The Boston media has been covering this non stop since last night, and I still haven't seen or read what drugs the cops were after.

The officer killed was police chief of a small town force that by one media account only has seven officers, and he was only eight days away from retirement. What a waste our government's "war on drugs" has been.

"Although the men approaching the door of the Greenland home wore uniforms with "police" written on them and had a man in a robe also deemed to be a "government official" sign a fancy-sounding permission slip [search warrant] supposedly granting them access into another man's home, they were there with the intent to break in to the home, steal his property, and force him into a cage. "

And this is hyperbole. There is no situation in which this should be prohibited, because criminals do take refuge on private property.

Consistency: if you insist on abuse of a drug not being a reason to ban a drug, abuse of police power is not an excuse to ban it either.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Uniformed policemen executing a search warrant is not an abuse of police power, it's the lawful execution of it. Change "drugs" to "pipe bombs" or "homicidal maniac running amok" (and there goes my yearly allotment of scare quotes) and their behavior then becomes quite reasonable.

Somewhat on-topic...

You will not believe who hosts this video.

It would be wonderful if it turned into a hipster paradise.

þ 'Hawk

Isn't it great to think that government could become so bloated that it would forget to tax people?

Here's a secret truth: One reason I reject libertarian arguments about drugs is that they so often end with something like 'And so therefore, we should be putting that money into treatment programs.'

But that ain't necessarily so. Treatment often doesn't work. And even if it does, reasonable people might think their citizenship shouldn't require them to provide it.

I can't imagine a libertarian suggesting that anyone should be required to provide treatment programs for anyone else.

Good. Maybe I'm confusing the arguments. I can't really understand what the decrim people want, since the effect will probably be to put more resources into shutting down distribution at a higher level.

I just can't see what the larger society is supposed to do about drug abuse at all.

Here's a secret truth: One reason I reject libertarian arguments about drugs is that they so often end with something like 'And so therefore, we should be putting that money into treatment programs. -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 13, 2012 10:44 PM

I can't imagine a libertarian suggesting that anyone should be required to provide treatment programs for anyone else. -- Ken R at April 14, 2012 12:12 AM

Considering that the number of people that raise tobacco on their own for cigarettes can probably counted on toes and hands -- legalization of pot would/should be considered equivalent. So if you have R.J. Reynolds or Lorillard producing the joints at $0.75 per pack and selling them at $20 a pack -- $5 would go to the manufacturer, $5 to the state, $5 to the fed, and $5 goes to walk-in addiction treatment. In that sense the addicted would be paying for themselves.

If you still want to raise it yourself, your community would have regulations for your "garden" and tax stamp to raise it. But it would be a "civilian pot".

This is the same as excise taxes on cigarettes. The smoker's are paying for S-Chip. If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, S-Chip would be defunct in days.

Even if we replaced drugs with pipe bombs, why would we need to search a home if there was no plan to actually bomb another individual?

One reason I reject libertarian arguments about drugs is that they so often end with something like 'And so therefore, we should be putting that money into treatment programs.'

In a similar vein, I reject the idea that we should decriminalize drugs because 'then we can tax it.'

But the idea that citizens should be required to provide treatment for drug abusers, or that a good reason to decriminalize drugs is to make money for the government - these are not libertarian arguments, they are just bones thrown to the statists to try and appease them.

But the idea that citizens should be required to provide treatment for drug abusers, or that a good reason to decriminalize drugs is to make money for the government-- Pirate Jo at April 14, 2012 8:28 AM

Then how about $10 a pack and cut out the state and fed. We all see how well prohibition and criminalization is working. How many people are we spending $62.01 per day because they were involved in the pot industry as a producer or consumer with no other violent cause?

If I had $62.01 per day in my pocket by now I could afford AR-15 easily.

If $5 dollars of every pack were to go to the facility or organization of choice by the manufacturer.

The point of all this is that prohibition failed with the 18th Amendment and is now failing again.

The Harvard Law states: Under controlled conditions of light, temperature, humidity, and nutrition, the organism will do as it damn well pleases. -- Larry Wall

Pirate Jo: "But the idea that citizens should be required to provide treatment for drug abusers, or that a good reason to decriminalize drugs is to make money for the government - these are not libertarian arguments, they are just bones thrown to the statists to try and appease them."

That's it exactly.

Buying, selling, making, possessing or consuming drugs is not a good reason for a group of heavily armed men, with or without badges, to kick someone's door down and violently attack or kill him in his home. If the law says it is then the law is wrong and should be struck down or repealed, and ignored by law enforcement officers in the meantime.

"Buying, selling, making, possessing or consuming drugs is not a good reason for a group of heavily armed men, with or without badges, to kick someone's door down and violently attack or kill him in his home. If the law says it is then the law is wrong and should be struck down or repealed, and ignored by law enforcement officers in the meantime."

Oh, really?

This was brought up in the Tarika Wilson case Amy addressed some time ago.

Just who do you think drug dealers are? Timid, unarmed, misunderstood citizens eager to do the right thing, if only the caseworker would knock politely and explain that peddling meth wasn't something the local folk wanted them to do?