• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scalia: Federal Drug Laws Were a Mistake

Maybe, if the feds would butt out and take care of their own business, maybe concentrate on balancing the budget, putting a satisfactory end to the wars, secure the borders, you know, the things that they should be doing, we wouldn't have absurd actions like this one:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Federal prosecutors in California are ordering dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries to shut down in 45 days and warning their owners and landlords they face criminal charges or seizure of their assets if they do not comply.

The state's four U.S. attorneys announced at a Sacramento news conference Friday that they have stepped up efforts to curtail both marijuana cultivation and retail sales of pot conducted under the cover of California's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.
Click to expand...

A couple of locals are facing possible life sentences for operating medical marijuana dispensaries, and have already had their assets seized despite the fifth Amendment.

Life sentences! You can kill someone and get off with a lighter sentence. Talk about an abuse of power!
 
I'd be fine if drugs laws were a state by state thing.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Maybe, if the feds would butt out and take care of their own business, maybe concentrate on balancing the budget, putting a satisfactory end to the wars, secure the borders, you know, the things that they should be doing, we wouldn't have absurd actions like this one:



A couple of locals are facing possible life sentences for operating medical marijuana dispensaries, and have already had their assets seized despite the fifth Amendment.

Life sentences! You can kill someone and get off with a lighter sentence. Talk about an abuse of power!
Click to expand...
I have always been opposed to the drug forfeiture laws passed at the later half of the '90s, you can have property taken and auctioned off before a conviction. If someone is found innocent they are stripped of their rightful property before they even have chance to reclaim it. That is a SERIOUS abuse of due process law.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I have always been opposed to the drug forfeiture laws passed at the later half of the '90s, you can have property taken and auctioned off before a conviction. If someone is found innocent they are stripped of their rightful property before they even have chance to reclaim it. That is a SERIOUS abuse of due process law.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, but it still keeps happening.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Absolutely, and a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, but it still keeps happening.
Click to expand...
That when combined with the tax bill to house all of the non-violent drug offenders are the two biggest problems in my opinion.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Maybe, if the feds would butt out and take care of their own business, maybe concentrate on balancing the budget, putting a satisfactory end to the wars, secure the borders, you know, the things that they should be doing, we wouldn't have absurd actions like this one:



A couple of locals are facing possible life sentences for operating medical marijuana dispensaries, and have already had their assets seized despite the fifth Amendment.

Life sentences! You can kill someone and get off with a lighter sentence. Talk about an abuse of power!
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the state of California doesn't grow a pair and defend its citizens against the illegal acts of these federal agents. California should put the feds on notice that any federal agent entering California with the intent to kidnap California citizens based on illegal and unconstitutional usurpation will be arrested. The federal government will do what it wants until the states begin to draw a line in the sand. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens from all criminals, even when those criminals come from Washington DC.
 
The War On Drugs aka the Law Enforcement Employment Security Act.

I am stunned to hear Scalia say something so... rational. Props when due, though.

Prohibition never, ever works. Never has, never will. All Prohibition ever does is create a vibrant criminal network for a blackmarket supply to the demand. Legalize drugs, global cartels implode, crime rate plummets, prisons and courtrooms empty out and addicts can be legally monitored and assisted.

Remember Prohibition in the early 20th century? The rallying cry was if liquor was legalized, everyone would be an alcoholic. Thing is, when liquor was legalized and regulated, people drank less, not more. True story.
 
DiAnna said:
Remember Prohibition in the early 20th century? The rallying cry was if liquor was legalized, everyone would be an alcoholic. Thing is, when liquor was legalized and regulated, people drank less, not more. True story.
Click to expand...
I don't remember if it was psych. or criminal justice that I learned this during my college days but I remember the instructor was speaking about opportunity and behavior. Basically it boils down to legality in that for instance, underage drinkers tend to binge drink because the opportunity is present and the next available one is unknown, to compensate humans will over imbibe, it's the same thing for all illicit substances, drug addicts will seek out and indulge to the fullest when the opportunity is present, likewise the same thing happened during the alcohol prohibition in speakeasys, people died from "bathtub booze" like people die from junk drugs.
 
DiAnna said:
The War On Drugs aka the Law Enforcement Employment Security Act.

I am stunned to hear Scalia say something so... rational. Props when due, though.

Prohibition never, ever works. Never has, never will. All Prohibition ever does is create a vibrant criminal network for a blackmarket supply to the demand. Legalize drugs, global cartels implode, crime rate plummets, prisons and courtrooms empty out and addicts can be legally monitored and assisted.

Remember Prohibition in the early 20th century? The rallying cry was if liquor was legalized, everyone would be an alcoholic. Thing is, when liquor was legalized and regulated, people drank less, not more. True story.
Click to expand...

Right, except that Scalia's concern is emptying courtrooms out -- and that's it. He didn't say boo about the rest of the consequences of the war on drugs.
 
