Yet Another Injustice of our Highly Esteemed War on Drugs

[lavender]

 

[bluespoke]

Or to summarise even further....

The law is an ass.

Or in this case the Judiciary are asses and need to be kicked up theirs!

 

[kotori]

Dickens is good

The law is an ass.

It's always good to quote Dickens.
What a shift! Lyndon Johnson attempted a "War on Poverty." How did it ever get shifted around to a "War on the Poor" which is exactly what the "War on Drugs" has become. You think we would have learned something from Prohibition.

 

[SINthysist]

What would be the right decision? I know you disagree with this court, on everything, you prefer the more liberal Florida Supreme Court.

But in light of your bad neighbors, is it fair to condemn everyone in public housing to live with drug dealers and users?

I feel these people should be evicted. After all, you know when family members are up to no good. To claim complete ignorance is specious at best and opens up the floodgates to people being coerced into allowing drug activity and claiming ignorance for fear of thier safety.

 

[Ishmael]

Here's where we agree Lavy

There are two seperate issues at work here as I see it.

The first is the nature of the drug laws in this country. Quite frankly, I'm in favor of ending the 'War on Drugs' by legalization of the drugs. Those who choose to destroy their lives may do so. Endangerment issues can be handled by the current laws, or minor modification thereof.

The second issue is the specific cases' cited. The laws that are being spoken of are for the most part 'administrative' laws. There was no mention of criminal finding or intent. So the question, can a property owner apply and enforce restrictions on those that lease the property? In this instance the property owner is the government.

Is what happened to those people just? I hardly think so, on the other hand can we restrict the terms under which a property owner leases his/her property. Not really, unless discrimination can be proven.

So, I think that the court treated this as a real estate issue, not a drug issue.

The root cause is the 'war on drugs'. An abomination and drain of national treasure that has been going on far to long.

Ishmael

 

[bluespoke]

I feel these people should be evicted. After all, you know when family members are up to no good. To claim complete ignorance is specious at best and opens up the floodgates to people being coerced into allowing drug activity and claiming ignorance for fear of thier safety.

A little compassion would not go amiss.

We are talking about people aged between 64 and 76, you have to doubt if some of them would know a drug if it bit them on the nose.

Guilt by association would have almost every citizen in jail.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Here's where we agree Lavy

Originally posted by Ishmael
The first is the nature of the drug laws in this country. . .

Agreed completely; the War on Drugs is a Fascist violation of the rights of free men. The only benefit they provide is a tool of government to intrude into the private lives of people on a pretext of "protecting them from themselves"; NOT a function of a legitimate government.

Originally posted by Ishmael
The second issue is the specific cases' cited. The laws that are being spoken of are for the most part 'administrative' laws. There was no mention of criminal finding or intent. So the question, can a property owner apply and enforce restrictions on those that lease the property? In this instance the property owner is the government.

Another example of the duplicity and double standard of government. Were this the private property of an individual citizen, it would be virtually impossible to evict a tenant for any reason whatsoever, even for lack of payment of rent. So this is just another example of government and political hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Ishmael
Is what happened to those people just? I hardly think so, on the other hand can we restrict the terms under which a property owner leases his/her property. Not really, unless discrimination can be proven.

Wait a minute; you're addressing laws, government and politics. How did you get sidetracked on this issue of justice? There's no relationship between the two that I can detect.

 

[lavender]

 

[miles]

.

The War on Drugs has ruined killed more people and ruined thousands more lives than the drugs it intended to eradicate.

It's incredibly stupid. In essence the government is saying "This is my story and I'm sticking to it."

Classic example of government's inability to manage itself. If we stop the War on Drugs, government jobs would be eliminated. Fat fucking chance.

 

[Lost Cause]

I stand amazed at the wealth of stupidity by people in government that allegedly have more sense than we do!
Every time this discussion comes up I see logical, and common sense answers to the drug situation. Hmmmm, guess it's all about the money anymore. Violate the Fourth Amendment and seize your property, violate your right of association by implying guilt (5th Amendment)! HUD even can evict you, or deny you housing if you choose to defend your family with a firearm (2nd Amendment), again, implying a firearm is going to be used in a crime (5th Amrndment)! The government denies the states under their own election process and constitutions to decriminalize drugs, thus, rejecting the 10th Amendment.
When they get everyone unarmed, it'll make the soviet union and germany in the thirties look like a daycare center. (They didn't have the database and camera technologies)
When are people going to get pissed enough to look at the Libertarian Party, and reject the status quo?
In history, there are two ways to vote......ballots or bullets!

 

[Impetus]

I'll say simply that I believe that if we took every dollar that went toward the war on drugs, legalized all drugs, and then took those dollars and spent them on drug education, we would have a much smaller drug problem in this country. As to the specifics of drug law, I will not even begin to consider myself intelligent enough to understand, much less comment, on them, especially given that I am exposed to them mostly through media outlets which slam those same laws. And as to Justice, I consider drug laws simply unjust. I find a simpler position is easier to stand upon.

-I

 

[Unclebill]

UncleBill -

April Fool's was about a week ago. You aren't allowed to kinda agree with me. It's just not fucking right.

Trust me, I KNOW when April Fool's Day is. It happens to be my first granddaughter's birthday!

As to me agreeing with you, well, ya makes yer posts, ya takes yer chances!

Careful, though; having me agree with you could seriously tarnish your image!

If you recall, we agreed on another thread awhile back, too.

 

[Sillyman]

The war on drugs is idiocy. Prohibition did not work and just paved the way for violence and crime. We are just continuing our idiocy.

The real reason marijauna is banned is because of rope lobbyists for christ sakes.

And if someone wants to snort cocaine, they should just wind up where that sort of thing leads:dead or in the Whitehouse.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Here's where we agree Lavy

Another example of the duplicity and double standard of government. Were this the private property of an individual citizen, it would be virtually impossible to evict a tenant for any reason whatsoever, even for lack of payment of rent.

For the most part, those are 'local' laws. That doesn't make them any less onerous, but at least the heavy hand of the Federal Government isn't in the mix. Here in Cent. Fl. it takes about 45 days for an eviction.

I've seen more harm accomplished in the name of "compassion" regarding rental laws than I've seen good. An example is any of the "rent control" laws. They just don't work. Never have, never will. The laws of economics are violated when one expects to make a commodity more affordable by making it less available. It was that same thinking that led to the California Energy crisis.

Oh well, it's a sad situation.

Classic example of government's inability to manage itself. If we stop the War on Drugs, government jobs would be eliminated. Fat fucking chance.

Give that man a GOOD cigar. It is a governmental waste, growth industry. It now has it's own constituent base made up of employee's whose jobs depend on drugs being illegal.

Ishmael

 

[SilverVeil]

JUST MY OPINION !!!!!!!!!!


I think I can see what this law is supposed to do. As I see it 2 things.

1) If the tenent is aware of someone in their home using drugs, they will report it to avoid being evicted.

Big problem with this is : A couple of the 4 elderly people seem to be in this case, unable to report the drug activity that was going on.
And as someone else stated .... this is supposing that the elderly people would know a drug if it bit them on the nose. My grandmother thought my pot was catnip and tried to give my cat some of it on several occasions. ( My cat was very appreciative of this act of kindness )

2) The persons who are engaging in the drug activity care if their actions create problems for those they are living/visiting. If they care that grandma and grandpa will have problems if they get caught, then they will not engage in drug activity.

Big problem with this is : the usual answer to this question is a big fat " NO "
they do not care if they jepordize ( sp?) anyone else.

As for me .... any marijuana that is seeking sanctuary from the war on drugs is welcome to hide out at my place. We will have a fine old time together.

 

[SINthysist]

“We are talking about people aged between 64 and 76, you have to doubt if some of them would know a drug if it bit them on the nose.”

And yet we have stories all the time about drug growing, drug smoking, drug dealing grannies. So I don’t buy that stand. The ones I have compassion for are the law-abiding poor, struggling along to join into the American dream. They should not be subjected to drugs and the violence associated with it.

