Misinformation, misconceptions, and so on

[Hapless]

With regard to the 55% drug incarceration statistic, notice it says "drug offenses," not "cannabis offenses." That includes, crack, coke, heroin, meth, etc., etc. Your statement was 70% in prison for weed offenses.

Yes, I'm well aware that not all cops play by the rules. I'm also aware that not all Canadians play by the book. Do I know what motivates all Canadians, then? As I've pointed out in another thread, I've arrested every Canadian I've ever come into contact with for theft of some kind. Are all Canadians thieves? Those cops are the exception, not the rule, and if they are caught they go down hard, usually. You really like to paint things with a broad brush, don't you. Small minded for one with a great spirit encountering violent opposition from mediocre minds, I would think. Do you go on message boards and loudly decry the small percentage of McDonald's employees who spit in people's food. Or perhaps the small percentage of WalMart employees who under ring at the register and pocket the difference? Boy, if the cops are involved though, it's indicative of widespread problems. You. know. nothing. about. policework.

And shadow, nobody calls us to tell us they are having a swell day. I'm sure the police you refer to were just cruising around and decided, "You know what, we haven't screwed with shadow for awhile, let's get him" Just because you don't agree with what the officers did, doesn't mean it was illegal for them to do it. We are not required to be fair and impartial, that is for judges. That is why there ARE judges. Fairness and legality are two different things. If we always "played fair," we would never be able to accomplish anything. Some would consider it unfair that we don't have to tell a prostitute we are a cop if they ask when we are doing prostitution stings. Some would consider it unfair that the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions (pre-Bush, even) that we can lie to suspects when we interrogate them, e.g. "Your buddy is in the next room singing like a bird. You wanna tell me your side of this?" Some would consider many of the things we do unfair. Doesn't make any of those things illegal. If you honestly feel that you have been the victim of an illegal act by the police, I encourage you to make a complaint to the department. If the department is anything like the one I work for, it will be investigated aggressively, and if found to be true, the department will attempt to destroy the officer involved's life.
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. And the majority of people who THINK they know the law, don't. That's why they call them "jailhouse lawyers," or more derisively, "shithouse lawyers." Here's a fun experiment, without looking it up, tell me what you believe your rights are when confronted by the police. Not what you THINK your rights should be, but your rights in actual fact.

 

[burner69]

With regard to the 55% drug incarceration statistic, notice it says "drug offenses," not "cannabis offenses." That includes, crack, coke, heroin, meth, etc., etc. Your statement was 70% in prison for weed offenses.

My bad, but the question still stands. Because someones injecting does that make them a criminal? Really? If they rob, yes. If they inject, no. And considering out of the 8000 users in Britain only 1% is believed to require it on a day to day basis - are all of them likely to be robbers?

What about drug offences being more harshly punished than manslaughter? And robbery, your argument behind busting crack heads. Fair? I think not.

And if its the polices job to protect the law, and the community, why are corporate crimes so often ignored, or the culprits given soft punishments. Considering corporate crimes often put more people at risk, and take more money than a good many of individual offenses?

But like you say, life ain't fair. And you're doing a job you're being paid for. I respect you for it, I just don't respect the system.

 

[Hapless]

well like u said hapless ur a city officer, one of the lowest points in gov't ranking :/ the fbi have way more control and power then you and the cia above them.

Sorry, just noticed this tidbit. Are you aware, sir, that a city police officer has more power than an FBI agent? I can enforce Federal law, State Law and City Ordinance, while an FBI agent can only enforce Federal Law. Now, my power is limited to a very small jurisdiction, while the FBI agent's power is nationwide. This is that checks and balances thing you may have heard about in school. With regard to law enforcement, those with the most power are confined to the smallest jurisdictions.

 

[Hapless]

My bad, but the question still stands. Because someones injecting does that make them a criminal? Really? If they rob, yes. If they inject, no. And considering out of the 8000 users in Britain only 1% is believed to require it on a day to day basis - are all of them likely to be robbers?

What about drug offences being more harshly punished than manslaughter? And robbery, your argument behind busting crack heads. Fair? I think not.

And if its the polices job to protect the law, and the community, why are corporate crimes so often ignored, or the culprits given soft punishments. Considering corporate crimes often put more people at risk, and take more money than a good many of individual offenses? But like you say, life ain't fair. And you're doing a job you're being paid for. I respect you for it, I just don't respect the system.

Possession of personal use amounts will not get you more time than someone who has committed manslaughter. And manslaughter is not the same as murder.
Ah, the corporate crimes argument, I SO love hearing that one. There are agencies who exist only to investigate that type of stuff. How in the hell is your average street cop going to be driving past the headquarters of a huge conglomerate and see an executive walking to his vehicle in the parking lot, and say, "That guy looks like he might be skimming money." Use your head for a minute. There are more criminals running around snatching purses, robbing stores, selling crack, etc. than there are corporate criminals. There are more street cops investigating those types of crimes than there are SEC (or whoever) agents investigating corporate crime. And how, praytell, does corporate crime put more people at risk than the local crack dealer who sells to 50 crackheads who go out and break in houses and cars, or rob people or businesses to get more money for more crack?

 

[burner69]

I wasn't implying it was down to you, merely raising a point.

And corporate crimes include some rather nasty ones that endanger public health; getting rid of costly safety measures resulting in worker death, producing dangerous products without consideration of what damage it could do to the buyer, contaminating water with their pollution, and although its not a 'crime' hard pushing their products onto people, when health risks are possible (maccy Ds is a godo example).

