9th Circuit Overturned Again....9-0 Court Gives Police Victory in Waiting Time

[Frohickey]

Drugs instead of money for legitimate work that you did?

but... you can't buy guns and ammo with drugs

 

[TallPine]

you can't buy guns and ammo with drugs

You can't buy food or gasoline, either.

I was sitting in his truck, while he rolled some joints "for the road" and he hemmed and hawed around about writing me a check. I guess he figured that I would finally say "just give me some of that, instead"

I didn't, and it is hard to believe the animosity of druggies against those who don't partake.

But that still doesn't justify the Wo(pu)D - some people will always be jerks.

 

[Orthonym]

More on the Origins of the WOD

I believe (no, no references handy) that there were some racist grounds for starting the thing in the first place, i.e., "Negroes with cocaine in them are likely to go after our pure White women!"

I think I also recall reading somewhere that police departments went from the .32S&W to the .38Special because they believed the former cartridge was not sufficient to stop a cocaine-crazed Afric person.


I'll try and find evidence to support the above if no one here beats me to it, but don't hold yer breath. Maybe someone else has it at his fingertips?



As Sigmund Freud wrote (as I recall) "What's a frail little girl like you going to do against a big strong man like me who has cocaine in his body?"

 

[MicroBalrog]

didn't, and it is hard to believe the animosity of druggies against those who don't partake.

Never encountered that in any of the druggies I meant.

 

[jimpeel]

TheeBadOne

There was a Frontline program back in 1972 that was about the Golden Triangle Burmese drug trade. A Burmese Warlord offered Peter Bourne, the head of the DEA at that time, all of his wares, which was 1/3 of the world supply of Heroin, for 12 million dollars per year.

Bourne stated that he would not do business with warlords and, in an effort to capture this man, gave the Burmese government three fixed wing -- yes, fixed wing -- aircraft to patrol the dense jungle cover. He was captured through a ruse that they wanted to discuss the proposal and was sentenced to death.

An updated version of that show aired May 20, 1997.

Here is a transcript of that show.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/script.html

[voice-over] The revolutionaries now hoped -- with the king of opium's help -- to control the opium trade at its source in the field and to propose a radical alternative to the traffic. They insisted he sell his narcotics to the United States for burning. They hoped the U.S. would then apply pressure to stop the Burmese oppression of the Shans.

SAO BOON TAI, Vice President: These proposals we have just signed are to the U.S. Narcotics Bureau and to any organization which is prepared to buy and burn the opium in the Shan State. We are also prepared to bring in narcotics agents into Shan State and to check on anything they want to check. But, of course, if our proposal is not accepted, then the needs of our people and the need of our revolution will force us to go on with the opium trade.

ADRIAN COWELL: The king of opium already controlled more than half the traffic and was sure the other opium militias would join him.

[interviewing] [subtitles] How much opium do you handle a year?

LO HSIN HAN: [subtitles] Roughly, and on average, 180 tons a year.

...

[voice-over] As the combined armies took the proposals to Thailand, the opium king told us they were carrying five tons of morphine, enough to provide six months' heroin for all the addicts of America. As he approached the border of Thailand, the king of opium seemed confident the Americans would welcome his proposals. What he didn't foresee was that the American Drug Enforcement Administration would have his proposals suppressed. With Lo Hsin Han, the five tons of morphine were to wait in the jungle. And as he was nervous of approaching the DEA, I agreed to deliver the proposals.

Our first car ride, our first traffic jam for a year and a half. Monday morning, the U.S. embassy, Bangkok. I delivered the Shan offer: a third of the world's heroin for only $12 million.

...

[April 16, 1977] As we had introduced Joe Nellis, chief counsel of the Congressional committee, we were allowed to film this historic meeting, for the second king of opium had asked the United States to plan the long-term eradication of the poppy and, in the meantime, to buy up the crop.

JOE NELLIS: Let me ask Khun Sa what would have to be done to eliminate opium production in the Shan State?

KHUN SA: [through interpreter] We want you to help make contact to the persons, you know, who can come and collect all the opium grown in our country, either to throw it or to burn it.

ADRIAN COWELL: In the summer of 1977, the narcotics committee of the U.S. Congress took the Shan opium proposals to the White House of the new president, Jimmy Carter.

...

ADRIAN COWELL: Over the coming weeks, the debate would resolve into two clearly defined arguments. Lester Wolff, Joe Nellis, and their committee wanted to buy up Shan opium, as the first stage to negotiating an end to its cultivation. But Peter Bourne and his government departments were against negotiations. They wanted to give the Burmese army airplanes to attack Shan convoys. The debate continued until the White House took its all too predictable decision to the Congress.

Interview with Adrien Cowell http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/interviews/cowell.html

There are also interviews with Bourne, Martinez, Brown, and Mccaffery http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/crackdown/

Doubt me no further oh ye of little faith.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Jimpeel thank you for the info. I can see why they turned his offer down.

 

[Orthonym]

There's one drug (I can't say pig ) I love,

though I only saw her once, and then only on TV. Her name was Petra Baden, and she was really just an ordinary constable in Frankfurt (am Main) on an A&E program years ago. What endeared her to me, besides her looks and the cute German uvular r sounds, was the way she handled the drug problem on HER beat. There was a problem with junkies passed/nodding out on the sidewalks there.

Here's what she did: She'd walk along the sidewalk in the morning, and if she found a junky blocking the public footpath, she'd kick'em right into the gutter (hey, it's an anesthetic, shouldn't hurt you to get kicked) with these words; "Fixenmachen ist hier Verboten! (kick) " She did not haul them off in chains, nor steal their money or other property, she just kicked them into the gutter. She was real cute, too. "Fixenmachen ist hier Verboten!" Snork!

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Back to the original topic, the one good thing I can say is that, while the Court will let the government bust down your door without letting you see that warrent that's supposed to prove to you that they've got the RIGHT to bust down your door, it's at least still legal to have a door that's very difficult indeed to bust down. We haven't reached the low of Japan, where you keep a copy of your house key on file with the police so they they can just walk in when they feel like it. (Or so I've heard, anyway.)

You suppose that's coming next?

 

[Orthonym]

Wanna bet, Brett?

I was watching that TV show a while back, the one in which guys with cameras go out with policemen, and I think I recall having seen the L.A. cops rig some seriously large cables between the barricades/bars on windows and doors and their big powerful vehicle, so as to pull the former loose.

Well, guess what? Among the charges brought against those fellas in the building was one which read something like this (operating from memory here, so may not be accurate) "Fortifying a building so as to impede the entry of Law Enforcement Officers"

 

[t-stox]

All i have to say is with each Horror story and tale of abuse the public comes one step closer realizing this war on drugs is wrong! so every time I hear one I don't get angry I cheer! sometimes your worst enemy can be your best friend!

 

[jimpeel]

TBO

I can see why they turned his offer down.

Elaborate please. Do you mean that you can see how bad his offer was; or how such an offer would threaten the power structure of the DEA?

In my heart of hearts, I believe the latter.

 

[Cactus]

jimpeel,

The offer was blackmail! Do you really want the government to respond to blackmail by criminals?

"Pay me a million dollars and I won't kill my neighbor." "Pay me $50,000 and I won't rob the bank."

If we started paying criminals to NOT commit crimes, we couldn't print money fast enough. It's the same reason you don't negotiate with terrorists; you don't decrease terrorism by negotiating, you increase it!

 

[El Rojo]

So it's okay to do this in other people's neighborhoods ...?

I think it is Ok in anyone's neighborhood. My point is that everyone likes to make a big deal about how horrible this is, but no one has really given any evidence that it is some nation wide epidimic that threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your average joe. All I hear are emotional, evidence free pleas from people that don't even have to deal with the local evil DEA or ubertactical wanna bees knocking down doors on a regular basis in their neighborhood. I guess it might not matter if it is your neighborhood or not, but I figured at least if it were happening a lot in your area, that would at least explain why so many people are afraid of this happening without much evidence to say how frequent this happens.

Which constitutional amendment enacts federal drug prohibition?

Its right next to the one that says you can't rape, murder, or steal on federal land. The point of the constitution is to fill in the blanks where Congress wants to as long as the filling in doesn't violate what the document clearly says you can't fill in. Rather than making some vague reference to something we clearly know is not there, why not make a case why you think the WOD is unConstitutional supported by reference? You might convince a few more people with that than with unsupported generalities that are instantly blown off.

 

[TallPine]

Rather than making some vague reference to something we clearly know is not there, why not make a case why you think the WOD is unConstitutional supported by reference?

Suppose you explain why a constitutional amendment was required to enact & repeal alcohol prohibition?

Oh, but "drugs" are so much worse than alcohol that we don't have to bother with that pesky constitution, right ...?

Your statements sound exactly like those of the anti-gun crowd. Is there a technical term for "drug-phobia" analogous to hoplophobia?

 

[jimpeel]

Cactus

The offer was blackmail! Do you really want the government to respond to blackmail by criminals?

It was NOT blackmail. It was an offer to sell the "product" to a different consumer than those to whom he had previously been selling it to.

It is no different than any product supplier approaching any consuming business to supply their product at a lower price than the supplier they currently do business with.

We are talking about 1/3 -- one third -- of the entire world supply of heroin! We are talking about getting rid of 1/3 of this scourge worldwide!

I have advocated for years that the DEA send agents to buy drugs at the source, for pennies on the hundreds of street dollars, and destroy them there. Instead, they spend billions on the millions of street dollars to confiscate them here.

The drug war is nothing more than a nationwide government jobs program.

Let me repeat that ...

The drug war is nothing more than a nationwide government jobs program.

 

[TallPine]

no one has really given any evidence that it is some nation wide epidimic that threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your average joe.

Thinking along that line, what is the harm to me, "the average joe", from the recreational use of certain substances ...? None that I can see, except for harm induced by the War on (people using) Drugs: property crime to get money to buy black market drugs, drug dealer turf war violence, etc.


Look at it this way:
Suppose we consider the problems of teenage sexual activity: teen pregnancy, various nasty diseases, and "it's just naughty so you shouldn't be doing that." So to prevent or control all these problems, let's pass a law making it a felony for anyone under 18 to have sexual relations - that should take care of it.

How do you enforce such a law? Easy in some case! Now when your 15 year old daughter gets pregnant, she not only has the associated medical and social problems, but she gets arrested and imprisoned. Maybe they will send her to a "sex-treatment" center, also. Now she has a felony record for life. Is this going to help? Is this what you want?

But that only catches a few of them. Maybe we could offer your daughter a reduced sentence if she rats out on her boyfriend. But what about the times that the girl doesn't get pregnant???

Then we need to make "sex paraphenalia" illegal - items such as condoms and cars with back seats.

And I'm sure that you can find a locker-room informant to give the cops a "tip" - especially if he's jealous. So the police approach the house, and you don't want to give these dangerous criminals a chance to get dressed and hide their crime, so they bust down the door 15 seconds after knocking.

Sure you might terrorize a few innocent people that way, but heck it's worth it for all of the good that we are doing, right? After all, the War on Teen Sex doesn't threaten the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your average joe.

 

[Intune]

For some reason drugs are the only thing looked at with a "zero sum" balance? Sure, it'd be nice if no drugs were used, ever, just as it would be nice if murder, theft, assault, rape, etc never happened. Control of a problem is the goal. Eradication does not happen over night. This country didn't get a drug problem overnight, it won't end overnight. Also, I don't think this country has really comitted to the WOD. Believe it or not, some laws were stiffer on some drug offenses in the 60's and early 70's then they are now. I think that speaks volumes for what we are seeing. This thread can now go on 5 more pages about the WOD, but it's all been said and done many times before (nice and civally) so I justed added my thougths one more time.

All the best

TBO

It would be “nice if no drugs were used…†Why? Have you discussed this with your doctor? I refer you back to my post about percocet and my bum knee. Does it somehow affect you if I take those prescription pills for entertainment purposes in the privacy of my own home? How? Murder, rape, theft, etc. are crimes AGAINST other people, no comparison. Did you mean illegal drugs? Same case. If I decide to smoke a joint in my house how exactly is that affecting the general public? Now if I go out & drive stoned or stagger around in public causing a nuisance THEN I should be dealt with.

“Control of a problem is the goal.†CONTROL being the telling word. It wasn’t a “problem†until the behavior was made illegal. Now that a worthless plant is prohibited it becomes extremely valuable. There’s the “problem†in a nutshell.

“Eradication does not happen over night. This country didn't get a drug problem overnight, it won't end overnight.†No, it took 89 YEARS of prohibition for it to get this bad. Look at our prison population, it is comprised of something like 75-80% with people who committed a drug or drug affiliated offence. And you want to do MORE? Why? Where does it stop? If you could eliminate 80 percent of the crime taking place today would you? Decriminalize drugs. A worthless plant will revert back to a worthless plant and the user won’t have to smack one of our grandmothers over the head to fuel his need. The DEA’s ’03 budget is around 16 BILLION dollars. You want to do MORE? I’m tired of paying taxes to legislate morality. Ones BEHAVIOR in public, their interaction with fellow man is all that should be judged. If we could wave a magic wand and have every illegal drug disappear overnight we’d better be ready to make the following disappear a year later- Gasoline, spraypaint, deodorant, glue, PAM and any other number of products that these idiots snort & huff.

Obesity kills far more people annually, if “they†really cared the door would come crashing down amid shouts of “LARD POLICE, GET ON THE $#&*^@$ FLOOR! O.K. where are the Krispy Kreme doughnuts?â€

gtd, I am more in agreement with you than disagreement! Let's go with that!

 

[El Rojo]

Suppose you explain why a constitutional amendment was required to enact & repeal alcohol prohibition?

A Constitutional amendment was not "required" to enact alcohol prohibition. In fact, early as 1916, a total of 23 out of 48 states had already passed antisaloon laws. What started as mainly a states movement became large enough that the Congress decided to make prohibition an amendment rather than just another law. That is what Congress does, they make laws. They don't have to make laws a Constitutional amendment in order to get things done, that just so happened to be the way the prohibitionists of the late 1910's chose to do it. Now once it became an amendment, then it was clear that another amendment would have to cancel out the first one. If Congress wanted to pass through and could get the states to get 3/4 radification, they could ban guns. That is what we put them in office to do, make those decisions. Now we all know that little scenario isn't going to happen and if they really tried it, there would probably be some violence. However, that is the reality of politics. There is your explination.

"Your statements sound exactly like those of the anti-gun crowd." Again, care to give me some examples based upon logical conclusions to back up that statement? I give reasons why some of your arguments run parallel to anti-gun sentiments, you give none.

I am not all for letting people ruin their lives at will. Sorry. If they want to do drugs and screw up their lives, it eventually effects us all. Could we legalize it and try and reduce the illicit part of the drug trade? Sure. At what cost? Anyone care to tell me how great it is to be on crack or heroin? Anyone care to elaborate on how that has a positive physical effect on your body and increases your job performance? So now that this person is addicted to drugs, can they keep performing for their family? Will they have to go on government assistance because they can't hold a job? Will they resort to theft and robbery to support their habbit? "If we make it legal the price will go down!" Interesting point, but still, where do the positive effects of these drugs kick in?

You might be able to argue the point that my statements above sound like the anti-gun argument. In part they might. I am concerned about the negative effects that drugs have on individuals and society in general. The difference between drugs and guns is simple. When used properly, guns are not inherently bad for your physical well being. One could argue I suppose that guns are addictive and that shooting them wthout ear protection is similar to the addiction of drugs and the physical breakdown of the body. However, how severe is the addiction to drugs compared to a possible addiction to firearms? What are the "ear plugs" of drugs that prevent your brain from suffering long term damage and short term loss of function? Oh wait, there are none. So the anti's can give us the trying to save lives defense, but sorry, guns save lives more often than they take lives and preserve liberty. Illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin do not. Marijuana might aide cataracts, but save lives? That would be a good one for someone to try and defend. Alcohol and tobacco? Not even. These illegal drugs mainly serve the purpose of recreational activity. Someone brought up the point about some pain medication that they take in the comfort of their own home. Again, there is a reson doctors don't want you getting addicted to it. It has negative effects on your physical body and that can start effecting the rest of your life.

Sorry, I just don't see these addictive illicet drugs as being a positive contribution to society. The Founding Fathers did not appear to think they were crucial to the security of a free state, hence no drug amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, they did feel firearms were essential to the security of a free state and we got the 2nd Amendment. I can use my firearm solely for good. I can use it for recreational purposes and it will have zero effect on my decision making ability or have as serious of a consequence for my long term health.

So lets not compare illegal illicet drugs to guns. I don't even know if we should compare them to alcohol or tobacco. Each case is different. The drugs, alcohol, tobacco debate can possibly be lumped together, but not the three and guns. Recreational substance use cannot be compared to a fundamental right to protect one self and the pursuit of life and liberty.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

TallPine

Your statements sound exactly like those of the anti-gun crowd. Is there a technical term for "drug-phobia" analogous to hoplophobia?

I don't know if there is a word for it but, in the end , they're all nothing more than control freaks. They feel they're not in control of their own lives, so they compensate by trying to control the lives of everyone around them.

 

[TheeBadOne]

El Rojo Damn credible post.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

"What started as mainly a states movement became large enough that the Congress decided to make prohibition an amendment rather than just another law. ... They don't have to make laws a Constitutional amendment in order to get things done, that just so happened to be the way the prohibitionists of the late 1910's chose to do it."

And it had nothing to do with the fact that they didn't, constitutionally, have the AUTHORITY to enact that "just another law"? That they'd tried enacting that federal "just another law", and had it struck down by the Supreme court?

Nobody's disputing that the states had the authority to enact Prohibition. The point was that the federal government didn't, without that constitutional amendment. And by exactly the same reasoning, the federal government today lacks the authority to enact the war on drugs, though the states could, if they chose to.

Except that, of course, today's Supreme court is just barely willing to admit that there are any limits to what the federal government can do, at all.

 

[TallPine]

[El Rojo] I am not all for letting people ruin their lives at will.

[Sargent Bob] I don't know if there is a word for it but, in the end , they're all nothing more than control freaks.

Sounds like the shoe fits ...

 

[cordex]

I am not all for letting people ruin their lives at will.

Very interesting.
And I suppose you get to tell people what is ruining their lives. There was recently a study that claimed that poets tend to live shorter lives due in large part to a tendency towards depression. Should they be forced into another career because poetry will ruin their lives?
Unhealthy foods? Open to all kinds of interpretation.
Driving without seatbelts?
Promiscuous sex? Again, open to all kinds of interpretation.
Hazardous, unnecessary careers? Race car driver, football player, boxer, etc.
Living at the poverty level? How will you make that illegal?
And ... maybe ... just maybe ... alcohol, perhaps?

I guess I don't understand someone who wants to demand that everyone else live for them.

Anyone care to tell me how great it is to be on crack or heroin?

Dunno. Never tried the stuff.

Anyone care to elaborate on how that has a positive physical effect on your body and increases your job performance?

Pretty sure they tear you up something awful. But isn't their job performance an issue between the employer and employee? Where do you come into the equation? Are you taking drugs? (Almost certainly, but no doubt most are legal.) Are your drugs adversely affecting your job performance? Are you employing druggies? Is their work quality unacceptable? If so, fire 'em and be done with it.
If not ... why are you wringing your hands over this?

So now that this person is addicted to drugs, can they keep performing for their family?

Who knows.

Will they have to go on government assistance because they can't hold a job?

Will they resort to theft and robbery to support their habbit? "If we make it legal the price will go down!" Interesting point, but still, where do the positive effects of these drugs kick in?

Theft and robbery are crimes (and validly so!). Punish those.
A drug user stealing to support his drug habit is no more vile than a non-drug dealer stealing to have more stuff.
Do actions, devices or substances have to have a positive effect before they should be legal?

I won't say your arguments are like the gun prohibitionists, but I cannot distinguish them from the arguments of the alcohol prohibitionists.

 

[El Rojo]

Yeah call me slightly liberal if you want (actually please don't ), but I see no reason to make it legal to throw your life away at other people's expense. I understand Cordex's libertarian view and respect it, but darn it, why should we keep paying for this crap? If drugs are going to screw you up so bad you end up in jail, who has to pay for that cushy existence? We do! Do you guys like sending all your tax dollars to prison? I work there, we spend way too much on the bastards. If the law discourages some people from getting involved with a highly addictive and dangerous substance that serves no productive purpose, I think that is a good thing. We can't treat alcohol and tobacco the same as hard core narcotics. They are not the same. Yes I think alcohol and tobacco serve little purpose too, but that has nothing to do with this argument. You can smoke a cigarrette and still drive a car, operate work machinery, and watch over your kids responsibly. Alcohol obviously effects the system and abuse causes long term damage, but it can also be used responsibly.

And by exactly the same reasoning, the federal government today lacks the authority to enact the war on drugs, though the states could, if they chose to.

Not true. The Federal Government gets their authority to exercise this so called "War on Drugs" from the Constitution. Section 8; Clause 3 "Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" and Section 8; Clause 17 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings".

