Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drug task force that burned a toddler this week also killed an innocent pastor in 2009
Washington Post ^ | May 30, 2014 | Radley Balko

Posted on 05/30/2014 2:55:23 PM PDT by bamahead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: null and void

Oh lord...poor baby.

How that must hurt.

:(


41 posted on 05/31/2014 7:39:14 PM PDT by Salamander (It's a cult and they worship blue oysters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

He’s in a medically induced coma at the moment. I wonder if he will ever see or hear again.


42 posted on 05/31/2014 7:51:39 PM PDT by null and void (Fascists never think they're fascists. They just think everybody should obey them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Oh, my.

:’(


43 posted on 05/31/2014 7:52:29 PM PDT by Salamander (It's a cult and they worship blue oysters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Prayers up for that poor little guy.


44 posted on 05/31/2014 8:07:19 PM PDT by TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: null and void

According to what I read, he has lacerations on his chest as well, and a collapsed lung. So, it’s pretty bad.


45 posted on 06/01/2014 4:17:09 AM PDT by FBD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
That pot should be legalized does not mean meth should be.

Nobody deserves to go to prison for possessing (or transferring to another adult) any plant, medicine, or recreational chemical. Including meth. Nobody.

If, pursuant to the use of any such substances (whether legal or not) a person violates the rights of others by being negligent or committing actual criminal acts, then (and only then) does criminal (or civil) liability attach. Anything else is Tyranny.

Alcohol is, by an exceedingly wide margin, the worst drug on the face of the earth. Its aggregate negative effects far surpass those of all other drugs combined, whether legal or illegal:

And yet, because we are ostensibly a free society, a drug such as alcohol remains legal. Indeed, Prohibition was tried for alcohol as well, with the predictable result: the "solution" was worse than the original problem, and was an abject failure.

The Drug War, with the necessarily draconian enforcement strategies and tactics needed to wage it, will continue to result in destruction of both lives and Freedom, while solving nothing, and simultaneously populating our prison system with non-criminals.

Contraband law is inherently Tyrannical, and in America, such "solutions" are antithetical to any reasonable concept of Liberty. To embrace such law is to embrace Tyranny incarnate.

Trying to address certain societal ills with Tyrannical law will never succeed, and will never be justifiable, regardless of the twisted authoritarian nanny-state logic which is employed, and regardless of how well-meaning its misguided advocates may be.

There's only one thing worse than drug legalization, and that is drug prohibition, and the hysterical Tyrannical mindset which clamors to justify it:

Education, not legislation, is the only potential solution.

It's ironic how both self-righteous Drug War zealots and organized crime are content that drugs remain illegal. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Flame away.

46 posted on 06/01/2014 5:21:20 AM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

One or both of the cops involved in killing the pastor lost their professional immunity and will have to pay some of that settlement out of their pockets.


47 posted on 06/01/2014 6:19:31 AM PDT by armydawg505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

http://www.habershamsheriff.com/investigations.htm

Scroll down and there is the smiling face of Chance Oxner, still a proud member of the Habersham County Sheriff’s Department.


48 posted on 06/01/2014 6:32:08 AM PDT by armydawg505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sargon

I am arguing from a strictly constitutional standpoint. You have every right to take the position you do, and work within your state to have all drugs legalized.

You do not have the right to claim that proper interpretation of the Constitution would prevent states from prohibiting drugs, or alcohol, or anything else the people of that state choose to prohibit.

The Constitution limits federal power. States are much less constrained.

BTW, the fact that alcohol causes more total damage to society than any other drug, because it is so widely used, is not a particularly good argument for legalizing other drugs.

Haven’t looked up the stats, but prior to doing so I would bet a large sum that meth causes much more severe problems for those who use it than alcohol. Which is good argument for keeping that use limited to a small percentage of the population, not expanding it as widely as possible.


49 posted on 06/01/2014 11:00:51 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

That drugs are misclassified for political reasons does not mean the classifications should all be thrown overboard.

It means they should be properly classified, and then we can have a political discussion about how we want to deal with them legally.


50 posted on 06/01/2014 11:08:31 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; sargon
I would bet a large sum that meth causes much more severe problems for those who use it than alcohol. Which is good argument for keeping that use limited to a small percentage of the population,

At what cost? I notice you didn't address any of the harms of drug criminalization that sargon noted.

not expanding it as widely as possible.

