Most people no longer remember a time before our cities began to create and enlarge the Police Forces.
This is truly one bureaucracythat just keeps growing and growing demanding more power and funding with every years.
Before the police, men were only mustered in times of trouble or unrest, usually at the behest of a local mayor of the chamber of commerce by the local militias.
In re reading
Babbitt, by Sinclair Lewis, I found the following passage about the deployment of the local militia by the Goodfellows of the city of Zenith:
Quote
The strikers had announced a parade for Tuesday morning, but Colonel Nixon had forbidden it, the newspapers said. When Babbitt drove west from his office at ten that morning he saw a drove of shabby men heading toward the tangled, dirty district beyond Court House Square. He hated them, because they were poor, because they made him feel insecure "Damn loafers! Wouldn't be common workmen if they had any pep," he complained. He wondered if there was going to be a riot. He drove toward the starting-point of the parade, a triangle of limp and faded grass known as Moore Street Park, and halted his car.
The park and streets were buzzing with strikers, young men in blue denim shirts, old men with caps. Through them, keeping them stirred like a boiling pot, moved the militiamen. Babbitt could hear the soldiers' monotonous orders: "Keep movingâ€"move on, 'boâ€"keep your feet warm!" Babbitt admired their stolid good temper. The crowd shouted, "Tin soldiers," and "Dirty dogsâ€"servants of the capitalists!" but the militiamen grinned and answered only, "Sure, that's right. Keep moving, Billy!"
Babbitt thrilled over the citizen-soldiers, hated the scoundrels who were obstructing the pleasant ways of prosperity, admired Colonel Nixon's striding contempt for the crowd; and as Captain Clarence Drum, that rather puffing shoe-dealer, came raging by, Babbitt respectfully clamored, "Great work, Captain! Don't let 'em march!" He watched the strikers filing from the park. Many of them bore posters with "They can't stop our peacefully walking." The militiamen tore away the posters, but the strikers fell in behind their leaders and straggled off, a thin unimpressive trickle between steel-glinting lines of soldiers. Babbitt saw with disappointment that there wasn't going to be any violence, nothing interesting at all. Then he gasped.
Among the marchers, beside a bulky young workman, was Seneca Doane, smiling, content. In front of him was Professor Brockbank, head of the history department in the State University, an old man and white-bearded, known to come from a distinguished Massachusetts family.
"Why, gosh," Babbitt marveled, "a swell like him in with the strikers? And good ole Senny Doane! They're fools to get mixed up with this bunch. They're parlor socialists! But they have got nerve. And nothing in it for them, not a cent! Andâ€"I don't know 's all the strikers look like such tough nuts. Look just about like anybody else to me!"
The militiamen were turning the parade down a side street.
"They got just as much right to march as anybody else! They own the streets as much as Clarence Drum or the American Legion does!" Babbitt grumbled. "Of course, they'reâ€"they're a bad element, butâ€"Oh, rats!"
At the Athletic Club, Babbitt was silent during lunch, while the others fretted, "I don't know what the world's coming to," or solaced their spirits with "kidding."
Captain Clarence Drum came swinging by, splendid in khaki.
"How's it going, Captain?" inquired Vergil Gunch.
"Oh, we got 'em stopped. We worked 'em off on side streets and separated 'em and they got discouraged and went home."
"Fine work. No violence."
"Fine work nothing!" groaned Mr. Drum. "If I had my way, there'd be a whole lot of violence, and I'd start it, and then the whole thing would be over. I don't believe in standing back and wet-nursing these fellows and letting the disturbances drag on. I tell you these strikers are nothing in God's world but a lot of bomb-throwing socialists and thugs, and the only way to handle 'em is with a club! That's what I'd do; beat up the whole lot of 'em!"
Babbitt heard himself saying, "Oh, rats, Clarence, they look just about like you and me, and I certainly didn't notice any bombs."
Drum complained, "Oh, you didn't, eh? Well, maybe you'd like to take charge of the strike! Just tell Colonel Nixon what innocents the strikers are! He'd be glad to hear about it!" Drum strode on, while all the table stared at Babbitt.
"What's the idea? Do you want us to give those hell-hounds love and kisses, or what?" said Orville Jones.
"Do you defend a lot of hoodlums that are trying to take the bread and butter away from our families?" raged Professor Pumphrey.
Vergil Gunch intimidatingly said nothing. He put on sternness like a mask; his jaw was hard, his bristly short hair seemed cruel, his silence was a ferocious thunder. While the others assured Babbitt that they must have misunderstood him, Gunch looked as though he had understood only too well. Like a robed judge he listened to Babbitt's stammering:
"No, sure; course they're a bunch of toughs. But I just meanâ€"Strikes me it's bad policy to talk about clubbing 'em. Cabe Nixon doesn't. He's got the fine Italian hand. And that's why he's colonel. Clarence Drum is jealous of him."
"Well," said Professor Pumphrey, "you hurt Clarence's feelings, George. He's been out there all morning getting hot and dusty, and no wonder he wants to beat the tar out of those sons of guns!"
Gunch said nothing, and watched; and Babbitt knew that he was being watched.
Its strange to think of a city of 300k who thought in terms of civil defence and maintaining order in this way.
Are you
actually...
seriously... advocating abolishment of the Police and standing Army, Navy, and Air Force? This seems to be the direction you are heading.
QuoteThere were no speeding laws
Didnt need em...
QuoteThere were no drug wars.
Really? I think there were.
QuoteThe police did not settle domestic disputes or civil disagreements.
Of course they did...
Stephen...
I am simply asking if abolishment of those departments was what you were advocating? I just want to know where my discussion partner is coming from.
Why speeding laws?
"The higher the speed of a vehicle, the more difficult collision avoidance becomes and the greater the damage if a collision does occur. Therefore, many countries of the world limit the maximum speed allowed on their roads. Vehicles are not supposed to be driven at speeds which are higher than the posted maximum."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic
There have been wars on drugs since... drugs.
"In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured, and the flow of silver into China that had threatened to cripple British and other European economies was reversed[citation needed]. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes."Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
What do you consider a domestic dispute? Separating a warring husband and wife? Breaking up a fight? Redirecting potential juvenile delinquents? Police have done this since... Police!
A standing Army is self explanatory... Perhaps you explain why a standing Army, Navy, and Airforce are not needed.
As to the militia... this sentence in the article you posted says it all...
"Though during his presidency, after enduring the failures of the militia in the War of 1812, James Madison came to favor the maintenance of a strong standing army."Trains have had speed limits for a long time and there were "rules of the road" for horses and carriages.
The first speed limit was the 10mph (16.1 km/h) limit introduced by the Locomotive Act of 1861 (or "Red Flag Act") in the United Kingdom (automobiles were in those days termed “light locomotivesâ€). In 1865, the revised Locomotive Act reduced the speed limit to 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns. The 1865 Act required a man with a red flag or lantern to walk 60 yards (50 m) ahead of each vehicle, enforce a walking pace, and warn horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self-propelled machine. The replacement of the "Red Flag Act" by the Locomotive Act of 1896, and the increase of the speed limit to 14 mph (23 km/h) has been commemorated each year since 1927 by the London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit
QuoteThere were no laws governing spousal or child abuse in the united states and dueling continued well into the end of the 1800s. If you remember, Alexander Hamilton was shot to death in a duel with Aaron Burr.
Ah... the good old days!
I do not think they are true at all and yes I do think they are necessary. Traffic laws are needed for obvious reasons. Same for a standing army and police force.
There is a debate on "The war on drugs" mainly concerning marijuana but I don't hear too many advocates for legalizing heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine.
Where do you come up with 130 years past 1812 for the establishment of a standing army?
I have read and comprehended everything... Perhaps this will shed some light...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy
Because your answers are wrong.
The War of 1812 (1812-1815), the second and last American war against the British, was less successful than the Revolution had been. An invasion of Canada failed, and U.S. troops were unable to stop the British from burning the new capital of Washington, D.C.. However, the Regular Army, under Generals Winfield Scott and Jacob Brown, proved they were professional and capable of defeating a British army in the Niagara campaign of 1814. Two weeks after a treaty was signed, though, Andrew Jackson defeated the British invasion of New Orleans. However this had little effect, as per the treaty both sides returned to the status quo.
Between 1815 and 1860, a spirit of Manifest Destiny struck the United States, and as settlers moved west the U.S. Army engaged in a long series of skirmishes and battles with Native Americans that the colonists uprooted. The U.S. Army also fought the short Mexicanâ€"American War, which was a victory for the United States and resulted in territory which became all or parts of the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming and New Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Point
Are you trying to discern some difference between "regular army and National army?
The term National army has many meanings around the world, and is used typically, but not necessarily, to mean the lawful army of the state as distinct from rebel armies or private armies that may operate there.
The Regular Army is a name given to the permanent force of a country's army that is maintained under arms during peacetime.
QuoteIt seems likely that you are looking for answers that conform with what you already think.
This seems to apply to you more than me... :)
It would seem so... but you need to research further. I have posted plenty of articles refuting your contention that we had no standing army for 130 years after 1812. Clearly we did.
So what exactly is the point? Are you saying we should disband the armed forces? Should each county and state have their own militias?
I would submit that we keep a standing army for the same reason most countries do. The time has long past where there was time to form and mobilize an army and actually win a war. A proffesional and standing army is a requirement in todays world. It would be nice if it was not so... but it is.
Saudi Arabia has a very capable air force and a growing navy. They also have an army. Switzerland also has an army... which service is compulsory for all males.
Yes I do... but so what? Your picking out a few points and calling them black and white. The core of the militia or whatever is a professional army. They have a very capable armed force.
I am very aware of Saudi military... I have worked with them.
QuoteDoesnt a massive nuclear arsenal perform the same defensive threat that an army does?
No... unless you advocate nuking all aggressors
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 19, 2009, 05:48:13 PM
QuoteDoesnt a massive nuclear arsenal perform the same defensive threat that an army does?
No... unless you advocate nuking all aggressors
Nuclear deterrent is a strategic asset, basically to prevent a mass nuclear attack. Has nothing really to do with a conventional or regional threat, see Korean, vietnam wars as well as the many proxy wars through africa and central america. BT you have a much higher opinion of the Saudi Army than I do. Most of the Saudi elite join the Saudi AF and play fighter pilot. The other masses go and join the Saudi army to keep the unemployment rate down and play army. The ones I worked with on occasion and observed, seem to have the attitude that no matter what they did the US army would take care of them. A lot like the Eurpoean continents armies in the late 70's.
The United States Army has had a standing Army since its inception in 1775. For the disputed period, see this quote from the Wiki:
19the century
The War of 1812 (1812-1815), the second and last American war against the British, was less successful than the Revolution had been. An invasion of Canada failed, and U.S. troops were unable to stop the British from burning the new capital of Washington, D.C.. However, the Regular Army, under Generals Winfield Scott and Jacob Brown, proved they were professional and capable of defeating a British army in the Niagara campaign of 1814. Two weeks after a treaty was signed, though, Andrew Jackson defeated the British invasion of New Orleans. However this had little effect, as per the treaty both sides returned to the status quo.
Between 1815 and 1860, a spirit of Manifest Destiny struck the United States, and as settlers moved west the U.S. Army engaged in a long series of skirmishes and battles with Native Americans that the colonists uprooted. The U.S. Army also fought the short Mexicanâ€"American War, which was a victory for the United States and resulted in territory which became all or parts of the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming and New Mexico.
The Battle of Gettysburg, the turning point of the American Civil WarThe Civil War (1861-1865) was the most costly war for the United States. After most states in the South seceded to form the Confederate States of America, CSA troops opened fire on the Union-held Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, starting the war. For the first two years Confederate forces solidly defeated the U.S. Army, but after the decisive battles of Gettysburg in the east and Vicksburg in the west, combined with superior industrial might and numbers, Union troops fought a brutal campaign through Confederate territory and the war ended with a Confederate surrender at Appomatox Courthouse in April 1865. Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and an extraordinary 18% in the South.[5]
Following the Civil War, the U.S. Army fought a long battle with Native Americans, who resisted U.S. expansion into the center of the continent. But by the 1890s the U.S. saw itself as a potential international player. U.S. victories in the Spanish-American War (1898) and the controversial and less well known Philippine-American War (1898-1913), as well as U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Boxer Rebellion, gained America more land.
All of these conflicts were generally fought by regular Army units. WW1 led to the need to augment U S Army and National Guard forces and the "National Army" was quickly mobilized and trained. At wars end, demobilizing men were assigned to Officer and Enlisted Reserve Corps, the predecessor of the U S Army Reserve. The Army is still generally set up this way, with a core professional force augmented by State National Guard Units and the Reserves. The maintenance of the draft is a safeguard for rapid mobilization again. However, in the modern world, I believe that the need to recruit, educate, train, equip, and test a credible fighting force requires a reasonably sized standing Army. The need for credible military force should be obvious, and the international rule of law has depended on the United States Military for the last seventy years.
The use of nuclear weapons as a defensive measure is not tactically sound for a number of reasons, of which collateral damage is just one. Protecting, moviing, effectively and accurately delivering such weapons is another. I could go on but I think that most would instantly realize the folly of such a plan.
The Swiss have a standing Army. It is a conscripted Army in that service is compulsory for male citizens. Their militia is the same as ours, the armed free able bodied male citizens (and possible female now). Saudi Arabia has a standing Army of about 150k that is augmented by about 100k National Guard and maybe 20k Navy. The Royal Guard is now a part of the Saudi Armed forces and is a substatial force. They are charged with protecting the House of Saud. The GIP or Intelligence Directorate is also a part of the Saudi military structure and may be the largest organization in it. I would agree with Civil that they (and the rest of the world) depend heavily on the US.
StephenDare! should not obtain his police history from works of fiction. While the Guard has been called out on occasion, generally strikes and riots have been handled by State, County, and local law enforcement. Disputes have been handled by law enforcement here for literally hundreds of years. In Jax alone, simple a review of the Roll of Honor is in order:
Christopher Kane - September 4, 2008 - Automobile Accident
Scott E. Bell - October 12, 2007 - Automobile Accident, Killed by a Drunk Driver
Wilbert Wiggins, Sr. - November 8, 2002 - Heart Attack on Duty
Michael H. Boynton - October 9, 1998 - Automobile Accident, Responding to Call
John L. Butler - March 10, 1997 - Heart Attack Evacuating Bystanders at Hostage Scene
James W. Ward - October 17, 1996 - Heart Attack on Duty
Joseph B. Burtner - December 12, 1995 - Shot in Ambush at Suicide Call
Ira Wayne Bramlitt, Jr. - May 22, 1995 - Automobile Accident Responding to Call
Lonnie C. Miller Sr. - May 6, 1995 - Shot by Robbery Suspect
Weldon L. VanLandingham - September 9, 1994 - Heart Attack on Duty
Fred G. Lampe - May 1, 1994 - Heart Attack Assisting Motorist
Warren C. Sanders - July 26, 1990 - Shot During Undercover Stakeout
Charles R. Shinholser, Jr. - December 14, 1988 - Motorcycle Accident
Jeffery Ritchey - February 23, 1987 - Motorcycle Accident
Gary Bevel - May 17, 1983 - Shot Effecting an Arrest
Frederick A. McCall - February 7, 1982 - Heart Attack While Affecting an Arrest
Thomas Szafranski - May 24, 1981 - Shot by a Sniper
Martin Slater, Reserve Officer - Feb. 21, 1981 - Automobile Accident Responding to Call
Fred L. Lucy - Ronald D. Florence - Charles A. Thompson, III
January 8, 1979 - Airplane Crash
Michael D. Stewart - April 27, 1975 - Shot During Robbery in Progress
Glen A. Rainey - August 23, 1974 - Motorcycle Accident
Edward J. Parker - February 6, 1972 - Shot Interrupting a Sexual Battery
James H. Moon - September 27, 1971 - Shot By Mental Patient
David H. Reese - February 28, 1970 - Motorcycle Accident
Jake B. Edwards - February 1, 1968 - Motorcycle Accident
W. L. Griffin - July 29, 1967 - Shot at Burglary Stakeout
William E. McCooley - September 5, 1962 - Motorcycle Accident
Earnest C. Register - April 20, 1960 - Motorcycle Accident
Charles Sea - May 24, 1959 - Shot at Disturbance Call
Napolean B. Harvey - October 2, 1956 - Automobile Accident
Thomas A. Robinson Jr. - December 16, 1953 - Shot by FBI Fugitives
Robert Tucker - December 24, 1952 - Shot Effecting Arrest of Traffic Violator
Fred Higginbotham - August 8, 1947 - Motorcycle Accident
Ellis V. Dyal
Richard M. Scarborough - June 22, 1946 - Shot Approaching Domestic Violence Call
Clarence Ballou - October 15, 1937 - Motorcycle Accident
John P. Ellis - September 11, 1937 - Motorcycle Accident
J. Thomas Watts - May 5, 1933 - Shot Effecting an Arrest
Willie D. Smith - January 19, 1930 - Shoot-Out With Escaped Convicts from Connecticut
Jessie J. Barber - May 20, 1929 - Shot at Disturbance Call
L. M. Dyal - May 23, 1929 - Shot at Disturbance Call
W. J. Kelly - September 3, 1924 - Shot Effecting an Arrest
Henry A. Everett - January 30, 1920 - Shot by Two Burglary Suspects
Charles J. Turknett - September 26, 1919 - Shot Effecting an Arrest
Benjamin F. Hagan - August 10, 1917 - Shot at Disturbance Call
Napolian B. Hagan - September 22, 1913 - Ambushed and Shot by Robbery Suspect
Luther B. Henderson - January 26, 1911 - Shot by Robbery Suspect
Hezekiah Hires - May 13, 1910 - Shot by Saloon Keeper at Disturbance Call
Henry H. Raley - November 29, 1900 - Shot Effecting an Arrest
C. M. Sadler
Dennis Jenkins - June 26, 1899 - Shot at Disturbance Call
W. E. Gruber - April 28, 1897 - Investigating Multiple Homicides
Ed Minor - April 5, 1895 - Effecting an Arrest
Carlton Lowe - February 26, 1890 - Disturbance Call
Joseph Nelson - June 26, 1880 - Shot During Mill Strike
William Johnson - 1870 - Disturbance Call
Ignatio Andrea - April 7, 1869 - Killed in an Ambush
(Town Marshall) Yoemens - 1840 - Disturbance Call
As you can see, Marshall Yoemens lost his life at a disturbance call shortly after the formation of the town. This history you will find repeated in other United States cities and debunks any notion that law enforcement did not answer "dispute" calls in towns and cities where pre-radio/telephone and automoblie response times allowed it. With the advent of those technologies, the ability of law enforcement to respond quickly to calls for service has greatly increased the chances of immediate apprehension and also violent encounter. For the last eighty years the increased activity of a mobile and instant communicatiing law enforcement community has resulted in both public opinion and legal rulings pushing law enforcement to professionalize. Training in modern techniques, use of force, law, diversity, and conflict resolution cannot be duplicated by 18 year old conscripts, vigilantes, or militia. Modern law enforcement includes specialized investigative techniques and services such as SWAT, Public Safety Diving, K9, Bomb Squad, Aviation and many others. It is not feaseble to turn to our neighbors for such services. I cannot name a modern city that uses a system other than a modern police force, can you?
