criminal offenders re-offend. Where are these absolutes you accuse me of?
Asterios wrote: well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.
But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).
where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.
So, this isn't saying he had it coming?
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.
Not at all what you said.
Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned.
You want them all ex-communicated.
Don't cry poor little me and my job get talked badly about in the media.
Quote where I stated I believe all of them should be ex-communicated. Point to where I said absolutely all criminal offenders re-offend. Where are these absolutes you accuse me of?
You keep saying about how soft America is and how much better India is because of how it deals with addicts. Kronk showed that. Please, move the goal posts further.
Asterios wrote: well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.
But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).
where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.
So, this isn't saying he had it coming?
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.
Not at all what you said.
Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned.
You want them all ex-communicated.
Don't cry poor little me and my job get talked badly about in the media.
Quote where I stated I believe all of them should be ex-communicated. Point to where I said absolutely all criminal offenders re-offend. Where are these absolutes you accuse me of?
You keep saying about how soft America is and how much better India is because of how it deals with addicts. Kronk showed that. Please, move the goal posts further.
If you could find a quote where I said "we should do exactly like India" I'd be with you. I offered that other extreme example. We should not do the other extreme. If you can't comprehend English it's not my fault. All other countries have good and bad. India has some corrupt police that stop people on the highway for a "tax." I could use other countries like Singapore. Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt. I'll spell it out in plain English for you: the United States is too soft on crime. Maybe we should try another approach.
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
As a person who lives in the same state as you(Illinois) and has worked with people with mental disorders and attempted to get them in to rehab programs, our rehab programs are absolutely trash. There is a 6 month wait to get in to a rehab program and in that amount of time anything can happen to said person. They can be arrested, OD, decide they do not need it, be kicked out of their home, or move to another area and be unable to join. There is also the fact that we are now over a year without a budget in this state and the things being hit hardest are the programs that help vulnerable people in need, like our rehab programs and mental health facilities. The only reason rehab programs prolong the eventual sentence of incarceration is because they are so underfunded and understaffed that they can only help a small majority of the people who actually need assistance.
So there is my anecdotal evidence, if you can present yours, I can present mine.
Vaktathi wrote: Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.
Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.
As a person who lives in the same state as you(Illinois) and has worked with people with mental disorders and attempted to get them in to rehab programs, our rehab programs are absolutely trash. There is a 6 month wait to get in to a rehab program and in that amount of time anything can happen to said person. They can be arrested, OD, decide they do not need it, be kicked out of their home, or move to another area and be unable to join. There is also the fact that we are now over a year without a budget in this state and the things being hit hardest are the programs that help vulnerable people in need, like our rehab programs and mental health facilities. The only reason rehab programs prolong the eventual sentence of incarceration is because they are so underfunded and understaffed that they can only help a small majority of the people who actually need assistance.
So there is my anecdotal evidence, if you can present yours, I can present mine.
Go point that finger right at Springfield. You and I both know the issue is more complicated than how you're presenting it.
You said that rehab programs only prolong eventual sentence and I told you why that is. Going to an extreme and saying it is because we are soft on crime is not the answer to this. The answer is to actually fund a program and get behind it instead of demonizing people in trouble, which you are advocating for with your India approach.
Asterios wrote: well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.
But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).
where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.
So, this isn't saying he had it coming?
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.
was he an innocent victim? no he was in that position because of something he did, he didn't have to take the deal, he could have done his time, which would have been months, but no he broke the law, got busted and tried a deal, if he never broke the law he wouldn't have been in that situation.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt. I'll spell it out in plain English for you: the United States is too soft on crime. Maybe we should try another approach.
Statistics are better than the anecdotes you've thrown us.
I expect better than "Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt" from a practicing lawyer. Your verbal jabs should be better than that.
Maybe you aren't a good lawyer and that's why you can't get a conviction from the "soft on crime judges".
Perhaps your handle would be a better job for you.
Asterios wrote: well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.
But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).
where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.
So, this isn't saying he had it coming?
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.
was he an innocent victim? no he was in that position because of something he did, he didn't have to take the deal, he could have done his time, which would have been months, but no he broke the law, got busted and tried a deal, if he never broke the law he wouldn't have been in that situation.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
As a person who lives in the same state as you(Illinois) and has worked with people with mental disorders and attempted to get them in to rehab programs, our rehab programs are absolutely trash. There is a 6 month wait to get in to a rehab program and in that amount of time anything can happen to said person. They can be arrested, OD, decide they do not need it, be kicked out of their home, or move to another area and be unable to join. There is also the fact that we are now over a year without a budget in this state and the things being hit hardest are the programs that help vulnerable people in need, like our rehab programs and mental health facilities. The only reason rehab programs prolong the eventual sentence of incarceration is because they are so underfunded and understaffed that they can only help a small majority of the people who actually need assistance.
So there is my anecdotal evidence, if you can present yours, I can present mine.
The budget crisis is beyond bad. It's catastrophic here in IL. I almost wished I had moved to WI and just driven the 35-45 minutes to work everyday.
Dreadwinter wrote: You said that rehab programs only prolong eventual sentence and I told you why that is. Going to an extreme and saying it is because we are soft on crime is not the answer to this. The answer is to actually fund a program and get behind it instead of demonizing people in trouble, which you are advocating for with your India approach.
No, I never said demonize. I said perhaps we should be harder. I offered India as a counter example. And not on first time offenders. I think our first time offender provisions are great for giving people a second chance. On habitual criminals that continue to re-offend, yes, we need to punt them to DOC. India is far from perfect, and I'll take the US over it any day. I like my clean water and constant electricity.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt. I'll spell it out in plain English for you: the United States is too soft on crime. Maybe we should try another approach.
