Video appears to show police shooting man with hands raised

[aujeff11 6,243]

Was there widespread looting occurring in N Charleston? After a hurricane or tsunami ?

No ?

Then any attempt to tie in 1 event to post Katrina riots is beyond asinine.

Here's your sign, Jeff.

Any event that involves a policeman shooting a suspect will wreck your argument unless the suspect was running or fighting the cop. It doesn't even matter if the policeman only shot the man by accident because it's proving the same effect with a different cause, which goes against your own argument. Likewise, it doesn't matter if there was a tornado, or after a flood, if your conditions are not fulfilled then you are wrong.

Heck, the guy in this article got shot when his hands were raised and he was stationary. That there alone wrecks your feeble argument. Your serve

[Strychnine 1,802]

Stric9, we mostly agree. Nothing justifies an unjustified death. That is not what i am doing. But i disagree that the public should not be better informed to comply with LE. We have demonstrated that you cannot properly recruit and train 800,000 people do perform this job flawlessly. Especially at that payrate. Like another poster(former cop) posted, 5thousandths of 1 % of encounters results in a shooting. Almost all of those shootings were justified but the few that were not were a result of resistance or attempts to flee. So several things must happen. Hold cops accountable. Train and screen better. And make sure people know that they don't get shot for no reason. They improve their chances by not resisting or running. I don't know why that gets so much argument. A good analogy is a two-way stop sign. If you keep having enough serious accidents/fatalities, you change it to a four-way stop. Where you have amlost zero accidents and no fatalities. It doesn't matter who caused the wrecks you fixed it.

While it is mildly off-topic, it is time for us to look at reform and approaching things differently. The War on Drugs has given us the following: a world-leading incarceration rate, large and violent street gangs, plenty of crime ancillary to drugs, bloody cartel wars in Mexico, and poor relations and tension between police and the communities they serve (I am sure there are more). If it were successful in any way, then I could accept arguments to continue. However, it is not effective. Drugs are just as available in the United States as they ever were, but we waste a ton of money, resources, and lives on continuing the same failed strategy while expecting different results. We should not need 800,000 people in law enforcement, in what is supposed to be THE world's foremost free country. That is not a police force, that is an army. Instead of arguing back and forth about what police and people should do differently, we need to look at underlying causes.

I was not suggesting that the public should not be better informed, and I have no idea from where you reached that conclusion. What I was saying is that the police are trained, while the public is not, and there is no effective means of training and testing the public's understanding of common sense in surviving police encounters. More importantly, the overall problem here is bigger than "don't resist and you won't get beaten or shot". There are large segments of our population (read: poor and minorities) that distrust and fear the police. They do not consider the police to be "there to help", they consider the police to be the first point of contact with the black hole that is our criminal justice system if you happen to be poor (again, largely due to the War on Drugs). They are now seeing video evidence that confirms the perception they already had, that the police are not there to help, but they might choke you to death, beat you to death, or shoot you if you twitch or run, and then lie about it. That perception may not be entirely accurate, but that remains their perception. That's where #BLACKLIVESMATTER is coming from. The two incidents linked in this thread do nothing but reinforce that perception. They have little faith in the police, they have little faith in their ability to have a real "day in court", and they know incarceration in this country helps basically no one. They do not see cops being held accountable. They see a lot of "administrative leave" and "no charges from the prosecutor". The thought that telling them "don't run, and don't resist" is going to fix anything is ludicrous.

Perception is reality for a lot of people, and that perception is not changed by arguments (regardless of how correct they may be). Perception is changed by observed results. That perception is important because it is the prevalent one in the areas of cities and towns most frequented by the police. We cannot solve our problems with crime, drugs, and policing by throwing more police and incarceration at it. We have tried that, for quite some time now, and it has not worked. It is not likely to start working suddenly either, and the only direction we can go in that thread of logic is further toward a police state. It is time to acknowledge that has failed, and start looking in another direction. Of course, that is just my opinion, and it comes from my desire to see crime, incarceration, and killings from either side of the thin blue line reduced.

[AURaptor 1,122]

On the latest shooting of the civilian by the cop, all I know is that it was a domestic disturbance call. I don't know if it was the firs,t third or 52nd time the cops of been out there, so I'm not gonna be able to comment further. It may be that the cops, like in the South Carolina situation simply just shot the guy for no reason, whatsoever. I just don't know.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Did I miss something? Who is justifying the N.Charleston shooting?

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Titan - are you blind ? No one supported the s Carolina cop. He was arrested. Good grief.

http://www.ibtimes.com/north-charleston-councilman-defends-officer-michael-slager-after-walter-scott-1874578

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/07/3644189/everything-police-said-walter-scotts-death-video-showed-really-happened/

People did defend him. Even after the video came out, some defended him. You are correct in saying that no one here defended the officer. But some tried to equivocate even with the video.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Don't recall anyone siding with the cop in N Charleston.

Did he go free?

I'm pretty sure the cop was charged. But the usual chorus of dunces chimed in early that the guy would still be alive if he hadn't run.

are you saying he would have been murdered if he hadn't ran?

No, I'm saying it isn't relevant. A suspect fleeing is not a justification to shoot him. So whether he ran or not, it does not matter.

If you hit your kid so hard that he was knocked off balance and hit his head causing brain trauma, is it really relevant to say "well if he hadn't been back talking me, that wouldn't have happened"?

Well to be truthful, the majority of my butt whooping from my parents started with "If you wouldn't have done X this wouldn't be occurring now"

The point with the running is that there are bad cops, and you can't give them any more excuses or provide opportunities. Is it possible that the cop would of came back to the car and pulled his gun and shot the two men in the car... it is possible. But, most likely that would not have happened.

I would bet that if you are faced with a bad cop, the majority of the time if you just sit there and take their BS harassment lines (which sucks and shouldn't happen) you will be safer than if you decided to run.

[tgr4lfe 220]

And now the department has the gall to attack the media for... reporting the news.

Nothing to see here, folks. All 700,000 cops are good, all 2,500+ who they've killed in the past two years are rapists, murderers, thieves, and worthless scumbags who got what they deserved.

This is where I used to say "unbelievable."

You wanna talk stats?? Definitely not 700k, nor 2,500, but I'm sure you are exaggerating, shocker there. As I've posted before, there were 461 reported deaths during arrest or while in custody out of a little over 9 MILLION arrests in 2013 (FBI stats), whereas there were over 49k LEOs killed or assualted in 2013 out of about 550k LEOs. That's .005% that died during arrest or police custody versus 9.3% of LEOs, for those acting like this is some major epidemic need to sit back and look at the grand scope of the way things truly are. True, LEOs should and are held to higher standard and the numbers show they are pretty good at what they do, one could argue out of 9 million arrests (contacts) they certainly could do a lot more than just a measly .005%. Whereas nearly 10% of LEOs are killed or assaulted. Not that is wasn't already bad enough to worry about going to hot calls, but now officers must look over their shoulder while pumping gas!!

[AURaptor 1,122]

Titan - no one HERE.

And sure, some neo nazis defended Hitler... I'm talking REAL people. Not whack job fringe types. Please.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Titan - no one HERE.

And sure, some neo nazis defended Hitler... I'm talking REAL people. Not whack job fringe types. Please.

I didn't specify "here." And neither did you. And the people in the links above are not whack job fringe types.

I just notice a general tendency to twist oneself into a pretzel to believe that the victim must have done something to deserve it.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Stric9, we mostly agree. Nothing justifies an unjustified death. That is not what i am doing. But i disagree that the public should not be better informed to comply with LE. We have demonstrated that you cannot properly recruit and train 800,000 people do perform this job flawlessly. Especially at that payrate. Like another poster(former cop) posted, 5thousandths of 1 % of encounters results in a shooting. Almost all of those shootings were justified but the few that were not were a result of resistance or attempts to flee. So several things must happen. Hold cops accountable. Train and screen better. And make sure people know that they don't get shot for no reason. They improve their chances by not resisting or running. I don't know why that gets so much argument. A good analogy is a two-way stop sign. If you keep having enough serious accidents/fatalities, you change it to a four-way stop. Where you have amlost zero accidents and no fatalities. It doesn't matter who caused the wrecks you fixed it.

While it is mildly off-topic, it is time for us to look at reform and approaching things differently. The War on Drugs has given us the following: a world-leading incarceration rate, large and violent street gangs, plenty of crime ancillary to drugs, bloody cartel wars in Mexico, and poor relations and tension between police and the communities they serve (I am sure there are more). If it were successful in any way, then I could accept arguments to continue. However, it is not effective. Drugs are just as available in the United States as they ever were, but we waste a ton of money, resources, and lives on continuing the same failed strategy while expecting different results. We should not need 800,000 people in law enforcement, in what is supposed to be THE world's foremost free country. That is not a police force, that is an army. Instead of arguing back and forth about what police and people should do differently, we need to look at underlying causes.

Except this "army" is not tied together nationally by a solitary "general". I don't disagree about underlying causes.

I was not suggesting that the public should not be better informed, and I have no idea from where you reached that conclusion. What I was saying is that the police are trained, while the public is not, and there is no effective means of training and testing the public's understanding of common sense in surviving police encounters. More importantly, the overall problem here is bigger than "don't resist and you won't get beaten or shot". There are large segments of our population (read: poor and minorities) that distrust and fear the police. They do not consider the police to be "there to help", they consider the police to be the first point of contact with the black hole that is our criminal justice system if you happen to be poor (again, largely due to the War on Drugs). They are now seeing video evidence that confirms the perception they already had, that the police are not there to help, but they might choke you to death, beat you to death, or shoot you if you twitch or run, and then lie about it. That perception may not be entirely accurate, but that remains their perception. That's where #BLACKLIVESMATTER is coming from. The two incidents linked in this thread do nothing but reinforce that perception. They have little faith in the police, they have little faith in their ability to have a real "day in court", and they know incarceration in this country helps basically no one. They do not see cops being held accountable. They see a lot of "administrative leave" and "no charges from the prosecutor". The thought that telling them "don't run, and don't resist" is going to fix anything is ludicrous.

How off is that perception?? It is made out like, LEO have killed 16 people in the past month, of wait....some, in my opinion, are propping up these incidents to try to show and say that LEO are just out there to hurt or kill, which the statistics show is not the case. If anything, the over sensationalizing of this incidents if fueling people to be more disobedient, more lawless, more disrespectful toward LEO, thus creating more tense situations AND it is causing LEOs to have and over heightened sense of awareness, which might get skewed by the increase in disobedience, lawlessness, and disrespect toward LEO. Granted both sides need to chill the hell out. People MUST obey the law first and foremost, and LEO need more training. The latter entails more funding from their jurisdictions which is unlikely in today's government economies. Many police departments are seeing a significant drop in applicants b/c they are fearful of joining now b/c of the public environment and over scrutiny.

Perception is reality for a lot of people, and that perception is not changed by arguments (regardless of how correct they may be). Perception is changed by observed results. That perception is important because it is the prevalent one in the areas of cities and towns most frequented by the police. We cannot solve our problems with crime, drugs, and policing by throwing more police and incarceration at it. We have tried that, for quite some time now, and it has not worked. It is not likely to start working suddenly either, and the only direction we can go in that thread of logic is further toward a police state. It is time to acknowledge that has failed, and start looking in another direction. Of course, that is just my opinion, and it comes from my desire to see crime, incarceration, and killings from either side of the thin blue line reduced.

People have to actually want to help and get involved, IMO. In my time in LE, neighborhoods that wanted to get rid of drugs and crime, took and stand and worked with police to do it and it worked better. Problem is, in some areas, these people that would be willing to won't b/c they fear retribution from the criminal element. Incarceration quit working a long time ago when rehabilitation attempts stopped. Unfortunately, now many that go in, don't care, and have no willingness to "change" or be good law abiding citizens. Some people are in fact born criminals. The justice system is so overwhelmed most large city DA offices plead out the vast majority of the cases, especially the property crimes, which account for the largest dollar loses to society and see the most habitual repeat offenders, just constantly coming through the courts, despite their 25 arrests for burglary or theft. We'd rather lock up the violent offenders and with some drug laws in some states the drug offenders. Those dealing should be incarcerated longer, but that is whole other topic.

Like someone else said any unjustified death is tragic and should be punished. LE has to be the front line to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There is not getting around the fact that LE is needed or chaos would reign. Justice system and jail systems need to be overhauled, more training for LE, better education to citizens, all kinds of things. I'm at a loss right now of what else could be done and getting the things we've mentioned done would be a phenomenal feat!

[AURaptor 1,122]

Titan - no one HERE.

And sure, some neo nazis defended Hitler... I'm talking REAL people. Not whack job fringe types. Please.

I didn't specify "here." And neither did you. And the people in the links above are not whack job fringe types.

I just notice a general tendency to twist oneself into a pretzel to believe that the victim must have done something to deserve it.

Titan – you're the one twisting in to pretzels now. And looking into the victims background to see what would've caused him to run is not by any stretch of the imagination an excuse for why the cop was allowed to shoot the guy. Just trying to understand what the guy was thinking which forced him to run. There was no reason to run, but that's a different issue for why the cop shot.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Did I miss something? Who is justifying the N.Charleston shooting?

Maybe I should ask who believes Walter Scott deserved to be shot?

This thread is all over the place this afternoon. I feel I am the only one not at the bar.

[Strychnine 1,802]

People have to actually want to help and get involved, IMO. In my time in LE, neighborhoods that wanted to get rid of drugs and crime, took and stand and worked with police to do it and it worked better. Problem is, in some areas, these people that would be willing to won't b/c they fear retribution from the criminal element. Incarceration quit working a long time ago when rehabilitation attempts stopped. Unfortunately, now many that go in, don't care, and have no willingness to "change" or be good law abiding citizens. Some people are in fact born criminals. The justice system is so overwhelmed most large city DA offices plead out the vast majority of the cases, especially the property crimes, which account for the largest dollar loses to society and see the most habitual repeat offenders, just constantly coming through the courts, despite their 25 arrests for burglary or theft. We'd rather lock up the violent offenders and with some drug laws in some states the drug offenders. Those dealing should be incarcerated longer, but that is whole other topic.

It seems like it should be a different topic, but it really isn't. We can discuss all manners of problems in the criminal justice system, from the police all the way to the prisons, and post-release, but we are still dancing around the ultimate problem that brought us here: the War on Drugs. Specifically, it's utter failure. We can incarcerate cartel kingpins in foreign countries, domestic trafficking kingpins, street dealers, gang members, and drug users; it makes no positive difference. The money to be made in drug trafficking alone ensures that the incarcerated traffickers will always be replaced. Whenever a dent is made, it is only temporary. Until we take a hard look at decriminalization and real treatment in our drug policy, our crime and incarceration epidemic will never be addressed. I do not like drugs any more than you most likely, but since it is going to be here anyway, I would rather it be a legitimate trade than a means to empower gangs and cartels. As long as they have drug trafficking, they will remain undefeatable, and there will continue to be a demand for an absurd amount of law enforcement officers as part of a futile effort to defeat them. Since they cannot be defeated, the only sensible strategy is one that renders them obsolete over the long-term.

As for rehabilitation, it might become possible again with incarceration at a manageable level, and no private prisons. Then again, another problem that rehabilitation efforts face is that the concept of "paying your debt to society" is a myth. There are not many doors open to a paroled or released offender that actually wants to avoid recidivism, but that is also something criminal justice has no control over.

Like someone else said any unjustified death is tragic and should be punished. LE has to be the front line to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There is not getting around the fact that LE is needed or chaos would reign. Justice system and jail systems need to be overhauled, more training for LE, better education to citizens, all kinds of things. I'm at a loss right now of what else could be done and getting the things we've mentioned done would be a phenomenal feat!

I have yet to see any sensible person suggest otherwise, and I know that I have not. The rest of your paragraph I agree with. However, all of it would be futile efforts without that hard look at drug policy that needs to happen. I have little faith that it will happen anytime soon, but would gladly be made a believer. The spreading decriminalization of marijuana gives me some hope.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Did I miss something? Who is justifying the N.Charleston shooting?

Maybe I should ask who believes Walter Scott deserved to be shot?

This thread is all over the place this afternoon. I feel I am the only one not at the bar.

Wish mid - week day drinking was the excuse, but I've seen this brand of crazy here by some 24/ 7 .

[alexava 6,973]

People have to actually want to help and get involved, IMO. In my time in LE, neighborhoods that wanted to get rid of drugs and crime, took and stand and worked with police to do it and it worked better. Problem is, in some areas, these people that would be willing to won't b/c they fear retribution from the criminal element. Incarceration quit working a long time ago when rehabilitation attempts stopped. Unfortunately, now many that go in, don't care, and have no willingness to "change" or be good law abiding citizens. Some people are in fact born criminals. The justice system is so overwhelmed most large city DA offices plead out the vast majority of the cases, especially the property crimes, which account for the largest dollar loses to society and see the most habitual repeat offenders, just constantly coming through the courts, despite their 25 arrests for burglary or theft. We'd rather lock up the violent offenders and with some drug laws in some states the drug offenders. Those dealing should be incarcerated longer, but that is whole other topic.

It seems like it should be a different topic, but it really isn't. We can discuss all manners of problems in the criminal justice system, from the police all the way to the prisons, and post-release, but we are still dancing around the ultimate problem that brought us here: the War on Drugs. Specifically, it's utter failure. We can incarcerate cartel kingpins in foreign countries, domestic trafficking kingpins, street dealers, gang members, and drug users; it makes no positive difference. The money to be made in drug trafficking alone ensures that the incarcerated traffickers will always be replaced. Whenever a dent is made, it is only temporary. Until we take a hard look at decriminalization and real treatment in our drug policy, our crime and incarceration epidemic will never be addressed. I do not like drugs any more than you most likely, but since it is going to be here anyway, I would rather it be a legitimate trade than a means to empower gangs and cartels. As long as they have drug trafficking, they will remain undefeatable, and there will continue to be a demand for an absurd amount of law enforcement officers as part of a futile effort to defeat them. Since they cannot be defeated, the only sensible strategy is one that renders them obsolete over the long-term.

As for rehabilitation, it might become possible again with incarceration at a manageable level, and no private prisons. Then again, another problem that rehabilitation efforts face is that the concept of "paying your debt to society" is a myth. There are not many doors open to a paroled or released offender that actually wants to avoid recidivism, but that is also something criminal justice has no control over.

Like someone else said any unjustified death is tragic and should be punished. LE has to be the front line to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There is not getting around the fact that LE is needed or chaos would reign. Justice system and jail systems need to be overhauled, more training for LE, better education to citizens, all kinds of things. I'm at a loss right now of what else could be done and getting the things we've mentioned done would be a phenomenal feat!

I have yet to see any sensible person suggest otherwise, and I know that I have not. The rest of your paragraph I agree with. However, all of it would be futile efforts without that hard look at drug policy that needs to happen. I have little faith that it will happen anytime soon, but would gladly be made a believer. The spreading decriminalization of marijuana gives me some hope.

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

[Strychnine 1,802]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

[alexava 6,973]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

a fair answer, i guess. take crystal meth for example. do you know anyone personally who has become addicted and ruined their life with that? have you seen the newspaper photos? would anyone in this country be better off with that sold and regulated?

[Strychnine 1,802]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

a fair answer, i guess. take crystal meth for example. do you know anyone personally who has become addicted and ruined their life with that? have you seen the newspaper photos? would anyone in this country be better off with that sold and regulated?

Meth? Yes, I do. I may not have mentioned it in this thread, but I know I have in others: I spent several years on the road as a touring musician. I have been exposed to any form of drug addiction anyone can throw out there. I drove my own car to most gigs in the southeast US due to bandmates and guests snorting coke in the backseat of our van.

That said, the real question is not "would anyone in this country be better off with that sold and regulated" because it ignores the obvious. People that want meth have abundant access to it. I do not do drugs, but I have no less than 10 contacts in my cell phone that would sell me a pound of marijuana within a half hour if I asked. Of those 10, 3 would sell me whatever I asked for in that same half hour. All 10 could be arrested, and they would be replaced by 10 more.

That is my ultimate point. I am not glorifying meth or pretending that it doesn't ruin people like it does. I am acknowledging that it does, and adding that our efforts at interdiction and arrest are doing nothing to curtail the problem. If it is regulated you have some semblance of control over what ingredients are used, and its subsequent distribution. You definitely have more control than if it is produced and smuggled by the Sinaloa Cartel, or Los Zetas, and distributed by street gangs. Our efforts at enforcement and interdiction have addressed neither. Meth continues to flow freely.

[cooltigger21 0]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

I get your ideas but at the same time, the legalization and regulation is not going to reduce the problem. Alcohol is the number one abused drug in our society. How many people have ruined their lives because of the abuse of it? These drugs are far more addictive and likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market. You can't have this stuff as freely available as alcohol is.

[Strychnine 1,802]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

I get your ideas but at the same time, the legalization and regulation is not going to reduce the problem. Alcohol is the number one abused drug in our society. How many people have ruined their lives because of the abuse of it? These drugs are far more addictive and likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market. You can't have this stuff as freely available as alcohol is.

It already is as freely available as alcohol is. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. I also addressed that in a subsequent post. "Likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market"? The hell are you talking about? We already have a free-for-all black market. We have had that black market since the 80's, and it has not been curtailed in any way. If anything, it has been expanded. I, even as someone that doesn't use drugs, can obtain any drug I desire within a half hour, just operating on my own cell phone contacts.

[aujeff11 6,243]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

I get your ideas but at the same time, the legalization and regulation is not going to reduce the problem. Alcohol is the number one abused drug in our society. How many people have ruined their lives because of the abuse of it? These drugs are far more addictive and likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market. You can't have this stuff as freely available as alcohol is.

It already is as freely available as alcohol is. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. I also addressed that in a subsequent post. "Likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market"? The hell are you talking about? We already have a free-for-all black market. We have had that black market since the 80's, and it has not been curtailed in any way. If anything, it has been expanded. I, even as someone that doesn't use drugs, can obtain any drug I desire within a half hour, just operating on my own cell phone contacts.

This^^^ Drugs, even the hardcore stuff, can be easily found or made these days.

Also, marijuana is not more addictive than alcohol nor nicotine. I fought personal demons for about 4 days in a row and had cravings about two months straight after I quit dipping so I'm guessing nicotine is at least top two of the most addicting substances.

[Mims44 1,869]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

I get your ideas but at the same time, the legalization and regulation is not going to reduce the problem. Alcohol is the number one abused drug in our society. How many people have ruined their lives because of the abuse of it? These drugs are far more addictive and likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market. You can't have this stuff as freely available as alcohol is.

It already is as freely available as alcohol is. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. I also addressed that in a subsequent post. "Likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market"? The hell are you talking about? We already have a free-for-all black market. We have had that black market since the 80's, and it has not been curtailed in any way. If anything, it has been expanded. I, even as someone that doesn't use drugs, can obtain any drug I desire within a half hour, just operating on my own cell phone contacts.

This^^^ Drugs, even the hardcore stuff, can be easily found or made these days.

Also, marijuana is not more addictive than alcohol nor nicotine. I fought personal demons for about 4 days in a row and had cravings about two months straight after I quit dipping so I'm guessing nicotine is at least top two of the most addicting substances.

Most addictive...

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine/Crack

3. Nicotine

4. Methadone

5. Crystal Meth

6. Barbituites

7. Alcohol

sooo... yeah.

[aujeff11 6,243]

stric9, what is your idea for dealing with drugs?

Personally, I think strategy combining decriminalization, regulation of production, treatment, education, and law enforcement where necessary is a better direction. I do not pretend to have the magic answer for national drug policy. Drugs are not something that can be "dealt with". By that, I consider them similar to alcohol in that there is no way to realistically prevent people from becoming addicted to them, or to eradicate them. Since they cannot be eradicated, I would prefer their production and distribution to be regulated instead of left to drug cartels and street gangs.

What I do believe is that our current policy of prohibition and throwing law enforcement / incarceration at it is not working, has produced a host of unintended consequences, and has produced little or no positive results. To continue such policy while expecting different results is foolish to me; it has had a three decade trial run, and it has failed. It is little different from our experience with alcohol prohibition, except it has taken us far longer to learn that lesson.

Aside from marijuana, I despise drugs. I would be glad if it were not necessary to have this conversation, but I have seen enough results to conclude that there are no circumstances under which we can arrest or seize our way out of the drug epidemic.

I get your ideas but at the same time, the legalization and regulation is not going to reduce the problem. Alcohol is the number one abused drug in our society. How many people have ruined their lives because of the abuse of it? These drugs are far more addictive and likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market. You can't have this stuff as freely available as alcohol is.

It already is as freely available as alcohol is. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. I also addressed that in a subsequent post. "Likely the attempt at strict regulation would lead to a black market"? The hell are you talking about? We already have a free-for-all black market. We have had that black market since the 80's, and it has not been curtailed in any way. If anything, it has been expanded. I, even as someone that doesn't use drugs, can obtain any drug I desire within a half hour, just operating on my own cell phone contacts.

This^^^ Drugs, even the hardcore stuff, can be easily found or made these days.

Also, marijuana is not more addictive than alcohol nor nicotine. I fought personal demons for about 4 days in a row and had cravings about two months straight after I quit dipping so I'm guessing nicotine is at least top two of the most addicting substances.

Most addictive...

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine/Crack

3. Nicotine

4. Methadone

5. Crystal Meth

6. Barbituites

7. Alcohol

sooo... yeah.

I was one off. Sue me. And crack cocaine is more addictive than powder cocaine. You should make that distinction.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Most addictive...

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine/Crack

3. Nicotine

4. Methadone

5. Crystal Meth

6. Barbituites

7. Alcohol

sooo... yeah.

Where would prescription painkillers like Oxycontin fall in that list?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Most addictive...

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine/Crack

3. Nicotine

4. Methadone

5. Crystal Meth

6. Barbituites

7. Alcohol

sooo... yeah.

Where would prescription painkillers like Oxycontin fall in that list?

Before alcohol at least. I can't stand thieving pill heads.