|
Post by jusprof on Dec 6, 2005 16:47:14 GMT -5
The pot smoking makes for an "improvement" thesis I find quite interesting. Probably donning my lecture hat here (not my intent, I'm just at a stage of reflection), but, as I see it, most of the academic literature, at least, going back quite a while, has been directed, or semi-directed, toward something that might be called the "liberalization" of the police personality. In the field of criminal justice, one of the common research findings is that police are mostly authoritarians and Machiavellians. They're predisposed that way from birth, it appears, with fairly hardened denial systems once they see something as black and white. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I think one of the things we're missing today is liberalization of thought, too often bypassed by the spectre of radicalization. Now, this is where the pot smoking thing is relevant. If thought is mostly chemically induced anyway, and personal pot smoking makes you "cool" (not really sure if I want to characterize the effect as this - lots of wacko things happen with any addictive substance - but pot does put someone in a "big picture" state), then it stands to reason that police-inspired insights would be all that more inspired the more pot-inspired they were. At least that's where my thinking was going, admittedly, not all that well thought out.
|
|
|
Post by jusprof on Dec 6, 2005 16:47:14 GMT -5
The pot smoking makes for an "improvement" thesis I find quite interesting. Probably donning my lecture hat here (not my intent, I'm just at a stage of reflection), but, as I see it, most of the academic literature, at least, going back quite a while, has been directed, or semi-directed, toward something that might be called the "liberalization" of the police personality. In the field of criminal justice, one of the common research findings is that police are mostly authoritarians and Machiavellians. They're predisposed that way from birth, it appears, with fairly hardened denial systems once they see something as black and white. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I think one of the things we're missing today is liberalization of thought, too often bypassed by the spectre of radicalization. Now, this is where the pot smoking thing is relevant. If thought is mostly chemically induced anyway, and personal pot smoking makes you "cool" (not really sure if I want to characterize the effect as this - lots of wacko things happen with any addictive substance - but pot does put someone in a "big picture" state), then it stands to reason that police-inspired insights would be all that more inspired the more pot-inspired they were. At least that's where my thinking was going, admittedly, not all that well thought out.
|
|
|
Post by jusprof on Dec 4, 2005 8:20:47 GMT -5
I was reading some discussion posts over at High Times magazine's site last night (don't normally peruse such liberal sites, but wanted to check out pics of stoner chicks, and ended up finding stuff on the NJ Weedman more interesting). Anyway, the posting said that the author knew dozens of cops (officers) who buy and use marijuana. I've heard this several times myself over the years and in several places, vague references to the "secret high command" or something. I wonder how prevalent it is. I know there's a group of LE against prohibition, and some famous ex-chiefs who have spoken out. I also wonder how regular drug use affects officers in their job, as I would imagine some wacko (or maybe creative is a better word) ideas get in their heads, but all one hears about are bad guys caught up in corruption and so forth. It is even hypothetically possible, I further imagine, that such pot-smoking cops might have some "big thoughts" on the role of LE today. On the other hand, it might possibly impair them. I'm not sure I want stoned LEOs in some contexts, certainly not around weapons, etc... (Don't take the brown acid Cointelpro passes out at rock concerts). jusprof faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor
|
|
|
Post by jusprof on Dec 4, 2005 8:20:47 GMT -5
I was reading some discussion posts over at High Times magazine's site last night (don't normally peruse such liberal sites, but wanted to check out pics of stoner chicks, and ended up finding stuff on the NJ Weedman more interesting). Anyway, the posting said that the author knew dozens of cops (officers) who buy and use marijuana. I've heard this several times myself over the years and in several places, vague references to the "secret high command" or something. I wonder how prevalent it is. I know there's a group of LE against prohibition, and some famous ex-chiefs who have spoken out. I also wonder how regular drug use affects officers in their job, as I would imagine some wacko (or maybe creative is a better word) ideas get in their heads, but all one hears about are bad guys caught up in corruption and so forth. It is even hypothetically possible, I further imagine, that such pot-smoking cops might have some "big thoughts" on the role of LE today. On the other hand, it might possibly impair them. I'm not sure I want stoned LEOs in some contexts, certainly not around weapons, etc... (Don't take the brown acid Cointelpro passes out at rock concerts). jusprof faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor
|
|
|
Post by jusprof on Dec 2, 2005 17:45:05 GMT -5
The role of CIFA, as I understand it, and I've worked as a consultant for them before, is to have some kind of dominion over the problem any democracy would have, and that is the problem that some 5-7% of the population would be willing to turn over vital secrets to the enemy. In other words, they are in charge of eventually improving the way security clearances are done, and theoretically, in expanding the number of people eligible for such clearances. It is natural that they would be involved in the monitoring of dissent, which is a lawful and appropriate thing to do in a democracy. However, I do not see them as having an enforcement or domestic espionage apparatus. They are primarily interested in building bridges rather than watchlisting. jusprof
|
|
|
Post by jusprof on Dec 2, 2005 17:45:05 GMT -5
The role of CIFA, as I understand it, and I've worked as a consultant for them before, is to have some kind of dominion over the problem any democracy would have, and that is the problem that some 5-7% of the population would be willing to turn over vital secrets to the enemy. In other words, they are in charge of eventually improving the way security clearances are done, and theoretically, in expanding the number of people eligible for such clearances. It is natural that they would be involved in the monitoring of dissent, which is a lawful and appropriate thing to do in a democracy. However, I do not see them as having an enforcement or domestic espionage apparatus. They are primarily interested in building bridges rather than watchlisting. jusprof
|
|