Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Some states had their own taxpayer funded, state sponsored religion (Congregationalism) up until the early 1800's.
"Could an individual (state) legislate to ban a free press?"
Yes. And they did up until the 1925 Gitlow v. New York case, when the court said, "For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press -- which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress -- are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."
"What are the other five?"
California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and New Jersey.
No.
Alcohol is quite different from other drugs.
There are many people, like myself, whose alcohol consumption consists of having a beer or a glass of wine as a tasty food that completes a good meal.
There is a wide base of the population, probably upwards of 90% of the people who use alcohol, who use it as a food and not as a way of getting high.
A minority abuses it, not the majority.
With crack or crank, roughly 100% use it solely to get whacked out of their minds.
And roughly 100% of people who use these drugs are addicted to them.
Banning alcohol would be as silly as banning paint or gasoline.
Substances that exist solely to be abused should be banned. Others should merely be regulated, as alcohol is.
Those who would trade liberty for safety will get neither.
With crack, you take a hit, it wears off rather quickly and you need another hit.
Of course ... and this would need to be factored in to any sensible price comparison, after which one reaches the conclusion that alcohol (the legal drug) provides the cheaper sustained high.
My point: If George Soros gets his candidate (John Kerry) elected as President of the United States eight years of Bill & Hillary Clinton was nothing but a cakewalk.
With all respect to your grandmother, her personality certainly changed. It's hard to be fun loving and caring about others when it takes all your energy to draw breath. I'm sure it didn't make her antisocial.
The other family had a situation where a mother was dragged naked by her hair from a shower into the street in broad daylight by a drug-crazed son who was angry with her for not giving him money for drugs..
How many years in prison did he serve for this attack?
He was a son who had gone from being a somewhat irresponsible but affectionate kid, to a man who beat and stole from his parents,
No one I know has ever made the case on this site that use of these drugs makes someone a better person. Liberals blame objects and substances. They avoid making individuals responsible for their actions.
stole from his parents' neighbors,
How many years did he spend in jail for that?
who repeatedly needed to be bailed out of jail for his violent behavior
Repeatedly? I guess we need a better justice system. How many years did he spend in jail for that?
while coked up and who died at the age of thirty leaving behind a young son and a family which had been physically, financially and emotionally drained, battered and humiliated.
Bad guy, he should have never been free to do these things. If he had been locked up for his violent crimes when he should have been, none of that could have happened.
You should change your focus to fixing the laws and punishments we have instead of blaming substances.
Drugs are illegal for more than their propensity for addictiveness. Refresh yourself with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
(cc: wideawake)
I'm not sure the former can work; but I agree that the latter would be a great improvement over the status quo. Which substances do you think fall into the latter category? I'd say marijuana (far and away the most popular illegal drug) for sure.
"Those who would trade liberty for safety will get neither."
Explain to me how dealing drugs is a liberty for Americans. Drugs are illegal, selling them is illegal. If they chose to break the law, they take the risk of being caught and punished.
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"
What, you want to ban the drug alcohol?
Still not able to refute it? Come back when you can.
Straw man. I happen to think that our decisions re alcohol have been pretty reasonable, but my basic point is that alcohol is a drug, and the same criteria proposed for other drugs must therefore be applied to it as well.
Drugs are illegal for more than their propensity for addictiveness.
wideawake raised the subject; I replied. Got a problem with that?
Article I, Section 8, Commerce Clause, and Article I, Section 8, Necessary and Proper Clause.
Still not able to refute it?
As I've previously explained to you, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Sad to see you weaseling out of your burden.
Go back to bed. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Of course I do, and so do intelligent readers of good will.
TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS
I think any thread about a topless DA deserves pictures.
Pretty inconvenient for warriors. I can see why you want to dismiss it.
Refresh yourself with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
If it's a federal law, it's unconstitutional, so whatever it says is irrelevant.
Yes, according to Article VI (Supremacy Clause) of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws trump state laws. If there were a federal law that said "Guns are legal in the State of New York, New York could not ban them. There are no such federal laws.
Another way is to protect individual rights is to ask the USSC to overturn a state law which violates the U.S. Constitution. State laws against nude dancing, for example, were overturned because the USSC stated that nude dancing was "speech", protected by the 1st amendment.
BUT, that's only because the 1st amendment applies also to the states -- the second amendment only applies to the federal government.
This explains it better than I could. See the sections entitled, Bar to Federal Action and Incorporation.
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.