Statistics are better than the anecdotes you've thrown us.
I expect better than "Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt" from a practicing lawyer. Your verbal jabs should be better than that.
Maybe you aren't a good lawyer and that's why you can't get a conviction from the "soft on crime judges".
Perhaps your handle would be a better job for you.
Things to consider.
I'm saying your statistics are biased, and actually agree that we incarcerate a lot of people. My point is the approach we are taking is not working, but you don't seem to comprehend that. Welcome to the ignore list, and for the record I can be quite creative with my jabs, but wasn't going to resort to personal attacks. Go on believing what you find on the internet. Say hi to the Nigerian prince for me.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Jihadin wrote: I truly believe people who becomes informant's are fully aware of the danger they are putting themselves in.
I think that would very much depend on how deep into the game they are. If their only contact was Harold and Kumar then they may not realise that Marlo is the big player in the area and what his reaction would be to someone potentially informing on his organisation.
Which raises the question of was that kid deep enough in to actually get anything useful? From the information we have? No, he wasn't. He was a very small time pot dealer who the police pressured into trying to get a line on harder drugs. Harder drugs leads to harder drug dealers and this kid was in no way adequately prepared to get into that kind of business.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
I'm saying if he didn't break the law he would not have been in that situation, he could have been killed while selling the drugs, he could have died if he went to prison, he could have been killed for any number of reasons, and he knew this and yet still did the crime, so yes, he knew it was dangerous and did it still anyway.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Which is a problem. It may be legal, but I do not think it should be.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Another question is whether (and why) the police knowingly lied to the parents when his body was found. Backpack full of rocks, in a river with a bullet hole in his head? That does not sound like suicide to me. People who commit suicide usually aren't too bothered with trying to make sure that their body isn't found.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Which is a problem. It may be legal, but I do not think it should be.
Our HRC just went kaput due to the lack of State funding, which is sad. Those social workers had a lot of heart. You have to reside in the county to be on drug court, but we no longer have a treatment center for those on drug court. We're not sure what we're going to do. On the flip side lack of funding has also hit law enforcement. It's hard to prosecute drug crimes without lab results, so we may be cherry picking our cases here in the near future. We just had several people die from a bad cut of heroin and were trying different methods of prevention and counseling. Guess we'll never know if any of it would have worked.
If you work in the field of social work you have my utmost respect. You guys must beat your heads against the wall every hour on the hour.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Another question is whether (and why) the police knowingly lied to the parents when his body was found. Backpack full of rocks, in a river with a bullet hole in his head? That does not sound like suicide to me. People who commit suicide usually aren't too bothered with trying to make sure that their body isn't found.
Because it absolutely makes them look bad and shady? Why else would they cover up his murder?
Asterios wrote: well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.
But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).
where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.
So, this isn't saying he had it coming?
as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.
Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.
was he an innocent victim? no he was in that position because of something he did, he didn't have to take the deal, he could have done his time, which would have been months, but no he broke the law, got busted and tried a deal, if he never broke the law he wouldn't have been in that situation.
I'm out. You're either A) clearly a troll or B) too caught in your hatred to see that there's more to this than just black and white.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Another question is whether (and why) the police knowingly lied to the parents when his body was found. Backpack full of rocks, in a river with a bullet hole in his head? That does not sound like suicide to me. People who commit suicide usually aren't too bothered with trying to make sure that their body isn't found.
while more the exception then the rule, some people have done such things like go out into the wilderness to commit suicide and so forth. not saying this was a suicide, but it has happened.
Kid gets in trouble, he gets told he can get out of it and not get kicked from school/have his parents know about what he has done. Seems like a pretty good choice if you do not know they are telling you lies.
You can see how this is pretty awful manipulation, right?
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Another question is whether (and why) the police knowingly lied to the parents when his body was found. Backpack full of rocks, in a river with a bullet hole in his head? That does not sound like suicide to me. People who commit suicide usually aren't too bothered with trying to make sure that their body isn't found.
while more the exception then the rule, some people have done such things like go out into the wilderness to commit suicide and so forth. not saying this was a suicide, but it has happened.
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Which is a problem. It may be legal, but I do not think it should be.
thats what lawyers are for.
it's also a huge reason why ordinary law abiding citizens have good reason to fear, distrust, and avoid cooperation or even friendly interaction with the police.
Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.
and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.
So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Another question is whether (and why) the police knowingly lied to the parents when his body was found. Backpack full of rocks, in a river with a bullet hole in his head? That does not sound like suicide to me. People who commit suicide usually aren't too bothered with trying to make sure that their body isn't found.
while more the exception then the rule, some people have done such things like go out into the wilderness to commit suicide and so forth. not saying this was a suicide, but it has happened.
Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.
Which is a problem. It may be legal, but I do not think it should be.
thats what lawyers are for.
it's also a huge reason why ordinary law abiding citizens have good reason to fear, distrust, and avoid cooperation or even friendly interaction with the police.
rule number one if ever arrested, do not say a thing without talking to a lawyer first.
While Mulder and Scully are of course correct. Mine was taught me by my first professor in lawschool-an over exuberant younger Bernie Sanders type. Yes if you imagine Bernie shouting that its about right.
The other problem being the good cops standing by and doing nothing about the bad cops much of the time, and with "Internal Affairs" equivalents being treated as the enemy in almost every arena and DA's often choosing simply not to prosecute (or intentionally bungle prosecutions) in "bad apple" cases with regularity.
Vaktathi wrote: The other problem being the good cops standing by and doing nothing about the bad cops much of the time, and with "Internal Affairs" equivalents being treated as the enemy in almost every arena and DA's often choosing simply not to prosecute (or intentionally bungle prosecutions) in "bad apple" cases with regularity.
