“We’re going to have a fairer justice system because of it,” Grassley said. “The rule of law ought to protect innocent people, and civil asset forfeiture hurt a lot of people.”
He said he planned to continue pressing for legislative reforms.
“I commend the department for this step and look forward to working with them on comprehensive forfeiture reform that protects Americans’ property rights,” Sensenbrenner said. “Equitable sharing has become a tool too often used to bypass state law. Forfeitures should be targeted and must have appropriate procedural protections. ”
================
You know what it looks like to me? They want Prohibition off the table for the 2016 election. And they intend to get that by legalization. A little at a time.
My guess is that rescheduling cannabis will come from this court case:
This new law bars the use of U.S. Department of Justice funds to prevent a number of listed states "from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." This law not only supports the defense's Equal Sovereignty argument, but as the defense argues, "how is it Congress can justify a finding that marijuana has no medical benefit while demanding that the distribution of medical marijuana be protected from federal government interference. This is not only irrational, it is absurd." Defense Brief, at 36.
If Congress does nothing about legalization in DC all Federal cases will be brought into question under the "Equal Protection" clause.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Good Post MSimon you beat me to it on the Holder's scaling back of Federal support of asset forfeiture. Thinking Obama will have the rescheduling (of pot) done sometime late this year or early next. This would help the presumptive 2016 democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton if she does run. She (Clinton) wouldn't have to say much of anything about it and still would reap the benefit. Meanwhile the Republican lead candidates(s) like say the unrepentant WOD supporter Jeb Bush, would feel enormous pressure to denounce the decision, alienating allot of young voters.
“We’re going to have a fairer justice system because of it,” Grassley said. “The rule of law ought to protect innocent people, and civil asset forfeiture hurt a lot of people.”
He said he planned to continue pressing for legislative reforms.
“I commend the department for this step and look forward to working with them on comprehensive forfeiture reform that protects Americans’ property rights,” Sensenbrenner said. “Equitable sharing has become a tool too often used to bypass state law. Forfeitures should be targeted and must have appropriate procedural protections. ”
================
Well H3ll, I agree with that too. We never should have allowed that sh*t in the first place and I can't believe it ever got past a fifth amendment challenge in the courts.
" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "
Of course the courts being a f***ed up as they are, I really shouldn't have been all that surprised.
We got Kelo and Obamacare so they are as predictable as a dice throw nowadays.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
williatw wrote:Good Post MSimon you beat me to it on the Holder's scaling back of Federal support of asset forfeiture. Thinking Obama will have the rescheduling (of pot) done sometime late this year or early next. This would help the presumptive 2016 democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton if she does run. She (Clinton) wouldn't have to say much of anything about it and still would reap the benefit. Meanwhile the Republican lead candidates(s) like say the unrepentant WOD supporter Jeb Bush, would feel enormous pressure to denounce the decision, alienating allot of young voters.
If Jeb Bush becomes the nominee, you might as well pencil in Hitlery or Liewatha Warren.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:If Jeb Bush becomes the nominee, you might as well pencil in Hitlery or Liewatha Warren.
Warren claiming she isn't running for whatever that's worth. If Hillary runs doesn't look like the Republicans have anyone in the stable who seems capable of beating her so far. Republicans best strategy would then be to concentrate on maintaining if not expanding their positions in Congress, especially the Senate. A Filibuster proof 60 or greater in the Senate would be helpful for them as well as expanding Governorships around the country. Last time we had budget surpluses was during Bill Clinton's tenure; their (dems & repubs) mutual antagonism for each other didn't prevent that from happening.
I thought I read someplace that pot was going to be rescheduled from type one(Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”) to a type Two (methadone (Dolophine), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet), and fentanyl (Sublimaze, Duragesic)
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
paperburn1 wrote:I thought I read someplace that pot was going to be rescheduled from type one(Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”) to a type Two (methadone (Dolophine), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet), and fentanyl (Sublimaze, Duragesic)
I doubt if that will happen any time soon. It would impinge significantly on big pharma's business. And cannabis does not even belong in the scheduled substance category. It is safer than alcohol. Safer than aspirin. It may even be safer than water.
Some stuff I have written recently on the subject:
Here you go Simon. An area where I happen to agree with you.
I would link you to the original, but they wouldn't let me read the article without disabling my ad-blocker. My response to them of course, was F*** You.
When the pain goes away (enough) people stop using.
In addition PTSD is genetic. To activate it you need trauma. About 20% of the population has the genetics. About half those get enough trauma to activate it. Most people have zero risk of "addiction". Not very scary is it?
===========
I'll go even further - of those addicted to drugs only about 3% are heavy users of opiates. It all depends on the level of pain. So let me ask again - why are we making war on abused children (and other sufferers from trauma)?
===========
You want further proof drugs are not addictive? Look at all the people who have been treated with opiates. Now compare that with the number of addicts.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I recalled an incident from years ago that made the national news. This one evidently resulted in just a fine but it shouldn't have been even that. If I looked, I'm sure I could find others. I know an un-named government agency, initials DEA, has a hangar at the local airport. In that hangar are some really interesting aircraft with no apparent utility in their mission, like the antique Ryan racer they sometimes trot out for joy rides.
The notion that yachts and aircraft could be seized due to a single marijuana seed always struck me as an intolerable government overreach.
Congratulations Nebraska. How could any thinking person not see civil forfeiture as a violation of the takings clause?
The wonder is that it wasn't tossed out before it ever took effect.
Civil forfeiture is not the only violation of the takings clause that I have seen. In my city, it is not at all uncommon for dilapidated houses to be razed by the city without a court proceeding.
I can see the need of the community to destroy old dilapidated houses, but they still belong to someone, and that person's rights needs to be respected. In my opinion, No court order, no tearing down other people's property.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
There are cases where property is abandoned, but due process is still in order to validate abandonment. In cases where property is neglected but an owner still lays claim, the owner needs to be given notice an opportunity to clean up a problem lot, and compensated under eminent domain if a structure is demolished.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
hanelyp wrote:There are cases where property is abandoned, but due process is still in order to validate abandonment. In cases where property is neglected but an owner still lays claim, the owner needs to be given notice an opportunity to clean up a problem lot, and compensated under eminent domain if a structure is demolished.
Exactly. But they don't do that. Apparently a law was passed in 1978 allowing them to bypass the court proceedings before razing a structure.
That's another one that I don't understand how it wouldn't be struck down by a court. How do you toss out 5th amendment rights with state legislation?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —