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.
seems as though the drug war consumes such a heavy share of police and prison resources. you see these documentaries where dea agents are flying over forests in california looking for marijuana. does anyone know how expensive it is to keep these in the air. imo that money would be better spent on crimes where therte is a victim
if you're against the DEA, who's gonna raid crystal meth labs?
DEA all the way
no one! if someone wants to sell manufacture and sell crystal meth that is their economic right to do so. if someone wants to buy, smoke, snort, inject or injest any drug, that is their civil right to do so. the doj estimate that around 800 000 kids under the age of 18 go missing every year.
to me it is criminal that we allocate huge resources for helicopters to bust a few dope growers while this many kids go missing. in fact it's a national disgrace. around 40% of all murders go unsolved every year. that is another national disgrace.
I would say no, just as I would say that the many people checking parking meters are not indirectly responsible for those unsolved crimes.
as much as i hate parking attendants, most of them pay for themselves. they are not competing against homicide divisions, robbery units or missing persons branches for funding. they also aren't paying for agents to go joy riding, at huge expense to the taxpayer, on paramotors, helicopters, submarines, etc.
as much as i hate parking attendants, most of them pay for themselves. they are not competing against homicide divisions, robbery units or missing persons branches for funding. they also aren't paying for agents to go joy riding, at huge expense to the taxpayer, on paramotors, helicopters, submarines, etc.
I think it's a fair discussion to question the wisdom and effectiveness of the drug war. I think it takes that discussion a bit too far to assign them any responsibility for other crimes. In addition, the majority of funding for the activities you describe is federal. The investigation for these other crimes is primarily local and state.
I think it's a fair discussion to question the wisdom and effectiveness of the drug war. I think it takes that discussion a bit too far to assign them any responsibility for other crimes. In addition, the majority of funding for the activities you describe is federal. The investigation for these other crimes is primarily local and state.
where the funding comes from is irrelevant because the taxpayer is ultimately paying for it regardless. if federal agencies didn't spend so much on drug enforcment they could allocate those resources to busting thieves, kidnappers, murderers and paedophiles. likewise, state law enforement while not targeting trafficing still allocates huge percentages of their resources to tackling drugs.
i'm slowly edging into the eurotrash camp which claims that by limiting resources to fight crimes where there is a real victim, the drug war crusaders are DIRECTLY responsible!
around 40% of all murders go unsolved every year. that is another national disgrace.
that % doesn't shock me. it's not like they don't try - many murder cases are so hard and plagued with multiple dead-ends, more manpower makes no difference, so they're filed as cold cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo
if someone wants to sell manufacture and sell crystal meth that is their economic right to do so. if someone wants to buy, smoke, snort, inject or injest any drug, that is their civil right to do so.
and if a lab concoction explodes and the meth-maker (who is low-income with no insurance) is taken to the ER because half is face is blown off, who pays the enormous medical bill?
where the funding comes from is irrelevant because the taxpayer is ultimately paying for it regardless. if federal agencies didn't spend so much on drug enforcment they could allocate those resources to busting thieves, kidnappers, murderers and paedophiles. likewise, state law enforement while not targeting trafficing still allocates huge percentages of their resources to tackling drugs.
i'm slowly edging into the eurotrash camp which claims that by limiting resources to fight crimes where there is a real victim, the drug war crusaders are DIRECTLY responsible!
If federal agencies didn't spend the money on drug enforcement, the money would not go states and local governments; it would be spent on another federal program. Where the funding comes from is never irrelevant, particularly when it's an essential part of the discussion as is the case here where the supposition is that it would be directed to those crimes, which it woud not.
However, to follow your argument, you could make the same case about any federal expenditure that isn't used targeting other crimes. If we didn't spend so much on medicaid, we could give more to solving other crimes. If we didn't send money to Haiti, we could spend more on those crimes. Are the people that support aid to Haiti responsible for murders going unsolved in Iowa? Would you recommend that we base our budget on unsolved state and local crimes and not fund other things as long as those remain unsolved? What I'm getting at is that you clearly are against the drug war, which is fine, but this particular stance is flawed.
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.
