Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Government Goons Murder Puppies!The drug war goes to the dogs.
Reason ^ | April 2006 | Radley Balko

Posted on 04/05/2006 12:57:02 PM PDT by JTN

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-252 next last
To: tacticalogic
Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right? Regulation and taxation of alcohol was certainly considered constitutional by George Washington.
151 posted on 04/06/2006 5:14:44 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Well and necessarily said. The genesis of the current problem is not the petty criminal but rather, the toady politician. They each engage in the "I can be tougher on crime than my opponent," rant. It means nothing and is counter productive and results in the morass that your wise post illustrates. Morons like these politicos pander to the simple, easy, uncomplicated and wrong solution.

Next comes the standard response by non-thinking adults who wouldn't know an intelligent or analytical thought if one bit them on the ankle. They come back with the brillant retort like: "Well, hey man, if you can't do the crime, don't do the crime." How wise and overwhelmingly sagacious. But, these are the same idiots to whom the politicians pander. They represent the lowest common denominator of the dull normal segment of our population; a majority of the common voter.

152 posted on 04/06/2006 5:46:31 PM PDT by middie (ath.Tha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

See my #152 in reply to TKDietz--it applies to your comment.


153 posted on 04/06/2006 5:50:42 PM PDT by middie (ath.Tha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right? Regulation and taxation of alcohol was certainly considered constitutional by George Washington.

I never told you that for the first time. We aren't talking about taxation, we're talking about regulating commerce. Specifically we're talking about the federal government regulating the internal commerce of the States.

154 posted on 04/06/2006 6:11:27 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Specifically we're talking about the federal government regulating the internal commerce of the States.

So you're hoping to find the WOD unconstitutional based on the argument that illegal drugs (1) Constitute commerce and (2) that commerce doesn't cross state lines. If I were going to hang my hat on something to show federal overreach, this would not be it. About 70 years of cases are going to get tossed in front of the Supremes showing that drugs extensively cross national and state borders. Are legal drugs capable of being regulated in your world view, or is it just illegal drugs that can't be regulated? What of smuggling? Are all goods out of the reach of the government to regulate, or is it just illegal drugs? Were the tariffs that were in effect from 1786 illegal or was it just the enforcement of the tariffs that were illegal? Are tariffs legal, but prohibition not? What of 10,000% tariffs? Please clarify.

155 posted on 04/06/2006 6:49:17 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"you think it's OK for your unleashed dogs to attack and maul and send to the hospital anyone who happens to place a foot on your property -- then be prepared for the consequences, even if those consequences are "unfair".

My yard is posted with no trespassing and beware of dog signs. The law does not require my dogs to be leashed in my yard and nobody, not even the police, have a "right" to trespass on my property and kill my dogs for defending it. If they were to knock on the door and ask me to restrain my dogs I probably would, but SWAT teams are confused. They believe they are military units and do not operate as civilian police should. They just trespass as they wish and shoot the "enemy" dogs in most cases. IMO SWAT teams are out of control and are used to often for even fairly mundane tasks.


156 posted on 04/06/2006 7:03:30 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
No. Its because they don't have the money. Brain dead druggies will never have the money and they'll kill for the fix, they don't care if its $5 or $100.

Research has been done on this subject, and the conclusion of the research is that prohibition increases crime.

Homicide Rates and Substance Control Policy

My research indicates that the theory of the primary cause of violent crime in the United States which is most consistent with the available data is a violent black market caused by the War on Drugs today, and Prohibition in the 1920’s.

...

The results of the regression analyses (table 1) support the hypothesis that the prohibition of alcohol or drugs is the primary cause of violent crime in the United States.

...

Bruce Benson et al. (1992: 679) performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from 67 Florida counties in 1986 and 1987 to determine if property crime is positively related to the intensity of drug enforcement activities. Harold Brumm et al. (1995: 509) examined data on 57 cities in 32 states in 1985 to determine if homicide rates are positively correlated with the percentage of a communities law enforcement resources that are devoted to the enforcement of drug laws. Both property crime and violent crime were determined to be positively correlated with the intensity of drug enforcement activities.

...

