Conn. Trooper
New member
It could be your problem when they steal from you, rob you, etc.
Police becoming a military force? ABA Journal Article
- Thread starter KyJim
- Start date
Most popular drugs are very cheap to produce the high cost is because they are contraband. Would someone be doing doing 6-10 burglaries a day to support a $18 a day alcohol habit? No. A $10 a day legal drug habit ? No they would be next to the winos getting high under a bridge.
yeah it is a waste of life but at least it is only theirs and they would not be robbing innocent citizens to support the contraband business.
Conn. Trooper
New member
I just don't see how making it legal will drive the price down. Heroin is $8.00 a bag by me. There is no way that making it legal, making it FDA inspected and compliant, taxing it, and selling it in stores and storefronts will make the cost go down. I just don't see that working.
I also don't see the Gov making it legal and not doing all of the above. Just let the drugs come in, and be sold, and be legal with no Gov regulation or taxation. Not happening, IMHO.
I also don't see the Gov making it legal and not doing all of the above. Just let the drugs come in, and be sold, and be legal with no Gov regulation or taxation. Not happening, IMHO.
BigD_in_FL
Moderator
So why didn't the legal system in CT put him behind bars instead of letting him out to rob over and over again? This attitude is what feeds into the police becoming a military force - it is called job security. Arrest them, waste money prosecuting them, minimal incarceration, let them back out to do more crimes, and the cycle starts all over again
Sounds like the liberal education system -completely self-serving
These folks COULD be doing something, but too much politics/empire building going on - at payer's expense
Conn. Trooper
New member
I don't know why he wasn't in jail. He should have been. But he wasn't.
Conn. Trooper
New member
And I just read Tom's warning. No more drug talk.
Conn. Trooper said:
The anecdote you shared occurred under drug prohibition. Will drug legalization lead to world peace and enlightenment? No. That's not the point. Will it lead to some scattered increase in problems that don't exist now? Maybe. Will it reduce profits in the drug trade to the point where drug cartels and gangs that run drugs are not creating a lot of the "crime problem" in the United States? Almost certainly. But that's not the point either.
Drug prohibition is unconstitutional. We had a constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition. Where's the constitutional amendment for drug prohibition? The legislative branch is not permitted to pass whatever laws they think will be popular, and the executive branch is not permitted to enforce them. That's not rule of law, and it's not how a constitutional republic is supposed to work.
The Legislative and Executive can pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, and they have, but if you want to know why people disrespect the rule of law or why certain social constructs are crumbling, Government not respecting the highest law of the land figures into it somewhere. I would say complexity of the law is another. The idea that you have to go look a substance up on the DEA's website before growing, buying, selling, or ingesting it is... well, I don't have words for it that are appropriate in polite company.
dakota.potts
New member
tyme, if I can respectfully go down the line of conversation you've opened (sorry Mr. Servo!), what makes you think it is unconstitutional? I am quite curious to hear.
I realize that may sound sarcastic but I really am interested in hearing your opinion.
Anyways, I think it's very easy to see how DEA and many other police organizations are becoming paramilitary. This does not mean that they abide by the same rules, but with their armored cars, automatic weapons, sniper rifles, breaching tactics, confiscation, raiding, lockdowns, patrols (i.e. Boston), I think the argument could be made.
However, is having military qualities enough to establish a military? Does it need to be a standing militia? Are the police expected to help take up a fight if there is a war? On American soil? Off? Are they subject to martial law?
If not, are they overstepping their boundaries by acting like the military without operating under the same constraints?
I think these questions will help clarify the initial question.
I realize that may sound sarcastic but I really am interested in hearing your opinion.
Anyways, I think it's very easy to see how DEA and many other police organizations are becoming paramilitary. This does not mean that they abide by the same rules, but with their armored cars, automatic weapons, sniper rifles, breaching tactics, confiscation, raiding, lockdowns, patrols (i.e. Boston), I think the argument could be made.
