De'Mond Parker busted

[Mazeppa]

http://www.newson6.com/story/22639231/sources-former-ou-football-player-arrested-accused-of-traffiking-crack-cocaine

[KantoSooner]

Well, crap. He is one of my favorites all time. Hope he gets his act squared away.

[olevetonahill]

Well, crap. He is one of my favorites all time. Hope he gets his act squared away.

Unfortunately If hes doing that kinda carp , Theres not much chance of him gettin it squared away.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Interesting, so the only reason they could book him was they saw him putting things under the seat otherwise it would have been the driver's fault.

[MojoRisen]

He is looking at 10- years for this..

[badger]

I still remember him from his limited Packer days --- fanning off his shoes after making it to the endzone :(

Hope he gets his act together

[nighttrain12]

Crack is whack!

[MI Sooner]

What a bunch of bull****, hopefully he can get off or get it down to possession. So, let's warehouse another human being who wasn't hurting anyone and who could have been a productive member of society at substantial taxpayer expense. Great plan!

[picasso]

I've seen him in the past couple of years at my fitness center at St. John. My wife went to high school with him. Seems like a nice kid.

[olevetonahill]

What a bunch of bull****, hopefully he can get off or get it down to possession. So, let's warehouse another human being
who wasn't hurting anyone and who could have been a productive member of society at substantial taxpayer expense. Great plan!

Yea, dealing Crack is sure a Productive member of society . What are YOU smoking?

[Midtowner]

What a bunch of bull****, hopefully he can get off or get it down to possession. So, let's warehouse another human being who wasn't hurting anyone and who could have been a productive member of society at substantial taxpayer expense. Great plan!

If he's guilty, trafficking in crack cocaine is definitely not a victimless crime. It is NOT the same as marijuana insofar as its ability to expeditiously ruin your entire life.

The car had 28 grams of crack in it. That's five times what you need for a trafficking charge to stick. He's probably looking at 10 years or so and at least $25K in fines if my research is accurate. Of course he's innocent until proven guilty and maybe he was running with the wrong person and out of the blue the driver took the drugs out of his pocket and gave them to Parker to hide under his seat because he thought it to be less likely that the passenger would be searched? We don't know. His bond is set at the minimum fine for this crime (which is between $25K and $100K). I hope he shuts the hell up and hires a good attorney.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

What a bunch of bull****, hopefully he can get off or get it down to possession. So, let's warehouse another human being who wasn't hurting anyone and who could have been a productive member of society at substantial taxpayer expense. Great plan!

pfft, pennies on the dollar compared to how much it costs to treat those addicted to crack.

[Midtowner]

pfft, pennies on the dollar compared to how much it costs to treat those addicted to crack.

Not to mention the cost to place their children in state custody.

[REDREX]

What a bunch of bull****, hopefully he can get off or get it down to possession. So, let's warehouse another human being who wasn't hurting anyone and who could have been a productive member of society at substantial taxpayer expense. Great plan!---Maybe he should have found a job and not get involved in this type of enterprise

[Mazeppa]

I guess going to college doesn't necessarily make you any smarter.

[Breadburner]

Sad.....!

[Blue]

What a bunch of bull****, hopefully he can get off or get it down to possession. So, let's warehouse another human being who wasn't hurting anyone and who could have been a productive member of society at substantial taxpayer expense. Great plan!


Wha...? 28 gs of crack, dude.

[PrideMom]

What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand? Drugs RUIN EVERYTHING!! There is no REASON to use them, and plenty of reasons NOT to use them. Anyone who wants to justify them are kidding themselves and need help.

[Midtowner]

Well there's a huge difference between, say, marijuana and crack cocaine as far as the danger they pose.

And if you want to have a real ethical discussion, let's talk about the widespread availability of legal drugs like benzodiazepines, their potential for addiction and how docs are so quick to prescribe them.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Well there's a huge difference between, say, marijuana and crack cocaine as far as the danger they pose.

And if you want to have a real ethical discussion, let's talk about the widespread availability of legal drugs like benzodiazepines, their potential for addiction and how docs are so quick to prescribe them.

Heh, benzene rings are bad news no matter what they are hooked with. Of course, I would have figured you'd hit on Ritalin - an amphetamine in the cocaine family that has is a schedule 2 drug that they give to kids. And strangely enough, the first generation that grew up on Ritalin have a surprising level of addiction to methamphetamines.

[MI Sooner]

If he's guilty, trafficking in crack cocaine is definitely not a victimless crime. It is NOT the same as marijuana insofar as its ability to expeditiously ruin your entire life.

The car had 28 grams of crack in it. That's five times what you need for a trafficking charge to stick. He's probably looking at 10 years or so and at least $25K in fines if my research is accurate. Of course he's innocent until proven guilty and maybe he was running with the wrong person and out of the blue the driver took the drugs out of his pocket and gave them to Parker to hide under his seat because he thought it to be less likely that the passenger would be searched? We don't know. His bond is set at the minimum fine for this crime (which is between $25K and $100K). I hope he shuts the hell up and hires a good attorney.

I don't care if crack can ruin your life. That's the crack-user's problem.

[MI Sooner]

pfft, pennies on the dollar compared to how much it costs to treat those addicted to crack.

So don't treat them. Problem solved.

[MI Sooner]

So don't treat them. Problem solved.

I can't believe that it appears everyone on here is in favor of drug prohibition. I know that my politics aren't shared by anything close to a majority, but I am a little surprised at the support prohibition has here given it's lack of success in solving abuse problems and huge unintended consequences.

