But, as with all horror-stories such as this, there IS another side.. Another side that, to her credit, the author DOES bring out.

These laws, as intended, serve a vital and important purpose.

The fact that greedy and unscrupulous people use these laws for their own ends is not reflective of the law itself..

I see an easy fix to this would be to create on oversight committee.. A complaint hotline, so to speak, that could independently verify the veracity of the seizures and insure that said seizures would be in compliance with the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law..

Tweak the law so that there is an easy way for people who had their assets seized to submit claims to said committee for disposition. Finally, the law should change so that absolutely NO FUNDS could be disbursed or utilized until said committee signed off on each and every seizure...

The law IS a good law.. It just needs more transparency and to be run by honorable people..

You are indeed correct. This link is in the article, but I would encourage everyone to read it, even if it is long (it's a New Yorker article):

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

This is nothing short of highway robbery, by the police, and is just one of the disgusting abuses the Drug War has ushered in. They're local cops, not the feds, but even so it should make anyone who cares about the Bill of Rights see red. Yes, this happens right here in America. And it needs to end.

-CW

You mean, "yes they *DID*"...

Eight Hundred years ago...

Given that, I would agree with you....

Islam is today where Christianity was 800 years ago....

I would completely agree with that sentiment...

Yes, they do. Ever heard of the Crusades?

McCain is quoted as saying that a muslim shouting "Allah Akhbar!!" is the same thing as a Christian shouting "Thank God!!!"...

Here's the thing...

Christians don't shout "Thank God!!!" as they are gunning down defenseless soldiers...

Christians don't shout "Thank God!!!" as they are brutally beheading innocent civilians...

That's a "tiny" difference that makes ALL the difference...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/?intcmp=HPBucket

That's just sad.....

It's like I always said. The problem is the militant fanatics...

Most specifically I'm thinking of the entire concept of being able to "sue" property for supposedly being involved in illegal activities as an excuse to retain, without due process, items supposedly seized as "suspected contraband." The idea that you can keep seized property even if there was no criminal activity and it isn't contraband. The notion people have to sue for the return of seized property even if no charges are ever filed, let alone convictions! Those are obvious violations of the fourth amendment. Although, personally, I find the rationale for the entire drug war unconstitutional. The purpose of regulating interstate commerce is to facilitate it. Banning commerce, or even private use and possession, under the guise of "regulating" interstate commerce is an abuse of power. SCOTUS' tolerance and encouraging the misrepresentation of the law based on the imprecision of the English language is largely what's corrupted our entire legal system. Basically, my beef is with the court's position that it needn't concern itself with "justice," only process, and that will, somehow, equate to justice. It doesn't. It only rationalizes accepting arguments based on logical fallacies as fact while rejecting "common sense" as unproven. Judges are supposed to make judgment calls, not construct "opinions" from Legos. Not accept arguments that legally "prove" black means white and white means black simply because the process used was unimpeachable. Its why we have so many legal absurdities.--Like "suing" property!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/tribbles-and-bits.shtml

Breakfast anyone?? :d

This seems to advocate the idea that the devil you don't know is better than the devil you do know..

Which is really back-asswards...

But it's hard to deny the reality, I spose... :D

When a Democrat does something stoopid, it's just that ONE Democrat and it's not indicative of the Democratic Party as a whole...

perhaps you get that perception because there IS no democratic party as a whole. the democratic party as a whole has tended toward utter chaos, so individuals are all one CAN praise or criticize.

for better or worse, individuals within the republican party have historically fallen in line and presented a united front (with which most of us here tend to disagree). in a sense, criticizing the republican party as a whole is acknowledgement of their superior organizational capacity, because there actually is a cohesive unit to criticize.

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
-Will Rogers

I am not a Democrat, because I have no idea what their economic policies are; And I am not a Republican, because I know precisely what their economic policies are.
-Barry Ritholtz

The human cost of fiddle fartin' around...

Last FTP, you said:

Seriously? You're ragging on Obama for taking a few days to weigh options?

I am curious as to what you think now??

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/syria

I am glad someone brought up Syria. Truth be told, I have been chomping at the bit to bring it up, but I figured I would give ya'all the weekend to bask in the glory of the latest win of yours...

I just have 4 words to say.

What Is Obama Thinking!?

Putin's laughing his ass off..

Assad is in a tizzy because he forced the Americans to back down.

Our allies are embarrassed to even be associated with us.

Of ALL the possible decisions Obama could have made on Syria, this decision to NOT make a decision was the WORST possible decision to make..

"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it's usually the wrong decision to make."
-Captain James T Kirk

Oh well, Obama already has the blood of over a thousand dead Syrians on is hands right now..

What's another couple thousand going to matter...

Can you imagine the international outcry and the loss of American prestige around the world if, while Obama fiddle farts around, Assad launches ANOTHER chemical attack on his own people??

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
-President Obama, Aug 2012

Over two thousand Syrians have been killed by Assad's CWMDs since Obama made that tough talk statement.

Our POTUS has absolutely ZERO credibility....

where do you think this is, huffpo? on the whole, the weigantian community is pretty darn measured where partisan cheerleading is concerned. in my experience, even heated disagreements here tend to at least be reality-based.

True, we have it a lot better here than most Left Wing sites.. I would say that it's 80/20 around here, where as places like HuffPo and other sites it's 100/0...

Yes, ya'all do jump on a Democrat now and again.. But when ya'all jump on a Democrat, ya'all are simply jumping on *A* Democrat.

In other words, when a Republican does something stoopid, it's the entire Republican Party that is stoopid..

When a Democrat does something stoopid, it's just that ONE Democrat and it's not indicative of the Democratic Party as a whole...

It's a minor pet peeve... :D

i didn't suggest reducing government in general, merely inverting its power structure on controlled substances. as far as i know, the constitution has been pretty silent on that point since the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. constitutionally speaking, congress is able to make laws to regulate interstate commerce, levy taxes and do whatever is "necessary and proper" to run the country. if a state can effectively regulate and tax the use of certain drugs on its own, getting the federal government involved seems neither necessary nor proper, much less constitutionally protected.

i have no idea what you're talking about vis-a-vis the supreme court; you'll have to give me something more specific. if you mean the tea party tangent, i wasn't saying i necessarily agree with any of their particular stances, but i think understand where they're coming from. it's not too different from the same place occupy wall street came from, just focused on a different part of the problem.

Can't agree simply reducing government is a solution. Too many, and unnecessary laws, out of Congress. Reduce those, sure. But most of the "corruption" is due to courts deciding government, state and local, having to actually obey the Constitution was just to burdensome on government. Why, all those tiresome Constitutional provisions intended to inhibit government abuse of power were actually inhibiting government abuse of power!--Oh no, back Congress off and DOJ will follow. DOJ backing off on its own is a nice start. But what's really needed is much more SCOTUS enforcing the Constitution and much less SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and claiming the law is whatever it wants.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/syria

where do you think this is, huffpo? on the whole, the weigantian community is pretty darn measured where partisan cheerleading is concerned. in my experience, even heated disagreements here tend to at least be reality-based.

JL

p.s. RIP david frost
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/europe/david-frost-known-for-nixon-interview-dead-at-74.html?_r=0

And if that was the central theme amongst the comments around here and less of the "RIGHT IS EVIL, LEFT IS GOOD" rah rah comments, there might be a lot less arguments and a lot more consensus.

If I may paraphrase David, the problem isn't Dems or Republicans, the problem is greedy politicians.. PERIOD...

although the TP started as essentially an astroturf campaign, in all seriousness it has morphed into something much more substantial and important. both the TP and Occupy are essentially chapters in the same battle against centralization of the nation's money and power. sure, people have their political blind spots, and the media narrative is always going to be about the criminals and the crazies, that's just the way mass media work. but in both cases my sense is that's a small minority. whether it's a government or a corporation (or both), too much capital in the hands of too few people is an existential danger.

JL

Jeezus, JL... First CW and now you!!

This is going to be a TEA PARTY site in no time!!! :D

I essentially said as much; state and local law enforcement don't like having their toes stepped on. this is why i suggested the feds interfering less rather than more. i was thinking more about legitimate enforcement rather than corruption, but the same principle holds true in either case - the less federal involvement, the better.

JL

Completely agree. But as long as towns and states, and especially police, are raking in the cash "confiscating" anything that might conceivably be related to illegal drug use, (without, of course, having to even pretend to anything remotely resembling due process!) don't look for any positive Congressional action. And that's without the usual Republican "anything Obama is for we're against," or the knee-jerk conservative "zero-tolerance for law-breakers" fueling the obstructions!

From his performance in the past week, he's got my full support (for now).

I was especially impressed with the news from the DOJ Friday, where they announced they're going to let state-legal businesses have bank accounts. The week before, the DEA had announced they were not only cracking down on banks, but also armored car services. So -- force them to be cash-only businesses, deny them armed guards to transport the money -- and then complain about "violence in the drug business." Complete hypocrisy!

But their reversal on this issue in particular means that they ARE actually using some common sense -- they are examining policies and jettisoning those which are purely harassment.

So, for now, Holder's got my full support. The real test will be whether he can rein in some of the US Attorneys who have just gone overboard.

nypoet22 -

Once WA and CO have fully implemented things, and once the sun still rises in the east and Western Civilization doesn't crumble and the planet continues to spin on its axis -- say, six months or so... THEN maybe I could see Congress gaining the political will to act.

Sooner or later politicians are going to realize supporting MJ reform is an easy way to pick up young votes. And, as you said, it could come from the libertarian wing of either party.

Who knows -- maybe it'll be an issue in the 2014 elections?

-CW

All federal laws, from student loans to housing, should be reviewed and legislation should be introduced to Congress to overturn the ones that have never made sense other than for politicians to appear "tough on crime" at election time.

...but changing the law more fundamentally as it applies to controlled substances. overturning enforcement efforts on the federal level is a non-starter because state and local police won't buy it as an overall policy. swiching around the pecking order would leave effective enforcement efforts intact, and might reduce useless turf wars between federal and state agencies. state law enforcement should have all the federal help and support they want in their drug enforcement efforts, but should not be forced to countenance heavy-handed federal authorities getting in the way of them doing their jobs.

JL

all good steps for the executive branch to take, but there's no reason for congress not to join in too. they could change federal law to give primacy to state authorities in drug enforcement efforts. it's a position that would please both liberal and libertarian factions on both sides of the aisle.

JL

So, does this mean that Attorney General Holder can keep his job, as far as you're concerned?

Inquiring minds would kind of like to know, you know?

:-)