Federal law enforcement goes back to 1790
The United States Coast Guard trace it's history back to 4 August 1790, when the first Congress authorized the construction of ten vessels to enforce tariff and trade laws and to prevent smuggling. Known through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the Revenue Marine and the Revenue Cutter Service,
I stand corrected samiam. I meant the investigative agencies and not the tariff and coastal enforcement which dates back to the creation of the republic. Thanks for the correction.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2009, 03:00:23 PM
Ok.
Why werent there speeding laws governing horse or train traffic?
Okay, this isn't my discussion HOWEVER...
There WERE laws that prohibited running a horse, carriage or wagon in downtown. The pattern followed on similar rules that kept the brothels in limited areas as well as the NO GUNS allowed ordinances.
Trains have had speed limits from the earliest railroads. Along the tracks you will see diamond shaped signs, yellow with a number on them, SPEED LIMIT for freight. A green diamond is for passengers, and is in the same format. Early trains had to have speed limits because many of the rails were wooden with thin iron straps screwed to the rails as a running surface. The straps would often bend or break loose and pierce the bottom of rail cars impaling whoever or whatever was inside.OCKLAWAHA
Please take a look at this reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland.) It appears that your comment regarding Switzerland's not having armed forces might not be entirely correct.
I do believe that local law enforcement should be augmented by members of the community, but as mentioned before there is a liability issue.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2009, 05:41:36 PM
But this still doesnt explain what you mean by 'necessary' which was my question to you.. What change or events do you see that made standing armies necessary for the United States? And how did it make them necessary?
I agree with the necessity of forming an army for WW2.
Maybe even peacekeeping afterwards.
Doesnt a massive nuclear arsenal perform the same defensive threat that an army does?
Stephen, I just don’t understand your comment regarding “forming an army for WW2.†Do you really believe that we didn’t have an army before that? Regarding a “massive nuclear threat,†you can always call an army back â€" the same concept was true for the Strategic Air Command and fail safe â€" you can’t call back a missile and it’s rather difficult to negate the effects of a nuclear explosion.
There is no lack of knowledge on my part. Quite the contrary... there seems to be a lack of understanding on your part. You are attempting to parse definitions to some kind of pre concieved notion of military preparedness. Regular army... national army... the point is... we had a freeking army! We had a navy! It is like you are trying to tell me we didnt have an air force until after WWII just because it was part of the army.
The question you have not answered yet is... Where are you going with this? Are you suggesting we disband the armed forces to "regular army" status and reconstitute to "Standing Army" status to fight a war?
Rather than argue semantics it would be helpful to understand why these distinctions seem important to you.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 19, 2009, 11:36:54 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2009, 03:00:23 PM
Ok.
Why werent there speeding laws governing horse or train traffic?
Okay, this isn't my discussion HOWEVER...
There WERE laws that prohibited running a horse, carriage or wagon in downtown. The pattern followed on similar rules that kept the brothels in limited areas as well as the NO GUNS allowed ordinances.
Trains have had speed limits from the earliest railroads. Along the tracks you will see diamond shaped signs, yellow with a number on them, SPEED LIMIT for freight. A green diamond is for passengers, and is in the same format. Early trains had to have speed limits because many of the rails were wooden with thin iron straps screwed to the rails as a running surface. The straps would often bend or break loose and pierce the bottom of rail cars impaling whoever or whatever was inside.
OCKLAWAHA
Congradualtions Ock, think that was the biggest stretch ever in this websites history to inject rail into a thread that had nothing to do with it.
The Cold War made it necessary for us to maintain a large "standing army". We expected the Russians to come pouring through the Fulda Gap through Germany and into Western Europe. The idiot "domino theory" also caused us to keep large numbers of troops in such places as South Korea and caused our intervention in Vietnam.
Since these threats are gone, the question becomes do we STILL need a large "standing" army rather than a "national defense force." Some (especially libertarians) will argue that having a large "world force projection" capable army just tempts our leaders into foreign adventures such as Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq and that all we need is a "national defense force" to protect our borders, a navy to keep free passage of the seas and our nuclear deterrent force to check any nuclear attack.
Others will argue that the "Pax Americana" that we have imposed on the world since the end of WWII has produced a more stable, prosperous world and that if we had not done it one of the bad guys would have to our detriment.
Regarding your "nuclear deterrent," you might consider the aftermath. Here's what one rather smart man said:
"I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with -- stone clubs." -
-- Albert Einstein
There was also a tv series which recently went off the air -- but it's still available on the Internet. It was called Jericho and discussed the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists in the United States. They turned out to be "home grown domestic terrorists." I really liked the show. Another related movie was Deterrence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence)_(film) and just one more is The Day After, a movie about nuclear war. Of course, you might remember On the Beach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(1959_film). I believe that these should be required viewing for all heads of state and all those who might influence "pushing the button."
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2009, 10:19:32 AM
I realize now that this is simply something which you cannot discuss, and will no longer do so with you.
As an aside out of curiosity...do you have this set phrase set up as an autotext or something?
Quote from: Clem1029 on July 20, 2009, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2009, 10:19:32 AM
I realize now that this is simply something which you cannot discuss, and will no longer do so with you.
As an aside out of curiosity...do you have this set phrase set up as an autotext or something?
Your Cut off!!!
Stephen, we can also be invaded across the Bering Strait through Alaska and down through Canada or up from South and Central America through Mexico. Yes, I'm citing another movie --- Red Dawn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn). I'll bet you're getting tired of movie citations but think about this -- A lot of research goes into such things and into the kind of books I like to read, both science fiction and others. Remember, practically everything which man has made was once science fiction. As an example, you probably knew that geosynchronous communications satellites were first conceived by Arthur C. Clarke and the orbit where these satellites are located is called the Clarke Orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit)
I think the drug lord take over of Colombia a few years back speaks volumes on a professional Army verses a Militia. Until the Republic brought in American, British and Israeli forces to train them into professionals, they could not make any progress even with military hardware. Without a ready professional force, Colombia would sink right back into the cesspool that it just climbed out of.
A lesson from the War of Yankee Aggression is valid too. Lincoln called on 75,000 volunteers to greatly enlarge the armed forces. The Confederacy likewise called for volunteers in order to create it's armys. Very few professional soldiers on either side and a death toll that still squashes any other war Americans have fought. A full 8% of all white males in the North and a huge 18% of all white males in the South were killed. Grant lost 9,000 men at Cold Harbor within 20 minutes. Why? Because nobody knew what the hell they were doing.
Another note: Within the "Army" are many Army's. There is no such thing as an Army that incorporates all soldiers at one place and time. This is why you have divisions, regiments, platoons, company's, squads, etc... Combine such and such division and you might have the 1St Army, over in another location, a totally different combination of divisions or regiments might make up the 2Nd Army, and so it goes.
OCKLAWAHA
Regarding armies -- there being a number of them. They are directed by the President through the Secretary of Defense, the various service secretaries, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the various services among others. When necessary one person may be promoted to five stars (general of the army, etc.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_star_rank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_star_rank) and there are other citations. Pershing in WWI actually had the rank of general of the armies. My point is a number of different military units representing air, ground and/or naval forces may be consolidated and their actions directed by one commander as MacArthur or Eisenhower did in World War II. For all practical purposes, MacArthur had his own air force and navy along with his army units. General Kenney commanded the aircraft and I'm not sure who the naval commander was but he (MacArthur) sometimes clashed with Admiral Nimitz on what the Navy should do.
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2009, 12:40:50 PM
Exactly Ock.. Thanks for the input.
What do you think of the old militia system?
Macbeth, I loved Red Dawn.
One of my favorite movies of the era.
It depended on the Cubans being the South American leaders.
Red Dawn was a cool movie, the idea that a professional Soviet Army would be crushed by a bunch of kids was very Afghanistan. Actually the concept for the film came out of Yamamoto's quote speaking to the Japanese leadership. "We cannot invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass..."
The Swiss system would make a great compliment to our current armed forces, however it should be exposed that their system does make for professional soldiers. The EVERY able bodied male thing goes further then just paper, they are required to attend drills, exercises, and keep their weapons at the ready. OCKLAWAHA
Good Point. I truly believe that we continue to be a free nation because of our right to bear arms and the simple fact that Admiral Yamamoto was quite correct. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass -- and, for that matter, just think what some of our archer hunters could do with those long range bows and a little ingenuity. As far as teenagers taking on an army -- In Red Dawn, they didn't take on the whole army -- they applied the same tactics as Americans have always applied against superior forces and as the Viet Cong did against us. There is no reason to suppose that, unless the opposition wanted to destroy everything -- something quite pointless, teenagers couldn't make quite an impression on an enemy force. After all, the Japanese in WWII were so afraid of the Negritos (literally little negroes or black pygmies) http://www.everyculture.com/East-Southeast-Asia/Philippine-Negritos.html (http://www.everyculture.com/East-Southeast-Asia/Philippine-Negritos.html) that they would never go into the jungles in small parties. Negritos were quite instrumental in rescuing American soldiers from the Bataan death march. They had blow guns, bows and arrows but you sure didn't want to get one mad at you. You might have a highpowered rifle, but it did little good if you couldn't even see your target -- and he could hit you from quite a distance away.
