Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

[Shaman]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1116621--dimanno-curtain-raised-on-biggest-cop-corruption-case-in-toronto-history?bn=1


Some of you cop apologists have no idea how common this story is in Ontario. This is literally the tip of the iceberg.

And you wonder why I have such a firm anti-cop stance...?

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Slippery slopes go the other way too and nothing you said supports drugs being legal, which is the basis of the original point.

Go back and reread. I said there's recent studies that say light marajuana use (1 joint/week) has no harmful effect whatsoever. here's where you decide that you don't like those paramaters and again claim tht you and only your view is right.

 

[caboose56]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Go back and reread. I said there's recent studies that say light marajuana use (1 joint/week) has no harmful effect whatsoever. here's where you decide that you don't like those paramaters and again claim tht you and only your view is right.

Perhaps he's bitter because he believes this country that has granted him the opportunity to make a very decent living is now over taxing him. If his political ideals don't line up with certain philosophies that are typically very "Canadian" maybe he could move to a different country that suits his beliefs better. From what I hear there is one such country nearby.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

And after he's gotten the drug users and motorcyclists removed frommthe subsuidised healthcare, he can go after the handicapped and mentally ill. It's not like they pay into the system, after all.

 

[caboose56]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

And after he's gotten the drug users and motorcyclists removed frommthe subsuidised healthcare, he can go after the handicapped and mentally ill. It's not like they pay into the system, after all.

Why stop there? Any injury or ailment that could have been reasonably prevented will be denied coverage.

 

[nfq]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Why stop there? Any injury or ailment that could have been reasonably prevented will be denied coverage.

You working for an insurance company now? Policy writer or what?

 

[caboose56]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

You working for an insurance company now? Policy writer or what?

I was being facetious.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

And after he's gotten the drug users and motorcyclists removed frommthe subsuidised healthcare, he can go after the handicapped and mentally ill. It's not like they pay into the system, after all.

Because voluntary behaviour is the same as genetics.

If drug use is as benign as you claim then what I said shouldn't affect one's health insurance because there would be no link between the aliment and the drug use.
But when it comes to smoking, the science is pretty clear that it does cost society billions of dollars, or did you conveniently forget that our government is still trying to sue tobacco companies to recuperate health care costs.

We as a society subsidize both the consumer's health detriment, the people the consumer harms and the profits of the manufacturer.
Yeah I am saying thats wrong. I still don't see a good reason to hand over my money to meth labs, tobacco companies, poppy growers, and none of you have given me one.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

I still don't see a good reason to hand over my money to meth labs, tobacco companies, poppy growers, and none of you have given me one.

And you still haven't given a good reason why or how cutting off meth, cigarette, and heroin users' medicare will eradicate the use of those substances.



Other than standing back and smugly watching them die, of course.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

And you still haven't given a good reason why or how cutting off meth, cigarette, and heroin users' medicare will eradicate the use of those substances.

I didn't say it would. I don't really care what other people do with their lives. I have no goals to eradicate drugs, I just don't see a compelling argument why I should pay for the personal costs of that behaviour or subsidize the manufacturer. ( and neither does our government really. )

I have no problems with current goverment initiatves such as safe injection sites or treatment of the drug addicted, I also don't care to put drug users in jail (manufacturers and distributors are different), but I certainly don't see how that equates to an argument that we should legalize it.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

My coworker just chimed in again. He said there's already a shortage of doctors and hospital beds, and someone like you who willingly put's themselves at risk riding a motorcycle shouldn't be allowed to take up valuable time/space of the health care profession when they could be otherwise caring for people who aren't so cavalier about their personal safety when you crash. His point is just as valid as yours.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Can't think for yourself? need your co-worker to help you out?

the societal cost of motorcycling is at all comparable to drugs right? Do you see our government sue motorcycle companies?
thats just Reductio ad absurdum.

Driving is more dangerous than walking. Eating at mcdonalds is unhealthy. Lines get drawn somewhere, and you haven't said a single thing that supports why society should draw the line to include heroine, meth, etc... as "legal"..., while raw milk is still not.

So tell me why it should be legal, its always easy to argue against things when you don't actually have a position.

 

[mungo]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

I think all this arguing about insurance is leading away from the real issue. There are many personal choices/risky behavior that are worse than average drug use (personal opinion) ..and, as was posted earlier, legalization reduces health care costs for users.

What some people don't get is that prohibition doesn't work.

.....and even if it did cost more in health care (or cost society in some other way) that cost is far outweighed by the cost of fighting organized crime, policing gangs (plus the cost to society of gangs defending their turf) and imprisoning people for drug crimes.

Also, not all drugs are created equal. There's a huge difference between, say, heroin users and ecstasy users and they can't/shouldn't be treated the same.

 

[sixstring]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

No cop has ever bent me over anything. But the attitude is exactly what I am talking about, name another profession where a bunch of jackasses are hostile to you before you even do anything.

The fact that people don't like cops or are hostile towards them doesn't mean their job is thankless. They are well compensated in every sense for doing their job and I dare say you don't disagree with that.

Now, a cop is paid to bust people and enforce the law. So they shouldn't expect a cheerful welcome from the person they're out to bust (whether they deserve it or not). Any reasonable cop should know this.

And some of the practices they use to bust people are just dirty. I got caught in a speed trap where the cops setup a laser RIGHT UNDER a 60km/h begins sign catching cars that were speeding up from 50 - 60 (I was caught ~180m from the sign). You get the impression that they're out for busts more than they're out to make roads safer.

