[Don Galt]

I've had an experience like the ones described: Did nothing wrong, was fined anyway, without the fact that I did nothing wrong being considered. Here's more examples:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090877/

When the legal system flagrantly ignores logic and reason, what recourse is there? Granted, these incidents are small, ones, but we can all think of instances where larger issues were decided just as absurdly (the people in WACO who were convicted is a good example.)

The legislature is a lost cause. The courts are a lost cause. You cannot solve the problem at the ballot box because only candidates from the one party are allowed to run, and win.

I'm starting to think Claire Wolfe is right-- we're at that time where nothing can be done, but its not quite ready to start shooting the bastards.

Has anyone got an alternative, an effective one?

I'm thinking boycott is a possibility. I'm ready to shrug.

[alan]

Ms. Wolfe, it may turn out, is much closer to the mark than many would want to believe. One thing that I'm less than certain about is the following re her, and Don Galt's assumption in the following, "I'm starting to think Claire Wolfe is right-- we're at that time where nothing can be done, but its not quite ready to start shooting the bastards."

What I'm not quite certain about is the following. Exactly what are we ready for??

[DCR]

Was about to get screwed by the system when I was 18; got it resolved favorably. How did I vow to fight injustice from that day forward?

Became a lawyer. Dismissed BS cases as a prosecutor. Refuse to take BS cases as a state's attorney. Maybe someday I'll cross over to "the dark side" - and do criminal defense

The battles can be fought from within. Get active, run for office, contact the press, work all angles. I firmly believe it can be done, it's just going to take a long time to unravel the web of idiocy that has been woven since the 1960's.

[Don Galt]

DCR-- did you ever prosecute a case for posession of drugs?

I don't mean that to be inflamitory. You brought up your career. To my way of thinking, if you have done that, you are part of the problem. Which does not call your intentions into question-- I'm sure your intentiosn are good and you got rid of lots of cases that would have been travesties of justice otherwise.

But you cannot be in the mafia without being a criminal, right? You can't go into the mafia with the intention of steering them to legitimate forms of business without having to participate in crims to remain part of the organization.

Same thing with the criminal "justice" system in my mind. You can't select your actions based on the constituion, since the system itself is in violation of the constitution, and you'll find yourself evicted from it, or behind bars if you did follow the constitution.

Course, I haven't been there, that's just my opinion / hypothesis.

But I agree with you in one area... I think I should be taking classes towards a law degree. Not to become a lawyer, but to gain the power that comes with understanding of the system. (My careers already set and there are opportunities within it to do more good than I could in just about any other job, except president.)

[Matthew Courtney]

Mr. Galt,

Are you arguing that our government is a criminal enterprise, and that by extension anyone who works for it or otherwise willfully participates in governmental processes is a co-conspirator?

[JohnBT]

Don, I think some of your biases are showing. You jumped from the justice system to the mafia in the blink of an eye. Sorry you feel it's that bad.

John

[ojibweindian]

Mr. Courtney

Are Constitutional violations regarded as criminal acts?

[ojibweindian]

JohnBT

Ever go through a divorce? It can be just that bad...

[bad_dad_brad]

"I fought authority . . . and authority always wins" - John Cougar Mellencamp.

[braeske]

"I fought the law and the law won."

- Eddie Cochran or The Clash, depending on your generation. :D

[ojibweindian]

Both the Clash and Eddie Cochran put out good versions!

Like Ike said, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."

[Old Fuff]

Don:

I don't know what your circumstances are in regards to educational opportunities, but maybe you should look into Para-Legal courses at a local Community College. It's a start.

[Thumper]

Don...why do all your threads have drug references?

For better or for worse, the public is against you. In this representative democracy, your cause seems to be lost here.

I understand the arguments against the war on drugs. I agree with most of them. The thing is, Joe Gunowner doesn't. Outside the narrow confines of this board, conservative gunowners tend to shun the Lib party specifically because of the drug thing. This is a gun board.

Anyway, good luck with it.

[braeske]

The unfortunate fact is that most of these municipal courts are revenue machines for the municipality and 99% of the folks are guilty of what they are charged. Therefore, there is an unfortunate assembly-line quality to the proceedings.

