Sheriff Joe's Round them up immigration policy

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have never smoked the stuff so maybe my views are out of step and naive, but it seems to me that most of the problems would be solved by legalizing marijuana. It would stop being a "gateway" and the quality should increase, avoiding the poisons that reportedly have been introduced. We could lower enforcement costs and increase taxes. I don't see a downside besides the usual ones that are also shared by alcohol and cigarettes.

It so stupid to call pot a gateway drug. What % of people have used alcohol and/or tobacco before using any kind of drug? How come those are never called "gateway" drugs? Oh right, because we collect taxes on them and they are legal. It's also important to mention how much money will be lost by the big time drug dealers if their product became more easily attainable.

 

 

 

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately for you the Supreme Court sided with the federal government in an 8-0 decision upholding federal statuates making marijuana illegal so in spite of that law it is still illegal in Alaska as well as the rest of the country by virtue of federal law.

How is this unfortunate for me? I don't smoke it, sell it, or live in Alaska. From your good friends at the ACLU : http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/decrim/26119prs20060711.html

Adults Have Privacy Right to Use Marijuana in the Home, Says Alaska Judge in Landmark Ruling (7/11/2006)

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: media@aclu.org

 

ACLU Wins Multi-Year Battle to Protect Alaska Residents From Drug War Excesses

 

JUNEAU — In a landmark ruling, an Alaska state court judge has upheld adults' right to possess and use small amounts of marijuana within their homes. The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law, said the ruling confirmed that the state constitution protects adults who use and possess marijuana in their homes from police surveillance, searches, arrest and prosecution.

 

"The drug war has wreaked havoc on the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, but fortunately many state constitutions still shield individuals from drug war excess," said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "This ruling is incredibly significant from a national perspective, because there are a number of states with similar privacy rights in their constitutions that may afford protections to adult marijuana users."

 

With the court's ruling, Alaska remains the only state in the nation in which adults are legally free to possess and use small amounts of marijuana within their homes.

 

Back to the actual subject, why are some of you in favor of using the American's tax dollars to lock up an illegal immigrant (I'm sure Joe is only going to profile mexicans as well,) yet flip out at the idea of using our tax dollars to provide them with health care or living assistance?

 

Personally I think they should be deported, and not prosecuted under our system. This would be a complete waste of time and tax dollars.

 

Find those serial killers yet Joe?

[BHAMBARONS]

Find those serial killers yet Joe?

 

 

No he hasn't and looked like a complete fool on the press conference. He looked confused at times really doens't do much to set a side all of the panic here in Phoenix.

[NorthSideSox72]

No he hasn't and looked like a complete fool on the press conference. He looked confused at times really doens't do much to set a side all of the panic here in Phoenix.

Joe should stick to doing what sheriffs in most urban counties do - worry about the jails. Leave law enforcement to someone else. He doesn't seem to understand the basics of field work.

[WCSox]

I have never smoked the stuff so maybe my views are out of step and naive, but it seems to me that most of the problems would be solved by legalizing marijuana. It would stop being a "gateway" and the quality should increase, avoiding the poisons that reportedly have been introduced. We could lower enforcement costs and increase taxes. I don't see a downside besides the usual ones that are also shared by alcohol and cigarettes.

 

Pot is essentially alcohol that can be more-readily grown at home and doesn't have the negative physical side-effects. The result is that it's very easy to abuse... and would likely be very widely-abused if it were legalized. At the very least, a surge in the number of traffic-related deaths from driving under the influence would occur.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Pot is essentially alcohol that can be more-readily grown at home and doesn't have the negative physical side-effects. The result is that it's very easy to abuse... and would likely be very widely-abused if it were legalized. At the very least, a surge in the number of traffic-related deaths from driving under the influence would occur.

Using the example of the Dutch, they experienced a brief spike after instituting their drug policy but the rates went down soon after.

 

There wouldn't be a surge in traffic related deaths for DUI any more than the traditional ones with alcohol. Morons will always get behind the wheel after using a substance (both legal and illegal). The majority should not be punished for the acts of a small sliver minority.

 

Despite the legalization of soft drugs, use of cannabis in the Netherlands is not higher than most other countries in Western Europe: 9.7% of young males consume cannabis at least once a month, which rates the Netherlands 7th in the EU after Cyprus (23.3%), Spain (16.4%), United Kingdom (15.8%), France (13.2%), Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%).

