IS IT TRUE March 13, 2013

1. If you support liberty and the constitutions you will support JD for sheriff.

   • His FB says you his social media person. It also says JD will not use social media. Why will JD not personally respond to people if they have a question for him? Telling people you won’t interact with them via one of the most popluar ways of communication is not a good way to start a campaign. Jus’ saying. By the way, did you ever get that t-shirt tucker promised you? You seemed pretty upset when he dropped out without getting you the shirt he promised you.

     • I believe that all questions will go directly to JD to be answered. So the answers might not be instantaneous but at least you can be assured they are coming from candidate.

     • No I never got the t-shirt Tucker promised me. Also JD is going to start using his facebook page. We are going to work together in a way, but I think he is mostly going to start going to use it.

   • Seriously? He’s a security guard and thinks that qualifies him to run the entire sheriff’s organization! I think not…

     • Just what we need running a good law enforcement agency…a “wanta be cop!”

       • Hell thats what you have now

2. People were saying UE should go back to D2. 500 people? Pathetic.

3. Mr. Walters, I have some concerns with your platform. These are just a couple.
   Point 1: All employees of the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Department will undergo customer service training at their own expense. There is nothing worse or more apt to cause problems than a rude cop. Not on my watch.
   How much will this training cost? Who will put it on? What events do you have that justifies making them pay for this? What if a veteran deputy has never had a customer service issue? You have painted the entire department as rude with this plan that says they all need to pay for CS training. Do you know anything about the certified instructors the Sheriff has? Could they put together some community policing training that could address your concern? What other training will you force them to pay for?
   Point 4: I will instruct all officers to focus on reckless driving instead of minor traffic “violations”. Let’s face it the reason people are pulled over for going 5mph over or because their license plate light is out is because our local law enforcement is unfortunately used for revenue production instead of crime prevention. This doesn’t mean that people will be allowed to drive however they please. What it means is that if you go 5 or 10 over on the country you are okay we have bigger fish to fry. It also means that if you blow through a stop, or speed in a school zone, or swerve in and out of traffic you are putting others at risk and that we will do something about it.
   This shows that you have ZERO knowledge of what REAL police work is about. There are many minor traffic violation stops that result in arrests for more serious offense. Do you know how much money the agency who writes the ticket gets from the ticket? You should look into that before saying the stops are just being used to get money. Do you know what the most common complaint is for most agencies? Quality of life, including traffic concerns, is a big issue for a lot of people. You have never done a car stop, so I would not expect you to know any of that stuff.
   Both of these platforms show you do not know anything about the agency you want to lead, its’ employees, or the most common issues people contact law enforcement about.
   Congrats on your entry into this race, but I beleive your lack of experience and your desire to cater to one particular group will be negative issues for a lot of people.

   • I thought a couple of these points needed a bit more tweaking myself, but then I saw at the bottom of the Platform where it says it’s just a preliminary, working platform, and it was there to answer a lot of questions he had already been posed by voters.

     I tend to agree with you about the officers paying for the CS training. That could be done cheaply in a classroom setting and it would be worth doing. I think it’s a good idea to remind Deputies that they serve the public and CS skills are a good thing to have. They can defuse situations before they begin sometimes.

     • Maybe he should have got his ducks in a row before posting anything with that much detail. The other concern is him posting all of that and then Rossi posting something saying JD will not use social media. Either use it or don’t.

       • I can’t speak for Rossi, but I think he was trying to say that basically Walters doesn’t do the new media stuff like FB, so he won’t be making the updates personally. He’s still signing off on everything though.

         Wedding told me the same thing on the phone – he doesn’t update his FB either. His daughters do that for the most part for him. I don’t see that as a problem. Nothing wrong with politicians having aides.

         • You have it correct Brad. We wanted transparency in this campaign. That’s why I said that I’m running it. Mr. Wedding didn’t use transparency, by having his daughter run it and him not tell us that.

         • Allan, if you are going to brag about FB issues, it is best if the FB page is actually activated. His page is so transparent, you can’t even see it.

         • I had two people ask me yesterday how to find Mr. Walters facebook page so they could read his platform, and neither could pull it up. Somebody posted a link to it from the cco, but it was the only way to get it. Odd. Mr. Rossi any explanation?

         • I can get to it fine through FB. Just type “JD Walters” in the search and it comes right up.

         • I don’t know why you can’t find the facebook page. It’s up and running, that’s weird. If you can’t find it, send me a facebook friend request and I’ll add you. Also here is a link https://www.facebook.com/pages/JD-Walters-for-Vanderburgh-County-Sheriff/551199328244862 See if it works.

         • The link works, but you can’t find him if you enter his name in the search box. Not a FB expert, but maybe only people who have already liked the page are able to see it. You might want to do some checking. I have had several people try to find it via the search box. No luck.

     • Thanks (BLO) Brad Linzy for giving the police officers and deputies great information and ideas on how to do their jobs. Im sure that selling guitars in a music store is pretty stressful and you might need some good customer service skills yourself. Don’t forget though, you need to pay for the training yourself.

       • I feel bad that Troll Patrol is always “picking” on you. 🙂

     • Last week, you were on here complaining about politicians hedging their bets when they answer questions. Today, this guy post his platforms and ends them with dramatic phrases like”not on my watch”and “end of story”. But then at the bottom of his writings he puts a disclaimer that says this is a draft. That is the same as hedging. If you had a problem with it last week, why does this guy get a pass?
       Maybe he needs to realize that when you say “end of story”, it kind of ends the possibility to come back and change it later.
       I hope Walters runs a good campaign. However, calling out the Deputies like he did is not a good start. At least Tucker had the since to call out his opponent first. Even if it was proven to be a mistake.

       • I didn’t take him saying the platform was a work in progress to mean he would change his views on the issues presented so far, I took it to mean he might be adding more issues as they arise or elaborating on some as more questions arose.

         Elaborating on issues or presenting stances on new issues isn’t “hedging” as you suggest. But you know that. You’re being intentionally obtuse, which is your only real debate tactic.

         • Absolutely correct. The layout of my platform and the extent each issue is covered will be expanded. Beyond that everything I said is what I think and what I will do if elected Sheriff. The line at the end was meant to let people know that more was coming.

           If anyone can recall the 1992 Presidential Election an interesting thing happened. Independent candidates appeared in all four nationally televised debates. One of those men was Admiral James Stockdale (RIP), who happens to be one of America’s greatest military heroes. He ran as Ross Perot’s vp candidate and is considered to have done poorly in the debate. He often cut off his time prematurely by stating that he had nothing else to say. Had he used is time more effectively Perot my have actually manged to win a few electoral votes.

           I have time, and unlike Admiral Stockdale, I will not yield it. You will hear plenty from me in due time.

   • Let him run…wedding or whoever the republicans choose as a candidate, him running will be in their favor

4. A libertarian in the race hurts the Democrat candidate – Wedding.
   Will there be a Republican candidate step up to the podium and take on Wedding?
   Wedding is a fake tan soaking playboy … He will CRUMBLE the moment he opens his mouth in a debate. Will someone from either party please take him on to prevent him from taking office? It would be in the interest of public safety, I promise.

   • I thought most libertarians came form the republican party. Am I mistaken? I know Brad Linzy is a republican and he is one of the most vocal libertarians on here. How does that hurt a democrat?

     • that is true. In this situation JD Walters will hurt the Republican Party because JD Walters is a known Republican, has ran in numerous races as a Republican. Dave Wedding is a Democrat and I don’t think too many people will switch from him and vote for the Libertarian who will be perceived as a Republican no matter what he puts after his name.

