Replies

I'm not in favor of recreational drug use, but am alarmed that the War on Drugs is being used to justify alot of shenanigans that Americans would not have otherwise put up with, like those infamous "no-knock" raids that seem to get the wrong house, putting innocent people in danger, or worse, killing them.

My point was that we have to be careful about seeing every War on (insert your most hated thingy here) as an answer to our problems, and individual rights to be secure in our persons and papers be damned.

This isn't about the "divine right to blow out brain cells," as you so eloquently put it. It's about our right as citizens to decide how much search and seizure we're willing to put up with in exchange for some illusion of security.

The expanded police powers to search for drugs has not stopped people from getting drugs, and the expanded police powers to search for terrorists will not stop terrorists from doing what they are determined to do. I used the WOD as an example because it is but the most illustrative of how giving the government more power is not the answer to the problem of illegal activity.

Understood and agreed to, for the most part. The ultimate physical security does rest with the individual, and by extension, the security of neighborhoods and cities rests with those within them. However, one of the reasons we do have a police force is to serve in the stead of the citizenry, who may not have time to keep tabs on the neighborhood. That right there is a surrender of some freedom to an external agent in the hopes that the power of survelliance and interdiction will prevent crime. To some extent, this does work. Cops walking around do prevent casual crime and puts criminals on edge. I won't argue the finer points of the Patriot act here, but generally, the idea of information sharing across departments (CIA/FBI) is a breakthrough and should have been done years ago. Will it and other departmental changes do nothing? No, they will raise the opportunity cost for terrorism. Will they stop terrorism once and for all? No. But I'll bet they'll raise the opportunity cost so high that the incidence of terrorism plummets. You take that and combine it with an armed populace and the cost may become prohibitive.