Victimless Crimes leading to the Subjugation of America?

[jwise]

When does a law become an overt oppression of the People's Rights, and lead to the subjugation of America? I believe that the onset of "victimless crimes" led the march against America's CITIZENS, and began to turn them into SUBJECTS.

A Citizen is one who lives in a Nation of Laws, and knows he has certain rights and privileges. He also knows what is lawful/unlawful, and can live a life within those laws. It was when men could no longer live their lives lawfully that they rebelled, either leaving or overthrowing the tyrannical government that then ruled them.

A Subject is one who lives under a tyrannical power, unable to enjoy rights/privileges and not knowing what action he could make that would lead him to either the dungeon or the gallows. It is this everpresent fear of the government that creates the subjugation of a population.

A free man knows he is free, and lives his life free from worry. When a free man is stopped on a traffic stop, he knows he broke the law, he knows the law he broke, and knows the penalty. He doesn't fear the government, or the officer. When a subject is stopped, he doesn't know why, and his fear is of both the penalty and the officer.

It is my belief that "victimless crimes" (those where there is no complainant, just a general breaking of an arbitrary law) create an environment where the people can no longer instinctively "know" the law. When a person takes a knife and stabs another, it is instinctive that the assailant acted wrongly, and should therefore be tried by a jury of his peers to determine whether or not his actions were justified. He encroached on someone else's rights, or otherwise affected some other person negatively. We can all see how such actions should not be tolerated.

However, what if the suspect hurt no one, did not act with malice, and did not even know he was breaking the law? I don't mean that he forgot to read the 1000 page document titled "Federal/State Laws." I mean to say, what if he read the law book, but was either unclear due to the ambiguity of the text or the regulatory agency over the particular laws made interpreting the written text more of an art, and not a science, refusing to make official interpretations known and instead chose to "make up the rules as they went along." People would no longer "know" what is lawful, and it would instill a fear of the government and its penalties, and finally its officers. I believe this would do away with the rule of law and create a tyranny.

First question: Do you believe what I have stated is true?

Second question: Do you believe we have gotten to this point in the US? In what areas?

If not, what do you think of laws that criminalize actions that don't harm or negatively affect anyone, don't infringe on someone else's freedoms, and don't adversely affect the flow and effectiveness of transit, but only limit the freedoms of individuals by the power of the majority?

If you HONESTLY can't think of examples, just ask and I'll help you.

[Jack Price]

The purpose of laws is to protect the existance of the society. That they may also protect (or even reward) a particular victim, is only another manifestation of the need to protect the society. If the victims continuously believe that the law will not protect and preserve them, then they will seek solutions (such as the old hue and cry, personal revenge, blood money, etc) that do not preserve the society. What we do is try to keep the machine working. Many "victimless" crimes are crimes where the victim is the society as a whole. If you burn your brain out on meth, are you the only victim? If you sell meth to willing buyers, there may be no "victim" except the society which must pay for the results - loss of productive citizens, extra medical costs for indigent meth-heads, fire calls to meth cookers that blew up in the motel room, expensive clean-up of chemicals left behind on somebody's property, etc. Perhaps you can use the same rational to explain to yourself why speeding is illegal?

[BigFatKen]

I believe the poster was refering to laws like "gun free school zones". Unconstitutional in ~1995, it was rewritten the next year with interstate commerce language. Any person who travels through my old home town of Mercer, WI on US hy 51 with a gun in the trunk will be a violator. No way around the place too.

[jwise]

I believe the poster was refering to laws like "gun free school zones". Unconstitutional in ~1995, it was rewritten the next year with interstate commerce language. Any person who travels through my old home town of Mercer, WI on US hy 51 with a gun in the trunk will be a violator. No way around the place too.


Excellent example of my point. Drugs can NEVER be used to argue a point, as emotional attachment to the law (much like prohibition) clouds objective debate. Traffic laws are different, as they promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic, which the local government needs to perform their duties. The laws are also of an insignificant nature, and don't carry severe enough punishments to subjugate a populace. They are worth mentioning, but I wouldn't get wrapped up around a discussion based solely on traffic laws.

Possession laws are all good examples of the kind of victimless crimes I'm talking about. Possessing something doesn't hurt anybody, but restricts a person's liberty. If aggravated assaults is what you're trying to counteract, criminalizing the weapons that constitute an aggravated assault is useless. The act of assaulting is the REAL problem, not the fact the suspect uses a weapon in the attack. So what if I am carrying a gun/knife on my person. Who does that affect? No one. The act of menacing another with the weapon is ALREADY illegal. Perhaps we should make personal interaction illegal, as that would reduce the amount of assaults dramatically.

I'm not proposing that ALL victimless crimes are bad laws, but I DO propose that ALL victimless crime legislation should be scrutinized to determine if it merely reduces individual liberty, or if it is a needed law in order to protect the population.

Not only do victimless crimes reduce liberty and are oftentimes redundant (charging a suspect for agg assault AND possessing a firearm), but they also are difficult to enforce and can be VERY difficult to determine if a law indeed has been broken. Take, for instance, the '34 gun control act which makes possession of a machine gun illegal. Now, that seems like an easy thing to determine if someone has broken or not, right? WRONG! The Federal Agency in charge of enforcing this law, also gets to INTERPRET the law. They have decided (several times changing their minds) that it is also illegal to have "constructive intent" to build a machinegun. So not only is it illegal to have a working machinegun, but they have decided that it is also now illegal to own the parts that could or could not successfully make a machinegun. This isn't like failing to signal a turn 100ft before an intersection. Breaking THIS law sends you to "Club Fed" for 10-15yrs. Guess how many people could be arrested for this violation, and have NEVER consciously attempted to build a working machinegun? TONS!

Subjugation through fear...

[zap]

Your first post seemed a bit on the edge...but your second seems very clear and correct by my thinking.

The example I had in mind was a city ordinance that banned possession of all knives with blades longer than 2". In the case that came to mind, the guy had a 9mm ...carried legally....and a Buck folder laying in the console in plain sight. For some reason that PD had a bug up that evening and not only did they pull him over...but yanked him out and cuffed him rather roughly (I saw the excessive-looking marks). They questioned him and the two female passengers whom he was taking home after work about where the ammo was for the gun. He had none...and had the gun in the car to show to a co-worker who was interested in buying it.

At the end of the stop, they returned the gun, but confiscated the knife and hung paper on him for possessing it. A couple weeks later he went to court and ask for an attorney. The judge told him he only got an attorney if he would be fined more than $100 and sent to jail for longer than 30 days. And, since he would not be sentencing him to longer than 30 days and fining him more than $100....the judge then asked how he would plead. :rolleyes:

Here is the rub...OUTSIDE that city limits sign, that knife was completely legal. I think this is an ideal case of victimless 'crime' as you describe it, that only exists to make some feel better at the expense of others.

[jwise]

Your first post seemed a bit on the edge...but your second seems very clear and correct by my thinking.

I've been accused of being on the edge. I believe my first post was the extension of the truth of the second post.

We have gotten to the point where we argue the necessity of a law due to its ability to help the government, instead of protect the people! That's INSANE! Who cares if requiring warrants makes it harder for us to do our jobs, it's about LIBERTY, not about making it easier on the gov't!

If unchecked, the tendency will be to continue to criminalize every action not beneficial to the state, which WILL lead to a tyrannical gov't.

Let's think of behaviors that aren't evil, but are not beneficial to the state... smoking, drinking, sex, talking out of turn, protests, etc...

[zap]

I follow your logic...but I"m not sure I buy all of that ;)

[jwise]

I follow your logic...but I"m not sure I buy all of that ;)

Fair enough... It's a hard pill to swallow. I'm essentially saying that a large number of the laws we enforce are not just pointless, but are an affront to Liberty itself.

Let me ask you this: If tomorrow, the US Supreme Court ruled that Prohibition was unlawfully repealed, and is now in full effect, would you pour out all your booze? Even the 12yr Scotch you got from your friend a few years back for Christmas? How would you feel about this? Would you think, "finally, society is safe once again!" Or would you feel that your liberty has been taken unjustly?

How about if the US Supreme Court ruled (as in Miller v. US) that legislation banning military styled firearms useful to a militia is unconstitutional, and effectively repealed NFA '34 (legalizing machine guns.) Would the patrol rifle you were about to buy still be a semi only AR-15, or would you go ahead and get the (now legal) select-fire M16? Would you feel conflicted now owning what you once put others in prison for possessing?

[SlowDownThere]

Let's think of behaviors that aren't evil, but are not beneficial to the state... smoking, drinking, sex, talking out of turn, protests, etc...

Ok, now you have my attention.

[jwise]

Ok, now you have my attention.

SOMETHING I said must have resonated with you (was it the smoking or the sex?) :)

Have you noticed that often times the necessity of a given law is the "cost to society", implying that the choices (excercising of freedoms) people are making affect the bottom line in healthcare costs paid for by the government? While others nod their heads with a thoughtful expression on their faces, I'm jumping up and down screaming "WHY IS THE GOV'T PAYING FOR HEALTHCARE IN THE FIRST PLACE!" As we incrementally give the government the bill, we are giving them our freedom.

The other mantra they espouse while stripping the populace of its rights is: "If it saves ONE life, it will be worth it..." This sounds good, and most people will probably go along with the proposal. But let's realize EXACTLY what this argument is saying: "Life > Freedom." Patrick Henry would decry this philosophy, as he eloquently stated: "Give me LIBERTY, or give me death!" Obviously his values look like this: "Liberty > Life."

So what say you? Do you value human freedom above human life, or vice versa? It is the value of every freedom fighter in all of history that freedom, and even just the CHANCE of freedom, is worth whatever cost in life it would take.

I fear we as a society are handing over our rights as fast as we can in exchange for trinkets and shiny beads. In comparison to the blood that was shed for our freedoms in this country, is the little bit of money we save on healthcare worth it?

A Gov't that's big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all from you.

[SlowDownThere]

J wise: I think for the most part, your preaching to the choir here.

[jwise]

I refuse to believe I'm mainstream enough to even have a choir to preach to... I'll have to turn it up a notch! :)

[tom]

Since this is my first post, I'd like to say 'Howdy' to the forum. Keep up the good work, everyone.

Jwise: Since we're using the 'preaching' metaphor already... I've heard it said before that a good sermon has 3 parts; Observation, Interpretation, and Application. You have observed the laws that you disagree with, and interpreted them to be the subjugation of America- that part I get. But what I'm curious about is the Application part... What can be done about it?

[zap]

Fair enough... It's a hard pill to swallow. I'm essentially saying that a large number of the laws we enforce are not just pointless, but are an affront to Liberty itself.

In the strictest, technical sense, I would agree with you. But realize...that this can be drawn down to the level of "I can drive 100mph if I want to...it's MY freedom" (even though we both understand the counter-weight to that argument)


Let me ask you this: If tomorrow, the US Supreme Court ruled that Prohibition was unlawfully repealed, and is now in full effect, would you pour out all your booze? Even the 12yr Scotch you got from your friend a few years back for Christmas? How would you feel about this? Would you think, "finally, society is safe once again!" Or would you feel that your liberty has been taken unjustly?

How about if the US Supreme Court ruled (as in Miller v. US) that legislation banning military styled firearms useful to a militia is unconstitutional, and effectively repealed NFA '34 (legalizing machine guns.) Would the patrol rifle you were about to buy still be a semi only AR-15, or would you go ahead and get the (now legal) select-fire M16? Would you feel conflicted now owning what you once put others in prison for possessing?

While I happen to not drink...I understand your point. And, you again are correct I think to some degree. I think the part that you are leaving out is the social contract conponent. We as a rule, seem to accept the concept of social ethics wherein a social contract is made by giving up some freedoms for the overall protection of others in the broader best interest.

I suspect we both will agree....

The issue is NOT with the contract and the compromise it requires...but with the bias and political agenda of some of those tasked with making the decisions of WHAT freedoms should be sacrificed for the social contract.

[jwise]

Since this is my first post, I'd like to say 'Howdy' to the forum. Keep up the good work, everyone.

Jwise: Since we're using the 'preaching' metaphor already... I've heard it said before that a good sermon has 3 parts; Observation, Interpretation, and Application. You have observed the laws that you disagree with, and interpreted them to be the subjugation of America- that part I get. But what I'm curious about is the Application part... What can be done about it?

Welcome to the forum!

Knowledge is power. From knowledge, understanding flows. When you hear people, politicians or otherwise, speak of banning such-and-such, or criminalizing such-and-such, you can evaluate the proposal more critically than merely choosing to "agree" or "disagree" with the proposal from a 'personal gain' point of view.

Recipe for Success: Vote. Speak out. Act with integrity. Repeat as necessary until desired results are achieved.

[jwise]

In the strictest, technical sense, I would agree with you. But realize...that this can be drawn down to the level of "I can drive 100mph if I want to...it's MY freedom" (even though we both understand the counter-weight to that argument)




While I happen to not drink...I understand your point. And, you again are correct I think to some degree. I think the part that you are leaving out is the social contract conponent. We as a rule, seem to accept the concept of social ethics wherein a social contract is made by giving up some freedoms for the overall protection of others in the broader best interest.

I suspect we both will agree....

The issue is NOT with the contract and the compromise it requires...but with the bias and political agenda of some of those tasked with making the decisions of WHAT freedoms should be sacrificed for the social contract.

I don't believe in a "social contract." To put it bluntly, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. We live in a REPUBLIC for a reason, and that is to KEEP the two wolves from voting to eat the sheep.

Our enumerated rights are merely the ones "written down," but we RETAIN all powers/rights not EXPRESSLY given to the state. The overuse/abuse of certain clauses (interstate commerce) by the gov't is evidence of its corruption. The fact the Supreme Court hasn't put Congress in its place just shows the break-down in the balance of powers. With Alito on the court, I look forward to a SCRUTINIZATION of all laws regarding this matter.

Where was I... oh that's right, social contract. It's hogwash. Our Congress has the power to make laws, within its powers, that are constitutional. Congress no longer CARES if the laws they pass are within its powers, OR if they're consitutional, because as the liberals so articulately argue, the consitution is a "living document." Horse-poop! Then change the CONSTITUTION, not just the interpretation of it. Jack@$$...

This business of a social contract is (in my opinion) the foundation for disregarding 'powers' and 'constiutionality.' "It's for the children..." YEACHHHT!

One last point. I'll agree that there are legitimate rules/laws that LOCAL governments can make that enforce a "social contract." However, never the US Gov't. And the local laws CANNOT infringe a persons CIVIL RIGHTS as found in the constiution.

In other words, if a city wanted to make a law that all homeowners who have pools are REQUIRED to have a 6ft fence around their yard with a locked gate, that's one thing (no 'right' to 'uninfringed' pool ownership, and drowning is the number one cause of death in children.) However, a community cannot make a law that requires gun owners to install safes, and keep all firearms unloaded and locked up at ALL times. Sure, that would be a good idea for the "safety of our kids," but that would infringe on otherwise law-abiding gunowners and create "economic discrimination" against those who can't afford a safe. [This is an actual law in oppressed areas.]

By the way, traffic laws are on the state and local levels, which is fine. I have a problem with the Fed Gov't trying to overstep its constitutional bounds.

[zap]

Perhaps you didn't get what I said...

I suspect we both will agree....

The issue is NOT with the contract and the compromise it requires...but with the bias and political agenda of some of those tasked with making the decisions of WHAT freedoms should be sacrificed for the social contract.



I don't believe in a "social contract." To put it bluntly, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. We live in a REPUBLIC for a reason, and that is to KEEP the two wolves from voting to eat the sheep.

Absolutely correct...however do not confuse true, technical democracy with the concept of social contract ethics. They are two seperate things. Our government was designed to be a replublic just for that very reason, and arguably, a republic IS by definition a form of social contract. We give up some rights for the peaceful order and safety of our society. In the republic, we give those rights to the lawmakers and hope they make good laws...which sometimes they tend not to do. Which goes back to my statement that the bias and political agenda of some of those tasked with making the decisions of WHAT freedoms should be sacrificed

I think we agree on this if you look at what I really said.



Our enumerated rights are merely the ones "written down," but we RETAIN all powers/rights not EXPRESSLY given to the state. The overuse/abuse of certain clauses (interstate commerce) by the gov't is evidence of its corruption. The fact the Supreme Court hasn't put Congress in its place just shows the break-down in the balance of powers.

Again...the issue is the conduct of those who are making the choice of what rights are restricted and what ones are not...not the fact that they are doing so.


Where was I... oh that's right, social contract. It's hogwash. Our Congress has the power to make laws, within its powers, that are constitutional. Congress no longer CARES if the laws they pass are within its powers, OR if they're consitutional, because as the liberals so articulately argue, the consitution is a "living document." Horse-poop! Then change the CONSTITUTION, not just the interpretation of it.

Well, I think we see that it really isn't. The issue is the bias and agendas of those who are supposed to have our best interests in mind. Not the fact that our government is set up according to a social contract.

I completely agree with your assessment of the Constitution being a living document. That is BS. But, don't change it...just interpet it accurately and justly.


Jack@$$...


Did you just call me a jackass???


This business of a social contract is (in my opinion) the foundation for disregarding 'powers' and 'constiutionality.'

Well this only shows that you have no idea what the theory of social contract ethics is, or how it works in a representative government.


One last point. I'll agree that there are legitimate rules/laws that LOCAL governments can make that enforce a "social contract." However, never the US Gov't. And the local laws CANNOT infringe a persons CIVIL RIGHTS as found in the constiution.