MaggieD said:
Hellooooo?? He didn't say "drug laws are a mistake," no matter how much you wish he had. He said it was a mistake to have Federal laws against them...requiring the Federal justice system to try them and Federal resources to police them. It's a state matter.

If you don't think it should be illegal to have a meth lab, be able to buy and sell coke, heroin, meth, whatever - well, I just don't know what to tell ya'. Except: WHAAAAT????

Marijuana? I'm with ya' there. But only just.
Click to expand...

If an adult wants to poison themselves, I say let them, its their own body. The state should have no say.
 
Centinel said:
I don't understand why the state of California doesn't grow a pair and defend its citizens against the illegal acts of these federal agents. California should put the feds on notice that any federal agent entering California with the intent to kidnap California citizens based on illegal and unconstitutional usurpation will be arrested. The federal government will do what it wants until the states begin to draw a line in the sand. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens from all criminals, even when those criminals come from Washington DC.
Click to expand...

California is not exactly in agreement on the subject of medical marijuana. There is a lot of controversy over the subject right here, and some cheering the feds on as they invade.

I say, let's bring back the Bear Flag Republic. California entered the union of its own free will after having split peacefully from Mexico. Now, it's time to split peacefully once again and become an independent nation.

But, that idea could be just slightly controversial, too.
 
Dittohead not! said:
California is not exactly in agreement on the subject of medical marijuana. There is a lot of controversy over the subject right here, and some cheering the feds on as they invade.

I say, let's bring back the Bear Flag Republic. California entered the union of its own free will after having split peacefully from Mexico. Now, it's time to split peacefully once again and become an independent nation.

But, that idea could be just slightly controversial, too.
Click to expand...

It may come to the point where exiting the federation is California's best alternative. However, if, as you say, the people of your state are divided on this, then interposition, being the less extreme remedy, probably ought to be considered first.
 
Dittohead not! said:
California is not exactly in agreement on the subject of medical marijuana. There is a lot of controversy over the subject right here, and some cheering the feds on as they invade.

I say, let's bring back the Bear Flag Republic. California entered the union of its own free will after having split peacefully from Mexico. Now, it's time to split peacefully once again and become an independent nation.

But, that idea could be just slightly controversial, too.
Click to expand...

California is having trouble paying its bills now -- how do you figure that having to field its own military, send out its own diplomats, negotiate its own treaties, and finagle its own currency is going to help that? Also, are you under the illusion that California would be permitted to simply walk away from its share of the national debt?
 
LaMidRighter said:
You can't legislate human behavior no matter how hard you try or how much money you spend. Drugs are not the smartest thing on the planet to partake in but people who want to use them will regardless of consequence. No matter how idiot proof we try to make our laws the human condition will just create a better idiot.
Click to expand...
I agree that you cannot legislate human behavior, but that in and of itself is not enough of a reason to not legislate. You cannot legislate away things like murder and rape, but legislation against them are still appropriate, if only for punishment after the fact. The key should include weighing the damage done to innocent and unwilling victims, not whether or not it will happen anyway.

I suppose one could argue that there are innocent and unwilling victims relating to drug use, and I don't necessarily disagree with that (though I don't buy into it fully, either), but I would say that much of it is more due to the illegal factor and resulting underground crime, not as much the drug availability itself.
 
radcen said:
The key should include weighing the damage done to innocent and unwilling victims, not whether or not it will happen anyway.
Click to expand...
By that reasoning we would be asking which is more harmful, a) dude smoking a joint, or b) throwing dude into the penal system. Cause there's not really a question about which is more beneficial--neither one of them offer us any benefit, (unless dude is a teenage boy and he drives more slowly and less aggressively because he is stoned).

Where would that leave us if we evaluated every law by how well it serves the community to which it applies? Can you imagine?
 
radcen said:
I agree that you cannot legislate human behavior, but that in and of itself is not enough of a reason to not legislate. You cannot legislate away things like murder and rape, but legislation against them are still appropriate, if only for punishment after the fact. The key should include weighing the damage done to innocent and unwilling victims, not whether or not it will happen anyway.

I suppose one could argue that there are innocent and unwilling victims relating to drug use, and I don't necessarily disagree with that (though I don't buy into it fully, either), but I would say that much of it is more due to the illegal factor and resulting underground crime, not as much the drug availability itself.
Click to expand...
The key is other criminal activity. Drugs as a rule shouldn't be illegal in and of themselves, but if you get coked up and injure or kill someone much like a OWI accident then you should face severe charges. If someone has responsibilities and defaults due to their habit like child support avoidance then throw the book at them.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
California is having trouble paying its bills now -- how do you figure that having to field its own military, send out its own diplomats, negotiate its own treaties, and finagle its own currency is going to help that? Also, are you under the illusion that California would be permitted to simply walk away from its share of the national debt?
Click to expand...

The State of California has 11% of the population of the country, and produces 13% of the GDP. Moreover, it is a net payer of federal taxes. It could do quite well as an independent nation.

