Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Lawrence man sentenced to 12 years in federal prison on cocaine charges

April 28, 2009

Advertisement

A 47-year-old man convicted for his role in a Lawrence cocaine trafficking ring has received a 12-year federal prison sentence, according to Acting U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker’s office.

U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum handed down the sentence Monday to Leland Roebuck, formerly of Lawrence. Roebuck pleaded guilty in January to one count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine.

In his plea, Roebuck admitted he was part of a trafficking conspiracy in Lawrence that lasted from 2000 to 2006, led by co-defendants Gerald Dunn and Shaune Frazier. Prosecutors said Dunn and Frazier would rely on Roebuck and others to distribute crack from an apartment in the 400 block of Wisconsin Street.

The conspirators also used an apartment in the 2400 block of Alabama Street, according to court records.

Nine other co-defendants in the case are scheduled to be sentenced later in May.

Comments

cthulhu_4_president 4 years, 11 months ago

"The typical answer of one who has no answer."

It's also typical of a question that has no correct answer. If you believe that every yes or no question deserves an answer, then I ask you "Have you stopped torturing puppies yet?" A yes or no answer will suffice. So, will you answer my idiotic question, or will you take the 5th as I did to your idiotic question?

"What exactly makes it 'apples and oranges,' culio - the fact that the cocaine trade is harmless in your opinion?"

No, the cocaine trade (and all black market drug trade) is very harmful, because it is a criminal empire that thrives on the current atmosphere of ciminlization, and extracts its budget from the most vulnerable portions of our society. Forbidden fruit is, and always has been, a very lucrative business. To answer your question, your post is comparing apples and oranges because crimes comitted with the intent of harming another person are far different from the crime of consuming an illegal substance, whose consumption itself has no immediate victim other than the consumer. Can you really be this thick?

"I'm glad for you that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about."

Uh-huh. And you do? Please find some evidence to discourage the facts I've mentioned and I'll gladly research it.

"I'm glad your mother, sister, child was not an addict, culio. I'm glad blah blah blah....."

Perhaps people in my family are, and perhaps I have been victimized in the ways you mention. How would you know? Perhaps I also realize that these actions may not have been the result of using some substance, but because they were stupid people. Perhaps I also realize that if drugs were gone, then the addict who was stupid enough to snort coke will huff paint and drink cough syrup for the high instead. However, I'm glad that you're so glad, but your post sounds very angry for how glad you are.

"I'd be even more glad if you weren't trying to sell your hogwash about a subject you obviously know absolutely nothing about."

I know, I think the world would be much easier if everyone just agreed with me too. However, you see, I live in this thing called reality, and the best way to deal with differing opinions about hot-button issues seems to be to 1) objectively research it, 2) calmly inform others of your findings, 3) and let them research and decide for themselves. All of these 3 things I have done on this thread, with a little bad-logic busting along the way. Now, I suggest you start at number 1), then you can give me some facts to research other than just spouting "you don't know what you're talking about". Since that's all you seem to be able to say, it makes me think that you don't know what you're talking about.

P.S. : What is culio?

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

"notajayhawk: not even worth responding to. Apples and oranges."

The typical answer of one who has no answer.

What exactly makes it 'apples and oranges,' culio - the fact that the cocaine trade is harmless in your opinion?

"Your argument from this point on is completely ridiculous, as a key point in the argument for drug legalization is that it does directly not harm anyone except the user of the substance..."

I'm glad for you that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'm glad your mother, sister, child was not an addict, culio. I'm glad that you were never injured in an accident by a driver under the influence of drugs. I'm glad your house was never broken into, your car wasn't jacked, you weren't robbed at gunpoint by someone needing to get high.

I'd be even more glad if you weren't trying to sell your hogwash about a subject you obviously know absolutely nothing about.

0

TacoBob 4 years, 11 months ago

Anyone here willing to admit they have done coke? Anyone willing to talk about what effect it had?

If I could get my hands on 'legal' coke, or even illegal, in any sort of quantity, I would be partaking on a regular basis. It is a dream drug, big time euphoria, but yet in a way that lets you function - at least during the ramp up.

Never had access to enough to get totally hooked, and therefore experience the nose bleeds, nose destruction, finanacial destruction, and beyond, but if I could have, I would have.

Dangerous drug, just too powerful to allow any level of self control. A sirens' song,

And for those that rail against alcohol and how it is so much worse with more harmful effects, how about turning your efforts towards outlawing that drug rather than yammering about how your less harmful drug should be allowed - given the fact alcohol is legal? How about drawing a line and taking a stand? Or should we just add another 'wrong' since we already have one?

0

gontek 4 years, 11 months ago

I find it is more fun to agree with practicality than argue with her. That's why illegal drugs will stay illegal. She is way better at arguing. It's like she is Dilbert's boss or something. She totally dismisses every fact in favor of her own convictions. She is the ultimate demonstration of truthiness, and you can not argue with that.

Other possibilities I have considered are that she is trolling, but nobody is that good at pretending. I have also suspected that she is a social worker or a parole officer, possibly a lawyer, such that her livelyhood depends on drugs remaining illegal. Maybe she is also a kingpin. Nah, too naive.

So, I continue to agree with practicality. Go back and read her posting history, and you will see she writes with an armor of truthiness that nobody can put a chink in. She has convinced me that drugs are bad.

All drugs should be illegal, and all activity that kills people should be illegal. People should not be fat and lazy. The police should wake up the community with reville at 6 AM, and by 6:30 we should all be in the street doing jumping jacks. 9 PM curfew. No more coffee, pepsi, caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, all illegal. It would be such a wonderful society it has reshaped my conception of utopia.

0

jaywalker 4 years, 11 months ago

homechanger said: "Law enforcement needs to keep the war on drugs raging to justify their bloated budgets and personel numbers"

Wow. That's just sad.

0

rabb 4 years, 11 months ago

Why because I say so? No, because studies suggest the link. I guess you missed these...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es

http://www.fear.org/

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1229/Forfe

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/na

I'm concerned about this point of seizure because that is the point. The fines incurred for jaywalking go to the state, not to law enforcement directly as forfeitures do. By making blanket generalizations like "This claim could be made for all law enforcement in general" and "Do you think all enforcement of the laws is in the business of making money?" you weaken your argument. Try to focus on relevant points. Talking with you is not fun anymore. It's tedious. I'm done.
You win. Have a legal cocktail, smoke a legal cigarette and wake up to a cup of legal coffee in the morning.
Enjoy.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

"It also is a moot point since the rate of police brutality is in fact directly related to drug laws. Cops have a vested interest in getting the dope and/or doper because of the rewards to the police department."

Why because you say so? Hardly. This claim could be made for all law enforcement in general. For there is usually a fine incurred when breaking the law. Do you think all enforcement of the laws is in the business of making money? You seem awfully concerned about this point of seizure. Maybe you should re evaluate how you make your living for it appears you worry about this a little too much.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

Kryptenx,

I do not believe that the DOJ websites are biased. As you can see they did cite specific studies on some of the posts I mentioned. Others, they did not, I admit. I will look into where they recieved their information concerning those stats, as they always post them somewhere.

As far as the gangs are concerned, I have considerable experience in dealing with them. Most gangs did not start out in the drug trade, they moved into them in the early 80's as the crack epidemic spread and they realized the opportunity there to make money. They still rob, deal in prostitutes, burglarize, fence, etc. etc. etc. I admit that there primary cash flow comes from drug dealing right now, but they will continue to be a criminal organization and move onto something else if drug dealing is taken from them. Just like the Mafia. Even if it is just armed robbery, which they still are the primary offenders of in gang areas.

As far as the ease at which you found drugs in High School. It is too bad you had such experiences. But, you have to think outside of just yourself when contemplating it. For you, it might have been easier. For others at your school, not quite as easy. It is equally as easy to have an older sibling purchase alcohol at the store, or a friend's sibling, or even just go in and buy it in many locations. In places like Goodland Kansas it isn't as easy to score as you put it. But, it is still equally as easy to get some older friend to purchase the alcohol.

Here is a quote from your link you posted earlier refencing your statistics concerning drug use.

"Yet experts say the findings of the new survey don't fairly reflect the success or failure of any particular drug policy. The survey asked only whether people had ever tried drugs in their lifetime — it did not ask about habitual use. "For drug policy, what you look at is regular use," says Tom Riley, a spokesman for the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. "Somebody having tried pot in 1968 in college doesn't really have much to do with what the current drug use picture in the United States is."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0%2C8599%2C1821697%2C00.html

0

rabb 4 years, 11 months ago

It was perfectly clear. It also is a moot point since the rate of police brutality is in fact directly related to drug laws. Cops have a vested interest in getting the dope and/or doper because of the rewards to the police department. Not so with jaywalking. You are the one off on a tangent. Can you not see the correlation between police abuse and drug laws? The problem is systemic, inherent in the forfeiture laws.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es.html

http://www.fear.org/

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1229/Forfeiture-Modern-forfeiture-laws.html

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

rabb,

the argument concerning excessive police brutality against jaywalkers was to point out that police abuse has been comitted against people connected to all sorts of crimes. I never claimed that I knew of any source. The problem is the individual police who goes beyond his/her authority, not the drug law. I am not going to research whether or not some police officer actually killed or hurt a jaywalker. That was not the point I was making and I never made the claim that I knew of any such incident specifically. I said that "I am sure in the history of Law Enforcement" etc. If that was unclear, (which I don't think it was, I just think you are trying to steer this off on a tangent) then now it is.

0

Kryptenx 4 years, 11 months ago

Gangs will move on to other illegal ventures, such as?

Please, don't cite the DEA or any federal government source when arguing about drugs. They have never been credible when it comes to such things. They do not even allow medicinal research with marijuana if it has the chance to show marijuana in a more positive light than they want the public to believe. Saying anything against drug prohibition is bad job security for the DEA. That source is laughable at best. Notice that they do not even cite any sources. It's just "take it from us, we're the government and we always have your best interests in mind." [/sarcasm] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

You may not believe that it is easier for kids in high school to get pot than booze, but not believing doesn't make it not true. I'm positive that my high school years were more recent than yours, and there more kids' houses than I could count on both hands that I could go to and score almost anything I wanted. I didn't know a single kid who ran a bootleg liquor store from his house. Drug dealers do not card, liquor stores are required to by law.