This. Even if you're a good cop, the whole brotherhood mentality says "Never snitch on a fellow cop, even if he's dirty"
Asterios wrote: problem is a lot of good cops who are credits to the uniform and their society are given a bad rap because of a few.
This is just a regurgitation of the same bs over and over. If you are a "good cop" and you let a "bad cop" get away with stuff, you are not a "good cop".
Asterios wrote: problem is a lot of good cops who are credits to the uniform and their society are given a bad rap because of a few.
And they nearly never speak up against the "bad apples" (be it our of solidarity, peer pressure, fear, …). It just looks like the crooks rule and the good cops (even if they outnumber the bad ones) stand by and (can) do nothing to change things for the better. I just found this link (hope it works, if it doesn't the relevant part starts at 9:10), with a rant about this: https://youtu.be/lBoK_73NMJs?t=550
Without quoting from a couple pages back, I completely disagree with the notion that we give people convicted of crimes "second, third, and fourth" chances.
When you sit back and look at it, how many businesses will legitimately hire someone who has been convicted of major crimes, or even "minor" felonies? As they say, "Baskin Robins always finds out."
LordofHats wrote: I'm aware of this. I'm also aware of the argument that these strategies didn't really reduce crime. They simply shifted where it was happening which worked out to make statistics look better, but didn't actually reduce crime as much as was thought. When the same police commissioner went to Chicago, he tried the same strategies and they didn't have the same results as they did in NYC.
Which is kind of my point. I don't think we understand crime nearly as well as we like to think we do, especially not with regard to law enforcement.
I think it's quite the opposite. We understand crime extremely well. It's just that much of what we've learned directly contradicts 'common sense' and things that feel good, and so we ignore them.
A big problem (here, at least), is that junior cops who report on seniors are often blown off. It's a case of 'there's a good boy, now go play with a ball'.
I've also noticed a lot of cops think we're too soft on crime. And people don't like them, for whatever reason. But cops have an absolutely bullgak job, that they choose to do, for whatever reason.
Seriously. My stepfather came home bloody, torn clothes, at ungodly hours all the time, all because some donkeycave decided the law didn't apply to him. They're some really sour grapes to swallow. And then there are big problems with felons beating cops getting away with no, or light sentences.
These people deal with crap everyday, under huge negative public feeling, and yet they're expected to work miracles. Its absolute crap. Hats off to the folk in blue.
Easy E wrote: Broken Windows is a 1Up Mushroom excuse to profile, rack-up ticket revenue, and violate the Constitution's intent whenever possible.
No, it isn't. It has been used in that way, but that doesn't mean that is what it is.
I think a lot of people are talking about the NY 'stop and question' policy, which is used Broken Windows as a justification but is not what the theory is about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monkey Tamer wrote: People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.
I love India, great place and great people. But anyone who'd want to go down their ultra-conservative pattern of social shaming doesn't understand how toxic that can to people and to families.
Also, comparing getting drunk at a wedding with meth use is kind of bananas.
IIRC Guiliana said the "Broken Window" policy went into effect during a protest. The "Stop and Frisk" is/was (Struck down by SCOTUS right?) something entirely different. Almost a military operation like a roving patrol or check point people walk by
Monkey Tamer wrote: It's a sign of good fortune if cross dressers show up at your wedding there.
They're treated much the way that we used to treat circus freaks. It really isn't something to be followed.
They've got to be whacking off like mad men because they don't get married until they're done with school, which means late 20s for most of them.
Of course they do it, everyone everywhere masturbates. But it remains a taboo subject in India. Meanwhile if you look at Indian rape culture... I don't think it's hard to see how much sex needs to be more healthily addressed in India.
Most are Hindu, so they don't go to church. Have we been to the same India?
Probably not, because I went to one with a lot of temples.
Monkey Tamer wrote: People always like to point to Europe as the model on how to do things here in the States. Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned. The shame the addict brings upon the family is not tolerated. I've been to plenty of Indian weddings with open bar. Not once has anyone gotten stupid, because they fear their own. At every white people wedding I've been to someone always makes a scene. Maybe hugging it out isn't the answer.
I love India, great place and great people. But anyone who'd want to go down their ultra-conservative pattern of social shaming doesn't understand how toxic that can to people and to families.
Also, comparing getting drunk at a wedding with meth use is kind of bananas.
Well, we just had a thread saying justice was better in the Wild West days, so why not one saying that the social shaming family dynamic of India - directly responsible for rampant honor killings - is something we should emulate? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Monkey Tamer wrote: How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.
I drove a car once and no-one died therefore it is perfectly safe, and people should feel ashamed for listening to all those pesky road toll stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, we just had a thread saying justice was better in the Wild West days, so why not one saying that the social shaming family dynamic of India - directly responsible for rampant honor killings - is something we should emulate? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I missed that one about justice being better in the Wild West. That would have been fun.
I guess it's just the dakka dynamic. Sooner or later you will come across a political view that you didn't even think was possible.
Monkey Tamer wrote: How many felony sentencing hearings have you done? I read all these "studies" and "research articles" that tell me how it is, but I see the exact opposite being the guy in the trenches. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read, and should fail ashamed for being so easily swayed and feel bad for posting about something you have no first hand experience with.
I drove a car once and no-one died therefore it is perfectly safe, and people should feel ashamed for listening to all those pesky road toll stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, we just had a thread saying justice was better in the Wild West days, so why not one saying that the social shaming family dynamic of India - directly responsible for rampant honor killings - is something we should emulate? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I missed that one about justice being better in the Wild West. That would have been fun.