However, is having military qualities enough to establish a military? Does it need to be a standing militia? Are the police expected to help take up a fight if there is a war? On American soil? Off? Are they subject to martial law?
If not, are they overstepping their boundaries by acting like the military without operating under the same constraints?
I think these questions will help clarify the initial question.
dakota.potts
New member
Let me see if I get my logical terms straight. Others here will be able to decipher it haha
Simply because an amendment was added to restrict the sale of alcohol does not necessarily mean a law to the same effect is unconstitutional because no amendment was added.
Does it?
Simply because an amendment was added to restrict the sale of alcohol does not necessarily mean a law to the same effect is unconstitutional because no amendment was added.
Does it?
Everyone recognized that an amendment was necessary to ban a substance, presenting no immediate danger to anyone other than the consumer, from being produced or sold.
The government has decided that it can ban other substances, with no immediate danger to anyone other than the consumer, without a constitutional amendment. And more, they ban possession as well, not just production and sale. Can you explain why this is constitutional? The general welfare clause? If the general welfare clause allows this, it would seem to allow anything the government thinks might help people. Not to mention that this arrangement is one of the main factors that has turned the federal government into a general law enforcement apparatus, when it's supposed to deal only with crimes that are genuinely interstate or which affect the operation of the Republic.
The no immediate danger clause is because, arguably, the government does have an interest in banning area-effect weapons (arguably... there's a case that such weapons might be needed to fight a tyrannical government), or anything that can cause injury or death to someone inadvertently stumbling across a cache of the stuff. That doesn't really apply to most drugs that you have to ingest in a noticeable quantity or snort or inject to be affected. Anything like that would not be a good drug.
The government has decided that it can ban other substances, with no immediate danger to anyone other than the consumer, without a constitutional amendment. And more, they ban possession as well, not just production and sale. Can you explain why this is constitutional? The general welfare clause? If the general welfare clause allows this, it would seem to allow anything the government thinks might help people. Not to mention that this arrangement is one of the main factors that has turned the federal government into a general law enforcement apparatus, when it's supposed to deal only with crimes that are genuinely interstate or which affect the operation of the Republic.
The no immediate danger clause is because, arguably, the government does have an interest in banning area-effect weapons (arguably... there's a case that such weapons might be needed to fight a tyrannical government), or anything that can cause injury or death to someone inadvertently stumbling across a cache of the stuff. That doesn't really apply to most drugs that you have to ingest in a noticeable quantity or snort or inject to be affected. Anything like that would not be a good drug.
tyme, no one seriously argues the general welfare clause as the foundation of constitutional authorization - especially when the commerce clause has been expanded so exponentially. Basically, per Wickard v. Filburn, even non-economic activities are covered under this provision - essentially, any good, product or service that one day MIGHT have any sort of effect (the word substantial is used, but that is so mealy-mouthed as to be meaningless) upon interstate commerce is considered regulatable (if that's a word) by Congress.
Essentially, if the feebs take an interest in an activity, that's enough for commerce clause enablement to allow Congress to regulate/restrict/prohibit it, absent protection under other constitutional provisions.
Essentially, if the feebs take an interest in an activity, that's enough for commerce clause enablement to allow Congress to regulate/restrict/prohibit it, absent protection under other constitutional provisions.
I don't disagree that that's the modern court interpretation of the commerce clause.
Why do we even have local and state law enforcement if the feds want to pass laws for things that, in another time, would have been local and state matters?
Federal law enforcement is just another flavor of law enforcement. The DEA, BATFE, FBI, and other federal law enforcement agencies are routinely involved in crimes that are primarily local. Why not? Everything has some kind of link to some other state. Someone bought a car they used to transport items used in the crime. Maybe the instruments of criminality themselves came from another state. The suspected perpetrators may have been born in another state. They breathe air that came from another state. Certainly any sort of crime in one state affects willingness of people to move to that state. It affects the quality of people's lives, and the quality of education. When people routinely move between states, everything affects everything else. There are plenty of excuses to federalize things.
The feds have more resources! By involving feds, we can be sure that major crimes are handled correctly regardless of whether they occur in New York City or San Francisco or Podunk, Alaska. Only feds are good enough not to screw up investigations, or to catch that critical piece of evidence, or to avoid being discriminatory...
Once you honestly admit to federalizing law enforcement, unifying and federalizing all legislation and courts is next. Merge all the state governments and we can have a party! We'll save so much money by avoiding duplicate administration of sets of laws, too!
Constitution? What's that? It's a living document! It needs to evolve! Maybe next it can grow a third eye and a tail!
Why do we even have local and state law enforcement if the feds want to pass laws for things that, in another time, would have been local and state matters?
Federal law enforcement is just another flavor of law enforcement. The DEA, BATFE, FBI, and other federal law enforcement agencies are routinely involved in crimes that are primarily local. Why not? Everything has some kind of link to some other state. Someone bought a car they used to transport items used in the crime. Maybe the instruments of criminality themselves came from another state. The suspected perpetrators may have been born in another state. They breathe air that came from another state. Certainly any sort of crime in one state affects willingness of people to move to that state. It affects the quality of people's lives, and the quality of education. When people routinely move between states, everything affects everything else. There are plenty of excuses to federalize things.
The feds have more resources! By involving feds, we can be sure that major crimes are handled correctly regardless of whether they occur in New York City or San Francisco or Podunk, Alaska. Only feds are good enough not to screw up investigations, or to catch that critical piece of evidence, or to avoid being discriminatory...
Once you honestly admit to federalizing law enforcement, unifying and federalizing all legislation and courts is next. Merge all the state governments and we can have a party! We'll save so much money by avoiding duplicate administration of sets of laws, too!
Constitution? What's that? It's a living document! It needs to evolve! Maybe next it can grow a third eye and a tail!
This article analyzes the harmful legal effects of the WoD.
While I think the author's awkward metaphor of "addiction to drug-laws" he used to segue into his subject was over-the-top, I think he was spot-on about those laws being highly corrosive to our legal system, from weakening the bedrock of respect for fundamental rights, to militarization of law enforcement, to the growth of institutional corruption, i.e. asset forfeiture, or "The Law Discovers the Profit Motive".
I don't know if this is old hat to any others here, but for me it helped bring into sharp relief exactly why drug laws are different.
I will add my shrug to everyone else's about exactly what would be best to do about it, but I do feel that all of the human destruction caused by drug-use has not been prevented, or even meaningfully diminished, by policies that are having catastophic "collateral damage" on our fundamental rights and our economy (how many trillions of dollars have been smoked in this war-pipe, that might have gone to enforcement of other important laws, or anything else, for that matter - national defense, infrastructure, technology, etc?). Not to mention the carnage caused by the criminal class created by the prohibition, with which you'd have thought we should have already been familiar as a society.
What's the phrase... "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results?"
While I think the author's awkward metaphor of "addiction to drug-laws" he used to segue into his subject was over-the-top, I think he was spot-on about those laws being highly corrosive to our legal system, from weakening the bedrock of respect for fundamental rights, to militarization of law enforcement, to the growth of institutional corruption, i.e. asset forfeiture, or "The Law Discovers the Profit Motive".
I don't know if this is old hat to any others here, but for me it helped bring into sharp relief exactly why drug laws are different.
I will add my shrug to everyone else's about exactly what would be best to do about it, but I do feel that all of the human destruction caused by drug-use has not been prevented, or even meaningfully diminished, by policies that are having catastophic "collateral damage" on our fundamental rights and our economy (how many trillions of dollars have been smoked in this war-pipe, that might have gone to enforcement of other important laws, or anything else, for that matter - national defense, infrastructure, technology, etc?). Not to mention the carnage caused by the criminal class created by the prohibition, with which you'd have thought we should have already been familiar as a society.
What's the phrase... "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results?"