Ravage knows enough of honor to be a DISHONORABLE PIECE OF SHIT.
Omnivore
Sgt Walt
Fraternally,
Walt
Sgt. NYSDOCS
"The last refuge of someone with nothing to say is Ad Hominem."
LHCB
"Sgt Walt" <sgt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010702151036...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
Now, now guys, can't we all just get along! ;->>
Ken (MI)
CplPunishment
trash that kills our inner cities and is now getting into the rural areas.
He is an predator.
"LHCB" <olso...@iserv.net> wrote in message
news:5h907.26492$xJ5.3...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
LHCB
"CplPunishment" <epl...@icharter.net> wrote in message
news:tk3ip74...@corp.supernews.com...
> No Ken, A drug dealer is right up their with a baby raper. He sales that
> trash that kills our inner cities and is now getting into the rural areas.
>
> He is an predator.
The majority of the problems come from prohibition.
End the drug war now.
Ken (MI)
CplPunishment
"LHCB" <olso...@iserv.net> wrote in message
news:iTm07.1511$2u2....@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
LHCB
> lol
>
Have you ever looked into the history of drug laws and/or prohibition?
Ken (MI)
--
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance.
It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond
the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's
appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that
are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded.
- Abraham Lincoln
CplPunishment
LHCB
> At times I do. Where you looking for anything in particular?
Well, I've looked at most of the material that's around. Been doing so for
about 25 years. I've found that most of the laws were based in racism,
ignorance, fear-mongering, and lies. I've found that most of them are
counterproductive to their stated goals and serve only to erode the rights
and liberty of us all. That's why I have been calling for an end to the drug
war for years. The medicine is worse than the illness.
Omnivore
> lol
That seems about as intelligent argument you are capable in support of
your bigoted opinions. ;-)
Omnivore
> At times I do. Where you looking for anything in particular?
I must say that you have a fertile mind. It sure 'nuff produces lot of
fertilizer.
CplPunishment
"Omnivore" <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9i0dir$hq$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
CplPunishment
direction.
"Omnivore" <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9i0dml$m5$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
blli...@webtv.net
>Go and wash the mop buckets, inmate.
No, I don't want to and you can't make me...hahahahaha.
(I know cpl wasn't talking to me but since neither onmi nor I am an
inmate, what the hey? A small dose of reality surely can't hurt.)
barb
Have a nice day and a safe drive home..
Ravage
news:13078-3B...@storefull-127.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
But it's only a question of time for one of you.
Then I'm sure his spine will dissolve once again back into his blood stream
where it can't get in the way of all those racist COs perpetrating their hatred
on the poor, benevolent inmates.
Or maybe he'll single handedly get the Mexican Mafia to dissolve it's charter
and release it's members from their sworn codes of behavior like he did in at
least one case the last time he was in.
Hell, maybe once the word gets out that he's single handedly righting all the
wrongs in prison they'll issue him blue spandex and a cape instead of the
standard orange.
--
All you can hope to accomplish is the infliction
of your own discomfort on others.
[Omnivore's at the mirror again]
Sgt Walt
>"CplPunishment" <epl...@icharter.net> wrote in message
>news:tk4cios...@corp.supernews.com...
>> At times I do. Where you looking for anything in particular?
>
>Well, I've looked at most of the material that's around. Been doing so for
>about 25 years. I've found that most of the laws were based in racism,
>ignorance, fear-mongering, and lies. I've found that most of them are
>counterproductive to their stated goals and serve only to erode the rights
>and liberty of us all. That's why I have been calling for an end to the drug
>war for years. The medicine is worse than the illness.
>
>Ken (MI)
Ken,
That is form the spin doctors who want to legalize drugs. Prohibition of
illegal drugs has been around since the turn of the century. Race had nothing
to do with the enactment. Lies? What lies? "fear-mongering"? Are you
telling me that drug addiction is safe?
The fact is that drugs cause quite a bit of crime. The goal of the durg laws
it to attack the crimes at the source. DRUGS!
Sgt Walt
> That seems about as intelligent argument you are capable in support of
>your bigoted opinions. ;-)
OMNI,
CPL is not bigoted; he is practical. He sees a drug dealing predator and he
loaths it just as I do.
Sgt Walt
>>cpl wrote:
>>Go and wash the mop buckets, inmate.
>
>No, I don't want to and you can't make me...hahahahaha.
>(I know cpl wasn't talking to me but since neither onmi nor I am an
>inmate, what the hey? A small dose of reality surely can't hurt.)
>barb
True, but it is a hell of a dream!
CplPunishment
LoL
<blli...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13078-3B...@storefull-127.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
CplPunishment
Someone altered my reply. Look up the original posts, and you will see.
It is a shame when others have to go to that great of links to do that.
"Sgt Walt" <sgt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010705174247...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
Omnivore
> >
> >"CplPunishment" <epl...@icharter.net> wrote in message
> >news:tk4cios...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> At times I do. Where you looking for anything in particular?
> >
> >Well, I've looked at most of the material that's around. Been doing so
for
> >about 25 years. I've found that most of the laws were based in racism,
> >ignorance, fear-mongering, and lies. I've found that most of them are
> >counterproductive to their stated goals and serve only to erode the
rights
> >and liberty of us all. That's why I have been calling for an end to the
drug
> >war for years. The medicine is worse than the illness.
> >
> >Ken (MI)
>
> Ken,
> That is form the spin doctors who want to legalize drugs. Prohibition of
> illegal drugs has been around since the turn of the century.
Proihibition of illegal....?
ROTFLMAO
You favor passing laws against illegal things then?
You are taxing that poor little brain cell terribly, Walter.
--
A lie repeated for hundred times becomes the truth.
-- Paul Joseph Goebbels, 1933-45 German minister of propaganda
LHCB
I suggest you go do some more research, Walt. I'm not being a smart ass
here. I'm being dead serious. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 was largely
based on fear of blacks using cocaine. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was
based largely on fear of Mexicans and blacks getting white women to smoke
pot and then have sex with the minorities. It's right in the Congressional
Record of that time. The AMA was against the Act, and they weren't even
called to testify. The Congressmen were lied to and told that the AMA was
for the Act. Cannabis was in the US Phamacoepia for years until it was made
illegal.
How much more do you want? I can dig up alot more. Drugs have been used for
thousands of years. The more there is enforcement to try to prevent people
from using them, the more problems there are.
Ken (MI)
LHCB
> >
> > That seems about as intelligent argument you are capable in support
of
> >your bigoted opinions. ;-)
>
>
> OMNI,
> CPL is not bigoted; he is practical. He sees a drug dealing predator and
he
> loaths it just as I do.
I loath those who would erode the Bill of Rights in their quest to enforce
impractical laws. If you want to help the criminal element that makes money
from trafficing in currently illegal substances, push for drug laws.
