The "war on drugs" vs. the right to privacy

[justinacolmena]

There is a false trade-off between privacy and law enforcement.

It's a false dichotomy, and a false excuse. The government has no cause to violate the privacy of its citizens in their persons, houses, papers, and effects like that.

When people do drugs, their activities are almost always not only apparent to neighbors and others, but highly disruptive to the functioning of a peaceful society -- and there is no lack of genuine probable cause to execute a warrant in those cases.

The same with child pornography and other bugaboos of anti-privacy advocates. People aren't surfing that kind of smut anywhere in real life without the neighbor's children being aware of something very unseemly going on if they are not victimized themselves.

How can the U.S. government be so aggressive at spying on its own citizens, and yet at the same time so enabling of drug abuse, sex trafficking, and other openly criminal activity, which it takes no action whatsoever to stop?

Why is the U.S. government so extremely aggressive in prosecuting as a crime the mere possession of firearms or ammunition, which is almost always deemed "unlawful" on some technicality or another, in total ignorance and defiance of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is a false trade-off between privacy and law enforcement.

It's a false dichotomy, and a false excuse. The government has no cause to violate the privacy of its citizens in their persons, houses, papers, and effects like that.

When people do drugs, their activities are almost always not only apparent to neighbors and others, but highly disruptive to the functioning of a peaceful society -- and there is no lack of genuine probable cause to execute a warrant in those cases.

The same with child pornography and other bugaboos of anti-privacy advocates. People aren't surfing that kind of smut anywhere in real life without the neighbor's children being aware of something very unseemly going on if they are not victimized themselves.

How can the U.S. government be so aggressive at spying on its own citizens, and yet at the same time so enabling of drug abuse, sex trafficking, and other openly criminal activity, which it takes no action whatsoever to stop?

Why is the U.S. government so extremely aggressive in prosecuting as a crime the mere possession of firearms or ammunition, which is almost always deemed "unlawful" on some technicality or another, in total ignorance and defiance of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

So let's drive a car with no seat belts, drunk, talking on our phone while naked.

My right to privacy.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no right to privacy anymore. That was destroyed beginning with Reagan and continuing with Trump...

 

[Moonglow]

They also corrupted and abuse the 4th amendment on asset forfeiture..

 

[justinacolmena]

So let's drive a car with no seat belts,

Don't bother asking the other party to pay for your injuries.

... drunk,

Now you are responsible for the other party's injuries.

talking on our phone while naked.

Let's just disable that video chat feature.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a false trade-off between privacy and law enforcement.

It's a false dichotomy, and a false excuse. The government has no cause to violate the privacy of its citizens in their persons, houses, papers, and effects like that.

When people do drugs, their activities are almost always not only apparent to neighbors and others, but highly disruptive to the functioning of a peaceful society -- and there is no lack of genuine probable cause to execute a warrant in those cases.

The same with child pornography and other bugaboos of anti-privacy advocates. People aren't surfing that kind of smut anywhere in real life without the neighbor's children being aware of something very unseemly going on if they are not victimized themselves.

How can the U.S. government be so aggressive at spying on its own citizens, and yet at the same time so enabling of drug abuse, sex trafficking, and other openly criminal activity, which it takes no action whatsoever to stop?

Why is the U.S. government so extremely aggressive in prosecuting as a crime the mere possession of firearms or ammunition, which is almost always deemed "unlawful" on some technicality or another, in total ignorance and defiance of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

You’re confusing a number of different issues, in addition to being wrong on others.

Although inalienable, our rights are not ‘absolute,’ nor are they ‘unlimited’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm, our rights are subject to restrictions and regulation by government.

The ‘war’ on drugs is a failure because it’s bad legislative and law-enforcement policy.

But the arrest and prosecution of those in violation of drug laws are afforded the right to due process, consistent with the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution.

Private citizens using drugs in the privacy of their own homes – seeking to neither manufacture nor distribute drugs illegally – is an issue to be solved via the political process, not judicial. Citizens need to compel lawmakers to decriminalize the private use of drugs, not the courts.

As for child pornography, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the possession of such material is in no manner entitled to First Amendment protections.

With regard to the US government ‘spying’ on its citizens, that is also an issue that must be resolved through the political – not judicial – process; the right to privacy where the people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects manifest only when the government uses personal, private information pursuant to criminal prosecution, where one’s life or liberty are in jeopardy.

That citizens ‘think’ or ‘believe’ that the government ‘might’ use personal information against them is not a violation of privacy rights.

Last, the government only prosecutes individuals who have violated state or Federal firearms laws; no one is being prosecuted for only possessing a firearm, unless he is a prohibited person.

