Replies: 5 comments
Why? Have you been to an inner city lately? It's obvious that our police are insufficiently equipped to catch and prosecute "drug offenders" (heh, nice euphemism there, friend), and that penalties on drug-related felonies are insufficient to deter others from committing the same crimes.
How could you be against stopping crime? I really don't understand. Are you pro-crime or something?
Posted by Jeff Harrell @ 09/18/2003 01:52 PM CST
Terrorist laws exist for terrorism, not for "common crime." Intermingling the two would create a dangerous precedent regarding basic civil rights.
And yes I do live in an inner city area and to the best of my knowledge the problem with drugs is the prohibition of them. Most drug problems stem from puritanical attitudes that disallow non-physically addictive drugs. Hedonism is an important part of the human experience, to control it this tightly and to create a culture of criminals is the true problem.
"deter others from committing the same crimes."
Exactly, ask yourself why deterence doesn't work and why many believe lifting prohibition on cannabis, MDMA, etc would suddenly curb the "drug problem."
More jails and more criminals is rarely the answer.
Posted by skallas @ 09/18/2003 02:40 PM CST
I'm not following. How would applying laws inspired by the war on terrorism to the war on drugs establish "a dangerous precedent regarding basic civil rights?" What civil rights, exactly, are being violated here? Besides, if there are civil rights violations going on, the appellate courts will take care of it. That's what a self-correcting system is all about.
The problem with drugs is not the secondary stuff that arises from the prohibition of drugs. The problem with drugs is DRUGS! By removing the prohibition on drugs, you're not getting rid of the problem. You're making it worse.
Drugs are the problem. Getting rid of drugs--by destroying the mechanisms for producing and distributing them, imprisoning those who distribute and use them, and deterring those who would aspire to distribute or use them--is the solution.
Granted, a half-assed solution is no solution at all. The problem with drug enforcement isn't that it's too strict. It's quite simply that it's not strict enough.
"Hedonism is an important part of the human experience?" Whatever, friend. Ever seen a loved one get hooked on junk? Ever seen a loved one try to get off of it? Ever seen a loved one begging for death rather than to live another day without junk? "Important part of the human experience" my ass.
Posted by Jeff Harrell @ 09/18/2003 02:52 PM CST
Simply put, dropping the requirements for a search warrant for "narco-terrorism" does infringe on our civil rights.
Also, lumping the non-addictive drugs I listed as "junk" shows your extreme bias bordering on ideological prejudice.
Posted by skallas @ 09/18/2003 03:37 PM CST
Ah, yes. Drugs are harmless. Up is down. Black is white.
All the newspeak in here is making my head spin.
Posted by Jeff Harrell @ 09/18/2003 03:43 PM CST