Ken (MI)
jimseprodi
The fact that drugs are illegal criminalizes an individual that has a
disease, as well as a casual user that is not addicted. No more than
an individual that drinks a beer becomes an alcoholic, not everyone
that uses drugs becomes an addict. To me it is immaterial whether
drugs are legal, because I dont fuck with them. Back in the day, I
found that pot made me sick, violently so. What im saying here is that
I have no agenda other than the fact that the Bill of Rights is being
eviscerated in the name of some 80s poiticians. And there is some
evidence that those same politicians were financing 'the enemy' as
well as the 'war'. We have an increasing militarization of the police
forces, and this is financed in part by 'asset forfieture'. Plea
bargains for the rich. Legal bribery is what it is. I may be slightly
to the left of you, and most of the rest of the officers on this NG,
but good people, that Bill of rights is YOUR bill of rights as well as
the cons, and the rate we are accepting this drug war propaganda, the
4th ammendment is history. What freedom are you willing to give up
next to jail John Pothead. How about some nice martial law, with
checkpoints in and out of bad neighborhoods, and anywhere else as long
as public safety is a t stake. No, just the bad 'hoods OK. Well, then
you have a richer class that likes to drive while intoxicated, so we
better have some sobriety checkpoints. How about lowering the standard
to preponderance of evidence instead of 'reasonable doubt" for a
conviction. That'll fix it. Lets gut the Bill of rights as the archaic
thing that it is, dispense with the precedent "stare decisis" bullshit
and really go after these slackers, without the technicalities them
cons use to get off.
dnarshMAX
Rationing Acts during WW2 created criminal groups that used the "unavailablity"
aspect of the products to sell at inflated under the table "Black Market"
prices, making both the seller and the buyer of gasoline, cigarettes, nylons,
meat, sugar, shoes, etc. etc. criminals.
MAX
A short list of folks with guts
http://www.repeal.net/Notable.htm
Don Narsh, founder
http://www.wingsofanangel.com
dnarshMAX
You would think anyone looking at a more "harmless" prohibition" like the
Rationing Acts during WW2 created criminal groups that used the "unavailablity"
aspect of the products to sell at inflated under the table "Black Market"
prices, making both the seller and the buyer of gasoline, cigarettes, nylons,
meat, sugar, shoes, etc. etc. criminals.
You guys are gonna give SgtWalt a mygraine.Give the poor soul a break. He is
only "doing his job". Ask his supervisor if Wally has EVER said anything
against the SOP of the DOC or even pretended like he had an original thought.
Besides, he is STILL working on figuring out how to stick it to his disabled
neighbor lady for allowing her pet to be killed by his "well trained" (his
quote) dogs.
From the way he handled that tragedy, I can only imagine ho the cons under his
command and control have to live.
Thankfully there is no strike and he HAS to leave after his shift is done
rather than be there full time 24/7. Otherwise I am sure the suicide rate would
climb out of all record keeping stats for cons killing themselves in an effort
to escape such babbling rule book as he.
Omnivore
>
> "Sgt Walt" <sgt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010705174247...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> > >
> > > That seems about as intelligent argument you are capable in support
> of
> > >your bigoted opinions. ;-)
> >
> >
> > OMNI,
> > CPL is not bigoted; he is practical. He sees a drug dealing predator
and
> he
> > loaths it just as I do.
>
> I loath those who would erode the Bill of Rights in their quest to enforce
> impractical laws. If you want to help the criminal element that makes
money
> from trafficing in currently illegal substances, push for drug laws.
>
> Ken (MI)
They need their hate.
CplPunishment
"Omnivore" <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
dnarshMAX
>
>
>As you need your hate of the truth.
Ah !!.....The "truth" again.
"Truth", we all need. "Hate", I'll tke a pass. "Not caring", I'll take a pass.
Now, "Love", I'll take seconds.
Omnivore
Competing with Walty for group moron "CplPunishment" <epl...@icharter.net>
wrote in message news:tkd2tr6...@corp.supernews.com...
> As you need your hate of the truth.
Well there you go. You validate my accusation in making your own.
That is what comes of you attempting to do your own thinking. You should
stick to parroting the words of other hatemongering bigots.
Sgt Walt
> Proihibition of illegal....?
> ROTFLMAO
> You favor passing laws against illegal things then?
> You are taxing that poor little brain cell terribly, Walter.
>
OMNI,
Grow up, get a life and then you might get to be a human being.
CplPunishment
is around.
"Omnivore" <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
Sgt Walt
>> That is form the spin doctors who want to legalize drugs. Prohibition of
>> illegal drugs has been around since the turn of the century. Race had
>nothing
>> to do with the enactment. Lies? What lies? "fear-mongering"? Are you
>> telling me that drug addiction is safe?
>> The fact is that drugs cause quite a bit of crime. The goal of the durg
>laws
>> it to attack the crimes at the source. DRUGS!
>
>I suggest you go do some more research, Walt. I'm not being a smart ass
>here. I'm being dead serious. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 was largely
>based on fear of blacks using cocaine. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was
>based largely on fear of Mexicans and blacks getting white women to smoke
>pot and then have sex with the minorities. It's right in the Congressional
>Record of that time. The AMA was against the Act, and they weren't even
>called to testify. The Congressmen were lied to and told that the AMA was
>for the Act. Cannabis was in the US Phamacoepia for years until it was made
>illegal.
>
>How much more do you want? I can dig up alot more. Drugs have been used for
>thousands of years. The more there is enforcement to try to prevent people
>from using them, the more problems there are.
>
>Ken (MI)
>
OLSON,
Where did you get this from? Blacks were not at all involved in the drug trade
at the time of the Harrison Act! Where did this "fear"(?) come from? Why
would any one have such a fear if they were not at all involved in the trade?
This makes no sense at all.
As far as the Congesssional Record, you are going to have to show us that one.
What lies were the members of Congress told? At the time this bill was passed,
the AMA was a blip on the radar screen. What was cannabis used to treat
according to the US Pharmcoepia? I have never even hear of this book. Is
there such a book? I have heard of the PDR. It goes back I believe to the
30's (not sure of that). What I want is VERIFIABLE FACTS! I do not agree with
the THEORY that there are more problems caused by enforcement.
Omnivore
> >
> > Proihibition of illegal....?
> > ROTFLMAO
> > You favor passing laws against illegal things then?
> > You are taxing that poor little brain cell terribly, Walter.
> >
>
> OMNI,
> Grow up, get a life and then you might get to be a human being.
When I am grown up like you I will be an advocate of passing laws
against illegal things?
I think you are just trying to be sure that Cpl' does not usurp your
title of group idiot.
Sgt Walt
I agree that the fact that drugs are illegal criminalizes people who possess
and USE them. No doubt. As well they should. It seems that the drugs are a
ROOT CAUSE for much of the crime that we are expierenceing and have since the
1960's.
If a person is a casual user then he/she runs the risk of going to jail. So
does the seller. As OMNI. He is a (claims to be retired) drug dealer.
There are far fewer crimes caused by alcoholism than are casue by drug
addiction. You have only to look at the court dockets in your local crimnal
and county courts.
According to some people here, pot is safe. You report that it made you
violently ill. So much fo rthe claim it is "safe".
I have no agenda either. I am for crime prevention. Drugs are a major root
cause of crime. There are few people who can controvert that. If you know of
any REAL EVIDENCE of any politician "financing the enemy", come forward with
it and I am sure there are some prosecutors who would be willing to go after
these people.
Most court cases are "plea bargained". Not just those of the "rich" but also
the "poor" as well. More than 75% of the cases which are brought to court are
plead out. You can verify that with your local prosecutoirs office if you
doubt me. This is not "legal bribery". It has been the way the courts hav e
handled cases for as long as I can remember. I do not doubt whether or not
your are a "good person". That is not at issue. Nor is whether you are a
liberal or a conservative. What is at issue is whether or not drugs should be
legalized. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights.which gives any person the
right to posssess, use or sell drugs. What are you talking about "4th
Amendment History?" The 4th Ammendment has to do with search and seizure. Most
of the people in jail for drugs also have VIOLENT CRIMES attached to their
"jacket". This is a fact which was revealed by Comm. Glenn S. Goord and the
New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Services. It is also a fact that the
vast majority of people in jail for "drugs" are in for hard drugs, not "pot".
This is also a FACT!
No one here proposes martial law, nor "check points" or any of the like. This
is sensationalism on your part to try to make a point. I have no problme with
"sobriety check points." I think they are great. I think any drunk who get
behind the wheel deserves to go to jail. I see no point to lowering the bar on
the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt either. Again, are you trying to
sensationalize? No LEO wants to "gut the Bill of Rights". But those of us
opposed to drugs do what the laws enforced. IF the cop does not do his job
properly then the case whould be thrown out. I have prosecuted many many cases
when I was a police officer on the street before going into corrections. I did
not "cheat" on the rules of search and seizure, nor did I fabricate the facts
of the case. And you know, I still have not lost a case in court yet.
Sgt Walt
>Sgt. That wasn not my writing. I never have ever used the word bigoted.
>Someone altered my reply. Look up the original posts, and you will see.
>
>It is a shame when others have to go to that great of links to do that.
>
One of the "local talent" accused you of being bigoted.
Sgt Walt
>I loath those who would erode the Bill of Rights in their quest to enforce
>impractical laws. If you want to help the criminal element that makes money
>from trafficing in currently illegal substances, push for drug laws.
>
>Ken (MI)
>
OLSON,
What "erosion of the Bill of Rights"? There is nothing in the Bill of Rights
or any other document that I know of that grants anyone the right to possess
illegal drugs.I don't see how prohibition "helps" drug dealers. I see many of
them getting long prison sentences. That certainly is not helping them.
jimseprodi
>
> I agree that the fact that drugs are illegal criminalizes people who possess
> and USE them. No doubt. As well they should. It seems that the drugs are a
> ROOT CAUSE for much of the crime that we are expierenceing and have since the
> 1960's.
trying to fund their habits, and a lot of violent acts are done in the
name of the illegal sale of drugs. I will also concede that things are
done under the influence of drugs that would not be done otherwise. My
argument in this sense is that the first two could be virtually
eliminated by treatement as the disease that it is instead of a crime.
> There are far fewer crimes caused by alcoholism than are casue by drug
> addiction. You have only to look at the court dockets in your local crimnal
> and county courts.
That one is easy. Reinstate the Volestead act and youll see alcohol
causing the same problems, (illegal manufacturing, possession, use,
and criminals profiting from same)
> According to some people here, pot is safe. You report that it made you
> violently ill. So much fo rthe claim it is "safe".
So I threw up on my buddys Elcamino. He was only pissed off for a day
or so<grin>
> I have no agenda either. I am for crime prevention. Drugs are a major root
> cause of crime. There are few people who can controvert that. If you know of
> any REAL EVIDENCE of any politician "financing the enemy", come forward with
> it and I am sure there are some prosecutors who would be willing to go after
> these people.
Ive got a link, but Ill have to get it. I doubt that prosecutors would
be willing to go after these people.
> Most court cases are "plea bargained". Not just those of the "rich" but also
> the "poor" as well. More than 75% of the cases which are brought to court are
> plead out.
This I know. I am talking about asset forfieture. The prosecutor
declining to proceed with a charge if the person agrees not to contest
having their cars and boats seized, and the proceeds going to a law
enforcement fund.
You can verify that with your local prosecutoirs office if you
> doubt me. This is not "legal bribery". It has been the way the courts hav e
> handled cases for as long as I can remember.
see above
I do not doubt whether or not
> your are a "good person".
Nor I you. I was a corrections officer, just like you
That is not at issue.
> right to posssess, use or sell drugs. What are you talking about "4th
> Amendment History?" The 4th Ammendment has to do with search and seizure.
What I said was that the 4th IS history, with the 'good faith'
exception to evidence seized in a search. Im not trying to handcuff
the police, I have a problem when they dont do it according to the
rules that they demand that the rest of us follow. If the warrant is
bad, if the LEO fucked up, then the case is bullshit and should be
thrown out. That is a check and balance
Most
> of the people in jail for drugs also have VIOLENT CRIMES attached to their
> "jacket". It is also a fact that the
> vast majority of people in jail for "drugs" are in for hard drugs, not "pot".
I dont doubt that, but why do we waste LE energy on potheads?
> No one here proposes martial law, nor "check points" or any of the like. This
> is sensationalism on your part to try to make a point.
Yeah I was being a smartass. But I wonder about some...
> not "cheat" on the rules of search and seizure, nor did I fabricate the facts
> of the case.
Also, no doubt. By and large the cops are good, but you cant give them
absolute power. I dont doubt that you were an honest cop. I was an
honest guard. Again, the checks and balances exist to keep those that
would fabricate accountable.;
cheers
Jim
Omnivore
> >
> >I loath those who would erode the Bill of Rights in their quest to
enforce
> >impractical laws. If you want to help the criminal element that makes
money
> >from trafficing in currently illegal substances, push for drug laws.
> >
> >Ken (MI)
> >
>
>
> OLSON,
> What "erosion of the Bill of Rights"? There is nothing in the Bill of
Rights
> or any other document that I know of that grants anyone the right to
possess
> illegal drugs.I don't see how prohibition "helps" drug dealers.
Of course you don't.
It is because you are stupid.
CplPunishment
adding certain statements that I have not placed. They are also placing my
name on it, but their e-mails addresses on a few of them havent been
changed.
It is a shame that some would go to that lengths to do that
"Sgt Walt" <sgt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010707202942...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
dnarshMAX
being charged NTL by some guards here who just can't get enough. <grin> (WAS)
OMNI is a PREDATORY DRUG DEALING PIECE OF SHIT.
How do you think his mindset reads "the PURSUIT of Happiness"? Bet, it adds. so
long as it doesn't conflict with PRISON RULES, eh? New York's Prison rules I
bet he might even add, exclusively. <grin>
You too are a patient poster OMNI.
CplPunishment
the sale of drugs on the street.
He brags that he was proud for saling drugs and that it should be legal
because drugs stores sale items by perscription.
So for a man wrongly committed for a crime he says he did, but doesn't think
he did anything wrong by being a drug dealer on the street. Really doesn't
sound like he was wrongly convicted of anything.
"dnarshMAX" <mywingso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010708125011...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
Omnivore
"CplPunishment" <epl...@icharter.net> prevaricated in message
news:tkhf26k...@corp.supernews.com...
>Dnarsh, This man has made several statements on this board where he defends
>the sale of drugs on the street.
Liar.
>He brags that he was proud for saling drugs and that it should be legal
>because drugs stores sale items by perscription.
Liar.
>So for a man wrongly committed for a crime he says he did, but doesn't
think
>he did anything wrong by being a drug dealer on the street. Really doesn't
>sound like he was wrongly convicted of anything.
Liar.
I said I sold drugs and quit and then was set up for something I'd not
done.
Maybe you are not a liar and are incredibly stupid rather than merely
stupid.
No use to reply in either case. Your stupidity would make your
statements rather meaningless and it may as well be taken that one who would
lie in one thing might lie in all things.
--
Unless you're in the majority, your position is pointless.
[Ravage]
Omnivore
"dnarshMAX" <mywingso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010708125011...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
What do I care what they would accuse?
They need their hate to keep them warm and I need the amusement. ;-)
This group has moved to pretty low on my list though.
Robert Shuler
Whew... That is a load off my mind. I thought things were a lot more
complicated. But, all we have to do is lock up everybody who doesn't believe in
prohibition. Just through all the Libertarians and such in prison and be done
with it. But we better call back that tax cut. We are going to have a crowd to
feed, for sure. Actually, you would have a crowd to feed, because I think the
war on drugs is the biggest waste of resources currently in contention for that
title, so I would be in the crowd to be fed.
Robert Shuler
That, of course is THROW. I really need to wake up before I start typing.
dnarshMAX
Believe me, most here are VERY patient about typing, spelling and grammer. I
SHOULD KNOW.
