Josie the Outlaw: Message to Police

[poncho]

That is all fine and well but what happens is when one uses such an occasion to include their little pet peeve about not arresting those who use drugs and trying to paint them as non violent crimes therefore they should be ignored you lose all credibility. Radical or not.

You lose all credibility when you keep ignoring the fact that prohibition does not work.

 

[Gina B]

Gina, there are literally millions of these cases active at any one time. We hear about ... what? Two, three a year? Don't go by what your eyes and ears tell you.

Actually, there are tons out there. There are children of the system who meet on the lawn of the White House and tell their stories. No, you don't often hear it on main stream news, but the numbers are very high on those that have/are crying foul, from the bottom to the top. (go ahead and google Nancy Schaefer, interesting story there) That is why I tried to give you a few years to come to terms with what is happening rather than do a quick "google."

Anyhow, enough of that. If you're interested, you'll look it up on your own without me saying anything else.

However, I'd like to urge you to reconsider your comment on "don't go by what your eyes and ears tell you." What SHOULD I go with? Stats put out by the government?

I'm looking. I'm listening. My creator gave me eyes and ears for that purpose, and a brain to reason with.

Never listen to anyone who tells you not to trust your senses.

I highly urge you to start thinking about when you started distrusting your own eyes and ears and what would prompt you to tell others to do the same. That was a rather intriguing statement, and I'm surprised that you actually came right out and said it. Most people aren't that honest.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Actually, there are tons out there.

"Tons"??? Oh, for cryin' out loud!!

You gonna tell me there have been millions of people on the front lawn of the White House?? Absolute nonsense!! Like I said, Gina, these cases are rare. Extremely rare. Yeah, the child protective system is screwed up, and there are major problems with overtaxed social workers, some who are on power trips, and neglect within the system that is supposed to protect the kids. They are exceptions!! But you're never gonna buy that. You're more interested in believing nonsense than truth.

I've never met anyone else in my community or county, nor have I heard about any, who went through what I went through. We're a large county, the third richest in the United States, and if there were other cases, I'd know about them. The fact that I haven't heard about any -- and I looked, thinking this woman had to have done similar things in the past (I was trying to get her fired) -- should tell you how rare they are. So don't try to convince me that there's an incompetent or power-mad social worker on every street corner. I know better.

Done here.

 

[poncho]

Well Gina you got your answer. Only TND knows what's really going on because he has mastered the art of looking at everything with "eye's wide shut".

CPS Steals Children for Profit - Your Tax Dollars in Action!

Don't forget to shut your eyes and plug your ears during this video. That's the only way to channel reality.

 

[Gina B]

Poncho, your link doesn't work.

 

[poncho]

Poncho, your link doesn't work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztEqMounuRU

Should work now.

Here's another. The Drugging Of Children in America

The evidence shows that we have a whole generation of children being force drugged but if you know how to channel reality by closing your eyes and plugging your ears all these millions of cases become "isolated instances". It becomes much easier to defend the corrupt establishment when you ignore the evidence.

You can say "I don't see it" so you must be mistaken or nuts, probably both.

Questioning authority is treated like a mental illness by the "experts" and authoritarians so naturally the people who still listen to these "experts" and authoritarians are going to use the same argument. Evidently the good Rev and TND only have eyes to see and ears to hear what these "experts" and authoritarians are telling us. To them the victims and those concerned must be in need of a psychotropic drug.

 

[Gina B]

It does work now Poncho.
I was shocked to hear actual news anchors report on this, as it seems that so many who speak out end up having "major personal issues" or have "accidents" or "legal trouble" and end up losing their jobs, getting arrested, moving across the country, etc.. Boel, the investigative reporter they opened with in the first video, was no exception, he's doing "better" now and at a new job, but I do wonder if he got thrown under the bus on this one - sure was interesting timing and follows the script a little too close for comfort.

 

[Revmitchell]

You lose all credibility when you keep ignoring the fact that prohibition does not work.

Yep that seems to be the mantra. It doesn't stop murder either. In fact there will be people who work to break all the laws on the books. Let's just get rid of them all.

 

[poncho]

Yep that seems to be the mantra. It doesn't stop murder either. In fact there will be people who work to break all the laws on the books. Let's just get rid of them all.

By the sounds of this post you're having trouble constructing a rational sounding argument in favor of continuing a failed policy that we knew wouldn't work before it even started.

How did we know it wouldn't work? We already tried it and it didn't work.

Prohibition does not work no matter how great our convictions. Now knowing this what should we do? Stubbornly continue a failed policy that is proven not to work or try something different?

Imho you lose even more credibility by resorting to nonsensical arguments like the one you posted above. If a thing doesn't work it doesn't work. We can go on throwing billions of dollars (that we could use elsewhere) at the problem and keep giving the govt ever more power and control over our lives (hoping we can make the unworkable work) until we do live in a totalitarian police state but it still isn't going to kill the demand for mind altering substances.

The USSR couldn't stop people from using drugs even with their totalitarian police state in full swing.

Prohibition does not work. It's a proven fact.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result" I believe it was Albert Einstein that said that.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Prohibition does not work. It's a proven fact.

Actually, it does work, and that is the proven fact. Even though they repealed the 18th Amendment, it wasn't because it failed. It was because it prevented a viable industry from employing people at a time int he nation's history when employment was the paramount concern. As a study by Dr. Jack Blocker done under the auspices of the National Center for Biotechnology Information and the National Institutes of Health proved, not only did it work, but even when the enforcement authority ended, the health and addictions rationale behind its implementation never returned to the levels that inspired the ban on alcohol in the first place.

The legacies of National Prohibition are too numerous to discuss in detail; besides, so many of them live on today and continue to affect Americans’ everyday lives that it is even difficult to realize that they are Prohibition’s byproducts. I will briefly mention the principal ones, in ascending order from shortest-lived to longest. The shortest-lived child of Prohibition actually survived to adulthood. This was the change in drinking patterns that depressed the level of consumption compared with the pre-Prohibition years. Straitened family finances during the Depression of course kept the annual per capita consumption rate low, hovering around 1.5 US gallons. The true results of Prohibition’s success in socializing Americans in temperate habits became apparent during World War II, when the federal government turned a more cordial face toward the liquor industry than it had during World War I, and they became even more evident during the prosperous years that followed.50 Although annual consumption rose, to about 2 gallons per capita in the 1950s and 2.4 gallons in the 1960s, it did not surpass the pre-Prohibition peak until the early 1970s.

Cirrhosis and other liver diseases became less prevalent, self-help group Alcoholics Anonymous got its start for those who couldn't quit, and an overall general public acknowledgement of alcoholism being an addiction rather than a character flaw developed, and while that is not quite accurate, it at least fomented an acceptance of the affliction so people are encouraged to get help instead of being universally condemned.

It's too late to reinstitute an alcohol ban, but it isn't too late to prevent a repeal of drug laws. They must stay in place, because the health and legal costs of unrestrained drug addiction would tax the already bankruptcy-threatened healthcare industry, as the ACA couldn't possible handle the workload such a repeal would require.

 

[poncho]

Actually, it does work, and that is the proven fact. Even though they repealed the 18th Amendment, it wasn't because it failed. It was because it prevented a viable industry from employing people at a time int he nation's history when employment was the paramount concern. As a study by Dr. Jack Blocker done under the auspices of the National Center for Biotechnology Information and the National Institutes of Health proved, not only did it work, but even when the enforcement authority ended, the health and addictions rationale behind its implementation never returned to the levels that inspired the ban on alcohol in the first place.



Cirrhosis and other liver diseases became less prevalent, self-help group Alcoholics Anonymous got its start for those who couldn't quit, and an overall general public acknowledgement of alcoholism being an addiction rather than a character flaw developed, and while that is not quite accurate, it at least fomented an acceptance of the affliction so people are encouraged to get help instead of being universally condemned.

It's too late to reinstitute an alcohol ban, but it isn't too late to prevent a repeal of drug laws. They must stay in place, because the health and legal costs of unrestrained drug addiction would tax the already bankruptcy-threatened healthcare industry, as the ACA couldn't possible handle the workload such a repeal would require.

It's interesting you'd choose a "progressive" expert to do your arguing for you TND.

Two other possible reasons also fall short of explaining Repeal. The leading antiprohibitionist organization throughout the 1920s was the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA), which drew its support mainly from conservative businessmen, who objected to the increased power given to the federal government by National Prohibition. Their well-funded arguments, however, fell on deaf ears among the voters throughout the era, most tellingly in the presidential election of 1928. Both the AAPA and the more widely supported WONPR also focused attention on the lawlessness that Prohibition allegedly fostered. This argument, too, gained little traction in the electoral politics of the 1920s.

Makes me wonder some. Back in the 20's it was "progressives" in favor of prohibition while "conservatives" were against it. Now a days it's the "conservatives" that favor prohibition while the "progressives" are against it.

Conservatism has come a long way since the 20's baby! Seems like now a days conservative are so eager to give the federal government more power and control over our lives they'll even let "progressives" from the past do their arguing for them.

That's just weird man.

The "lawlessness" prohibition fostered wasn't just "alleged" as your "progressive" source tries to make us believe. It was all to real. Al Capone went from a common street thug to a crime lord that was able to buy off police and politicians. And the authors argument that the drastic rise in organized crime wasn't due to prohibition because it continued after the repeal isn't very convincing. One could say using your words . . . it's an "epic fail" on his part. Instead of bootlegging the crime bosses concentrated on supplying the demand for other forms "illegal" activities that have been around forever despite the prohibitions placed on them like prostitution, extortion, gambling and selling drugs.

Where there is a demand there will be people willing to supply it and the demand for mind altering substances has been around since man first learned to ferment plant extracts and most likely well before that even.

The drug lords of today routinely buy off politicians and police as well as murder their competition and anyone else who gets in the way. Remember Serpico? What did he find you remember? He found out practically the whole police dept was "on the take". Do really believe anything has changed since then? No. It hasn't because man hasn't changed. The "big fish" always slip the hook and the little guy is the one that gets pinched. The little fish don't have the cash to put high ranking cops and politicos "on the payroll".

If they did, our jails would be empty.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It's interesting you'd choose a "progressive" expert to do your arguing for you TND.

Progressive, schmrogressive. He's an addictions and public health expert. That's all that matters in my line of work.

If they did, our jails would be empty.

And our hospitals and mental health wards would be full to overflowing, productivity would plummet from lost work days, five times as many school kids would be using, and our nation would be in greater chaos that at any time before Prohibition. Yeah, real desirable outcome.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Oops, dupe. Sorry.

 

[poncho]

Progressive, schmrogressive. He's an addictions and public health expert. That's all that matters in my line of work.

And our hospitals and mental health wards would be full to overflowing, productivity would plummet from lost work days, five times as many school kids would be using, and our nation would be in greater chaos that at any time before Prohibition. Yeah, real desirable outcome.

We heard the same fear based sales pitch about Iraq, Libya and Syria and just like those fear based sales pitches the evidence points in a different direction.

Society flourishes in liberty and declines under tyranny.

 

[Gina B]

Progressive, schmrogressive. He's an addictions and public health expert. That's all that matters in my line of work.

And our hospitals and mental health wards would be full to overflowing, productivity would plummet from lost work days, five times as many school kids would be using, and our nation would be in greater chaos that at any time before Prohibition. Yeah, real desirable outcome.

The hospitals and mental health wards are already overflowing, especially for children in need of mental health care. People are routinely turned away for the lack of an open bed in the mental health care field. People are on waiting lists for months, sometimes well over a year, to see a doctor who can prescribe psych meds. It's a mess.

You said our nation WOULD be in greater chaos than at any time before Prohibition? You really think there are less addicts now than before Prohibition? I've lived in dry places, where alcohol is illegal. They make it themselves or have it brought in. The addiction remains.

Making laws based on the idea that someone may do something wrong with something normal, thus making them criminals, then punishing them for it, is pretty crazy stuff. I think that's the concept Josie the Outlaw may have been attempting to present in the opening video. The laws being enforced end up getting pettier, the regulations more tight. Basically, every single one of us is a criminal and any police officer worth his salt, any lawyer can prove that. I posted video before of a long time officer speaking to a law class about how that works.
There are so many laws that we are all unwitting lawbreakers, no matter how hard we try.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You really think there are less addicts now than before Prohibition?

No, I don't think so. I know so. Prohibition flattened the per captia consumption for years, not just during the alcohol ban, but for 20-30 years afterward. Additionally, deaths from alcoholism per 100,000 people peaked at 10.0 just prior to the enactment of the Volstead Act. It currently stands at 1.6 per 100K.

I've lived in dry places, where alcohol is illegal. They make it themselves or have it brought in. The addiction remains.

Continues, not remains at the high rate it was in 1919. Consumption is lower as well, with the peak consumption rate being 2.6 gallons per year by each U.S. resident of legal drinking age. In 2011, the year for which consumption is most recently available, the number was 2.22 gallons per person of legal drinking age.

Making laws based on the idea that someone may do something wrong with something normal, thus making them criminals, then punishing them for it, is pretty crazy stuff. I think that's the concept Josie the Outlaw may have been attempting to present in the opening video.

I think you give Josie way too much credit. She is a typical "free everything" young person who doesn't want to be bothered by laws, restrictions, authority, or responsibility. The fact she wants to be allowed to use some of the most dangerous drugs in the world freely without consequence gives the lie to her "cause," since she will pay the consequences for such usage whether in the legal realm or the healthcare realm. It is of no difference, she will pay. She's going to wish she had exercised the self-control the laws engender.

The laws being enforced end up getting pettier, the regulations more tight.

If you saw the people I see on a weekly basis -- worse, had you seen the people I saw when I was earning my stripes in the non-profit arena -- you wouldn't consider enforcement, or the regulations, "petty." Today's "minor problems" are just two or three steps from tomorrow's gutter drunk or back-alley shooter. I'm not for prohibition of alcohol, as it is legal and shutting down the breweries, wineries, distilleries, etc., would put too many good people out of work.

That said, I can testify to the facts. More than 700,000 Americans receive alcoholism treatment every day, but there is growing recognition that alcoholism -- i.e., alcohol dependence or addition -- represents only one end of the spectrum of “alcohol misuse.” Though significantly less than prior to Prohibition, there are still approximately 79,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.

The cost of alcohol misuse in the United States was estimated to be $185 billion in 1998. About $16 billion of this amount was spent on medical care for alcohol-related complications, not including fetal alcohol syndrome [FAS], $7.5 billion was spent on specialty alcohol treatment services, and $2.9 billion was spent on FAS treatment. The remaining costs ($134 billion) were due to lost productivity. Lost productivity due to alcohol-related deaths and disabilities impose a greater economic burden than do health care costs. Over 15% of U.S. workers report being impaired by alcohol at work at least one time during the past year, and 9% of workers reported being hung-over at work.

And you want to add legal recreational drug use to these numbers? That's pure insanity.

Basically, every single one of us is a criminal and any police officer worth his salt, any lawyer can prove that. I posted video before of a long time officer speaking to a law class about how that works.
There are so many laws that we are all unwitting lawbreakers, no matter how hard we try.

Based on the facts I've given you here, perhaps it would behoove us to consider what laws we might be breaking, and consider not breaking them. Or have we already forgotten Paul's words?

Romans 13, NASB
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid ; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.​

Honestly, if some of you could follow me around for a week, I don't think you'd be so anxious to turn people loose and let them use anything they want. It is sheer uninformed stupidity to think that's a good idea.

 

[poncho]

Another Isolated Instance?

18 Los Angeles sheriff's deputies arrested in federal jail investigation

Federal officials on Monday unsealed five criminal cases filed against 18 current and former Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies as part of an FBI investigation into allegations of civil rights abuses and corruption in the nation's largest jail system.

The charges were announced at a press conference after 16 of 18 defendants were arrested earlier in the day. They were expected to be arraigned later in U.S. District Court.

"These incidents did not take place in a vacuum -- in fact, they demonstrated behavior that had become institutionalized," said U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. "The pattern of activity alleged in the obstruction of justice case shows how some members of the Sheriff's Department considered themselves to be above the law."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/09/7-los-angeles-sheriff-deputies-arrested-in-jail-investigation/

Monday starts off with a big one. Wonder what the rest of the week will look like.

 

[poncho]

No, I don't think so. I know so. Prohibition flattened the per captia consumption for years, not just during the alcohol ban, but for 20-30 years afterward. Additionally, deaths from alcoholism per 100,000 people peaked at 10.0 just prior to the enactment of the Volstead Act. It currently stands at 1.6 per 100K.

Continues, not remains at the high rate it was in 1919. Consumption is lower as well, with the peak consumption rate being 2.6 gallons per year by each U.S. resident of legal drinking age. In 2011, the year for which consumption is most recently available, the number was 2.22 gallons per person of legal drinking age.

I think you give Josie way too much credit. She is a typical "free everything" young person who doesn't want to be bothered by laws, restrictions, authority, or responsibility. The fact she wants to be allowed to use some of the most dangerous drugs in the world freely without consequence gives the lie to her "cause," since she will pay the consequences for such usage whether in the legal realm or the healthcare realm. It is of no difference, she will pay. She's going to wish she had exercised the self-control the laws engender.

If you saw the people I see on a weekly basis -- worse, had you seen the people I saw when I was earning my stripes in the non-profit arena -- you wouldn't consider enforcement, or the regulations, "petty." Today's "minor problems" are just two or three steps from tomorrow's gutter drunk or back-alley shooter. I'm not for prohibition of alcohol, as it is legal and shutting down the breweries, wineries, distilleries, etc., would put too many good people out of work.

That said, I can testify to the facts. More than 700,000 Americans receive alcoholism treatment every day, but there is growing recognition that alcoholism -- i.e., alcohol dependence or addition -- represents only one end of the spectrum of “alcohol misuse.” Though significantly less than prior to Prohibition, there are still approximately 79,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.

The cost of alcohol misuse in the United States was estimated to be $185 billion in 1998. About $16 billion of this amount was spent on medical care for alcohol-related complications, not including fetal alcohol syndrome [FAS], $7.5 billion was spent on specialty alcohol treatment services, and $2.9 billion was spent on FAS treatment. The remaining costs ($134 billion) were due to lost productivity. Lost productivity due to alcohol-related deaths and disabilities impose a greater economic burden than do health care costs. Over 15% of U.S. workers report being impaired by alcohol at work at least one time during the past year, and 9% of workers reported being hung-over at work.

And you want to add legal recreational drug use to these numbers? That's pure insanity.

Based on the facts I've given you here, perhaps it would behoove us to consider what laws we might be breaking, and consider not breaking them. Or have we already forgotten Paul's words?

Romans 13, NASB
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid ; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.​

Honestly, if some of you could follow me around for a week, I don't think you'd be so anxious to turn people loose and let them use anything they want. It is sheer uninformed stupidity to think that's a good idea.

Bravo TND we seldom get such well composed and written bleeding heart speeches here. Underneath that tough as nails neoconservative exterior you're quite the old softie aren't ya?

Not trying to offend you I can see you really care about people. You old softie you.

That last couple sentences, what is that? It looks like you're making up an argument and claiming I'm the author of it. I ain't sure but that looks like a strawman argument there. It must be because that's not the argument I've been making. It doesn't sound like the argument Gina is making or Josie either for that matter.

My argument is simply this. The "war on drugs" is a failed policy. There's no "turning people loose to use anything they want" to it. You of all people should be able to see the "epic failure" of this policy if you are as close to it as you claim, not that I doubt you are.

How's it going so far with the "war on drugs"? Have things gotten any better? Are there less drugs on the street? Are they any less dangerous? Are there any less addicts? Is there any less corruption in govt and "law enforcement"? How large a prison population would you be willing to accept and still be able to say this is a "free county" with a straight face?

Not trying to be picky TND but could you include some links to your sources? Thanks.

 

[saturneptune]

This is a question not to be answered based on drugs or alcohol, as threads covering this are a dime a dozen. The question is our rights as American citizens. One of the biggest offenses of local, state, and federal law enforcement is their training to talk folks out of their right not to be searched without a warrant.

Every American stopped for anything in a vehicle or in his or her home should use their rights and demand a warrant. Typically at a traffic stop, one will hear "do you mind if I search your car" or "if you have nothing to hide, what is the harm?" Baloney, each one of us has the duty to say NO, get a warrant. Take the time to wait. It has nothing to do with having nothing or something in your car, or guilt or innocence. It has to do with your right not to be searched without a signed warrant.

If you are guilty, you will get no breaks by admitting anything or allowing a search without a warrant. It is time we stood up to these thugs, that follow the Constitution about as well as Congress and the President.

As far as trying to disarm the general populace and deny our 2nd Amendment rights, that I want to see, disarming rural West Kentucky.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This is a question not to be answered based on drugs or alcohol, as threads covering this are a dime a dozen. The question is our rights as American citizens. One of the biggest offenses of local, state, and federal law enforcement is their training to talk folks out of their right not to be searched without a warrant.

Every American stopped for anything in a vehicle or in his or her home should use their rights and demand a warrant. Typically at a traffic stop, one will hear "do you mind if I search your car" or "if you have nothing to hide, what is the harm?" Baloney, each one of us has the duty to say NO, get a warrant. Take the time to wait. It has nothing to do with having nothing or something in your car, or guilt or innocence. It has to do with your right not to be searched without a signed warrant.

If you are guilty, you will get no breaks by admitting anything or allowing a search without a warrant. It is time we stood up to these thugs, that follow the Constitution about as well as Congress and the President.

As far as trying to disarm the general populace and deny our 2nd Amendment rights, that I want to see, disarming rural West Kentucky.

That is absolutely correct, S/N. This aspect of the argument is more than valid, it is rooted in our Bill of Rights. The effort to get people to surrender their rights not to be searched is tantamount to an organized effort to repeal the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers are trained to seek a waiver of this right, but are also trained to be respectful but firm when a citizen refuses. But if everyone refused, how often do you think they'd seek that warrant? Roughly one-third to one-half of all traffic stops made involve requests to search. If all those people would politely say, "No, officers, not unless you have a warrant," the practice would stop except in cases where they have actual probable cause.

Most of the time, the officer is fishing. He's hoping you will waiver your right to be secure in your person and property, and further hoping that you have something in the car for which he can pad his arrest record. Some of you may think that contradicts what I said earlier in this thread about the level of honesty and integrity among police officers. It does not. The officers' actions in these cases is not illegal or underhanded. It is just the officer doing his/her job. Nonetheless, don't give up your right security. Tell 'em every single time to get a warrant.