LibriumArcana.Games

Crusing around on the net, I found an interesting arguement.

People are freaking over the president issuing wiretaps on foreign calls by people with known terrorist ties. Yet they accept things like "dynamic entry drug raids" and asset forfeiture laws without blinking.

Damn, people, a little perspective. This may be incredibly hard for some people to swallow, but the greatest imminent threat against America ISN'T the losers snorking their way through their supply of marijuana brownies and sleeping on the floor.

That stoner next door isn't in his garage building an Atomic Bong., okay? We're not going to wake up tomorrow and hear on the news how the population of Topeka were caught in a giant magic mushroom cloud and went on a Munchie rampage. "Oh the horror, viewers at home, Funyuns flying everywhere--- the Twinkies, Dan, the Twinkies!" And don't give me none of that "for the children" crap. If your little spores are stupid enough to emulate someone who's greatest achievement in life is figuring out how to scrape resin off the inside of his hooka, this is a sign that you should STOP BREEDING.

The biggest threat to America is not casual illicit drug users, or even the serious addicts. The biggest threat to America is a worldwide network of Islamics who want to ENSLAVE AND KILL PEOPLE. Yet people will tolerate outrageous civil rights violations in pursuit of some poor waste with a spliff that they wouldn't accept for a MOMENT to chase down some koran-waving raghead with a suitcase nuke. If those anthrax-filled envelopes from a few years back had been full of COCAINE instead, we'd have had half the country undergoing a body cavity search while the other half applauded.

Here's a wacky, goofy, crazy idea. Howsabout you let the government use the same level of legal license you gave them to pursue people selling mexican ditch-weed, to chase down people who want to KILL US ALL? Does that sound groovy to you? I know it gives ME a big ol' tingle.

While I think the poster here gets a bit weak on his arguement and takes a few wrong turns, he does raise an interesting point. Does the war on Drugs infringe on Constitutional Liberities more often than the War on Terror? Does the government get away with more abuse on it's own citizens then on possible terrorist and terrorist supporters? If so, why, if not, why not?

The War on Drugs has done alot more damage to American civil liberties, but part of that is because it's been around longer. The War on Terror certainly has the potential to exceed it in damage as it matures, but it also potentially could flare out as troops leave Afghanistan, the rebuilding stops in Iraq, and the general stepping down occours.

It does generally portray that Wars On Nouns are stupid, ignorant, and destructive things, though.

Holy crap I agree with martin... how did this happen?

That said, I think we should be every vigilant against ALL violations of the bill of rights. Because once you take one step down the road to tyranny, others are easier to take.

I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this but I'll say it any way.

Ultimately, the War on Drugs is peanuts. These assholes get their day in court and still lose. I think that says it all on how much infringement there really is going on. These tactics they so decry are made unfortunately necessary by the routine, vicious violence that the drug traders.

With the War on Terror, a lot is being conducted behind closed doors, using evidence that is so classified as to be unverifiable, on a playing field that is rarely even, and with the same people sitting in judgement that are doing the accusing. To me that sort of close door, secrecy shrouded process is a problem and a very serious threat to the Constitution. Next to that, a SWAT entry isn't shit.

(PS: before some one misconstrues this as approving of every last action in the war on drugs, I don't. A lot of it's out of any proportion to the harm done, some of it's justified.)

While I think the poster here gets a bit weak on his arguement and takes a few wrong turns, he does raise an interesting point.

He mostly comes of as a ranting, drug addled loon. His point is less a peice of logic and more of anger and bile.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Holy crap I agree with martin... how did this happen?

Because Libertarians can hug leftists occasionally.

*hugs Martin*

I agree with Martin as well. The War on Drugs itself has done far more harm to this country than drug usage ever will, because it's corrupted our bedrock institutions.

Ahh, I'm getting teary eyed.

*hugs Ben, in a het guy to homo guy way*

Petrosjko wrote:

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Holy crap I agree with martin... how did this happen?

Because Libertarians can hug leftists occasionally.

*hugs Martin*

I agree with Martin as well. The War on Drugs itself has done far more harm to this country than drug usage ever will, because it's corrupted our bedrock institutions.

Well, technically I am not a libertarian. Civil libertarian sure, but otherwise I tend to be a political clusterfuck that just so happens to lean conservative on economic issues...that aside

*joins the group hug because I dont get enough hugs, then begins the beat-down*

.

I think that says it all on how much infringement there really is going on.

Any infringement on the bill of rights is bad Storm. TheBill of Rights is not toilet paper, it cannot be disregarded just because we like the conviction rate.

These tactics they so decry are made unfortunately necessary by the routine, vicious violence that the drug traders.

Necessary is still unconstitutional and immoral. Does this not pass through the skull?

When something that is in high demand is made illegal, it creates this little thing called a black market. This black market is violent because there is no legal recourse for well..anything. It creates a system which is in a constant state of anarchy. It is capitalism gone arwy. They use all sorts of nasty tricks to boost their profit margin. Cutting their drugs with nasty chemicals, killing their competition (literally)

All the war on drugs does is give politicians an excuse to take our freedom away piece by piece. Back before drugs were illegal, one could buy their fix from the local drug store. There was small amounts of cocain in SODA for fuck's sake. The drug problem is one which was artificially created, and has not had a positive side effect which outweighs the horriffic side effects.

I am not saying that drugs arent horrible horrible things. They are, and no one should use them. Bet people are idiots, and making them illegal causes more problems than it fixes.

If we decriminalize, regulate and heavily tax drugs and allow legal private firms to take over , we can eliminate the gang violence, we can illiminate the kidnapping, and we can reduce overdoses through quality control.

Hell, if we only did it with a few of the more common and least harmful drugs we would save ourselves a shitload of money and reduce the body count massively.

With the War on Terror, a lot is being conducted behind closed doors, using evidence that is so classified as to be unverifiable, on a playing field that is rarely even, and with the same people sitting in judgement that are doing the accusing. To me that sort of close door, secrecy shrouded process is a problem and a very serious threat to the Constitution. Next to that, a SWAT entry isn't shit.

With that, I would agree. Still,no violation of the bill of rights is ever justified.

Any infringement on the bill of rights is bad Storm. TheBill of Rights is not toilet paper, it cannot be disregarded just because we like the conviction rate.

And I feel that for the most part, the Bill of Right has not been violated. These tactics have held up to repeated scrutiny in court numerous times. They've had due process and they've still loss. As far as I'm concerned, in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases that's it.

Necessary is still unconstitutional and immoral. Does this not pass through the skull?

So it's more moral for police officers to get shot and killed trying to serve a search warrant than for SWAT to kick down the door and serve said warrant?

Sorry but if things have gotten a little rougher, it's because the criminals have been far more ready to kill law enforcement. No where in the Constitution does it say that law enforcement has to die to make the process more comfortable for the criminals.

With that, I would agree. Still,no violation of the bill of rights is ever justified.

I don't agree. The Constitution wasn't and isn't a suicide pact; I've never been one of those people that believes in holding it in biblical awe. Really, I think we need to consider it reasonably with out reference to national dogma. Because let's face it, in the course of espionage and war from the Founding Days, the Bill of Rights has been set aside before. It hasn't brought the country down yet.

That doesn't mean I believe that Bush and Co can do whatever they want with out reference to national or international law, or just basic human decency. If nothing else safeguards need to be put in place for those that are the result of a genuine mistake.

Lord Stormbringer wrote:So it's more moral for police officers to get shot and killed trying to serve a search warrant than for SWAT to kick down the door and serve said warrant?

Sorry but if things have gotten a little rougher, it's because the criminals have been far more ready to kill law enforcement. No where in the Constitution does it say that law enforcement has to die to make the process more comfortable for the criminals.

No-knock searches were not implemented because of rising drug violence. No-knock searches were implemented because dealers were flushing their stashes.

This veers dangerously toward a discussion of the necessity of the War on Drugs to begin with. But to clarify my position on the OP, I regard the excesses of both to be intertwined in the same mindset of those who would have order at the price of freedom combined with those who would build careers and empires with the expediency that such domestic affairs allow them to take.

Petrosjko wrote:

Lord Stormbringer wrote:So it's more moral for police officers to get shot and killed trying to serve a search warrant than for SWAT to kick down the door and serve said warrant?

Sorry but if things have gotten a little rougher, it's because the criminals have been far more ready to kill law enforcement. No where in the Constitution does it say that law enforcement has to die to make the process more comfortable for the criminals.

No-knock searches were not implemented because of rising drug violence. No-knock searches were implemented because dealers were flushing their stashes.

You are absolutely right. But a no-knock search is not the same as a dyanmic entry search (aka SWAT Team search). Those are generally used when the chance of violent resistance is considered too high to use regular officers on a more conventional search.

Petrosjko wrote:This veers dangerously toward a discussion of the necessity of the War on Drugs to begin with. But to clarify my position on the OP, I regard the excesses of both to be intertwined in the same mindset of those who would have order at the price of freedom combined with those who would build careers and empires with the expediency that such domestic affairs allow them to take.

"If men were angels, we would have no need of government. " Alexander Hamilton.

Petrosjko wrote:The War on Drugs itself has done far more harm to this country than drug usage ever will, because it's corrupted our bedrock institutions.

Ultimately, I expect, we'll be able to say the same thing about the War on Terror.

But not publically, because that will result in a trip to Room 101.

--The Elder Dan

And I expect that'll turn out to be nothing more than ignorant hysterics.