Should recording the police be illegal?

[hey]

And so it's okay for people to distribute drugs such as PCP or Heroin that kills people or causes people to pull the stomach and intestines out of a small child because the drug made him do it? Come off it dude, drugs are bad for a reason. If it was JUST marijuana, then yes I would agree (i'm all for legalization). But when you put shit in the mix like Khat, Peyote, Meth, and even Dippers (Embalming Fluid laced marijuana cigarettes), it does nothing but kill people. Khat and Peyote were once medicinal and spiritual drugs used by people who've been using the stuff way before man became known as man and people have picked the stuff up and used it like they would any old can of spraypaint to huff.

It's that simple: as long as people continue to abuse drugs to the point where it can cause a negative impact on themselves or others, it will always be illegal and will always be fought.

Stairs kill 12000 people per year. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. Guess they should be illegal? In fact, i'd argue they are worse, because you often cannot choose to not use stairs because they are dangerous. You can however choose not to use drugs. Drugs only kill people who willingly decide to use them, knowing they could die as a result. Stairs kill innocent people who just needed to get some where. In fact the dangers of stairs are not even well known. People probably use stairs thinking they're perfectly safe. Yet they kill 12,000 people per year, in the US alone. Unlike drugs, which everyone knows are not safe.

You know what else is dangerous? Drug prohibition. How many people do you think die every single day because of drug prohibition? Not just the war on drugs, but also indirect deaths, such as from, i dunno, drugs (more on this later). And what do you think you get out of those deaths? Nothing. People still use drugs. The law does not deter anyone from using them. Feel free to lookup drug usage statistics in holland, where drugs like marijuana are sold in stores, and the government more or less refuses to prosucute anyone for other drugs (they're still technically illegal because of international politics bullshit).

You know what we could do with another ninety fucking billion dollars a year? We could save some goddamn lives. Lives that actually want to be saved. Not lives that are intentionally thrown away by their owners because they chose to partake in an activity they knew full well could kill them.


And of course drug prohibition makes drugs far more dangerous than they otherwise would be. Regulation would prevent anyone from receiving tainted drugs. Easy access to clean needles would slow the spread of aids, hepatitis, etc. Access to facilities with doctors on staff would allow significantly faster treatment in the case of an overdose, not to mention they would not be able to eviscerate babies, etc. I could go on and on about all the ways legalization would make drugs far safer.

In no universe does drug prohibition do more good than harm.

[Nephlite]

Valid point, however, in that same line of thinking we should just ignore the harm drugs do to people and let them kill each other and save the rest of the population. And how do you propose to do that? Encase everyone in bullet proof, fire proof, reality proof boxes and put up a fancy holographic image for them to watch forever? Or how about we take all the drug users and ship them to a colony on Mars. That'll show them.

Let's be realistic here. We can't just turn a blind eye to the problem and expect it to go away. Let's take cops out of the equation and just say that everyone sold drugs on the open market like a Walmart. So you make some good cocaine. Good, solid, hard stuff that's not too expensive. Well So-and-so's company develops a cocaine that's twice as effective yet twice as cheap and puts you out of business. You get pissed and you go out and slice So-and-so's dick off cause he bankrupted you. He gets his boys together, they come to your house and kill you.

Extreme example? Shit happens all the time. You think that the video game that brought us all together on this forum was created from magical happy little elves? I bet someone died to get it here and someone else had to do some corporate backstabbing to get their idea on the table to get it on the market. Think it's not real? It's human nature my friend. The biggest reason why drugs and stuff won't become legal is because human's are too dependent and fragile to understand a simple concept as "regulation". Hell it's difficult enough to come up with a plan to regulate marijuana, just imagine how hard it would be to regulate any of the millions of drugs out there that are abused.

Want to know what we get out of drug prohibition? Cleaner city streets, less crap on the streets, less crime to fight, less of a war then you think it is. A place where my children can grow up without some junkie robbing them for 2 or 3 measly dollars just to buy a fix. Where one will take it too far and kill one of them cause they fought back. You think everyone will be able to afford their fixes once they become addicted and can now buy their drugs from a Walmart? They'll turn to crime to fund it, 9 times out of 10. Human nature dude.

[Nevex]

It should be illegal whenever it can unfairly be used against the police.
You know when manifestants selectively record the police beating them up in self-defense but not themselves wrecking havoc in the streets? Stuff like that.

Also, typical Kuya topic.
The first answer in the poll should be changed into "Yes, if it interferes with police work". As it is now, it's a forced one-sided argument, but then again that's what this thread was for, right?

