Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KOAT Albuquerque)   Is it really necessary to bring in the SWAT team to write a ticket for a cracked windshield?   ( koat.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Taos Ski Valley, SWAT team, taxpayer dollars, windshields, APD, raid  
•       •       •

7933 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 7:00 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-19 08:10:26 PM  
Little known fact :At swearing in ceremonies for  LEOs, they burn copies of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights while giving Nazi salutes
 
gja
2014-03-19 08:11:53 PM  

fusillade762: Spare Me: Police think they are paramilitary in some kind of domestic war. Over the last couple of decades they have been trained that way. Particularly the last 5-6 years.

Read this if you want to be pissed off

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 321x500]


I find the title amusing and asinine. Any cop that thinks he or she would last 1 effing minute in the sandbox knee-deep in the shiat better just stick to patrolling brown-ish folks in the Bronx, where they have the upper hand. Smartass yahoos get sent home on a 130 with a honor detail and a sad letter to their folks.

Yeah. Militarized≠military. Don't insult those who do the real drag.
 
gja
2014-03-19 08:14:05 PM  

KidneyStone: Hobodeluxe: Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

looking for weed in rich kid's pockets.

I know a retired Park Ranger and he's one of the coolest people I know.  When he saw people smoking weed or drinking in a park he'd cough or sneeze or somehow make himself seen and give them a chance to put things away before he came over and said "Did y'all know weed and booze aren't allowed here?"  Unless, of course, they ignored his "cough" warning or were assholes to him when he went up to them.

I've accidentally pissed off a few Park Rangers in my day and found them to be very non-confrontational and forgiving as long as you apologize to them and treat them well.

Regarding saturation patrols, however. Florida's Broward County Sheriff Office can kiss my unwashed ass.  They go in an area and violate rights knowing a lot of the charges won't stick but it's a pain in the ass to deal with a BS citation and thye know it.


ecx.images-amazon.com

/i keed i keed
 
2014-03-19 08:14:24 PM  

strangeluck: Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

You think that's nutz?

Where I live, about 40 miles away from me is a huge lake which has a hydroelectric dam. It's controlled by a water "authority" as they call themselves and they have their own police force, who patrol the lake looking for evil-dooers, like people getting drunk while boating,etc.

Well, few months ago I'm out at the lake and I start hearing what I swear is fully automatic gunfire, I'm really trying to figure out what the hell is going on, cause it's not just one gun, it sounds like two-three full auto machine guns firing. So I call the Sheriff's office to report it, the dispatcher says "oh, yeah, we know about it, it's the river authority, they're testing their new machine guns, they told us they'd be doing it."


Boys and their toys.

Similar experience when visiting relatives in the Texas Hill Country in 2010. Went running and ended up near Buchanan Dam, a medium-sized object holding back a big lake. "Near" was as close as I could get, as there were chain-link fences and tubby guys in uniforms patrolling this ahem strategic objective.

Not having visited the Homeland in some years (ACHTUNG) I engaged one of these puffy whiteys in conversation. Off-limits, cannot get closer, nosiree. What the subtext was, I discerned, was that here was another superfluous citizen, probably a junior college graduate, with no real career potential whatsoever. So man oh man was he glad to hang onto this feeble watchman's job.

The point is that all of these forces are not just going to collect their paychecks and go back to sleep. Give them the armaments, instil a bit of alarm, and they're off and rolling.

What's going to be fun at some point is where one of these Security State doofuses gets trigger-happy and drills another SS operative, whom he mistakes, in his portly befuddled fashion, for a terrrst. Helps if they're replete with melanin.

The other side might just shoot back... because they can. And are authorized to, in the myriad orders and commands to defend the Homeland. Remember the Georgia National Guard bringing out the tanks after 9/11?

Franz Stigler, a Bf-109 ace, once recounted how the Gestapo had threatened his aged mother for listening to foreign broadcasts. "Do you want me to come by and strafe your headquarters?" he asked, more or less rhetorically. End of problem.

Just like they said, when all the foreign adventurism becomes too expensive or impractical, they'll bring the war home. (Yeah, I know our timing was off, but it did kind of get snowballing after Vietnam...)

Another reason to watch the fun from far offshore...
 
2014-03-19 08:14:26 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?


