It's gonna die because the leadership of the democratic party is mostly authoritarians and the leadership of the republican party is in the back pocket of law enforcement and party leadership is who controls the pac dollars which controls who gets reelected and who loses their primary.
To be fair there are a ton of cop-sympathizing democratic politicians. Even the supposed super progressive Mayor of Seattle who claims to have a track record of police reform is extremely pro-cop and constantly authorized the use of flash bags, tear gas, and other extreme measures for BLM protests.
What matters most is GOP/Federalist society federal judges.
If GOP activists hadn't controlled the Supreme Court for the past 50 years (despite the GOP losing most presidential elections during that time) this and many other areas of American jurisprudence would look significantly different.
We've banned the GP account, but comments like yours here and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25462166 are not acceptable on HN. If you keep doing that we will ban your account as well, so please don't, and please stop posting unsubstantive comments in general.
Man, for a nation founded by rebelling against a tyrant, and known for its can-do mentality, you sure have a pretty defeatists attitude when it comes to defeating authoritarians...
What do you suggest americans do? Democracy doesn't work because several powerful groups lobby to keep civil forfeiture. There's no way they can resist this. Their government can label any citizen a threat to national security and strip them of whatever rights they still have. Their dragnet surveillance allows them to monitor and stop any organized opposition. Attempting revolution is unwise since that'd probably result in the "terrorists" getting curbstomped by the US military forces.
I don't think it's due to corruption per se. Americans just have to be convinced to care about civil asset forfeiture more than they care about other things. Most people probably think of it as something that happens to other people who were probably crime-adjacent anyway (I don't agree with this line of thinking). If you got enough single-issue voters who cared about civil asset forfeiture, it would go away.
Sacrifice time at digital “salons” and non-essential economic activity.
When 40% of jobs are work from home, strike is a matter of closing a laptop.
Jumping straight to lock and load is ridiculous. SOPA blackout and teacher strikes have gotten results. Police budgets are being redirected.
Encryption is a thing; stay out of cloud services if you do not want to be snooped on. General home computing and k8s+kilo, torrents... teach people to use them in support of the effort. They’re open source; improve the UX.
To be frank, McConnell and the rest are well aware of the French Revolution. Serious discourse in that direction, a show of organization effort would unblock legislative capture.
In America it’s illegal to speak of overthrowing the government, or rising up to defend rights by force. There’s really nothing you can do. The elections are over, the citizens and what they think doesn’t matter anymore. There is absolutely nothing any one of you can do, short of a Revolution, that will change anything over the next 2-4 years.
But OTOH, IIRC people can, have, and have won in court after defending certain rights by force — eg. shooting police officers breaking into their homes without clearly identifying themselves and presenting a warrant. Eg. Kenneth Walker IIUC has not been convicted of any of the charges against him, and though the legal drama drags on, there’s precedent in his favor.
Short of having a revolution like the people who started this country, what's your suggestion for defeating authoritarians? It's difficult (more like impossible) to do on a legal basis when all branches of government are corrupted.
> An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete. They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone to irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth.
For a comment that adopts a rather condescending tone, it's odd that it displays such a lack of understanding of some basic truths. When Americans speak about their rights, they are generally speaking of negative rights, i.e. the natural rights of man which cannot be infringed upon by their government. The "freedoms" referred to above are exclusively positive rights, so named because they require positive action--in other words, these "Freedoms" are imposed by the state. Europeans who are compelled by the state to cough up half of their incomes to the state are free to refer to the resulting programs as "freedom", but this is a new formulation of freedom that has no basis in the historical meaning of freedom to which most Americans adhere.
> while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local, and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover).
This is nonsense. The taxation rate in the us is far lower than those in Democratic Socialist countries, while incomes are ~40% higher after accounting for healthcare costs.
Taxation by country: [0]
Denmark - 52% of GDP
Norway - 55% of GDP
Finland - 53% of GDP
Sweden - 50% of GDP
Iceland - 42% of GDP
>>Average - 50.5%
USA - 22% of GDP
-----
OECD data shows that Median American income is 40% higher than the oft-hailed bastions of Social Democracy:
Household Income in US dollars (2018) [3]
Denmark - $34,712
Norway - $39,555
Finland - $34,497
Sweden - $34,301
Iceland - Not reported
USA - $50,292
-----
Household Debt as % of disposable income (2015-2018): [1]
Denmark - 281%
Norway - 239%
Finland - 145%
Sweden - 189%
Iceland - Not reported
USA - 105%
-----
Household Net worth as % of net income (2014): [2]
That's just ranting on a theme. Americans value personal liberty (e.g. taxes, property, travel) while other value security (medical and financial).
So what? Which is 'freer'? That quote has made its socialist leanings obvious - government should care for us all.