[Darus Grey]

Also would like to add @Darus:

This is the formula that I would like to equate to your post: I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist. You haven't seen it, but heard about it, so surely it must exist.

You're assuming I haven't seen it, hell you're assuming I'm not even involved.

Technology at it's forefront goes to Law Enforcement or the military first. AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) is an example of high grade technology that was developed by a black market researcher, hired by the FBI, and is probably the most advanced biometrics database in the world.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here, this statement contradicts your stance. You freely admit that high grade technology is developed by black market researchers...which it is; in seemingly increasing numbers... that's the whole point.

Do you really believe they go to the government first with everything? That's naive at best.

This isn't some CSI enhance shit(though hell, that's real now too with light field photography combined with recombinated digital zone imagery).

If you want some background, it's not secret that I'm a computational linguist, a field very relevant-to and prone-to blackhattery. We work on what I would dub dangerous technologies all the time, vocal analyzers, textual habit databases, cryptographic lingual ciphers(this is a hypothetical method of inserting computer encryption methods into plain text), etc. Things that have very legitimate social use, and equally dangerous use to bad guys.

We've been approached by many individuals and companies interested in hiring us to develop a product for them, and it certainly isn't the government offering big dollars, and many of them are shady at best; though in fairness most of them probably intend to use this tech for computer related crime and not as a safety method for real crime; but do you really think it will never happen?

I admire your faith in your organization, but I fully believe the government is getting left in the digital dust, and they just don't know it yet.

[hey]

Valid point, however, in that same line of thinking we should just ignore the harm drugs do to people and let them kill each other and save the rest of the population. And how do you propose to do that? Encase everyone in bullet proof, fire proof, reality proof boxes and put up a fancy holographic image for them to watch forever? Or how about we take all the drug users and ship them to a colony on Mars. That'll show them.

People have every right to do dangerous things. You may think it is stupid, and i would agree, but that is not a valid reason to prevent them from doing it. Unless you want to outlaw sky diving, using stairs, driving, etc, etc too.

Let's be realistic here. We can't just turn a blind eye to the problem and expect it to go away. Let's take cops out of the equation and just say that everyone sold drugs on the open market like a Walmart. So you make some good cocaine. Good, solid, hard stuff that's not too expensive. Well So-and-so's company develops a cocaine that's twice as effective yet twice as cheap and puts you out of business. You get pissed and you go out and slice So-and-so's dick off cause he bankrupted you. He gets his boys together, they come to your house and kill you.

wat....? The only people who kill their competition is those dealing in black market goods.

Extreme example? Shit happens all the time. You think that the video game that brought us all together on this forum was created from magical happy little elves? I bet someone died to get it here and someone else had to do some corporate backstabbing to get their idea on the table to get it on the market. Think it's not real? It's human nature my friend. The biggest reason why drugs and stuff won't become legal is because human's are too dependent and fragile to understand a simple concept as "regulation". Hell it's difficult enough to come up with a plan to regulate marijuana, just imagine how hard it would be to regulate any of the millions of drugs out there that are abused.

I don't even know what that means. "too dependent and fragile to understand a simple concept as "regulation"." Regulation is a pretty simple concept. There may be disagreement is the exact specifications for the regulation, but otherwise it's really not hard.

Want to know what we get out of drug prohibition? Cleaner city streets, less crap on the streets, less crime to fight, less of a war then you think it is. A place where my children can grow up without some junkie robbing them for 2 or 3 measly dollars just to buy a fix. Where one will take it too far and kill one of them cause they fought back. You think everyone will be able to afford their fixes once they become addicted and can now buy their drugs from a Walmart? They'll turn to crime to fund it, 9 times out of 10. Human nature dude.

Holy fucking shit, no. Your streets are filled with drug dealers, because they can't open up a store. Drug prohibition INCREASES crime. It does not in any way decrease it. That junkie won't need to rob your kids when he can buy his drugs at a tenth of the price they cost now. Those junkies could easily pay for those dirt cheap drugs by working at...i dunno, maybe one of those fancy new jobs making/selling/transporting drugs. Every single thing in that paragraph is not only completely false, it is far worse under prohibition than it would be after legalization.

[jmc]

Troll is a troll

Drugs are not expensive as it is, and your acting like every single addict works to support their addiction.

Do you live on earth? Or have any idea what really goes on around you?

It doesn't matter if a hit of ecstasy is $20, or $5. Alot of addicts resort to theft because they can't afford their addiction....it's not gonna change due to a price cut.

Not to mention how individuals opening up their own shops, is gonna severely reduce crime? No mention of a addict robbing the place, or competition putting out a store.