[Soonerwake]

WGAS!!! The fact is that possessing drugs, dealing drugs, etc. is currently against the law, and Demond knew it. He chose to take the risk and got caught. So, now he will get the opportunity to pay for his choices.

As far as the OU running back Demond Parker, wow was he good.

[Midtowner]

I don't care if crack can ruin your life. That's the crack-user's problem.

When we're operating prisons to house folks who commit crimes while they're high (or just possess the stuff), hospitals to treat them and treatment facilities to get them off of drugs, not to mention taking care of the victims of these folks' violence, it's hardly a crime limited to that one individual.

[FirstandGoal]

What a bunch of bull****, hopefully he can get off or get it down to possession. So, let's warehouse another human being who wasn't hurting anyone and who could have been a productive member of society at substantial taxpayer expense. Great plan!


What???

Do you honestly think that selling crack isn't hurting anybody?
Productive member of society my ***. Productive members of society don't get arrested for drug trafficking.
Productive members of society have jobs and pay taxes and pay their bills. Occasionally they are lucky enough to go on a vacation every now and then and spread their hard earned dollars around stimulating the economy.

If it turns out he was involved in this, he needs to be punished accordingly.

[MI Sooner]

What???

Do you honestly think that selling crack isn't hurting anybody?
Productive member of society my ***. Productive members of society don't get arrested for drug trafficking.
Productive members of society have jobs and pay taxes and pay their bills. Occasionally they are lucky enough to go on a vacation every now and then and spread their hard earned dollars around stimulating the economy.

If it turns out he was involved in this, he needs to be punished accordingly.

I consider brewery employees to be productive, and I can't think of of anything tha really distinguishes alcohol from cocaine other than alcohol being the drug of choice for most people on this board. As for cocaine being illegal, it's like people haven't been paying attention to the effects of probibition since the 20s.

I don't think the marginal decrease in drug use is worth it, nor do I think that someone else has the right to tell an adult what he can put in his body.

[Scott D]

wow, I never thought I'd see anyone other than a crackhead defend crack usage.

[olevetonahill]

wow, I never thought I'd see anyone other than a crackhead defend crack usage.

Yea Im thinkin he needs to step back from his Pipe for awhile.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I have a crack. I'll sell it if the price is right.

[8timechamps]

What???

Do you honestly think that selling crack isn't hurting anybody?
Productive member of society my ***. Productive members of society don't get arrested for drug trafficking.
Productive members of society have jobs and pay taxes and pay their bills. Occasionally they are lucky enough to go on a vacation every now and then and spread their hard earned dollars around stimulating the economy.

If it turns out he was involved in this, he needs to be punished accordingly.

Listen to this woman, she happens to know a thing or two about pharmaceuticals.

[8timechamps]

I consider brewery employees to be productive, and I can't think of of anything tha really distinguishes alcohol from cocaine other than alcohol being the drug of choice for most people on this board. As for cocaine being illegal, it's like people haven't been paying attention to the effects of probibition since the 20s.

I don't think the marginal decrease in drug use is worth it, nor do I think that someone else has the right to tell an adult what he can put in his body.

IF you're talking about marijuana, I'm in complete agreement. I haven't touched it since college, and never will again, but I don't think it should be an illegal substance. It's very kin to alcohol, and if alcohol can be regulated and made legal for consumption, marijuana should be too.

But, when you start talking about anything else, you lose me. I've seen first hand how drug use (specifically cocaine) can cripple a person's life, and the life of anyone who cares for that person. To think it is a victim-less crime just tells me maybe you haven't been affected by it personally. I respect your opinion, but I certainly don't agree with this one.

[FirstandGoal]

IF you're talking about marijuana, I'm in complete agreement. I haven't touched it since college, and never will again, but I don't think it should be an illegal substance. It's very kin to alcohol, and if alcohol can be regulated and made legal for consumption, marijuana should be too.

But, when you start talking about anything else, you lose me. I've seen first hand how drug use (specifically cocaine) can cripple a person's life, and the life of anyone who cares for that person. To think it is a victim-less crime just tells me maybe you haven't been affected by it personally. I respect your opinion, but I certainly don't agree with this one.

You cannot give reputation to the same post twice.



(although if I could, I would)

[budbarrybob]

nor do I think that someone else has the right to tell an adult what he can put in his body.

To a degree you are correct. But when someone's rights start to infringe upon my rights thats where I can have a say. If you rob or kill someone so you can finance your drug habit. Then it becomes societies problem. When society has to start paying for the living and healthcare of someone who can no longer function in a capacity to provide for themselves it becomes my problem.

And as for De'Mond he was one of the fun things to watch on Owen Field in an otherwise dismal era. However, if anyone remembers his TV interviews, no one will accuse him of being a member of the over 100 club.

[nighttrain12]

I have a crack. I'll sell it if the price is right.

To paraphrase Nancy Reagan, 'Say NO to crack! Especially butt crack!'

[MI Sooner]

To a degree you are correct. But when someone's rights start to infringe upon my rights thats where I can have a say. If you rob or kill someone so you can finance your drug habit. Then it becomes societies problem. When society has to start paying for the living and healthcare of someone who can no longer function in a capacity to provide for themselves it becomes my problem.

And as for De'Mond he was one of the fun things to watch on Owen Field in an otherwise dismal era. However, if anyone remembers his TV interviews, no one will accuse him of being a member of the over 100 club.

Robbery and murder are illegal. And again, I don't see anything to distinguish cocaine from alcohol. Legal alcohol causes a lot of problems, but illegal alcohol causes more.

[olevetonahill]

Robbery and murder are illegal. And again, I don't see anything to distinguish cocaine from alcohol. Legal alcohol causes a lot of problems,
but illegal alcohol causes more.

