Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, January 08, 2007
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Is the Criminal Justice System Broken?
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Hello students! Welcome back to UNC-Wilmington for another semester. My name is Dr. Adams and I’ll be your professor until May. I’ve prepared a handout for you explaining your one (and only) out-of-class assignment for the spring semester.

During the course of the semester, you will be asked to make at least three trips down to 4th and Princess, which is the home of our local county courthouse. Of course, given the tendency of UNC-Wilmington students to drink and drive, several of you will be making more than your share of trips to the county courthouse. But let’s not deal with that unpleasantness now.

After your court visitation experience, you’ll be asked a series of questions designed to help address this semester’s principal question: Is the criminal justice system really broken?

First off, you’ll need directions to the courthouse, assuming you haven’t yet been arrested in your time here in the Port City. From campus, all you have to do is follow Market Street all the way down to 4th Street. Take a right and stop when you see a bunch of nervous people standing outside a big building chain-smoking cigarettes. That’s the county courthouse.

Before you enter the courthouse, I have a few questions for you to answer:

1. On your way down Market Street, did you see anyone using illicit drugs?

Note: Keep your eyes peeled when you get around thirty blocks from the courthouse. Many people believe that heroin use is confined to only the first fifteen blocks of downtown Wilmington. That isn’t true. Dr. Adams saw a man injecting himself with a dose of heroin while leaning on a telephone pole around the 30th block last summer.

2. What can the criminal justice system do when people are seen shooting up heroin in public and no one calls the police? (Dr. Adams started carrying a cell phone shortly after witnessing the public injection).

3. Walk across the street to the little park facing the courthouse. Take a look around. Do you see any crack vials or marijuana cigarette butts on the ground?

4. Take the time to interview some people who are smoking outside the courthouse. Ask them why they are there. Do you detect the smell of alcohol on anyone’s breath? Is anyone actually smoking a joint while waiting on his court appearance?

5. If you see someone talking on a cell phone, do your best to eavesdrop. Is anyone actually making a drug deal while waiting on his court appearance?

After you have answered these initial questions, proceed to the courthouse and take the elevator to either the third or fourth floor. Quietly go into one of the courtrooms without your cell phone and think about the following questions as you take notes:

6. Did you attend a plea hearing? If so, what was the most outrageous plea you heard entered in court? Did anyone peddling in child pornography get off without jail time? How about drug dealers or statutory rapists?

7. Why do around 90% of criminal convictions involve negotiated pleas of guilt? Does the fault lie within the system or without?

8. How many times did you hear a cell phone go off in the courtroom? Did any jurors’ cell phones go off during testimony? If so, why were they not cited for contempt of court? Also note whether any juror’s cell phone woke up a fellow juror.

9. Make sure you stay long enough to list five concepts we discussed in class that were also at issue in an actual criminal trial.

10. Make sure you attend a civil case before you go. (Be on the lookout for people like Terrance, the deadbeat dad, who, last time I was at the courthouse, showed up at a hearing and forgot which of his illegitimate children he had been summoned over).

12. When you leave the courthouse, go down to the intersection of Second and Red Cross Streets. That’s where the police station is situated. Drive north on Red Cross until you see your first daytime crack deal. How many blocks was it from the police station?

13. Drive to one of your taxpayer supported housing projects (do this only in the daytime and if you are a man). See how long it takes for a hooker to approach the car and say “I’ll slob on your knob for a dollar.” That means she’ll give you oral sex for a dollar but you can easily talk her down to fifty cents. After you do, you should pay her the fifty cents to tell you when and how she became a prostitute. Her story will be far more coherent and insightful than anything you read in the Wilmington Star News, which also costs fifty cents.

When you are finished following these instructions and answering these questions, think about this analogy and the question that follows:

A 400 horsepower truck is attached to a trailer, which carries 100 pounds of human waste to a landfill. The truck performs well with the 100 pound payload. But every week the payload is increased by another 100 pounds. Eventually, the truck is unable to make it to the landfill. It even reaches a point where the driver is unable to pop the clutch and keep the motor running. Which one of these statements best describes the situation?

a) The engine is broken.

b) Every engine, no matter how efficient, eventually shuts down when over-burdened with human excrement.

Professor’s Note: All law enforcement officers enrolled in my classes are exempt from this assignment. I appreciate your service to an insufficiently grateful community.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
New Hanover County Courthouse
I can say that fortunately, I have only been to the courthouse one time. The one absence I had from Adams' class was when I had to go to court for a traffic ticket (I wasn't just skipping; I decided to get a hands-on lesson in criminal justice).
Out of several hundred cases on the docket that day, I was one of about seven people to actually enter a guilty plea. I broke the law, fessed up, and the ticket was dropped when I proved the problem had been fixed. I would imagine that the criminal justice system wouldn't be in as bad of shape as it is if more people would just accept responsibility for their actions. If you broke the law, just deal with the consequences.
During the four hours I waited for my case to come up, I saw things that would have a kindergarten teacher reaching for her ruler. Cell phones going off, spilled drinks left on the ground, and loud conversations between people seated next to each other were not uncommon.
I agree with Adams that the courtroom behavior needs to be dealt with. If it loses status as a relaxed environment, maybe less people will be inclined to enjoy their visits.

Feminism in Your County's Family Court
Extra credit:

If you proposed to a woman, or are thinking of the same, then spent most of the morning in family court. Note the court's feminist policy and procedures (read woman good, man bad) that affects the father's loss of children, property, liberty, and eighteen years of up to 50% of his income.

While in the hall way listen to the father question their divorce attorney "why didn't you say..." or "How come you forgot to say...". The father is unaware that no matter what his attorney says or does, the judge will still mostly rule against the father.

http://stephenbaskerville.net/family_courts_prejudice.htm

Know that one of the goals of the county and state's family court is to receive incentives of up to $4.1 billion dollars from the federal government to create dead beat dads (See 6B, 6C, & 6D).

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

If you enjoy volunteer work and are an accounting major, then offer to reconcile the father's Child Support Report, as it most likely inaccurate, yet there is a risk he will be incarcerated until he pays.

Notice how the Violence Against Woman Act is used against the man to separate him from his children and property. Judge's issue Order of Protections kisses at a New Years Eve party - any one woman can get one against her husband.

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Bias-In-The-Judiciary.pdf

Mark Ruffolo
I agree that there are serious problems in family law that are unfair to good men. Good men are stigmatized by the hoards of bad actors who abuse their wifes and children, kill thheir girlfriends, stalk, make threats, skip on child support and so on. I don't really know what the answer is, because so many bad men have gotten away with so much over time, that the law has over-compensated to some degree to mitigate the problems...and there are still PLENTY of abusers, sociopaths, rapists and the like who damage every attempt to instill fairness into the system.

I am horrofied
Please God please,just don't ever let me become entangled in the criminal justice system! Please! I am begging You.Anything but that.

Just reading this article and knowing what it means is reason enough for me to smile and walk away the next time someone jumps in my face.
It's a wonder anyone in the system,in the event they become a victim of it,wouldn't take up chuteless skydiving.

It isn't the system that's broke
It's the "War on Drugs." The two most lawless periods in the post-Civil-War period were the 1920s during Prohibition of alcohol-- and the current 3+ decades of prohibition of other intoxicants.

The government is overreaching its authority in protecting people from their own excessive behavior-- the result is widespread disobedience, disrespect for the law, cynicism among people in that profession (from the cop on the street on up to the Appelate Court judge)-- and hostility and division among the general population, from whom juries are drawn. Depending on the unpopularity of the "nanny law" in question, this societal division can result in hung juries, even jury nullification.

Prohibition also drives up the profits of criminals dealing in the prohibited commodity, makes criminals of ordinary citizens, and creates an illegal economy that cannot be regulated or taxed.

People in the drug culture cannot call for police protection when they are victimized, and this is usually the reason (rather than greed for profit) that violence becomes endemic in any black market-- people in that line of work have to be a law unto themselves.

Or, they can buy "legal" protection-- make information-exchange deals with cops, bribe judges, contribute to the campaign chests of venal politicians.

Finally the wealth generated by an illegal economy rivals that of governments-- whether it's a banana republic like Panama or Colombia, or our own in Washington.

Make private property illegal, and there will evolve an immense black market in consumer goods people demand, and are willing to defy the law to obtain. Isn't that what brought the Soviet Union down?

I would also submit that Prohibition was one of the chief causes of the Depression-- it was certainly the source of all that speculative cash that was laundered through the stock market, right on up to the crash.


celtic
I sense a hatred of men.

Criminals Always Find A Way
to be criminals.

Legalize drugs, and the government will want to do two things. 1> Certify them as pure, so they can 2> tax them heavily. At that point, the Black Market is back in business.

Furthermore, there will always be powerful interests that are against the idea of most people taking recreational drugs. Professional organizations like the AMA, ABA, etc ,and most labor unions will want to assure potential customers/consumers that the professionals within their ranks are safe, responsible, and drug-free. Assuming they do even a modest job of regular drug screening this will serve to keep drug use as a fringe activity, engaged in only by losers with no future, as professionals will be unwilling to risk their livelihood on drugs.

