This might be the worst NPR story I’ve ever seen. Pure speculation and conjecture. It’s hard to tell if the reporter even interviewed anyone, or just described what he thought they might say.
“The Land of No Smiles.” A photo essay from North Korea.
Feds will only let banks repay TARP money, escape federal micromanagement if doing so would be “in the national economic interest.”
Billingts, Montana passes bill to install red light cameras, makes plans to shorten yellow lights. Because, you know, it’s all about safety.
Rummaging through the weirdity that is Michael Jackson’s belongings.
Those crazy liberals in the Ninth Circuit are at it again! They’ve incorporated the gun rights protections in Heller to the states.
Nice, short interview with David Simon on the fiction, journalism, and the drug war.
“Of course it was torture.”
Lawsuit against New Mexico’s alcohol regulatory agency after three men were arrested for videotaping agents as they were checking IDs and giving breath tests at a bar.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 at 10:26 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, General Criminal Justice, General Drug War, Motorist Freedom.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
That NPR story was sort of a War of the Worlds type of broadcast–as if you have woken up and pot is suddenly legal. I heard it yesterday and was drawn in by the tensing of the verbs and the “interviews”. It was more entertainment than news, I think.
Wow. Look at the poll results on that NPR link. 91% for legalization. I have a new respect for NPR. What a bunch of pot heads!
Billings’ city officials disgust me. I’m just glad they’re stupid enough to have gone on record willfully disregarding the safety of motorists in favor of a little extra revenue. I hope the first person injured at one of those intersections files and wins a massive lawsuit.
It would be interesting if companies started trying to repay TARP money and the fed said no. Taxpayers might have a problem with that. I would.
Are you being sarcastic, Radley? This is the first I’ve read about the ruling, but it seems like the 9th Circuit’s “incorporation” of the Heller decision into state law is very limited. From the article:
So, according to the 9th Circuit, the government isn’t infringing on a right when it says citizens can’t exercise that right on government property? Presumably, that would include parks, roads, etc.
That this right is one that can only be exercised in the home is clearly a very narrow reading of Heller. I really doubt that the 9th Circuit would read the 1st Amendment as guaranteeing freedom of speech or the press in such a narrow fashion.
(And, before anyone pulls the red herring that the government has a right to keep people from shooting up the parks and streets: This ruling goes well beyond where firearms may be operated, allowing broad restrictions where they may be merely possessed.)
I’m sorry, but if the 9th Circuit has a reputation for being unwilling to enforce 2nd Amendment rights, this ruling does little to dispel that reputation.
Lubbock, TX tried the shorter-yellow-light trick to generate more revenue, and ended up with more accidents.
When they installed cameras at intersections in my town, I noticed people either speeding up to get through the intersections to the point of riding my bumper at an unsafe distance, or in other cases, slamming on their brakes upon approach to an intersection the millisecond the light turned yellow. Perhaps my experience is anecdotal, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be doing much for safety.
Incidentally, I got caught in the middle of the intersection when it turned red once or twice. I waited for a ticket in the mail, but it never came. I also pondered whether I could get away with just shredding the damned thing, or if they hunt down people, even if the USPS screws up delivery.
citizens can’t exercise that right on government property? Presumably, that would include parks, roads, etc.
Avast there. Is it possible you’re fuzzing the difference between public property and government property?
I watched my daughter argue a case as a federal public defender before the 9th Circuit and also listened to arguments in other cases while I was there. It was a sight to see the three black-robed gruff crotchety old farts sitting on that big tall bench looking down with piercing stares and furled brows at my 5’3″ daughter standing there all by her lonesome…
Anyway, regardless of the case and regardless of the stance they took in the cases, I was really pleasantly surprised at how engaged, alert, and sharp they seemed. I was expecting a bunch of old men barely able to stay awake.
In any case, I’m glad to hear that they ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to state law. They would have been the last court I would have expected to do that. Well, maybe a northeastern court might have been slightly less inclined…
My daughter won her child porn case (US v McCoy), by the way, and the precedent was later referred to many times in the opinion handed down in the <a href=”http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/barnett200312190915.asp”California medical marijuana case (Raich v Ascroft) which was ultimately not upheld by the Supremes.
One of these days I’m going to post a comment without an error. It’s on my list of things to do.
It seems Michael Jackson and I share an appreciation for art featuring Michael Jackson.
The American government used torture! Surely the citizens won’t stand for this. Not a damn thing will ever be done!
“…the worst NPR story I’ve ever seen. Pure speculation and conjecture. It’s hard to tell if the reporter even interviewed anyone, or just described what he thought they might say.”
Speculation and conjecture was the entire point of the article. Maybe it comes across better on the radio (I heard it as I was going home yesterday), but the whole idea was just to look at legalization from a different point of view, after the fact, and imagine the consequences. I thought it was pretty creative way to do a news article myself, as long as it is done sparingly.
Laertes,
I don’t think so. I am saying government property because that’s what the article was talking about. (It said “county property”, because a county ordinance was at issue in the case.) The Court’s reasoning would seem to allow the same restriction to any level of government that wanted to impose it. If I am misreading that, I don’t see how.
Re: videographers arrested in New Mexico
I hope this case goes all the way: its a great test case for freedom of the people to photograph.
The people arrested for videotaping were the bar owner, and people he paid to videotape, on his own property, during a search of the property. The officers assert that they need to protect their anonymity, but apparently have appeared on TV promoting their work.
Clarification of the NPR story:
They did interview all those people. And it was really a terrible segment. It went on and on, with them seemingly trying their hardest to amass arguments against legalization, downplaying any benefits, and focusing on the negatives. I thought it was also a little hinky as it seemed to me they used whatever opportunities they could to throw in user = addict imagery, as well as user= loser.
Regarding the guys who were arrested for videotaping cops, you can rest assured that laws forbidding the photography of cops (for what ever reason they care to cook up) will be common in the not-too-distant future. Cops and the government organizations they work for will not accept that kind of public scrutiny after a history of being able to do what they want with near impunity. It would be like throwing a rock up in the air thinking it might not come down. It’s just not one of the available options.
While I think there will continue to be cases where people will take the risk, even that will diminish after enough people are arrested for it and support for their position evaporates. Most people define good and bad according to what the law permits (or what the cops say the law permits).
“people that have never done it before, but have decided to try it since it’s now legalized,” he says. ”
“You know you’re not contributing to the Sinaloa Cartel and you’re not destabilizing Mexico. And in my case, as a parent, I’m not modeling criminal behavior for my child.”
“”A lot of people still don’t know that marijuana use is addictive.”
“Almonte, director of the Texas Narcotic Officer’s Association, says all cannabis legalization has done is force the drug mafias to improvise.”
Almonte: “”But more importantly, we’re seeing a more potent marijuana. And with that we’re seeing … an increase in the emergency room admissions.”
“”Do we know how to keep kids from drinking alcohol? No, we don’t. So why would we expect we’d be any better at it with marijuana?”
“Rice University’s Bill Martin believes, now that it’s legal, about one-third more people are using marijuana — maybe 19 million Americans. Martin believes legal pot — which is, after all, an intoxicant — has been good for society but bad for young people.”
Wow. Just…wow. A hack job based on the myopic assumption that prohibition actually works in the first place. They waited a long time before throwing the “what about the children?” hysteria in there.
emphasis mine, btw.
And the Red Light Camera story is VILE!!!!
There are sound engineering reasons for the length of a yellow light. There’s a range you put the duration in, so that you don’t put people in dilemma zones. The goal of the signal in the first place is to apportion right-of-way so that more people get through the intersection quickly and without injury to themselves or their vehicles.
It’s not a revenue generation variable, you asshats!
Red light cameras have been so perverted by euphemistically named ‘law enforcement’ and city money grabbers. They can be a super effective tool for reducing ALL accidents. Sign the heck out of it. Give proper yellow time. And you’ll get good reduction of red-light running and a reduction in accidents. But no, these dickweeds want to play with people’s lives because their budgets are a little tight right now.
Vile scum of the earth.
Here is a better idea if they want to generate revenue: make all lights red all the time. Why leave to chance that some people will make it through? With all red, all the time, its a guaranteed revenue generator.
You see, the Minutemen and other defenders of American soil only defended themselves from their homes. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse only because he realized he was on public property.
I’ll tell you what…with 420 yesterday and all of these news stories about pot they’ve got me wanting some, which is ironic because I’ve never tried it and haven’t been interested in using it until lately…I’m just freaked out about the DEA crashing into my apartment and what might happen (I own a few guns and have my concealed weapons permit…and we all know what happens with legally owned guns + drug raids). Maybe it will be legalized within the next few years (or at least remove the jail time! I’ll risk a fine or something similar but not being locked up).
“It went on and on, with them seemingly trying their hardest to amass arguments against legalization, downplaying any benefits, and focusing on the negatives.”
&
“A hack job based on the myopic assumption that prohibition actually works in the first place.”
That’s an interesting take. I can’t say that’s how the piece came across to me at all. Can you point at any other reports from a popular news source (CNN, FOX, et al) that you feel were significantly better?
You probably don’t have much to worry about then. I don’t think cops like to pop flash bangs, burst through people’s doors with guns drawn, kill family pets, throw the occupants down, kneeling on their heads, and shout hysterical incoherent commands when they know someone on the other side might have a weapon. Fuck, that would be dangerous.
As a resident of Billings, who is appalled that the city wants to add cameras at all, the actual comments made by our police chief aren’t particularly troublesome. As far as I can tell, he was saying any change in light timing should be announced, with more extensive notices given if they are shortened, without actually advocating shortening the lights. The article you linked to appears to have been spinning a memo he provided to the city council.
Actually, I thought that NPR article was pretty honest and even handed. Even the part about ER visits… if super potent pot was available to n00bs that had never smoked before, surely many of them would think they were dying after smoking a bit of it (even though they aren’t dying).
This was my favorite statement from the entire NPR program.
Almonte, director of the Texas Narcotic Officer’s Association:
“But more importantly, we’re seeing a more potent marijuana. And with that we’re seeing … an increase in the emergency room admissions.”
There is no way this guy can be that misinformed. Therefore he is outright lying. I also loved his argument about how criminals will continue being criminals. How insightful Shirlock. Legalization would at least end their drug dealing profits and the violence associated with said dealing.
davidst:
“if super potent pot was available…”
It is. Almost all weed is super potent now, and has been for nearly 2 decades.
“surely many of them would think they were dying after smoking a bit of it (even though they aren’t dying).”
Really? I’ve never seen that happen EVER. The worst symptom I’ve seen is elevated anxiety, easily remedied by sitting down and maybe sipping on a glass of water. Contrast that with taking an excessive dose of pharmaceuticals where, you know, you could actually die.
You don’t need to be dying to go to the ER, you just need to think that you are. I’ve seen herb where experienced smokers take a single hit and are higher than they’ve ever been (and not comfortable about it). Due to experience, they know they can just wait it out, but imagine if n00bs found some stuff like that and took 3 or 4 good hits? It would be like that cop and his wife that made the brownies and called 911.
In any case, that was definitely the stupidest thing in the article. The rest of it was remarkably evenhanded and realistic.
Regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment, my understanding is that the Supreme Court, while not ruling specifically on this issue, did have an opinion written discussing this issue. The opinion was the Dred Scott case, of all things, and pre-dates the Fourteenth Amendment.
In one of the justice’s opinions, he wrote (I’m quoting from memory) that if blacks were citizens of the United States, they’d be free to move from state to state and take their guns with them.
I’m sure that there are all sorts of technical, legal arguments; but that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is that prior to our “enlightened age,” it was taken for granted that people of one state would be free to take their guns to another. Prior to modern anti-gun laws, it was taken for granted that people were free to possess guns in all states of the union.
So, yeah — the Second Amendment should be incorporated, as are the First and the others.
Dave #24,
Waco.
Radley,
I listened to the “story” as broadcasted on yesterdays All Things Considered. They were very clear that the story was specualtive, and gave a warning up front not to take the piece seriously.
As for the interviews, I can confirm that at least one of them was for rea. I am a former employee of Oat Willie’s on 29th street & Guadalupe in Austin, and that really was my old boss Doug Brown on the radio.
#12: The actual Heller decision which the 9th was relying on specified that local restrictions were appropriate and allowable for “sensitive places such as schools and hospitals.” The 9th decided that a county fairground was a “sensitive place” simply because large crowds of people might gather there, without any further explanation or justification for such a finding. That’s the most troubling part of the decision as far as I’m concerned.
If I read that article correctly, they could cut accidents dramatically just by adding 1 second to the yellow time; forget cameras.
Gabriel, I agree. Their ruling isn’t supported by some conclusive finding of fact (instead noting that “The parties agree that nothing violent or illegal happened at those events [the gun shows].”), therefor it seems like a very broad restriction, which annoys me especially since the Ninth clearly states that passing the rational basis test would be insufficient for a law that deals with a fundamental right (such as they agree is guaranteed by the Second Amendment).
Frankly, as much of a breath of fresh air as it was, I am generally disappointed in Heller. It provided too little guidance as to what sort of infringements shouldn’t be considered infringements. The most obvious conclusion would be that, if one needs to bother parsing such equivocal matters, there is an infringement. But, the exceptions for “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…” opened the door for anyone to decide what constitutes a sensitive place based on nearly any criterion. In this case, apparently, any place where a substantial number of people may gather can be considered a sensitive place.
(Although the issue was focused on county property, I’m not sure how the Ninth stops government from restricting gun rights on private property, aside from the home itself. For instance, there is a big gun show in at the Reno Hilton every year, and lots of people are there. Why isn’t that a “sensitive place”?)
And, as a practical matter, you wouldn’t want to bother having a gun show at some place where a large number of people couldn’t gather. Which, not coincidentally in my view, squares quite well with the goals of the ordinance’s author, County Supervsor Mary King. She stated that she had “been trying to get rid of gun shows on Country property” for three years when her ordinance finally passed.
At any rate, I’m glad the Ninth found the due process argument for incorporating Heller at the state and local levels. But, they did so while at the same time leaving a gaping hole for legislation that restricts this particular civil liberty.
I wouldn’t be too worried about Billings, the cameras are about to get a state legislature smackdown:
http://missoulian.com/articles/2009/04/21/news/mtregional/news14.txt
Funny but in that Cato Institute “Of Course It was Torture” article they left out the punchline.
“President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1&hp
1.) I can’t believe that red-light story is happening in Montana of all places. Montana!
2.) More should be made of that TARP re-payment business. Let’s see: you force someone into taking a loan they don’t want, then you use that leverage to coerce them into doing favors for you. Isn’t that the behavior we’d expect of a Corleone rather than an Obama?