I could have cited any number of sources from NORML and such sites, yet biased sources aren't good for getting your point accross to the opposite side. If you're going to cite a government agency that depends on prohibition in order to exist, at least make sure they can back up their own claims with credible, unbiased sources.

And for the record, I am only in support of marijuana legalization. I do recognize that people do stupid things under the influence of cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, PCP, heroin, etc, yet legalization and regulation would solve a lot of the problems that spillover into innocent peoples' lives. Ever thought how much of your tax money has gone to building new jails and feeding inmates who are simply there for a non-violent possession charge? It affects everyone.

0

rabb 4 years, 11 months ago

Practicality,

Do you have any sources other than DEA???? I can't imagine any bias there, can you? Still waiting for your jaywalking death toll.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

Have to disagree Kryptenx,

"drug abuse has increased in the Netherlands. From 1984 to 1996, marijuana use among 18-25 year olds in Holland increased twofold. Since legalization of marijuana, heroin addiction levels in Holland have tripled and perhaps even quadrupled by some estimates."

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/08so.htm

"It is a fact that it is easier for a high school kid to get marijuana than to get alcohol."

I do not believe this is a fact at all. Maybe in some areas but even then I doubt it.

"Even so, let's assume that you're correct about drug use increasing. As long as the users are non-violent, does this not trump the status quo?" (Kryptenx)

"• The greatest weakness in the logic of legalizers is that the violence associated with drugs is simply a product of drug trafficking. That is, if drugs were legal, then most drug crime would end. But most violent crime is committed not because people want to buy drugs, but because people are on drugs. Drug use changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity, and there is ample scientific evidence that demonstrates the links between drugs, violence, and crime. Drugs often cause people to do things they wouldn’t do if they were rational and free of the influence of drugs. • According to the 1999 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) study, more than half of arrestees for violent crimes test positive for drugs at the time of their arrest.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/08so.htm

Gangs are going to exist whether drugs are legal or not. The mafia didn't cease to exist with the repeal of prohibition, as evident that they are still present today. They just moved on to different ventures. Gang members are not going to go get a job simply because their revenue from drugs ceases. They will just move on to other illegal ventures as well.

0

Kryptenx 4 years, 11 months ago

Wrong: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821697,00.html

42% of Americans have tried marijuana, yet in the Netherlands this number falls to 20%. Furthermore, no country even comes close to the US in percentage of people who have tried cocaine, 16%. It is a fact that it is easier for a high school kid to get marijuana than to get alcohol. Your argument is logical, but it just doesn't hold up to the empirical evidence. Take the "coolness" factor out of it and many people would never have any urge to start.

Even so, let's assume that you're correct about drug use increasing. As long as the users are non-violent, does this not trump the status quo? We would have more adults using drugs, less kids using drugs, more jail space and the eradication of the need to build new jails every time you turn around, less violence on the streets, more tax revenue, less money into the hands of violent criminals, etc, etc. Think about why inner-city gangs exist. Take away their profit motive and what do you have? A group of people who are forced to be responsible and hold a job to pay for their belongings instead of peddling drugs and shooting up anyone who crosses their territory.

And one more link concerning alcohol use in Germany, where kids are allowed to drink at the age of 16/18: http://www.kansan.com/stories/2009/apr/24/holtz_mubarak_drinking/?opinion

No beer pong, no flip cup, no shot-gunning beers!? How could they possibly achieve such an impossible feat by letting kids learn responsibility!? They took the "coolness" out of being drunk as f@^k, simple as that.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

musbhiorio,

Judging by the stats that you posted, see what happens when you legalize dangerous substances. The use of those drugs will increase, just like with alcohol and ciggerettes. Thanks for proving my point.

The war on drugs has actually produced positive results in limiting drug use as judged by a decrease in users since its inception. Unless people want to see an increase similar to alcohol use and its associated problems, it is wise to keep it illegal.

0

musbhiorlo 4 years, 11 months ago

365,000 people die each year from being fat and lazy. with all of those deaths you'd think it would be against the law!

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

"So, tell me, Practicality, is there a difference between “pot-heads” and “druggies”? Furthermore, these sound more like sociocultural labels than anything else. So are you against drugs and pot (between which you draw a distinction), or are you against the sociocultural groups that you call “pot-heads” and “druggies”?"

As to the first question, to me there is not much of a difference between a pot-head and/or a druggie. I made the distinction because many posters on these threads do and I was trying to illustrate the type people who comprise most of this organization. People like to claim that it is filled with cops, attorneys, and judges. The reality is, they have a few of those people as window dressing and the rest is comprised of people like Logrithmic.

As to your second question, nice attempt at a word game. I am against all drugs, including Marijuana, and personally do not form a distinction between Marijuana and all illegal drugs. Again, I know many posters do, so it has become necessary for me to do this to prevent confusion I am also against the individuals who use drugs and believe if they choose to use drugs willingly, then they choose to suffer the consequences of their drug use willingly.

It never ceases to amaze me how the people of Lawrence are so willing to advocate for drug use. With all the obvious problems that are associated with drug use, they still want to excuse it. It is apparent to me, many people need to reexamine their priorities. If getting high is that important to you, the rest of your life has to be in disarray.

