Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I am beginning to think a police state is not as far fetched as you may think

 

It's not getting any better under Barack. He has given himself the pwer to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, signed the NDAA, and increased gov't spying on american citizens. As someone who was against the Iraq war and against the majority of the Patriot Act Barack has been a huge dispappointment in the area of civil liberties. Just another example of how there is very little difference outside of lip service between repubs and dems.

=======

From looking at the armbands on these people, Obama had nothing to do with this. Most of the legislation stripping people of their Constitutional rights, and the formation of the police state is at the local or state level.,  Far as I know, no one has called out the National Guard to contain peaceful demonstrations , and kill peaceful demonstrators  since the Nixon era..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I am beginning to think a police state is not as far fetched as you may think

 

It's not getting any better under Barack. He has given himself the pwer to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, signed the NDAA, and increased gov't spying on american citizens. As someone who was against the Iraq war and against the majority of the Patriot Act Barack has been a huge dispappointment in the area of civil liberties. Just another example of how there is very little difference outside of lip service between repubs and dems.

=======

From looking at the armbands on these people, Obama had nothing to do with this. Most of the legislation stripping people of their Constitutional rights, and the formation of the police state is at the local or state level.,  Far as I know, no one has called out the National Guard to contain peaceful demonstrations , and kill peaceful demonstrators  since the Nixon era..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I am beginning to think a police state is not as far fetched as you may think

 

It's not getting any better under Barack. He has given himself the pwer to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, signed the NDAA, and increased gov't spying on american citizens. As someone who was against the Iraq war and against the majority of the Patriot Act Barack has been a huge dispappointment in the area of civil liberties. Just another example of how there is very little difference outside of lip service between repubs and dems.

=======

From looking at the armbands on these people, Obama had nothing to do with this. Most of the legislation stripping people of their Constitutional rights, and the formation of the police state is at the local or state level.,  Far as I know, no one has called out the National Guard to contain peaceful demonstrations , and kill peaceful demonstrators  since the Nixon era..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Barack has expanded it even further. If he is the saint and savior that you claim him to be then why hasn't it been stopped? Barack spoke out against illegal wiretaps during his campaign yet they have been used even MORE on AmericaN citizens under his watch. Do not try to blame this on Bush or any repub. this is happening under your messiah Barrack and the buck stops with him now!

 

you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't bring yourself to say anything negative about them. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I am beginning to think a police state is not as far fetched as you may think

 

It's not getting any better under Barack. He has given himself the pwer to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, signed the NDAA, and increased gov't spying on american citizens. As someone who was against the Iraq war and against the majority of the Patriot Act Barack has been a huge dispappointment in the area of civil liberties. Just another example of how there is very little difference outside of lip service between repubs and dems.

=======

From looking at the armbands on these people, Obama had nothing to do with this. Most of the legislation stripping people of their Constitutional rights, and the formation of the police state is at the local or state level.,  Far as I know, no one has called out the National Guard to contain peaceful demonstrations , and kill peaceful demonstrators  since the Nixon era..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Barack has expanded it even further. If he is the saint and savior that you claim him to be then why hasn't it been stopped? Barack spoke out against illegal wiretaps during his campaign yet they have been used even MORE on AmericaN citizens under his watch. Do not try to blame this on Bush or any repub. this is happening under your messiah Barrack and the buck stops with him now!

 

you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't bring yourself to say anything negative about them. 

no, you are an illiterate idiot .If you read my post I stated that I didn't like it then OR NOW> 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I am beginning to think a police state is not as far fetched as you may think

 

It's not getting any better under Barack. He has given himself the pwer to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, signed the NDAA, and increased gov't spying on american citizens. As someone who was against the Iraq war and against the majority of the Patriot Act Barack has been a huge dispappointment in the area of civil liberties. Just another example of how there is very little difference outside of lip service between repubs and dems.

=======

From looking at the armbands on these people, Obama had nothing to do with this. Most of the legislation stripping people of their Constitutional rights, and the formation of the police state is at the local or state level.,  Far as I know, no one has called out the National Guard to contain peaceful demonstrations , and kill peaceful demonstrators  since the Nixon era..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Barack has expanded it even further. If he is the saint and savior that you claim him to be then why hasn't it been stopped? Barack spoke out against illegal wiretaps during his campaign yet they have been used even MORE on AmericaN citizens under his watch. Do not try to blame this on Bush or any repub. this is happening under your messiah Barrack and the buck stops with him now!