Again, as with the right to privacy, the Second Amendment right is neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – it is not a right to possess any weapon, at any time, and anywhere; laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The right to privacy is not a right to be comprehensively immune to government action or regulation and, if Constitutionally warranted, criminal prosecution.

 

[justinacolmena]

Although inalienable, our rights are not ‘absolute,’ nor are they ‘unlimited’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm, our rights are subject to restrictions and regulation by government.

Private citizens using drugs in the privacy of their own homes

That simply is not happening. The odor of marijuana, "spice," heroin, or crack cocaine, or the noxious fumes of manufacturing methamphetamine tend to stink up the whole neighborhood, and then there is the problem of customers and dealers driving automobiles into the neighborhood and shooting firearms while high on drugs. Yet lawmakers and law enforcement officers continue to insist on punishing sober and law-abiding bystanders for the activity of drug addicts, whom they leave unmolested, enabling them to remain in their drug abuse.

As for child pornography, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the possession of such material is in no manner entitled to First Amendment protections.

Shouldn't be looking for it so hard or planting it and arresting men "oh, by the way" on it when they are brought up on other unrelated charges. I do not believe that child pornography per se is the issue the pimps and prosecutors are making it out to be. There is simply too much of an "adult" business going on here, and "child" pornography is sort of a subtle gentlemanly code for accusing someone of obstructing or ratting out adult sex traffic. When those books are audited, and even one of those false charges is thrown out, the blood of hundreds and thousands of "criminal justice participants" will be spilled on the streets.

No one is being prosecuted for only possessing a firearm, unless he is a prohibited person.

Oh, well. I guess I'm on your (s)hit list. Welcome to mine, because I am definitely a "prohibited person" by your filthy disgusting juris-prudery. There is a time for peaceful discussion, and there is a time for war. This is war, and any aid or comfort to this sort of jurisprudential filth is punishable (and will be punished) by death as high treason without the benefit of a grand jury.

The children have parents, schoolteachers, and plenty of adult protectors. We have no need to fear for their sakes.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

There is a false trade-off between privacy and law enforcement.

It's a false dichotomy, and a false excuse. The government has no cause to violate the privacy of its citizens in their persons, houses, papers, and effects like that.

When people do drugs, their activities are almost always not only apparent to neighbors and others, but highly disruptive to the functioning of a peaceful society -- and there is no lack of genuine probable cause to execute a warrant in those cases.

The same with child pornography and other bugaboos of anti-privacy advocates. People aren't surfing that kind of smut anywhere in real life without the neighbor's children being aware of something very unseemly going on if they are not victimized themselves.

How can the U.S. government be so aggressive at spying on its own citizens, and yet at the same time so enabling of drug abuse, sex trafficking, and other openly criminal activity, which it takes no action whatsoever to stop?

Why is the U.S. government so extremely aggressive in prosecuting as a crime the mere possession of firearms or ammunition, which is almost always deemed "unlawful" on some technicality or another, in total ignorance and defiance of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

It depends on who is incharge at that office. This is part of the Shadow Gov and how it works. You saw how Holder did the illegal guns across the boarder.

 

[fncceo]

Certain things are deemed by society to be crimes. It doesn't matter if those crimes are done privately or publicly.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

They also corrupted and abuse the 4th amendment on asset forfeiture..

You saw how FDR screwed the USA Japanese with his friend Hurst out of Billions and dollars in land and property. No one pitched a bitch about it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Certain things are deemed by society to be crimes. It doesn't matter if those crimes are done privately or publicly.

True, but how the Government learns about those crimes does matter. If the police officer breaks into a house without a warrant, then he needs a damned good reason to do so. The old crying baby excuse as one discredited example. Otherwise the evidence may be, and absolutely should be, disallowed.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is a false trade-off between privacy and law enforcement.

It's a false dichotomy, and a false excuse. The government has no cause to violate the privacy of its citizens in their persons, houses, papers, and effects like that.

When people do drugs, their activities are almost always not only apparent to neighbors and others, but highly disruptive to the functioning of a peaceful society -- and there is no lack of genuine probable cause to execute a warrant in those cases.

The same with child pornography and other bugaboos of anti-privacy advocates. People aren't surfing that kind of smut anywhere in real life without the neighbor's children being aware of something very unseemly going on if they are not victimized themselves.

How can the U.S. government be so aggressive at spying on its own citizens, and yet at the same time so enabling of drug abuse, sex trafficking, and other openly criminal activity, which it takes no action whatsoever to stop?

Why is the U.S. government so extremely aggressive in prosecuting as a crime the mere possession of firearms or ammunition, which is almost always deemed "unlawful" on some technicality or another, in total ignorance and defiance of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

It isn’t a false trade off. You have to look at the history to see why the Founders put those limits on the Government. The Founders never wanted to see a nation where the agents of the Government could just enter a house and look for any evidence of whatever crime they happened across. So the Goverment put very strong limits on what the people could and should endure.

So the idea was that it would be hard for the Government to convict people. This went back to England, which created the trial by jury to take the power of Conviction out of the hands of the King. The Crown could charge you, and try you, but could not convict you.

One of the complaints of the “colonists” was that the British could and did just enter their homes, and search to find whatever evidence they happened across. This heavy handed technique was supposedly to root out criminals and traitors. Similar to the language that you are using today. Treason is a very serious crime isn’t it? A far greater threat to society than smoking a joint. Yet the rules that we have are designed to protect us all from the intolerable excesses that the colonists endured. It was one of those straws that weighed down the camel, until it became unendurable.

 

[Moonglow]

They also corrupted and abuse the 4th amendment on asset forfeiture..

You saw how FDR screwed the USA Japanese with his friend Hurst out of Billions and dollars in land and property. No one pitched a bitch about it.

I wasn't around when it happened, speak to my Papa...in a cemetery.

 

[Likkmee]

Back on topic: War on drugs bans people from competing with the govts ability to hide money. No worries. In another 20 years (post WW3)you'll have cocaine and heroin dispensaries with FDA permitted/approved goodies to choose from.
After reviewing Colorado and California (OTHERS COMING) This deal will make the dot com boom look like a county fair. Consider investing on the prison/agricultural complex for those who try to play off the books.

 

[Moonglow]

Back on topic: War on drugs bans people from competing with the govts ability to hide money. No worries. In another 20 years (post WW3)you'll have cocaine and heroin dispensaries with FDA permitted/approved goodies to choose from.
After reviewing Colorado and California (OTHERS COMING) This deal will make the dot com boom look like a county fair. Consider investing on the prison/agricultural complex for those who try to play off the books.

Buddy it could make me rich enough to marry Stormy Daniels and pimp her out.

 

[justinacolmena]

Certain things are deemed by society to be crimes. It doesn't matter if those crimes are done privately or publicly.

Oh. Now it's "society," not a court of law. And there is no right of privacy whatsoever.

And now we are talking about social crimes. Nazism (a.k.a. National Socialism) in America.

The Second and Fourth Amendments are pretty much absolute and written in stone, despite your total unwillingness to acknowledge or recognize certain parts of the Constitution of the United States.

All those pharmaceutical companies are forcing drugs down our throats, and we have to invade the privacy of the patient's private home to fight the war on drugs. All those "biotech" firms perform live human experimentation on involuntary patients in search of the next "blockbuster" drug for this or that or the other so-called "mental illness." And when they have perfected their patented means of chemical torture, they sell out to the major drug manufacturers, who bribe psychiatrists with lucrative kickbacks for prescribing their drugs.

These same hypocrites routinely mutilate the genitals of a newborn boy, and then they have the nerve to accuse others of "child molestation" or "child pornography" or "child abuse" blah blah blah... What a bunch of idiots! These judges and lawyers are so high on drugs and falling over drunk on the bench that they don't realize that people have sex first and then they have children, so they try to twist the basic facts of life the other way around in court.

They pull out teeth for pecuniary gain, perform "routine" hysterectomies and radical mastectomies, take out tonsils, spleens, and appendices, and perform all sorts of other unnecessary surgery, including implants, artificial hips and knees, and so on and so forth, when in reality nothing was wrong with the original body parts.

 

[justinacolmena]

Boy regains consciousness after parents sign papers to donate his organs -- You see, those parents sign their children's lives away with the stroke of the pen, and the doctors perform satanic ritual child sacrifice with the full knowledge, assent, and cooperation of the police. Oh, no, they don't prosecute child abuse committed by some well-dressed doctor with an expensive suit and a nice haircut! They're looking for a "child molester" with long scraggly hair, scruffy beard, and thick smudged glasses. The ladies have to read all about it in National Enquirer | Hottest Celebrity Gossip & Entertainment News.

 

[Mousterian]

Boy regains consciousness after parents sign papers to donate his organs -- You see, those parents sign their children's lives away with the stroke of the pen, and the doctors perform satanic ritual child sacrifice with the full knowledge, assent, and cooperation of the police. Oh, no, they don't prosecute child abuse committed by some well-dressed doctor with an expensive suit and a nice haircut! They're looking for a "child molester" with long scraggly hair, scruffy beard, and thick smudged glasses. The ladies have to read all about it in National Enquirer | Hottest Celebrity Gossip & Entertainment News.

Perhaps you need to get a hair-cut.