0

musbhiorlo 4 years, 11 months ago

all illicit drugs combined kill 17,000 people yearly tobacco which is legal kills 435,000 people yearly alcohol which is legal kills 85,000 people yearly

let's get our priorities straight!

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

0

musbhiorlo 4 years, 11 months ago

a drug Georg Bush has done numerous times in his life.

0

musbhiorlo 4 years, 11 months ago

i feel sorry for the guy getting sent away all those years for selling one of the original ingredients in Coca Cola.

0

Gootsie 4 years, 11 months ago

Did I miss the announcement about this being National Cut and Paste Day?

My gripe is that you never hear about the good drug dealers until they are busted.

0

RedwoodCoast 4 years, 11 months ago

Hmmm...

Practicality: "They do have a few “current or former members” of Law Enforcement on their Advisory Board, but they only allow these people to speak to try and act like a legitimate organization and hide the fact that a great number of their group are just a bunch of “pot-heads” and “druggies”."

Once again, someone lets loose with a linguistic Freudian-slip. You know, sort of like classifying inebriating substances as "drugs" and "alcohol." Many people actually make a significant distinction between "drugs" and "alcohol." And now Practicality is labeling people as "pot-heads" and "druggies."

So, tell me, Practicality, is there a difference between "pot-heads" and "druggies"? Furthermore, these sound more like sociocultural labels than anything else. So are you against drugs and pot (between which you draw a distinction), or are you against the sociocultural groups that you call "pot-heads" and "druggies"?

0

rabb 4 years, 11 months ago

Practicality,

The idea that a crack bar is coming with legalization is ludicrous. The big question to ask yourself is if crack were legal, would you smoke it? Would you do heroin if it were legal? Is that all that keeps you from doing those drugs, the fact that they are illegal? I would not do heroin even if it were legal because it is not a good idea. But if you want to do heroin, be my guest. I'm not the one to tell you not to. I wouldn't advise it, but it's up to you.

"Yes, there has been innocent people hurt and killed by “over-zealous” Law Enforcement personnel. I am sure in the history of the enforcement of laws throughout the United States you will find innocent people hurt and killed for jaywalking enforcement, speeding, and every mundane law someone can think of. It wasn't the drug law that killed or hurt anyone, it was the “over-zealous” enforcement officer who did. Do you want to stop all Law Enforcement?"

Please cite an example of an innocent person killed for jaywalking enforcement. I have cited dozens of examples of drug war victims, caught in the crossfire because law enforcement profits off of the drug war. Can you seriously not see that?? Law enforcement does not target jaywalkers because there is no profit motive. If jaywalkers were subject to forfeiture laws, you can bet that there would be a spike in dead jaywalkers. Again, you have taken an argument to an extreme/ridiculous conclusion. No one is talking about stopping all law enforcement. We'd just like for law enforcement to stop killing innocent people while looking for drugs.

I just asked if you had a job because you seem to post a lot on here. I wonder how you have the time. You must have a good job if you can post all day and still pay $35000 is income taxes. Maybe you're a cop. They make good money when they bust the dopers and take their stuff.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

Rabb,

"Speculation. You seriously think that a “crack bar” is coming if drugs are legalized? Please. Nice use of hyperbole."

If your read my statement, it says when compared to the repeal of prohibition. Since everyone wants to compare this to prohibition, one of the outcomes of the repeal was the reinstitution of public drinking establishments. So, to be more direct, yes I do believe we will have public drug using establishments if drugs were legalized. I do think that would take a few years after legalization occured though.

"Do you mean these people who have been harmed by over-zealous Drug Warriors. Your thoughts?"

Yes, there has been innocent people hurt and killed by "over-zealous" Law Enforcement personnel. I am sure in the history of the enforcement of laws throughout the United States you will find innocent people hurt and killed for jaywalking enforcement, speeding, and every mundane law someone can think of. It wasn't the drug law that killed or hurt anyone, it was the "over-zealous" enforcement officer who did. Do you want to stop all Law Enforcement?

"P.S. Do you have a job, Practicality? I'm just curious."

Yes, Rabb, I have a job. Although I fail to see the point of asking the question. Do you have a job? I also paid 35000 dollars in personal income tax last year. So if you are somehow implying that I am living off of the government, I do take offense to that.

0

rabb 4 years, 11 months ago

Here we go again. . .

"Do you really want to add a crack bar, heroin bar, cocaine bar, meth bar, etc. next to all the alcohol bars that currently exist? Because that is what will eventually happen if we judge it in comparison to prohibition’s repeal."

Speculation. You seriously think that a "crack bar" is coming if drugs are legalized? Please. Nice use of hyperbole.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4075235.stm

“Cocaine: Babies born to mothers who abuse cocaine during pregnancy can be born prematurely and have low birth weights. There may be as many as 45,000 cocaine-exposed babies per year.”

"There may be" is a possibility, not a fact. Again, speculation or conjecture.
Sounds like a Fox News report. "Some people say that...."

Here are some cocaine/crack links for you.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html

"I have already showed you statistics on people that are harmed from drug use who are not drug users and you have just ignored that. There are many others that I could post as well just concerning the impact users have on their families and society."