Prohibition was largely a problem of poor enforcement (like most American laws (such as speed limits)). It was fairly unpopular, and most people didn't have the stomach for handing out draconian punishments for defying the law by selling booze. I don't believe that the same is true of illegal drugs.

Mark Ruffalo
Your cites are very insightful - and very consistent with the critical stories, surveys and studies, such as are permitted due to the 'privacy' concerns of the family 'kangaroo' courts. Phyllis Schlafly has written copiously of their anti-male feminist biases, and child abuses meted out under their fascist jurisdictions.

The second article by Tipton of your first cite was a laughably apologetic piece basically denying the existence of any problem whatsoever in this area, cavalierly dismissing all obvious evidence, self serving as such is by a legal organization front man, members of which who are the primary beneficiaries of this monstrous mill of social destruction. Many of the 'judges' in these venues are simply sadists, cynically indulging their perverted tastes for human misery.

Any husband/father who has went through the macabre family court experience knows the taste of totalitarian socialist rule - the kind the liberals are trying to impose on the rest of us.

This is a Great Assignment!
As a law student in another country, I have done an assignment similar to the one Dr. Adams has written out here. Now, the things I saw in the court room were a lot less hairy than the ones here (And I live in a big city), usually involving traffic violations or other small things, but the general principle was the same and I thank whomever the Lecturer was who thought up that particular assignment (It was for First Semester Law students in the "Introduction to Law" course.)

We were asked to write a report about it and what we saw. Perhaps the questions we were supposed to answer weren't as "biased" as the questions Dr. Adams poses, but they really made us think about the Justice system and the way it works in the face of the "Real World," while at the same time trying to defend the rights and freedoms of everyone who's simply trying to deal with the law in a fair and reasonable manner.

I've always been a bit of a liberal, but I've always found Dr. Adams to be very fair and reasonable in his arguments, particularly against "reverse racism," the first amendment (My country has a very weak version), and simple courtesy. Watching the "Real World" in action at court never shook me from those liberal sentiments, but it definitely made me think over them and have to properly consider them.

Dr. Adams' assignment is a real eye opener, especially to young, dewy eyed law and university students. If it is an actual assignment, I hope Dr Adams' students take something away from it and think carefully about what they see before they make any pronouncements as to the "brokenness" or greatness of the legal system whether they be liberal, conservative, or whatever else.

As well, I suddenly realise why Dr. Adams HATES mobile phones so much. Where I come from, you WILL get a contempt proceeding against you yours goes off in court. It's the pet peeve of everyone who's ever worked in a court room, barristers included!

Criminals Don't Create
Mondamay, your analogy has one flaw. Criminals can't create more raw materials.

If you want an example, how big is the moonshing business today?

As an ole hillbilly, I can tell you that economies of scale enjoyed by Seagram's et. al. allow pricing advantages that more than offset the price increases incurred by taxes.

Criminals do not Create
One major weakness in your reasoning Mondamay.

Criminals do not create raw materials.

A perfect example is the lack of a huge black market in moonshine.

As an ole hillbilly from KY, I can assure you that the economies of scale in purchasing enjoyed by Seagram's, et. al., more that offset pricing disadvantages from excise taxes.

So moonshine isn't so much cheaper that its production and sale is a blip in the sales of what some of my acquaintances refer to as "store-bought" whiskey.

The same thing would undoubtedly happen with cocaine, as an example. The cocaine equivalent of Procter & Gamble would buy up all existing production of coca leaves, and criminals aren't into the kind of work that farming requires.

Jerubaal
What do you mean? In the law, or me? I don't hate men, but I am wary and rather distrustful. As to the law...you can better determine that then I can just yet.

Jerubaal
What do you mean? In the law, or me? I don't hate men, but I am wary and rather distrustful. As to the law...you can better determine that then I can just yet.

foxfirebrand
You're right on. In addition, observe that about half of all inmates are there on drug-related convictions. Add to that the fact that hundreds of lives are lost among both drug trafficers and law enforcememt people on account of the (long since lost) "war on drugs".

Rooster is right
about moonshine.

American free-market enterprise can make it unprofitable for drug dealers to operate and with fewer drug-related crimes, the jails can accept more real criminals.

Re: moonshine. I knew some moonshiners about 40 years ago in Georgia, drank some of their product. It was the best whiskey ("shine") I ever drank. They couldn't stay in business because the package stores would undercut them price-wise, even though they had a better product.

Moonshiners' operation is labor-intensive; modern distilleries are automated (regardless of those commercials) and economies of scale killed off the moonshiners.

As a man who suffered through a divorce
I agree that the courts take the side of the women 99% of the time. Then the mother, often guilty of criminal activities, uses the kids to coerce the dad into anything she wants. If you don't fix my car, I'll move away with this drug addict boyfriend. If you don't help me when I need it, I'll accuse you of abusing the kids and get them to testify to it in court.
Fortunately, I had no children with my ex-wife but I walked away with nothing to show for 10 years of marriage and over $500,000.00 of income I earned during that period of time. She got the house, which was almost paid off, the cars, and all of the antique english furniture, which was also all paid for. To make matters worse,
she had siphoned our joint account dry before she filed on me. She had also thrown her bills into the trash. When the companies called and threatened to shut off her utilities, she just had them switched into her name, starting off with a clean slate. I had to pay over $7,000.00 in medical bills and utility costs she had run up in my name.
It took me over 7 years to get over the bad credit she made for me.
It was worse for my brother who has two children. He worked on the road as a contract worker and his wife lived on money he sent her(mostly cash) for over three years. At the same time, she claimed he had abandoned her, and was getting welfare and food stamps. She also met a boyfriend who took her out on dates several times a week, and bought groceries on occasion. When my brother went home, he found out about the boyfriend, who then beat him up and held a screwdriver to his throat threatening to stab him and kill him. My brother's wife told the boyfriend not to do it, because he would go to jail. She did not give a rip about my brother's life.
After the divorce, the state of Washington froze my bother's accounts, and started garnishing his wages for all of the money his ex stole from them. Wait, Who lied, stole, and cheated? her.
Who paid? him. The courts gave him visitation every other weekend with his kids. He worked as a contractor in other states and never got to visit them more than a couple of times per year. When he got laid off, he called her and arranged to see his children. After driving 12 hours to see them she would say, "Oh, this is not your weekend" and call a Sheriffs deputy to make him leave. She did this so many times that the Sheriff's deputies all got to know her, and realized she was a lying sack of crap. On occasion, a deputy would call her bluff and let my brother take his kids. Most of the time they just told him to leave. She also sent the kids on his 2 week visitation with him with no clothing. When he brought them back they had luggage, new clothing, underwear and toiletries.
Oh he paid $600.00 per month child support for them, but they never saw anything of it. She even took gift cards we would give them for Birthdays and Christmas and paid bills or bought groceries with them. When we tried to ask them what they wanted for Christmas, or birthdays (instead of gift cards), she wouldn't let us talk to them on the phone.
Finally, my brother's daughter's teeth are horribly out of shape and she is eighteen. She is in college and ashamed of her smile. My brother put aside over $3,000.00 for her braces.
Her mom got her to access it while he was away on a job and spent it on herself.
Who is the criminal? I'll let you decide.


Yes, the system is broken
So what Dr. Adams is saying is that because the system is overloaded, it's OK for those involved in the criminal justice system to continually break the laws they are sworn to uphold?

If you break the law, you are a criminal, regardless of which "side" you're on!

If you aren't an an angry and violent...
man before your court experiences in family court, you may be after ward. Just as AudiR10 will attest to not being a racist before moving to Atlanta but living there will make you one, the denigration and prejudism received in family courts can push men to become violent.

I havn't experienced that personally, but I've witnessed it up close as a good friend came close to allowing his experiences to push him over to the dark side. With bite marks, scratches, and a bloody nose as evidence of the physical abuse he withstood, and not a single scratch on his soon-to-be-ex, the female officer that responded to the domestic violence call by their 10-year old son wanted to arrest him for spousal abuse.

It took three such incidents, none provoked by him as witnessed and told by their two pre-teenage sons, before he finally received some justice. She was arrested and he was awarded sole custody.

Still, she spent less then 24 hrs in jail and was never charged or handled in the same manner as a man would have been in similar circumstances. I still don't know where he got the power to not strike back when he was being assaulted. Thank God for him, he did not.

what kind of drugs are you on, deb?
Can I have some?

CD
There are as many women abusing men as there are men abusing women. The system is correcting a problem of perception and ignoring another equally bad problem. If the case devolves into a "he said, she said", the court will overwhelmingly side with the woman for no plausible reason.

As to the failed "war on drugs", repeat after me;

Prohibition never works!

Prohibition never works!

Prohibition never works!

Prohibition never works!

Any questions??

