Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession

NYT ^ | August 21, 2009 | AP

[Clinging Bitterly]

I wavered for years between the fascist-prone-social-conservative and anarcho-libertarian positions...

You and me both. I think it's something any properly vigilant citizen struggles with from time to time. It's especially complicated because the boundaries are not the ends of a left-right one dimension line as customarily pictured, but rather are the fringes of a small universe.

And to make matters worse, the fringes are not perfectly defined. We can spend a generation righting one wrong, and only then discover the unseen pitfall. We never know when we're right where we ought to be (if there is such a place), but we know when we're sliding off the edge, don't we?

[LearsFool]

We can spend a generation righting one wrong, and only then discover the unseen pitfall.

If you're right about that (and you certainly are!), then the best starting point is the study of history. Our nation's founders were avid students of history, and for the inheritance we've received from them we owe a great debt. If we can first learn from our forefathers and then improve upon their work as they would've wished, we will have fulfilled the duty to posterity which rests now upon our shoulders.

Just as constitutional does not equate with good and proper, so it is with popularity.

Very true. And IIRC, the federalists argued that the molasses-like Congress would by nature be a check on the whims of democracy. Not only that, but the short terms of the House would permit mistakes to be corrected reasonably quickly.

For some time I've wondered where the founders failed. Where is the flaw in the constitutional republic they bequeathed to us? For, what other explanation could there be for our present troubles?

"We don't follow the Constitution!" some will say. So...the founders didn't anticipate that, eh? But I think you and I have hit on the same answer: The people's power can only be checked by the people themselves. In the end, nothing can restrain the people's will forever. Tyrants come and tyrants go. But it's my opinion that force can never suppress the people for long without their consent.

The successful nations and empires of history possessed the consent of the majority of their citizens/subjects. The people may not have been happy with their lot, but they saw it as better than the alternatives before them. (Sparta's subjugation of the Helots - who far outnumbered them - was a rare exception, and faced revolt after bloody revolt.)

So it is with Americans today. The majority are more content, in general, with their circumstances than with the alternatives they can see. Until that changes, not much will change. Obama's gamble has been in proposing rapid innovation, and he might've both underestimated the opposition and overestimated his supporters.

Asset forfeiture as a primary mission needs to go.

I'll go a step or two further. Though nobody's ever agreed with me on this, I'm still convinced it's right:

No one should benefit from the punishment of crime. No one. Excluding fair wages for those employed in the criminal justice system, no one should benefit. No fines. No benefit from the labor of convicts. No property forfeiture. No community service. No organ donations from executions. Nothing. Crime should be a cost on society, with absolutely no mitigation.

The criminal should be punished, and that punishment should fit the crime squarely. Whatever "satisfaction" we demand from criminals should be in the form of punishment for them, not spoils for us.

I believe this to be just, and that's my sole reason for holding to it. There are, of course, some problems it would solve (that's to be expected from justice, right?) but they are secondary reasons for advocating this idea. Among others...

- The cost of crime, when it falls heavily on our shoulders, would cause us to turn all the more against crime and those who engage in it. (As a squad of soldiers who get repeatedly punished for the dereliction of a single rebel eventually brings that rebel in line, by hook or by crook.)

- There will be less incentive to misuse law to invent crimes, specifically those whose punishment is by fines.

- The people will be less inclined to support overbearing police systems because the immense budgets will come from their own pockets.

I'd be quite happy to see incremental de-escalation and trial of various decriminalization and legalization schemes over time

I'll still disagree with you that that would be wise, only because I view the risk as being so great. But in our present circumstances, it's possible we have more to gain from your proposal than we have to lose. It's an honest way of dealing with the issue, though - that's for certain.

[dcwusmc]

Fair questions.

First, since I have an absolute right to self-defense, if you attack me or otherwise seek my harm, I am well within my rights to use deadly force to repel you. If I capture you instead, I would be within my rights to demand restitution from you for your evil deeds. Thus, I CAN consent to a system of courts and justice to do this on my behalf. Restitution should be the goal, to make the victim whole. If this is not possible, due to the nature of the crime, then imprisonment or death are options. If there is no victim to whom restitution can be made (due to, perhaps, the consensual nature of the act), then no CRIME has been committed and there is no need for government involvement.