And 'no substantial civic benefits'? Where does that come from? Water, power, highways, the mightiest cities on earth. Sure there are problems. But its nowhere justified in bashing American freedoms as 'not really free'. That's just 'No True Scotsman' at work?
You frame it as a preference that the average person has agency over - we Americans have chosen the ability maybe one day own property over medical and financial security because that's what we value!
We have massive physical land space, resources, and control our own currency. We spend over $800 billion a year on our military alone. We can demand more, but we have been trained not to.
Water, power, highways - all built when the government had the appetite for massive civic projects, and the top income tax rate was >70%. Now in varying states of disrepair, and cost more than ever to maintain as everything is contracted out to private entities.
There is no chance we would get the interstate highway system or the Tennessee Valley Authority if we needed to build it today. But we would not ask for it today, we would just supply endless excuses why it would be too much to ask.
Maybe it's too idealistic, but supposedly the power of the government originates from the people, so it's not asking too much that the government should serve the people.
It all hinges on whether you're willing to bet that the ranter is wrong about American's lack of knowledge about their history, the history of other nations/movements, etc.
If ranter is correct, then any mental snapshot you have of a "freer" America is extremely fragile and probably transient. Unless of course you want to be the contrarian who argues that awareness of history is somehow not part of "eternal vigilance."
If you want to argue that Americans' lack of historical knowledge is largely a myth and have some references about that, let's have the links. Hell, I'd certainly enjoy a December pick-me-up! :)
Quoting historical figures is one way to maintain freedom. The other is, a culture of resistance to infringement on personal liberty. Which America has in spades.
I wonder if the issue is that Americans are "Amusing Themselves to Death" [1]. Tristan Harris read this excerpt at the very end of his interview with Joe Rogan.
Huh? Defunding the police doesn't change whether they are shielded by laws. Did you imagine the parent comment was describing "defund the police" meaning no more police and only having private security companies? That's not how I read it.
> It will get even bigger. "Defund the police" will turn police into for-profit self-funded organization
I don't read that to mean that there will be no police and just private security companies. I read it to suggest there will still be police, protected by the same laws, able to abuse things in the same way, except they will rely entirely on their own funding via shit like Civil Asset Forfeiture
I used to wonder how cyberpunk scenarios of for profit police who would only investigate crimes if the victim paid them could ever come about. Thanks for clearing up this confusion, I never would have guessed that it would be motivated by warped social justice, not end-game libertarianism.
The government cannot keep civilly forfeited assets unless it wins a civil case in court, the same process by which anyone can sue and take everything to your name if they win. It also has a long pedigree, being in continuous use before, during, and after the founding era, making it unlikely that it would violate the 4th Amendment.
Civil asset forfeiture is a very specific legal process that can only be initiated by the government against assets seized in the alleged commission of (or derived from) criminal activity.
Private citizens cannot use civil forfeiture against other private citizens.
However, you are correct that the underlying legal theory has been around in some form for hundreds of years dating back to medieval England.
That is such crap. Everyone knows a lot of the people they target can not afford a legal battle and will simply walk away and count their loses and the people doing the taking know this.
It's worse than that. The government has essentially unlimited (time and money) resources to throw into a civil case. Even the most wealthy individuals are at a severe disadvantage.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I find it bizarre the government can bring civil cases against individuals and corporations. They also do this to enforce environmental measures, a laudable goal. But as an ignorant layperson I prefer the government stick to defining and prosecuting what is illegal and stay our of civil law.
It isn't unconstitutional as the courts have affirmed over and over again. Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly.
But just because something is constitutional doesn't mean we have to do it, which is why simply getting the legislature to say "hey don't do that" is the approach left right now.
> Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly.
That is a ridiculous argument. Taking someone’s car or money isn’t “punishing the property” or “hurting the car’s feelings,” it’s depriving a citizen or resident of what is (until proven otherwise in a court of law) rightfully theirs and transgressing on their individual liberties. It is theft.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 5th amendment
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
IMO it's pretty cut and dry that the government can't just seize your stuff on a whim, and was written as a reaction to the British Crown doing exactly this sort of thing.
Yep, this is exactly how they are able to achieve it and will probably continue to. For a legal document, The Constitution is pretty weak and ambiguous on what authority the government has, the means of exercising power, and defined limits or procedure for operating. This is an inherent problem with any government, as it has the monopoly on force and incentives to expand its domain for any number of reasons.
I think the first big shift happened with Oliver Wendell Holmes and the move away from originalist interpretation. Arguably this was bound to happened, and will continue to expand further out. The Constitution is honestly just given a nod and has little bearing on law at this point.
Not a lawyer, not a judge, not a member of congress, but I would suggest, as a starting point, that an "unreasonable seizure" is one conducted against a citizen who has not been convicted of a crime, as is the case with civil forfeiture. Up to the courts to decide, of course, but that's where I'd start.
It's a huge problem and without a doubt legally ambiguous. Originalist interpretation is not a great legal framework, but it's fairly apparent some current policy is not congruent with the intention behind some of the amendments. I have no clue or power to change any of it, but it's still worth pointing out.
I agree with you but the parent’s point still stands. This is how the courts have allowed suits to go through in more than just civil forfeiture cases. If the property isn’t legally yours then you can’t possibly claim property ownership rights to it. So you “sue” the property and have all parties who believe they have a claim to it be parties in the lawsuit. It’s a quirk of the legal system. In practice it’s still the gov’t vs. the original “owner” fighting over who owns it.
It can’t be theft until after the courts decide who owns it. Then it can be theft.
Wrong. It's theft at the very moment that an unjustified seizure occurs. The recourse you have is to convince a court to declare it theft and force the taker to give it back. But the court's declaration is only a legal thing, not able to define reality.
> Property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly.
This is accurate insofar as it represents the current jurisprudence, but absolutely false in the moral or straightforward reading of the constitution.
The 'takings' clause of the 5th amendment, for example:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
That seems to clearly establish that humans have a right to their private property not being taken from them. Whether the legal fiction is a case against my car, or "a Toyota Corolla" doesn't have any practical difference on the outcome. The government can seize my car without due process,
Civil asset forfeiture is flat-out unconstitutional. The fact that is exists without due process or just compensation is wrong, and the current jurisprudence on it is simply wrong. It's rare for me to be willing to step out on a limb and say the courts are simply wrong on an issue, but civil asset forfeiture is a limb I will happily step out onto.
Judges are fallible. Actually, if you dig through the history of precedent surrounding any particular issue, you realize judges are incredibly fallible. There are stupid judges, corrupt judges, and judges that simply don't care that much.
For this reason, the argument of "no, the courts said otherwise" with regards to jurisprudence can be particularly frustrating.
This was an outgrowth of the 80's and the war on drugs.
It ruffled the feathers of average Americans that drug dealers got to keep their fancy cars and boats. Hence this was a legal way for the state to take those ill gotten gains. Over time its use has grown. Since the initial 'victims' were so unsympathetic, case law was established that everything was legal.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Seems right there, in plain english, in the 4th Amendment. I don't know what you're on about.
The problem is in the word "their". If they stole it, it's not theirs. If they bought it with stolen money, again, it's not theirs. Or at least, so goes the legal theory.
It seems straightforward enough, until you realize that it basically shifts the burden of proof for any ownership to you. And that includes the recursive problem of the money you used to buy it, so merely having a receipt doesn't suffice.
In a straightforward sense, it really does turn out to be that the word "their" is more complicated than it seems at first blush. But it's also clear that this complication is easily abused, and has been -- to a degree that courts should have stomped on long ago.
CAF is often used for properties that is theirs, and was bought with valid money, under the ""suspicion"" that the property was used for illegal things.
One case that is an example is a waitress who stored their tips in a jar at home getting all of it seized because 15 years ago she had a marijuana possession charge while in college (which was likely why she's a waitress in the first place (but thats another issue)).
Or people losing their cars because they got lost and drove down a "red light street" twice so they must clearly be looking for street workers.
Not to mention states that border vegas seizing winnings of anybody they can pull over who decided to cash all or part of their winnings in hard cash and make the mistake of letting hte officer see it. (for the meme of it mostly)
I suspect the gray area and disagreement comes out of the word "unreasonable", which looks much different to the suspect, the police, and the judicial system.
If you live in the US, as long as you sue the car and win first, (which not everyone can do), that's a perfectly fine argument. If you don't like it, change it.
I don't have emotions on this matter and I don't care what you think and I haven't stated my actual opinion. The authority on this matter are the courts.
The courts have evaluated civil forfeiture under
4th amendment arguments
5th amendment arguments
6th amendment arguments
8th amendment arguments
14th amendment arguments
and only found the 8th amendment argument against excessive fines to hold some weight, but not to undo civil asset forfeiture but only clarifying that the 8th amendment actually applies to the states.
if you want the executive branches to act differently and the courts to rule differently then you have to change what the legislature allows them to do.
like I wrote, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean we have to do it.
if only there was a completely different branch of government we could get to limit how the courts could rule, if someone figures it out they should do it and make an article about it
i might even write a comment about how thats the most effective way to change the reality, I wonder if people will read that part though, what do you think?
If people with the power to, start making more use of these discretionary powers, it can make a big difference without having to overturn the seemingly extensive jurisprudence.
Some legal hacking.
As an anecdotal experience, I have been convicted of a felony and allowed to keep the cash in my possession by the judge, which was not SOP. I guess I had made an impression. No snitching involved.
Hmm, no. The supreme court is not the only arbiter of that.
The president and congress are just as sworn to upheld it, and with respect to several portions of it (e.g. impeachment) are the only arbiters of what it means. With the rare exception of cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction [1] - congress is even allowed to replace the Supreme Court with a new final court of appeals. The Supreme Court has surprisingly little constitutional power if Congress decides to sideline them.
[1] > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction
[2] (Emphasis added) > In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You must make the difference between the institution and the members. Just because Congress can change the makeup of the Court, doesn't mean that the institution has. It's a Catch 22 - in the end the final interpreter will always have absolute liberty over meaning.
And again, in theory Congress can make exceptions to it, but in the end its still up to the Supreme Court to decide that they make sense. A piece of paper has no meaning in and of itself.
Marbury vs Madison is a result of an interpretation of the constitution, and the constitution de facto grants that power to the highest court of appeal which happens to be the Supreme Court. As a result, the highest court of appeal essentially is the constitution.
If you did disagree with the courts, you should have qualified your statement that “[the courts have ruled] property is not afforded the rights of humans and cases can be levied against property directly”
Otherwise this comment (and the one you copy-pasted) looks like knee jerk damage control.
I didn't state my opinion at all. Why do you think there is no latitude to just write accuracy statements? That shouldn't be a foreign concept. I don't feel the need to write disclaimers.
You are correct in that CAF cases are against the property, and not the owner, and thus in that sense physical goods have no constitutional rights.
But that doesn't mean that a CAF isn't an illegal seizure of property from someone who does have constitutional rights not to be deprived of their property without due process.
Have example cases re-affirming the constitutionality of civil forfeiture? It seems to run counter the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments, at minimum. This layman's reading and understanding is generally what people mean when they speak of "unconstitutional". Nuances found through the courts are then not "obvious" and more detail is helpful to have a helpful conversation on all sides.
and only found the 8th amendment argument against excessive fines to hold some weight, but not to undo civil asset forfeiture but only clarifying that the 8th amendment actually applies to the states
They file the case against the property, not the human. If we want a constitutional guarantee on the property then we need a new constitution with its own property based bill of rights
the cases aren't on my clipboard but anyone passing by feel free to fill them in. The 8th amendment case was before the US Supreme Court this year or last, despite the positive ruling it did not get the man's property back until the state he was in re-ruled.
If property doesn't have rights, how can the 8th ammendment protect it, yet it doesn't have protections under the others? The 4th explicitly requires the seizure of property to be based on at least probable cause. Just seems like a massive contradiction.
I guess someone needs to file a civil rights suit because they were deprived of that property under the color of law. The 4th ammendment is quite clear that one is to be secure in their affects. Doesn't matter if the case was filed against the property, the effect was felt by the person.
For a layperson like me, can you help me understand how it is that a case can be filed against property with respect to civil forfeiture while ignoring the constitutional violations against the person? I mean, how can anyone with a straight face claim that seizing property does not have burdensome negative consequences directly against the property owner, a real person who does have constitutional protections? How is it that the law in practice can become so far away removed from what seems so obviously wrong to those of us not familiar?
I trust you that there probably are many court decisions that have found civil forfeiture not to be unconstitutional. But it feels like it comes down to some pedantic twisting of words which go against the spirit of the constitution.
It is paradoxical. The reality is that many constitutions around the world have aspects that contradict and can overrule other rights afforded in them, and America is no exception despite the advertisement to the contrary.
In this case because the human is not on trial, they don't get to exercise those rights.
>It isn't unconstitutional as the courts have affirmed over and over again.
Well, the US courts had affirmed slavery as constitutional at some point too, time and again, until the 13th amendment. And then you had e.g. the declaration of independence and its "unalienable rights". What a farse.
It makes sense to think about the spirit of a constitution, not just what some judges has historically or thus far accepted as such.
It was explicitly constitutional. They managed to avoid the word "slave", but Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 explicitly distinguishes "free Persons" from "all other persons" (who only count for 3/5 when it comes to computing representatives).
They called it the Fugitive Slave Clause, even though the word doesn't appear in the Constitution. So yeah, that really wasn't just a matter of judges thinking about the "spirit" of the constitution. It was very clear that this was a slave nation.
Bonus: it still is, even with the 13th amendment. It does use the word slavery, and then provides an exception for people convicted of a crime.
If property has no rights than the justice system should have no claim of authority over it.
Property lacks agency, property lacks an opinion, property lacks an ability to express oversight and input on the system...therefore property should not be subject to that system.