Drugs have been around for a very long time now. A 64 year old would have been 34 in 1968…

Specious argument. The elderly are not dolts. Now, some of the young, on the other hand, ones that would put their grandparents at risk…

 

[SilverVeil]

“We are talking about people aged between 64 and 76, you have to doubt if some of them would know a drug if it bit them on the nose.”

And yet we have stories all the time about drug growing, drug smoking, drug dealing grannies. So I don’t buy that stand. The ones I have compassion for are the law-abiding poor, struggling along to join into the American dream. They should not be subjected to drugs and the violence associated with it.

Drugs have been around for a very long time now. A 64 year old would have been 34 in 1968…

Specious argument. The elderly are not dolts. Now, some of the young, on the other hand, ones that would put their grandparents at risk…

I agree and disagree with you. MOST people do know drugs when they see them. But there are some that don't. My grandmother was one of the ones who did not. Bless her sweet soul. And with all the new designer drugs out ... I am not sure I would know an illlegal street drug from a legal one. I just smoke pot now days .... so while I might suspect ... I am no longer " in the know "

But safe to say .... I would have SOME clue it WAS a drug.

 

[SINthysist]

Yes, good point.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to see the change in your loved ones.

I think what we have is not an issue of not knowing, but not wanting to know. And that's dangerous for all involved.

 

[Skibum]

My views on this subject are rather extreme. If we would just execute the drug users and pushers on their first offense, we would have no reason to evict these old folks. Drug users are scum, worthless to society. Get rid of them - permanently - and we would have no more drug problems.

 

[Ishmael]

Hmmmm

My views on this subject are rather extreme. If we would just execute the drug users and pushers on their first offense, we would have no reason to evict these old folks. Drug users are scum, worthless to society. Get rid of them - permanently - and we would have no more drug problems.

Why spend the publics dollar? The heavy user's are as self limiting as the suicide bombers. And with cheap, available drugs, a lot less dangerous to society.

Statistically, 10% of any population will be prone to drug use (Fortner, 1973). So, shall we kill all 28 million now, or later?

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

Execution is too exteme even for me.

Let me personalize this, offer some anecdotal evidence.

I once worked in a meat packing plant. It paid really good wages. Then, an oil company bought it. They decreased the starting rate substantially for new hires. Now when production fell off, who did they fire? The best worker on each line.

If they fired the worst, everyone expected it and it had little result. If they fired the best, everybody knew they were expendable and production always went up. (Like Sun Tzu and the concubines.)

So, maybe this was a worst case scenario. But how many of these people's neighbors may have tightened up thier act?

Just a thought...

 

[Siren]

The Housing Authority here in Oakland decided to reverse 3 out of the 4 evictions

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Skibum
My views on this subject are rather extreme. If we would just execute the drug users and pushers on their first offense, we would have no reason to evict these old folks. Drug users are scum, worthless to society. Get rid of them - permanently - and we would have no more drug problems.

Quite an interesting position you take. I'd like to get a bit of clarity if possible, though.

Is this policy to be applied to ALL drug users or only certain select ones? For example, does this apply to those who use or abuse alcohol? How about nicotine? Does the guy who smokes a joint or two after work to relax and unwind also deserve the death penalty? Or does it only include those drugs which fall out of political favor and constitute the current group of political crimes? And should we also include those who become addicted to prescripton drugs?

And once we institute a standard policy of executing people for making stupid, ill informed, self-injurious or otherwise bad choices, where do we stop? Do we finally get to the point of executing people because they cast the wrong ballot choice?

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
-- Jacob Hornberger, 1995

 

[SINthysist]

That puts me high up on the list.

Shudder...

 

[Skibum]

As I said, it's a pretty extreme position. I realize that it is not workable because it is unpalitable to a majority of our population.

Apparently I was not specific enough in my original post. I was referring to drugs that are currently illegal. I would not categorize alcohol or nicotine as illegal drugs.

And I do not advocate executing all people susceptable to addiction - only those who succumb to it.