PunBB

4 mounties killed in alberta...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/03/alberta-shooting050303.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 50303.html</a><!-- m -->

That's horrible..God damn drug dealers taking the easy way through life then when they get caught they're too scared to just give up....That pisses me off.

You're right guys, a terrible day for the RCMP indeed. Just have to shake your head at people who think they can get away with killing cops like this.

Sounds like the culprit was killed as well... if so, then he will surely get his in the afterlife.

i'm not defending the actions of the growers, but none of this would've ever happened if marijuana was legal...there wouldn't be guys with shotguns in fields, waiting to buck down whoever came through. it is sad, and what's sadder is that stuff like this doesn't have to happen, these scum might be forced to actually go out and get jobs if it was legal...but instead the government insists on fighting a half-assed battle against it, and this is what happens, it just doesn't make any sense, and i'll be damned if marijuana isn't FULLY legalized before i die, the quest starts now!

You are an idiot. Grow up stoner.

The Darkest Canuck Wrote:i'm not defending the actions of the growers, but none of this would've ever happened if marijuana was legal...there wouldn't be guys with shotguns in fields, waiting to buck down whoever came through. it is sad, and what's sadder is that stuff like this doesn't have to happen, these scum might be forced to actually go out and get jobs if it was legal...but instead the government insists on fighting a half-assed battle against it, and this is what happens, it just doesn't make any sense, and i'll be damned if marijuana isn't FULLY legalized before i die, the quest starts now!

tragicallymike Wrote:You are an idiot. Grow up stoner.

I hate to dispute that statement, but this time the Darkest Canuck speaks a grain of unpleasant truth.

If marijuana use really is widely accepted (true), then why should marijuana production remain a serious crime? And is there a sound reason for marijuana to be illegal at all?

There is a sound reason to legalize it. Widespread use has created a large demand, which is filled by organized crime, and this in turn fills the bikers' coffers and helps to fund their other activities. The logical courses of action are either to keep possession a criminal offence, recognizing the link between possession and events like this, or legalize the stuff outright.

Much as it pains me to agree with public pronouncements by the police, the alternative is to continue dealing with grow ops left and right, at significant cost to the taxpayer. This diverts police resources from other problems, without offering any clear public benefit.

So: legalize it. It's in the public interest to do so.

There is such a thing as deference, respect, common sense, and the ability to say certain things at a certain time, I guess we know this morning who on this board has that tact, and who doesn't.

That said, this is a tragedy.

Is current Marijuana policy worth four lives? No, nothing is. Things need to change. But this isn't about pot policy. If the raid had happened on a child porn ring or a cocaine outfit, nobody would be sympathetic with the scum involved.

Four young Mounties are dead in the line of duty at the hands of men so heartless, cold, and (regardless of what you think of pot policy) obviously aware they were in the wrong, and so deep in the wrong, they were willing to pull triggers to cover their asses.

Forget pot for one minute. This was a massive illegal drug operation, not your buddies basement hydro lamp. This is the kind of thing that impedes trade, subverts the government and the economy, and believe it or not, costs lives: of mules, pushers, producers and rival dealers and users: every single day.

Four men lost their lives at the hands of criminals and absolute cowards.

Stephen Dame Wrote:There is such a thing as deference, respect, common sense, and the ability to say certain things at a certain time, I guess we know this morning who on this board has that tact, and who doesn't.

That said, this is a tragedy.

Is current Marijuana policy worth four lives? No, nothing is. Things need to change. But this isn't about pot policy. If the raid had happened on a child porn ring or a cocaine outfit, nobody would be sympathetic with the scum involved.

Four young Mounties are dead in the line of duty at the hands of men so heartless, cold, and (regardless of what you think of pot policy) obviously aware they were in the wrong, and so deep in the wrong, they were willing to pull triggers to cover their asses.

Forget pot for one minute. This was a massive illegal drug operation, not your buddies basement hydro lamp. This is the kind of thing that impedes trade, subverts the government and the economy, and believe it or not, costs lives: of mules, pushers, producers and rival dealers and users: every single day.

Four men lost their lives at the hands of criminals and absolute cowards.

Don't be banal. No one has said anything other than the killings are a sad thing. I condem those how did the killing...