And just how in hell is this even remotely true?
Me thinks yer talkin out yer rectum

[MI Sooner]

And just how in hell is this even remotely true?
Me thinks yer talkin out yer rectum

Government corruption, impure drinks, lack of legal recourse for being threatened, robbed, poisoned (if related to alcohol), more expensive alcohol, incentive to produce and consume more potent intoxicants (liquor over beer), giving bad people a competitive advantage in the alcohol market, allowing guys like Al Capone to massively increase their power...

That alcohol prohibition didn't work is one of the less controversial opinions of U.S. history. I attribute the fact that it was able to be enacted and last as long as it did to wishful thinking and alcoholic wife-beaters being an unsympathetic lot (won't someone think of the children). I see the same thing happening with other drugs today.

edit: among other negative effects of prohibition (of drugs or alcohol) I forgot to list is the erosion of respect for the law. It's remarkable how we've just come to accept that fact that the federal government prosecutes people for drug possession while electing three consecutive drug-possessing presidents.

[Midtowner]

I don't care if crack can ruin your life. That's the crack-user's problem.

I don't know anything about your background, but either you just don't really have a clue as to how society at large reacts to addiction and the struggle addicts go through or you're so dogmatic that your dogma has divested you of your humanity.

Having worked with meth addicts or represented their children (I do the later pro bono) in our juvenile deprived system, I've seen parents who completely neglect their children because of their addictions. I've seen a woman walk up to the bench at the first hearing after her child was taken from her in the delivery room because the meconium tested positive for meth and exclaim to the judge "you know me, I've been here." (she had, this was her 11th or 12th kid to be taken by the state under similar circumstances). If you've seen the women who remain in an abusive relationship where they allow their children to be molested in order to get drugs and you've met those same child victims of abuse crying because they want to be reunited with their mothers, then you wouldn't be able to make such a crass statement.

[Midtowner]

Government corruption, impure drinks, lack of legal recourse for being threatened, robbed, poisoned (if related to alcohol), more expensive alcohol, incentive to produce and consume more potent intoxicants (liquor over beer), giving bad people a competitive advantage in the alcohol market, allowing guys like Al Capone to massively increase their power...

That alcohol prohibition didn't work is one of the less controversial opinions of U.S. history. I attribute the fact that it was able to be enacted and last as long as it did to wishful thinking and alcoholic wife-beaters being an unsympathetic lot (won't someone think of the children). I see the same thing happening with other drugs today.

edit: among other negative effects of prohibition (of drugs or alcohol) I forgot to list is the erosion of respect for the law. It's remarkable how we've just come to accept that fact that the federal government prosecutes people for drug possession while electing three consecutive drug-possessing presidents.

So... a glass of wine with dinner = a hit off of a crack pipe?

[cleller]

I don't care if crack can ruin your life. That's the crack-user's problem.

Its also the problem of the person on the other end of that crack users gun, knife, club or other weapon when crackhead is out on the yo-yo.

[olevetonahill]

Government corruption, impure drinks, lack of legal recourse for being threatened, robbed, poisoned (if related to alcohol), more expensive alcohol, incentive to produce and consume more potent intoxicants (liquor over beer), giving bad people a competitive advantage in the alcohol market, allowing guys like Al Capone to massively increase their power...

That alcohol prohibition didn't work is one of the less controversial opinions of U.S. history. I attribute the fact that it was able to be enacted and last as long as it did to wishful thinking and alcoholic wife-beaters being an unsympathetic lot (won't someone think of the children). I see the same thing happening with other drugs today.

edit: among other negative effects of prohibition (of drugs or alcohol) I forgot to list is the erosion of respect for the law. It's remarkable how we've just come to accept that fact that the federal government prosecutes people for drug possession while electing three consecutive drug-possessing presidents.

Holy hell, I owe matlock an apology. He aint the Dumbest mother ****er on this Board, YOU ARE

[IGotNoTiming]

Heh, benzene rings are bad news no matter what they are hooked with. Of course, I would have figured you'd hit on Ritalin - an amphetamine in the cocaine family that has is a schedule 2 drug that they give to kids. And strangely enough, the first generation that grew up on Ritalin have a surprising level of addiction to methamphetamines.

Dont forget Adirol

[MI Sooner]

Holy hell, I owe matlock an apology. He aint the Dumbest mother ****er on this Board, YOU ARE

So alcohol prohibition was a good policy?

[MI Sooner]

So... a glass of wine with dinner = a hit off of a crack pipe?

No, my understanding is that a hit of a crack pipe would intoxicate you, so I'd say it's more akin to getting drunk. Of course the effects and duration are different too.

Also, i appreciate that drug abuse is bad and, like any bad behavior, can have negative repercussion for others, especially family. But all those problems you encounter are happenening in a place where drugs are prohibited, often with draconian punishments.

You haven't shown that prohibition actually reduces drug abuse. I asse you accept that it has negative consequences like violent drug trafficking that doesn't happen when drugs are legal. Basically the argument I see you making is that drug abuse is bad, therefore drugs should be prohibited. I don't even accept that argument in principal, since I think I own my body and should be able to do what I want with it, but I also don't think the policy achieves it's goals, at least not enough to justify the awful I intended effects.

[Scott D]

Making those items legal wouldn't deter the criminal aspects of it. It's already been proven with violent crimes related to legal things. Therefore, your argument is still irrelevant.

[olevetonahill]

So alcohol prohibition was a good policy?

Say WHAT? you the One was saying Illegal Booze causes a Lot of Problems. Now you coming up with this?
You bouncing around like a Ping pong ball in a blender.

