Posted on 05/16/2009 12:39:37 PM PDT by neverdem
The Obama administration is moving toward demilitarizing a health problem.
The Obama administration is saying all the right things about the jumble of ineffective and vindictive laws, policies and practices that have made up this nation's so-called war on drugs. Shortly after he was confirmed, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he would halt Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Then the Justice Department urged Congress to eliminate the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity in convictions for dealing crack and powder cocaine, which imposed long prison terms on predominantly black defendants.
The most recent reassurance comes from the new drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal this week, Kerlikowske said it's time to retire the phrase "war on drugs." Good. It's as misguided as the policies it frames. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' ... people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country." These sensible pronouncements inspire hope that the administration is moving toward a more rational approach to drugs. There is much to do...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The war on guns: Joel Miller explains how drug cops are killing 2nd Amendment
Whose Senate Is This? (NYT shrieking about guns in national parks)
If this is true, I’ll give the stopped clock one of his two chances to be not just right at the moment, but very much dead on. More power to him, in this particular case. (And I do hope all the newly unemployed DEA chaps can go find productive jobs.)
Unfortunately, the WOD IS a war on everybody. We’ve all lost rights due to the war on druggies.
How dare cops arrest blacks for dealing coke, just because blacks are the biggests sellers.
Democrats cut and run and liberaltarians cheer!
the jumble of ineffective and vindictive laws, policies and practices that have made up this nation’s so-called war on drugs.
Vindictive laws?? (disposed or inclined to revenge)
revenge for what? The drug is illegal. People die as a result of it use, similiaar to that of use of alcohol which we also have laws covering..
Since when is protecting our citizens considered inclined to revenge?
WOG = Take away your guns, WOF = Lose of all freedom and have to live under their rules till we are no longer needed or use too many resources to their liking then they will terminate us.
How long are we going to let this ass destroy our country?
Anybody want to place odds on whether or not they’re going to retire the “asset forfeiture” laws that came about due to the WOD?
Somehow, I doubt it...
Mark
Druggies are more likely to be dependent upon government.
Libtards think that is a good thing in that it gives them more power.
I say, drug test all welfare recipients; remove the children from homes where drugs are used.
Try reading it again... It's a sentencing disparity, not arrests. The problem is that sentencing for the sale of crack cocaine is (according to the article, which I dispute) 100 times more severe than for the sale of an equal amount of powder cocaine. So, for example, if you were convicted for the sale of 1 gram of powder cocaine, you might receive a 6 month sentence. However, if you were convicted of a sale of 1 gram of crack, you would be sentenced to 50 yeard (this is why I dispute the numbers, however I believe that there IS a federal sentencing guideline where the sentence for crack is far more severe than for powder.)
And of course, "they" had to make it a racial issue, since we know that only black people use crack, while white people only use powder cocaine, right? /sarc
Mark
Liberals just want their cut of the dope-pushing business. They want to nationalize it just like every other business. They want the government to get your kids hooked on drugs and then sell them into prostitution, which they also want to legalize and tax.
We have lost more rights in the war on alcohol than we have in the war on drugs.
In the never-ending war on alcohol...
...we can be stopped at any time and asked for our papers.
...we can be forced to take a breathalyzer even if it incriminates us.
...we are forced to abide by a blood-alcohol limit set with no medical explanation.
...we are forced to nursemaid friends at a party who drink for fear of lawsuits.
...we are forced to buy our alcohol from state-run stores (Pennsylvania).
The list goes on and on......
Everyone I know is asking the same question. I suspect you will know the answer much sooner that you think.
My nextdoor neighbor has already been asked to inform on people who do not support the Magic Negro.
Not "any time", and I don't have a problem wrt DUI/license.
Like everything else, lawyers have a traffic-stop scheme to beat this should you be stopped.
Police can setup a checkpoint anywhere they want and ask you for your registration and insurance.
Sorry, unless you subscribe to the liberal view that freedom of movement is a privilege, you cannot agree with DUI checkpoints.
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.