The remaining question is what the strong correlation between the homicide rate, the United States’ substance control policy, and, during the later half of the twentieth century the United States’ weapons control policy, means. One possible theory for the correlation between the homicide rate and the substance control proxy is that homicides are caused by drug and alcohol use, and therefore homicides increase as drug and alcohol arrests increase. This theory does not explain the data. I have shown in table 1 that the fit between the homicide rate and the drug use rate is very poor, but this result is of somewhat limited value since drug use data is only available from 1975 to 1997 and none of the other proxies are significant during this time period. The best argument against the theory that substance abuse causes crime is the end of prohibition. The end of prohibition by the repeal of the 18th amendment in 1933 was a political choice unrelated to a change in alcohol use. This political choice was soon followed by a large decrease in the homicide rate. This indicates that the theory which is most consistent with the data is that changes in the homicide rate are responses to changes in substance control policy. I therefore conclude that the best theory of the primary cause of violent crime in the United States is a violent black market caused by the War on Drugs today, and Prohibition in the 1920’s.

See also:

Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and Alcohol(pdf)

This paper examines the relation between prohibitions and violence using the historical behavior of the homicide rate in the United States. The results document that increases in enforcement of drug and alcohol prohibtion have been associated with increases in the homicide rate and auxilliary evidence suggests this positive correlation reflects a causal effect of prohibition enforcement on homicide. Controlling for other potential determinants of the homicide rate - the age composition of the population, the incarceration rate, economic conditions, gun availability, and the death penalty - does not alter the conclusion that drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the United States over much of the past 100 years.

...

[T]he estimates presented here suggest the homicide rate is currently 25-75% higher than it would be in the absence of drug prohibition.


157 posted on 04/06/2006 7:08:05 PM PDT by JTN ("I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
So you're hoping to find the WOD unconstitutional based on the argument that illegal drugs (1) Constitute commerce and (2) that commerce doesn't cross state lines. If I were going to hang my hat on something to show federal overreach, this would not be it. About 70 years of cases are going to get tossed in front of the Supremes showing that drugs extensively cross national and state borders. Are legal drugs capable of being regulated in your world view, or is it just illegal drugs that can't be regulated? What of smuggling? Are all goods out of the reach of the government to regulate, or is it just illegal drugs? Were the tariffs that were in effect from 1786 illegal or was it just the enforcement of the tariffs that were illegal? Are tariffs legal, but prohibition not? What of 10,000% tariffs? Please clarify.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

What is it about that you don't understand?

158 posted on 04/06/2006 9:11:34 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: George_Bailey
"The original poster's statement is, in fact, true. They waited for hours and even had food sent in while kids bled to death inside. I remember it vividly."

What he said was "In Columbine they cowered outside while innocent schoolkids were being shot."

That is not true. One officer was on site at 12:05. He and other officers assisted kids escaping while the SWAT team prepared for entry. The two pieces if shit committed suicide at 12:20. 15 Minutes is hardly time to prepare a tactical entry. And I would not call the cops actions "Cowering"
159 posted on 04/07/2006 12:36:34 AM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Carolinadave

Check out http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/frameset.exclude.html

I would not call the actions of the cops cowering. And I am sick of pussies that sit in nice back and say they would have save the day. Those two pieces of shit committed suicide at 12:20. 15 minutes after the first cop arrived. Do you think the fact the cops were there motivated the early suicide? The plan had been to kill EVERYONE.


160 posted on 04/07/2006 12:43:38 AM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal
I would not call the actions of the cops cowering.

I would. Maybe you should get some actual FACTS before you bloviate.

What Went Wrong At Columbine by Larry Pratt

Brian Rohrbough is the father of one of the victims at Columbine. In an interview I conducted with him for my talk show Live Fire, my listeners were informed of the continuing lawsuits pursued by Rohrbough to pry the information from the authorities who have engaged in a massive cover-up.

Rohrbough accuses the police of having been cowards. Most of the officers he hastens to add wanted to go in, but the first officers on the scene became cowards. They had a gun fight with the killers and ran to hide behind their cars instead of running into the school.

Their cowardice soon became the orders from above, ultimately from the Sheriff himself.

There was about seven minutes before the killers killed anyone inside the school (two had been killed outside, including Rohrbough's son). Obviously, if the officers had gone into the building immediately, there is a great likelihood that many lives could have been saved.

It is now known that the police waited for three hours after they knew the killers were dead before they finally entered the building. This was the time during which a teacher bled to death in plain sight of the world.

161 posted on 04/07/2006 4:34:02 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal
http://www.cnn.com

Your source is CNN?

LOL!

162 posted on 04/07/2006 4:35:13 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20
"and nobody, not even the police, have a "right" to trespass on my property and kill my dogs for defending it."

