More Government Overreach: The War on Drugs
NEW YORK TIMES -- "Hundreds of New Yorkers who have been caught with small amounts of marijuana, or who have simply admitted to using it, have become ensnared in civil child neglect cases in recent years, though they did not face even the least of criminal charges, according to city records and defense lawyers. A small number of parents in these cases have even lost custody of their children."
Truly scary.
HT: Walter Olson
16 Comments:
It seems that New York has too much money so it wastes it on trivial matters that ruin people's lives. It seems to me that it is time to increase the number of unemployed by firing bureaucrats.
Hmmm, have money to buy/consume small amounts of reefer (what's the going price for an ounce in NYC?) but if the agencies involved and the city are to be believed (certainly a strectch from where I sit) aren't doing their part to mainting their financial obligations to the children involved...
On the surface it seems like a perfectly valid argument to make....
Still the whole thing smells, wreaks of 'overreach'...
Smells like another form of state sponsered extortion to me...
Again it seems like the people of NYC are getting the government they deserve...
What's really scary is U.S. demand for drugs:
Mexico's Calderon berates U.S. after casino attack
Aug 26, 2011
President Felipe Calderon declared three days of mourning on Friday and demanded a crackdown on drugs in the United States after armed men torched a casino in northern Mexico, killing at least 52 people.
Lashing out at corrupt officials in Mexico and "insatiable" U.S. demand for drugs for fomenting the violence, Calderon urged Congress to stamp out drug consumption and stop illegal trafficking of weapons across the border into Mexico.
Hey PT considering your posting on Cardenas comments you might find perusing the following site interesting: Borderland Beat
PT, you couldn't be more wrong. U.S. demand for drugs is no scarier than its demand for shirts, cereal, iPods or any other product. What's truly terrifying (as in the result of terrorism) is that, by behaving like a perfectly responsible person who happens to smoke a joint, you can have your front door kicked and perhaps even be murdered by federal jackbooted thugs who are never held responsible, even when they kill innocents. It's time to abolish the DEA, ATF and SWAT teams.
Dan, U.S. demand for drugs is killing tens of thousands of people in Mexico.
Americans who demand those drugs don't really care.
They are irresponsible.
They just want the drugs.
Dan, U.S. demand for drugs is killing tens of thousands of people in Mexico.
No, it is prohibition that is killing people. (It would help if the ATF stopped selling automatic weapons to drug lords.) I do not see Mexicans killing each other to sell beer into the US even though demand for Mexican beer is substantial.
As usual, you avoid the issue by making claims that are not supportable by logic or objective evidence.
VangelV, it's time to face reality.
The drugs are illegal and people are getting killed.
Does that stop U.S. demand?
No.
I guess, it's better to blame someone or something else rather than take responsibility.
The drugs are illegal and people are getting killed.
They are getting killed because the drugs are illegal. Time for you to face reality.
"Does that stop U.S. demand?
No. "
It should be abundantly clear, after 40 years of trying, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, that US demand can't be stopped.
Most of the killing could be stopped, however.
I guess, it's better to blame someone or something else rather than take responsibility.
Responsibility for what? Those that use drugs are not responsible for the stupid laws that provide huge margins to those that import them or the deaths that are caused by prohibition. Yours is an intellectually bankrupt argument that has no basis in logic or morality.
Law-abiding people shouldn't allow criminals to dictate policy.
Law-abiding people shouldn't allow criminals to dictate policy.
Laws that violate individual rights are not legitimate.
"Laws that violate individual rights are not legitimate"...
Hmmm, nice sounding sentiments but what are individual rights?
What about the rights of someone who wants to have cars up on blocks in his/her front yard?
What about the rights of someone who thinks that he/she should be able to burn their garbage in an 55 gallon drum in their own backyard?
Would you then consider those codes that proscribe those sorts of acts as 'not legitimate'?
What about the rights of someone who wants to have cars up on blocks in his/her front yard?
That would be perfectly fine as long as you have no neighbours whose property value will be harmed by their presence.
What about the rights of someone who thinks that he/she should be able to burn their garbage in an 55 gallon drum in their own backyard?
That would be perfectly fine as long as none of the emissions make it past the property line and the neighbours views are not devalued.
Would you then consider those codes that proscribe those sorts of acts as 'not legitimate'?
Not at all. The acts clearly would violate the rights of the neighbours so they should not be permitted in a free society. But if you choose to smoke dope in your home you do not violate the rights of anyone else or take away their right to also smoke dope at home. That is why anti-drug laws are not legitimate.
juandos
"Hmmm, nice sounding sentiments but what are individual rights?
What about the rights of someone who wants to have cars up on blocks in his/her front yard?
What about the rights of someone who thinks that he/she should be able to burn their garbage in an 55 gallon drum in their own backyard?
Would you then consider those codes that proscribe those sorts of acts as 'not legitimate'?"
Interesting questions. This isn't an area I have any particular expertise in, but let me give it a shot. Tell me what you think.
The first one is easy. Individual rights are the rights to life, liberty, and property, including my natural right to defend myself, hence my unquestionable right to keep & bear arms. I'm not sure why so many people seem to have trouble with that one.
That also means I can do whatever I want with my own body, like take harmful drugs, drink beer, eat lots of Twinkies, and sell my kidney.
There are, and should be, laws forbidding me to harm others, whether or not I'm under the influence of drugs, beer, or Twinkies.
Prior restraint, forbidding those things because they might lead to harming others is just wrong. That's similar to assuming everyone getting on a plane is a terrorist until proven innocent, by fondling them.
The other 2 questions aren't so easy:
Unless you are the original homesteader of a previously unowned piece of property, there may be restrictions on your property rights, that you agree to when you buy the property from someone else. You may not have water or mineral rights, for example.
There may be prior restrictions on putting cars on blocks, burning your own trash, or putting pink flamingos in your front yard. If so, you will agree to those rules when you take title to the property.
If there are no such prior restraints, and you feel you are being harmed, you might be able to negotiate a mutually satisfactory remedy with your neighbor, or ask the court for a remedy. Keep in mind that being annoyed or displeased with the view may not rise to the level of infringement of your rights.
You may already be aware that wearing a sidearm to a negotiation gives your views greater weight. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home