FYI, I recommend that you consult with a lawyer if you get a moving violation because in many states a lawyer can keep it off your driving record by asking the prosecutor to amend it to a non-moving violation.

- Chris

[tyme]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090877/

There are only 5 boxes... (almost forgot about the soap box), and lunch boxes aren't likely to fix the problem.

[Don Galt]

I was using the mafia as an example of an organization that you cannot remain a member of without tainting yourself with the crimes of the organization, that's all.

The difference between the judicial system and the mafia is that the judicial system does spend a large percentage of its time doing good work, and not committing crimes.

But a guy who robs a store and gives the proceeds to charity is still a criminal.

The reason I bring up drugs is that the drug laws are objectively unconstitutional, they have given police an incentive to be corrupt (Thru asset forfieture laws) and that, as you poiint out, in this country the majority does not get to override the constitution.

The majority may be christian, but that does not give them the right to enact laws based on christianity-- though they often do.

Without the constitution, what is america? Without it, it certainly is not the country people want it to be, or seem to think it is.

A good example, bringing it back around to the second ammendment, is the Silveira case.

IF the Supremes rule against the Second ammendment, what does that mean? When the legal system fails, what alternative is there?

We all know they might do that-- we can envision it. And unlike drugs, I think everyone here recognizes that the RKBA is constitutionally protected and all infringements on it directly violate the wording of the constitution.

I should have used guns in this thread as an example, rather than drugs, but since DRC mentioned his job, I wanted to inquire on drugs-- a more likely case for him to have prosecuted, I suspect.

It really doesn't matter if people don't like drugs or not. That's not the issue at all. And the accepted idea that since they don't, criminalizing them is OK, is the primary point I'm trying to drive home-- you cannot rely on the second ammendment when you support the violations of other parts of the constitution.

IF the constitution doesn't apply in drug cases, how can you call on it for gun cases? That's hypocrisy.

And that hypocrisy (also reflected in liberals who oppose the second ammendment) is the primary reason can be successfully attacked in this country.

Until we all stand behind the constitution-- ALL OF IT, including the parts we don't like (including the consequences *I* don't like, of some parts) we have little chance of reversing the slide this country is in.

After all, that slide started when the constitution was violated, and they got away with it.

[WYO]

You can put me in the same boat as DCR. I don’t agree with every law that I have enforced, but I generally have broad discretion in determining whether to take enforcement action, so there are cases where I choose not to enforce the letter of the law for what I consider to be appropriate reasons. I believe that society is better off with people taking hard jobs and using this type of attitude than it is to say that people should not take such jobs if they cannot be ideologically pure, or that they are the “mafia” if they do. If people are not willing to work within the system for change in their own little way, the system will never change, and the only way to remain “pure” is to refuse to participate in society.

On a historical note, do you think that everyone who wrote the constitution was “pure?” Wasn’t the ownership of people “constitutional” until the 13th amendment? So, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to think that everything was perfect in 1787 and it has been going downhill ever since.

The funny thing is that this whole thread started over an article dealing with a fender bender and a parking ticket! Geez! Get over it. I’m sure there are a lot of graves filled with the bodies of veterans who would have loved the opportunity to get in fender benders and receive parking tickets.

[Balog]

For better or for worse, the public is against you. In this representative democracy, your cause seems to be lost here.


What?! This country is NOT a democracy, or at least it shouldn't be according to the Constitution. Say it with me everyone, Republic. The BS idea that democracy is a good thing never fails to vex me. Democracy means that the only constraint on government is the whim of the sheeple. The more we move towards a democracy, the less free we become. If you can't even correctly identify what form of government is currently in power, perhaps you shouldn't be debating in a political forum? Rather like arguing that the 1911 is the best darn revolver ever made, it only showcases your lack of knowledge.

[semf]

"I fought the law and the law won." Eddie Cochran or The Clash, depending on your generation
I prefer Buddy Holly or Waylon Jennings, depending on your generation:D ;)

[Balog]

The funny thing is that this whole thread started over an article dealing with a fender bender and a parking ticket! Geez! Get over it. I’m sure there are a lot of graves filled with the bodies of veterans who would have loved the opportunity to get in fender benders and receive parking tickets.