It's only a few. who when skin pricked and have no other remedy feel compelled
to respond with corrections. It's the nature of the beast methinks.
You made your point, which is what MOST of us appreciate.
Thanks
CplPunishment
"Omnivore" <sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9iam2m$pcj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
dnarshMAX
>From: "CplPunishment" epl...@icharter.net
POSTED THE FOLLOWING after bitching about others snipping and pasting to leave
HIM looking like a hypocritical bigot...<jeeees> Wonder if he really isn't a
clone of SgtWalt.?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I guess I should complain that I did not write what his post emplies to me, eh?
You know what. Other than respinding to his BITCHING in the past, I could care
less.
blli...@webtv.net
>I see many of them getting long prison
>sentences. That certainly is not helping
>them. Fraternally,
>Walt
>Sgt. NYSDOCS
It's nine o'clock, sgt. Do you know where your dog is???
barb
Have a nice day and a safe drive home..
CplPunishment
of mine?
please clerify so that I can see what you are refering to.
"dnarshMAX" <mywingso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010708201534...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
CplPunishment
unlkike the rest, I appologise. So I am sorry.
:)
"dnarshMAX" <mywingso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010708201534...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
LHCB
> >> Ken,
> >> That is form the spin doctors who want to legalize drugs. Prohibition
of
> >> illegal drugs has been around since the turn of the century. Race had
> >nothing
> >> to do with the enactment. Lies? What lies? "fear-mongering"? Are
you
> >> telling me that drug addiction is safe?
> >> The fact is that drugs cause quite a bit of crime. The goal of the
durg
> >laws
> >> it to attack the crimes at the source. DRUGS!
> >
> >I suggest you go do some more research, Walt. I'm not being a smart ass
> >here. I'm being dead serious. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 was
largely
> >based on fear of blacks using cocaine. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was
> >based largely on fear of Mexicans and blacks getting white women to smoke
> >pot and then have sex with the minorities. It's right in the
Congressional
> >Record of that time. The AMA was against the Act, and they weren't even
> >called to testify. The Congressmen were lied to and told that the AMA was
> >for the Act. Cannabis was in the US Phamacoepia for years until it was
made
> >illegal.
> >
for
> >thousands of years. The more there is enforcement to try to prevent
people
> >from using them, the more problems there are.
> >
> >Ken (MI)
> >
>
>
> OLSON,
> Where did you get this from? Blacks were not at all involved in the drug
trade
> at the time of the Harrison Act! Where did this "fear"(?) come from?
Why
> would any one have such a fear if they were not at all involved in the
trade?
> This makes no sense at all.
Not that they were involved in the drug trade, but that they were users.
Here's a link to The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United
States that will answer many of the questions you've asked.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm
Here's an excerpt - The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that
part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I
mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere
but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those
marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early
marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is
to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a
substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search
of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet
field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had
brought marijuana.
Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about
marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to
reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time
would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the
marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to
the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was
the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the
floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this
stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the
proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the
floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet
field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is
in the bullring at Barcelona."
> As far as the Congesssional Record, you are going to have to show us that
one.
> What lies were the members of Congress told?
That the AMA was in favor of the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
Here's a link to the testimony of Dr. Woodard of the AMA. Read it carefully
and fully, as it is complicated and if you take it out of context, you can
ascertain the exact opposite of Dr. Woodard's intent.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/woodward.htm
Here's another link to the AMA's position on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
American Medical Association Opposes the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937
http://www.pdxnorml.org/AMA_opposes_1937.html
>At the time this bill was passed,
> the AMA was a blip on the radar screen. What was cannabis used to treat
> according to the US Pharmcoepia? I have never even hear of this book.
Here is the link to the United States Pharmacopoeia. Please excuse my
earlier misspelling, I didn't look it up and spelled it phonetically.
http://www.usp.org/
>Is
> there such a book? I have heard of the PDR. It goes back I believe to
the
> 30's (not sure of that).
>What I want is VERIFIABLE FACTS! I do not agree with
> the THEORY that there are more problems caused by enforcement.
I want verifiable facts that enforcement works and that it does anything
beyond increase crime due to the profit potential caused by prohibition. I
do not agree with the theory that prohibitionist enforcement does anything
to alleviate
crime. This was covered in my first economics class. The instructor was a
rather conservative Christian Reformed person. He said that it was a matter
of supply and demand. If demand remains relatively constant, and cost of
supplying the substance is restricted (prohibition), the profits to the
suppliers is increased. He was not in favor of drug use, but he said that if
the goal of prohibitionist laws are to cut drug use and reduce the profits
to the suppliers, they fail miserably and are counterproductive to their own
cause.
I have not posted the text of these articles because it would take up a very
large amount of bandwidth to post all of the materials and it isn't
necessary. Go to the links if you really want your questions answered. I
would also suggest that you look at a couple of books -"The Emperor Wears No
Clothes" by Jack Herer, and "Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts" by Lynn
Zimmer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology at Queens College, City
University of New York, and John P. Morgan, M.D. Professor of Pharmacology
at the City University of New York Medical School. When you've finished with
this much, let me know. I can give you more.
Ken (MI)
LHCB
> >
> >I loath those who would erode the Bill of Rights in their quest to
enforce
> >impractical laws. If you want to help the criminal element that makes
money
> >
> >Ken (MI)
> >
>
>
> OLSON,
> What "erosion of the Bill of Rights"? There is nothing in the Bill of
Rights
> or any other document that I know of that grants anyone the right to
possess
> illegal drugs.I don't see how prohibition "helps" drug dealers. I see
many of
> them getting long prison sentences. That certainly is not helping them.
The WOD has resulted in the 4th Amendment being gutted. Forfeiture of
property and money without a conviction of guilt has corrupted and perverted
policing agencies. There are many instances where someone with legally
obtained properties and money have lost them through civil forfeiture. The
costs of trying to regain them through the courts is so expensive that most
can't even afford to try.
The 9th and 10th Amendment have been basically neutered. The recent actions
of the Federal government in California concerning medical use is evidence
of this.
The vast majority of drug dealers never get caught. When one gets caught the
economic
incentives will bring forward another to replace them. Where there is money
to be made someone will be there to make it.
Finally, to people that prize liberty and limited government the intrusion
into otherwise law-abiding peoples' lives is repugnant.
End the Drug War Now.
Ken (MI)
Ravage
Damn!
I was all prepared for the infamous, "Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!" defense.
Thought for sure that was where you were going.
BTW, he didn't lie about anything. You are the one whose grasp of reality is
seriously in jeopardy.
Drug Dealer.
--
Drugs should all be legalized.
People will automatically stay away from the bad ones after a few die from their
use.
If those people are kids, so be it.
[Omnivore's philosophy on legalizing drugs]
LHCB
> >
<snip>
> According to some people here, pot is safe. You report that it made you
> violently ill. So much fo rthe claim it is "safe".
Let's see, some people are allergic to aspirin, would you consider it
"safe"?
Let's see, some people are allergic to peanuts, would you consider them
"safe"?
Let's see, some people are allergic to milk, would you consider it "safe"?
There are people that will die due to the above allergies. Shouldn't we then
outlaw the above listed substances and lock up anyone who produces and/or
traffics in them?
Drinking too much water in a short period of time can lead to death. Maybe
we should outlaw that, too.
Personally, I found that marijuana helped settle my stomach if I had the flu
or was just plain nauseated. Gee, that's what people in chemotherapy or
receiving anti-AIDS drugs say, too. Yet, some people would still want to put
them in prison.
Ken (MI)
LHCB
"jimseprodi" <jimse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57ccc225.01070...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
<snip>
> Also, no doubt. By and large the cops are good, but you cant give them
> absolute power. I dont doubt that you were an honest cop. I was an
> honest guard. Again, the checks and balances exist to keep those that
> would fabricate accountable.;
>
> cheers
> Jim
>
and rules only affect those who aren't.
Ken (MI)
CplPunishment
his spots, Omni changes his tune at the sound of pimp screaming " TWO DOLLA
HOE FOR SALE! "
"Ravage" <ron...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:18b27.2927$OS6.6...@news.uswest.net...
Sgt Walt
>> Grow up, get a life and then you might get to be a human being.
>
> When I am grown up like you I will be an advocate of passing laws
>against illegal things?
> I think you are just trying to be sure that Cpl' does not usurp your
>title of group idiot.
OMNI,
You are the group idiot ans well as a predator.
Sgt Walt
>>
>>
>> I agree that the fact that drugs are illegal criminalizes people who
>possess
>> and USE them. No doubt. As well they should. It seems that the drugs are
>a
>> ROOT CAUSE for much of the crime that we are expierenceing and have since
>the
>> 1960's.
>Ill agree that a lot of the property crimes are committed by addicts
>trying to fund their habits, and a lot of violent acts are done in the
>name of the illegal sale of drugs. I will also concede that things are
>done under the influence of drugs that would not be done otherwise. My
>argument in this sense is that the first two could be virtually
>eliminated by treatement as the disease that it is instead of a crime.
VIOLENT crimes as well! If you have access to inmates records, you would know
that most of the jackets contain VIOLENT crimes, not just crimes against
property. Robery is not a crime against property....it is a violent crime
against people. Possession of weapons? While technically not violent crimes
sure privde the hardware for one? Wouldn't you agree?
>
>> There are far fewer crimes caused by alcoholism than are casue by drug
>> addiction. You have only to look at the court dockets in your local
>crimnal
>> and county courts.
>That one is easy. Reinstate the Volestead act and youll see alcohol
>causing the same problems, (illegal manufacturing, possession, use,
>and criminals profiting from same)
You know I have heard this tired old arguement for some time now. But nothing
to back it up.
>> According to some people here, pot is safe. You report that it made you
>> violently ill. So much fo rthe claim it is "safe".
>So I threw up on my buddys Elcamino. He was only pissed off for a day
>or so<grin>
Is that all? Hmm, still not very safe, is it? Violent vomiting can casue
server internal injuries....
There is no "good faith" exemption. If the officer's conduct is not according
to law, the case gets tossed. If the warrnat is not sufficinet on its face,
the evidence and the case get tossed.
> Most
>> of the people in jail for drugs also have VIOLENT CRIMES attached to their
>> "jacket". It is also a fact that the
>> vast majority of people in jail for "drugs" are in for hard drugs, not"pot".
>I dont doubt that, but why do we waste LE energy on potheads?
I know this will sound trite to you, but very little energy is expended on
"pot", compared to the "hard" drugs.
>> No one here proposes martial law, nor "check points" or any of the like.
>This
>> is sensationalism on your part to try to make a point.
>Yeah I was being a smartass. But I wonder about some...
It serves no legitimate purpose but to inflame the otehr side.
>> not "cheat" on the rules of search and seizure, nor did I fabricate the
>facts
>> of the case.
>Also, no doubt. By and large the cops are good, but you cant give them
>absolute power. I dont doubt that you were an honest cop. I was an
>honest guard. Again, the checks and balances exist to keep those that
>would fabricate accountable.;
>
>cheers
>Jim
Jim,
No one proposed to give the police "absolute power". A man far wiser than I
said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I have no problem with "checks and balances". But real checks and balances.
If someone wants the law changed there is a process. Cumbersome perhaps, but
it is what has worked here in this country for some 200 yrs.
Here in NY some State Police Investigators were found fabricating evidence.
They were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No quarter was given.
As wll there should not have been. There is nothing worse than a crooked cop.
NOTHING!
Sgt Walt
>"safe"?
>
I certainly would.
>Let's see, some people are allergic to peanuts, would you consider them
>"safe"?
>
And those people know about their allergy?
>Let's see, some people are allergic to milk, would you consider it "safe"?
>
Sure would, same as above.
>
>There are people that will die due to the above allergies. Shouldn't we then
>outlaw the above listed substances and lock up anyone who produces and/or
>traffics in them?
>
The fact is that pot is a hallucinogen. It is mind altering. This in and of
itself makes the drug dangerous.
>Drinking too much water in a short period of time can lead to death. Maybe
>we should outlaw that, too.
>
Do you know of anyone who has done so? Hmm, one could say the same about any
substance. Eat too much and you could kill yourself too. You are using the
ludicrious to try to prove your "point". Not very effective.
>
>Personally, I found that marijuana helped settle my stomach if I had the flu
>or was just plain nauseated. Gee, that's what people in chemotherapy or
>receiving anti-AIDS drugs say, too. Yet, some people would still want to put
>them in prison.
>
>Ken (MI)
How many legal drugs are there that could have settled your stomach without the
mind altering properties of canabalis?
There are plenty of legal drugs to do the same for chemo patients.
And the reason some want to put them in prison is that it is ilegal to do
marijuana.
Sgt Walt
>
>I have noticed that a few of our locals have started pasting my posts and
>adding certain statements that I have not placed. They are also placing my
>name on it, but their e-mails addresses on a few of them havent been
>changed.
>
>It is a shame that some would go to that lengths to do that
It is one sure sign that they are loosing the "battle".
Sgt Walt
>> What "erosion of the Bill of Rights"? There is nothing in the Bill of
>Rights
>> or any other document that I know of that grants anyone the right to
>possess
>> illegal drugs.I don't see how prohibition "helps" drug dealers.
>
> Of course you don't.
> It is because you are stupid.
>
OMNI, weren't you one of the ones who did prison time for selling drugs? Hmm,
who is stupid now?
Sgt Walt
>>Dnarsh, This man has made several statements on this board where he defends
>>the sale of drugs on the street.
>
> Liar.
>
Oh, no he is not. You have siad repeatedly that you think that what you did
was perfectly alright.
Now who is lying?
>>He brags that he was proud for saling drugs and that it should be legal
>>because drugs stores sale items by perscription.
>
> Liar.
Read above.
>>So for a man wrongly committed for a crime he says he did, but doesn't
>think
>>he did anything wrong by being a drug dealer on the street. Really doesn't
>>sound like he was wrongly convicted of anything.
>
> Liar.
> I said I sold drugs and quit and then was set up for something I'd not
>done.
Yeah, right. When did you quite? Was that one or two minutes before you were
arrested?
>
> Maybe you are not a liar and are incredibly stupid rather than merely
>stupid.
> No use to reply in either case. Your stupidity would make your
>statements rather meaningless and it may as well be taken that one who would
>lie in one thing might lie in all things.
What is incerdibly stupid is that you think we are going to fall for this
line...
Speaking of stupidity, who was it that went to prison for selling drugs?
Sgt Walt
>>I see many of them getting long prison
>>sentences. That certainly is not helping
>>them. Fraternally,
>>Walt
>>Sgt. NYSDOCS
>
>It's nine o'clock, sgt. Do you know where your dog is???
>barb
>
Why, BARB, I sure do...do you know where your criminal relatives are?
Sgt Walt
>The WOD has resulted in the 4th Amendment being gutted. Forfeiture of
>property and money without a conviction of guilt has corrupted and perverted
>policing agencies. There are many instances where someone with legally
>obtained properties and money have lost them through civil forfeiture. The
>costs of trying to regain them through the courts is so expensive that most
>can't even afford to try.
>
>The 9th and 10th Amendment have been basically neutered. The recent actions
>of the Federal government in California concerning medical use is evidence
>of this.
>
>The vast majority of drug dealers never get caught. When one gets caught the
>economic
>incentives will bring forward another to replace them. Where there is money
>to be made someone will be there to make it.
>
>Finally, to people that prize liberty and limited government the intrusion
>into otherwise law-abiding peoples' lives is repugnant.
>
>End the Drug War Now.
>
>Ken (MI)
>
>
OLSON,
So you would have one who profits from his illegal drealing in the drug trade
be allowed to profit from that drug trade? You think he should be allwed to
become rich dealing drugs? and after only a short prison sentence? I realy
don't think that is fair. They earned their money though illegal means. Just
as a bank robber. Should a bank robber get to keep his proceeds from the
robbery afte doig his stretch of time?
I would not know about the "vast majority of drug dealers who don't get
caught". I do know about the ones that do. That "economic incentices" is just
an attempt to justify an ilegal and predatory act by these drug dealers. It
falls on deaf ears.
I prize liberty as much as any one here. But I also prize a not being a victim
of drug dealers who victimize their buyers who have to commit the crimes to ge
tthe drugs.
blli...@webtv.net
>Speaking of stupidity, who was it that
>went to prison for selling drugs?
>Fraternally,
>Walt
>Sgt. NYSDOCS
>"The last refuge of someone with nothing
>to say is Ad Hominem."
Sgt, seems NY has a lot of really, really stupid people you might want
to straighten out.. (that is after you get your dog trained) .
barb.
**************
Accepting a bet is illegal for us, but they government cerified agents
are
allowed to accept wagering.
Making and selling alcohol is illegal, except to licensed government
agents.
Growing and selling tobacco is illegal, except for licensed government
agents.
Selling drugs that kill people are illegal, except for licensed
government agents.
(Prescription drug mistakes kill more than one person a day in NY alone)
Selling water is illegal, except for licensed government agents.
Hunting and fishing are illegal, except for licensed government agents.
Being homeless is illegal, unless registered at a licensed government
shelter and checked into the criminal database.
Traffic laws are meaningless to licensed government agents.
Using the government owned airwaves is illegal, except for licensed
government agents.
Using government owned lands is illegal, except for licensed government
agents.
Making weapons for self defense is illegal, except for licensed
government agents.
Killing the innocent is illegal, except for licensed government agents.
Owning property is illegal here in New York State, except for the
government.
All others rent the property from the government.
Cops are immune from OSHA federal rules of safety in the workplace as
applied to putting themselves into danger to escalate every encounter to
justifiable deadly force, which endangers both the employee and the
surrounding inhabitants.
After all why should they be treated differently because of their
occupation?
--
- Outlaw Frog Raper -
Schenectady Copwatch
(518) 356-4238
blli...@webtv.net
>Why, BARB, I sure do...do you know
>where your criminal relatives are?
>Fraternally,
>Walt
>Sgt. NYSDOCS
>"The last refuge of someone with nothing
>to say is Ad Hominem."
Rest assured, if I had a dozen criminal realtives, the whereabouts of my
relatives are not my responsibility....
BARB does not have pending charges against her in Rome City Court.
WALT, a state of NY employee, is the defendant facing charges in Rome
City Court.
WALTER BEVERELY is THE DEFENDENT.
Maybe after a few more appearances before the judge you will come to
realize you did WRONG.
(I am sure some ex cons here will see the humor of you being made to
defend yourself against dogs.after all the times you have treated
inmates like dogs...What is it you say Max about karma.. >grin<)
If Sarg is found guilty, will he be a con or an excon??
barb
Sgt Walt
>to straighten out.. (that is after you get your dog trained) .
>barb.
Barb,
You bring stupid a whole brand new meaning. If ignroance were bliss, you would
be a happy person.
Oh, incidently, we had the trial yesterday? The Judge reserved decision. I am
confident of a dismissal.
Sgt Walt
>Accepting a bet is illegal for us, but they government cerified agents
>are
>allowed to accept wagering.
>
Yes, it is....
>Making and selling alcohol is illegal, except to licensed government
>agents.
>
LOL, what "agents"?
>Growing and selling tobacco is illegal, except for licensed government
>agents.
>
WRONG! No license is required to grow or sell tobacco.
>Selling drugs that kill people are illegal, except for licensed
>government agents.
>
LOL, wrong again.
>
>(Prescription drug mistakes kill more than one person a day in NY alone)
>
Could be, but at least the seller can be sued.
>
>Selling water is illegal, except for licensed government agents.
>
LOL
>Hunting and fishing are illegal, except for licensed government agents.
>
LOL, where did you get this one?
>Being homeless is illegal, unless registered at a licensed government
>shelter and checked into the criminal database.
>
LOL! You have truly lost your mind.
>Traffic laws are meaningless to licensed government agents.
>
LOL, excepot when they get sued in court....
>Using the government owned airwaves is illegal, except for licensed
>government agents.
>
Someone has to regulate the airwaves to prevent chaos...
>Using government owned lands is illegal, except for licensed government
>agents.
>
LOL, where did you get his one? What about parks and recreation areas?
>Making weapons for self defense is illegal, except for licensed
>government agents.
>
It is?
>
>Killing the innocent is illegal, except for licensed government agents.
>
Is it? Then how come abortion is legal?
>Owning property is illegal here in New York State, except for the
>government.
You have totally lost your mind.
>All others rent the property from the government.
>
They should be by to pick you up any minute.
>Cops are immune from OSHA federal rules of safety in the workplace as
>applied to putting themselves into danger to escalate every encounter to
>justifiable deadly force, which endangers both the employee and the
>surrounding inhabitants.
ROFLMAO!
Sgt Walt
>Rest assured, if I had a dozen criminal realtives, the whereabouts of my
>relatives are not my responsibility....
>
Tell us Barb, do you hae any responsibilities?
>BARB does not have pending charges against her in Rome City Court.
>WALT, a state of NY employee, is the defendant facing charges in Rome
>City Court.
>
Barb, I am surprised. You did not post my last court date... Why is that?
I will be glad to post the judges decision when it comes down in the next few
weeks.
viscera
millimeter and misspelled in
news:<20010707200959...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
> >> Ken,
> OLSON,
> Where did you get this from? Blacks were not at all involved in the drug trade
> at the time of the Harrison Act! Where did this "fear"(?) come from? Why
> would any one have such a fear if they were not at all involved in the trade?
> This makes no sense at all.
> the AMA was a blip on the radar screen. What was cannabis used to treat
> there such a book? I have heard of the PDR. It goes back I believe to the
> 30's (not sure of that). What I want is VERIFIABLE FACTS! I do not agree with
> the THEORY that there are more problems caused by enforcement.
drug propaganda released at the time. In fact, not only cannabis but
the other "hard" drugs were sold OTC before the H act. Did you know
that 'Heroin' was a brand name trademarked by Bayer? Yep, the same
folks who sell you baby aspirin.
LHCB
"viscera" <viscerai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:22892240.0107...@posting.google.com...
Invented at about the same time as aspirin, too. Heroin was looked at as a
hoefully non-addictive substitute for morphine (oops on that one). It was
also popular as a cough medicine.
Ken (MI)
Sgt Walt
>> Where did you get this from? Blacks were not at all involved in the drug
>trade
>> at the time of the Harrison Act! Where did this "fear"(?) come from? Why
>> would any one have such a fear if they were not at all involved in the
>trade?
>> This makes no sense at all.
>> As far as the Congesssional Record, you are going to have to show us that
>one.
>> What lies were the members of Congress told? At the time this bill was
>passed,
>> the AMA was a blip on the radar screen. What was cannabis used to treat
>> according to the US Pharmcoepia? I have never even hear of this book. Is
>> there such a book? I have heard of the PDR. It goes back I believe to the
>> 30's (not sure of that). What I want is VERIFIABLE FACTS! I do not agree
>with
>> the THEORY that there are more problems caused by enforcement.
> JESUS! look it up your own lazy self! Check out some of the anti
>drug propaganda released at the time. In fact, not only cannabis but
>the other "hard" drugs were sold OTC before the H act. Did you know
>that 'Heroin' was a brand name trademarked by Bayer? Yep, the same
>folks who sell you baby aspirin.
Speaking of lazy? Sorry, but I'm not into anit-drug propaganda. But you want
to "enlighten us"?
No, shit, Sherlock, that hard drugs as well as Maryjo was sold over the
counter. Guess the stopped it because it was DANGEROUS! Oh, incidently,
which word or words did I misspell ?
Sgt Walt
>hoefully non-addictive substitute for morphine (oops on that one). It was
>also popular as a cough medicine.
>
>Ken (MI)
>
>
>
>
And?
LHCB
Just a point of information, Walt.
dnarshMAX
of automobiles were required to.. !) Pay for a license to do so and later... 2)
Pass a driving test in order to get one and... 3) Show proof of having
insurance before getting one.
I'll never forget mu aunt telling us the story of how she was driving too fast
one day many years ago when she was stopped by a cop on her birthday for
speeding.
He asked her what's the hurry lady?
It's my birthday and I am on my way to get my diver's license. He gave her a
pass. The Law had been passed that on their next birthday anyone who wished to
drive needed to get a license. That was in MO those long decades past.
Bottom line,,,,,once some years ago, Americans were free totravel roads all
across the land without eventelling anyone your name, where you were from and
where you were going, or what you did for a living, etc. etc. etc.
In fact, asking such things at one time invited a response that often became a
reason for the use of deadly force by more than simple badge wearers. <grin>
Just as the beginning of "Civilization" began with the stop and go control of
the chariots at the Roman intersections, it seems we are cursed with the ever
encroaching into our personal lives snoops claiming "we are from the
government, and are here to help you" mindset.
I se an America who has had it major metropolitan centers incinerated in an
nucleur exchange and the gene pool eing restarted with the Right Wing Religious
zealots living in rural America along with the radical freedom loving Prisoners
from the countless Prisons left standing in these rural fields all over
America.
WOW, those were some GOOD meds...<grin>
blli...@webtv.net
>And?
>Fraternally,
>Walt
>Sgt. NYSDOCS
>"The last refuge of someone with nothing
>to say is Ad Hominem."
***************
Indianapolis Star
July 02, 2001
In a move that some call a retreat and others defend as a bow to
reality, Indiana lawmakers have done away with mandatory 20-year
sentences for many drug dealers.
"The legislature threw in the towel," Marion County Prosecutor Scott
Newman said. "I can't bargain for the kinds of penalties I used to be
able to get in drug cases because I don't have that hammer anymore."
Under the old law, anyone caught with at least 3 grams of cocaine --
that's about the size of three Sweet-and-Low packets -- would be charged
with dealing. If found guilty, they would receive an automatic sentence
of 20 years in prison.
With a new law that took effect Sunday, judges have the authority to
sentence drug dealers as they see fit. That might mean suspending all
prison time or sending convicted dealers to some kind of drug treatment
program.
"Finally the legislature woke up from the failed policies of the drug
war and decided to give judges back the discretion they should have
always had," said Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public
Defenders Council.
"You shouldn't be able to put a gun to somebody's head and say plead
guilty or you're going to go to prison for a minimum 20 years."
Landis said the state's prison population has tripled in the past 20
years to more than 19,000 inmates, largely because of disproportionate
sentences handed to drug dealers.
Under the new rules, judges have the same discretion with drug dealers
that they have when they sentence rapists, armed robbers and burglars,
Landis noted.
Not all prosecutors oppose the changes.
"I don't think it's serving any useful purpose to fill our prisons with
people who are convicted of dealing one hundred dollars worth of crack,"
said Lake County Prosecutor Bob Wright. "I think we had the war on drugs
and we lost, and now we better plan a new strategy for solving this
problem."
Wright said the old penalties ended up sending small-time dealers,
people who were selling drugs to support their habits, to prison for a
long time.
"The people we see on a day-to-day basis for manufacturing meth or
selling crack, technically, they don't have two nickels to rub
together," Wright said. "They don't need to go to prison for 20 years.
All they need to do is stop using drugs."
Vanderburgh County Deputy Prosecutor Mike Perry said the changes are
good and bad. It will be harder to plea-bargain some cases, but he also
will be able to win longer sentences for methamphetamine dealers.
"It's frankly my opinion that the dealers need to be locked up and the
users need to be helped," said Perry, the director of the office's drug
law enforcement program.
Perry said he will have to see how the changes play out in the
courtroom. If it becomes a problem, Perry said, he probably will ask
lawmakers to try to make some changes.
Steve Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys
Council, said prosecutors across the state were split on the issue.
"Judges can still hammer people, there's no question about it," Johnson
said. "They didn't loosen up any of the penalties."
As the state spends more and more on keeping people locked up, lawmakers
have frowned on the prospect of building more prisons in favor of
expanding cheaper alternatives, such as home detention and work release.
Johnson said that about 40 percent of Class A felons, the most serious
offenders, being held in Indiana prisons were convicted of a drug crime.
Prosecutors are going to have to revise their plea policies, Johnson
said. But that doesn't mean the big-time drug dealers will be handed a
get-out-of-jail-free card.
This new change does not signal a new, kinder, gentler approach to drug
dealing, Johnson said. In fact, lawmakers eliminated the mandatory
sentences in the same bill that increased the penalties for dealing
methamphetamine.
"It's not a reversal, but it's a second look," he said.
jimseprodi
> In a move that some call a retreat and others defend as a bow to
> reality, Indiana lawmakers have done away with mandatory 20-year
> sentences for many drug dealers.
as one who was on the end of this...IT IS ABOUT TIME!!!
dnarshMAX
>
>On 09 Jul 2001 20:58:01 GMT, sgt...@aol.com (Sgt Walt) succinctly
>stated:
>
>>>Let's see, some people are allergic to aspirin, would you consider it
>>>"safe"?
>>>
>>
>>I certainly would.
>
>dangerous analgesic drugs http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-001.shtml
>
>>>Let's see, some people are allergic to peanuts, would you consider them
>>>"safe"?
>>>
>>
>>And those people know about their allergy?
>
>because some people can't handle it.
>
>>>Let's see, some people are allergic to milk, would you consider it "safe"?
>>>
>>
>>Sure would, same as above.
>
>
>>>There are people that will die due to the above allergies. Shouldn't we
>then
>>>outlaw the above listed substances and lock up anyone who produces and/or
>>>traffics in them?
>>>
>>
>of
>>itself makes the drug dangerous.
>
>So is alcohol, yet that is legal. OTC Robitussin is also a
>mind-altering substance. Going by your reasoning alcohol should be
>illegal as should a great many OTC drugs.
>
>>>Drinking too much water in a short period of time can lead to death. Maybe
>>>we should outlaw that, too.
>>>
>>
>>Do you know of anyone who has done so? Hmm, one could say the same about
>any
>>substance. Eat too much and you could kill yourself too. You are using the
>>ludicrious to try to prove your "point". Not very effective.
>
>your definition of what should be illegal.
>
>>>Personally, I found that marijuana helped settle my stomach if I had the
>flu
>>>or was just plain nauseated. Gee, that's what people in chemotherapy or
>>>receiving anti-AIDS drugs say, too. Yet, some people would still want to
>put
>>>them in prison.
>>>
>>>Ken (MI)
>>
>>
>>How many legal drugs are there that could have settled your stomach without
>the
>>mind altering properties of canabalis?
>>There are plenty of legal drugs to do the same for chemo patients.
>>And the reason some want to put them in prison is that it is ilegal to do
>>marijuana.
>
>Canada is talking about legalizing marijuana, as is England, and
>neither only for medicinal purposes. It's only a matter of time before
>outmoded, outdated thinking such as what you have shown becomes
>irrelevant.
>
I think we should give credit where credit is due. There are SOME here who
profess to doing a job, doing it according to the rules and let the chips fall
where they may.
Yet, SOME of these same people do make attempts to justify those rules that
they had/nor have any part in formiulating in an effort to add substance to the
job they are doing, and would do no matter if the rules were cancelled,
changed, stood on their head (180 change) because they are simply "following
orders."
Of course, if a new busload of "fish" came through the gate charged, found
guilty and sentensed for a new law of smoking tailor made National Brand
cigarettes made illegal here in the USA yet still legal elsewhere in the world,
you know the guards would not make any fuss, any change and maybe even treat
the new convicts the same as a killer, armed robber, embezzler, etc. that's
their job.
I have no quarrel with anyone doing "their job". What bothers me are those that
creat from their position of power and authority some "new job" of simply a
personal nature, like meteing out their own brand of hell they feel obligated
to themselves to do as a perk in being an angel of vengeance for "all victims"
of crime they feel are not being adequately represented in our system. These
folks are a danger to Cons, COs and the unsuspecting new victim once these rage
filled targeted objects of these GOON type guards are released.
Can't repeat this often enough it seems to make the point stick.
LHCB
<just...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9t1vktggj3drmumc8...@4ax.com...
> >>"safe"?
> >>
> >
> >I certainly would.
>
> dangerous analgesic drugs http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-001.shtml
>
> >>"safe"?
> >>
> >
> >And those people know about their allergy?
>
> because some people can't handle it.
>
"safe"?
> >>
> >
> >Sure would, same as above.
>
>
then
> >>outlaw the above listed substances and lock up anyone who produces
and/or
> >>traffics in them?
> >>
> >
> >The fact is that pot is a hallucinogen. It is mind altering. This in
and of
> >itself makes the drug dangerous.
>
> mind-altering substance. Going by your reasoning alcohol should be
> illegal as should a great many OTC drugs.
>
Maybe
> >>we should outlaw that, too.
> >>
> >
> >Do you know of anyone who has done so? Hmm, one could say the same
about any
> >substance. Eat too much and you could kill yourself too. You are using
the
> >ludicrious to try to prove your "point". Not very effective.
>
> your definition of what should be illegal.
>
flu
> >>or was just plain nauseated. Gee, that's what people in chemotherapy or
> >>receiving anti-AIDS drugs say, too. Yet, some people would still want to
put
> >>them in prison.
> >>
> >>Ken (MI)
> >
> >
> >How many legal drugs are there that could have settled your stomach
without the
> >mind altering properties of canabalis?
> >There are plenty of legal drugs to do the same for chemo patients.
> >And the reason some want to put them in prison is that it is ilegal to do
> >marijuana.
>
> Canada is talking about legalizing marijuana, as is England, and
> neither only for medicinal purposes. It's only a matter of time before
> outmoded, outdated thinking such as what you have shown becomes
> irrelevant.
>
Walt can never really get beyond the idea that something should be illegal
because it is illegal. He also keeps showing that he knows little of logic.
The point is, it's none of the government's business what substance I may
want to use to settle my stomach, especially if it's something I can grow
myself.
LHCB
"dnarshMAX" <mywingso...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010713201232...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> >From: just...@hotmail.com
> >
> >On 09 Jul 2001 20:58:01 GMT, sgt...@aol.com (Sgt Walt) succinctly
> >stated:
> >
> >>>Let's see, some people are allergic to aspirin, would you consider it
> >>>"safe"?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I certainly would.
Even though it kills more people per year than marijuana.
> >
> >Acetaminophen (Tylenol) is perhaps one of the more potentially
> >dangerous analgesic drugs http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-001.shtml
> >
> >>>Let's see, some people are allergic to peanuts, would you consider them
> >>>"safe"?
> >>>
> >>
> >>And those people know about their allergy?
Many of them do, yes.
> >
> >Irrelevant; the discussion is about laws that outlaw a given substance
> >because some people can't handle it.
> >
> >>>Let's see, some people are allergic to milk, would you consider it
"safe"?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sure would, same as above.
> >
> >Again, irrelevant and does not address the point.
> >
> >>>There are people that will die due to the above allergies. Shouldn't we
> >then
> >>>outlaw the above listed substances and lock up anyone who produces
and/or
> >>>traffics in them?
> >>>
> >>
> >>The fact is that pot is a hallucinogen. It is mind altering. This in
and
> >of
> >>itself makes the drug dangerous.
LOL
> >
> >So is alcohol, yet that is legal. OTC Robitussin is also a
> >mind-altering substance. Going by your reasoning alcohol should be
> >illegal as should a great many OTC drugs.
> >
> >>>Drinking too much water in a short period of time can lead to death.
Maybe
> >>>we should outlaw that, too.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Do you know of anyone who has done so? Hmm, one could say the same
about
> >any
> >>substance. Eat too much and you could kill yourself too. You are using
the
> >>ludicrious to try to prove your "point". Not very effective.
Very effective. It only takes one example to defeat an absolute statement.
> >
> >And you ignore the facts: there are many legal substances that fit
> >your definition of what should be illegal.
> >
> >>>Personally, I found that marijuana helped settle my stomach if I had
the
> >flu
> >>>or was just plain nauseated. Gee, that's what people in chemotherapy or
> >>>receiving anti-AIDS drugs say, too. Yet, some people would still want
to
> >put
> >>>them in prison.
> >>>
> >>>Ken (MI)
> >>
> >>
> >>How many legal drugs are there that could have settled your stomach
without
> >the
> >>mind altering properties of canabalis?
> >>There are plenty of legal drugs to do the same for chemo patients.
> >>And the reason some want to put them in prison is that it is ilegal to
do
> >>marijuana.
There are plenty of patients that other drugs don't do shit for. Having
someone swallow a medicine to settle their stomach and have them vomit it
right back up is ludicrous. Letting them use a medicine that they can't
vomit makes sense. Re: Peter McWilliams.
> >
> >There is a growing groundswell of popular opinion to change this.
> >Canada is talking about legalizing marijuana, as is England, and
> >neither only for medicinal purposes. It's only a matter of time before
> >outmoded, outdated thinking such as what you have shown becomes
> >irrelevant.
It's gathering momentum on a daily basis.
I have used the term "avenging angel for society" myself to describe those
who make a habit of stirring up more problems than they fix, making it more
dangerous inside for all, and brainwashing themselves into thinking they're
doind a hell of a job.
Ken (MI)
jimseprodi
other ill-tempered officer who made the decision to walk in the middle
of the basketball court and attempt to take an inmates shoes because
they were altered. It is the rules, but in the midst of 200 offenders
was not the best place to address this issue
> >
>
> I have used the term "avenging angel for society" myself to describe those
> who make a habit of stirring up more problems than they fix, making it more
> dangerous inside for all, and brainwashing themselves into thinking they're
> doind a hell of a job.
>
> Ken (MI)
people like this promoted so that they can be examples....uhhh