Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[laredo44]

We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.

I read this as saying young people are entitled to due process. That they enjoy rights even as minors and we can't abridge the processes around those rights, for example, the right to face one's accuser. I don't read into this the ability for minors to purchase tobacco, for example, as children do not have the maturity accorded adults. A purchase is a form of contract between the buyer and seller, and minors do not posess the requisite maturity enter into such a contract.

Please be aware, I haven't read the Libertarian Party Platform, nor that of the Republican Party, nor the Democrats nor any other. I doubt I'd agree with 100% of any of those platforms, but would probably agree with some percentage of each.

[donh]

I'll "know it" once I have the links. Primary documents, please. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The Matter Of
MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988

[tpaine]

The Wisdom of the Ages = true dementia.

[Roscoe]

Addicts don't shoot up for the rush, they're making a political statement against prohibition. /sarcasm

[Dosa26]

Addicts don't shoot up for the rush, they're making a political statement against prohibition. /sarcasm

Drug warriors don't jackboot for the rush, they're making a violent political statement againt Liberty. \sarcasm(?)

[Roscoe]

An "administrative law" judge? Slightly higher than a traffic court clerk, I suppose.

The Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Program no longer exists, BTW.

[Roscoe]

Drug warriors don't jackboot for the rush

A frothing contempt of our police is commonplace among Liberals and Libertarians.

[Zon]

Drugs won't be legalized for children anymore than alcohol or tobacco are.

Read the platform:

We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.

427 posted on 12/31/01 12:18 AM Pacific by Roscoe

- - - - - - - - - - -               - - - - - - - - - - 

I'm not a Libertarian and I do have good reading comprehension. Here's the paragraph from which you plucked the one sentence.

We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.

Because you omitted the first sentence above are we to assume that you are in favor of jailing children not accused of a crime?

About the second sentence: That implies that under the current government young people are having their due process protections abridged. That sure sounds like young people are not being given Fourth Amendment protection. And that the Libertarian platform seeks to return full protection to the young people.

You are either incompetent, ignorant, or intended to deceive the reader. The choice is yours.

[tpaine]

Imagine what you like about the 14th. It's language is clear in protecting our rights to life, liberty or property.

The 14th will soon be needed to be used to protect our gun rights in California. -- You, no doubt, agree with the state in their 'assault weapon' prohibition. So be it. But do not claim you are a conservative.

[Dosa26]

A frothing contempt of our police is commonplace among Liberals and Libertarians.

I have no "frothing contempt" dear boy. In fact I personally like my local law enforcement officers and the protection they provide. I can still question the tactics and ends that they use and aspire to.

As to my specific reply...silliness begets silliness.

[Roscoe]

A ten year runaway shouldn't be held until his or her parents or guardians are located? Libertarianism is a cartoon philosophy.

[Zon]

I read this as saying young people are entitled to due process.

You got it right. Read the post at #468

[Roscoe]

1...they're making a violent political statement againt Liberty...

2. I can still question the tactics and ends that they use and aspire to.

snicker

[Roscoe]

It's language is clear

Hardly. It's the wildcard of judicial activists.

[tpaine]

Only to a cartoon like clown, who calls himself roscoe.

[tpaine]

Or to a gungrabber like you.

[Roscoe]

Laws should not govern children, or decide their "age of consent." The age at which children mature varies between individuals. -- LewRockwell.com / http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza19.html

[donh]

An "administrative law" judge? Slightly higher than a traffic court clerk, I suppose.

You suppose right.

The Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Program no longer exists, BTW.

Which is relevant how?

I wasn't expecting you to have the staying power to remain on a point raised for more than two posts, so I am not surprised at this non-response, but pedagog that I am, I'll try to rub your nose in it--we were offered that piece-of-tripe treaty-derived law as the CONSITITUTIONAL justification for the war on drugs. As if that somehow trumps the Founding Clause, and the 9th, 10th, 14th, 18th and 21st Amendments.

If it does, than it is a profound piece of legislation indeed, and it ought to puzzle us greatly that the DEA chose to ignore its direction with respect to Young's Marijuana Rescheduling findings. They stood, in fact, in simple violation of this law we are being touting between 1988 and 1992--now higher courts have granted the DEA relief with "temporary" stay of the findings, based on an incredibly obscure technicality.

[tpaine]

Why post that to me, you sicko?

I don't agree with that statement, anymore than I agree with most of yours. --- You are very weird, and even more bizarre, you don't care who knows.

[Zon]

Below is a classic Roscoe dishonesty.  He takes a statement about the jailing of young children that have not been charged with a crime and intentionally misconstrues it to mean that a young child runaway should not be held until his or her guardian arrives. Further more, he attempts to hide his statement by tacking on a question mark to the end of it. In the following sentence he responds to the statement as though it was fact. The original statement is blue text. Roscoe's reply is red text.

 From the Libertarian platform:

We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.

Because you omitted the first sentence above are we to assume that you are in favor of jailing children not accused of a crime?

About the second sentence: That implies that under the current government young people are having their due process protections abridged. That sure sounds like young people are not being given Fourth Amendment protection. And that the Libertarian platform seeks to return full protection to the young people.

You are either incompetent, ignorant, or intended to deceive the reader. The choice is yours.

468 posted on 12/31/01 1:25 AM Pacific by Zon

 

A ten year runaway shouldn't be held until his or her parents or guardians are located? Libertarianism is a cartoon philosophy.

471 posted on 12/31/01 1:29 AM Pacific by Roscoe