| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/13/2010 11:16:41 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Libertarians run amok on DPC... ;) |
It's only from people like yourself that this statement could result in an insult to people who think differently.
Libs and Cons, no room for anything in the middle, that's where it ends for you hey Doc.
:p |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 11:20:04 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Jac:
Will you want to eradicate alcohol too? Actually it won't even be a question put to you by your government, they'll do as they wish because you will have already given them the right to do it without asking. |
We tried that already -- instead of legitimate breweries, wineries and distilleries (and the taxes they paid) you had illegal booze made in the equivalent of meth labs, and with the proprietors and distributors shooting each other (and many innocents) in turf wars, prisons filling up, people poisoned by bad "stuff," etc. -- sound familiar? Prohibition has failed to work for about five thousand years of recorded history, why do we think it will suddenly work now? |
I'm well aware of the consequences E. My example wasn't the best I could muster up but I hope the message passed.
You can substitute porn, violent games, books or even, dare I say it, television. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 11:22:25 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
This thread reminds me of Lethal Weapon 2.
Without the South Africans obviously. |
Funny how the only thing that I remember from that movie is those Afrikaans with the evil accent.
Oh and some anti Jew pro Christian zealot. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 11:41:22 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Libertarians run amok on DPC... ;) |
It's only from people like yourself that this statement could result in an insult to people who think differently.
Libs and Cons, no room for anything in the middle, that's where it ends for you hey Doc.
:p |
You don't read my posts very carefully, do you?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't think I'm all rabid anti-pot, I'm just not all for it either. |
I am a centrist and even on this issue I can see both sides. I'm only presenting the "police" side (if you want to call it that) because there is a lack of that side being presented. Call me the contrarian.
To continue the conversation, one of the critical difference I see between alcohol and mj is that alcohol can be enjoyed (and probably most often is) without mind-altering intent. I can have a glass of wine with dinner and enjoy the wine for itself, not for any altering effect it brings. I do not see the same with mj. The only purpose (leaving aside any medical benefits) is to have a mind-altering experience. Unless I'm being naive, I don't think people smoke a joint because it's enjoyable to smoke without getting high. So while I can understand the cries of "double-standard!" when we compare alcohol and mj, I can also see differences that are important. Nobody is arguing that alcohol doesn't cause harm to society. Everybody is agreeing that prohibition didn't work. BUT, that does not only leave one the option to argue that mj should, therefore, be legalized.
Message edited by author 2010-10-13 11:44:13. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 11:46:46 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by toddhead:
So, secretly putting a GPS tracker on a drug dealer's car which led the authorities to his "farm" isn't making the world safer for my children? What do you think he was going to do with all that weed? Make a gigantic joint and smoke it himself? Or was he going to sell it? I would bet you a dollar he was going to sell it. Now, what do you think he would do with all that money? Save it or make more drugs? I would again bet a dollar he makes more drugs and now maybe he realizes that weed isn't the way to go... too much work for a small profit. Maybe he decides to move on to meth because that is where the real money is. He knows that users get addicted to that stuff and they will do anything to get it. Now he is producing drugs that cause people to do incredibly irrational things when they are on and off the drugs and that puts everyone in danger. So please tell me again how getting him off the street doesn't make my world safer? |
That's an extrapolation to support your theory, not a given. That's why we have laws to protect us from illegal search and seizure. We're not supposed to be afraid of our own police.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2010 11:59:41 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by toddhead:
So, secretly putting a GPS tracker on a drug dealer's car which led the authorities to his "farm" isn't making the world safer for my children? What do you think he was going to do with all that weed? Make a gigantic joint and smoke it himself? Or was he going to sell it? I would bet you a dollar he was going to sell it. Now, what do you think he would do with all that money? Save it or make more drugs? I would again bet a dollar he makes more drugs and now maybe he realizes that weed isn't the way to go... too much work for a small profit. Maybe he decides to move on to meth because that is where the real money is. He knows that users get addicted to that stuff and they will do anything to get it. Now he is producing drugs that cause people to do incredibly irrational things when they are on and off the drugs and that puts everyone in danger. So please tell me again how getting him off the street doesn't make my world safer? |
That's an extrapolation to support your theory, not a given. That's why we have laws to protect us from illegal search and seizure. We're not supposed to be afraid of our own police. |
You will note though Jeb, "illegal" is defined as "that which is against the law". So if the courts support such a search and seizure it is, by definition, not "illegal".
Message edited by author 2010-10-13 12:00:43. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 12:18:43 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by toddhead:
I debated even posting in this thread because all of this just seems ridiculous to me. Did the police just randomly choose some guy and hope he was doing something illegal? No. Pretty sure they knew what he was up to.
|
These questions may seem silly to you but they seemed pretty essential to Plato and the guys who framed the Constitution.
But, you are right. But the question of who will "guard the guardians" has been around since the concept of democracy was hatched, and self rule of the people was a fresh new thing. Limiting the police can be frustrating because guilty people go free, but allowing the police to do whatever they feel makes their job easier makes them more dangerous to a society as the criminals are. Look at Stalinist Russia or Modern China and you can see two possible paths where unchecked faith in the police and the government can lead.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
10/13/2010 12:27:25 PM · #83 |
| Brennan, I don't think anybody is arguing that we shouldn't "guard the guardians". I'm certainly not making that argument. But at the same time we can't completely fetter them either and have the fox guarding the hen house. There is a definite balance. My opinion is that the general tone of this thread is too far to the "freedom" side and needed to be reigned in somewhat. (but don't interpret that as Jac may have that I am looking for a totalitarian state.) |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 12:31:06 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm not a Libertarian, but I am trying to figure where the government has a role in deciding how to exercise my "inalienable right" to "pursue happiness" when it comes to actions which affect only myself and my immediate family. |
i don't really think they care about how you "pursue happiness" as long as you aren't doing anything illegal. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 12:44:03 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unless I'm being naive, I don't think people smoke a joint because it's enjoyable to smoke without getting high. |
You are being naive ... some people like to smoke, but want to avoid tobacco because of its mind-altering effects and adverse effects on health (i.e. cancer risk). I have a friend (she's 80) who doesn't like to smoke much herself, but really likes the smell of marijuana smoke when others do ...
Also, that glass of wine has an effect on your brain, whether it is significant enough for you to be aware of it yourself or not; I firmly believe that those effects lie along a continuum and are not quantum in nature. And do you really think all those young, vibrant twenty-somethings whooping it up in those beer commercials are savoring the subtle nuances of that Bud Light ...
If someone wants to alter their mental state in the privacy of their own home, what's it to you, or the governement? |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 12:50:58 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm not a Libertarian, but I am trying to figure where the government has a role in deciding how to exercise my "inalienable right" to "pursue happiness" when it comes to actions which affect only myself and my immediate family. |
i don't really think they care about how you "pursue happiness" as long as you aren't doing anything illegal. |
But often there is no constitutionally rational basis for making it illegal. Marijuana is/was made illegal because it was popular with blacks and Mexicans during a period of government-sanctioned discrimination, to protect alcohol producer profits, and to eliminate competition for DuPont's new (at the time) artificial fiber, Nylon®.
I'm not opposed to regulation, nor to truth-in-labeling ... I saw plenty of PCP being passed off as something else in the '70s, but if you want to drink or eat something I think that you should be able to, as long as you are making an informed decision. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 12:51:29 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unless I'm being naive, I don't think people smoke a joint because it's enjoyable to smoke without getting high. |
You are being naive ... some people like to smoke, but want to avoid tobacco because of its mind-altering effects and adverse effects on health (i.e. cancer risk). I have a friend (she's 80) who doesn't like to smoke much herself, but really likes the smell of marijuana smoke when others do ...
Also, that glass of wine has an effect on your brain, whether it is significant enough for you to be aware of it yourself or not; I firmly believe that those effects lie along a continuum and are not quantum in nature. And do you really think all those young, vibrant twenty-somethings whooping it up in those beer commercials are savoring the subtle nuances of that Bud Light ...
