OT: The War On Drugs and Bill Of Rights

War on Drugs -- and the Bill of Rights

by Radley Balko

Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the
police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out
drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth
Amendment.

On the Volokh Conspiracy website, Orin Kerr observes that Justice John
Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth
Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but
against violation of property rights. Since one can't have property rights
for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment.

It was a troubling precedent. It's hard to see how any police search would
violate any rights under Justice Stevens' ruling, so long as the search
turned up something illegal, which undermines what the Fourth Amendment is
all about.

That case was the latest in a number of court rulings and pieces of
legislation that have been chipping away at the criminal justice rights of
substance-abuse suspects. Ours is quickly becoming a two-tiered criminal
justice system -- one in which there are one set of criminal protections
for drug and alcohol defendants, and a broader set of protections for
everyone else.

Last month in Virginia, pain physician Dr. William Hurwitz was convicted
on dozens of counts of drug distribution. Prosecutors and the foreman of
the jury that convicted him conceded that Hurwitz didn't knowingly
participate in a drug trade, but because the some of the pain medication
he prescribed was sold on the black market, he was nevertheless found
guilty. He faces life in prison. Proving intent -- as is required to
secure a conviction in nearly every other crime -- apparently wasn't
necessary.

The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception.
Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the
assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a crime.
Even if the defendant is acquitted or the charges are dropped, the mere
presence of an illicit substance in a car or home can mean the loss of the
property, on the bizarre, legal principle that property can be guilty of a
crime.

Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently had
no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55 years in
prison (he had a pistol strapped to his ankle during the one-time deal,
though he never brandished it). Frustrated but hamstrung by drug laws, the
judge in the case noted that just hours earlier, he had sentenced a
convicted murderer to just 22 years for beating an elderly woman to death
with a log. Courts have carved out a "drug war exemption" in the Bill of
Rights for multiple search and seizure scenarios, privacy, wiretapping,
opening your mail, highway profiling, and posse comitatus ‹ the forbidden
use of the U.S. military for domestic policing.

The other area where criminal protections are withering in the face of
substance-abuse hysteria is in Driving Under the Influence or Driving
While Intoxicated cases.

The most notable example is the 1990 case of Michigan vs. Sitz, where the
Supreme Court ruled that the problem of drunk driving was so pervasive,
the Court could allow "random sobriety checkpoints" in which cops stop
motorists without probable cause and give them breath tests, a practice
that would otherwise again violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Court has since ruled that the urgency of the drunken driving problem
gives states the option to legislate away a motorist's Sixth Amendment
right to a jury trial and his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that
police officers could forcibly extract blood from anyone suspected of
drunk driving. Other courts have ruled that prosecutors aren't obligated
to provide defendants with blood or breath test samples for independent
testing, even though both could be done relatively easily.

State legislatures have pounced on these rulings. The state of Washington
just passed two laws remarkable in their disdain for everything our
criminal justice system is supposed to represent. The first instructs
juries in drunk driving cases to consider the evidence "in a light most
favorable to the prosecution," an evidentiary standard that's unheard of
anywhere else in criminal law. The second mandates that breath test
evidence be admissible, no matter what -- even if the defense can prove
that the breath test machine was broken, or jiggered toward higher
readings.

Last year, Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich had his license revoked by state
authorities after he revealed to his doctor during an emergency room visit
that he sometimes drinks a six-pack of beer per day. His doctor reported
him. Emerich wasn't accused or charged with drunk driving. In a bizarre
twist on the principle of "presumption of innocence," Emerich must now
prove to the state that he doesn't drive after drinking before he can get
his license back.

More and more states are taking advantage of the Supreme Court's granted
exemption to a right to a jury trial for DUI-DWI suspects, particularly in
states where judges are elected, not appointed. That, of course, is
because elected judges deemed insufficiently harsh on such defendants can
have their "leniency" used against them in a re-election campaign.

