I Hate This So Much!

5 05 2010

Didn’t we used to have a Fourth Amendment in this country? Watch this and weep.

A SWAT unit in Missouri executed a warrant on a known drug offender. During the course of the raid, at least one officer decided that the family Corgis were dire threats. In the video, you can hear the dogs bark a bit when the cops burst in, followed by shots. You hear the wounded dogs whimpering, followed by more shots to finish them off. Let us not forget that these actions took place right in front of the seven-year-old child living in the house.

This is the vicious breed of dog those brave policemen were protecting the public from. After the raid, the cops triumphantly produced a small baggie containing marijuana … a misdemeanor quantity of marijuana. They also claimed that the parents were guilty of child endangerment, because the parents were responsible for the brutal police raid which netted enough pot to make maybe three blunts. Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but staging a paramilitary raid on someone’s home in search of a few grams of pot probably wasn’t the idea of the target of the raid, nor was the execution of the family pets. By the way, when did the Police declare war on dogs?

This is the end result of the War on Drugs: police units armed and equipped like the military conducting raids on occupied homes (usually in the wee hours of the morning) with extreme prejudice. Hundreds of these paramilitary operations happen every year, and they’ve been leaving a trail of innocent bodies behind them for decades. Worst of all, they’ve been conducting these home invasions/executions in our name.

I don’t smoke grass, and honestly don’t care whether or not someone out there might be smoking pot, so long as they don’t endanger others by doing so. Most of the time, the only danger from marijuana use is the very real possibility that your home will be specially chosen by the police for a paramilitary raid. When the actions taken to “protect the public” from drugs are actually far more dangerous to the public than any drug ever discovered, I’d say that we’ve gone far afield from whatever tenuous “public good” justification may have ever existed for the “war on drugs”.

We, the People, need to put an end to this stupid, wasteful, and wholly ineffective “war on drugs”. Because of the “war on drugs”, the police have been gaining more and more authority over the citizens they supposedly serve, and our rights guaranteed in the US Constitution have been getting steadily eroded. How many more innocent people will die during botched raids? How many more police officers will be killed by citizens reacting to what they think is a home invasion by criminals (the same criminals who have taken to wearing police logos and shouting “police” during their criminal activities)? How would you like to watch your family pets get slaughtered by trigger-happy cops under the “he’s headin’ right for us!” justification? How many more body bags will get filled before we, the People, put an end to this monstrously stupid policy?

Why do we, the People, put up with this bullshit?

Current status: Disgusted

Current music: In the Doghouse by Slade

Advertisements

Actions

Information

16 responses

5 05 2010
L.Long

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the ‘people’ to put a stop to anything!!
They are SO SCARED of nothing that they allow the airports to do their thing.
They are SO SCARED someone may get a relaxing high from marijuana that they can’t stand the thought someone is doing something they do not approve of.
The police are getting hard-ons from shooting things and confiscations that they like doing that schite. Politicians are throwing their imagined power around and preachers are having a great time throwing around the ‘evil demon DRUG’ . I’ve been waiting for proper control of drugs/police for 60yrs and have only seen things get worse.

9 05 2010
The BoBo Carnival of Politics May 9 2010 Edition | The BoBo Files

[…] presents I Hate This So Much! posted at A Dark and Sinister Force for Good, saying, “Enough is enough. This monumentally […]

9 05 2010
Allen Scott

Marijuana is a federally controlled narcotic and it is illegal to possess it or sell it. Some states are enacting medical marijuana laws to circumvent the federal law so if you happen to live in one of those states happy toking to you, but if you do not then do not be surprised if you are considered in violation of the federal control substance act. Now if you have a beef about this law again I say look toward DC and wag your finger in that direction. YES we could do with a GREAT DEAL less FEDERAL GOVERNMENT regulation and intervention in our lives. STOP VOTING FOR BIG GOVERNMENT politicians and perhaps we can start to unravel this huge federal bureaucracy.

But I do agree, busting into someones home for pot is ridiculous. The report did say that there were two dogs in the home a PIT BULL which can be vicious and a corgi which I doubt would be much of a threat. But a judge issued the police a valid search warrant and the police were executing the warrant. Now I would not have even been able to get to the door to even answer it in the time allotted by the police for a response before they busted the door in. I do have a problem with that. Especially if the warrant was only to search for controlled substance. If however there was concern for the well being of a minor than perhaps it shades the issue some.

