Part 1

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12001/1200599-55.stm

Part 2

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12002/1200747-55.stm

Part 3

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12003/1200970-55.stm

bump

Ok...CP. I think I am the only one here that has drudged through this 3 part tome. A 3 part expose on the drug war is a challenge for even the most staunch anti drug war advocates..

I have to say...It is a great example of the consequences of the drug war and should be read by anyone that opposes it.:ncaabbs:

On a lighter and most likely sad note.....

Just how much Kizzle will a bird of soft snow cost me fo' shizzle?

I'm not going to read it because doing so would only pi$$ me off. And I don't need more evidence to know that it's time to declare that the war on drugs is over and we lost.

(01-07-2012 12:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not going to read it because doing so would only pi$$ me off. And I don't need more evidence to know that it's time to declare that the war on drugs is over and we lost.

It is actually worth the time. It really does put a highlight on this from a standpoint of the actual monetary "cost" of this foolishness right down to the community level. It comes from a unique perspective..IMO.

I wish someone would condense this for brevity.

(01-07-2012 12:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 12:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not going to read it because doing so would only pi$$ me off. And I don't need more evidence to know that it's time to declare that the war on drugs is over and we lost.

It is actually worth the time. It really does put a highlight on this from a standpoint of the actual monetary "cost" of this foolishness right down to the community level. It comes from a unique perspective..IMO.

I wish someone would condense this for brevity.

It was a lot to read, and reconfirms we need to legalize drugs in my maind.

(01-07-2012 12:13 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ok...CP. I think I am the only one here that has drudged through this 3 part tome. A 3 part expose on the drug war is a challenge for even the most staunch anti drug war advocates..

I have to say...It is a great example of the consequences of the drug war and should be read by anyone that opposes it.:ncaabbs:

On a lighter and most likely sad note.....

Just how much Kizzle will a bird of soft snow cost me fo' shizzle?

I have no idea, but I can get you in touch w/ the birdmaster

But well done on reading this entire 3 part story. This very much reminds me of not knowing what the effects of blowback from the Middle East. Everything has a cause and effect.

Personally, I knew a couple of those raided and even knew a few people involved in last years New Year's Day shooting.

The war on drugs causes a lot of sorrow for lives lost and ruined, and a waste of trilllions of dollars. All done in the name o"do not want to be soft on crime".

On the lighter side, I attached an artyicle from the washington city paper about a pot delivery service. Great business destroyed by gov regulations (agree with republicans in this case).

I think my favorite line from the article is:

“I don’t have guns,” the man recalls answering dryly, “I have lacrosse ****.”

Obviously run by a liberal :)

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/artic...y-service/

(01-07-2012 09:59 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 12:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 12:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not going to read it because doing so would only pi$$ me off. And I don't need more evidence to know that it's time to declare that the war on drugs is over and we lost.

It is actually worth the time. It really does put a highlight on this from a standpoint of the actual monetary "cost" of this foolishness right down to the community level. It comes from a unique perspective..IMO.
I wish someone would condense this for brevity.

It was a lot to read, and reconfirms we need to legalize drugs in my maind.

Guess I'm just lazy. But there's nothing I need to read to reconfirm my belief that we need to legalize at least marijuana, see how that goes, and proceed from there. What's truly bizarre is that the places that have legalized it have seen exactly the opposite results from what all the opponents claim will happen.

(01-07-2012 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 09:59 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 12:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 12:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not going to read it because doing so would only pi$$ me off. And I don't need more evidence to know that it's time to declare that the war on drugs is over and we lost.

It is actually worth the time. It really does put a highlight on this from a standpoint of the actual monetary "cost" of this foolishness right down to the community level. It comes from a unique perspective..IMO.
I wish someone would condense this for brevity.

It was a lot to read, and reconfirms we need to legalize drugs in my maind.

Guess I'm just lazy. But there's nothing I need to read to reconfirm my belief that we need to legalize at least marijuana, see how that goes, and proceed from there. What's truly bizarre is that the places that have legalized it have seen exactly the opposite results from what all the opponents claim will happen.

This bust had very little to do w/ the sticky icky weed. It was a major coke/heroin bust that spanned from Clairton to Houston and Atlanta.

(01-07-2012 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 09:59 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 12:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2012 12:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not going to read it because doing so would only pi$$ me off. And I don't need more evidence to know that it's time to declare that the war on drugs is over and we lost.

It is actually worth the time. It really does put a highlight on this from a standpoint of the actual monetary "cost" of this foolishness right down to the community level. It comes from a unique perspective..IMO.
I wish someone would condense this for brevity.

It was a lot to read, and reconfirms we need to legalize drugs in my maind.

Guess I'm just lazy. But there's nothing I need to read to reconfirm my belief that we need to legalize at least marijuana, see how that goes, and proceed from there. What's truly bizarre is that the places that have legalized it have seen exactly the opposite results from what all the opponents claim will happen.

Well it is the alarmist view...Just like those that said that removing "don't ask..don't tell" would destroy military morale and efficiency. The evidence now shows that did not happen.

The war on drugs is moving to the workplace. If you want employment, surrender to a 3 to 4 time a year blood test. 2 positives, you are unemployed. Drugs for the unemployed.

(01-09-2012 10:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The war on drugs is moving to the workplace. If you want employment, surrender to a 3 to 4 time a year blood test. 2 positives, you are unemployed. Drugs for the unemployed.

If that is part of the employment contract..then..fine.

(01-09-2012 12:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The war on drugs is moving to the workplace. If you want employment, surrender to a 3 to 4 time a year blood test. 2 positives, you are unemployed. Drugs for the unemployed.

If that is part of the employment contract..then..fine.

Who gets an employment contract?

Seems perfectly fine to me. If the business owner were smart he'd announce the testing, and then wait a month before actually testing anyone. Unless he's trying to find a reason to get rid of someone in particular. If that's the case, I bet you'd end up with a positive from someone you'd want to keep too.

(01-09-2012 01:00 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 12:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The war on drugs is moving to the workplace. If you want employment, surrender to a 3 to 4 time a year blood test. 2 positives, you are unemployed. Drugs for the unemployed.

If that is part of the employment contract..then..fine.

Who gets an employment contract?

Seems perfectly fine to me. If the business owner were smart he'd announce the testing, and then wait a month before actually testing anyone. Unless he's trying to find a reason to get rid of someone in particular. If that's the case, I bet you'd end up with a positive from someone you'd want to keep too.

I use the term loosely to describe one's parameters of employment. All of our employees are given and made to sign off on an employee handbook that has all those parameters described. It is a condition of employment. Any new rules are not retroactive and employees are given adequate time before they are implemented in order to help with compliance. We did this with smoking several years ago. We made our campus a smoke free workplace. Smoking is not allowed period on the property. We gave employees 3 month to prepare for it. I doubt cannabis would fall under such a ban...since we do not prohibit employees from drinking on their own time. We only require that one not be under the influence of substance will at work. Alcohol and drug use has not been an issue with us that is of major concern.