[Midtowner]

No, my understanding is that a hit of a crack pipe would intoxicate you, so I'd say it's more akin to getting drunk. Of course the effects and duration are different too.

A hit off of a crack pipe can kill you. Heart attack and stroke risks skyrocket, not to mention your propensity to become violent and impulsiveness.


Also, i appreciate that drug abuse is bad and, like any bad behavior, can have negative repercussion for others, especially family. But all those problems you encounter are happenening in a place where drugs are prohibited, often with draconian punishments.

Some drugs, marijuana, for example, it's hard to see any reason to treat those as illegal. Cocaine, meth, PCP, for example can kill you and absolutely ruin your life and your family's life. Meth, for example, I'd support the death penalty for anyone caught manufacturing or distributing the stuff. It's absolutely evil and solely responsible for ruining many lives. Unlike alcohol, meth, PCP, to some lesser extent, cocaine, cannot be used in moderation. Use them and there's a strong chance you'll become addicted, and a strong chance it will kill you. Meth addicts have an 85% recidivism rate. That's 85% choosing that horrible drug over their children and loved ones and even their own lives. It's horrible stuff and to suggest anything but strong prohibition is the answer is terribly naive.


You haven't shown that prohibition actually reduces drug abuse. I asse you accept that it has negative consequences like violent drug trafficking that doesn't happen when drugs are legal. Basically the argument I see you making is that drug abuse is bad, therefore drugs should be prohibited. I don't even accept that argument in principal, since I think I own my body and should be able to do what I want with it, but I also don't think the policy achieves it's goals, at least not enough to justify the awful I intended effects.

Denmark is a great example. While it's true marijuana is freely available, some drugs have to be used in a hospital like setting and since they are available, no one ever turns to the really terrible stuff like meth.

Our country's drug policy is problematic, but the correct response is not to give up. Working from within, I see the system slowly reforming itself. We don't treat marijuana as being a huge deal. I haven't ever seen a child welfare pickup because mom was caught with a dime bag. We have a lot more diversion programs now and taxpayer funded treatment centers (rehab used to be reserved only for folks who could come up with $15K or so to complete a program). I've seen good results in the drug court programs as well.

The biggest problem is, intervention doesn't typically happen until folks are so far gone that they're beyond help.

[olevetonahill]

Heh
matlock an MI Sooner go at it :unconscious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhU3kKLH1wo

[MI Sooner]

Making those items legal wouldn't deter the criminal aspects of it. It's already been proven with violent crimes related to legal things. Therefore, your argument is still irrelevant.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If you make something legal, there are no more illegal aspects of it. People selling items that are merely bad for you but not illegal don't engage in violent turf wars, have to enforce their own contracts (often at the point of a gun), etc.

If you're referring to criminal acts committed by those intoxicated, I agree that the intoxicating effects are the same whether the drug is legal or illegal. The good news is, those criminal acts are already crimes, separate from drug-related offenses, so you can just punish bad people for the bad acts they commit whether they're intoxicated or not.

[MI Sooner]

Say WHAT? you the One was saying Illegal Booze causes a Lot of Problems. Now you coming up with this?
You bouncing around like a Ping pong ball in a blender.


I said illegal alcohol (e.g., during the 20s in the U.S.) causes more problems that legal alcohol (e.g., today in the U.S.). You said I was talking out of my ***, so I listed a lot of problems that alcohol prohibition created. Then you insulted my intelligence in response. I figured that you insulted my intelligence because you thought I had written something unintelligent. Since I had written that alcohol prohibition created more problems that it solved (if it solved any), and you (apparently) thought that to be an unintelligent position to take, I then asked you if you thought alcohol prohibition was a good policy. A shorter summary:

Me: Illegal alcohol causes more problems than legal alcohol
You: You're talking out our ***
Me: Here are examples of the problems
You: You're a dumb mother****er
Me: So you think alcohol prohibition was a good policy?
You: You're all over the place.
Me: Here is a summary of what was said, showing that I haven't been all over the place, but apparently have failed to communicate the consistency of my position to you satisfactorily.

[olevetonahill]

I said illegal alcohol (e.g., during the 20s in the U.S.) causes more problems that legal alcohol (e.g., today in the U.S.). You said I was talking out of my ***, so I listed a lot of problems that alcohol prohibition created. Then you insulted my intelligence in response. I figured that you insulted my intelligence because you thought I had written something unintelligent. Since I had written that alcohol prohibition created more problems that it solved (if it solved any), and you (apparently) thought that to be an unintelligent position to take, I then asked you if you thought alcohol prohibition was a good policy. A shorter summary:

Me: Illegal alcohol causes more problems than legal alcohol
You: You're talking out our ***
Me: Here are examples of the problems
You: You're a dumb mother****er
Me: So you think alcohol prohibition was a good policy?
You: You're all over the place.
Me: Here is a summary of what was said, showing that I haven't been all over the place, but apparently have failed to communicate the consistency of my position to you satisfactorily.

So Comparing Booze problems from a 100 years ago to todays problems along with Wacko drugs means your are " Consistent" ?

[MI Sooner]

A hit off of a crack pipe can kill you. Heart attack and stroke risks skyrocket, not to mention your propensity to become violent and impulsiveness.



Some drugs, marijuana, for example, it's hard to see any reason to treat those as illegal. Cocaine, meth, PCP, for example can kill you and absolutely ruin your life and your family's life. Meth, for example, I'd support the death penalty for anyone caught manufacturing or distributing the stuff. It's absolutely evil and solely responsible for ruining many lives. Unlike alcohol, meth, PCP, to some lesser extent, cocaine, cannot be used in moderation. Use them and there's a strong chance you'll become addicted, and a strong chance it will kill you. Meth addicts have an 85% recidivism rate. That's 85% choosing that horrible drug over their children and loved ones and even their own lives. It's horrible stuff and to suggest anything but strong prohibition is the answer is terribly naive.