And if a society cannot attract enough people to VOLUNTEER to defend it in its hour of need, then it deserves to go into the dustbin of history. Drafting people into an army is no more or less than government slavery. We ended the draft in this country in the ‘70s. Since then we have had NO problem attracting and keeping good men and women in the services.

The “eminent domain” clause in the Constitution is, in my opinion, one of the few things they got WRONG. There is NO legitimate authority for government to take private property by force. If the need for something isn’t sufficiently apparent that someone would voluntarily sell or contribute property for it, then it should NOT be done. How many times have citizens just up and DONATED property to governments for specific purposes? And, of course, how many times has government turned around and done everything BUT what it was donated for? (I speak now of the West LA VA Medical Center and how it is using property donated to be used strictly for and by VETERANS.)

We may cede authority to government, but we NEVER, EVER GIVE IT UP. You may rent out a room in your house to someone, but you do NOT give up title to it, do you?

In our society, we have a Constitution which lays out the limits ON GOVERNMENT. We may well be subject to legitimate laws passed, but only to LEGITIMATE ones. Each law passed MUST conform to the limits of governmental authority, as set forth in the Constitution which grants that government the right to exist. We, the People, retain full control over our government. Whether we exercise that control through the Ballot Box or the Soap Box or the Jury Box or the Ammo Box is entirely up to those we hire to do our bidding.

And, no, ceding authority to government to do things, as I have pointed out above, does NOT EVER grant them authority to do things which we cannot do ourselves. In the area of raising money, there are options which would NOT violate this principle. However, things like property taxes or income taxes are NOT among them. Sales taxes or tariffs on imports would be more or less OK, as would having protection or whatever clause were needed in homeowners and other insurance policies that would fund LEGITIMATE government activities.

I believe that successfully rebuts your points adequately.

[LearsFool]

And some good answers. I'll give you the first one (self-defense), I'll take issue with two of them, and you skipped one ("Can I take your money by force and spend it on the defense of our nation?")...

There is NO legitimate authority for government to take private property by force.

To give individuals a superior right to land would be foolish. How can a person be permitted to hold a nation hostage by posessing, for instance, complete ownership of a harbor? or river access? or a mountain pass? The very existence of nations has from time to time throughout history been determined by control of geographic features such as these.

Can the police commandeer a vehicle in an emergency? Do you also have a problem with Amendment III?

I'll grant you that this power has been and continues to be abused. But abuses do not negate principles.

Drafting people into an army is no more or less than government slavery.

But I didn't mention drafting people when I asked, "Can I order you to march into a battle you don’t want to fight?" The point I was trying to zero in on is that just as a soldier is a member of a body, so is the citizen of a nation. It's possible for individual liberty to not only conflict with but to endanger the interests of the body. A body of soldiers must act in coordination, and each soldier must subordinate his own interests and sacrifice for a greater purpose than his own, or he puts every other soldier at risk.

Now that's an extreme and dramatic illustration, but it's not an exception. Throughout history societies have, to one degree or another, compelled their member to conform to standards seen as being in the interest of the society. Ours is no different, nor should it be. Though our circumstances permit unprecedented individual freedom (since the risk of nonconformity is unprecedentedly low), not even America can survive total disregard for our society. (Even now we see the effects of loss of cohesion: disputes over language, the laws of foreign religions and customs, etc.)

But more to the point, once a soldier has joined himself to an army, he has ceded the authority to decide when, where and how to fight. And once a person has joined himself to a society, he has signed the social compact and in so doing ceded some of his individual freedom. Not all, but some.

It's possible for this to be abused as well. But again, abuses do not negate principles. (America tends, IMO, to err on the side of permitting too much deviance, leading to, in Sen. Moynihan's phrase, defining deviancy down.)

Once more, here's the question you missed: Can I take your money by force and spend it on the defense of our nation?

[Clinging Bitterly]

...having protection or whatever clause were needed in homeowners and other insurance policies that would fund LEGITIMATE government activities.

