Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI’m really not up on the legal situation involving medicinal marijuana in DC. My interest in the War on Drugs is more from the civil liberties/police abuse standpoint than any desire (none whatsoever) to actually use drugs.
Check out point four in the police affidavit that was covered by DCist in a recent raid on a local hemp shop that was selling Flex Your Rights, a DVD that addresses your rights during encounters with police:
“Affiant notes that while this DVD is informative for any citizen, when introduced into a store that promotes the use of controlled substances, the DVD becomes a tool for deceiving law enforcement to keep from being arrested. The typical citizen would not need to know detailed information as to US Supreme Court case law regarding search and seizure because they are not transporting illegal substances in fear of being caught.”
It’s the “if you’re innocent, you have nothing to hide” defense. So here’s an officer that consider the Bill of Rights to be a device used to deceive law enforcement. How reassuring for the good citizens of DC.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
You can not successfully prosecute the War on Drugs and still adhere the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments. For myself, I'd prefer to keep the Bill of Rights and ditch the War on Drugs, but I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that the primary use of the Exclusionary Rule is to get convictions of guilty people thrown out.This is acceptable for most common crimes and the War on Drugs. For situations such as terrorists and the War on Terror where the consequences of throwing out valid evidence based on how it was obtained are too high, we have military commissions.
LikeLike
Wow.
LikeLike
Not that I do drugs but this would be an excellent example of why I live in the suburbs…"For situations such as terrorists and the War on Terror where the consequences of throwing out valid evidence based on how it was obtained are too high, we have military commissions."One could argue that the consequences of throwing out valild evidence based on how it was obtained are higher for drugs and the effects of drugs than for terrorists. Lives are lost in many ways and a LOT more have been lost and hardships endured due to drugs than terrorism in this country.
LikeLike
That's outrageous. Informing people of their legal rights is a crime because it would be useful in being railroaded by the police if you could be doing something generally illegal. Dave! Lives are lost in many ways and a LOT more have been lost and hardships endured due to drugs… being illegal. Fix that, and the lives lost and hardships endured decrease radically. Though not completely, of course.
LikeLike
Legalizing drugs would probably reduce a lot of the peripheral robbery and violence. I am not convinced that it would be helpful in reducing the devistating effects many drugs have on people, the people around them and society in general. There are huge issues with currently legal (prescribed) drugs being abused. I don't see how adding pot/coke/etc to the list helps. I think you are just wind up trading one set of problems for a different set.I've mulled this over for years. I think when I was younger, I probably leaned a bit more towards legalizing (and taxing) them. I can see both sides of this but over the years as I have witnessed some of the things drugs do, I have come to the conclusion that I'd rather spend the money on the WOD.
LikeLike
Dave! — would like to hear how you came to that conclusion.
LikeLike
Drugs aside, I always find it amusing to use the Constitution in a potentially uncomfortable situation.You all have never heard my 'unreasonable search and seizure' speech when airport personnel try to grope me at a security checkpoint. The responses are fascinating, to say the least.
LikeLike
Dave!There are huge issues with currently legal (prescribed) drugs being abused.Then why shouldn't all addictive or narcotic prescription drugs be made illegal, along with alcohol and tobacco? If the War on Drugs is the answer for hemp, then certainly it should be the answer for more dangerous and addictive depressants and narcotics, like alcohol and prescription drugs.I can see both sides of this but over the years as I have witnessed some of the things drugs doHave you witnessed some of the things that guns do? Or that automobiles do? A lot more folks are killed in car accidents than are killed by smoking dope and eating Cheetos. And while there are people conducting a War on Cars, it's more because of the long term effect on climate.It's absurd that we send non-violent offenders to jail, ever, for possession. It's just nuts. The DEA is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy addicted to it's own continued existence, and lobbies heavily for money, resources, and power for it's own perpetuation, rather than any demonstrable increase in safety on the part of the general public. One might also look at the rate of incarceration of non-violent offenders who are used as slave labor, either for the state or as a source of revenue to the state as their labor is contracted out to various companies (in some states), and ask what the incentives are to keep filling up prisons with non-violent offenders. Although I do imagine a time where non-violent offenders are released with bracelets, and obligated to work off their time via similar uncompensated labor, without the state having to pay (or pay as much) for housing or food or transportation to the worksite.The War on Drugs is ineffective and, in my opinion, irrational. And we've already demonstrated we know there is a difference between prescription drugs and meth—clearly there's an important difference between marijuana and heroin. The money spent on the war on drugs—hell, it would be better spent as entitlement checks sent out to poor people to use to go buy some malt liquor and stimulate their local economies. As it is now, we might as well be setting fire to it.
LikeLike
MsJS — sounds like a post to me.
LikeLike
I agree the War on Drugs has been ineffective at best and if it's added to the militarization of our police force then, even worse. Legal or illegal, people will use drugs just the same as other stimulants, depressants and mood enhancers. We've wasted so much money and made little or no progress. Our son drove an ambulance when he was in college in San Bernardino, CA. Do you know what they (cops and emergency medical personnel) called the first of every month, Mother's Day. That's when the welfare checks came in and the money went into drugs which resulted in OD's, shootings, knifings and domestic violence. This was in the early 90's and not much has changed since. At best it's a stalemate.
LikeLike
Both DEA agents I know have always thought the WOD was ineffective and should be replaced by a regulatory scheme. They think they would still be employed, btw, b/c dealing to minors would still be a crime in their view and would take a massive police effort for awhile, and b/c decrim would still require border enforcement.
LikeLike
More on a WOD win: http://www.theagitator.com/2011/12/01/were-32-tons-closer-to-winning-the-drug-war/
LikeLike
Heard that 32 ton story on NPR this am. I gotta believe its not the only active route; its certainly not the first one discovered. Sisyphus has nothing on the WOD. Its prohibition all over again.
LikeLike
KW – "Then why shouldn't all addictive or narcotic prescription drugs be made illegal, along with alcohol and tobacco?"You forgot caffeine. That along with alcohol and tobacco are what they are. We tried banning alcohol once and it didn't work. But that does not mean that it is a net plus in society or that simply because they are legal, all other drugs should be also (or vice versa). Those drugs cause a lot of issues and cost society a lot of money – adding to that problem is a bad idea. I am not an absolutist.As far as guns and cars go, they cause problems. People on drugs (and apparently dogs) make the issues associated with guns and cars worse. I am a firm believer in incarceration for possession of illegal drugs. That does not mean I think a first time offender should necessarily get jail time. I am not sure that I care what (reasonable) positive uses inmates are put to, as long as they are doing it in relatively safe manner.Whether the DEA is run in an effective manner is a good question but has nothing to do with this topic. It should not change your philosophy on whether or not certain drugs should be legalized. If pot is medicinally valuable and the benefits of bringing it to the market place outweigh the problems that will come with it, then it should be legalized as a controlled substance. That said, I don't think that is the limit of the make pot legal group's desires.Finally, the WOD is not limited to pot…there are a number of other drugs out there which have significantly more side effects that pot. But there is no difference between prescription drugs and meth – meth is a prescription drug, despite the fact that most of its illegal use is from home made labs. It is easy to say the WOD is a failure and waste of money. If you say that the goal of the WOD is to eliminate all illegal drug use, you would naturally be correct. But that goal is unachievable, as we all know. Our wars on speeding, red-light running, fraud, and theft have failed too. Guess we should legalize them…
LikeLike
Caffeine is free in many work places. I have always said that if heroin improved productivity, employers would give out free needles.
LikeLike
yellojkt – from the Wiki page on Meth – " In the 1940s and 1950s the drug was widely administered to Japanese industrial workers to increase their productivity"
LikeLike
"f you say that the goal of the WOD is to eliminate all illegal drug use, you would naturally be correct. But that goal is unachievable, as we all know. Our wars on speeding, red-light running, fraud, and theft have failed too. Guess we should legalize them…"Its a question of return on investment. WOD is enormously expensive with little apparent impact on supply or use. Perhaps there are other approaches that can produce better results at lower cost.
LikeLike
"Its a question of return on investment. WOD is enormously expensive with little apparent impact on supply or use. Perhaps there are other approaches that can produce better results at lower cost."WOD is enormously expensive. So is the cost of using/misusing drugs, treatments, rehab, medical costs, drug regulation, and the opportunty costs of drug use (what productive things would people be doing were they not altering their minds, ruining their lives and the lives of others due to drug (mis)use). We are not quite sure of the impact of WOD on supply and use. We see evidence that there are a lot of drugs out there…but we don't know what the landscape would look like had we not had a WOD for the past couple of decades. I can respect that as your opinion, but not a statement of fact.
LikeLike