and Noelle Bush was caught with cocaine [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=519&ncid=718&e=6&u=/ap/20020910/ap_on_re_us/jeb_bush_daughter[/url]....

Does this mean the Bush family is financing terror? [thinking]

No - it means she was.

The real terrorism being supported by illegal drug users isn’t taking place in the Middle East, but in countries like Columbia and, to a degree, in the streets of our own country.

Of course the important thing is that the drug users get what they want.  If someone else suffers, they can always deny responsibly by claiming it’s the government’s fault for outlawing the drugs to begin with.

The [i]real[/i] terror is the unrelenting loss of our rights by this misguided "war on drugs."  They (?) have used the war on drugs to infringe on nearly all of our most basic rights, and will continue to do so as long as it guarantees them power.  Terror?  Try a no-knock warrant on the wrong house at 3am.

[b]I know of no country anywhere at any time including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that ever stopped a black market.[/b]

Prohibition funded the Mafia.

I don't even want to consider who the current prohibition may be funding.

For my $$$$, I think this presents a MUCH greater danger to me (really, to us as a nation) than Saddam ever launching chemical, biologicval or nuclear weapons at the  US.

IF they ever execute such a warrant, I will be ready to, and will attempt to defend myself with a firearm.

And I WILL end up dead, as they've got the drop on me. The only question is "Will my wife get killed in the hail of bullets these JBT's will rain down on me?"

A few years ago I was bopping around south-east Asia and saw on the Indonesian news that a couple of locals were caught at the Jakarta airport trying to smuggle in a suitcase of ecstasy.  They were supposed to be beheaded, which was no real sweat off my balls because, ya know, it's their country and they can treat drug smugglers however they want.  You can't enter most Asian countries without being informed in seven languages that the penalty for smuggling can be/is often death.  As it turns out, I checked back into the story months later and found out that they never did behead those two smugglers, but instead chose to hang them.  Again, no big deal, these guys had probably already looked at all the risk/profit projections and knew what they were getting themselves into trying to facilitate Jakarta's club goers easy access to designer drugs.  I'm sure the supply didn't even hiccup.

Anyway, if drugs are funding terrorism - what do you call it when you go to the gas station and fill up?

End the insane war on drugs.  Everyone else already made the good points.  That is all.

I would like to see them actually start a war on drugs. All we have had for the last 20 years is a public relations campaign.

While we are legalizing drugs, why not legalize pedophilia, incest, and murder? They are mentioned as far back as the Old Testiment, have always been illegal, and no society has ever been free of either. So since the laws against them obviously have never worked why not legalize them?

If you are already using alcohol, caffine, and nicotine and your psyche still cannot cope with the day to day life of the real world then you need medical attention- not a additional 31 flavors of how to get stoned...

Because, you jackass, the crimes you mentioned are cases where one person is victimized by another. If caught they should be punished. Should drug users be punished for deciding what to ingest into their bodies? No one forces drugs into your system.  

And besides, laws against drugs have made certain god-made fungi, flowers, weeds, and cacti illegal.  It's just bizarre if you think about it. No one threw you in jail for them for all of history until 80 years ago, when society decided that you should be punished for growing or ingesting them.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

What rights have we "lost" due, specifically, to the war on drugs? BTW, what is the right "lost" to the war on drugs in the above scenario?

This is gotta be a trick question.

Property seizure without being found guilty anywhere.
Wire taps without court approval.

I donna be a hog.  

Next ??

Do civil forfeitures violate the constitution? Are they the result of the war on drugs, or did they exist before?
Wire taps without court approval? Which law is this? what part of the constitution do they violate? did we have wire taps before the war on drugs?

Look up the RICO laws.

I would have to think buying gasoline does more to fund terroism.

Didn't Osama get all his billions from his rich daddy oil shiek?

What an idiot.

Have you ever read the Bible?



Now yer making a little sense.

You beleve in the addicts self delusion that they are harming no one but themselves when they do drugs.

It is not true.

You are playing russian roulette with MY life everytime you get stoned while having access to firearms or a motor vheicle. Its bad enough we have people killing people this way with legal alcohol, we do need more ways to create more mentally incapacitated people roaming our streets.

Addicts beleve they can control this, by not driving and putting their guns away, but once they are under the influence they are no longer capable of controling themselves to stay out of their automobiles and away from their guns. As their drug use grows-and it WILL, inevitably, over time-untill they are intoxicated to a greater or lesser degree the entire day...

Good grief, man.  As noted, murder, pedophelia, and murder have been illegal as long as there have been laws.  Drug laws are new.  If someone smokes a joint in the privacy of their own home, they are affecting nobody.  

As for driving under the influence of anything, that is illegal and should be.  But people do it anyway, especially booze, which is a legal substance, but not driving under the influence of it.

There is no such thing as a marijuana addict, I don't care what you or the DEA say.

We just had this discussion on another thread.  It seems that some who cry about wanting our Second Amendment rights, who decry the loss of liberties due to the 'War on Terror', fully support the 'War on Drugs', which has cost us more liberties than anything else.  Some here are as bad as the liberals.... I want the freedoms that I agree with, but I will deny freedoms that I don't agree with.

As for loss of rights (and I don't mean the right to smoke a doobie), how about no-knock warrants, how about property seizure without charges being filed and no proof of anything required,

How about due process.  Notice he said forfeiture without being found guilty of anything or even being charged.  It was brought to us by the 'War on Drugs'



Again, due process and the right against self incrimination.  Another one thanks to the war on drugs.  There were no legal wiretaps without court order before the 'War on Drugs'.  

Where have some of you guys been the last 15 years?  You would be raising holy hell if these tactics were being used on gun owners.  In fact, they are and everytime there is a story about it, there is all kinds of moaning and gnashing of teeth by some who fully support the 'War on Drugs'.  Well, these tactics are directly from the 'War on Drugs' and the laws passed in order to use them came directly from there.  Yes, they are unconstitutional, but nobody cares as long as it doesn't affect them.

Raven from AK!
whats wrong with you, did you wake up on the work side of your sister?

I submit that civil forfeiture laws were in effect before the war on drugs; therefore, the practice is not a result of the war on drugs, and the war on drugs has not created this deprivation of rights. If it even is a deprivation of rights, that is. I could sue you for a number of torts, win, and have your property taken from you. Yet you would not be "convicted" or found "guilty" of anything.  

 Self incrimination merely forbids the state from placing you on the stand in a criminal case where you are the accused. It has NEVER been construed forbid your own incriminating statements from being used in court. Furthermore, if this is the reason a wire tap is unconstitutional, then it would only be so if the statement is used "in any criminal case" (the words of the 5th); if not, then, under your analysis, the 5th would not prevent the state from monitoring the wire, just stop them from using the evidence acquired. Much like the 4th works now.  
Again, I submit that wire taps were used before the war on drugs.

But they aren't unconstitutional, no matter who they are used against. We may not like these "tactics," but that does not make them unconstitutional.

[b]Why, WHY would we wage a war that cannot be won ??[/b]

Black markets just can't be stopped and all the wishing in the world can't make that come true.

We've already had one Korea and one Vietnam.  We don't need another.

Same here, Paul..... AMEN

until then...

The issue, Avtomat, is forfeiture without due process. This is clearly unconstitutional and another case where people are willing to give up their rights for a measure of safety. That is the legacy of the war on drugs, whether you want to believe it or not. They were not impounding cars in the 70's or the 80's for a bag of weed. It wasn't until the early 90's (iirc) that law enforcement was empowered to impound your property in this manner. Law suits and the like are totally different. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Same here except I'm using 62 grns of reasoning.

Avtomat,

I don't feel well, I'm pissed off, AND this isn't too original but;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 TS [X]

You are talking apples and oranges.  I am talking criminal cases, you are talking tort.  Because of laws passed for the "War on Drugs", you can have property seized with NO charges being filed and you can't get it back.  You really are twisting things to support the "War on Drugs".  



NOT WITHOUT COURT ORDERS!  Can you not read????  Laws were passed to benefit the "War on Drugs" that allowed this.  Before the "War on Drugs", a court order was required to wiretap.



I also don't like it when someone doesn't have a clue.  These laws are unconstitutional whether you like it or not.  You just don't mind, because they haven't been used on you, YET.

Paul, that is the kind of crap that goes on now.  Legalization would put a lot of drug dealers out of business.  No, they shouldn't be selling to children, whether drugs were legal or not.  Would you be that beligerent towards someone who gave your kid a beer?  That would be illegal.

You went off on a different tangent altogether.  We are debating whether drugs should be legalized, not selling to children.  Personally, if they were all legalized, the only one that I would touch then would be pot.  I think anyone who snorts coke, shoots crack or heroin is an idiot.  That stuff will literally kill you.  Pot has never killed anyone, regardless of the 'pot screwed up my family' lies that some always tell.

Also, they have consficated large sums of money from people on the suspicion that it is drug money without ever having to prove it or file charges.

Do you believe it is the fact that something is illegal or that it is morally or ethically wrong, that keeps you and your children from doing something wrong?

The drug dealers would still exist if drugs were legalized.  All that would change is who they are and where the money goes.  The bottom line is :  If drugs are legalized, who drug use increase or decrease?  Would drug use among children increase or decrease?  Obviously it would increase dramatically.  And don't think drug related crime will drop either.  Users commit crimes not only for money for their drugs (which would be much cheaper if legalized), but they will still need money as many of them don't have normal jobs or steady income.  

I'm all for the "war on drugs".  I've witnessed first hand the destruction it wreaks.  I could care  less if you want to burn a joint at home, although it is disturbing that there are people on this board who really want to do that (I hope you don't have a critical job).  It is typical of this generation of Americans to give up the "war on drugs" because it is difficult.  I smell the "let's-stop-before-someone-else-gets-hurt" attitude that prevails today.  No, it will not be easy.  No, we won't ever eliminate illegal drug use.  People will always speed, but we don't revoke speed limits now do we?  

-Dave

You really don't have a clue, do you?  Another of those "I've experienced first hand" stories.  Bull!!

It's not about the "War on Drugs" being difficult, it's that it is wrong as was Prohibition.

Yes, street crime would drop, whether YOU say so or not.

Should someone with a "critical job" also not be allowed to drink booze, a far worse drug than pot?

The NFA is wrong.  People still break that law.  I bet you don't wish for them to be busted.  Have you "witnessed first hand" the destruction wrought by the mear ownership of those by otherwise law abiding citizens?  Just because people break that law, should it be revoked?  Actually, yes it should.  Comparing it to speed limits is apples and oranges used already by another clueless person.  Someone speeding possibly puts others at risk, someone sitting on their couch at home smoking a joint doesn't put anyone else at risk.

Some of these comments sound exactly like the anti-gun fanatics.

No.  IIRC, his family got rich in the tractor and heavy machinery business.

All this, "Blame the Oil" stuff is a bunch of crap.

Are you calling me a liar?  Yes, I have seen it much closer than I would like to.  Several times.  Why try to compare alcohol with drugs?  The difference is that you can responsibly use alcohol, but you can't responsibly use crack.  Even pot has lasting effects.  THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is fat soluble, and can remain in your system for weeks.  Remember the potheads from high school, who acted stoned all the time, even though it's been days since their last joint?  It's been proven several times that regular drinking of wine, and other types of alcohol, actually PROLONGS your life and improves your health.  Can you abuse alcohol?  Of course, with devastating effects, just like other legal products such as automobiles and firearms.

Have some respect for people for people with different viewpoints than your own.  I do "have a clue".  As I've said, I've seen it up close and personal on several occasions.  I've even seen it with "legal" prescription drugs, which is just as ugly.  Yes, people should get a fair shake in court.  No, law enforcement shouldn't exceed their boundaries.  As I've said before, I have no real problem with someone smoking a fattie at home. There have to be boundaries,  whether you like them or not.

-Dave

That's actually something I'm interested in....we hear so many statistics about how many more people are killed due to alcohol than drugs (well, actually, it's always compared to the zero for pot which is 'umbrellad' to cover all drugs, but that's another thing), but I've not seen one indicating how many people use alcohol to how many use drugs. Not saying it is, but it might be similar in reasoning as to why we hear more kBs regarding Glocks than other handguns.



You are avoiding the associative principle rule. Pot is beneficial. Pot is safe. No one has died due to Pot. Pot is an illegal drug. Therefore, by the associative property, all illegal drugs are beneficial and can be used responsibly. That is the most standard tactic in the debate on the drug issue. We hear pages and pages and pages of factual info on marijuana, and then hear the spiel that because of this, all drugs should be legal. Funny, I've yet to hear someone argue for the legalization of drugs using the 'beneficial' qualities of crystal meth......



Don't expect it. On the several boards (here included) and several years I've followed this kind of debate I've noticed it is generally rather rare to be treated with respect if you happen to think some drugs are bad. I also find it funny that people on this board decry the outright viciousness of many anti-gunners towards pro-gunners, yet some then go on to display similar viciousness towards those not lockstep with the pro-drug mantra.

The deaths per user for alcohol and tobacco are higher than the death rates per user for almost all the illegal drugs. One group of researchers researched heroin "overdoses", for example, and found that they were unable to find a single case that they thought was a true "overdose". See, "The Heroin Overdose Mystery" in the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

The most common cause of death from illegal drugs comes from mixing alcohol with other drugs -- alcohol being the main killing agent. However, they are often reported somewhat differently. For example, Janis Joplin (a relatively small woman) drank a fifth of Southern Comfort and then took a shot of heroin. They reported it as a heroin overdose when the truth was that she would have been dead from the booze, anyway. There are lots of similar misreporting examples described in the chapter above.



Gee, that's funny. I have been debating this subject with literally thousands of people over the last several years, and even taught others in this particular area, and you are the first to come up with that "associative property."



That's because you entirely missed the argument. First, if the reason for the laws was that drugs are bad, then the toughest penalties ought to be on alcohol. So, the claimed reason for the drug laws is patently wrong.

Second, if you are going to ban something because it is bad, then alcohol is the obvious first choice. However, prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It only made a bad thing worse. If prohibition doesn't work for a drug as bad as alcohol, then what makes you think it would work for any less dangerous drug?




Note that the issue is not whether drugs are bad. We could fairly well assume that they have bad effects on people. The question is what is the best way to deal with those bad effects. Is it prohibition or some other method?

Can you understand that just because something is bad, that doesn't automatically mean that prohibition is the best solution? Look at alcohol prohibition for an example.

The reason I ask if you can understand it is because I have found that there a lot of people who genuinely cannot understand that. If you ask them to think about alcohol being bad and how prohibition didn't solve that problem, it just makes their head hurt.



It isn't a "pro-drug" mantra. It is a "pro-reform" mantra.  That's another problem with prohibitionists. They aren't able to see that someone could genuinely disagree with this policy without being a drug addict.

How about;
- The right to privacy.  Drug warrants are the easiest to get, and appear to be the most abused.
- The right against unreasonable search and seizure.  Every time an officer asks to search your car at a traffic stop.  Probable cause?  An officer's "experience" can be his probable cause.  If they want to find something, they can always find a way. (Not cop bashing)
- How about the simple right to live your life without JBTs kicking in the door?

You don't have to look hard to see what the war on drugs has cost us.

"uninformed" might be a better word.



So have lots of other people. Does that make them equal experts with you? And, if so, whose word should we take on the subject?



Because they are both drugs. The reason why alcohol is illegal and the others are not never did make any sense.



Then why is it that alcohol leads the field in all sorts of irresponsible behavior -- over all the illegal drugs combined?



Yeah, and the body produces natural cannabinoids for a number of purposes.



Yeah, I remember a few of those. They were like that all the time. It was them, not the pot. Not that this would be a good reason to throw people in jail for it, anyway.



Actually, it isn't the alcohol as much as the ingredients in the skin of the grape -- which you can get by drinking grape juice. But I don't know anyone who drinks alcohol solely because it is supposed to be a health benefit. The reason they drink alcohol is to get high -- just like people take every other drug.



Yes, and the problems from alcohol far exceed the problems from all the illegal drugs combined. Alcohol is involved in about half of all deaths from homicide, fire, drowning, and auto accidents, about half of all domestic abuse, and perhaps seventy percent of all sexual assaults on children. All of the illegal drugs combined don't even come close to that toll and never have.

That doesn't mean that alcohol prohibition was a good idea, does it?



Yeah, lots of people have "seen it". That doesn't make them experts in how to solve the problem, does it?

What I have found is that people who support this policy know so little about the subject that they can't answer the most basic factual questions about the subject. Ask them a question and you will get a truckload of BS in response, but no actual facts. Would you like to try?



So why were these boundaries put there in the first place? What was the original reason for the laws?

If that is your concern then you ought to be shooting beer drinkers. Alcohol causes far problems of that sort than all the illegal drugs combined.

Oil revenues paid for the tractors and heavy machinery that made them rich. You didn't think that Saudi Arabia had some giant industry besides that, did you?

Yeah, alcohol revenue goes to Budweiser, which pays taxes and follows the laws, as opposed to going to Al Capone and friends who didn't pay taxes and didn't follow the law. People drink it just the same, either way.



No, the bottom line is whether the overall problems would be reduced. The rate of drug use isn't necessarily the same as the rate of problems. As one example, some alcohol sales went up dramatically a few years back. Should be bad, by your standard. But it wasn't. Turns out that 60 Minutes had a story on the health benefits of red wine. The increase was in the sales of red wine and were probably from people who used it moderately, causing no additional problems in society.



Yeah, that was the excuse for alcohol prohibition -- "Save the children from alcohol." As it turned out, the minute they made alcohol illegal, a huge teen drinking epidemic started. Bootleggers didn't check ID and even found that kids made great couriers. By 1926, school officials were reporting that they couldn't hold school dances anymore because so many kids showed up drunk. Teen admissions to hospitals for alcohol-related problems skyrocketed. Some of the early supporters of prohibition turned against it because they said prohibition made it easier than ever for their kids to get alcohol. Prohibition was repealed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Alcohol."

Historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among children is anti-drug campaigns.

In more modern times, the US Government's own surveys show that kids find it easier to get illegal drugs than the legal ones. Why? Because illegal dealers don't check ID.



Wrong again. As just one example, the homicide rate dropped dramatically at the end of alcohol prohibition. You can find charts illustrating the point at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Charts and Graphs.



No, that's not what is happening in Europe where they have changed their policies. With the new policies in Europe, drug-related crime has dropped about 80 percent and somewhere around 80 percent of the former crime-committing addicts have gotten legal, productive jobs and stopped committing crime.



You are in favor of more destruction from the war on drugs?



Why is that any more disturbing than someone drinking a beer?



No, it is a question of recognizing that the drug laws never did make any sense and that we ought to take a different approach because this one will never work.



There is a difference there. Speeding is a public activity and poses a hazard to others. And, of course, there was a good reason for the laws on speeding. Can you tell us what the good reason was for the drug laws when they were passed?

The difference that came with the war on drugs is that, instead of charging the person with a crime, and convicting them, and then seizing the property related to the crime,  they charge the property with a crime and seize everything.

The reason they do that is to avoid having to actually convict someone to seize the property. In fact, your guilt or innocence is of no consequence in the matter. You can be entirely innocent and still lose your property.

They charge the property with a crime (never mind the fact that charging people with a crime requires them to prove the intent to commit a crime - and property obviously can't form an intent). The benefit to them is that the property (as opposed to the person) has no constitutional rights at all. (Let's also never mind the fact that the property belongs to someone and we have that little clause in the Constitution that is supposed to protect against unreasonable seizures.)

Therefore, they throw a joint in the back of your car and seize your car. You rightly claim that you had nothing to do with the joint. It makes no difference. You still have to hire a lawyer and spend a lot of money to get your car back.

Doesn't happen you say? A few years back, they fired the entire Sheriff's narcotics squad in LA, and sent a couple dozen of them to prison because they were literally looting the public this way. (Mind you, the DA didn't care if they looted the public with these laws, they just occasionally went too far.) As one Deputy testified, they were routinely seizing any car they thought they liked, just because they liked it, and they seized fifteen million dollars in cash one year, and not one cent of it was a legitimate bust. They knew that people who have their property seized have no effective legal recourse.

One Oklahoma newspaper reported that a local Sheriff had made a regular business out of forfeiture. He seized hundreds of cars off the highways, and then sold them at auction. Oddly enough, most of those cars wound up in his hands, or the hands of his friends and relatives at prices far below bluebook value. As the paper reported, the sheriff had so many seized cars around his house that his dog couldn't find the front porch.

And, of course, the California Bar Association has reported that many police departments are dependent upon drug forfeitures for items of basic budget. That is, if they don't seize enough property, then cops will lose their jobs. That little conflict of interest doesn't bother you?

Joe McNamara reported that when he took over Chief of Police in San Jose he was handed a department budget that included money for salaries but no money for equipment. He reasoned that he would need things like handcuffs, cars, and radios, so he went to the mayor to ask why there was no money for equipment. The mayor informed him that he was supposed to get that money from drug forfeitures. In other words, policing on a commission basis. McNamara rightly refused to go along with legal looting and got them to give him a more proper budget.



Well, that's tort law, not criminal law and before any property changes hands the thing will be fully adjudicated.

The best comparison would be this -- let's assume I have the right to take any property of yours that I want. No reason is needed -- I just think that either you or the property are "under suspicion". In order to get it back, you have to sue me.

How well do you think that situation would work out for you?

You may want to read some articles on Bush sr. as head of CIA, and Noreiaga former dictator of Panama...

Well, if they harm someone else then you don't need a drug law to arrest them, do you?



If that is your concern, then you are about 100 times as likely to be killed by some drunk than by someone high on illegal drugs. Does that mean that alcohol prohibition was a good idea?



Maybe you missed something really major. These drugs are already here. That's why we are having this discussion. It isn't a question of "adding" anything. It is a question of dealing more effectively with a problem that is already here.



If that's your concern, then you ought to be arguing for the prohibition of alcohol. Why aren't you?

So how many people do you think we ought to kill or put in jail to make it a real war? Got any idea at all?



Because those involve injury to another person. No one that I know of (except for some silly prohibitionists) has ever suggested any change in any law that would allow anyone to harm another person while intoxicated or not, on anything.



Well, that may or may not be true. Personally, I would wonder why you would need them, anyway. But, whether it is true or not, that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to jail people simply because they tried another flavor.

It is also worthwhile to note that they busted Noriega to stop the flow of drugs through Panama. In the process, they killed more people in Panama than were killed in the US by cocaine that year. In addition, by their own estimates, the flow of cocaine through Panama doubled after Noriega was arrested.

And homes and real property...