Most of what's in your post resonates well in my mind, but so I can completely understand the thought, can you explain what you mean by this?

[Trailerpark Badass]

And what brought about that change?

Knowledge, generally.

Govt PSA's may have had some minor effect, but it was the general dissemination of the information that smoking was linked to illness and early death.

You're not implying that public anti-smoking laws are the reason for the change, are you?

[dcwusmc]

I’ll try to... and this is for LearsFool, as well. The LEGITIMATE functions of government, especially at the Federal level, constitute such a minute fraction of the current expense of government that you could add a clause to your homeowner’s insurance to help fund it through your premiums. Or any other insurance you hold. Plus, Congress could legitimately put a small tariff on goods coming into the country that would provide funding for its CONSTITUTIONAL activities. This negates the “need” for involuntary financing of things outside the proper scope of government. Remember, this tremendous burst in governmental growth only came after government had an assured (but illegitimate) source of funding: the income tax or, on the state level, the income and PROPERTY tax, two of the most evil inventions of man! Keep government broke and begging and it’s your servant. Let it get into your wallet without recourse and it becomes your master.

[LearsFool]

Oh, so now you want to force me to buy insurance?! What about my liberty?!

Just kidding. :-)

But seriously, my question still stands: If it's not right for me to take your money by force and spend it on public goods (i.e. national defense, etc.), how is it right for the government to do so?

[dcwusmc]

Can you or anyone take my money or property by force in defense of the country? In a word, NO. If you cannot convince people to buy bonds or fund the defense voluntarily, then it would appear that you have so alienated your population that that nation does not deserve to survive.

If you are headed into a JUST war, I’ll be there. Old, fat and out of shape, maybe, but I’ll be there and even bring my own weapons, just as the Founders intended. If you cannot convince the Congress to declare war and openly and firmly commit itself and the nation to swift victory, then your “war” is more than likely not worth waging.

And on your other remark, there is NO HIGHER AUTHORITY (besides God) THAN THE INDIVIDUAL. There can ONLY BE individual ownership of property, whether it be a harbor or a mountain top. Now, in wartime, the rules can change a bit. But only when the Congress does its job and declares that a state of war exists. However, if private property MUST be taken for war use, it must be returned to its original state and returned to its owner, with full compensation, when hostilities end. If private property rights are not respected by government, which, in our case is why government is allowed to exist in the first place, then it is time that government be removed and replaced.

Can someone who is IN the service be ordered into danger? Yes. That is what the armed forces are for. If you do not believe in the cause, stay home. If you believe your society is worth protecting, you BELONG in the service. (And, to me, only those who have served should be able either to vote or to hold elective office.)

Can cops commandeer someone’s property in some sort of emergency? Probably not but provide an example.

As far as Amendment III goes, it is not the norm for troops of any sort to be involuntarily quartered in people’s homes. Which is a good thing. Could our current government try to put its watchers in our homes under any future circumstance? They might try, but I suspect they’d fail abjectly!

[dcwusmc]

It’s not and I said so. No one is FORCING you to buy insurance (except your mortgage company). But that was offered as an example of how government can be funded non-coercively. I’m sure there are others, but since I have to go get my wife from work, that’ll have to wait.

[LearsFool]

Now, in wartime, the rules can change a bit.

Your rules cannot be both inflexible and flexible. The individual cannot be sovereign AND be overruleable at the same time.

It’s not and I said so.

Okay, I didn't see that in your earlier post, but do see it in #249 and #250.

If you cannot convince people to buy bonds or fund the defense voluntarily

That was just one example of expenses authorized by the Constitution. (There are several others specifically mentioned and implied.) Surely you don't think the founders expected all the expenses authorized by the Constitution would be funded by donations from generous citizens! :-)

They didn't, which is why they authorized Congress to take some of your money. (Article 1, Section 8.) Was this something else they got wrong?

I understand and share your affinity for liberty. But surely you can see by now that liberty has its limits, those limits varying with varying circumstances. Defending liberty demands more from us than just railing against abuses of power. And constructing a hyper-individualist state does as much to guarantee the loss of liberty as constructing a despotic tyranny. The only difference is that one is a slow death.