I haven't bothered to research the laws in your state (and I'm sure you haven't either), but if you lived in Florida, not only do the police have a "right" to trespass on your property and kill your dogs, but you can be sued by the police for injuries.

163 posted on 04/07/2006 4:50:40 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
A snippet by James Madison that was written 43 years after the ratification is your PROOF? He states that interstate commerce was to be regulated to protect the importing from the non-importing. In the WOD, they are all importing, which falls to a different clause all together. But as long as we're digging up Madison quotes:

"The power to regulate trade is a compound technical phrase, to be expounded by the sense in which it has usually been taken, as shewn by the purpose to which it has usually been applied. To interpret it with a literal strictness, excluding whatever is not specified, would exclude even the retaliating and extorting power against the unequal policy of other nations, which is not specified, yet is admitted by all to be included...

Letter to W. C. Rives, January 10, 1829

Is a poisonous and ruinous product shipped in from a foreign power able to be regulated? No doubt you will now turn to asking why the local PCP lab selling to local kids is a federal issue. That is at least a good question, best answered by explaining why there should be no federal regulation of prescription drugs and the FDA should be disbanded. As you can't justify regulating antibiotics, but not PCP. Or perhaps you do want to justify that?

I am a firm believer that the Federal government is too involved in state matters, but the WOD would be my last choice as an example, and certainly the last issue I would want to tie my banner to. The only people that are going to get excited about it are crack heads. Lazy, shiftless, and brain numb aren't exactly the qualities you want in your staunch supporters.

I admire your push to roll back federalism. I highly recommend you choose a different horse.

164 posted on 04/07/2006 5:17:50 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: JTN

Are these the same reserchers that show that gun bans work?

I have no doubt that legalization would lead to lessen some crimes. There would be less smuggling for starters. The Europeans are living through a crime wave right now that is growing and growing at an inverse rate to their drug enforcement. One might ask why people in a nanny state would commit such crimes, especially with cheap drugs?


165 posted on 04/07/2006 5:21:52 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Comment #166 Removed by Moderator

To: SampleMan
SampleMan wrote:

Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right?

The 14th makes clear that governments cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - In other words, laws must be both written & enforced using Constitutional due process.

Justice Harlan on due process:

     "-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . "
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

Thus we see that prohibitory laws violate due process, since they declare you guilty by mere possession of the 'sinful/illegal' object.

167 posted on 04/07/2006 6:20:22 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I am a firm believer that the Federal government is too involved in state matters, but the WOD would be my last choice as an example, and certainly the last issue I would want to tie my banner to. The only people that are going to get excited about it are crack heads. Lazy, shiftless, and brain numb aren't exactly the qualities you want in your staunch supporters.

I admire your push to roll back federalism. I highly recommend you choose a different horse.

Everyone has their favorite piece of the federal pie. You're apparently not willing to give up yours, or at least get right with the Constitution by refusing to support it without an amendment.

168 posted on 04/07/2006 7:17:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; tacticalogic
James Madison was Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson in 1802 when alcohol sales to the Indians were prohibited under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes" and when all trade with Europe was prohibited (see Jefferson's Embargo, 1807) under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations.

Now, you would have thought that James Madison, the author of the Commerce Clause, would have said something if he believed that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit".

tacticalogic would have us believe that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same constitutional clause.

169 posted on 04/07/2006 11:07:51 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Are these the same reserchers that show that gun bans work?

No, these are the same researchers that show that gun bans don't work. An example from each:

Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis

Vioence rates differ dramatically across countries. A widely held view is that these differences reflect differences in gun control and/or gun availability, and certain pieces of evidence appear consistent with this hypothesis. A more detailed examination of this evidence, however, suggests that the role of gun control/availability is not compelling.

Crime and the Drug War

Disparities between the poor and the rich are often considered causes of our high crime rate, but the United States has not only one of the world's highest crime rates, but also one of the world's largest middle classes. The religious right claims America's huge crime rate is caused by a break-down of family values. This would require family values breaking down suddenly in 1907, returning in 1933, and suddenly breaking down again in 1964. Many liberals believe that America's large crime rate is due to our lack of gun-control laws, but America's gun-control policy has changed little throughout this century. There is no way gun control can explain the enormous fluctuations in America's homicide rate. The United States government's substance control policies are the only answer. The only way to lower America's violent crime rate, short of turning the United States into a totalitarian state, is through ending the War on Drugs.

I have no doubt that legalization would lead to lessen some crimes. There would be less smuggling for starters. The Europeans are living through a crime wave right now that is growing and growing at an inverse rate to their drug enforcement. One might ask why people in a nanny state would commit such crimes, especially with cheap drugs?

Rising unemployment rates might be a good place to start looking for your answer. Crime rates are influenced by many factors. Looking at a change in drug policy in some country and then seeing if anything changes without looking at other confounding factors is worthless.

That is why research, like that I linked above, is so valuable. It controls for other factors which influence the crime rate, and concludes that they alone do not account for the difference.

170 posted on 04/07/2006 11:48:37 AM PDT by JTN ("I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; tacticalogic; Everybody
paulsen 'prohibits' commerce:

James Madison was Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson in 1802 when alcohol sales to the Indians were prohibited under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes"
[the tribes were our adversaries]
and when all trade with Europe was prohibited (see Jefferson's Embargo, 1807) under Congress' power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations.

'Regulating commerce' with adversaries/enemies can include prohibiting trade with them.

Now, you would have thought that James Madison, the author of the Commerce Clause, would have said something if he believed that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit".

I'm sure Madison would have "said something" if he intended to give Congress the power to prohibit trade "among the several states"; -- and I'm sure the states representatives would have rode him out of town on a rail for suggesting such a stupid idea.
The US Congress & government has no power to prohibit trade between the States of the Union. -- They only have the power to reasonably regulate.

tacticalogic would have us believe that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same constitutional clause.

robertpausen would have us believe that "to regulate" can not be used to differentiate when we trade with friends, -- and potential or real enemies.

Bobby has an agenda, -- to empower governments at all levels with the ability to prohibit anything, for any reason.

171 posted on 04/07/2006 12:31:11 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: JTN
Follow-up by Mr. Balko:

"One theme that keeps emerging the more I write about this SWAT stuff is that longtime police officers have grown really wary of the militant, cowboy culture among younger cops. I don't agree with everything in the following email, sent to me ealier this week in response to the Reason piece on puppycide. But the part about older cops being skeptical of the military influence creeping into the local police department is consistent with what other cops have told me:"

As a lifelong supporter of Law Enforcement allow me to say: It is now in some cases sadly attracting the wrong element of wanna be tough guys. The old guys call them "the new breed" and it ain't a compliment. Some younger ones in particular seem to relish weilding their authority, frequently use profanity, and a very, very small number border on sadistic. I don't know how the MMPI didn't weed them out.

Their mommy sat them in front of too many episodes of "COPS."

My friend was the assistant Deputy District Attorney and is now a Judge in the Criminal Division. The Sherriff's Dept asked him how to staff the SWAT team they were forming. His answer:

"Ask for volunteers, then take that list of names... and toss it in the trash. That'll eliminate the Cowboys."

Drugs are a scourge. It is not a "victimless crime" as some aging ponytailed old hippies allege. Heroin and Meth wrecked hundreds of thousands of lives. I watched my stepson slide into hell over his drug addiction and he never recovered. He's now 35 living in a beat up trailer park either blasted out of his skull or drunk as a pig every day of his life. And it all started before I met his mother with weed. It IS a "gateway drug." I'll quote him: " I don't have a problem." This is while he sittng in a freezing trailer with no lights because he spent all his money on "altering his conciousness. "

But "Dynamic Entry" has become the preferred method of affecting arrests by many departments all too often on the wrong house due to sloppy police work or bad intel. I've read of cops doing this on the word of felony convicted confidential Informants with zero credibility finding out after the fact that the suspect had moved a year before. A simple call to the public utility companies or a credit bureau address update would have verified the address. Level Three body armor and an MP-5A does nothing to raise your score on the Stanford-Binet IQ scale.

I used to handle Police Canines twenty years ago. Shootng a violent Pit Bull or Mastiff may occasionally be necessary (OC spray rarely stops a Pit, bullets can fail to penetrate the cranial vault ) if the animal is protecting some MS-13 banger who uses the animal as a weapon.

Shooting someone's harmless pet for fun is a window into a sick soul. Chasing a terrified puppy into a burning house earns you a special place in hell.

" I should note here that the Reason piece wasn't meant to be a cop-bashing piece. It was more of a comment on reaction to stories of SWAT excess, how people tend to shrug off the latest no-knock resulting in death or injury of a nonviolent pot smoker, but seem to get genuinely pissed off when they hear that the family dog took fire, too."

