Drug War Shrinking Bill of Rights

Fox News Network ^ | Jan. 27, 2005 | Radley Balko

[Ken H]

The Fe'ral government got involved when moonshiners and dope runners got too well organized and powerful for local governments to manage

That is incorrect. It was Prohibition that created black market profits, thus allowing criminals to become powerful and organized.

Simply put, prohibition always creates profits opportunity for criminal networks. Now, how do you propose we keep those ill-gotten profits out of the hands of scofflaws and terrorists?

[Reuben Hick]

We didn't have schoolyard drug dealers until federal enforcement made it profitable.

That is most likely a Post Hoc fallacy. Before federal enforcement of drugs, a major schoolyard offense was slinging spitballs. Now guns, rape and beatings are routine, is this because of increased federal enforcement of drug laws, or is more likely we have a more criminal society?

The cost to society was far lower when we didn't have to fund a multibillion dollar enforcement industry,

That is a outright lie. One of the most significant rises in medical insurance costs is drug rehab and patching up lives destroyed by drugs. It also seems clear that the damage it does to families doesn't factor into your calculus. Do you suppose that dimwit who left his Jeep in the path of a train would have done so if his mind wasn't so continually trashed on drugs? Or does the death and carnage caused by drug addled brains not factor into your "societal costs".

I suppose if you strictly limit the tabulated costs to merely "higher street prices" and "taxes collected to enforce the law" you can say just about anything, but if you took a look at studies performed by groups like NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) you would find that the scope of drugs on the costs to society are much, much higher.

Furthermore, it costs plenty of money to catch murderers. Should we add up the costs of rounding up and prosecuting murderers and declare that it isn't worth it, especially if a murderer takes out a welfare deadbeat? Why eliminating a welfare deadbeat would be a benefit to society, right? Since Human life has no value to you when it comes to drugs, why would it have any value to you when it comes to homicide?

[thoughtomator]

I bow to your mastery of the strawman. I think a review of the effects of Prohibition, the fact that it was a cause of organized crime - not the other way around - and the reduction of serious problems associated with alcohol after Prohibition ended. I would also have you answer the question, why did Prohibition need an Amendment while the current WoD does not?

[THEUPMAN]

I bet you can't even name him. Your post is nothing more than an ignorant rant.






oww owww (hand raised )

pick me , pick me ..

Dupont .... he didn't want the competition to the new wonder product ... nylon .



cha ching .... money , money

[Reuben Hick]

That is incorrect. It was Prohibition that created black market profits, thus allowing criminals to become powerful and organized.

So when Standard Oil Company got so organized and powerful that it required the Fe'ral government to bust it up, it was because the Rockefellers were operating in a black market, right? Dittos with Microsoft, right? And DeBeers is operating in a black market too, which may explain the high prices of diamonds. Certainly the high price of oil nowadays is due to Prohibition, not OPEC.

The Mafia only got power under Prohibition, not from gambling, prostitution, usury and labor unions, right? Last time I checked, organized labor is perfectly legal, and even has government blessings...

IOW, there are many reasons why some industries experience great profits.

Simply put, prohibition always creates profits opportunity for criminal networks.

Which may explain why the porn industry eclipses Hollywood in "entertainment" revenue.

Prices go up when demand exceeds supply, or when risk levels demand greater rewards. Why are drug prices high? Since drug importation, according to the dopers, is at an all time high, it can't be because of increased government enfocement... could it be that gang violence and turf protection jacks up the risks? Or is it purely the government's fault, and if we could just go and surf the web for your favorite head shop and have crack mailed to your home we would be an Ozzie and Harriet society?

[Reuben Hick]

I think a review of the effects of Prohibition, the fact that it was a cause of organized crime - not the other way around

Which may explain why the Mafia preceded Prohibition by over a half century - the seers within the "family" just wanted to get a two generation head start....

[thoughtomator]

The mafia existed before it came to America. But we didn't have cities virtually taken over by the mob until Prohibition. You figure it out, if you can.

[zeugma]

It's really very simple. The Constitution is a dead letter. It was declared null and void in the named of the war on drugs for years now. No need to amend a document that no longer has relavance.

[zeugma]

Just who's bigger and better armed.

Actually, after much consideration of the subject, I've come to the conclusion that it's not a matter of who is better armed. What it really boils down to more than anything else is who is more willing to use the arms they have. FedGov, and it's various subsidiary StateGovs have no compunction whatsoever against blowing away anyone they percieve as the slightest threat to their authority.

I'm constantly amazed at how seldom people in this country are driven 'postal' by the insanity that has become our government.

[Ken H]

It was Prohibition that created black market profits, thus allowing criminals to become powerful and organized.

IOW, there are many reasons why some industries experience great profits.

Yes, but what has that got to do with black market profits for criminals? The oil market is regulated and taxed. After-tax profits go to shareholders, rather than untaxed profits going to criminal organizations.

Why are drug prices high?

What is the basis for saying drug prices are high? They are cheaper and purer than ever. There is a glut of illegal drugs.

I ask again: What do you propose we do to keep the ill-gotten profits out of the hands of scofflaws and terrorists?

[Wolfie]

All you need to do of course is train a dog that gives positive signals whether there are drugs or not, and you've got free reign to search anyone, anytime.

There was a case last year that got tossed because the drug dog was only right about half the time. Damn thing would alert on just about anything. Wouldn't surprise me if he was trained to do so. Also numerous cases of agencies forging drug dog certifications. Of course with this SC ruling, its a moot point.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Not sure about the FR thread, but here is the decision.

[metesky]

The Supreme Court is part of gub'mint (the Third Branch of our ruling troika) and as such has no vested interest in reducing the power of gub'mint.

[Wolfie]

Someone once said our form of government is like three bullies, each promising to keep the other two from beating you up. Looks like they're all on the same page these days.

[Reuben Hick]

I ask again: What do you propose we do to keep the ill-gotten profits out of the hands of scofflaws and terrorists?

When government takes money and assets away from law abiding citizens it is called "taxes". Everybody agrees. When the government takes money and assets away from criminals it is called "fines, forfeitures and seizures" the Dope America crowd calls it "Violation of Constitutional Rights".

[metesky]

A sad case of, "because they can."

[jonestown]

Catch 22.
Since our government has decreed that they can declare most anything "illicit", -- one obviously has virtually no property rights.
"A search for illicit property can't violate the Fourth Amendment" is sheer idiocy: -- illogical thinking enshrined in legalistic sounding BS.
It's nearly time.
8 jones

---

Perhaps the greatest perversion of Supreme Court logic is in the Earls case, in which Thomas declares that high school students must be treated as a class of people, not as individuals.
39 Ed


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-332

---

Thanks. I see what you mean.

"In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom."
Thomas

The weasel words in context:

"Finally, we find that testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the School District's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring, and detecting drug use.

-Snip-

-- the drug testing of Tecumseh students who participate in extracurricular activities effectively serves the School District's interest in protecting the safety and health of its students.

Within the limits of the Fourth Amendment, local school boards must assess the desirability of drug testing schoolchildren.

In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom.

Rather, we hold only that Tecumseh's Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School District's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered."

Justice Thomas

[Ed_in_NJ]

FYI re how the Supremes are thinking these days (from Earls case):

'...the Fourth Amendment does not require a finding of individualized suspicion, see supra, at 5, and we decline to impose such a requirement on schools attempting to prevent and detect drug use by students. Moreover, we question whether testing based on individualized suspicion in fact would be less intrusive. Such a regime would place an additional burden on public school teachers who are already tasked with the difficult job of maintaining order and discipline. A program of individualized suspicion might unfairly target members of unpopular groups. The fear of lawsuits resulting from such targeted searches may chill enforcement of the program, rendering it ineffective in combating drug use. See Vernonia, 515 U. S., at 663-664 (offering similar reasons for why "testing based on `suspicion' of drug use would not be better, but worse"). In any case, this Court has repeatedly stated that reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment does not require employing the least intrusive means, because "[t]he logic of such elaborate less-restrictive-alternative arguments could raise insuperable barriers to the exercise of virtually all search-and-seizure powers." '

[jonestown]

Ken H wrote:
I ask again: What do you propose we do to keep the ill-gotten profits out of the hands of scofflaws and terrorists?

---

When government takes money and assets away from law abiding citizens it is called "taxes". Everybody agrees. When the government takes money and assets away from criminals it is called "fines, forfeitures and seizures" the Dope America crowd calls it "Violation of Constitutional Rights".
95 Reuben Hick

---

When government takes money and assets away from law abiding citizens it is called "taxes", -- many Americans disagree with the purposes/methods used and call them a "Violation of Constitutional Rights".

When the government takes money and assets away from criminals it is called "fines, forfeitures and seizures" -- depending on the purposes/methods used Americans can disagree and call them a "Violation of Constitutional Rights".

Those who believe in big brother government never disagree with their masters.

[Wolfie]

The Supremes have only struck down drug testing in one case: When it was to be applied to legislators and judges. Go figure.