There is a few glimmers of light

A former co-worker of mine had custody of his kids. His ex had abandoned them. He remarried. After about 5 years, the ex decided she wanted custody so she and her live-in could get more welfare ( lived in another state). The co-worker had a female lawyer and a female judge hearing the case. No, it did not turn out like you think. The lawyer did her job well and the judge found in favor of my co-worker, denying all of the demands of the ex. Chewing out the ex for non-support, non-interest, and frivilous motion. It was so wonderful to hear about.

War on drugs
Foxfirebrand, you are absolutely right about the war on drugs. The way it is being fought, the only people who benefit are those who sell drugs, as the prices are kept artificially high, and those on the other side of the law, including politicians, law enforcement, and judges/lawyers. Yes, I know, most politicians are not on "the other side of the law". But they're supposed to be.

The more drugs we seize, the tighter the supply gets, the higher the prices go, and more people are willing to take the risk. It's a viscious circle, and that doesn't include the crime rate that results from needing more money to pay for the drugs. Plus, I can't find anything in the Constitution giving the feds power to regulate drugs. Professor?

The option to war on drugs
What is the option to the war on drugs?

"Free " drugs to the addicts, free medical care to the addicts? Free needles to the addicts? (they will still use the dirty ones if they don't have time). Once had two "recovering addicts) like AA, they did not say ex-) that unless an addict wanted to quit, the only way they would quit oterwise was by vurnout or by death.

War on drugs
Foxfirebrand, you are absolutely right about the war on drugs. The way it is being fought, the only people who benefit are those who sell drugs, as the prices are kept artificially high, and those on the other side of the law, including politicians, law enforcement, and judges/lawyers. Yes, I know, most politicians are not on "the other side of the law". But they're supposed to be.

The more drugs we seize, the tighter the supply gets, the higher the prices go, and more people are willing to take the risk. It's a viscious circle, and that doesn't include the crime rate that results from needing more money to pay for the drugs. Plus, I can't find anything in the Constitution giving the feds power to regulate drugs. Professor?

Sawdust
People sell drugs, right ? ICC IRS
People take drugs, right? FDA

The government has assumed the right to regulate commerce and regulate "medicine". The framework is already there. And so far none of these agencies have been found unconstitutional.

To MikeScott
I took the red pill, my friend. The truth is scarier than you know. Get your head out of your behind.

Little Problems become Big Ones
When Rudy Giulani took over as mayor, New York City was a cesspool of crime and violence. He enforced all laws, even the "little" ones. By dealing with the little problems, he prevented them from becoming big problems. I think there is a lesson here.

I see, Deb
You mean you rented "Crash" while you smoked a doobie.

dollface
BINGO!

Anyone who has seen a spoiled child and then witnessed the befuddled parents who continue to pander it know exactly what you mean.

I discipline my kids and some may say harshly. They got spankings for rudeness, disrespect, and ingratitude. My wife and I have jerked a know in their azzes many times for poor behavoir. They call adults MISTER or MISSUS FIRST!

It worked for my parents who raised 8 kids, none of whom EVER hit jail (mom always said, DON'T CALL US if you're arrested!), and five of us are white-collar professionals, and another is a frigging gourmet chef!

also 50 cents
re: "you should pay her the fifty cents to tell you when and how she became a prostitute. Her story will be far more coherent and insightful than anything you read in the Wilmington Star News, which also costs fifty cents."

LOL - man, that is just too funny. Thank you, Professor Adams, for bringing a smile to my face every Monday morning.

marijuana cigarette butts?
You're joking, right? Has the price of pot gone down so much that people can now toss the butts? Don't you have roach clips there? In my day we'd smoke them down to the last fiber of rolling paper. Kids today. Hmpphhh!!!

bad law
Bad law makes bad law enforcement. Drug laws are the antithisis of a free country. They were created for the purpose of justifying a greatly over bloated "police" operation. It inceeases violence and destroys far more lives than drug use would without the police state oppression. We need more freedom and fewer pig loving bigots in our universities.

Is the Crminal System Broken
Wow! Family Court is not criminal court but do you see how many people expressed their opinions on the family courts? They are totally correct with their identification of an extremly broken family court system. Criminal courts receive a fair amount of their clientel from the broken families created by the family courts. Most dads are decent and will do anything for their children. The bad ones have created such a backlash against ALL dads to the point that our whole society is beginning to crumble. To demonize men in all walks of life is totally exceptable in today's society. Once all the good men are destroyed and turned into the filthy humans you described in your article the feminist women will realize their job is done. Only problem is that all the good women will go down with the men. Can we say Lacrosse Players at Duke? Or, can we comment on the judge who said she's to attractive to go to jail even though she had sex with her underage MALE student. I served my country in the military for 21 years and never ever had any exposure to the courts until I divorced. A good dad destroyed with lies by a family court who trests lies as truths and truths as lies. Many GOOD men know exactly what I am talking about. Innocent people don't plea bargain. They end up going to jail while the guilty plea bargain and walk. Maine did a study on just that several years ago and found it to be exactly so. More innocents went to jail and more quilty were set free. Now, if that is not a broken justice system I don't know what is. Oh yeah! The system is not broken if you have MONEY. The sad truth of all this is that if the system does not clean up it's act soon the respect for it will be lost and lawlessness will truly prevail. At least that's my opinion. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Re: Prohibition never works
Ask yourselves the following question. Why are alcohol and tobacco legal even though they are both addictive but marijuana, which is not addictive, remains outlawed?

The answer I keep coming up with is that society doesn't think it can demand that an addict quit the habit, but believes that marijuana users have no such excuse.

Prohibition was repealed in the 1920's after society learned that organized crime was (a) getting rich off of it and (b) engaging in gang wars to control the traffic. Sound familiar?

The level of illegal finance and gang violence that compelled the repeal of the 18th Amendment would barely make the radar screen of a typical big city police department today.

to TAP001
It sounds like your brother was in a terrible spot, totally unacceptable. Who suffered? The children. I am a woman and was in an equally horrible spot. My husband of 17 years decided he didn't want to be married anymore, left, tried every dirty trick in the book to not pay, to separate his kids, to damage them even more. I didn't feel the courts were on my side either. The system is broken because there is no logic left, no morality left. It was the worst thing I could have gone through because judgements made no sense. It sounds like they made no sense for your brother either. It's not a gender thing....it's a intelligence, logical thought lapse.

TAP001 & Mark Ruffolo
Couldn't agree more with both of you. I worked for "Family Law" (divorce) attorneys while in law school. I was so disgusted by what I saw that I considered becoming a mens' rights only advocate. Besides the bias against men, common sense is also tossed out the window. Here are a couple more examples.

Having to support your ex in the "manner she has become accustomed to." So Johnny Carson marries someone 35 years old, it doesn't work out, and he divorces her after a year. He has to pay her as if she was still his wife? She is incapable of adjusting back to her previous 35 years of life and experience? Just nuts!

How about abortion? A guy cannot force a woman to have an abortion. If he doesn't want it, too bad! You will pay for the rest of your life. (By the way, I'm OK with that. Actions have consequences.) However, if you don't want your child destroyed, you have no say. Even if you agree to raise the child and ask for no support from the mother. Once again, no logic.

RE: Mondamay
To claim that legalizing drugs will make it's problems go away is like saying legalizing murder will make the horrors it causes go away.

addition to Deskmom
I'm Deskmom's daughter, and I'm going to point out some things about my mom and family court. First off, I'm a triplet, and my sister has medical problems. My dad tried absolutely everything he could to seperate the three of us physically and emotionally, and wriggled like a snake to get out of helping my mom with my sister's medical bills. We had been homeschooled up until the divorce, and he also tried mercilessly to have us put in public school, which would have been murderous for my sister, and devastating for my brother and I. My mom got screwed on a lot of things. The long and short of it is that Mom continues to work three jobs and bust her butt for us to be able to stay in our house, while he goes whistling off to work from his six bedroom house with his new wife. Now that we're in college, he doesn't pay any kind of support anymore. Some dads may be saints, but I'm an example of having a father who looked well on paper, but needed to be given a swift kick in the arse, which the court didn't deliver.

Hey C-D,
"and there are still PLENTY of abusers, sociopaths, rapists and the like who damage every attempt to instill fairness into the system."

That's right, just ask my daughter about her mom. I have known (thanks to my lovely ex-wife) many females who fit this description, and even more men whose commitments to their children are greater than the mother's.

However while you're certainly almost hopelessly screwed if you're a man no matter what, I certainly have seen instances where the mother doesn't always get the best deal. Often though that was because she didn't avail herself of all of the means at her disposal, I knew a girl who was too nice during the divorce, just like she had been too nice during the marriage.

I think that the underlying truism is that children get screwed, which is of no surprise to me because the family court laws seem to have been written by feminists and they hate kids, born or unborn.

well now
Sure, it’s not running anywhere near top efficiency, but the criminal justice system is not broken. I have spotted one problem though. It appears that it’s being taught at UNC-Wilmington by someone with complete disdain for the system. Of course, I read about so many problems at UNC-Wilmington, that it must be one of the worst universities in America. That’s probably why they can’t find a criminal justice professor who’s more interested in teaching than blowing his own horn.

