Cody Enterprise: News about Cody, Wyoming, and Yellowstone Country

shane scheid wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:10 AM:

" Rick Oshea-

I stated that they had harmed nobody with regards to the allegations the story is about. I know that if their actions had caused direct harm to another, it would not be left out of the story. All 16 were arrested or are wanted for delivery, not assault, rape, murder, theft, etc.

An Od is the fault of the user, not the provider. It is clearly understood that firearms manufacturers and distributers are not responsible for what is done with a gun after the point of sale. Why a different standard for drug dealers. The only exception to this is if the substances were adulterated. This happens quite often, but only, again, because of the legal status of these drugs. Nobody today sells booze that has dangerous filler agents.

If a DUI is related to drug use it is certainly a crime. But again, These 16 are charged with DELIVERY of these substances. You can't get high completing a business transaction.

I do know that EVERY single incident of DUI fatalities is related to someone having possesion of an automobile. If preventative security is the objective, why not ban automobiles? "

LocalYokel wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:53 AM:

" continued...Hemp is a hardy plant that is resistant to drought. It is a renewable resource and much cleaner to burn in engines than fossil fuels, yet it will continue to be a banned substance because of the greed of the those in the oil industry and because of its inherant side effects ('high').
To get to the point you were trying to make to Shane: Do you know, for any certainty, that any pill o.d.s came directly from one of these individuals, or did they result from a trip to mommy and daddy's medicine chest? Do you know, for a fact, that a dui happened due to these people, or did the person that had the dui steal a prescription from someone's house or automobile? Theft of prescription drugs is on the rise, not only in this county, but others as well. So you see, if people want to get their 'high on', they will go to any lengths to do so. You may want to take that into consideration. "

LocalYokel wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Rick Oshea, Just like I said about kids getting alcohol out of mommy and daddy's liquor cabinet, the same can be said of the kids going to mommy's and daddy's medicine chest to get their next 'high' from prescription medications. Granted, meth and marijuana are illegal substances, however, Oxycodone is a legally prescribed pharmaceutical. Should we ban this particular drug, or jail the doctors for prescribing it, because it can fall into the wrong hands? Did you know that cocaine actually was an ingredient to Coca Cola when it was first introduced to the American public? Then came a ban on cocaine and coke was forced to change their formula. The father of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud was a avid user of this drug. Did you also know that hemp, which is where marijuana comes from (if you didn't know), was a legal substance before someone figured out that you could get 'high' smoking it? Back in the day, hemp was used to grease and run motors, make clothing, paper, etc., but because certain people had vested interests in the fledgling gasoline industry, they put pressure on the government to have it's use banned. "

rick oshea wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:02 AM:

" shane scheid wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:08 AM:

" drug prohibition has been shown again and again to benefit nobody, save drug dealers and politicians. While certainly not the brightest bulbs on the marquee, these 16 people have done NO HARM TO ANYONE, regarding these allegations. They killed or injured nobody, they took or destroyed no property, and they enslaved or otherwise restrained no one. Thus they committed no true crime. "

How do you know their activities have harmed no one?? How do you know a DEAD pill OD isnt connected to one of them?? How do you know a DUI accident victim isnt connected to one of them?? "

Shane Scheid wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:17 AM:

" JD-
...continued

If drugs were legal, they would be sold openly and with much less potency than they currently are sold on the black market. Observe the harmful effects of prohibition era alcohol versus the stuff sold today. Better yet, compare the precursor to today's meth that was sold to millions of Americans, particularly housewives in the forties and fifties. While it certainly was not the nectar of the saints, it was definately not the extremely addictive monster that it is found today on the black market.

90% of the price for any prohibited substance is the premium paid for the risk in delivering it. Thus the terrorism arguement is fallacious because 90% of the funds could be cut off over night at any time by a simple repeal of the prohibition. Instead, we "crack down" and make the problem worse. By driving the marginal profit per unit higher, one makes more small deliveries to remote places, like Cody, profitable when they otherwise would not be. You also help to insure that the most ruthless, cunning, and morally challenged individuals in the drug culture make it to the top. "

shane scheid wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:02 AM:

" JD-
I do not mean you any offense. I thank you for the engagement.
I understand the difference between legal and illegal. But there is a difference between legislation that conforms to the rule of Law and that which is merely treated as such. Under a proper application of the rule of Law, I cannot prohibit another from engaging in activity which does not harm me. In a society based on representation, I cannot delegate this power to my representatives if I do not first posses it myself. Thus there is no legitemate basis for most of the drug "laws" that exist today.

The only reason that there is a correlation between drugs and crime is the legal status of drugs. Most of this hinges on the black market price of such drugs.

If drugs were of a different legal status, use may go up or down. The harmful effects, both to the user and those around them would diminish greatly, though.