Then you think the world is gonna be safer, because drugs would be in stores.....what about the individuals who try to make their own mixture of a narcotic. Those will skyrocket, and will cause severe harm to individuals who use it.

Hell, a member on these boards showed my a DEA memo on a brand if cocaine ( I think it was cocaine at least) that when it's snorted, acts nearly identical to flesh eating bacteria.

[hey]

Troll is a troll

Drugs are not expensive as it is, and your acting like every single addict works to support their addiction.

Do you live on earth? Or have any idea what really goes on around you?

It doesn't matter if a hit of ecstasy is $20, or $5. Alot of addicts resort to theft because they can't afford their addiction....it's not gonna change due to a price cut.

of course it matters. Even if they are still stealing to pay for them, they would then have to steal 4 times less to get the same amount of drugs.

Not to mention how individuals opening up their own shops, is gonna severely reduce crime? No mention of a addict robbing the place, or competition putting out a store.

I don't remember saying that. Crime is lowered because less stealing as above ^, gangs no longer kill their competition, etc, etc. Addicts stealing drugs is not something that would change under legalization, except that they would need to steal less, as already established, so not sure why you mentioned that. Competition is good, so i'm not really sure what your point there was either.

Then you think the world is gonna be safer, because drugs would be in stores.....what about the individuals who try to make their own mixture of a narcotic. Those will skyrocket, and will cause severe harm to individuals who use it.

Throw them in jail? Along with leaglization comes regulation. Those who do not comply with those regulations would obviously still be fined/jailed.

Hell, a member on these boards showed my a DEA memo on a brand if cocaine ( I think it was cocaine at least) that when it's snorted, acts nearly identical to flesh eating bacteria.

Which would still be illegal under legalization, so not sure what your point is.

[*Shinzon*]

Holy fucking shit, no. Your streets are filled with drug dealers, because they can't open up a store. Drug prohibition INCREASES crime. It does not in any way decrease it. That junkie won't need to rob your kids when he can buy his drugs at a tenth of the price they cost now. Those junkies could easily pay for those dirt cheap drugs by working at...i dunno, maybe one of those fancy new jobs making/selling/transporting drugs. Every single thing in that paragraph is not only completely false, it is far worse under prohibition than it would be after legalization.

Not to jump into whatever other conversation is going on here but uh, that's insane. First off a junkie who has had their mind warped by meth and other hardcore drugs isn't going to all of a sudden be a fully functioning member of society now that drugs are legal. Someone on meth is hardly going to stop robbing/begging for money and get a steady job to pay for their habit. Aint gonna happen. All legalizing drugs would do, more over legalizing weed since that's what people mostly harp on, removes gray/black market sales from the equation and scope of criminal enforcement. It does not have anything to do with the people involved. Granted weed does not have a profound effect like say meth on the brain, but if you are arguing all drugs should be legal you are really out of your mind, and have never actually seen a habitual meth user or you don't understand what kind of effects the hardcore stuff has once you've started using.

[Acevalefor]

Find one example.

In Silverton, Oregon there was an incident involving a mentally unstable man. Link here: http://www.katu.com/news/local/22826624.html That story doesn't paint the whole picture, but in a town that small, everyone knows everyone. I lived 20 minutes away in a different town and I still knew about this guy and his instability. The guy was unstable, unpredictable, and had several run-ins prior to this where he was threatening to the officers involved. The cop had every right to shoot him when he came toward the cop and ignored the cop's commands. Only a small part of the incident was caught on camera and none of it was admissible as evidence in the investigation. The media still had a field day and painted Officer Gonzalez as a trigger happy lunatic.

[Kuya]

I'm curious where you got this information from.

It's darus. Take what he says with a grain of salt.

It should be illegal whenever it can unfairly be used against the police.
You know when manifestants selectively record the police beating them up in self-defense but not themselves wrecking havoc in the streets? Stuff like that.

Are you saying that it should be illegal to record the police in a manifestation or protest?

[aurik]

It should be illegal whenever it can unfairly be used against the police.
You know when manifestants selectively record the police beating them up in self-defense but not themselves wrecking havoc in the streets? Stuff like that.

So wrong. If the police are afraid of "selective use of recordings", perhaps they should be recording themselves as well (hint: they already do).

[Senoska]

In Silverton, Oregon there was an incident involving a mentally unstable man. Link here: http://www.katu.com/news/local/22826624.html That story doesn't paint the whole picture, but in a town that small, everyone knows everyone. I lived 20 minutes away in a different town and I still knew about this guy and his instability. The guy was unstable, unpredictable, and had several run-ins prior to this where he was threatening to the officers involved. The cop had every right to shoot him when he came toward the cop and ignored the cop's commands. Only a small part of the incident was caught on camera and none of it was admissible as evidence in the investigation. The media still had a field day and painted Officer Gonzalez as a trigger happy lunatic.

Where is the media shit storm? This seems to be just "Guy was shot while robbing some people." I hardly consider this a media shit storm. This is local news trying to get a scoop. Jesus Christ, lol.

Also, in terms of drug crime, to say prohibition doesn't increase crime is outrageous. Drug money is what fuels gangs. Drug disputes cause violence all the time. Moreover, you're acting like we should treat it as a criminal problem rather than a social problem which has been known for years to treat drug problems far better. I'll reference the safe meth spots in Canada that also have a drug treatment facility upstairs. Moreover, this argument is ignoring the fact countries like Mexico and Columbia are basically enthralled in drug fueled civil war. Or the fact that nearly all the terror programs in the middle east are funded by the Opium trade. Historically, prohibition has ALWAYS caused crime because it creates a black market. Look at the mob and the alcohol prohibition. What makes you think this is any different?

Basically what is going on here is people that have no idea what they're talking about are sitting around circle jerkng because someone told them that they heard somewhere from their cousin that drugs need to be illegal because if they're not crime will sky rocket, ignoring the fact that there was a time when drugs were in fact LEGAL and life went on as normal.

[Melena]

Only on BG can a thread about asking if taping police should be illegal can derail into a thread about whether drugs should be legal or not. Not even going to touch on Hey's idiocy since everyone else beat me to it.

[Denchi]

Kinda reminds me of the paparazzi. Shit's dangerous, unecessary, stupid, bordering on illegal, invasive, etc etc. But is it illegal (in most cases)? No. Should you have the RIGHT to be a nuisance and counter-productive? Should it be ILLEGAL to be a nuisance? No.

All in All, I'm stumped. The chick in that video was being a bitch, she was obviously trying to get a rise out of officials which is dumb. But illegal? arrested? I'm not sure about that either. Intent may be an important factor in something like that. If someone is legitimately trying to record something they're unsure about (they sense foul play), or just happens to be recording a bag floating in the wind at the same time some shit goes down, then that may be different than "Oh hay police outside on a routine traffic stop, lemme go stick a camera in their face." But again.....pretty much impossible to prove/discern.

Tough question

[Dalek]

Troll is a troll

Drugs are not expensive as it is, and your acting like every single addict works to support their addiction.

Do you live on earth? Or have any idea what really goes on around you?

It doesn't matter if a hit of ecstasy is $20, or $5. Alot of addicts resort to theft because they can't afford their addiction....it's not gonna change due to a price cut.

Not to mention how individuals opening up their own shops, is gonna severely reduce crime? No mention of a addict robbing the place, or competition putting out a store.

Then you think the world is gonna be safer, because drugs would be in stores.....what about the individuals who try to make their own mixture of a narcotic. Those will skyrocket, and will cause severe harm to individuals who use it.

Hell, a member on these boards showed my a DEA memo on a brand if cocaine ( I think it was cocaine at least) that when it's snorted, acts nearly identical to flesh eating bacteria.

Is that what they teach you in police school? Have you ever had a friend addicted to drugs? Family member? One who has maybe done something stupid in poor judgement? I'm not agreeing with everything hey is saying, but look.

An addict who is otherwise hooked on a drug being thrown in prison for 10-25 years is NOT going to be rehabilitated. From a cost standpoint, does it make more sense to lockup some guy who smokes weed from time to time for a decade, with hardened criminals in a prison environment that - when it comes down to it - creates more criminals than it ever hopes to deter? Maybe helping them fix their problem and return to being contributing members of society make more sense.

When you lock up a junkie, you have the short term effect of removing him from the street temporarily. What most people don't think about is that society bears the cost of incarcerating that individual(which can be upwards of $80k a year). Not only that, but what do you think that person will be like once he finally gets out, after being in an environment where you'll get stabbed for looking at someone the wrong way? You think he'll be reformed?

You've created a lifelong criminal out of a problem that could have been fucking avoided if someone helped him out of his drug problem in the first place. The cost of enforcement, judicial costs, and incarceration costs are billed to the taxpayer of course. Where you think the problem is solved by locking these people up - you've just chosen to pay for them to be a drain on society in prison instead.

The bigger point I think hey is making is that it's simply not sustainable. The US has the highest criminal population in the world. Does the US simply have more bad people in it that need to be locked up? For every whacked out junkie there are probably 10 people who are willing to learn their mistake and be willing change their ways. Not without help of course.