I hate to criticize the good Dr Adams...
> A 400 horsepower truck is attached to a
> trailer, which carries 100 pounds

Tractor/trailer rigs are somewhere between 400 and 500 horsepower -- in the '60s & '70s they were only 300 horsepower. Interstate spec is 80,000 pounds legally, most weigh much more, something that any police officer better know...

> Professor’s Note: All law enforcement officers
> enrolled in my classes are exempt from this
> assignment.

BAD idea. First honest cops need to see just how lazy, incompetent and often corrupt their fellow officers can be. Better for them to first see it in a different department as a student than on the 11-7 shift in their own.

Second, the officer is going to arrest the *first* drug dealer or prostitute seen and hence not realize just how many more would be observed down the road. Likewise he isn't likely to get the prostitute's story the same way with her in handcuffs.

I argue that it is the sworn law officers who could MOST benefit from this....

Why we're losing the war on drugs
America's failure to win the war on drugs is a direct result of the war on poverty. Once we've extricated ourselves from that quagmire the problem will begin to right itself.

Let's see what happens once the "poor" able-bodied crack-heads are no longer be able to pay for their fix with food stamps.

"Just US" justice (family court)
I have seen enough to realize that marrage for a man is what the feminists say it was for a woman in the dark ages of pre-feminism. So too with having children. Men are really starting to ask questions *before* starting a relationship with a woman knowing that only she will get justice if things don't work out.

When racial minorities saw that the courts would no longer give them justice (arguably the all-black courts in the black neighborhoods before WW-II did) their support for the whole justice system broke down into the mahem of the race riots. When half the population starts to believe that only women will get justice (the so-called "JustUS" concept) then what.....


MikeR
You have apparently never had Adams as your professor. Had you, you might have realized how outstanding of a teacher he is. Yes, he speaks of the criminal justice system in bad terms. However, we can only hope to fix a broken system by first identifying why it is broken, which is what he is trying to point out in this column.

Question # 2
I couldn't read any more of Adams' article after he talked about having a cell phone now - I was too distracted.

it's really odd
how people here comment on how a person should on one hand not let rampant individualization make them selfish, and thus liberal... but then on the other hand should be allowed to consume drugs...

and what about the drugs themselves?.. who can say that heroin and crack are legitimate for an individual to enjoy at home on a sunday before a work week?.. has anyone here ever sat in with someone on heroin?.. it's not fun, nor is it funny to see someone look like a walking rubberband... and crack?.. i don't even think i have to mention that... crystal meth, there's another good one... cocaine, nope that doesn't kill anyone, especially when you mix it with alcohol and it creates a toxic byproduct... oh, but that's someone's choice...

no, let's make it legal and regulated like cigarettes, which never find their way into the hands of underage users... let's put it on shelves so thieves won't take it the next time they rob a store... let's keep it nice and visible so the next homeless, moneyless abuser who comes into the store doesn't assault a worker to get his next fix...

oh, and are these prescription or just over the counter?

let's all quit the war on drugs because it creates, oh no, violence and criminals! let's quit something because it's hard...

don't get me wrong, we should reform our prisons and drug classifications, but the worst drugs should remain illegal, and by the worst drugs i basically mean anything other than pot... i still have yet to find a pothead commit violence against someone solely because of being high with the exception of a plate of poorly-made smores...

no, let's make everything legal so we can all indulge ourselves, perpetuate the already overwhelming society of self-serving individualism that exists... it's a brave new world, people, so make sure to take your pills!

prohibition
All you in the anti-prohibition crowd need to slow down. Don't you realize that without our history of prohibition laws, Senator Teddy would have to be drinking ordinary beer instead of the fine liquor he is drinking now?

For smokeykhan et al
smokey, you said: The government's case is that they want to prevent people from harming themselves.WRONG. The government's case is that they want to stop people harming others. And that is what drug addicts do. They harm their children. Try going to court and watching abuse and neglect proceedings. They harm their parents by stealing from them. Then they start stealing from the rest of us. They trash our neighborhoods, and then they start selling to our children in order to make enough to finance their own habits. These are cases of drug users harming others. I wish they would all die on their first use of drugs. They are useless to society, and could save us all a lot of grief and misery if they could just hurry up the death spiral. Because that is what the first decision to take drugs is: a wish to self-destruct.

As for wiseone, you need to change your moniker if you think marijuana is harmless. I don't care what marijuana activists say, marijuana is a gateway drug. It accustoms young users to associating with criminals, who then offer them a taste of the next drug, and before you know it, they are offering to "slob on your knob" for 50 cents. Arrest any hard drug user, and they will also be using marijuana and have it on them.

As for the arguments that we've lost the Drug War so declare victory and legalize the drugs. Well, we've been fighting bank robbery for years and we haven't won that fight either. Should we just legalize bank robbery? Any other crimes you would like to legalize so we don't have to bother enforcing them anymore? How about child sexual abuse? That's a big contender. So, legalizing drugs because people will do it anyway is stupid and specious. The government's responsiblity is to see to public safety. Drugs are dangerous and cause a degradation of public safety. Therefore, the laws are passed against use of drugs and the laws are enforced. The fact that they are not perfectly enforced, or that they have not "won the war" yet is only a reflection of the fact that one, it is an ongoing problem with new users entering the arena constantly, and two, nothing man does is perfect. Perfection is reserved for God. And God gave us free will. Signed, former prosecutor. Don't even get me started on the Vietnam vet who lived across the street from me on disability all his life and was selling heroin to our kids out the back door of his house. Found out that guys getting out of prison in Santa Fe knew they could make a heroin connection at this guy's house even though our town was hundreds of miles from Santa Fe. Lovely. When we finally caught him, he cursed me and the judge in court for violating his rights.

By the way, for a while I was also a public defender so I defended drug users. Heard their stories up close and personal. Disgusting. One guy got out of prison on a child abuse rap in Santa Fe, was waiting for the bus back to our town in Albuquerque, when a druggie approached him and offered to share (his words). He suffered a massive stroke, and was only saved after major medical bills, which we taxpayers had to pay. Then the government put him on SSI for the rest of his life. He was in his twenties. He was bragging about it. I wanted to gag.

I also did family law for awhile. I specialized in representing dads who wanted to see their children. Man, that was a losing proposition. The horror stories posted here are true. That system is broken. As a woman, I don't think it helps women to infantilize them by pretending that they can';t cut it without special treatment. Equal rights to children (which is enshrined in our state law) should mean just that. But the judges, mostly men, still give the women everything they want. That system IS broken.
Animalrightsgirl (that tells me all I need to know about you right there, a member of the lunatic fringe) you used the same kind of logic to indict Mike's observation about the heroin shooter that you accused him of using. Didn't you see the inconsistency? No, because liberals prefer name calling to deep thinking. It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. That is a saying you should take to heart.

Focus
There is not, and can never be, a "war on drugs" any more than there can be a "war on terror." These are stupid labels that only serve to cloud the issues. People are the problem - more specifically their behavior. WRT illicit drugs, whose behavior do you want to alter (and how)?

- the sources
- the distributors
- the retailors
- the consumers

"Everyone" is the wrong answer, because the resources simply do not exist. The overall problem is global and occurs on a massive scale. When approaching any complex issue, focus is required; and (as in most poor solutions) effective focus is clearly absent from current attempts to permanently alter negative global behavior patterns.

Wingo
Well said.

I would like to see the welfare class working on the highways picking up trash, cig butts, performing community service from dawn til dark to earn that check. Call it, "The work equals money" program or the "Pull your own frigging weight" program!

I'm betting that a few days of that will have them puting in applications in other jobs to better themselves!

NO workee...NO checkee.

Negotiated pleas
"7. Why do around 90% of criminal convictions involve negotiated pleas of guilt? Does the fault lie within the system or without?"


Part of it is economics. It costs money to try a case. You have to pay for the judge's time, the prosecutor's time, the public defender's time, the stenographer's time, jury time, bailiff time, and so on. The time a police officer spends in court testifying is time he's not out policing.

It's far cheaper to strike a bargain (or bully someone into copping to a lesser charge) than to run all those trials.

to "Rand"y
Thanks! Agree 100%.

Great to read factual personal accounts instead of suppositions.

On a previous job, I watched a father walk his daughter through the welfare system, so she could get her own claim. Maybe the system had destroyed his initiative, but he was conspiring with the system to prevent her from ever developing her own initiative.

I wanted to retch!

"rand"y
are you single?

if so, how many roses, and which color, do you prefer, and your preference for carats please?

and i have to admit, having grown up on long island, you know where everyone is rich and can rape black sex workers with impunity and play lacrosse, that marijuana is a gateway drug and i myself was introduced to the whole drug underworld via that route.

though, i do think that cigarettes can lead to marijuana, and it's all a regressive mess that could be helped best by good parenting.

MikeR
Your above comment is the second or third comment I've seen from you today where either begin or end your "opinion" by basically putting down the columnist.

If you don't like the TH columnists' opinions or qualifications... why are you here?

If it is just to stay "connected" to the opinions and mindset of those of us on the right... that's fine, but then why would you feel the need to comment?

Dylan: 'Everybody must get Stoned'!
That 'marijuana is a gateway drug' argument went out in the 70s didn't it? Most ridiculous thing I hath ever heard.

In fact, everybody that is currently taking anti-depressants in this sick nation should instead have prescriptions for marijuana; which the Lord himself called good: -And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.- Genesis 1:17

So any 'Judaists' or 'Christians' who think that coca leaves or marijuana are bad, and should be illegal, like they now are are, are against G-d. And the U.S government's 'war on drugs' is an unholy aberration; cigarettes and alcohol are 'legal', and yet cause untold misery and drunk driving murders, and marijuana and cocaine are illegal? 'Our' JAWs dominated law-makers in this nation are corrupt beyond repair . . .

And the populace of this nation are wholly ignorant of what FREEDOM truly is

as this nation has more laws (and worthless lawyers) than any nation has ever had in the short history of humankind

If a person wants to smoke a joint, and maybe grow a little of her/his own, what business is that of your?!? O, but that is the problem, somebody mayhap growing their own little happiness, and the government not being able to regulate it, or some lawyer not being able to make money . . .

Evil capitalist slavers & slaves! Soon, in a day, the Lord shall mightily smite thee!!!!!!

legalization
So legalizing hard drugs would lower the price? This would mean more sales, more messed up users. The same people would still be selling them, but openly, unless the government took over sales (like the liquor monopoly in some states today), but there would still be the black market. The small time dealers would still be dealing, but more. I don't see where it would accomplish anything except more dysfunctional and dangerous people out there.

Wefare scammers
To Wingo/Gunny G When Guiliani was mayor of NYC several years ago NYC was sinking under a massive welfare budget. He proposed that all welfare recipients be fingerprinted and given jobs cleaning the streets and such. Welfare rights groups and the ACLU screamed that it was unfare to embarrass these unfortunate souls but as he always did he persisted. Low and behold a good portion of these unfortunate souls didn't show up to prove their neediness and some that did apply were later arrested for fraud as some even had jobs employed for the city of NY.

Effects of drug use.
Check out this link to a study posted on hotair last week:

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=203066

A wish Animalgirl weren't back
Why don't you just go the fu*k away - your ignorance is sickening, your unlimited liberal demands are offensive and your name calling offers nothing in the way of argument. You're like the rest of your kind that hang here - you just enjoy poking sticks and sticking your tongue out at people - perverse pleasures only a juvenile degenerate could enjoy.

"Rand"y
Regarding your assessment that drug users harm children:

It's not that I disagree with you, but you do realize, don't you, that the exact same logic justifies laws against alcoholism, gambling addiction, workaholism, sex addiction, and even addiction to soap operas?

Drug addiction is a very serious social problem, and also a symptom of other, more foundational social problems. Making the drugs illegal has not, and will not, solve those problems.

Historically, it's likely that our current drug laws are the result of lobbying from the liquor industry, which did not want competition.

people don't do heroin in public?
You claim full knowledge of where every heroin addict in the world does heroin? Your position is: 100% private, 0% public.

You really think people accept that kind of wild generalization?

"Black market"
The only real black market is the U.S. Army, no JAWs there, just a bunch of poor woods, blacks, and Mexicans . . .

Where is the big illegal black market of alcohol & cigarettes. . .

There is none. So the argument that legalizing drugs will create a black market for drugs is about as credible as saying the bank will give you a loan with zero interest.

Let my people go! Give to my people, the stranger, the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned, the state of say, ummm, Montana; and let us establish, in peace, a kingdom of G-d here on earth.

Meanwhile you capitalist slaves can go on killing for oil and the JAWs!

Peace

A logical problem
My one logical problem with the war on drugs is the incarceration of users.

The logic is that drugs are illegal because I harm myself by doing drugs. So, to keep me from suffering harm, the government imprisons me with real violent criminals, and creates a criminal record for me that prevents all kinds of employment.

In other words it is better that I be beaten and/or raped in jail, deprived of my freedom and stigmatized for life than I be allowed to ingest a drug? The logic of this escapes me.

My other argument
It has been said before, but I figured I would give my other argument:

During prohibition bootleggers shot one another to settle disputes. When was the last time you heard of a beer distributor rubbing out the competition?

When there is no recourse to the law to settle disputes, people will resort to violence.

Sure, legalization may or may not help users, but it will stop all the drug dealing violence and save the lives of many innocent bystanders and police officers who die now as a result.

Primus54
I’m only teasing about Dr. Adams. It’s true I don’t think highly of him, but what of it? I am hesitant to join the chorus of adulation that’s usually showered on the author so I rarely comment about the columns I like. Why is it that Dr. Adams can make the most provocative comments but I can’t? Why is it that several of the regulars here can speak of liberals in the harshest of term but I can’t even jest playfully at pomposity some display? More importantly, your comments are just as self assured as mine and frequently more harsh. Why do you grant yourself more leeway than you willing to afford me? All I really ask is that people read, consider then comment. If you can find no flaw in Dr. Adams’ thinking then say. The key is to refute, not to repress.

Tyler: I’m just teasing. Dr. Adams may be a great teacher and I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that he spends a great deal of time complaining and degrading. He travels and also finds time to fight with his university. I’ve never known a truly dedicated teacher to have time to engage in even half those activities.





Criminal Justice System
We can"t stop drugs, We can"t stop murder, We can"t stop sex, What can we stop? We as a society try and tell other people what to do but we do the same things and follow the trends because we want to be liked and respected. The war over in Iraq is illegal, we attacked a country that did nothing to us and we killed thousands of people in the process and you wonder why other countries don"t like us. Our own military soldiers have gone over to other countries and raped and killed women. Our own military a few years ago was bringing drugs into the country from Mexico. The war in Vietnam, alot of our soldiers where hooked on heroin and smoking pot so how have things changed in society with drugs and crime? Everytime I turn on the T.V. Nancy Grace is talking about another murder or another women missing. We keep letting murderers back out on the street due to the judges and the liberal courts. Women will keep getting raped and killed and by next year the murder rate will be at an all time high

andrews
Please. The logic of incarcerating drug offenders has nothing to do with their own protection.

The state owns the individual. Individuals who do drugs are less productive for the state and must be punished.

Better?

Negotiated pleas (not needed)
Karl writes "It's far cheaper to strike a bargain (or bully someone into copping to a lesser charge) than to run all those trials."

The best way to fix the system is to demand that along with the defendent and witnesses, both the DA & the Lawyers take the oath each day before the court's in session and finally, the jury would have to do the same before reaching a verdict. That would cut down on the costs tremendously and would reduce injustices by the system.

Nirvana....
... does not exsist. All drugs are gateway drugs, from the aspirine your mother gave you, to coffee. So do not get on the high horse so fast. Prisons, probably the most controlled population on Earth cannot keep out drugs, to think the inept govt. can, or should is absurd. Look people, either way there will be problems, but prohibition is a joke, it is in place in the govt. and will never go away because there is too much money in it, always follow the money. Billions upon billions are spent (wasted) in it. More wasted daily with 50% of those in jail on minor possesion charges, non vilent, when 50% of those used to pay taxes instead of wasting taxes spent on them. As with black market in alcohol it all but gone, purity and good business takes care of that. Why would anyone go to black market to chance dying when business would assure safety and low cost even with taxation? Tax money for rehab, treatment whatever, places to make soylent green maybe. Do the math, nothing is even close to perfection, we are people, but the govt. is wrong. I love the comparisons with bank robbery and child molestation laws, that is funny, obviously from a small mind. Where has my free country gone? ...and don't even get me going on out of control prosicutors......

Wingo, That Was Hysterical!
I sent it to my preacher, my neighbor, and my friend.

Our CJ system is ...
... by the lawyers, of the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

The cops, correctly sensing that the system is to reward lawyers, instead of for stopping crime, just play along.

The rest of us just pay along (with our taxes and our safety). Some of us, like Mike, play with a collection of loaded weapons.

empyrius
I agree. And in Genesis 3, we learned that marijuana is morally acceptable to eat, which of course causes all the same stuff that smoking does, only moreso.

What happened to part 11?
I hope part 11 asked students to examine the case of a prosecutor and see if the case proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you say the investigation presented by the prosecution and the investigating officers constituted a search for the truth or a myopic assault on the accused? The Duke prosecutor isn't alone is prosecutorial misconduct, and the prosecutor has the power of the government to destroy lives, not the accused.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

Adams answered his own question
and I think he did it particularly well in the last few sentences. No matter how good a system, when it is overtaxed, it breaks.

I get depressed just reading this stuff and it is a huge reason why I could never work in the criminal justice system as either a police officer, a judge, a prosecuter, or especially as a defense attorney.

In my little town we have a judge who is not a lawyer. He's a former cop that ran for Justice of the Peace years ago and keeps getting re-elected - mostly, because he doesn't pussyfoot around with criminals. I can tell you from experience as I was in his courtroom once for a speeding ticket and he threw the book at me - a first time offender. But it didn't make me mad, it made me think instead "now here's the kind of guy I want dealing with the criminals in my community."

During the last election he was opposed by a local attorney whose primary platform was "do you really want somebody who isn't a lawyer on the bench?"

To which he got his not-so-subtle answer when he was soundly defeated at the polls and Mr. Non-Lawyer returned to the bench to continuing doing the good job he has been doing for many years.

Re' responsibility
Great article, as always, funny and very sad in some respects.

re' the comments on taking responsibility. My brother is a public defender, and had a client charged with 1st degree murder - caught literally with the smoking gun. And he got quite defensive and abusive, had to be restrained by the bailiffs, when he got life instead of getting off scott free. My brother had saved him from lethal injection, but al this guy wanted was to walk on a murder charge.

Criminals have to be the dumbest critters on this planet - after cows and ultra-left liberals.

feminazi courts
One other thing - anyone who believes in the "men are bad and women are good' to any significant degree is wrong. Under Klintoon, the CDC discovered that there was less than a 10% difference in the number of women how abused men and the number of men who abused women. The whole "men are violent against women" thing is a fraud, just like Al Gore and his inconvenient lie, like Rachel Carson, et al.

This is law driven by a political agenda, not facts.

What happened to #11
I notice he went from 10 to 12, what was number 11?

As for equating illegal drug use with drinking, what hookum! When I drink my 21 year old scotch I do it for taste. When has an illegal drug user ever used drugs for the taste?

Mike
The herb delights all senses!!!

Mike
Drinking scotch for it's taste is like licking road tar for it's taste, look Mike it's a '59 I70 spill.
Do you remember the first time you drank that poison, uummm good.

My problem with drugs
No, we can not legisltate morality - however, drugs are just not good. Look at the problem we have with man legal drugs? I'm sorry, but have have seen crack addicts - that should not be a legal drug. I have also seen people that use marijuanna - I don't care what people say, they isn't a "soft" drug. Sure, the person smoking it feels good - but do you really want to be riding in a car with your family on the same highway as someone so "relaxed".
All drugs have side effects - look at the side effects on your child's bottle of Ritalin, if you read the entire insert I am sure you will be seeking the help of a behavioral therapist rather than giving your little one that drug every day.
As for legalizing drugs as a way of bringing the cost down - obvisouly no one using that arguement has brought LEGAL medications in a while. Ummm folks, those aren't cheap either. In fact, most drugs for cancer, diabetes, even pain are quite expensive, especially if you don't have insurance. Even vitamins an homepathic medicines have a high price tag.
But I have honestly never seen coherent behavior from someone using crack. Sure, we hear stories about "professionals" that were addicted to drugs in secret and never gave off signs. I just don't see how someone can inject crystal meth than go drive a school bus legally. I don't buy it.
Most drugs that truly alter your mind aren't readily available, they come with a perscription under the care of a doctor. Would we really want Vioxx available over the counter. How about Ritalin on demand? If we don't have those in the "feel good" section at Walgreens why would we want crack there?

Legalization won't solve anything.
The first time I had a gun pointed at me, it was a pellet gun being held by a drunk 12-year-old. I was 6 and he wanted me to repair a flat tire on his bike. He and his 2 younger brothers all ended up serving time for violent, drug-related crimes. Alcohol is legal.

Oxycontin is legal with a prescription.

Sudafed is a legal over-the-counter drug. But, since it is the main ingredient in meth, you can't buy it in Utah without first talking to the pharmacist and having your ID info entered into a statewide database.

Why? Because there have been so many pharmacies robbed at gunpoint for these drugs. In order to stem the rising tide of robberies, all of the local Walgreen's have hired armed security guards to hang out at the pharmacy counter from dusk until dawn.

Removing the desparation from the druggies' search for a fix won't solve the problem. Any addict will do whatever they deem necessary in their warped minds to get the next fix. If it means taking a human life, so be it. Drugs should remail illegal because people under the influence of drugs are not reasonable, nor are they capable of controlling their own actions. Locking them up may not be the best solution, but it does keep them from harming others at least for a while. Which is good enough for me.

andrews, smokey khan, empyrius, inkling
inkling:

"It's not that I disagree with you, but you do realize, don't you, that the exact same logic justifies laws against alcoholism, gambling addiction, workaholism, sex addiction, and even addiction to soap operas?"

right, and your child can be taken away from you if it's proven in a court of law that you have neglected them. but rarely is it that children are used in the processes of alcoholism, gambling, workaholism, sex addiction (with the exception of child prositution) and an addiction to soap operas (with the exception of child stars). drug dealers put children in the line of fire by using them for their ends and selling drugs to them. and low and behold, for the above giving alcohol to, having sex with or permitting gambling by a minor is illegal. so is letting a child work to long each week!

smokeykhan:

i agree with you, drug addicts should get treatment programs. but drug dealers, murderers, rapists and those who exploit children should get hard jail time. don't forget that children are brought into the drug culture young and are used as lookouts, runners and they are put in the line of fire by the dealers.

empyrius:
no black market for booze and cigarettes?

are you kidding?

has anyone here ever spent time with criminals other than myself? i mean real drug-dealing, beating your azz, might even shoot you if need be criminals?

how about the illegal cig and booze blackmarkets that exist to provide for underage kids? let's not even go into the blackmarket created to avoid paying liquor and cig prices and taxes. it's called buying something "outta the back of a van." you don't hear about cases of booze and cigs getting stolen because a) it's no good for a business to report they lost all those cigs and booze and b) it's not exactly frontpage news.

you don't get rid of criminals by getting rid of the crime. there are plenty of other crimes. criminals choose the criminal lifestyle because a) opportunity; and b) the unwillingness to play by the rules.

so if you legalize drugs, they'll just move over to prostitution, money laundering, "enforcement" and "protection", illegal immigration, etc.

it takes a certain type of person to break the law in the first place. you assume that the context within which these criminals work has provided them their criminal lifestyle. you're DEAD wrong. if you take away one type of crime, you just get the criminal moving on to different work.

"The logic is that drugs are illegal because I harm myself by doing drugs. So, to keep me from suffering harm, the government imprisons me with real violent criminals, and creates a criminal record for me that prevents all kinds of employment.
In other words it is better that I be beaten and/or raped in jail, deprived of my freedom and stigmatized for life than I be allowed to ingest a drug? The logic of this escapes me."

no, that's not why drugs are illegal. no, the government doesn't imprison you to keep yourself from doing harm. it's to prevent you from furthering the problem of drugs. and, yes, it is better for you not to be allowed to ingest your drug than to go to jail because you knew the consequences before you did it. and, let's not forget that by ingesting that drug you know have the blood and tears of many other people in your own bloodstream. so, for that you should go to jail. for not caring about how many people died so you can get your drug of choice.

"When there is no recourse to the law to settle disputes, people will resort to violence."

again, that depends on who's settling the dispute. are you starting with the criminal mind or with a law abiding citizen? do you really mean to say that if there's no law regarding a single matter, an otherwise law abiding citizen will automatically grab a gun to solve the dispute?

also, do you really mean to say that legitimate businesses aren't killing off the competition? come on.

as for drug dealing violence? the violence occurs because of the worst of the drugs out there (not too many pot smoking hippy dealers get shot because they're flippin' eighths). so, your answer to getting rid of drug related violence is to allow drugs that will most likely result in negligence that has the power to affect as many people as purposeful violence.

also, would you let your kids do drugs? everyone here, answer honestly. how about your parents? you'd be okay with all those people doped up? keeping drugs illegal gives us the opportunity to tell our children that drugs are bad, and even if they can't comprehend why it is that this is so at least they know it's illegal.

drewrush
You say Marijuana dealers don't get killed? Go to northern California and walk onto the wrong farm and tell me that.

And, as far as using drugs, yes, I would allow my parents to do so. My father in law took opiates, it was called morphine, when he had surgery. It is no different from what is sold on the streets. I am right now taking large quantities of opiates for a nerve disorder, yet I am not shooting anyone nor causing any harm. Why? Because it is legal. The drugs don't cause the problems, they merely exacerbate problems already present, just as alcohol does. To demonize drugs is about as sensible as the left demonizing guns rather than killers. Drugs are neutral, it is the people who use them that are good or evil.

Bad argument
To say "druggies will do anything for cash" is not an argument for making them ilegal. immoral people who want a lot of things will do illegal acts to get what they want. That does not mean their desire caused the crime. The fact that they are criminals causes the crime.

Drugs are no more likely to cause crime than anything else. Do you think all those who take opiates for pain relief suddenly start sticking up 7-11's after their prescriptions run out? No, they go through withdrawal and go on with their lives. Drugs don't make them criminals.

Yes it's broke
The answer to the question posed is yes by an overwhelming margin. The criminal law system has been broken for a long time. The reasons are many fold, but the largest reason is not the so called war on drugs. The reason can mostly be attributed to the Warren Court finding new ways to release criminals. The war on drugs has overwhelmed the system yes, but this did not start the system failing.

