Student got arrested in a major drug bust at Gallaudet University

rockin'robin said:
Gawd...everytime I open this thread...I get that old drunken face....was hopiung the thread had moved on to another page.....:giggle:
Click to expand...

:lol: I had to go back to see what you were writing about! :giggle:
 
come thnk of it, she was doing students a favour, not off the streets, but on campus...

dont look at me! dont look at me!, im not a dealer...just sayn an off-the-wall perspective...
 
That is how I see it, we can't win war on drugs period. Everybody knows it but won't admit it. I have seen enough. Which is much safer when one really gone crazy wants dope, they will do anything to get it no matter how and tell ya there are millions of dealers out there and many of them are outright dangerous. Its safer to get the sources that you know you can trace back. Just exact like the hey days of alcohol prohibition where many died from bad booze. That is, if booze were not brewed properly it can be fatal. Bad dealer will sell bad booze, just like dope. It applies here as well, some day we all will have to accept that fact that these dangerous dope will always be around no matter how hard we fought, what we need is change how we approach these kinds of problems. And what I am afraid the most is the longer we wait, there might be coming in new dope that is even more lethal or dangerous and we won't have any idea until its gets too late (Perfect example METH, aka "ICE").


Grummer said:
come thnk of it, she was doing students a favour, not off the streets, but on campus...

dont look at me! dont look at me!, im not a dealer...just sayn an off-the-wall perspective...
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
That is how I see it, we can't win war on drugs period. Everybody knows it but won't admit it. I have seen enough. Which is much safer when one really gone crazy wants dope, they will do anything to get it no matter how and tell ya there are millions of dealers out there and many of them are outright dangerous. Its safer to get the sources that you know you can trace back. Just exact like the hey days of alcohol prohibition where many died from bad booze. That is, if booze were not brewed properly it can be fatal. Bad dealer will sell bad booze, just like dope. It applies here as well, some day we all will have to accept that fact that these dangerous dope will always be around no matter how hard we fought, what we need is change how we approach these kinds of problems. And what I am afraid the most is the longer we wait, there might be coming in new dope that is even more lethal or dangerous and we won't have any idea until its gets too late (Perfect example METH, aka "ICE").
Click to expand...

War on drugs is not just about people who take it for fun or addicted drug heads. One of the major reason they banned it is because of hazard from people who take the drugs and show up at work (like federal job). That's why they added mandatory drug testing for almost all important federal positions and zero-drug policy.

If they allowed drugs everywhere, employees can create problems at work or students at school. Therefore drugs need to be regulated, even if it can't be fully eradicated.
 
Maybe you could do more research on about alcohol prohibition. Once you see the whole picture of what had happened before, during and after ban on booze. You won't believe what you would have learn about that history.

Before the prohibition, there was not even single law about any substance, jobs, etc. You could drink booze and deal with explosive materials, that was perfectly legal back then. Yes, people got drunk, mixed Nitrogen and glycerine and set up where want to blow up, light up and walks away... Kaboom! If one accidentally drop them, best run FAST or they would be dead. A lot people got killed that way, this includes ALL kinds of drugs like Cocaine, Heroin, etc and they used while they work. They thought it was OK, and most employers do not give rat ass about it. Why? When one gets killed on job, it is employee's own problem not the boss, which is the way it was 150 years ago. This year is 100 years anniversary of prohibition conception. After booze became legal, we still have problems but they were far better than pre-ban, why? Its called "Regulations", and society building up awareness of danger with booze, did it actually worked? I am sure you know the answer. I am sure same thing applies to other dope. But gawd! I hope they will never legal ICE (Meth).

One of biggest problem with Marijuana is that the active chemical in Marijuana known as THC stays in your body for long time, the longest of all drugs because it is oil based and attracts to fats of your body. What makes this even dangerous is that since it sits in one's body and easily detected weeks after one smokes a joint and get busted if asked for drug test. Often, when one worries about random drug test, what do you think they would do next to stay high? The answer is stronger, more dangerous dope that don't stay in your body for more than 24 hours. Which helps addict lessen the worries of surprise random drug test. This is why I pointed the law of prohibition to be true gateway to stronger, more dangerous drugs rather than Marijuana itself.

naisho said:
War on drugs is not just about people who take it for fun or addicted drug heads. One of the major reason they banned it is because of hazard from people who take the drugs and show up at work (like federal job). That's why they added mandatory drug testing for almost all important federal positions and zero-drug policy.

If they allowed drugs everywhere, employees can create problems at work or students at school. Therefore drugs need to be regulated, even if it can't be fully eradicated.
Click to expand...
 
naisho said:
War on drugs is not just about people who take it for fun or addicted drug heads. One of the major reason they banned it is because of hazard from people who take the drugs and show up at work (like federal job). That's why they added mandatory drug testing for almost all important federal positions and zero-drug policy.

If they allowed drugs everywhere, employees can create problems at work or students at school. Therefore drugs need to be regulated, even if it can't be fully eradicated.
Click to expand...

if anything, then maybe the media needs regulating too, its influencing people. it's like it regulates ideas of 'what people want", the regulation of drugs and laws in itself is hardly anything, hell it doesnt even work, or not that well at all, obviously
 
Last edited:
naisho said:
War on drugs is not just about people who take it for fun or addicted drug heads. One of the major reason they banned it is because of hazard from people who take the drugs and show up at work (like federal job). That's why they added mandatory drug testing for almost all important federal positions and zero-drug policy.

If they allowed drugs everywhere, employees can create problems at work or students at school. Therefore drugs need to be regulated, even if it can't be fully eradicated.
Click to expand...

The logic used for this strategy is that it will prevent problem before they happen. However, this strategy also infringes on the rights and liberties of everyone as well since many would never have had a problem that needed preventing. I'm not against this strategy, but there is no proof that it actually even works. Certainly didn't work in Lance Armstrong or any other major athletes case so I would certainly question the results of a system like this.
 
Update today, this was results.
Official hearing and sentencing will be set at the end of may.

HInfMXl.png
 
Do you have any idea exact clue to why or how this war on drug started? That time, it was President Nixon who started this. He had ordered and made several movies called Reefer madness, that was right after Vietnam war, where soldiers bring in hard dope. Nixon blamed on weeds for starting the problem. Most of idiots falls for this Nixon's own scam into war on drugs.

The problem has ALREADY proved worsen over time, and now that government can NOT produce evidence that war on drug has made any difference, NOT even single evidence provided by DEA that it is working.

have you seen the white house website, we the people and number one hits was legalize marijuana and asked WHY it was still illegal. Not even single explanation to why but refer to another agency and scientist that makes decision. WHAT DECISION?

Richard Nixon is one of these presidents that destroys American quality of life. I have been there and seen em and know whats happened.

That story of reefer madness is full of BS and HOAX, but very true when it comes to booze.

naisho said:
War on drugs is not just about people who take it for fun or addicted drug heads. One of the major reason they banned it is because of hazard from people who take the drugs and show up at work (like federal job). That's why they added mandatory drug testing for almost all important federal positions and zero-drug policy.

If they allowed drugs everywhere, employees can create problems at work or students at school. Therefore drugs need to be regulated, even if it can't be fully eradicated.
Click to expand...
 
naisho said:
War on drugs is not just about people who take it for fun or addicted drug heads. One of the major reason they banned it is because of hazard from people who take the drugs and show up at work (like federal job). That's why they added mandatory drug testing for almost all important federal positions and zero-drug policy.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9xRhwmHBBE]irobot - im allergic to bullshit - YouTube[/ame]
 
NitroHonda said:
irobot - im allergic to bullshit - YouTube
Click to expand...

Here's some positions that are not police officers that are constantly subject to drug testing (and obviously illegal why they can't use it)

Crane Operator
County or City Construction contractors
Environmental Protection/Regulations employees
Firefighter
Prison/Correctional officer
Department of Transportation positions
Traffic Controls Operations (Air/Land/Water)
Sewage/Water Control Operator

Do you have any reasons other than the Mr. Spooner quote for why drug and testing should be waived for them?
 
naisho said:
Here's some positions that are not police officers that are constantly subject to drug testing (and obviously illegal why they can't use it)

Crane Operator
County or City Construction contractors
Environmental Protection/Regulations employees
Firefighter
Prison/Correctional officer
Department of Transportation positions
Traffic Controls Operations (Air/Land/Water)
Sewage/Water Control Operator

Do you have any reasons other than the Mr. Spooner quote for why drug and testing should be waived for them?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they should be waived. Any employer that wants to implement a no drug-use policy is perfectly fine with me. I'm calling BS to this two-part generalization by you which I will dispute separately...

