To Protect and to Serve II

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I thought the same thing with the branch Dividians. They had multiple opportunities to take him into custody off the compound but waited until he was back in his fortification to do their thing.

I mean, the guy jogged every morning by himself. A whole lot of people would still be alive had they taken him then.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes, lets legalize black tar heroin which is part of why the warrant was issued. Pick your bong back up and power down your pc.

The fact that there was a warrant issued doesn't justify its prohibition, smart guy. That's a logical fallacy.

 

[Cdywolfe]

That's like calling a 20lb bag of apples bad because one is rotten.

It's actually nothing like that at all but okay...

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Probably. Cops know everyday that it may be their last yet they still go to work, don't they? Many sign up to work narcotics enforcement.

I mean lol they’re not fighting Tojo, it’s just heroin. The fate of the free world doesn’t rely on cops busting trap houses. And busting one dealer does not stop drug use, it just stops that dealer who will be replaced immediately.

 

[37L1]

I mean lol they’re not fighting Tojo, it’s just heroin. The fate of the free world doesn’t rely on cops busting trap houses. And busting one dealer does not stop drug use, it just stops that dealer who will be replaced immediately.

Same for other criminals, isn't it?

 

[DancingOutlaw]

I've often wondered why in cases like this they don't just survail the people and take them into custody away from the where the warrant is to be served, then serve the warrant.

Combat rule #1, do not catch your enemy out in the open. Go to his base and attack there.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Combat rule #1, do not catch your enemy out in the open. Go to his base and attack there.

I've always thought a surprise attack would be a good strategy. I'm by no means an expert but it seems like you would want them away from their resources.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Same for other criminals, isn't it?

That’s why I said change the law. Why is it against the law for consenting adults to sell things to each other? If you don’t want to do heroin, don’t. If a person wants to throw THEIR OWN LIFE away on drugs that is their choice. Now if that person steals or drives high or neglects their kids the law should intercede. But this drug war is 50’s dad I know what’s best for you young man ********.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Combat rule #1, do not catch your enemy out in the open. Go to his base and attack there.

I'm not sure you're correct here. I googled it and this is what I came up with:

• Rule #1 of combat: Don't let the enemy see you.
• Rule #1 of combat: Never pick a fight with anyone (equal or) bigger than you.
• Rule #1 of combat: Caffeinated troops are alert troops, decaffeinated troops may mutiny.
• Rule #1 of combat: Avoid using weapons that are likely to kill their user.
• Rule #1 of combat: Avoid getting shot

 

[37L1]

That’s why I said change the law. Why is it against the law for consenting adults to sell things to each other? If you don’t want to do heroin, don’t. If a person wants to throw THEIR OWN LIFE away on drugs that is their choice. Now if that person steals or drives high or neglects their kids the law should intercede. But this drug war is 50’s dad I know what’s best for you young man ********.

I know. Let Government Health Care deal with the addicts and OD's.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

The fact that there was a warrant issued doesn't justify its prohibition, smart guy. That's a logical fallacy.

There's nothing logical about legalizing heroin.

 

[RockyTop85]

It's actually nothing like that at all but okay...

It’s actually pretty perfect.

Nobody eats the bad apple. Nobody keeps the bad apple. Nobody defends the bad apple. Nobody asks “why do you hate all apples?” Nobody covers up the bad spots.

You throw the bad apple away. As soon as you see it. Every time.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

It’s actually pretty perfect.

Nobody eats the bad apple. Nobody keeps the bad apple. Nobody defends the bad apple. Nobody asks “why do you hate all apples?” Nobody covers up the bad spots.

You throw the bad apple away. As soon as you see it. Every time.

I'm not sure what he means it's nothing like it. I was about to respond till I scrolled down. You covered it perfectly.

 

[RockyTop85]

I'm not sure what he means it's nothing like it. I was about to respond till I scrolled down. You covered it perfectly.

