| 0 |
Subject: More news from the War on Some Drugs
Posted by: Seattle Zen
- Donor [554192913] Mon, Jul 01, 2002, 16:15
I'm making this post for two reasons, but first my disclaimer. I've never tried methamphetamines and I never will. Meth is an EVIL substance, enough people have told me personal horror stories. However, this story, "Middle-class working moms turning to meth for energy" really poses two questions.
1. If Mike Tyson only served three years for raping a woman, how can a mother of three with no other record face 35 years for drugs?
2. Why hasn't the mega-billion pharmacutical industry come up with a safe, non-addictive, no bad side effect stimulant?
Issue 1: This woman made some stupid choices. But why such a long sentance? If she was able to cook, clean, work and care for her children while high on caffine, we'd all applaud. But she choose meth instead and now about 2 million dollars of tax money that could be used for little league baseball fields or loans for small Iowa businesses are going to the warehousing of this woman. Who thinks this is right?
Issue 2: About half the people I know (especially Nerve) would say that the people in power WANT meth to remain illegal because they profit from it so hansomely. I agree that the Prison-Industrial complex certainly profits from throwing people in the clink for 35 years. But much like marijuana, meth is "homegrown" and escapes the clutches of the larger drug lords. Meth is so cheap because it is easy to make and nothing needs to be imported. I would think that Big Pharm would make a killing if it could devise a safe, effective stimulant. Is it possible that our Puritan ethic is preventing a Fortune 500 company from exploring that avenue? Most people would laugh at much a naive question, but I wonder. Science hasn't created the stimulant of which I speak, is there any research happening in that area? Is it taboo to say, "we are looking for a safe replacement for caffine/meth that would have no negative health consequences"? Surely the military could use it. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 457 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Fri, May 21, 2010, 09:58
|
This is not just academic for me, btw.
I've been hit on my bike twice in the last year by cabbies - one was clearly too tired to be driving and perhaps on stimulants, the other was simply inattentive and driving erratically and unpredictably.
|
| 458 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 21, 2010, 09:58
|
I would prefer we police based actual performance behind the wheel
Sure, but this would preclude blood alcohol levels being used as proof of impairment. The police don't have to wait for a guy to perform poorly to stop him from doing so if he fails a test.
|
| 459 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Fri, May 21, 2010, 09:59
|
Yes they do. Zen can chime in here, but you have to have probable cause to pull someone over.
|
| 460 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, May 21, 2010, 10:50
|
The police don't have to wait for a guy to perform poorly to stop him from doing so if he fails a test.
I don't understand this sentence.
There have been a lot of scientific studies that show that, regardless of tolerance, anyone who blows a .08 is impaired. For every other drug, no such studies have been done. Drug DUI trials are filed with speculation and, quite often, police and prosecutorial exaggeration.
The nanny-state powers behind the drive for "per se" Drug DUI statutes want you to believe that our nation is overrun with people who flout the public's safety by getting high, driving, and frustrating the police's attempts to charge them. What will become obvious to all if such laws were strictly enforced is that half of the elderly gentlemen and little old ladies on the road are going to be going to jail because their blood is going to test positive for something and they can't stand on one leg.
|
| 461 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, May 21, 2010, 10:57
|
Drunk drivers are 10 times worse than high drivers IMO.
|
| 462 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 21, 2010, 10:59
|
Which is why the police aren't simply statute-enforcing robots.
There have been a lot of scientific studies that show that, regardless of tolerance, anyone who blows a .08 is impaired.
My point isn't that such numbers, if they exist, aren't biased beyond use. It is that there is no scientific reason why we can't arrive at numbers, testing methodology and so on in order to come to the same agreement about weed as we do about alcohol.
And I think the pro-legalization crowd would do itself a favor in the argument by refraining from talking about cell phones, kids, and so in its efforts to allow those with a little weed in their system to join in the distraction bandwagon. The best parallel isn't other distractions while we drive but drinking, and pro-legalization arguments would have more traction if it included some commonsense calls for objective scientific impairment studies research to arrive at some reasonable way to allow those not actively high on the road.
|
| 463 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, May 21, 2010, 11:25
|
pro-legalization arguments would have more traction if it included some commonsense calls for objective scientific impairment studies research to arrive at some reasonable way to allow those not actively high on the road.