Yes the civil court system is broken. Not all men are abusers, rapists, or other types of sociapaths as described earlier. If even a significant portion were then they would not be considered sociapaths would they? It would be considered normal. If you go to family court as a man the odds are overwhelming that you will be treated as described by the male posts above, particularly in the South.

As bad as the family court system is broken though it is not nearly as bad as the tort system. Now that is truely ******. (Supply your own evil metephor)

I agree with those who are in favor of elliminating the drug laws. The federal drug laws were held constitutional as part of interstate commerce. (Part of the New Deal rulings). The States have always had the auhority to make drugs illegal but most did not until after the feds started. Most of this started around 1916, although itemjs get added to the list on a yearly basis. Cocain was added at the request of southern congressmen because "it causes the balck people to rape white women". Marijuana was added during the days of "refer madness".

Most of the "bad" things that people give as reasons for keeping the drugs illegal are not problems caused by the drug affects on the user, but by other liberal laws such as welfare, foodstamps etc. That can be remedied simply by elliminating those programs are making benefits contingent on no drug use.

There are far too many bad things caused by the war to continue it. By far the worse thing is the loss of personal liberty that has accompanied the war. The no knock drug raids, confiscation of cash from individuals based solely on possesion of cash, the very fact that your money and posesions can now be sued under civil law!!!


Women and the courts
Prior to going into law enforcement I worked on an ambulance service that provided emergency care for a section of the county. I was called to a house one day and we got their before the cops did. A woman waited in the dark for her husband to enter the house and then she ambused him with a frying pan to the back of the head. He went down on his knees and she drug him to the toilet and forced his head into it causing him to ingest a lot of water and suck some into his lungs. The cops arrived and promptly arrested the man. This was in the 1960's. The policy at that time that they would always arrest the man regardless of the circumstances.

Now that I do private investigations I have come to realize that there have been some changes but not many. We have a judge in the county that I live in that absolutely hates men. If you are a man and you are charged there is a presumption of guilt.

question
those of you offering the opinion of legalizing drugs so as to stop the drug related crime...do you have kids? do you want drugs to be legal for your children to purchase?

I have done more than my share of drugs in the past and so did my son's Dad. Neither his Dad nor I want our son to ever try them. We remember all too well the havoc it creates.

For you men who got the short stick in divorce court, I am truly sorry. Its unfortunate that adults cannot act as mature adults when involved in divorce/child custody/support. I think my ex and I are of a small percentage who have worked OUTSIDE the justice system and stood back to do what was best for our son. I'd rather be willing to work with my ex and have a my son see his parents trying than see bitterness and anger, in and out of court, etc.
I realize not everyone can do that. but it can happen. Takes a lot more effort on both sides.

Example
To clarify my last post:

To say druggies will rob and kill to get drugs says nothing about drug use.

A few years ago kids were getting killed over starter jackets or air jordans. Skinheads beat each other to get doc martins. Do you suggest that jackets, high tops and boots cause societal ills?

Some drugs are addictive and can make those undergoing withdrawal uncomfortable, but they do not determine how those going through withdrawal will respond. To use a personal example again, I have undergone withdrawal three times in the past year, when my condition improved and I decided to discontinue the opiate pain killers. Never once did I rob, kill, or otherwise break the law.

Again, drugs are simply inanimate objects and thus morally neutral. People are good or evil. Drugs may exaggerate the good or evil in people, but so do many other things, such a alcohol, debt, stress, infatuation, lust, avarice, etc. To say that evil people who use drugs do evil things is no argument for banning drugs.

Lastly, if drugs are "inherently evil", why are so many of the same drugs legally prescribed by doctors (Ritalin is an amphetamine, LSD precursor ergotine is used for migraines, all manner of opiates are used as pain killers, cocaine derrivates are used medicinally etc.) Why does this use not lead to the breakdown of society?

Observations
"To claim that legalizing drugs will make it's (sic) problems go away is like saying legalizing murder will make the horrors it causes go away." Well said.

I work for community mental health, so have seen a lot of drug abusers and recovering drug abusers in my 10-year tenure.

Marijuana is implicated in (statistically increasing) first-time psychotic breaks enough to scare our psychiatrists. The theory is that it doesn't cause schizophrenia, but it takes someone who might have a genetic tendency toward it and stimulates those brain centers that might otherwise not have been activated. Research is ongoing and I suspect we'll be hearing that marijuana was not a good idea for those with psychotic disorders known to run in their families and may not be a good idea for anyone, given that.

Marijuana is NOT (repeat, NOT) a substitute for antidepressants as it exercerbates feelings of anhedonia and lack of emotion. It's well known by our psychiatrists that marijuana counteracts antidepressant treatment.

Marijuana is implicated in ADD, mimicking many of the same symptoms -- lack of concentration, poor memory, inability to stay on task. It is thought by our psychiatrists that it may be a leading unrecognized factor in adult ADD, a psychiatric condition that was unheard of 30 years ago.

Want to add one more factor to the obesity problem in this country. Our weights have been increasing ever since marijuana became a "recreational drug."

None of this is a smoking gun for marijuana, but it is at least as dangerous as alcohol. To say that because alcohol (which has been legal in most locations for 6,000 years) is legal and thus marijuana should also be is like saying too wrongs make a right.

I would ask you one question, folks! Would you want someone who just smoked a joint operating a crane with a 2,000-pound hunk of concrete attached to it. I left out a detail. They're supposed to lower this hunk of concrete to a location a few feet from where you're standing. Want to volunteer to be standing there?

A coworker's husband is recovering from a traumatic brain injury that occurred under pretty much those conditions. His life will likely never be the same. Working will probably be impossible for him. The crane operator smoked the joint the evening before, so he tested positive, but there's every chance he'll walk on the technicality that he wasn't "that" high when research show that judgment, reflexes and coordination are affected in marijuana users for up to two weeks (WEEKS) after their last use. Alaska has legalized marijuana, so the crane operator broke the rules of his employer, but not of the State, so he was fired, but the State is still trying to decide if he can be held reckless for operating a crane while under the influence.

This is why drugs are illegal, to protect the public. You make them legal and see how much workplace accidents increase, how many car accidents suddenly involve marijuana use.

"To claim that legalizing drugs will make it's problems go away is like saying legalizing murder will make the horrors it causes go away."

I repeat it because it's a very true statement. Legalizing something doesn't make the problems associated with it go away. Legalize illegal immigrants and we still have the problems associated, we just don't prosecute the cause. Legalize murder and we still have murder, we just no longer prosecute it. Legalize drugs and you'll still have all the societal decay associated with the use of drugs, but you will no longer have as strong a case to prosecute the negative results. And, there will be negative results!

Answer
Right now alcohol is illegal for my child to purchase (once he is 21), yet it does not mean I want him to become an alcoholic. However, I do not want to ban alcohol.

My question: Do you want your children to live under a government that dictates that they can not do anything the government deems "bad"? Even if those "bad" things harm no one but themselves? Or would you rather your children grow up in a state which values individual freedom?

You can't have both. If it is logical to make drugs illegal because they allow me to hurt myself, it is just as logical to ban "bad: political ideas, as they harm me too. It is not an exaggeration to say the all-powerful nanny state is the outcome of the war on drugs. Just look at the fate of cigarettes and transfats now.

to address one objection
I am sure someone will object to my last post that people do harm to others because of drugs, so it isn't a victimless crime. That is absurd. Drunks cause problems too, but we blame the drunk not the alcohol. Why do we think alcoholics are at fault, not alcohol, but drugs somehow MAKE people do things? Again, it is like the "guns kill people" arguments of the left. It is emotionally appealing, but not rational.

smokey
didn't say it was the only reason, i was saying if it's your only reason, it's a dang good one to have...

well...
"If we got rid of all laws, then we wouldn't have any crime." This is sort of a quasi-ignorant argument that most libertarians (myself excluded) are indirectly making about drug criminalization. If not that, they are arguing that government shouldn't regulate what goes on in the privacy of one's home, although, that kind of doesn't hold up when we get to spousal or child abuse. So lets say that government shouldn't regulate what goes on in the privacy of the home that affects the body of one person and does not directly harm the physical or emotional well-being of others in the home. Fair enuff.

The anti-decriminalization argument is that a world free to drug use will damage society. Probably...particularly since, owing to the coddling nature of government, most junkies are too inept to weigh the consequences of drug use, hence, they are junkies. I don't particularly want them hanging around my house were their fix legal. I don't think industrial accidents will skyrocket, simply because employers would (and should) still be allowed to discriminate in hiring on the grounds of drug use.

When Guiliani supposedly cleaned up New York, they went after petty offenders, and saw major crimes decline as a result. What about going after petty drug offenders and stoned teenagers? If they get seriously busted hard, then the market for drugs dries up quick. Just a thought. It just looks like when we target the supply, druggies find alternative sources.

Rand'y
I didn't say marijuana is "harmless". I said it isn't addictive. I also said that society figures that marijuana users have no excuse for not quitting since they are not physically addicted to it.

None of this is in opposition to the thrust of your post.

