DEA's pot raid draws protests

The Sacramento Bee (CA) ^ | December 15, 2005 | Robert D. Dávila

[Know your rights]

[...] Organizers blasted the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for targeting businesses that are legal under Proposition 215, a California law that permits marijuana use for medical treatment. Demonstrators said the action would restrict access to regulated pot shops for seriously ill patients. [...] "They didn't do any arrests, just took drugs and computers," said Paula "Cookey" Brown. "It just seems like a straight armed robbery." [...]

[LIConFem]

"Civil law, as opposed to criminal. Wow, you're in full retreat. "

Huh??? We're debating the criminalization of certain behaviors, not contract law.

"Nonsense. You move into a condominium, you're bound by any agreemnets you may have signed as well as pre-existing rules, regulations, covenants, conditions and retrictions, whether you've signed them or not. In fact, you're bound by them whether or not you ever signed any contract with the condo association."

That's lovely. Don't move into a condo. What the heck does that have to do with the criminalization of drugs? Do you see no difference between choosing to abide by certain rules and being bound by them under penalty of the criminal justice system?

"Backwards. Society's rules define your freedoms within that society."

Oh, really????? I guess you're not a big fan of the DoI or the Constitution. Why am I now shocked...

[Durus]

But one WAS created, unlike a Harm vs. No Harm government which has yet to see the light of day anywhere in the world in all of recorded history.
Yet one could make the argument that our government was created based on that concept.

No, but coupled with longevity it comes closer.

So if it's popular for a long time then it's "closer" to moral? So based on that abortion must be gaining morality.

Who claims that? Granted, most of our laws concern immoral behavior, but many immoral acts remain legal. It used to be that people were restrained from immoral acts by their own sense of decency and self esteem. That's been replaced by a selfish, hedonistic, individualistic "if it's legal I can do it and don't you dare criticize me" attitude. Hence, all the laws.

You certainly suggested that most laws are created to stem immoral behavior. The increase of laws in our country does not historically match increased licentiousness but increased "do-gooder" power (or suffrage if there is a difference). Once people decided that their wishes did not have to conform to the constitutionally delegated powers of the government out country has been going down hill. There was a time when the absence of a delegated power was just as much of a limit on government as an amendment in the BOR but that time is long past and with it went individual responsibility.

[don asmussen]

As you well know, any contract can be held to be unenforceable if it it is repugnant to our Constitutional rule of law, - or public policy.

Are website rules against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?

Same principle applies. If a contract clause is against public policy, a judge or arbitrator won't enforce it.
Rules should make common sense and be applied fairly. -- Ones that aren't are widely ignored.

You hate society, you hate contract.

Odd thing to attack me about. I made my living for 45 years by contracting. I always honored my word to my customers..

The only thing that matters to you is getting whatever you want. A classic liberal.

Rant on my boy.. Your pitiful & uncalled for personal attack is once again noted.

LOL

How could that comment amuse you. moj? Are you going to claim you have personal knowledge to the contrary?
Feel free to explain your cheap little snigger, if you have any honor.. --
Which I'll bet you don't.

The let's see how honest you are. How many banned accounts have you had?

See my 'bold' comment above.. I don't keep count of all the unfairly enforced rules I've ignored.. That's what honest men do when playing in rigged games .. -- Whether the games are on the internet or in reality we play up to the standards set by our opponents..

Feel free to pretend that you've obeyed the rules around here roscoe.. You've 'disrupted' this forum far more than I've ever done. - And it's past due time you admit it. -- Can you be honest?

[Mojave]

We're debating the criminalization of certain behaviors,

No, that's another of your newly inserted qualifiers. Laws and regulations restrict behavior through both civil and criminal law.

That's lovely. Don't move into a condo.

If you don't like the laws in California, don't move here.

you're not a big fan of the DoI or the Constitution.

Products of our society, exemplifying its will. Did you think that the ghost of Ayn Rand dropped them from a cloud?