Plenty of grow operations on Forest Service and BLM land. Law enforcement can be dangerous there
 
2014-03-19 08:20:19 PM  
I said it before and I'll say it again...if everyone obeyed the law, the city/state would go bankrupt.  Revenue from citations should NEVER be a part of a government budget.  If that sort of revenue is required to keep a city running and gov jobs from disappearing, it can only result in corrupt behavior and massive conflict of interest.
 
2014-03-19 08:21:23 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?


There's this bear that keep stealing picnic baskets.
 
2014-03-19 08:22:44 PM  

Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...


Because somebody might go into the woods with the idea of running operations to kill fascists.  It's true too, we'll kill them in the woods as well as in the streets.  But in the woods even a Boy Scout can hide easily enough to smoke your ass
 
2014-03-19 08:24:46 PM  
That depends was the windshield combative when they tried to ticket it?
 
2014-03-19 08:25:54 PM  

anuran: Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

Plenty of grow operations on Forest Service and BLM land. Law enforcement can be dangerous there


I get that they're armed, in case they run into a couple of guys who went to water the plants and who are in no mood to chat with the forest rangers, but why do they need tactical gear?  Couldn't they just call up their DEA or State Trooper buddies, in the case they want to raid the plantation?
 
2014-03-19 08:26:05 PM  

wildcardjack: How small a town is it where four men are saturation? Although I guess four men with automatic weapons could overtake a small liberal town. Around here they'd have competition.


Only until they retargeted the ICBMs.
 
2014-03-19 08:33:58 PM  

Flab: Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

There's this bear that keep stealing picnic baskets.


Oh yeah, that's Smokey's no-good brother-in-law.
 
2014-03-19 08:34:45 PM  

Flab: anuran: Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?

Plenty of grow operations on Forest Service and BLM land. Law enforcement can be dangerous there

I get that they're armed, in case they run into a couple of guys who went to water the plants and who are in no mood to chat with the forest rangers, but why do they need tactical gear?  Couldn't they just call up their DEA or State Trooper buddies, in the case they want to raid the plantation?


And have to share credit, and confiscated funds/cars/etc. with another agency? Sir, what you are proposing is madness.
 
2014-03-19 08:35:01 PM  

The One True TheDavid: "I could not be more upset about this," said former Gov. Gary Johnson (Wikipedia link), who is also a resident of Taos. "I could not be more upset. Somebody needs to lose their job."

To quote the Wikipedia article on him: "Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party."

Sheesh.


You don't know Gray Johnson, man. He was a great, realistic governor. He ran as a republican but was not constant at all in his record. He would go with what made sense. Obviously there was no place for him in politics...
 
gja
2014-03-19 08:38:05 PM  

wm734: That depends was the windshield combative when they tried to ticket it?


Well, to be fair the cops KNEW it was on something. It had a glazed look about it.
 
2014-03-19 08:45:26 PM  

sanriosucks: The One True TheDavid: "I could not be more upset about this," said former Gov. Gary Johnson (Wikipedia link), who is also a resident of Taos. "I could not be more upset. Somebody needs to lose their job."

To quote the Wikipedia article on him: "Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party."

Sheesh.

You don't know Gray Johnson, man. He was a great, realistic governor. He ran as a republican but was not constant at all in his record. He would go with what made sense. Obviously there was no place for him in politics...


I listened to an NPR interview with him in 2011 and thought, "Damn, there is Republican I could vote for!" Of course, the establishment preferred the likes of Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Romney, etc.
 
2014-03-19 08:47:06 PM  
FTA: "This is a total waste of taxpayer dollars," said Johnson. "We're U.S. taxpayers. We own the forest service. Why are we subject to this? Why? I want to know."

Yeah, the "I pay your taxes you can't charge me" defense always goes over so well...
 
2014-03-19 08:51:49 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: Spare Me: Pointy Tail of Satan: USA? Oh well, there's your answer. I'm sure more guns can fix it. More guns fixes everything. I think I read that in a Republican memo.

Hey, if you want to be unarmed when the jack boots come rolling in, knock yourself out.

Which should be any day now, right? Seriously, how do you sleep at night with that much fear rattling around your head?


I'm not giving up my guns, Boris. Bugger off.
 
2014-03-19 08:56:09 PM  

ongbok: Wanebo: Hobodeluxe: Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.


Let's not forget that they are patrolling a parking lot here. With a SWAT van. Handing out among other things tickets for cracked windshields.

Not likely to find an illegal grow operation in the Taos Ski Hill's parking lot.

But knowing Taos, I guess that's possible..
 