 

Some critics say that the legalization of soft drugs often leads to quicker consuming of hard drugs. Yet, the percentage of the population which ever consumed cocaine in the Netherlands is still lower than that of the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. The situation is similar for other hard drugs.

 

We've seen what prohibition does. It fails to work and leads to an upsurge in criminal enterprises (see the growth of the mob during the time alcohol was prohibited)

 

Drug usage should be allowed for personal use as long as that person is not hurting anybody else and they know the risks/benefits of their choice. The US has gotten pretty hypocritical when it comes to certain drugs being okay and certain drugs being banned.

 

Currently, it is difficult for drug users to ask for help or seek treatment because of the criminal status of drugs; drug abuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes "it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled criminals and go to jail—with almost no hope of therapy or rehabilitation—while the users of the powerful drug alcohol are considered sick and given therapy."

 

http://www.leap.cc/ -- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pot is essentially alcohol that can be more-readily grown at home and doesn't have the negative physical side-effects. The result is that it's very easy to abuse... and would likely be very widely-abused if it were legalized. At the very least, a surge in the number of traffic-related deaths from driving under the influence would occur.

If it is so easy to grow at home, why aren't more people growing it now? Why do you care what someone does in their personal life at home? I agree completely people shouldn't get f***ed up and drive on the road (even though idiots claim pot makes them better drivers,) but how is that situation any different compared to now where people can get f***ed up on alochol or abuse other substances that are even more easily attainable like super glue, paint thinner, or nail polish remover?

 

If pot were to become legal, they should do like Canada and punish growers BIG TIME. If I had control of the laws, I'd make possesion of one plant a mandatory jail term, and depending on the size and/or number of the plant(s) I'd enforce prison terms for possible tax evation.

[Texsox]

It so stupid to call pot a gateway drug. What % of people have used alcohol and/or tobacco before using any kind of drug? How come those are never called "gateway" drugs? Oh right, because we collect taxes on them and they are legal. It's also important to mention how much money will be lost by the big time drug dealers if their product became more easily attainable.

 

I agree that you can link many items from mother's milk to McDonalds cheesburgers as precedents to hard core drug use.

 

I believe part of the gateway is the procurement process. You can not buy heroin from the local tobacco shop. The liquor store probably isn't selling crack. By legalizing pot, and bringing it into the liquor stores and bars, it takes it out of the drug dealers. Hence my statement. Pot is usually the first illegal drug used.

[WCSox]

If it is so easy to grow at home, why aren't more people growing it now?

 

Um, maybe because it's illegal?

 

 

There wouldn't be a surge in traffic related deaths for DUI any more than the traditional ones with alcohol.

 

Wrong. There are going to be A LOT more people getting high because the drug is legalized and a large percentage of this new demographic is going to be driving around high.

[Texsox]

Wrong. There are going to be A LOT more people getting high because the drug is legalized and a large percentage of this new demographic is going to be driving around high.

 

I'm not certain I agree, perhaps there will be a decrease in DUI/alcohol. I would like to know if pot is abused more than alcohol and if there are many people who would get high, but not get drunk, and if they would be likely to drive. It is cause for concern.

[Balta1701]

I'm not certain I agree, perhaps there will be a decrease in DUI/alcohol. I would like to know if pot is abused more than alcohol and if there are many people who would get high, but not get drunk, and if they would be likely to drive. It is cause for concern.

And also, it'd be nice to know whether or not it was all the fault of the Jews.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, maybe because it's illegal?

That doesn't make any sense. People aren't growing it because they know it's illegal, so they decide to buy it from others because it's not as illegal???? I don't get it.

 

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. There are going to be A LOT more people getting high because the drug is legalized and a large percentage of this new demographic is going to be driving around high.

You can't prove that. Driving high is always my biggest concern when thinking about how the stuff could be taxed and legalized. Do you think stiffer penalties on driving under the influence would reduce the number of impaired drivers? Or will that number of high drivers only be reduced by completely banning the substance?

 

 

This thread has been way hijacked.

Edited August 1, 2006 by santo=dorf

[StrangeSox]

Um, maybe because it's illegal?

Wrong. There are going to be A LOT more people getting high because the drug is legalized and a large percentage of this new demographic is going to be driving around high.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

[Texsox]

And also, it'd be nice to know whether or not it was all the fault of the Jews.

 

I would like to nominate myself for a "he who laughs last" award. 21 hours after reading this and saying "huh" I finally get the Mel Gibson reference.

 

[BHAMBARONS]

Latest update a 22 yrd old was shot and killed in Mesa Sunday and a would be victim was able by alertly using her pepper spray and and car alarm was able to fend off being another victim. It appears as the shooting was the work of the Phoenix sniper and other case is related to the baseline rapist. But this would be victim was able to give a picture of what the person looked like.

 

Also Joe is requiring all his officers on and off duty to be carring there service weapons 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

[Rex Kickass]

Also Joe is requiring all his officers on and off duty to be carring there service weapons 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

 

That should be great when off duty cops decide to tie one on.

[minors]

That should be great when off duty cops decide to tie one on.

 

 

Yeah our cops go around people all the time. I forgot that cops are the enemy and the murdering thugs are our friends. Way to go Joe now if any deputy sees these thugs in action he can take them down right then and there. I love a guy who is not worried about liberalism, lawsuits or being politicaly correct and only worries about the people of his county.

Edited August 3, 2006 by minors

[Texsox]

Yeah our cops go around people all the time. I forgot that cops are the enemy and the murdering thugs are our friends. Way to go Joe now if any deputy sees these thugs in action he can take them down right then and there. I love a guy who is not worried about liberalism, lawsuits or being politicaly correct and only worries about the people of his county.

 

And Rex forgot that cops are are not people also, and none of them actually have social lives that include having a drink.

 

Wouldn't carrying their service gun place them on duty 24/7? Or can they carry and grab a couple beers at a game?

[Rex Kickass]

Uhhh, what? I just think that guns and booze don't mix. And any sheriff who can't see that and orders his deputies to be armed 24/7 regardless of situation or context is pretty dumb.

[Texsox]

Uhhh, what? I just think that guns and booze don't mix. And any sheriff who can't see that and orders his deputies to be armed 24/7 regardless of situation or context is pretty dumb.

 

Damn you Rex. This is law enforcement. They can do whatever they want, ordinary citizens have no right to criticize. Damn the Constitution!

[NorthSideSox72]

There are any number of departments that require their officers to carry shield and weapon 24/7... including Chicago PD. Its not an unusual thing at all.

 

To answer a few points added on this topic... yes, you take a chance when you require that officers go everywhere armed. They do drink, and get into all sorts of other situations where you increase risk with an armed presence. But you do also increase visible presence, which in reality is much more important than the slim chance of an armed conflict occurring... yes, it does put cops in a position of feeling like they are on duty 24/7. But in reality, for most cops, they feel that way anyway. Personality type and role, part and parcel.

[samclemens]

Uhhh, what? I just think that guns and booze don't mix. And any sheriff who can't see that and orders his deputies to be armed 24/7 regardless of situation or context is pretty dumb.

 

theres two serial killers on the loose in the same town. are you serious?

[Balta1701]

Uhhh, what? I just think that guns and booze don't mix. And any sheriff who can't see that and orders his deputies to be armed 24/7 regardless of situation or context is pretty dumb.

Ah-ha...found it!

 

"I headed back to the steelhorse saloon and had the time of my life. That is, until I reminded them, that they're all a bunch of p*****s. If only I'd brought my gun." - Ed Helms.

[minors]

Uhhh, what? I just think that guns and booze don't mix. And any sheriff who can't see that and orders his deputies to be armed 24/7 regardless of situation or context is pretty dumb.

 

 

He trusts his deputies if they had a history of getting drunk and beating/shooting people do you really think they would be on his staff? Having an unarmed off duty officer trying to arrest these guys is even worse. Now if an off duty officer sees one of these guys he can arrest them and take them off the streets which is a great idea. I guess the libs just want more people to get killed by these killers than have off duty officers carry guns 24/7

 

Hey Joe, find those serial killers yet?

 

He has got a solid sketch and now a great plan with his deputies being armed all day long this is more action and decision making than I have seen any liberal take.

[NorthSideSox72]

He has got a solid sketch and now a great plan with his deputies being armed all day long this is more action and decision making than I have seen any liberal take.

I can't resist...

 

I wouldn't call the armed off-duty edict "action" in any law enforcement sense with this case. If you think its good policy, fine. But it does next to zero for this SPECIFIC case. And the sketch was thanks to a heady citizen. Does Arpaio have anything else in the way of a plan?

 

Mind you, as I've said, I am no Joe-basher. I think his DOC tactics with the jails are great. But from what I have read, he's got no instincts or skills for the patrol units at all.

[minors]

Hey Joe, find those serial killers yet?

 

 

Yes he did what a great job by a great leader

 

Killers caught

 

 

Now it is time for there injections.