       If a Republican runs, the Republicans will split between Walters and whoever the Republican is.

       • I believe your thinking of E Lon Walters as running multiple Republican races. Understandable where you might be getting that confused

       • I would like to state that I am not a Republican. I have never belonged to any party other than the Libertarian Party. In addition I have never run a political campaign before this.

     • It’s true… The presence of Walters in the race will hurt the Republican Party candidate most, that is unless the Republican candidate takes a few cues from the Walters platform to secure the libertarian Republicans like myself who can go either way.

       The Republican candidate would do well to follow Mr. Walters and denounce any federal attempts at DHS gun confiscations, for one. If he doesn’t do it voluntarily, I’ll be asking him about it. This will be one issue where people are justifiably concerned about their Constitutional rights and it should be incumbent upon a good Sheriff candidate to properly quell those concerns with a little more than “oh, that will never happen”.

       I think the points about federal funding and drone use by the Sheriff’s Dept. are also good jumping off points for a rational debate. This new technology along with federal funding is militarizing our local police in ways we never thought possible 10 or 20 years ago. It’s about time we had a public debate about the pros and cons of this funding and its resultant militarization. It’s time to have that debate and it’s time for the Republican Party to make a good stand from the outset along with the Libertarians.

       The absolute WORST thing a Republican candidate could do now is act like it’s business as usual and ignore all these issues entirely, or treat them as fringe concerns. I think the last few elections cycles have shown what happens when Republican candidates skirt too close to the middle/left on important issues…they lose their excitement and their base.

   • Are you one of those creeps that lurks at the tanning bed places? Is that why you continually post about Wedding’s tan? Did your girl leave you for him? Is that why you always call him a playboy?
     You are pretty obsessed with another mans tan and social status. That is kind of disturbing.

   • Wonderdog, are you high? How is anyone suppose to take you serious when all you do is bark about somebody’s skin color? That is just WEIRD!

     • I have a question.
       Is it true?
       Does a grown man cop go to a tanning bed?
       If so, yuck. Can’t get he a tan like everybody else – working outside.

       • I dont know one way or the other but really……. does it matter???? Who cares! Some people tan for skin issues, some tan before going on vacation to avoid burning, some do it for a little color. WHO CARES! Lets keep this race about experience, knowledge and what’s best for our county. If you folks are worried about tanning, we are in trouble.

         • I agree with this. I don’t think the tanning habits of a candidate is an issue. I do, however, think a candidate’s refusal to unequivocally state he wouldn’t support a DHS gun grab is a huge issue that will be harder to live down as the campaign progresses. As much as a handful of trolls want to make this appear like a fringe issue, all credible polls across the country show otherwise.

         • Geesh Linzy, really? Here we go AGAIN with your HYPOTHETICAL question. Your man TUCKER answered it the way YOU wanted so why dont you jump on this new libertarian band wagon. By the looks of it, he’s YOUR man. Him being a 26 year old private security guard and all. By looking at his Facebook page JD Walters for sheriff, he has posted his platform. I encourage all to read. That in itself should help ANY opponent’s chances.

         • The question of using drones on American citizens on American soil was a hypothetical question too, but that has dominated the last news cycle and garnered support from across the political spectrum. Don’t underestimate the power of a well worded hypothetical, or the detrimental effects to a politician when he or she refuses to answer it.

           I’ve already said I think the Walters platform as written needs polishing. I will state yet again, I am a Republican. I will reserve my endorsement and support until I’ve seen all the available candidates. I can say now that Wedding has already lost me for his refusal to answer my serious question about helping the DHS take our guns. I’m sure there are many Vandy residents who will be likewise appalled by that refusal.

           Spin it any way you like, but this is the reality your chosen candidate will face in this election.

           According to a December Gallup poll, 74% of Americans disagree with any kind of ban on handguns. http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/iv5s6jznp0yf59wxymd2ig.gif

           According to a HuffPost poll, 44% of Americans believe Obama would try to repeal the Second Amendment if he could. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsbobamagunban.pdf

           These are not fringe issues. This is a gun-loving area and you can rest assured at some point in this campaign, Mr. Wedding will have to answer for this publicly.

         • Here is what we know about the weapons question you keep talking about:
           There is a federal law that prohibits the removal of guns during a disaster. When Katrina happened, there was not a law. The feds never told anyone to take guns. The NOPD Police Chief started that when emergency workers were getting shot at while trying to rescue people. The NRA sued him and the City (not the feds or DHS) and most of the guns were returned. Your question was based on what happened in NO because you kept referring to it when people said it could not happen.
           You have said Wedding “botched the question” because he did not answer with anything definite. You say the question is about the laws and the constitution and want to know why he would not answer a question based on a made up scenario. Have you asked a question based on his record or his plans for the agency?
           Here is another situation where the constitution, laws, and hypothetical questions were asked and the responses to the people bringing them up.
           The Colorado movie shooting suspect’s lawyers try to get the laws regarding using a mental health defense declared unconstitutional because they would violate his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. They also asked a series of “what-if” questions. When Judge Sylvester ruled on the issues here is what he said:
           He refused to address the constitutionality question because “Appeals courts already have upheld the insanity law.” He is saying he is upholding current law. Wedding said he would uphold the law.
           Sylvester also said he wouldn’t address some questions raised by the defense because they are “dependent on hypothetical facts.” He is saying when dealing with the constitution, he will not answer questions that are not based on facts. Wedding would not answer questions that were not fact based either.
           If a judge refuses to be cornered by that style of questioning, I do not fell Wedding is wrong for his response.
           As for Walters and the weapons issue, he sat back and listened to what the Libertarians wanted to hear and then said it. Every other issue he talked about shows a complete lack of knowledge about law enforcement or the people he wants to be in charge of.

         • Of course there was a law before Katrina…it was called the Second Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t just disappear in a federal disaster. The truth is, the rights of gun owners were trampled during Katrina. They didn’t give a damn about the Constitution of the United States, what makes any of us think they will be any more likely to uphold a restated federal law?

         • Mr Wedding’s answer to my hypothetical question was very much like Eric Holder’s answer to Sen. Paul’s initial question about the use of drones against American citizens on American soil who were non-combatants… Eric Holder did EXACTLY the same thing Mr. Wedding did…he answered by being wishy-washy and evasive, leaving the possibility open. And in a scary bit of similarity, they BOTH stated “I don’t think that will ever happen.”

           That’s just not good enough. Sen. Paul didn’t think so when he undertook a 13-hour filibuster. The American people didn’t think that was good enough when they overwhelmingly supported his efforts to get a straight answer, and I don’t think the people of Vanderburgh County will take kindly to a candidate for Sheriff echoing the sentiments of the AG and saying “I don’t think this will happen” and passing that off as a real answer.

           Notice how the next day Eric Holder and Co. realized they were beat and eventually said “no”. This is what Mr. Wedding should do. The longer he waits, the more credibility he will give to his detractors on this issue.

         • Mr.BLO ( Brad LinZy Observer) where in your conversation with Chief Wedding did he state that he was for a gun ban or that he wanted to confiscate weapons? He didnt, therefore he is with the 74 percent against it, as you so eloquently post from the cut and pasting that you are infamous for. If i remember right Chief Wedding said he would uphold the law as sheriff. Would you prefer for him to pick and choose which laws HE wants to uphold ? Dont answer that…..I forgot you were Tuckers biggest cheerleader on the CCO. You have no problem with individuals picking and choosing which laws to uphold.

         • If he is really for upholding the Constitution, he should have no trouble answering my hypothetical question with an unequivocal “no”.

           The fact that he DID have immense trouble answering me unequivocally, and even went so far as to state he could envision a possible scenario where he “might” follow such a DHS order, tells me he doesn’t even know what the law is, let alone what he intends to enforce.

         • At this point, it seems to me Mr. Wedding has a couple options…

           A) he can answer the question I posed to him with an unequivocal “no” as Eric Holder finally had the sense to do when he realized he was beat.

           OR

           B) he can continue to skirt the issue and equivocate and pretend to be pro-gun because he hunts (not the purpose of the Second Amendment, by the way), and at some stage myself and a handful of Second Amendment advocate friends will simply repeat the question to him live at a political event, perhaps sometime when cameras are present.

           Believe me, I have a knack for getting my ugly mug on camera when I want to.

     • inquiring mind – just want to clarify your statement. Walters did not sit back and listen to what Libertarians wanted him to say on this issue. I assume you are talking about Brad Linzy’s past posts on the gun issue. Walters has never read the CCO and to my knowledge has never talked to Brad prior to Brad posting his question about the DHS on his facebook page, in which he was replying to Brads question and not the past discussions on this site. I also want to point out that people on here keep referring to Brad as a Libertarian….he is a member of the Republican Party. He does have many libertarian ideals though.

       • Mr Rossi was all up in the Tucker campaign. He is now the one putting the answers on JD’s FB page. Rossi knows exactly what transpired with Linzy when he asked the question and wrote the CCO article. Nice try though.

         • …and I’m the one always accused of being a conspiracy theorist. This response just smacks of paranoia and defensiveness. No, Mr. Walters has never spoken to or met me that I recall. He may very well have been aware of the firearms debate surrounding this race. That I don’t know. And I’m sure Bart doesn’t know either…like he said.

           He didn’t come out with his stance on that issue until I asked about it. That’s all I know. What damn difference does it make anyway? The guy had the balls to answer the question Wedding didn’t. That’s all that matters to me so far.

         • Sir, please realize that any ideas I proclaim are my own. It does me no good to cater to any one particular audience. I wish only to do the right thing as my conscience dictates and hopefully along the way I can help people and this community which has been so good to me. It might help if you actually spoke with me. My phone number is readily available.

5. FYI-For all those commenting on Dave Wedding’s tan, his heritage is Armenian. Having put that to rest, could we maybe talk about something a little more important than skin tone?

   • Exactly, best post yet

     • I think it’s pertinent.
       Fake tan = Fake person.
       FAKE being the main purpose of the question.

       • Maybe one of the Cullens should run for Sheriff. Nothing fake about a pale vampire.

       • And just FYI, according to the CCO editor last night, you can only post the same thing a half dozen times before they delete your comments. You have to be pretty close.

       • Really??????? Again with the tan. Why are you so freaked out about tanning? If he even does that? Please find something important to worry about. Please Chief Wedding, if you do tan, tell me you use goggles for eye protection. Its a serious issue. I wont be able to sleep tonight if you are breaking the tanning laws. Geesh.

         • Yes, I agree… Find something important to worry about, like the Second Amendment and this candidate’s refusal to unequivocally support it.

         • Here is another post I agree with Troll Patrol on. If you don’t like that someone tans or tans too much, that is your personal opinion, but it has nothing to do with Wedding’s race to become sheriff. It undermines the democratic process when we stop looking at the issues and start name calling and putting down people because they are on another side of the political aisle than we are. I have seen 4-5 instances where different people on this chain alone have put others down or name called. Why can’t we just have a civil discussion on the issues and otherwise be friends? I have not agreed with everything that others have said on this thread, but I don’t think anyone on here is a bad person, and wouldn’t turn down hanging out to have a drink with any of them (dr pepper since I rarely drink alcohol) 🙂 I personally think that all of my posts were at least cordial to others, and if not, I apologize, that was not my intent. As for the Wedding/Walters/any other candidate for sheriff race is concerned, I would suggest that we all try our best to talk to the candidates themselves, find out what kind of people they are and what their thoughts are regarding our county, and then make an educated decision on election day.

         • I have to state that I oppose any and all abusive comments directed towards anyone’s appearance, race, or ethnicity. Just stop it.

         • I thought you would start to live up to your name Troll Patrol and start trolling.

6. “we are also hoping for a USI vs. Kentucky Wesleyan final?”

   That can’t happen now although they are trying to put together a “Border Bowl” during the regular season.

   • Rails, I replied to you in the 3/11 IIT?

     • Your saying that my comment about this being a failure of epic proportions wouldn’t have sounded negative if I would have said “Great job everyone, just a shame it looks like a Clippers game in there” ?

       Attendance was not the reason for this week’s failure, they knew what they were going to pull in well before the tournament ever arrived here. If anything, they improved their totals from last year at Springfield. The GLVC Tournament DID NOT fail here- the city of Evansville failed. A 3-6,000 fan tournament still has its place at a neutral site/non-campus venue just not in the FC.

       It would have been one thing if it had never been brought to their attention or they were having to make do with the cards they were dealt. That is not the case here. Like I said yesterday, I went straight to the offices of both Winnecke and Warren about this long before it happened. I also talked to Mr. Scott Schoenike who said he could flip events like this and fill the Ford Center schedule up with the greatest of ease, which he has already proven time and time again. Weekend dates are as good as gold for Icemen games.

       Since June 6th of last year when Winnecke announced his plans, we still haven’t heard from him if he talked to SMG/Venuworks, what mid-sized arenas he toured elsewhere, much less did he even look into the naming rights deals like he said he would. We do however know that he went to Columbus and Louisville to research his buddies skateboard idea.

       Through that whole time Bob Warren said nothing. In fact, his only recommendation was to submit that horrendous ball fields plan back to the task force even after it failed a billion times. And then just a few weeks later we see Mike Roeder standing in front of the Parks Board talking about how great of an idea it was.

       Don’t think for a second this isn’t going to happen again. Warren & Co are already well ahead on screwing up the ball fields plan. It’s going to be just like this- Warren will build them in the boondocks, Winnecke will talk about how great of a plan it is, and then Roeder and the sports corp will try to put on some event like this to put lip stick on the pig. And then repeat cycle.

       So yea, like it or not, this was a failure of epic proportions and it is the poster child for what happens when bad government and government pride rule the day.

       • I realize it takes a lot more words to get your point across, but this post did what the ones I was talking about didn’t. My wife read me your comment from the C&P and she had no idea what you were talking about. Since I’ve been following your blog and knew, I had to explain it to her.

7. I think the city needs to do more to promote/support USI Basketball. This year’s exibition game between UE and USI was billed as the “Community Classic”, but in actuality it was treated just like any other UE home game. USI was treated no differently than any other visiting team. They should have treated UE and USI equally and the game should have been an event to promote and support both programs. Also, they should have made a big deal out of Evan Brinkmeyer being “Evansville’s own”.

   • There’s more of that West side chip on the shoulder. Playing the “we get no respect card” rarely works out. What did you want them to do? They called it the “Community Classic” according to your post. That sounds pretty unbiased to me.

     • Were you there? For the introductions, for USI it was: “ho hum, here’s some guy from some place…”. For UE it was: turn out the lights, play the into video and “LET’S HEAR IT FOR YOUR EVANSVILLE ACES!!!!” I am a USI season ticket holder, but I regularly attend UE games, root for them, and always wish them to be successful.

   • It was a UE home game. That’s why USI doesn’t play any of their games there because they are playing on another team’s court. The KWC is probably the only game that will force them to do that. Yet another reason it should have been left as a neutral arena like Intrust Bank Arena.

