Posted on 09/07/2012 3:27:44 PM PDT by ex91B10
The chemist at the center of a scandal that shut down a state crime lab was involved in testing more than 50,000 drug samples, raising the possibility of an enormous number of legal challenges from people convicted or awaiting trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at live5news.com ...
Shut down the War on Drugs.
With recreational pharmaceuticals available at base production cost, those wanting to either indulge or to kill themselves would be free to so do. Drug laws are based on the premise that the citizen is property of the state and thus the state has an interest in not allowing the state property (said citizen) to be damaged by drugs.
Oh, don’t forget that laws against suicide are based on the same Royalist concept - can’t kill the King’s property.
Well - in America we are not the property of the state and neither drug laws or anti-suicide laws should have been passed.
“...[T]he problems went beyond sloppiness and in some cases involved deliberately mishandling drug evidence.”
It sure will be huge. Expensive too. Very, very, very expensive.
I’m no fan of the war on drugs, but we do have a vested interest in seeing to it that those who partake do not become a danger to ourselves and others. It also stands to civil decency that we act within reason to prevent people from hurting themselves.
With a certain amount of taxation and regulation we might have something more workable. But in this life . . . there’s no hope of perfection.
This is one of the big reasons that if I were king there would be no death penalty. That said, life behind bars would mean you will die behind bars.
I know this puts me out of step here, but man is fallible, is often not trustworthy, and the government should have no rights that the people don’t have. I can kill you in self defense, but I cannot kill you to punish you. We all know what a justifiable killing is when the individual kills. Why is there a different standard when the individual works for the government?
Sorry to go OT
I agree with you.
“...we do have a vested interest in seeing to it that those who partake do not become a danger to ourselves and others. It also stands to civil decency that we act within reason to prevent people from hurting themselves.”
I hold that the “others” take responsibility rather than asking gooberment goobers to do it for them.
After all, we do believe in free will and personal responsibility.
I understand that. But it is a legitimate function of government, indeed an essential one, to protect life. Those goobers are OUR goobers, or at least they should be. Proper authority derives from God, then to parents, then to civil authority. There is a proper use of creation when it comes to recreation, including altered states of awareness within reason. But . . . human nature needs a curb.
Difficult ground to tread, when people want to put curbs on others that are unnecessary and actually tend toward more violent criminal activity instead of less.
The Founders were, I think, when they designed a system for those who could regulate their own behavior. Those who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, were exiled or executed.
Living as a free citizen in this Republic is not an unlimited gift. Behavior must have consequences.
PS Bring back bounties on criminals.
I could support that, if it would be bare subsistence, no recreation or books, no bodybuilding, no computers, no videogames and no TV.
And no discretion for any court at any level to claim jurisdiction over the administration of any state prisons.
Congress has the power to limit even the jurisdiction of the Supreme court, in matters not clearly Constitutional.
Congress hasn’t done that, and it would be politically unpopular to create a special situation where grievances would have less avenue to be addressed than others. It would be seen as rolling out the red carpet for abuses.
It is necessary to recognize the role of government in reigning in degenerate behavior. I do not happen to believe smoking a joint is de facto inappropriate behavior, except that most law prohibits it. Laws prohibiting/regulating intake of mind-altering, or potentially debilitating substances derive from the ubiquitous tendency of certain people to hurt others and themselves, whether intentionally or not.
I would personally submit to the State a small annual sum and clerical examination in order to enjoy the consumption of cannibis on a limited scale, provided this activity take place under circumstances that involve no driving or operating heavy equipment on my part (or any other responsibility that may have a direct impact on another's life). In exchange, the State would allow me to procure and make use of this substance without fear of arrest/imprisonment, and would also make efforts to insure that it would meet certain health standards, i.e. not be laced with heroin or some such.
This is what I would advocate, but do not practice, in deference to authority as it stands in my local circumstances.
I wonder what happened? Did she do this intentionally? Did she naively trust her supervisors who may have encouraged this with their lack of due dilligence? Now that it’s been discovered, are they hanging her out to dry to cover their fat a$$es? Was she qualified and trained? Were the supervisors qualified and trained? After 50,000 samples somebody finally noticed. I just think it may not be only the chemist who’s at fault here.
I agree.Too many Mike Nifongs out in the world for me to trust the court system. It no longer hands down justice, it's a "win at all costs" contest.
BTW: Whats's "OT"?
God gives us “free will” and man takes it away. Free will comes with responsibility in society. Doing drugs is not an offense against society in and of itself. It’s what they do while on the drugs that becomes a problem.
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.