And so goes the war on drugs, regardless of who gets hurt...

I do agree with your and Paul's comments regarding problems with the approach taken.

Hi Dave,

"I find it totlally incomprehensible that anyone would find such actions tolerable, much less acceptable."

I see it the same way you do, but I think it has to do with the environment people are in. If people are in a violent/racist environment where people, due to race, religion or other differences, are being treated the way these kids were treated or even worse, it is a pretty obvious perspective and not very shocking.

However, I also think that people have the capacity of thinking and making decisions and if they make the decision that this is the way we should treat people in America... what can you say? I mean, there are people who believe in equality and people who believe in segregation (not necessarily by race, but also economic/religious/cultural/educational segregation! I wonder how many would accept this kind of treatment from the Law Enforcement toward the Enron gangsters?)! And then there is the most dangerous group; the ones that pretend to be standing up for equality but would never do anything to promote it!

#If people are in a violent/racist environment where people, due to race, religion or other differences, are being treated the way these kids were treated or even worse, it is a pretty obvious perspective and not very shocking#

we're not talking "neighbourhood" here, not the "slums" not the "dregs"!!!

i suggest you have someone read the article to you... because the way you are writing, you are relating to blakes bias, NOT to the facts as they appear in the article!

There is no need fo rme to read the article again. I have SEEN the pictures.

I said, that those that Dave said could accept or tolerate these actions were in his opinion incredible people! I said NO, they are not. Some of them may live in .... I think you understood what I meant.

two things here Dave, what about the "rights" of the teachers/parents? the "right" to a 'drug-free' school?

i wager that if you or blake or charlie had kids there, and in 6 months time there WAS a drug problem....you would be at the front of the crowd screaming "why wasn't something done 6 months ago??????"

Jonah,

They didn't turn up an aspirin much less reduce the drug problem. There was no reason to treat the kids like they were criminals. They will only have greater contempt for officials now that they know how misguided, arbitrary, and incompetant they are. If these officers can't deal with 100 high school kids with less than this amount of force they are way overpaid.

Dan

[font color=red]If these officers can't deal with 100 high school kids with less than this amount of force they are way overpaid. - Dan McCullough[/font]

LOL!!! You are so damn right on it, Dan!!! LOL!

.

every single way of doing it and then I forgot to erase it. Thank for the info though Dave!

Hi, Jonah.

Apparently you've lived in a polic state so long you've adopted the "ends justify the means" principle. That is NOT the basis of American society, thank God -- though if Ashcroft and Bush have their way, it may soon be!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

`?

i would like to thank for giving that term the official SE certificate of approval

Hi, Jonah.

Unfortunately, that's an accurate term for Israel. Wheter it's justified, given the terrorist problem, is another issue. But we're far from that point, thank God -- though you'd never know it to hear our Attorney General talk.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Dave
i think we had better "agree to disagree" lest we get involved in an all out flame session....

jonah

the ones the evidence points to instead of going on suspicion and doing a blanket sweep of the school? Probably 25% of the kids in my high school were smoking pot in the early 70's and there certainly was less violence then than now. Cops weren't doing sweeps thru the schools either.

true enough James, but there was also less chance of being offered speed/crack/ecstasy etc etc....

What I object to is having a justice system that takes marginal people who aren't harming others, placing them at a greater judicial risk than is necessary, and thereby pushing them closer toward violence in order to avoid prosection, violence that otherwise might not have occurred.

?`

but the concern expressed about LSD was kids hurting themselves while hallucinating, not attacking people while on angel dust or breaking into houses to feed a crack habit.

low flying students...

)

Feel free to not answer the question. I can say that I have tried some drugs, but never LSD.

I can say that I have tried some drugs, but never crack. I can later claim it is only aspirin that I'm admitting to. You don't have to answer my implied question.

`?

Rush didn't.

I've had Demoral (in a hospital). A friend had morphine (in a hospital). All of the high with none of the guilt. Both of them are legal in those settings but illegal in other settings.

1. jonah is exercising his right not to answer and

2. you don't want to understand what I mean (I WANT to believe that you don't WANT to understand, there could be other reasons too)

I will ignore any further posts, unless the first point is to be revealed. Have a good night Keith!

And Blake! OK, I misunderstood what you meant, probably! I thought you were trying to be difficult as Blake said, some people have a tendency to do so here although it looks as if things have improved lately.

I mean ILLEGALY USED DRUGS. Sorry if I was harsh on you Keith and thanks Blake for clarifying!

.