8. Just wanted to clarify a couple things from the post. The Libertarian Party did not announce JD as our candidate for sheriff. JD is a Libertarian and he is “seeking” the Libertarian Party nomination. The process is similar to the Repub/Dem process where any member can run, only difference is next year instead of a taxpayer primary, the local Libertarians will have a convention (no taxpayer expense) to decide who our candidate will be. Until that time JD and any other member can run to be the candidate for whatever office they wish. Second, the article states that he has published his full platform on fb. He did list out several issues in a platform style list on his fb page, but he states that he is basically answering questions that he had gotten since the time his fb page was opened, and he would be submitting a full, finished, detailed platform at a later time. This post isn’t entering any debate about his candidacy, just clarifying the story.

   • I just looked on JD Walters facebook page and read some of the responses. Are you the same person who said you agree with Mr.Walters that it is ok to do meth in their home? What about all the children affected by their parents being meth heads? Do you have any idea the affects of this drug on families? What do you suggest we do about them? I cant believe a person that is interested in being sheriff has no problem with people doing drugs. But yet his number one issue on his platform is to send all vanderburgh county deputies to a customer service training. I just have to shake my head in disbelief.

     • I have never said that I think doing meth is ok. I think Mr. Walters has about the same idea that I have about it, but that is for him to answer. I cannot speak for him. My point of view is that doing drugs is a bad thing, but I do not feel that a person taking drugs is committing a crime. It is a poor life choice. If we made poor life choices illegal then everyone would be in prison for lying, cheating on a test, etc. I have said that meth is the one drug I would make illegal and the reason for that is that the making of it is volatile and could blow up harming others….that is what should make it illegal. Not that the person is hurting their self, but that they put others at risk, whether it is family, friends, or anyone else. I think that marijuana should be legalized, however if someone commits a crime such as driving while intoxicated (under any substance), then the penalties need to be much stricter than they currently are. We should punish the people who are endangering or hurting others, not themselves.

       • exactly Obesity and smoking destroys families. I don’t see anyone offering to put cops outside of McDonalds

         • I, too, support the decriminalization and treatment of hardcore drug users like meth heads. They should not be allowed to endanger others by unsafely handling the volatile substances used in its creation, but simple possession and/or use should not carry jailtime. I would support a move toward mandatory treatment for substance abuse, but jailtime not only fails to eradicate the core problem, it further fills our jails with nonviolent offenders who need medical treatment.

           Marijuana, on the other hand, should be completely legal. I would prefer to see marijuana completely legalized and free from taxation, but would support a compromise of taxation to make it legal. This would be a win-win for everyone but those who depend on the continued drug war for their job security.

         • The fact that you compare the two, just speaks volumes for your stance. Maybe you should watch the meth town hall too on Sunday. Inquiring mind mentioned it for Mr.Walters to watch. I hope you all take the time to see what the epidemic we are facing is all about.

         • Is there an epidemic of meth use…sure. I don’t dispute that, and I don’t know any decriminalization proponent who would dispute that. But this epidemic is happening DESPITE criminal laws forbidding it’s use, which begs the question – how effective are these laws and this current policy of criminalization? I’d say ‘not very’.

           This is the classic argument proponents of criminalization make, that decriminalization is tantamount to endorsing the behavior…it’s not. It’s just realizing there is a better way to curb the behavior than making criminals of and locking up everyone who offends.

           In particular, mandatory minimum sentences are proving to be disastrous as they are filling up our prisons with non-violent “criminals” in need of medical treatment.

         • Nobody ever seems to care that some of these drug abusers have other responsibilities in life…like kids. Drug abuse should be treated as a health issue first. And we take this person who may have a drug addiction (which is a health issue) and turn him into a criminal. It is much cheaper and cost effective if we focus on trying to counsel and get them off drugs rather than incarcerating them at $50k per year.

           Meth has such a high addiction rate combined with its explosive nature makes it a unique problem that calls for unique measures. And to put meth side by side with any other street drug (like marijuana) only shows how far removed from reality a person is who compares the two.

         • Brent, I wasn’t comparing pot to meth. I hope you weren’t referring to me there… Regardless, the “crimes” in meth should be limited to the manufacture, which is a clear danger to others, and any crimes which spring from meth use, i.e. child neglect, robbery, etc.

           Mere possession of meth should not carry jailtime, BUT I would support mandatory rehab and counseling. People using meth should have a chance to turn their lives around and become somebody their kids can be proud of again, not be incarcerated with hardened criminals, ensuring they will have less of a chance to turn their life around. This idea of “lock ’em up and throw away the key”, while popular among those wanting to seek “tough on crime”, is a disaster for society, and a backward approach.

           You cannot advocate freedom and still believe that criminalizing any non-violent behavior where the only victim is oneself is acceptable. What of the meth user who doesn’t have kids to neglect? Hasn’t stolen from others to support his habit? Doesn’t manufacture the drug? If he is caught with a gram of meth, should he be sent to prison for his bad habit, ensuring he becomes the burden on society we feared he would become had we simply left him alone to his own vices?

     • Your exactly right and what happens when you lock up the meth heads, they go to jail and lose everything. The families that count on them and love them have to watch them suffer in jail instead of getting the treatment they need. What JD is stating on his platform is what a lot of Libertarians believe the decriminalization of drug users so we can get them the help they need instead of incarceration. Actually if you read the platform JD will still actively pursue meth dealers, distributors, and labs.

       • Have ANY of you EVER dealt with a meth head? I really doubt it, but if so, these drug abusers care about ONE THING, their next fix. That is all! So if you have never been in a house where a small child, probably less than ten years old, looks up at you, and says” we are hungry” Mommy hasn’t gave us any food for days” do you have anything that me and my sisters can eat?” then I don’t want to hear how they take care of their families. This is only one story. Ask any policeman or deputies, they can tell you stories that would make a grown person sick to their stomachs. So you folks that live in your nice neighborhoods that dont see the affects of these drugs….. Maybe you should make a trip to the courthouse and see how much these users care. Go on a ride along to see how much these users care.

         • You just made a great argument for why criminalization of meth is not necessary… If a parent is neglecting their children because of meth use, they are still neglecting their children, which is a clear, undisputed CRIME. Locking up an addict isn’t going to magically return them to the realm of a sane and responsible parent. Treatment won’t either, but at least with treatment there is some chance they can turn their lives around. Not so much with criminalizing them, locking them up and throwing away the key.

           I believe it is YOU who have never actually “dealt with” a junky. Locking them up doesn’t count as “dealing with” them.

         • Twisty Linzy, I dare say…. I hope you throw your complete enthusiastic support behind JD Walters. Maybe he can help you in your quest for legalizing drugs. Im sure playing the guitar while you are singing ,”Everybody lets get stoned”will be quite the display of talent. As much as I hate to leave our conversation, Mr.Linzy I Gotta go, more paint to watch dry on the walls in the other room. Have a great evening.

         • A few things and then I’ll applaud your decision to watch paint dry rather than getting your a– handed to you further in this debate…

           First, I like “Twisty Linzy”. That’s my new wrestler name. I’m having a cape embroidered as we speak.

           Second, the Bob Dylan reference for which you were so clumbsily reaching was “Everybody must get stoned”, the title to which is “Rainy Day Women #12 & 35”. An esoteric title, to be sure, but if you’re intent on entering the realm of pop culture references, do try to make them make sense.

           Third, I am still waiting for the Republican Party to put forth a candidate or two before I decide to back anyone. Unlike you and the ironically titled “Inquiring Mind” I like to weigh my options and think critically before deciding such important things.