I will grudgingly grant your position on the harmful health effects of marijuana. That being said, I still have no business determining what you decide to do with your time, andhealth. "

JD wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:32 PM:

" Shane, Local and JA
WOW I am surprised that you can not see the difference between legal and illegal. You believe that no crime is committed if they use drugs in their own homes. However other than meth most illegal drugs come from other countries, some that support terrorism, those who want to kill Americans and are killing our troops.It's very unlikely that any of these suspects got the drugs locally, most comes from organized crime (Gangs) National studies show there is a correlation between using drugs and crime. I know you beleive that if drugs were legal and that the use of the drugs would go down because of lost revenue. But most drugs are an addiction, people who start using many times cannot stop. If they are legal more people would use the drugs and the cost to rehabilitate would be staggering. Marijuana may not be the great satan, but it is used many times around harder drugs and peer pressure causes first time users of hard drugs. Marijuana contains many more cancer causing agents than tabbaco, marijuana burnout can cause permanent effects like dull slow movement,intentivness and they don't even know they have a problem. "

old grouch wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Yes, they are cracking down on drugs like they are on illegal immigration. The problem is, folks, that there is an economic force driving this, just as there is an economic force driving illegal immigration. So long as drugs are illegal, there are huge profits to be made by smugglers, dealers, and so on, much as in Prohibition. So essentially, the drug war is like digging a hole in the sand at the beach. The deeper you get, the faster the water comes in. Simple economics at work. "

JA wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:43 PM:

" It is interesting how people that are opposed to something try to link it with other things they are also opposed too. The “stepping stone” concept is anecdotal at best. Personally, I oppose kindergarten because “I don't think you can find a meth or cocaine addict that did not first” go to kinergarten. "

Im confused wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:32 PM:

" Why are the names of those with warrants issued, but not yet picked up published? Doesn't that give them a head start to get out of town? I know I sure would if it were me. "

LocalYokel wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:39 PM:

" JD, I can also bet that the marijuana smoker got their hands on alcohol straight out of mommy and daddy's liquor cabinet first. So by borrowing from your position on this issue, we should also ban that particular drug shouldn't we. Oh, that's right, they already tried prohibition on that dangerous 'gateway' drug as well and we all know how that turned out now don't we. It didn't stop the consumption of alcohol, instead, it only made it more attractive as it increased the risk of getting caught doing something wrong. Some kids (and adults too) are drawn to those things that are illegal, and risks of getting caught, drive up the allure of that particular illegal drug. While I don't favor those who got caught and think that they should do some serious time for their actions, it is a little more understandable why they engaged in the illegal behaviour in the first place. "

shane scheid wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:30 AM:

" JD-
With all due respect, I think you are misinformed. There is a fundamental difference between the rule of Law and the rule by laws. The former is what this country was founded upon, the latter is the reason our forebearers snubbed king George. Drug prohibition does not fit the rule of LAW.

The line you ask about, under the proper rule of Law, is drawn precisly at that point where the actions of one harm or cause IMMINENT threat to the life, liberty, and property of another. When I spend MY money, earned by employing MY mind and MY two hands, on substances I intend to put in MY body, in MY house, I have not crossed that line.

Pot is NOT a "steppingstone". Roughly 70% of Americans have used pot. Only about 3% have used harder drugs. The math does not support this claim.

As one who has seen and lived every side of this discussion, I say it is downright ignorant not to count the costs. Not just monetary, but social costs especially.

While drug use certainly has its' ugly side, prohibition cannot eliminate this. It can, and does make it worse. "

shane scheid wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:08 AM:

" drug prohibition has been shown again and again to benefit nobody, save drug dealers and politicians. While certainly not the brightest bulbs on the marquee, these 16 people have done NO HARM TO ANYONE, regarding these allegations. They killed or injured nobody, they took or destroyed no property, and they enslaved or otherwise restrained no one. Thus they committed no true crime.

What we now have is the above mentioned politician who can now seemingly justify the siphoning off of more community resources for his Quixotic quest, A "police force" who couldn't care less about REAL CRIMES WITH REAL VICTIMS since there is more glory and most importantly, more money with less resistance, in enforcing drug legislation, and drug dealers (the true scum of the earth kind, not the children we seem fond of parading around as evil incarnate) with an income that is now guaranteed. When police "crack down" on drugs, what they really do is increase the marginal profit of each unit of substance delivered by temporarily decreasing supply while doing nothing about demand. This raises prices at the street level while leaving them static at the point of origination...thus subsidizing drug dealers. Thanks Mr.Skoric. "

JD wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:29 AM:

" "justathought" marijuana is illegal and these people broke the law. Where do we draw the line on what should or should not be legal? Marijuana is a stepping stone to harder drug use. I don't think you can find a meth or cocaine addict that did not first smoke marjuana. The price of fighting illegal drugs should not be counted and those millions are not wasted. The fact that these people were stopped and someone's loved one may be spared the horror of drug use is priceless. "

justathought wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:37 PM:

" If marijuana was legal, like it should be, half of these problems would not occur, waisting millions of dollars every year. "

News

Reader Comments

Leave Your Comments

Cody Enterprise Search