Author’s disclaimer: I am not now, nor have been, the user of drugs, legal or illegal, with the exception of Acetaminophen, over-the-counter allergy relief and the occasional ingestion of caffeine or an adult beverage.
Author’s note: I am also fully cognizant that I live in Bizarro World. Please take that into consideration as I cite as a recent example the claim by a proxy leader of a local group that claims fealty and allegiance to all things constitutional, that a candidate for Sheriff, recently vetted by that group, is “weak” on constitutional issues. This from the same man who recently publicly endorsed a candidate for that same office who has inundated this county with multiple lawsuits alleging repeated violations of the constitutional rights of local citizens and who knowingly hired and promoted a man who had been terminated in another state for violating the constitutional rights of citizens in that state, only to have him perpetrate these same unconstitutional acts on citizens here; So much for being “weak” on the Constitution.
Imagine for me, if you will, a local hay farmer who finds his grass and alfalfa fields beginning to be invaded by a noxious weed. When he attempts to eradicate that weed he discovers the product offered for that purpose is only sold by the government. Upon applying this product to his fields, he finds that instead of eradicating the noxious weed, the treatment actually encourages and increases its growth. He then discovers he is required by law to continue purchasing that product, and after years of use, is told that no matter how much of that product he purchases and applies to his fields, stopping the growth and spread of the noxious weed is impossible. Even so, he is required by law to purchase larger and larger quantities of this product at constantly increasing prices and continue its application.
That story is ludicrous, Rebel, you claim—that would never happen. Well, actually, taking the same principles and applying them to the so-called “war on drugs” and other such government sponsored programs, you will find the template to be almost identical. Each and every year, the price of these “wars” increase exponentially while we are told by “experts” in the euphemistically named justice department that regardless of how many taxpayer dollars are spent, the illegal use of drugs cannot be stopped, or in many cases even slowed down. Of course the mantra of the tax farmer is: “think how bad it could be if we were not spending an endless stream of dollars on something that will never work.” Ah, Bizarro World and its willful dupes.
We too often forget the side effects of taking the government’s prescription for the hopeless remedy in the “war on drugs.” During most of our adult lives we have witnessed an incremental dismantling of our Bill of Rights while pursuing the admitted failure of these wars that never end. The ramifications in our personal lives are in many ways equally as devastating as many of these drugs, especially as it relates to private property. Allow me please to cite a few examples that have emanated from the drug war induced, Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984:
“Retired army Colonel Melvin Hanberg lost his California rental property because one of his tenants was alleged to be a drug dealer. (Colonel Hanberg was never accused of any narcotics violations nor listed as a suspect by local police)
An eighty-year-old black woman lost her motel because a prostitute used a room with a customer. (This lady was never accused of having knowledge of or promoting prostitution on her property.)
Helen Hoyle, a seventy-year-old black woman in Washington, D.C., lost her home because of police suspicion that one of her grandchildren once had drugs in the house.
Donald A. Regan of Montvale, New Jersey, lost his car when he gave a lift to someone who, unbeknownst to Regan, had drugs in his possession.
The theory is that the physical site “facilitates” the illegal transaction and is thereby a party to the crime, allowing its seizure. Under the existing application of the law, your home and everyone else’s can be confiscated simply by an undercover agent arranging for a drug transaction to take place on your front lawn or in your driveway.
Police seized Gary and Kathy Bergman’s South Dakota home because it was visited by a friend who brought along a marijuana plant.
Joseph and Frances Lopes lost their home when a mentally disturbed son planted marijuana in their backyard.”
When asked about the injustice done to Mr. and Mrs. Lopes, Marshall Silberberg, the U.S. prosecutor who seized their house, snorted that the family should “be happy we let them live there as long as we did.” Stefan D. Cassella, an official in the asset forfeiture division of the U.S. Justice Department, justifies the seizure of property from innocent parties on the grounds that otherwise nothing is accomplished for the government.”
***The above examples and citations were taken from the book “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton
It's not that long...read the whole thing http://bit.ly/1nDRTGk