Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most dangerous 'thing' about this operation is the 'unknown' about the situation, not the drug..
You make it sound as if happy hippies were in charge and the cops were raiding some commune.
Fact- the owner has a penchant for carrying a firearm. All well and fine, but I think the folks trying to uphold the law need to do their jobs and be protected while doing it. Big deal if they look like 'stormtroopers'.
It really sounds as if you have multiple gripes, not just with the MM issues. No offense, but I'm not going to continue this 'circular' discussion. An old saying comes to mind...
If they can now measure it, then it should be legalized and regulated the exact same way alcohol is. Not just medical, but legalize it for everybody.
I think I mentioned this last time the topic went around. There's a new breathalizer gadget available that can measure intoxication levels for five common street drugs -- MJ, cocaine, meth, heroin, and I forget what else. So now "we can't prove how stoned you were" is no longer a legal excuse.
But here's another thought: what if we made more use of the drunk tank, and less use of the courts? So if someone is DUI, instead of wasting everyone's time and money prosecuting 'em after the fact, we just haul 'em off the street til they're sober again? Fine 'em for their overnight keep (or if they can't pay, put 'em to working it off) and throw 'em back out, based on the reasonable judgment of the observing officer and the aforementioned gadget. It doesn't even need to be a crime. (Yeah, you'll get some regulars. Big deal -- the park needs litter picked up and the pothole crew needs shovellers.)
Isn't the point of the law to keep other people safe? Wouldn't more patrols and on-the-spot enforcement, getting the DUI off the street while he's a hazard work better for the public's safety than the ever-escalating prosecution after the fact?? You can't cure someone's DUI habit by taking away their license in court; they'll just drive without it (and are even more likely to if fined half a year's pay and they have to go to work to pay it off).
Unfortunately they wear body armor because they tend to get shot at, by increasingly more sophisticated weapons. We don't live in Mayberry RFD any more.
Unfortunately it also works the other way around. The more SWAT-equipped the cops are, the more it becomes "US vs THEM" and the more excuses they find to USE the SWAT equipment -- so we have more and more of those raids gone wrong, and innocent people are increasingly being harmed or even killed by it.
The very definition of a police state is "police are better-armed than the citizens".
You don't see that so much in Montana partly because the cops there still have to act like real people, not like licensed thugs in heavy armament. But give 'em all SWAT equipment, and you'll see a change (especially when fueled by civil asset forfeiture as a perk of drug raids -- no drugs need be involved). I've watched it change here. The cops in CA are no longer our friends and protectors; they are rapidly becoming the enemy of everyday people.
As to the hazards of the job, turns out "farmer" is a much more hazardous occupation in terms of likelihood of being killed or seriously injured on the job. "Cop" isn't even in the top 50. (As I recall it's ranked something like 65th of out of the 200 most hazardous occupations, based on real death/injury stats, NOT on the perception of relative hazard.) But getting shot makes more dramatic news footage than being run over by a tractor or kicked by a horse.
Well if my tractor or (God forbid) a horse starts shooting at me I guess we'll have to do something radical in that department too..
So accidental deaths from a kick from a horse or a rollover on tractor are somehow meant to marginalize the inherant risks a cop has in his or her line of work? They can't be BETTER equipped in the field than those that would or could willingly do them harm?
No offense- my tractor is equipped with ROPS, a seat belt and other safety devices to make my job on the seat more safe.
So a cop doesn't have that right? To be better equipped to save their lives?
I think the bottom line here is MT got caught absolutely flat-footed by an amendment which, on first blush, seemed like a magnanimous way to aid people who were faced with pain, effects of cancer treatment, and various other medical problems. Being basically an empathetic lot, it seemed to be "the right thing". Kept in it's original form, it was. Adhered to both state and federal law.
But guess what? Like many things, it got skewed and people with little or no interest in much but personal profit put the whammy on things by exploiting language that was poorly written or completely absent. The onus is on the legislating body to put things right and make the law work like it should. That way we don't have DEA and other federal raids on local businesses. They didn't come in here without having evidence of some sort which aroused suspicion. Evidently some of the investigations had been ongoing since 2007. The Billings Gazette and others have obtained evidence from some unsealed warrants that there is more than just cause for charges of trafficking and tax evasion. Boy, there's a shocker...
If we're going to make this thing a medical issue, let's do so. If we're going to make it a recreational issue (like alcohol), so be it. But quit dancing around and call a spade a spade. We've got gangs eyeballing this state as a potential refuge; a cop friend says the winters are the only thing keeping larger scale activity at bay. Montana may wind up being a gulag for L.A. and other gangs to strand their miscreant members to think things over.
BTW, Threerun, you're correct. I've a friend who is a career guy with a federal law enforcement agency and conducted many raids on drug operations over the years. On more than one occasion he's told me of busts on small time operations that have went from fairly friendly to life-threatening within seconds. You never really know what you're getting into, and sometimes they turn very dangerous; much like domestic calls the cops get. The gear may look intimidating, but it also saves life and limb. The images you saw from Montana were evidence of a pretty low key objective.
Well if my tractor or (God forbid) a horse starts shooting at me I guess we'll have to do something radical in that department too..
So accidental deaths from a kick from a horse or a rollover on tractor are somehow meant to marginalize the inherant risks a cop has in his or her line of work? They can't be BETTER equipped in the field than those that would or could willingly do them harm?
No offense- my tractor is equipped with ROPS, a seat belt and other safety devices to make my job on the seat more safe.
So a cop doesn't have that right? To be better equipped to save their lives?
Not if you believe in the 2nd Amendment as our Founders intended. A cop has no "rights" that any other human being does not also have. 2A is NOT about hunting or even personal self defense. It was because a government that is better armed than the citizenry cannot be trusted. It was a direct result of the Battle of Lexington and Concord when government thugs were sent to confiscate the civilian militias weapons... which included CANNON, btw.
It was the intention of our Founders that the primary role of defending the country from enemies both foreign and domestic would be a well-armed citizenry.
Not if you believe in the 2nd Amendment as our Founders intended. A cop has no "rights" that any other human being does not also have. 2A is NOT about hunting or even personal self defense. It was because a government that is better armed than the citizenry cannot be trusted. It was a direct result of the Battle of Lexington and Concord when government thugs were sent to confiscate the civilian militias weapons... which included CANNON, btw.
It was the intention of our Founders that the primary role of defending the country from enemies both foreign and domestic would be a well-armed citizenry.
This makes less sense than most of the arguments, and every citizen has the right to protect themselves, that includes a law enforcement officer lawfully perfoming his duties. No one has the right to arbitrarily assasinate someone enforcing the law as it exists against someone who knowingly breaks that law.
If a criminal involved in criminal activities is accosted by duly authorized officers of the law, the criminal does not have the "right" to kill to protect the criminal activity.
If they feel the officer is not performing their duties as ordered, they can take that argument to court for redress of grievence. Also a constitutional right.
I don't personally care if someone wants to throw their life away using drugs or alcohol, I do care for the wrecked lives of the ones they leave behind.
If someone has legitimate need for medicine, fine. Have it perscribed in specific doses through a licensed pharmacy that ensures dose and quality. Smoking a weed from the backyard does not seem like a professional answer to me, but hey, if you need it, there is lots of loco weed out in the hills.
Knock yourself out.
This makes less sense than most of the arguments, and every citizen has the right to protect themselves, that includes a law enforcement officer lawfully perfoming his duties. No one has the right to arbitrarily assasinate someone enforcing the law as it exists against someone who knowingly breaks that law.
If a criminal involved in criminal activities is accosted by duly authorized officers of the law, the criminal does not have the "right" to kill to protect the criminal activity.
I never said anything like what you said here. I said they do not have any rights other than those every human being has. In particular that they do NOT have some special right to have vastly superior weaponry than ordinary citizens, which is what the other poster asserted.
Quote:
If they feel the officer is not performing their duties as ordered, they can take that argument to court for redress of grievence. Also a constitutional right.
Yeah, right. First, it doesn't matter if you are dead. Second, even when the cops are obviously wrong and the whole universe watched it on YouTube, they still get off easy.
Any time one person is empowered to do something that would be a crime when done by an ordinary citizen, you have a DANGEROUS person, and people who get their rocks off exerting power over others will be naturally attracted to the job. Giving them more and bigger guns is a BAD idea.
I never said anything like what you said here. I said they do not have any rights other than those every human being has. In particular that they do NOT have some special right to have vastly superior weaponry than ordinary citizens, which is what the other poster asserted.
Having body armor is not being overpowered. Using a flash-bang device is not equivalent to a frag grenade. Having semi-auto weapons is in no way superior to what you or I could purchase at a sporting goods store in less than 30 minutes.
I never asserted they have the right to use napalm, or M-60's, or an airstrike. I asserted they have the right to PROTECT themselves, just like my newest safety equipment protects me from the dangers of doing a job.
ALL natural state agricultural products should be legal. Regulated perhaps (and quite lightly) but still very legal. Use is distinctly different from abuse.
Drugs are in the mainstream of society. Interdiction is a failure.
I suspect that everyone here could readily obtain whatever currently illicit substance of choice that they wished without much effort.
One day... bud will be seen in wicker baskets next to the heirloom tomato's in your local farmers market. These hare brained scheme to "tax and regulate" tho... are a fools errand that will only create a NEW black market and continue a police mindset... but that is sort of the point for those behind the movement. Without maintaining the current black market price levels there will never be enough cash volume to be worth the tax mechanisms being put in place let lone maintaining. There is no agricultural or marketing reasons for Marijuana to cost more than coffee does.
Weed is a weed remember? An herb that will grow just about anywhere and even the more serious smoker (as opposed to the wake and bake stoners) isn't likely to consume more than a couple of ounces in a year... and that's a lot.
WWJD
Paul: "Man, that roach isn’t enough for all of us."
Jesus: "Keep passing it. Don't Bogart it. Trust me, there will be enough for everyone."
Peter: "Far out, man."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