 

you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't bring yourself to say anything negative about them. 

no, you are an illiterate idiot .If you read my post I stated that I didn't like it then OR NOW> 

I read your post. You had to blame on a repub instead of admitting that Barack is a hypocrite for going back on one of the very things he campaigned against. If you think there is a big difference in repubs and dems then you probably think professional 'rastlin is real.

seeweed if you look hard enough you can find images of swat teams anywhere. Most, like the one you posted, are designed for that half truth knee jerk response. Answer this for me. If a few people with bombs and guns came to that same peaceful rally and started mowing people down, would you still say it was oppression if the swat guys took action. See, where you see oppression, I see a group of men willing to do what is necessary to protect protect everyone, including protesters. Guess I'm a glass half full guy. 

I looked at my cell phone bill.  I had 50 or 60 calls and text messages, my wife had about 350.  Some people have more, most probably have less.  I have a land line phone, it has maybe 100 calls.  There are millions(200?) of phones in use in America, multiply this number by the average number of calls on each line.  Does anyone really think the government can monitor this many calls?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I looked at my cell phone bill.  I had 50 or 60 calls and text messages, my wife had about 350.  Some people have more, most probably have less.  I have a land line phone, it has maybe 100 calls.  There are millions(200?) of phones in use in America, multiply this number by the average number of calls on each line.  Does anyone really think the government can monitor this many calls?

Yes - computing power is way beyond the comprehension of many.  The government does not have someone 'listening' to every call.  Computers monitor them and Im sure there are key words and an algorithm that flags certain numbers based on the content of the call, text or email.  

 

Kindof like looking in your house - they cant have someone looking in everyones house at all times - does that mean we should give them the right to look into your house without a warrant if your house is the one they decide to look at today via those algorithms?

Probably shot by 9mm, they have a reputation penetrating a target without expanding if the bullets are FMJ.  This incident shouts for intervention by the state AG's office. 

 

BTW, the Soviets were the first to intercept phone calls that included certain words.  Legend has it that the FBI recorded hours of teen age girls talking endlessly about nothing, as they are prone to do.  Then, the FBI would insert  the words and play over the DC phone lines.  Subsequently, there was a rash of suicides among KGB analysts!

The incident reminds me of the Amadou Diallo shooting in NYC. Four plainclothes police fired 41 shots at him. He wasn't wanted and was holding out his wallet, which the police stated they thought was a firearm. 

 

Both incidents speak of poor fire discipline -- poor training.  Soldiers are court martialed for such actions. 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

To Direstraits,  You are bringing up something that I think is a problem.  Many times police fire many shots at an individual, they don't hit them all the time, and too many bystanders are hit.  Police need better training.

 

There are studies that show when a civilian legitimately fires his weapon, innocent bystanders are much less likely to be harmed, than if a LEO does the same. 

 

Generally, poor fire discipline is a result of poor training. And, poor training is an indicator of incompetence or corruption within the department. 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Well Dire, I agree, but what bothers me most is it seems that every day we are seeing some out of control cops proving they think they are above the law and that they are somehow gods.

Here is one from a couple of days ago about some little Barney who arrested a girl for buying water at a convenience store. Apparently he approached her car without any identification and she thought she was being mugged.
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...uying-bottled-water/

 

Seeweed,

 

Not sure why this case in Virginia bothers me more than most of the others we hear of, but I have been following it since this post.  Some new news has come out - the Special Agent in Charge of the 'raid' on these college girls, John Taylor, had been recently 'reassigned' because the Director believed he was 'no longer capable of leading the agents' at his previous post.  So he was moved to a new post to lead the agents there

 

After the charges were finally dropped, the ABC board stated they would conduct a 'second' investigation after the 'first' internal investigation found no wrong doing by the officers - only to follow up and say there wasn't an initial 'first' investigation to begin with.

 

In addition, the local press has listed a LONG list of internal policies that were not followed by the agents on scene, here are a few -

 

(1) Policy states officers can only draw their weapon "when circumstances cause the agent to reasonably believe that it may be necessary to use the weapon." - see below for why the officer didn't ever have the justification to use the weapon.

 

(2) Updated in 2007, the agency’s use-of-force policy advises agents not to discharge weapons at a moving vehicle unless "a person in the vehicle poses an immediate threat to the agent or another person with the use of deadly force by means other than the vehicle." - threat with vehicle does not justify deadly force be used against the person in the vehicle

 

(3) The policy states "an agent threatened by an oncoming vehicle should move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants." - why the officer never had the justification to draw his weapon in the first place

 

http://www.timesdispatch.com/n...e0-001a4bcf6878.html

 

The women called 911 during the incident and were speaking with the dispatcher immediately after.  The dispatcher instructed them to stop for the pursuing agents.  The dispatcher then informed Special Agent Taylor (who was one of the seven agents involved) that they thought the women honestly didn't know they were police officers when the fled, but that did not deter Taylor, the Special Agent In Charge, from arresting the college student for fleeing and hitting two of his officers.

 

Even after the DA dropped the charges, Special Agent Taylor sent an email to the other six agents saying "“While we may disagree with his [the DA's] decision, we all know that it is his decision to make......Thanks for all of your efforts during the operation in Charlottesville.”

 

http://www.dailyprogress.com/n...f31a.html?mode=story

 

 

 

 

The police admitted policy was violated numerous times.  Yet, no actions, except the reassignment of one of the lead officers was done.  At the least, the agents should received mandatory re-training.  Their errors should be explained to them in a drill sergeant way.  Plus, a few days of mandatory suspension for the most egregious actions such as pointing a firearm at the women.  Plus, Taylor remains fully clueless about his actions.  The women should sue for damages, complete removal of the arrest record from all files and a public apology from the agency.  Old Army method for training a mule.  First, hit the mule between the eyes with a 2X4 (the bone there is very hard).  That's to get the mule's attention.  Then, the training begins.

There's a new disturbing case in Florida.  Police and federal marshals did a warrantless sweep of an apartment complex. While, they were looking for a child molester, there was no child involved and the danger was not imminent for any innocents.

 

Its long, so I will only post the first of four pages and a link to the rest.

 

"Lyons: Police raid felt like home invasion

 

After leaving her operating room scrub nurse duties at Sarasota's Doctors Hospital on Wednesday, Louise Goldsberry went to her Hidden Lake Village apartment.

 

Her boyfriend came over, and after dinner — about 8 p.m. — Goldsberry went to her kitchen sink to wash some dishes.

 

That's when her boyfriend, Craig Dorris — a manager for a security alarm company — heard her scream and saw her drop to the floor.

 

Goldsberry, 59, said she had looked up from the sink to see a man “wearing a hunting vest.”

He was aiming a gun at her face, with a red light pinpointing her.

“I screamed and screamed,” she said.

 

But she also scrambled across the floor to her bedroom and grabbed her gun, a five-shot .38-caliber revolver. Goldsberry has a concealed weapons permit and says the gun has made her feel safer living alone. But she felt anything but safe when she heard a man yelling to open the door.

He was claiming to be a police officer, but the man she had seen looked to her more like an armed thug. Her boyfriend, Dorris, was calmer, and yelled back that he wanted to see some ID.

But the man just demanded they open the door. The actual words, the couple say, were, “We're the f------ police; open the f------ door.”

 

Dorris said he moved away from the door, afraid bullets were about to rip through.

Goldsberry was terrified but thinking it just might really be the police. Except, she says she wondered, would police talk that way? She had never been arrested or even come close. She couldn't imagine why police would be there or want to come in. But even if they did, why would they act like that at her apartment? It didn't seem right."

 
After this fiasco, the federal marshal made the comment:
 
"I feel bad for her,” Wiggins conceded, finally. “But at the same time, I had to reasonably believe the bad guy was in her house based on what they were doing.”