Though no such bill has yet been signed into law, several state
legislatures have considered legislation that would mandate ignition
interlock devices in every car sold in the state. New Mexico's version of
the law would require all drivers to blow into a tube before starting
their car, then again every 10 minutes while driving. Drivers over the
legal limit would not be able to start their cars or, if already on the
road, given a window of time to pull over. Onboard computer systems would
keep data on each test, which service centers would download once a month
or so and send to law enforcement officials for evaluation.

The problem, as Thomas Jefferson famously said, is that the natural
process of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain
ground. It would take a rare and brave politician to stand up and say that
we need to roll back or reconsider our drug laws, or that it's unfair to
give accused murderers or rapists more rights than we give DWI defendants.
But that's exactly what needs to happen.

A version of this article appeared on Foxnews.com, January 27, 2005

From:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3659
__________________

Will Brink wrote:

> War on Drugs -- and the Bill of Rights
>
> by Radley Balko

You have the right to do what your government says you can do. Welcome
to America, Will and Radley.

> Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.

Radley is also SOL.

> Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the
> police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out
> drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth
> Amendment.

Big surprise.

A friend's straight-laced and nondrinking in-laws were pulled over on
their way home from church. The officer stated that he smelled alcohol.


D'OH!

Basically, dishonesty or, perhaps more kindly, overenthusiasm allows
for a lot of what I'd call problems for the average citizen.

[...]

> Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently had
> no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55 years in
> prison (he had a pistol strapped to his ankle during the one-time deal,
> though he never brandished it). Frustrated but hamstrung by drug laws, the
> judge in the case noted that just hours earlier, he had sentenced a
> convicted murderer to just 22 years for beating an elderly woman to death
> with a log.

Absolutely marvelous.

Who do I write a letter to? S

And where did I put my log?

[...]

> The most notable example is the 1990 case of Michigan vs. Sitz, where the
> Supreme Court ruled that the problem of drunk driving was so pervasive,
> the Court could allow "random sobriety checkpoints" in which cops stop
> motorists without probable cause and give them breath tests, a practice
> that would otherwise again violate the Fourth Amendment.

And, yes, many police officers have apparently embraced this allowance.

[...]

> <snip>The second mandates that breath test evidence be admissable,
> no matter what -- even if the defense can prove that the breath test
> machine was broken, or jiggered toward higher readings.

Or the officer can simply arrest you and then rather than giving an
immediate breath test simply allow you to sit in a hospital waiting
room while the blood in your gut is absorbed into your bloodstream thus
increasing your BAC over the level it was at the point of the arrest.

Sweet move, Officer Friendly.

> Last year, Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich had his license revoked by state
> authorities after he revealed to his doctor

Yet another reason to NOT reveal ANYTHING.

> during an emergency room visit that he sometimes drinks a six-pack
> of beer per day. His doctor reported him. Emerich wasn't accused or
> charged with drunk driving. In a bizarre twist on the principle of "presumption
> of innocence," Emerich must now prove to the state that he doesn't drive
> after drinking before he can get his license back.

HA! Yes, he shoulda kept his mouth shut.

I remember this story being in the news. Amazing. The whole "His doctor
reported him." part. Guess there's no such thing as doctor-patient
privilege? Yes, it's a very special relationship - that between an
attorney and client, priest and confessor, and physician and patient.

UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOUR DOCTOR IS A BIG FRIGGING JERK!

Of course criminals should be caught, the bad guy must be brought down.
But, come one, leave the, literally, Joe Six-Pack alone, okay?

> <snip> It would take a rare and brave politician to stand up and say
> that we need to roll back or reconsider our drug laws, or that it's unfair
> to give accused murderers or rapists more rights than we give DWI
> defendants. But that's exactly what needs to happen. <snip> From:
>
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3659

When will this happen? Where is that brave politician (and why does he
live in Amsterdam)?

In other news the dead U.S. servicemen has exceeded the dead of the 911
attacks.

--
Curt

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:

> The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception.
> Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the
> assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a crime.

Excuse me?

> Even if the defendant is acquitted or the charges are dropped, the mere
> presence of an illicit substance in a car or home can mean the loss of the
> property, on the bizarre, legal principle that property can be guilty of a
> crime.

?!?!?!

> Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently had
> no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55...

Fifty-five YEARS?

Our you guys out of your mind ?!?!?!

For grass ?!?!?!

The maximum penalty here is 2 years for anything over 30 grams. Which NO
judge will give you.

Up to 5 grams is legal anyway, since it considered personal use.

Up to 30 gram the maximum sentence is one month. Or a 3000 Euro penalty.

The problem is that the front door policy is "legal", but the backdoor isnt.
We are working on that problem. One Mayor in the South declared it legal,
but the Goverment had to stop that. Because France and Germany are whatching
us. And the Government KNOWS they are whatching.

His reasoning was that it doesnt make any sense. The Shops sell 1-3 grams
several hundred times a day, 7 days a week. That HAS to come from somewhere.
Growing up to 5 plants is allready legal. Pretty soon, the back-door
business is legal as well, and growing, if you have the licanse to do so,
will be legal as well. More than 5 plants, that is.

Now... Before Billy Joe Bob from Tennessee starts to scream that "AmsterDam
is the modern version of Sodom and Gommora !!!" just like that retarded US
senator in the early nineties, let me say this. Again.

OUR POLICY WORKS !!!

DID YOU HEAR ME YOU DEAF MOTHERFUCKERS ?!?!?!

IT WORKS !!!

NOT BECAUSE WE SAY SO, BUT WE CAN PROOF IT !!!

THE AMOUNT OF USERS HERE IS THE **LOWEST** OF THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN UNION, AND
LOWER THAN IN THE UNITED STATES !!! WHERE THE SENTENCES ARE A LOT HIGHER !!!

AND WE CAN PROOF IT, IDIOTS !!!

The caps were not satirically intended this time. This really pises me off.
Sorry, but your Government is fucking blind. And they are hypocritcal
morons, too. In many ways, you guys are lightyears ahead, but NOT when it
comes to matters such as these.

http://www.geocities.com/stevenedw/gedogen.html#legal

> years in prison (he had a pistol strapped to his ankle during the one-time
> deal,
> though he never brandished it). Frustrated but hamstrung by drug laws, the
> judge in the case noted that just hours earlier, he had sentenced a
> convicted murderer to just 22 years for beating an elderly woman to death
> with a log.

Makes sense, yes.

> Last year, Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich had his license revoked by state
> authorities after he revealed to his doctor during an emergency room visit
> that he sometimes drinks a six-pack of beer per day. His doctor reported
> him.

Cool.

> Emerich wasn't accused or charged with drunk driving. In a bizarre
> twist on the principle of "presumption of innocence," Emerich must now
> prove to the state that he doesn't drive after drinking before he can get
> his license back.

How.

--
Pete, the ONE who is actually VERY close to being NEW & IMPROVED !!!

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"The Old Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> schreef:

> THE AMOUNT OF USERS HERE IS THE **LOWEST** OF THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN UNION,
> AND LOWER THAN IN THE UNITED STATES !!! WHERE THE SENTENCES ARE A LOT
> HIGHER !!!

> AND WE CAN PROOF IT, IDIOTS !!!

I forgot this, a few quotes and a link.

I advice all of you Americans, to read the entire article, and related
articles. Again. And again.
Dont worry, its also written in English, and i posted the link to that
specific site.

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/boekhout.dutch.html

And then, post this link to the local authorithies and all your friends and
relatives. Ask them to do EXACTLY the same.

Eventualy, this link will enter the White House, where people like... lets
say, open minded, NON- dogmatic fellas, like, for instance... Donald
Rumsfeld can read it. I am sure that he will post the link to the right
people.

And take action. Yes, i am sure that Georgie will take action.

Georgie wouldnt argue with proof... WOULD HE ?!?!?!

"Public health is the starting point of drug policy in the Netherlands. Its
primary aim is to protect the health of individual users and their
environments by reducing the harms associated with drug use. Experimental
drug use, although discouraged, is not necessarily considered a problem."

"Users of hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, are also treated with
relative lenience by the police. Even street dealing is tolerated to some
extent, provided it does not lead to public nuisance."

"Although no formal rules prohibit cannabis smoking in public places, bars
or restaurants, very few people do so. If they do, no sanctions are applied;
but the person is likely to be asked by the personnel of a shop, bar or
restaurant to put out the cigarette."

"Just as a small quantity of cannabis is defined as being for personal use,
the possession of heroin or cocaine in quantities not exceeding 0.5 grams is
defined as a petty offense with a low prosecution priority."

**"Depending on the circumstances, such a small quantity of hard drugs, if
found on a person, may actually be returned to them later by the police."**

And rightfully so.

You can put THAT in your pipe, and **SMOKE** it, Georgie.

Just one tiny, minor, little favor.

Please, dont send overweight DEA guys with names like "Billy Bob" over to
Amsterdam.
Dutch people will get a distorded image of the US if you that once too
often. They do, trust me. You dont want that the **BEAUTIFULL** people of
AmsterDam will look at you as a buch of dogmatic, narrow minded, tunnel
visioned idiots, now do you? Of course you dont! I know that!

But then again, i speak to Americans on the InterNet, and several guys in my
gym, so *I* know better.

But the majority of Dutch people doesnt interact with US Citizens as much as
i do.

And YOU dont want that, now fo you ?!?!?!

Its annoying, and they ruin the atmosphere.

Thank you.

I will go to the gym now. And pass 3-4 "CoffeeShops." while walking to
there.
I wont enter, though.

I am against the use of drugs.

--
Pete, the ONE who is actually VERY close to being NEW & IMPROVED !!!

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:25:49 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
wrote:

>War on Drugs -- and the Bill of Rights
>
>by Radley Balko

<snip>

I have been agains't the war on drugs since the beginning. I think it
is crazy the amount of time people do for it.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:25:37 +0100, "The Old Pete"
<phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:
>
>> The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception.
>> Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the
>> assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a crime.
>
>Excuse me?

Their logic is the assets where purchased with drug money. They can
take certain items even if there where not drugs found. For instance
if you are found carrying large sums of cash. I think suspected drug
smugglers have had their planes confiscated with no proof of a crime
committed. You don't usually get stuff like that back again.

Note that anyone flying with large sums of cash on an airplane needs
to declare it.

>> Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently had
>> no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55...
>
>Fifty-five YEARS?
>
>Our you guys out of your mind ?!?!?!

Yeah that is pretty much it. The sentences keep going up. Their
logic is that drug dealers are murderers who "push" drugs onto
children. They think the dealers give drugs to kids to get them
hooked. I have never personally witnessed this. I think people
refuse to accept even their own kids might do drugs on occasion. And
there are plenty of laws to cover other violence a drug dealer might
do.

>For grass ?!?!?!
>
>The maximum penalty here is 2 years for anything over 30 grams. Which NO
>judge will give you.
>
>Up to 5 grams is legal anyway, since it considered personal use.
>
>Up to 30 gram the maximum sentence is one month. Or a 3000 Euro penalty.

That sounds more reasonable. The problem with our laws is the drug
dealers get more violent as the laws get stricter.

>OUR POLICY WORKS !!!
>
>DID YOU HEAR ME YOU DEAF MOTHERFUCKERS ?!?!?!
>
>IT WORKS !!!
>
>NOT BECAUSE WE SAY SO, BUT WE CAN PROOF IT !!!
>
>THE AMOUNT OF USERS HERE IS THE **LOWEST** OF THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN UNION, AND
>LOWER THAN IN THE UNITED STATES !!! WHERE THE SENTENCES ARE A LOT HIGHER !!!
>
>AND WE CAN PROOF IT, IDIOTS !!!

And anyone with a sense of history already knows this. We tried
prohibition which banned alcohol and it didn't work. I think we also
have more problems with the 21 year old drinking law then in courtiers
where kids can drink legally.

In article <1505p25idr2v2am88qa2o4jt4a0nbta1dh@4ax.com>, Shute
<Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:


>
> And anyone with a sense of history already knows this. We tried
> prohibition which banned alcohol and it didn't work.

It seems there are LEO's who agree with that statement. For example,
there's a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition found at:

http://leap.cc/

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:26:05 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article <1505p25idr2v2am88qa2o4jt4a0nbta1dh@4ax.com>, Shute
><Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> And anyone with a sense of history already knows this. We tried
>> prohibition which banned alcohol and it didn't work.
>
>It seems there are LEO's who agree with that statement. For example,
>there's a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition found at:
>
>http://leap.cc/

They should. The law you posted puts their lives in danger. Word will
get out that people can be searched on routine traffic stops. People
will be more likely to try and outrun cops or just shoot them.

On Dec 27, 6:17 am, Shute <S...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:25:49 -0500, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
> >War on Drugs -- and the Bill of Rights
> >by Radley Balko<snip>
>
> I have been agains't the war on drugs since the beginning. I think it
> is crazy the amount of time people do for it.


Time? Time equals money ... think of the wasted $$$ ...
I'll bet the govt could use that money right now in other more useful
ways ...
like say ...
paying our armed forces a better decent wage so we dont have to 'take
care of' those at home for them?
hmmm ...


joanne

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:

>> And anyone with a sense of history already knows this. We tried
>> prohibition which banned alcohol and it didn't work.

> It seems there are LEO's who agree with that statement. For example,
> there's a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition found at:

> http://leap.cc/

Good link.

What scares me is that your Government knew this more than a decade ago. Or
longer.

"This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars..."

Thats 12 zeros. Out of YOU guys pockets. Take stand. I did. I joined LEAP

ALL you guys should join LEAP. I mean that.

"With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds
prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after
all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and
easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the
so-called "war on drugs".

If there are still infidels that dont believe this, read the site.
And read the Cedro site. Cant argue with numbers.

We have proof that the "War on Drugs" is a pile of shit.

And YOU pay for that pile of shit.

You dont want that... DO YOU ?!?!?

Join LEAP. Or stay forever silent.

--
Pete, the ONE who is actually VERY close to being NEW & IMPROVED !!!

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> schreef:

>>> The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception.
>>> Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the
>>> assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a
>>> crime.

>>Excuse me?

> Their logic is the assets where purchased with drug money.

Sounds logical.
But innocent until proven quilty, right? Right.

> They can take certain items even if there where not drugs found. For
> instance
> if you are found carrying large sums of cash. I think suspected drug
> smugglers have had their planes confiscated with no proof of a crime
> committed. You don't usually get stuff like that back again.

We usually send the IRS. So they are forced to pay tax over their income.
We dont touch their income, though. Thats illigal.

> Note that anyone flying with large sums of cash on an airplane needs
> to declare it.

I believe we have a similair law. If you take a plane.

To Nassau, for instance. A lot of Dutch people with "money" go there.

>>> Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently
>>> had
>>> no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55...

>>Fifty-five YEARS?

>>Our you guys out of your mind ?!?!?!

> Yeah that is pretty much it.

Its insanity.

I really am convinced you guys should take a stand. Will allready took
action, by posting this.

Send that link to all your friends and relatives, and specifically ask them
to do the same. And to your local authorithies. Or the Governor of your
state. Strike for several days, for all i care. This guy faces a sentence
for over 5 decades. We would have riots here. I mean when i say its your
duty to help this man.

He didnt deserve to go to prison for 55 years. Like i said, its insanity.

The South American Countries have deficit of several billions, right?

Your Goverment knows this.

Your Goverment also knows that this "War on Drugs" is a pile of shit.

But they shove it down your throat, anyway.

I DO believe, however, that taking heroine is plain stupid. Not only for
health reasons, but mainly because of the origin.

Afghanistan.

Each and every time you take some of that crap, a portion of your money
spend goes straight to the Taliban.

I dont have to inform you what they do with the money.

> The sentences keep going up. Their
> logic is that drug dealers are murderers who "push" drugs onto
> children.

Not around here.

Most heroin addicts are over the age of 50 anyway. We *know* because the
die-hard users are *registered.* NOT to prosecute them, but to help them.
They are sick and need help.

You have AA meetings for alcoholics, right? Right.

So... set up programs to help those addicted to heroin/cocaine as well.

Heroin was En Vogue in the late seventties until the mid eighties.
In the beginning of the eighties, cocaine took over.

>They think the dealers give drugs to kids to get them
> hooked. I have never personally witnessed this.

Neither did i.

And i witnessed a lot. From 95-96 i worked among them. From 96-97 i worked
at the local health service, who provided Methadon to addicts. I actually
was on TV in the US. A crew came over here and taped while i brought the
suitcase filled with methadon to the "Methadon-bus."

> I think people refuse to accept even their own kids might do drugs on
> occasion.

You better accept.

And explain them the riscs. And the difference between soft and hard drugs.
And the difference between heroin, cocaine ans XTC. Sometimers we have
programs were the City hires die-hard addicts to vist schools. So they
explain the children that live is misarable with that stuff. And the
children witness what they look like.

Scares them. And it should.

> And there are plenty of laws to cover other violence a drug dealer might
> do.

Like the right to carry a fire-arm?

>>For grass ?!?!?!

>>The maximum penalty here is 2 years for anything over 30 grams. Which NO
>>judge will give you.

>>Up to 5 grams is legal anyway, since it considered personal use.

>>Up to 30 gram the maximum sentence is one month. Or a 3000 Euro penalty.

> That sounds more reasonable.

Thats max.

Usually its just a slap on the wrist. And you to prommis to be "a good
Citizen."

> The problem with our laws is the drug
> dealers get more violent as the laws get stricter.

Which will result in **MORE ** crime. Georgie and his compadres *know* this.
They do.

Prices will go up and quality will go down.

It amazes me that most US stll think that cocaine is shipped from South
America, throuhg the Caribean, to the US.
A small Country in between British and French Guyana used to be Dutch soil.
With lots of people from there living here, and lots of family members still
over there.

Near Venezuela, there are three Islands. The "former" Dutch Antilles. In a
way, they are independent, but in an other way, they are not. They have
"Status Aparte" Difficult to explain. But its still Dutch soil.

You amount of traffic? You dont wanna know. WE get the stuff reasonably
pure. But, Dutch would not have been Dutch if we didnt step on it, right?

So, while your Goverment is completely isolating, or trying to isolate, the
Caribean, some of the stuff comes from here. And the DEA cant do anything
about it.

Your Government *knows* this.

What i am trying to say is, the stuff comes in, no matter WHAT. Better to
educate people instead of locking them up. I mean that. I have proof.

>>OUR POLICY WORKS !!!

>>DID YOU HEAR ME YOU DEAF MOTHERFUCKERS ?!?!?!

>>IT WORKS !!!

>>NOT BECAUSE WE SAY SO, BUT WE CAN PROOF IT !!!

>>THE AMOUNT OF USERS HERE IS THE **LOWEST** OF THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN UNION,
>>AND
>>LOWER THAN IN THE UNITED STATES !!! WHERE THE SENTENCES ARE A LOT HIGHER
>>!!!

>>AND WE CAN PROOF IT, IDIOTS !!!

> And anyone with a sense of history already knows this.

Sure.
But they let it happen anyway.