Same goes for juveniles, frankly. If you can't vote for the system or participate...why the heck can it take away your liberty? It already has.
This is where I (not from the US) stop and ask: Wait, what?
Yeah, I've heard it before, but I never understood this part. Does the property go to the court and speak on its own behalf? Does it have a right to stay silent? How does the case work?
Is somebody notified? I guess the property owner knows about it, since it's taken, but is their presence required on court or can the matter be judged while the owner is under arrest?
Civil forfeiture cases are routinely filed in parallel to criminal cases. Criminal forfeiture also exists, which is not being considered controversial at this point in time.
One of the bigger controversies around civil cases is that they are often filed while the owner is not charged with anything.
In both civil and criminal issues, the human is often deprived of the very property they would use to pay a lawyer and help to defend themselves. By design.
Solution is to have stuff that nobody including the state knows about. "I have nothing to hide" well you should.
Ok, so I understand that when there is enough evidence to arrest the property owner, there is also enough evidence for a criminal forfeiture, so my concern up there does not happen in practice.
Also, whatever judgement happens, it's initiated by the owner, so there isn't an issue with timing.
That clarifies a bit how it works.
Anyway, the idea that just having large quantities of money creates strong suspicion of drug crimes that appears again and again on that linked document is beyond disgusting.
While I'm glad to see growing support for rolling back some of the most obviously horrific excesses of the War on Drugs, we still have a generation or two of Americans who eagerly support simply destroying the lives of people involved with drugs they've been trained to be afraid of. I mean, it's great so many people are finally willing to stop obliterating the lives of strangers who like to smoke weed instead of get drunk, but why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends?
I was with you until the end. You lost me at 'selling cocaine to his friends'
I personally support legalizing and/or decriminalizing a significant array of drugs; but I do not think we should ever accept the distribution of drugs by non-regulated entities. Possession/consumption, fine. Distribution: Not fine. Drugs sold on the street are not tested for purity or manufacturing standards. There is no accountability, no regulated employee rights, no taxes levied, etc. Selling drugs should remain a felony.
Personally, I think the gov't should grant licenses for the manufacture and distribution of these substances with rigorous controls, and adult citizens should be legally allowed to purchase an amount that is fit for personal consumption, on a schedule that would make it exceedingly difficult to resell/stash (e.g. You may purchase 1-2gs of cocaine or 2 tabs of acid every 6 months)
Obviously, we have seen problems with this, as this scheme is essentially just prescription drugs combined with Canada's 'beer stores'.
Letting "users" off the hook but going after the people who must exist for those users to obtain drugs makes no sense. The distinction is mostly imaginary (I say this as a former drug dealer).
I'd further argue that decriminalizing a drug for "personal use" but keeping it a crime to participate in the market for that drug is essentially a government endorsement of a black market.
Being a former drug user of various substances, I think it makes perfect sense. Addiction is a health issue, and addicts shouldn't be punished for it.
The dealers, those responsible for the deterioration of both physical and mental health of the users, are directly responsible for that and should face charges for the damage they inflict on society. I think that is a very real and not imagined distinction.
I obviously concede that without a legal alternative to obtaining drugs that yes, the gov't would be endorsing an illegal market. But, clearly, I've stated that's an intermediary step and I believe the sale of these drugs should be legal in a highly controlled environment to consenting adults.
I also think meth and opiods are exceptions and should never be legalized for consumption outside of a prescription, but then I'm splitting hairs based on opinion and experience.
I agree, although I think putting harsh limits will just continue to drive addicts and users with high tolerances to a black market. We don't place limits on alcohol, I'm not sure why we should on these things either. If there are legal, regulated places to buy them the "black market" would be mostly crushed anyway, just like the black market for alcohol is today.
It's true we don't limit alcohol consumption, unless one is at a bar, where a bartender legally must cut you off in some instances, and has discretion otherwise.
I think we should place limits specifically designed to prevent tolerance buildup or the ability to repeat said habit-forming behavior on a habit-forming schedule, basically. Like, I can do coke 1x a year and have a good time but not be addicted, especially if I can't get it again for a year. If one could just go back the Drugs'R'Us and pick up another g, well... we're even worse off than square 1.
That does nothing to stop the black market though. I would actually argue allowing people to legally get one fix of a addictive substance and then not allowing them a second would be a great boon to the black market. The concept doesn't really make sense. And then you also give law enforcement the headache of determining what is illegal coke and what is legal coke. What if I bought a bag 6 months ago,never consume it, then police find me with it.How can they possibly know if I used it six months ago and refilled the container on the street or not.
The environmentally-conscious side of me hates this: Single use, tax stamped containers that, once opened, cannot be resealed or reused. Theoretically, ne wouldn't have any trouble because possession is legal/decriminalized. If any drugs are found in a search by police that aren't in the state-approved containers, they are confiscated and destroyed, but the possessor is obviously not charged with anything. Problem solved, mostly.
I also don't care about any difficulties the purveyors of state-backed violence (police) may encounter as a result of this. They can spend their budgets that way instead of purchasing weapons of war. Win win win.
OK, so the plan is to make owning drugs legal, and sell drugs once to users, then tell them they can't have any more, and that is supposed to accomplish what, exactly? I'm not even against legalizing drugs, I'm just against legalizing them occasionally arbitrarily, that seems to be the worst of both worlds. Now we have legalized crackheads and opium addicts, with a legal method of getting addicted (but once you are addicted and desperately want more the govt cuts you off) and a crime fueled black market coexisting
I think a goal of legalization should be making buying coke easy for addicts, and hard for non-addicts.
The problem with your solution is that's not nearly enough cocaine for addicts, so compared to the current drug war you've made it far easier for non-addicts to buy drugs, without really influencing the supply for addicts.
I think a better solution is to allow people to buy up to a personal amount of coke for an addict, 1g per day. But require a request one month in advance. This allow addicts to purchase enough cocaine to satiate their habit, while still making it difficult for an individual to pick up some coke on a bad day and never stop.
It'd be way cheaper to just seize and destroy any drugs that didn't have a tax stamp. It also creates a nice incentive for the legal distribution system to charge cost+a bit instead of way too much.
What limits on purchasing do stores impose in Canada? If you buy a handle on Monday do you have to wait 6 months until you can buy one again?
The problem with this is that the opioid crisis has shown a large majority of people simply can't handle "hard" drugs. They either get physiologically addicted or psychologically dependent and rapidly enter downward spirals as a result. So even if you legalized and regulated the distribution of cocaine, for example, many people would still turn into addicts and pursue the black market to get their fix after their monthly allowed amount runs out. I don't think there really is a good answer in the near-term, honestly. You either go the Portugal route and trade massive spending on anti-drug policing for massive spending on rehab and mental healthcare or you get one opioid crisis after another. Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.
> Long-term I personally think the solution would be to invent recreational drugs that are non-dependency forming and distribute those in the same way some states are now handling marijuana.
I totally agree. In fact our ridiculous anti-drug stance has no doubt delayed or prevented the development of these things. I would imagine we would have some pretty good options if a legitimate pharmaceutical company could do this. Recreational, non addictive (or minimally addictive) options would be available.
Instead our harsh prohibition and penalties means the R&D are from drug cartels who want the most addictive/powerful product possible. I read a book called "Narconomics" which discusses how bad the Heroin has gotten because of this.
> why do they still think it's OK to ruin the life of some twenty-something selling cocaine to his friends
I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him.
But I think the view that there’s no limit to how badly his life can justifiably be ruined (or ended) is receding, there was multi-partisan (& independent) support for the First Step Act. And I think many reasonable people across spectrums could agree on more steps like the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, but some politicians love to laser focus on racial tensions and divide them.
"I think they think that he’s ruining their lives and hope to deter him."
Yeah, that's the War on Drugs in a nutshell. People imposing life-ruining penalties on strangers because they are afraid "something bad" might happen. But as decades of embarrassing failure have taught us, the "something bad" is far more likely to be a consequence of the laws than the drugs.
Rights, checks, and balances can go out the window because something bad might happen. Eurasia or Eastasia will end the world. Five times as many civilians as died on 9/11 must be secretly killed because something bad has happened. The messenger who told of those 15,000 hidden deaths must be killed because he shone the best disinfectant on our allies Eastasia as brightly as he did on our eternal enemies from Eurasia before, and caused the world to end for four years.
Hold on, that ending was a surprise. Rolling back most of the war on drugs and focusing it just on the sellers of class a drugs (once classification is corrected) is a fair summary of what most of the rest of the first world is heading towards. It’s the balanced option.
15 years ago, when I was in Uni, I smoked a bunch of weed and because I was smoking it and had contacts, friends who wanted some would ask me. I only ever charged them the cost price, I did not make any money from drugs, ever, but, technically, that would count as dealing at least by the laws in my country. I'd typically only have a small amount on me, but on occasion I did pick up enough for ~5 people. In aggregate, definitely enough that the police would have claimed it was far too much for personal use (nevermind that their "personal use" amount is always super low compared to what a moderate to heavy smoker would go through).
Every single one of my friends that I did this for is now an upstanding member of society, in well paying jobs paying over the average amount of taxes, some with children now. Point is, that I provided them with weed every so often had no negative effect on their lives or on society. Yet the law says it was a crime and if I had been caught it would have fucked up my life. I don't think that's particularly fair.
I know that's weed and the commenter mentioned cocaine, I've got friends who were in similar situation as me but with cocaine and would provide -- at no extra cost -- to friends who wanted it for parties and such. I don't think these people were any worse than I was. Distributing to friends really shouldn't be a big deal in my opinion.
The balanced option is ruining the lives of some people involved in recreational drug use, but not others, based on who is the point of distribution for a group of friends on a given weekend?
People don't buy drugs from kingpins and importers. They buy drugs from a friend who has a hook up who has a hook up and that is the only way drugs can be distributed if we insist on maintaining laws that ensure a black market.
Is the act of doing some drugs enough to ruin your life? The wealthy do drugs all the time. I'm willing to bet the majority of our politicians have done "illegal drugs" during their adult lives.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Beset by the multitude of issues we face today, I have rarely given civil asset forfeiture the attention it deserved, despite my strong feeling on the matter. I also do think it is clearly unconstitutional, if not in literal, in the spirit of the Constitution. I support this bill 200%.
Anyone who uses coercion to take property from someone where that person has not trespassed the person or property of another human being is a thief, it does not matter what uniform they wear, or how many people voted for them to be able to do it.
If a thief attempts to take your property at gunpoint,
You have every right to defend yourself from it.
So, not a specialist in US laws, and the last time I tried myself at it, it made me a laughing stock.
But...
If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law?
> If civil forfeiture is as such against the law already in current form, would that just mean that courts who kept okaying it will just keep ignoring the law?
No. The courts interpret the law and civil forfeiture is currently in a grey area when it comes to the law. It can be argued to be unconstitutional, in that it appears to violate the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. But if the legislature creates a law to make civil forfeiture illegal then that gives the courts less wiggle room to interpret the law.
> there are a lot of laws on the books in the U.S. that on their face appear to be unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality.
But what if the law is clearly 1000% prima facie against the word of constitution, but judges still keep deciding to okay it fully knowing of its unconstitutionality?
Colloquially, people call things "unconstitutional" when it doesn't match the social contract they were told when younger. It's more of a meme than a reference to what matches the constitution.
Children in the US are told lies to differentiate the US from other political systems worldwide. Those that can read are able to adopt a more effective set of rules in the US.
There's "Against The Law", and there's "against the law". the latter usually has to be proven in court using a pile of case history and existing laws, which is difficult when the assets seized are from the lower rungs of society, who have no means to retain an attorney, who definitely don't see the benefit of continuing the case once the state settles and they get their stuff back, and who have the cards stacked against them (not sure if it's the same now, but states used to charge you state legal fees if you lost your case.)
US constitution is 100% explicit, it's forbidden 100% forbidden.
Conformance to this is completely dependent on nothing more than judges' ability to read. If they read the US constitution, it says:
> "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It'd be helpful to read up on constitutional law before drawing these conclusions because there is a long and complicated history around interpreting every phrase and most words in the part that you cite. Probable cause is a great place to start IMO.
Because the cases people talk about are about the police confiscating the first thing they stumble upon, and deciding on the spot to confiscate it with no cause other than "they feel like doing it"
This was a complete waste of time. He's out of Congress, and once the session ends here in a few weeks, the bill evaporates. Where was amash before? Why didn't he introduce this bill two years ago?
Can the federal government actually end civil asset forfeiture "nationwide" due to the US Constitution's delegation of power to the states? In fact would this type of reform have to happen at the state level, and basically 50+ times? Unless explicitly stated in the constitution, there will be a cat fight of litigation over federal vs state rights, and the current federal court system is being more and more tilted towards states' rights. I'm wondering if this is some sort posturing by the author.
It's going to be arguments that CAF has curbed the drug cartels and is essential to stopping drugs and trafficking, including children. Guaranteed they mention child trafficking.
In my book of government crimes civil asset forfeiture takes second place after death penalty. How can any government claiming to be "for the people, by the people" and holding high moral ground get so low as to fuck with and ruin people's lives with as little as a mere suspicion. It is totally disgusting.
This is what democracy is all about: elected representatives acting in the interests of the people and pushing back against the institutional interests in the state that benefit from growing state power.
Yes to this a thousand times. I firmly believe the framers of the constitution would be horrified by this law. This should have been killed a long time ago.
It should be clear that this is a purely symbolic gesture. The bill will die in two weeks at the end of the 116th Congress.
Amash is retiring at the end of his term; he would have had to run as a Libertarian against a Republican whose name is on half the grocery stores in the state (Meijer).
If you're insinuating that he thinks he couldn't have won, I think you're very wrong (both that he couldn't win, and even moreso that he would think he couldn't win). His region has been highly supportive of him for a long time and he's been very up front about his ideologies. Also, the campaign finance numbers from the beginning of 2020 before he decided not to run again looked far better for him even as an independent than it did for any of his Republican or Democratic competitors (in particular, he raised over 2x as much as Meijer in 4th quarter 2019 and also more than all his opponents combined, again as an independent at the time) [1].
The real reason he isn't running is because he spent 10 years in congress trying to make change and has decided it isn't the most effective thing he can do anymore. Congress is too focused on partisan politics and isn't interested at all in fixing its broken system (most of them seem to prefer the broken system), which leaves little room for anyone of any party to make real change unless they're the party leader (or in cahoots with them). I suspect we'll see him running for other positions in the future and wouldn't be surprised at all if he wins whatever race he decides to join next.
I agree with you, he mainly dropped from the race because it was no longer an effective avenue to advance his ideas.
I do have to contest the first part of your statement - it's wishful thinking to see him having won this race. You're correct that he enjoys a broad base of bipartisan support, but the combination of turning on Trump, leaving the Republican party, and having a well-recognized opponent imperiled his chances in that district. He would have had to snag approximately 25% of the Democratic vote and 45% of the Republican vote to achieve that feat.
Fair enough. I definitely think he had a real shot, perhaps not the favorite but definitely a strong contender. He's been a name in his region for so long that I don't think recognition would be a huge problem (even before he went to congress he was in the Michigan house) and the fundraising numbers I shared just don't make sense if he truly had no chance. But impossible to say what would have happened, so I guess we'll have to wait and see when he does decide to run for something else.
Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress. The only Republican in the House to vote for both articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.
Of course - this is his last term, he did not run for reelection. I hope he does something meaningful next.
It's amazing how reasonable some of these politicians get as soon as they no longer need to run for another term in office. I've often believed it was because they needed to keep a part of their constituents happy to get votes for another terms but I actually think fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause. HBO has a fairly recent documentary that explores this: https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-swamp
Except Amash has been principled throughout his entire term, not just this last cycle after deciding not to run again. Of course, it's hard to look at every vote/comment he has made over the years since that's too much, but just as one example, he has been consistently very vocal with his criticism of house leaders from both parties that don't allow for the proper legislative process.
If he's so principled, why didn't he propose this bill during a time where he could actually see it walked through the different committees and maybe have a chance at getting to the Senate?
I don't know, there's a lot of possibilities. I doubt it's just because he's been sitting around doing nothing this whole time (but if you think so feel free to say why you think that). It seems more likely to me he was busy with other stuff, eg like his bill earlier this year to end qualified immunity. At the end of the day it's all about prioritizing, and those decisions can become pretty complex I imagine.
You could always try asking him yourself, he seems pretty responsive to people on twitter, and here [1] he answered a somewhat related question.
"fundraising and the lobbyists that control money are the root cause"
It's not just that.
After they've left political office, politicians who've advanced the interests of some companies while they were in office often get extremely well paying jobs at those very companies.
High level corporate executives will also regularly go in to politics (Trump being Exhibit A, but there are plenty of others at lower levels).
This revolving door of corporation to political office and back is an open secret in government.
Yet the impression among the general population is that corporations and the government are clearly separate entities. They're not.
> Justin Amash is the only principled person in Congress.
I get the sentiment, believe me. But "being principled" is a matter of degree and perspective.
Clearly, there is a gap between what a particular individual wants of their elected representatives ("reps") versus what they get. Why?
Sure, there are charitable explanations. First, reps have to balance competing interests. Second, some reps may make 'principled' compromises in order to prioritize certain values over others.
There are less charitable explanations, too. First, many reps seek power as an ends unto itself, but doing so pulls them into a system where 'principled' decisions (e.g. ones directly for the benefit of voters) become harder. Second, some reps have questionable ethics and are willing to take money at the expense of their proper responsibilities. And so on.
All of interpretations are true, to some degree.
If people in a (more or less) democratic system want to change it from within, it is not effective to simply hope for reps to behave more ethically. We have to: (1) adjust the rules; (2) change our expectations; and (3) get involved: run for office, volunteer for campaigns, give money and resources, and vote. (Tell me if I've left anything out!)
> The libertarian congressman, who is retiring after this session, has long been a proponent of criminal justice reform.
Okay so his bill will exist for basically 10 days before all bills in Congress get erased and he won't even be around to reintroduce it when the new Congress starts next month?
Yeah ok.
Dang, you know what to do, time to close this thread just like you did with the Stable Act.
But it will die probably because too many people benefit from the misery of others.
Civil forfeiture is unconstitutional. Assets are seized based on “suspicion.”
Individuals in many alleged “authoritarian” countries or dictatorships have more rights than the victims of civil asset forfeiture.