Old Guard and New Guard

172 posted on 04/07/2006 7:17:14 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill

Yea I saw your source too, much more credible. Nothing like a guy with an agenda to get your info.


173 posted on 04/08/2006 12:18:24 AM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal
Nothing like a guy with an agenda to get your info.

Larry Pratt (Gun Owners Of America) has a lot more credibility around here than the liberal CNN.

174 posted on 04/08/2006 2:13:33 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; tacticalogic

Tacticalogic,

Sorry for the delay in response, I took my family camping.

You have identified me as a believer in the existence of a Federal government. I concur. I don't think a loose confederation would serve us well. This issue was settled twice with History on the side of a stronger Federal government than you would like. Doesn't mean specifically that you are wrong, but you are going to need a stronger argument than the WOD.

Just for clarification I also don't like the pure libertarian view of privatized police, fire/rescue, etc.

Now, as I said, I think the Federal government has too big of a roll in the collective governace of this country. I base that both on Constitutional grounds and on practical grounds (I don't think its working out so good).

Before charging headlong down the path of federal excommunication, you need to give a little thought to the devil you don't know. One of the primary reasons the federal government was able to so easily enlarge its reach, was because there was so much corruption, abuse of power, and inneffectiveness in local governments. There is absolutely no reason to think that the states would "legalize" drugs, some might, most wouldn't. Some might return to a prohibition on alcohol and create one on tobacco. Without federal oversight, state border checkpoints might likely become common, to check for prohibited items. A small town sheriff in partner with the local magistrate can be extremely powerful, "How much money you got boy?" New Orleans ring a bell? I've had several friends robbed at gun point in NO, by the police.

So you can make your Constitutional arguments for restricting the Federal government to its size of 1786, and I'll agree with some of it. But its naive to think that you are going to have an easier time correcting the abuses of state government than the federal government. In fact, it was the national spotlight that served to clean up a lot of local corruption.

Out of curiosity, how do you propose to legalize drugs? Are you suggesting that the federal government force the states to legalize?

Before you throw out the bath water, determine how you are going to deal with the baby.


175 posted on 04/08/2006 6:38:45 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: JTN

Should have included you in my post #175.


176 posted on 04/08/2006 6:39:45 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Out of curiosity, how do you propose to legalize drugs?

"Legalizing drugs" is not the objective. Putting the decision back where it belongs within the original architecture of the Republic is.

177 posted on 04/09/2006 7:33:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I've had several friends robbed at gun point in NO, by the police.

That's called "asset forfeiture".

178 posted on 04/09/2006 8:04:26 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
tacticalogic would have us believe that "to regulate" has three different meanings when used in the same constitutional clause.

RP would have us believe there is no difference between regulating commerce "among the several states" and "with foreign nations", that the relationship between the federal government and States is no different than it's relationship with foreign governments.

179 posted on 04/09/2006 10:35:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Legalizing drugs" is not the objective.

I beg to differ, but I'm just basing my opinion on all of these posts.

But just for the record:

1. You are not for legalization.

2. You're problem with the WOD isn't the enforcement, abuses, or money spent, but the derived authority of the enforcer and the treasurer?

Got it. I'll work on getting the federal gov. out of classrooms and you can work on getting the to stop chasing drug runners.

180 posted on 04/09/2006 1:52:37 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
You're problem with the WOD isn't the enforcement, abuses, or money spent, but the derived authority of the enforcer and the treasurer?

Got it.

You seem to have decided to start working both sides of the debate, asking questions and then providing your own answers. Maybe this time it will turn out like you want it.

181 posted on 04/09/2006 1:57:21 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You seem to have decided to start working both sides of the debate, asking questions and then providing your own answers. Maybe this time it will turn out like you want it.

I asked questions, you gave answers (which I found illogical), and I restated them for clarification. I was working off you position that it "wasn't about 'Legalization'", but about putting things back where they belonged.

Apparently you think I misstated your position. Please amplify. I'll make them simple, so I don't get confused, please respond by number.

1. Are you for or against the legalization of drugs?

2. Is the problem, as it relates to the thread, that there is abuse or that the wrong government is involved in the abuse?

3. Do you believe the Federal government has the Constitutional power to regulate and/or prohibit the imports from abroad?

4. What if any authority do you believe the FBI should have?

Now if you can answer those, per the numbers, I won't have to restate things for you in order to grasp your positions.

182 posted on 04/09/2006 4:27:41 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That's called "asset forfeiture".

As there was no possibility of due process or even an alleged crime, I'm pretty sure the correct term is "armed robbery".

183 posted on 04/09/2006 5:06:21 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
1. Are you for or against the legalization of drugs?

Loaded question. If I say I'm for it, then you tell me I don't have anything to complain about. If I say I'm against it, I want to see babies hooked on crack.

2. Is the problem, as it relates to the thread, that there is abuse or that the wrong government is involved in the abuse?

Another loaded question. Whichever one I choose, you'll deride me for not caring about the other.

3. Do you believe the Federal government has the Constitutional power to regulate and/or prohibit the imports from abroad?

That one may be loaded too. Is this a choice between no power an all, and unlimited power for any reason (or none at all)?

4. What if any authority do you believe the FBI should have?

They should have the power to investigate federal crimes.

184 posted on 04/09/2006 7:36:33 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Look friend, the only thing "loaded" about my questions is that they are clear, thus requiring clear answers. I still have no freakin idea what your real positions are beyond the esoteric, because you don't want to defend them, so you won't state them.

I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to understand your position. This is difficult as you back away from everything, as soon as I point out the problems with the alternative.

Let me give you an "example" for #1.

1. "For legalization, because God gave us self-determination and you can't stop people bent on self destruction."

Now I might disagree with that. I might think it callous. And I'll tell you that. But I don't think it requires "wanting to see babies hooked on crack".

You somehow think I'm trying to trick you, or get you, or that I think you have no basis. You are wrong on all counts. I just don't think the WOD is a good, rational, or tactically sound place for you to start your crusade. Additionally, I find your assertion that this makes me a roll in the pork, federal pie eater to be absurd.

I'm closer to your position than 95% of the population. If you can't have a civil, honest discussion with me, where you address the challenges to your ideas, then you might as well forget about the other 45% that you will need.
185 posted on 04/10/2006 4:50:43 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
2. You're problem with the WOD isn't the enforcement, abuses, or money spent, but the derived authority of the enforcer and the treasurer?

Got it. I'll work on getting the federal gov. out of classrooms and you can work on getting the to stop chasing drug runners.

That didn't look like a reply from someone interested in a serious, civil discussion. If I misunderstood, I apoligize.

186 posted on 04/10/2006 5:39:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That didn't look like a reply from someone interested in a serious, civil discussion. If I misunderstood, I apoligize.

Well, I don't see the hostility in my questions. As I said, your responses up to the point of that post, brought me to the conclusion of question #2 about your position. This didn't seem logical to me (thus the question mark), so I stated what I inferred was your position as clearly as I could, and asked if I was correct. Simply answering the question would clarify this issue.

187 posted on 04/10/2006 6:18:15 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

In response to that question, I am concerned about the abuses, but wgt the federal government's involvement I think the first qustion to be addressed should be wheather they should be involved at all. As long as that's in question, wheather or not they're doing it right or not seems to be rather moot.


188 posted on 04/10/2006 6:46:37 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
SampleMan asked at #151:

Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right?

The 14th makes clear that governments cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - In other words, laws must be both written & enforced using Constitutional due process.

--- No reply. --
Now, I see SampleMan say:

Look friend, the only thing "loaded" about my questions is that they are clear, thus requiring clear answers.

I still have no freakin idea what your real positions are ---

I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to understand your position.

This is difficult as you back away from everything, ---

I see hypocrisy.

If you can't have a civil, honest discussion with me, where you address the challenges to your ideas, ---

Care to address my challenge to your ideas, sampleman?

189 posted on 04/10/2006 7:17:30 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; tacticalogic

The 14th Amendment does not make a case for the legalization of drugs. As for due process, there is a case that you can make concerning certain aspects of drug enforcement.

I am doin my best here to make heads or tales of the cryptic points being made, but no one appears likely to define a clear agenda any time soon.

Like I said, I'm closer than 95% of the population to you folks and you're shootin to kill. You have zero chance of persuading anyone of anything until you can get beyond your own indignation. If you can't, simply pick out a bar stool, sit down on it, and spend the rest of your life bitching.


190 posted on 04/10/2006 7:47:55 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
SampleMan wrote:

Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right?

The 14th makes clear that governments cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - In other words, laws must be both written & enforced using Constitutional due process.

Justice Harlan on due process:

     "-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . "
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

Thus we see that prohibitory laws violate due process, since they declare you guilty by mere possession of the 'sinful/illegal' object.

The 14th Amendment does not make a case for the legalization of drugs.

