Before Modern Police Forces. America in 1922.

[BridgeTroll]

This is discussion?  It only seems fair that if you find inconsistancies in my statements you point them out so I may respond.  You claim that the war on drugs is a recent phenomena... I claim that the U.S. and societies worldwide have been trying to end the scourge of narcotic drugs since at least the beginning of 1900.  We have both posted articles to bolster our position.

I believe my position is stronger... 

[BridgeTroll]

Some good solid statute or case history

I have already done so.  The word "raging" is yours not mine... I said...

The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act and the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 were the first skirmishes of what we now see as a "war".

[BridgeTroll]

Once again... no one... except of course you said "raged".  This war has evolved over time into what it is now.  I can easily agree that our current effort does not seem to do what it is intended... but then nothing has worked including taxation and regulation.

Clearly the population and government saw narcotics as a threat to society and so the attempts to curb or eradicate it's use.  T. Roosevelt created an Opium Commisioner to stop the spread of the use of that drug.  The war has escalated ever since to its current form.

Most people are well aware that the effort to stem the tide of narcotics began long before Nixon uttered those famous words...

[BridgeTroll]

No thank you...  Stephen we simply see things differently.  You do not see a war on drug use until Nixon declared one.  I see plenty of unsuccessful attempts by our government and governments and societies all over the world.

You see a difference between what police do now and marshalls and constables and rangers did in the past.  I do not see a significant difference.

You see a difference between our current army and our past armed forces.  They were called different things but the job was essentially the same as it is now.

I assume there is a point to these differences that you see.  Please make your point so the discussion can move forward.  Perhaps if your reason for delineating the differences you see becomes clear to me and others we can get to the meat of this inquiry.

[NotNow]

Prohibition of opium
The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875
Wikipedia under "Drug Laws"  (not that I care, really.  I'm ok with taxing the snot out of MJ)

When are you going to answer my questions StephenDare!?  And why are you always calling me names and saying bad things about me?  Hey, I read the cliff notes on "Babbitt" just like everyone else.  And the book reviews that I plagerized in school said that "Babbitt" was a satirical critiscm of American culture.  Is that not true?  If it is, why do you use this work of fiction as a reference on American society?  I eagerly await your "flesh peeling" (ewww) answer.

[BridgeTroll]

Stephen... please stop putting words in my mouth... I have never said...

in the modern sense of that phrase

I simply used the term you and Nixon used to describe the realities if the early 1900's...

[Dog Walker]

Look, guys.  There has always been some force for "law and order" and "national defense" for a long, long time.  There have always been attempts to regulate the use of intoxicants.  These forces evolved over time as did the population and civil society.  There was never any "golden age" when these things were unnecessary that we can go back to somehow.  Even the tribal elders in Amazon jungle villages have armed tough guys around them to enforce their rules and keep other tribes from stealing their women.

If there is another point to this discussion than fighting over the definition of a "police" force or a "war on drugs", then let's move to it.

[BridgeTroll]

It is one of the reasons why I love this format.

This is the most telling sentence in the entire above dissertation...

I have no time nor intention to respond to the "I'm right your wrong" paragraghs above... I think you said it before ...it is tiresome.  For the sake of all the spectators here I am willing to continue in a positive direction. 

[macbeth25]

I'm not sure what a "positive direction" might be but BridgeTroll, stephendare

Do you two have any idea what you sound like?  You remind me of two children fighting over a ball.  As someone who has six children, etc., I think I’m a pretty good judge of how that sounds.
I think your “one-upmanship,” if that’s even a word, could be better spent on something more constructive. What can you do or suggest that might make Jacksonville a better place to live? 
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m getting tired enough of this constant badgering back and forth that I’m seriously thinking of not looking at this particular thread any longer.
You both have made good points but I don’t think either of you has a chance of winning the debate â€" or whatever.  Can you agree to disagree so you and we can get on to something else? 

[Ocklawaha]

Stephendare, try the 1830's when the import tax was jacked to 90% and South Carolina and her neighbors said they would NOT collect it. That they WOULD collect it even if by force of arms, President Jackson had the prospect of war review by the courts and discovered it couldn't be done.

Whereas the United States is the AGENT of the individual states
and
whereas the States are the PRINCIPALS in our union, the notion was found illegal. It is not possible for the principal to "Rebel" against the agent. At least not until Lincoln's mathmatics were enforced and thus Ocklawaha calling the war: The War of Yankee Aggression.

OCKLAWAHA

[BridgeTroll]

I could not agree more macbeth!

[macbeth25]

I was in the Air Force for 24 years from 1960 - 1984.  I've also read some military history.  My opinion is that the United States has gotten involved in several conflicts or whatever you might choose to call them since World War II and we haven't "won" any of them.  I believe politicians and others usually get us into conflicts, expect the military to "win" them, then politicians and big business hamstring the military so that it's impossible to do so. 
I have no idea if this is true but I believe that our military was preparing for Vietnam long before we actually became involved. 
One story I have heard, which I believe to be true, is that during World War II, Hồ Chí Minh or his people approached President Roosevelt or his people and offered to help us against the Japanese if we would help them against the French (not necessarily through military action but diplomatically) later.  Roosevelt’s people agreed. 
After the war and Roosevelt’s death, they approached Truman or his people and asked them to make good on the bargain. 
Our side said they didn’t know anything about it â€" and, given Roosevelt’s keeping the Manhattan Project a secret from Truman -- that might have even been true.  Anyway, Hồ Chí Minh went to, I think, China, for help against the French, and eventually we went into Vietnam. 
Anyway, I’ve heard that military planners decided that North Vietnam would be unable to conduct a war if a number (I think about 12 but I’m not really sure about the number) of special targets were destroyed.  These included several power plants, a couple of dams, and the harbor at Hai Phong.  I don’t believe complete destruction of these targets â€" even though Hai Phong was hit â€" was ever achieved. 
We eventually pulled out.  We didn’t win and we lost too many lives and too much money in Vietnam for  too little, if any, gain.  The same was true for Korea.  I’m afraid that all we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is more of the same. 
I’m tired and I think a lot of people, not only veterans but the general public, are sick and tired of our getting involved in someone else’s problems and not settling anything.  We need to finish what we start â€" or we shouldn’t start it. 
Yes, we need to protect ourselves (the United States) and also protect our interests (that’s what gets confusing) but we shouldn’t get involved and then pull out without accomplishing anything. 
What do you think?

[jaxnative]

Once upon a time we weren't dependent at all on 'law enforcement' to order the daily business of our lives and cities.  And it wasn't that long ago. In fact it was as recently as the 20s.

How exactly are our daily lives dependent on law enforcement?  The daily lives of people in most societies are dependent on a "set of laws" codified through enacted, written law or through custom and tradition or a combination of both.  However it is organized, a force must exist to monitor and admonish those who break those laws.  How were we "not dependent at all" on law enforcement before the 1920's?  Someone was doing the enforcing regardless of how they were organized.  Other than legalizing presently illegal activities how do we get back to that imagined independence from law enforcment and how will the "new force" be organized and accepted?  

My opinion is that our present law enforment agencies, while not perfect and never will be, are the best available for our societal realities.  It's not as if someone threw them together to have more power over private lives or put "murderers in uniform"(immensely insulting).  Like other institutions, they have developed and changed over the years as a result of learning experiences, events, and societal changes.

[macbeth25]

What do you think about programs such as neighborhood watch or programs where residents take a non-confrontational hand to help the police get back to police work? 

[BridgeTroll]

Im not saying that there arent extremes in which a cop needs to be called, but do we really need the police to handle all that for us?

Have you ever called the police?  If so... why?