And I think you'll find most dealers dont need to 'push' their drugs on people, the people come to them, and of course all of those people go out and rob people for their next hit....
...not a generaliser are you hapless? eh?

EDIT: What about people getting in what is defined as greater than a personal amount. Like if say I was getting my monthly stash from my dealer and got busted. Or if I was bringing some to a party for my friends. What then?
I believe in Britain 'personal' is a quarter, and I often buy more than that - but I don't deal.

 

[burner69]

"The FBI estimates that, 19,000 Americans are murdered every year.

Compare this to the 56,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases such as black lung and asbestosis and the tens of thousands of other Americans who fall victim to the silent violence of pollution, contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products, and hospital malpractice."

http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html

 

[Hapless]

I wasn't implying it was down to you, merely raising a point.

And corporate crimes include some rather nasty ones that endanger public health; getting rid of costly safety measures resulting in worker death, producing dangerous products without consideration of what damage it could do to the buyer, contaminating water with their pollution, and although its not a 'crime' hard pushing their products onto people, when health risks are possible (maccy Ds is a godo example).

And I think you'll find most dealers dont need to 'push' their drugs on people, the people come to them, and of course all of those people go out and rob people for their next hit....
...not a generaliser are you hapless? eh?

EDIT: What about people getting in what is defined as greater than a personal amount. Like if say I was getting my monthly stash from my dealer and got busted. Or if I was bringing some to a party for my friends. What then?
I believe in Britain 'personal' is a quarter, and I often buy more than that - but I don't deal.

If you are distributing it to your friends, that would be what we call Possession With Intent To Deliver.

 

[Hapless]

hapless, the point was i didn't do anything. Their was nothing illegal about what we did... we were parked waiting for a friend... now if thats illegal then **** every cop their is. I didn't say i thought it was unfair, i said it wasn't right, b/c we did NOTHING. WE hadn't smoked or anything, and he proceeded to pull behind us get out and search us.

My rights? well here yea go... i have the right to remain silent, and to have an attorney. I can choose not to be searched, and choose not to have my car searched, so long as their is nothing in plain sight of the officers view. I have the right to not let the officer in my glove compartment or trunk, if they are locked. Now i can open my mouth and let stuff fly, or i can keep it closed and talk to my attorney. I have dealt w/ cops, and i know how to deal w/ cops. Im not afraid of them, just aggrivated that i have to pretend im a well to do person and act w/ manners.

Now i didn't say u were required to be fair and partial... but if you want people to show you respect it would be nice to show them some. I dont go around imposing my vigilante power on poor innocent people do i? serisouly cops should choose their battles, i mean if you had the choice would you bust someone that was smoking a joint in plain site, or stabbing someone in plain site?

And as I pointed out, if you feel you were searched illegally, make a complaint to the department. If that doesn't satisfy you, hire an attorney and file a lawsuit. I find it hard to believe a police officer, "just pulled up, got out, and searched" you. Can you elaborate on what EXACTLY happened.

As to your rights, you only have a right to remain silent if you are being interrogated for a crime for which you are in custody. If you are being detained based on reasonable suspicion, regardless of whether YOU believe it to be unreasonable, you are required to answer questions regarding your identity, etc. Detention and custody are two different things. Further, you do not have a right to have an attorney present unless, again, you are in custody and being interrogated for a crime for which you ae in custody. You cannot refuse to have your car searched if:
1. Contraband is in plain view
2. A K-9 indicates on your vehicle
3. THe officer smells the odor of contraband
4. You or a passenger is being arrested out of the vehicle
5. The vehicle is being towed (called an inventory search)
6. The officer has probable cause to believe there is contraband, weapons or evidence of a crime in the vehicle which would possibly be lost if the time was taken to obtain a search warrant (Carroll Doctrine relating to mobile conveyances).
7. There may be more that I can't remember off the top of my head.

You cannot refuse to allow an officer to search a locked glovebox or trunk under most of the same circumstances except for search incident to arrest, as that only allows us to search the passenger compartment.

You don't have to act well-to-do or have manners. But it's generally not a good idea to run your mouth to a police officer, as most will generally take a much keener interest in any little thing about you or your vehicle which may be illegal, and arrest or cite you for them rather than give you a warning.

As to respect, the majority of us learn very early on that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. If I can sweet talk someone into complying, all the better. However, anytime the police are involved in a situation, you must remember WE are in control, and we will maintain control, even if that means being gruff with you when you start to get lippy, or even using force to obtain compliance. This is for our safety and yours. The thing that is, or should be, foremost in every cop's mind is officer safety.

Also keep in mind that in many, if not all, states, it is illegal to resist even an unlawful arrest. I explained the reasoning behind this in another thread some time ago, and don't feel like doing it again.

And what is this "vigilante power" you refer to? Citizen's arrest? Never heard of a vigilante power. In my state, citizens can effect arrests, with greater restrictions on the force they can use to do so. We really don't recommend it though, since citizens don't really know what they are doing and are liable to get hurt.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Back on the topic of misconceptions, they obviously do exist. But they also aren't as far off as you might expect.

Alright, I've seen numerous threads here with posts from non-Americans (or rather, non-U.S. Americans), which make bold statements such as:
"Well, in America the police/FBI/government can just come into your house with no reason whatsoever, no warrant, nothing"

[...] It's rather amusing that none of these posters happen to LIVE in the U.S. I've lived here for 32 years now, and am no less free now than I was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, whatever. Searches still require search warrants, arrests still require arrest warrants, or articulable probable cause. If this is the kind of crap you people in other countries are getting from your media outlets, it's no wonder there is such a poor opinion of us, or at least Bush.

