Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/4/2001 7:31:05 PM EDT
I'm a Alcohol and Narcotics counselor, so I'm really down on pushers. Over at free conservative dot com I took heat for thinking it's ok for the Feds to take dealers possessions. What's your opinion?
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 7:34:15 PM EDT
I don't like it because they have used this 'war on drugs' to consficate people's money (in large sums that 'MUST be illegal') without ever filing any charges against that person.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 7:36:16 PM EDT
If they are truly DRUG DEALERS Screw them. Take everything they have. How ever, if you get caught with a minor amount of pot in your car. Some states call it transporting drugs. I dont think they should take your house for that.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 7:43:33 PM EDT
Forfeiture laws suck out loud! Consider the case of the innocent Wife whose car was seized by the cops because her Husband was out cruising for hookers in it! It gives a financial incentive for law enforcement to lie about probable cause, for prosecutors to pursue questionable cases, and for innocent victims to 'plead out' and lose their property rather than risking conviction. If there are to be forfeiture laws, then the property should be forefeited to the State, and not the local governing authorities. Eric The(PutTheDudeInJail,LeaveHisFamilyAlone)Hun[­>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 7:47:25 PM EDT
Death to drug dealers/users! Sounds like a "good" trade. Their life or their stuff.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 7:51:05 PM EDT
I don't see them as pushers, they are just suppliers. Sure sieze their stuff, but use it to pay off the deficit. There have been too many examples of police departments mis-using these funds.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 8:03:47 PM EDT
Post from MDS -
Death to drug dealers/users!
View Quote
Gulp,'users'?[):)] You really mean 'users'?[):)] Eric The(SurelyYouDon'tMean'Users'?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 8:04:10 PM EDT
While my fav amendment is the Second,bar none, I kinda recall something, about a Fourth and a Fifth... It rambles on about secure, seizure, violated, blah, blah, blah...Then the Fifth deals with DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY without DUE PROCESS.... If one can read these , and STILL think drug seizures are ok, YOU have the mentality to see what RENO saw in the Second(Emerson)... I really dont give two hoots what ANYONE thinks of drugs, thats their problem. Teach your OWN kids to say NO, dont rely on DARE brainwashing. GORE is next, Gun are Objects for REAL Offenders. And just because YOU are prepared to surrender the rights of the 'bad guys', dont think for a second that YOUR rights may never be in jeopardy... Give me Liberty, or just shoot my black ass... CavVet 2001
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 8:52:58 PM EDT
If it wasn't the government doing it, it would be called piracy. What really sucks are the standards for civil forfeiture and the "guilty till proven innocent" aspect.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 9:28:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 9:42:15 PM EDT
Count me in as down on asset forfeiture. LEOs have a job to enforce laws. When there's booty at stake, they become nothing more than tax collectors. "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance"...and confiscate our stuff.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 9:50:39 PM EDT
What GM said! Happy 4th![:D]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 9:56:52 PM EDT
Holy f-in christ, the RICO statues have destroyed the fourth ammendment. It is punishment before the conviction. It is used regularly for departments to try and take whatever they want. Anybody remember the guy in Ventura the LA sherrifs tried to frame because he had a house and land they wanted. Busted into his house and killed him. I used to have a link to the article but my computer took a dump last week and I lost all my bookmarks. The thought of this just brings flames of hatred to my head. Flaming. Flaming. [-!-] OK, I need to go play DFLW and kill something. [heavy]
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 10:05:29 PM EDT
CavVet nailed it on the head. This seemed like a good idea when it was just drug dealers, but now innocent people are losing thier property without ever being charged or convicted or given due process. This seems to me that it would be to tempting for alot of police depts. to falsify probable cause, set people up, etc. We're gonna hear about more and more innocent people getting caught up in this horsesh*t.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 10:14:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2001 10:21:17 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
Originally Posted By krowTrobot: I'm a Alcohol and Narcotics counselor, so I'm really down on pushers. Over at free conservative dot com I took heat for thinking it's ok for the Feds to take dealers possessions. What's your opinion?
View Quote
The last phrase of the 5th Amendment is the following: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " In other words, the Government CANNOT seize private property without PAYING for it. "just compensation" means the current market value of the property. The Supreme Court Justices may have ruled otherwise..but then..if they were to tell you that the sky is not blue but green with pink polka dots..then that is its "real" color...right ? The part of the 5th Amendment which is referring to "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" is a referal to being incarcerated after having committed a crime. (in other words: while you are being incarcerated (deprived of liberty) you may be deprived of your personal possessions (such as a firearm) until your sentance in a prison is over. Upon which the authorities must return any siezed property or PAY you for it. Asset Forfiture Laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL period. So..if you are a drug dealer..and you get busted..the Government must pay you for the street value of your "stash" or return it to you. (yep..under a plain text meaning..the constitution is basically saying that crime pays..)
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 10:38:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ratters: Anybody remember the guy in Ventura the LA sherrifs tried to frame because he had a house and land they wanted. Busted into his house and killed him. I used to have a link to the article but my computer took a dump last week and I lost all my bookmarks.
View Quote
Donald Scott. Sherrif dept. claimed that when they did a helicopter flyover they spotted numerous pot plants hanging from trees being dried. After his death, there was no trace of pot plants or even seeds on the entire property.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 11:08:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2001 11:06:44 PM EDT by Ratters]
Thanks Imbroglio. The Ventura DA actually wanted to pursue an action against the bastards but couldn't get support. They did a no knock on his house so he grabbed his gun. Best evidence suggests that when confronted he began to put his gun down as ordered and they shot and killed him. There were also forest dept. people on the raid. The Ventura DA basically showed how this whole thing was an asset forfeiture setup. It was OK because the guy was rich, a bit of a crank, and liked guns. This is what the war on drugs gives us. Stop the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on guns, the war on freedom, and let us have peace again in this nation.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 3:42:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/5/2001 3:39:36 AM EDT by Halfcocked]
You people that say death to drug dealers and they get what they deserve, and then with the same mouth espouse the virtues of trying to maintain what little fredoms we have left, make me puke. [puke] What inanimate object can turn you in to an automatic liquor store robber or armed robber? Ya, drugs are bad and can kill you. But so can too much bacon, potatoe chips, cigarretes, liquor, sex, GUNS... If any of you realy think in a logical sense that inanimate objects should be banned because of a potential danger they may pose, you better check your premise.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 5:03:48 AM EDT
Actually, I believe that the seizure laws are attacking the problem from the wrong angle. If there is a demand for anything, no matter how illegal it is, there will always be some form of a supply. The war on drugs has been going on for how long now? To me it seems that it is always been attacking the supply side of the situation. Why not start looking at the demand side of it?
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 5:26:58 AM EDT
the war on drugs, the way it is being waged is a horrible failure, and needs to be re-assessed. the laws that are on the books, as usual, eventually only affect innocents, as criminals, by definition, circumvent laws anyway. property seizures were intended to scare dealers into stop dealing - did it work? will it work? no. taking the property of convicted felons, who went through Due Process, is nothing new - the current laws take the property of SUSPECTED dealers - very bad! new laws, just like new anti-gun laws, are drawn up to give constituents the appearence of progress, with re-election in mind. creating new laws, rather than enforcing existing laws is really just a smoke screen to hide the fact that tackling the REAL issues like DRUG DEMAND is too dificult, and frankly won't get anyone re-elected. property should never be seized without Due Process, it is unconstitutional. what is coming next in the name of furthering some short-minded politician's career?
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 5:36:46 AM EDT
I can't rally add to any of the negative comments AGAINST the "War on Drugs" other than to say that I agree with them. I will remind ya of this tho - it was Ronny Reagan that brought us the "War on Drugs." YET ANOTHER illiustration of a gov't "solution" to a problem.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 5:54:38 AM EDT
Here's my take on things. Dealing drugs is a business. Albeit an illegal business. With any business, illegal or not, there are risks involved. Dealing drugs is also an investment. Where else can you make 500% and up? Investments has risks as well. So with that in mind, NO I do not mind the taking of properties for dealers and users. As the saying goes "You play, you pay"
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 6:48:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lordtrader: Here's my take on things. Dealing drugs is a business. Albeit an illegal business. With any business, illegal or not, there are risks involved. Dealing drugs is also an investment. Where else can you make 500% and up? Investments has risks as well. So with that in mind, NO I do not mind the taking of properties for dealers and users. As the saying goes "You play, you pay"
View Quote
True, to a point. Read all the above posts about lack of due process and the extreme abuse of innocent civilians due to the 'war on drugs' and asset forfeiture laws. The Bill of Rights is being eroded for everyone because of all this. As someone else said, we can't be like the anti's and support only certain parts of the Constitution. We, more than anyone else, need to support the entire thing.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 2:35:55 PM EDT
Who cares if people poison their own bodies? if they dont care about their health, then why should i? if its someone i actually care about, then i'll take care of it myself. non-poison selling lib
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 3:31:55 PM EDT
By the way, Teddy Kennedy has been quoted as saying that he wanted to use RICO against the NRA. Just think of that next time you blindly support assett forfeitures. ANY power given to the government will eventually be abused. That is what the founders warned about and is now being ignored. I believe one of the statements was "The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a chain upon the beast called government."
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 3:50:58 PM EDT
I wonder what those who support property seizure laws will think when some cop drops a few packets of crack in THEIR car and suddenly THEY are charged with intent to distribute and being suspected drug dealers and THEIR property is seized and THEIR guns suddenly become some cop's new toys? You people had better think long and hard about what you wish for. You might just get it.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 4:02:17 PM EDT
Why would anyone in their right mind support the governments right to steal anyones goods? If they can use it against the evil drug dealer today, they *will* use it against you tommorow. There never has been a weapon invented that hasn't eventually benn used.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 4:07:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By krowTrobot: I'm a Alcohol and Narcotics counselor, so I'm really down on pushers. Over at free conservative dot com I took heat for thinking it's ok for the Feds to take dealers possessions. What's your opinion?
View Quote
If its done with due process and after a court trial confirming guilt, fine. Seizures before a trial, as are common, are invitations to abuse by law enforcement and set bad policy precedent and should be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Link Posted: 7/5/2001 4:16:25 PM EDT
It is legalized theft !! The post above says something to the effect of "today against the pushers tomorrow against all of us." We only have to look to the conspiracy laws to see this pattern. Laws were passed to hit the Mafia (No pun intended!)but now are routinely used against everyone. Just sit down and talk about a crime and you're guilty. To the drug question in general - No country has ever controlled a black market - Not Hitler's Germany nor Stalin's Soviet Union - none as in not one. Fighting (?) drugs is big government and big business and will stay for those reasons.
Link Posted: 7/8/2001 7:12:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: It is legalized theft !!
View Quote
Exactly. Not that it hadn't already been taking place, ummm, "informally" in some cases. To what degree, I couldn't say, but I think in part the gov't passed these laws to keep better track of it. Maybe too much wasn't making it's way upstream. [red][size=3]PRK
Link Posted: 7/8/2001 8:58:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 12:22:51 AM EDT
in the words of mr horse from ren and stimpy "no sir i dont like it"
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 12:25:30 AM EDT
Imagine this: Police conduct no knock raid on your house, looking for your brother-in-law. He failed to pay a few parking tickets. He was out of money, and stayed with you a few months back. As usual, the police confiscate your guns and arrest you for harboring a fugitive. They also sieze your house as an accessory to harboring a fugitive. Your car is also guilty of transporting a fugitive. You go to court, and show that there was no warrant for your in-law at the time he stayed with you, and you get out of jail. You got fired from your job, because you are a criminal. You cannot hire a lawyer, because all your possesions now fit into a shopping cart. Good luck getting your guns, car, and house back. The same laws they use against drug dealers will be applied to gun owners. The police come to your house, and find your AR. The solder on that muzzle is supposed to melt at 3270 degrees kelvin but their test show it melts at 2980 kelvin. Your house is now an accessory to storing an illegal firearm. The police chief will live large in his new house (aka your old house). Have a nice day.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 1:37:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2001 1:35:21 AM EDT by Stealth]
What the liberals and like minded people will never understand is.... All good ideas will be abused by those in power, for their own benefit. It's sad really. Assholes should pay the price, but if the government wins no matter who pays the price, then even those who don't deserve it, will pay. In my state, you'll lose your car if you proposition a prostitute. The big controversy, isn't whether it's unconstitutional or not, but rather, if it's legal to auction that vehicle before the trial. People have lost their cars just prior to being acquitted. The innocent do not get reimbursed. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. [8P]
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 3:39:03 AM EDT
Sweep, Actually in was Nancy Regan and her Just Say No program that started the ball rolling. Then Ron created the position of Drug Czar. Soon after the "re" criminalization started.
Top Top