Naisho said:
One of the major reason they banned it is because of hazard from people who take the drugs and show up at work (like federal job).
Click to expand...

What federal job? The largest employer in the world is the Department of Defense. They employ 3.2 million people. You claiming they banned it because of them? Do you even think they routinely test all 3.2 million?

That's why they added mandatory drug testing for almost all important federal positions and zero-drug policy.
Click to expand...

It's not federal but it's close enough. I do a lot of work for the city and the state on their highways. I've never been asked to take a drug test nor have they asked me to test my employees. My wife has worked on the state and county level and she has never been tested.

And lastly, my sister-in-law who is in upper management at the IRS has never been tested. You are making broad sweeping claims as to why we are at war with drugs. Just about every job out there says that you may be subject to a random drug check (my business included) but that doesn't mean you're going to get tested per se. That's left to the discretion of the business itself.
 
NitroHonda said:
I didn't say they should be waived. Any employer that wants to implement a no drug-use policy is perfectly fine with me. I'm calling BS to this two-part generalization by you which I will dispute separately...

What federal job? The largest employer in the world is the Department of Defense. They employ 3.2 million people. You claiming they banned it because of them? Do you even think they routinely test all 3.2 million?
Click to expand...
a few months ago when I said important, I didn't mean any federal position. I wrote the important. That important I was trying to say any governmental "positions that can involve the public's safety and endanger or cost them their lives" and to simplify it down, I said federal, because federal government has the most authority, they can make a lot of decisions that can instantly put a lot of lives at risk than a local-state position (ie: Military operations, like the training recently in public, or the DoD's Missile Defense Agency, are some examples). I did not fully write out a detailed post (and I sometimes I still get chewed out for writing out detailed posts, :shock:).


NitroHonda said:
It's not federal but it's close enough. I do a lot of work for the city and the state on their highways.
...
You are making broad sweeping claims as to why we are at war with drugs. Just about every job out there says that you may be subject to a random drug check (my business included) but that doesn't mean you're going to get tested per se. That's left to the discretion of the business itself.
Click to expand...
If I poorly worded it that it's misunderstood, I'll take what I said back for that, but I thought my reason came out pretty clear. Any government, whether federal or state or local government that has a position that can jeopodarize public safety is subject to drug protocol and that's one of the major reasons why we're still having drug tests and laws that ban them. Diehardbiker, the War on Drugs didn't just end at the Nixon era - I'm not talking about the past. It's still continued today and modified to the reasons why we still have "War on Drugs TODAY".

Of course, it's left to the position. I didn't define any of them in my post in february, but I just did now so hopefully we are all on the same page now?
 
Last edited:
WHAT? Did I say Nixon ended war on drug era? Nope! I didn't say that, he is the ONE that started the war on drug ERA during 70's, made heavy campaign to convince Americans into thinking since we are bringing Vietnam war veterans back with bunch of dangerous dope which is mostly heroin, he actually made congress fall for it and passed law, Nixon had no problem with signing, The beginning budget was passed with small amount, I can't remember and it was not that a lot but enough to start DEA business. It was all because of Heroin that vets brought back here and Nixon was referring Marijuana as equilvent or gateway to Heroin. What A BIG FAT LIE!

During 80's the prison population mushroomed, the demand for new prisons skyrocket during 80's to the point where state government realize they can't afford expand more so that was during early 90's causing some state deciding to relax the drug laws and ignored Federal drug laws. Now two states have passed to repeal the Cannabis prohibition, more to follow soon.

War on Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My biggest concern is Meth, if we don't legalize Cannabis we will see more of Meth coming up and it is killing us. Meth is far worse than Heroin.

This is part reason why I realize that having bigger government is not working and it is hurting us more than good. We had great years and that was before JFK ERA.
 
Back
Top