That is indeed a misconception, as police do still require a warrant. But it is based on the new 'secret' warrants described in Sections 213 and 218 of the patriot act.

— Section 213, the "sneak and peek" search warrants that law enforcement may obtain to search someone's home or business while they aren't there, notifying the owner after the fact.
— Section 218 [...] allows investigators to apply for the expanded use of secret search warrants under FISA for both foreign intelligence and criminal intelligence-gathering purposes.

It is also combined with opposition to Section 215.

— Section 215, allows the government to seek a FISA court order to obtain personal records, like library, financial, phone, travel and medical records, through a third party. They are also based on softer probable-cause standards.

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142118,00.html)

I don't find that as troubling as some other parts though.

— Sections 411 and 412, which allow the government to deport and detain, respectively, aliens for associating with terrorists, even unknowingly. In the case of detention, the government can hold an alien with no judicial review, as long as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the non-citizen endangers national security.

(My bold)
As was pointed out earlier, as long as the spirit of the act is intact, there's not much trouble. However, there is a clear possibility for civil rights abuses that has not been adressed.

Also, Partiot Act 2:

Civil libertarians say they fear the court that adjudicates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (search), which grants authority to law enforcement personnel to watch individuals in secret, could grant federal agents the power to track anyone.

"You have a combination of a secret court that is operating below the constitutional standard for search and seizure and now against individuals who can simply be declared lone wolves without any connection to terrorists," Turley said.

The bill also allows the government to deport immediately any alien who knowingly received financial support for terrorists.

"When you find bad people who are doing bad things, you have to get them out of the country, even if you can't convict them of a crime," Carafano said.

The bill also gives federal judges the authority to deny bail to any terrorism suspect, currently permitted in federal drug cases. The goal is to keep indicted terrorists from fleeing before trial.

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141072,00.html)

The Patriot Act 1 is also not being used purely for counter-terrorism or foreign affairs:

The investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Patriot Act in a public corruption probe.

[...] Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she was preparing an inquiry to the FBI about its guidelines for using the Patriot Act in cases that don't involve terrorism. The law makes it easy for citizens' rights to be abused, she said.
"It was never my intention that the Patriot Act be used for garden-variety crimes and investigations," Berkley said.

[...] Corallo said federal law enforcement officials have no qualms about using the act to pursue an array of criminal investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as child pornography, drug trafficking and money laundering.

"I think most of the American people think the Patriot Act is a good thing and it's not affecting their civil liberties at all, and that the government should use any constitutional and legal tools it can, whether it's going after garden-variety criminals or terrorists."

But Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, expressed outrage at Corallo's suggestion that lawmakers were largely aware the Patriot Act's provisions would equip the FBI with new investigative tools beyond the scope of terrorism investigations.

"Those comments are disingenuous at best and do little to inspire confidence that the act won't be systematically abused," Peck said.

(http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-05-Wed-2003/news/22521283.html)

So, things aren't as bad as some might say, but they aren't as good as others might say either.
Even though some of us might not be american, and you might not have seen the patriot act applied to anyone you've met personally, it doesn't mean that criticism of it is unwarranted or 'amusing'.
Also, it's only a small part of the overall pile of disdain I have for George Bush, and please keep in mind that I use mostly american news networks to stay informed, so please try not to so readily blame our 'crappy foreign media outlets' for the opposition to your current administration.

"America is worse than China and North Korea these days"
"America is no longer the land of the free"

I don't recall seeing anyone say those things, but keep in mind the possibility of hyperbole.
Hell, calling America the "land of the free" in the first place is somewhat hyperbolic...

If you'd like to talk about Guantanamo Bay, fine, but to my mind, that falls outside of the realm of the civilian judicial system. Like it or not, we are at war, and it is a war visited on us by others. I suspect there is nothing going on there that hasn't gone on in every other previous war the U.S. has been engaged in. I would also venture to say that the people incarcerated there are being treated better than they would in just about any other country's POW camp.
Pulling someone's fingernails out one by one is torture. Shoving bamboo shoots underneath one's fingernails is torture. Electrocution is torture. Depriving someone of food until they waste away is torture. What is NOT torture is sleep deprivation. Yelling at someone doesn't count either. Having someone stand on a box with pieces of wire attached to them is not torture. Get over it for God's (or Allah, or Yahweh, or whoever you choose to believe in) sake.

...and it is somewhat hyperbolic, in part due to statements like this.
This torture is okay because it could technically be worse?
Violence, threats of violence, repeated sexual assault, and psychological torture aren't torture?
These things aren't technically crimes because they didn't happen in america?

Sickening.
You claim to be a police officer?
What kind of police officer do you think you are?
'Get over it' my ass.

You are focused on the wrong misconceptions here.
I seriously suggest you deal with yours.

I believe that is the hipocracy Stern was referring to.

 

[CptStern]

clap clap, excellent work, your level of research brings a tear to my eye

 

[seinfeldrules]

he searched him found less then a gram of weed, and attempted to arrest him.

He probably smoked the rest of it...

 

[bliink]

He probably smoked the rest of it...

beacause you're guilty till proven innocent right?... :stare:

 

[CptStern]

I'm sure we can all come up with stories of being harrassed ...I've got a couple of dozen

 

[GiaOmerta]

The respiratory consumation of marijuana kills neurons.
Neurons are irreplacable. The amount possessed at birth will not increase but decreases. Marijuana speeds up the process.