Do you mean these people who have been harmed by over-zealous Drug Warriors. Your thoughts?

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

"These Pro-Drug advocates like to repeatedly scream out this Law Enforcement Against Prohibition group as a means to bring credibility to their cause. They want the reader to think that Law Enforcement is for the legalization of drugs."

Law Enforcement has too much to gain through forfeiture laws to want to legalize. Remember Tulia?
If not, here are some links.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/tuliatexas/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/tom_coleman/index.html

Finally, here are some more links that may help you to understand the futility of the Drug War.

http://www.november.org/

http://www.harmreduction.org/

http://www.drugpolicy.org/reducingharm/

P.S. Do you have a job, Practicality?
I'm just curious.

0

gontek 4 years, 11 months ago

go read a sociology book people. Everytime there is an article about some drugs found or kids dying from alcohol this whole argument ensures, with the same pundits taking the same sides with the same arguments, and nobody listens to anyone and misinformation is spewed everwhere.

There are two actions to take - 1. Decriminalization - because the drug war is failing/has failed 2. Increased inforcement and punishment - keep doing what we are doing because it works

I take the stance on increased enforcement because I like to entertain myself by making crass, unreasonable agruments to ridicule that position, plus I don't think we are anywhere near decrimilazation politically. If you want to actually do something to change the situation, do something different. Read any sociology book on this topic. Just because you are as social worker does not mean you understand all the effects of the drug laws on our socitey. And for god's sakes, please don't copy and paste facts from other websites, just send us a link to your sourse. like this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/state_factsheets/kansas.html

http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/success_in_fight_against_drugs.pdf

http://norml.org/

http://www.dare.com/home/DrugInformation/Story322a.asp?N=DrugInformation&M=11&S=18

As an observier and satirist who does not really care about these arguments, I can then choose what misinformation I want to absorb and believe. But come on, I still want to enjoy the forum, don't ruin it for everyone and dominate the comments section just because you passionately believe you are on the right side of the argument.

0

cthulhu_4_president 4 years, 11 months ago

"How on earth does history support your conclusion?"

As I've said before, prohibition here and the success of decriminilization practices abroad.

"You make this claim yet fail to provide any supporting documentation. What studies are you referencing to roove your point? What stats support your argument?"

I'm very sorry, but I will not indulge in the popular practice that so many other board members indulge in by doing other people's research for them, especially when it can be done so easily on the net. I believe that if you are truly an unbiased researcher, that you will seek out evidence that might contradict your conclusion and analyze it for yourself to test the validity of your conclusion. I used to share your opinion, and this is exactly what I did, and arrived at a different conclusion.

"Please explain how a baby being born addicted to cocaine or a drug addict robbing someone for drug money is a consequence of drug criminilization?"

If the mother went to seek help, she would be branded as a criminal and most likely have her child removed as soon as it was born. Not sure if the robbery argument holds up since someone will probably be robbed for drug money whether they're illegal or not. I can only guess that with the decline of the black market, they won't cost as much and maybe he won't have to rob someone. I don't usually engage in the hypothetical debate as a rule, but my answers are as equally ridiculous as the questions, so I figured it wouldn't hurt.

"You are right concerning the “indirect” harm argument but that prooves my point even more. The government has a duty to try and prevent individual behavior from harming innocent people who are not associated with that behavior"

So then the government should ban driving, right? Since inhaling exhaust is harmful to those not associated with the activity of driving? A parent feeding McDonald's to her children should be banned also, since the child is not associated with the mother's choice to eat unhealthy food. Many, many, things harm people indirectly, such as driving and our decision to have our families eat lard, but they are not illegal. I'm not arguing the validity of your opinion, because it's easy to preach on behalf of the indirect victims as they are by default helpless, but once you realize that we're all indirect victims of something, it becomes a slippery slope rather fast. That is why I find it very important to make the distinction, and why we must be very careful when legislating actions against indirect victims.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

"I specifically said “I don't know”, but that history seems to support my conclusion."

How on earth does history support your conclusion?

" I've done my homework. Please do yours, then we can continue this pleasant conversation."

You make this claim yet fail to provide any supporting documentation. What studies are you referencing to proove your point? What stats support your argument?

"All of your examples are of indirect harm that are likely consequences of criminilization."

Please explain how a baby being born addicted to cocaine or a drug addict robbing someone for drug money is a consequence of drug criminilization? That stuff is going to continue if drugs are legalized, and the percentages will go up if more people are using drugs. Which I contend will happen if Drugs are Legalized.

"You are changing your tone. I never said it couldn't be regulated, just not explicitly criminilized"

I admit this was confusing. What I meant by "regulated" was that their illegality should be maintained. Obviously you interpret it differently, I apologize for the confusion.

You are right concerning the "indirect" harm argument but that prooves my point even more. The government has a duty to try and prevent individual behavior from harming innocent people who are not associated with that behavior.

Still, just like with speeding, there is too great of a risk that individuals who partake in drug use have an increased chance to inflict harm on "unintended" victims. That is why it is illegal. People can make the argument that some people can drive better at 100 mph than others can at 50 mph, and it is probably true in some cases. But, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. That is why there are speed limits, and that is why drugs are illegal.

0

cthulhu_4_president 4 years, 11 months ago

I just saw the 10:24 post about my alleged contradicion in terms. Please realize that other countries have legalized drugs, with little ill effects. That is the basis for my historical claims, not this country.

Also, a crack/meth/ bar might make me uncomfortable. Alchohol bars actually do make me uncomfortable, but if the market allows it, and the people want it, then we will have it. I acknowladge that people will lead lifestyles that will make me uncomfortable, and it's up to me to educate myself and my own about the harm associated with these lifestyles, and then to make a desicion. Personal responsibility, folks.

0

tonymontana 4 years, 11 months ago

Fact is, people like their drugs and aren't going to stop. This man was providing a public service and all that really happened is the market is now open for business.

0

gontek 4 years, 11 months ago

capitol punishment for anyone dealing crack.

life sentence for anyone in posession of any drug.

Jail for any lifestyle I do not approve of.

You can present all this drug related information as fact or opinion or whatever, its all speculation of what would happen, why this happens. The truth remains: Cocaine is a hell of a drug. People will keep doing drugs unless you cut off the supply or eliminate all the people doing the drugs. This is a war folks. Capitol Punishment to all the people who are dealing and using drugs and the problem will go away. Use the army to go after them, wiretap, unwarranted searches, spies, technology, whatever it takes.

0

cthulhu_4_president 4 years, 11 months ago

Also I want to clarify that I'm not defending the moron who is the subject of the article. My point is that with decriminalization, morons like this will be out of business overnight.

notajayhawk: not even worth responding to. Apples and oranges.

0

cthulhu_4_president 4 years, 11 months ago

"I would have to disagree with this as well. Drugs affect the decision making process, and to many extended users it becomes the number one priority in their life."

No, addiction affects the thinking process. This can come from drugs, porn, video games, and alchohol. Only one of these is illegal in our society. Are you on a crusade against video game addiction as well?

"I have already showed you statistics on people that are harmed from drug use who are not drug users and you have just ignored that."

I didn't ignore them which is why I quantified my arguments with the term "direct" harm. The statistics you quoted me were explicit examples of indirect harm. And you said, the harm came from the decision of the parents. If drugs are illegal, it will not (has not) change the decision that these people make to harm their children.

" The same as when someone drives a car too fast. There is an increase in risk to society in both cases that is why it needs to be regulated."

You are changing your tone. I never said it couldn't be regulated, just not explicitly criminilized.

"Your entire argument rests on the unknown assumption that drug use will not increase with drug legalization and that drug use only harms the user"

Again, no. My argument rests on the fact that the war on drugs has failed, and that historical precedant in our country and successful decriminlization practices in other countries and this one have seen no rise in the very scary statistics you've mentioned. Also please realize that my arguments are quantified with "direct" harm. All of your examples are of indirect harm that are likely consequences of criminilization. Please try again!

" I believe it will. You believe it won’t. I ask you, do you honestly think that alcohol use has not increased in our society with the end of prohibition?"

I never said that I believed it wouldn't. I specifically said "I don't know", but that history seems to support my conclusion. You see, I don't pretend to have all the answers. It is also true that it doesn't matter what you or I believe, what matters is what the facts show.

"I ask you, do you honestly think that alcohol use has not increased in our society with the end of prohibition?"

Again, it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what the facts show. It's clear that you haven't researched the facts in this matter. I've done my homework. Please do yours, then we can continue this pleasant conversation.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

"There is no evidence that legalization will cause in increase in these numbers."

Wonderful. By your logic, think of the money we'd save by no longer prosecuting murder, rape, robbery - after all, there's no reason to suspect those number would go up if we legalized them, is there? Heck, maybe we could find a way to tax those, too.

0

coldplay 4 years, 11 months ago

"formerly of Lawrence".....

hahahahaha, love the humor!

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

“The problem isn't in the drugs, it's in the decision making”

I would have to disagree with this as well. Drugs affect the decision making process, and to many extended users it becomes the number one priority in their life.

“Your argument from this point on is completely ridiculous, as a key point in the argument for drug legalization is that it does directly not harm anyone except the user of the substance, and that user should be free to harm themselves as they see fit.” (Concerning the speeding argument)

I have already showed you statistics on people that are harmed from drug use who are not drug users and you have just ignored that. There are many others that I could post as well just concerning the impact users have on their families and society. There are also all the individuals and businesses who are repeatedly robbed from drug users to get money to buy drugs. So your argument that drug use doesn’t harm anyone except the user appears to be the ridiculous statement because too many users are unable to control their actions so there is harm to society. The same as when someone drives a car too fast. There is an increase in risk to society in both cases that is why it needs to be regulated.

Your entire argument rests on the unknown assumption that drug use will not increase with drug legalization and that drug use only harms the user. It is proven that drug use affects many people who do not use drugs. What is unproven is whether drug use will increase with drug legalization. I believe it will. You believe it won’t. I ask you, do you honestly think that alcohol use has not increased in our society with the end of prohibition?

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

“There is no evidence that legalization will cause in increase in these numbers. They might, sure, but we don't know.”

“Prohibition in our own country tells us that these numbers will not rise in any drastic sense.”

These two statements you just made contradict each other. You are right, there is not any evidence that legalization will cause an increase, because drugs have mostly been illegal in the last century and there weren’t any studies done to substantiate that. So, really, all you are doing is expressing an opinion. Your other statement falls into this category. You really haven’t any idea if more people started drinking alcohol after prohibition ended, but you are basing your argument on that assertion.

But, prohibition of alcohol was repealed and you see the result in present day society. Alcohol use pervades our society. It is advertised, our business districts are flooded with its presence, and our kids our exposed to its constant presence in our culture which makes it harder to convince them not to use it. That is the lesson of prohibition’s failure. Do you really want to add a crack bar, heroin bar, cocaine bar, meth bar, etc. next to all the alcohol bars that currently exist? Because that is what will eventually happen if we judge it in comparison to prohibition’s repeal.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

It copy pasted wrong. It should read like this C4.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

Your entire argument rests on the unknown assumption that drug use will not increase with drug legalization and that drug use only harms the user. It is proven that drug use affects many people who do not use drugs. What is unproven is whether drug use will increase with drug legalization. I believe it will. You believe it won’t. I ask you, do you honestly think that alcohol use has not increased in our society with the end of prohibition?

0

spiff 4 years, 11 months ago

"Makes sense. Rap has never come up with anything original."

wow

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

This miscreant was an undocumented pharmacist.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

“The problem isn't in the drugs, it's in the decision making”

I would have to disagree with this as well. Drugs affect the decision making process, and to many extended users it becomes the number one priority in their life.

“Your argument from this point on is completely ridiculous, as a key point in the argument for drug legalization is that it does directly not harm anyone except the user of the substance, and that user should be free to harm themselves as they see fit.” (Concerning the speeding argument)

I have already showed you statistics on people that are harmed from drug use who are not drug users and you have just ignored that. There are many others that I could post as well just concerning the impact users have on their families and society. There are also all the individuals and businesses who are repeatedly robbed from drug users to get money to buy drugs. So your argument that drug use doesn’t harm anyone except the user appears to be the ridiculous statement because too many users are unable to control their actions so there is harm to society. The same as when someone drives a car too fast. There is an increase in risk to society in both cases that is why it needs to be regulated.

0

The_Original_Bob 4 years, 11 months ago

"TOB, that's actually a quote from the old Baretta tv show." Snap

Makes sense. Rap has never come up with anything original.

0

cthulhu_4_president 4 years, 11 months ago

"This is why it is a bad thing."

The question I asked in my last post was: "why is it a bad thing that the organized crime sydicates will go immediatly broke when/if drugs are legalized". Your information does not answer that question.

"There are too many innocent people whose lives are affected by the selfish, unresponsible decision to use drugs. Do we really want to risk an increase in these numbers?"

There is no evidence that legalization will cause in increase in these numbers. They might, sure, but we don't know. We only have historic precedant to go on. Prohibition in our own country tells us that these numbers will not rise in any drastic sense. The problem isn't in the drugs, it's in the decision making process of people who choose to do cocaine while pregnant, or drink and then beat there kid. If all drugs are gone tomorrow, the drunk will still beat their kid, and the pregnant mom will huff paint instead of coke. Education, not criminilzation, is the key.

"Just because some people still speed while driving, does that mean we should do away with speed limits? "

Your argument from this point on is completely ridiculous, as a key point in the argument for drug legalization is that it does directly not harm anyone except the user of the substance, and that user should be free to harm themselves as they see fit. Speeding, though, is an action with the potential to directly harm others in the vicinity of the speeder, and so, to protect those people, speeding is outlawed. Did this really need explaining?

I

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

Families can be destroyed by drug abuse:

"Child Abuse: Approximately 50% to 80% of all child abuse and neglect cases substantiated by child protective services involve some degree of substance abuse by the child’s parents."

"Cocaine: Babies born to mothers who abuse cocaine during pregnancy can be born prematurely and have low birth weights. There may be as many as 45,000 cocaine-exposed babies per year."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/magnitude/

This is why it is a bad thing. There are too many innocent people whose lives are affected by the selfish, unresponsible decision to use drugs. Do we really want to risk an increase in these numbers? Just because some people still speed while driving, does that mean we should do away with speed limits? What would happen if we abolished speed limits? Don't you think there would be an increase in speeding and the harm to innocent people due to the increase in accidents of these speeders?

0

cthulhu_4_president 4 years, 11 months ago

"Lawrence man sentenced to 12 years in federal prison on cocaine charges"

And the next day, someone more young, brutal, and stupid has taken his place on the streets, making money off of the failed war on drugs.

What makes drug cartels so powerful is their unlimited budget (the old supply/demand curve works in their favor, because no matter how much they supply, there will always be more demand than that!). The first thing that will happen if/when recreational drugs become legal is that the organized criminal world will be instantly crippled due to lack of income (when's the last time you bought booze from a bootlegger?). If someone can tell me how this is a bad thing, then maybe I'll start believing that the war on drugs is justified.

0

smitty 4 years, 11 months ago

Agreed this guy is bad news.... however, is there a double standard going on here?

If the det who testified at this trial is the same one that went through drug rehab recently after the so called investigation by a higher outside legal authority of the LPD"s Olin and staff but handled as a private personnel issue thru the city manager's office(per Mike Amyx), then his testimony in the case is a wide open door to have a reversal. It really would be a tragedy to have the big dealers go free or have to retry them to clean up the scam by the legal system.

Cases got thrown out over his fellow det, Peck,(a frame up?), public dismissal if it's the same guy. To what extent do you allow a double standard in law enforcement? To what extent do you allow prosecution of the laws by LE who break those very same drug laws? Always, when it's a secret deal that goes unchallenged.

Sounds like a blind eye and deaf ear, NIMBY, hypocritical defense to say 'put this guy away' while under the table protection may have occurred for the prosecution's witness to get a conviction.

Your turn xfactor(do you cry in the court room?) to write me another one of those cheap shot scare warnings.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

TOB, that's actually a quote from the old Baretta tv show.

0

homechanger 4 years, 11 months ago

the whole group moved around 5 kilos in six years. not this lone defendant. still a bad move on his part but his 12 year sentence will no stop one flake of cocain from hitting the street. Law enforcement needs to keep the war on drugs raging to justify their bloated budgets and personel numbers.

0

The_Original_Bob 4 years, 11 months ago

Damn, Snap. Busting out some Grandmaster Flash on a Wednesday morning?

"boboberg- 11 pounds is a 10 day supply?"

boboberg is LIndsay Lohan.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. (don't do it)

0

Alexander Neighbors 4 years, 11 months ago

This was not a problem this guy was nuts... that much cocaine !? that's a heart attack waiting to happen.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh, and job well done to the police and detectives who arrested this organization. The U.S. District Attorney who prosecuted this organization. And, the Judge who sentenced this organization.

This is the prevailing attitude of Law Enforcement concerning Drug Legalization. The "serious police, prosecutors, and judges" who combat this problem every day.

0

Practicality 4 years, 11 months ago

More lies from the Pro-Drug advocates trying to legitimize their cause. As I have already pointed out in previous posts, I will do so again.

Boboberg says,

“A group of 20,000 very serious policemen, prosecutors and attorneys have formed a group to legalize ALL drugs, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://leap.cc )”

These Pro-Drug advocates like to repeatedly scream out this Law Enforcement Against Prohibition group as a means to bring credibility to their cause. They want the reader to think that Law Enforcement is for the legalization of drugs. Then they like to exaggerate this LEAP organization to make people believe that “20,000 very serious policemen, prosecutors and attorneys have formed a group to legalize ALL drugs.”

Here is what is taken from the LEAP website concerning their membership.

“Although those who speak publicly for LEAP are people from the law enforcement and criminal justice communities, a large number of our supporting members do not have such experience. You don't have to have law enforcement experience to join us.”

“The LEAP Advisory Board is composed of the esteemed and respected, current and former members of law enforcement listed on the LEAP masthead. Membership in LEAP is open to anyone but only current or former members of law enforcement can be board members or public speakers for LEAP. In five years we went from five founding police officers to a membership of 10,000 people.”

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=4

So, as everyone can plainly see, Boboberg intentionally exaggerates his claim he made earlier. It is a pathetic attempt to try and sway people to convince the readers that Law Enforcement is for the Legalization of Drugs which is entirely untrue.

  1. Leap doesn’t have 20,000 members it has 10,000
  2. Leap doesn’t require its members to be in Law Enforcement so the majority of the 10,000 aren’t even cops, prosecutors and attorneys.

  3. They do have a few “current or former members” of Law Enforcement on their Advisory Board, but they only allow these people to speak to try and act like a legitimate organization and hide the fact that a great number of their group are just a bunch of “pot-heads” and “druggies”.

LEAP does not speak for the prevailing Law Enforcement stance concerning Drug Legalization. It is a Pro-Drug organization that puts a few Law Enforcement personnel on the Advisory Board to try and trick the public into legitimacy.

Boboberg either intentionally exaggerated his statement, or, more likely, out and out lied to try and trick everyone, just like LEAP does.

0

eotw33 4 years, 11 months ago

boboberg- 11 pounds is a 10 day supply?

0

boboberg 4 years, 11 months ago

12 years is a ridiculous sentence for having drugs. Cocaine should be legal. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and their experience has been positive. Now if you are caught with a 10 day supply of your drug or less you face an administrative court, not a criminal court. We can do that here in the USA. A group of 20,000 very serious policemen, prosecutors and attorneys have formed a group to legalize ALL drugs, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://leap.cc ) They see what happened when we legalized alcohol in 1932 as a good example of how drug legalization would work. We can't stop drugs. They're sick of chasing drug users and sending innocent people to prison for decades just because they like to get high. This foolish war on drugs has lasted 37 years and cost us over a TRILLION dollars and we are not an inch closer to stopping drugs. How many millions of Americans are we going to lock up in prison for decades? Legalize ALL drugs now. Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com

0

smitty 4 years, 11 months ago

Is our local tri-county drug force to thank for this major federal case?

Who testified on behalf of the tri-county drug force or the LPD??

0

grammaddy 4 years, 11 months ago

Isn't 5 kilos like 11 pounds.? That's a lot of blow!!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.