If someone wants to alter their mental state in the privacy of their own home, what's it to you, or the governement? |
i agree, but the war on drugs is big, big money.
legalizing drugs would solve a lot of problems, but government/police organizations would lose tons of federal funding. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 12:57:21 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
legalizing drugs would solve a lot of problems, but government/police organizations would lose tons of federal funding. |
Exactly ... there was an old Broomhilda comic strip I remember from the health care crisis of the 1970s ...
"Can you imagine if the world was suddenly freed from famine, accident, and disease?"
"Yes ... we'd be terrorized by roving bands of starving doctors." |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 01:21:58 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unless I'm being naive, I don't think people smoke a joint because it's enjoyable to smoke without getting high. |
You are being naive ... some people like to smoke, but want to avoid tobacco because of its mind-altering effects and adverse effects on health (i.e. cancer risk). I have a friend (she's 80) who doesn't like to smoke much herself, but really likes the smell of marijuana smoke when others do ...
Also, that glass of wine has an effect on your brain, whether it is significant enough for you to be aware of it yourself or not; I firmly believe that those effects lie along a continuum and are not quantum in nature. And do you really think all those young, vibrant twenty-somethings whooping it up in those beer commercials are savoring the subtle nuances of that Bud Light ...
If someone wants to alter their mental state in the privacy of their own home, what's it to you, or the governement? |
I think you paint far too rosy a picture. One problem with this debate (like many polarizing ones) is that there is no good, unbiased data out there. Everybody has an agenda. It would be interesting, for example, to find out if there are social costs in countries like Amsterdam to legalizing drugs and what they are. But where are you going to find the data without someone forcing their pro- or con- opinion upon you and distorting the facts as they are? |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 01:29:55 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My opinion is that the general tone of this thread is too far to the "freedom" side and needed to be reigned in somewhat. |
While I like the contrarian viewpoint as a rule, I respectfully disagree Jason. What I hear in this thread, and in much of civil liberty discourse today, is the desire to loosen the limitations placed on police powers that have been a staple in our government since it's founding. A criminal who has not been tried and convicted is just an ordinary citizen and he has all the rights that you and I share. When we "unfetter" the state to more effectively go after a suspect, we all lose the same rights.
Bin Laden is an evil bastard and part of his plan from the start was to turn us against ourselves, to use the openness of our society against itself. When we "let slip the dogs of war", they tend to turn and bite us in the butt. I like to keep my dogs on a short leash and keep them in front of me.
When the police have no need for a warrant to plant a tracking device on private property, because a person has a friend who has written something foolish online, I do fear that I may be treated as a criminal myself. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 01:31:23 PM · #91 |
This is interesting from the Ministry of Health in Amsterdam in 2009: Government to scale down coffee shops
At the very least it lets us see that legalizing marijuana does not allow us to enter some peaceful, libertarian nirvana where those who want to smoke simply coexist with those who don't. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 01:38:26 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My opinion is that the general tone of this thread is too far to the "freedom" side and needed to be reigned in somewhat. |
While I like the contrarian viewpoint as a rule, I respectfully disagree Jason. What I hear in this thread, and in much of civil liberty discourse today, is the desire to loosen the limitations placed on police powers that have been a staple in our government since it's founding. A criminal who has not been tried and convicted is just an ordinary citizen and he has all the rights that you and I share. When we "unfetter" the state to more effectively go after a suspect, we all lose the same rights.
Bin Laden is an evil bastard and part of his plan from the start was to turn us against ourselves, to use the openness of our society against itself. When we "let slip the dogs of war", they tend to turn and bite us in the butt. I like to keep my dogs on a short leash and keep them in front of me.