"as widely as possible"?! I can easily think of a number of policies that would expand meth use far more than simply legalizing it - and I'll bet you can too.

And how far would legalization really expand its use? Is the illegality of meth YOUR main reason for not using it?

51 posted on 06/01/2014 12:24:09 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

All very much beside the point. I am addressing primarily the constitutional issues.

While the Constitution put strict limits on the powers of the federal government, restrictions sadly mostly ignored today, they put very few restrictions indeed on what states could do within their own borders.

Indeed, until the passage of 14A the Bill of Rights were not normally considered to apply to the states, and indeed they are still not fully applied.

You pretty obviously believe the right to sell and consume any product anyone wishes is a fundamental right. So you need to get busy and pass an amendment to that effect. Until then, states have every constitutional right to prohibit drugs or anything else they decide to.

Whether I would support such a ban in my state depends on the specifics. What drugs and what penalties for violation of the law? I think prohibition of pot is stupid, but what restrictions on other drugs are appropriate depends on the drug. The most idiotic part of the laws in this regard has always been their classification of drugs that have nothing in common together.


52 posted on 06/01/2014 2:05:45 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: All


Less Than $2.9k To Go!!
Your Donation To FR Is The Fuel
That Keeps It Running!!
New Monthly Donors Help FR Get There Even Faster!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


53 posted on 06/01/2014 2:07:38 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I am addressing primarily the constitutional issues.

Your text that I reposted and replied to was not about constitutional issues.

states have every constitutional right to prohibit drugs or anything else they decide to.

Agreed.

54 posted on 06/01/2014 3:16:20 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: null and void

End the war on drugs. Leave drug control to the states.


55 posted on 06/01/2014 8:37:14 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Of COURSE bacon is good for you!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The bible already warned us 2000 years ago that human restrictions do nothing to stop people from harming their bodies.

The “drug war” is really a big, mostly failing fig leaf for a situation of God abandonment.


56 posted on 06/03/2014 3:10:16 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

It is reasonably obvious to any intelligent person that ending the war on drugs by making all drugs legal would have two primary effects.

A. Drug use would go up a bunch. With all the side effects on individuals, families and societies as a whole.

B. The present negative side effects of the WOD would largely go away.

The argument in favor of ending the WOD consists largely of an assumption that the positive effects of B would vastly outweigh the negative impact of A. More accurately, most of the arguments I’ve seen assume that A would generate no or few side effects, an argument I think wildly optimistic.

That B might outweigh A is IMO a perfectly legitimate argument, but I strongly suspect A would be a lot more dramatically negative than proponents of legalization believe.


57 posted on 06/03/2014 3:32:15 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Some people who were sousing on alcohol would go to drugs.

Others already on drugs would keep it up.

Interdiction catches something like 10% of all pot... this is pitiful.

The answer lies in a different dimension. It lies in the direction of inviting and allowing God back into our lives. The reason far fewer people wanted to habitually poison themselves with non medically needed drugs in olden days, is because they welcomed the idea with all the relish of welcoming a visit from Satan. Now the attitude is more like “Cool! Satan!” And nobody is going to be able to do anything about that other than God, and God won’t until God is invited.


58 posted on 06/03/2014 4:01:59 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
The reason far fewer people wanted to habitually poison themselves with non medically needed drugs in olden days

That recreational drugs have become much more common than in the past is indisputable.

I suspect part of the reason is that many, notably meth, just weren't available. Of course, they weren't available largely because there was little demand.

Ran across an interesting statistic the other day. At the time of the Revolution, Americans consumed about 2.5x the alcohol we do today. Today that would make us the heaviest consumer of booze in the world by a considerable distance. Higher than Belarus or Russia.

Possibly some of the recreational use of drugs was displaced back then by higher use of alcohol.

59 posted on 06/03/2014 4:29:49 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“That drugs are misclassified for political reasons does not mean the classifications should all be thrown overboard. It means they should be properly classified, and then we can have a political discussion about how we want to deal with them legally.”

You must also think we can have “Good” Big Government.

Drugs will ALWAYS be misclassified and enforcement will ALWAYS be selective due to the incredible profits that will ALWAYS result from drug prohibition.

There is enough money in illegal drugs to buy every government on the face of the Earth and I believe we are there already. Legalization will destroy profits and they will never allow it.


60 posted on 06/03/2014 9:38:57 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson