Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (253384)	5/7/2002 3:41:14 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<Whatever drug problem we have residually would be far worse if drugs were cheap>> Think outside the box a little. What you say is true-but they wouldn't be PROBLEMS...

To: Neocon who wrote (253384)	5/7/2002 3:43:14 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

How about not letting your kids go over to "Jerry's". Do we have to make the streets a war zone so you won't be interrupted from watching Oprah?

To: Neocon who wrote (253384)	5/7/2002 3:51:02 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks for the post neocon. It's a tricky issue, but I see it pretty closely to how you see it.

To: Neocon who wrote (253384)	5/7/2002 5:14:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

People who state that the War on Drugs isn't working are talking through their hat. Impose significant costs on anything, and you will get less. Whatever drug problem we have residually would be far worse if drugs were cheap, easy to obtain, easy to divert to a black market (say for minors), and carried little stigma. Saying that the war on drugs isn't working doesn't mean you are saying it had no effect. Many drugs are fairly cheap, not that difficult to obtain, and in at least certain circles, carry little stigma. What concerns me is the result of the war on drugs on the government. Not just the extra spending required for the war, but prisons filled up with drug offenders, and the federal government getting more and more involved in law enforcement and making the decisions that should be left to the states. I think because of the war on drugs, law enforcement, and esp. federal law enforcement has become more militarized, and I think makes things like Waco or Ruby Ridge more likely (yes I know they where not drug busts). You get more no knock warrants, more reliance on dubious informants and more restrictions on people who are not using drugs (regulations about reporting cash transactions, and a lot of scrutiny of cash use even when the amount of cash used is below the level that requires reporting. Civil forfeiture can get particularly abusive IMO. ___________ cato.org reason.com ______________ "Take the case of African American Willie Jones, a contractor who was flying to Houston from Nashville to buy some shrubbery. He was not only stopped and interviewed, but his cash was confiscated under civil forfeiture laws even though he was never charged with a crime. It took him two years of litigation to get his money back. Would this have happened to a white contractor? Would the white contractor have even been detained? Take the case of Hispanic restaurant owner Gilberto Leon, driving along Highway 10 through Louisiana toward Houston. He had driven that freeway route twice, and had been stopped both times. The second time, he had $48,000 cash, which he was going to use to purchase a tractor. He had no history of drug involvement. But when he appeared “nervous” after being stopped, and his family’s story about the use of the money didn’t coincide with his, police gotsuspicious. The trained cocaine-sniffing dog alerted after sniffing the cash. (Studies show that cocaine traces may be in as much as 70% of the money supply.) Again, the cash was taken, though no criminal charges were made. After determining the legal expense involved, Leon settled for the return of 80% of his money to avoid litigation. Believe it or not, under civil forfeiture laws, the burden of proof is on the citizen to prove no involvement in the criminal activity alleged." infortainment.com (this link calls the abuse racism, I'm not so sure it has a racist motive, but even abscent racial considerations these actions are not right) ________ cato.org Random Indignities Drug testing for everybody! By Jacob Sullum reason.com