I thought it supported his point better than yours, but I’ve been skimming and may have misunderstood your respective points.

Accountability for police who abuse authority (throwing away the bad apples) is, I assume, one of the things he thinks will improve relations between the police and the public.

Right now, it seems like the farmers and many of the other apples glom together to protect the bad ones.

 

[RockyTop85]

Also, I’m a fairly adamant libertarian and I was hip to the whole demilitarizing the police argument.

Questioning the justifications for the prohibition of heroin might have located the boundaries of my libertarianism, though.

(Without getting into the fact that no heroin was located, which is a bit more nuanced.)

 

[n_huffhines]

There's nothing logical about legalizing heroin.

False

 

[n_huffhines]

Also, I’m a fairly adamant libertarian and I was hip to the whole demilitarizing the police argument.

Questioning the justifications for the prohibition of heroin might have located the boundaries of my libertarianism, though.

(Without getting into the fact that no heroin was located, which is a bit more nuanced.)

From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.

 

[Cdywolfe]

I thought it supported his point better than yours, but I’ve been skimming and may have misunderstood your respective points.

Accountability for police who abuse authority (throwing away the bad apples) is, I assume, one of the things he thinks will improve relations between the police and the public.

Right now, it seems like the farmers and many of the other apples glom together to protect the bad ones.

Exactly... Holding bad cops accountable is probably the biggest thing that could improve relations between police and the public. But that would take a bit of self reflection and maybe a little acceptance that the current climate in police/public relations might just be a little bit their fault. Which I don't see happening.

 

[37L1]

From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.

And deal, by himself, for the results of doing that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because no one lives on a deserted island where the results of those choices impacts only the one.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.

I don’t think you could ever sit down and tabulate that the direct and indirect costs of legalization are anywhere close to the direct and indirect costs of prohibition. The drug wars in Latin America alone have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and probably billions in economic losses and enforcement costs. We’ve spent billions and billions on enforcement and the criminal justice system to support it. And we have nothing to show for it. The people who want to use drugs still do it, and the people who want to sell it to them still sell it. We’ve just created an economic drag that is the law enforcement apparatus that is “eradicating” the problem. Now what government agency in its right mind will ever wholeheartedly attempt to eradicate the one thing that guarantees its existence?

 

[DancingOutlaw]

And deal, by himself, for the results of doing that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because no one lives on a deserted island where the results of those choices impacts only the one.

Exactly. So when you actions infringe upon the rights of someone else, you face the consequences. Banning drugs is like pre crime, I’m assuming no good will come of this so I say it’s not allowed.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

From a utilitarian perspective:

The justification (at its most basic level) for banning heroin is the idea that prohibition will reduce the social cost of heroin.

The justification (at its most basic level) for legalizing heroin is the idea that prohibition increases the social cost of heroin.

From a libertarian perspective, you do it because you believe man is meant to choose for himself what he can put in his body.

Yes lets make it easier to get, that will solve all the problems.

So with this thinking you have no problems with the 2cd amendment. Because a man/woman can choose what to put in their house, right?

 

[n_huffhines]

And deal, by himself, for the results of doing that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because no one lives on a deserted island where the results of those choices impacts only the one.

But everything we do has some impact on somebody else, so with that justification you're asking for unlimited intervention in our lives. Obesity has more of a social cost than the war on drugs. Should we be banning fattening foods? This is mayor Bloomberg type reasoning.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes lets make it easier to get, that will solve all the problems.

So with this thinking you have no problems with the 2cd amendment. Because a man/woman can choose what to put in their house, right?

Nobody said it would solve all the problems. Is the war on drug solving any of the problems?

I support the right to bear arms.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Yes lets make it easier to get, that will solve all the problems.

So with this thinking you have no problems with the 2cd amendment. Because a man/woman can choose what to put in their house, right?

Do you know anyone who wants to try heroin but is afraid because it’s illegal?