[LIConFem]

That quote tells me why governments have the right to pass laws, not why they have the right to pass specific laws. We have a Constitution that serves as a blueprint for a system of government and that sets constraints on that government.

My first question is, where in the Constitution does it give the federal gov't the authority to outlaw drugs?

Secondly, where is it written that the federal (or any) government -- even those doing the will of the people -- have a right to pass and enforce oppressive laws, and especially laws that violate the Constitution?

I know we disagree on the "oppressive" issue. But I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why pot should be illegal, or at least by what authority it has been made illegal.

[Mojave]

I don't keep count of all the unfairly enforced rules I've ignored..

The user contracts you've violated, resulting in multiple bannings.

[Mojave]

That quote tells me why governments have the right to pass laws, not why they have the right to pass specific laws.

The general encompasses the specific.

[LIConFem]

"No, that's another of your newly inserted qualifiers. Laws and regulations restrict behavior through both civil and criminal law."

You obviously haven't been reading all of my posts. We've been talking exclusively about criminal laws, not civil contract issues.

"If you don't like the laws in California, don't move here."

I don't and I don't, and never have. Buy why should I flee the counrty (since the laws we're discussing are federal) just because you feel compelled to stick your nose into your neighbor's business? I think I'll stay, thank you very much. And I will abide by the laws, unless/until such time as they're changed.

[LIConFem]

"The general encompasses the specific."

That assumes that the right of government (or society) to pass laws in general gives them the right to pass any law they wish, without regard to the constitution of the states or the federal government. We both know that isn't true.

[don asmussen]

Mojave, confused again:

Society's rules define your freedoms within that society.

Backwards, -- in the USA.
Read our Constitution's 14th for proof.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[jmc813]

Other than our drug laws (which I don't consider a moral cause) what was the last issue where you considered law breaking to be morally justified?

I feel that people who break laws repugnant to the 2nd Amendment are completely justified and I have no problem doing so myself.

[don asmussen]

Mojave claims the DoI or the Constitution are mere:

"-- Products of our society, exemplifying its will. --"
Did you think that the ghost of Ayn Rand dropped them from a cloud?

It is obvious you think our Republics founding principles are subject to societies "will".

Thank you Mr. Marx.. Ayn Rand's ghost is laughing at your naivety.

[robertpaulsen]

"If there are drugs that make the user violent, for example, that would pose an unacceptable risk."

OK. So when you say, "I consider the preservation of personal freedoms as a moral imperative", what you really mean is that you consider the preservation of personal freedoms as a moral imperative unless those personal freedoms pose a reasonable and unacceptable risk to others.

Well, hell. Look at that. We agree.

"And as far as trying to convince you, that's what I'm doing here right now."

No, you're not trying to convince me. You're trying to philosphically argue your general point that the government has no business regulating behavior that doesn't harm others. Or pose a reasonable risk of harm. Or an unacceptable reasonable risk of harm. Or ... are you done, or is there more? I'd hate to close out this train of thought unless you're finished.

"But if you think about it, I should be asking you to convince me of why the government has the right outlaw pot."

I don't have to argue why. Pot IS illegal. You need to tell me, the voter, why pot, of all the existing illegal drugs, should be legal. Truthfully, I see no benefit whatsoever. I see a huge downside, especially with teens.

The War on Drugs would continue, along with no-knocks and asset forfeiture. The DEA and the ONDCP will remain, as will the drug border patrols and overseas interdiction forces. No prisons will close. No courtrooms will shut down. No judges, or prosecutors, or public defenders, or cops will be fired. No money will be saved.

I mean, c'mon. Convince me! Tell me I'm wrong and why I'm wrong! Where are the benefits?

Taxes? Tell me about the billions that will be collected! (I dare you.) No more arrests? Really? With nearly half the users underage, there'll be no more marijuana arrests? Trials? Convictions? Jail?

No, you haven't even begun to convince me or anyone else. You tried the "liberty and freedom for all" argument and then backed down from that. You call for personal freedom, but then have second thoughts about drugs other than the one you personally approve of. As much as I disagree with them, at least the Libertarians who call for the legalization of ALL drugs are consistent.

"Huh? I was inquiring as to your what you thought the difference was between drinking in private and smoking pot in private."

Smoking pot in private? 800,000 pot smokers arrested last year. How many of those were smoking pot in private, do you think? Four?

How many public pot smokers are we arresting? Maybe 10%? That makes 8 million pot smokers not smoking in private. Don't give me that tired old "who's being harmed when we smoke pot in the privacy of our own home?" argument.

"You're assuming that the number of pot smokers would increase significantly."

Yes, of course. You disagree? You think it will stay the same?

Would you be concerned if pot use doubled or even tripled? I'd really hate to see you argue that use would not increase, then turn right around and say "so what if it does" -- which is where I think this is headed based on your comments.

"you still haven't told me why pot smokers are inherently dangerous."

Dangerous? I never said that. I might have said selfish, immoral, hedonistic, immature, self-centered, and individualistic ... but dangerous? No.

[don asmussen]

Paulsen mischaracterizes the issue, for the umpteenth time:

As much as I disagree with them, at least the Libertarians who call for the legalization of ALL drugs are consistent.

Rational people can see that all drugs were [and are] 'legal', because neither Congress nor the States have ever had the delegated power to prohibit them.
However, our several States have always had the police power to reasonably regulate drugs, booze, public 'sin', etc...

Our States do not have [and never did have] the power to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Can you see the consistency of our Constitution on this issue, paulsen?
Will you ever admit to its rationality?

[LIConFem]

"Paulsen mischaracterizes the issue, for the umpteenth time:"

Which is why I'm done with this thread (that, and the fact that my fingers are bleeding ;o) ).

Arguing with an ideologue who rejects (and actually seems to abhor) reason is tiring (I refer, of course, to his condemnation of my actual consideration of one of his questions, rather than a strict adherence to dogma. But it's not surprising that an ideologue would find reason troubling).

[robertpaulsen]

"Yet one could make the argument that our government was created based on that concept."

One could.

"So if it's popular for a long time then it's "closer" to moral?"

Ah. I see that you're one of those posters.

So, in response to your, "Popularity is rarely a good indicator of justice or worth.", my response is now, "No, but coupled with longevity it comes closer to being a good indicator of justice or worth".

Now, do you want to bring morality into the discussion, or shall we just leave it at that?

"The increase of laws in our country does not historically match increased licentiousness but increased "do-gooder" power"

First of all, we need to limit the discussion to the increase of laws against immoral activity, not the increase of all laws. Secondly, this increase may not be due to an increase in licentiousness, but rather a disappointing lack of a decrease (our sexual harrassment laws, for example.)

I see a direct correlation between the increase in these types of "behavioral" laws and the decrease of personal responsibility coupled with using the law as a guide to personal behavior (ie., if it's legal I can do it).

"There was a time when the absence of a delegated power was just as much of a limit on government as an amendment in the BOR but that time is long past and with it went individual responsibility."

I blame the 14th amendment. Even if the federal government overstepped their bounds, at least it would have been limited to federal laws. As it is today, Congress and the USSC speak for everyone.

[Mojave]

We've been talking exclusively about criminal laws, not civil contract issues.

Change the terms, then try to retreat into a false dichotomy. Civil law plays a major role in the legal battle against dope. One jurisdiction may choose to use a criminal penalty, another civil. For example, here in California the first offense for possession of drug paraphenalia results in a civil fine of a few hundred dollars. Civil seizure is widely used at both the state and federal levels.

Buy why should I flee the counrty

Why should you violate its laws?

[Mojave]

That assumes that the right of government (or society) to pass laws in general gives them the right to pass any law they wish,

It does nothing of the kind.

[Mojave]

Read our Constitution's 14th for proof.

None there, question beggar.

[Mojave]

you think our Republics founding principles are subject to societies "will".

Society gave birth to those principles you so detest.