http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...with_students_to_trick_them_into_selling_pot/ Personally if I were a taxpayer in Florida I would be outraged. Hours upon hours of manpower wasted to bust a high school student for $20 of weed. Isn't this entrapment?
Yes it is. Join NORML, they can use all the help they can get. It's about the best lobby out there for fighting the WAD.
I wonder how those pigs sleep at night. I mean drugs are one thing, but weed, come on. two years for selling a joint?
As a Florida tax payer, I find this extremely upsetting and am filled with utter disgust. To ruin a kids life for weed, and small amounts of it at that, is sickening. What if this kid has the smarts to cure cancer but never given the chance because of this felony? Really sad...
Yeah, and then they'll get on the local evening news and say "We raked in marijuana [repeat after me] having a street value of three million dollars off the streets." And the plastic idiots these stations hire as "newscasters" swallow every bit of it. The other press release is "We took several middle-level dealers out of action," when in fact half the people they arrested weren't really dealers at all (like in the Florida story), or low-level $20/30-bag dealers at best. If you're a cop, though that's where the money is. The promotions and salaries go not to the guys who investigate the murders and burglaries and rapes, but to the guys on the Drug Task Force who get all the nifty federal grants.
Shit like this sure doesn't help "the cause" much: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57379808/pot-laden-plane-blows-into-obamas-air-space/
A friend once told me that undercover law enforcement, specifically police, can't show things to you. So...if someone is ever pressing you, specifically a girl, say "Fine...show me your tits". They can't because of the fact that they are agents of the law. Although, in the case of the original story, these people know no limits to simply get kids caught. That's sad.
I'm just throwing this out there.............do most people honestly just start using heroin, crack, meth, PCP etc. from the start or, do they start with something else? I have no problem with pot but, when people call it a "Gateway Drug" I tend to agree with them. Maybe not for everyone but,......C'mon? Just be honest.
I tend to think of the "legal" drugs as the gateway drugs. My own mind is just "be consistent"; either legalize all drugs, or ban all drugs (including nicotine and alcohol). And it's useless to ban drugs. Just legalize it all already, and use the same methods for drug addicts as we do for alcoholics... But that makes sense, so it will never happen!
Totally untrue. Same as the old wives tale about if you ask an undercover if they are a cop then they HAVE to tell you. All B.S.
Same here with the priors of: scared shitless of drunken dad> molested by (female) babysitter>rebellious tendencies> "fuck-it" attitude> fight back any way you can> So where/what was the gateway? Not pot.
A drug is drug is a drug. Drugs don't know if they are legal or not they just work as they are supposed to. The "Gateway" drug is the first one you are directly or indirectly exposed to. All of us are exposed to drugs before we're born. Good point wiskas!
Well, what did you start off with? By the way I also typed that not everyone starts this way but, the truth is that most do.
The Gateway argument is one of the hardest to contest, IMHO, but you can use that argument about any harmful or immoral behavior. All harmful or immoral behavior starts out with something that isn't at all harmful or immoral or if it is, only to a de minimus degree. In a way it's kind of a Minority Report "futercrime" argument. No one today thinks much about the guy who throws a in a fiver on an NCAA bracket pool, but almost every person who goes down to a legal betting establishment and rolls away his or her entire paycheck in one night, probably started off making small "Gateway" bets. Most domestic assaults start of as harmless verbal arguments. You can go on ad nauseum. But do we as a society choose to prosecute and imprison people who make small bets or who get in verbal arguments because those behaviors sometimes escalate to something worse? Of course not. But we do in the case of marijuana use. We can and do choose where and when to condemn (and prosecute) certain behaviors. We draw these lines in the sand all the time. Sometimes we make mistakes, and for a helluva lotta reasons, we made a mistake with the reefer.
My point is that attitudes lead to behavior that preceeds the use. There are causitive factors that lead to the attitudes. Not everyone that touches a drug become addicts. The first substance most have any contact with is alcohol and not pot. Alcohol was my gateway drug as it was with most every addict. Alcohol use is also the drug that most every felon busted for violent crime was under theinfluence of when their crime was commited. If any drug's abolition were warranted for a safer society, alcohol should be it.
To plagiarize and expand upon the work of George Carlin: Phrases you NEVER hear . . . "Please saw my legs off." "Hand me that piano." "I smoked a joint and beat the shit outa my wife."
Mine was... nicotine (if that counts) > alcohol > lots of alcohol > weed > ecstasy > coke > dope, with "pills" somewhere (everywhere) in between alcohol and dope. Ecstasy and coke were around the same time if I remember right. My opiate timetable is like most peoples: Vicodin > Percocet 5s > Percocet 10s > Percocet 30s/OxyContin 20s > OC40s > OC80s > a couple OC80s > hey I'm dopesick and heroin is way cheaper! So with that said, I would say prescription pills and alcohol were my "gateway". But I guess YMMV.
More shit that should be revolted against but gets no attention: (and this shit is just getting underway, imagine 5 years from now) http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/...target-ed-advertising-strips-away-our-privacy