Everyone who is not "actively high" is allowed on the road. In fact, plenty of people who are "currently high" are allowed on the road because their level of "high" does not impair them.
Here's just one study done by NHTSA in 1993
You are not going to like some of these conclusions - It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.
The most important conclusion, in my mind - The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.
|
| 464 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 21, 2010, 12:03
|
You are not going to like some of these conclusions
This isn't about what I like. And this isn't an argument between something I want and something you want.
The more difficult it is to measure impairment-producing drugs for drivers the more difficult it will be to legalize the drug for non-medical uses.
|
| 465 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, May 21, 2010, 12:51
|
I have no idea what that last post is suppose to mean.
Could you rephrase?
It may just be that scientists and politician can no longer
communicate.
|
| 466 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 21, 2010, 13:16
|
At least, as a Democrat, we're still talking!
My point is simply that having more impaired drivers on the road is a legitimate concern for people, should the drug be legalized. It behooves those who advocate for the legalization to address that concern, probably using how we deal with drinking and driving as a model.
Zen seems focused on showing how one simply can't get there from here.
|
| 467 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, May 21, 2010, 13:30
|
Well, drugs that are inhaled vs ingested have very different
duration and functional impacts.
Alcohol is not a good model. I'm not saying that a test which
correlates well with function couldn't be developed, simply
that a blood test measuring thc isn't a good test.
|
| 468 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 21, 2010, 13:35
|
Sure. But that is a scientific question. I think the pro-legalization supporters should also support science coming to bear on the problem to solve it to some degree.
I don't know what the answer is, but I want real objective scientific responses to the problem (which, to be clear, is "how to we measure impairment by drivers on marijuana in a way which is quick, easy, and portable?")
easy question. Hard answers.
|
| 469 | Frick
ID: 35438217
Fri, May 21, 2010, 14:36
|
PD followed up on my original question. Take a step back and ask why driving while impaired is a crime? You are putting others are risk based on your actions, and those actions are multiplied by the size of the vehicle you are operating.
If we can prove that a person who was high was not impaired in any way while driving, then there should be significantly higher penalties, similar to alcohol penalties.
|
| 470 | weykool
ID: 351422416
Fri, May 21, 2010, 15:03
|
My personal of experience from my youth is I would drive extremely cautiously, but get lost a lot.
Getting lost is an impairment.
I agree with PD.
The burden of proof that people that are high are not adding to the risk of other drivers belongs 100% to the legalization advocates.
|
| 471 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, May 21, 2010, 16:36
|
Why?
I'm not advocating legalizing driving while high.
Nobody is.
It's like saying to those in favor of ending alcohol prohibition-
"not until you invent a breathalizer!"
that argument is nonsensical.
|
| 472 | weykool
ID: 351422416
Fri, May 21, 2010, 17:40
|
Why?
Because we have no way of preventing people who are high from driving a car.
The obvious is now nonsensical?
|
| 473 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, May 21, 2010, 17:49
|
We have no way of stopping the blind or toddlers from driving
either. Should we make those illegal as well?
Are such a car-centric society that we should base all of our
laws on what it looks like behind the wheel?
I prefer we ban cars altogether, if that's the case.
|
| 474 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, May 21, 2010, 17:53
|
If it's so bloody difficult to discern if someone is impaired
without a fancy test, perhaps we should assume they aren't.
|
| 475 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Fri, May 21, 2010, 18:06
|
Y'all realize they had laws agaist impaired driving before
there was a medical test to show BAC.
|
| 476 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, May 21, 2010, 18:13
|
I think cars are the greatest excuse for limiting and infringing
on our basic freedoms in the history of our country.