2014-03-19 08:59:31 PM  
Just chiming in with the Johnson praise.  But it's such a pain to not vote straight ticket or single issue - so there ya go.
 
2014-03-19 09:09:10 PM  
OK, I enjoy a good FARK-hates-The-Man thread as much as anyone else, but I feel like everyone's lighting the torches for nothing here.

I read TFA.  Four guys from the FSO who would have been sitting around polishing their tac gear hoping for a call to come in were instead tasked to write a bunch of nuisance tickets for a day.  On the whole, I'd say this is an improvement.  Sure, I hate nuisance ticketing too.  But at least they didn't strip regular officers from patrol routes, and instead made four specialists do some actual, non-training work.

So... the Forest Service has tac gear.  *shrug*  Post-TwinTowers/Afghanistan/Iraq, tell me what law enforcement doesn't?  All that perfectly good, slushy grant money goin' 'round?  I'm not saying it's right, but this instance is no reason for the Outrage Brigade.  So... the Forest Service "saturated" an area with a whole FOUR people, and wrote a bunch of stupid tickets.  In my neighborhood, it's done every night by Parking Enforcement.  Big deal.

I'm sorry FARK, but AFAICT, a bunch of rich people-- usually aka "The Man"-- are making a big fuss because they want to get some tickets revoked.  That's all.  No story here... and sure as hell I'm not gonna feel outrage for the poor rich.
 
2014-03-19 09:13:09 PM  
brimed03 has a point - I mean just because the Taos parking lot is now Check Point Charlie - sheesh let the man do his hassle as long as it is rich people, and not real people.
 
2014-03-19 09:33:03 PM  

lar_m: brimed03 has a point - I mean just because the Taos parking lot is now Check Point Charlie - sheesh let the man do his hassle as long as it is rich people, and not real people.



Four people.  FOUR.  Walking around sticking tickets on lazy peoples' cracked windshields.

That was my point, you dumb, illiterate, ignorant, masturbating f*ck.

/They troll, I troll.
 
2014-03-19 09:34:52 PM  

brimed03: OK, I enjoy a good FARK-hates-The-Man thread as much as anyone else, but I feel like everyone's lighting the torches for nothing here.

I read TFA.  Four guys from the FSO who would have been sitting around polishing their tac gear hoping for a call to come in were instead tasked to write a bunch of nuisance tickets for a day.  On the whole, I'd say this is an improvement.  Sure, I hate nuisance ticketing too.  But at least they didn't strip regular officers from patrol routes, and instead made four specialists do some actual, non-training work.

So... the Forest Service has tac gear.  *shrug*  Post-TwinTowers/Afghanistan/Iraq, tell me what law enforcement doesn't?  All that perfectly good, slushy grant money goin' 'round?  I'm not saying it's right, but this instance is no reason for the Outrage Brigade.  So... the Forest Service "saturated" an area with a whole FOUR people, and wrote a bunch of stupid tickets.  In my neighborhood, it's done every night by Parking Enforcement.  Big deal.

I'm sorry FARK, but AFAICT, a bunch of rich people-- usually aka "The Man"-- are making a big fuss because they want to get some tickets revoked.  That's all.  No story here... and sure as hell I'm not gonna feel outrage for the poor rich.


They came for the rich ski resort folks and I said nothing, because I didn't ski at Taos...
 
2014-03-19 09:37:15 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: naughtyrev: Look, when we give police departments all this awesome looking gear, they're going to want to use it.

The Forest Service.  Not cops.  The farking Forest Service.

WTF are those guys doing with tacticool gear in the first place?


Yogi and BooBoo have been documented repeatedly buying large quantities of ammunition to facilitate their procuring of Pic-a-nic baskets...
 
2014-03-19 09:45:01 PM  

fusillade762: Spare Me: Police think they are paramilitary in some kind of domestic war. Over the last couple of decades they have been trained that way. Particularly the last 5-6 years.

Read this if you want to be pissed off

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 321x500]


F co-worker is reading that right now.  He's perpetually angry.  After reading me a passage, I understand why.
 
2014-03-19 09:45:27 PM  
Here's my thoughts on the militarization of cops (though I'd never be dumb enough to do this in real life):

4.bp.blogspot.com

Hell, Chicago's been talking forever about bringing in the National Guard, and last I heard, they're wanting to more or less make a large percentage of the cop cars there into Military Assault Vehicles. Nope, didn't read that in some right or left wing paper. Saw it on the news, with Rahm and McCarthey practically ready to jerk each other off about how happy they were about it.
 
2014-03-19 09:51:11 PM  

brimed03: lar_m: brimed03 has a point - I mean just because the Taos parking lot is now Check Point Charlie - sheesh let the man do his hassle as long as it is rich people, and not real people.


Four people.  FOUR.  Walking around sticking tickets on lazy peoples' cracked windshields.

That was my point, you dumb, illiterate, ignorant, masturbating f*ck.

/They troll, I troll.


I am not illiterate - you failed to reach me with your hyperbole.  I plead a fifth on the other counts, preferably Canadian,
 
2014-03-19 09:52:43 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: fusillade762: The act is called a Saturation Patrol, and it was performed recently at Taos Ski Valley by four National Forest Police officers and a drug-sniffing dog.

"Oh look, a brown person. Sit. Good dog."


I'm just going to ask "what is your meaning here, regarding brown persons and sniffing dogs in relation to the article"?  It's unclear.

lar_m: brimed03 has a point - I mean just because the Taos parking lot is now Check Point Charlie - sheesh let the man do his hassle as long as it is rich people, and not real people.


I've heard that some of the lift operators at Taos don't ski, so they ride ski-bikes like this, those look like fun!:
api.ning.com

Also, there were stories out of Denver a couple years ago about finding fairly large grow operations in obscure portions of National Forest (or other park) land including irrigation and security of the grow modifications.  These were right in the foothills west of Denver as I recall.
 
2014-03-19 10:35:27 PM  

ongbok: Wanebo: Hobodeluxe: Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.


Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!
 
2014-03-19 10:39:22 PM  
Blake Wheeler... Patience... Wow...  Jets win
 
2014-03-19 10:40:09 PM  
This should really encourage tourism in the area.
 
2014-03-19 10:47:03 PM  

LavenderWolf: ongbok: Wanebo: Hobodeluxe: Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!


And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.
 
2014-03-19 11:13:15 PM  

lar_m: I am not illiterate


Bullshiat, you have your Tandy computer hooked up to your Speak'n'Spell.

- you failed to reach me with your hyperbole.

No?  Maybe if I tried hyperbole and a half.

But while we're on it, maybe you should look up the definition of hyperbole.  Because what I wrote was sort of the exact opposite, in fact.  My post suggested that everyone dial back the rhetoric and exaggeration, because the subject of TFA and this thread's rants was a four-person ticketing sweep.  In a Taos ski resort.  Whoopitty-hoo.

I plead a fifth on the other counts, preferably Canadian,

Well here ya go.
 
2014-03-19 11:20:59 PM  

brimed03: lar_m: I am not illiterate

Bullshiat, you have your Tandy computer hooked up to your Speak'n'Spell.

- you failed to reach me with your hyperbole.

No?  Maybe if I tried hyperbole and a half.

....

Well here ya go.


Thanks Mac,  Did I say hyperbole, me a illiterate?  I meant hypobole.  Scotch this round, Japanese please, I really think so.
 
2014-03-19 11:32:03 PM  
Whoa - Pendleton is the topper there?  I definitely need a case of the Vapors.

www.chicagofoodies.com
 
2014-03-19 11:34:41 PM  

SpeedyBB: Boys and their toys.

Similar experience when visiting relatives in the Texas Hill Country in 2010. Went running and ended up near Buchanan Dam, a medium-sized object holding back a big lake. "Near" was as close as I could get, as there were chain-link fences and tubby guys in uniforms patrolling this ahem strategic objective.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-19 11:41:09 PM  

brimed03: this thread's rants was a four-person ticketing sweep.


I'm still a bit off put. 4 or 6 or whatever. Show up in a SWAT vehicle with a sniff puppy when there has not been a reported issue? If officers are seeing people driving dangerously (their stated excuse in TFA for the parking lot excursion) pull those assholes over (if they have the authority. If they don't they should contact an appropriate authority). What they did was ram their lordship over a parking lot that had no reported problem in it. As a positive enforcement exercise. An enforcement exercise at a point where there was no demonstrated issue and they could only make analogous ties to nebulous "Hey! We saw someone driving cray cray and they must have been those ski bums."
 
2014-03-19 11:47:59 PM  

ongbok: LavenderWolf: ongbok: Wanebo: Hobodeluxe: Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!

And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.


There is absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case.

If getting caught weren't a factor - at all - then there's no reason to do any such thing.
 
2014-03-19 11:57:44 PM  

LavenderWolf: ongbok: LavenderWolf: ongbok: Wanebo: Hobodeluxe: Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!

And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case.

If getting caught weren't a factor - at all - then there's no reason to do any such thing.


Maybe the person doesn't want to pay the fee's and taxes associated with operating a legal grow. Maybe the person doesn't have the money to buy a farm to grow on. Maybe the person is somehow barred legally from operating a legal grow. There could be many reasons, but one thing is for sure, it doesn't matter if it is legal, there is going to be a black market for it. Look at alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol is legal but you will find illegal stills with people willing to defend them tooth and nail, tobacco is legal, but there is a huge black market for cigarettes. Plus weed growing isn't the only illegal thing people go into the forest to do that they will use guns to defend.
 
2014-03-20 12:07:13 AM  

ongbok: LavenderWolf: ongbok: LavenderWolf: ongbok: Wanebo: Hobodeluxe: Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.

And I thought w had the DEA for that? Maybe they've been teaching the NFS their most effective war on drugs tactics just to bring them up/down to speed.

The DEA doesn't routinely patrol the forest as a part of their jobs, the NFS does. What do you want them to do when they are patroling and they run across an illegal grow operation operated by people with guns? Tell them that they better not shoot because they are calling the DEA.

Nothing. The only reason there are "illegal" grow operations is because it's illegal to grow a farking plant. Legalize pot -> no illegal gun-guarded grows -> Forest service can give up their militarization.

Golly, it's almost simple!

And if pot was 100% legal there would still be illegal grow operations in forest preserves with people with guns guarding them.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case.

If getting caught weren't a factor - at all - then there's no reason to do any such thing.

Maybe the person doesn't want to pay the fee's and taxes associated with operating a legal grow. Maybe the person doesn't have the money to buy a farm to grow on. Maybe the person is somehow barred legally from operating a legal grow. There could be many reasons, but one thing is for sure, it doesn't matter if it is legal, there is going to be a black market for it. Look at alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol is legal but you will find illegal stills with people willing to defend them tooth and nail, tobacco is legal, but there is a huge black market for cigarettes. Plus weed growing isn't the only illegal thing people go into the forest to do that they will use ...


hahaohwow.jpg

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Illegal production can't compete with legal production. Volume wins, every time.
 
2014-03-20 12:16:30 AM  

LavenderWolf: hahaohwow.jpg

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Illegal production can't compete with legal production. Volume wins, every time.


Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?
 
2014-03-20 12:38:02 AM  

ongbok: LavenderWolf: hahaohwow.jpg

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Illegal production can't compete with legal production. Volume wins, every time.

Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?


Legalize meth?

I am increasingly convinced that turning a medical problem - addiction - into a legal problem and a financial problem is a mistake. If someone is hooked on drugs, wouldn't it be best if they weren't forced to go to such extreme measures?

I mean, don't get me wrong. I like weed, I smoke weed, but that's it; hard drugs are serious badness. I barely ever even drink, just a couple times a year. I just don't think the solution is to make drugs illegal. We've tried that for nigh on a century and it just doesn't work, and it has disastrous consequences. Like forests with boobytrapped meth labs. Like prisons full of broken people, and an incarceration rate that should make every single American feel ashamed.
 
2014-03-20 12:46:02 AM  

LavenderWolf: ongbok: LavenderWolf: hahaohwow.jpg

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Illegal production can't compete with legal production. Volume wins, every time.

Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?

Legalize meth?

I am increasingly convinced that turning a medical problem - addiction - into a legal problem and a financial problem is a mistake. If someone is hooked on drugs, wouldn't it be best if they weren't forced to go to such extreme measures?

I mean, don't get me wrong. I like weed, I smoke weed, but that's it; hard drugs are serious badness. I barely ever even drink, just a couple times a year. I just don't think the solution is to make drugs illegal. We've tried that for nigh on a century and it just doesn't work, and it has disastrous consequences. Like forests with boobytrapped meth labs. Like prisons full of broken people, and an incarceration rate that should make every single American feel ashamed.


I'm not against legalization. Point is even if you legalize it there still will be a black market, and the people that want to produce drugs for this black market are going to need someplace to produce their product.
 