 

[seinfeldrules]

beacause you're guilty till proven innocent right?...

Well when you're smoking, possessing jibbah and hanging out in the wrong neighborhood it all starts to add up.

"The cop said he smelled some marijuana, searched us, then turned up a gram"
I fail to see where he was wrong.

 

[bliink]

Well when you're smoking, possessing jibbah and hanging out in the wrong neighborhood it all starts to add up.

"The cop said he smelled some marijuana, searched us, then turned up a gram"
I fail to see where he was wrong.

of course, in fact, he was probably right, but you and he both assumed that, without due cause (I think a smell doesnt qualify)

 

[seinfeldrules]

of course, in fact, he was probably right, but you and he both assumed that, without due cause (I think a smell doesnt qualify)

I'm sorry, but if you're hanging out in the wrong neighboorhood at the wrong time you're just asking for trouble. Sure in a fantasy world cops wouldnt search people without 100% evidence, but that has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Furthermore, in a fantasy land he wouldnt have possesed marijuana either. I wonder what a drug test would show up.

 

[bliink]

I'm sorry, but if you're hanging out in the wrong neighboorhood at the wrong time you're just asking for trouble. Sure in a fantasy world cops wouldnt search people without 100% evidence, but that has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Furthermore, in a fantasy land he wouldnt have possesed marijuana either. I wonder what a drug test would show up.

In australia, I think they've just drafted laws that allow random drug testing of anyone (similar to random breath testing for alcohol)... does the US have a system like that?

 

[Steve]

In australia, I think they've just drafted laws that allow random drug testing of anyone (similar to random breath testing for alcohol)... does the US have a system like that?

You usually have to have "probable cause" to perform something like that. Though sometimes, they set up roadblocks (usually near college bars and stuff).

 

[seinfeldrules]

In australia, I think they've just drafted laws that allow random drug testing of anyone (similar to random breath testing for alcohol)... does the US have a system like that?

No. I've never heard of a cop using it either. I think its a shame because there are far too many kids in my school having their lives ruined by the shit.

 

[Hapless]

This torture is okay because it could technically be worse?
Violence, threats of violence, repeated sexual assault, and psychological torture aren't torture?
These things aren't technically crimes because they didn't happen in america?

Sickening.
You claim to be a police officer?
What kind of police officer do you think you are?
'Get over it' my ass.

You are focused on the wrong misconceptions here.
I seriously suggest you deal with yours.

I believe that is the hipocracy Stern was referring to.

I don't claim to be a police officer. I am a police officer. I get very few complaints from citizens, much, much less than the average. I have numerous letters of commendation awarded for my work in several investigations (mostly burglaries). I also have two drug awards, what we call Key Drug Bust awards, or Key awards for short. I treat people as they treat me. If you come at me with attitude, you're going to get attitude back. Recently, I investigated a complaint in which a hardcore gangbanger, whose street name happens to be "Drive-by," had been locked up based on a bogus complaint of domestic battery by his ex-girlfriend. I ended up determining that the girlfriend had lied, and got her to admit she lied, and I got, "Drive-by," out of jail and put her in jail. Now, I could have said, "Screw him, he's a piece of crap, let him sit up there," but I don't believe someone should sit in jail if I know and can prove they aren't guilty. That's what kind of police officer I am, so you can take your condescension and stick it in that ass you were talking about. Or Stern's, if you like. And, no, I don't believe that any of the things I mentioned are torture. AND for the love of God/Allah/Yahweh/the Great Spirit, why can't Canadians spell HYPOCRISY??

 

[Hapless]

of course, in fact, he was probably right, but you and he both assumed that, without due cause (I think a smell doesnt qualify)

Wrong. Most people know what weed smells like. I can articulate that, through my training and life experience, I have smelled the odor of burning cannabis or unburnt cannabis before on numerous occasions, which gives me probable cause. It's no different than a K-9 sniff, just has to be stronger for us to smell it.

 

[Hapless]

In australia, I think they've just drafted laws that allow random drug testing of anyone (similar to random breath testing for alcohol)... does the US have a system like that?

Nope. There is no practical way for us to do that on the street, that I'm aware of. The funny thing, there is no provision in the law, at least in my state, which makes it illegal to have narcotics in your system. Only physical posession is illegal, unless you're driving. Parolees and those on probation can be drug-tested by their PO at any time though.

 

[Raziaar]

I don't claim to be a police officer. I am a police officer. I get very few complaints from citizens, much, much less than the average. I have numerous letters of commendation awarded for my work in several investigations (mostly burglaries). I also have two drug awards, what we call Key Drug Bust awards, or Key awards for short. I treat people as they treat me. If you come at me with attitude, you're going to get attitude back. Recently, I investigated a complaint in which a hardcore gangbanger, whose street name happens to be "Drive-by," had been locked up based on a bogus complaint of domestic battery by his ex-girlfriend. I ended up determining that the girlfriend had lied, and got her to admit she lied, and I got, "Drive-by," out of jail. Now, I could have said, "Screw him, he's a piece of crap, let him sit up there," but I don't believe someone should sit in jail if I know and can prove they aren't guilty. That's what kind of police officer I am, so you can take your condescension and stick it in that ass you were talking about. Or Stern's, if you like. And, no, I don't believe that any of the things I mentioned are torture. AND for the love of God/Allah/Yahweh/the Great Spirit, why can't Canadians spell HYPOCRISY??

