The legislature is elected by us, the laws they write are reflective of the desires of their constituencies; Law enforcement is tasked with enforcing those laws.
As for " A small percentage of our law enforcement community would only be truly happy if they could lock up everyone for something, be it spitting on the sidewalk, smoking a cigarette in public view or playing an innocent game of cards."- True some LEOs are enthusiastic about their jobs, but what other vocation is subject to that kind of criticism?
Canvass, petition and vote- the law is in your hands.

Let's remove all victimless "crimes" from the books, including drug use and prostitution.

Mr. Elledge I suggest you go spend a weekend night in a local Emergency Room and decide for yourself
how "victimless" drug use is.
If you legalize drugs, then the drug users will be robbing and stealing to buy legal drugs instead of illegal ones. What's the difference to the victims of these thugs?
Drug use is victimless? You're nuts.

Gambling is bad, unless the State is dealing.

Mr. Hall,

Don't get mad at law enforcement officers for doing their duty. Why don't you run for public office and then you can make the law? Perhaps you could send a list of the laws you want enforced to the agencies in your area. Or, why don't you run for sheriff or apply to be the police chief and then you can control how your officers work. I'm sure you would do a wonderful job and never be criticized.

Well let's just say it's alot safer for these "police" to do raids that do not involve any danger to them.
I suppose that is why they prefer to do these kinds of "police work" rather than being in the neighborhoods that NEED their presence in case a crack head or other criminal starts perpetrateing REAL crime.
Chances of cops getting harmed are slim at a card raid you know. In a way I don't blame them, but at the same time, there are far worse things that go on in cities, and someone should make priorities.

Okey dokey, I can't help but respond to this thread....been trying to refrain here recently....

I was one of the people who played cards in local pubs in the area with 5th street entertainement and another organization(and still do as a matter of fact) and found it to be nothing more then a night of fun. I gambled no money, lost no money (except for the money I spent on beverages), and found it to be nothing more then a chance for people to practice their poker skills and see how they do in live games. It was a night on the town for me and sheer entertainment. I am state employee so it's not like I have a lot of money to lose here....

We all watch the World Series of Poker on ESPN and we all got the itch so what's the big deal in playing for fun?

The ALE had nothing better to do with their time so they had to dig up a 100 year old law that said that any game of chance involving cards is illegal and go "bust" some people for having harmless fun. Nevermind the gun trafficking, underage drinking, etc. Let's go after the people gambling in restaraunts with nothing more then chips GIVEN to them and bring a lawsuit against a company that got permission from state of North Carolina's attorney general office.

So stupid....

Good for 5th street entertainment for retaliating.

Killian,

I must say I'm baffled by your post. I can't even begin to imagine how you reach your conclusion.

The reason some people steal and get violent because of their drug habit is because drugs are so expensive because they're illegal. If they were legal, however, the cost would fall so dramatically that people wouldn't resort to crime to pay for their habit.

And then you're trying to make the absurdly illogical point that victims of violent crime are victims of drug use. No. Actually, they're victims of violence. If a drug user assaults someone, then he should be charged with assault, not drug use.

Why Paul........that had to be dumbest attempt at rationalizing drug use that I have ever seen......

Can you explain your position, Tater, rather than just insulting me?

Tater,

By the way, I wasn't rationalizing drug use. I don't advocate drug use or encourage anyone to do it. It's just that if someone wants to do it, it's no one else's business.

Paul: "because of their drug habit is because drugs are so expensive because they're illegal. If they were legal, however, the cost would fall so dramatically"

Then why does the price of cigarettes continue to rise? If drugs were legal it would be another way for the government to balance their budget. I very seriously doubt that the cost would fall.