When the police have no need for a warrant to plant a tracking device on private property, because a person has a friend who has written something foolish online, I do fear that I may be treated as a criminal myself. |
I don't disagree with this. I just see that somehow police need to be able to operate within the terms of the squishily defined "probably cause". If we bog down police with requiring a warrant for everything then we will not allow them to do their job. Listen, if I get pulled over and a police asks to search my car, I will 100% ask what his reason for searching is and would not allow him to do it (unless he had a good reason) even though I know there is nothing illegal within. I would do this to just reinforce to the officer that he DOES need a reason to search me. But once a justified, reasonable cause has been established, then we should allow them to do their business. Obviously they were not on the wrong track with this guy. Bring me the news story where police are tracking an innocent individual and I'll grab my pitchfork alongside you. Warrantless wiretapping? No thanks. That was a Bad Idea⢠mainly because it tapped a zillion innocent people to get at the actual criminals.
Message edited by author 2010-10-13 13:39:04. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 01:55:03 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bring me the news story where police are tracking an innocent individual and I'll grab my pitchfork alongside you. Warrantless wiretapping? No thanks. That was a Bad Idea⢠mainly because it tapped a zillion innocent people to get at the actual criminals. |
Here is that case you asked for. Of course it may turn out that he is guilty of being what the FBI thinks he is, a domestic terrorist intent on chaos, but from what I have seen in the press, he sure looks like an American citizen with an Egyptian father and a funny foreign sounding name, some random fish caught in a wide net.
I do love the fact that he posted up an image of the tracking device on the net to figure out what it was. The fact that the FBI came running to get their device back means that they are probably tracking his internet usage as well as where he takes his car.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2010 01:58:42 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But once a justified, reasonable cause has been established, then we should allow them to do their business. Obviously they were not on the wrong track with this guy. |
The narrow issue at hand is not whether or not installing a tracking device was "justified" by probable cause, but whether or not the police should have demonstrated that probable cause to a (presumably) neutral judge and obtained a warrant first, rather than undertaking the operation completely in secret and on their own.
If the plan was to track the guy for a month, there was no imminent danger requiring bypassing due process -- the only reason I can see is that they may not have been able to demonstrate to a judge a constitutional justification for the operation, in which case ... they shouldn't be doing it -- it would be ILLEGAL. Even those charged with enforcing the law are capable of criminal actions, and need to be held accountable under our system of constitutional democracy.
All this other stuff about who should say who should smoke what is ... well, a smokescreen. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 02:18:24 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But once a justified, reasonable cause has been established, then we should allow them to do their business. Obviously they were not on the wrong track with this guy. |
The narrow issue at hand is not whether or not installing a tracking device was "justified" by probable cause, but whether or not the police should have demonstrated that probable cause to a (presumably) neutral judge and obtained a warrant first, rather than undertaking the operation completely in secret and on their own.
If the plan was to track the guy for a month, there was no imminent danger requiring bypassing due process -- the only reason I can see is that they may not have been able to demonstrate to a judge a constitutional justification for the operation, in which case ... they shouldn't be doing it -- it would be ILLEGAL. Even those charged with enforcing the law are capable of criminal actions, and need to be held accountable under our system of constitutional democracy.
All this other stuff about who should say who should smoke what is ... well, a smokescreen. |
Read the ruling. You are incorrect. The supreme court has already ruled that a tracking device does not constitute a "search"...
[6] Pineda-Morenoâs last claim is that the agentsâ use of
mobile tracking devices continuously to monitor the location
of his Jeep violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the
devices attached to his vehicle are not generally used by the
public.1 He acknowledges that in United States v. Knotts, the
Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers do not conduct
a âsearchâ cognizable under the Fourth Amendment by
using a beeper to track a vehicle because â[a] person traveling
in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable
expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to
another.â 460 U.S. 276, 281- 82 (1982). Pineda-Moreno
asserts, however, that Knotts should not control his case
because the Court heavily modified the Fourth Amendment
analysis applicable to such technological devices in Kyllo v.United States,
533 U.S. 27 (2001). There, the Court held that
using thermal imaging technology to obtain âany information
regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise
have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally
protected area constitutes a searchâat least where . . .
the technology in question is not in general public use.â Id. at
34 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). From this
holding, he contends that law enforcement officers conduct a
âsearchâ whenever they use sense-enhancing technology not
available to the general public to obtain information. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 02:22:37 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read the ruling. You are incorrect. The supreme court has already ruled that a tracking device does not constitute a "search"... |
That was different technology, and the newer stuff has issues still to be decided. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 02:40:15 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read the ruling. You are incorrect. The supreme court has already ruled that a tracking device does not constitute a "search"... |
That was different technology, and the newer stuff has issues still to be decided. |
LOL. Well, I guess the 9th circuit disagrees with you as they cited it as precedent. I'm sure they are embarassed at their error... |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 02:54:25 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bring me the news story where police are tracking an innocent individual and I'll grab my pitchfork alongside you. Warrantless wiretapping? No thanks. That was a Bad Idea⢠mainly because it tapped a zillion innocent people to get at the actual criminals. |
Here is that case you asked for. Of course it may turn out that he is guilty of being what the FBI thinks he is, a domestic terrorist intent on chaos, but from what I have seen in the press, he sure looks like an American citizen with an Egyptian father and a funny foreign sounding name, some random fish caught in a wide net.
I do love the fact that he posted up an image of the tracking device on the net to figure out what it was. The fact that the FBI came running to get their device back means that they are probably tracking his internet usage as well as where he takes his car. |
Did you ever consider that someone, maybe the kid, placed the device in an attempt to cause negative press for the FBI? It was outdated technology, placed in an obvious location where it would be easily found, and the kid "just happened" to be in the garage while his car was on the lift. Hmmmm.... if it smells like poop, and it looks like poop, then...
If we are going to assume that the FBI was tracking his internet usage then we also need to assume that they could have been informed of the image and that is why they came to claim it. Maybe they wanted to investigate how it got there. I know that is hard for some of you to believe because the FBI never done anything good, right?
Or, the kid is a terrorist/terrorist supporter and they were doing their best to protect us. God forbid they do their job!
|
|
|
|
10/13/2010 03:18:12 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by toddhead:
Did you ever consider that someone, maybe the kid, placed the device in an attempt to cause negative press for the FBI? It was outdated technology, placed in an obvious location where it would be easily found, and the kid "just happened" to be in the garage while his car was on the lift. Hmmmm.... if it smells like poop, and it looks like poop, then... |
No, I didn't consider that he might have planted it because that is a silly idea and does not fit with the facts in this well reported story. You can make up whatever scenario you like to make the suspect guilty without evidence, its only the police that can't.
Originally posted by toddhead:
Or, the kid is a terrorist/terrorist supporter and they were doing their best to protect us. God forbid they do their job! |
Yup, that might be the case. The kid may be a terrorist. The bureau has a tough job to do, especially in terrorism cases where they can't go outside the country, and the CIA can't come in, and the two agencies have a long history of not sharing information, and that is not getting much better despite the advent of the Department of Homeland Security as their theoretical communication conduit. I have friends who work for the FBI (not in anti-terrorism though) and they do have a tough job that is essential to our security. However the limits of authority have been put in place to limit excesses, and no matter how difficult those seemingly arcane steps may seem to you (warrants, habeus corpus and all that falderal), they were put there because if the liberties of suspects are not observed, history teaches us that the eventual outcome is very, very bad for all of us.
Message edited by author 2010-10-13 15:24:19. |
|
|
|
10/13/2010 03:24:20 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read the ruling. You are incorrect. The supreme court has already ruled that a tracking device does not constitute a "search"... |
That was different technology, and the newer stuff has issues still to be decided. |
LOL. Well, I guess the 9th circuit disagrees with you as they cited it as precedent. I'm sure they are embarassed at their error... |
Perhaps, or perhaps we just have a legitimate disagreement over exactly how closely the governement can monitor your life. Also, though this decision sems a bit out of character, I believe the 9th Circuit has a recent history of being the most-over-ruled appelate panel in the Federal system ... not that the Roberts court shows any inclination towards the originalist interpretation that the Constitution's prime directive is to protect the individual from governement intrusion into their private affairs. |
|