 

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

 

Federal marshals are supposed to be the cream of the crop, next to FBI agents.  First, they and the local police, after securing the apartment complex, use SWAT team tactics and gear to violently enter apartments.  They shout obscenities and insults to innocent people  in an unprofessional manner and expect to be obeyed without question.  I understand being hyper and adrenalin flowing in such situations.  Which is why the situation should never have happened.  Local police, in regular uniforms (with bullet resistant vests), should have knocked and explained the situation.   Most reasonable people would allow the police entrance if treated in a decent manner.  SWAT should be kept in reserve, not as the first tool used. 

 

Worse, the federal marshal was clueless, just as the Virginian officer was.  The only method to teach the police is a lawsuit -- preferably by all the apartment dwellers.  The marshal's comment alone should be worth several thousand dollars in reparations..   

 

Dire - did the lead agent get reassigned again?  I didn't see that anywhere.  The reassignment I was referring to took place before this happened.  The agent in charge had been previously relieved of his command in a different location.  I missed that he had been reassigned again......

Originally Posted by direstraits:

 

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

HAHAHAHA, that is so funny I'm crying on the floor laughing!  She shouldn't be going to the press because she didn't get shot or arrested for pointing a gun at a cop THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN HER HOME!  She had a split second to make a decision whether someone was an officer or not based on the fact that they were banging on the door yelling 'police' and 'open the f****** door'!  Where was there warrant to enter her home?  The fact that they refused to open the door was reason for them to suspect they had the right apartment and force their way in?  How about, without a warrant, they didn't have to let you in.  And I sure wouldn't go to the door after seeing someone sneak around my window with a gun.

 

Originally Posted by Capt James T:

Dire - did the lead agent get reassigned again?  I didn't see that anywhere.  The reassignment I was referring to took place before this happened.  The agent in charge had been previously relieved of his command in a different location.  I missed that he had been reassigned again......

Capt,

 

Sorry, I assumed the info pasted 10 hours ago by you alluded to the present fiasco.  "Some new news has come out - the Special Agent in Charge of the 'raid' on these college girls, John Taylor, had been recently 'reassigned' because the Director believed he was 'no longer capable of leading the agents' at his previous post.  So he was moved to a new post to lead the agents there"

 

I guess they just shuffled the idiot in the deck and hoped for the best and got the worst.

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

 

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

HAHAHAHA, that is so funny I'm crying on the floor laughing!  She shouldn't be going to the press because she didn't get shot or arrested for pointing a gun at a cop THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN HER HOME!  She had a split second to make a decision whether someone was an officer or not based on the fact that they were banging on the door yelling 'police' and 'open the f****** door'!  Where was there warrant to enter her home?  The fact that they refused to open the door was reason for them to suspect they had the right apartment and force their way in?  How about, without a warrant, they didn't have to let you in.  And I sure wouldn't go to the door after seeing someone sneak around my window with a gun.

 

Definitely, a law suit should be started.  Against the federal marshals service and the local police.  By agency, and by idiot.  Its the only way they learn.

 

While the cited incident isn’t the best example of police over use of military force, that it appears in the WSJ is very significant.  A tide is turning against use of such force.  Read the Comments section to determine how disaffected people are.  Except for their editorial section, the WSJ isn’t really very conservative. The paper is the major business information newspaper for the US. 

 

"Rise of the Warrior Cop

Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?

 

On Jan. 4 of last year, a local narcotics strike force conducted a raid
on the Ogden, Utah, home of Matthew David Stewart at 8:40 p.m. The 12
officers were acting on a tip from Mr. Stewart's former girlfriend, who
said that he was growing marijuana in his basement. Mr. Stewart awoke,
naked, to the sound of a battering ram taking down his door. Thinking
that he was being invaded by criminals, as he later claimed, he grabbed
his 9-millimeter Beretta pistol.

 

The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom.

 

The police found 16 small marijuana plants in Mr. Stewart's basement. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart, a U.S. military veteran with no prior criminal record, was selling marijuana. Mr. Stewart's father said that his son suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and may have smoked the marijuana to self-medicate.

 

Early this year, the Ogden city council heard complaints from dozens of citizens about the way drug warrants are served in the city. As for Mr. Stewart, his trial was scheduled for next April, and prosecutors were seeking the death penalty. But after losing a hearing last May on the legality of the search warrant, Mr. Stewart hanged himself in his jail cell.

 

The police tactics at issue in the Stewart case are no anomaly. Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.

 

The acronym SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. Such police units are trained in methods similar to those used by the special forces in the military. They learn to break into homes with battering rams and to use incendiary devices called flashbang grenades, which are designed to blind and deafen anyone nearby. Their usual aim is to "clear" a building—that is, to remove any threats and distractions (including pets) and to subdue the occupants as quickly as possible."

 

More at: http://online.wsj.com/article/...rticleTabs%3Darticle

 

 

the "war on drugs" ... another failure of a policy, put forth by the rt. wing. they've never learned from any mistake they've made. and yet, it's the liberals who "follow blindly"....

at what point does the rt. wing have to accept they have lost touch with reality and try to piece the party back together.

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

the "war on drugs" ... another failure of a policy, put forth by the rt. wing. they've never learned from any mistake they've made. and yet, it's the liberals who "follow blindly"....

at what point does the rt. wing have to accept they have lost touch with reality and try to piece the party back together.

 

You need to lay off the Rogaine "Baldy"...

Looks like it's only growing "fuzz"  on your peanut brain!

A cotton seed looks more promising...

 

Every president since Nixon declared the war on drugs, has participated in it.  The original banning was a Progressive program, which included Prohibition.  With the end of Prohibition, the mobs used their cash to import hard drugs like heroin and cocaine.  There are no innocents in that mess.

The one thing that I am most disappointed in , both in President Clinton and in President Obama, is that they have not stopped the idiotic "war on drugs". 

"Cities have turned into jungles

And corruption is standing at hand

The police force is watching the people

and the people just don't understand

We don't know how to mind our own business

'Cause the whole world's gotta be just like us

Now we are fighting a war over  there,

no matter who's the winner, we can't pay the cost"

Steppenwolf = The Monster.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...PDPARpIV37CP8E7uKLou

 

 

Instead of trying to make the other guy look bad in this war on drugs, lets all come together and figure out something that might help,  Lock em up and throw away the key  ain't working.  I used to think I had all the answers, but, I don't have any.  I have been personally touched by this problem and I would listen to anything that would help.  Please give suggestions.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Instead of trying to make the other guy look bad in this war on drugs, lets all come together and figure out something that might help,  Lock em up and throw away the key  ain't working.  I used to think I had all the answers, but, I don't have any.  I have been personally touched by this problem and I would listen to anything that would help.  Please give suggestions.

================

Narcotics are actually very inexpensive, the high cost is from them being on the black market . 

That means that once someone is hooked, they have to do whatever is necessary to pay the high price of street drugs, be it prostitution , or holding up a liquor store or whatever.

I think we should put the drugs in the drugstores, (drugs, drugstores- kinda seems to go together), and quit monitoring how many scripts a doctor can write for those things.

So, an addict can go to a dr, get a script for enough of whatever his dope of choice is to be able to function , and go to a drug store and get his drugs at a reasonable rate. Most addicts can function pretty well, and even earn a living if they just didn't have to spend it all building some pusher a Mr T jewelry set.

So, that could turn a lot of addicts into productive citizens, and stop a lot of street crime in one blow. Sounds like a win-win to me.

(BTW, I didn't just dream this up, some European countries have already tried this and that is the result).

Marijuana should just plane be d-criminalized out and out. Quit locking some poor head up because he got caught mellowing out on some good weed.

It cost over $45,000 a year to keep somebody locked up in the pen. Seems there are a lot of things that money could be better used for than locking up people for using.

Now, the first thing some people are going to say is "no - "they" will abuse it " . Well, there probably would be some abuse, and some people are going to overdose legal or not, but like you said, Nixon's war on drugs has never worked, so try going the other way.

I am for a step-by-step program, not a massive program that will generate problems of its own.  Legalize marijuana, even the newer stronger strains, and treat it like alcohol and cigarettes.  Allow those over 19 to buy the less strong and those over 21 the newer stronger weed.  Tax it and use the proceeds for anti-marijuana ads, like anti-smoking ads.  Selling to those from 18 to 20 should be treated as a misdemeanor for small amounts and a felony for larger amounts.  Selling to those 16 and under should be a serious felony for adults and supervised release for minors.

 

Use experience from that program to slowly decriminalize the rest and then legalize.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×