It would have to deal with illegal immigrants from the US, of course, as well as those from Mexico.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The State of California has 11% of the population of the country, and produces 13% of the GDP. Moreover, it is a net payer of federal taxes. It could do quite well as an independent nation.

It would have to deal with illegal immigrants from the US, of course, as well as those from Mexico.
Click to expand...

So you believe it could field all of the expenses I listed on its own?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So you believe it could field all of the expenses I listed on its own?
Click to expand...

Why not? If Californians are producing more than their share of the GDP, and are sending more money to Washington than they are getting back, why should they have any trouble at all fielding all of the expenses of being an independent nation on their own? It's not like the state would be a small economy, after all.

Moreover, we could make a deal with the US: In exchange for not having to pay a share of the national debt, the US could have free access to the Pacific Ocean and its ports.

Such a deal.

All that the government in Washington would have to do would be to be as understanding as Mexico was when California split away from them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why not? If Californians are producing more than their share of the GDP, and are sending more money to Washington than they are getting back, why should they have any trouble at all fielding all of the expenses of being an independent nation on their own? It's not like the state would be a small economy, after all.
Click to expand...

Right, except for the very real possibility that California wouldn't be able to buy military technology from the United States, depending on how the break-up went -- and even if it could, I don't imagine that its coffers are overflowing with the currency needed to immediately fill the security gap created by secession.

Dittohead not! said:
Moreover, we could make a deal with the US: In exchange for not having to pay a share of the national debt, the US could have free access to the Pacific Ocean and its ports.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except Oregon and Washington hold a piece of the coast too. While we're at it, why should the rest of the United States permit the on-time shipments of all the goods California requires and obtains via interstate freight?

Dittohead not! said:
Such a deal.
Click to expand...

Such a deal, with a price tag in the 13-14 figure range. :lol:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Right, except for the very real possibility that California wouldn't be able to buy military technology from the United States, depending on how the break-up went -- and even if it could, I don't imagine that its coffers are overflowing with the currency needed to immediately fill the security gap created by secession.



Yeah, except Oregon and Washington hold a piece of the coast too. While we're at it, why should the rest of the United States permit the on-time shipments of all the goods California requires and obtains via interstate freight?



Such a deal, with a price tag in the 13-14 figure range. :lol:
Click to expand...

Canada seems to be getting along pretty well without buying US military technology. I don't see where that would be a problem.

We could possibly dicker a little on the providing access to the coast issue. Of course, the US would still have Oregon and Washington, but that's a long trip if you're headed for Hawaii or Asia.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Canada seems to be getting along pretty well without buying US military technology. I don't see where that would be a problem.
Click to expand...

They already have a military. California would need to establish one.

Dittohead not! said:
We could possibly dicker a little on the providing access to the coast issue. Of course, the US would still have Oregon and Washington, but that's a long trip if you're headed for Hawaii or Asia.
Click to expand...

The distance between Portland and Tokyo is roughly 4850 miles. The distance between Eureka and Tokyo is roughly 4950 miles.

The distance between Porland and Hawaii is roughly 2600 miles. The distance between Hawaii and San Francisco is roughly 2450 miles.

Not going to make a difference.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They already have a military. California would need to establish one.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be a problem once we quit sending all our money to Washington. We wouldn't need a huge military anyway. We'd just beef up the National Guard a bit.

TacticalEvilDan said:
The distance between Portland and Tokyo is roughly 4850 miles. The distance between Eureka and Tokyo is roughly 4950 miles.

The distance between Porland and Hawaii is roughly 2600 miles. The distance between Hawaii and San Francisco is roughly 2450 miles.

Not going to make a difference.
Click to expand...

True, but California could provide a shortcut or two. For example, shipping pineapples from Hawaii to Phoenix or Houston would be a shorter trip. Cruising the Mexican Riviera is a lot closer from San Diego than from Portland, too.

If Arizonans could still afford to buy pineapples, the shorter trip could be a help.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That shouldn't be a problem once we quit sending all our money to Washington. We wouldn't need a huge military anyway.
Click to expand...

I think you're being a shade too optimistic.

Dittohead not! said:
We'd just beef up the National Guard a bit.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to it, just as soon as the Federal government gets its equipment back.

Dittohead not! said:
True, but California could provide a shortcut or two. For example, shipping pineapples from Hawaii to Phoenix or Houston would be a shorter trip. Cruising the Mexican Riviera is a lot closer from San Diego than from Portland, too.

If Arizonans could still afford to buy pineapples, the shorter trip could be a help.
Click to expand...

Not short enough to give you any wiggle room on trillions of dollars of national debt.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The State of California has 11% of the population of the country, and produces 13% of the GDP. Moreover, it is a net payer of federal taxes. It could do quite well as an independent nation.

It would have to deal with illegal immigrants from the US, of course, as well as those from Mexico.
Click to expand...

No problem. We are, unfortunately, a "sanctuary state." :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom