glassgowkiss

Actually it's a very simple issue in a way. Substance abuse is a medical issue. If you approach it from this perspective, you eliminate everything down the chain. So in order to eliminate the demand, you have to treat drug use as an illness, exact the same way as heart disease or cancer. Except that a cancer patient is unlikely to steal your car stereo. So,if we just decriminalize hard drugs it solves some of the problems such as not incarcerating the end user. However, there would still be a black market,drug gangs, and all of the violence and social ills that come along with it. Do we want to have a completely laissez faire approach with like the Phillip Morris of hard drugs producing meth? Or is the government going to make and supply drugs to eliminate the black market? How do they do it in Holland? Theft is a fallout of a drug addiction, isn't it. And criminal justice system is set on punishment only, without rehabilitation. If you toss addicts in prison without drug rehabilitation (which has to start with controlled detox), what do you think is going to happen, when they leave and are on streets again? Also remember that a big part of people with substance abuse have untreated psychological and psychiatric issues. Add a healthcare system, which creates a fair amount of addicts, far more then you think (particularly a large percentage of heroine addicts are former chronic pain patients). Also add alcohol to the list, which I think is far more dangerous then most of other drugs combined. If you ever visit medical units in any given hospital, you will see equal amount of misery caused by alcohol as all other drugs combined. I am not advocating letting people off the hook, when they do commit crimes, even if they are addicted, but treatment has to be first, and the punishment second. I also know that in probably more then 50% of cases, the attempt of treatment will be unsuccessful. Drug courts have somewhere 30-40% success rate, but normal judicial system has pretty much 0% success if only applying incarceration, so treatment first, punishment second is the best tool we have at the moment.

Actually it's a very simple issue in a way. Substance abuse is a medical issue. If you approach it from this perspective, you eliminate everything down the chain. So in order to eliminate the demand, you have to treat drug use as an illness, exact the same way as heart disease or cancer.

try a stranger…..

Do you speak from experience or just inference from what you've seen in the media? I work with cops every day in the municipality where I work and in my experience they are reasonable, normal guys and gals trying to do the right thing in a very difficult profession. Sure some of them are assholes, but isn't that to be expected in every profession? Maybe the jurisdiction where I work is different than every other one in the country, but I kind of doubt it. Don't like the drug war or other policy? Talk to your legislator. Cops don't make law, they just do their best to enforce it. Another example: you know who hates traffic stop quotas more than you? Cops. Again, they are told by the powers that be to issue a certain number of fines. You think they like being the assholes who have to do it? Well, the powers tell them to issue a ticket, and they obey. WTF? worked out great for the Jews in WWII. The problem with your line of reasoning is your head is so deep in the ass of the system, you don't even see it. You asked if I have personal experience- yes I do. I was stopped four times for no fucking reason whatsoever. First time was in Bend, when I decided to go a couple of blocks after my knee surgery. Of course I was limping with a knee size of a water melon, and a cruiser drove onto a sidewalk, blocked my path, and a cop asked me for an ID. WTF! Second, about 9 years ago here in Bellingham. I saw I had a message on my phone, so I pulled on the shoulder, completely off the pavement, parked my car, listened to the message, made some notes. I look up, and there are lights behind my car. My car was not even running. He asks me for an ID and asks me what was I doing? WTF. I wanted to tell him that this is none of his fucking business. Third, I was driving through Leavenworth at 11 at night a few years back. I was within speed limit, got pulled over for no reason whatsoever and asked if I had anything to drink. Again- wtf? Saved the best for last-Reno 1991. I was in handcuffs in the back of a cruiser charged with grand theft auto. Finally after muppets sorted it out did not even say sorry. Neither make, color, or license plate matched the stolen car. After wasting almost 2 hours of my life, they did not even say sorry for mistake. When I called the station and asked for a supervisor, after being on hold for a while, I was told that probably they had reasons. I am sure they had. Incompetence and stupidity would be probably on the top of the list. Here is good read for you, yes I agree with the writer 100% system is not broken

Impact exercise and RA is a big no-no. Sounds like you are having issues with your auto-immune system over all. RA, Fibromyalgia and Raynaud's are all part of auto-immune conditions. Probably I would start with a nutritionist, but someone with more "athletic" frame of mind. In many instances, a big contributing factor to auto immune disorders are food allergies. We tend to think about them in terms of anaphylactic shock, but in a lot of cases the response is more tame. However it doesn't mean that over a longer period of time, things will not start going down hill. Designing a sustainable exercise program is another step. What you do not want is to cause massive tissue inflammation- your body has already hard enough time with dispensing what you are already producing. Hence getting massive soreness after the workout will be counterproductive. Have you thought about moving to warmer and drier climate? Usually sun exposure and increased vitamin D levels help as well. Also do not use any NSIDS, which includes ibuprofen and generally what is called anti-inflammatory drugs.

"Officer Pantaleo's Statement New York's Pix 11 passes along this statement from Officer Pantaleo: "I became a police officer to help people and to protect those who can't protect themselves. It is never my intention to harm anyone and I feel very bad about the death of Mr. Garner. My family and I include him and his family in our prayers and I hope that they will accept my personal condolences for their loss." Fuck your prayers, fuck your statement and fuck you. Protect and serve by crushing somebody's chest and neck! Hey asshole, you are nothing but a murderer and a thug with a badge.

Acknowledging it's existence is a prerequisite to solving a problem. Let's dispense with bullshit theory about a "few bad apples" in police force across the country. To "protect and serve" should no longer be a motto, and actually so called "good cops" are the minority. Vast majority of cops are abusive assholes, seeking power trips, and control freaks. It goes across the board starting with cops lurking while catching speeders. Public safety my ass, there is no real evidence of co-relation between number of fatalities with speeds below 75mph or less (or 120km/h). So this whole nonsense of lurking around the corners in urban areas is nothing but revenue scam (yeah, because police departments have direct financial benefits from the fines). This continues on, mandatory sentencing, whole "war on drugs" are the following steps of the total escalation of the problem. It goes to use of torture and physical force during interrogations (sleep deprivation, food and drink deprivation are 100% torture methods). Next stop: murder: not Florida only. Looks on what happened in NYC: http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-grand-jury-return-no-indictment-police-choke-193254083.html "Eric Garner, a 43-year-old father of six, was illegally selling cigarettes on July 17 when police officers tackled him and put him in a chokehold. Police said he had been resisting arrest. The city's medical examiner ruled the death a homicide."

Fair enough. But I think it's counterproductive and naive to fail to acknowledge Michael Brown's culpability in his own killing. I think Ivan hit the nail on the head when he said there is entrenched racism in the country, this just wasn't an example of it here. I understand your reasoning to a certain point during the event. First of all, it started as oral argument and it escalated into a struggle. We will never find out what was said, hence body camera would be a good start to actually document such events, instead on relying on verbal accounts hours or days later. Once wounded in the hand, Brown did not present the same level of threat, hence the decision to single handedly pursue on foot was also probably not the best course of action. Most likely police would be able to apprehend him later, without much fuss. Also let's do the maths. 3 shots were fired from within the car, one hitting actual target. In all 12 shots were fired, six striking Brown. So after the initial car struggle 9 additional shots were fired, 5 hitting the target, but 4 flying somewhere is a middle of a populated area. I can understand if there was a two sided fire fight, and Brown posed a threat to general public, but looks to me that the officer was completely unnecessary endangering people in the area, by firing a gun in a middle of densely populated part of town. There are numerous questions regarding incidents like this one. Like I said, cops act with impunity, because they hardly get reprimanded, and never get prosecuted.

the answer depends on the nature of your medical problems.

I am sure you have spent a ton of time in a ghetto. You are speaking like a true expert. Newsflash- white kill whites as well. Wonder how the white america would react if a black cop shot an unarmed 18 y/o white guy?

Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, it's laughable to call Michael Brown "innocent." He was essentially killed for jaywalking- big fucking crime!

None of this is going to mean shit, unless cops get prosecuted as everyone else, when guilty of misconduct or flat out crime. Police is acting with impunity, because they know that regardless of their conduct, they will never face criminal justice system. And don't give me that shit about a few bad apples, it's across the board and everywhere. Some places are just worst then others (like Ferguson).

your answer pretty much explains why people HATE lawyers. No, this is not the case with Darren Wilson shooting. Some of the story is simply not confirmed by the physical evidence. The fact that one of the bullets stuck the top of the head and exited by the jaw, clearly points out Brown was shot while already on the ground.

Well, then the law and the process is flawed or basically fucked. How this evidence was presented depended on prosecution, and from an early onset after the shooting people were pointing out too cozy relation between the prosecutor and cops. I would say, that when it comes down to investigating or prosecuting police, DA has vast conflict of interest, and only a special prosecutor nominated from outside of the ranks can even attempt any impartiality. The fact is cops NEVER get prosecuted for conduct while on job. Remember the cop pepper spraying people during a sitdown protest in California? If an ordinary person sprayed another with pepper spray, they would be most likely charged with an assault. So why wasn't he prosecuted? This "land of free" is turning in to a "land of heavy police hand" very fast. Time to change their motto from "protect and serve" to "harass and intimidate (with occasional killing for a change)", as the later would describe current situation far more accurately.