What’s worse is that you KNOW cops break the very rules they bust you up for on a regular basis (while taking your tax money) and they'd never get/rarely (grudgingly rare) busted for it. And they sleep just fine knowing that.

If you put it all together, I'm surprised people are as nice as they are to the police!

 

[sixstring]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

My coworker just chimed in again. He said there's already a shortage of doctors and hospital beds, and someone like you who willingly put's themselves at risk riding a motorcycle shouldn't be allowed to take up valuable time/space of the health care profession when they could be otherwise caring for people who aren't so cavalier about their personal safety when you crash. His point is just as valid as yours.

What your coworker is basically saying is that in his opinion there ought to be a defined threashold of risk, loosely defined by the level of physical strain, beyond which people should not be given coverage for should they suffer an accident?

I hope you can see there are more holes than material here.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Its a fairy tale to imagine a health insurance system that doesn't cover everyone no matter what risky business they engage in?

I don't really care what other people do with their lives. I have no goals to eradicate drugs, I just don't see a compelling argument why I should pay for the personal costs of that behaviour or subsidize the manufacturer. ( and neither does our government really. )

I have no problems with current goverment initiatves such as safe injection sites or treatment of the drug addicted, I also don't care to put drug users in jail (manufacturers and distributors are different), but I certainly don't see how that equates to an argument that we should legalize it.

You are paying for our current approach (likely triple, once for LEO, once for judicial, and once for Healthcare), no doubt about it... what costs society less, and what has a better outcome. Other then that, F it. The "other" approaches prove to work better and cost less, why should we continue on our current path.

And without legalization and regulation, you have ZERO chance of controlling "manufacturers and distributors" ESPECIALLY if they relax the law on users without being a part of the chain somewhere. You are just "shooting fish in the ocean".

And you do care what they do moraly... there really is no other argument for that approach.

Goal and "Eradicate drugs"... only a teetotaler would put those words in a sentance. :lmao:

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Costing less isn't the only consideration in what society does or does not do. There is lots of enforcement in public good that have little to do with saving money.

We have regulations for food, water, activities.
we have laws for wearing seatbelts and helmets, car safety and emissions, noise, pollution, cleaniness in food and food production. hormones in our meat, asbestos in our walls, You can't just sell sewer water in bottles.
and yet, we find ways to control those things, and spend resources on it. Even though it arguably is cheaper to not do it.
How are drugs different from the other gazillion things in the world that the government restricts due to its harm to people?

Its stupid to suggest that the government should be protecting society against unhygenic food but not a guy making LSD in a basement.

The only drug that even has a chance of getting legalized is marajuana, and thats because the harm caused by it is minor compared to other substances that are currently legal.

Legalizing heroine? cocane? forget it. If there is any fairy tales being told here, that is it.

Lastly, the "prohibition doesn't work" argument is just retarded. ya we have laws against murder and theft and speeding, but people still break those laws. So how is the fact that people commit crimes a reason to make things legal? It is not. Making everything legal results in a 0 % crime rate, anyone want to live there?

 

[Scuba Steve]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Costing less isn't the only consideration in what society does or does not do. There is lots of enforcement in public good that have little to do with saving money.

We have regulations for food, water, activities.
we have laws for wearing seatbelts and helmets, car safety and emissions, noise, pollution, cleaniness in food and food production. hormones in our meat, asbestos in our walls, You can't just sell sewer water in bottles.
and yet, we find ways to control those things, and spend resources on it. Even though it arguably is cheaper to not do it.
How are drugs different from the other gazillion things in the world that the government restricts due to its harm to people?

Its stupid to suggest that the government should be protecting society against unhygenic food but not a guy making LSD in a basement.

The only drug that even has a chance of getting legalized is marajuana, and thats because the harm caused by it is minor compared to other substances that are currently legal.

Legalizing heroine? cocane? forget it. If there is any fairy tales being told here, that is it.

What about legalised, taxed drugs made in a approved and inspected factory, basically the same as a food or any big pharma plant? The taxes on the product would be used to cover the anticipated health care costs.This would save our society a fortune in police, judical and jail costs. We already sell a drug (alcohol) at a goverment store and could simply expand this model.

We as motorcyclists are paying for our own heath care through insurance, OHIP bills your insurance company after an accident for your health care costs related to motorcycling.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

What about legalised, taxed drugs made in a approved and inspected factory, basically the same as a food or any big pharma plant? The taxes on the product would be used to cover the anticipated health care costs.This would save our society a fortune in police, judical and jail costs. We already sell a drug (alcohol) at a goverment store and could simply expand this model.

We as motorcyclists are paying for our own heath care through insurance, OHIP bills your insurance company after an accident for your health care costs related to motorcycling.

I can see it for Marijuana, but that is only due to the numerous scientific studies that show its lack of harm ( even the SCC accepted that )
But in terms of other drugs I would hesitate to agree. Because the government does have a responsiblity to regulate activity to ensure a certain level of safety.
There are some things that simply can not be used safely, and those things tend to be illegal. It would be great if it was revenue neutral, but as I wrote in the post you quoted, economics can not be the only consideration.
For example, asbestos will not be legal no matter how revenue neutral it is, because the substance is inherently dangerous. even assuming you could tax asbestos and cover the back end health care costs, its not just about dollars and cents. I don't really want to be in the business of putting monetary values on people's health, as most people that suffered grevious injuries will tell you, no amount of money is worth it.

 

[mungo]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Lastly, the "prohibition doesn't work" argument is just retarded

"The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world"

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Ya... I'm sure the US is going to win that War on Drugs any day now