Stay Safe
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 ...
Banning dope and drugs has been as silly as banning paint or gas. All its done has turn a problem into an epidemic. The kids out there are laughing at you and your naivety. And they're learning how to ignore your bogus laws.
I noticed. It's called "spin".
Hey, weren't you one of those weeping and gnashing their teeth because John Walters was in Nevada about the time that Nevada was trying to legalize possession of three ounces?
I didn't think it was appropriate. I didn't think it was appropriate for Janet Reno to come to Missouri and help campaign against the CCW initiative, either. What about it?
HE'S UNFAIRLY INFLUENCING THE PROPOSAL, was the cry, even though he was just doing his job.
More spin.
But Soros shoveling some of his personal billions into a Democratic primary election of a state official is just fine with you, huh?
Actually, I think he ought to stay out of it, but that's not really the issue is it?
Well, since the article claims Soros is dedicating his life to defeating our President, when he wins re-election, I guess Soros will have nothing to live for eh?
wideawake, my link stands. You may either accept it or reject it. I'm not "selling" anything.
One thing. Ask Know your rights if he can refute it (with other than disparaging comments, that is).
One of the worst consequences of the first prohibition is that it turned people into scoff laws and validated unlawful behaviors.
wideawake seems too honest for that tactic.
Very good explanation. Shining the light of intelligenct understanding and historical reference on sloganeering.
Only if claims of necessity overrule issues of propriety. They don't. It must be necessary and proper. Necessary or proper doesn't cut it.
Debates on another discussion board recently caused me to delve into the world of legal decisions and police procedures. What I found has scared the hell out of me. For instance, if you are pulled over for a traffic violation (such as speeding), the officer can arrest you for that violation, impound your car, conduct an 'inventory search' of your vehicle (without a warrant), and if anything illegal is found, charge you with its possesion. The SCOTUS has upheld this practice, as long as the police department has a 'standardized' procedure for 'inventory searches', whether those procedures are written or not.
So in other words, a police officer who suspects you of a crime can stop you for speeding, arrest you for it (yes, they can arrest you in lieu of giving you a ticket), and impound your car. He can then search your car for contraband without a warrant under the inventory search proviso. All he has to do to make it legal is say he found it incidental to the inventory, and not as a result of a suspicion of criminal activity.
The Fourth Amendment just got weaker. Things like this Rockefeller set of laws need to go. These types of legislation are destroying the Constitution.
Somehow, MrLeRoy, I don't think that was the issue at all.
You see, I believe that if he were in town promoting the legalization of 3oz., we wouldn't hear a peep from the dopers about how much taxpayer money he was spending.
Obviously, by your statement, you disagree. Gosh, you look silly with that hanging out there.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
What's with you and banning? Why should banning apply to all drugs?
Drugs used in chemotherapy are certainly more dangerous than alcohol -- they're not banned. Should we ban them, Mr. Carpenter?
We tried banning alcohol once. That didn't work. Only the insane would propose the same solution and expect a different result. Are you insane, Mr. Carpenter?
It is my firm belief that those who would change the fundamental federalist design of limited, enumerated powers through these clauses are not conservatives.
This serves as a handy litmust test. You failed.
Most people committing property crimes -- the vast majority, 90+% -- are doing it to feed their drugs habit. Your "harmless" street dealer is recruiting and motivating hundreds of burglars, shoplifters, and armed robbers.
I would not support legalizing drugs. Singapore deals better with this problem. I would go one step further: I'd support putting poisoned drugs into the distribution system. Every one of these zombies who ODs saves hundreds of citizens from misery, or even death. Why not speed them to that OD with strychnine or arsenic in the meth, crack, coke or heroin? Make the world a better place, one addict at a time.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
You'd hear one from me.
I don't think it should apply to any. (Did you really not know that?)
We tried banning alcohol once. That didn't work. Only the insane would propose the same solution and expect a different result.
That's what makes your support for banning drugs other than alcohol so insane.
That's because criminalizing drugs makes them expensive.
Stay Safe
What have you got to hide, doper? </sarcasm>
Of course you wouldn't.
But it certainly was appropriate for the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to comment on a proposal which was conducive to increased illegal recreational drug use (and contrary to federal law).
Actually, I wish Ashcroft would have held a press conference and stated that any Nevada state official or judge enforcing this proposed law would be indicted by the federal government for violating their oath of office and charged with treason.
"Actually, I think he ought to stay out of it, but that's not really the issue is it?"
No, it's only the topic of the article, that's all.
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.