Posted on 11/02/2017 11:20:11 AM PDT by Bonston
The US government has created a business out of putting people in jail, a quite lucrative one at that. Privately run prisons thrive due to those minimum sentencing practices, while taxpayers pay for often disproportionately long prison times for people that are no immediate harm to anyone but themselves. And as a reaction those individuals are persecuted to the fullest extent, lives are being destroyed, and the nation’s workforce is diminished while the costs are paid by society.
Instead of a helping hand, the U.S. has introduced the tradition of handing out handcuffs to those related to drugs. And that is exactly what we have to talk about.
(Excerpt) Read more at crowdh.com ...
No. Absolutely not. If you think what we have now from not really fighting a "war on drugs" is bad, you should see what happens to a nation that doesn't even put up a pathetic fight against drugs.
China was destroyed by legalized drugs. Millions died, their society collapsed, their economic output collapsed, the chaos allowed Dictator Mao to take power and kill millions more of them.
If you think what we have is bad, You don't have a realistic view of what the alternative time line would have looked like.
It’s better to live with a bad problem than have 50,000 people year die from a terrible problem.
It's better to live with a bad problem, than have 10 million people per year die from a terrible problem, like legalized drugs.
We know the police can’t win the war from 108 years of hard effort.
Hard effort? Pathetic nearly nothing effort. When we are killing a thousand drug dealers per year, then you might say we are making some effort to win. But now? We aren't killing any of these bastards.
People call it a "war" but it has been fought like a game of Badminton. It has been pathetically ineffective precisely because nobody wants to really fight it as they would an actual war.
I'll believe it's a WAR when I start seeing a body count for dead drug dealers. Till then it's a game of Tiddlywinks.
Civil Asset forfeiture is unconstitutional, and I still do not grasp how anyone could have thought it could be legal.
And you think that the crack cocaine problem would have never developed if we were still getting cocaine in our soda?
That's just nonsense. Drug addicts are always looking for a bigger better high. If they had to do it, they would distill the cocaine out of the soda just so they could make crack out of it.
If the cocaine was legal, they were going to eventually make crack with it. I know crack addicts. I've known dozens of them during my lifetime. They can't help themselves. They do as much of the drugs as they can for three days, then they crash, and sleep for a couple of days. When they are able, they get up and do it again, so long as they can keep finding a supply.
Plutonium? Weaponized plague? Explosives? Mercury? Cyanide? None of this is subject to regulation by the Federal authorities? What about enemy bullets? Are those subject to federal regulation? How about enemy soldiers? Are those subject to federal regulation?
Just how far do you want to go with this silly claim that the Feds can't interdict dangerous material and/or personnel?
There is no need to amend the constitution to cover things which are already covered by it. Devices or substances that threaten the citizenry of the US, are already covered in the "Enemies, foreign and domestic" clause.
How far do you go with the silly notion that arbitrary law is legitimate?
Because if such Tyranny is good for conservatives, then it's good for Leftists as well.
Crime exists when an individual—through force, fraud, or negligence—infringes on the rights of another—or is in imminent expectation of doing do (for instance DUI).
Preemptive law is the stuff of Tyranny, and once it is justified by one person or group, it can be justified by any person or group, and it automatically gives the State a situation in which there is no practical limit to its power—especially when such law becomes the purview of bureaucrats and the State's regulatory apparatus.
Contraband law is the height of Nanny-state Tyranny, and it cannot be justified as currently constituted. Once the State can go around deciding that this or that thing is banned because somebody might do something bad with it, there is simply no limit to the power which the State can possess—all in the name of protecting the People, or the Children, of course.
Nobody can fancy themselves a believer in minimal government who believes in such an arbitrarily expansive vision of State power. It's simply impossible; it's the slippery slope which invites Tyranny, emanating from an endless supply of Nanny-state do-gooders—such as women, when they got the vote in the early twentieth century. What quickly followed was Prohibition. That's right: because some husbands couldn't handle their liquor without abusing their wives, suddenly everyone who possessed alcohol was a State criminal. It is to laugh.
This is the kind of thinking which leads to smoking bans, and the diabolically twisted idea that the State can award itself the right to imprison a person simply for possessing the "wrong" one of God's own plants, or distilled spirits, or medicine.
