>> ^hpqp:

Other downsides: personal vendettas, poor training caused disasters, criminals with a badge, etc, etc.
I understand the sentiment behind the idea, but it's putting way too much trust in the masses.


Because none of that shit happens now of course...

The abuse of power is the problem, increase the number of officers by a few orders of magnitude, and give them no reason to cover for each other, and I see no reason to believe that it would be worse than it is now.

Also, change who does the job or not, all cops should have an always on audio/video recording device on them whenever they are on duty. The full tape from any cop within half a mile should also be required as evidence in order to charge someone with a crime, or for the officer to be allowed to defend themselves from charges of abuse.

Other downsides: personal vendettas, poor training caused disasters, criminals with a badge, etc, etc.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea, but it's putting way too much trust in the masses.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^hpqp:
@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?

I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".
I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.
My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.
Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.
Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.

>> ^hpqp:

@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?


I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".

I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.

My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.

Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.

Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.

Dgandhi man, thank you!

The entire reason Statism & the whole idea of Bureaucratic Public Officers [like Police, Judges, Senators, Representatives, and Presidents] controlling your life for the "good of the public" are idiotic is because of the inherent conflict trying to equate violence with good faith.

Healthy & meaningful agreements aren't forged by threatening violence against an someone.

And then people wonder why cops have PTSD and Judges lie thru their teeth without remorse.


@bareboards2
Which is why it's frustrating that most of society complains about these problems but still support the bureaucratic system of violence that enables them.


>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Now come the cop unapologists
As an unapologist I do have to say this does bring up interesting questions, like "Should this even be a profession?"/"Can we trust people to do something like this long term if we know it breaks them in the process?".
I fully knowledge that the sort of policing that most western countries have is better than many that they could be compared to. Clearly police could be better funded, equipped and trained, but I wonder if there is a fundamental problem with the vocation as envisioned that requires a radical redesign to address the problems that exit in liberal democracies, problems that apparently effect both the officers and society at large.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Now come the cop unapologists

As an unapologist I do have to say this does bring up interesting questions, like "Should this even be a profession?"/"Can we trust people to do something like this long term if we know it breaks them in the process?".

I fully acknowledge that the sort of policing that most western countries have is better than many that they could be compared to. Clearly police could be better funded, equipped and trained, but I wonder if there is a fundamental problem with the vocation as envisioned that requires a radical redesign to address the problems that exit in liberal democracies, problems that apparently effect both the officers and society at large.

Now come the cop unapologists, "But they get paid to do this! If they didn't want to clean up dead bodies and get ptsd, they shouldn't volunteer to do it."

Thanks Hp.

http://videosift.com/video/The-overlooked-tragedy-in-law-enforcement-PTSD

Now they all have PTSD.

They deserve reparations. Perhaps a nice bowl of milk.

>> ^jmzero:

>> ^westy:
Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further.
However, since you seem to want me to comment on the content of your post, I will.

aside from this if there was a legitimate reason to fight a war and I was in it I would not feel that I need anyone to recognize my efforts, the reward would be the outcome of peace that was achieved the best payback would be for people to live as free and normal life as possible.

Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because...

I didn't know people were spiting on them and what have you...

...you've paid zero attention to history. The treatment of Vietnam war vets is not a well guarded secret. Even without any exposure to history, I'm surprised you haven't bumped into this in pop culture. I mean, didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? Barring that particular movie, it just seems like this is the kind of fact you'd have to be actively avoiding. And if you're actively avoiding talk about history, world events, and politics, why do you comment on them so much?
I guess it's no wonder your opinions on all sorts of current events are a crazy mishmash, you're evaluating them without any context.


"So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further."

Wrong.

"Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because..."

Did you read my comment I dont think you understood it , I was primerly saying people should give recognisoin through pragmatic and proactive efforts ( funding vetern suport , helping with PTSD and respecting people as you would respect annyone else) Not simple and mostly symbolic gestures such as what this guy is doing.

How would sumone not living in US know specifcaly about this parade other than what was presented in the video ? How in Anny way did my comment say that i sided with morons that are harassing and generally being negative to them ? You are making allot of assumptions in order to then be angry and attack my comment.

" didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? "


Whats that about ? you do realize if you insult people they are less likely to bother to pay attention to you let alone listen to a point you might lagitimetly be making ?

anger is something i am quick to as a result of my PTSD unfortunately, particularly on subjects i am passionate about. Therapy is a long ongoin process =)
apologies all around for my curt manner.

now, to the dialogue at hand.

well firstly those statistics, since you've conceded them to be mere presuppositions, are exactly that: presuppositions. There arent any real statistics that i could produce to rebut it, however, if we use alcohol consumption and prohibition as a model, one could expect as much as a 30% increase in heroin use with its legalization, which is to say, not much at all. the idea of everyone and their mom suddenly hopping on the heroin train is a ridiculous fantasy at best.

while you may be right about the lifelong heroin user, i dont have to speculate about long term alcohol abusers maintaining healthy lives. that being said, this defense (if youre using it as one) is a moot point unless you support alcohol prohibition as well.

putting away traffickers in the netherlands would be the same in the states were drugs regulated and controlled. again, alcohol is the model for this. You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal? nope, you'll still get canned for that. follow the model. sticking with heroin, were it to be made legal its not something you'd pick up at your local grocery store. if the government regulates and controls it, firstly you will have fewer overdoses because the potency will be precisely known and consistent (the same as alcohol). Overdoses from heroin (among other things) is largely due to unexpected higher than "normal" street potency's. The same thing occurred during prohibition with alcohol poisoning. Potency would be known in the same way alcohol content (proofs) and tar and nicotine content in cigarettes (labeled right on the packs and cartons).

Now, not anyone can purchase cigarettes or alcohol or a gun for that matter. precisely because of regulation and control. in the same way, not everyone should be able to purchase marijuana, heroin, or whatever your poison is. regulated and controlled.

now i flatly rejected your hypothetical position because it was absurd (much like my brain synapse one was). you and i could draw up all sorts of imaginative what-ifs but theyre not gonna serve any purpose other than drawing up a good laugh.

you know, i also believe personal freedoms end where harm to others begin. but this certainly doesnt support your prohibition stance at all. Looking at it another way, you have the right to drink as little or as much alcohol as you want. but if you get too drunk and drive (and get caught) you'll get arrested. so while you still have that freedom to drink alcohol, that same freedom does not infringe on my freedom to press charges should you become too intoxicated and harm me. i know that sounds a bit convoluted, im not as articulate as i'd like to be right now but you catch my drift ya?

in closing, every piece of your defense doesnt hold an ounce of water when held up to the model of prohibition of the 20's, it's "side effects", and it's eventual outcome.

sorry again for being so curt earlier. therapy for my condition takes a good while =)

Getting PTSD was the best part of my primary education, too.

The story only came out because the manager of the company who raised the dogs and then killed them all himself with a knife and bullets, went to get disability from the gov't.

The story only came out because of his PTSD claim.


Fuck Whistler. Hell, fuck Canada, you sick fucks.

The dog killer is the former general manager and a former owner of Howling Dog Tours Whistler, now owned by OAW

http://www.1310news.com/news/national/article/177795--bc-former-dog-sled-operator-says-dogs-were-too-old-and-sick-in-first-comment

http://blogs.canoe.ca/vancouver2010/general/someone-has-to-do-it/

"Someone has to do it."
-- Robert Fawcett aka "Whistler Bob"

You can beat the science drum all you want. My expirence is that Pot is no longer an option for me because of my ptsd. I was a recreational user (4 times a week) through my teens and twenties, and even a little while I was in the service, but as soon as I suffered my first incident and became aware of my disorder, pot became the last thing I wanted to touch. When I smoked it my paranoia was through the roof, to the point were I would get anxiety attacks. This made sense to me after my shrink had told me what had happened to the chemical function of my brain. I'm effectivly supercharged to the point that the most benign stimulation will send me over the edge. Either with anxiety, or prolonged enporhine disharges that usually result in flying into a rage and pumeling some sap. Weed has always acted as that little push that sends me into anxiety fits. I haven't touched the stuff in about four years, and I used to love smoking, and tripping. Now those things

>> ^BoneRemake:

But THC is just the tip of the iceberg for compounds in cannabis that make you " high" Cbd, Cdb Cbb Thca/thc, hundreds..


I was going to say the same thing. I hate it when they make the claim that THC is the only compound in grass that gets you high. In fact, increasing the potency of marijuana by increasing only the THC leads to more "paranoid" weed. You need the other compounds to mellow it out.

A great organization:

MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies)
MMAPS' mission is 1) to treat conditions for which conventional medicines provide limited relief—such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), pain, drug dependence, anxiety and depression associated with end-of-life issues—by developing psychedelics and marijuana into prescription medicines; 2) to treat many thousands of people by building a network of clinics where treatments can be provided; and 3) to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of psychedelics and marijuana.

MDMA for PTSD
MAPS’ top priority project is funding clinical trials of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) as a therapeutic tool to assist psychotherapy for the treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other illnesses. Preliminary studies have shown that MDMA in conjunction with psychotherapy can help people overcome PTSD. MDMA has empathogenic effects, and it is also known as the popular drug Ecstasy (although "Ecstasy" does not always contain pure MDMA). In laboratory studies, MDMA has been proven sufficiently safe for human consumption when taken a limited number of times in moderate doses.

LSD/Psilocybin for Anxiety Related to Life-threatening Illness
LSD is short for d-lysergic acid diethylamide, and was discovered to be a psychedelic substance by Dr. Albert Hofmann on April 19, 1943. Psilocybin is a psychedelic compound also discovered by Hofmann which are found in psychedelic mushrooms. These mushrooms have been used for thousands of years by a variety of indigenous cultures for a variety of religious and therapeutic purposes. Both of these substances are well known for eliciting personal growth and mystical experiences in people who use them wisely. MAPS is interested in these substances for their potential to help people with a variety of conditions. Currently we are focused on developing these drugs into prescription medicines to treat anxiety associated with life-threatening illnesses.

Though there has been substantial prior research with LSD in cancer patients that demonstrated safety and some degree of efficacy, that research was conducted over 35 years ago. In order to generate data that will be accepted by today’s regulatory agencies, new protocols must meet modern drug development standards. Our research has had to start from scratch and has been designed carefully. Our LSD and psilocybin studies will be used to guide the development of future treatment approaches.