I guess it's just the dakka dynamic. Sooner or later you will come across a political view that you didn't even think was possible.
I should totally believe any link to an article done by a "news source" owned by Jeff Bezos and not question anything about it. Got it.
Monkey Tamer wrote: I should totally believe any link to an article done by a "news source" owned by Jeff Bezos and not question anything about it. Got it.
You only have to believe maths to know the rates of incarceration in the US are massively greater than any other developed country, and as such your claim that the US 'indulges' in crime is pretty clearly wrong.
The more I think about it... the more I believe that we won't see any significant justice reforms.
There's too many conflict of interest in various forms...
How to address this? meh... I really don't know short of open civil revolt.
If enough folks who goes on jury duty, and the case is a non-violent offense, simply practice 'Jury Nullification'. Even if the defendant is guilty as feth.
whembly wrote: The more I think about it... the more I believe that we won't see any significant justice reforms.
There's too many conflict of interest in various forms...
I honestly believe that, to paraphrase, the moral arc of American society is long, but it invariably bends towards justice. I think things will slowly get better, because they always do. Just as the crack vs powder sentencing disparity has gone out of vogue, so eventually will for-profit prisons, and so on and so forth.
Don't use this as an excuse for being a dick to the police officer. I can promise you that will never end in your favor.
Never been a dick to a police officer and never advocated it. However, I have called them out on their BS before. I was once pulled over for driving too close to the white line. I let him know that was not alright. We parted ways amicably.
Monkey Tamer wrote: I should totally believe any link to an article done by a "news source" owned by Jeff Bezos and not question anything about it. Got it.
You only have to believe maths to know the rates of incarceration in the US are massively greater than any other developed country, and as such your claim that the US 'indulges' in crime is pretty clearly wrong.
Did the maths account for any variables?
How was criminal history accounted for? History is a factor in sentencing. If so, how was juvenile history accounted for? You can't FOIA that information.
Did the researchers account for what was originally charged or just the final disposition?
Did the researchers account for companion charges or did they just slide everyone with any drug charge into the incarcerated on drugs column?
Did the researchers account for encounters that didn't lead to incarceration due to officer discretion?
Did those categorized first violate a non-incarceration order of probation, supervision, or conditional discharge?
Did any of those categorized as incarcerated first participate in a drug court program?
If any of these are a yes the study, and therefore the conclusion is flawed.
Throwing up some numbers and telling me what conclusion to draw is amateur hour style argument. In any study you put trash in you get trash out. Having a "study" these days means little, if anything, given how certain variables are ignored in favor of a pre-determined outcome. I eat defense expert witnesses for breakfast and crap out divorce attorneys by lunch. If you're going to throw a study down make sure it isn't missing pertinent data. The average study produced by a right or left leaning entity is missing so much I can just about squeeze it into the Grand Canyon. The washington post article was a hit piece, meant to evoke a certain response, much like most of the news I see today. I find it sad our citizenry (and those of other nations as well) has been indoctrinated to believe authority at first blush without any critical thinking. In these modern times of misinformation readers need to be more scrutinizing. The governor of my state owns a media outlet so he can take potshots at his political rival, the speaker of the house. Rich people with think tanks and media outlets aren't above pushing an agenda. But if you want to believe everything Fox and MSNBC spews it's your life. I gave my perspective not just on my experience, but also cited law showing the sentencing alternatives, and that personal use amounts of pot will never land you in DOC. You can call me mister anecdotal to discredit me, but when I see a myth about the justice system I will debunk it. Now go out there and believe you can't get caught with a hitter pipe or you'll be bubba's new girlfriend.
Quite frankly any time you try to do international comparisons you need to take it with a grain of salt. What you are often doing is comparing what one country self-reports, as opposed to what another country self-reports.
Often the devil is in the details, and one of those details is that there are no standard definitions of what any particular thing is.
For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.
Don't use this as an excuse for being a dick to the police officer. I can promise you that will never end in your favor.
Problem is that it is often the police officer who is the one who decides whether you are being a dick and some may view anything less than worshipping their boots as being a dick.
cuda1179 wrote: Quite frankly any time you try to do international comparisons you need to take it with a grain of salt. What you are often doing is comparing what one country self-reports, as opposed to what another country self-reports.
Often the devil is in the details, and one of those details is that there are no standard definitions of what any particular thing is.
For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.
even accounting for those factors, the US has a much higher incidence of murder than other industrialized nations. Police for example simply dont kill many people in Japan, Iceland, the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Korea, Germany, etc to make a significant impact.
cuda1179 wrote: Quite frankly any time you try to do international comparisons you need to take it with a grain of salt. What you are often doing is comparing what one country self-reports, as opposed to what another country self-reports.
Often the devil is in the details, and one of those details is that there are no standard definitions of what any particular thing is.
For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.
even accounting for those factors, the US has a much higher incidence of murder than other industrialized nations. Police for example simply dont kill many people in Japan, Iceland, the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Korea, Germany, etc to make a significant impact.
While true, there are also other factors to consider. The mentally ill or minors can add up fast. Some countries only report homicide CONVICTIONS. When the chance of being convicted for a murder is under 60% that's a huge hit. Also, in some instances "murders" that are plead out to a lower offence, something equivalent to negligent death for example, are also not counted. The US also counts all homicide victims found within its boarders as a US homicide, regardless of where they were actually killed. Someone killed in Canada and thrown in the river? If the body is found in the US that's counted as a US murder. Mexican Cartel kill someone in Mexico and dump their body in the US or on a US bound freight car? That's a US murder. Other countries disavow such instances. Also, in some countries infanticide is not counted as murder if it occurs shortly after birth.