           Lastly, my thoughts on drug laws are the result of a lot of thought and reading on the issues. They are nuanced and in stark opposition to the current approach. That does not make me a stoner. It does not make me a meth head. It does not mean I condone drug use. It means I don’t share your simplistic and discreditied view that the threat of locking people up will deter them or that the act of locking them up will cure them.

         • I hope you realize that a lot it people get to the sickining stage after years of abuse. Probably multiple trips to jail for usage where shockingly they don’t get help, just told they are criminals with a criminal background now. They get out and go right back to their lives because people like you make it immpossible for them to rehabilitate. The system is set up for them to fail over and over again and untill that changes we will not make headway into the meth problems. To answer a previous question I have seen the worse in meth abusers and I’ve seen those who arnt serious problems.

         • That was supposed to say “a lot of” my phone likes to correct perfectly fine words

       • Maybe JD should watch the Meth Town Hall this Sunday and see what meth is doing in the real world. Maybe then, he would realize that saying meth should not be illegal is not a good move when running for Sheriff in the county the leads the state of Indiana in meth labs and child referrals to CPS because of meth head parents.
         This is just another example of how unprepared he is to be in charge of any law enforcement agency. Personal beliefs do not always have a place in public safety. You have to provide safety and enforce the laws for everyone, not just the ones who agree with you.

         • See what both of you are failing to hear is he is still planning on dealing with meth. So I’m confused at why you keep suggesting he isn’t.

         • and again no one is saying that it isn’t a problem. We are just suggesting dealing with it like substance abusers instead of criminals.

         • Yes he should be involved in the town hall if he is looking to be sheriff. But, your argument that he is for meth or wanting it to be legal does not make sense to me. I just went back to his fb page again to make sure i didn’t read it wrong, but he is stating that he would enforce meth related crimes. I think you are upset with him because maybe you read his statement wrong. Please go back and check it. Meth was the one drug he was against and thought should be illegal.

         • Mr. Gadau, you said, quote” I had the same stance on meth that, JD has, and I think he is totally correct. I don’t think he has a legal issue with people using meth as long as they are not operating a vehicle or putting someone’s life in danger……
           When you said you agree with his stance, I assume you have heard him speak or you haven spoken with him about this issue.

     • Troll Patrol – I had not personally discussed this issue with Mr. Walters, you are taking a quote from fb in which someone made a note of his stance listed above. I said that I agree with his stance that meth should be illegal. I then said that I “think” because he does not state it, that he wants it to be illegal because of the harm it can do to others. This is the same thing I stated before. Meth should be illegal because of taking rights away from others, which is a core libertarian philosophy. People can basically do what they want as long as they are not harming others….and meth posses a threat to others. We are all agreeing on the same thing, that meth should be illegal.

       • Bart, I appreciate your post. I’m still confused on the statement straight from your post that says……I dont think he has a LEGAL ISSUE with the USING of meth, so on and so forth. Its been posted many times so I’m not going to type the rest out.
         Are you saying now that he thinks meth should be illegal? I would ask him this question but its been pointed out that he doesn’t read the CCO. Like I said before, from reading your post on fb I assumed you have heard him speak or know his views since you were agreeing with him. Im sorry for assuming you had.

   • Thanks for the explanation on your selection process.
     On the FB platform issue, once he says this is my platform, he will be held to what he has said. He can add anything he wants, but what he has already posted it what people will know about him. There are several things he said that show he is not ready to be in charge. The first was calling out the deputies like they don’t act professional. There are times when they may not. But to imply that the issue is so rampant that THEY ALL need to pay their own way for CS training is ridiculous.
     Glad to see he is so quick to throw them under the bus. Can’t wait until the first meet the candidate event for the Deputies. Keep us posted on how well that goes.

     • I don’t disagree with you at all that he should be held to what he has posted. He should be. Only point I made is that it was a rough draft to answer immediate questions, and not the final platform..he also stated that it is in no specific order, so just because it was listed first does not make it his top issue. I do believe that he will get many questions about deputies not acting professional, and I would like to hear that debate myself. Where I agree with you that you can’t lump everyone into one category and say they are all acting unprofessionally, and I would also like to hear his specific details of what he thinks is unprofessional, I have witnessed several instances myself where officers, both sheriff deputies and city police, were not only acting unprofessionally, but committing offenses where they would otherwise stop people for. I heard first hand this past Christmas season two different sheriffs deputies brag that they had driven that night already drunk and one admitted to drinking his 4th beer on the way to an event. I hope it is this type of situation that Mr. Walters is trying to stop.

       • So then I am sure you and JD are also aware of all of the community service groups the deputies work with when they are not at work. Coat-a-kid, 911 Gives Hope, Toy shopping with kids at Christmas, leading Scout Groups, coaching youth sports, and many other things. I am sure it was an oversight that you only listed things that were negative. After all, they all need CS training because Paul Blart says so.

         • Now you are somehow grouping JD and I together? I posted on here to clarify a couple typos in the main article. I was not endorsing JD, nor defending him, simply making clarifications. I am not speaking for JD or his campaign. You asked me about my position on meth, so I gave it to you. You made reference to his statement on the training of deputies…I did not say he was correct or incorrect, I simply stated that I have witnessed several times where officers have made bad, sometimes illegal choices while both in and out of uniform. If you read my post again, I said “I hope it is this type of situation that Mr. Walters is trying to stop.” I am not speaking for him or agreeing with him, and also stated that I would like to hear more clarification from him on the issue myself. I am aware of many of the good things that our officers do, and not bashing police or sheriff deputies. I know many more officers that do good and follow the law and are in their jobs for the right reason, than I do those who abuse it. Like I said, do not lump the two of us together. Like you, I am waiting to have the opportunity to ask him more about this issue as well as others to get more clarification on what his intentions are.

         • Are you not the same Bart Gadau that his posting on his face book page? Im confused! That’s were these posts are coming from. I think you need to re read what you posted on Mr. Walters Facebook page.

         • The CS training is to help them and to get rid of the idea that police, of any variety, are the bad guys. I would appreciate you not calling anyone names. It shows a total lack of decorum. While Paul Blart was a security officer I doubt he had a Bachelor of Arts degree and was working on a second. I also doubt he had more than 100 professional certifications from agencies such as FEMA, FDIC, and the GSA. Your career is what you make of it. I am a security officer and proud of it.

           As for Bart, he and I are friends, but he has not endorsed me. We share some similar views but not exact. Please don’t confuse my personal views with those of the Libertarian Party or any other Libertarian candidates. The LP is a big tent so neither I nor any other candidate will be favorable to 100% of the party.

     • First, I am not connected to either the EPD or VCS but I realize that they are human just like everyone else except they are rarely invited but called to a bad situation where anything could be waiting for them, a crazed person, kids abandoned or a gun pointed at them, a body on the road from a wreck, etc. When you go to work tomorrow will these things be waiting for you? And surprize, they handle these things professionally. could you ?

   • Troy Patrol – Yes, I am the same, and my statements have not differed from there and here. I copied and pasted the part of my fb page so that you can reference “Johnathan, I had the same stance on meth that JD has, and I think he is totally correct. I don’t think he has a legal issue with people using meth as long as they are not operating a vehicle or putting someone’s life in danger, the problem with meth is the making of it. The volatile substances used put others in danger because of the toxic chemicals and the ability for it to explode. I think that being more laxed on marijuana and stricter on meth will see a decrease in meth making and people will use the easier to get, safer pot.” On there and here I stated that I agree with JD’s statement above (referring to his fb statement), which is that meth should be illegal. I also said that I believe the reason that meth should be illegal is because the harm it can do to others. We continue to go back and forth as if we are arguing, but in the end, we are agreeing that meth should be illegal, which is what I have said, inquiring mind has said, and what I think you believe as well. I am not sure what the argument is??? We are all agreeing that it should be illegal.

   • Mr. Walters, I mean no disrespect but I believe Mr. Gadau would be a better fit, considering its against your faith or your promise to use social media. Just a suggestion.

9. THE NEW YORK TIMES

   March 11, 2013
   For Detroit, a Crisis of Bad Decisions and Crossed Fingers
   By MONICA DAVEY and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

   DETROIT — This city was already sinking under hundreds of millions of dollars in bills that it could not pay when a municipal auditor brought in a veteran financial consultant to dig through the books. A seasoned turnaround man and former actuary with Ford Motor Co., he was stunned by what he found: an additional $7.2 billion in retiree health costs that had never been reported, or even tallied up.

   “The city must take some drastic steps,” the consultant, John Boyle, warned the City Council in delivering his report at a public meeting in 2005. Among the options he suggested was filing for bankruptcy.

   “I thought all hell would break loose — I thought the flag would finally be raised,” Mr. Boyle recalled in an interview last week. But his warning drew little notice. “It was utterly astounding,” he said.

   The financial crisis that has made Detroit one of the largest cities ever to face mandatory state oversight was decades in the making, a trail of missteps, of trimming too little, too late, of hoping that deep-rooted structural problems would turn out to be cyclical downturns that might melt away as the economy picked up.

   Some factors were out of the city’s control. As auto industry jobs moved elsewhere over the decades, for example, Detroit lost much of its affluent tax base. Lower than expected state revenue sharing did not help, nor did corruption allegations in the administration of Kwame M. Kilpatrick, a mayor who resigned in 2008 and was convicted on Monday of racketeering and other federal charges.

   But recent findings from a state-appointed review team and interviews with past and present city officials also suggest a city that over the years was remarkably badly run.

   The state review team found in recent months that the city’s main courthouse had $280 million worth of uncollected fines and fees. No one could tell the team how many police officers were patrolling the streets, even though public safety accounted for a little more than half the budget. The city was borrowing from restricted funds and keeping unclaimed property that it was required to turn over to the state. In some city departments, records were “basically stuff written on index cards,” as one City Council member put it.

   “This was bad decisions piled on top of each other,” Gary Brown, the Detroit City Council president pro tem, said the other day. “It has all been a strategy of hope. You keep borrowing where every piece of collateral is already leveraged. You have no bonding capacity — you’re at junk status. You’re overestimating revenues and not managing the resources. Now the chickens have come home to roost.” ……..(more)

   ___

10. Dear friends, I appreciate the level of interest this story has already generated, but I wish I had been asked for comment prior to its publishing. None the less I am thankful for the City-County observer and all of you taking notice. Most of you don’t know me so that leaves many questions to be answered. All questions will be answered in time.

    First, the issue of social media. In 2009 I made an agreement with an elder in the Utah based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that many other young Mormons also agreed to stating that we would refrain from the prominent social media websites such as facebook and myspace. While I am no longer a member of that church I have stuck to my agreement. I will participate slightly with social media for campaign purposes only. By slighly I mean I will occasionally provide info and that more often a proxy, like Alan Rossi, will post. Please respect my unique religious beliefs. I understand that people need access to me so all my other contact info is provided on the facebook.

    Second, what you see on the Facebook page is a working copy of what will be a much longer document. My platform is not going to be based on mere bullet points. You, as voters, deserve well thought out answers. What you have from me right now are broad strategic points. They are not precise strategic solutions. Those are coming. I am a working man with a family to support, please be patient.

    Third and final point for now is one I would like to make about drugs. I am vehemently opposed to drug use of any kind. Despite that I understand that the world is imperfect and that utopia is not attainable. The war on drugs has bled this nation white in terms of both blood and treasure. Neither of the major parties seem inclined to do anything other than throw our borrowed dollars at the problem. As a Libertarian I am inclined to take a more pragmatic approach to the issue.

    I can not participate in any action regarding federal or state drug laws. I view those laws to be unconstitutional and anti-american. I hold those views because we are dealing with victimless actions. So I am not required to act on them personally. As sheriff I am responsible for protecting an individual from the harmful actions of others. I am not responsible for being in everyone’s homes 24 hours a day or dictating upon them the terms of my conscience. Again, I used the term victimless. Meth is not victimless. Many of the component parts are stolen which means there are victims. The fumes from it’s production are caustic which means there are victims. The substance is volatile which means there are victims.

    Staying with this theme I can envision questions about children being around drugs. If the child is being neglected or harmed then we have an issue with child abuse. I will participate in this instance, why? Because we have a victim. The drugs have nothing to do with this though, neglectful guardians do. What of a murder that occurs during a drug deal? I am only concerned that a person lies dead. The reason is not the crime, the end result is.

    So I will reiterate that I will not personally interfere with what a person consumes in victimless situations. I would also like to state that drug use is often caused by some underlying physical or emotional trauma. These people need help. I can guarantee that if I find someone using drugs, the first thing I will do is offer them a ride to treatment. As for deputies serving this county they may do as their conscience dictates so long as they follow the laws as they have been written.

    If anyone has a question or comment please feel free to call or text me at 812-204-9085 or email me at jdwalters1986@att.net

    • Thank you for your posts. It is easier to see where you stand on certain issues.

    • Jd,
      Will you let inmates use drugs in jail? The state law says they can’t. Since you seem to think drug laws are unconstitutional, does that mean your jailers will have to deal with high or intoxicated inmates all day and night? Will there be a meth or marijuana counter at the commissary? After all, smoking weed and meth are victimless crimes if you don’t hurt someone else, right?

      • I get the point he is trying to make, Government should not be so involded in personal lives,(perfect world but drugs are not a vitimless crime! Sometimes people have to make choices for other people that create a greater good for society. People will rob, steal anything to get that next high, abuse, mistreat anyone that gets in their way. Maybe JD has not seen what drug abuse(even weed) really does to people, I have, and I am pretty sure inquiring mind, and troll patrol have as well. I wish we could let people do what they want, the bottom line is they are not responsible enough.

        • Wrong. The act of ingesting drugs is not an act of aggression toward any other human being. It is a poor life choice, but inherently, it only hurts the one ingesting the substance.

          All of the ancillary concerns surrounding hard drug use such as child neglect, theft, robbery, assault, etc. are crimes anyway. They are a separate concern. Why is that so difficult to separate?

          Your comment is typical nanny state drivel. Again, most cops LOVE this type of thinking because they believe it gives them power over others…and politicians love it too for the same reason. This is the antithesis of freedom, which should rightly and always include the freedom to make bad decisions as well as good ones. Anything else is fascism in disguise. The argument of drugs being anything other than a victimless crime is null.

          If a drug user is committing another crime, arrest them for that crime, otherwise arresting them “for their own good” or because of something they “might” do is just assuring they become the criminal you feared they would be if you left them the hell alone. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is filling our prisons with drug users who need help kicking their addictions and getting their lives on track, taking up valuable real estate which should be reserved for violent offenders or criminals who have committed crimes where there is an actual victim.

          • Paints dry and look who is still on the CCO……..BLO(Brad Linzy Observer)
            How does a guitar salesman KNOW what most cops think? I looooove how you are your own best cheerleader and YOU looooove to decide yourself, that you win such debates. I think I will start telling everyone what guitar salesmen think. Nah, there is only ONE Brad Linzy, and frankly a lot of us are tired of reading your endless bantering about how the government, police officers, sheriff deputies, firemen and the three legged dog down the street is out to get us.

          • You’re right… I shouldn’t jump to conclusions why you love the Drug War so much. Why don’t you explain it in your own words?

            PS: You keep saying I’m against firemen…where did you get that idea?

          • I just figured since you’re against everything that actually contributes in this life, you would be against them too. Seems to me you were on here one day harping about something about firemen. Maybe I should take the time and look it up like inquiring mind did. By the way, the cat debate…. priceless.Nah, I’m not going to take the time to look at any previous enlightened conversations about WHATEVER tickles your fancy. I got no time for that!

          • Besides, I almost choked on my pizza when I read, quote “I shouldn’t jump to conclusions’. EXTRA, EXTRA, read all about it….BLO (Brad Linzy Observer) said he shouldn’t jump to conclusions! Hot Damn!

          • Again, when cornered you change the subject. You can’t answer my simple question: Why do you love the Drug War so much? What’s so good about it?

            Here’s what I think… I think you lack the capacity to explain yourself in a cogent manner, so you resort to sophomoric schoolyard tactics. I believe you are an intellectual dwarf, an inferior wit. You haven’t even considered this subject at all before today have you?

    • Honestly Mr. Walters, I think YOU better do most of your correspondence because frankly the posts that Mr.Rossi makes, do not make much sense.

11. JD,
    I think as the LEADER of the Sheriff’s Office, you should be able to sit down with your employees and tell them that they are expected to treat people fairly and professionally. Why should they have to pay someone else to do your job? I think the way you approached the issue will lead to your departcher as far as they are concerned. A true leader can talk the talk becasue they have walked the walk. End of Story!
    Let’s talk about your training. Do you have any training that gives you police powers? If not, where will you get that training? How much will it cost? And most importantly, WHO will pay for it?
    As for drugs. The victimization begins as soon as mom or dad ingest the drug. It is not a matter of WILL the drugged out parents abuse or neglect their kids. It is a matter of how soon and how bad. I am sad to see that you are willing to ignore the drug use until the kids are abused or living in fith before you feel it approitate for someone to help them.

    • Please excuse the spelling errors.

    • Has hell frozen over? I actually agree with inquiring mind…..

    • I couldn’t possibly disagree more with Inquiring Mind. Drug use is a personal habit. The minute this personal habit turns into an offense toward others, i.e. endangering them by cooking volatile meth, neglecting children, stealing from others to support a habit one cannot pay for, etc., THIS is the crime, not the act of taking the drug.

      A free society should not seek to be social engineers and regulate personal habits. As anti-American as it is to tell people what books they should or shouldn’t read, what size soft drinks they should or shouldn’t buy, what kinds of cars they should drive, what kind of music they should listen to…it is likewise anti-American to tell them what they should or should not put into their bodies. Any other stance on this issue is the stance of a Nazi and a control freak. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that most cops agree with this BS. Many of them get a hard-on telling others what do to and exercising power for power’s sake. Not all are this way, but many use their little badges as an excuse to strongarm others.

      If these people had their way, we’d have checkpoints at every entrance and exit to a City. They’d have the ability to search without warrants. They’d have surveillance everywhere. In short, there would be no such thing as “freedom”…only the “freedom” they allowed us to have.

      Fortunately, the mood of the country is moving MY way on this and away from the idea that a police state is preferable to Freedom.

      • Ok. You have changed my mind. I think that parents should be able to meth it up for days at a time, sleep for days at a time, ignore their kids basic needs, and tell their kids how great it is to live in country that says “your body, your choice”.
        I now think that freedom and choice do not apply to the kids. They get what they get.What do they know, right?
        I also think in a country as great as the one YOU and your kind have made for us, the parents should be allowed to use meth all they want while they are in jail for “real” crimes. After all, it is their body, right? And since WE are paying the light bill and for their food, they don’t need to make money. Just put the meth money on their books and they can hit the commisary meth vending machine. And they are no longer abusing or neglecting their kids because the kids are now being taken care of by US, the taxpayer. It is a win win. Man, the founding fathers really hit a home run when they wrote the Constitution. Too bad all these Nazi’s keep messing it up for the righteous people like you and I.
        Yep, that is what a great country is all about. If it was not for all of those fascist cops with a boner, we could all be living the American dream.

        • Everything I said flew right over your head, didn’t it?

          I agree parents should not be able to neglect a child, but what you’re missing here – DELIBERATELY to bolster your weak argument – is that a parent who is neglecting his child is already committing a crime, with or without drug use. So what’s your point? Arrest them for child neglect. Problem solved. The reason you like drugs being illegal so much is that it gives you “probable cause” to illegally search and seize their property.

          Your rant about paying their light bill is totally inapplicable here. As a libertarian, I am 100% AGAINST a welfare state, so your little attempt at saddling me with a viewpoint I do not hold and the libertarian ideology certainly doesn’t hold is feeble.

          Sure, shut their lights off. If they neglect their children, arrest their sorry a– and throw them in jail for that. If they steal to support their habit, arrest their sorry a– and throw them in jail. If they cook meth in a residential area, endangering their neighbors, arrest their sorry a– and throw them in jail.

          Why is that not enough for you to comprehend?

          • It amazes me that you think you “get everything”. You have a viewpoint on this and you think you are right and the rest of us are unable to understand your wisdom. Far from it. I am just as convinced my opinion is right as you are about yours. Does that make you dumb?
            I really don’t think you care one way or the other about most of your post. You just like the debate. Kind of like in high school debate club. They give you a topic and what side you are to be on, and away you go.
            What can we expect from someone who had a day long debate about a responsible cat ownership article on here a while back. Just in it for the on-line debate. I actually wonder how much face time you have with others. You come across as a little over bearing. I hope nobody ever makes the mistake of asking you for your advise.

          • I do not carry on lengthy debates on issues I care nothing about. I don’t recall a “cat debate”.

            Many of my viewpoints on drugs come from seeing good people who fell into them who needed help and didn’t get it because it simply wasn’t available to them, or because they had been taught that the only reason not to use drugs was because they were illegal. The education simply wasn’t there. I’ve seen the situations you refer to first hand with child neglect and self neglect in users.

            I’ve been in the homes of drug dealers and seen the dismal, hopelessness surrounding their way of life. I’ve been at parties in my youth where cocaine addicts remained in a back room shooting coke all night instead of having fun and playing music. I’ve been in places before where I was pretty much the lone voice of reason. Believe me, I know what you’re talking about when you say some drug users will steal or do anything for a fix. Hell man, some of these people are the reason I value my Second Amendment rights so highly! I know how dangerous and twisted an addict can be.

            I just don’t agree criminalization is the right approach to fixing it. I mean, come on…the numbers don’t lie. Drug use isn’t exactly on the wane even with these laws. And where drugs have been on the wane, that’s always more attributable to cultural changes and education than any change in laws.

            Decriminalizing meth or heroin wouldn’t make you or me suddenly start using them. Legalizing marijuana likewise wouldn’t make you or me start smoking it. The reason I don’t smoke weed isn’t because it’s illegal, it’s because I have a family and responsibilities and happen to hate the high, plus I know that long term use tends to make one generally lazy and unproductive.

            Contrary to what you might think of me, however much we might disagree, I didn’t get my ideas on this subject in a vacuum.

          • Brad Linzy…….Cat whisperer.
            This lady writes about cat ownership and the very first comment (and several more) is from you. It includes your standard “I don’t agree” line and then the traditional Linzy Link. Lord knows you can’t have a story about cat ownership in Evansville without hearing what the folks in Chicago have to say about it. I knew you said you read a lot, but man. To know about cat ordinances in Chicago is stellar. Even for you.

            https://city-countyobserver.com/2012/07/23/evansville-cat-owners-need-to-learn-how-to-be-cat-owners/

          • I remember that discussion now. I had a friendly chat with someone about the pros and cons of mandatory spay and neuter ordinances. Who cares?

            That has absolutely no bearing on the fact neither you nor Troll Patrol have considered the question at hand – the misguided and totally ineffectual Drug War – at any great depth. The sheer fact you seem surprised by some of the arguments put forth here is telling.

            I also find it interesting you have a problem with me linking to supporting documentation elsewhere on the web where available. That’s like saying your brain can’t handle citations in a scholarly paper, so best just leave out any references to other works.

            Look, I get that your panties are burning because I pissed in the Wheaties of your favorite shower buddy with a hypothetical question, but following my every move on this website like a Klingon isn’t hurting me. I find your actions and those of your sidekick, Troll Patrol, amusing and frankly also a little sad. My advice…turn off the laptops in your squadcars and do your jobs. There’s a non-violent pot smoker somewhere you should be taking down with excessive force.

          • Are we winning the drug war? Depends on what the expectations are. If you thnk winning means there are no drugs at all, then obviously we are not winning. If you think winning means there are less ” lazy and unproductive” (your words) dopers, and less drugged out abusive and neglectful parents, than there would be if it was a free for all, than we are winning. If the fact that prohibited activity continues is your reasoning to allow it, then I guess we should scrap a lot of laws. After all,drinking and driving is not hurting anyone….until you hit someone. Then the real crime happens. So lets start by getting rid of the drinking and driving laws. Free choice to drink. Free choice to drive. We know what it leads to, but shame on the government for meddling in your life if you have not hurt anybody…yet. If they kill someone, then lock their a** up.
            But let’s be real. This is not about drugs for you. It is about anything that involves the government telling someone what they can or can’t do. You proved that with your cat debate.

          • That’s a total mischaracterization, once again, of everything I’ve ever said about the Drug War.

            I would not under any circumstances say drunk driving is ok – except perhaps within the confines of one’s own property. Offroading by yourself while drinking on your family farm? Sure, knock yourself out. Put a child in the truck with you and that’s another story. On the public roads, you’re endangering others in the same way I’ve said cooking meth in a residential neighborhood is endangering others. Also, I didn’t advocate leaving children in the care of a meth addict… I clearly said they should be subject to mandatory treatment, not jail time.

            Libertarianism does not advocate “no laws”. It advocates equality under the law, enforcement of contract and property rights and a principle that says your liberty cannot infringe upon the liberties of someone else.

            You are partially right in your final analysis. I do have a problem with too much government and too many laws. The reason I am so skeptical of too many laws is because very much of the time they actually exacerbate the very problems they seek to eradicate because politicians didn’t account for human rational and irrational behavior in their creation, and voters become subject to hysteria and propaganda which outweighs reason and empirical data. As a first principle, I believe people should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That does not mean infringing on someone else’s rights, but it does mean the right to make poor personal decisions along the way and reap the natural consequences of those. Social engineering does not stop deviation, it usually just limits freedom of choice.

      • I would also like to congratulate you on the record number of times you have handed someone some a** on here. When it comes to a** handing out, nobody comes close to your performances. I might have to start calling Mr Whipple because when it comes to a** knowledge, you two are in a league of your own.
        I know, some say that the only person saying you win the debates is you. But hey, what do hey know. They probably had to google “Mr. Whipple ” just to see what I was talking about.
        I would like to meet you soon. Who”s parents garage is your band playing in this weekend. Maybe I can swing by.

12. Hey, where did JD Walters Facebook page disappear to? There were people wanting to view his platform.

    • https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/JD-Walters-for-Vanderburgh-County-Sheriff/551199328244862

      • Thanks

13. This is SHOCKING!!!!!! BLO actually disagreeing on an issue. Wow! Brad Linzy if you had your way we would all be living in a bunker, barefoot, singing,” Because I got high, My name is Bud, and Dont bogart the joint, surrounded by our military arms waiting for the drones to find us and take away our freedoms. You sir are paranoid!

    • I’m not paranoid. I’m just not interested in living in an Orwellian society run by fascist control freaks like you. My guess is you would have been a p—y loyalist during the Revolution. You would have been an apologist for King George, urging your fellow colonists to just shut up and take whatever the Brits wanted to dish out. Instead of standing up at Lexington and Concord to defend your natural rights, you would have called your fellow Patriots “outlaws” and fled to Canada with the rest of the p—y brigade.

      I am not ashamed to say your kind sickens me to the core. If that makes me “paranoid” in your eyes, then so be it.

      • Oh my paint is drying again.
        I must say…..Don’t post angry, pinky smiley face.
        Have a fabulous weekend.

        • Why do you continually mistake assertiveness for anger?

          I know why you do it, I just want to see if you know. Have a great weekend yourself, officer.

14. Hold it-Mr. Linzy, you WERE on here a few weeks ago saying smoking marijuana makes one eat human faces(or feces) implying you’d never smoked it-I thought that was hilarious. NOW you want to legalize drugs? “Marijuana should definitely be legalized”?

    Help me, I’m confused….

    • That comment was satire. I was making fun of people who have been propagandized into believing marijuana can cause people to go insane and eat people’s faces off. It was a joke. Sorry it went over your head.

      Furthermore, my position isn’t that we should “legalize” all drugs. I do think marijuana is relatively innocuous and should be completely legal. It certainly is less harmful than alcohol to society, and every study from driving while intoxicated studies to long term effects studies bears this out. Marijuana is a safer drug with more potential medicinal uses than almost any other we know about. I do not think it should be legal for preteens. I do not think it should be legal to drive while under the influence of it.

      Other drugs should be decriminalized, that is, there should be consequences to being found with them, but those consequences should involve medical treatment for addiction, not incarceration. Incarceration cures nothing. All it does is throws people away. Their families suffer most from this, including their children. If police and politicians are truly concerned about the kids caught up in these situation where one or more parents is a drug addict, they should be all for this approach. Truth is, they have a cognitive dissonance in this area that allows them to reap all the benefits of criminalizing drug users – they get the benefit of using suspicion of drug use as “probable cause” to search people’s persons and property, and they get to confiscate property, including money, found during this process; they also get the benefits of state and federal funds to their departments for battling this “War on Drugs”. They rely heavily on these funds. Decriminalizing drugs and taking a different approach would mean a forfeiture of all these benefits for themselves. I believe this is the real reason most police and politicians are against relaxing the War on Drugs and choosing a different approach.

      There is the added benefit that ending the drug war would have… Gang violence would be slashed to the bone. Without an illicit trade of drugs from which to stay alive, gangs and the violence that accompanies them would disappear. Those people who murder each other over turf and drug wars depend upon the illegal nature of drugs to solidify their monopolies. Ask any cop how many murders they see are over drugs or drug deals gone bad, I bet they will all admit the percentage is pretty high. If one could simply go down to the drug store and pick up a bag of pot, that market would no longer be in the hands of thugs, thus ending the gang war over that substance. They would have to move on to something else or disappear. Who knows…maybe they could become legitimate entrepreneurs and grow legal marijuana, contributing to the tax base rather than sapping from it.

Comments are closed.