Of course it doesn't. -- It makes clear that governments must use due process in the writing & enforcement of valid laws. Prohibitions on drugs violate due process, as per Harlan.

As for due process, there is a case that you can make concerning certain aspects of drug enforcement.

Yep, - a case you avoid in favor of prohibitory 'laws', - laws repugnant to our Constitutions principles.

I am doin my best here to make heads or tales of the cryptic points being made, but no one appears likely to define a clear agenda any time soon.

FR's clearly stated 'agenda' is constitutional restoration. -- What's yours?

Like I said, I'm closer than 95% of the population to you folks and you're shootin to kill. You have zero chance of persuading anyone of anything until you can get beyond your own indignation. If you can't, simply pick out a bar stool, sit down on it, and spend the rest of your life bitching.

Whatta bunch of bull. -- You are simply another prohibitionist, trying to get your own 'agenda' across by using subterfuge, as your initial question above proves.

191 posted on 04/10/2006 8:38:44 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Well, at least someone was finally clear about advocating the free use of drugs (I'm not saying you think being a crack head is good, so let's not get bogged down on that).

I don't concur with your interpretation of the stated case.

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .

Arbitrary would be random and without reason. To say that the purposes for banning and regulating drugs is random and without reason is unfathomable. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it arbitrary.

Don't think you'll have much luck getting to a majority with your attitude either, so I'm not much worried about it. Assuming that taxation equates to a form of regulation, the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion provides another lesson in how the framers read the Constitution on this subject.

I'm curious about how far you've thought this out though. Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack? If not, do you find legitimacy in any regulations on water, food preparation, radio frequencies, etc.

192 posted on 04/10/2006 9:28:40 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
The 14th Amendment does not make a case for the legalization of drugs.

Of course it doesn't. -- It makes clear that governments must use due process in the writing & enforcement of valid laws. Prohibitions on drugs violate due process, as per Harlan.

As for due process, there is a case that you can make concerning certain aspects of drug enforcement.

Yep, - a case you avoid in favor of prohibitory 'laws', - laws repugnant to our Constitutions principles.

Well, at least someone was finally clear about advocating the free use of drugs (I'm not saying you think being a crack head is good, so let's not get bogged down on that).

Straw argument. Drug use can be reasonably regulated by the States, without using prohibitions.

I don't concur with your interpretation of the stated case.

[Harlan on Due Process] "-- It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .

Arbitrary would be random and without reason.

Word game again. -- Banning ~some~ drugs, and not alcohol is, for instance, "arbitrary".

To say that the purposes for banning and regulating drugs is random and without reason is unfathomable. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it arbitrary.

The war on ~some~ drugs is an arbitrary prohibition, unconstitutional as proved by the 18th Amendments necessity.

Don't think you'll have much luck getting to a majority with your attitude either, so I'm not much worried about it.

Your 'slip' shows. A "majority" does not rule in our Constitutional Republic.

Assuming that taxation equates to a form of regulation, the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion provides another lesson in how the framers read the Constitution on this subject.

That specific whiskey tax was repealed, proving how the people behind the framers read the Constitution on this subject. -- And again, your support for it proves your agenda.

I'm curious about how far you've thought this out though. Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack?

Get real. Reasonable regulations about drugs are Constitutional. Prohibitions are not.

If not, do you find legitimacy in any regulations on water, food preparation, radio frequencies, etc.

So much for your previous claim:

"-- I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to understand your position. If you can't have a civil, honest discussion with me, where you address the challenges to your ideas, ---"

I see hypocrisy.
Care to address my challenge to your ideas, sampleman?

193 posted on 04/10/2006 10:30:11 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack?

Even though this question was not directed at me, I'd like to answer it. I think that the case for regulating antibiotics is much stronger than the case for regulating recreational drugs, as there is a legitimate public health concern in the overuse of antibiotics; specifically, the threat of drug-resistant diseases. By restricting the use of these drugs, the government is protecting you from the threat of contracting a disease that cannot be treated due to another's misuse of them.

In the case of recreational drugs, all or nearly all of the harm associated with their use falls on the user, and usually even they are not hurt. Most of the justification given for regulating recreational drugs is that of protecting people from hurting themselves. I don't see that as a legitimate function of government.

Of course, I do believe that regulating recreational drugs by placing a minimum age on their use is legitimate. That is not what I mean by "regulate".

