Skip to comments.SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS (This Is Gettin' Scary)
Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This cannot be a good development.
Much as the first abortion clinics were opened in minority communities to keep that population down.
I'm no fan of Soros, but the Rockerfeller drug laws are tyrannical to their core, and representatives who support them deserve to get beaten.
bump for research file
The entire movement against them is basically whining by affluent parents who are upset that their little darling has to do ten years for selling coke in his dorm.
It's not their fault or their kid's fault that their child is a disgusting degenerate who gets his kicks preying on the weakness of others - it's the evil, tyrannical state of New York.
I wonder if you or any of these jokers understands what tyranny actually is.
I wonder if you or any of these jokers understands what freedom actually is.
Looks like there's a storm brewin' here...
I'll define one form of freedom for you - the freedom in knowing that your day is your own and that it won't have to be spent in stealing, borrowing or begging for just enough money to buy your next fix.
You believe in theoretical freedom - I believe in the actual article.
The Rockerfeller laws are in plain contravention of the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments to the Constitution - amendments constructed with the specific intent of making impossible a repeat of the tyrannical abuses of the King of England. In addition, they are not only a current failure, but prohibition laws are also a historical failure.
What tyranny is, is the failure to respect the inalienable rights of man. What the above-referenced Amendments are, are enumerations of some of those rights. Therefore, the Rockerfeller laws are tyrannical.
If you knew what tyranny is, then you would see as clearly as I do that the Rockerfeller laws are.
Apparently it's not the freedom to have the contents of your body unregulated by the government.
Under the Rockerfeller drug laws someone who steals my car or holds me up at knifepoint will do less time than a street dealer who gets caught with one shift's supply of heroin or crack. That's only morally wrong but pragmatically stupid -- I don't think drug dealing is a victimless crime, but the victims are least willing participants...
Mighty prejudicial in your definition of freedom. All these phony laws do is to teach us to break the law. The more we break the law the easier it is to reconcile. We pick and choose the laws we follow, and the more we reconcile our lawlessness the easier it is to justify further breaking of bull$hit laws. The more laws there are; the less law there is.
Legalize everything, 99.9% pure. Have the goobermint provide it, along with a hole in the desert to drop your carcass. I guarantee there will be fewer addicts after the first year. You'll uncrowd the prisons, you'll get rid of a disgusting element, fertilize the desert, and, the bodies of the dead addicts will set a wonderful example against drug use for our children. If your son or daughter ends up as fertilizer you must accept the blame for planting the seed of temptation.
I really don't see why drugs require locking people up for decades whereas homosexuality (a real killer) is protected, and drinking and smoking tobacco are tolerated. The only real purpose I can see is that such laws enable the government to more fully control its citizens. If you live in NYC like I do, you see potheads all the time, and you see drunk people all the time, and there's no question that of the two, the drunk people are the ones you want to avoid.
Legalize everything, 99.9% pure. Have the goobermint provide it, along with a hole in the desert to drop your carcass. I guarantee there will be fewer addicts after the first year. You'll uncrowd the prisons, you'll get rid of a disgusting element, fertilize the desert, and, the bodies of the dead addicts will set a wonderful example against drug use for our children. If your son or daughter ends up as fertilizer you must accept the blame for planting the seed of temptation.""
If you get all of that, I want this in return:
ANY theft, burglary, robbery, carjacking, embezzlement, etc with ANY connection to drugs MUST be punishable be DEATH, with no appeals, no delays. Firing squad- swift and final.
Also- if you want to use drugs- NO employer can hire you. I do not want all my products to skyrocket in price because "employers" are required to keep you on the payroll, and you're now a workmen's comp liability. So using these drugs will place you outside the ranks of the employed. No free housing, no free food, no free transportation. You will be shunned from society. Drugs are your choice, but I will NOT be punished for your stupid choices.
If they are going to have easy access, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for bothering those of us who do not use drugs.
If this were the case, the extremely liberal NY judiciary would have thrown them out on Constitutional grounds long ago.
The 4th Amendment is obviously not violated by the law - there is no exemption for law enforcement from probable cause under the law.
Neither is the 5th Amendment violated either. The law provides for open indictments and full due process for the accused - again their are no exemptions for law enforcement under this law.