I admit that the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as high as you'd think.
There are other statistic anomalies when you compare international statics. Life expectancy in a very interesting one. Some countries like Cuba flat out lie, while a single definition of a death can effect calculated life expectancy as a whole. I believe France, for example, doesn't count infant death against the life expectancy if it occurs within 72 hours of birth. The US not only counts infant death, but also late term miscarriages. That alone is enough to bridge the gap.
cuda1179 wrote: The US also counts all homicide victims found within its boarders as a US homicide, regardless of where they were actually killed. Someone killed in Canada and thrown in the river? If the body is found in the US that's counted as a US murder. Mexican Cartel kill someone in Mexico and dump their body in the US or on a US bound freight car? That's a US murder. Other countries disavow such instances. Also, in some countries infanticide is not counted as murder if it occurs shortly after birth.
Could you provide information about any of those things happening at a rate in which they are throwing off numbers as much as you are implying?
Easy E wrote: Broken Windows is a 1Up Mushroom excuse to profile, rack-up ticket revenue, and violate the Constitution's intent whenever possible.
No, it isn't. It has been used in that way, but that doesn't mean that is what it is.
I think a lot of people are talking about the NY 'stop and question' policy, which is used Broken Windows as a justification but is not what the theory is about.
You know what Sebs, you are right. It was the practices that the Police adopted and claimed were justified by the theory that were out of wack.
As everyone said, crime is a complicated subject and as a result requires a multi-pronged approach to solving.
You're not so much failing to see the wood for the trees, as you are claiming that because you can't see every single tree there might not be a wood at all.
The US has more people in prison than any other developed country. But a long way. This is despite having crime figures that are basically on par with other developed countries. These numbers are what these numbers are, and they aren't changed even if you could somehow produce some kind of ridiculous theory that criminal history was somehow uniquely different in the US.
The simple reality is clear - the US imprisons a much greater % of its population than other countries. It is possible, and maybe even reasonable, to defend that practice - afterall maybe those crimes do need incarceration, and maybe society is better off if people are given jail time for things that might result in a suspended sentence or a fine elsewhere. But claiming that it might not be true and that the numbers might just be misleading because maybe just maybe in the US people on probation for drugs might breach parole with other offences (as one your defences claimed) is really just an internet version of 'lalala i can't hear you'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.
Much like the variables given by Monkey Tamer, any look at these data issues reveals a lot more smoke than actual problems. The areas of inconsistency add up to very few murders each year. When the US has about 8,000 murders in a year, to give it about 4 times the murder rate of the United Kingdom, then +/- 50 for police actions and legal defence is just noise - the overall conclusion is still very obvious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: You know what Sebs, you are right. It was the practices that the Police adopted and claimed were justified by the theory that were out of wack.
Cool. And I don't want to sound like I think the Broken Windows theory is the great way forward, it was way oversold in the first place. But the counter-reaction is about as much of an over-reaction, in part because the theory was used to sell some policing theories that were very iffy.
As everyone said, crime is a complicated subject and as a result requires a multi-pronged approach to solving.
cuda1179 wrote: For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.
Much like the variables given by Monkey Tamer, any look at these data issues reveals a lot more smoke than actual problems. The areas of inconsistency add up to very few murders each year. When the US has about 8,000 murders in a year, to give it about 4 times the murder rate of the United Kingdom, then +/- 50 for police actions and legal defence is just noise - the overall conclusion is still very obvious.
.
Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK. As I stated previously, there are many other factors in play other than police actions and legal defense to consider. As I've all ready pointed out, or killings by minors and the mentally ill. Those in and of themselves would drop the US murder rate by 15%. There are a few more, but really, I all ready pointed out that I admit the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as bad as you'd think.
Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK.
Thats because we're number #1!
A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.
You're saying the richest country in the world has a culture more similar to that of third world countries with long histories of political uncertainty and dictatorship than that of rich, democratic nations?
cuda1179 wrote: For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.
Much like the variables given by Monkey Tamer, any look at these data issues reveals a lot more smoke than actual problems. The areas of inconsistency add up to very few murders each year. When the US has about 8,000 murders in a year, to give it about 4 times the murder rate of the United Kingdom, then +/- 50 for police actions and legal defence is just noise - the overall conclusion is still very obvious.
Per the FBI.
2014 saw 11,961 murder victims. 721 were justifiable. A bit more then your 50 +/-.
When you actually calculate that into the per 100k numbers, it drops it from 3.9 to 3.5. That is a pretty significant shift, not just smoke and mirrors.
Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK.
Thats because we're number #1!
A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.
You're saying the richest country in the world has a culture more similar to that of third world countries with long histories of political uncertainty and dictatorship than that of rich, democratic nations?
Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK.
Thats because we're number #1!
A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.
You're saying the richest country in the world has a culture more similar to that of third world countries with long histories of political uncertainty and dictatorship than that of rich, democratic nations?
Frazzled wrote: This would come as a surprise to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, considering their GDPs relative to European nations.
Brazil GDP: 2.24Trillion (2013)
UK GDP 2.67 Trillion (2013)
I really don't think they would be that surprised considering the rampant corruption in their governments and high murder rates. Have you read up on Brazil lately? Its looking pretty rough. Civil War kinda rough.
Frazzled wrote: This would come as a surprise to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, considering their GDPs relative to European nations.
Brazil GDP: 2.24Trillion (2013)
UK GDP 2.67 Trillion (2013)
I really don't think they would be that surprised considering the rampant corruption in their governments and high murder rates. Have you read up on Brazil lately? Its looking pretty rough. Civil War kinda rough.