Evil filthy things.
|
| 477 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 21, 2010, 18:36
|
#475: Still do, I believe. I was just speaking politically. For purposes of legalizing marijuana, the support for a similar policing tool for weed would go some way to overcoming political reticence on the issue.
|
| 478 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Fri, May 21, 2010, 18:54
|
The push now from MADD is for zero tolerance for alchohol.
(that's already the case for drivers under 21)
I don thnk anything willl overcome the Modern day teetotalers
|
| 479 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, May 21, 2010, 18:58
|
I hadn't realized that, though it is hard to miss their zeal.
|
| 480 | Boldwin
ID: 224592123
Sat, May 22, 2010, 01:25
|
I think cars are the greatest excuse for limiting and infringing
on our basic freedoms in the history of our country.
Evil filthy things. - bili
What is this impulse to get every last think @ssbackwards?
Are you just pulling our leg?
I want you to hop in your solar powered, non-polluting time machine. Go back to the wagon train. Offer them a machine that will transport them to California in 24 hours and see if they recoil in horror at the infernal limitations and infringement of their freedom.
|
| 481 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sat, May 22, 2010, 03:47
|
Try to picture the world without cars. Really. Try.
I love driving my Turbo 100 mph through the winding hills, mountains and valleys as much as the next guy.
The trouble is that 99.9999% of the time, I'm sitting on some commuter hell in stop and go traffic, my frustration burning a hole in my soul.
We would be better off fire-bombing them all, taking the huge hit the GDP and what we currently think of our lifestyle but salvaging our communities and our sense of humanity.
|
| 482 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Sat, May 22, 2010, 19:48
|
bili 446 - No, I'm not missing the point. I'm well aware pot can be detected in your system for up to a month after use. I'm well aware that if I were to smoke it today, 2 weeks from now it would not be impairing me.
But the point you seem to be missing is that pot is illegal. If I fail a test in 2 weeks because of pot, guess what...I got caught doing something illegal. Plain and simple. The law is fine. It simply tacks on another punishment for breaking the law.
Again, this is completely the wrong fight. The fight should be against the schedule level of marijuana. Win *that* war then the rest are small skirmishes. Even getting this law overturned or re-written.
|
| 483 | Boldwin
ID: 34472223
Sun, May 23, 2010, 00:10
|
Could this be where souless zombie liberals come from? Traffic rage?
|
| 484 | biliruben
ID: 16105237
Sun, May 23, 2010, 01:07
|
I can agree with that, Khahan.
I was run over last week, Boldwin. I've been hit by a car 9 times in the last 15 years. I love bicycling, but does it have to kill me?
|
| 485 | Mith
ID: 5631099
Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 21:14
|
Volokh: 40 Out of 50 Indiana State Senators Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Right to Use Force to Resist Unlawful Police Entry!
|
| 486 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 08:23
|
Re: 485
Not sure why that is in this thread, but as an Indiana resident, I'm curious to see where it ends. The judges decisions to support police entry into a home without a warrant stemmed from domestic violence incidents. I believe that both judges who upheld the ruling cited that specific situation, what is scary is how wide the door is now open for cops to enter a home without a warrant.
|
| 487 | Mith
ID: 5631099
Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 20:16
|
Frick
Sorry for the slow response. I meant to get to it sooner and then it slipped too far down the page to catch my eye.
I'm guilty of not looking into Barnes v. State and just assuming it was a drug raid. But even if I knew, I probably would have put it here anyway since this thread already contains numerous discussions about special tactics police invading private homes and the militarization of our police in general.
Your point did evoke an interesting question, though. While I'm aware that not all unjustifyable paramilitary style home invasions are executed for the purpose of finding drugs, the vast majority of the ones I hear about are. Is that an accurate reflection?
|
| 488 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 20:26
|
OK, obviously not a lawyer; but short of "imminent danger", how is a warrantless home entry NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment?
Fourth Amendment
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
| 489 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 839213
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 02:08
|
RE: 488
I guess that the variables of "unreasonable" and "probable cause" could sway some decisions.
|
| 490 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 08:29
|
Re: 487
I don't have any factual data, but I would guess that most raids are drug related. But if it is a "raid" they most likely have a warrant going in.
I have mixed feeling about the ruling. I have strong disagreement with the fact that a homeowner in Indiana is now told that they must submit to a warrantless search of their home and can only seek restitution at a later date. As Sarge said, it seems like a fairly clear violation of the 4th Amendment. I can also see the viewpoint of the judges that if a domestic violence call was made, the cops should verify that everyone in the house is safe.
I heard story on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe this week where a "psychic" called the police and said they had a vision of a pile of bodies in a home. The police went to the home and didn't find anything. The psychic called back and gave more detailed information and police, including the FBI went back in force and spent hours searching the property. They detected rotting smells and found blood on the front porch. When the home owners finally came home, it turns out they were truck drivers and the rotting smell was garbage that had been left out. The blood was from an accident on the porch and nothing more nefarious. The police spent a large amount of money and were now looking into the angle that the psychic made the call as revenge for some other transgression.
Could cops call in a "fake" domestic violence call on a suspected drug house to allow them to enter and then find drugs? Seems like a very easy way to dodge getting a warrant or to just allow police to harass citizens. Hopefully the ruling is modified or precedents are set that any evidence gained in this manner is not admittable in court or the basis for a future warrant.
|
| 491 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 09:25
|
Just another liberty being taken away. And sarge33rd, you don't have to ba a lawyer to read or understand the Constitution. Despite what some blowhards will tell you.
|
| 493 | Mith
ID: 657210
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 10:43
|
Re: 490
To be clear there was no ruling. The news was that 80% of the senate (and 31% of the house) in IN support a petition for rehearing the case.
Sadly, I believe it may have come to the point where what we need for the public and the media to take a look a this is a police officer doing nothing more than his job exactly as he is supposed to do it geting shot by an innocent resident who was perfectly within his right to shoot him.
Perhaps then the country could begin to understand how insane the combined war on drugs and militarization of our police is. Case after miserable case of mistaken invasions resulting in property damage, injury and loss of life to innocent civillians for some reason has not done the trick. Maybe that changes if the casualty is a cop next time.
|
| 494 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 10:46
|
Or how about police taking out a guy trying to protect his house.
The problem isn't the warrant. It it police acting like para-military outfits (with armored carriers, automatic weaponry, etc. all given to them by Homeland Security money).
|
| 495 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 10:46
|
Actually MITH, I believe the Indiana SC did in fact rule, that a resident has no right of self defense against a warrantless entry by law enforcement. That, is what spurred the news reports and action you refer to above.
link
|
| 496 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 11:03
|
let me add too, that in the case of a domestic violence situation; I think that Law Enforcement could legitimately claim "imminent threat" as grounds for a warrantless entry. I don't see, where the same claim could be made re a drug enforcement action, unless the claim then becomes one of imminent destruction of the evidence.
|
| 497 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Fri, Jun 17, 2011, 11:44
|
You're right, Sarge. I probably misunderstood what ruling Frick was referring to.
|
| 498 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Mon, Jun 20, 2011, 08:55
|
I don't think the new Miss USA will be the next spokesperson for the Legalization of Marijuana.
Hulu
|
| 499 | Boldwin
ID: 25530309
Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 18:13
|
Obama's drug war
|
| 500 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 18:59
|
Yup, pretty much.
You should listen to the one right below that too!
|
| 501 | Boldwin
ID: 58112185
Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 10:56
|
Does catnip work on the big cats?
|
| 502 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 13:05
|
Kim Jong-il dropping the bass...
|
| 503 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 13:11
|
oops, wrong thread. But it works, somehow.
|
| 504 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 00:12
|
If you want yer munchie binges to keep on including twinkies and hostess cupcakes, better start showing your support.
|
| 505 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Feb 01, 2012, 18:09
|
6am chainsaw work?
|
| 506 | Boldwin
ID: 0210514
Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 15:10
|
“No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.” - P.J. O'Rourke
|
| 507 | Boldwin
ID: 47351116
Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 19:37
|
There is no justice.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: More news from the War on Some Drugs
|