Nor is the 8th Amendment. Prison sentences for crimes are neither cruel nor unusual - and "excessive" bail is and has always been in the eye of the beholder. The defendant always thinks bail is too high.
What tyranny is, is the failure to respect the inalienable rights of man.
That's a pretty weak and specious definition.
What tyranny actually is, by historical definition, is a system wherein the governed have no say - a system usually reserved to the arbitrary whim of a single unelected ruler.
When the Founders were framing the Constitution, their notion of tyranny was clearly modeled on the Greek institution of tyranny (arbitrary rule of one man with no redress for citizens) and by what they saw as the tyranny of Great Britain - namely that by being deprived of Parliamentary representation, the colonists were effectively ruled by the arbitrary whim of the King without any means of redress.
Even if we pretend that selling crack is an "inalienable right" of man, which it manifestly isn't, a law passed by (and subject to the repeal of) the people's elected representatives is the definitional opposite of tyranny.
Unless you can prove that the Rockefeller laws sanction warrantless searches without probable cause, sanction indictments without benefit of grand juries, sanction conviction without due process etc., then your citation of the Bill of Rights is laughable. In point of fact, anyone convicted under the Rockefeller laws was served with a warrant, was indicted by a grand jury, was provided full recourse to counsel and a fair trial, and received a merited prison sentence.
The fact that you and a minority of NY residents don't like a law passed by the majority of the people's elected representatives is just too bad for you and your friends.
If you don't like it, make your case to the electorate and vote in a State Assembly that will pass laws that you prefer.
In the meantime, the law is the law.
Therefore, the Rockerfeller laws are tyrannical.
You have actually given two variant definitions of "tyrannical" now. One is, apparently, the "violation of the inalienable rights of man." That is a novel definition heretofore unknown. Your second definition is "violation of the Bill of Rights." Not all violations of the Bill of Rights are tyrannical - they are all unconstitutional but not all are "tyrannical." So this is erroneous as well.
If we go by the definition of tyranny our Founding Fathers used, the Rockefeller laws are not tyrannous.
Nor are they a violation of the "rights of man" unless the freedom of selling crack has now magically taken its place alongside the freedom of worship and freedom of the press.
If you knew what tyranny is, then you would see as clearly as I do that the Rockerfeller laws are.
Ah, but I do know what tyranny is. What you don't seem to understand is that spewing hysterical rhetoric does not enable you to redefine words to your liking. You believe that smoking crack is an important, imperishable, divine right. Believe that as fervently as you desire.
But please don't pretend to have a monopoly on "seeing clearly."
By the way... very pertinent current and relevant, check out the story on the baseball player who threw a chair into the stands, seriously injuring a woman, and the pleas on his behalf for leniency.
I would add one thing: if you offer drugs to my children, I reserve the right to kill you, free and clear.
Ah NOW I see clearly. You are a left-wing troll who thinks words can mean whatever you want them to mean. What the heck are you doing on FR? Wasting the time of people who love freedom?
And what is Soares' alternative? "... treatment programs, education and job opportunities are needed to effectively tackle the problem."
Uh-huh. A drug treatment program for a scumbag drug dealer. That'll work. Actually, that'll introduce him to whole new clientele, won't it?
Education and job opportunities? Yeah. Tell the drug dealer with that PhD in astrophysics that he could be putting his education to better use. Tell that 18-year-old 7th grade dropout that he'd be better off making $7.50/hr. at McDonald's than $400./day dealing drugs.
You're not proposing drug freedom -- you're proposing drug anarchy.
You're absolutely correct - this isn't tyranny at all, just American-style socialism.
America can make socialism work!
Press on, lads!
On what basis did they determine that the outcome would have been different without the Soros donations?
"Under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the possession of four ounces or sale of two ounces of certain controlled substances is a Class A felony and carries a penalty of 15 years to life in prison. Possession of two ounces or the sale of half an ounce mandates three years to life in prison".
Certainly the street dealer knows the laws. Yet he deals. That's New York's fault?
"It doesn't matter if it's forged; it's the content that matters...."
Sure, there you go! An American Nationalist Socialist trifecta. If you think correctly you can be in the party, and you can only work or vote if you're in the party. The friggin' brownshirts in conservative clothes outta like that!
I think there's a big problem with murder being a lesser charge in terms of penalties than is being a small-time drug dealer, don't you?
Do you support hate crime legislation, too?
Let the record show that "wideawake" believes that gun confiscation is perfectly Constitutional.
Hopefully, they might even become lawyers - the commissars of American socialism.
Do alcohol, tobacco, prescribed anti-depressants, etc., meet your definition of 'drugs'? If not, why not?
The fact that you descend to personal insult and lies means that you effectively concede the argument.
You are the individual who has attempted to redefine "tyranny" into a definition unknown to the Founding Fathers.
Let me offer you some dictionary definitions of tyranny, if you like.
OED: "The government of a tyrant or absolute ruler; in a general sense, absolute sovereignty; a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute prince."
American Heritage: "A government in whicha single ruler is vested with absolute power; the office, authority or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler; absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly."
In the literal sense of the word a law passed by the duly elected representatives of a state cannot be tyrannical - you dislike the law so you call it tyrannical, but it can only be so described metaphorically - the actual conditions necessary for tyranny do not obtain.
What the heck are you doing on FR?
Conversing with my fellow conservatives, and enduring the occasional harpy-like harangue of left-libertarians like yourself. If you have a problem with my presence here feel free to report me to the mods or to Jim himself.
Wasting the time of people who love freedom?
There is a difference between loving freedom and loving untrammeled addiction to crack cocaine. Despite your efforts to obscure that bright line.
By the way, if you come up with a rational argument for your position at any time in the future, I would love to discuss it with you.
Okay, I'll bite. If drug prohibition as it stands is constitutional, why then was it necessary to amend the Constitution for alcohol prohibition?
Now that's funny!
Like you (you left-wing troll -- you gotta love the well-reasoned and thoughtful response to your arguments), I tire of reading the lies of the posters who like to use inflammatory words and phrases like "tyranny", "violation of the inalienable rights of man", "plain contravention of the ... Constitution", and "enable the government to more fully control its citizens".
Makes me want to get into my black helicopter and hunt them down (and shoot their dog).
"ANY theft, burglary, robbery, carjacking, embezzlement, etc with ANY connection to drugs MUST be punishable be DEATH, with no appeals, no delays."
Why not just move to Saudi Arabia? They do that there.
I find drug prohibition arguments on FR to be just as out of place as gun prohibition arguments, for the same reasons. As your partner-in-crime apparently supports gun prohibition, I scratch my head and wonder, do I really need to explain the standard conservative pro-freedom argument here on this very forum?
You jump to an unwarranted conclusion to score a cheap debating point.
The unconstitutional firearms laws of the state of NY are in place precisely because the NY judiciary is liberal.
My point was that liberals despise drug laws and if they could find any constitutional grounds for eliminating the Rockefeller laws they would do so in a heartbeat.
The fact that the judiciary is hostile to the laws and continually complains about them and is yet unable to find constitutional grounds for their repeal empirically demonstrates their constitutionality.
The NY judiciary, being liberal, hates firearms possession and would never review the constitutionality of NY's unconstitutional gun laws.
Let the record show that steve-b thinks the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of New York citizens to keep and bear arms.
To whom are you referring?
"Well, you're heart is in the right place, but I recommend a 'suicide'."
You can't get more "local" than each person deciding who or what to vote for.
This cannot be a good development.
Advancing ideas is always a good idea even if the ideas themselves are not. People can be trusted to get what they want,,,,or deserve.
I thought you were interested in discussing the merits of repealing the Rockerfeller laws. What happened, did I ask a question for which you have no good answer? Remind me again please, why did we need to amend the Constitution for alcohol prohibition?
But you'll fully support having those same people pay taxes to fund John Walters engaging in "hyperbole" that supports your view of the subject.
Tin Foil time. It's a vast left wing conspiracy.
Now there's a catchy title for a pot smoking organization. Who couldn't love that.
So what's the DA gonna do? Not prosecute drug crimes? He doesn't change the law, it's the senate and assembly.
It was necessary because Prohibition was a nationwide ban - until that time the several states reserved the right to make decisions about alcohol availability.
The several states could ban alcohol if they wanted to, just as the states today can ban crack if they want to.
As it stands the Federal government has no power to prohibit drugs unless they cross state borders or the national borders. But the individual states certainly retain that right under the Tenth Amendment to internally legislate.
New York is one of six states whose state constitutions are silent on the RKBA.