TheAgitator.com
A Drug War Rape
Thursday, May 20th, 2004The story’s about a year old, but here’s a sad example of how the drug war can turn soft, pissant pot dealers to hardened criminals:
The teen was arrested in Broward County in May on charges of delivering marijuana, a felony. He had 30 grams – or about an ounce – of marijuana in his possession at the time of the arrest.The teen19-year-old spent the first night of his sentence in a 7-by-8-foot cell with Randolph Jackson, 35, who has been in jail since July 2002 awaiting trial on a sexual battery charge.
In the early morning hours of June 7, Jackson allegedly held a ballpoint pen to the teen’s throat and raped him. Jail staff did not know about the incident until later in the day, when the 19-year-old’s family members, alarmed by comments he made during a telephone conversation, called to report it, jail officials said…
…Sheriff’s Office officials say the 19-year-old would normally have been sent to an open-barracks wing where nonviolent felony inmates are usually assigned. But because the jail was near capacity, and the open-barracks wing full, jail officials say he was sent to B Pod, a wing composed of one-man and two-man cells that house mostly inmates charged with violent felonies.
Think maybe the nonviolent jail was near capacity because of….drug arrests?
Hat tip: Drug War Rant.
Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time. I suppose someone forced him to use/possess drugs.
The libertarian moralizing on this issue is so comic to me. It’s fucking illegal. Cry your tears in a bucket. It wasn’t like he was doing something good for himself or anyone else. If the drug war’s too expensive, that is something I’ll listen to. But give up the sob stories.
Lets hope the next time you get pulled over for violating a traffic law that you get locked in a cell with someone who rapes you. Maybe that will make you learn to think before you say stupid things on comment boards. Nevermind that would be asking too much.
roach, may I pass you on to the Onion? They’ve been crying out for volunteers lately.
If I’m so “out of touch,” why don’t you guys field a candidate to run for President on your Save-the-Drug-Dealers ticket. Oh wait, you do, and every year he gets like 1% of the vote.
You guys are living in pothead college la la land. No one cares about dumb shits that risks and get sent to jail. I’m sorry our jails are poorly managed, but I have to say it’s a pretty low priority.
Once again, in case anyone missed the meeting, you may get sent to jail if you take the risk of illegal behavior–with all that incarceration entails.
Nathan Hale, this guy is not.
roach–
Does this mean you regard forcible sodomy part of the young man’s rehabilitation?
The issue here isn’t that he was incarcerated (“don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”), it is that he was raped in state custody in no small part due to negligence on the part of the jailers in throwing a non-violent drug offender in a cell with a violent criminal. Something that would not have happend were a more sane drug policy in effect.
Yes, I’m moralizing. I find it morally reprehensible to take away someone’s freedom and subject them to unspeakable violence simply because they have committed a victimless “crime”.
Perhaps you are willing to cede moral authority to the arbitrary tyranny of “the law”, but I am not.
Hawkins says, “the arbitrary tyranny of “the law”, but I am not.”
Arbitrary tyranny? Umm, we have a constitution. We have democratic institutions. Laws can be changed. What would a non-arbitrary law be, the ones you like? What kind of absolute chaos we’d have if people were taught from an early age only to obey the laws they agreed with. Our drug laws may not be good ones, but they’re hardly unjust. There is no fundamental right to get high. Quit making this guy out to be a hero.
As for the victim, I think it’s unfortunate. But no more unfortuante than the hot-check-writers, car-thieves, shoplifters, and other meak folks that end up in the can and are raped. The only reason you guys care is because this is a propaganda point to make our society more drug-addled; I doubt any of you have ever lifted a finger to do anything about prison rape.
You are making this guy out to be some kind of Mandela. He’s just an idiot.
Our drug laws may not be good ones, but they’re hardly unjust. There is no fundamental right to get high.
No, but there is a fundemental right to be secure in your person. And a fundemental right to liberty. Both of which are violated by the injustice of our drug laws.
By the way (since you brought it up)…where in the constitution does it give the government the authority to prohibit you from putting certain substances into your body?
BTW, roach–
I just went by your blog and saw what you do for a living, so I am earnestly awaiting a good answer to that last question. (I really mean that, and not in a snarky way…)
Biochemical privacy indeed!
To spin Brian’s point around further:
Who gave companies and industries that pollute and contaminate our environment and eventually our bodies, the right to put their chemical/product inside of me, without my permission?
Or don’t we know what we’re doing?
Ok back to my little corner of the institution.
Yes, roach, if you do something illegal then anything that happens to you is justified.
Makes sense, in a certain non-sensical way.
“It wasn’t like he was doing something good for himself or anyone else.” -roach
Obviously you’ve never used pot, so you have no idea whether using it is good or not. Millions of americans use it because it brings some pleasure to their lives. It certainly helps in their right to “pursue happiness.” Oh, but I bet you think they use it only because they are crazed addicts.
“Our drug laws may not be good ones, but they’re hardly unjust. There is no fundamental right to get high.” –
Well there is a fundamental right to liberty, and it would seem to me that deciding what to put in your body is a fundamental exercise of that liberty.
First of all… how can ANYONE take the “war” on drugs seriously when we don’t even protect our borders? Seems like the best way to solve this problem is to cut the supply.
Seems to me that getting high should not be illegal. It should only be punishable when someone violates somebody else’s constitutional rights.
I have to wonder, if this happened to someone near and dear to roach, would he still be singing this tune? Probably not.
Son: Dad, I was arrested for possesion of pot and last night I was ass fucked by my cell mate.
Roach: Well, son, that what happens when you break the law. Suck it up.
Really now…would you consider a 19 year old kid with an ounce of smoke in his pocket a “dealer”? Whatever happened to the days when if you got caught with an ounce or less, the cops would take it or dump it out, with the stern warning “I’ll be watching you, boy”?
Yes, possession is against the law, but nobody deserves to get buttfucked in a jail cell.