BUT

The RCMP deaths were a direct result of a failed social policy...prohibition of Marijuana. Regardless of the scale of the operation, it would not have existed if pot were legalized. If the ordinary citizen were allowed to grow and cultivate pot for personal use, THESE OPERATIONS WOULD NOT EXIST. Further, if the average citizen were allowed personal growth and use, then the only mules and pushers there would be would be involved in the import and sale of the evil refined white powders. In those cases, I have no problem with John Law dishing out what ever punishment reasonable.

This has more to do with the farmer being a psychopath than any current drug laws. In the Calgary Herald this morning was a blurb by the guys father stating his son was a "Wicked devil", and has always been that way. Residents in the town feared him as he was known to take pot shots at passing motorists. Drug laws or not, this guy was a loose cannon waiting to explode. It's just too damn bad he couldn't have been locked up earlier so this tragedy might have been avoided.

Gov'tMule Wrote:

Stephen Dame Wrote:There is such a thing as deference, respect, common sense, and the ability to say certain things at a certain time, I guess we know this morning who on this board has that tact, and who doesn't.

That said, this is a tragedy.

Is current Marijuana policy worth four lives? No, nothing is. Things need to change. But this isn't about pot policy. If the raid had happened on a child porn ring or a cocaine outfit, nobody would be sympathetic with the scum involved.

Four young Mounties are dead in the line of duty at the hands of men so heartless, cold, and (regardless of what you think of pot policy) obviously aware they were in the wrong, and so deep in the wrong, they were willing to pull triggers to cover their asses.

Forget pot for one minute. This was a massive illegal drug operation, not your buddies basement hydro lamp. This is the kind of thing that impedes trade, subverts the government and the economy, and believe it or not, costs lives: of mules, pushers, producers and rival dealers and users: every single day.

Four men lost their lives at the hands of criminals and absolute cowards.

Don't be banal. No one has said anything other than the killings are a sad thing. I condem those how did the killing...

BUT

The RCMP deaths were a direct result of a failed social policy...prohibition of Marijuana. Regardless of the scale of the operation, it would not have existed if pot were legalized. If the ordinary citizen were allowed to grow and cultivate pot for personal use, THESE OPERATIONS WOULD NOT EXIST. Further, if the average citizen were allowed personal growth and use, then the only mules and pushers there would be would be involved in the import and sale of the evil refined white powders. In those cases, I have no problem with John Law dishing out what ever punishment reasonable.

I take your point, but I can't agree. Nor do I think brushing over four deaths and moving towards a political point "condemns" anything.

I think any use of this particular incident to push whatever pot policy you support is ridiculous given the circumstances. And to use the "personal use" argument, I find that naive and short sighted.

Does it raise issues about drug policy? Yes, and I addressed that in the original post. But these guys can't be confused with recreational users in anyway. This is a clear case of criminals, murderers and as Billy nicely points out above: psychopaths.

Today, this is about four men, and I'm glad to see that so far the media (this office included) is keeping it that way.

Stephen Dame Wrote:There is such a thing as deference, respect, common sense, and the ability to say certain things at a certain time, I guess we know this morning who on this board has that tact, and who doesn't.

That said, this is a tragedy.

Is current Marijuana policy worth four lives? No, nothing is. Things need to change. But this isn't about pot policy. If the raid had happened on a child porn ring or a cocaine outfit, nobody would be sympathetic with the scum involved.

Four young Mounties are dead in the line of duty at the hands of men so heartless, cold, and (regardless of what you think of pot policy) obviously aware they were in the wrong, and so deep in the wrong, they were willing to pull triggers to cover their asses.

Forget pot for one minute. This was a massive illegal drug operation, not your buddies basement hydro lamp. This is the kind of thing that impedes trade, subverts the government and the economy, and believe it or not, costs lives: of mules, pushers, producers and rival dealers and users: every single day.

Four men lost their lives at the hands of criminals and absolute cowards.

Dame, you better stay away from the water. You're too dense to swim.

Nobody here expressed "sympathy for the scum involved." Nobody suggested that the police were in the wrong. Quite the opposite, in fact; the argument I made is the same one made by the police themselves, although my conclusion differs.

