The Failed War on Drugs

Well at least you know your scripture. We had an asshat telling us today here on the forum that nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuals are a sin and abomination.
(his handle begins with R)

I'd like to see the war on drugs ended. (well maybe not meth, that's some bad mojo). Why? It's a waste of money, and once and for all I'd like to see the inner cities lose their criminal funding.

 

Jeff Sessions loses his frkn mind:

Insane: New DOJ Directive Presses Forward with Unconstitutional Civil Asset Forfeiture Policy Even in States Where the Unconstitutional Practice is Banned by State Law

JUST IN: DOJ new asset forfeiture policy - police can seize property from people not charged w/crime even in states where it's been banned. pic.twitter.com/P8K0g80m4E

— Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) July 19, 2017

 

Just more of your "small government" from the righties. The left wants to be your nanny. But the right wants to be your dictator. The righties are a threat to everyone's freedom.

 

This is my favorite quote from that statist **** weasel: “We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions told the National District Attorney’s Association in Minneapolis. “With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners.” Bolding mine. He assumes they're criminals without charge much less conviction in the lionshare of cases. He needs to be beaten with a hose filled with concrete and sadness.

 

Its not left and right. There are multiple factions to each "side". Sessions is classic establishment GOP, pretty much the same as your average leftist he just wants to be authoritarian on different subjects. They'll both "help" you to death, for your own good and the good of the children!
Contrast that with say Rand Paul who is right but not authoritarian.

 

In terms of spending for the War on Drugs, while 100% was not on Pot, upwards of 70-80% was. A 70-80% complete waste of money justified by bureaucrats lying their faces off and horrible legal arguments.

 

It has always been the phony CONservatives who have championed stomping on the US Constitution by writing and advancing these outrageous forfeiture policies. Sessions is the scum of the earth and so are all of the "strict constitutionalist" phony conservative judges who have upheld these slimy laws.

 

At least the Dems are up front about their hate for the Constitution, Rule of Law, and individual liberty.

These scum buckets on the right who drape themselves in the flag of patriotism and profess love for liberty and the principles on which this nation was founded prior to burning the flag and trampling on liberty are even worse.

People need to stop voting "red or blue" and realize that both hate the principle on which this nation was founded such that they will get sodomized either way.

 

True but ... what did Obama do for 8 years while in power or Bill Clinton after the 8 years of nut-ball Reagan followed by 8 more year of the Evil Bush ? Same Sht .. different pile.

 

If we could just ditch the partyline idiots we might have a chance. As it stands, those are almost the only people who vote. We're ****ed man. Just enjoy the downhill ride

 

These words of yours are wise. There is no point in hoping the sun will shine anytime soon. The raging masses are far too ignorant and easily controlled to change from our current path. Might as well face reality and try to stay out of the way of the various herds of stampeding bulls that are coming our way.

 

I gotta say.

I'm amazed by a couple of things, in these times.


I'm not a young man, well, I'd feel much younger @ 47 had I lived another life, but whatevs.
I've got friends/family a good 10+ years my senior, who, along with me, had held to hopes that legal medicinal Cannabis, or the mere decriminalization of Cannabis in the Lower 48, (Alaska's always been another tale) would catch on.

I along with them, & multitudes of others who felt similar, am amazed at outright legalization of recreational Cannabis in the number of states there are, & the Medicinal/Decriminalization totals.

Now, the mentioned hopes @ the state level that are happening, makes a near future seeing these same things @ the National level seem no longer a pipedream.



Related, myself, & many of the same folks I mentioned above, are seeing a closer realization of another dream, that I've had for over 25 years.

The awakening of vastly larger numbers of people than the last 8 POTUS & Congressional election cycles, To the fact that Partisanism.... From both sides here.... Accomplishes nothing, & that a fundamental change is needed, immediately if not sooner, to our System of Governance, & the process of Electing our Representitives.

 

Unfortunately, all you are doing is shifting the focus, and in the effort to write legislation that advocates what you are proposing, it creates unintended consequences, which is what happened with crack.

ANYTIME you create mandatory sentences, you create the opportunity for the justice system to create injustices. Judges should be allowed to properly weigh the individual circumstances of a case and administer a fair sentence.

Many folks have unintentionally given prescription painkillers to a friend or loved one in a moment of desperation. A good percentage of the illicit sale of prescription drugs occur by teenagers pilfering their parents' medicine cabinet. Placing mandatory sentences in such cases does as much harm as the drugs themselves.

 

Indeed. Just let it go. What is the punishment for illicit alcohol sales or possession? Do that across the board.
Legalize for over the counter recreational use all substances, with proper warnings of course and guaranteed purity levels, tax them at a moderate rate, educate people on the dangers, and shunt them into rehab/ counseling over prison.

 

I'm not going to go overboard and allow ALL drugs.

One of the unintended consequences of this drug war is the rise of the synthetic drug industry. No one knows what's in them.

There still needs to be some regulation in place to ensure the safety of the public. We believe in the principle of caveat emptor, but we need to be informed before we can decide judiciously.

 

I'll agree you have to know enough to formulate the dosages and warnings, but that's it.

 

Find us one administration, any administration, be it conservative or republican, liberal or conservative, that has made a legitimate effort at doing away with civil asset forfeiture at every level, both state and federal. Show us a single representative that authored and introduced legislation that would effectively prohibit such a practice permanently.

There is quite literally no such administration to be found anywhere in the united states.

 

This is a division within the Big Tent, between those that would legislate morality and those that promote individual freedom, liberty and autonomy. It was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-lll, who took up the torch of Asset Forfeiture reform to make more difficult to sieze assets, but it wasn't until 2000 when the GOP congress put a bill on Clinton's desk, which to his credit, he signed, yet it continues to remain out of control. As for the judges, why in the world have they allowed this unconstitutional taking to continue to occur?



In 1986, the Department of Justice (DOJ) added $93.7 million in revenue to its Assets Forfeiture Fund. By 2014, the annual deposits had increased by 4,467 percent, totaling $4.5 billion, that's some serious money.

And contrary to your post, this isn't a Left/Right issue, under Obama, cops took more from unconvicted folks than burglars, so let's not bull **** ourselves by pointing fingers, WE allowed this WE need to take effective steps to restore our governments to their constitutional limits.

As for the Judges that you asked about, I've look through the caselaw that I could find and the rulings appear to be deferential to the Legislator ruling on whether the law was applied correctly rather than whether the law itself is constitutional.

In Honeycutt v. U.S, SCOTUS ruled unanimously to limit asset forfeiture.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote briefly about civil asset forfeiture in a statement respecting the denial of cert in Leonard v. Texas. Though Thomas agreed with the Court’s decision not to hear the case for procedural reasons, he expressed concern that the Court relies on dubious historical practices to justify the current forfeiture regime.

“In the absence of this historical practice, the Constitution presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation. I am skeptical that this historical practice is capable of sustaining, as a constitutional matter, the contours of modern practice.”

I think SCOTUS is building a consensus of hostility to modern forfeiture practices.

When you couple these rulings, I think it signals that the Court is interested in this issue, that there is quite a bit of agreement among the justices, and that the Court may be looking to reign in some of these abusive forfeiture practices, be they criminal or civil.

Hope so, and Faster, please!

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/05/hostility-to-asset-forfeiture-growing-on-supreme-court/

 

However, it looks like Sessions is going on a rampage against the US Constitution right now. Before any cases ever get to the SCOTUS, billions of citizens assets could be seized before any action will be taken. Sessions is an ultra statist and the poster boy for phony conservatives. What was Trump thinking when he appointed that scumbag? Rand Paul is the only high profile Republican who is actually a conservative.

 

The GOP needs to grow on this issue, but, I don't see a lot of movement to limit asset forfeiture on the Left side either. This should be a bipartisan issue.

 

Well, actually, both the Left and the Right needs to grow on this issue:

California civil forfeiture curb soundly defeated .

Legislation limiting law enforcement's ability to confiscate property from Californians not convicted of crimes failed badly in the Assembly on Thursday.

Asset forfeiture allows peace officers to seize cash and property from people they suspect of crimes, a tool abused to pad police budgets.

Senate Bill 443 would have mandated a conviction to seize property worth any amount.

“We have today the opportunity to restore a core principle of American justice, and that is that no person’s property can be taken from him or her without due process of law,” said Assemblyman David Hadley, REPUBLICAN-Manhattan Beach.

But the Democrat packed Assemblyrejected the bill on a lopsided 24-41 vote.

“If all of us are serious about people who are responsible for the most violent crimes – the drug trade, the organized crime – the most powerful way you can hit them where it truly hurts is law enforcement tools like these asset forfeitures,” said Assemblyman Luis Alejo, DEMOCRAT-Watsonville.

The bill’s author, Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, attributed the bill’s failure to “bullying advocacy tactics” by opponents.

“They have a sense of entitlement to assets that don’t belong to them,” Mitchell said, adding that law enforcement agencies were defending “a way to continue to bolster their budgets.”

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article34818903.html

So, let's not bull **** each other, these laws are on the books because BOTH sides want them to be.

 

I


Any and all movement to decriminalize drugs and end this idiotic drug war has been from the so called left and has been for decades. I don't see anything from the right except their will to build more prisons seize assets without due process and promote thier private prison industrial complex.

 

Even Barack Obama and Eric Holder did nothing to end the war on drugs. They took absolutely no steps, other than choosing not to pursue charges against states that violated federal laws pertaining to such.

Even if the united states wished to put an immediate end to the failed war on drugs, such is simply not possible. They are bound by international treaties that demand the war on drugs continue indefinitely, and have no choice but to continue with the failed practice.

 

Total horse ****. The 2000 Hyde bill, which Clinton was finally essentially forced to sign, was to roll back abuses from the 1993 Clinton Crime Bill. I know that it's quite popular to grunt "We Good! Them Bad!" but its also infantile.

Grow Up!