Cops

[back2basics-]

Ok something to think about other than sex and bitches.

Right so a cop get's shot down south somewhere. Is he shot protecting Chicago residents or is it part of his job? Do cops do a good job balancing which drug offenders the bust (users, dealers etc). And racial profiling, where do you stand?

[silente]

OK...this covers a lot of ground.

First off, I think protecting Chicago's people *IS* a cop's job, so the first question sort of answers itself. The issue then becomes: how much protection do chicago's people want/need? (Despite his size, I do not in any way feel I need protection from my dealer, for example. :grin: ) If you look at the statistics, cops are clearly doing a rotten job choosing which dealers/users to bust. Blacks represent 13% of the population, and (despite common perception) about 13% of the drug-using population as well. Yet they represent over 80% of the drug convictions nationwide. Racial profiling obviously comes into play here - cops are *looking* for dealers/users in predominantly black neighborhoods and (*shock*) they're being found. But if they happened to look as closely at say, Lincoln Park, or even better in some of the wealthiest suburbs, they'd find just as vigorous a drug trade.

LEGALIZE!! :grin:

[bouncyboy]

Originally posted by silente

LEGALIZE!! :grin:

I couldn't agree more.

[back2basics-]

Not sure where you got your figures from but I have herd of entirely different ones.

I don't believe in racial profiling AT ALL. But the main argument is, in a country full of segregation let's say there are area's where more crime is committed. For instance the south side of Chicago. In the area where the cop was killed there have been 30 murders THIS YEAR. That's more murders in a small town than the whole of Boston last year.

So what do you do? You have to police that area more aggressively. That area is a mainly black neighborhood, so what happens is the number get skewed. I wouldn't call that profiling, but it will show the huge differences in figures like Silente has said. So I do think communities segregating themselves is partly to blame. But when I travel around I see more black and Hispanic people being pulled that anything. A friend of mine in the UK was pulled over and asked to produce his documents 20 times in a month, I was probably pulled twice in 10 years. Now that is wrong. And the main thing is, even if a certain nationality did commit 90 % of crimes human rights say the other 10% who haven't done anything wrong should be treated like criminals.

Another tough balancing act, as is the following question.

Just on legalization, what do you think should be legalized?

[silente]

To be fair, I have to say I got my figures from an organization that helps families on welfare, so it's definitely possible they're skewed. But still...the vast majority of drug convictions are minorities, especially blacks. No matter who you ask for that data, there's still a GIGANTIC disparity between the number of whites and minorities in prisons.

In terms of legalization, that gets sticky. Definitely weed. Definitely E. Definitely psychedelics. I'm less in favor of narcotics, just because they can be physically addictive before you really have the opportunity to analyze what it is you're getting into and why you're taking the drug. But (having not taken any narcotics) I'm probably not the most qualified to make that distinction.

[back2basics-]

Ok why?

[silente]

Lots of reasons.

A) I'm putting the substance into *my* body. I'm not feeding it to small children or something - the drug is mine to enjoy.

Legalization can lead to standardization - you'd actually know how many mg of MDMA was in your freakin pill, and you'd know for sure that it *was* MDMA.

C) More reliable information. If a substance isn't illegal, it will be easier/less risky to circulate information or test pills (a la Dancesafe).

D) Less stigma, thus making it easier for addicts to seek help

E) No criminalization. Same deal with the addicts - they won't have to worry about serving jail time for possession/distribution if they come forward as users

[back2basics-]

Ok i will put my opinions forwasrd on these

A) I'm putting the substance into *my* body. I'm not feeding it to small children or something - the drug is mine to enjoy.

Law isn't made for you, it's made for the betterment of society. I am sure everybody here (I hope) wouldn't have a problem. But the fact that we all have college degree's put's us in the top 2% intellectually of society. The other 98% to different degree's are, less intelligent and I would say therefore more susceptible to the harmful side of drugs. E (even MDMA) is dangerous long term. We STILL don't know what effects it will have, although we do know that depression and loss of memory are long term effects. We don't know in what volumes OR longer term issues. There are a hell of alot of people out there who would use to 'escape'

Legalization can lead to standardization - you'd actually know how many mg of MDMA was in your freakin pill, and you'd know for sure that it *was* MDMA.

Legalization will lead to taxation. The government will put a BIG tax on it to try and stop people taking it. Drug dealers, traffickers would undercut the government and the situation would still be the same for the VAST majority of poorer users.

C) More reliable information. If a substance isn't illegal, it will be easier/less risky to circulate information or test pills (a la Dancesafe).

Look to England and Canada for good information. They have the biggest problems with E and have public healthcare system. They realized 5 or 6 years ago that they potentially could have a generation worth of cabbages to treat so they invested quiet a bit of money in research. Legalization would pay for research through taxation (see answer above).

D) Less stigma, thus making it easier for addicts to seek help

While there are quiet a few people who believe in the legalization of Marijuana, you won't find many people who want to legalize the rest of the drugs you mentioned. It could quiet easily make things worse, people could resent the treatment being given. Most addicts will want to seek treatment at some point, it's not that they don't want to, it's that there is nothing available. So is this taxation going to pay for treatment, and getting people off the addictive drugs, education? (some people do get addicted to E and in many cases physiological addiction is worse than short term physical). Legalization would defiantly cause more people to experiment if not have problems. It does give a socially acceptable lining to it.

E) No criminalization. Same deal with the addicts - they won't have to worry about serving jail time for possession/distribution if they come forward as users.

Ok now this I agree with. But over here like in America the police admit to putting more effort in to the shipping and dealing than users. In the UK they have drugs courts, where on a first offence you must go in to treatment. A second offence may get you a jail sentence. That IMO is the answer. Over here you won't get charged (generally) if you get caught with weed.

IMO the system works, there are expensive due to the difficulty of getting them in the country. People like us have and will continue to experiment. I think more needs to be done with Crack and Heroin to get them off the streets, because somebody along the supply chain is targeting them at low income area's. Selling them for pennies, when they are the worst drugs... escape drugs. But as far as recreational I think we are ok, legalize cannabis yes. In Holland the average age of a heroin user goes up by a year every year, since the legalization (which IMO is the best reason to legalize). But Holland STILL has a HUGE illegal trade in cannabis, so it won't stop dealers selling it.

[silente]

You have a point with the taxation thing, but look - if the government is serious about getting people to buy *their* drugs, they're gonna have to accept that in order to be successful they have to compete with street-level dealers. Otherwise they'll be left at the same place they were before, but with far less influence over the trade. And frankly, if you consider the amount of money saved by not having to try and jail the thousands of minor drug dealers caught every year, I think we'd find a lot of money really fast to increase funding for research and treatment. Furthermore, without at least *some* level of legalization, we'll *never* know what the real effects of these drugs are (at least, not in the US) because right now doctors can't even run clinical trials of them.