10 05 2010
archvillain

Allen Scott– Marijuana is classified by the DEA as a narcotic, but does not meet the scientific definition of a narcotic. The decision to list pot as a narcotic was a political one, with little to no basis in objective scientific evidence. As an engineer, I have no patience for appearance at the expense of function. A political response to manufactured hysteria does not meet the smell test. I stated in the article that I do not smoke pot, nor do I have any interest in doing so.

In response to the unnecessarily-capitalized words in your first paragraph, you are apparently unfamiliar with my political outlook. It’s easy to find: read other articles here on this blog.

So much for your first paragraph.

In response to your second paragraph, I urge you to read Radley Balko’s white paper titled “Overkill”, which I linked above. How many innocent deaths are acceptable to you in pursuit of this ridiculous war on drugs? How many civil rights are you willing to surrender to further the war on drugs? How much more power are you willing to give the police (and the Federal gummint, for that matter) for the sake of the war on drugs?

Unless there is a significant probability of violence during the service of a search warrant, SWAT units should not be used. Deploying SWAT should be a rare and memorable occurrence, and reserved for truly violent offenders. Using SWAT to serve search warrants on non-violent suspects escalates the probability of violence- especially when SWAT kicks in the wrong door in the middle of the night and the completely innocent resident reaches for a gun in the belief that he/she is being robbed.

On to the matter of the dogs. For whatever reason, police forces across the country appear to have declared a war on dogs during the war on drugs. Check out what happened to the Mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD. There are scores of recent articles across the country where police deliberately and unnecessarily filled pets with bullet holes during “no-knock” warrants and occasionally even casual contact with the public. The fact that police have been getting away with this is yet another example of authority without responsibility- which invariably leads to tyranny.

10 05 2010
Allen Scott

Okay I do not understand where we actually disagree. For the most part we agree. So if it is just a matter of if pot should be legal or not that is a matter for state legislators to deal with. But as of right now it is illegal in most states. Therefore if you do not wish to get in trouble with the law do not possess this controlled substance. Of course there are many who seem to think that laws are a nuisance and should be ignored.

The best way to avoid all the drama associated with pot is to simply avoid it’s use or possession. If for some reason there are some who feel they can not avoid it’s use or possession then I guess the consequences that come from such disregard for the law really should not come as a surprise.

Now then shooting dogs. I have lived long enough to know that there are always more than one side to any story and most news stories are written in a way to elicit a certain response from the readers so until all the evidence is present it is difficult to just toss out accusations. However I will say if a police officer came to my door and knocked while yelling open up warrant and does not give me adequate time to answer the door I think I would sue big time. But again I do not know why they where so hasty. I would support legal action against the police force and whoever issued the warrant and gave the order to BASH in the door. It does appear on the surface a bit WACO like.

As far as your broader point of the “war on drugs” I am not sure what you are proposing as a solution. Are you implying that all drugs should be legal? Or is this just about POT? Or is it something else?

11 05 2010
archvillain

Allen Scott– Did you read the Radley Balko white paper linked in the article? The cost of this insane drug war includes hundreds of innocent homes raided and more than ninety dead innocents, cops, and non-violent offenders. This cost is too high for any nation, let alone one espousing the principle that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent be unjustly imprisoned.

You want to arrest pot smokers under the current law? Great. Why does it take a multi-jurisdictional SWAT raid to bust Joe Stoner for possession of a few grams of pot? What value is there to using SWAT units to serve search warrants on non-violent suspects? How many dead innocents and police officers are you willing to accept as the price for the war on drugs?

When innocent citizens are being victimized by the police agencies who ostensibly work for those citizens, there is something drastically wrong. there are at least two totally innocent people on death row in this country because they killed police officers during late-night SWAT raids on the wrong addresses. Is this an acceptable price to pay for the war on drugs? Furthermore- as noted in the linked white paper- this “war mentality” among police agencies in this country is increasingly encouraging police to see the public they serve as the enemy. This attitude leads nowhere we want to be as a country.

In my opinion, the price we pay for this war on drugs is too high. SWAT units should only be used for the rare hostage situation or barricaded armed suspect. Regular police work can easily deal with most drug crimes, and paramilitary raids in the dead of night on a suspect’s residence with the attendant escalation of violence should be relegated to extremely rare circumstances.

12 05 2010
prairieflounder

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.

These insane laws will continue as long as a minority of people in power feel it is their responciblity to make people better. Leave us alone.
-pf

12 05 2010
Allen Scott

“These insane laws will continue as long as a minority of people in power feel it is their responciblity to make people better. Leave us alone.”

Spelling ignored this street runs both ways Captain. There seems to be a minority of people who want the majority to live their way, and they insist on their own rights while ignoring the rights of their neighbors. If you wish to live in peace then by all means live in peace with your neighbors as well, do not demand of them what you do not want demanded of you. Do not ask them to do what you yourself can or will not do. Do not ask them to give you something you did not earn. If you want respect then you have to earn it. Granted there are some who will take advantage every chance they get and most of them reside in DC. But I believe that most American citizens are peace loving, freedom loving, decent neighbors willing to help those who are less fortunate and not take advantage of them.

However I do see a great deal of non-citizens taking advantage of the goodness of this nation and demanding more. There seems to be something wrong with this thinking IMO.

14 05 2010
archvillain

Allen Scott– The blog post you’re commenting on is not about illegal immigration. It is about police use of excessive force, police and government hypocrisy, and what we (the People) can do about it using the Four Boxes.

On that subject (4 Boxes), let us get back to pf‘s comment and your reply. What he appears to be saying (in my opinion), is that a minority of people in power have this idea that they can make us “better”- whether we want it or not. This Puritan worldview is dangerous to individual liberty and to the republic.

Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. -RA Heinlein

The quote above is the sort of thing pf was talking about. We have no interest in forcing others to act or believe as we do. All we ask is the same privilege from everyone else.

I have no interest in marijuana, but I am profoundly interested in the general erosion of freedoms we (the People) are suffering as a result of this idiotic “war on drugs”. Consider this: The Gummint has been waging this “war” for forty years at a cost of more than one trillion dollars, and has bugger-all to show for it except the largest prison population on the planet and millions of Americans turned into criminals to no worthwhile end. Ever hear of Prohibition? What was the end result of that attempt to force people to “behave” according to the warped ideals of a vocal minority? Answer: The creation of international gangs of violent criminals, creating a widespread distrust of and contempt for law enforcement, and making criminals out of millions of Americans.

Have we (the People) learned nothing from the mistakes of Prohibition?

20 05 2010
L.Long

Why do we have a war on drugs? Because some fascist religious nut thinks drugs is bad. Well here are 3 drugs that are really messing people up….Tobacco-Booze-gambling. Why are they NOT illegal? Oh they tried and it didn’t work?? Well schite on that!!! If my drug of choice is illegal than EVERY ONE ELSE’S should be illegal too!! Bunch of bigots!!!
Look what everyone is doing for more gov’mint money. Opening gambling places, and raising taxes on smokes and booze. Well look at the income the MOB gets from drugs!! Make them legal-tax the schite out of them and the gov’mint would be rich -OVERNIGHT!!!! Well for a week anyway until everyone dies from overdoses.
And look at the money saved by being able to reduce the police force. They would also save a bundle in NOT being sued because the police were MMMmmm over-zealous.
Legalizing drugs is nothing but a win-win deal.

23 05 2010
archvillain

L.Long– I agree completely. The fact that we’re involved in this idiotic “war on drugs” is nothing but the lingering vestiges of Puritanism in our public policy. Prohibition didn’t work for booze. It isn’t working for pot or other drugs either. Time to stop fighting it and learn to take advantage of it.

23 05 2010
Allen Scott

Yeah your right. Law enforcement isn’t working to stop murders either so I guess we should simply stop fighting the war on crime. Why not just let everyone do whatever they want to do, when they want to do it, to whomever they want to do it to, that should stop all this illegal activity by those damn police.

Why is booze and gambling legal? I guess because it’s use was enacted by law. So the process of getting your rights to do DOPE should be handled thorugh the lawmaking process as well. Besides many stoners already live in California which seems to be POT friendly so move there. Just do not ask me to support your habit with my tax money because California is broke. Perhaps all those potheads do not make a very good work force? Just saying but what do I know? According to stoners I am just Puritanical. So be it!