2014-03-20 12:54:53 AM  

ongbok: LavenderWolf: ongbok: LavenderWolf: hahaohwow.jpg

Yes, the plague of back-alley distilleries and home-grown tobacco leaf is apparent everywhere you go. Dafuq? Legalizing alcohol shut down the vast majority of illegal distilleries, some of which went legal.

Illegal production can't compete with legal production. Volume wins, every time.

Yep. I read somewhere that in NYC half of all cigarettes sold are black market. In Chicago they say a third of all cigarettes sold are black market. Some of those cigarettes are ones that are bought cheaply in other states and sold, some are ones stolen, some are ones made from the waste left over from legal manufacturing, and some is from off the books tobacco. And yes, they are still busting illegal stills to this day. But yeah you are right, if weed was legal there will never be a black market for it or people that for whatever reason grow illegally. People that think like you are so naive.

But lets forget about weed. Meth cookers also like to use the forest. You don't think forestry agents need to protect themselves from meth dealers?

Legalize meth?

I am increasingly convinced that turning a medical problem - addiction - into a legal problem and a financial problem is a mistake. If someone is hooked on drugs, wouldn't it be best if they weren't forced to go to such extreme measures?

I mean, don't get me wrong. I like weed, I smoke weed, but that's it; hard drugs are serious badness. I barely ever even drink, just a couple times a year. I just don't think the solution is to make drugs illegal. We've tried that for nigh on a century and it just doesn't work, and it has disastrous consequences. Like forests with boobytrapped meth labs. Like prisons full of broken people, and an incarceration rate that should make every single American feel ashamed.

I'm not against legalization. Point is even if you legalize it there still will be a black market, and the people that want to produce drugs for this black market are going to need ...


My point is that you reduce the number of such illegal labs by a great deal if somebody can buy meth at the drug store. When a product is legal, like tobacco, most of the "black market" is diverted from legal production and distribution. Same with alcohol. Nobody runs stills around here, but people do get "fell off the truck" cases of rye...

It's a less dangerous sort of black market.

If you reduce the odds of there being an illegal lab in any given forest by 90+%, is it still worth it to militarize the Forest Service ?
 
2014-03-20 01:03:51 AM  

LavenderWolf: My point is that you reduce the number of such illegal labs by a great deal if somebody can buy meth at the drug store. When a product is legal, like tobacco, most of the "black market" is diverted from legal production and distribution. Same with alcohol. Nobody runs stills around here, but people do get "fell off the truck" cases of rye...

It's a less dangerous sort of black market.

If you reduce the odds of there being an illegal lab in any given forest by 90+%, is it still worth it to militarize the Forest Service ?


And my point is that there still will be a black market and forestry agents will still run across illegal ops in the forest and still will need to defend themselves. And drugs aren't the only things they run across.
 
2014-03-20 01:21:02 AM  
Are Michelle and the girls planning another taxpayer paid vacation soon?
 
2014-03-20 02:20:13 AM  
And my point is that there still will be a black market and forestry agents will still run across illegal ops in the forest and still will need to defend themselves. And drugs aren't the only things they run across.


Which they will use to terrorize parking lots and generate ticket money.  Hence ex Gov Johnson's statement.
 
2014-03-20 02:52:27 AM  

ongbok: LavenderWolf: My point is that you reduce the number of such illegal labs by a great deal if somebody can buy meth at the drug store. When a product is legal, like tobacco, most of the "black market" is diverted from legal production and distribution. Same with alcohol. Nobody runs stills around here, but people do get "fell off the truck" cases of rye...

It's a less dangerous sort of black market.

If you reduce the odds of there being an illegal lab in any given forest by 90+%, is it still worth it to militarize the Forest Service ?

And my point is that there still will be a black market and forestry agents will still run across illegal ops in the forest and still will need to defend themselves. And drugs aren't the only things they run across.


Needing to defend themselves is fine. That doesn't mean having a SWAT team is appropriate. If there's a paramilitary group out there that warrants that kind of reaction, I'm totally cool with the forestry service calling in for backup from a department that does needa SWAT team.

You seem to think the choice is full on militarization or walking around with white flags.
 
2014-03-20 08:11:10 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Wanebo: Benevolent Misanthrope: The Forest Service. Not cops. The farking Forest Service.

The NFS has quite the large Enforcement Division in the last 10 years. Not quite sure why they need that, but it's there...

because weed growers use national parks to grow in. and occasionally have guns and stuff.


Looks a bit cold for weed growing.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report