Legitimate law exists only when it protects infringement of someone's rights—not when it acts as some kind of "prior restraint" founded in emotionalism and demagoguery.
Again, we saw crystal clear what such Law leads to during Prohibition. I won't recite the particulars, but they are well known and perfectly apply to the situation as it stands today with the phony War on Drugs. Not only was Prohibition completely impractical—it was immoral as well.
Christ—if he had wanted—could have easily made dogmatic pronouncements about alcohol, calling for its outright prohibition. But tellingly, he didn't. Indeed, he created a recreational drug with his very first miracle! And what was his admonition? That a person shouldn't be taken to too much wine; that drunkenness was a sin—not mere consumption of alcohol.
The same principle applies for all drugs.
Alcohol itself is, of course, a drug—a drug whose various evils inarguably exceed those of all other drugs combined. And yet Christ set the example of moderation—not prohibition.
The Prohibitionist Mind will engage in all sorts of somersaults in a furioua attempt to rationalize its Tyrannical shortcuts.
I will insist on actual Liberty—with all of its inconveniences, challenges and annoyances.
Contraband law is Tyrannical, and trying to create false equivalences with things like plutonium or shoulder launched nuclear projectiles can't change that fact. A Prohibitionist believes in putting someone in prison merely for possessing the wrong plant or medicine, and no amount of obfuscation will ever change the fact that such Law is inherently authoritarian, and—once justified—must open the door to an endless line of petty Tyrannies—to be imposed by one self-righteous group or another, whether on the Left or Right.
The State must have a compelling reason to even contemplate such law—not a casual or whimsical one—and only in the most extreme cases—such as the plutonium or ricin examples—can such a thing legitimately exist.
To rationalize the inherently unjust consequences of Contraband Law—threatening a person with a 10 year prison sentence for possessing a single pill, for example—is absolutely ludicrous and shameful, and anyone who supports such law can hardly consider themselves a "small government conservative"...
... I wonder why no one bothered to tell congress about the “enemies foreign and domestic” clause in 1919 when they passed the 18th amendment. I guess they didn’t have constitutional scholars like you around back then.
“We aren’t killing any of these bastards.”
The black folks are starting to shoot back.
“China was destroyed by legalized drugs. Millions died, their society collapsed, their economic output collapsed, the chaos allowed Dictator Mao to take power and kill millions more of them.”
The wrong type of legalized drugs.
Mao was able to take over China because of Japanese interference and Nationalist corruption.
That phrase occurs nowhere in the Constitution, Mr. Penumbral Emanationist.
So in the Diogonary, "massive" and "noticeable" are synonyms ... fascinating.
“Drug addicts are always looking for a bigger better high. If they had to do it, they would distill the cocaine out of the soda just so they could make crack out of it.”
Somewhat true.
But it would be their choice.
“I’ve known dozens of them during my lifetime. They can’t help themselves. They do as much of the drugs as they can for three days, then they crash, and sleep for a couple of days. When they are able, they get up and do it again, so long as they can keep finding a supply.”
Well, maybe we shouldn’t make criminals out of them for a start until we can do better medically.
“When we are killing a thousand drug dealers per year”
Try that and you’ll be burying 2,000 cops and five thousand court employees each year too.
Court employees can’t hide. Many drug dealers know where the courthouse is on Capitol Hill.
The courts will put an end to your drug war, for good.
I reject the premise that interdicting substances which have proven over and over again to murder people is "arbitrary." No. It is one of the things that falls within the mandate of protecting us from enemies.
It must be done. It cannot be done solely by the States, therefore it must be done by the Feds, because much of it is international in scope anyways.
Well it's quite simple really. If someone attempts to bring in substances or devices which kill Americans, they are enemies (foreign) and therefore they need to be wiped out. If Americans collaborate with these foreign importers of death, then they too are enemies, (Domestic) and need to be wiped out.
It wasn't necessary to explain such simple things until relatively recently, when the population has become more ignorant and stupid, no doubt due to the wide spread drug abuse going on because we haven't killed enough suppliers yet.
Why are you singling out the black folk? The White Folk and the Brown folk are as much involved as anyone else.
I personally won't really notice the color of whatever drug dealer we hang. All I am interested in is that they be hanged.
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.