Printable View
Even animals enjoy the occasional high--every Fall a variety of birds get drunk and silly on fermented madrona berries outside my window. I'd love to see psychedelics like psilocybin and mescaline made legal, but I doubt I'll live that long. Our drug policy has been an abject failure and national embarrassment.
Considering de-facto legalization of marijuana (medical marijuana laws in CA - anyone and everyone can get a prescription), have done no real harm, I don't know why we can't have full legalization (instead they are cracking down again).
Although, I think a few non-violent drug crimes do definitely deserve jail sentences - mainly DUI. They may not count that as violent, but it can kill.
I place DUI in the same moral category as discharging a firearm randomly down a public street. You *probably* won't hit anybody, but you are endangering many, and the outcome if you do isn't good. I think our treatment of DUI offenders should be far harsher than it is. In my county, we have taken until recently a very overly-tolerant approach, and we have suffered for it. Some times of the year, my household simply won't be out on the roads during certain hours, it's too dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
We have a new Sheriff now, and a new judge, and there's some promise of change.
Our DUI laws are similar. Actually their implementation is, the laws themselves would probably be just fine if they were upheld all the way through the system. We also have times when it's better to stay in. "Amature night out" is the joke, but it really isn't a joking matter at all. Isn't it interesting what we choose to accept and even glamorize and what we scorn?
I see legalizing marijuana as taking control away from gangs, cartels and other wise rough folks and putting it into the control of responsible authorities or agencies, which at least seems on the surface to imply a reduction in gun violence. It doesn't address meth and crack cocaine which may be the recreational drugs of choice on the street these days. It seems like it would free up law enforcement budgets to concentrate on more important issues.
Maybe there are things that could have a larger effect of gun violence that firearm restrictions by focusing on other core issues. Seems workable to me.
From an article on gangs, drugs and gun violence.
Participation in drug markets has also been linked to gun violence. Though many longitudinal studies of youth cited above implicate gangs as the primary catalyst responsible for increased levels of gun violence, drug market participation also seems to facilitate firearm involvement. That is, those who buy or sell drugs do experience higher levels of gun violence than non-drug participants.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cp...ce-eng.aspx#s3
Thanks Rogar. Not for agreeing or disagreeing, but just for being willing to help take a topic and break it down a little bit to try to figure out what all the parts mean before jumping to a conclusion. Nicely done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
My impression of gangs is that drug sales are their primary source of revenue. I know they probably have a hand in all the old mob favorites as well as auto theft and a host of other things, but I always thought drugs were (big picture) the primary income stream for most gangs. Does anyone know for sure or are there statistics available through something a little less time consuming to filter than the FBI data bases?Quote:
Participation in drug markets has also been linked to gun violence. Though many longitudinal studies of youth cited above implicate gangs as the primary catalyst responsible for increased levels of gun violence...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
And in the latest policy twist, the police chief for Washington DC, home of very anti gun carry policies, gives the following advice to civilians in an active shooter situation, but I wonder what she thinks people will use to do this?
"Your options are run, hide, or fight," says Lanier. "If you're in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it's the best option for saving lives before police can get there," she tells Cooper.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-cal...1-isnt-enough/
Or here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...-saving-lives/
In an upcoming segment of CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Lanier said she’s no longer preaching a passive message to people confronted with an active shooter. In the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and threats from the Islamic State, Lanier said calling 911 for law enforcement’s help might not be enough because of response times.
“Your options are run, hide or fight,” Lanier told Anderson Cooper. “The facts of the matter is that most active shooters kill most of the victims in 10 minutes or less. The best police department in the country is going to be about a five minute to seven minute response.”
Yossarian, I saw that, too, and pretty much laughed my head off. Concealed carry was forced on DC by a federal court, but it's a very restrictive may issue law that was enacted.
This is one of the reasons why I almost never am without a firearm and some good tourniquets on my person. (The Cav Arms Slick-TKs are decently effective and stow well in pockets.)
I have a conceal carry permit and four handguns that I can carry on my person or in my car but in general you will find them locked in my safe and not on my person. Having carried one for 25 years because I had to.....carrying now causes me pain. I rely a lot on avoidance of dangerous environments. And ai don't make eye contact with anyone ai don't know. I constantly lok at hands and people coming and going.