There is a verse in the Bible (I can't remember the reference offhand) that basically says that you can judge how a man will deal with important things by the way he deals with unimportant things. If you lend someone a pencil and they chew on it, break the pocket clip, and use all the lead up w/out replacing it; it's probably a bad idea to lend them your car.
A violation of justice, even in a small matter, is still important. Where you sit on a bus is fairly unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but that small matter turned into a rather larger matter didn't it.

And I am disgusted at your illogical assertion about veterans. Last I checked, vets didn't like having their rights violated any more than civilians. Ever heard of the Battle of Athens?

[ravinraven]

Remember, folks, Democracy is the last step before Tyranny. Can you see any signs of Tyranny approaching?

Unconstitutional acts such as the Forfeiture Laws and the infringment of the RKBA are two large violations. Then there is the action that big commercial operations such as Wal-Mart and Cosco use to set up new stores. They bribe, or otherwise induce, a local government to grab your land using the Immenent Domain procedure and sell it to them to build on. Anyone who has ever participated in this type of gross Constitutional Violation should be put on trial for their lives.

ravinraven

[WYO]

Ever heard of the Battle of Athens?

I've heard of it, but don't remember it. Did it involve a fender bender or a parking ticket?

[foghornl]

Don't have a link to the story, but as I sort of vaguely recall, "Battle of Athens" was about crooked pols refusing to let some folks vote. About 1946, I think. Athens, TN maybe ? ?

[Balog]

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

I fail to see why having LEO's abuse my rights and steal my money is ok if it's only a parking ticket.

[ksnecktieman]

WYO?? Selective enforcement of the law? I think that is the worst possible thing anyone can do. If you selectively enforce a law, because of it being bad or good, you are doing wrong. If you selectively enforce a law because it is someone you know, You are doing wrong. One of our biggest problems now is that not all laws are enforced all of the time, for everyone.

If the law is on the books, it should either be enforced or removed. If you are paid to enforce it, you are stealing your wages when you choose not to. It is a very fine line once you decide not to enforce one because you do not like it, and not enforcing one because it is a friend or a brother officer, or a minister, or a sweet old lady.

[cordex]

I don’t agree with every law that I have enforced
What greater tacit approval of a law is there than punishing someone for the violation thereof?

Rather a difficult position for pro-freedom LEOs and prosecutors. If they follow their convictions and don't enforce unjust laws, they are kicked out and replaced by someone who will. If they do enforce unjust laws, they are acting against what they claim to believe. Tough road to walk.

[Don Galt]

WYO, you're essentially saying its ok to steal money, just so long as it is in small amounts, like $300? Thats what it means to just pay when your car was towed for blocking a fire hydrant that was nowhere near it, and was in no way blocked by it. Does this apply to the people who steal small amounts from you?

Hell, once in Texas, where they have JPs instead of judges, I ran into a shakedown racket like that. They would pull people over, or just sit outside apartment complexes and write tickets for whatever bull???? they were thinking of. Then you'd be pissed, show up at the court date and the "judge" (I don't think he was really a judge) would readily dismiss, so long as you paid "court costs" which was his $35 fee for "Adjucating" the case. IF you paid the ticket, you still paid the fee, but it would go on your record. It was a shakedown scheme, pure an simple. This was on the western side of Houston in the early to mid 90s.

At the rate he was going, he dismissed about 50 cases in the hour I was there, and when I left there were over 50 people waiting. Figure 5 hours of that twice a week and he cleared $17,500 a week in fees. Probably had to kick back $500 to the deputies who were pulling the people over. Good money if you can get it!

No, I see these small things-- and the dozens upon dozens of big things that weren't mentioned in this article-- as examples of a system that is becoming increasingly tyrannical.

IF the principles are not preserved-- if unconstitutional laws are enforced-- then what was the point of the constitution in the first place?

You said you have to enforce laws you don't like. Why do you not like them? Are the unconstitutional? IF they are, do you not consider enforcement of an unconstitutional law a crime?