I agree that there are legitimate laws. Whether made by Federal, State, or Local governments, they should never infringe on constitutional rights.


In other words, if a city wanted to make a law that all homeowners who have pools are REQUIRED to have a 6ft fence around their yard with a locked gate, that's one thing (no 'right' to 'uninfringed' pool ownership, and drowning is the number one cause of death in children.) However, a community cannot make a law that requires gun owners to install safes, and keep all firearms unloaded and locked up at ALL times. Sure, that would be a good idea for the "safety of our kids," but that would infringe on otherwise law-abiding gunowners and create "economic discrimination" against those who can't afford a safe. [This is an actual law in oppressed areas.]

I agree with this thought. The (any) Government SHOULD NOT make laws that burdon the excercise of constitutional rights. Again, this goes back to the bias and agendas of the people in those governments.

By the way, traffic laws are on the state and local levels, which is fine. I have a problem with the Fed Gov't trying to overstep its constitutional bounds.

Ok...so you are saying that you don't have a problem with a social contract...only with certain people with bias and agendas that are involved in the process which leaves you feeling left out.

With that I would often agree....

[21blue28]

Sure, one can argue the legalization of something that in and of itself has no "victim." But that is an extremely slippery slope. We have enough problems just with alcohol and cigarettes as it is.

My problem with this argument is this: legalize all the drugs and crime will run crazy all over. You make crack/powder/meth/etc available ..... the fact that more people will be exposed to it COMBINED with the lack of legal implications and that creates a generation of crack heads. No way in the world that anyone on crack (no matter how legal it is) will do anything other than wreck the lives of their families and their victims once they lose everything themselves trying to support their habit.

Now pot is different, but also I am not exactly sure what would happen there. There are a LOT of gangsters that just LOVE THE WEED and it is a HUGE part of that culture. Along side this drug comes a lot of crime. Is it a by-product of the drug because it is ellicit? I have known some pretty laid back and peaceful people that were burnouts. Not a lot of secondary crime there. Out on the streets, that is another thing.

[jwise]

Did you just call me a jackass???

No. That was not intended for you.

Well this only shows that you have no idea what the theory of social contract ethics is, or how it works in a representative government.

You're probably entirely correct. I am a bit fuzzy on the subject.

Ok...so you are saying that you don't have a problem with a social contract...only with certain people with bias and agendas that are involved in the process which leaves you feeling left out.

It's not the feeling of "being left out," but that I believe they should keep their grubby hands off the enumerated rights of the people. If they really believe the rights are "outdated," they can go about the legal process of changing the constitution. If they don't have the support to do that, then back off.

[jwise]

Sure, one can argue the legalization of something that in and of itself has no "victim." But that is an extremely slippery slope. We have enough problems just with alcohol and cigarettes as it is.


From Post #4 in this very thread:

Drugs can NEVER be used to argue a point, as emotional attachment to the law (much like prohibition) clouds objective debate.

Once you have objectively looked at a principle, then you can apply that principle to different situations. Looking at drug laws as an anomoly, it is easy to convince yourself our laws are "ok." After looking at the principle of vicitimless crimes, and understanding the theory that the criminalization of mere "possession" serves to inhibit freedom and sujugate a populace (too many damn big words, sorry) you can OBJECTIVELY view drug laws in context.

To be clear, I don't think drugs should be blanketly legalized. The Bill of Rights does not enumerate the right of the people to ingest intoxicants.


My problem with this argument is this: legalize all the drugs and crime will run crazy all over.

This was the argument against right to carry laws. I didn't believe it then, I don't believe it now.

You make crack/powder/meth/etc available ..... the fact that more people will be exposed to it COMBINED with the lack of legal implications and that creates a generation of crack heads. No way in the world that anyone on crack (no matter how legal it is) will do anything other than wreck the lives of their families and their victims once they lose everything themselves trying to support their habit.

Who's responsibility is it to keep people from "ruining their lives?" The "Nanny-state?" I believe in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. Let them cleanse the gene-pool. I won't miss the idiots.

As for the victims, I assume you believe that the junky will steal/rob for the money for his next "fix." When enough are killed at the hands of intended victims, they'll stop that crap. We still allow this (needed) practice in Texas.

Now pot is different, but also I am not exactly sure what would happen there.

Why is it different? You don't think Marijuana will ruin people's lives?

What about Casinos, the Lottery, births out of wedlock to teen mothers, etc.... These all have ruined plenty of people's lives (but CERTAINLY not everyone, and have enriched others lives.) What do we do about those? At some point, you have to let the idiot kill himself. Either slowly, or quickly. Anything short of this, and you are an enabler, attempting to protect the idiot from himself. Do us all a favor, and let the idiot cleanse the gene-pool.

[zap]

No. That was not intended for you.

Ok ...just checking :p :D



You're probably entirely correct. I am a bit fuzzy on the subject.

Fair enough.



It's not the feeling of "being left out," but that I believe they should keep their grubby hands off the enumerated rights of the people. If they really believe the rights are "outdated," they can go about the legal process of changing the constitution. If they don't have the support to do that, then back off.

With this statement....I wholeheartedly agree

[soxfan101]

Jwise you are a hippy, stick that in your pipe and smoke it :cool:

[jwise]

Jwise you are a hippy, stick that in your pipe and smoke it :cool:

I've never been called a hippy before. That's funny! The only thing I smoke in a pipe is Black Cavendish, but these days you'd find me smoking a nice hand-rolled cigar a lot more often than a pipe.

You are obviously confusing my libertarian views as "hippy-ish." I'll bet you look 'smart' in your brown shirt....

ETA: I just noticed you are from Chicago. Hell, you probably wouldn't know what freedom was if it bit you on the butt.

Chicago residents (I would no longer call them citizens) aren't allowed by their oppressive city and (city influenced) state govenments to even OWN a handgun! None! Not only those on the "approved" list, or only after extensive backgound checks, but NONE! No one in that state is even allowed to buy/own ANY firearm unless they have a FOID card (Firearm Owner's ID.) They probably can't even buy ammo without one. I don't mean they just can't CARRY a firearm, they can't even OWN one. And FORGET about carrying in Illinois. And I'll bet (I don't actually know) they have a city ordnance against smoking in restaurants and other PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES! If anyone wants to experience life as a subject, just move to Chicago and call everyone else "hippies" and what not... [rolleyes]

[bigislander72]

J wise: I think for the most part, your preaching to the choir here.

Preaching to the choir? But this is a forum that consist mainly of those that enforce these rules, correct?

I think what jwise speaks of is what makes a lot of the population leery of cops, and cops leery of citizens. As a citizen ,we are always on edge as to what is right and what is wrong. Someone here politely asked what defines exibition of speed, (he states he didn't burn rubber or exceed the speed limit), and he gets a response to the tune of "look up the statute jerk!". There is too much of a "us vs. them" attitude, on both sides I guess.

It would be great if cops only enforced index type crimes, I think only then would we be able to feel like true citizens with nothing to fear, as one would know for sure when one is breaking the law.

As far as drugs go, I feel pot should just be plain legal for those over 21. Only because that is the only one that cannot kill you outright, I don't think that can be claimed for anything else that get you high (not even alcohol). For harder drugs, they should be illegal to possess, but I don't agree with the push for incarceration so much. To much work for the cops, documenting and all. Just confiscate the stuff and move on to the next crack house.

This way, the law would be more like prohibition in the 20's. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think people spent years in the slammer for possesion of a few bottles, it just got confiscated right? If anybody knows the historical facts please share them.

[jwise]

Preaching to the choir? But this is a forum that consist mainly of those that enforce these rules, correct?

I think what jwise speaks of is what makes a lot of the population leery of cops, and cops leery of citizens. As a citizen ,we are always on edge as to what is right and what is wrong. Someone here politely asked what defines exibition of speed, (he states he didn't burn rubber or exceed the speed limit), and he gets a response to the tune of "look up the statute jerk!". There is too much of a "us vs. them" attitude, on both sides I guess.

It would be great if cops only enforced index type crimes, I think only then would we be able to feel like true citizens with nothing to fear, as one would know for sure when one is breaking the law.

As far as drugs go, I feel pot should just be plain legal for those over 21. Only because that is the only one that cannot kill you outright, I don't think that can be claimed for anything else that get you high (not even alcohol). For harder drugs, they should be illegal to possess, but I don't agree with the push for incarceration so much. To much work for the cops, documenting and all. Just confiscate the stuff and move on to the next crack house.

This way, the law would be more like prohibition in the 20's. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think people spent years in the slammer for possesion of a few bottles, it just got confiscated right? If anybody knows the historical facts please share them.

BINGO!

I felt the "preaching to the choir" comment was odd as well. I preferred being called a hippy!