I'd like to go back to Stephen's original attempt at a discussion:
1 -- Should the standing army be disbanded?
Well -- depends on if you want another 2 million or so unemployed folks. I think a better use of the standing army would be to bring them home from abroad (including our lovely little twin jingos in Asia) and set them at infrastructure work (just like the Romans used to do). Anyone with military experience knows that the military pattern is for one guy to mow the barracks yard while 8 guys watch him (there being only one mower, natch). So let's give them some nice domestic tools and put them to work. Hell, with 2 million soldiers and less than 200 million yards in the country the military could provide free lawncare for everyone!
2 -- should the police force be disbanded -- yes, but only if laws are changed to reflect this. About 2 years ago we had a crack/meth house for a neighbor. Had this been the late 1800s, I (and other neighbors) would have kindly but forcefully suggested to the drug proprietor that he move his business elsewhere. Had he not been interested in doing so, we would have done more than suggest. However, current law prevented us from such behavior -- including even going to his porch to talk things over, as both front and back were blocked by fences and gates. Instead, we had to rely on JSO -- who was then dependent on the US Marshalls' office (because they had a "more important" warrant ) and couldn't even act when they wanted to (and had all their evidence ducks in a row). Result -- we were saddled with a crack house for about 12 months or so longer than we needed to be.
3 -- speeding laws -- speeding laws are part of the problem that kills people, along with seatbelts, etc etc -- when people expect a certain level of safety they relax their awareness accordingly.
4 -- drug laws -- look at portugal
When I visited Montana a few years ago (okay more than a decade), the speed limit sign said "whatever is wise and prudent" or something to that effect.
I was thinking, at the time, it would be wise and prudent to have a limit.
Dogwalkers analysis of the need for a standing Army during the 50's 60's 70's and early 80's is spot on. I submit that though the threat may be different the need for the armed forces is is as clear now as it was then. Daily news reports of the mayhem North Korea would do to South Korea and Japan are rampant. Like it or not most of the worlds oil passes through some of the most politically unstable areas of the world (middle east and Indonesia). China has its eyes on Taiwan and the south china seas. Pakistan and Iran are powderkegs awaiting a match.
Whether a foe wants to invade "fortress America" or not really is not the issue. The people and economies of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are very important to the economic well being of the USA. The same holds true for the worlds economies who depend on the free flow of oil from the middle east. Defending our interests overseas is just as important as defending the beaches.
Long gone are the days of "Calling up an Army". Recruits are no longer given 30 days to learn to march, given a weapon and pointed in the direction of the enemy. Training takes months and even years before soldier or sailor actually takes the field. In my case... for example... I was trained for over a year before I saw my first active duty squadron. A professional, well trained, well paid, standing Army is essential to the welfare of this country.
Remember that series, Jericho, I mentioned earlier? Orson Scott Card also wrote a very interesting novel called Empire in which the United States undergoes a second "civil war" pitting "Red" against "Blue" states rather than a war between races. Colors are taken from the presidential or other political races. I've read several comments on the Internet from a number of people who seem to think that some sort of "revolution" or "civil war" may well be just down the road. My point: invasion may not be the only thing we have to worry about. Not only that, and I'm not joking here, but there is also always the possibility that War of the Worlds or Independence Day might turn out to be real. Now that's a discussion I'd like to see. I always liked the original The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Ummm....OK. I suppose that I have gotten "belligerent" again somehow. Does that mean when you call my points "dumb" and state that I have made an "ass" out of myself that I am being belligerent? This is the point where my friends here tell me to just not respond to you because StephenDare! just likes to "stir things up". I honestly don't understand how insulting people is called "stir things up". If you disagree with my arguments, then factual replies are "what civil people" do.
Your definitions have confused several of us. For instance, "standing army":
Main Entry: standing army
Function: noun
Date: 1603
: a permanent army of paid soldiers
This is the correct definition from Websters. Also, the term "law enforcement" refers to all forms, so that when one is talking about different jurisdictions one does not have to use different terminology. See the definition:
Noun
Singular
law enforcement
Plural
uncountable
law enforcement (uncountable)
The various government agencies involved in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals.
[edit] Usage notes
The term normally excludes any private organizations such as private detectives or security guards.
[edit] See also
police
sheriff
FBI
Interpol
Scotland Yard
I will repeat the fact that the United States has maintained a standing Army since the inception of the Continental Army in 1775. The United States Army will be happy to confirm this if needed. While the size of the armed forces is a political as well as a tactical matter, I will restate my reasoning for the maintenance of a larger force now than prior to WW2 or WW1. To maintain a CREDIBLE modern fighting force, proper recruiting, education, equiping, training and exercising MUST be accomplished PRIOR to the engagement. To state it simply, you cannot train a modern artilleryman or armor commander in two, three or even 12 months. See the first Gulf War as an example of a modern fighting force used against an old style conscription army. In addition, troop and weapon movement are much faster now than in the past. The concept of blitzkreig, or "lightening war", enlightened modern warfighters that the advantage of terrain and distance was greatly reduced by the introduction of mechanized warfare. Never before had Europes powers been over run with such speed and effectivness. Only the Russians, who had time to prepare and an American benefactor of equipment stopped the well trained, professional German Army. Now, I realize that I am very limited in conversation but I hope that answers the question of why do we maintain a large Army?
As for the question of Police forces, I would again point out the fact that no other civilized city in the world does its policing with private forces. Probably the closest example are the muslim enforcement squads in parts of the middle east. There is probably a reason for this, don't you think? Now, in the United States local police take the form of municipal police departments, sheriff's offices, county police forces, city marshalls, constables, and even state police serve in this function in some places. The term "law enforcement" is widely used to refer to these forces. Ever heard the term "one riot, one ranger!"? That wasn't the militia, it was a Texas Ranger. Law enforcement has commonly handled large disputes and riots. There have been many instances where militia or what is now known as the National Guard (and even US Military) have responded to such instances, but larger cities have most ofter had the forces to deal with such incidents. Of course, in our modern society, law enforcement is much more likely to handle these incidents.
I won't scold StephenDare! as to his claims of knowledge of military history or the organization of the armed forces. His command of military affairs and most recently, his condemnation of "municipal police forces" is well known by everyone here. I would ask politely, however, that he cease with the personal attacks before he actually hurts someones feelings. :)
Oh, by the way, I am wrong quite a bit, but not as often as my wife claims, and certainly not all the time as StephenDare! claims. Almost three decades of military experience and over two decades of police experience, plus a B.S. (from a real college!). I'm pretty thick, but a few little facts seep in now and then. How about you BT?
QuoteI'm pretty thick, but a few little facts seep in now and then. How about you BT?
:D Me too... though I am at a loss as to why Stephen seems perturbed at my questions and answers. My intent was not to be confrontational but to determine the direction of Stephens queries. I have answered as completely and as truthfully as I know how. I am even willing to concede (for the purposes of discussion only) the minor and irrelevent differences between a Standing and Regular army. If the discussion is about the geo-political realities of needing a modern, well trained and paid armed forces then I am ready to go baby!! :D
Maybe it is my inferior intellect, but I don't seem to see a point in your last post. What "point" is it that you think I have lost? I didn't start the thread, but I can see "Re: Before Modern Police Forces. America in 1922." above each post. Isn't that the title of the thread? If we are limiting the conversation to that, then why did you bring up standing armies or nuclear weapons? Please enlighten the rest of us.
I am afraid that the definition of "standing army" does not correlate to what StephenDare! says it does. I would concede it too if I thought it would save us the three pages of sidestepping and fifteen letter words. :)
StephenDare!, seriously, without insults and such, can you see the arguments about the size of the military? How about the use of professional Police " or as I like to call 'em" law enforcement forces?
QuoteDogwalkers analysis of the need for a standing Army during the 50's 60's 70's and early 80's is spot on. I submit that though the threat may be different the need for the armed forces is is as clear now as it was then. Daily news reports of the mayhem North Korea would do to South Korea and Japan are rampant. Like it or not most of the worlds oil passes through some of the most politically unstable areas of the world (middle east and Indonesia). China has its eyes on Taiwan and the south china seas. Pakistan and Iran are powderkegs awaiting a match.
Whether a foe wants to invade "fortress America" or not really is not the issue. The people and economies of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are very important to the economic well being of the USA. The same holds true for the worlds economies who depend on the free flow of oil from the middle east. Defending our interests overseas is just as important as defending the beaches.
Long gone are the days of "Calling up an Army". Recruits are no longer given 30 days to learn to march, given a weapon and pointed in the direction of the enemy. Training takes months and even years before soldier or sailor actually takes the field. In my case... for example... I was trained for over a year before I saw my first active duty squadron. A professional, well trained, well paid, standing Army is essential to the welfare of this country.
Thank you BT, the best comments so far regarding the armed forces. Whether one likes it or not, the United States of America is the pivot point for world trade and security. Starting in the 1500's Europe had that role until they lost it in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Europeans, especially the British, controlled the Atlantic trading routes until WW2. During that period, any power or state who tried to interfere with that trade or attempted to become powerful enough to interfere understood that they would be challenged. Today the US is the sole superpower and for the first time in history controls both the Atlantic and Pacific trade routes. This has become even more critical as the majority of trade has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific routes with raw energy supplies being critical to the world economy.
In this view, the US military has become much more than a force waiting to react to an aggresive act by an enemy. The goal of the US forces in many instances will be to prevent the emergence of any power, preferabley without lethal force, who can threaten the flow of free world trade and/or threaten the interests of the US. A small professional army waiting at home monitoring hotspots around the world will not be able to react to situations in a timely and effective manor.
The size of the US armed forces rank 3rd in the world with our army ranking 6th and getting smaller. The world economy, the emergence of China, a recovering and growling Russia, Islamist-Jihadist threat, and the ever present possibility of the irrational actions of rogue nations, will prevent the return of a small, professional military in the foreseeable future.
QuoteThis unsubstantive argumentation is annoying and boring, and ultimately doesnt even make a point.
I could not agree more... you have yet to make a point.
QuoteIn any case, I will not debate you (as indeed it is impossible to debate a non issue about a non fact) in this manner.
Thats fine... you are certainly not required to be in it. :)
The abuse of drugs and the attempt to curb use has been a worldwide effort long before Nixon, or Reagan or Clinton or Obama...
Quotehttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
QuoteIntroduction
This session is going to be about the history of the non-medical use of drugs. Let me say that, because this is going to be a story, that I think it will interest you quite a bit. The topic is the history of the non-medical use of drugs and I think you ought to know what my credentials are for talking about this topic. As you may know, before I taught at the University of Southern California, I taught at the University of Virginia for fifteen years, from 1968 to 1981. In that time period, the very first major piece that I wrote was a piece entitled, "The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge - The Legal History of Marihuana in the United States". I wrote it with Professor Richard Bonnie, still of the faculty of the University of Virginia. It was published in the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970 and I must say that our piece was the Virginia Law Review in October of 1970. The piece was 450 pages long. It got a ton of national attention because no one had ever done the legal history of marijuana before. As a result of that, Professor Bonnie was named the Deputy Director of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and I was a consultant to that commission.
As a result of Richard's two year executive directorship of the National Commission in 1971 and 1972 he and I were given access to both the open and the closed files of what was then called the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, what had historically been called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and what today is called the Drug Enforcement Agency. Based upon our access to those files, both open and closed, we wrote a book called "The Marihuana Conviction- The Legal History of Drugs in the United States" and that book went through six printings at the University of Virginia press before being sold out primarily in sales to my friends at the FBI over the years. It is based upon that work that I bring you this story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Situation in 1900
If you are interested in the non-medical use of drugs in this country, the time to go back to is 1900, and in some ways the most important thing I am going to say to you guys I will say first. That is, that in 1900 there were far more people addicted to drugs in this country than there are today. Depending upon whose judgment, or whose assessment, you accept there were between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States addicted to drugs in 1900.
Now, there were two principal causes of this dramatic level of drug addiction at the turn of the century. The first cause was the use of morphine and its various derivatives in legitimate medical operations. You know as late as 1900, particularly in areas where medical resources were scarce it was not at all uncommon for you to say, let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine.
The use of morphine in battlefield operations during the Civil War was so extensive that, by 1880, so many Union veterans were addicted to morphine that the popular press referred to morphinism as the "soldier's disease". Now I will say, being from Virginia as I am, that the Confederate veterans didn't have any problems about being addicted to morphine because the South was too poor to have any, and therefore battlefield operations on the Confederate Army were simply done by chopping off the relevant limb while they drank a little whiskey. But the Northern troops heavily found themselves, as the result of battlefield operations and the use of morphine, addicted to morphine.
Now, the other fact that I think that is so interesting about drug addiction at the turn of the century, as opposed to today is who the addicts were, because they were the exact opposite of who you would think most likely to be an addict today. If I were to ask you in terms of statistical groups who is most likely to be involved with drugs today, you would say a young person, a male, who lives in the city and who may be a minority group member. That is the exact opposite of who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century.
In terms of statistical groups, who was most likely to be addicted to drugs at the turn of the century? A rural living, middle-aged white woman. The use of morphine in medical operations does not explain the much higher incidence of drug addiction among women. What does is the second cause of the high level of addiction at the turn of the century -- the growth and development of what we now call the "patent medicine" industry.
I think some of you, maybe from watching Westerns on TV if nothing else are aware that, again, as late as 1900, in areas, particularly rural areas where medical resources were scarce, it was typical for itinerant salesmen, not themselves doctors, to cruise around the countryside offering potions and elixirs of all sorts advertised in the most flamboyant kinds of terms. "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for What Ails You", or "Doctor Smith's Oil, Good for Man or Beast."
Well, what the purveyors of these medicines did not tell their purchasers, was that later, when these patent medicines were tested, many of them proved to be up to fifty percent morphine by volume.
Now, what that meant, as I have always thought, was the most significant thing about the high morphine content in patent medicines was it meant they tended to live up to their advertising. Because no matter what is wrong with you, or your beast, you are going to feel a whole lot better after a couple of slugs of an elixir that is fifty percent morphine. So there was this tendency to think "Wow! This stuff works." Down you could go to the general store and get more of it and it could be sold to you directly over the counter.
Now, for reasons that we weren't able to full research, but for reasons, I think, probably associated with the role of women rural societies then patent medicines were much more appealing to women than to men and account for the much higher incidence of drug addiction in 1900 among women than among men.
If you want to see a relatively current portrayal of a woman addicted to patent medicine you might think of Eugene O'Neil's play "A Long Day's Journey Into Night". The mother figure there, the one that was played by Katherine Hepburn in the movies was addicted to patent medicines.
In any event, the use of morphine in medical operations and the sale of patent medicines accounted for a dramatic level of addiction. Again, between two and five percent of the entire adult population of the United States was addicted to drugs as late as 1900.
Now if my first point is that there was a lot more addiction in 1900 than there is today and that the people who were addicted are quite a different group than the group we would be thinking of today, my next point would be that if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental.
People became involved with drugs they did not know that they were taking, that they did not know the impact of. The first point, then, is that there was more drug addiction than there is now and most of it was accidental.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pure Food and Drug Act
Then the single law which has done the most in this country to reduce the level of drug addiction is none of the criminal laws we have ever passed. The single law that reduced drug addiction the most was the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did three things:
1). It created the Food and Drug Administration in Washington that must approve all foods and drugs meant for human consumption. The very first impact of that was that the patent medicines were not approved for human consumption once they were tested.
2) The Pure Food and Drug Act said that certain drugs could only be sold on prescription.
3) The Pure Food and Drug Act, (and you know, this is still true today, go look in your medicine chest) requires that any drug that can be potentially habit-forming say so on it's label. "Warning -- May be habit forming."
The labeling requirements, the prescription requirements, and the refusal to approve the patent medicines basically put the patent medicine business out of business and reduced that dramatic source of accidental addiction. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now.
More...
Quotehttp://dpffl.org/wodhistory.htm
QuoteA History of U.S. Drug Laws
- or -
How did we get into this mess?
Part 1: 1898-1933
by Bob Ramsey
email: b.rmz@verizon.net
Introduction
In writing on such an enormous topic, it is necessary to scope the job by stating underlying assumptions very briefly: I believe it is impossible to enforce a law that attempts to control any private behavior in which a significant portion of the population chooses to participate. I don't plan to discuss the reasons why this is so, but to describe how each failed attempt to enforce Prohibition laws has led to further erosion of individual liberties. The bottom line is that, for over eighty years we have been attempting to give an ever-expanding number of police agencies enough power to do the impossible, and we have come dangerously close to destroying America in the process.
I will describe a historical thread of U.S. government attempts to improve society by controlling the inside of people's bodies. Trying (or pretending to try) to extinguish a market for certain agricultural products has created counterbalancing incentives for criminal activity in both the private sector and government. Each failure to achieve the stated goal of national purity has fueled cries for more intrusive government power. Hopefully certain facts presented here will interact with others you already know, and will inspire ideas to begin reversing some very alarming trends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where to begin?
The first federal law that regulated consumable products was the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. But really the first time Congress became involved in drug laws was after the ten-week Spanish-American War in April - July of 1898. For the first time, Congress was responsible for a colonial empire that included the Philippines. Instead of being mere servants of a self-sufficient American people, Congress suddenly became the paternal masters of millions of "ignorant savages" who were virtual wards of the state.[1]
And also for the first time, Congress was forced to deal with drug policy. The former Spanish government of the Philippines had a drug policy, and obviously the U.S. had to do either the same thing or something else. And the Spanish drug policy in the Philippines was this: the government controlled the sale of all opium, and you were only allowed to buy opium if you were Chinese. The Americans initially ignored this curious situation, but the Filipinos rebelled in February 1899, causing us to take this colonialism thing more seriously. Few Americans know that there was a 28-month Philippine war involving 50,000 U.S. troops, who killed 200,000 to 600,000 people before we convinced the Filipinos we were their best friends.[2]
The McKinley administration sent the Republican Party's rising star, Howard Taft, to the Philippines to straighten out the mess. Taft was an energetic and able administrator who established civil rule and began economic development. His experience in tackling public problems both in the Philippines and as President from 1909-13 is of special interest, since he later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1921-30, which means he served through most of Alcohol Prohibition.
One of Taft's many initiatives was to establish a commission in 1902 to study what to do about the opium policy inherited from the Spanish.[3] The commission's leader was Reverend Charles Henry Brent, who had been serving as Assistant Pastor of a small Episcopal church in Boston before volunteering to be a missionary in the new U.S. possession. Brent was soon named Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines and ministered to its newly appointed American rulers. He thus became one of the first Americans in this century to discover that government expansion creates exciting career advancement opportunities. Brent studied the situation and came up with a plan to continue the Spanish policy, except with a three year phase-out period to wean the Chinese of their habit humanely. But when Taft asked Congress to pass a law implementing this, reformers heard about it. They were outraged that the US government would promote this horrible habit in a helpless population, and insisted on immediate total opium prohibition.
In trying to stop opium imports, Brent learned that most of the opium came from Hong Kong, some 3 or 4 hundred miles away, and quickly surmised that opium traffic was international and could only be addressed internationally. So he began advocating an international conference on opium, which won acceptance largely because other nations (such as the U.S.) wanted to break British dominance of trade with China.
A small international commission met in Shanghai in 1909, attended by the countries most active in Far East trade. It settled little, but gave reformers a picture of each participant's motives. The British and Dutch were making money, the French didn't care. Indeed the British stated that opium smoking was the Chinese equivalent of drinking liquor or beer, and they had no problem with it. The Chinese wanted to show they were not to be taken lightly, and the Americans were seeking their place as an international power. A larger convention was scheduled in the Netherlands at The Hague for 1910, and was to include all the major world powers. But many nations like Italy, Turkey, Germany and Switzerland dragged their feet, and the next conference was delayed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions in the early 1900s
Before moving on to the 'teens, I'd like to give some flavor of the underlying assumptions at the time. Things have changed so much since 1900 that today it is difficult to comprehend what a free market used to be like. In those days a uniformed federal agent might bring heroin to your door that you had ordered from Sears Roebuck... along with the rest of your mail.
And the wording of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 is very telling. Its intent was to "assure the customer of the identity of the product purchased, not of its usefulness." The law literally stated "not of its usefulness." In those days Congress didn't consider its place was to judge for the American people what was useful or not. It was a major step just to try and help the people make informed decisions.
The law called a product "misbranded," "if the package fails to bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide."
It is implicit in this sentence that, back then, Congress took for granted the legality of a free market in all drugs.[4]
One point I'd like to discuss before moving on is what percent of the population uses opiates regularly. At the time the Food and Drugs Act was passed, it was estimated that 3-5 percent of the adult U.S. population used opiates regularly, mostly in patent medicines whose contents were a trade secret. When people were informed as to the contents of their favorite remedies, many people quit using them. The percent of Americans using opiates habitually fell to somewhere around one percent, virtually the same as it is today when you include users of both illegal and medically prescribed opiates. And this was in a climate where just about everybody had some kind of opium preparation in their medicine cabinet and used it at least occasionally for headaches or diarrhea... and must have known what an opium high felt like.
And I should mention cocaine. The Spanish Conquistadors found the Peruvian natives chewing coca leaves when they arrived around 1530. The Spanish encouraged the practice since it seemed to make the Indians work longer in the silver mines with less food.
Refined cocaine first became generally available in the early 1880's. At first it was greeted with great enthusiasm. Pure and cheap, it was at often given to workers in Southern cotton fields to increase productivity. A Pope and a US president endorsed coca products. The original 6 1/2 ounce bottles of Coca-Cola had about one grain of cocaine in them, which is about a sixteenth of a gram. An aspirin tablet is 5 grains.
Sigmund Freud is well known for his enthusiastic writings about the benefits of coca use[5], but within two years decided it was better left alone. By 1905 it was considered to be a social problem. The stuff seems to make people feel 'worthy.' One New York politician complained "It makes working men feel like millionaires, which they're not!" Especially alarming to Southerners was that it seemed to make a Black man feel just as good as a White man. When Southern politicians instinctively objected to federal drug legislation on State's Rights grounds, they were quickly brought around by sensational stories about cocainized Negroes raping White women.[6]
I'm not sure since you have yet to make one...
Bridge Troll -- I'm curious: Your material was interesting and informative but what are the numbers in brackets? Are they footnotes? If so, where are the references? I apologize for not understanding their purpose.
StephenDare!,
Just to be sure, you are aware that the United States has maintained a paid, full time, professional Army since the revolutionary war, right? You are aware that you brought up the military in Post #2 of this thread, right? You are aware that there is a difference between the National Guard, State Guard, Army Reserve, organized militia, and unorganized militia, right? You understand that the definition of "standing army" is a paid, professional military force, right? There WAS a demobilization after WW2, you are aware of that, right? A larger peace time military was maintained following WW2 based on the Cold War and the new preeminent stature of the United States as a world power as well as the doctrine of being able to fight on two fronts at any time. You are aware of that, right? You are aware of our treaty obligations under NATO and SEATO, right?
Can you tell me the difference between a modern Sheriff's Office or a County Police Force, and what you call a "paramilitary municipal Police force"? When you say "least informed members (who) mistake themselves as the law", who exactly are you accusing of this? When you say "licensed to murder people in uniforms", who exactly are you accusing? What murder? What "license to kill" are you referring to exactly? What, exactly, is your training and experience in law enforcement organizations?
What city, exactly, was referenced in the tome "Babbitt" that you reference? What is your basis for claiming that the militia response referenced in the book is realistic? Would you agree with the characterization of "Babbitt" as a satire and critical of American culture? If your answer is yes, how do you justify using this as a "factual" reference?
Although you seem to not want to admit it, everyone else here easily sees your motive to do away with modern Police Departments, presumably in favor of "militia". Is there a working example of this anywhere? How would you propose using militia to respond to everyday crime? When you said that "evidence doesn't support that idea (using Police vs. militia), what "evidence" exactly do you mean?
Quote from: NotNow on July 20, 2009, 10:06:35 PM
StephenDare!,
Just to be sure, you are aware that the United States has maintained a paid, full time, professional Army since the revolutionary war, right? You are aware that you brought up the military in Post #2 of this thread, right? You are aware that there is a difference between the National Guard, State Guard, Army Reserve, organized militia, and unorganized militia, right? You understand that the definition of "standing army" is a paid, professional military force, right? There WAS a demobilization after WW2, you are aware of that, right? A larger peace time military was maintained following WW2 based on the Cold War and the new preeminent stature of the United States as a world power as well as the doctrine of being able to fight on two fronts at any time. You are aware of that, right? You are aware of our treaty obligations under NATO and SEATO, right?
Can you tell me the difference between a modern Sheriff's Office or a County Police Force, and what you call a "paramilitary municipal Police force"? When you say "least informed members (who) mistake themselves as the law", who exactly are you accusing of this? When you say "licensed to murder people in uniforms", who exactly are you accusing? What murder? What "license to kill" are you referring to exactly? What, exactly, is your training and experience in law enforcement organizations?
What city, exactly, was referenced in the tome "Babbitt" that you reference? What is your basis for claiming that the militia response referenced in the book is realistic? Would you agree with the characterization of "Babbitt" as a satire and critical of American culture? If your answer is yes, how do you justify using this as a "factual" reference?
Although you seem to not want to admit it, everyone else here easily sees your motive to do away with modern Police Departments, presumably in favor of "militia". Is there a working example of this anywhere? How would you propose using militia to respond to everyday crime? When you said that "evidence doesn't support that idea (using Police vs. militia), what "evidence" exactly do you mean?
Notnow, BT give it up theres no use!
But it is funny to watch! :)
lessee -- there's a "speed limit" at the corner of 65th and Clinton of 15 mph.
but very few people drive that slowly.
according to the city, it will take a death or injury to get a speedbump installed.
now, were there no laws against such a thing, I could go to wal-mart tonight, buy some concrete & yellow paint, and have a safer curve right by my house by tomorrow.
but those speed-limit laws, they work so well.
just like restraining orders.
anyway, Portugal decriminalized all drugs seven (I believe) years ago and addiction, crime, etc are all down significantly.
"I certainly have no possible response to someone who in all likelihood has never read Babbitt, as no right thinking person could use it in the context without flesh peeling irony."
The barbarians!!!! ::)
You are an amusing person, StephenDare! Don't get your "right thinking" little head all emotional about it. Grown men are in charge of the military and police forces.
QuoteI see that there being no answer, lets continue.
So sorry that I did not answer promptly... I make it a point to try and turn off the computer early in the evening. Perhaps we can agree to discuss during normal working hours... :)
I guess this discussion revolves around what is meant by "war on drugs". If the meaning is the Nixon to modern day definition then you are correct. There was no war to the extent we now experience it. I have been attempting to show that societies and governments have known since the early 1900's and prior the deleterious effcts of narcotics on society. Attempts by governments to curb its use and misuse have ramped up ever since. 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".
Teddy Roosevelt seems to have appointed our first drug czar in 1908...
