The commenter is incorrect, of course. A raid on an occupied dwelling places the criminal and the drugs together. Any attorney can defeat an assertion that drugs belong to a specific person by simply noting that several people have access to most homes. This was brought out in this blog years ago in the Tarika Wilson case.

If you advocate the free use of methamphetamine, I suggest you're a user. If you have ever been the neighbor of a crack house, I rely on you to approve of the theft of your possessions, the traffic at all hours, etc - and this is not going away with the decriminalization of crack.

The DEA have a union, and citizens do not, so I'm guessing which side the politicians will support. I'm for removal of official immunity for all no knock raids. Mistakes might still be made, but a couple law enforcement convictions for negligent homicide would cause the cowboy brigade to pay attention.

@Radwaste:

1. Anyone who doesn't want drugs to be illegal must therefore be advocating their use?

2. Why in the world would people need to steal to feed their habit and come and go from a private residence at all hours of the day if they could just go buy crack for 10 cents a rock from their friendly neighborhood Wal-Mart?

You haven't really put much thought into this, have you?

When the US Dept. of Justice knowingly sends guns to Mexican drug gangs (and then lies to Congress about it) how can anything be surprising?

if they could just go buy crack for 10 cents a rock from their friendly neighborhood Wal-Mart?

On the bright side, if it really is 10 cents a hit, we'll be rid of a number of crack junkies in about week. But they'll still rob you when they haven't got a dime in their pocket.

Of course, it'll never sell for 10 cents. $10? if it costs $0.10, I could see that, with the balance of the price being taxes. You know, drug prevention programs, rehab for junkies, padding the government's nest, doing the paper work, etc. Not to mention the huge annoyance it'll be to go into walmart and show your ID to make a purchase.

And they'll still be booting down people's doors in the middle of the night: some enterprising young person will get the idea of selling crack for $5/hit. Can't threaten the government's monopoly, you know.

There's nothing so dangerous as a politician addicted to easy tax revenues. Nothing easier to sell than sin taxes on other people.

Of course, what is going to happen when someone ODs and dies (or worse, survives with severe brain damage) and their next of kin sues Wal-Mart? yeah, that's right: the government would have to sell the stuff. You can't sue the government.

On the other hand, they could just sell the stuff out of the Obama Care Pharmacy. And it would bend the cost curve down: instead of expensive pain pills you'd get crack instead. And it would be effective, for awhile.

Good thing we have professional law enforcement agencies so that we don't rely on misguided vigilantes. I could go shoot the meth cook across the street right now with the same effectiveness, 'cept that i hain't a member of the police union. Maybe it's not really a meth kitchen, but I have done the best surveillance I could do, and a mistake might be made.

Well, Chris, I guess it's a good thing you don't know anything about crack, or addictions to it.

Yes, if you want a magic blanket measure, where everybody who wants to use drugs can with no restrictions, no consumer protection, etc., while making access easier, yes, you're advocating more use. You can't turn the principle {more access ~ more use} on and off without being fallacious.

Look back. I've put a lot of thought into this, because actual industrial safety measures preclude accident vectors. You cannot get a "do over" for some accidents, and "fire the guy" doesn't bring back, say, Pripyat.

If you just want to get high, say so, and then identify yourself properly as a user so you won't be trusted with a critical job. That's what medical marijuana users must do as a condition of their prescription. Apathy is dangerous, you see. Just not as much as a "Screw you, I'm going to do what I want" attitude.

"The cost of stopping people from getting high, and the ensuing cost of stopping drug peddlers, is too great."

Be sure to seperate police mistakes from police misconduct; then, be sure to set up consumer protection AND workplace testing measures for the drug of your choice. Then, rewrite every statute now restricting the drug of your choice.

Repeat for other drugs other people choose.

This is cheaper?

The War On Drugs is being exploited for political gain, but just as with tobacco, where RJ Reynolds states "there is no such thing as a 'safe' cigarette", there are drugs which benefit comes at a great price.

>>If you just want to get high, say so, and then identify yourself properly as a user so you won't be trusted with a critical job.

Sure that makes sense. Right after we do this for everyone who has a drink of alcohol. You don't have a problem with that do you?

Yes, if you want a magic blanket measure, where everybody who wants to use drugs can with no restrictions, no consumer protection, etc., while making access easier, yes, you're advocating more use. You can't turn the principle {more access ~ more use} on and off without being fallacious.

Except, the countries which have decriminalised drug use have seen a drop in use

Meth was perfectly legal up until the 1970's In fact, our military and our truck drivers pretty much ran on it. Meth didnt become a horrible boogy man until the public stopped believing that we should be kicking doors in to seize a couple of pot plants.

The reason the police do so many no knock raids, is that the feds funded swat teams and grew the police force under the guise of the war on drugs. Now, that most police departments have swat teams they have to justify their funding by kicking those doors in. One of those unintended consequences things.

...when someone ODs and dies...and their next of kin sues Wal-Mart?
Wally world sells guns and ammo also. And liquor. They're not sued when mishaps occur with these.

set up consumer protection AND workplace testing measures for the drug of your choice.
Like not selling to underage kids? That works SO WELL with alcohol.
And 'workplace testing measures' detect pretty much all drugs, not just those of choice.

Then, rewrite every statute now restricting the drug of your choice.
We already have DUI laws which are not limited to already legal drugs. Why rewrite them?

Please give up your absurd notions that you and your government should get to decide what OTHER PEOPLE are legally allowed to do when it does not interfere with you and yours. Your neighbor getting high might offend you, but the right to not be offended is not grounds for legislation.

For your edification, I do not partake, but I also do not feel the right to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself to feel better. And that includes your right to think that I am misguided or worse.

Wow, there's a lot of wild shit on here now.

'holio, alcohol is already testable at the workplace. Should we ignore the tens of thousands of direct fatalities and use alcohol as an example of success?

Meth is actually excused? Are you seriously saying it's OKAY for truckers to be on the road with you while on meth?

Workplace testing is NOT common for the recreational drugs other than marijuana. Yes, there is a lab at SRS for fissile material handlers and other critical (pun intended) jobs. "For cause" testing can be done for other substances after the fact, but that allows access to place the public and environment at risk. NO personal punishment can bring the released material back, make the accident un-happen.

"Please give up your absurd notions that you and your government should get to decide what OTHER PEOPLE are legally allowed to do when it does not interfere with you and yours."

This is a shocking level of naiveté. You actually think there would be no consequences to you?

Gee. Why not drop all regulations for impairment?

It's really depressing that so many don't have the slightest idea about accident prevention. You cannot allow a user to arrive at work under the influence, and the current setup depends on the outright illegality of the bulk of drugs.

Hey, here's a good idea: let's drop all the regulations prohibiting police from using drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.

That'll work out fine. All armed, always dealing with fools and miscreants, higher rates of alcoholism than the general public... and they shoot more innocent bystanders than private gun owners do.

This is a shocking level of naiveté. You actually think there would be no consequences to you?
Maybe the prisons wouldn't be full of non-violent 'drug offenders' and my tax money could go towards catching real criminals?

Gee. Why not drop all regulations for impairment?

Where exactly do you infer I said that?
It's really depressing that so many don't have the slightest idea about accident prevention. You cannot allow a user to arrive at work under the influence, and the current setup depends on the outright illegality of the bulk of drugs.
Bullshit. Where do you get these insane notions? Accident prevention is the best reason you have for telling other people what they are and are not entitled to do in their own homes?
And the current setup (money for the 'drug war' and building more and more prisons) DOES depend on outright illegality.

You want to prevent all these accidents going to and from work? Outlaw ALCOHOL as it not only causes accidents, it causes a lot of health issues.

Your problem is you know what's best for everybody, apparently. And the rest of us are obviously too immature to make our own informed decisions. Thank goodness for folks like you.

So the police identified themselves as such and wore police jackets? WELL, then! In that case, the homeowners should have just lay down and let them walk right in! Because NOBODY would EVER CLAIM to be law enforcement unless they actually were! Violent criminals impersonating police to gain access to innocent people's homes--that's just unheard of!

"Bullshit. Where do you get these insane notions? Accident prevention is the best reason you have for telling other people what they are and are not entitled to do in their own homes?"

DrCos, I'm sorry I didn't see this either.

I work on one of the two safest industrial sites on Earth: Savannah River Site. Whatever else you might think of their mission, it is not to be missed that industrial safety does NOT depend on after-the-fact action. Perhaps you are mistaken about the nature of manufacturing itself, which, with the acknowledgement of W. Edwards Deming's work, hit new heights of process accuracy by recognizing risks in the process development stage.

Building a safe worksite is one of these processes.

Yes, SRS tells workers they cannot do drugs in their own home. It's a condition of employment. Those of us (I'm not one of them) in the Personal Reliability Program are also tested for a number of drugs in various ways.

Now, here's the point: there are NO impairment standards for many drugs. The shortcut for the company exists in a simple statement that you will be removed from your job for testing positive, and off-site forever for a second positive. Part of this is the lack of impairment standards, and part of it is the logic that if a person will violate the law for personal enjoyment, they will also take shortcuts in processing nuclear materials for their own convenience, or cover up process upsets or mistakes.

I am disappointed that you've mistaken my comments and employed the personal attack. It is ludicrously easy to show that many, if not most people act first in their own personal interest, and you are ignoring some truly horrible disasters when you claim I am being some sort of busybody here.

Here's the drop-dead astonishing nature of the claim that drugs should be legalized: with limited access, there are countless stories of people who have lost families, businesses, fortunes and lives in order to get drugs - in the absence of police action. If only drugs were legal, this would not happen?