24 05 2010
archvillain

Allen Scott– Actually, law enforcement doesn’t work to stop murders. the job of law enforcement is to enforce the law. According to the Supreme Court, we (the People) do not have any legal expectation of being protected by the police- but they’ll be happy to take a report and (possibly) investigate a crime once it has occurred. Instead of building shoddily-constructed straw men to argue against, why not pay attention to what we are saying, and argue against that?

I notice you’re back to randomly capitalized words again.

Please go to an encyclopedia and look up Prohibition. How successful was that? What was the reason Prohibition was enacted? What was the end result of Prohibition? News Flash! The war on drugs is even less effective, despite forty years of effort and over one trillion dollars spent.

By the way, I have said repeatedly that I do not smoke anything, least of all pot, and I have no desire to do so. Your resorting to name-calling (also known as an ad-hominem attack) leads me to believe that you don’t have any rational argument in favor of your position.

Here is my position: The physical and economic costrs of this war on drugs have far exceeded any putative gain. The metaphorical war on drugs has spawned several actual wars between heavily-armed and ruthless gangs of criminals both inside and outside this country, and the staggering quantities of money flowing to those gangs make them a significantly destabilizing force along our southern border- and not just to Mexico. The war on drugs has failed, just as Prohibition failed, and for the same reasons. instead of throwing good money after bad, we could legalize a lot of drugs, tax and regulate them (actually making money), release a lot of non-violent drug offenders from prison (reducing a huge drain on state budgets), and divert much of the drug war funding to education and rehabilitation programs.

Assuming you can restrain yourself from resorting to name-calling and similar nonsense, feel free to argue against my stated position. If youn’t disagree without being disagreeable, you might be more comfortable on another website.

24 05 2010
Allen Scott

I guess sarcasm does not work with you so I will be straight to the point. Many attempts to eradicate bad behavior seem to fail, war on terror is an example, illegal immigration may be another example, yet I feel that any real effort to battle this has not even been waged yet, and then you add to the mix the failure of the war on drugs.

Okay so if I follow your logic you simply say because we can not beat them legalize them. Permitting bad behavior does not eradicate the bad behavior in fact it only encourages more bad behavior IMO. Take your example of gambling and booze. Yes it is true a person’s want to chase after harmful substances is as old as time itself. Just because a war is difficult does not mean we simply abandon it or surrender. Think about any war and then think about the outcomes if we simply surrender. You may not see the connection but for those of us who are not in favor of legalizing every vice of mankind there are similarities to be made between this live and let live mentality. Ours is a nation of laws, we are not a lawless society where mob rule dictates the course of action to be taken. I am familiar with prohibition and how it failed but I am not willing to acquiesce to giving up the war on drugs simply because it is hard and costly. The cost to our society of unfettered access to these harmful substances would be far greater IMO.

You have your opinions and I have mine. Again I say if you do not like the laws of this nation or a particular state then move to a place where your lifestyle is acceptable behavior. I want my neighborhood free of drug pushers and users as much as possible and I am willing to pay the price to have that assurance.

There may be a better way to combat this war on drugs by being more forceful with the suppliers of such drugs (Mexico). But I am not in favor of legalizing the drug trade even if a police officer knocks down my door early in the morning thinking drugs are being distributed here.

I do understand the invasion of privacy and the problems with personal freedoms that suffer because of the illicit actions of a few, for example airport security is ridiculous I prefer punishing the offenders severely and without mercy. The problem with most of our so-called law enforcement is that it does not enforce enough, (not tough enough).

I can not get my head around how booze and gambling can be compared to heroin and meth. Pot has been called a gateway drug so it’s restrictions seems warranted. IMO.

24 05 2010
archvillain

Allen Scott– I just put fresh batteries in my Sarcasmatron 3000™, and it still didn’t go off when it scanned your comment. maybe it’s on the fritz.

At any rate, let us examine your newest comment.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that using drugs is inherently bad (“Permitting bad behavior does not eradicate the bad behavior in fact it only encourages more bad behavior IMO”). We also seem to have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of “drug”. Alcohol, for example, is a drug by just about any definition. So is nicotine. Furthermore, under the data I have been able to find (the CDC, for example), alcohol and nicotine cause far more death and destruction to the body politic than cocaine, marijuana, and meth combined. Since interdiction and draconian enforcement has failed to do more than erode civil liberties and drive up the prices of illicit drugs, I propose changing the way we (as a country) deal with the problem. Legalizing many drugs will reduce the strain on our prisons and courts by removing the need to deal with non-violent drug offenders, eliminate the need for thousands of militarily-equipped anti-drug police units, reduce the amount of money flowing to the murderous gangs who currently control the trade in those drugs, and provide tax revenue on local suppliers who can produce and sell higher-quality products at lower prices. I base this on the historical evidence of what happened at the end of Prohibition.

The gang troubles in Mexico would not suddenly disappear after legalization, anymore than the various ethnic mafias in this country disappeared after the end of Prohibition. What will happen (based on history), is that those gangs will be forced to find new sources of revenue, and their power will be significantly reduced as a result. Mexico is having trouble dealing with the gangs- in part- because the vast sea of American dollars flowing into the gangs’ coffers allow them to bribe just about anyone they please- specifically including some Army units (interestingly, Mexican Navy Special Forces are some of the best anti-gang warriors in existence- not all Mexican officials are corrupt))

The drug war has utterly failed. Illicit drugs are just as freely available now as they were at the start of the drug war, despite forty years, the political and economic destabilization of governments throughout Latin America, a trillion dollars, and thousands of non-violent offenders being imprisoned. In the course of spending forty years and a trillion dollars for no observable gain, our country has allowed- even encouraged- police to treat the citizens they supposedly serve as the enemy. These are observable facts, and I have posted links to many sources for these facts during our discussions and in articles on this blog.

You may be willing to give up your liberty for temporary security (to misquote Benjamin Franklin), but I am not. Furthermore, i am unwilling to allow myself to be killed by my own government for the “crime” of being a law-abiding citizen whose residence the police mistakenly raid in the wee hours of the night.

You say that pot has been referred to a a gateway drug. Please provide sources. I believe you (because I’ve heard it myself), but I’m pretty sure that most of those people are not scientists or medical professionals. Politicians say a great many things when they’re trying to get elected, and playing on the fears of their constituents about drugs is a cheap and easy ploy which is all too often used. Here are a couple of articles on the subject:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

You might also take a look at what happened to Portugal after they decriminalized drug use.

To sum up: There are two legal drugs which are demonstrably more dangerous than Marijuana- alcohol and nicotine. Misuse of these drugs is already criminal. Marijuana is the main drug being smuggled into the US, and therefore the largest money-maker for the gangs in Mexico. Illicit marijuana growth is estimated to be a billion-dollar industry in California alone. Local, state, and federal governments currently get little to no tax money from the production and sale of marijuana in this country. Treating marijuana the same way as alcohol would allow re-focusing police assets toward regular police work and produce a large increase in tax revenues and reduce the power and profitability of the drug cartels. As an engineer, I cannot find a good reason to continue this failed policy, and lots of good reasons to shut it down. As far as I can tell, the arguments for continuing the drug war amount to, “Well, it’s illegal for a reason” and the fact that some people have religious objections to it. Neither is a logical argument (sunk-costs fallacy and religious preference, respectively).

If you want to argue- as some others have- that marijuana might be okay, but meth and crack are not, that’s a different discussion. One worth having, but not the primary issue at the moment.

31 05 2010
Allen Scott

“I just put fresh batteries in my Sarcasmatron 3000™, and it still didn’t go off when it scanned your comment. maybe it’s on the fritz. ”

Therein lies the problem you are using an outdated Sarcasmatron, they have now updated to the Sarcasmatron 5000. Get up-to-date. 🙂

“You seem to be operating under the assumption that using drugs is inherently bad (“Permitting bad behavior does not eradicate the bad behavior in fact it only encourages more bad behavior IMO”). ”

Okay perhaps calling it bad behavior may be a bit too descriptive so how about we call it POOR choices? Or perhaps STUPID behavior? Or would you prefer the less offensive “Alternative Lifestyle choice”? I prefer to call evil, evil. Narcotics control people, people do not control the narcotic. That is why they call them addictions. So than to be perfectly exact I guess legalizing “Addictive behavior” will not lessen that “addictive behavior” but actually encourage it which you so eloquently pointed out to me when you said:

“Furthermore, under the data I have been able to find (the CDC, for example), alcohol and nicotine cause far more death and destruction to the body politic than cocaine, marijuana, and meth combined.”