Mr. Elledge, that gibberish you wrote sounds like you're on drugs.
If I kick in your door and rob you to get money for illegal drugs or I kick in your door to rob you to get money for legal drugs, are you any less robbed?
Drugs result in violence because that's the way drugs affect people. Are you insane?
How would you legalize drugs? Today they're illegal, tomorrow they guy selling crack on the corner is not breaking the law? The crack still costs the same, the addict has to rob to feed his habit. How has this helped? And don't even think of proposing that the government dispense illegal drugs to satisfy the cravings of the few addicts, ain't gonna happen. So, drug habits are still there, drug addicts rob and kill to buy now-legal drugs, what a nightmare.
You haven't thought this out very much, have you?
I reach my conclusion after working decades in the illegal drug-world, but on the legal side of it.
When someone uses drugs, it's everybody's business because it affects every member of the addicts family, all his friends, his work, and YOU, because he's probably drawing government assistance in some fashion due to his drug habit. Who do you think pays the hospital bills for addicts, do you think that's free? We all pay for the addicts addiction. Loss of jobs, loss of commerce, loss of life, loss of property, etc.
You morons who think illegal drugs hurt no one have not been involved in the drug world. Go to the local ER and watch the victims of drug use and abuse come rolling through the door shot up, cut up, run over, or overdosed to death. Not very pretty, I assure you. Almost as ugly as your claim that drug use is "no one else's business."

I'm pretty sure I'll see more victims of alcohol related deaths than drug related at an er. For the drugs that would be legalized, how many are at the er for those? Marijuana, none!

Marijuana overdose is also seen in the ER. As are traffic crash victims there because of a driver intoxicated on marijuana. As are drug dealers shot over marijunana. As as marijuana users who do stupid things while high.
Respectfully, Mr. Cully, you don't know what you're talking about.

Trish and Killian,

Trish asks why the price of cigarettes continues to rise. Well, Trish, the same reason the price of everything continues to rise--because of inflation. And don't they every so often raise the tax on cigarettes?

Killian,

While it may be true that certain drugs cause certain people to act violently, to claim that all drugs cause all people to act violently is beyond absurd. There are millions and millions of people who use illegal drugs, and they do not commit violent crimes.

If drugs were legalized, there wouldn't be people selling them on the street. They'd be sold in stores by businesses.

The reason drugs would be so much cheaper were they legal is that their illegality causes a whole host of problems. The producers and dealers have to go through all kinds of hoops to conceal their activity, which drives the price up tremendously. This is pretty much common sense. The more trouble it is to produce and distribute something, the higher the cost of production. The higher the manufacturing cost, the higher the end prices will be. And not only that, but they could produce much higher quantities. And again, the more you can produce of something, the lower the prices will be.

On the other hand, if people were free simply to produce the drugs without interference, then prices would fall sharply, because they would be able to minimize production costs and produce in bulk.

Why do you suppose I would want the government to dispense illegal drugs? Give me a break. I don't want the government to do anything except to protect people's rights.

You say that drug use affects me because the addicts are probably drawing government assistance. I'm all for ending government assistance. I say if someone wants to ruin their life by being an addict, then let them. It's their life. It will be up to them to figure out how to solve their problems, not me. And if they rob or commit violent acts as a result, then I say let's put them in prison. But we won't pay for their stay in prison. Let's put prisoners to work for private companies and let their wages pay for two things: their own stay in prison and to compensate their victims.

You see, Killian, that's what you've missed in your arguments. You talked a lot about costs to society, but you want to put every non-violent drug offender, people who never hurt anyone, in jail, which means that you and every one else constantly has to pay taxes to keep them there. How many billions are we forced to spend simply because some poor sap was peacefully smoking some marijuana in the privacy of his home?

Now, you're halfway right about families. Of course there are addicts who do not take care of their families. But the thing is if they fail to take care of their children, then they should be charged with neglect, not drug use!

That's the common mistake that people constantly make. They constantly misplace blame. Few people nowadays believe that alcohol should be illegal despite the fact that drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year. That's because they know that the vast majority of people who use alcohol do not kill anyone as a result.
Why, then, do you suppose that marijuana or cocaine should be treated any differently?

Furthermore, Killian, you can read in the history books how well Prohibition worked. It actually caused all kinds of violent crime because criminals now produced and sold alcohol because it was illegal! Now, don't you see the correlation with today's illegal drugs?

Elledge, you're full of crap. Your twisted ideas about drug use sound like you were on drugs when you invented these "rationalizations" for abusive use and bahavior.
Just ask the family and friends of any drug abuser how "victimless" drug abuse is.
You fail to realize how many of your tax dollars go to substance abuse problems, problems that would exist no matter if the substance were legal or not. Same as alcohol, millions of dollars wasted and spent on the problems of alcohol abuse in work related problems, family problems, medical problems, etc. Your solution is to add yet another problem area to society...we don't need any more.
Maybe that's why the Libertarians are such a small minority in their thinking and influence.

Paul,

Inflation? More like your second answer taxes, it's good revenue for the states. The whole "to pay for healthcare" is nothing but BS. But more to the point you need to find another arugment then "because drugs will be cheaper and drug dealers will be out of business". Number one then will not be cheaper, first like cigarettes just more source of revenue for the states (check a letter a couple of weeks ago about legalizing how many people used the arugment that it would be a good source of revenue) and secondly, as the majority of people always look for the better deal, there will still be black markets, like cigarettes and alcohol today. Do you really believe that criminals are going to give up their livelyhood?

Killian

Well, even though you began with an insult and then failed to counter a single one of my arguments, I'll go ahead and respond to your next round of argument.

I plainly said in my letter that if an addict fails to take care of his children adequately, then he should be charged with neglect. If he abuses his wife or something, then he should be charged with abuse. Did you not read that part?

So I maintain that drug use itself is victimless.

Besides decriminalization of drugs, I call for an end to all government programs, regulations, taxes, etc. relating to drugs. So you have no argument there.

You talk about work-related problems. With no government regulation of these things, I'm certainly not going to pay for these problems. If a company has a worker who's not performing for whatever reason, then they are free to fire that employee.
As for family problems, as long as there's no actual abuse or neglect going on, then it's no one else's business. My family's personal problems are not your business, nor are your family's problems my business. So let's keep the government out of it.
Then you mention medical problems. What specifically are you talking about here? If you're talking about higher taxes, then I've already made my position clear. If you're talking about higher insurance costs, then I don't think you have an argument. Don't insurance companies make sure that those who abuse themselves with drugs reimburse them for added costs? If not, a truly free market devoid of government regulation would solve that problem really quickly, because people would only use insurance companies that don't force them to eat the extra cost of drug addicts. Or were you simply talking about the fact that drug addicts have poor health? If so, that's their choice and not my problem.

As for your comment on alcohol, does that mean you believe alcohol should also be banned? If it causes so many problems, then why shouldn't it?

Trish,

I do have other answers besides just the fact that drugs would be cheaper and that dealers would be out of business. See my last two posts. They're pretty long.

I'm of course calling for the repeal of all taxes on cigarettes and so forth. That means that were we to decriminalize drugs, then no taxes should ever be placed on them in the first place. Even if they were legalized and taxed, however, the tax wouldn't be anywhere near the cost of illegal drugs.

You say that there will always be black markets. I pray you tell me then what the point is of making drugs illegal! Why fight a battle that is impossible to win? That makes no more sense than people who want to ban guns because they think that criminals won't be able to get them.

Elledge, have you not read any of the posts about the huge problems caused by illegal drug use? You keep on with the same unintelligible line about how great the world will be when anyone and everyone can use any drugs to their heart's content. You need a serious link to the real world.

Paul,

By your reasoning we should then just get rid of all laws. I mean why have a law against child molestation are we ever going to get rid of molesters? What about murder? Are we ever going to win the war agaisnt people who murder? You see how silly that sounds. The point of making drugs illegal is because it is then a crime and when you commit a crime you are punished.

Trish,

I anticipated this argument from you, and I have a very simple answer to it.

So now you're comparing child molestation to drug use. See how far you're having to go to try to defend an indefensible position? Why should the former be illegal but not the latter? Because in the former, there is actually a victim! Of course child molestation actually hurts someone else. It violates someone's rights.
If I sit down and use cocaine, however, I am not hurting anyone else. I defy you to come up with a single way I'm hurting anyone else by using cocaine. Now, sure, if I kill someone in a car crash because I'm high, then I should suffer the severest of penalties. I do believe that driving while intoxicated should be illegal, because that's reckless endangerment.