The argument I made specifically pointed to organized crime as the problem, not my buddy's basement hydro lamp. Not that any of my buddys actually have such a thing, to my knowledge. I haven't smoked dope since Darkest Canuck was in kindergarten, and neither have most of my friends.

The problem with current policy is that it effectively promotes and funds organized crime while requiring police to expend considerable resources (and risk lives) to combat it. We are undermining our police and asking them to risk their lives to fight activity that is financially supported by a large number of Canadians. That is stupid. That is why the current policy is wrong-headed.

We ask our police to do a job. We owe it to them to make sensible requests, and not to undermine their efforts. I know there is little sympathy here for my arguments for broad public responsibility, but the law is ultimately made by the public. We are responsible for the state of our democracy. Nobody here, least of all me, is suggesting that the police officers who were killed were doing anything other than the duty that we handed them.

And that means it is entirely appropriate to examine whether we are pressing the police into a dangerous situation of our own short-sighted creation. We owe this much to the four men killed, because we are ultimately the people who give them their marching orders.

They work for us. We have a responsibility to them. We are failing it.

"Banal" is absolutely le mot juste here. Let's see: a penchant for cliché, a fondness for straw men, a tone of self-righteous indignation, a preference for pre-fabricated positions ... yup, you went to j-school, all right.

Yup. You're part of the solution.

Lowest regards,

Skippy.

Stephen Dame Wrote:This is a clear case of criminals, murderers and as Billy nicely points out above: psychopaths.

Just to clarify here, I am in no way saying that people who run grow-ops are psychopaths, or people associated with the sale of marijuanna. I am only targeting this particular farmer with that label.

Stephen Dame Wrote:There is such a thing as deference, respect, common sense, and the ability to say certain things at a certain time, I guess we know this morning who on this board has that tact, and who doesn't.

That said, this is a tragedy.....Four men lost their lives at the hands of criminals and absolute cowards.

There is no vindication or justification for the scum who kill cops for whatever reason. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that the drug war is needlessly killing agents, officers, and innocent bystanders, and thus, criticism is not only valid, but warranted.

Canuck and Skippy are right - the senseless deaths like these will forever continue as long as the production and sale of marijuana is illegal. Legalizing it seems all too logical - overall government expenditures would lessen as the cost of sting-operations, searches & seizures, and violator prosecution / incarceration are replaced by the much smaller, general cost of merely controlling the substance (like with alcohol). Furthermore, legalization would provide for whole new source of federal (and state / provincial) revenue, as the substance could be taxed nine ways from Sunday. Seems like a no-brainer....so why hasn’t it happened?

The answer: politics.

There are two major sources of pressure which force politicians to maintain the status quo in concerning marijuana laws. The first is big-business lobby - there are a number of huge corporations who devote big bucks to resist the legalization of marijuana out of self-interest - Du Pont, BASF, Anheuser-Busch, Miller Brewing Company, Philip-Morris, and R.J. Reynolds are just a few. Beer / cigarette companies see weed as a threat to profits, thinking that its availability on the free market will compete for the consumer dollar that might otherwise be spent on their own recreational drug. Chemical companies fear the wide variety of industrial uses of cannibus, (hemp) whose versatility makes it a cheap, natural, organic alternative to their ecologically-unfriendly, artificial products.

The second pressure is created by the negative PR issues associated with the concept of drug legalization for Congressional / Parliamentary advocates. Many see the sponsorship of pro-marijuana legalization bills as political suicide, and are not about to risk their entire political careers to champion such a marginal cause. Those who do are never the highly recognized, tenured and respected politicians (i.e., the politicians with influence); they are the fringe politicians challenging incumbents for their seats - no-names and new faces who have yet to establish political identities and seek to do so through associating themselves with roots-level activists and bourgeois proponents. There simply will not be enough public support for these political darkhorses to gain enough momentum to win the day. Not now, and probably not ever.

On top of those reasons, the societal trend towards health-conscientiousness is yet another formidable obstacle to the legalization of cannabis. With all the scrambling to ban cigarette-smoking everywhere, do you think the legalization of a known health hazard could ever occur? “Fat chance”, I say. Unfortunately, we weed-proponents stood a better chance of getting our nearly-perfect, all-natural agent of happiness and civility legalized in days past.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:

Stephen Dame Wrote:There is such a thing as deference, respect, common sense, and the ability to say certain things at a certain time, I guess we know this morning who on this board has that tact, and who doesn't.

That said, this is a tragedy.

Is current Marijuana policy worth four lives? No, nothing is. Things need to change. But this isn't about pot policy. If the raid had happened on a child porn ring or a cocaine outfit, nobody would be sympathetic with the scum involved.

Four young Mounties are dead in the line of duty at the hands of men so heartless, cold, and (regardless of what you think of pot policy) obviously aware they were in the wrong, and so deep in the wrong, they were willing to pull triggers to cover their asses.

Forget pot for one minute. This was a massive illegal drug operation, not your buddies basement hydro lamp. This is the kind of thing that impedes trade, subverts the government and the economy, and believe it or not, costs lives: of mules, pushers, producers and rival dealers and users: every single day.

Four men lost their lives at the hands of criminals and absolute cowards.

Dame, you better stay away from the water. You're too dense to swim.

Personal attacks always say so much more about the person issuing them than the person receiving them

Quote:

Nobody here expressed "sympathy for the scum involved." Nobody suggested that the police were in the wrong. Quite the opposite, in fact; the argument I made is the same one made by the police themselves, although my conclusion differs.

You'll note the "brushing over/political point doesn't equal condemnation" line in my above post. And I think you're already aware that I wasn't refering to anybody except you and TDC

Quote:The argument I made specifically pointed to organized crime as the problem, not my buddy's basement hydro lamp. Not that any of my buddys actually have such a thing, to my knowledge. I haven't smoked dope since Darkest Canuck was in kindergarten, and neither have most of my friends.

The problem with current policy is that it effectively promotes and funds organized crime while requiring police to expend considerable resources (and risk lives) to combat it. We are undermining our police and asking them to risk their lives to fight activity that is financially supported by a large number of Canadians. That is stupid. That is why the current policy is wrong-headed.

Agreed.

Quote:We ask our police to do a job. We owe it to them to make sensible requests, and not to undermine their efforts. I know there is little sympathy here for my arguments for broad public responsibility, but the law is ultimately made by the public. We are responsible for the state of our democracy. Nobody here, least of all me, is suggesting that the police officers who were killed were doing anything other than the duty that we handed them.

Thank you for clarifying

Quote:And that means it is entirely appropriate to examine whether we are pressing the police into a dangerous situation of our own short-sighted creation. We owe this much to the four men killed, because we are ultimately the people who give them their marching orders.

Agreed again. I mentioned the failings of current policy, just don't think this is the issue I'd want to use, not today anyway.

Quote:They work for us. We have a responsibility to them. We are failing it.

Agreed.

Quote:"Banal" is absolutely le mot juste here. Let's see: a penchant for cliché, a fondness for straw men, a tone of self-righteous indignation, a preference for pre-fabricated positions ... yup, you went to j-school, all right.

Yup. You're part of the solution.

Lowest regards,

Skippy.

[/quote]

See first response. I disagree with you, which you always seem to take oh so personally, but disagreement is kinda second nature on a discussion board.

I find the "self righteous" stuff laughable given the tone of this reply. J-school? Yep, I started there, guilty as charged. In fact, three people that I know of on this board, are J-schoolers, one of 'em graduated with me. If you wanna paint the whole profession with one petty brush, so be it. But what do you do for a living? Given thirty seconds I'm sure I could come up with a few silly insults myself.

I'm happy I learned "class" somewhere along the way.

What you seem not to understand, Dame, is that explicit condemnation isn't necessary here. We don't actually have to fall all over ourselves to condemn these four murders. It is not necessary to attempt to outdo each other by running to the thesaurus for increasingly obscure synonyms for "wrong." This sort of idiocy is best left to fools such as Rex Murphy.

I'm not advancing a pot agenda. I don't use it, haven't for years, and don't really care. What I care about is sound policy and public safety.

And your complaints about personal attacks would be a little more convincing if you hadn't led off by suggesting that I lack common sense. But despite your accusation, I don't actually take it personally; that seems to be your specialty. It's just that I know how to write, Dame, so when I decide to call a spade a spade, it knows it's a spade.

And you're a spade, Dame. To save you the trip to the dictionary, that's a kind of tool.