194 posted on 04/10/2006 12:40:06 PM PDT by JTN ("I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I'm curious about how far you've thought this out though. Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack?

If regulating drugs for the purpose of general public health is OK, why not have Hillary Care, with the government being in firm control of any drugs you might take your entire life?

It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.

195 posted on 04/10/2006 5:24:08 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If regulating drugs for the purpose of general public health is OK, why not have Hillary Care, with the government being in firm control of any drugs you might take your entire life?

I'm able to make distinctions, that aren't all or nothing. Selling antibiotics over the counter, would result in their becoming totalling useless within 10 years. Your all or nothing approach applies to everything. e.g. If speed limits are OK, then why not have Hillary ride in your right seat with a cattle prod to enforce it and make them all 5mph? I have no problem making logical distinctions.

It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.

I don't concur that it would be a logical extension. Fathomable, but not logical.

196 posted on 04/11/2006 12:07:01 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: JTN
I find your ideas very logical (in that there is consistency) even where I don't agree with them.

The issue of regulating drugs such as Tylenol (a huge unintentional killer) and antibiotics, but not cocaine, can be consistent. I don't agree with it, but it can be consistent.

Where I think the problem lays for your argument is in justifying your position Constitutionally. The ability to regulate one, but not the other is very difficult to argue, as they are both matters where the government is making a law to protect people from themselves.

In a practical sense, there is also a problem. I would want very high taxes on cocaine to cover its impact on social services. The drug companies would demand as much oversight of cocaine manufacture as you have in Aspirin. Trial lawyers would demand an incorporated producer. The end result would be that "recreational drugs" would still be expensive. Not at all likely to solve the associated crime.

I'm personally and religiously not ready to take a "thin the herd" approach.

All in all, I very much appreciate your candor, and I hope you now trust that I too am trying to be very honest and get to the heart of the issue and to the key areas where we likely disagree.
197 posted on 04/11/2006 3:39:17 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Word game again. -- Banning ~some~ drugs, and not alcohol is, for instance, "arbitrary".

This perhaps defines our differences the best. I don't see any problem here. Banning cocaine, but not coffee is no more arbitrary than making 30mph legal in a residential area, but 100mph illegal. Your argument that it must be all or nothing simply doesn't apply to life in general or the Constitution (try screaming FIRE in a theater). Its unfortunate that you can't get past using personal insults to discuss this.

198 posted on 04/11/2006 3:44:02 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I'm able to make distinctions, that aren't all or nothing. Selling antibiotics over the counter, would result in their becoming totalling useless within 10 years. Your all or nothing approach applies to everything. e.g. If speed limits are OK, then why not have Hillary ride in your right seat with a cattle prod to enforce it and make them all 5mph? I have no problem making logical distinctions.

Neither do I, but I'm nonetheless asked to choose between being "for or against legalizing drugs", with no middle ground in sight.

I don't concur that it would be a logical extension. Fathomable, but not logical.

Do you consider the arguments that resulted in the creation of the "substantial effects doctrine" that gives the federal government authority over intrastate commerce to be a logical extension of the interstate commerce clause?

199 posted on 04/11/2006 5:39:37 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
[Harlan on Due Process] "-- It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . --"

Arbitrary would be random and without reason.

You're playing word games again. -- Banning ~some~ drugs, and not alcohol is, for instance, "arbitrary".

To say that the purposes for banning and regulating drugs is random and without reason is unfathomable. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it arbitrary.

The entire war on ~some~ drugs is an arbitrary prohibition, unconstitutional as proved by the 18th Amendments necessity.

This perhaps defines our differences the best. I don't see any problem here. Banning cocaine, but not coffee is no more arbitrary than making 30mph legal in a residential area, but 100mph illegal.

Yep, you see prohibitions on drugs/alcohol as no "problem", despite the obvious unconstitutional violations of due process in making & enforcing such 'laws'.

Your argument that it must be all or nothing ---

Silly 'straw' claim. I say drugs/alcohol can be reasonably regulated. - You are lamely insisting I argue otherwise.

--- simply doesn't apply to life in general or the Constitution (try screaming FIRE in a theater).

Reasonable regs prevent us from "screaming" in a theater, as you well know. -- You've built another 'straw man', -- do you have any other type of rebuttal?

Its unfortunate that you can't get past using personal insults to discuss this.

Its unfortunate that you can't get past using straw men ploys & imagining that I'm using personal insults to discuss this.

200 posted on 04/11/2006 6:49:51 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-252 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson