Will the police state bust you?

General Discussion
,
21

“No warrant=illegal wiretap=he should walk free.”

It’s a different situation. A wiretap typically means listening to private conversations; frequently conducted from home. The 4th amendment clearly protects you at home. But does it protect you when you are in public? The dealer was driving in public and should have no expectation of privacy. They did not have a few cars tail him, but used the high tech equivalent: GPS. That’s the government’s story, and their sticking to it.

“It destroys the illegal, unregulated drug bazaar that flourishes in our streets…It puts the illegal drug dealers out of business which is more than half the problem”

It turns the drug dealers into productive businessmen that can either pay the taxes they owe, or become tax evaders. Why would they throw away the distribution channels they have developed? If drugs are legal, their business is above board. All they need is a storefront in the mall. They already have the wholesale part of the business down.

22

I have to agree with Mountainbike when he says, “There are numerous drugs that can cause paranoia, delusions, violent behavior, and other very serious problems. The dangers they pose go way beyond just the dangers to the user, they pose a danger to innocent people as well. And if they were made legal they’d be far more available to children. Meth, LSD, heroin, these should not be made legal.”

Caddyman–My second career involved writing the child neglect and child abuse complaints that were submitted to The Superior Court in my county. If you could have seen the heart-wrenching reports from social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and pediatricians regarding the role that parental drug abuse played in the physical, sexual, and psychological abuse (and neglect) of young children, you would not be of the opinion that the use of hard drugs is “a victimless crime”–as is so often stated. I am not referring to the use of hard drugs by the children themselves. I am referring to drug abuse by their parents/caretakers.

Yes, legalizing the use of hard drugs will reduce or eliminate the role of the pusher/dealer, but that will do nothing to reduce the damage that is done to families and young children by the parents/caretakers who use those drugs–be they legal or illegal. There were days when I lost my desire to eat lunch after reading some of those reports because they were so…appalling…and disgusting. And, for someone like me–who has not missed too many meals in his life–that should tell you something about the type of stuff that I read in reports, and the information that was revealed when I interviewed social workers and others who were trying to help these kids in the aftermath of the most unspeakable types of abuse that you could possibly imagine. My estimate is that hard drugs were involved in approximately 95% of these cases.

In light of this reality–Are you SURE that legalizing the use of hard drugs is a good thing?

23

As for the legal matter involving the tracking, I’m not certain I can see the Fourth applying here, although the Ninth or Fourteenth might (right to privacy).

If they can track anyone at any time, that means they can track everyone all the time. The Framers didn’t prohibit this, because they didn’t expect it would ever be possible, but I’m pretty sure it was their intention to prevent such things.

As a theory, might your comings and goings qualify as an “effect” under the Fourth Amendment? Might the happenstantial seeing of those comings and goings on public roads qualify as reasonable, while the intentional and directed tracking thereof qualify as unreasonable?

24

"“Might the happenstantial seeing of those comings and goings on public roads qualify as reasonable, while the intentional and directed tracking thereof qualify as unreasonable?”

No. The authorities can already follow you any time they want without a warrant. If they get a warrant, it would be to search your car just in case they stop you.

25

http://www.leap.cc/

26

“The authorities can already follow you any time they want without a warrant.”

This is true. It disturbs me that they can instead use electronic devices and thereby follow many people, and possibly everyone. But I can’t find a good legal defense against it.

Perhaps a different approach would help. If they follow me in my car, they know where I went, and can use the evidence to get a warrant. If they track the car, they don’t know where I went, only where my car went. Further, they also don’t know if I found the device and put it on another car. Evidence gathered that way seems to be of questionable validity.

Couldn’t I get in trouble if I installed such a device on someone else’s car? Isn’t it illegal to tamper with private property without permission, or a warrant? Does a police officer without a warrant have a right to do things that it would be illegal for anyone else to do?

27

The “Authorities” can and will do anything they want any time they want…We all should be aware of that…How far they are willing to go depends on how big the prize is…

28

I don’t see the point in worrying about being followed if your bank cards track your whereabouts and your phone tracks your whereabouts. You go in or out of any building and you’ve possibly been videotaped. You buy gas, you’ve been videotaped. Cross a bridge or toll booth, you’ve had your picture taken. Your texts and call records are all saved. But none of that matters unless you are a drug dealer/murderer/raper. The authorities aren’t interested in whether you went to the drugstore to buy a pint of ben n jerry’s. They are interested if you killed someone.