I dont know. Perhaps Georgie is trying to please to Conservatives, with
their so-called morals and values. Maybe your Government is afraid that the
Conservatives, and, lets face facts, there a LOT over there, especially in
the South, will turn their back. And dont vote. Who knows. Is BS. Its a
game.

> We tried prohibition which banned alcohol and it didn't work.

During prohibition, Alcohol consumption went up, prices went up, and crime
rates went up.

See how this works?

Your Government is aware of this "phenomenon."

But thet refuse to face it.

> I think we also have more problems with the 21 year old drinking law then
> in courtiers
> where kids can drink legally.

My Goverment recently started a campaign, since they found that alcohol
consumption went up in children between 12-18. The emphasis of the campaign
is eduction, NOT punishment.

In a decade or so, this problem will be fixed. Trust me.

--
Pete, the ONE who is actually VERY close to being NEW & IMPROVED !!!

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"The Old Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:
>
>> The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception.
>> Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the
>> assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a crime.
>
>Excuse me?
>
>> Even if the defendant is acquitted or the charges are dropped, the mere
>> presence of an illicit substance in a car or home can mean the loss of the
>> property, on the bizarre, legal principle that property can be guilty of a
>> crime.
>
>?!?!?!
>
>> Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently had
>> no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55...
>
>Fifty-five YEARS?
>
>Our you guys out of your mind ?!?!?!
>
>For grass ?!?!?!
>
>The maximum penalty here is 2 years for anything over 30 grams. Which NO
>judge will give you.
>
>Up to 5 grams is legal anyway, since it considered personal use.
>
>Up to 30 gram the maximum sentence is one month. Or a 3000 Euro penalty.

Keep in mind that different states in the USA have different laws.
Since 1974, possession of less than 100 grams of cannabis in my state
was a maximum $100 fine and court costs, no jail time. Unfortunately,
in the 1980s, the legislature added on a driver's license suspension
for *all* drug offenses: 6 months to five years. I would rather do
ten days in jail than have my driver's license suspended for 6 months,
let alone five years.

Personally, I think that type of sanction is counterproductive. After
all, what is one of the biggest problems with habitual drug users?
Many tend to be lazy and worthless, and steal to support their habits
instead of working. How can you rehabilitate people like that if you
hamper their ability to hold down a job? I much prefer the old "hard
labor" concept; it creates work ethic.

"The Old Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> schreef:
>
>>>> The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception.
>>>> Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the
>>>> assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a
>>>> crime.
>
>>>Excuse me?
>
>> Their logic is the assets where purchased with drug money.
>
>Sounds logical.
>But innocent until proven quilty, right? Right.

Actually, that's true. The government can *seize or freeze* assets so
the suspect cannot dispose of them, but they are not forfeited until
there is proof that they are instrumentalities or fruits of crime. In
my state, that requires proof by "clear and convincing evidence,"
which is less than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but more than a
"preponderance of the evidence" (50%+ likelihood).

Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:26:05 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <1505p25idr2v2am88qa2o4jt4a0nbta1dh@4ax.com>, Shute
>><Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And anyone with a sense of history already knows this. We tried
>>> prohibition which banned alcohol and it didn't work.
>>
>>It seems there are LEO's who agree with that statement. For example,
>>there's a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition found at:
>>
>>http://leap.cc/
>
>They should. The law you posted puts their lives in danger. Word will
>get out that people can be searched on routine traffic stops. People
>will be more likely to try and outrun cops or just shoot them.

Bullshit. The decision Will posted is not a new one, and those types
of stops and searches occur all the time. No more runners or shooters
than in the past.

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:

>>The maximum penalty here is 2 years for anything over 30 grams. Which NO
>>judge will give you.

>>Up to 5 grams is legal anyway, since it considered personal use.

>>Up to 30 gram the maximum sentence is one month. Or a 3000 Euro penalty.

> Keep in mind that different states in the USA have different laws.

I know.
But there seem to be a general consensus among most of the States, with
California being the exception.

> Since 1974, possession of less than 100 grams of cannabis in my state
> was a maximum $100 fine and court costs, no jail time. Unfortunately,
> in the 1980s, the legislature added on a driver's license suspension
> for *all* drug offenses: 6 months to five years. I would rather do
> ten days in jail than have my driver's license suspended for 6 months,
> let alone five years.

I bellieve it.

> Personally, I think that type of sanction is counterproductive. After
> all, what is one of the biggest problems with habitual drug users?
> Many tend to be lazy and worthless, and steal to support their habits
> instead of working. How can you rehabilitate people like that if you
> hamper their ability to hold down a job? I much prefer the old "hard
> labor" concept; it creates work ethic.

We do that over here to a certain degree.

We just have exluded a die-hard group of heroin addicts. These people have
used for over 2, sometimes 3 decades. And we actually give them heroin
instead of Methadon.

These people cannot return to a "normal" life.

Keep in mind that these people dont break the law to get money for other
drugs they use. Our welfare system, in combination with low prices, provides
them with enough money.

And then we have a group of reasably young users, who smoke the heroin
instead of shooting it.They are given Methadon, but they assured me the
stuff is crap. It seems Methadon has a higher binding affinity than heroin,
but modulates a very weak signal (they told me with a sligtly different
terminology) If you use it (Methadon) longer than a few months, you NEVER
get off. More addictive than heroin.

So its better, IMO to give them heroin.

Together with cocaine (also smoked, not snorted) acohol and benzos. And
sugar. LOTS of sugar. I worked amongst
them. We were always out of sugar!

I once had a nightmare, were i dreamed they were all in front of my house,
asking for sugar.
I quit the job the next day.

--
Pete, the ONE who is actually VERY close to being NEW & IMPROVED !!!

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

In article <4592a239$0$10554$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "The Old Pete"
<phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:
>
> >> And anyone with a sense of history already knows this. We tried
> >> prohibition which banned alcohol and it didn't work.
>
> > It seems there are LEO's who agree with that statement. For example,
> > there's a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition found at:
>
> > http://leap.cc/
>
> Good link.

Drugs laws destroy far more lives then drugs ever have.

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:nre5p21cngelehb88a1m3qgdp6mufjmeu9@4ax.com...
>
> Keep in mind that different states in the USA have different laws.
> Since 1974, possession of less than 100 grams of cannabis in my state
> was a maximum $100 fine and court costs, no jail time. Unfortunately,
> in the 1980s, the legislature added on a driver's license suspension
> for *all* drug offenses: 6 months to five years. I would rather do
> ten days in jail than have my driver's license suspended for 6 months,
> let alone five years.
>
Isn't it true a lawman's life is worth nothing in the slammer? Even Vic
Mackey was afraid of doing time.

"ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:

>
>"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
>news:nre5p21cngelehb88a1m3qgdp6mufjmeu9@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Keep in mind that different states in the USA have different laws.
>> Since 1974, possession of less than 100 grams of cannabis in my state
>> was a maximum $100 fine and court costs, no jail time. Unfortunately,
>> in the 1980s, the legislature added on a driver's license suspension
>> for *all* drug offenses: 6 months to five years. I would rather do
>> ten days in jail than have my driver's license suspended for 6 months,
>> let alone five years.
>
>Isn't it true a lawman's life is worth nothing in the slammer? Even Vic
>Mackey was afraid of doing time.

Big difference between the county jail and a state correctional
institution.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:48:29 -0500, JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>"The Old Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> schreef:
>>
>>>>> The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception.
>>>>> Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the
>>>>> assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a
>>>>> crime.
>>
>>>>Excuse me?
>>
>>> Their logic is the assets where purchased with drug money.
>>
>>Sounds logical.
>>But innocent until proven quilty, right? Right.
>
>Actually, that's true. The government can *seize or freeze* assets so
>the suspect cannot dispose of them, but they are not forfeited until
>there is proof that they are instrumentalities or fruits of crime.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lws12.htm