Heh, I wouldn't worry too much Hapless. These people just share the same mentality of 'cops are pigs, screw them, you'll never catch me, coppers!', so I wouldn't take it too personally. I mean, they're drug users, of course they're going to be against you.

I mean, I could go as far as calling them 'druggies', which is what they are, but i'll probably get in trouble on these forums for it, which sucks.

 

[Hapless]

Heh, I wouldn't worry too much Hapless. These people just share the same mentality of 'cops are pigs, screw them, you'll never catch me, coppers!', so I wouldn't take it too personally. I mean, they're drug users, of course they're going to be against you.

Well, between my streak of arresting Canadians for theft, and the attitude I get from a few of them on this board *cough*, my opinion of Canada's citizenry just keeps dropping.

 

[Raziaar]

Well, between my streak of arresting Canadians for theft, and the attitude I get from a few of them on this board *cough*, my opinion of Canada's citizenry just keeps dropping.

I wasn't talking about Canadians. I was just talking about drug users in general. I don't give a damn their nationality, they all hate 'cops' because they're oppressing on their ability to get high.

EDIT: Edited to change ethnicity to nationality. I didn't mean to say ethnicity. Heh.

 

[Raziaar]

Heh. reading a website here, and look at these claims.

# Asthma
One puff of marijuana smoke can stop an asthma attack for up to 80% of all patients, while Theopoline, a pharmaceutical drug legally prescribed for asthma, is reputed to cause up to 50 U.S. deaths and 1,000 cases of permanent brain damage per year.
# Glaucoma
Cannabis is 2-3 times as effective as any current medicines for reducing ocular pressure and has no toxic side effects to liver or kidneys. California eye doctors have been known to discretely advise their patients to use street marijuana to addition to their toxic, legal glaucoma medicines.
# Tumors
Researchers at the Medical College of Virginia discovered that cannabis is an incredibly successful herb for reducing many types of tumors. The DEA and other federal agencies had ordered these tumor studies after hearing of erroneous reports of possible immunicological problems associated with cannabis smoke. When, instead of problems, an apparent breakthrough occurred in 1975, orders were handed down by the DEA to de-fund all further cannabis tumor research.
# Nausea Relief
Reduces nausea, which can be caused by many other drugs; in effect, can provide some relief to necessary side effects.
# Epilepsy
Cannabis is beneficial for 60% of all epileptics. (Medical World News, 1971)
# Emphysema Therapy
Medical research indicates that light cannabis smoking might be useful for a majority of mild emphysema victims, as an expectorant to clear their lungs and let them breathe easier.
# Migraines
Cannabis dilates arteries; because migraines are the result of artery spasms combined with over-relaxed veins, the vascular changes cannabis causes in the covering of the brain (the meninges) usually makes migraines disappear.
# Reduce Saliva
A handy way to induce drymouth prior to dental operations.
# Reduce Anxiety
Smoking marijuana lowers blood pressure, dilates the arteries, and reduces body temperature an average of 1/2 a degree (F), thereby relieving stress.

Heh, if any of this were true, why the **** isn't it praised as some sort of wonder medicine?

 

[Kommie]

Heh. reading a website here, and look at these claims.



Heh, if any of this were true, why the **** isn't it praised as some sort of wonder medicine?

Well the last two are true for sure, and it does help with migraines. though the reasonings may be false not sure. I dont understand how it helps with tumors or asthma that just doesn't make sense

SOME people do praise it as such and the pharmacutical companies surely would want that rumor to die, usually what upsets them doesn't stick around that long.

 

[Raziaar]

Well the last two are true for sure, and it does help with migraines. though the reasonings may be false not sure. I dont understand how it helps with tumors or asthma that just doesn't make sense

SOME people do praise it as such and the pharmacutical companies surely would want that rumor to die, usually what upsets them doesn't stick around that long.

Pharmacutical companies don't run this country. If anything they are losing more and more credibility each day as new medicines and stuff are found to cause deaths in many people.

One thing I might agree with, is the glaucoma thing slated on that list.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Skipping over the uninteresting story and the gay sex jokes (anus lol), I figured it would be best to focus on the basics of your posts. Which were, in fact, very basic:

And, no, I don't believe that any of the things I mentioned are torture.

Right. so let's look at what you consider to be 'not torture'.
My bolds and italics throughout.

Guantanamo Bay's conditions:

The memo obtained by the AP documents abuses that included a female interrogator’s grabbing a detainee’s genitals and bending back his thumbs, a prisoner’s being gagged with duct tape and an attack dog’s being used to intimidate a detainee, who later showed “extreme” psychological trauma.

Additional investigations into abuse and mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay, as well as other aspects of the detention mission, are also pending, defense officials say.

President of the Law Council, Bob Gotterson, QC, said the torture allegations highlighted that the detention of Mr Hicks and Mr Habib was contrary to accepted standards of international law.

"It is not right that the Australian pair are being treated as 'outlaws', held without conviction or even charges, and outside the reach of the court system," Mr Gotterson said.

The torture allegations are believed to have been raised by Australian lawyer Richard Bourke and David Hicks's father, Terry, after hearing reports of detainees being forced to kneel in the sun until they collapsed, and being tied up and shot at with rubber bullets.

Mr Mubanga, 31, alleges that only months ago he was kept shackled for so long that he wet himself, and then was forced to clean up his own urine. He claims to have been threatened, that an interrogator stood on his hair, and that he was subjected to extremes of temperature rising to 36C (97F). He was kept chained to the floor by his feet for an hour during a welfare visit from a British government official.

The administration of President Bush has sanctioned detention conditions and interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay that violate international standards. Previous military reviews and inquiries, let alone the administration itself, have yet to denounce such treatment.
Interrogation techniques authorised for use in Guantánamo have included:
-stress positions,
-isolation,
-hooding,
-sensory deprivation and
-the use of dogs to intimidate detainees.

And, the specifics of what 'isn't torture':

What is NOT torture is sleep deprivation.

Wrong.

Sleep deprivation is not like torture - it is a form of torture, a tactic favoured by the KGB and the Japanese in PoW camps in World War Two.

The British Army was also accused of using sleep deprivation to extract information from suspected IRA members in 1971.

"It is such a standard form of torture that basically everybody has used it at one time or another," says Andrew Hogg, of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

[...] "Making a programme in which people are deprived of sleep is like treating them with medication that will make them psychotic. It also demeans the experiences of those who have involuntarily gone through this form of torture. It is the equivalent of bear-baiting, and we banned that centuries ago.

"I was kept without sleep for a week in all. I can remember the details of the experience, although it took place 35 years ago. After two nights without sleep, the hallucinations start, and after three nights, people are having dreams while fairly awake, which is a form of psychosis.

"By the week's end, people lose their orientation in place and time - the people you're speaking to become people from your past; a window might become a view of the sea seen in your younger days. To deprive someone of sleep is to tamper with their equilibrium and their sanity."

Yelling at someone doesn't count either.

To an extent. But that stops at the point where it becomes threats or verbal abuse. It's called verbal abuse for a reason. Shouldn't you know this?

Having someone stand on a box with pieces of wire attached to them is not torture.

This is not torture. Keep in mind those wires are electrified.
Not torture either.
Abu Ghraib must've be a pleasure cruise. (Warning: These last photos are very graphic.)

So, you say that's not torture. Let's ask the group Physicians for Human Rights what they think. (The ones that 'aren't torture' are marked with an X.)

What are the most common forms of torture?

[...]Torture methods to consider include, but are not limited to:

X(a) Blunt trauma, such as a punch, kick, slap, whipping, a beating with wires or truncheons or falling down;
X(b) Positional torture, using suspension, stretching limbs apart, prolonged constraint of movement, forced positioning;
(c) Burns with cigarettes, heated instruments, scalding liquid or a caustic substance;
X(d) Electric shock;
(e) Asphyxiation, such as wet and dry methods, drowning, smothering, choking or use of chemicals;
(f) Crush injuries, such as smashing fingers or using a heavy roller to injure the thighs or back;
(g) Penetrating injuries, such as stab and gunshot wounds, wires under nails;
(h) Chemical exposures to salt, chilli pepper, gasoline, etc. (in wounds or body cavities);
X(i) Sexual violence to genitals, molestation, instrumentation, rape;
(j) Crush injury or traumatic removal of digits and limbs;
(k) Medical amputation of digits or limbs, surgical removal of organs;
(l) Pharmacological torture using toxic doses of sedatives, neuroleptics, paralytics, etc.;
X(m) Conditions of detention, such as a small or overcrowded cell, solitary confinement, unhygienic conditions, no access to toilet facilities, irregular or contaminated food and water, exposure to extremes of temperature, denial of privacy and forced nakedness;
X Deprivation of normal sensory stimulation, such as sound, light, sense of time, isolation, manipulation of brightness of the cell, abuse of physiological needs, restriction of sleep, food, water, toilet facilities, bathing, motor activities, medical care, social contacts, isolation within prison, loss of contact with the outside world (victims often are kept in isolation in order to prevent bonding and mutual identification and to encourage traumatic bonding with the torturer);
X(o) Humiliations, such as verbal abuse, performance of humiliating acts;
(p) Threats of death, harm to family, further torture, imprisonment, mock executions;
X(q) Threats of attacks by animals, such as dogs, cats, rats or scorpions;
X(r) Psychological techniques to break down the individual, including forced betrayals, learned helplessness,exposure to ambiguous situations or contradictory messages;
X(s) Violation of taboos;
(t) Behavioural coercion, such as forced engagement in practices against one's religion (e.g. forcing Muslims to eat pork), forced harm to others through torture or other abuses, forced to destroy property, forced to betray someone placing them at risk for harm
(u) Forced to witness torture or atrocities being inflicted on others.

...and that's just the stuff I managed to fit in this post.
But still, 10 out of 21 ain't bad, right?

What are the effects of torture on its victims?

Survivors of torture and/or ill treatment often suffer from a combination of physical and psychological symptoms and disabilities. There may be a wide range of acute and chronic symptoms related to specific forms of physical injury, from pain and swelling to broken bones, irreparable neurological damage, and chronic painful musculoskeletal problems. Torture and/or ill commonly results in long-term psychological symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions, not to mention feelings of powerlessness, of fear, guilt and shame.

Remember kids, this is all justified because:

"To my mind, at falls outside of the realm of the civilian judicial system."
"We are at war."
"I would also venture to say that the people incarcerated there are being treated better than they would in just about any other country's POW camp."

Well, if you say so crazy sailor! It must not be torture after all.

So, since all sorts of tortures are justified in your eyes, I think I can also be justified in questioning the validity of your mail-order policeman's badge or whatever makes you call yourself 'law enforcement'. Because I would have figured you would have had to, y'know, understand laws to join the force.
'What's a Geneva Convention?'

AND for the love of God/Allah/Yahweh/the Great Spirit, why can't Canadians spell HYPOCRISY??