There will always be people willing to go to extremes and do things harmful to society(ie robbery, murder, etc). Decriminalization of drug crimes takes away some of the incentive from drug dealers and organized crime by devaluing their product. Drug prices only get to where they are because of the risk involved. And enforcement keeps this value high, which only gives people more incentive to be involved in the drug trade because of the potential profits. Any DEA agent worth his salt knows that taking down a dealer simply means 2 more will pop up in its place(probably in the same day!), because of the money involved.

So I've talked about the problem from another perspective, but it means dick if I don't offer a potential solution. I've outlined how I think the current solutions are worse than useless but here's one idea. Make drug users complete a mandatory program where they have to get clean and demonstrate they understand the impact of their addictions on others. Make resititution a part of the program and repayment of debt to society through community service. And they can't leave until they complete the program in its entirety and are ready to be functioning productive members of society again. If they choose not to, by all means, let them be in jail. They obviously don't understand the implications of their actions and have no intent on being better people so jail is where they belong.

But don't make it a crime. Don't make it harder for them to come back and find a job afterwards. Because that's another reason criminals often turn to a life of crime. They make a mistake and they find no one will give them an opportunity to better themselves. So going back to crime seems like a better option. But at least this way they have the chance of being able to come back and be productive members of society. And might appreciate the fact that someone gave them a second chance.


As for the police and being recorded, if you don't want to be recorded by the public, then don't get a job working for them. As soon as you put on that uniform and collect a paycheck from the taxpayer you are responsible to them just as any employee is to their employer. I would say even moreso because you're a public figure.

[Byrthnoth]

Some drugs are stupid to use due to the low safety factor and the high abuse potential (heroin). Other drugs do immediate and irreversible damage to your brain (kind of a negative safety factor, like Ecstasy). Some drugs are stupid to outlaw, because they do neither of those things (pot).

I wonder what the stats are for the cost of addict medical bills/treatment vs. the cost of incarceration. If we were to legalize heroin/cocaine/ecstasy, I think we'd pay more taxes in the long run due to the created medical problems.

[quannum]

I wonder what the stats are for the cost of addict medical bills/treatment vs. the cost of incarceration. If we were to legalize heroin/cocaine/ecstasy, I think we'd pay more taxes in the long run due to the created medical problems.

portugal decided to treat drug abuse as a medical problem instead of a law enforcement problem, it's working out very well for portugal.

[*Shinzon*]

Some drugs are stupid to use due to the low safety factor and the high abuse potential (heroin). Other drugs do immediate and irreversible damage to your brain (kind of a negative safety factor, like Ecstasy). Some drugs are stupid to outlaw, because they do neither of those things (pot).

I wonder what the stats are for the cost of addict medical bills/treatment vs. the cost of incarceration. If we were to legalize heroin/cocaine/ecstasy, I think we'd pay more taxes in the long run due to the created medical problems.

Exactly, and to the post above yours to avoid quoting the whole thing, it's not the police officers job to worry about what happens to said junkie. It's the judge's (occasionally) and overall the systems fault for failing to have an adequate mental health/addiction rehabilitation alternative to incarceration. In fact officers in midtown manhattan who arrest people for quality of life crimes like petty theft as a result of addiction problems and prostitution get sent to the midtown community justice center which is a specialized rehabilitation court designed to get people into help programs and do community service as an alternative to incarceration.

With that said those people tend to relapse and once they do they are no longer eligible to have their case heard in that court and instead serve jail time. That still has no bearing on what police officers do. Nobody wants to walk down the street and have to shield their kids from a junkie begging for money to getting mugged, so they need to be taken off the street. It's insane to place the blame on officers when they are only enforcing social ordinances that people want. I.e clean streets. Your beef is with the way the system handles the offenders not with the officers for keeping your cities safe.

Also lol@ the implication made above that pot is a hardcore drug and that you can live life perfectly fine as a destroyed meth or heroine addict.

[Byrthnoth]

Portugal doesn't have American health care costs (very high) or American health care standards. Also, many of the drugs could have long-term effects that we don't know about because they haven't been popular long enough. Are ecstasy users going to be more likely to suffer from Parkinson's disease, for instance? A massive amount of the health care costs incurred by people are within their last few decades of life, and we just don't know how badly drug use in youth is going to affect those last few decades.

[Melena]

Thing is Dalek, you can't help an addict unless they want help. My brother was on drugs pretty much all through highschool, fucked his life up good, and wasn't till he was 23 and rock bottom before he got himself straightened out, got married, and went into the army. But this turn around didn't come from jail, rehab, counseling, etc. He had to do it on his own, and that's pretty much the same with all other addicts.