Police Officer: Privacy Or Safety - You Can't Have Them Both

[MSimon]

A police officer says:

"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.

http://www.wtoc.com/story/27909222/poli ... k-warrants

And the crime that the officer is talking about? A Prohibition violation.

So let me rephrase that: You have a choice between Prohibition and privacy.

[GIThruster]

A police officer says:

"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.

http://www.wtoc.com/story/27909222/poli ... k-warrants

And the crime that the officer is talking about? A Prohibition violation.

So let me rephrase that: You have a choice between Prohibition and privacy.

Not really. Both you and Mills are wrong. Privacy can be protected while the peace is served. It is the fact that the dopers cannot manage to keep the consequences of their drug use private, that we have an issue at all. Think how many years before the WoD, folks kept their criminal behavior under wraps. Had they continued to do this, there never would have been a war on drugs.

[MSimon]

A police officer says:

"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.

http://www.wtoc.com/story/27909222/poli ... k-warrants

And the crime that the officer is talking about? A Prohibition violation.

So let me rephrase that: You have a choice between Prohibition and privacy.

Not really. Both you and Mills are wrong. Privacy can be protected while the peace is served. It is the fact that the dopers cannot manage to keep the consequences of their drug use private, that we have an issue at all. Think how many years before the WoD, folks kept their criminal behavior under wraps. Had they continued to do this, there never would have been a war on drugs.

So you would give up privacy to go after dopers? The general trend is to leave the dopers alone and try to get the privacy back. Your hate has made you give up your protections from government. There are quite a few of you about. But a dying breed. Thank The Maker.

BTW personal consumption of anything is not per se a criminal act. It is only criminal by law. And the law can be changed. And is in the process of being changed. Changed back. I believe that would make me the conservative on the issue.

The Philosophy of Prohibition was bankrupt in 1914. It was bankrupt in 1920. It was bankrupt in 1933. It was bankrupt in 1937. It is still bankrupt in 2015. The second liquidation has started. History will be no kinder to the dope Prohibitionists than it is to the alcohol Prohibitionists. The consensus from Prohibition I is "How could they have been so stupid?" For this Prohibition it will be "How incredibly stupid do you have to be to repeat your mistake?"

Do I expect you to leave your stupid behind? Of course not.

“Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Thus, Science advances one funeral at a time” Max Planck

The same for politics. I count a million funerals a year. I count it as a cheery thought. For Prohibitionists. Thank the Maker my mother (95) changed her opinion on the matter some years back.

[GIThruster]

So you would give up privacy to go after dopers?

No. There are several different places where law enforcement and privacy come into conflict, but in general no, I think one should support the greater value and that is normally privacy. When you have cases where druggies threaten more than the privacy of others, such as their security or pursuit of happiness, then you can justify limiting privacy.

The general trend is to leave the dopers alone and try to get the privacy back.

You lie all the time Simon, and people never believe you when you post stuff like this so why do you waste our time?

BTW personal consumption of anything is not per se a criminal act. It is only criminal by law.

Em. . . okay. Clue me in, how is any sort of criminality ever defined in any other way, than what is defined by law? "Only criminal by law". . .is like WTF are you trying and failing to say?

[MSimon]

You lie all the time Simon, and people never believe you when you post stuff like this so why do you waste our time?

Well I have 5 lies to tell you. Washington State. Oregon. Colorado. Alaska. Washington, DC. By December of 2016 I'll have 4 or 8 more lies for you. Could be as many as 10 or 12 more. There are already some states planning to legalize by legislative action. Newt Gingrich promoted the decriminalization of heroin in California. It passed.

Do you really think Prohibition is not on its way out?

And I guess you have never looked at malum prohibitum vs malum in se.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... alum+in+se

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... prohibitum

An example: murder and theft are malum in se. Inherently bad. Agreed on over the globe. While 32 oz soft drinks are malum prohibitum (if they can get a law passed and OKed by the courts). How about a plastic bag ban? Only bad if some one makes a law. Alcohol consumption is also in that category.

The drug laws were an invention of Progressives. 1914 was one point. 1937 another. Obviously not inherently bad or they would have been against the law for all time. I really am amused to see so called conservatives defending a Progressive invention. Not the first time though. Check out who opposed ending Alcohol Prohibition in 1932.

And then there is the Schweder case winding its way through a court in California. If the defense wins (quite likely) Federal Prohibition of cannabis will be over. Depending of course on how the higher courts rule - if it is appealed.

http://edca.typepad.com/eastern_distric ... uana-case/

And you should read this brief by the defense. Quite educational. If you can stand to get educated. They pretty much prove that the witness for the prosecution was lying at every opportunity. since you care so much about lies you should check it out. Lying government? What has the world come to?

http://edca.typepad.com/files/doc-378-- ... -brief.pdf

But it doesn't matter. The 2016 Presidential is likely to be a referendum on Prohibition. And if not then for sure 2020.

[hanelyp]

Drug enforcement has become an excuse for police practices that are inexcusable, and I believe unnecessary to keep the problems of drug abuse in check.