Since you point to these two examples as good representations of reasons to legalize yet more narcotics I will use it to simply say this statement alone bolsters my argument more than it does yours. The fact that there is more ‘societal destruction” caused by these two legal narcotics just proves that legalizing an “addictive substance” does not eliminate the problem it only makes the problem bigger and adds to the costs to society. The fact that because these two narcotics are legal and they are costing more to society is because more people are addicted to these narcotics. If you legalize marijuana that too will add to its greater use and thusly add to the societal problems you quoted in your argument.

I happen to agree with you on your assessment of the two legal narcotics and I would love to see our society rid of them all but since our society has addicts in it I guess the war on addiction will continue until eternity.

As far as your argument for TAX revenue, I for one am not in favor of sending any more money to a taxing authority under any pretense. The government is never satisfied with any amount of money sent to it. Therefore I reject this argument as illegitimate. However if curbing the costs to society and the government is your real concern then I say instill stiffer punishment to law breakers and TAX them severely for bringing about societal decay. I am not much for “:taxing’ law abiding citizens to support the illegal activities of those who refuse to abide by our laws. I am all for harsh, strict, almost merciless punishment on repetitive law breakers.

You then make this statement: “The drug war has utterly failed. Illicit drugs are just as freely available now as they were at the start of the drug war, despite forty years, the political and economic destabilization of governments throughout Latin America, a trillion dollars, and thousands of non-violent offenders being imprisoned.”

To which I reply, for over forty years our government has waged the war on poverty and yet there appears we are no closer to winning this war then when the war started despite the trillions of dollars being thrown at this senseless war on poverty. So I say we end this never-ending war what say you? We can not win it so why fight it, just let these people live their lives the way they see fit. Their blighted neighborhoods, high crime rates are not good reasons to try to arrest the war on poverty now is it? Just applying your own logic to yet another unwinnable war.

To address another of your false comparison I cite you:

“As far as I can tell, the arguments for continuing the drug war amount to, “Well, it’s illegal for a reason” and the fact that some people have religious objections to it. Neither is a logical argument (sunk-costs fallacy and religious preference, respectively).”

Some people, myself included, hold the position that to support a peaceful society one must have laws to govern that society. Since lawlessness is inherent to every human being, it is therefore necessary to set up societal laws. Prohibiting activity that does not enhance a society is perfectly logical to me. Our nation was established as a nation of “self-governance” the very definition of which belies all attempts to remove all limits to “human behavior” because it becomes obvious left to his own self-determination many will destroy themselves as well as those closely associated to them i.e. neighbors, family, communities. A government of “self-rule” only succeeds for a moral and ethical people. Many are neither moral or ethical and thusly the need for strict law enforcement. Heck even God has rules and prohibitions to certain behavior. Are you saying you are far more reasoned than God himself? I think not!

And finally as far as the religious argument is this is not a religious issue it is a societal issue. Heathenism leads to annihilation. I am not sure I wish to travel along that road with you.

As far as your citations I quote from one of your sources:

““The gateway progression may be the most common pattern, but it’s certainly not the only order of drug use,” said Ralph E. Tarter, Ph.D.”

Most common pattern, yes not the only but the most common. Not sure if that supports your position or not.

To further cite your source I quote: “While the gateway theory posits that each type of drug is associated with certain specific risk factors that cause the use of subsequent drugs, such as cigarettes or alcohol leading to marijuana, this study’s findings indicate that environmental aspects have stronger influence on which type of substance is used. That is, if it’s easier for a teen to get his hands on marijuana than beer, then he’ll be more likely to smoke pot. This evidence supports what’s known as the common liability model, an emerging theory that states the likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined not by the preceding use of a particular drug but instead by the user’s individual tendencies and environmental circumstances.”

Conclusion: Societal pressure and Legal prohibition limits the availability of certain narcotics thusly preventing easy access for those seeking to indulge in such behavior, steering them instead to a more readily available alternative. According to your own source the experts agree with me.

Therefore since you are an ENGINEER and not a scientist perhaps you should stick to designing buildings that will eventually fall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: