« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Case Against 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Ma

By: lineholder (Diary)  |  May 20th, 2012 at 01:36 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Interesting case.  I wasn’t aware of it myself until this morning when I read George Will’s article “When the Looter is the Government”.

To provide a few background details in the case:

This town’s police department is conniving with the federal government to circumvent Massachusetts law — which is less permissive than federal law — to seize his livelihood and retirement asset. In the lawsuit titled United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts, the government is suing an inanimate object, the motel Caswell’s father built in 1955. The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize it, sell it for perhaps $1.5 million and give up to 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department, whose budget is just $5.5 million. The Caswells have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. They are being persecuted by two governments eager to profit from what is antiseptically called the “equitable sharing” of the fruits of civil forfeiture, a process of government enrichment that often is indistinguishable from robbery.

(snip)

Since 1994, about 30 motel customers have been arrested on drug-dealing charges. Even if those police figures are accurate — the police have a substantial monetary incentive to exaggerate — these 30 episodes involved less than 5/100ths of 1 percent of the 125,000 rooms Caswell has rented over those more than 6,700 days. Yet this is the government’s excuse for impoverishing the Caswells by seizing this property, which is their only significant source of income and all of their retirement security.

The government says the rooms were used to “facilitate” a crime. It does not say the Caswells knew or even that they were supposed to know what was going on in all their rooms all the time. Civil forfeiture law treats citizens worse than criminals, requiring them to prove their innocence — to prove they did everything possible to prevent those rare crimes from occurring in a few of those rooms. What counts as possible remains vague. The Caswells voluntarily installed security cameras, they photocopy customers’ identifications and record their license plates, and they turn the information over to the police, who have never asked the Caswells to do more.

Basically, it’s a “sting” operation that allows government to “confiscate” properties that might be vulnerable.  (Yes, I know that stealing is probably a far more accurate description).  According to Will’s article, a federal drug agent roots around in public records to find “targets”.  (Great…so now we’re paying them to steal from us, too?)

The Institute for Justice is taking up the case on the side of the defendants.  They have a booklet describing activities and laws in various states at the site linked.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

I don’t know what it is about that simple fact that so many Americans do not seem to comprehend, but apparently they don’t.  If they did, they would be adamantly opposed to all this “fairness” and “equality” tripe that President Obama keeps claiming we “need”.  They’d see through the ruse of “fairness” and “equality” to understand that handing government even more power is a huge, HUGE error in judgment.

By handing even more power to government, we’re only ensuring more corruption.  A government that is corrupt that can not be trusted to honor the law or to keep its promises.

Hopefully, we can find a way to get this point across loud and clear between now and November!

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Viet71

    n/t

  • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

    If this should come to pass… it would justify civil war…

    This cannot be allowed! Stop it please!

    They would never stop then. No private business would be safe. They would find excuses, make new nanny rules, then slap you for not being good enough on them!

    Run for sheriff there and then arrest the police leaders for conspiracy to defraud and violate civil rights! Stop it, put a stake in its heart!

    • The_Gadfly

      it’s been SOP for some police forces for years. Some police departments practically fund their budgets from it. It was sold as a way to stop drug traffic. Essentially the drug business is so profitable, the top dogs diversify their holdings with all sorts of tangible goods, frequently nominally under the name of someone not directly involved in their illicit work. Which provides them with the means to bail themselves out and hire expensive lawyers to beat the rap. So the police departments seize the property to prevent that, and if they get a conviction, sell it to benefit from it. Occasionally you’ll see a case where a teenager is caught selling drugs from his house and his or her parents lose it as a result.

      The thing is, most police departments haven’t been so stupid as to go after property where the owner has been actively aiding the police in the capture of people involved in illicit trade.

      • Agelaius

        First, confiscating a parent’s home because a kid smokes marijuana is nuts. That should never happen. If a motel owner consciously allows his property to be used for drug sales, and there’s pretty strong evidence that he could have stopped the problem, well I can see some situations in which perhaps the police would be justified in selling that asset. After all, people get sued for negligence and can lose their houses. Not sure why there shouldn’t be a process for those who affirmatively assist drug criminals, or for those who are recklessly negligent enough to permit long-term massive violation of the drug laws. If the property owner is aiding the police, as you mention, then it is nuts to confiscate the property. I think funding police departments partially through confiscations does make sense, but there needs to be some oversight to make sure that police departments don’t get too overzealous – some sort of review board to assure that the individual losing the assets was in fact responsible in some material way for the violation of the law.

        • morstar150

          The drug war is a failure. It has created a sub-culture of corruption that permeates the police departments around the country. See Broward Co., Florida. The law does not protect the public from government over-reach but certainly the biggest dealers are so well connected that they have limited losses. Would you like to buy a car. There are police auctions all the time. Where do you think those cars come from? It’s not the Mexican drug cartels. Sham political policies justify unconstitutional behavior by the police with blessings from the courts. It’s the new game in town.

          • Agelaius

            Police are a necessity. Funding them is a necessity. Should the burden be equally shared among taxpayers, or should there be revenue streams from those who abuse the rules?

            I don’t dispute that there is a risk of police overreach, and there need to be checks put in place. But as long as drug trafficking and/or production is illegal, shouldn’t siezed assets be used to fund law enforcement? Isn’t this better than constantly going to the general public with higher property taxes? You can’t have both – lower taxes and police – so it seems like the lesser evil is to convert some of the assets of those who break the law into revenue to support those who enforce the law.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

            The parents should know what their kid is doing to a certain extent, but seizing a house… they best know the parents knew.

            Seizing cars… I agree with that policy.. it penalizes traffickers harder than without.

            Seizing businesses should be only if the owner themselves were complicit…. aka a conviction.

          • The_Gadfly

            I seem to recall some cases where expensive cars were stolen, the perps got high in the cars, so the police seized the cars as part of their drug bust and subsequently auctioned the cars.

            Note that I agree that being able to aggressively pursue drugs and/or organized crime is a good thing, it’s just that like all policy issues, there needs to be some common sense in how they are enforced. Below Dave_A has a proposal that at least makes a decent starting place.

          • sulmak

            Not just “common sense in how they are enforced”.

            Otherwise why don’t we just replaced the entire criminal code with “It is illegal to do bad stuff, and that is punishable by up to and including death and seizure of all property”.

            Arbitrary enforcement is the same as ex-post facto law or even a pre-legal societies.

            They need to have clearly defined laws that are enforced evenly. Discretion in enforcement only in extreme cases, not everyday ones.

            Vague laws that allow police to seize property at their own discretion only invite abuse, and are not transparent enough to even know whether your violating them or not, as this case clearly shows.

          • The_Gadfly

            when idiots are enforcing the law. We thought these were clearly defined laws BEFORE police started abusing them. Or more precisely, before the progressives who oversee the police started abusing them because it was a good way for government to fleece more money from the people.

  • checkmate2012

    This more is horrendous than eminent domain. I think they’ll win their case on some form of privacy since the Caswell’s would have had to have cameras in hotel rooms to know that guests were using or selling drugs. Wouldn’t they be charged with illegal spying if they wanted to prevent the so-called crime?

    The fact that the “Caswells voluntarily installed security cameras, they photocopy customers? identifications and record their license plates, and they turn the information over to the police, who have never asked the Caswells to do more” is very scary for any guest in one of their hotels as that in itself is an invasion of privacy.

    I’d be curious to know if hotels in Tewksbury, MA have a privacy statement on their guest check-in contract that advises their private info will be shared with the police.

  • Dave_A

    There are two possible outcomes to this:

    1) The hotel has alot more criminal activity associated with it than the above article indicates

    2) If it goes to court, the owner will win.

    As for sharing information with the police, it’s private property & the guests are subject to the rules of the establishment owner… There is no ‘right’ to privacy arising from a business transaction, tuneless explicitly established in the law or contract.

    Personally, I’m inclined to file this under the ‘baby-didn’t-do-nuttin’ defense, and presume that there is more criminal activity going on at the motel than the owner admits to…

    And that the property is being seized due to being a known/notorious criminal place of business – regardless of how few arrests have been made there.

    Essentially, this is the same law that allows the seizure of ‘crack houses’ being used on a much larger building.

    • lineholder

      That’s part of what drew my attention to this article to begin with, because the Institute for Justice is involved in it and I’m familiar with their work. It’s totally out of character for this organization to take on a legal case of this sort UNLESS they have substantial evidence to support their side of the case.

      We won’t know all the details until the case is heard. But until that time, it wouldn’t hurt us to learn more about the legal implications of these kinds of laws. I think the information provided at the I for J link provided above is a good start.

      • Dave_A

        I just tend to presume that it wouldn’t come to this without a justified cause – because MOST OF THE TIME when someone’s complaining ‘we was screwed’… There’s usually more to the story….

        • westcoastpatriette

          the Institute for Justice is a Libertarian organization which would help explain their concern in this case. I have no position on the matter as I have not heard enough to conclude anything. But many times, Libertarians would reject your line of reasoning no matter how many crimes may have been committed inside the rooms the motel was renting.

          OTOH, it is not hard to sympathize with the motel owners as we watch our government become more and more tyrannical while they ignore the Constitution as they trample on so many of our rights.

  • Dave_A

    A good number of such condemned properties get destroyed….

    The point of these laws is to (a) prevent criminals from profiting off their crime, and (b) to squire and destroy buildings that provide cover for criminal activities…

    • Dave_A

      .

      • MF

        Sorry, I normally don’t comment on typos and spelling, but since you kowalski’ed yourself and still got it wrong, I couldn’t help myself. :-)

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      it is a stupid way to run an asylum. Civil asset forfeiture is Orwellian and should have never been countenanced.

      And those who are most concerned with run away government power, ie conservatives are the ones who should be most opposed.

      • Dave_A

        In that the government should have to bring a case in civil court and prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the property should be forfeit…

        Rather than the citizen having to sue to get their property back as it is now.

        In the case of movable property, an injunction could be issued prior to the trial, to prevent the sale or other disposal of the property – or to have it held in impound pending a verdict – but the property would only be seized if the judgement went for the plaintiff’s case.

        Eg, ‘US vs Joe Dope Dealer in the matter of one black escalade and $200,000′ instead of ‘US vs One Black Escalade and $200,000′.

        But I’m not for abolishing it all together….

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          then it would be “due process”. What we have now is not due process.

        • aesthete
        • The_Gadfly

          Pity the decision is more likely to become an immutable SCOTUS ruling.

    • The_Gadfly

      department that does the same thing. And he was selling it as a good policy because it made the police self-sustaining and often times profitable for the political district (don’t recall if it was a city or a county).

  • Finrod

    This kind of crap has been going on for years; usually the target is cash or smaller property, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least that this has been upscaled to try to take out an entire motel.

    All of you that support the War on Some Drugs: this is a direct result of your support and your unwillingness to criticize this war’s excesses, of which this is just the most recent and publicized example.

    Silence implies assent.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      A. Another reason for knowing just how Totally Depraved he is.

      Not sure broad-brushing JQP with a heightened sense of guilt works so well during a tight election cycle, however.

    • PowerToThePeople

      and without knowing a bit more, neither you nor I are in the position to denounce anything.

      This type of seizure is not uncommon and it does not take drugs or the war on drugs to come to the same conclusion.

      In my state, a property can be seized and eventually forfeited if it has become a nuisance. The nuisance could be defined as constant calls for police, drug arrest, violence, prostitution, constant trash or being below state/county/city code, being a trashy property, and so on. It has helped get rid of some horrible places where landlords are nothing more than slum lords who are willing to let anything go as long as they make a buck. It has been a very popular law and even my town is considering passing something similar so rough spots can be cleaned up.

      If you do not like the seizure law, and I could see where a person would not like it due to possible abuses, argue that point. But trying to equate one thing with the whole war on drug law just so you can again let us all know you want people to be able to get high if they want to is absurd.

      People like to hide behind their “rights” even when it destroys a community or another person’s property value. This law gives the power back to the community and is nothing worse than the power of most cities to seize properties that are below code or eyesores.

      • acat

        just because otherwise you’d have to agree with a dirty libertarian.

        (Cheshire grin)

        • PowerToThePeople

          with your pathetic arguments or libertarians in general. It has to do with very little information and a blanket statement on the war on drugs that even if we assume for sake of argument that the snippet is true, has nothing to do with the war on drugs. If you are not smart enough to understand that, your problem.

          But as past experience shows, I am sure you are the expert on this situation as well…….right?

          • acat

            There’s very little difference between the DMV examiner who – I kid you not – was asleep on a bench while her co-worker complained to patrons about her, and the people executing the “war on drugs”.

            We should not be surprised when these people abuse any power given to the State, and should be cautious about giving them any additional power.

            You jumped in with a blanket defense – “…but it can be used for good”. I say that’s a B.S. argument.

            By the way, did you read the diary you’re assuming, for the sake of argument, is true? 5/100ths of all patrons busted, and the Fed grabbing the property based on drug laws, has nothing to do with the “war on drugs” ?

            Do you wish to re-phrase?

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            but try to keep up.

            A) If THIS incident turns out to be bogus and an abuse of power, THIS situation needs to be dealt with, but still has little to nothing to do with the war on drugs.

            B) The 5/100th of a percent is a completely irrelevant number. For one, the figure represents the many years the current owner was not involved. Second, it again matters little what happened last year if this years behavior is wrong. So it does not matter how many good customers there were up until point A, it matters what has gone on since then. The whole less than a percent figure is bogus fluff.

            C) The article from the all “truthful” Washington post and George Will does not look into anything other than the 30 arrests. How many complaints were made where the suspect(s) were gone before police arrival or evidence was destroyed. How many assaults where no charges were pressed. How many other arrests for non drug charges have occurred. How many noise complaints, drunk complaints, etc have been called in. Of the people arrested, how many were allowed to return. What do the neighbors have to say about the place. How many times has he been warned to put in place safeguards that would prevent unwanted behavior. And so on.

            This is a fluff piece that gives no information as to overall situation, condition of the place, overall police presence, problem outside of drugs that occurs there, if arrested are allowed to return, and so on. It instead puts up a bogus number that has nothing to do with the entire thing. It is akin to me taking the home I have owned for over 20 years, opening up a brothel tonight, and then people claiming that since 25 years has gone by without incident, the last months of arrests for prostitution are way too small to be relevant.

            Seizing of property after due process is a very viable form the police and government have to shut down slum homes and business that are crime or trouble spots. Can there be abuse, yes, Could there have been abuse here, yes. But it also could be a perfect example of a POS owner who is losing his money maker that is a crime haven. There is not enough info to make that determination. And you do not know any different.

            So no, I do not wish to rephrase.

          • acat

            It’s part of a pattern that those concerned with civil liberties have been pointing out for a while now.

            Yes, *some* government taking and re-purposing is good, but it needs oversight by at least one other branch… but as the Kelo decision showed, even that isn’t always reliable.

            Unless you can show that those 30 arrests were after new management, your “crime haven” argument comes across as Pollyanna.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            and I am not sure why you keep missing this. if this was an abuse, lets deal with it. If you want to state that these type of seizures need to have more oversight, fine, I would agree. If you want to state that there has been abuse, fine, I would agree. If you want to say just having one oversight board is not enough and we should impanel some citizens or another board to oversee the overseers, fine, I would agree. But that still has nothing to do with the original diary, the post by Finrod, the serious lack of info on this situation, or my response.

            And until you or anyone can show this case is a case of abuse, your comment that this isn’t an isolated case holds no water. And you are right, we can not show the 30 arrests happened under the new owner, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOG GONE INFO, yet you and others are sure taking sides as if there was.

            I am fully aware there are government abuses and this could be one of them. But so far nothing has been shown either way on this case, so none of us have a leg to stand on. but going around equating this situation to his “lets all smoke weed because of the evil drug war” is nonsense. Even if it is abuse, still has nothing to do with the war on drugs.

            There are abuses everywhere. People get tickets for speeding from POS cops that are bogus but we do not need to stop cops from enforcing speed laws. People go to jail because of slimy cops or lying complaints, we do not need to shut down all jails.

