None more pious than the fallen, eh?
Posted on 03/28/2006 10:51:21 PM PST by goldstategop
No. It's called "civil asset forfeiture" -- "civil" meaning that no crime has been committed. The other 20% of the time, a crime has been committed. Then it's called "criminal asset forfeiture".
Got it?
But that's just property. What about people? Did you know that people are seized and thrown in jail without a trial? Without being found guilty by a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt?
Geez. Where's your outrage? Screw the property -- people actually lose their freedom and their liberty! How can this happen in America?
"-- There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. --"
- Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged
Paulsen shows his political stripe:
The government in Atlas Shrugged was basically a dictatorship. We are a self-governing nation. If our government is cracking down on criminals, it is because the majority of the people want it that way.
Indeed, the government in Atlas Shrugged was basically a dictatorship.
We are a self-governing Constitutional Republic, not a 'moral majority' dictatorship.
Our government is cracking down on manufactured 'drug war' criminals because the 'democratic moral majority' people want it that way.
They "want it that way" because they are actually power hungry communitarian socialists that could care less about honoring our Constitution.
If adult legalization of drugs would result in the doubling of teen use, would you still want drugs to be legal? Just curious.
Rehab/teachers don't need Black uniforms and Jackboots. The enforcement lobby wins on the funding front.
-- DuckFan4ever
Government exists to protect us from one another, we cannot afford the government it would take to protect us from ourselves.
-- Ronald Reagan
they also dont have a big problem with chewing gum over there either geuss why
Chewing gum
As an extension of the "no littering" mantra, the import, sale and possession of chewing gum is banned. You are also not allowed to bring in chewing gum for your own consumption. In short, no chewing gum whatsoever.
is that really the kind of fascist police state you want to emulate here?
That sounds suspiciously like "we are from the government and we are here to help you."
I'm a little unclear on "down side". What do you mean?
Are you referring to overall deaths due to alcohol? Diseases like cirrhosis? Broken marriages? Spousal abuse? Lost productivity? Drunk driving?
You're saying that these incidents occur less today than during Prohibition?
Is it useful to compare two different cultures and draw meaningful conclusions? What can we conclude when we compare saki use in Japan to saki use in the U.S.?
not necessarily. before prohibition there weren't armed street gangs running booze in speakeasys.After prohibition started they formed machine gun toting gangs to sell booze.
When prohibition ended so did the armed alcohol gangs they disappeared because everyone that wanted a beer and a shot could go to any local tavern again and get it so all the gangs financing dried up
That's the first step. Before an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the flasher guilty if it was public flashing. Though the monetary restitution would likely be small. The next step is to go to criminal court, if the victim chose to press charges which is highly likely. With the civil court finding guilty, again with an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the flasher guilty.
Offense: person ingests drugs in privacy of their own home.
Juxtaposition: Before an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the home-drug-user not guilty of harming you by his act of ingesting drugs in his home. The next step is to go to criminal court, if the victim chose to press charges which is highly unlikely. Having lost in civil court, in the odd event that you pressed charges in criminal court, with an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the home-drug-user not guilty.
People are much better judge and jury than politicians and bureaucrats. The first responsibility is always to the victim -- impartial jury in a civil court. Then to the community -- impartial jury in a criminal court.
No group/community can exist without there first being an individual. Sacrificing the individual in whole or in part always harms the group/community. The smallest minority is the lone individual. Protecting individual life and property -- protect individual rights -- protects minorities and the majority. Communitarians and collectivists disagree.
If you think you or your property have been damaged by a person's act of ingesting drugs -- perhaps while they were sitting in their home -- take them to court and try to convince an impartial jury that you were harmed and the extent of that harm so that you may gain restitution for your loss.88After seven-odd years of participating on FR WoD threads, I've yet so see a WoD-supporter answer this question . .
Nor have I. It separates the communitarians from the champions of individual rights.
It's called "civil asset forfeiture" -- "civil" meaning that no crime has been committed.
Call it what you want, just as politicians and bureaucrats do. It's still theft. And you support it. You support enlisting government agents to commit theft.
Decriminalize is something different. You mean legalize and regulate (like cigarettes and alcohol).
If drugs are legal, would you allow people to make their own -- like marijuana, methamphetamine, and crack cocaine? How will you tax that effectively -- or would you just let that go untaxed?
What's to stop the gangs from going into the export business, legally growing and manufacturing cheap drugs here in the U.S. and illegally shipping them to countries where drugs remain illegal?
Currently, government taxes on cigarettes (federal, state, county, and city) are driving that product underground. But that won't happen with drugs?
That's the whole crux of the disconnect: To support the WoD, those on the pro-WoD side have to believe that drug use associated with morally repugnant behavior is somehow more pernicious than the morally repugnant behavior itself---not unlike the logic that supports "hate crime," if you ask me.
...question can't be answered by the warriors, so like paulsen they dance around pretending that our jury system [under constitutional rule of law] cannot cope with simply regulating the public aspects of morally repugnant behaviors..
These warriors insist that 'we the people' must ignore our own constitution in order to prohibit some types of property, and some types of behavior from ~society~. -- Thereby initiating a police state.
Well said, tpaine
that wont happen because the draconian drug laws that have put in place by the war on drugs has packed the prisons so full of people that real criminals that committed real crime where there is a actual victim are getting released early or not going to prison at all and the people in prison for possession have to stay in because of the mandatory minimum sentences.So when they go to release prisoners tp free up space to put more druggies in the only ones eligible for parole are the violent people that get out a commit more violence on society.
I read some stats a number of years ago that stated the average time a man spend in prison for murder before getting paroled is 14 years the average time a man spend for possession under the mandatory minimum sentences is 19 years now we are getting story after story of child molesters that are sentenced to 60 days in jail 1 year in jail and some are sentenced to mere probation.Does that seem just a little f'ed up to you? The only way that will change is if you end the drug war so that there is prison space available to keep the violent people locked up and not arrest people that are only in possession of a plant or chemical
Let's go back to Prohibition. This was a miserable failure.
The drug war is following the same path. Lots of crime. Lots of dead folks. A few folks getting filthy rich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.