Now I see another argument coming from you. You'll probably want to say, "Why are you against reckless endangerment? I mean, just because you recklessly endanger someone, that doesn't mean you're actually going to hurt them." Well, I do believe that people have a right to be reasonably safe. I mean, you shouldn't be allowed to just fire a gun into a crowd of people, saying, "As long as I don't actually hit anyone..."

Trish,

Oh, yeah, one major point I wanted to make.

Sorry, don't misinterpret my tone here. I don't mean this to be condescending or to insult you or anything, but the last line of your last post is hilarious. You said, "The point of making drugs illegal is that it is then a crime and when you commit a crime you are punished."

So what you're saying is that it was only a crime after they made it illegal. Yeah, that's pretty much how it would be in any case. If they made it illegal to sing, then singing would be a crime. But that would be kind of silly and pointless, wouldn't it?

Killian,

Have you not read my posts to see how I debunked the "problems" caused by drug use?

And don't try to twist my argument. I'm not saying that it would be great if everyone used drugs. In fact, I clearly stated the opposite. I encourage people to be completely drug free, including alcohol and tobacco free, just as I am.

What I'm saying will be great is when the government stops interfering with people's peaceful activities which hurt no one else and robbing me in order to do it.

Trish, I'm quite certain if marijuana were legal it would be extremely cheap. People who wanted it could grow it in their backyards -- for free; commercial sellers would have to compete with that.

Let's look at this.
If you use cocaine, no one gets hurt, huh?
How do you think that cocaine got to your nose? It was grown by peasants forced under the gun to cultivate and process it. People are killed in that industry by drug lords.
It was transported by violent drug cartels that routinely murder people who get out of line. So people died to get it transported to you. Drug runners frequently die while smuggling cocaine into this country by body-carry methods, the balloons break in their stomachs and they died a horrible death. Boats sink and people die bringing it in by ocean.
Dealers get it from the arrival point. Drug gangs fight over turf and product and price, so people die between when it arrives and when it gets to you. Local drug gangs fight over the same thing, people die in Greensboro in the cocaine drug trade. Officers die enforcing the laws to keep this poison away from us.
No one is hurt??
You're an idiot; a misinformed, naive, self-centered, simple-minded moron.

Killian, the whole scenario you describe exists ONLY because cocaine is illegal.

If one looked at it another way, one could say that making drugs illegal CREATES victims.

If it were legalized, or even decriminalized, there would be no need for that elaborate set-up you describe.

Killian, Dough applies a little critical thinking to reveal the lack of logical in your argument and simultaneously demonstrates why you should be a little more carefull about calling people idiots.

I think Paul has some valid points. Making drugs illegal in some ways actually *causes* crime. Anytime a black market is created, violent crime is almost certain to come into play. When was the last time you heard about people killing each other over turf rights to sell a six pack of beer. It doesn't happen because I can just go on down to the local grocer and buy a six pack. Yet in the 1920s, blood flowed on the streets of America's big *and* little towns because there was a huge profit to be made in black market sales of booze due to prohibition.

Also, how many billions of dollars have we spent on this "war on drugs" over the last 5 decades? And yet, drug use still takes place. the fact of the matter is, if somebody wants to smoke marijuana or shoot heroin or snort cocaine they're going to do it regardless. conversely, I seriously doubt that legalizing these drugs would make anybody who didn't already use them reconsider. to think that somebody is sitting around thinkting to themself "you know, I've always wanted to try heroin, but I'm just waiting until they legalize it" is ludicrous.

If they made alcohol, cigarettes, or coffee illegal tomorrow, those items wouldn't go away. Instead, we'd just have prices for these going through the roof and out jail population would skyrocket. And yes, blodd would flow on the streets and people would commit other crimes if they had to pay $15-$20 for a pack of Salem Lights. Believe me, smokers would not quit smoking if the government outlawed tobacco any more than they quit drinking in the 1920s or refrain from somking pot today.

In short, it's never worked very well when the government tries to legislate morality. whether or not you do drugs may be based on a number of things, but the government's approval has little to do with it.

Lastly, just legalizing marijuana ( a relatively safe drug--far more safe than alcohol) it would save our government many many billions of dollars.

Oh and BTW--like Paul, I don't use drugs or advocate drug use. But if you want to sit on your duff smoking bong hits in your home (i.e. not driving down the road your sharing with me!) go right ahead. I'm not going to advocate using my tax dollars to put you in jail for doing it.

Thanks, Dough, Roch, and Emily for finally bringing some sanity to this.

I've no doubt that Killian is sincere in his motivation for wanting drugs to be illegal, and it's good that he wants people to be safe, but it's glaringly obvious that his position holds no water.

Roch: "People who wanted it could grow it in their backyards -- for free; commercial sellers would have to compete with that."
So tell me Roch, how come smokers don't just grow a tobacco plant in their yard? What about drinkers how come they just don't set up their own little brewery? Could it be because both are illegal? Do you actually think the government is going to allow people to by pass the system and lose out on revenue?

Paul: "“So now you're comparing child molestation to drug use."
Acutally I was comparing your statement of "Why fight a battle that is impossible to win?" with other battles at are impossible to win, so does that mean we should just make those crimes legal also?

Emily: "just legalizing marijuana ( a relatively safe drug--far more safe than alcohol)"

Do you have any data to back up this claim and the reason I ask because as far as I know alcohol doesn't stay in ones system as long as drugs (like in urine test)

Also a question for Paul, Dough, Roch and Emily: where do you draw the line if you draw it at all. Is PCP ok if just done in ones house? Meth? Herion?

Ok, Trish, you did kind of get me on that one. But of course the difference is that we should fight real dangers--things like child molestation, which actually violate other people's rights--to protect ourselves. There is a good reason to do that.

But if something is in no way violates anyone's rights, there's no reason at all to fight it.

If someone wants to do PCP, meth, and/or heroine, that's none of my business. And I don't just mean in their houses. They can do it anyplace they want as long as the owner allows them to.

Elledge spouts off nonsense again:
"If someone wants to do PCP, meth, and/or heroine, that's none of my business. And I don't just mean in their houses."
Elledge, have you ever read a newspaper or watched the news? Ever read of a robbery or burlary or larceny? Ever had your car broken into, your lawnmower stolen, or have you ever known anyone that has? Ever read about crimes that occur in our community? They happen every day, 65% of them are drug related.
Now can you explain to us how that does not affect you? You pay higher prices at the stores for theft losses, your tax money treats these people at the hospital and through welfare for addicts that won't/can't work, higher insurance premiums and health costs to cover the losses due to drug use, and court costs to cover the drug related assault, abuse, and murder case prosecutions. Whether drugs are legal or illegal the crime to support an addicts habit will continue.
And if you think things like the methadone program solve the problem, I suggest you go there, and follow the addicts when they leave after their morning dose. They leave to go commit burglaries, larcenies, and robberies to buy the illegal drugs they use in addition to their methadone.
Can you explain the difference when an addict shoots your wife for her purse so he can buy illegal drugs and when he shoots your wife for her purse to buy legal drugs?
And none of this is your business?
I repeat...you're a moron.

Actually, Trish, it is not illegal to brew your own beer, ferment your own wine nor to grow your own tobacco. When you start building your rebuttals on falacies, it's time to re-examine the position you are trying to defend.

Killian,

Amazing, your ability to completely ignore everything someone says and just repeat the same things over and over again. I can't argue with someone who refuses to read what I write and discuss it. Trish and I still don't agree, but at least she responds to what I say, which wins my respect.

Elledge, I responded exactly to what you said, I pointed out the fallacy of yur thinking. To say that illegal drugs harm no one but the user is incredibly naive. If you believe otherwise, you're living in a vacuum, cut off from reality.
How many robberies, murders, and burglaries will it take to open your eyes?

Well, even the supportive folks are missing the point in 5th Street's fight with law enforcement. The "LEO's" here were not enforcing the law; they were enforcing their own interpretation of the law that is completely wrong. Everyone should read the statute that ALE was enforcing. The statute clearly states that something of value must be "bet" while playing a game of chance in order for the games to be considered gambling. Nothing was ever bet in these games. They were completely free to play. 5th Street will win this battle eventually - believe me though, the state will try to prolong it hoping that it will go away. It isn't going away, everyone will see how wrong law enforcement was when it is all over.