I could be snarky, but at least the cops like the one in this story are concentrating on physical superiority when dealing with resistant criminals, rather than other means.
It doesn't justify steroids, but some neighborhoods aren't simply going to go from cesspool to exemplary until we take on the drug epidemic and African Americans' collective hatred of cops.
But someone tell me how the legalization of crack-cocaine and heroine, the most addictive and damaging drugs in America, is going to make things better? If it has to do with the liberty to kill oneself in the most societally destructive way possible, do me a favor and don't comment.
10/18/2007
Cops using the 'Juice' on the rise...
If you like it, link it | 7 Comments:
You wonder how the old time cop managed to live through a single day in a precinct like, say, Fort Apache.
Well there's really no reason to wonder. They were walking arsenals and I've never seen nor heard of a man, any man, taking a spring-loaded lead tipped sap to the gourd then continuing to make an ass of himself. The fallacy of trying to be the biggest and baddest rests in the fact that there's always someone bigger and badder but only a scant few...any more...proficient in Sap-Fu.
Then again, in most of our big city's one doesn't dare hurt a skell TOO BAD for fear of all sorts of excessive force raps, and as usual the scant few that never learned to control themselves made it hard for the many who merely wish to survive.
And as far as controlling the street-drug epidemic, it isn't going away until some serious sentencing guidelines are put into place, as well as a return to capital punishment in city's like NY.
Sorry to offend but there's really only one way to deal with animals, and it isn't pretty. The alternative is to get it all over with and simply surrender more and more areas to the drug lords.
I agree with the strict sentences. For the teenagers and hippies smoking pot I could care less, let em smoke it. But crack and heroine have very few if any legitimate uses, and it's not like they'd be used responsibly if suddenly sold at Walgreen's. Legalization would get rid of drug lords, mostly, but then we'd still have the crime problem stemming from the addicts' need, and self-inflicted poverty.
If they can't live in a free society without committing crimes they don't need to be in one.
How do you justify the government regulating what you can and cannot put into your own body?
What constitutional grounds are such laws based upon?
Would legalizing drugs solve the drug problem? Of course not. Would it make it worse? Maybe, maybe not...either way, it doesn't matter.
The bottom line is that it is none of the government's business what free people choose to imbibe in.
Truly free people are free to do as stupid of things as they wish, as long as they aren't infringing upon others' rights in the process.
And many people (myself included) would argue that alcohol is the single most damaging drug in America. Since we're all about banning activities that are damaging and all that.
"The bottom line is that it is none of the government's business what free people choose to imbibe in."
I agree. Perhaps we shouldn't ban crack, I mean it's not like the ban is working. Just make a law that while on crack in the act of a committing a felony, you get life. I just don't think our prisons could handle the load.
We can solve the "drug problem" by repealing all drug laws, pardoning and releasing all non-violent inmates busted on a possession rap & then handing out free crack, heroin and meth (really pure stuff) on big city street corners for six weeks. If there are any hard core drug users still alive after that, invite them to a rehab joint run by savage nuns. Everybody else that enjoys a little buzz at home after work can go about their lives and the money spend on the war on some drugs can instead be used to fix our crumbling infrastructure without more charges on the fed.gov credit card.
Just make a law that while on crack in the act of a committing a felony, you get life. I just don't think our prisons could handle the load.
Actually, if all the people in prison for no more than choosing an arbitrarily illegal substance for their mood altering enjoyment, or providing same for those who choose to indulge, were released, there should be plenty of room for those who perpetrate crimes with actual victims...regardless of the excuse or state of inebriation of the perpetrator at the time of the crime.
"There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
-- Thomas Jefferson
It seems unlikely that our prisons would be fuller if you imprisoned the subset of drug users that actually commit crimes, rather than trying to imprison them all. Of course you don't even need special laws to imprison people for committing real (violent or property) crimes on crack, because they're already committing real crimes, with which they can be charged.
We would no longer have to kick child molesters out of prison to make room for drug users.
The price of drugs would go down, meaning that fewer people would have to commit crimes in order to get them, and that those that did would have to commit fewer crimes. And of course freeing all those narcotics cops to do something useful (like arrest and imprison / execute people who actually harm others ) would make it much harder to be a real criminal.
According to Milton Friedman, the elasticity of the demand curve for drugs is almost perfectly inelastic, so we should not see more people doing drugs ... we should see the same number of people doing drugs and paying less for them.
Post a Comment