• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#310]Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty'

ttwtt78640 said:
Prohibition without adequate demand side (simple illegal possession) enforcement is assured to fail.
Click to expand...
I agree, but we aren't addressing the social problems that would reduce the the demand.My point was that taking drugs isn't really a private matter that has no effect on the public.
 
weaver2 said:
I agree, but we aren't addressing the social problems that would reduce the the demand.My point was that taking drugs isn't really a private matter that has no effect on the public.
Click to expand...

True, yet such personal behavior can be either ignored, penalized or rewarded. These options exist for friends and family, as well as society at large via public policy at any level of government.
 
Gaius46 said:
I know this really isn’t a civil asset forfeiture thread but the topic is a particular sore point with me.

My understanding is that civil asset forfeiture is often used prior to conviction. Is that actually the case? If so that throws the presumption of innocence out the window. I understand that asset forfeiture is a civil proceeding so technically you are on solid footing doing so but that is still offensive - or should be - to our basic notions of fairness and justice.
Click to expand...
I can only really speak from personal experience, which ended 20 years ago, but our policy always was that it was a separate proceeding - so much so that I would not discuss it with the line prosecutor. We were a separate agency entirely (State AG, not DA or US Atty)

Sometimes we would agree to continuance when the defense asked for it (frequently), and sometimes we'd go first if they thought they'd need the money for defense expenses, which, frankly, was rare (I was usually dealing with major operators). I did coordinate with federal agencies and DOJ/AUSA), because they often had the same targets.

To assuage your soreness, I agree that local DAs and police agencies are more inclined to abuse the process and apply it to petty offenses, which is wrong, as I've stated. Our cases were based upon "ill gotten gains" - where we could establish they had insufficient income to support their lavish lifestyles. I had no qualms about taking their toys. It was more effective than prison for many, and kept them from financing bigger operations. One repeat offender used insurance fraud to finance his new operation, and another got popped for bankruptcy fraud.
 
NWRatCon said:
I can only really speak from personal experience, which ended 20 years ago, but our policy always was that it was a separate proceeding - so much so that I would not discuss it with the line prosecutor. We were a separate agency entirely (State AG, not DA or US Atty)

Sometimes we would agree to continuance when the defense asked for it (frequently), and sometimes we'd go first if they thought they'd need the money for defense expenses, which, frankly, was rare (I was usually dealing with major operators). I did coordinate with federal agencies and DOJ/AUSA), because they often had the same targets.

To assuage your soreness, I agree that local DAs and police agencies are more inclined to abuse the process and apply it to petty offenses, which is wrong, as I've stated. Our cases were based upon "ill gotten gains" - where we could establish they had insufficient income to support their lavish lifestyles. I had no qualms about taking their toys. It was more effective than prison for many, and kept them from financing bigger operations. One repeat offender used insurance fraud to finance his new operation, and another got popped for bankruptcy fraud.
Click to expand...
Thx, I appreciate you taking the time. I'm glad to at least in your office you looked to be doing the right thing. I grew up in NYC so I'm familiar with the idea of sanitation workers, for example, who owned multi-million dollar homes on Staten Island on incomes of $25,000/yr. I'm not overly upset about those situations. It's more abuses done against normal or small timers and the apparent difficulty around actually getting the assets back that bother me.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True, yet such personal behavior can be either ignored, penalized or rewarded. These options exist for friends and family, as well as society at large via public policy at any level of government
Click to expand...

Having seen the progression of an area from rural workers with well paid jobs in the paper mill, intact families with paid up homes and cohesive communities into the complete ruin of individuals, families and communities when the mill closed abruptly and hard drugs almost immediately moved into the area I'm not convinced that this is an issue the government should deem a private matter and refrain from regulating. Both ends of the chain, manufacturer and user have caused enormous public disruption and cannot or will not self regulate.
 
mrjurrs said:
Okay. So alive in the sense your big toe is alive. Separate from the body and dead is only a question of minutes.
Click to expand...

Ill comparison. Your body can't produce another big toe.
 
Rich2018 said:
The same way that a potato is alive....but I'm guessing you still eat chips.
Click to expand...

But we don't treat potatoes as if it's a life or a person. The Rep/cons want to hold you responsible for "killing" a potato.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, I think a fetus is alive long before then.
Click to expand...
At what point? And how do you define "alive"? And, do you mean legally alive? Can a fetus inherit, make contracts, get a license? Theologically? Does it have a soul? Medically? Can it survive absent a host? What about cells? A vague statement does not a viable point make.

Here's the point: from a legal standpoint, a baby is not a person until born alive. Roe is a legal standard. Indeed, the Constitutional and historical standard.
 
weaver2 said:
I usually enjoy sarcasm, but this is too close what is about to come from the SC to enjoy. Rights for many people, not just women, are going to be held hostage to the insanity of a small group of religious fanatics. We have always had these people with us. They used to inhabit little churches at the edge of town where they talked to each other about commie conspiracies, a world filled with sinners and "Them over-ejicated know-it -alls". They were nut jobs and we called them nut jobs. Why do we now elect them to Congress. They do not represent our views and they are still nut jobs.
Click to expand...

The sarcasm is serious. What makes you think this isn't happening or has a distinct likelihood of happening, considering the Rep/cons political/psychological disposition?

"Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) on Wednesday signed into law a measure that would ban abortions from the moment of “fertilization,” effectively prohibiting almost all abortions in the state."

 
mrjurrs said:
Good catch, how about boogers? Or the organisms living in fecal matter?
Click to expand...

Neither can become a living human being together with anything else as can a sperm and egg, for your edification.
 
aociswundumho said:
This needs to be addressed by "right to privacy" advocates, because it's not going to go away.

Apparently progressives believe a pregnant 13 year old girl has a "right to privacy" from government intrusion, but a 40 year old woman putting politically incorrect drugs into her own body while inside of her own home does not.

Not only do progressives toss her "right to privacy" into the garbage, they also toss her right to bodily autonomy into the trash right along with it.

This is a staggering level of intellectual inconsistency, even for the political left.
Click to expand...
I would use another, less kind word, to describe this political phenomena. Hypocrisy
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If this individual “right to privacy” exists then why does it not apply to recreational drug use? What in this individual “right to privacy” allegedly connected (or limited) it to matters of marriage and/or sexual relations?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that has been answered for you.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Only by those using the ‘that’s what some on the SCOTUS once decided’ argument.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember explaining that taking drugs was not an activity that was private or solitary that it adversely effected many lives in the community and the family.
 
Napoleon said:
The Ninth implies that it could be broader than its four corners and the Tenth says who should make that decision. It’s not SCOTUS or any other branch of the Federal Government - it’s the States and the people via their elected State representatives which is how it was done on this issue from this country’s founding until Griswold and later Roe.
Click to expand...
It would also include Congress who are also elected by the people.
 
I don't think people, generally, have a firm grasp on the breadth of the Dobbs opinion and what it entails. Several States have already begun efforts to implement so-called "trigger" laws (which in many cases would be nullities on the basis that Legislatures cannot bind future Legislatures, but some courts don't have any problem with ignoring that long-standing legal precedent). Those will be immediately followed by those who want to resurrect laws (e.g., in Michigan) that were unconstitutional under Roe, and moribund for decades. There are thousands of so-called "dead letter" laws - a law, ordinance, etc., that has lost its force but has not been formally repealed or abolished - that are still on the books. Entire books have been devoted to them.

But the rationale of Dobbs sweeps in all kinds of otherwise-unconstitutional laws that are based upon privacy interests, and which Justice Thomas has already invited challenges to. We're in for a whirlwind of litigation and legislation that will take years to resolve and implicate all kinds of privacy interests. Alito simply lied about that in his opinion, something he has a propensity to do.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh **** it, let's just go ahead and start the war already.
When it's all over and MAGA Land is ashes (which it will be) they can ban sex altogether and the rest of us will go back to living our lives like normal people again.
They can have their country with Dogpatch, Texas as the capital.

I'm tired of trying to reason with MAGA people.
 
dockside said:
It would also include Congress who are also elected by the people.
Click to expand...

The judiciary, incl the SC, is selected by democratically elected representatives of the people and some selected by direct vote of the people.
 
bluesmoke said:
When human ovum enters the fallopian tubes, it is alive. It only dies by neglect. What about the living ovum's right to life? We need Texas to get on that.
Click to expand...
It has to be fertilized before it is human life.
 
fmw said:
It has to be fertilized before it is human life.
Click to expand...
At that point, it's still no more than a "human life" than a skin cell is. Even less so actually. But no one cries about it whenever they scratch some cells off their ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom