[holesinpaper]

Originally Posted by RussP

You didn't do your homework very well. Here again are my questions:None of those questions are answered in yet another tirade.As to giving you more information about himself, As I have counseled others in law enforcement over the years here, I will counsel Sharkey7 to not do so by any means. And I am not going to tell you any more than he is who he says he is.

As to what he really is, he's a real "cop" with all the **** that comes with being a real "cop".

To you, a four year degree is more important than years upon years upon years of practical on-the-job experience.

You say, "All that non-withstanding, he clearly used vernacular that a layman would realistically interpret as him having a professional license imho." First, the word is "notwithstanding."

Understanding more of the who, what, when, where, and how of drug courts, and being a layman myself, I can say your "interpretation" of "have worked as a counselor for drug courts" is incorrect.

Now, do your homework and research the drug court system. I'll give you a hint: The system relies on volunteers from multiple professions.

Originally Posted by RussP

Yeah, Sharkey7, I was wondering about that situation myself.

holesinpaper, is this LAPD officer a member of your family?

Hmm, you actually go grammar nazi on me. Now we almost have a trifecta of internet winning: grammar criticism and the word nazi on a thread.

You advise to not give additional information to people on your side of the argument.

Then you turn around and request additional information from me.

Hardly fair and balanced, and it's telling in regards to this entire debate. You and Sharky have a personal financial interest in the continuation of the WoD, it helps pay your wages.

It's almost like trying to convince welfare recipients that welfare is bad for society and should be ended. (note, I'm not saying you and sharky are on welfare, just pointing out that it's very hard for someone with a vested financial interest in the outcome to change their position based on hard data).

Like I already said, I can call myself an attorney. It would make me a joke, but I can do it. Someone who walks around saying he is a "counselor for a drug court" (drug court counselor) is no different imho.

I'll let other readers determine for themselves if Sharky misrepresented himself, or did some dramatic hyperbole in order to set himself up an "appeal to authority" type argument. If yuo can't win on the facts, try something else right? That's all I see it as, this claim to be a counslor, to have been on TV, etc.

I have no dog in this hunt really. I'm not an illegal drug user. I derive no financial benefit from the WoD. I just see the WoD as wasting my tax dollars and eroding civil liberties and freedom.

Drug use is up, crime is down. Not just within 1 year, or a 5 year period, but consistently over decades as a nationwide US trend. That alone proves the WoD is a failure, and drug use is not the root cause of crime.

[holesinpaper]

I'm bowing out. There's 4 guys arguing on the net, and none will EVER change their minds.

Good luck to y'all, and to all a Merry Christmas. God bless

[RussP]

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

Hmm, you actually go grammar nazi on me. Now we almost have a trifecta of internet winning: grammar criticism and the word nazi on a thread.

Hey, nazi is your word, and yet another false interpretation of someone's words.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

You advise to not give additional information to people on your side of the argument.

Then you turn around and request additional information from me.

Where have I asked for your city, county, state, employer? That was your request of Sharkey7. You are the one asking for the personal information, not me.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

Hardly fair and balanced, and it's telling in regards to this entire debate. You and Sharky have a personal financial interest in the continuation of the WoD, it helps pay your wages.

My wages? Where do you get that idea? Oh, do you think I am in law enforcement? Again, you don't do your homework very well. Never have been employed in law enforcement and never said so.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

It's almost like trying to convince welfare recipients that welfare is bad for society and should be ended. (note, I'm not saying you and sharky are on welfare, just pointing out that it's very hard for someone with a vested financial interest in the outcome to change their position based on hard data).

No, I have no vested financial interest in the outcome of your desire to eliminate drug laws.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

Like I already said, I can call myself an attorney. It would make me a joke, but I can do it. Someone who walks around saying he is a "counselor for a drug court" (drug court counselor) is no different imho.

Have you done that homework assignment yet? Obviously not, nor do I believe you ever will, because if you do, you'll have to apologize to Sharkey7.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

I'll let other readers determine for themselves if Sharky misrepresented himself, or did some dramatic hyperbole in order to set himself up an "appeal to authority" type argument. If yuo can't win on the facts, try something else right? That's all I see it as, this claim to be a counslor, to have been on TV, etc.

there are no facts you would deem credible. You want statistics, but the real facts are lived out on the streets, in the classrooms, on college campuses, in the workplace, including some boardrooms, in homes, and in the jails and prisons. Yeah, we know. All that is too emotional for you.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

I have no dog in this hunt really.

Your emotional responses to Sharkey 7 don't agree with that.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

I'm not an illegal drug user.

You would prefer remaining an enabler.

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

I derive no financial benefit from the WoD. I just see the WoD as wasting my tax dollars and eroding civil liberties and freedom.

Let's go back and talk about the cost of drug use to businesses. How about the cost to...sorry, that's not your fight, is it?

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

Drug use is up, crime is down. Not just within 1 year, or a 5 year period, but consistently over decades as a nationwide US trend. That alone proves the WoD is a failure, and drug use is not the root cause of crime.

Are drug related crimes down, crimes where drugs were a factor?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RussP

Yeah, Sharkey7, I was wondering about that situation myself.

holesinpaper, is this LAPD officer a member of your family?

Since you refused to answer, we'll take that as a yes. That makes the lack of intervention even more egregious.

[RyanBDawg]

Originally Posted by RyanBDawg

So again.. If you were the guy making all the rules.. What would you do about the war on drugs? Reading some of your posts it's obvious that it has been a total failure in that in Chicago you can get virtually any drug you want.. So what would you do seeing as the current solution is not working, and has only compounded the problem for the past 40 years..

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[TBO]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

I wouldn't say the war on drugs have failed just like I wouldn't say the laws on DUI have failed. People are going to drink and drive - people are going to use drugs. It's about harm reduction and management if a better society.

Exactly. So many people approach the topic of drugs by first forming a conclusion ("I want drugs legalized"), then go off in search of an argument to support it. That's why we see such grasping and leaps of logic on the subject.

One of the most common refrains is:

-WOD is expensive
-WOD is a failure, drugs are still here

That is nothing but hyperbole. I guess we can call the War on Murder a failure too, since people still kill. The War on Burglary hasn't fared any better. Same for the War on Police Brutality. It still happens, so I guess we should repeal all the laws covering those things and save money! Yeah!

If one approaches the topic by applying logic and deductive reasoning you don't see such simple and flawed "arguments".

jmho

[RussP]

Originally Posted by TheeBadOne

Exactly. So many people approach the topic of drugs by first forming a conclusion ("I want drugs legalized"), then go off in search of an argument to support it. That's why we see such grasping and leaps of logic on the subject.

One of the most common refrains is:

-WOD is expensive
-WOD is a failure, drugs are still here

That is nothing but hyperbole. I guess we can call the War on Murder a failure too, since people still kill. The War on Burglary hasn't fared any better. Same for the War on Police Brutality. It still happens, so I guess we should repeal all the laws covering those things and save money! Yeah!

If one approaches the topic by applying logic and deductive reasoning you don't see such simple and flawed "arguments".

jmho

Welcome TBO...

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by RyanBDawg

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I have been waiting for the thread to change from the grade school tone to adult level. Hopefully we are there, no offense meant to you.

There are so many variables to what happens in our world. From a criminal justice enforcement stand point, I would start with some of these ideas.

Connecting restrictions on government welfare programs with drug arrests would have a significant impact. You would be surprised how much money, aid, and food stamps go to drug addicts who constantly are arrested for drug or theft crimes. There is no consequences. You can drop $50 a day on heroin, but still keep getting food stamps. That is not right/ethical. Giving an offender the option of taking drug treatment and continued drug tests to continue receiving benefits or stop getting benefits all together.

Better probation/supervision for people currently in the system. We have a lot of programs already in place to help people not repeat their offenses, unfortunately they are rarely followed through. Even with a positive urine test, it is rare to have your supervision/probation/parole revoked.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

I'm bowing out. There's 4 guys arguing on the net, and none will EVER change their minds.

Good luck to y'all, and to all a Merry Christmas. God bless

Well, sounds like you will still be busy. A Google search yielded 1,450,000 results for "volunteer counselor drug court." On the first few pages alone there are several people who use the same title for their programs on their resumes.

That is a lot of people to contact to let them know you don't like the title they use - good luck!!

In case you want to volunteer yourself - I found 2,810,000 results. So, you should be able to find at least a drug court or two to help out in your area. Some places call it a mentor, I found 888,000 results for that. So....if you feel uncomfortable being called a volunteer counselor for drug court, you can be called a volunteer mentor for drug court too if you would like.

[RyanBDawg]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

I have been waiting for the thread to change from the grade school tone to adult level. Hopefully we are there, no offense meant to you.

There are so many variables to what happens in our world. From a criminal justice enforcement stand point, I would start with some of these ideas.

Connecting restrictions on government welfare programs with drug arrests would have a significant impact. You would be surprised how much money, aid, and food stamps go to drug addicts who constantly are arrested for drug or theft crimes. There is no consequences. You can drop $50 a day on heroin, but still keep getting food stamps. That is not right/ethical. Giving an offender the option of taking drug treatment and continued drug tests to continue receiving benefits or stop getting benefits all together.

Better probation/supervision for people currently in the system. We have a lot of programs already in place to help people not repeat their offenses, unfortunately they are rarely followed through. Even with a positive urine test, it is rare to have your supervision/probation/parole revoked.

I've got no argument against this. Especially connecting restrictions on all types of welfare..

[railfancwb]

Originally Posted by Restless28

I always get a good laugh when I read the local paper's story of a marijuana eradication operation.

99% of the time, it's a group of 10-12 overweight cops, all dressed in tactical gear with ATV's and a helicopter, posing with a small growing operation.

I would guess they spend thousands of dollars to wipe out a few plants.

This is a great example of waste.

But don'cha know ALL of the seeds and plant fragments were destroyed in the blaze, and no one was allowed downwind.