QuoteTheodore Roosevelt appointed Dr. Hamilton Wright as the first Opium Commissioner of the United States in 1908. In 1909, Wright attended the International Opium Commission in Shanghai as the American delegates. He was accompanied by Charles Henry Brent, the Episcopal Bishop. On March 12, 1911, Dr. Wright was quoted in as follows in an article in the New York Times: "Of all the nations of the world, the United States consumes most habit-forming drugs per capita. Opium, the most pernicious drug known to humanity, is surrounded, in this country, with far fewer safeguards than any other nation in Europe fences it with.
You seem to be concentrating on marijuana and you do not get any argument from me that criminalizing it's use is heavy handed at best.
Quoteyou were incorrect in the statements
Which statements?
OK... you claim "the statements" are incorrect. Are they all incorrect? two? three? I believe them to be correct. Please be so kind as to show me the error of my ways.
:D My statements are correct and yours are incorrect. Guess which ones of your are wrong... ::)
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... :)
QuoteSome good solid statute or case history
I have already done so. The word "raging" is yours not mine... I said...
QuoteThe 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".
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...
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.
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.
Stephen... please stop putting words in my mouth... I have never said...
Quotein the modern sense of that phrase
I simply used the term you and Nixon used to describe the realities if the early 1900's...
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.
QuoteIt is one of the reasons why I love this format.
This is the most telling sentence in the entire above dissertation... :D
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.
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?
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
I could not agree more macbeth!
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 Chà 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 Chà 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?
QuoteOnce 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.
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?
QuoteIm 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?
the only time I have ever called the police is to take care of matters that I am not legally able to act in -- for instance, getting rid of the crack house or intervening when two neighbors are loudly and physically fighting. were it not for laws preventing me (and our other neighbors) from doing so, we'd just take care of it ourselves. catch-22, nez paws?
Stephen, you make a good point about there being too many laws. That's another discussion, but I would guarantee that the "old", vigilante way would be much worse. I am a very good example.
Let's say you set up your rock band in the street in front of my house at three am. I go out and say, "Hey, fellows would you knock it off we are trying to sleep", but you keep blasting away. Now I have two choices. I can spray you with gasoline and light it or I can call the cops to enforce the ridiculous laws against disturbing the peace and noise at night.
Now my preference in this situation is the gasoline spray, but what's yours?
I think neighborhood watch programs are great. Nothing wrong with neighbors looking out for each other and their property.
Concerning the law enforcement discussion, we cannot delude ourselves in looking back at what some believe to be the "good ole days". Using the period mentioned, the 1920's and before, can we even compare the societal, cultural, and moral restraints that existed in those times to the present? The 35 year old loser would have had second thoughts since the family would have taken revenge, the 17 year old would have been terrified at the thought of getting pregnant in those days, animals were still considered to have been animals, there were very few cars, homeless guys weren't considered victims and either starved or were sent to work camps, library workers or citizens would have forceably thrown the bum out without worrying about impending legal action, etc., etc., etc. For civil peace and behaviour laws and rules must exist. Force or the threat of force must exist in one way or the other. Law enforcement systems have developed in response to the changes in the above mentioned restraints not on their own, sole volition.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2009, 11:26:10 AM
maybe we can argue that the civil war actually began in 1802?
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2009, 12:34:48 PM
Im not going to argue something as insane as the war beginning decades beforehand based on mounting negative public opinion, Ock.
While the hostilities were there for a while, The War had a clear beginning.
Ok back to the original subject.
Hey my zany friend, YOUR the one who suggested we argue that the war started in 1802. I was merely giving someone the ammunition to fire a few salvos, whilst I sit back with a shot of Southern Comfort and relax. Your completely ignoring the Southrons Credo: "Thou shalt never pass up an opportunity to piss off a Yankee..."OCKLAWAHADEO VINDICE Y'ALL
Quotewere it not for laws preventing me (and our other neighbors) from doing so, we'd just take care of it ourselves. catch-22, nez paws?
Why are there laws to prevent you from taking care of it yourself? There
must be a reason... what could it be?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 22, 2009, 04:58:20 PM
Why are there laws to prevent you from taking care of it yourself? There must be a reason... what could it be?
Im going to say garden gnomes are to blame :P
Yes. Because there is accountability... there is review... there is a process for making the system better by learning from mistakes. So modern policing is vastly better than vigilante justice.
With MY vigilante justice there would be a lot more shot in two months than just two people. Told you I was a good example of why "local" or "vigilante" justice would, in your opinion, be worse than our current police enforcement.
And, I don't consider running from the police with a stolen gun in your hand "hanky-panky."
QuoteAnd there is also corruption and cover your assing, and having your buddies stick up for you.
Name something that doesnt. It does not make the institution bad... it means like with anything there are bad cops. We have built a system to weed them out. It is not perfect but most folks understand that.
Running away with a gun in your hand makes you a danger to the community, legal or not. My bar for capital punishment is undoubtedly lower than yours. Take armed robbers, for instance......
Meet DOG... the bounty hunter.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:jzbciKC4h151WM:http://pvdugas.files.wordpress)
I admit I just noticed the post regarding someone running from the police while holding a weapon. You don't want to be holding a weapon or anything which looks like it might be a weapon around police and running from them is usually not the wisest of actions. If you were an officer faced by someone holding a weapon, would you wait until that person had shot you before you acted -- I doubt it.
Police are trained to respond to threats -- sometimes they respond when a threat doesn't really exist but they had no idea there was no threat until later -- after someone has been wounded or even killed.
There have been far too many times when officers have been killed on a "simple" traffic stop. This is one of the reasons video cameras are used by police. It might provide the information needed to catch a killer.
What if the person running from police with a weapon were headed towards your house -- wouldn't you want them stopped before they had a chance to hurt you or your family?
I know what my answer would be.
Regarding the concept of not shooting to kill â€" I’ve often heard that you don’t aim a weapon at anyone or anything you don’t intend to kill. I think police are trained to shoot at a central mass, rather than an arm or hand.
Some of the old gunfighters might have been able to do it but if I carried a weapon for self defense I’d want to make sure my attacker was dead â€" I wouldn’t be bothered with trying to disarm them with a shot to the hand or something. A hand is much too hard to hit.
You may have heard of Audie Murphy, not only an excellent actor, but one of the most decorated men in American military history. I have a story about him â€" which may or may not be true â€" which I will tell if anyone wants to hear it. To Hell and Back is one of the movies about him which is really worth watching.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2009, 04:28:44 PM
armed robbers didnt last long in the old days.
They were hunted for a bounty. and brought to a court of law.
Read the old wanted posters! They said wanted dead or alive. They were hunted for a bounty and brought to the undertaker slung over the back of your horse, not to a court of law unless you surrendered yourself to the sheriff.
Don't the British have or did have a system where a private citizen could bring a criminal prosecution to the courts? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. So it wouldn't be the State vs. Jones, but could be Smith vs Jones in a criminal case. Don't know if that system still exists.
In such a circumstance, if the State Attorney's office wouldn't prosecute a private citizen could. Of course the British also have a loser pays all the legal fees system too.
I would imagine that the private bounties would have been offered by the private enforcement agencies like Pinkerton's or by the shipping companies that were getting robbed like Wells Fargo.
I just can't resist the temptation because it seems so appropriate here. Imagine that you were on the boat described in this signature:
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."
How long do you think it would take before vigilante justice solved the problem? I certainly wouldn't want someone in my boat who was boring any holes in it.
Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2009, 03:25:36 PM
Vigilante Justice would be horrible dog walker. It really would. But is it any worse than two guys getting shot to death in two months because of suspicion of unknown hanky panky?
Pull your skirt down, your ignorance is showing!
Comparing early 1900s and 2009 is an academic discussion with little practical application.
Around 1900 in Florida the population was a little over half a million people. In 2008 it was 18.3 million. I suspect with the mobility and population growth many things are different now than then. One county sherrif and one deputy might have been enough in the early 1900s but that manning will not cover that population. (pop. ref, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)
Mobility of war has increased such that if there is no standing national military the war would be over before a trained force could be assembled.
Overstreet gave two very valid reasons:
1. Population growth
2. Advances in mobility & other technologies
VERY few professions operate as they did 100 years ago.
This might be an entirely different subject, but anyhoo, Exactly how corrupt are Jacksonville Police?
On another forum there was a lawyer would insist that they are highly corrupt as a whole. He always had citations and news articles to back his claims. I could never counter his assertions, as I don't have the knowledge of the inner workings of the dept.
This is by no means meant to disparage any police officer, rather an attempt to clear the air within my own head. (there is too much air in my head to begin with)
Is JSO a clean outfit?
I would be the first to agree that "mission creep" has infected modern policing. Social programs such as PAL, DARE, and much of the School Resource function would be better served in other departments. I also agree that this generation will redefine the role of "law enforcement" in our society. I do not agree that that redefinition will necessarily be for the better. As violent criminals continue to become more brash, and the spectre of crime is moved out into the suburbs, I see more of what has happened in the last ten years. People will demand more Police presence. As foreign and domestic terrorists plot and attempt attacks in our most vulnerable institutions, the public will demand action. Police will be armed to meet the threat and will continue to professionalize. I fear the familiar "progressive" call for "help" from Washington DC will completely transform policing in this country as the Federal government would do what it always does, take completely over and pay no attention to what is actually happening as the written word from faceless and irresponsible "Czars". The danger StephenDare!, is the public VOLUNTEERING away their rights and the control of Policing passing off to the State or, much worse, the Fed.
The central mission of law enforcement remains..prevent loss of life and property, apprehend suspected criminals, and assist citizens in preparing themselves and their property to resist evil doers.
