a step to far??

alan

New member
If I understood correctly, The USSC has OVERTURNED a police operation, "random stop and search" of vehicles that had been operating in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The case arose out of a particular stop, and dog sniffing routine, where nothing was found. The driver of the vehicle objected to the proceedure as being unwarranted and excessive, and by a 6 to 3 vote, the USSC agreed.

The city claimed among other things, that persons in a vehicle had "a lesser expectation of privacy, than would someone who was walking along the street". I never thought that this made sense, and neither did the court, it would seem.

Of course, the "war on drugs" was involved, which was another reason for suspicion. This so-called war on drugs, has become an excuse for to many stunts, that never should have been thought of, let along carried out. Seems like it is "about time", in a situation where the police have taken "a step to far", or perhaps a whole bunch of steps.
 
Dennis:

You are absolutely right. I maintain, however, that the laws enabling that "war" have been so perverted, in their application, in the last 8-10 years as to be completely unrecognizable in comparison to the original intent.
 
whose War On Drugs

Denis:

I didn't attribute that fiasco to Clinton or to anyone else for that matter, though you are right, as I recall. It was first proposed during Reagan's administration, but funded and operated by and under The Congress. If that body had half the wit is claims, it would have scuttled that ship when it hit the water.
 
I thought it was Richard Nixon who first used the term "War on Drugs." And pot, cocaine and heroin have been outlawed for many decades previously. But yes, it was during the Reagan Administration that the thing really built up a head of steam.

I don't understand what John means about the drug laws being "perverted" in their application compared with their original intent. I've always thought the intent of the Drug War was to make everyone understand that our bodies are property of the state, and if we thought we could abuse ourselves, or not, as we wished we had another think coming.

And no one here should need reminding that someone who is "property" has no rights, not to own firearms or anything else.
 
Back
Top