29

Respectfully, I simply cannot agree with or condone the legalization of hard drugs although my personal opinion is that the so-called “War on Drugs” is a financial waste and is more of a pocket padder for officials than anything else.
The local D.A.R.E office at the mall is a joke. It’s been open there for half a dozen years and not one person has ever been seen in there other than the drawing-overtime-for-nothing deputy on duty. He spends his time surfing porno sites I assume… :slight_smile:

I just cannot get over allowing a parent to legally shoot up heroin or drag out a crack pipe in front of their kids or do this on their own time during a lunch break at work.
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, burns my axx more than to hear of neglected and abused kids due to some dope head mother, dad, or both.
What’s the answer? I don’t know other than all major dealers should be locked up long term with no parole and the 2 ounces of weed crowd should be removed from prison and put in a program and on probation.

A good friend of mine from MO called me a few years back for one of our frequent conversations and he asked me if I rememered XXXX. I met him once is all but did remember him. My friend told me that XXXX had called him the previous week and wanted my friend to borrow money and send it to a prison in OK where he was incarcerated. He stated that he had been “framed for murder” and needed more money for a lawyer. My friend balked at the request but said he would see what he could do.
My friend was absolutely stunned when I told him that guy was in prison for being high on crack and murdering the 2 year old son of his live-in girlfriend. This guy had also confessed to it and was given 20 years max. (Should have gotten life/no parole.)
The government should legalize and condone drug use? Not in my opinion.

30

Dealing with hard drugs is a difficult problem, to which there is not a convenient solution. I personally know that marijuana does not cause one to go on a murder rampage. Some drugs, however, are extremely addictive and can be dangerous even with a single use. I above referred to a level of drug use that was recreational, and not destructive. I meant that to apply to some chemicals, but not all of them. I know that everything was legal at some time, and most drugs were outlawed as a result of unreasonable hysteria, but we should not therefrom contradictorally infer that all drugs should be allowed.

Another source of disagreement is the difference between drug abuse and the consequences. If I’m wealthy enough to support my drug habit, and never steal to support it, and have no children and never hurt anyone else as a result of using the hardest of drugs, should that activity be punished? There are laws against child neglect and abuse. There are laws against stealing and murder. Drugs can lead to those things, but is it right to punish drug abuse that does not lead to those things? If I destroy myself, and actively harm no one else, through drug use, is it right to punish that action?

My experience with depression and self-destructive inclinations led me to believe that self-termination (by those considered mentally fit) should not be outlawed or treated as unacceptable. I likewise believe that a person has the right to destroy his own body and mind in the manner of his own choosing if he can do so while doing no (active) harm to others.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you’re free to be forced to voice your opinion; it means you’re free to choose whether to do so. Likewise, the right to life doesn’t mean you have a right to be forced to live when you (in a mentally fit state) don’t want to; it means you have to right to choose whether or not you live. I’m certain I now qualify as mentally fit, but my experience with depression has taught me that self-termination may not always be unacceptable, so I don’t accept that self-destructive inclinations are proof of being mentally unfit. In the same line of thought, I believe that we ought not thus to duplicate laws. If I can destroy myself through drug abuse, and harm no one else while doing so, I believe that I have the right to do so.

However, it could be argued that I have a right to drive drunk, up until the time I engage in a dangerous action. Or that I shouldn’t be jailed for driving tired (which I’ve done to an extreme extent, to the point of hallucination) until I engage in a dangerous action. But these are questionable arguments. These are difficult decisions to make.

I say, legalize marijuana, for those 30 and older (the age group for whom scientific evidence suggests may marijuana use help prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer’s), and study the results before making further changes; base decisions on science and observed facts.

31

“I don’t agree with legalizing all drugs. People commit enough crimes as it is now to get money to buy drugs. If it became legal Open Season”

I don't agree.  The cost of producing most drugs (especially the ones we are addressing here) is a very small % the street cost.  If they were made legal with no punitive "sin" taxes, it should be able to set a tax rate designed to equal the cost to the public.  

I know there would be problems with my recommendation, but removing the profit motive from the pusher and drug kings, will go a long way towards reducing the overall use and the related crime operations. 

Consider what happened with prohibition.
32

If they were made legal with no punitive “sin” taxes, it should be able to set a tax rate designed to equal the cost to the public.

And that will create a market for people to make and sell the drugs illegally.

33

Yeah, moonshine is a really big problem. People are lazy. If they can get a known safe product at the store that’s where they’ll go.

34

Alcohol is cheap…Start taxing alcohol too much and you’ll see a rise in moonshine. NY has one of the highest state taxes on tobacco. Tobacco is also one of the highest underground products in NY. Almost every week there’s a bust of someone trying to smuggle a truckload of tobacco from NC or SC into NY to skirt the NY tobacco tax.

35

WFX wrote: “If I’m wealthy enough to support my drug habit, and never steal to support it, and have no children and never hurt anyone else as a result of using the hardest of drugs, should that activity be punished? There are laws against child neglect and abuse. There are laws against stealing and murder. Drugs can lead to those things, but is it right to punish drug abuse that does not lead to those things? If I destroy myself, and actively harm no one else, through drug use, is it right to punish that action?”

WFX, I must emphatically disagree with you. The list of rich and famous who ruined their loves and the lives of others and ended up bankrupt and with a serious addiction is longer than you apparently recognize. Formerly wealthy junkies who end up living in their cars are common. And yes, they hurt innocent people.
Besides hurting their families and loved ones, many of them turn to stealing, panhandling, and anything else they can do to get their deperately needed fix.

The other fallacy of the statement is that even of someone using Meth or Heroin can afford to buy it, when they’re on it they become dangerous to themselves and those around them. And they’re on it as continually as they can manage to pump it into themselves.

The claim that hard drug use is harmless as long as the user has the purchase fee are ignoring the effects of the drugs themselves. There are countless books on the subject written by the ex-junkies themselves. You may want to stop by the bookstore and pick up a few.

36

The other fallacy of the statement is that even of someone using Meth or Heroin can afford to buy it, when they’re on it they become dangerous to themselves and those around them. And they’re on it as continually as they can manage to pump it into themselves.

One of these reality TV shows about cars that are stolen…the police put a bait car out there and when the guy steals it…they then remotely shut the car down and lock the doors with the guy inside so they can arrest him.

This one show…showed this guy on Crystal Meth…What an eye-opener…This guy was down right CRAZY…Screaming…yelling…driving at a very high rate of speed…The police had to wait until he was in a secluded area to shut the car down…

We have enough drunks on the road now…we don’t need to add drivers who are high on crystal meth or cocaine. You legalize all drugs and that’s what will happen. Violent crime may go down…but other crimes will go up…GUARANTEED.

37

As usual, I agree with mountainbike.
If WFX or anyone else wants to see the latest poster child for the theme of wealthy folks who threw their lives away as a result of drug addiction, I present the case of the young woman who is the heiress to the Scripps-Howard newspaper fortune.

Well, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that she was the heiress. Most of her money is probably gone by now, or will be gone soon–after paying her defense attorneys:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110921/NEWS02/109210313/Heiress-two-men-indicted-federal-drug-charges

38

Horrible tragedy, VDC. Way too common a story. How in the world can anyone advocate the legalization of drugs when these stories are so coommon.

Mike, I’ve seen a number of these COPS shows where junkies on meth throwing multiple cops around like rag dolls. Imagine what they can do to innocent people they turn on. Hard drugs are dangerous. Period.

39

The old “Ah seen it on the teevee!” argument. I’ve read some things on the internet, too.

The first thing a toxicologist learns is “the dose makes the poison.” “My friend” did meth thirty years ago, did it on the job, hasn’t run into it since. It’s not a big deal in and of itself. The people who get in trouble with it are going to find something to get in trouble with. It didn’t give “my friend” any antisocial urges.

Still waiting for someone to explain how legalization will make drugs more available than they already are.

40

The old “My friend did drugs argument”…Good for your friend…Glad he’s fine…wish I could say that for 2 of my friends who are now dead…

Still waiting for someone to explain how legalization will make drugs more available than they already are.

Probably the same way that Alcohol was more available after prohibition. The same way POT in the states that legalized it. Sure you could get it…But I know people who DON’T know how to get illegal drugs…They wouldn’t know where to look.