The Drug War's a Dead Letter without the Police State
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://c4ss.org/content/1472
The Drug War�s a Dead Letter Without the Police State
by Kevin Carson
Nov 29, 2009
Let�s do a little thought experiment.
Never mind, for the moment, the question of the Drug War�s moral
legitimacy. Never mind whether the government has the right to prevent
mentally sound grownups from deciding what substances to put in their
own bodies, or what substances to buy from and sell to others.
Let�s just consider, as a practical question, what effectively enforcing
the drug laws actually requires.
Imagine a government trying to enforce the drug laws, if the common law
�search and seizure� protections, found in the Fourth Amendment and
analogous provisions of the state constitutions, were enforced according
to the plain meaning of their language. That means the government
couldn�t use �no reasonable expectation of privacy� exceptions to
nullify the Fourth Amendment for the purposes of helicopter infrared
snooping or footborne trespassing on people�s land, traffic checkpoints,
and drug-sniffing dogs. There would be no more �no knock� warrants.
There would be no such thing as roving wiretaps or �Know Your Customer�
laws.
Imagine the government trying to enforce the drug laws, if it were held
to the plain meaning of the �due process� clause of the Fifth Amendment
and analogous state constitutional safeguards. Can you imagine the
consternation in police forces, if they had to file criminal charges and
secure a conviction from a jury before they could seize your property?
Imagine how hard it would be for government to enforce drug laws, if
courts automatically threw out evidence obtained from sting operations
and entrapment in which undercover police actively solicited violations
of the law.
Imagine how hard it would be to enforce drug laws, if the courts
automatically threw out all �evidence� obtained in a manner that
violated the alleged spirit of the law. No more evidence � or perjured
testimony � obtained by threatening jailhouse snitches or offering them
more lenient treatment. There would also be no guilty pleas based on
�plea bargain� blackmail enforced by the manufacture of as many
obviously spurious charges as possible; like �loser pays� rules in civil
suits, this practice has the effect of artificially skewing the
incentives so that the underdog has as much as possible to lose, and the
big guy has little or nothing to lose. Imagine, as well, the effect of
eliminating all the informal harassment and muscling cops do on their
turf on a daily basis, to intimidate people into cooperating with them.
Imagine the cumulative effect of all these changes on the Drug War. I
think it�s pretty obvious that without all the forms of lawlessness
described above, the Drug War would be a dead letter.
And all the things I�ve described should be utterly loathsome and
repugnant, to anyone who believes in principles like the due process
rights of the accused.
It follows that the Drug War would be a moot point, in a society where
the Bill of Rights actually served as a significant restraint on the
powers of police and prosecutors, and due process rights of the accused
had any real meaning.
Never mind whether the drug laws themselves are compatible with a free
society; without the enforcement tools of a virtually unlimited police
state, they are unenforceable.
You could have the substantive drug laws of Turkey or Singapore � death
penalty and all � and with common law due process and search and seizure
rights vigorously enforced, the drug laws would be toothless. The only
people ever busted for drug production, sales, possession or use would
be the most careless and stupid. Among those smart enough to take the
most basic precautions, the risk of getting caught would be
infinitesimal and the drug laws held in utter contempt. Every once in a
while, some TV show does a �stupid criminals� bit with a news snippet
about some brain-damaged hippie who leaves a sack of hash brownies on
the steps of the police station, and then responds to a helpful �Lost
and Found� ad placed by the cops on the local radio station.
The thing is, if cops were bound by the laws they claimed to enforce,
such Darwin Awards fodder would be the only people ever arrested.
If you want the Drug War, you must sacrifice the Bill of Rights and the
due process rights of the accused, and submit to a police state in which
you have no rights or protections whatsoever. There are no other
choices. It�s that simple.
This has broader implications. The market liberal notion of a written
constitution as law that the state allegedly must submit to is
ultimately just a temporary placeholder for the anarchist understanding
of law being able to be derived independently of the state. This creates
standards which the state ought to be held accountable to. Such
accountability would result in its abolition.
C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author
and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in
Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist
Anarchist Perspective, both of which are freely available online. Carson
has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs,
including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and
his own Mutualist Blog.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
All laws are good, to those who draw a salary for
their enforcement.
-- Clark Ashton Smith
VFW
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://c4ss.org/content/1472
> The Drug War�s a Dead Letter Without the Police State
> by Kevin Carson
> Nov 29, 2009
>
> Let�s do a little thought experiment.
>
> Never mind, for the moment, the question of the Drug War�s moral
> legitimacy. Never mind whether the government has the right to prevent
> mentally sound grownups from deciding what substances to put in their
> own bodies, or what substances to buy from and sell to others.
>
> Let�s just consider, as a practical question, what effectively enforcing
> the drug laws actually requires.
>
> Imagine a government trying to enforce the drug laws, if the common law
> �search and seizure� protections, found in the Fourth Amendment and
> analogous provisions of the state constitutions, were enforced according
> to the plain meaning of their language. That means the government
> couldn�t use �no reasonable expectation of privacy� exceptions to
> nullify the Fourth Amendment for the purposes of helicopter infrared
> snooping or footborne trespassing on people�s land, traffic checkpoints,
> and drug-sniffing dogs. There would be no more �no knock� warrants.
> There would be no such thing as roving wiretaps or �Know Your Customer�
> laws.
>
> Imagine the government trying to enforce the drug laws, if it were held
> to the plain meaning of the �due process� clause of the Fifth Amendment
> and analogous state constitutional safeguards. Can you imagine the
> consternation in police forces, if they had to file criminal charges and
> secure a conviction from a jury before they could seize your property?
>
> Imagine how hard it would be for government to enforce drug laws, if
> courts automatically threw out evidence obtained from sting operations
> and entrapment in which undercover police actively solicited violations
> of the law.
>
> Imagine how hard it would be to enforce drug laws, if the courts
> automatically threw out all �evidence� obtained in a manner that
> violated the alleged spirit of the law. No more evidence � or perjured
> testimony � obtained by threatening jailhouse snitches or offering them
> more lenient treatment. There would also be no guilty pleas based on
> �plea bargain� blackmail enforced by the manufacture of as many
> obviously spurious charges as possible; like �loser pays� rules in civil
> suits, this practice has the effect of artificially skewing the
> incentives so that the underdog has as much as possible to lose, and the
> big guy has little or nothing to lose. Imagine, as well, the effect of
> eliminating all the informal harassment and muscling cops do on their
> turf on a daily basis, to intimidate people into cooperating with them.
>
> Imagine the cumulative effect of all these changes on the Drug War. I
> think it�s pretty obvious that without all the forms of lawlessness
> described above, the Drug War would be a dead letter.
>
> And all the things I�ve described should be utterly loathsome and
> repugnant, to anyone who believes in principles like the due process
> rights of the accused.
>
> It follows that the Drug War would be a moot point, in a society where
> the Bill of Rights actually served as a significant restraint on the
> powers of police and prosecutors, and due process rights of the accused
> had any real meaning.
>
> Never mind whether the drug laws themselves are compatible with a free
> society; without the enforcement tools of a virtually unlimited police
> state, they are unenforceable.
>
> You could have the substantive drug laws of Turkey or Singapore � death
> penalty and all � and with common law due process and search and seizure
> rights vigorously enforced, the drug laws would be toothless. The only
> people ever busted for drug production, sales, possession or use would
> be the most careless and stupid. Among those smart enough to take the
> most basic precautions, the risk of getting caught would be
> infinitesimal and the drug laws held in utter contempt. Every once in a
> while, some TV show does a �stupid criminals� bit with a news snippet
> about some brain-damaged hippie who leaves a sack of hash brownies on
> the steps of the police station, and then responds to a helpful �Lost
> and Found� ad placed by the cops on the local radio station.
>
> The thing is, if cops were bound by the laws they claimed to enforce,
> such Darwin Awards fodder would be the only people ever arrested.
>
> If you want the Drug War, you must sacrifice the Bill of Rights and the
> due process rights of the accused, and submit to a police state in which
> you have no rights or protections whatsoever. There are no other
> choices. It�s that simple.
>
> This has broader implications. The market liberal notion of a written
> constitution as law that the state allegedly must submit to is
> ultimately just a temporary placeholder for the anarchist understanding
> of law being able to be derived independently of the state. This creates
> standards which the state ought to be held accountable to. Such
> accountability would result in its abolition.
>
> C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author
> and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in
> Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist
> Anarchist Perspective, both of which are freely available online. Carson
> has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs,
> including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and
> his own Mutualist Blog.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
> (Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
> Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
> http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> All laws are good, to those who draw a salary for
> their enforcement.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith
thanks, I'll share it.
--
money; what a concept!
Brother Nate
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://c4ss.org/content/1472
> by Kevin Carson
> Nov 29, 2009
Drug abuse is senseless and preventable, yet the bigger
tragedy is that it can be opposed more cost-effectively and
sustainably by a compassionate approach, refusing to yield
to hysteria whose roots trace back to the original yellow
journalism, refocusing on the goal of improving peoples'
lives and not using the legal system to make them so
much worse.
We have a lot bigger fish to fry in the world today than just
some guy smoking a joint.
--
Brother Nate
bro...@gmail.com
Moral Compass
VFW
<db95962c-4834-43c5...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Brother Nate <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War
by Bill Masters (Editor), Jesse Ventura
visit;
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=8225597&matches=6&author=Jesse+Ve
ntura&cm_sp=works*listing*title
TCBEvolver
of them will never have had these thoughts placed before them.
Tom Buckner
BS
Dan Clore
> On Dec 1, 4:12 pm, TCBEvolver <tomcbuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dan, this is excellent. I will spread it to my Facebook circle.
>> Most of them will never have had these thoughts placed before them.
And here I've stuck with MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/clorebeast )
while everyone COOL has gotten on Facebook instead--
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Steady Eddy
talking about overturning the government. Clore thinks that the same
strategy that was used for medical marijuana can be used to overturn
all drug laws. I find it interesting Brother Numbnuts that you miss
the agenda. Dan "dumb dumb" Clore is a fucking moron riding the
"medical marijuana" bandwagon. You are a lackey with no spine. Dan
Clore is the typical junkie whining about some fucking victory (yet to
be achieved) over marijuana laws. If Clore had his way the police
would be powerles to stop crime and the streets would be filled with
lowlifes. Crime started to decrease when we started putting people in
prison. The statistics prove it without question. Nobody is being put
in prison for smoking a joint. Yes, people are being prosectued for
marijuana grow farms. The City of Arcadia (Humbolt County) is
prosecuting marijuana grow houses with renewed vigor because they are
tired of the fucking scumbags that operate grow houses. Also, PG&E is
being pressured to release (without a warrant) the bills of fuckwads
who consume 5000 to 7000 dollars a month of utillity services growing
pot. A normal PG&E bill is 300 dollars a month for a 3500 sq ft house
(in winter). Buttholes like Clore don't give a damn about crime or
crime prevention. If fuckwads like Clore think that legalizing
marijuana for medical use is the gateway for legalilzing cocaine and
heroin then he has another think coming. Of course Clore can't think
clearly because of the excess drug use.
This case is closed. Brother Numbnuts, grow a pair.
> bron...@gmail.com
> Moral Compass
Brother Nate
> These people aren't talking about people smoking a joint. They are
> talking about overturning the government.
They're talking about a new direction in the thinking about
drug laws, a return to Constitutional methods and respect
for human dignity.
To the extent they're overturning a government that has
attacked and undermined Constitutional freedoms, I'm not
sure that's a bad thing.
> Clore thinks that the same
> strategy that was used for medical marijuana can be used to overturn
> all drug laws. I find it interesting Brother Numbnuts that you miss
> the agenda. Dan "dumb dumb" Clore is a fucking moron riding the
> "medical marijuana" bandwagon.
I'm aware of the overall Libertarian agenda, the idea that
eventually all government involvement in the area would be
over, but personally I just don't think that the people who
believe in it are thinking clearly, and no offense to you
Eddy but I'm not sure you're the greatest exponent of clear
thinking either.
Every medicine and every drug is weighed on its own merits.
That's how our system is supposed to work.
> You are a lackey with no spine. Dan
> Clore is the typical junkie whining about some fucking victory (yet to
> be achieved) over marijuana laws. If Clore had his way the police
> would be powerles to stop crime and the streets would be filled with
> lowlifes.
Heaven forbid the streets of America should be filled with the
tired, the poor, the sick, or the huddled masses yearning to be
free.
> Crime started to decrease when we started putting people in
> prison. The statistics prove it without question. Nobody is being put
> in prison for smoking a joint. Yes, people are being prosectued for
> marijuana grow farms. The City of Arcadia (Humbolt County) is
> prosecuting marijuana grow houses with renewed vigor because they are
> tired of the fucking scumbags that operate grow houses. Also, PG&E is
> being pressured to release (without a warrant) the bills of fuckwads
> who consume 5000 to 7000 dollars a month of utillity services growing
> pot. A normal PG&E bill is 300 dollars a month for a 3500 sq ft house
> (in winter). Buttholes like Clore don't give a damn about crime or
> crime prevention. If fuckwads like Clore think that legalizing
> marijuana for medical use is the gateway for legalilzing cocaine and
> heroin then he has another think coming. Of course Clore can't think
> clearly because of the excess drug use.
I don't believe Dan will every achieve everything he seems to
want, but I do think that the expense and human resources
that are being spent on MJ enforcement would be better used
on tracking terrorists and crooked investment bankers who have
done far more damage to the world economy than druggies
ever will.
> This case is closed. Brother Numbnuts, grow a pair.
--
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>These people aren't talking about people smoking a joint. They are
Eddy is a troll.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
David Friedman
<0657147a-93bc-4cc0...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Brother Nate <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm aware of the overall Libertarian agenda, the idea that
> eventually all government involvement in the area would be
> over, but personally I just don't think that the people who
> believe in it are thinking clearly, and no offense to you
> Eddy but I'm not sure you're the greatest exponent of clear
> thinking either.
>
> Every medicine and every drug is weighed on its own merits.
> That's how our system is supposed to work.
I would have said that the way a free society is supposed to work, the
weighing is done by the person choosing to use the drug or medicine, not
by someone else making the decision for him.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Brother Nate
> Brother Nate wrote:
> > Every medicine and every drug is weighed on its own merits.
> > That's how our system is supposed to work.
> I would have said that the way a free society is supposed to work, the
> weighing is done by the person choosing to use the drug or medicine, not
> by someone else making the decision for him.
In some cases yes, but there are clearly a lot of foot holds on
the long slippery slope. I don't think we gain anything useful
by leaving it up to skinny 14 year olds to decide for themselves
to start using steroids, or leaving it up to conservative talk
radio hosts to decide to gobble down pain pills until it gives
them hearing loss.
Doctors and researchers put in a lot of hard work to study
the risks posed by drugs, and we should take it just as
seriously when they say that steroid abuse hurts teen
athletes as we should when they say that moderate pot
smoking doesn't appear to be appreciably worse than a
diet of cola and slim jims.
Ddfr
> David Friedman wrote:
> > Brother Nate wrote:
> > > Every medicine and every drug is weighed on its own merits.
> > > That's how our system is supposed to work.
> > I would have said that the way a free society is supposed to work, the
> > weighing is done by the person choosing to use the drug or medicine, not
> > by someone else making the decision for him.
>
> In some cases yes, but there are clearly a lot of foot holds on
> the long slippery slope. I don't think we gain anything useful
> by leaving it up to skinny 14 year olds to decide for themselves
> to start using steroids, or leaving it up to conservative talk
> radio hosts to decide to gobble down pain pills until it gives
> them hearing loss.
I think the question of to what degree children get to make decisions
for themselves raises difficulties, but I can't see why it is your
business or mine to tell Rush Limbaugh whether or not he can take pain
pills.
> Doctors and researchers put in a lot of hard work to study
> the risks posed by drugs, and we should take it just as
> seriously when they say that steroid abuse hurts teen
> athletes as we should when they say that moderate pot
> smoking doesn't appear to be appreciably worse than a
> diet of cola and slim jims.
I agree that we should take seriously the opinion of medical
researchers. It doesn't follow that I, or we, or the state, should
force an individual to act according to their opinions. There are lots
of things I believe about how it is in other people's interest to act,
but the only person I am entitled to make such decisions for is myself
(and perhaps my small children, if I still had any).
Brother Nate
> Brother Nate wrote:
> > In some cases yes, but there are clearly a lot of foot holds on
> > the long slippery slope. I don't think we gain anything useful
> > by leaving it up to skinny 14 year olds to decide for themselves
> > to start using steroids, or leaving it up to conservative talk
> > radio hosts to decide to gobble down pain pills until it gives
> > them hearing loss.
> I think the question of to what degree children get to make decisions
> for themselves raises difficulties, but I can't see why it is your
> business or mine to tell Rush Limbaugh whether or not he can take pain
> pills.
I don't know about you but I'm not a doctor so I wouldn't
expect to have any input on Rush's medications. Don't get
me wrong, I take pain medications myself, in fact one of the
same ones Rush was taking, but the difference is that mine
are all on the books so the doctor can keep track of how I'm
doing and the pharmacist can warn me about drug interactions.
The point here is that we have people who spend their whole
lives training so that they understand the possible complications
and risks. If Limbaugh had followed a doctor's advice it would
have saved him from hearing loss.
For what it's worth, I'd say that when we found out that Rush
had gotten addicted and screwed up his hearing, the outcome
was the correct one. He got into a rehab program instead
of a jail, and the first priority was dealing with his medical
condition.
David Friedman
<da9e3038-479f-443d...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Brother Nate <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ddfr wrote:
> > Brother Nate wrote:
> > > In some cases yes, but there are clearly a lot of foot holds on
> > > the long slippery slope. �I don't think we gain anything useful
> > > by leaving it up to skinny 14 year olds to decide for themselves
> > > to start using steroids, or leaving it up to conservative talk
> > > radio hosts to decide to gobble down pain pills until it gives
> > > them hearing loss.
>
> > I think the question of to what degree children get to make decisions
> > for themselves raises difficulties, but I can't see why it is your
> > business or mine to tell Rush Limbaugh whether or not he can take pain
> > pills.
>
> I don't know about you but I'm not a doctor so I wouldn't
> expect to have any input on Rush's medications. Don't get
> me wrong, I take pain medications myself, in fact one of the
> same ones Rush was taking, but the difference is that mine
> are all on the books so the doctor can keep track of how I'm
> doing and the pharmacist can warn me about drug interactions.
>
> The point here is that we have people who spend their whole
> lives training so that they understand the possible complications
> and risks. If Limbaugh had followed a doctor's advice it would
> have saved him from hearing loss.
That's an argument for why Limbaugh should have followed a doctor's
advice. It's not an argument for why other people should have forced him
to.
...