Drug Laws

Patriot Act II or?

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Law Libertarianism Patriot Act War on Terrorism on by

Whatever it is going to be called bush is stumping for it. At Quanitco today, he made a pitch for increased use of administrative supoenas, elimination of bail for terrorist suspects and additional death penalty provisions. Part of his rationale being something like if we can have these things for certain other crimes why not terrorism. For instance, with regard to administrative supoenas:

They’re used in a wide range of criminal and civil matters, including health care fraud and child abuse cases.

Perhaps they shouldn’t be used in any situation. It strikes me that probably cause approved by a judge ought to be the minimum standard.
I don’t think anyone outside bush’s cabal has seen what they plan to send to congress. Expect things to go less well for whatever it is then the roll over and play dead act that congress did for Patriot Act 1.
Talkleft (and I’m sure others) has been working this heavily. See here (the most recent as of this writing) and previous posts.

Taking on ashcroft’s campaign

This entry was posted in ashcroft bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Libertarianism Patriot Act on by

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights filets an August 19th ashcroft speech.
ashcroft also announced a Patiot Act propaganda site: preserving life & liberty. blargblog took some issue with the campaign:

Angered by the ACLU’s lawsuit against what they consider the PATRIOT Act’s “radical expansion” of surveillance powers, the Ashcroftians have targeted three main ACLU claims as myths: 1) the suppression of political dissent through intimidation, 2) the surveillance of library usage and 3) the “sneek and peek” provision delaying notification of surveillance skirts the Fourth Ammendment. Go read it for yourself to see if you can spot gaping holes in the DOJ’s collective memory or some fine legal points it deliberately elides.

The Angry Bear found Dave Ross‘ defense of the patriot act wanting.
For a view supporting the patriot act from a philosophical perspective take a look at at David Veksler’s posts here and here.
Via beSpacific.

Taking on the Feds

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Drug Laws Health Care Law Enforcement Libertarianism on by

Talkleft tells us about a group of Californians who are taking on the feds over medical marijuana use:

these advocates argue that their cultivation and use of pot � approved by Santa Cruz police, free of profit motive, unfettered by illegal transport over state lines � is a constitutionally protected right that trumps federal narcotics laws.

It would be nice to see them win and do it in such a way that it drives the states and the feds right out of the business of legislating in these areas where they do not belong.

I Hate Thieves

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Law Law Enforcement War on Terrorism on by

Back from the road and I hate thieves.
Is that correct? Ah, yes, associate your emotion with of the act not the actor. Well, I hate theft and today I hate thieves.
Late last night, 30 minutes from home, returning from a perfectly wonderful few days away (my how the constant caress of near by surf soothes) we get a phone call telling us one of our cars had been burglarized.
I hate thieves.
Deal with the police, deal with insurance, everything takes time and eventually the damage will be fixed and the stolen items replaced. Low deductible helps for part of the loss. But we will be out of pocket several hundred dollars when all is said and done. This is probably triple what the jerk(s) will get when they fence their take. The out of pocket is nothing compared to the psychological loss. It is partially mended by time.
I still hate thieves.
In all their forms, catch them, try them and jail them: the murderers, the rapists, the beaters and abusers, the muggers, the robbers, the vandals. Take something that does not belong to you and pay the price.
And I still hate thieves.

Cannabis Cafes

This entry was posted in Drug Laws on by (updated on )

Talk Left reports on the upcoming ban on workplace smoking in the Netherlands and its impact on the Dutch cannabis cafes. From Reuters:

Dutch “coffee shops” famous for selling marijuana could see business go up in smoke, as it seems the drug will be included in an upcoming ban on workplace smoking.

Tim Dunlop is conflicted:’ What’s a good 60s-bred lefty meant to do?’
This is an interesting question even if we leave out the cannabis aspect. It seems pretty clear that both first and second hand smoke are not healthy. It also seems reasonable that at least in the US (and probably many other ‘educated’ countries including the Netherlands) there is no excuse for someone to claim that they do not know the potential health impacts. So long as people are informed of the dangers I can not make a case for criminalizing individual smoking (though every penny of subsidy that goes to tobacco growers should be stopped yesterday).

But what about second hand smoke? Given that it is dangerous I suggest that it is reasonable to impose some restrictions on this. For instance, smoking should not be allowed any public place where the smoke can not easily be prevented from assaulting non-smokers. Sidewalks, malls, etc., come to mind.

Should this be extended, for instance, to restaurants and bars? I think not. Except at the owners option. It is pretty easy to label an establishment as smoking or non-smoking. If your cafe is labeled as smoking allowed I can make an informed decision whether I want to enter and I can make an informed decision whether I want to work there. There does not appear to be any need for government intervention.

Businesses need to make a choice: smoking or non-smoking. Customers and employees alike can make a decision to stay or go. I suspect that most businesses (but not the cannabis cafes) will opt over time for non-smoking simply because everything becomes cleaner, medical insurance costs should be quite a bit lower and, oh yes, non-smokers will have already passed the first aspect of employment screening: demonstrated ability to assimilate information and make rational decisions. (Hmmmm, I wonder whether the time spent at the Dutch cannabis cafe counts.)