            If someone wants to make an argument about this particular case, we need more information not distorted 1/100 of a percent fluff that is irrelevant. Until then it is just opinion. But it does not reflect on a viable law that is used quite effectively across this country fairly in a vast majority of the cases.

          • acat

            I don’t think I’m the one who’s missing something….

            The DoJ have been given incredibly coercive powers to execute the “war on drugs”. You appear to agree with this.

            How do you propose to wind this down? What are the victory conditions for the “war on drugs”, and what’s the plan to “de-militarize” afterward?

            This case is, due to the parties (DoJ, etc.) involved, the crimes (drug busts) involved, etc. is related to the “war on drugs”.

            Whether it is abuse or not, it sure smells like there’s something wrong here… and if the DoJ want to clear the air, all they have to do is to release the full story.

            I would advise not holding your breath.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            Again, the law is valid and an effective way to dismantle crime havens. It does not matter if that area restricts seizures to drug offenses which by the way I doubt is the way it works, it is still a viable law.

            If this was a case of abuse, it needs to be dealt with. But some fluff percent number and a claim that fed agents search databases for paid off properties is absurd and unsubstantiated nonsense.

            This is a single case where no info has been given. It could be police abuse, but there is nothing to evidence that no matter how it ‘smells.’ And regardless of whether it is abuse or not, it is not a referendum on a law that has saved many a community, it would simply be one case that is bad in a sea of cases that were right.

            As to how to win the war on drugs, there is no chance of that. We simply have to be prepared to fight for as long as people are losers intent on being high. I have no use for dope or its users so I could really care less how long it takes to rid our nation of as many as possible,

          • acat

            but you don’t see abuse?

            I’ll admit, I’m trusting George Will to get his facts together… but that seems less of a risk than flat out assuming the facts are wrong…. as you did.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            or shove off, I have no patience for people either too stupid to read or willing to add in BS just to try to make a point.

            I have conceded numerous times during this thread that there have been abuses and even stated clearly that this whole issue may deal with abuse, but so far there is no proof one way or the other. So stop with the silliness.

            As to the perpetual war, what is your point. We have perpetual wars on murder, theft, rape, incest, etc and yet none of the other crimes have been stopped or even slowed down. On a country of over 300 million, one would have to be the biggest moron on the face of the planet to expect a stopping of crime, drug or otherwise. But that does not mean we tuck tail and run just because we have not stopped it or because there are cases of abuse.

            And again, never stated his facts are wrong, again with the silliness, simply stated he and the newspaper are not exactly the shining example of truth and non biased reporting, the article gives no proof of abuse, leaves out a ton of facts, and tries to use fluff numbers to prove a point.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

            I have been a medical transport officer for people addicted to drugs and those deemed a danger to themselves or others.

            I have been security in the projects.

            I have seen friends and family addicted.

            I have lived with addicts.

            I have lived with recovering addicts.

            I have been on the front lines for near 12 years of my life. I support fighting drugs, I would willingly give my life in that was as much as I was willing to when I was an infantryman in the army.

          • acat

            Also, why are we “fighting” a “war” without involving the Armed Services?

            Just *how* long ago did Tom Clancy write the backstory of a Navy SEAL who took matters into his own hands?

            I agree that we need to address the illegal drug problem. I’ll go further and include the “legal” abuse of prescription medication.

            What I don’t see is anything resembling success under the current system .. and the risk of creating a long-term self-perpetuating highly intrusive bureaucracy.

            So.

            What do you think would be reasonable “victory conditions”, and how do you propose that we get there?

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            The one argument that trumps all others is that you now have a record of utter and dismal failure for SEVERAL DECADES in this drug war, Nothing has improved although much money has been spent and many lives ruined.

            It seems to me that all the drug warriors are the ones who have to justify this ongoing failure. The onus is upon them.

          • aesthete

            for many of the negative trends in law enforcement in recent years, including asset forfeiture, increased use of SWAT teams for non-violent crimes and in contexts where they are not necessary, escalation of situations which can be resolved peaceably, and many, many others. This is very well-documented, and Finrod is right: in much the same way that laws establishing healthcare or pensions as a “right” create the impetus for harmful legislation later down the line, the war on drugs and its escalation have created an environment where abuse is much more likely, and either tolerated or encouraged. For all that conservatives decry the “slippery slope” when it comes to gay marriage, there’s much better documentation for a correlation between the abuses noted above, and escalations of the war on drugs in the US and the UK.

          • PowerToThePeople

            do you know the law? Does Acat? Does Finrod? I assume the answer is yes. Given that belief, whose fault is it if a person chooses not to obey the law and ends up losing property or freedom?

            If you do not like the law, work to change it. But as long as it is law, you do not get to pick and chose what laws you like and what laws you want to follow. And when a person does choose to ignore laws, then they have no right to complain about the consequences. The fact they may or may not be violent or the crime may or may not be violent has little to do with anything.

            I have never been arrested for drugs, never had property seized, never been in the back of a squad car whining about the evil war on drugs. Why you ask, because I follow the law.

            Oh and by the way, there is no comparison between the health care BS and drug laws, No one is forcing anyone to smoke, shoot, snort, inhale drugs, transport drugs, handle drugs, possess drugs, manufacture drugs, etc. And as to the escalation stuff you typed, I personally would prefer to take the Chinese approach to dope as they did in Taiwan years ago. If you do not understand that statement, look it up or ask me. The poor calls of abuse from dope heads, dope peddlers, and dope manufacturers does not faze me as I think they are getting it way too easy.

          • aesthete

            If only we could. Unfortunately, every one of the 20-odd states that have legalized medical marijuana using appropriate channels (most passed through referenda) has seen these legal businesses get raided and fined by the federal government Which is acting contrary to the Supreme law of the land, which states the powers of the federal government and delegates all other powers to the states and the people — these states, or the federal government? When we have an unaccountable agency (the DEA) supported by an unaccountable federal government which is left to its devices by a pliant Supreme Court, options are rather limited.

            In any case, the first step to changing any law is advocacy and voter education. Jim Crow laws were legal and blacks or whites who broke them lost property and freedom. That wasn’t right, and a voter advocacy campaign was needed. Several laws in place in the Soviet Union restricted ownership, and those who broke such laws faced penalty. The actions that these blacks and whites took, and that proprietors in the USSR took, were just as preventable as those that potheads take. The fact that there was a law in place did not make it right when governments put these people in jail for breaking them. Bad laws don’t just affect the lawbreakers; they tend to justify actions against people who haven’t been proven in a court of law to have broken any laws. Non-proprietors were thrown in gulags under these pretexts, northern Blacks who were born free were taken to the South as slaves under the auspices of the Fugitive Slave Acts, and of course jailing of innocent blacks was all too common in the Jim Crow South. Bad law is not created or enacted in a vacuum; it affects us all and should be recognized and repealed.

          • PowerToThePeople

            comparing the Jim crow laws to being able to get high is ridiculous. And trying to compare the USSR behaviors to our drug laws is even more ridiculous.

            It does not matter if the fed law pertaining to drugs inhibits state law as there is a legitimate reason for the feds to be involved. But rather than debating that, the answer is still the same. If you do not like the fed laws, change them. If we win in November, we are going to change a major fed law so it can be done. The reason it has not been done is that a majority of people in this country favor tough drug laws and have no issue with them. You stating that the drug laws are bad is simply an opinion not shared by me or a majority of this country.

            Regardless of all that, again, if the DOJ is out of control then we need to deal with that issue. But that still does not reflect on the actual law. There has always been abusive cops, corrupt cops, corrupt and abusive departments. We do not end the law because of them, we send them packing. Same applies here.

            And “medical weed” is one of the best example of stupid thought. Sorry, but the idea that smoking weed somehow provides better treatment than doctor prescribed drugs is ludicrous and is nothing more than people wanting to get high or buying into the hype. Especially considering who the vast majority are who carry the cards. And I could care less about the dopies who claim weed is such a great thing, it is absurd.

          • aesthete

            In order:

            “comparing the Jim crow laws to being able to get high is ridiculous.”

            Not when it comes to rebutting arguments that rely on legality trumping all other concerns, and when it comes to informed lawbreaking of any sort being used as an argument in favor of the status quo. It’s not my fault that you used a poor argument of that form.

            “It does not matter if the fed law pertaining to drugs inhibits state law as there is a legitimate reason for the feds to be involved.”

            1) No, there isn’t.

            2) That’s not your call; we have an amendment system in place if you have an interest in changing federal powers. For someone who is so adamant on following legal processes, you don’t seem to respect those processes when they apply to the federal government’s behavior.

            “You stating that the drug laws are bad is simply an opinion not shared by me or a majority of this country.”

            According to public polling, the majority of the population supports medical marijuana. A plurality supports marijuana decriminalization. Even when it comes to drugs that the population wants criminalized, there is little support for how we are waging it, for how long sentences tend to be, and for prioritization of the drug war above other law enforcement duties. There is no support for the feds overturning state laws which allow medical marijuana. At any rate, I don’t care how many people agree or disagree with me: Roe v Wade was a decision supported by a majority of the country when it was first decided; didn’t make it right, and I’ll not stop thinking so because some given percentage of fools agrees or disagrees with me.

            “We do not end the law because of them, we send them packing.”

            Are you kidding? We change the law on account of unrealistic attempts at enforcement all the time, as well we should. The reinforcement of Common Law is itself a response to piss-poor governance and administration under the Angevins, among other English dynasts. Do you think that bad economic laws banning ownership in the USSR were enforceable and good given proper government employees, or do you recognize that attempts to enforce those laws were futile?

            “Sorry, but the idea that smoking weed somehow provides better treatment than doctor prescribed drugs is ludicrous”

            1) Irrelevant

            2) Plenty of licensed doctors prescribe medical marijuana in states where that is an option, meaning that it is a “doctor prescribed drug”

            3) “Better treatment”? Marijuana’s medical properties are as an anesthetic and a pain reliever. There are possible applications when it comes to cancer. “Better treatment” is not a universal constant; it is patient- and time- dependent. I have no doubt that some people use prescriptions for recreational use; I also know that there are medical reasons why a doctor might prescribe marijuana instead of some other drug. In either case, it’s none of my business so long as I’m not paying for it.

          • PowerToThePeople

            out which one liners of your apply to my points, so I will simply stick with the ones that are easy to see what points you are applying them to.

            Yes, it is absurd to compare the Jim Crow laws to this issue and no matter what you try to say, it is and will stay absurd. It is not even an apples to oranges comparison.

            No one is trying to say legality trumps all other concerns, that is a figment of your imagination. What was said is that isolated cases do not detract from the overall law no more than a case of a rogue officer abusing his badge is a referendum on all cops or a reason to fire all cops.

            As to fed right to be in the drug enforcement world, sorry bub, they do have the right, no the obligation, to be involved since the drug trade crosses not only state lines, but national ones as well. It is their constitutional duty to be involved.

            As to your point two, lost me as to what you are wanting to say there. I am not the one who wants to change drug enforcement, so I have no interest in working towards any change there. As to not wanting to follow the law……..do what? As I stated above, the fed government has a constitutional duty to fight the drug trade, so lost as to what you are trying to imply here.

            The send them packing comment, lets not play semantics OK. There is a big difference between changing bad law or corrupt law and changing law because some enforcers of the law are corrupt or abusive. It is pretty clear that is what I meant so stick to what is typed. But just in case you still miss the point, let me give a poor example as I really do not wish to sit here coming up with a good one.

            Law states if domestic abuse occurs, cop must arrest at least one of the participants. Pretty good law. Cop A is dating a married woman who makes wild claims about her current husband. Cops buys into the BS and tells GF to make a domestic abuse call at certain time so he can be arresting officer. Poor smuck of a husband is sitting on his couch when cop walks in, arrests him for CDV even though nothing happened. This is cop abuse, does not mean we end CDV laws. You fire the cop when the husband provides the video tape he has all because he thought his wife was cheating so he set up hidden cameras.

            As to your claim so many want legal weed or medical weed. Are those polls like the ones that claim a majority want gay marriage? You know the ones who have been shown to have a slant as to who they call just to fudge the figures their way. You know the ones who seem to be so wrong when it comes time to actually vote.

            Not too mention many of the questions are so open, they disallow for the feeling that the purchase of weed to smoke for “medical use” should not be allowed while vapor form or liquid form would be acceptable. It also takes a person’s desire to have it taken out of fed hands as being support for the use of it. How about how people feel when asked what they feel about supporting the same folks who cry for legal weed who also want medical LSD and other hard drugs. Bet those poll numbers would drop considerably. Polls matter little when questions are vague or do not encompass reality.

            Not too mention just as many votes have been won on the side of keeping weed illegal as have been won by the other side. In fact, most of the 18 states that have legalized medical use or decriminalized it have not been done with vote but rather with judicial or congressional order.

            Last but not least, it is not irrelevant as we do end up paying for pot heads BS use of medical weed.Who do you think pays for the doc visits and the issues that arise? Them? In some cases yes, many, no. And docs writing scrips does not mean all is well as we have seen many a time with docs writing BS pain pill scripts just for the bucks. Both are an issue and not irrelevant.

          • aesthete

            That is insane. No constitutional school of interpretation would agree with this statement. History would not agree with this statement — the war on drugs having been tepidly initiated in the 20th century. Intrastate medical marijuana providers have been raided — this has nothing to do with your bogus “state and national lines” distinctions. If you’ve ever argued the Constitutionality of any economic initiative at the federal level, you’re being a massive hypocrite.

            “isolated cases do not detract from the overall law”

            This is not even close to being an isolated case. Peoples’ property is taken by PDs on completely arbitrary grounds all the time, including cooperative individuals and individuals who have committed no crime.

            “There is a big difference between changing bad law or corrupt law and changing law because some enforcers of the law are corrupt or abusive.”

            One that you have no intention of engaging or addressing besides this throwaway comment.

            “Are those polls like the ones that claim a majority want gay marriage?”

            Nope, these ones have some basis in fact given the number of states where medical marijuana referenda have passed.

            “It also takes a person?s desire to have it taken out of fed hands as being support for the use of it.”

            Um, duh. The question of whether governing authorities should ban or permit something is different from support of same. I would be among those who, if polled, would state my disapproval of casual, recreational drug use. That doesn’t mean that I am satisfied with the current legal arrangement.

            “Polls matter little when questions are vague or do not encompass reality.”

            I’m sure that’s exactly what you say about gay marriage referenda.

            “In fact, most of the 18 states that have legalized medical use or decriminalized it have not been done with vote but rather with judicial or congressional order.”

            Generally, when people use the word “most”, they mean “most”. Of the 20 US jurisdictions which have some form of medical marijuana, 10 of the 20 were on account of referenda. “Half” is the correct word choice here. Only one jurisdiction has medical marijuana as a result of a non-elected body (Iowa), and no medical marijuana initiative has been legalized contrary to the wishes of the people or in violation of state processes. No medical marijuana legalization has involved the use of courts. In fact, quite the opposite: every state which legalized medical marijuana did so with large majorities in favor, and public approval remains high in those states. In contrast, many of these states (including my own) have seen referenda overturned by courts acting outside their jurisdiction.

            “Last but not least, it is not irrelevant as we do end up paying for pot heads BS use of medical weed.Who do you think pays for the doc visits and the issues that arise? Them? In some cases yes, many, no.”

            Wow — just wow. How much do you think they’re currently paying for law enforcement targeted at drug use, or the prisons that they occupy? “Zero” is the correct answer. There is no question among any of those who have studied the issue that the US/UK model is the most expensive of all possible models, and no question that potheads pay much less for it than for the maintenance of other models.

          • PowerToThePeople

            to continue this absurdity with a person so blinded by their obsessive desire to end government as we know it. If you want people to be able to smoke dope, have at it. I for one have no interest in supporting losers or the losers who support the losers.