[WYO]

This is an interesting thread. On one hand we have the group that say police are “JBT’s” if they enforce “bad” laws, and we also have another person saying that police are in dereliction of their duties if they don’t enforce every single law on the books 100% of the time.

To the anti-“JBT” people:

It takes time for change to occur. Do you think that the exclusionary rule existed in 1787, or even 1887? How about Miranda warnings, or the right to court appointed counsel? On a firearms related note, how many states had “shall issue” CCW 25 years ago, versus the number that there are today? Do you think the civil rights movement progressed more because of riots, or because some courageous individuals took an unpopular stand and got arrested or their brains smashed in? These things take time, and people toil to get there. Oh, I forgot, this is modern “instant gratification” America, where we want what we want, how we want it, when we want it, without any grief.

Do I agree with bum rapping people and issuing bogus citations or towing cars parked legally? Absolutely not, but I’m not going to take every case of abuse as an indictment of the whole system, and suggest that maybe it’s getting to be time for us to go grab our guns.

To the anti-“selective enforcement” people:

As a general proposition, the law does not require the police to take enforcement action for every violation, nor does it require every DA to prosecute every case. In addition, jaywalking is not the same as murder. I would also argue that zero tolerance is bad because it ignores the purpose for having laws. The purpose of law is not to find an excuse to “bust” people for violating it or for generating revenue. The law provides general rules of conduct designed to regulate behavior. Sometimes, behavior can be regulated without having to take enforcement action. Traffic laws are an example. If someone is freaked out because they barely mistimed a light, they’ve never had an overdue library book, they’re going to be more careful in the future, and there was no danger to the public, then the purpose of the law can be accomplished without issuing a citation, and “good” has been accomplished by giving someone a mere “safety reminder.” Nobody I know would apologize for it, and nobody I know would get in trouble for not taking enforcement action. (BTW, if the police write every traffic violation, and major incidents occur while they’re dinking with tickets, they have done a big disservice to the community, because most people care about the big stuff more than the small stuff.) Similarly, in some cases, a concerned parent who is involved in a child’s life can do more good than police ever will by taking enforcement action. In other cases, the police may listen to what the victim has to say and go lenient on someone. In some “close call” cases, they may write a report and send it to the D.A. to make a charging decision, rather than issuing a citation or arresting someone. And, sometimes, it just makes no sense to take enforcement action under the circumstances. If someone is intoxicated in public (NOTE: I’m not talking about DUI here, which is serious), but isn’t causing a disturbance, wandering in traffic, passed out, or in danger of contracting hypothermia or alcohol poisoning, that person may get a ride home or to a shelter, or left in the care of friends rather than going to jail. (I guess in New Orleans I should have called out the National Guard to help me take a couple of hundred thousand people to jail for public intoxication and/or nudity every Mardi Gras day. Is this a case where the anti-JBT and anti-selective enforcement people would disagree? ) I could go on and on, but I can’t write a treatise on every thread.

People who are in favor of zero tolerance also should understand the distinction between probable cause to take enforcement action and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Are such people advocating enforcement action whenever an officer has probable cause, a lesser standard, rather than a definite belief of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? If the former, the zero tolerance people are asking for a lot of enforcement action that may never result in convictions.

BTW, I never said that I let people go because they are acquaintances or other officers, so I don’t know where that came from. Also, deciding to enforce or not enforce the law for improper motives, such as on the basis of race, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or whatever, is wrong and in some cases a statutory civil rights violation.

Don Galt, we disagree on what is “unconstitutional,” so we are talking from completely different perspectives. If a law is on the books in state X that is the same as a law in state Y that has been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, then it should not be enforced in state X even if a court with jurisdiction over state X has not declared it “unconstitutional,” because, if the law of state Y is unconstitutional then the law of state X having the same language is as well. When I look at 4th amendment issues, I do not go by what I “feel” is unconstitutional; I make a judgment call based on how my fact situation squares with interpretations of the 4th amendment as enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the applicable federal Circuit Court of Appeal and the state court authority. I have not and would not knowingly violate the constitution as judicially interpreted solely to make an arrest or to obtain evidence. I WOULD RATHER A GUILTY PERSON GO FREE. On the issue of drug laws, I do not believe that drug laws are unconstitutional based upon current authority, regardless of what I may think about them personally. So, I have enforced drug laws and don’t have a problem with it. From an enforcement standpoint, though, I do believe that there is a qualitative difference between a kid with 2 marijuana seeds on the floor of his bedroom and a guy with a bale of junk in his. Absent something like Scotty from Star Trek demonstrating to me that he accidentally beamed the bale to the guy’s room, he’s looking at enforcement action. It could, but not necessarily will, go down differently with kid with the seeds, depending upon circumstances. (See discussion earlier.) I am sure that some people cannot see this distinction.