Essentially what that says is the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign nations. So they decide that they don't want to let drugs into the country and that it shouldn't be moved from state to state and that it is illegal on all federal lands. The state's could technically produce it locally and have laws saying they will do what they want. However, the states don't do that and chose to outlaw the stuff too. Now you could make the argument that the states were coerced into going along with the feds and I would back you up on that. Anyway, my point is there are federal and state crimes. You don't automatically get a federal crime unless you do something on, over, or across federal land or state boundries.

Where I am having a hard time formulating my argument is hasn't the supreme court or some other body struck down say the PRK's medical marijuana law? This would be a good time for someone to inform me with sources on what extent the feds actually have taken on the war on drugs. I just re-read the Constitution and it is clear that the feds mainly wanted to have their hands on finance and keeping the peace among the states, but they left most things to the states to decide. Obviously our federal government has ballooned in their time and no longer allows as much local control to the states as was once intended. This unfortunately is something we have to live with and can only make progress against on an individual level by voting and writing to your federal representatives.

I guess it comes down to this. The world is not how it was when the Constitution was written. Back then it would be very easy to let drugs be legal and let people sink or swim. However with FDR we created a huge welfare state and with technology the way it is today, you don't really have to work that hard to stay alive and survive. Therefore, if someone wants to ruin their lives with drugs, they can do so and they can receive government assistance to help them stop or punish them. Say in the 1800s if you did so and you ended up being worthless, maybe your family, friends, or church might help you, but for the most part, if you weren't growing crops or working in a factory, you had no means of income and no means to survive. You would die and that would be that.

Now these same people go on government assistance. They collect my tax dollars and become leeches on the system. They know that if they don't work hard, they can steal from a grocery store, have the government take care of them, they have options. Back then they didn't have many options. Last case scenario they go to a nice comfy prison where they can still get drugs (yes, not a good point for making drugs illegal).

The bad thing is now that the federal government is so big and we have created this welfare state, there really is no way to go back. People keep trading liberty for security and there is no turning back. Yes, in some aspects, I am doing the same thing by saying we shouldn't encourage drug abuse and should make it illegal. Part of my reasoning is because of the societal cost of having to treat and support these addicts that become a strain on society. Were it a sink or swim situation, I might not have this reasoning, I might just let them sink or swim. But they don't sink or swim, they get assistance or they swim. However, the sink or swim rationale is sort of hard for me to justify when I actually care about others and I know firsthand the negative effects these substances have on families and individuals. Why should we want anyone to suffer through these horrible addictions? Isn't that why we outlaw rape and murder? I think it is a far strectch when you say illegal drugs are victimless crimes. Maybe if you are single and you are independent from any other human being and you do drugs and never interact with others during this time.

I ramble on now. I think what it really comes down to is the Federal government is too big and now every thing we want to do has some form of control. I agree about that. The bad thing is there is no way to get rid of that control in a lawful manner. They won't let go. Once they have it they keep it. The more society gets used to the idea of government assistance and control, the more they won't stand up against it because that is the way it has always been. Also what has been lost is regulating only what is strictly detrimental to society and regulating anything that "can" be detrimental to society. Our guns are regulated. I might accept the marijuana issue. Seatbelts, bicycle helmets, building codes. And the only reason we can't say, "let people live and take risks if they want" is because when these people do get hurt, everyone has to pay for it. Why? The government welfare system runs deep. I wonder how much of this was just progression and circumstance and how much was planned. Tin foil hat on now.

 

[Art Eatman]

Rojo, if drugs were totally uncontrolled and free gratis fer nuttin', it wouldn't affect my own behavior one iota. I'm totally uninterested.

That said, I think the WOD is a giant shuck. It's only a war on the Bill of Rights. The majority of anti-gun BS stems from drug wars which spill over onto honest people, e.g. We budget ever more money, year by year; we put more and more people in jail: But the street price of cocaine is still around $100 a gram, same as 20 and 30 years ago. Seems to me there's a message there.

The way we're "fighting" this war has become ever more Draconian. IMO, the trouble is that the war was lost some 30 years back. I agree with the notion that insanity is repeating some effort while expecting a different result. Duh? What we're now doing is not working. It is not efficacious. So, why keep on with the same old keeping on? It just flatout doesn't make sense.

And the honest citizen taxpayer is the Big Loser, while Big Brother gains ever more power over all of us.

Art