            I know you think yourself to be the end all of the conversation, but most of what you type is simple pot head rhetoric and opinion which by no means is implying you smoke dope, but you have sure bought into the BS. One prime example is the cost factor you brought up this time and many times before. One must say who gives a damn what it cost, we do not suspend criminal enforcement due to cost. If cost became a factor, we would have to suspend most if not all criminal enforcement. And before you try the whole, “weed has not victims so the cost is not justified” I must stop you be saying hogwash and utter BS. But even if it were true, irrelevant.

            And the only reason cost was brought up since you seemed to miss your own comment, I know I know it gets hard to keep up with the books you have written on here, you are the one who said you do not care as long as you do not have to pay for it. Well the answer is………………..you do pay for some loser to get high via taxes. Matters little if paying for them is less than paying for capturing them, you are the one who had the problem paying for a dope head so don’t backtrack now.

            PS ALL, and I repeat ALL, who have property seized for drugs have their day in court and many, many win. So lets not act as if cops can go around seizing property and the person has no recourse. Plus, the person who had the property seized CHOSE to go out and break the law,. Sorry if I do not shed any tears for them as their are more important things to worry about. And were you not one of the people who argued that as long as Zimmerman gets his day in court, his rights are secure? If so , same applies to these “poor” dope heads.

          • acat

            Let me know how that works out for you, long term.

            Go read up on Jon Burge.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            or better, I never said that. It was though the argument you made in the Zimmerman trial and I simply referred to the arguments in that debate here.

            You state people getting their property seized is abusive, I say it is the right thing to do. You state or imply that this possible case of abuse is par for the course, I say it is the exception to the rule and if abuse occurred, it needs to be dealt with separate from all the other good cases.

            Problem here as I see it acat, you want so little government that people can do whatever they damn well please, I want enough government that we do not just allow everyone’s hearts desire. I do not want dope heads running around freely, people screwing prostitutes where and when they want, etc and you seem to want that very thing. We will never agree on this and that is obvious when you have to resort to lib tactics of twisting comments.

            Thanks for the book reco, but I have better things to do.

          • acat

            Let me know when you want to address what’s written.

            Burge, by the way, is a former Chicago cop, although he may have written a book, not sure.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            and it has nothing to do with this topic, but nice try. And he did write a book just so you know although one brain would receive more stimulation reading a childs book.

            And I did address the things you typed except the silly parts which were most of them.

            And nice try applying the straw man badge, but it does not apply here.

            Now, I have dealt with enough libertarian BS for this week, moving on to normal people and intelligent topics.

          • acat

            so claim victory and move on.

            Just typical.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            you moron, I simply said I grow tired of your libertarian BS so I am off to more intelligent conversation with normal folks.

            I take back my comment about you being so smart. I can not leave that out there when you either can not understand simple English or are willing to lie so that you can twist the context of what was said.

            Now, since you live in some bubble filled with smoke, moving on. I can only take so much stupid and you have used up my quota.

          • acat

            Your “arguments” have consisted of:

            - Rejecting the article for not having enough details…

            - Creating a false argument that this has “nothing to do” with the war on drugs despite the laws being used to seize the hotel being drug-related.

            - Creating a false cause-and-effect, i.e. because your friends and family haven’t been abused by police and are all squeaky clean, that anyone who has suffered abuse must not be squeaky clean….

            After that, you started insinuating that I’m not as squeaky as you and your peers, ending with a statement that I must want everyone to be stoned and screwing hookers, which is quite untrue.

            I’m going to drop this because it’s quite clear that you can’t defend the “war on drugs”, and that you seem dead set on emotional attacks, rather than actual debate.

            Good day, sir.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            and such a clever little boy to be able to dodge your lies and twisting words.

            And I do not need to defend the war on drugs especially to libertarians who desire a false utopia.

            But thanks for the good day, I always have great days.

          • PowerToThePeople

            I have never had any problem with my property being seized, my parents never had the issue, my siblings never had the issue. My friends have never had the issue and everyone one listed owns cars, homes, property or business. I wonder why that may be.Could it be we know what the law is, so we do not drive drunk, without insurance/license, do not go out an buy dope, sell dope, transport dope, and so on. We do not hang out with people who behave badly or with people who partake of dope. I wonder if all the “poor” people who have had their property seized had simply followed the law, it would have never happened. Right? Right!

            I could care less how you feel about a law, until it is changed, we must abide by it. Not liking a law is not an excuse for breaking it and does not give on victim status when they get caught for their own choices and bad behavior.

          • acat

            The irony here is you’re making a classic “class warfare” argument, while accusing others of using liberal tactics.

            Amazing.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            go back to fighting loser causes as you are making less sense each time you reply. Sad to see such a smart guy continuously spew stupid stuff, but it is your right.

            And since you did the twisting, take your medicine like a man for a change. And class warfare, give me a break.

          • JSobieski

            “I have never had any problem with my property being seized, my parents never had the issue, my siblings never had the issue. My friends have never had the issue and everyone one listed owns cars, homes, property or business.”

            Does the fact that I don’t personally know anyone who was ever murdered mean that crime isn’t a problem?

            I don’t know of anyone personally know has been abused by the IRS, but I have read about people who were. No doubt those folks were just some iteration of George Will zombies, right?

            If a city passed an unconstitutional law re: the 2nd Amendment, I do wonder how the “not an excuse for breaking it” analysis would take you. In any case, it is hard to see what the hotel owners actually “did”

          • SoFiMil

            Pure poetry! : )

          • PowerToThePeople

            JSob.

            No one is debating that in the millions of arrests, hundreds of thousands of seizures done, the 50 states, the thousands of counties, hundreds of thousands of cities that there has not been isolated cases of wrongful seizure or abuse, even departments who as a unti abuse. To claim otherwise would be ignorant.

            The issue here is that there is NO evidence of abuse here, we are only hearing tidbits of information most provided by the defendant, which of course defendants never try to fluff the case their way or just put out BS claims, and a George Will opinion piece where he bases his opinion on defendant provided fluff and biased statements. There is nothing that either side can state proof positive in the case since no proof has been given in the case much less this article or the George Will article, none.

            And sorry, but trying to compare lawful seizures with a law enacted that violates the second amendment is not a good comparison. Seizures are used as a tool by law enforcement in many areas, not only drugs.

            Abuse in this case, maybe, maybe not. But none of you can show one iota of proof or even possible proof that abuse existed nor can anyone show this case was done perfectly. There is no evidence to support any claim one way or the other. So no, this is not a case of something being true till proven untrue. It is a case of no one knows anything at this point and until the truth comes out, everyone is guessing.

          • JSobieski

            Characterizing seizures of property without due process as lawful requires one to ignore the framework set forth under the constitution. Government is not supposed to be able to take your property without due process or just compensation.

            Statutes providing for asset seizures are just as constitutionally suspect as a lot of gun control laws.

            No one is arguing perfection—in fact people who support both the 2nd and 5th amendments would argue that human imperfection is why such amendments are required.

          • aesthete

            Cost and placing the cost of drug use on the user himself are not among them.

            The Netherlands pays ~70% of drug users’ costs to their government via various taxes placed on marijuana purchase and use. The cost of its policies per

            The general public pays 100% of drug users’ costs to government, and the cost per capita is much higher (even if you leave aside intangibles such as eroding civil liberties).

            If p < q, then p*(30/100) < q

            I prefer p. It's far better for my checkbook.

          • aesthete

            the reason that he is being taken to court is on account of decisions that he himself took which resulted in the death of a young man. Whether these decisions are justified or not will be ascertained in a court of law (I think he walks free, as he should).

            In the case of asset forfeiture, those having their assets taken from them have not necessarily done anything to provoke seizure of assets. In the story above, the hotel owners actually aided the police in their investigation; if anything, they were acting responsibly.

            I don’t support the taking of property without trial, anymore than I would support the police murdering someone in cold blood even as I support the death penalty.

          • PowerToThePeople

            nice try there Cletus. Lets try to fix your analogy so it is more correct.

            Just like Zimmerman, drug heads CHOSE to get in their cars with dope or to go buy dope,they grow dope or manufacture dope on their property, or allow losers to be on their property who use dope, sell dope, buy dope, or manufacture dope. So like Zimmerman, they made their choices.

            As to the story above, you do not know anything about it, so lets stop playing games there bub. No one does outside of those involved. All you are doing is repeating opinion and self serving statements from the defendant. Not exactly the most trusted information. His statements have no more validity then the so called figure from George Will where he state 1/100 of a percent have been bad. That figure is bogus fluff with no relevance to the situation.

            And property is not “seized” without trial. The person engages in criminal behavior or condones the same, property is seized, trial is held, state or defendant wins, property goes to the winner. That is no different than how we handle in criminal in this country, crime committed, person arrested and detained, trial held. But they get a trial.

            Again, if a person does not behave like a criminal or surround themselves with criminals, their property will never be seized. That is the simple fact of the matter. So forgive me if I do not cry for the dope heads in this country who lose some property. Maybe some have used it as a learning experience and have stopped using dope. If not, the effort to investigate, arrest, and prosecute them was offset with their property.

          • aesthete

            In the story above, an entire hotel is being stolen from hotel owners who are not being charged with any crime. In fact, the proprietors in question had a record of *helping* the police! They didn’t “choose” anything except opening their business in a place where politicians and the PD are trying their hardest to get their Stasi Imitators of the Year medals. This was done without trial.

            Can you please read the OP *before* getting in your anti-libertarian jabs?

          • acat

            that it “didn’t have enough facts” for him to believe it was police abusing their authority.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            what are the facts? Humm smart ass? Tell me one fact that you personally know outside of the owners own bias comments and George Will?

            We will wait……………..

            Waiting………………

            Nothing? Crickets?

            Moron.

          • aesthete

            A man, without being charged with any crime, has had his property stolen by a cabal of busibodies and unelected officials with the sole purpose of enriching the government’s coffers.

            You tell me how this is justifiable in a free society.

          • gekster

            A friend comes into my house, smokes one, and so the cops can take my house.
            It’s much more than stopping crime at that point.

          • PowerToThePeople

            and you know it. But even if that is all it takes, it would be your problem for allowing folks to come in your house to smoke “one.” Your argument does not help the people above as it reinforces the argument that criminal behavior or the condoning of criminal behavior on your property has consequences. But even using your example, your home would not be seized, seizure would be initiated and you would get a day in court to explain why you allowing criminal behavior in your home does not warrant seizure. This would be done just in case the police missed the fact or ignored the fact that the guy smoking dope in your home had broken in.

            But keep trying, they need all the help they can get.

          • aesthete

            but you make up for it by being unlikeable and stiff-necked.

          • PowerToThePeople

            still nothing but your opinion and a biased opinion at that/

            Still waiting for one piece of evidence that abuse occurred.

            Still waiting for one fact from you period.

            I will wait over here for you to come up with anything outside of your silly grandstanding and opinions.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Lets stop with the silliness about “he has not been arrested” as it has no bearing on anything. An arrest does not have to precede seizure. It is almost as dumb as your pitiful calls that the government is using seizures for the sole purpose of enriching itself. But at least you used a clever word like cabal. I am impressed.

            For example, person owes tons of taxes and does not make the payments, seizure will occur but no arrest assuming there was no fraud.

            GF allows BF to drive car. BF goes out and buys dope from the cops. Car is lawfully seized and the GF will not be arrested.

            Business owner allows or does nothing to deter unlawful activity on property. Gets warned to clean it up or lose it. Business owner does not follow warning and activity continues. Owner has property seized without being arrested and seizure is lawful. Oh wow, that sounds like this case possibly. Who knows, that may be the case, but you and I surely do not know.

          • PowerToThePeople

            idiot below.

            I am sure you two can read English, so try to keep up here.

            Hotel is not being stolen, it is being seized.

            Owners of property do not have to be actually committing the crime, all that has to be proven in almost every state where seizures are used is that there property is being used for criminal endeavors, the property owners are aware of the criminal element, and the owner have not cleaned it up. Since there is no statement one way or the other about this in the above story or the George Will joke, guess no one knows the answer, you included.

            The only person stating they helped police is the defendant. Sort of like the rapist who says he did not do it.

            Funny, when the dad owned it, never had issues. Once the son takes over a few years ago, property quality goes down, starts being a slum place frequented by slummy residents, and all of a sudden crime reports are the norm. So please spare me the heart string crap, You know nothing about the case except what you have heard from George Will which of course has always been a source of “unbiased truth.”

            So to sum it up. all you know is that in the last few years there have been at least 30 drug arrests not too mention the other types of arrests not mentioned in either story, you know how the “innocent” owner portrays himself to the media (could never be biased about himself right). you know the police initiated an action against the owner where he still has the hotel and will have his chance to clear his name in court (which has not happened yet), and other than that it is all conjecture and opinion and you know what they say about your opinion…………….

            So you, like Acat, are all of a sudden experts on police tactics in that town and across the nation when you have no information as to the whole story, what has happened, if the owner is full of BS, or in other words “ya know nothing,” and yet you know what has happened and how bad the police man is when no one else knows. Freaking amazing…….

          • aesthete

            that the defendant is a liar, and that the state agents are telling the unvarnished truth. Good call. To be safe, we could pre-emptively deliver all of our property to our local PDs, and let them sort out what we get to keep — they’re such paragons of virtue, that there’s no way that they would keep our property for themselves, especially if it benefits them. Nosiree, human nature and our natural tendency towards avarice don’t apply one bit to the police. Original sin has not tainted that lot of fine human specimens.

            Or, we could change laws so that the burden of proof is on the state, and so that they have to justify the seizure and sale of a private citizen’s property — allowing for the court protections which are guaranteed under the Constitution.

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • PowerToThePeople

            and you know it but that does not fit into your whining and moaning.

            Any seizure, drug related or not, has to pass the muster of the court. You know that to be fact, hell, even the story tells you that he has not lost it yet, he gets a day in court.

            Any other BS to pander there Cletus?

            As to the rest of your silliness, who made those claims? Dreaming again? Wanting something to be there that is not there?

          • aesthete

            Asset forteiture cases do not automatically go to the court.

            The burden of proof in those situations at present is placed on the person whose property was stolen to prove their own innocence.

            What other theft has such a backwards way of resolution in the courts?

          • acat

            it has been to put cops *in general* – including the bad ones – on steroids.

            As for weed, I’d rather see it legalized, regulated, and counseled against, similar to how alcohol, gambling, and tobacco are handled.

            The result would be safer for all parties. (better quality control, takes money out of the illegal underground, increases tax revenues, provides a legal cash crop for some farmers) Set aside some of the taxes to provide for treatment for those who develop problems. (casinos in Illinois pay into a gamblers-anonymous fund .. and must mention a gamblers-anonymous program affiliate in all their commercials)

            (waits for the inevitable)

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            and tax just so we can deal with the issues that come with it. That makes a ton of sense.

            As to cops on steroids, I am sure there are plenty, but again, does not mean we stop enforcement or that there are not plenty of good cops.

            As to legalizing it and all is well, wonder how Oregon and their infiltration by underground criminal folks which became so bad the voters voted against legalization. How about the same that has been seen in the CA weed community. Or how about the law in Detroit MI that allows for licensed growers to supply so many plants at a time being robbed, and in two cases killed, for their crop. Been a long time since I heard about a soy or corn farmer being robbed or killed for their product. Legalization does not end the criminal aspect, they simply adjust. Same as the moonshiners have continued providing a product even now years after prohibition was lifted.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            are meaningless compared to this one huge argument. Here it is, are you ready? Here is the overwhelming argument. IT DON’T WORK!

            The war on drugs is a totally absolute complete utter unmitigated and contemptible failure.

            You might be happy with failure, I and an increasing number of the public are not.

          • PowerToThePeople

            you promised you would never converse with me again because I called you on your kill the elderly campaign because some voted the wrong way and you did not like it.

            Yep, I remember correctly, that was you. I deal with enough stupid on here without having the king of stupid come along. How about you just be a man of your word and keep the promise you made to never talk to me again. Just stick to your plan of killing off all the old folks.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            that you were a lying a**hole. One again you lie putting words in my mouth that were plainly false even when you looked up the old posts and reposted them you be-clowned yourself because it was evident that I never said any such thing,

            yes now I remember, you are a bully, a coward, a liar, and as is evident from this discussion pretty damn stupid.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            the argument I made was that retirees will just have to understand that there are going to be some cuts in medicare and SS. you interpreted that as wanting to starve granny. THAT IS EXACTLY THE WAY THE LEFT ARGUES! So as well as a liar, a bully, and not so bright, I call you out as a left winger as well!

          • acat

            … accuse Reagan of stealing food from the elderly because he pointed out that we were out of money.

            The times have changed, the weak arguments remain.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            feel better, by all means keep on claiming that. But what you are saying now is a far cry from saying the old should not receive care if they are at a certain age or health level and excusing it by saying their fault anyways because some of them voted against sane politicians.

            But keep trying thou who desires the death of the old. Now, you keep calling me a liar, lets see if you keep your word now. Slink off back to the basement and keep your word.

          • PowerToThePeople

            and such.

            But try again, you did call for the death of the elderly and when no one came to your aid and I did not tuck tail and run, you whined about poor old you and swore you would never talk to me again.

            So calling another a liar is like the kettle and pot thing…….

            Still waiting for you to keep your word and not converse with me.

          • aesthete

            We use that model for an overwhelming number of public health issues, and that is what drug abuse is — a public health issue.

            You don’t know what you’re talking about wrt Oregon (a state where medical marijuana is and has been legal since the 90s). The 2010 measure was about a different regulation scheme, which was rejected for unrelated reasons.

          • PowerToThePeople

            even if you want to claim your and my tax dollars should go to counsel dope heads you should not compare it to how we have worked that for gambling and alcohol as it has been the real failure.

            We still have huge, maybe the most, issues with alcoholics, gambling addicts, people in jail due to those issues, deaths, innocent deaths, and so on. Smoking weed or doing any drug is a self caused problem not worthy of our tax dollars or concern. And neither is a drunkard or gambling addict. Just because we waste money on those set of losers does not make it right nor the example of what we should do with future losers.

          • funwithknives

            very often killed for little-to-no reason. We here see it so often we [almost] become jaded by it all.

            Two Pot growers getting killed is a drop in the sewage-filled bucket , that is now the land south of Eight Mile and East of Telegraph roads.

            These growers had something ‘considered valuable’ and it got taken from them.From party store ownership to hair-braiding salons it makes no difference, hereabouts.
            If you got it and they see it, you will lose it. More often than not The P D does zilch.
            When onstreet parking got stupid-dangerous due to vandalisim/smash and grabs near Cobo Hall, the Chief advised people ‘ not to do that’.

            That is what passes for intelligent law enforcement in Detroit. Avoidance in your actions and the same from Officials.

            A point I am trying to make is that Detroit [and others some can name] is that using Detroit might not be a good example to point to, for crime examples in regard to Drug Laws.
            Many get violated, just standing in place……..

          • lineholder

            people who engage who in smoking weed will also find this listed on their medical records…and with the direction that things are moving in with tobacco usage, alcohol usage, and even obesity, if O-care stands, this could be used against that person where access to treatment/health insurance/reimbursement is concerned.

            It’s just something to be considered.

          • acat

            If someone obtains pot via prescription in, say, Oregon or California, then .. doesn’t that already go on their medical record?

            If someone obtains rum from an ABC (i.e. Government) liquor store in North Carolina, is there a record?

            Mew

          • lineholder

            As to the second question, no, there is no record.

            The only point I was trying to make is that this could very well be one of those situations when the old adage “be careful what you wish for” could come to into play.

            Trending analysis of health care data has increased dramatically in the past few years. Even though I’m not in agreement with the entire “nanny-state” position M. Obama has taken on obesity, and some of the legal actions that are occurring in states such as NY…I do know for a fact that data of this sort is being used for a wide variety of purposes, in everything from stating that a patient is “noncompliant to physician orders” to insinuating said person is not “fit parent”.

            We’re heading in that direction anyway, even without O-care. Under O-care, it will be much worse, because of IPAB.

          • acat

            This is why, despite wishful thinking on the part of certain other people, cat is not a “utopian” .. I’m firmly in the dystopian camp.

            Too often, we try to create a top-down system, because it’s a *simpler model*, and we end up creating a seat of power, just waiting for some idiot to come along, sit down, and abuse us.

            As for the state liquor stores, there may not be a record of customers – especially those who pay ca$h. I don’t think that’s the same everywhere, though .. someone mentioned that state stores elsewhere require a scan of a drivers’ license or state ID to purchase.

            It wouldn’t be hard – in fact, medical pot could be the wedge to start with – to require a record for purchases of alcohol or tobacco, or entry to a casino, or to regulate my cheeseburger.

            The point is, increases in government result in decreases in liberty; whether it’s “for the good of {group}” or not, this should raise eyebrows.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            it just all goes too pot, eh?

            (Okay, bad pun, huh?)

          • Finrod

            I have never been arrested for drugs, never had property seized, never been in the back of a squad car whining about the evil war on drugs. Why you ask, because I follow the law.

            Tell that to the people that had their cars seized because a drug-user stole their car, got caught with the stolen car with drugs in it, and the police decided to seize the car. They followed the law, too. Somehow I think that if this happened to you, you’d have a very different view of this issue.

            For someone whose name is ‘power to the people’, you sure are comfortable with handing a whole lot of power to the federal government.

          • Stricia

            n.t.

          • PowerToThePeople

            lie in order to get your point across.

            Stolen cars do not get taken from the victim owner. But nice try there Cletus. Got any other silly BS that you want to try to pass off as facts?

            By the way, even if it happened at any normal rate, still has jack to do with this case. It would be like someone trying to equate RedState as being a site of morons just because you post here. Does not work that way silly one.

            And oh yes, I am always handing power over to the federal government, I have that kind of pull you know.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Your last line isn’t remotely serious debate though. Grow up.

      • PowerToThePeople

        to the idiots above this post who think George Will is now the unbiased truth, that they know all about this case when all they have is opinion and the word of the hotel owner, and those who think the libertarian way is the only path to God.

        But look at me, the all evil “leftist” making their days miserable.

        I still say libertarians are only a step above Paultards and still so close the Paultard have their nose in their crack.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Take a step back. Ease up.

          It’s pretty stupid to say all libertarians are Paultards. Ronald Reagan, being a California conservative, knew and often spoke of libertarians (the real ones, not the Paultard dope and sodomy heads [edit: with more than a touch of crazy]) being a key part of our coalition.

          • PowerToThePeople

            I always refer to one group versus the other group with libertarian (nutjobs) and Libertarians ( not so nutty) as I know there is a difference between the libertarians above and those who use common sense and have common sense approaches.

            Got tons of Libertarians in my neck of the woods and love em all. They also have no use for libertarians and Paultards.

            Sorry, will make sure I clarify the difference in the future.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Because I know acat has libertarian tendencies, but acat’s no Paultard. Not even close.

            And Finrod has gone to war against the Paultards around here, too.

        • lineholder

          From the Institute of Justice website:

          http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture

          Just with what I know of their reputation, PTTP, they don’t take a case UNLESS there is substantial evidence to support it

          Also, the plaintiff, i.e. the US Gov’t, has been pushing settlement of this case. A judge has denied that request

          http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv11635/124642/70

          There is enough evidence at this point (key phrase) to indicate that fraudelent activity on the part of the plaintiff does exist. Otherwise, the Judge would have resolved the settlement in Dec, 2011.

          • PowerToThePeople

            and as I have said from the beginning, if there is actual evidence of corruption or abuse, every cop/lawyer/person involved should be prosecuted and fired, period no exceptions. That being said,

            Setting aside all things about this case,

            An abusive set of cops or even an abusive department of cops do not make them all that way. Same applies to the law of seizure. All the appropriate uses of the law should not be negated because of the cases of abuse. The seizure law is a great law when used correctly. Will there be abuse, yes. That is common sense. Same applies to nearly every law and cops in general. Give enough people a badge and numbers say you will give it to some of the wrong people.

            As to the above case, a simple search shows that the 30 or so drug arrests were not the only problems at the hotel. Since the son took over and made the hotel a sleazy one, cops calls have become quite normal. The issue though is the seizure which they based solely on drug arrests. But that does not mean there were not other problems. The father owned the hotel while many of the cops and officials involved in the matter were employed in the local departments and yet he never had an issue. All this started with the son taking over and his business model.

            He will get his day in court. If his actions, lack of actions do not meet the criteria, he will keep his hotel. But this still does not show there was abuse or that the cops went to far. It simply means that so far his problems at the hotel do not arise the standard for seizure. If there was abuse or corruption, we will hear about it, but so far there is not one iota of proof showing cop abuse.

            Settlements are common in seizures. This is not uncommon. A person gets busted buying drugs from under cover cops and has their car seized and their money seized. They get a day in court and if the judge finds it to not be to the level of seizure, they get their stuff back. But before that ever happens, they will be offered a “settlement” price that will end the seizure and allow them to keep the vehicle. This is pretty common and does not mean abuse or that the state does not have a case. It is just a quick way to settle the matter, the defendant pays for some of the cost of arrest via getting their property back, and clears up spots in the court roster. The judge could be denying the settlement offer because of really bad behavior on the part of the hotel and its owner, No one knows at this point.

            The issue arising between me and the two above is that their mindset is bad government no matter what and they have used this story with its few facts to make the claim that this is abuse, the law is abuse, and all seizures are evil because drug laws and the war on drugs is bad.My point is and always has been is we have few facts, are hearing nothing really but the biased owner/defendants grandstanding and the seldom unbiased opinion of George Will. My point remains that until more hard facts come out, we are all just spewing opinions and nothing more. I also take the stand that I have no problem with the war on drugs and this case is not a referendum on the war on drugs.

            Simple as that………….

          • aesthete

            The rest of us actually enjoy having some semblance of rule of law, a scrap of presumed innocence, and a smattering of common law juries to round out the abuse.

          • PowerToThePeople

            trying to be clever anymore. Get some rest, use the public shower, and then come back and try again. This type of dumbness is below even you.

          • lineholder

            I’ve been of the opinion from the start that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. I still think that’s the case in this particular situation. How big a fire…I have no idea. And I stated very clearly early in this thread that we won’t know all the details until the court tries this case.

            Facts…

            The Court in MA refused to settle the case because the plaintiff didn’t get approval for the settlement agreement, to what extent it existed, from their superiors in DC. However, the Government wanted the Court to force conclusion of the settlement, even though agreement by all parties was never reached.

            The Court decided that it this was beyond its jurisdiction.

            End of facts…

            yeah…I had no intention of starting an internal flame war at RS.

            I won’t forget.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    one cop will show up in an hour (personal experience, and he didn’t stop, just slowed down to 35 to make sure nobody was in the street bleeding – it was a drive by).

    Call in a drug deal and identify the perps: “one tall guy in jeans and a white shirt in 2012 BWM 740 & a shorter guy in a suit in ’12 Mercedes 500, one has a suitcase with drugs & one has a suitcase with money…”, you don’t want to be in the street, you’ll get run over by every cop in the area responding.

    • checkmate2012

      over improvements by the state approved vendor, unbelievable scary story:

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alleged-armed-officers-shut-down-mass-ice-cream-stand-indefinitely/

    • aesthete

      I live in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Tucson. It is also a neighborhood where large amounts of drug traffic goes through. The time that I called on account of shots fired near my house (a pack of teenagers with guns a blazing, no less), no one showed up. The time I called about a dime bag that I found near my property, a cop showed up within 30 minutes and demanded to search my property without a warrant, and tried to intimidate me into letting him in.

      This year, a decorated Marine living here was riddled with 80-plus bullets by a SWAT team that invaded his house and fired bullets without a clear LOS. This was captured on video, and the warrant shows that there was no evidence of said Marine having been involved in the drug trade in any way. (Initial public statements made him out to be a druggie, naturally.) There is still no evidence of that, and the Marine doesn’t fit the profile (he works full-time, has kids, only returned home in the last year, exhibited no signs of being under the influence, has character references and a stable family life, etc.) He’s dead now, and his wife is suing for defamation and other charges. I hope she wrings all that she can out of our incompetent PD.

      • Viet71

        Much more peaceful. The illegals just pass through.

        Great scenery. Small population. The wild west, only not so wild.

        • aesthete

          But I’m probably moving out of AZ in a year. I’m just here to finish up a graduate program. More like than not, I’ll be moving to the east coast, or try my luck abroad.

      • Finrod

        At least according to PTTP above, who’s never seen a criticism of the War on Some Drugs that she can’t find an excuse for.

  • 1stRichard

    The following property shall be subject to forfeiture to the commonwealth and all property rights therein shall be in the commonwealth… All real property, including any right, title, and interest in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements thereto… All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities or other things of value… All books, records, and research, including formulas, microfilm, tapes and data… All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels used, or intended for use All materials, products, and equipment of any kind…

    This is just for drugs violations, the communist commonwealth can also seize property as this for many more violations such as alcohol to any hazardous chemical.

    This is not a war on drugs, if it was illegal drug use would be declining and not increasing as it is. These laws are so ambiguous anyone could be a victim of forfeiture and seizure without warning.

    http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94C/Section47

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    reading about the Motel Caswell on Redstate. I heard stories of people being murdered there. The place has had a bad reputation for years and is well known in Northern Ma and Southern NH. Of course none of this justifies the Feds using what should be “unconstitutional” asset forfeiture laws which have been the books since Bush 41.

  • Viet71

    Civil confiscation laws were enacted supposedly to thwart drug dealers.

    In fact, they became ways for local cops to fund their own activities.

    These laws have become abused, despite their purpose.

    You should oppose them.

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: Stop Bullying

  • Pingback: http://telabr.com.br/wiki/index.php?title=Getaway_Weight_Loss_Tips.

  • Pingback: salsa

  • Pingback: best online casino

  • Pingback: job search blog

  • Pingback: gadgets

  • Pingback: Digidash

  • Pingback: viaggi per single

  • Pingback: Home Made energy reviews

  • Pingback: transceiver

  • Pingback: best taobao agent

  • Pingback: Apple Iphone 5 Giveaway

  • Pingback: Online security monitor

  • Pingback: newspaper submission

  • Pingback: קידום אתרים

  • Pingback: jobs hiring now

  • Pingback: how to build backlinks

  • Pingback: health insurance exchanges

  • Pingback: like

  • Pingback: kulinarne

  • Pingback: backlinks kaufen

  • Pingback: Wire Mesh Container

  • Pingback: cheap lebron for sale

  • Pingback: business shirts

  • Pingback: Affirmations about success

  • Pingback: samsung chromebook

  • Pingback: WarZ Items

  • Pingback: buy african mango

  • Pingback: WarZ Items

  • Pingback: harrisburg personal trainer

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: Fashion

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: free sports bet

  • Pingback: virgin casino review

  • Pingback: rockstar slot review

  • Pingback: sports betting

  • Pingback: betsoft gaming slots

  • Pingback: gw2 release date

  • Pingback: vakantiehuisje oostenrijk

  • Pingback: vitvaruservice

  • Pingback: harvard

  • Pingback: strict diet

  • Pingback: Janitorial Service Seattle

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: plus size evening gowns under 100

  • Pingback: good read

  • Pingback: dkfjadlfk

  • Pingback: i pad 4

  • Pingback: Pilates Studio Los Angeles

  • Pingback: virtual assistant jobs

  • Pingback: Marijuana Menu

  • Pingback: I Need to Make Money Fast

  • Pingback: online poker promotions

  • Pingback: forex tablet pc

  • Pingback: Kauai Snorkeling

  • Pingback: olive garden coupons

  • Pingback: Sail Croatia

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: Website

  • Pingback: capitol heights locksmith

  • Pingback: Veteran flag display cases

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: Seattle Commercial Cleaning

  • Pingback: cleaning registry files

  • Pingback: Michele Kief

  • Pingback: cold chain logistic