A typo on the internet!
Someone call the poli- oh, wait. Nevermind.

And just for the record. I think whatever 'ethnic sensitivity' bonus points you'd get from the gimic of listing various gods are cancelled somewhat by, y'know, condoning torture.

 

[burner69]

Heh. reading a website here, and look at these claims.
Heh, if any of this were true, why the **** isn't it praised as some sort of wonder medicine?

It is. Many doctors believe cannabis has a lot of potential in medicine, many pot smokers over emphasise these claims, but there are a good many there.

Not only useful in medicine though, cannabis makes a high quality fibre which can be used to make cheap, bio degradble packaging for food stuffs, toys, etc etc. Through a similar process clothes can be made, wood substitutes, even car chasis's. Because cannabis is one of the fastest growing plants, and one of the most hardy, it can be grown in mass rapidly. By replacing current packaging with hemp packaging, you begin to solve the problem of littering the planet. And by replacing slow growing trees with hemp to make wood, you start sorting out this whole deforestation thing.

And there's more. Hemp seeds are more nutricious than rice, and can be grown on almost every country in the world. Mind you, you don't get high off these seeds, this is another kind of hemp plant that does not get you high... but is still illegal... hmmm.

Oh yes, and fuel. Although there are many workable, almost pollutionless biofuels in the pipeline, cannabis would be one of the easiest to impliment because of the speed of growth. As a fuel it releases no harmful CO2 gases, which would continue to harm the atmosphere.

Car fuel too. Again, clean.

Another thing, as it can be grown most places on Earth, poorer countries can start growing it and making similar profit to western societies. Help them get out of third world debt.

And finally, crush those little hemp seeds up and you get a nice cheap, but better quality and better for the environment... OIL!
Yup, hemp can make a cheap, higher quality oil.

Now, you work it out. Cheap fabric, cheap medicine, cheap packaging, cheap wood, cheap fuel, cheap oil. Dosen't take a genius to work out why that would piss off the oil companies, fuel companies, pharmacies etc etc.

And cannabis isn't 100% safe like some pro-pot people think. But its a hell of a lot safer than beer.

As for the neurons thing, there is evidence for that - but also evidence against, and even evidence to show weed helps protect the respitory system. It's all up in the air, and it's hard to get a conclusive answer because scientists and doctors are at risk from arrest if they carry out experiments on dope.

Making weed legal makes sense to me, and not just so I can smoke it without fear of punishment for doing so, but so we can use it for what it can potentially be used for - rather than spreading propaganda about its dangers to scare people into not thinking past the smoking side of it.

''We did not view marijuana as a significant health problem--as it was not....Nobody dies from marijuana. Marijuana smoking, in fact, if one wants to be honest, is a source of pleasure and amusement to countless millions of people in America, and it continues to be that way.''
Peter Bourne, President Carter's Drug Czar
Source: PBS's Frontline: ''Drug Wars,'' October 2000

Rosie Boycott, Independent on Sunday, 28 Sept 1997
"If alcohol is a tiger, cannabis is merely a mouse"

The Economist March 28th 1992:
"Medicines often produce side effects. Sometimes they are physically unpleasant. Cannabis too has discomforting side effects, but these are not physical they are political"

Detective Chief Inspector Ron Clarke, former member of Greater Manchester Police Drugs Squad:
"I got tired of seeing otherwise innocent young kids from all walks of life getting criminal records for, in effect, doing nothing more than millions of other people in society were doing with alcohol"

 

[Hapless]

Skipping over the uninteresting story and the gay sex jokes (anus lol), I figured it would be best to focus on the basics of your posts. Which were, in fact, very basic:

Uninteresting story? Gay sex jokes? Anus? Where were any of these things in my post? I'm sorry if your life is soooooo interesting that my life bores you. Canada must be a real exciting place. Anus? What? Where is that word in my post anywhere?

Right. so let's look at what you consider to be 'not torture'.

The things that I mentioned were sleep deprivation, yelling and standing on a box with wires attached to you. The first two things are nothing any recruit in the U.S. Armed Forces doesn't go through for weeks. I speak from experience, because I served in the U.S. Army, but that probably doesn't interest you either.

To an extent. But that stops at the point where it becomes threats or verbal abuse. It's called verbal abuse for a reason. Shouldn't you know this?

So these guys should be molly-coddled, eh? Can't "abuse" them verbally eh? But you have no problem with the statements you make further down about mail-order badges, and such. Interesting, and vaguely....hypocritical.....

This is not torture. Keep in mind those wires are electrified.

Umm, NO they are not. Do some research, genius, and you would find the guy was told the wires were electrified and that if he stepped off the box he would be shocked. The wires weren't actually electrified.

Not torture either.

OMFG, that poor man, he has to bend over. I'm sure you must have nearly fainted dead away when you first saw that picture. If I could email you a tissue, I would.

So, you say that's not torture. Let's ask the group Physicians for Human Rights what they think. (The ones that 'aren't torture' are marked with an X.)


...and that's just the stuff I managed to fit in this post.
But still, 10 out of 21 ain't bad, right?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. First of all, I find it amusing that you would use stuff from a biased, activist, website. Second of all, AGAIN I said sleep deprivation, yelling and standing on a box wth wires attached. I said nothing about blunt trauma. I said nothing about electric shock. I said nothing about sexual violence. I actually said food deprivation was torture. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Furthermore, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT ABU GHRAIB. I was talking about Guantanamo Bay. I believe the idiocy that occurred at Abu Ghraib is a separate issue.

So, since all sorts of tortures are justified in your eyes, I think I can also be justified in questioning the validity of your mail-order policeman's badge or whatever makes you call yourself 'law enforcement'. Because I would have figured you would have had to, y'know, understand laws to join the force.
'What's a Geneva Convention?'

VERBAL ABUSE!!! Or it would be if you said it to me in person. I assure you, my badge didn't come in the mail. I understand the law very well, thank you. You are not justified in questioning anything, because most of the things you pointed out were based on misunderstandings of what I said and your apparent inability to comprehend what you read, and most of the rest is based on activist and biased websites.

A typo on the internet!
Someone call the poli- oh, wait. Nevermind.

I was pointing out that both YOU and Stern misspelled the word, almost exactly the same way. And you're both from Canada. Maybe you're actually the same person. Same attitude, anyway.

And just for the record. I think whatever 'ethnic sensitivity' bonus points you'd get from the gimic of listing various gods are cancelled somewhat by, y'know, condoning torture.

sigh. This is what's referred to in some cultures as a "joke." Maybe you've heard it called a "jest," or a, "gag." I know Canadians don't have the ability to comprehend many such things, so I will refrain from using them in the future. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

 

[Raziaar]

So tell me then burner. If Cannabis is the most miraculous material for medicines, construction, etc in the history of mankind like you make it out to be, why haven't other countries started to use it who are not run by oil companies, etc? Besides, even though we have companies such as pharmacies in the united states, they don't control the country. If there's something cheap and more effective that can be achieved, it's pushed all the time here in the states, and succeeds.

 

[Kangy]

What's the point of legalizing more things like alcohol and smoking though? Cannabis does have negative consequences in terms of mental stability, and can lead to schizophrenia, or other mental disorders.

In a civilised society, we should be getting tighter on such things, not looser.

 

[Absinthe]

sigh. This is what's referred to in some cultures as a "joke." Maybe you've heard it called a "jest," or a, "gag." I know Canadians don't have the ability to comprehend many such things, so I will refrain from using them in the future. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

I see that racism is the new and hip thing nowadays.

 

[Absinthe]

What's the point of legalizing more things like alcohol and smoking though? Cannabis does have negative consequences in terms of mental stability, and can lead to schizophrenia, or other mental disorders.

Of course it has negative effects if it's abused. So does alcohol. I could actually argue that alcohol is even worse since you can... You know... DIE from it.

And marijuana cannot lead to schizophrenia. It has short-term symptoms such as paranoia, suspiciousness, memory problems), but not schizophrenia itself.

I'm curious as to what long-term mental disorders you may be thinking of.

In a civilised society, we should be getting tighter on such things, not looser.

Or maybe I should have the right to consume a relatively harmless substance.

 

[Hapless]

I see that racism is the new and hip thing nowadays.

I see that idiocy is the new and hip thing nowadays. Any fool who thinks of Canadians as a race is just that, a fool. You seem to have no problem when people say, "Americans are this," or, "Americans are that." What's the difference? Canada is made up of almost as many races and ethnicities as the U.S. This ignorance almost made me squirt coffee out my nose from laughing.

 

[Raziaar]

Of course it has negative effects if it's abused. So does alcohol. I could actually argue that alcohol is even worse since you can... You know... DIE from it.

And marijuana cannot lead to schizophrenia. It has short-term symptoms such as paranoia, suspiciousness, memory problems), but not schizophrenia itself.

I'm curious as to what long-term mental disorders you may be thinking of.



Or maybe I should have the right to consume a relatively harmless substance.

You act like Marijuana is not abused. Everybody abuses it who uses it Absinthe, and you have to be pretty naive to object to that.

 

[burner69]

So tell me then burner. If Cannabis is the most miraculous material for medicines, construction, etc in the history of mankind like you make it out to be, why haven't other countries started to use it who are not run by oil companies, etc? Besides, even though we have companies such as pharmacies in the united states, they don't control the country. If there's something cheap and more effective that can be achieved, it's pushed all the time here in the states, and succeeds.

Individual countries, I couldn't say. But the UN passed a law stating that it should forever be kept illegal, and stamped out, despite it being used more, each year prohibition remains. With the UN having such strict laws, I'm asuming most countries are merely obeying them.

And its the companies who have the patents on these cannabis uses, or at least most of them. So we can't bring them out, cuz they own them, and while theres profit in other alternatives, they'll stick to them.

Absinthe, I believe that cannabis has been linked to the onset of schitsophrenia, thats one of the few negative points that is true - HOWEVER, this is only in people who have it any way, and although it raises the chance of them first being diagnosed, evidence is there to suggest that smoking dope can improve their quality of life and reduce the chance of relapsing into episodes. However there is also evidence to counter this.

The question remains, should we take away the freedom to take a substance based on: the 1% of the population suseptable to schitsophrenia (and is it necessarily a bad thing they are diagnosed sooner?), and the fact the alcohol is bad already, leave weed out of it.

Why not ban alcohol and legalise weed?
Crime rate would drop quite a bit.

Tho we would all end up as hippies and communists of course :rolling:

 

[burner69]

You act like Marijuana is not abused. Everybody abuses it who uses it Absinthe, and you have to be pretty naive to object to that.

Define abuse.

I smoke cannabis several times a week, yet I'm at uni, getting good grades.
I know more people who go out and get p*ssed two - three times a week than people who smoke dope as often, even tho most people I kno do pot.

Saying that everyone abuses cannabis is like saying everyone in America abuses the right to have a gun. Its crap. Some people do, the majority don't.