Roach, you said, The libertarian moralizing on this issue is so comic to me. It’s fucking illegal. Cry your tears in a bucket. It wasn’t like he was doing something good for himself or anyone else.
Your logic is ironclad! So, because it’s against the laws of the US government, that means it’s wrong. Um, yeah.
Secondly, is “doing something good for himself or others” a pre-requisite for the government giving you permission to do it? In other words, I probably do a handful of things that are legal, but not inherently “good for me or anyone else”, every day.
Your negative-based standard that, to be legal, it has to be “good for you or someone else” is not only absurd, it’s outside of the bounds of a government in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, such as ours (or, rather, what the US used to be). In a constitutional republic, people have the right to do all kinds of things without government permission, such as smoke pot, as long as it does not inflict harm or infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Constitutional republics are based on the premise that men have rights bestowed upon them from god (in our case, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and the sole purpose of the government is to secure and protect those rights among its citizens.
But, since the founding fathers formed our constitutional republic, America has devolved into a Democracy, which is basically mob rule. Instead of your rights being limited by the rights of others, your rights are now limited by the tyrannical whim of the majority. In a democracy, certain drugs can be outlawed, while others are legal, simply because 50.1% of the people say so. In a democracy, the government can steal a major portion of your income without your approval, because 50.1% of the people said so.
No, the legal standard, in a consititutional republic, for whether something is “legal” or not, should be (as spelled out by our founding fathers) whether it inflicts harm or infringes upon the rights of others. It should not be the place of the government to dole out “permission” to do certain things based on the question of whether or not said things are “good for you or anyone else”. If that is our standard for legislation, god help us.
Quoting from Doug Newman’s article on Democracies and Republics: “In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, whereas in a republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed.”
Evan—AMEN!!! couldn’t agree more…except that it’s not what 50.1% of the people say…it’s what 50.1% of the rich old white dudes inside the beltway 1600 miles from my home and my life say. they are more than a little out of touch with what Americans want.
Evan—AMEN!!! couldn’t agree more…except that it’s not what 50.1% of the people say…it’s what 50.1% of the rich old white dudes inside the beltway 1600 miles from my home and my life say. they are more than a little out of touch with what Americans want.
Hence, the idea of FEDERALISM. In the US consitution, certain powers were enumerated to the Federal Government. All other powers would be left for the states and the people.
The idea was that, while no state could infringe upon the inalienable rights of its citizens, those states could enact differing laws…and if you didn’t like it in one state, you and your like-minded cohorts could move to another state (just like the libertarain Free State Project) and do things your way. This insured that the tyranny of a the majority of a populous state like California could not run the lives of folks in North Dakota.
But as Federalism, and America the Republic, dissipate, Statism and America the Democratic Mob State rise. If the majority of the country decides to outlaw marijuana at a federal level, then you are subject to their whim, even if every single person in your state voted against it.
The ideas of a constitutional republic and federalism are brilliantly conceived. They insured freedom to live as you wish, while not having to go outside this country. It insured that you could always find an enclave to live as you wish, so long as you didn’t harm anyone else or infringe upon their rights.
But now, with statist democratic mob rule, the moralistic whims of some rich old white men, as you said, have the power to rob me of my liberty. To hear everyone extolling the virtues of “democracy” makes me sick. Democracy is not a good thing. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government”, and I would agree. As pointed out in Newman’s article, the term “Democracy” cannot be found anywhere in the Declaration or Constitution. I would bet that, if you asked a random 100 people on the street if they thought it was, 99 of them would say yes.
So, with all this talk of exporting “democracy” around the world, trying to install “democracy” in Iraq, etc…I wonder. I wonder what would happen in a true Iraqi DEMOCRACY. 50.1% of the population let’s say their Sunnis, for argument’s sake, decides to enslave all the Shiites and Kurds. And since it’s a “democracy”, the majority rules. Oh well, guess the kurds and shiites have to be enslaved, since it’s the will of the majority.
A guy who calls himself “roach” arguing favorably about drug laws. That’s funny …
Evan,
Bravo! and Well Said!
Roach, you say:
“But no more unfortuante than the hot-check-writers, car-thieves, shoplifters, and other meak folks that end up in the can and are raped.”
In each and every case you compare a guy who smokes a little pot to people who DO HARM TO OTHERS. This is the litmus test! If I do not harm others (and yes, in a verifiably direct way) then I should be left alone. Do you smoke tobacco or drink beer? Is there anything that you do that someone else might not approve of but that does no one any harm? How would you feel if this harmless act were banned, you were thrown in jail for it and subsequently raped? Not too good I suppose.
Sorry, that was me praising Evan and questioning Roach
Breaking the law and disrespecting the law harms me. It’s all interconnected. Someone habituated to breaking the law will likely not perform this oh-so-exquisite harming others test. Drug users, unsurprisingly, often also commit other crimes to property and person. I don’t think people can or should generally decide for themselves what laws to follow or not based on their own private notions of what constitutes an unjust infringement on their liberty.
An historical and context-less notion of liberty based on “harming” others is not a useful measure of what the government should and should not do. Harm is somewhat subjective. Loud noises? Annoying clothes? Physical contact? What if I say it causes me great harm to know that you’re not a Christian. Your test will soon collapse based on everyone’s subjective notions of harm, and afer you’ve degraded respect for law what will slow you down.
As for the Constitution, I agree the feds probably should not be involved, though they originally were permitted involvement through the case Doremus v. United States under the “tax power” not the “interstate commerce clause” (interestingly enough).
This incicdentally is a state law case involving the sovereign state “police power” which is pretty broad, defined as the right to make laws to futher the “health, welfare, safety, and morals” of the citizenry.
My chief point was that you all made this guy out to be a victim, where I view him as no more of a victim than I guy that ODs or who gets sent to jail for something else. He took a risk and he disrespected the community and its laws.
Rich old white men? hahaha. Like the founding fathers? Save your PC racism for someone who gives a shit.
One last note, I’m sure you guys all pay taxes and follow most laws just like me. So what is the point of this “the government can’t do this thing to me.” It can and it does every day. And, pseudo-heroes that you are, most of you acquiesce.
i think anyone who rapes anyone (especially violent rapist) should be castrated.
i know thats a violation of right and a half, but fuck em.
And Ritter’d say, “What’s an anarchist, Hennessy?” and Ammon would say, “Why an
anarchist is anybody who doesn’t need a cop to tell him what to do.” Kind of a
fundamentalist anarchist, huh?
And Ritter’d say, “But Ammon, you broke the law, what about that?” and Ammon’d
say, “Oh, Judge, your damn laws the good people don’t need ‘em and the bad
people don’t obey ‘em so what use are they?”
Well I lived there for eight years, and I watched him, really watched him, and
I discovered watching him that anarchy is not a noun, but an adjective. It
describes the tension between moral autonomy and political authority,
especially in the area of combinations, whether they’re going to be voluntary
or coercive. The most destructive, coercive combinations are arrived at
through force.
Like Ammon said, “Force is the weapon of the weak.”
Roach, I’m with you. We cannot decide at home which laws we can or can’t break. We can push to have them changed but until then we need to follow them.
This guy is a victim, but his illegal actions are what placed him in that situation. Every action has a consequence. I feel bad for this dude. It’s a tough break, but maybe he’ll think twice about doing things that will land him in jail.
Oh yeah, I hate the war on drugs.
roach:
‘One last note, I’m sure you guys all pay taxes and follow most laws just like me.’
Which laws don’t you follow roach?
None that I can think of. I think there are very limited circumstances where not following a law is justified, in particular if the law compels you to do something unjust. But a law that merely forbids you to do something that you “want to do” for recreation is a far cry from the Oath Statutes of Cromwell’s England and the like. Your too-broad notions of what liberty entails without any regard to the history of Anglo-American freedoms and which ones were considered important and why does a disservice to the cause of liberty in the United States. If it were as simple as you all say Locke, Bastiat, James Madison, Montesquie and others would not have spent so much energy talking about why free government is so hard to secure and what is necssary to secure it.
If it only took the removal of barriers and not the careful cultivation of public spiritedness and respect for the law, Somalia would be the place to be (as I’ve said before). But if you really believe that you have the option of voting with your feet.
“Breaking the law and disrespecting the law harms me. It’s all interconnected.”
“I don’t think people can or should generally decide for themselves what laws to follow or not based on their own private notions of what constitutes an infringement on their liberty.”
Just because our federal government passes a law, that doesn’t necessarily make that law just.
By your logic, blacks who broke segregation laws during the civil rights movement were “disrespecting” and “harming” the public in general. Tell that to any black person you know and see how long it takes them to tell you to fuck yourself.
By your logic, none of us are smart enough to decide how to live our private lives so we should let the government decide for us.
I live my life by the dictates of my own conscience. If that means breaking a few laws, so be it.
if pot was legal i would smoke it, but its illegal so i don’t.
to me its that simple.
ditto Ms. Dani – the war on drugs does suck.
Roach, several things:
1. The problem with your analysis of the drug laws is that they are not simply the same as they’ve always been. In recent years they have been consistently hardened, and the social problems related to prohibition have worsened at the same time. Even the most ardent anti-drug activist can no longer make a serious case that drug use is more harmful to society than its prohibition. The article here shows how bad things have got. It’s not an isolated incident.
2. The rollback of alcohol prohibition did not turn the US into Somalia. If it did, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
3. You are making a personal judgement on the justification for breaking certain laws. If you did break one of these laws and ended up being raped in a prison cell, would you feel suitably chastised?
Bernard, I am not roach and cannot answer for him, but I wanted to repsond to your question.
Yes, I would feel suitably chastised. I would feel like I had some responsibility in that happening to me. Wouldn’t you? I wouldn’t feel like it was deserved but that it was an indirect result of my breaking the law.
roach seems to be channelling The Serpent today, methinks.
no matter what crime you commit, YOU SHOULD NOT BE RAPED. even serial killers (though I admit it would be harder for me to find personal sympathy for a jeffry dalmer being raped).
never.
ScottP I think the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement led to the disorder of the anti-war movement and the general breakdown of law and order in the late sixties and seventies.
I agree with Dani’s last point. Who would I really have to blame but myself.
And ScottP I imagine an abortion clinic like Eric Rudolph would tell me to screw off if I told him the importance of obeying the law and respecting democratic and legal processes. But I believe in this principle in his case as well as the anti-drug case.
Whether or not these laws are cost-effective has nothing to do with whether we should elevate these pothead losers that get snagged.
Ms Dani, a couple of questions for you: What if it was a guard that was the rapist in this instance? Would it still be partially the alledged criminals fault then?
Personally I feel like the authorities in this situation violated his rights against cruel and unusual punishment. It reads like they had a suspicion or two that this could happen.
roach–
I think it wouldn’t be too hard to establish an objective standard of what constitutes “harm to others”…physical injury and monetary damages would pretty much cover it. You being upset that I’m not a Christian isn’t exactly in the same ballpark as me taking a bat to your head.
Thank you for the court case reference…I find it pretty unconvincing (that the SC ruled in a way consistent with the Constitution), but I’ll be the first to point out this isn’t an issue on which I’m very objective.
Of course, it’s hardly the first or last time in the nation’s history that the Constitution was basically ignored by those that are supposed to defend it, either.
Also, I don’t think that objecting to someone being raped really constitutes “elevating” them. I realize that some people (generally of the lefty persuasion) tend to equate victimhood with heroism, but please do not assume that I am among them.
Ms D,
Would we be having the same conversation if a teacher who broke a law regarding the bible in public schools found themselves in this situation? My guess is that the conservatives who go with the ‘sure the drug war is bad, but these people broke the law and deserve what they get’ analysis would be up in arms.
Bernard, anyone who breaks the law is setting themselves up for il-consequences. Again, I repeat, that they don’t deserve being raped, but they knew that the consequences were not going to be good.
Also, Christ said to render to Ceasar’s what is Ceasar’s and to obey the governing authority. This hypothetical-teacher would have deliberately been going against his/her own beliefs.
Anvil, I had considered that before you asked it. I didn’t say it was right for the other prisoner to rape him, nor did I say that the dude deserved it. If it was a guard, same thing. The guard is wrong for raping him, but again, you take certain actions (illegal behavior) and you inevitably reap certain consequences (bad things MIGHT happen).
I’m amazed that people are so quick to dismiss what happened to this young man. To simply brush off rape as a byproduct or consequence of breaking the law is absurd.
In order for a law to be effective, it has to be enforceable. Like the prohibition of alcohol, the prohibition of marijuana is not an enforceable law.
And the incarceration of millions of offenders is not going to change that fact.
Roach, you seem to be an intelligent and articulate person and I respect your opinions. But, isnt it possible that this young man was raped not as a result of breaking the law, but as a result of a flawed governmental policy?
The policy can be flawed, but that doesn’t mean he was raped “as a result of” a flawed policy. The policy is one causal factor among many. Several factors went into that causal chaange, not the least of which was his decision to break that law when he knew there was some risk of incarceration.
Every law is broken sometimes. What separates this from laws against theft, rape, murder, tax evasion, loud noises, etc. All of those continue to go on and are “priced” at some level by the punishment system. The notion that continued breaking of a law proves that it’s bad “proves too much” as they say. So this law is no more or less enforceable than any other, if enforceable means that some non-zero rate of violation will occur (as in the case of every other law).
scottp,
what do you mean by un-enforceable. apparently this law got enforeced right up this kid’s ass.
Roach, gonna go thru this piece by piece:
Breaking the law and disrespecting the law harms me. It’s all interconnected. Someone habituated to breaking the law will likely not perform this oh-so-exquisite harming others test. Drug users, unsurprisingly, often also commit other crimes to property and person. I don’t think people can or should generally decide for themselves what laws to follow or not based on their own private notions of what constitutes an unjust infringement on their liberty.
How does my disrespect for the law inherently harm you? It does not. “Habitual” lawbreakers, though they may be breaking the law many times, are not harming you until they violate your rights. Last I checked, the government did not have the power to grant you the right to not have some dude doing PCP on his property. The notion that “those who break drug laws are more apt to have equal disdain for other laws” is rediculous. Do you remember Prohibition? The criminalization of said actions is what caused the ensuing organized crime syndicates. Likewise, it’s not drugs that cause the violence and lawbreaking that surrounds them. it is the criminalization of those drugs. If I could get a quarter ounce of marijuana at the 7-11, do you think there’d be drive-by shootings over it? When’s the last time you saw someone bust lead in someone’s ass over a case of Miller Lite?
An historical and context-less notion of liberty based on “harming” others is not a useful measure of what the government should and should not do. Harm is somewhat subjective. Loud noises? Annoying clothes? Physical contact? What if I say it causes me great harm to know that you’re not a Christian. Your test will soon collapse based on everyone’s subjective notions of harm, and afer you’ve degraded respect for law what will slow you down.
I know, this has already been said, but this country was founded on the premise that men are granted inalienable rights by god, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While there can be no truly objective definition of “harm”, we can (and have) gone about it by defining it in a subtractive sense: I have my rights. The government protects those rights. You have your rights. The government protects your rights. My rights end at the precise point at which they infringe upon your rights. For example, I [should] have the right to drink as much vodka as I want, but as soon as I violate your right to life, I have violated the law. As soon as you bring physical harm upon someone else, which is completely unavoidable by them, or you harm their property, you have violated their rights.
As for the Constitution, I agree the feds probably should not be involved, though they originally were permitted involvement through the case Doremus v. United States under the “tax power” not the “interstate commerce clause” (interestingly enough).
This incicdentally is a state law case involving the sovereign state “police power” which is pretty broad, defined as the right to make laws to futher the “health, welfare, safety, and morals” of the citizenry.
Oh really? So, when California tries to legalize medical marijuana, and the Feds step in and try to arrest the people who are operating within california law, it’s “just state’s rights”? No. Because of the tyranny of the federal government in the war on drugs, it is nearly impossible for states to have their own laws for drugs. If the feds had no drug laws (as it should be), and this was simply an issue of that particular state’s drug laws, drawn up all on their own, without influence from the feds, well, you might have a point. But as long as federal statutes prohibit these substances, there’s little the states can do.
My chief point was that you all made this guy out to be a victim, where I view him as no more of a victim than I guy that ODs or who gets sent to jail for something else. He took a risk and he disrespected the community and its laws.
The fact that we throw people in prison for these petty “crimes”, which then turns them into hardened criminals, is something to not be taken lightly. They are not independent of each other. This speaks as much to the failing prison system as it does to the failing war on drugs.
Rich old white men? hahaha. Like the founding fathers? Save your PC racism for someone who gives a shit.
PC racism? Not really. I’m a white guy. It’s not racism. And it’s not PC. It’s the truth. In a system as corrupt as this, money buys power.
One last note, I’m sure you guys all pay taxes and follow most laws just like me. So what is the point of this “the government can’t do this thing to me.” It can and it does every day. And, pseudo-heroes that you are, most of you acquiesce.
So, what’s your point? That our arguments don’t matter, simply because we speak out against laws, but don’t actively break them? That’s a load of shit, and you know it, roach. No, I don’t want to give the fucking government a third of my income…but not paying them isn’t going to make them stop trying to take it. Speaking out, debating, writing my congressmen and state legislators. But one needn’t actively break a law in order to protest it. Sometimes, that is necessary and pertinent. But it’s really got nothing to do with the validity of the argument itself…and that’s what we’re discussing here.
I think what separates this from laws against rape, murder, tax evasion etc., with possibly the exception of tax evasion, is a victim. Possesion and use of marijuana is victimless.
How long should we, as a society, continue to arrest and punish people for “crimes” where there is no clear indication of damage to property or person? Just what is the “crime”?
I won’t go point-by-point Evan, but just a few remarks.
You talk about rights and what the government can and can’t do, but you’re using language imprecisely. You really mean the government shouldn’t do these things because it’s wrong. The totalistic “I won’t stand for it” stuff is just distracting, and it doesn’t match reality or your behavior.
I don’t accept your account of prohibition or alcohol legalization. Prohibition had problems. Legal alcohol does today, in the form of criminal violence associated with alcohol, health costs borne by the public, and DWI/DUI. All in the age of legal alcohol. Prohibition had its share of problems, legalization has its share.
Rights is one way to talk about what government does and should or should not do. I think though you try to get too much mileage out of it. There has to be a way of talking about speed limits, and what the national anthem should be, and whether to go to war or not without talking about rights. Much of politics is prudence, and the question of what limits to place on rights to avoid a system-wide breakdown is one such prudential question.
As for California’s legalization efforts, I would retort with Alaska’s nonenforcement efforts. Here the state chose to enforce, so all the constitutional rhetoric is just distracting.
The uncompromising libertarian rhetoric is counterproductive. It relis on an unhistorical notion of what rights are. It ignores why people have rights (and for what purposes). And it conceals various controversial decisions on the margins–about harm for example–that make these concepts meaningful and useful. Finally, it ignores that the mere removal impediment is not enough to preserve a free society, but instead a certain type of sturdy and self-regulating culture is necessary (the antithesis of the drug culture).
Evan you said:
The ideas of a constitutional republic and federalism are brilliantly conceived. They insured freedom to live as you wish, while not having to go outside this country. It insured that you could always find an enclave to live as you wish, so long as you didn’t harm anyone else or infringe upon their rights.
That was exactly my point…I do not have freedom as the framers of the Consitition promised…the rich old white dudes inside the beltway are consistently robbing me of my freedoms.
I understand that we live in a representative democracy, and that the Articles of the Confederacy failed…I do not understand how this allows them to control my personal liberties by trampling all over the states’ rights to govern its citizens.
“drug culture”?
the reasons the people who use and support the use of currently illegal drugs are quite diverse.
aside: how do you justify making something illegal that god put on this earth growing naturally?
i’ll take the problems associated with legalized drugs ANYDAY over those that come with illegal drugs.
Supergenius (apt name), your point about the “naturalness” of drugs is just funny.
How do you propose stopping men from raping little girls when God gave them that urge? Oh yeah, the same way we stop people from using drugs, by punishing it, i.e., pricing it.
Quoting from Doug Newman’s article on Democracies and Republics: “In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, whereas in a republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed.”
Like the People’s Republic of China, where all the sheep are well armed and run the show?
Look, the constitution does NOT protect your right to do whatever you want so long as it does not harm or infringe on anyone else. That is a key misconception.
The constitution says that the majority of the people vote and get what they want. If you don’t like it, the constitution ABSOLUTELY protects your right to protest against it, gather petitions, speak out, publish printed material stating your view and otherwise compaign as hard as you want to gather support and change the law. The constitution is very clear about what it protects. The right to smoke pot or the right to outlaw pot are not even remotely covered. If you keep holding everything up to just the “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” part, than it is unconstitutional to lay someone off, or open a business that competes with a business that is already there. Doesn’t that infringe on their constitutional rights to the pursuit of happiness?
Ms D, I can respect that. Provided the analysis is deployed consistently I can see the rationale. I disagree with it, but likewise I disagree consistently (being as opposed to the imprisonment and ill-treatment of those whose actions I disagree with but deem non-harmful as those whose actions I agree with).
i saw a special on the history channel a couple of weeks ago on the history of drugs. it was pretty interesting.
it even discussed the adverse impact of leagalized opium in asia during the early 1900′s.
it would be interesting to read more on the topic so we could compare the impact of legal v. illegal.
libertarians always say they would rather deal with the problems of legal drugs versus illegal drugs.
lets discuss the problems of legal drugs shall we.
Michael, I’m happy to start.
The biggest problems I see with illegal drugs are:
a) the inevitable corruption of the principles of law and of law enforcement itself.
b) the significant direct cost to the tax payer of funding enforcement and incarceration.
c) the significant indirect cost to the tax payer in lost productivity and tax revenue from those incarcerated, combined with the loss of tax revenue from the huge black markets for these products.
d) the easy revenue for organised crime and terrorist organisations combined with the persistent destabilisation of several 3rd world countries (which wouldn’t have sounded so important, back in the days when Afghanistan seemed far away).
e) the fact that drug problems have become deeper and more widespread across the US the harder prohibition has been pushed, thus challenging your apparent assumption that we have a choice between the problems stemming from drugs and the problems stemming from prohibition.
thanks bernard, now lets here the problems of legalized drugs from someone.
>The constitution says that the
>majority of the people vote and get
>what they want.
No it doesn’t. For example:
The majority can’t vote to ban you from speaking and get what they want.
They can’t vote that you be forced to convert to Christianity and get what they want.
They can’t vote to take away all means of you defending yourself and get what they want.
They can’t vote to break into your house and rifle through all your stuff and get what they want.
They can’t vote to take all your property and get what you want.
They can’t to throw you in jail “just because” and get what they want.
etc…
oops, i meant lets hear the problems of legalized drugs from someone.
or maybe we all support the legalization of drugs?
Bernard, I also do not think non-violent, ie harmful, behavior such as drug use should be illegal. I am enraged when I watch the show Cops and see them take down some dude who you know has been strung-out his entire life but who hasn’t harmed a soul (I’m being optimistic). It makes me sad that when he goes to jail, his woes are increased exponentially because of court costs and litigation, and it’s all in the name of fighting drugs. It’s ridiculous, but it is the current law. As citizens of this country we need to be respecters of the law, the good and the bad. If a law is bad, then we elect representatives who will reflect our view in DC, or we form a lobby to change the minds of the reps already there.
All that being said, I still don’t think there should be outrage about what happened to this guy. It is a truly sad thing, but he evoked the possibility of prison-rape when he chose to do something illegal. Don’t go to prison, don’t get raped.
The legalization of drugs would send medical costs and all types of insurance thru the freegin roof. Not to mention our entire country would just get stupider:)
“Finally, it ignores that the mere removal impediment is not enough to preserve a free society, but instead a certain type of sturdy and self-regulating culture is necessary (the antithesis of the drug culture).
”
does this mean that in order to preserve a free society we need to remove those people from society that actually practice freedom?
Exactly stormy dragon, that is my point.
As I said, fairly obviously I thought, the constitution is very clear about what rights it protects. Those rights cannot be infringed upon.
You will always retain the rights of free speech, religion, protest, press etc… because they are protected. The right to do drugs, or to outlaw drugs is not covered either way, therefore, the society can decide by majority vote how they want those issues addressed. Which is exactly how the drafters of the constitution intended it. You can do what you want, by public vote, but DON’T mess with these certain rights that are guaranteed. The ones that are not guaranteed are up to society to handle on their own. So long as they do not violate those protected by the constitution.
Thanks for helping clarify my position.
thanks roach, i think your name is apt as well…are you related to The Serpent?
Michael, the biggest problems with legalisation, to my mind, are transitional ones. When people are used to the law being used as a gauge of morality and risk, there is a widespread tendancy to switch off to the dangers of legal activities. There is already a dangerous tendancy to fight the hyperbolic demonisation of pot not with a calm analysis of the very real risks but with a blanket denial that there are any – the ‘fight stupidity with stupidity’ approach which we all know and love from partisan politics. Thus drug use would inevitably increase in the short term because a large number of people wouldn’t be accustomed to having to work out for themselves how to approach the risks, they’d just assume that it was legalised because it was completely safe. As Ms Dani has said, the general population might well get stupider in the short term.
Secondly, those organised criminals I mentioned who make huge amounts of money from the black market for narcotics would scramble to try to make legalisation look dangerous in order to provoke a knee-jerk reaction and protect their vast profits. The systemic corruption the war on drugs has caused would not simply disappear in a flash.
And thirdly, the branding and commercial sale of drugs would be a tricky area to incubate and regulate. Our increasingly sophisticated skills in synthesising addictive substances could easily lead to drugs so harmful from the first dose that free choice was simply not a practical option (some would argue we’re already there with heroin and crack cocaine). The precise details of development, marketing and distribution would have to be carefully worked out in order to maintain public support.
In practical terms, this means that any liberalisation of drug laws needs to be gradual, well planned and very deliberate. Roach is absolutely right that simply saying ‘no more prohibition’, will do nothing to make society safer or more stable. I discuss all this in the last paragraph of my essay here, if anyone is interested (and if Radley doesn’t object to my blatant self-promotion):
http://lunaticmagnet.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=13&entryid=13
Why did the parents leave him there overnight? Why didn’t they post bail? It’s been my experience that even if you’re caught with 100 pounds of grass you’re let out “ON YOUR OWN RECOGNANCES” that means NO BAIL. Maybe it was the area of the country. BUT, I probably wouldn’t leave my kid in jail overnight for that. Of course, he’d have hell to pay at home and might wish he had spent the night with Big Bubba.
How about fighting the battles you can win? Pot grows anywhere, in every state. It is usable in its natural, unprocessed form. This is a battle that cannot be won.
When i think of the cost, in dollars and man hours to investigate, arrest, try and incarcerate the pot users in this country it astounds me.
How many times have you seen this in the news;
“Billy Joe Shitkicker was arrested today with four pounds of marijuana, four hundred dollars, and a rifle. The arrest was the result of a six month investigation between local, state and federal authorities.”
What a waste of effort for very little return.
Legalize pot, start saving MILLIONS of dollars, add to that the millions you will generate in tax dollars on legal pot both in sales tax and income tax from the employees now legally working in the industry. Now take that money, and the freed up time of our cops, courts and prisons to actually have some impact on crack, heroine and other hardcore drugs.
I won’t even get into the industrial uses for the fabrics, paper and oils that used to be made from it not the medicinal uses, but when those are taken into account it is crazy to me the perpetuate an expensive yet ever futile “war” on something that is less harmful than alcohol when you could actually have an impact on those drugs that can actually kill you with one use.
And before anyone starts, no I don’t use it, not since college 15 years ago. I just don’t like wasting our effort.
>You can do what you want, by public
>vote, but DON’T mess with these
>certain rights that are guaranteed.
>The ones that are not guaranteed are
>up to society to handle on their own.
*BUZZ* Oh, I’m sorry, but thanks for playing:
Ammendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Wow, the “BUZZ thanks for playing” part was very smart ass. And original.
However, are you contradicting me, or contradicting yourself? Or just cutting and pasting?
I have established in both previous posts that the constitution prohibits the passing of laws that violate the protections of certain unalienable rights that it defines very clearly.
Yes, it does. It does. You do not have to make another post saying that it does. I concur. I agree. I have said so. Three times now.
Sorry. As a parting gift you will receive a copy of the “Wheel of Fortune” Home Edition Board Game.
The problem is you seem to think that people can vote on anything that the Constitution doesn’t specifically forbid them from voting on.
This is completely backwards; they can only vote on things that the Constitution specifically permits them to vote on.
Stormy, why don’t you read that X Amendment while you’re at it.
While it’s true what you say re the federal governments, states are fully sovereign and can do whatever they’re not prohibited from doing by the fedreal and state constitutions. Most have a police power which is a broad grant, as I say above.
“drug culture”
I used to be involved in the drug culture and it almost ruined my life. I was less productive at work, earned less, drove a crappy car, could only afford to rent a dingy apartment, listened to rock and rap music, and my girlfriend was a slut.
Most druggies try hard and fail to get out of this “culture” or “lifestyle.”
But not me. I knew about statistics, and cause and correlation.
So I switched to wine. Now that I am a wine drinker I make more than the average person, have above average productivity, have less run-ins with the law. I drive an above average car, have an above average home, live in above average neighboorhood.
Now, if only I could afford that $100 a bottle stuff. Statistics show that people that drink that stuff are on average rich. Therefore I would become rich too. I am sure I would start to like classical music too.
RE: Drug Culture-
This is a phrase I hate, for the same reason I hate the term “War on Drugs”, namely, both terms are so vague they’re meaningless.
Referring to a “drug culture” implies that there is a commonality among all people who use illegal drugs, which is hardly the case. For example, besides using drugs, what do Rush Limbaugh, Snoop Dogg and Robert Downey, Jr. have in common? There is no “drug culture”, there are people who use drugs, and they do so for a variety of reasons, use a variety of drugs, and a variety of doses.
The problem I have with the term “War on Drugs” and anti-drug campaigns is that they lump all these substances together under “DRUGS”, making no distinctions between them. Crack is the same as pot in these peoples minds, even though they have vastly different effects on health and behavior.
In addition, we Americans love drugs, it’s just some people want to choose which ones we are allowed to love. Alcohol, caffeine, speed, aspirin, Robotussin, Nyquil, sleeping aids, and prescribed drugs are acceptable, while pot, smack, crack, coke and LSD are not. Never mind that many of the legal drugs have VERY similar effect as the illegal ones.
I just can’t stand the illogic and hypocrisy……
>While it’s true what you say re the
>federal governments, states are fully
>sovereign and can do whatever they’re
>not prohibited from doing by the
>fedreal and state constitutions. Most
>have a police power which is a broad
>grant, as I say above.
Ah, by the war on drugs isn’t being run by the states, it’s being run by the federal government. In some cases against the opposition of those states.
Additionally, the 14th Ammendment extended many of the restrictions originally placed only on the federal government to be restrictions on the states as well:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
Wow I didn’t know about that one Stormy? A 14th Amendment you say. Well that changes everything. Next thing you know Federal Judges will undermine states in the name of that fourteenth amendment and declare that we have a right to butt sex under that vague liberty language (and in the process turn states into little more than administrative boundaries of the federal state). Nah, that would never happen. But I’m glad you turned my attention to that there fourteenth amendment. Never heard of it before.
Oh no! Butt sex??????
Those activists judges!!!
Our Judeo-christian culutre is falling apart!!
We’re all going to hell!
So to recap roach’s view:
Anal sex is great when it’s forced on people in prison, but it should be illegal when people ask for it in their bedroom…..
Roach, I can’t recall one example of the states organising harsher drug laws and being rebuffed by the federal government. Can you?
My experience is that the traffic is entirely one way, with states who look into any loosening of the drug laws being put under heavy pressure to conform.
With that in mind, Dragon’s analysis is both accurate and relevant.
I could say many things, but I’ll just present you all with an analogy, instead:
Meet Bill Hartford.
“Hi, Bill!”
Bill is a 25-year-old bachelor . . . or, he’s married with no children . . . or, he’s married with three children . . . etc. His personal life doesn’t really matter.
Bill is speeding along comfortably along a highway, when he is picked up.
Uh oh! Bill went over the speed limit! For this example, let’s say that a speeding ticket is a misdemeanor offense (although penalties in other states run as high as 3-5 years in prison for a first offense!).
Bill is taken to jail. Due to an overcrowded prison, Bill is placed in with a violent offender (the jail is filled to the brim with other traffic offenders). During the night, Bill is raped by the man he was bunking with.
Now, what is the moral of this story? I dunno, you tell me.
John
narphonax.com
Stormy Dragon–
ROTFLOL! That was beautiful.
1. The US Constitution is a set of rules that the federal government is to follow, not an open invitation to ban anything and everything not listed(and some that are listed!). If the Constitution is ammended, that’s one thing, but there should be no power to just ignore/twist it for the sake of passing legislation so lawmakers actually look like they’re doing something worth the raises they give themselves. That way the sheep won’t become suspicious.
2. The problem isn’t that the guy got raped in prison, it’s that it happened when he was in law enforcement CUSTODY when this occured. That means that they are responsible for what happens to him. By being in their custody, they are directly at fault. It’s his fault he’s there, not that he got raped. What if this had happened to someone who was mistakingly arrested? When it comes to being raped in prison, should it matter what your crime, or lack of, was?
3. “It’s been my experience that even if you’re caught with 100 pounds of grass you’re let out “ON YOUR OWN RECOGNANCES” that means NO BAIL”
Yeah, OK. Do you live in that town “Perfect” from the Walgreens commercials?
4. “I have established in both previous posts that the constitution prohibits the passing of laws that violate the protections of certain unalienable rights that it defines very clearly.”
Obviously you haven’t read that ammendment…it specifically states that your argument is flawed. If our founding fathers only wanted certain things to be legal, they would have said so. They said exactly the opposite. Only certain things should be illegal.
5. I smoke pot, and way too much of it…who am I hurting? Me. I respect the law, and understand that if I’m caught that I will have to suffer the consequences. I will continue to break those laws until either a) I choose to quit, or b) the law is no longer there to be broken. Go ahead and send me to jail. I have things called principles, which I never waver from under any circumstances, no matter the time, place, or argument. If there is no victim, why is it a crime?
“But I’m glad you turned my attention to that there fourteenth amendment. Never heard of it before.”
Obviously..because you seem to condone ignoring it.
Chris #2, on point #5:
It is a crime because the law currently says it is. Until that law is changed, whether you deem it should or shouldn’t be a crime, is irrelevant. I agree that smoking pot should not be illegal, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal and that you who smoke it are under the current laws, criminals. Reality check.
Reality check? Did you miss the “I respect the law, and understand that if I’m caught that I will have to suffer the consequences.” part I had in there? Sounds like a very strong grasp on reality. What part am I missing?
athletes foot
foot fungus
jock itch
itch
nail fungus
http://athjockfr.pedronetwork.com
low carb diets
low carb diet
diets
diet plans
fast weight loss
http://carbtrack.pedronetwork.com
snowboarding
snowboarding tricks
snowboarding tips
snowboard
how to snowboard
http://amazingins.pedronetwork.com
phobias
phobia
phobia cures
fear
treating phobias
http://hypnow.pedronetwork.com
dog training
http://dog-training.mypedro.com
golf
golf clubs
golf equipment
golf carts
golfing
golf tips
http://golf.sweetbuyz.com
orange county real estate
new homes orange county
orange county california homes
orange county ca homes
orange county homes for sale
homes orange county
http://realtor.ocsparkle.com
marketing techniques
power words
business & money
increase sales
advertising
http://bizzreport.pedronetwork.com
guitar
guitar tabs
guitars
guitar chords
http://Learntoplayguitar.sweetbuyz.com
discount travel
cheap travel
travel routes
ait travel
http://travelwell.sweetbuyz.com
genealogy
history
family history
family
family tree
ancestry
geneology
death records
http://genealogy.pedronetwork.com
speed reading
reading programs
reading strategies
learning to read
http://speed-reading.sweetbuyz.com
cause of yeast infection
yeast infection symptoms
yeast infection treatment
yeast infection
yeast infections
http://huron.pedronetwork.com
people search
people finder
free people search
free people finder
http://people-search.crpublish.com
credit cards
credit card
merchant account
credit card processing
http://charge.sweetbuyz.com
saville hotel group integ telephony broadband
http://voip.mypedro.com/saville-hotel-group-integ-telephony-broadband.html
voip video phone
http://voip.mypedro.com/voip-video-phone.html
voice over internet service
http://voip.mypedro.com/voice-over-internet-service.html
owned subsidiary of vonage service phone broadband company
http://voip.mypedro.com/owned-subsidiary-of-vonage-service-phone-broadband-company.html
free telephony
http://voip.mypedro.com/free-telephony.html
voip phone service reviews
http://voip.mypedro.com/voip-phone-service-reviews.html
pocket pc internet telephony provider
http://voip.mypedro.com/pocket-pc-internet-telephony-provider.html
internet phone services cheap
http://voip.mypedro.com/internet-phone-services-cheap.html
voice over internet canada
http://voip.mypedro.com/voice-over-internet-canada.html
free pc to pc internet phone
http://voip.mypedro.com/free-pc-to-pc-internet-phone.html
free cell phone internet access
http://voip.mypedro.com/free-cell-phone-internet-access.html
presentation from dialogic computer call telephony
http://voip.mypedro.com/presentation-from-dialogic-computer-call-telephony.html
voice over ip for cell phones
http://voip.mypedro.com/voice-over-ip-for-cell-phones.html
voice over ip termination
http://voip.mypedro.com/voice-over-ip-termination.html
voice over ip companies
http://voip.mypedro.com/voice-over-ip-companies.html
skype calls free company telephony
http://voip.mypedro.com/skype-calls-free-company-telephony.html
http://www.what is voice over internet protocol.com
http://voip.mypedro.com/www.what-is-voice-over-internet-protocol.com.html
home phone broadband deals site:.net
http://voip.mypedro.com/home-phone-broadband-deals-site%3A.net.html
voip wireless phones
http://voip.mypedro.com/voip–wireless-phones.html
http://www.who started voice over ip
http://voip.mypedro.com/www.who-started-voice-over-ip.html
broadband phone + guam
http://voip.mypedro.com/broadband-phone—guam.html
ip telephony roi
http://voip.mypedro.com/ip-telephony-roi.html
linksys phone adapter for vonage voip mods
http://voip.mypedro.com/linksys-phone-adapter-for-vonage-voip-mods.html
at&t telephony training
http://voip.mypedro.com/at-t-telephony-training.html
broadband phone sri lanka
http://voip.mypedro.com/broadband-phone-sri-lanka.html
popular telephony resigns
http://voip.mypedro.com/popular-telephony-resigns.html
voice over ip and modem
http://voip.mypedro.com/voice-over-ip-and-modem.html
free download voip telephony with asterisk
http://voip.mypedro.com/free-download-voip-telephony-with-asterisk.html
australian hotel industry integ telephony broadband group
http://voip.mypedro.com/australian-hotel-industry-integ-telephony-broadband-group.html
bluetooth telephony software mobile phone
http://voip.mypedro.com/bluetooth-telephony-software-mobile-phone.html
customer oriented telephony
http://voip.mypedro.com/customer-oriented-telephony.html
strongest hoodia available guarantee
http://hoodia.belleity.com/strongest-hoodia-available-guarantee.html
potty training puppy
http://dog-training.crpublish.com/potty-training-puppy.html
dog potty training
http://dog-training.crpublish.com/dog-potty-training.html
nylon dog training collar
http://dog-training.crpublish.com/nylon-dog-training-collar.html
field dog training commands
http://dog-training.crpublish.com/field-dog-training-commands.html
hoodia gordoni
http://www.hoodia-gordonii-diet-pills.org/hoodia-gordoni.html
hoodia gordonii side effects
http://www.hoodia-gordonii-diet-pills.org/hoodia-gordonii-side-effects.html
hoodia danger
http://www.hoodia-gordonii-diet-pills.org/hoodia-danger.html
risks of hoodia
http://www.hoodia-gordonii-diet-pills.org/risks-of-hoodia.html
hoodia cactus info
http://www.hoodia-gordonii-diet-pills.org/hoodia-cactus-info.html
xhoba
http://www.hoodia-gordonii-diet-pills.org/xhoba.html
http://finance.americasparty.org/552052217/ talentstitillatedtusk