What methods used by other societies would you suggest we adopt here?
The technology of monitoring, immobilizing, and controlling will not stop. The unprecedented violence of criminals today will only grow as our society becomes more coarse, and terrorist in various forms will continue to destroy our way of life and kill Americans. We can't go back in time. Today's threats must be met as precisely and as efficiently as possible with today's technology and today's weapons. I believe that this can be done while preserving liberties and personal rights that we have enjoyed in this country since it's inception. This will require innovation and experimentation. It will require embracing tech and holding an open and ardent ethics debate when we need to. The Town Marshall and Andy and Barney are not coming back. To rage against the profession without a valid definition of a problem or at least a somewhat thought out answer just wastes time and electrons.
Great post, Stephen. I agree with the sentiment that there simply has NOT been a discussion on the role of law enforcement expectations and responsibilities -- especially as law enforcement agencies across the country have essentially become paramilitary organizations. Every Mayberry between here and Maine has a SWAT team, often times being used to serve search warrants for drug possession.
I think it is important in this discussion to note the effect of the deterioration of the spirit of federalism and how it has played into the mindset of law enforcement agencies. Too many federal dollars are being awarded and withheld based on "productivity" numbers within law enforcement agencies. Add into that the boondoggle of "anti-terrorism" expenditures that are being used for nothing more than purchasing a tank for a town of 15,000 -- and we are left with what we have today.
Lastly, I think that the job requirements for law enforcement and politicians should be the same. The folks that WANT to be politicians and police officers should be the first to be turned away.
Believe me when I say that the discussion of law enforcement's expectations and responsibilities has gone on ad nauseum. It just may be happening where you haven't seen it. Law enforcement agencies have ALWAYS been paramilitary organizations. And they are Representative of the times and locations they are in. The Chicago PD of 1935 was much better armed and much more forceful than the Chicago PD of 1975. Modern law enforcement is simply reacting to the threats against them and the public they serve.
I don't believe that you nave a good picture of how federal grants are awarded to State and local law enforcement agencies They are not awarded based on "productivity", but on a large number of factors mostly relying on threat and risk. For instance, NYC has had many threats against it, and is vulnerable in many ways. Many people and important infrastructure are at risk there. Therefore, they get a large amount of federal money every year. Witchi a, KS does not. We don't need or use "tanks" in law enforcement, but we do use and need armored vehicles. It is very difficult for a town to justify such a grant request, and mostly they are in larger cities.
As for your last statement, put your money where your mouth is. PM me and I will put you in touch with a recruiter. I can't say I completely disagree with you, but someone has to step up.
Nope, I mean always. Much "policing" was done by actual military units in the past. Policing has used a rank structure since the first departments were formed. Again, if anyone wants to know what I mean here, just ask.
StephenDare! is referring to one reference in a paper from the era. I am not sure we can define the Sheriff's job at the time based on this. It would be like reading one of StephenDare!'s post 100 years from now and thinking that the opinions were representative of facts, or even the majority view from now. Law enforcement, even small towns, has a chain of command and some sort of manual of arms. While it is true that a one or two man show is hardly "paramilitary", when needed or combined in force, the military structure has always been used and therefore was a necessary part of law enforcement.
This is a subject where you and I often disagree StephenDare!. I do not wish to get into some kind of tit for tat. Your idea of "historical proof" and mine are quite different. Perhaps it would be more useful, and more productive, if we limited the debate to the "modern" era. Say, the 60's or 70's and later. Again, I would ask you to go to the Gateway substation and complete two or three ride a longs before getting too involved in such a discussion. See the experience of one man:
http://www.jacksonville.com/lifestyles/2009-09-13/story/professor_turned_police_officer_went_from_fsu_to_jacksonvilles_mean_stre
The actual experience does make a difference.
I know it is a shock, but I have been out in civilian clothes. I have gone all over Jax dressed as a (gulp) civilian. To be honest, I don't wear a uniform these days much. But Cops actually do go around as civilians, StephenDare! We go out with our spouses and our children. We go to our churches and local groceries. I'm sure I don't hang out with the same crowd you do, but I have been to your former eating establishment downtown. And of course, I always carry a gun and I encourage every citizen who feels a responsibility for their own safety and that of their family to do the same. You see, StephenDare!, in this country being armed is not limited to the Police.
Who did you ride with? I have got some questions for those guys!
I'll bet that is quite true!
"The central mission of law enforcement remains..prevent loss of life and property, apprehend suspected criminals, and assist citizens in preparing themselves and their property to resist evil doers."
Then why does it seem as if the "real" central mission is the enforcement of our insane drug laws? We hear a lot more about the Coast Guard seizing multi-tons of cocaine and the local police wiping up the blood after the dealers shoot each other than we do about rescues at sea. We even have an entire Federal law enforcement agency, the DEA, that does nothing else and every other Federal law enforcement agency spends most of its time on drug law enforcement.
At the end of Prohibition, Elliot Ness of the Untouchables was asked what he was going to do now. He replied, "I'm going to go home and have a drink."
You and I have had this discussion before. It's time to stop the madness!
DW, I am afraid that your opinion is in the minority. Most Americans approve of the banning of most recreational drugs. MJ has been essentially decriminalized ( I think we should go ahead and legalize MJ, and tax the snot out of it). Other drugs are still not acceptable to the public. I must admit that my Libertarian side agrees with you, but I have seen many, many lives lost to such drugs. And yes, before you say it, I have seen just as many lost to alcohol as well. So we have some common ground here.
Where I don't agree is that drug enforcement is "the central mission" of local Police. It may seem that way at times, but the majority investment of time and money is not on the anti-narcotic mission. The DEA and much of the Federal effort in law enforcement is not Constitutional and those agencies should be wrapped onto the FBI and/or Customs IMHO.
War on drugs = Sham
Bucket,
I think we can all agree that we want to steer our children away from the use of drugs. We can all probably agree that drug dependancy and all that goes with it is a problem for all of us.
Do you think that the complete legalization of all drugs would make our society better? What would your solution be?
Quote from: NotNow on September 20, 2009, 09:46:06 PM
Bucket,
I think we can all agree that we want to steer our children away from the use of drugs. We can all probably agree that drug dependancy and all that goes with it is a problem for all of us.
Do you think that the complete legalization of all drugs would make our society better? What would your solution be?
As a veteran of alcohol and drug abuse, I think that both will likely deccrease the quality of one's life. I am absolutly against using drugs. Alcohol and pot are the lesser evils, but as one who abused both, I abstain from all.
To legalize drugs would remove power from drug cartels, smugglers and nickle/dime dealers.
If crack was free and legal, I'd bet we would see less crackheads. You cannot legislate abstinence. You can criminalize an act, but it does not eliminate it, nor reduce it's occurence. It does fill jails, and offer more work for Police and other enforcement agencies.
We will never legalize drugs beyond MJ. Decriminalize, maybe. And "crack" will never be offered for free.
Quote from: NotNow on September 21, 2009, 12:53:28 PM
We will never legalize drugs beyond MJ. Decriminalize, maybe. And "crack" will never be offered for free.
Free was the wrong term, but if it were legal, it would be cheap.
It would also lose power.
Well, you never know. First it's free health insurance and then free cell phones...and then???? :)
This is all one of those "lesser evil" discussions. We all like to relax with a glass of good wine, but alcohol is widely abused. We decided in 1932 that the evils of Prohibition were worse than the evils of alcohol abuse. It is evident that we are well on our way to making the same decision on MJ.
Having the other drugs freely available scares the poo out of me, but our current way of handling the problem isn't working very well. Hopefully, there is a middle ground between the Libertarian (and Dawinian) ideal and what we are doing now.
Is there anyone here that wants to use drugs but cannot find any because of supply chain problems caused by law enforcement?
Luni, Sarcasm ill becomes you! LOL! I'm an old, white guy who hasn't bought anything illegal in forty years, but will bet a large amount of money that I could find and buy just about anything but heroin in about an hour or less.
Demand drives supply. And risk = reward. I am saddened that my countrymen lead the world in the consumption of this crap. I am angered that the ready supply is so readily accepted, even celebrated by those same countrymen. Our children grow up wanting to be just like us.
We also provide the criminal supply side with copious amounts of US currency. This money is used to corrupt our children and our government.
What we have done has certainly not worked. I believe in legalizing most drugs only in certain areas. I would like to see VERY harsh penalties for those that bring those substances out of those areas, and even worse for those that seek to circumvent the legal, taxed supply system. I'm OK with treatment, and a safety net for those who fall into this trap. Hell, put whorehouses next to the dope store! Maybe then what happens in Vegas will just be a blur anyway. And the rest of us that want to be good examples for our kids and live a life of reality can avoid the expense and danger of this lifestyle. Maybe less of our money will go into corrupt politicians and pornography. Maybe Jax Beach can REALLY be a destination beach for some!
Well said, NN! Most cities used to have "adult" districts, Jacksonville included. People just ignored them and kept their families away. Maybe limiting the geography is one way of containing the damages.
Are we the highest consumer of illegal drugs in the world? Per capita? If so, why? Why not one of the other rich countries? Do we just have the highest number of arrests or real usage that is ignored in other countries? What are the demographics of drug use in this country? Compared with others? Real questions, I'm not trying to be clever or sarcastic.
Quote from: Sportmotor on December 03, 2009, 03:42:10 PM
SHAMWOW!
ZORBEEZ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fGT6S1NzTc)