Not to mention their problems with the Olympics. I don't think most first world countries have difficulty in filling a swimming pool with water which isn't contaminated with sewage.
How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?
Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.
Frazzled wrote: How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?
Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.
How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.
Frazzled wrote: How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?
Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.
How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.
The issues in South America predate the US and our involvement in the region. Europe screwed that place up early on and they've been battling political instability ever since.
Frazzled wrote: How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?
Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.
How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.
The issues in South America predate the US and our involvement in the region. Europe screwed that place up early on and they've been battling political instability ever since.
Absolutely, Pizarro and Cortez (depending on whether you count Mexico as South America or not) have made their mark on history.
Frazzled wrote: How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?
Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.
How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.
The issues in South America predate the US and our involvement in the region. Europe screwed that place up early on and they've been battling political instability ever since.
Absolutely, Pizarro and Cortez (depending on whether you count Mexico as South America or not) have made their mark on history.
Agreed. NAFTA was supposed to help Central and South America gain more economic stability but it's been a bit of a mixed bag. There are a lot of long term social issues affecting Central and South America, political histories full of dictators and despots and economies that are overly dependent on single commodity exports. Much like Africa there is a lot of potential in the region due to natural resources but the inertia of the problems of the status quo make the kind of large scale overhaul needed to really fix the problems unlikely to occur.So it leads the US to have foreign policy for the region based on mitigating the problems not fixing them and maintaining the status quo.
Again, my point is that there are many factors that make us closer to the rest of the Americas than Europe.
Europe never had a frontier. Europe hasn't dealt with cartel members (look how Italy and Sicily have fared with organized crime). Each country defines crime in different manners. We could note that assaults are much higher in Britain than the US.
Sure if you focus on those factors. From what I know of the USA it seems to have more in common with european countries (similar levels of political stability and wealth) than with south american countries, thus USA - SA seems like an apples to cabbage comparison (it's only useful in this thread because it makes the US problems look better).
Prestor Jon wrote: Agreed. NAFTA was supposed to help Central and South America gain more economic stability but it's been a bit of a mixed bag. There are a lot of long term social issues affecting Central and South America, political histories full of dictators and despots and economies that are overly dependent on single commodity exports. Much like Africa there is a lot of potential in the region due to natural resources but the inertia of the problems of the status quo make the kind of large scale overhaul needed to really fix the problems unlikely to occur.So it leads the US to have foreign policy for the region based on mitigating the problems not fixing them and maintaining the status quo.
The status qou is what got them this far. When do our partners do anything for themselves? This empire, but totallly not an empire, really thing is really draining. Can we just colonize them already. It'll work faster. That way we'll have to pick and choose who we really like, rather than tell everybody we love them all equally, trying to figure out who to give what gift.
cuda1179 wrote: Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK. As I stated previously, there are many other factors in play other than police actions and legal defense to consider. As I've all ready pointed out, or killings by minors and the mentally ill. Those in and of themselves would drop the US murder rate by 15%. There are a few more, but really, I all ready pointed out that I admit the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as bad as you'd think.
Meh, depending on the year it'll be between three and four times, either way it's multiple times bigger. And you can plus/minus for all kinds of piddling detail, but you're never getting away from that reality that the murder rate is multiple times higher.
So all that extra stuff, one thing counted in one total but not in the other... maybe all those bits will drop the ratio from 3 times to 2.8 times... none of that changes the central reality that the US has a murder rate that is completely unique among developed countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.
No, you are a developed country with a white collar, educated population with high incomes, and your infrastructure from police to courts is like any other developed country (not perfect, but a millions times better than what you'll find in most of central America). As such your crime rates are much the same as the rest of the developed world, the rates for property crime and violent crime other than murder are actually a little above the average in the rest of the developed world.
Claiming that you need to be compared to developing countries is crazy.
djones520 wrote: When you actually calculate that into the per 100k numbers, it drops it from 3.9 to 3.5. That is a pretty significant shift, not just smoke and mirrors.
First up, your maths is wrong. Reducing by 721 drops the total by about 6%. This would reduce a 3.9 murder rate to 3.66, not 3.5 as you said.
And second and more importantly, this is still minor nonsense. Moving from 3.9 to 3.66 is still multiples bigger. The basic conclusion remains the same - the US is unique among developed countries when it comes to its murder rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Europe never had a frontier. Europe hasn't dealt with cartel members (look how Italy and Sicily have fared with organized crime). Each country defines crime in different manners. We could note that assaults are much higher in Britain than the US.
First up, cartel violence is a very small portion of your murder rate.
Second up, the whole world has organised crime, and it's not pleasant anywhere.
I see we've once again wandered in to that very silly argument in which an American tries to come up with all kinds of ways in which America is very different to the rest of the developed world by listing lots of things in which the US is not actually any different to the rest of the world, all in order to excuse the one area in which America is very different to the rest of the developed world, murder rate.
I can only imagine the race to cook meth as a conglomeration of some Brand. The price is higher on that meth b\c of regulations and sanitary working condition(employees with ID containing sworn statements of not being meth heads). Now imagine you're a hopeful meth head awaiting liberation, only to find out it's still cheaper to party at Lindsey Lohan's house.
djones520 wrote: When you actually calculate that into the per 100k numbers, it drops it from 3.9 to 3.5. That is a pretty significant shift, not just smoke and mirrors.
First up, your maths is wrong. Reducing by 721 drops the total by about 6%. This would reduce a 3.9 murder rate to 3.66, not 3.5 as you said.
And second and more importantly, this is still minor nonsense. Moving from 3.9 to 3.66 is still multiples bigger. The basic conclusion remains the same - the US is unique among developed countries when it comes to its murder rate.
You might want to figure out how to do the calculations before you call someone else out on their math.
CRIME RATE – A crime rate describes the number of crimes reported to
law enforcement agencies per 100,000 total population. A crime rate
is calculated by dividing the number of reported crimes by the total
population; the result is multiplied by 100,000. For example, in 2010 there
were 58,100 robberies in California and the population was 38,826,898. This
equals a robbery crime rate of 149.6 per 100,000 general population.
What you've done is taken a starting figure calculated by another source, 3.9 per 100,000, and then calculated your own figure, and then recorded a difference between the two. Among people like myself who create comparison figures all day, this is called 'fething up'.
If you don't get what I'm saying, go and calculate the opening murder rate of 3.9 per 100,000 for yourself. Take the 11,961 you gave, divide it by the 318,900,000 figure you gave, and see how it doesn't give 3.9. It gives 3.75.
Your mistake is in taking at face value a figure given by another source, and assuming it was using same numerator and denominator you used in your later calculation. It wasn't, and in most cases it rarely will be. The options therefore are to recalculate both figures for yourself, or to calculate the net impact of the change and apply that change to the original.
The first is the better method, if you're completely confident in your new figures. If you'd done that with your figures then you would have said 'the murder rate is 3.75, but after adjustment it goes to 3.52'. The second method is better when you have reason to believe the original figure is more reliable than your current figures. In that case you would calculate the 721 adjustment as a percentage of the total murders and apply that to your original 3.9, to give 3.66.
This probably isn't the most fun way to learn this lesson, but please learn it anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Also, an interesting thing to note. Rate per 100K in 1994 was 9.0. 2004 5.5. 2014 3.5.
A rather remarkable trend in reduction of murder rates. I guess though because other countries are lower, it means we aren't doing something right.
You're doing heaps right. Of course, the rest of the developed world is also doing lots right - murder is down everywhere and it's great. I'm the guy who's always saying that things are getting better and I'm annoyed at how much everyone likes to complain about how terrible everything is. Look at my sig for God's sake.
But it'd be a very silly argument to claim that because the overall trend is down, that doesn't mean there aren't significant factors that are increasing it within individual countries. That'd be like claiming that because life expectancy is up, then the increase in junk food must not be bad for people.
The USA is literally attached to one of the biggest drug running countries in the world. Drugs = crime = murder. We also have a hot mess of culture clash - not to mention a portion of our population that refuses to assimilate. These are all problems that Europeans don't have.
Xenomancers wrote: The USA is literally attached to one of the biggest drug running countries in the world. Drugs = crime = murder. We also have a hot mess of culture clash - not to mention a portion of our population that refuses to assimilate. These are all problems that Europeans don't have.
Xenomancers wrote: The USA is literally attached to one of the biggest drug running countries in the world. Drugs = crime = murder. We also have a hot mess of culture clash - not to mention a portion of our population that refuses to assimilate. These are all problems that Europeans don't have.
Actually the US is middle of the road for drug use. If your theory had merit then Australia, who's the #1 illegal drug user per the 2014 global survey, would have the highest murder rate. And yet our murder rate is perfectly middle of the road.
And pretty much every country with immigrant populations has problems, or perceives to have problems, with assimilation. If it drove up murder you'd see higher rates of murder in every country with high rates of immigration. But you don't.
And so here we are, again, with Americans listing reasons their country is different but only listing things in which America just isn't different to the rest of the developed world. All in order to avoid acknowledging that the one way in which you are very different might just be driving up that murder rate.
sebster wrote: Actually the US is middle of the road for drug use. If your theory had merit then Australia, who's the #1 illegal drug user per the 2014 global survey, would have the highest murder rate. And yet our murder rate is perfectly mi.
Clearly you're all just too high to bother murdering anyone
sebster wrote: Actually the US is middle of the road for drug use. If your theory had merit then Australia, who's the #1 illegal drug user per the 2014 global survey, would have the highest murder rate. And yet our murder rate is perfectly mi.
Clearly you're all just too high to bother murdering anyone
cuda1179 wrote: Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK. As I stated previously, there are many other factors in play other than police actions and legal defense to consider. As I've all ready pointed out, or killings by minors and the mentally ill. Those in and of themselves would drop the US murder rate by 15%. There are a few more, but really, I all ready pointed out that I admit the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as bad as you'd think.
Meh, depending on the year it'll be between three and four times, either way it's multiple times bigger. And you can plus/minus for all kinds of piddling detail, but you're never getting away from that reality that the murder rate is multiple times higher.
So all that extra stuff, one thing counted in one total but not in the other... maybe all those bits will drop the ratio from 3 times to 2.8 times... none of that changes the central reality that the US has a murder rate that is completely unique among developed countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.
No, you are a developed country with a white collar, educated population with high incomes, and your infrastructure from police to courts is like any other developed country (not perfect, but a millions times better than what you'll find in most of central America). As such your crime rates are much the same as the rest of the developed world, the rates for property crime and violent crime other than murder are actually a little above the average in the rest of the developed world.
Claiming that you need to be compared to developing countries is crazy.
Why is it crazy to compare ourselves to the actual region we live in. Pardon the hell out of me.
Why is it crazy to compare ourselves to the actual region we live in. Pardon the hell out of me.
Sebster has put forward ways that the comparison between the US & Other developed countries is relevant: economics, police & court structures, education levels and general social infrastructure. If you'd like to challenge the fact these are relevant to crime rates, please do so. Alternatively if you agree these traits are relevant to crime rates but would simply like to challenge the idea we share these more with South American countries than others, please do so. Simply outline the reasoning behind these challenges and what evidence you feels supports that reasoning.
If we are to take your fixation on geography at face value, are we to believe that perhaps the particular tectonic plates under people's feet are what drive them to kill their fellow man, hmm? You've repeatedly made claims that "environment" and the region are important but have suggested no plausible mechanism for the difference that can be attributed to "environment" or the region. Maybe it's all the corn?
A rather remarkable trend in reduction of murder rates. I guess though because other countries are lower, it means we aren't doing something right.
You're doing heaps right. Of course, the rest of the developed world is also doing lots right - murder is down everywhere and it's great. I'm the guy who's always saying that things are getting better and I'm annoyed at how much everyone likes to complain about how terrible everything is. Look at my sig for God's sake.
But it'd be a very silly argument to claim that because the overall trend is down, that doesn't mean there aren't significant factors that are increasing it within individual countries. That'd be like claiming that because life expectancy is up, then the increase in junk food must not be bad for people.
I agree with you sebster. The data is what it is and the statistics show what they show. The US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries. Our murder rate is significantly higher whereas our incidence rate with other crimes is much closer to the average. I think the issue isn't whether or not the US murder rate is higher, it's if it's high enough to have an impact on society. I don't want to push anecdotal evidence but I think most people who've visited the US from other developed countries or anyone from the US who's visited other developed countries would agree that being in the US doesn't feel noticiably less safe than other developed countries. We have a higher murder rate and more violent crime in the news but it's still low enough that the majority of US citizens are never affected by a murder so as a whole our society doesn't treat it as a severe problem. There are certainly localities, namely urban areas, that have murder rates much higher than the national average and in those localities you do see severe social strain and problems because of the high crime rate. I think that its likely that the murder rate in Australia could double or triple and it would be a bad thing but society there would still be very stable and it would be a far cry from Mad Max levels of social upheaval. I think that's the impetus behind the argument others are making. Living in the US doesn't feel like it's 3x or 4x more dangerous than living in Australia so there's an urge to find evidence to support that feeling.
Seriously though... just end the War on Drugs! Legalise all the various listed substances.Take the money currently being pissed away on fighting the way and put it into treatment.
Within a few generations, the 'drug problem' will be mostly sorted out, I'm sure.
If legalizing drugs is a good idea then why haven't more countries done it. Or have they and I'm just unaware of it. I know Portugal did it and last I read it's working great for them. But why haven't others done so.
yellowfever wrote: If legalizing drugs is a good idea then why haven't more countries done it. Or have they and I'm just unaware of it. I know Portugal did it and last I read it's working great for them. But why haven't others done so.
Because of political pressure from us and other countries who are still hanging on to the idea that it works, despite large amounts of evidence saying it does not. Also because of people like you who continue to vote for people who refuse to admit it has failed.
Then there are the countries who do not have separation of church and state that do it because of religious reasons.
There are also other countries who have legalized drugs to certain degrees. Marijuana is legalized in multiple countries now and they have yet to burn to the ground.
yellowfever wrote: What the hell do you mean by people like me. And how do you know how I vote.
I wasn't trying to imply if I'm for or against it. I'm asking if anyone knows.
Because if I'm honest with myself, and I hope you are, I realize that this is an issue that has crossed party lines. I've seen a shift in the Democrat side of things, calling for an end to these policies, but the Republicans haven't budged one bit. For a decent period of time, it didn't really matter which way you voted, you were voting for a candidate who was gonna continue the war on drugs.
But he was calling me out. Your statement means everyone is guilty regardless of which side they are on. My original point was to get information if anyone knew it. That's it.
yellowfever wrote: What the hell do you mean by people like me. And how do you know how I vote.
I wasn't trying to imply if I'm for or against it. I'm asking if anyone knows.
I know how you vote because the notion that the War on Drugs is failed has only come about recently and there are very, very few politicians right now who are trying to end it.
Frazzled wrote: Why is it crazy to compare ourselves to the actual region we live in. Pardon the hell out of me.
You're pardoned. But it's crazy because murder rates don't track by geography. You aren't more likely to go in to a furious rage and murder the sleazy ex-boyfriend who punched your daughter because Mexico and Brazil are geographically closer to you than Switzerland and Belgium are.
But you are more likely to do those things when educational levels are lower, when policing is less effective, and so on. And that makes you comparable to Europe and the rest of the developed world, and not very comparable to South America.
Prestor Jon wrote: I agree with you sebster. The data is what it is and the statistics show what they show. The US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries. Our murder rate is significantly higher whereas our incidence rate with other crimes is much closer to the average. I think the issue isn't whether or not the US murder rate is higher, it's if it's high enough to have an impact on society. I don't want to push anecdotal evidence but I think most people who've visited the US from other developed countries or anyone from the US who's visited other developed countries would agree that being in the US doesn't feel noticiably less safe than other developed countries. We have a higher murder rate and more violent crime in the news but it's still low enough that the majority of US citizens are never affected by a murder so as a whole our society doesn't treat it as a severe problem. There are certainly localities, namely urban areas, that have murder rates much higher than the national average and in those localities you do see severe social strain and problems because of the high crime rate. I think that its likely that the murder rate in Australia could double or triple and it would be a bad thing but society there would still be very stable and it would be a far cry from Mad Max levels of social upheaval. I think that's the impetus behind the argument others are making. Living in the US doesn't feel like it's 3x or 4x more dangerous than living in Australia so there's an urge to find evidence to support that feeling.
I completely agree with you on all of this. It's important to remember that while 10,000 people murdered is a big number, out of a population of 300m it isn't that big - murder is still quite unlikely to impact an individual's life.
And I never felt unsafe when I traveled through the US.