Denmark is a great example. While it's true marijuana is freely available, some drugs have to be used in a hospital like setting and since they are available, no one ever turns to the really terrible stuff like meth.

Our country's drug policy is problematic, but the correct response is not to give up. Working from within, I see the system slowly reforming itself. We don't treat marijuana as being a huge deal. I haven't ever seen a child welfare pickup because mom was caught with a dime bag. We have a lot more diversion programs now and taxpayer funded treatment centers (rehab used to be reserved only for folks who could come up with $15K or so to complete a program). I've seen good results in the drug court programs as well.

The biggest problem is, intervention doesn't typically happen until folks are so far gone that they're beyond help.

I guess I'd say that if you don't want to have a heart attack, don't do things that elevate your risk of heart attack (like taking cocaine). It's none of my business what other people do with their bodies.

Do you favor prohibition of cigarettes and other tobacco products and/or unhealthy foods?

[FirstandGoal]

I guess I'd say that if you don't want to have a heart attack, don't do things that elevate your risk of heart attack (like taking cocaine). It's none of my business what other people do with their bodies.

Do you favor prohibition of cigarettes and other tobacco products and/or unhealthy foods?


So you're comparing meth to a cheeseburger now?



I give up.

[olevetonahill]

So you're comparing meth to a cheeseburger now?



I give up.


Heh, But he's " Consistent" :watermelon:

[MI Sooner]

So Comparing Booze problems from a 100 years ago to todays problems along with Wacko drugs means your are " Consist ant" ?

I think the gang-controlled distribution of illegal alcohol from 80 years ago can provide lesson's in dealing with today's gang-controlled distribution of illegal drugs, yes.

[olevetonahill]

Robbery and murder are illegal. And again, I don't see anything to distinguish cocaine from alcohol. Legal alcohol causes a lot of problems,
but illegal alcohol causes more.


Your usage indicates that these problems are Happening NOW not 90 years ago


I think the gang-controlled distribution of illegal alcohol from 80 years ago can provide lesson's in dealing with today's gang-controlled distribution of illegal drugs, yes.

And again yer dumber than matlock

[MI Sooner]

So you're comparing meth to a cheeseburger now?



I give up.

I'm comparing the justifications provided (can cause heart attacks) to the justifications given for banning other items. I'm assuming you don't support a ban on those other items, and trying to convince you that since you (presumably) reject that argument ("it can cause a heart attacks"), it likewise isn't a good enough reason to throw people in prison for making, distributing, or possessing cocaine.

Comparing meth to a cheeseburger would be ridiculous if I were discussing which one tastes better, or even if we were talking about which one can cause more acute problems. But cheeseburgers CAN cause heart attacks (or maybe a better example is sugary drinks causing obesity, diabetes, etc.). In fact, this justification was actually used to enact a ban sugary drinks over 16 ounces in NYC earlier this year.

[MI Sooner]

Your usage indicates that these problems are Happening NOW not 90 years ago



And again yer dumber than matlock

Alcohol prohibition does not work.

Does the above sentence in any way indicate that alcohol prohibition is happening right now?

[olevetonahill]

I'm comparing the justifications provided (can cause heart attacks) to the justifications given for banning other items. I'm assuming you don't support a ban on those other items, and trying to convince you that since you (presumably) reject that argument ("it can cause a heart attacks"), it likewise isn't a good enough reason to throw people in prison for making, distributing, or possessing cocaine.

Comparing meth to a cheeseburger would be ridiculous if I were discussing which one tastes better, or even if we were talking about which one can cause more acute problems. But cheeseburgers CAN cause heart attacks (or maybe a better example is sugary drinks causing obesity, diabetes, etc.). In fact, this justification was actually used to enact a ban sugary drinks over 16 ounces in NYC earlier this year.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6vwQYPzjARjvz67AfLXy8MWEeU2I5B WcCbAHYB7MfseEg4hBr

[Scott D]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If you make something legal, there are no more illegal aspects of it. People selling items that are merely bad for you but not illegal don't engage in violent turf wars, have to enforce their own contracts (often at the point of a gun), etc.

If you're referring to criminal acts committed by those intoxicated, I agree that the intoxicating effects are the same whether the drug is legal or illegal. The good news is, those criminal acts are already crimes, separate from drug-related offenses, so you can just punish bad people for the bad acts they commit whether they're intoxicated or not.

Viagra is legal. Yet Pharmacies have been robbed for Viagra which is then sold on the street on a pill by pill basis. The same is applied to other LEGAL drugs in that regard. Statins are another popular theft item for resale on the street, along with Adderall and of course the pain blocking class 2 medications.

Booze and cigarettes are legal, yet they are still stolen from establishments for the purpose of reselling by criminals.

The point being, that there isn't any indication that legalizing things like crack cocaine, heroin, and meth would cut down any sort of violence or criminal activity related to the usage of those products. There are reasons that crackheads tend to be broke, if not initially then not long after their habit begins. They're still going to do whatever they deem necessary to obtain money to purchase the death of their choice. So your argument that making these things legal would hinder criminal activity is nothing but a pipe dream falsehood.

[Midtowner]

I guess I'd say that if you don't want to have a heart attack, don't do things that elevate your risk of heart attack (like taking cocaine). It's none of my business what other people do with their bodies.

Do you favor prohibition of cigarettes and other tobacco products and/or unhealthy foods?

You ignored every other single side effect, e.g. higher propensity to violence, much higher level of intoxication, etc. That'd be really neat if this was all done in a hospital setting and folks had to sober up before they went about their day, but that's just not the case. 99% of alcohol use isn't harmful to anyone. 100% of crack cocaine use, I'd venture is harmful to the users, their families and anyone in that person's general vicinity. Meth users? Don't even get me started on the collateral damage there. Hint: it's a little worse than 2nd hand smoke from a pack of Marlboros.

I don't favor prohibition of any of those things--maybe greater prohibition for some pain killers, benzos, etc., would certainly be in order. Marijuana legalization would be fine. It's monumental error to lump marijauna in with things like meth and crack.

As the next post says, comparing crack cocaine to greasy foods is hardly intellectually honest.

[MI Sooner]

You ignored every other single side effect, e.g. higher propensity to violence, much higher level of intoxication, etc. That'd be really neat if this was all done in a hospital setting and folks had to sober up before they went about their day, but that's just not the case. 99% of alcohol use isn't harmful to anyone. 100% of crack cocaine use, I'd venture is harmful to the users, their families and anyone in that person's general vicinity. Meth users? Don't even get me started on the collateral damage there. Hint: it's a little worse than 2nd hand smoke from a pack of Marlboros.

I don't favor prohibition of any of those things--maybe greater prohibition for some pain killers, benzos, etc., would certainly be in order. Marijuana legalization would be fine. It's monumental error to lump marijauna in with things like meth and crack.

As the next post says, comparing crack cocaine to greasy foods is hardly intellectually honest.

OK, so I take it you don't think "can cause a heart attack" is a good reason to ban something? We can move onto your other reasons.

I think you vastly underestimate the association of alcohol consumption with bad behavior. I'm sure a fair number of people at the college parties I went to (where drunk people often caused problems they wouldn't have if sober) had people high on cocaine (although likely powder, not crack, I'd guess) who didn't cause problems for anyone else.

Does Obama's admitted and Bush's reported cocaine use fall into the 100% that was so harmful the very substance needs to be banned (which it was, by the way, when they did it)? I think that even if you're right that the adverse affects justify imprisoning people to prevent its abuse (which I'm not convinced of), you still haven't shown that making it illegal prevents its abuse.

[Midtowner]

Crack cocaine is a lot worse for the body because of the stuff they cut it with.

Recreational cocaine is probably not that big a deal and it's not something you're going to find a lot of problem use except for maybe in a country club/frat party setting. Crack, on the other hand is a descriptor for something which has some cocaine and then some other stuff, mostly not fit for human consumption.

I have never said that prohibition is necessarily the answer. A comprehensive look at our drug policy is way overdue. The trouble is that there are so many corporations now which rely on the status quo never changing to make a profit that change is going to be really hard.

[Scott D]

This thread is fail, and should be moved to the garbage bin.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Joo take my cheeseburger, I cutchoo, mang.

[C&CDean]

I don't know anything about your background, but either you just don't really have a clue as to how society at large reacts to addiction and the struggle addicts go through or you're so dogmatic that your dogma has divested you of your humanity.

Having worked with meth addicts or represented their children (I do the later pro bono) in our juvenile deprived system, I've seen parents who completely neglect their children because of their addictions. I've seen a woman walk up to the bench at the first hearing after her child was taken from her in the delivery room because the meconium tested positive for meth and exclaim to the judge "you know me, I've been here." (she had, this was her 11th or 12th kid to be taken by the state under similar circumstances). If you've seen the women who remain in an abusive relationship where they allow their children to be molested in order to get drugs and you've met those same child victims of abuse crying because they want to be reunited with their mothers, then you wouldn't be able to make such a crass statement.

Well said. Didn't know you had it in you.

[Owassokie]

Long time member, seldom poster. Couldn't care less if I'm green or red so...

...I'll voice, what I'm guessing, many others would like to say but won't.

Some people are compelled to resort to name calling when they don't understand a perspective that varies so far from their own thoughts and convictions. I want to challenge those who have resorted to name calling to take a quick break and do a little research to educate yourself. Removing prohibition of drugs is not a new concept, even if it sounds foreign to you. Matter of fact, there are documented countries that have removed the prohibition of some or all drugs. Take a look at how it affects crime, addiction, and usage rates.

For the record, I don't use drugs. If they were legal...I still wouldn't use drugs. IF you decide to do some research, you'll be surprised at some of the people who are supportive of the removal of prohibition. It's not crack heads and freaks. Believe it or not, many of them are conservatives. IF you decide to do some research, you'll be surprised to find very compelling arguments from two perspectives; Liberty and personal rights as well as reduction in crime. IF you decide to some research, you will likely be compelled to offer MI Sooner an apology for the insults and your ignorance on the subject.

That is all.

[C&CDean]

Long time member, seldom poster. Couldn't care less if I'm green or red so...

...I'll voice, what I'm guessing, many others would like to say but won't.

Some people are compelled to resort to name calling when they don't understand a perspective that varies so far from their own thoughts and convictions. I want to challenge those who have resorted to name calling to take a quick break and do a little research to educate yourself. Removing prohibition of drugs is not a new concept, even if it sounds foreign to you. Matter of fact, there are documented countries that have removed the prohibition of some or all drugs. Take a look at how it affects crime, addiction, and usage rates.

For the record, I don't use drugs. If they were legal...I still wouldn't use drugs. IF you decide to do some research, you'll be surprised at some of the people who are supportive of the removal of prohibition. It's not crack heads and freaks. Believe it or not, many of them are conservatives. IF you decide to do some research, you'll be surprised to find very compelling arguments from two perspectives; Liberty and personal rights as well as reduction in crime. IF you decide to some research, you will likely be compelled to offer MI Sooner an apology for the insults and your ignorance on the subject.

That is all.

He thinks using crack is victimless. That's my beef with the ****wad. IDGAF about legal/illegal. IGAF about what people who smoke crack do to keep themselves knee deep in the stuff. Crack is so insidiously addictive legality means nothing to an addict. If it's for sale at the walmarts they'll pimp their own kids for the money to go buy some.

Saying smoking crack is a victimless crime is ignorant. To the nth degree.

[rock on sooner]

So you're comparing meth to a cheeseburger now?



I give up.

Welp, Wendy's is bringing a 650 calorie pretzel cheeseburger to
market soon...has bacon, onions, sauce an stuff...looks purty good,
too! :biggrin:

[soonersam]

Damn it!! One of my all time favs!

I actually feel for these guys who struggle after football, but they do get a free education I never got.

[olevetonahill]

Long time member, seldom poster. Couldn't care less if I'm green or red so...

...I'll voice, what I'm guessing, many others would like to say but won't.

Some people are compelled to resort to name calling when they don't understand a perspective that varies so far from their own thoughts and convictions. I want to challenge those who have resorted to name calling to take a quick break and do a little research to educate yourself. Removing prohibition of drugs is not a new concept, even if it sounds foreign to you. Matter of fact, there are documented countries that have removed the prohibition of some or all drugs. Take a look at how it affects crime, addiction, and usage rates.

For the record, I don't use drugs. If they were legal...I still wouldn't use drugs. IF you decide to do some research, you'll be surprised at some of the people who are supportive of the removal of prohibition. It's not crack heads and freaks. Believe it or not, many of them are conservatives. IF you decide to do some research, you'll be surprised to find very compelling arguments from two perspectives; Liberty and personal rights as well as reduction in crime. IF you decide to some research, you will likely be compelled to offer MI Sooner an apology for the insults and your ignorance on the subject.

That is all.

a year an 1/2 aint what Most would call a "LONG TIME" member Plus this being yer 1st post that aint seldom. Its up til NOW Never posted.

As for apologizing to MI, I reckon NOT. Just because you and a few others seem to agree that Doing Illegal drugs Like Crack are ok dont mean the rest of us do.

The Boy Had his chances in life and has chosen to squander them over Drugs or just plain old laziness, Or Stupidity.
Crack is the next to worst if THE worst drug out there behind Maybe Meth.

[jkjsooner]

I consider brewery employees to be productive, and I can't think of of anything tha really distinguishes alcohol from cocaine other than alcohol being the drug of choice for most people on this board. As for cocaine being illegal, it's like people haven't been paying attention to the effects of probibition since the 20s.

I don't think the marginal decrease in drug use is worth it, nor do I think that someone else has the right to tell an adult what he can put in his body.

I think the comparison between alcohol and crack is a little overboard. If you would have compared marijuana to alcohol then I could have bought your argument.

Sure, all drugs can be bad and people can get addicted but with crack almost everyone gets addicted and people can ruin their lives in a very short period of time.

As for the libertarian side of your arguments, I think you have to think about the collateral damage caused by drug use. People commit crimes, they abuse or stop caring for their kids, etc. Sometimes waiting for a serious crime to be committed is too late.

It's easy to say that we wouldn't spend money treating those addicted to drugs but I'd argue that that might be counterproductive even from an economic standpoint. In addition, no civilized society would refuse to care for the children of a drug addicted parent.

I do think we've gone too far in the war on drugs but I think your remedy is short-sighted and naive.

[Midtowner]

PCP is pretty bad as well

HxZ93b0paLo

Someone should tell that dude to act casual.

Then there's meth:

qmhFcaRchew

[Owassokie]

He thinks using crack is victimless. That's my beef with the ****wad. IDGAF about legal/illegal. IGAF about what people who smoke crack do to keep themselves knee deep in the stuff. Crack is so insidiously addictive legality means nothing to an addict. If it's for sale at the walmarts they'll pimp their own kids for the money to go buy some.

Saying smoking crack is a victimless crime is ignorant. To the nth degree.

Is that what he said or is that your summation of his thoughts? Not trying to be a smart@$$...I just don't remember him saying that.

It's just not as simple as making a statement like "smoking crack is a victimless crime". For comparison sake I'm going to remove the word 'crime' because we are talking about the potential of it being legalized. So the statement is now "smoking crack is victimless". I doubt anybody could simply answer yes, I agree with that statement. If I said "driving a car is victimless" you'd be left with the same need for a longer explanation than yes, I agree. (And just to get ahead of someones ****** bag comment...I'm not directly comparing cars to crack. I know the difference. The point is both have victims and both have people that desire to use them regardless of their necessity or lack there of.)

All I'm saying is there's compelling evidence that supports the removal of prohibition on drugs. I'm personally on the fence (for victim related reasons). I believe it will free many victims related to illegal trafficking and distribution. I'm also afraid it would create some victims who might not be otherwise. I am morally against the use of drugs but I don't believe its my right (or the governments) to tell someone else what they can and can't do.

OO

[Owassokie]

a year an 1/2 aint what Most would call a "LONG TIME" member Plus this being yer 1st post that aint seldom. Its up til NOW Never posted.

As for apologizing to MI, I reckon NOT. Just because you and a few others seem to agree that Doing Illegal drugs Like Crack are ok dont mean the rest of us do.

The Boy Had his chances in life and has chosen to squander them over Drugs or just plain old laziness, Or Stupidity.
Crack is the next to worst if THE worst drug out there behind Maybe Meth.

Exactly the response I figured I'd get from some. Congrats on the 57,000 post.

[olevetonahill]

Is that what he said or is that your summation of his thoughts? Not trying to be a smart@$$...I just don't remember him saying that.

It's just not as simple as making a statement like "smoking crack is a victimless crime".
For comparison sake I'm going to remove the word 'crime' because we are talking about the potential of it being legalized. So the statement is now "smoking crack is victimless". I doubt anybody could simply answer yes, I agree with that statement. If I said "driving a car is victimless" you'd be left with the same need for a longer explanation than yes, I agree. (And just to get ahead of someones ****** bag comment...I'm not directly comparing cars to crack. I know the difference. The point is both have victims and both have people that desire to use them regardless of their necessity or lack there of.)

All I'm saying is there's compelling evidence that supports the removal of prohibition on drugs. I'm personally on the fence (for victim related reasons). I believe it will free many victims related to illegal trafficking and distribution. I'm also afraid it would create some victims who might not be otherwise. I am morally against the use of drugs but I don't believe its my right (or the governments) to tell someone else what they can and can't do.

OO


I think YOU an MI are the only ones talking about the Potential of it becoming LEGAL so thats a Majority of TWO.


Exactly the response I figured I'd get from some. Congrats on the 57,000 post.

Dont Patronize me Boy. It dont become you.

[budbarrybob]

Damn it!! One of my all time favs!

I actually feel for these guys who struggle after football, but they do get a free education I never got.

Pfft. Where you been? This thread ain't about DP. It's about doin crack and sheet. Legality/illegality and mostly MI Sooner goin off the deep end. Quit trying to re-route this thread to football. SHEESH!

[REDREX]

I like the Singapore drug laws-----Funny they don't have drug problems

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/lawrencetaylor2009mug-350x221.jpg

Crack broke Joe Theismann's leg. Yaaaaay crack!

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I think the gang-controlled distribution of illegal alcohol from 80 years ago can provide lesson's in dealing with today's gang-controlled distribution of illegal drugs, yes.

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2013/01/prohibition-of-alcohol-increased-death.html

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

The problem with your premise is that you are discounting the price of decentralizing the death toll (ie moving it from gangs into the hands of anyone who partakes and then gets behind a wheel).

[MI Sooner]

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2013/01/prohibition-of-alcohol-increased-death.html

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

The problem with your premise is that you are discounting the price of decentralizing the death toll (ie moving it from gangs into the hands of anyone who partakes and then gets behind a wheel).

I don't favor making it legal to drive while intoxicated. Nor do I favor banning smart phones because people drive while texting and cause accidents.

Do you favor the prohibition of alcohol?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well there's a huge difference between, say, marijuana and crack cocaine as far as the danger they pose.

And if you want to have a real ethical discussion, let's talk about the widespread availability of legal drugs like benzodiazepines, their potential for addiction and how docs are so quick to prescribe them.

We disagree... Research is showing that long term MJ users are less likely to be productive, they are more lethargic. lazy and do not have a drive to work or be successful...I do not think that MJ is just as casual as say cigarette smoking.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't favor making it legal to drive while intoxicated. Nor do I favor banning smart phones because people drive while texting and cause accidents.

Do you favor the prohibition of alcohol?

Personally? No. I'm against anything that impairs someone's decision making and then allows them to wield dangerous items (firearms, cars, prescription drugs, steamrollers). Thus I'm left with a paradox -> They don't make the decision to use the dangerous item until they have partaken in the item that impairs their decision making ability. As such I favor restriction until such time as technology takes the ability for their impaired decision making to harm 10k+ people on the road. When cars require a sober and attentive driver or they shut down, when guns require a sober and registered owner, then I say go for it.

So in other words, Yes you can do whatever you want to yourself, my issue is when your actions cause the death/injury of others.

[MI Sooner]

Personally? No. I'm against anything that impairs someone's decision making and then allows them to wield dangerous items (firearms, cars, prescription drugs, steamrollers). Thus I'm left with a paradox -> They don't make the decision to use the dangerous item until they have partaken in the item that impairs their decision making ability. As such I favor restriction until such time as technology takes the ability for their impaired decision making to harm 10k+ people on the road. When cars require a sober and attentive driver or they shut down, when guns require a sober and registered owner, then I say go for it.

So in other words, Yes you can do whatever you want to yourself, my issue is when your actions cause the death/injury of others.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but do you support or oppose the prohibition of alcohol?

[FirstandGoal]

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but do you support or oppose the prohibition of alcohol?

This is seriously your argument?

Please show me where alcohol has the exact same addictive properties/side effects of meth, crack, or heroin.

Until you can prove absolutely that these drugs are anywhere in the same category as alcohol your argument=fail.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but do you support or oppose the prohibition of alcohol?

In a limited sense -> basically I'm for prohibition of alcohol on anyone who has been convicted of a drunk driving offense. We have a guy in Washington who has been convicted of DUI 11 times and has killed 14 people who has spent maybe 6 years behind bars.

[olevetonahill]

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but do you support or oppose the prohibition of alcohol?

OBTUSE. wouldnt be the term Im thinkin of to describe you.

[Salt City Sooner]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mMIt5E2NHew/S190qI1COpI/AAAAAAAAAWs/yLZcHiBh2N8/s400/bscap0042.jpg

[OUmillenium]

cigarettes = stimulant
MJ = depressant

I'll hire a cigarette guy over an MJ guy every single time.

[CatfishSooner]

cigarettes = stimulant
MJ = depressant

I'll hire a cigarette guy over an MJ guy every single time.

Probably depends on the job I'd say...