Pete, some of the physical evidence confirmed his story, some did not. A lot of witness testimony was contradicting his statements. It all should be sorted out during a trial. And this is the crux- they did an acquittal without a trial. No cross examination, no challenges to physical evidence or test results. Somehow you don't hear about black cops shooting unarmed white teens, but white cop shooting black teens (or in latest case in Cleveland a 12 year old with a toy gun on a playground!) seems like a monthly occurrence. And Pete- please define a close distance. Gun residue is traceable to 5ft range. Even the DA confirmed only one shot stuck Brown from within this distance. One bullet struck top of the head- so the cop fired when the guy was at least on his knees or on the ground. And if this is not excessive force, I do not what is then. And till such cases start going to trial, events like this will be common and will keep repeating themselves. Cops will continue to act with impunity, as they are given a free range to do whatever they wish.

well, would probably help if you posted the size.

I think you have hard time connecting the dots. Iraq war started under the banner of WMD's, which we know now never existed in the first place. That was already known before the invasion, and Scott Ritter spoke about it publicly and openly. He probably would have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter at hand, since he was one of the inspectors, who spent several years in Iraq as a UN monitor. So the war started with a pretend as a search for non-existant WMD, quickly was renamed to "regime change", and soon after renamed again to "installing western style democracy".

Your historical memory is very selective. You tend to ignore well known facts, which brings me to a question: are you bending historical truth to fit your right wing political agenda, or are you simply uneducated in this matter? "The story begins on November 6, 1986, when Reagan signed the last comprehensive legalization bill to pass Congress." "In July 1989, the Senate moved to protect a bigger group—all spouses and children of those who legalized under IRCA. The Senate passed legislation 81-17 that prohibited the administration from deporting family members of immigrants in the process of legalizing and directed officials to grant them work authorization. The House failed to act on the Senate’s bill. George Bush Sr. then responded in February 1990 by administratively implementing the Senate bill’s provisions himself. As Bush’s INS Commissioner, Gene McNary, stated: “It is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry. However, we can enforce the law humanely. To split families encourages further violations of the law as they reunite.” Under Bush’s “family fairness” policy, applicants had to meet certain criteria, and reapply to the INS every year for extensions." "A series of anti-government strikes led by the labor union Solidarity in Poland led to a 1981 declaration of martial law in that country and a renewed era of political repression. The Reagan administration declared a program of extended voluntary departure for Poles who made it to the United States that was repeatedly extended throughout the decade."- also an executive order. Now, would you care to elaborate on this?

Hmm, defunding universities, defunding science, defunding arts…. sound familiar? You live in Washington State, no? Run by Democrats for, what, going on 35 years? Exactly who has been defunding education?? Still, what do you think about the President's powers re immigration and line-item power on ACA? If you actually went to school, there is a two tear system of federal and state/county level of funding. Most of the cuts were implemented on federal level.

answer the question.

Hmm, defunding universities, defunding science, defunding arts…. sound familiar?

This precedence was set long, long time ago by Reagan in 1982, 1988 and by Bush in 1991 or 92 (would have to check this one), but executive action by a president as far as immigration was started with Reagan. So the path was established long time ago, and it's just being followed.

These are all complex problems, and you can't solve them by using just talking points. It's clear by now, this 2 party political system outlived itself. Can someone explain, why do we need electoral college at this day and age, and why is there still winner takes all?

Looks like the officer was the aggressor in the exchange: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/26/366827836/ferguson-documents-what-michael-browns-friend-saw Like I said, a thug with a badge. One way to cure such behavior is to force the cops to wear a camera at all times.

Seems like the issue was kicked down the road all the way from the 70's. I am probably a bit more in tune then you, as far as immigration laws are concerned, having gone through the system 2 times- one time myself, another with my wife. Most likely you would not even know what forms to use and how to fill them. Do you even know some of the applications are over 30 pages long, and asking if you ever were a member of Nazi or communist party? I am an anti-communist, but for fuck sakes- are we in the 50's? Why can't there be a form with 2 pages of actual verifiable information? The whole precess is so fucked- took my wife 13 months to get permanent residence, and green card plus citizenships was close to 4 grand ! I agree, that should have been addressed 6 years ago, but it was not, and it will not, until someone does something. Senate passed an immigration reform, while House would not even bring it to the vote- can you tell me why? it's because unlike popular perception the status quo is creating an army of slave labor with no rights whatsoever. The issue is that the whole system is fucked. It's flooded with corporate interest money, and an ordinary person is denied representation. That goes for Presidency, and Congress. Pointing fingers at Democrats or Republicans and who is at fault is a good diversion from discussing a real issue, which is corporate rule and corporate oligarchy developing in front of our eyes.