In summation, it ain’t a black and white world. It never has been and it never will be. It’s mostly shades of gray, it doesn’t turn on a dime, and a molehill is not a mountain unless you want to split hairs and call it a very tiny mountain. I don’t know how some people survive where every slight is viewed as a Constitutional affront in need of instantaneous redress, or else they want to go for their guns and set things right.

I know some of you will never agree with me. That’s just the way it is. Take care, and bye.

[alan]

Re the various comments on this discussion, including my own from earlier, while the system isn't perfect, it isn't even close, neither are any of the participants, I have "fought city hall", and I won.

Actually, it was the State of Pennsylvania, The Revenue Dept. thereof, over a state income tax matter. I had a Commonwealth Court decision on my side, and the Revenue Dept. had to be aware of it, because they had lost the original case. Depsite this, they tried to STEAL some money, collect taxes from me that I didn't owe, and had I rolled over and paid up, they would have kept the money. I'm not saying that it would have gone into John 's or Sam's pocket, but they would have STOLEN it, meaning collected it based on a position of theirs that the courts had previously rejected.

We went around in circles for a while, it cost me a couple of hundred dollars, retainer for an attorney, the amount in dispute was a couple of hundred dollars, obvioiusly a matter of principle was involved, and eventually the clowns sent me TWO REFUND CHECKS. I was entitled to one, so I cashed that. The other, I put in a drawer, waiting for them to "inquire" about it. They never did.

In another case, the county sheriff tried to play silly games with the procedure involved in renewing CCW's. I had heard, second hand, that he was doing this, making up new rules, rules that ran counter to the written law, and personally verified that he was doing so. I then brought the matter to the attention of my state senator, and state representative. The senator followed up on my complaint, I had copies of correspondence between the lady and the county sheriff. My state representative, so far as I could tell, did nothing, which was something of a disappointment, since he claims to be a Second Amendment supporter. What the hell, noboby is perfect, not even me.

On courts and judicial attitudes, a fellow I ran into at Camp Perry, years ago, he was legal council for Ohio Rifle and Pistol Association made the following observation. Municipal court judges think that they are god, state court judges act like god, federal court judges are. Who knows but he may have had a point.

[rock jock]

To my way of thinking, if you have done that, you are part of the problem.
Yeah, I 'm sure all of us know what the problem here is.:rolleyes:

[jimpeel]

I got a citation in California for 53 in a 35. The cop got me on radar.

I live in Nebraska so fighting the cite was not so possible -- except -- if you decide to fight it with a "Not Guilty, Trial By Declaration" by mail.

I sent in my $136.00 bail, which is the amount of the fine if you lose, and started the process.

They sent me the necessary forms and I told my side of the story. I had planned my defense and had taken pictures of the things necessary prior to leaving L.A. Did I mention this was L.A.?

I fought the thing from two prongs:

a. I was traveling under California Vehicle Code §22350, also known as the Basic Speed Law, which states:

“No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.”

b. The cop was sitting in the driveway of a recognized religious establishment ST. NICHOLAS GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH. So I entered a Motion to Dismiss based upon violation of the Establishment Clause. I figured if they can use that garbage decision against us, we can use it against them.

And so I set out my arguments, got all my ducks in a row, marked all of my photos PE1 thru PE-12 (Photographic Evidence), gave the measurements and type roadway and other roadways of like kind that were posted differently, defined the various types of speed limits, the position of the sun, traffic on the roadway, weather, etc.

I sent the arguments Certified, return receipt requested and waited. And waited. And waited.

I figured they were taking so long because they were probably passing my motion around to all of the clerks, referees, and judges -- just for a good laugh.

And then it came -- "You have been found NOT GUILTY and the bail in the amount of $136.00 has been ordered returned."
:neener:

So you can win if you take the time. It was going to cost me the $136.00 anyway; plus three years of higher insurance premiums, and points off of my license. It was no skin off my nose to try and it paid off.

My only regret is that they didn't tell me what portion of the argument won, the Motion to Dismiss or the Declaration.

Oh, well.

If anyone wants a copy of either, let me know by PM. California is one of the few states that has a Basic Speed Law and it is a valuable thing to know. Most Californians don't even know it exists.

[alan]

jimpeel:

As one hard head to another, it is a real pleasure to meet you sir.

As for myself, I've won a couple, lost a couple, however given the chance of a win, the fight is worth while.

By the bye, once upon a time, I lived in California. I was not even remotely aware of the "hooks" that you hung your coat on.

[jimpeel]

I was late in filing my Federal Income Tax so they took $100 as a fine.

I wrote them and showed them that the language of the IRS Tax Book was ambiguous and in a portion of the book that it shouldn't be.

At the end of the letter I simply asked "May I please have my $100? I really need it."

They sent me a check for the $100 plus interest.

I raised my kids that if you don't ask, the answer is already "No". I try to follow my own advise.

[Don Galt]

As a point of clarification, when I was talking about unconstitutional drug laws, I was talking about federal ones, not state ones.

I'm not sure whether the constitution should be a limitation on the federal government only, or a limitation on state governments as well. But human rights-- including the right to self medicate, or commit suicide-- should be protected in a free society.

At the same time, I support Silviera, as I would like to see the Bill of Rights, specifically the second ammendment, be something states can't flagrantly violate.

[Ryder]

When the legal system flagrantly ignores logic and reason, what recourse is there?

I only resort to the legal system as a personal option to extreme violence. I'm ok with giving it a chance. No complaints so far. :) If the sytem breaks then the problem remains and it's back to "Plan A" I guess :confused:

[Don Galt]

The system is clearly broken. These kinds of incidents happen all the time:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/111003B.html

When the police can, and do, simply sieze property at any time, without reason, they are corrupt. I don't know of any state, or police department, that does not engage in this kind of behaviour.

Oh, and to the idea that "the dog reacted, there must have been drugs"... a dog handler can ellicit whatever reaction he wants from the dog. Dog reactions are not evidence-- dogs can get excited for a variety of reasons.

These are not isolated incidents-- the situation in Goose Creek, SC this week was justified by dog reactions to backpacks, yet no drugs were found.

Every year dozens, if not hundreds of people loose their houses, their cars, their money, to siezure by police departments who then spend the money.

How is that not theft? How is that not corruption?

[Aikibiker]

On the drug question. I've skimmed the Bill of Rights a time or two and I can't find anything in it about a right to get high. Could the "olde English" and strange punctuation.

Further more I have noticed something about those who argue for the legalization of drugs. For the most part they are either involved in the drug trade in some way or they are as ignorant of what they are talking about as those MMM types who have never even held a gun before.

Now Mr. Galt I am going to assume you are neither a junky nor a drug dealer and that you are just in need of a little education on the realities of the issue.

This is a good place to start.
http://gangstories.com/gangstories.htm

I can add a little to it. I grew up in a bad neighborhood. It was by no means the inner city of LA or any of our other large urban centers, but it was a pretty bad ghetto none the less. Of the people I grew up with I am only one who never used recreational drugs. Of all the kids in that neighborhood I can count on the fingers of one hand the number that are successful members of society today. The others are the kind of people we have in mind when we strap on that gun before leaving the house.

[Mark Tyson]

In addition to publicizing abuses like those mention here, I think nonviolent civil disobedience is the best thing to do when the government start's trampling fundamental rights. And RKBA is a fundamental right. If enough people have the cajones to do it they can't stop us. That's all I'm gonna say.

[cordex]

I've skimmed the Bill of Rights a time or two and I can't find anything in it about a right to get high.
*sigh*
The BoR doesn't grant you the right to get up in the morning, or the right to drink coffee, or the right to buy ammo, or the right to have indoor plumbing, or the right to make love to your significant other, or the right to enjoy nature, or the right to wear clothes, or the right to wear corrective lenses or any of a hundred million other things.
Does that mean that they are all fair game for regulation or prohibition?
Further more I have noticed something about those who argue for the legalization of drugs. For the most part they are either involved in the drug trade in some way or they are as ignorant of what they are talking about as those MMM types who have never even held a gun before.
I guess I must be one of them there ignorants.
What have you noticed about prohibitionists of any flavor? Gun, alcohol, "drug", information, etc, etc, etc.
I've noticed they tend to be statist control-freaks and elitist. Just my observation, but certainly not all-inclusive.

Now, as to your "gang stories" website ...
Do you propose that the massive gang violence associated with the alcohol prohibition of the early 20th century was the fault of alcohol? Or would you agree that it was more a symptom of prohibition?

Just because drugs are associated with scum and violence today, does not mean drugs are the cause of scum and violence.

[Aikibiker]

Let me try to say this better.

When your typical blissninny that is against guns goes out and gets some first hand experience with them they tend to come over to "our side" of the fence in their beliefs about firearms ownership. I have seen it many times.

When your typical "let's legalize drugs" type of person gets some first hand experience with drugs and their effects they tends to come over to "my side" of the fence in their beliefs about drugs and drug use.

Please don't take my word for it though. I encourage you to go out and educate yourself. Talk to narcotics officers, talk to drug rehab therapists, hang out with users and dealers. (I have done all of these in addition to growing up where I did) I can almost guarantee you will come to believe as I do about drugs.

As for the asset forfeiture laws and eminent domain, and traffic ticket money making schemes, yeah those things need to be changed. Write your congressman, file suits in court, collect signatures, and talk to your local media. Those actions will do a lot more to accomplish change then loading your rifle.

[Derek Zeanah]

Please don't take my word for it though. I encourage you to go out and educate yourself. Talk to narcotics officers, talk to drug rehab therapists, hang out with users and dealers. (I have done all of these in addition to growing up where I did) I can almost guarantee you will come to believe as I do about drugs.I believe the arguments you'll find from us pro-legalization, never-touch-the-stuff folks are as follows:

1) There are significant social harms that are a result of drug use (I'm thinking primarily of the problems associated with children exposed to cocaine in the womb), but these harms are not reduced by prohibition.

2) There are significant social harms that result from the prohibition of certain drugs -- namely the gang violence associated with sales and distribution of prohibited substances, and the way law enforcement is changing to address that threat (asset forfeiture, the erosion of the 4th amendment, the ongoing militarization of police, the use of "no-knock" warrants when there's the fear that $100 of chemicals will get flushed, the influence of drug money on the justice and legislative process, etc.) Legalize it, watch $500/hour profits for 13 year-old crack dealers on NY street corners disappear, and you'll see some positive changes in our society.

3) The best solution for society as a whole was to end the prohibition of alcohol in the last century, as an objective look at the costs/benefits of prohibition showed it wasn't worth it. It looks to a lot of us like we're in that same situation again.

That's not to say that I think "drugs are good," though there are some seriously convincing arguments for the use of marijuana for treatment of certain symptoms associated with AIDS treatment and chemo-therapy...

BTW, do you ever wonder why it's OK for doctors to prescribe opiates galore, but not marijuana? Would you consider morphene or weed a more dangerous drug?

[Cal4D4]

I have had a family member spend several years hitting rock bottom from meth addiction and recover, free of his addiction for many years now. Absolutely heartbreaking. I doubt if the legalization of currently illegal drugs could add much to the mix. All of our current legislation and enforcement efforts may do nothing to help society with the problems of drug abuse.

[JPM70535]

After reading more than I really wanted to about selective enforcement of certain laws, I just feel the need to put in my 2 cents worth.

I enforced certain laws selectively for over 20 years, and I sleep well at night knowing that I was not alone in the practice. There are mitigating circumstances to some laws. Case in point; law against urinating in public.
2AM, deserted highway, John Q Public had too much coffee, nature calls, my headlights catch him in the act. Arrest? I dont think so. With a career in LE comes the responsibility to use common sense.

IMHO the main probllem with LE today is the complete lack of selective enforcement. there are far too many LEOs who have what I call the SWAT mentality, and forget that they are servants, not masters of the public.

Sorry for getting so far off topic

[Travis McGee]

http://www.tomeaker.com/FReepers/reader1.jpg

[Don Galt]

Travis-- your hint is too subtle!

Its really unfortunate that you cannot talk about drugs (or guns, for that matter) without your opponents accusing you of being a junkie (or a redneck racist.) Lets take the high road.

I harp on the constitution because its the one unifying document. It is the bible of this countries government. (And no, the bible isn't the bible of our government!)

The bill of rights limits the federal power to make laws that violate our rights. It is broad. And according to it, the constitution does not provide rights, it provides restrictions. In other words, since the constitution does not give the government the power to regulate drugs, in any way, these regulations are illegal. If its not mentioned, they don't have the right to do it.

I'm surprised at how many people don't realize this-- read the second ammendment-- it doesn't grant any rights, it merely restricts the government from infringing on those pre-existing rights.

When they prohibited alcohol, they got a constitutional ammendment to do it. There's a reason for that.

And, in fact, when prohibition ended, they had all these (eventually to be called ATF) alcohol enforcement dudes around who wanted to keep their jobs. So what did they do?

They went after drugs and guns. It's no coincidence that the prohibitions of drugs began in the 30s along with the NFA.

Don

[carpettbaggerr]

On the drug question. I've skimmed the Bill of Rights a time or two and I can't find anything in it about a right to get high. Could the "olde English" and strange punctuation.

You must have missed the ninth Amendment :

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Don Galt]

I think the war on drugs has managed to violate all 10 of the Bill of Rights. Lets see:


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Some religions involve the use of drugs that are ciminalized, like peyote. The government response has been to not allow these ceremonies in most cases, but even when they do, they allow them based on race.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


By making simple possession a felony, millions of americans are denied their second ammendment rights for a non-crime... often people convicted of posession aren't even drug users, and were merely associating with drug users at the time.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


I think siezing houses would count as "quartered" and I would think police count as "soldiers". But maybe the drug war hasn't really violated this one.



Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Out the window. illegal searches making the news is a weekly occurance. "the dog twitched" is never questioned. "I smelled marijuana smoke" "But no marijuana was found?" "No, we fixed that, I had an extra baggie I dropped..."



Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Asset forfieture is a conviction and fine in clear violation of this. Also,they can now listen to attorny client conversations that were previously priviledged. Without private conversations with your attorney, you are effectively denied representation.



Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Juries are regularly instructed to convict people illegally. Juries are not impartial, as the jury selection process has been corrupted. I'm sure someone with more knowledge could find many violations of this.



Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


You cannot sue to recieve your stolen assets back.. the drug war siezes and you have no recourse.



Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


10 years ofr a joint is excessive. People are regularly held without bail.



Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


EG: Criminalisation of drug use is not allowed.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Only states can criminalize drugs.

Ok, a solid violations of 7 out of 10.

[ravinraven]

Folks up here in this county sure don't want drugs to be legalized. Our county industry, besides making nose cones for all the missles fired in our various wars, is running prisons for druggers.

If drugs were suddenly legalized, we'd have approx. 42,348 people out of work! And these are people who can't get another job. If the prisons become vacant, the gov't would have to do what the colleges do when enrollment sags: reduce requirements.

Example: 10 years for smoking a joint would now become 10 years for yawning in public.

These "criminals" have no idea what a contribution they are making to our economy. Oddly, a facility that will house 200 inmates, has a staff of 450 running it. Actually, I think we should find more "crimes" just to keep us afloat up here.

The "thought police" idea seems to be catching on with the invention of "hate" crimes. Maybe there is something there we can enrich ourselves with.

Any ideas?

ravinraven

[Cal4D4]

JPM70535

Thank you for your considerate and thinking man's approach to law enforcement. Laws are tools to help maintain a civilized society, not micro manage their everyday conduct.