Just as a man seeks protection by sacrificing some solitude and independence and joining himself with others, so liberty is protected by being blended with other elements.

Inflexible, absolute liberty is only available to the man who lives alone on an island. The rest of mankind must compromise here and there in order for the societies we're a part of to function and survive. And as we've seen so plainly in the last century and already in this one, our free, Western societies are called upon frequently to protect liberty.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Where is the flaw in the constitutional republic they bequeathed to us?

I don't know. I'd guess it is, in part, the direct election of Senators - and the founders are not at fault for that. If I could choose but one amendment to repeal, that would probably be the one.

But the grand scheme was always assumed to be imperfect, and was not expected to endure without change. The cryptic admonishment "A republic if you can keep it" comes to mind - and it's ours to preserve or ruin. Here I could rehash the civil war and reconstruction era, then throw some rocks at the early 20th century progressives, but you and I probably agree on most of what would be said. So I'll just say we can un-amend and we probably haven't done it enough.

No one should benefit from the punishment of crime. (And that which came after).

I sort of like the premise. But the spoils that will exist, and the question of just what to do with them, seem to have been left in a vacuum.

[Clinging Bitterly]

OK I properly understand, another small excise tax (perhaps not necessarily on that particular thing), and a proper emphasis on LEGITIMATE.

Keep government broke and begging and it’s your servant. Let it get into your wallet without recourse and it becomes your master.

Ain't that the friggin' truth?

[Cvengr]

The greatness of a nation is formed from the virtue of its liberty and integrity of its authority.

Authority without liberty is tyranny, while liberty without authority is anarchy.

In the case of discriminating which substances might be allowed as legitimate intoxicants, we obviously recognize many, if not most intoxicants first effect our ability to perceive and to discern. Unlike many other behaviors, but similar to many lusts, drug use for intoxication must be legislated with bounds placed to identify how such behavior is handled by the society legitimately.

In regards to the clumsy arguments against criminalization of some drugs because it violates free will and our liberty, the Puritans actually had some fairly rigorous studies regarding freedom, liberty, and legislation. One approach is that the regulation of our freedom to protect us from damages caused by such freedom should not exceed the damages of the freedom itself.

In the counterarguments such as, “the Prohibition didn’t work”, the opponent to criminalization of some behaviors misses the purpose of legal systems. I guess there are probably as many legalists out there who foolishly believe that outlawing behavior will eliminate such behavior, just as there are those who think criminalization of behavior fails because people still miss the mark and commit such behaviors.

[Cvengr]

Have you considered that if the hard-core addicts wasted away and died under a bridge at the age of 25 in a drug-induced stupor, instead of limping along to the age of 50 or taking half a dozen people with them on the freeway in a legal alcohol-induced stupor, that our nation would be the stronger for it?

Wrong argument.

The laws against some drugs have merit in discerning some drugs become addictive very quickly, such that the person who becomes addictive lacks sufficient time to perceive and make unimpeded decisions not to consume or fall under their influence.

There is also a societal cost in decriminalizing some addictive drugs which statistically gives merit to controlling their availability.

[Cvengr]

FWIW, I returned from Mexico yesterday and their leadership position amongst many prominent businessmen is that all of the violence associated with the drugs has been at the cartel level and not aimed at turistas, using the logic that the tourists provide their lifeblood, and it would be foolish to target any tourists by drug runners.

On the other hand, after our car broke down, and spending 4 hours in Taxis going through very circuitous routes in the barrios, with several locals on either side of me debating how much I was worth and settling on the remnants of my wallet after we got the car running again (with the same parts on an electrical glitch), I can say they weren’t there to kill me, and they did work to get me going again. It’s just a matter of perspective, you see, as to what that effort is worth.

A part which I could pick off the shelf in SoCA for $36, was available from 2 cities away for $289 in Mexico, or in my case, whatever was in my wallet after they tried a used part, then replaced the original back into the engine, but at least it ran long enough fro me to get back into a secure area.

The crime tends to happen in the areas more prone to disagreements, such as in bars, heated arguments, etc, so avoiding car repair costs is a reasonable method of avoiding trouble.

In Mexicali, where the unemployment rate is 50% and in many manual labor and service sector jobs where the pay is $200/mo, $20 goes a long way.

Cigars are being sold at $10 a piece, then bartered down to about $5 apiece. Same Mexican bargaining system they are accustomed to using, except there no longer are any real talented craftsmen or artists producing quality product.

They buy their stuff from Costco, Home Depot, and WalMart for their quality kitsch.

Best buy I made was for some $4/lb smoked tuna from a Pescador.

Thank God they weren’t trying to sell drugs.

I later spoke to some other Americans who recently were ticketed $1000 for having a pet poodle in their front seat and argued it down to $100. Taxi drivers say the cops are no good, but then again the taxi drivers don’t obey any traffic laws anyways. Go figure.

[dcwusmc]

In understanding that someone who wishes to participate in society must, of necessity, curb some of his PUBLIC behaviors, I do not give up anything to those who would curb his PRIVATE, non-coercive behaviors. Nor is there a conflict in saying that one’s private property is inviolate during peacetime, but may, with appropriate safeguards regarding both compensation for its loss of use and its return when hostilities cease, be taken for the duration. And, yes, in wartime, things CAN change and necessarily MUST do so if that society is to prevail in the conflict. HOWEVER, once that happens, the regular peacetime rules MUST be reinstated. There will be adjustments, of course, to account for the loss of manpower due to casualties and the amount of treasure spent winning the war, but these things are able to be overcome, as we have seen in past wars.

I see nothing in Article 1, Section 8 which would require very much more money than could be raised as I have suggested, excepting during war time. That’s because over ninety percent of that FedGov does is NOT AUTHORIZED by the Constitution. So tariffs, contributions from the States and such things would surely suffice.

Oh, and one thing that would save TONS of money is keeping our defense for our OWN borders. Not spending the lives of our youth and our treasure defending the whole world. There is definitely no authority for that granted. Taking a war to the enemy, that is surely the only sensible thing to do. But keeping troops stationed in 170 different countries around the world? No way, Jose! And keeping troops stationed in a country we’ve vanquished? Again, NO WAY. We accept their offer to pay reparations for the evil they’ve done us and go home. What’s so hard about that? Rebuilding a toppled government is the sole business and function of the nation whose ass we just whipped. With the SOLE caveat that they had best NOT set up a government like the one we just took down for them, one that would attack US again.

[dcwusmc]

The major flaws, as I see them were: leaving slavery in place; amending the Constitution to allow direct election of Senators so that they no longer represented the interests of their State, and allowing FedGov to have direct access to people’s money through an income tax scheme.

The OTHER problem I see is that the citizenry of the times did NOT either hang the perpetrators of these schemes or at the very least, tar and feather them and throw them from office (preferably through a window from an upper story).

With respect to crime, no one need profit from it but the VICTIM of the crime should most surely be made whole by the criminal. If there is no way to do that (as with a murder or something equally heinous), then prison or SWIFT execution would be in order, with the miscreant compelled to work to pay for his or her own incarceration expenses. Conversely, if there is no victim to make whole, because there was NO VICTIM of the “crime,” then no crime was committed, no matter that someone may have broken a law (that probably should not be on the books, ANYWAY!).

[dcwusmc]

See my post 258...

[LearsFool]

The cryptic admonishment "A republic if you can keep it" comes to mind - and it's ours to preserve or ruin.

I don't find Franklin's statement so cryptic. Your explanation of it seems spot-on: The framers handed us a republic, but no one can force free people to remain free. And if we decide to relinquish that freedom - well, we wouldn't be the first, would we?

But the spoils that will exist, and the question of just what to do with them, seem to have been left in a vacuum.

Okay, that's something I hadn't considered. I suppose it must be forfeited by the criminal, so that he is prevented from benefiting from his crime. (There must be some guidance for us somewhere in pre-WoD law on how to deal justly with this aspect of it, though I can't think of it.)