My position on the issue of drug legalization is that we must choose which imperfection we want to deal with as a society. On alcohol and tobacco we have the farce (especially in the case of tobacco) of the government being the tobacco companies' silent partner, then organizing a class action lawsuit, bowing out once the class is certified, accepting ahuge out-of-court settlement, most of which was NOT spent on the real victims, and, here's the clincher, having those same victims pay for the whole thing in the form of increased prices for the cigarettes they were addicted to.

In the case of cocaine we have chosen to enrich drug dealers both in our own cities and overseas in places like Columbia.

It is easy to say we should ban drugs. It is also easy to point out the "virtues" of legalizing them. But there are problems with both of these courses. Adams' article articulates this dichotomy very well.

drewrush
I wrote: "...you do realize, don't you, that the exact same logic justifies laws against alcoholism, gambling addiction, workaholism, sex addiction, and even addiction to soap operas?"

You wrote: "right, and your child can be taken away from you if it's proven in a court of law that you have neglected them but rarely is it that children are used in the processes of alcoholism, gambling, workaholism, sex addiction (with the exception of child prositution) and an addiction to soap operas (with the exception of child stars). drug dealers put children in the line of fire by using them for their ends and selling drugs to them. and low and behold, for the above giving alcohol to, having sex with or permitting gambling by a minor is illegal. so is letting a child work to long each week!"

I'm not sure what your argument is. We're talking about laws that make drug use illegal. Somebody argued that we need those laws because drug users hurt kids, and my point is that lots of people doing putatively legal things also hurt kids. Yes, a druggie who uses a kid as a mule can go to jail -- for reckless endangerment, contributing to the delinquency, etc. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about sending our druggie to jail for using drugs, because using drugs hurts kids. And I'm saying that's not a sufficient reason to make drugs illegal.

aurorawatcher
You wrote: "'To claim that legalizing drugs will make it's problems go away is like saying legalizing murder will make the horrors it causes go away.' I repeat it because it's a very true statement. Legalizing something doesn't make the problems associated with it go away."

You, and the person you're quoting, need to think more carefully. The claim is not that legalizing drugs will make all problems associated with drugs go away. It's that it will make the problems associated with ENFORCING DRUG LAWS go away. By reducing the profitability of dealing drugs, you reduce the appeal of dealing drugs, and that, in turn, reduces the burden on police and border patrol to catch illegal importers and dealers.

You also eliminate the influence of criminals over a large portion of the population.

You also, by reducing the cost of the drugs, reduce an enormous problem of theft, burglary, and armed robbery, since a large percentage of those crimes are committed by druggies scrabbling money for the next fix.

The unrelated problem, what we do about the enormous number of people who are dissipating their lives and ruining their families because of drug addiction, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the drugs are legal or illegal -- just as the similar problem of what we do about the enormous number of alcoholics has nothing to do with whether liquor is legal or illegal.

I hate drugs, I'd never use them, I think taking drugs for "recreation" is just stupid, and I was pretty tough with my kids when I caught them fooling with them. But I don't think that has anything to do with making them legal or illegal. Our drug laws are not well considered.

andrews
I agree that the individual is 100% responsible for their actions, regardless of their motives.

You assume, however, that there is no difference between people like yourself who suffer withdrawals after taking prescription drugs under doctor's orders, and junkies who live for the high.

The junkie's addiction is, in part, to blame for their actions. Can a person who has wilfully turned his or her brains into swiss cheese through years of drug abuse be in control of their actions while they are in the middle of a psychotic episode. Everyone makes the initial decision to take the drugs the first time, but under continued usage the drugs begin to have a bigger and louder voice in the decision making process.

With some drugs; heroin, for example, the drug takes over almost completely. The recovered heroin addicts I have known have said that they've basically had to re-invent themselves during rehab and come back as a completely different person, leaving everything and everyone in their previous life behind in order to stay clean.

The PERSON must be held responsible, but that doesn't mean we should give everyone unfettered access to any substance they want.

There are plenty of people who smoke and drink who will never touch illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Remove the legal barrier, and many of them may begin using.

For people predisposed to addiction, using crack, meth or heroin one time could be enough to get them hooked. Do you think society can afford to take that risk? I certainly don't.

No money = no more drugs
We need to cut away the funding of drug purchases. Anyone convicted of being present in a room where drugs are stored/used should (a) loose their kids and (b) be denied ineligible for any welfare assistance for 5-10 years.

What we have now are women with clean criminal records renting Sect 8 Apartments and then having drug dealing boyfriends "not" living there. And they 'trade them in' like used cars for new models, Pioneer Institute did a study a while back that the average (or median, I forget which) tenure of a boyfriend in a woman with kids household was 17 months.

In Maine if you test positive for heroin when you are arrested with it, no matter how much you have in your possession, you won't go to jail because you are an "addict" and they feel sorry for you. We feel sorry for druggies but an equal case could be made for feeling sorry for men who beat up their girlfriends, most were victims of domestic abuse themselves. So too with child molesters.

So why don't we use the very same hard-ball tactics against drug users? Toss every one of them in jail with the ruthlessness we go after deadbeat dads with - yank drivers licenses and all of that too - and we will win the war on drugs.

And never forget that drugs are rampant in public housing. I know of one case where they literally had snow shovels to sweep up all the random drugs that were left on the floor after one tenant vacated. I was younger then, I would never go in there now without a full HazMat suit.

I remember another time when the local La Familia chapter had been smoking dope around the living room with a single mother and her small child. When they all decided to go pile out the back bedroom window (first floor unit), I wasn't going to stop them...

I have seen more than I wish I have, and it all comes back to welfare money. The welfare money becomes the source for the foundation of the drug trade and the drug profits pay for the massive big screen TVs that everyone has, the jewlery, the fancy music and fancier cars.

I have seen the "disabled" druggies living for free in public housing with the SSI check and going downtown for their free methadone and then coming back happy and getting happier as they boost upon it with more illicit opiates. And then they have hepititis or AIDs and how do you think you get this sort of stuff (dirty needles...)

As a good Christian I try to help my fellow man and I really don't have problems with the government doing some too, but I have seen too much. 25% of the people on public assistance truly need it (and would have recieved it from Churches in the past), 25% need a good swift kick (and then some help of a different sort, like an employer taking a chance on them) and 50% are simply stealing the government blind.

In my more cynical days I sometimes think that we ought to make drugs legal (and free) but to lace 1% with a fatal dose of cynide. Put up big signs about how drugs kill and offer free drug treatment (not that it is worth a d*mn).

No users, no drugs. No drug problem.

DRUG LAWS PROS & CONS
Well it looks like this thread has become drug laws; for or against. There are a lots of items listed as detriments to decriminalization. Most of these items, as I said before, or not the cause of the drugs or the users. They are the results of a socialist nanny government. Injuries caused on the job by drug use fall under the same category as injuries caused on the job by alcohol. Would you like to stand next to a crane lowering a weight when it has been driven by an individual who drank beer all night watching football and went in with a mega-hangover. (generally would run about 0.04 BAC until 10:00 am or so). I know I wouldn’t. There are quite a few industries that now require random drug and alcohol testing while on the job. They also require “for cause testing” after any accident or went someone notes a symptom. Some of these are mandated by law, e.g. train and nuclear power plant personnel. Others are done solely at the discretion of the employers. Decriminalization of drugs will not change any of that. You can still make employment a condition of being drug and alcohol free on the job.

Finally, where were all of these societal problems in the U.S. before drugs were made illegal?

THE BROKEN CONCEPT
WELL MIKE I WON'T ASY THE JURY SYSTEM IS BROKEN BUT IT COULD STAND FOR A LOT OF MODIFICATION AND UNDERGO SOME SPECIFIC REPAIR IN VITAL AREAS, SELECTION THE RIGHT TO REFUSE, PAY, YEARS OF SERVICE, THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE POINTS OF INTEREST. TRYING TO GET THSE HARD HEADED BASTARDS TO LISTEN TO YOU ABOUT MAKING SIMPLE CHANGE IS THE REAL PROBLEM, WHY THE HECK SHOULD THEY LISTEN TO ANYONE THEIR GETTING THEIR FULL PAY AND PLAN TO RETIRE ON WHAT THEY MANAGED TO ACCURE BY VOTING IN THEIR OWN RAISES. AS FOR YOU AND ME, SO WHAT IS THE ATTITUDE I GET OR GO POUND SALT.

Crime
To clean up crime you must start top, If it is alright too lie, steal and kill when you are top dog why should it be wrong for the bottom feeder too be crooked

Reply to Aurorawatcher....
You said, "I would ask you one question, folks! Would you want someone who just smoked a joint operating a crane with a 2,000-pound hunk of concrete attached to it. I left out a detail. They're supposed to lower this hunk of concrete to a location a few feet from where you're standing. Want to volunteer to be standing there?"

This is a pretty stupid statement. Sorry to be so blunt, but is this really the best argument you can come up with?

People who belive that drugs should be legal don't believe that people should be free to get high on drugs and do whatever without punishment. Committing crimes with high should have the same punishment as committing crimes while high on alcohol.

You are making a straw-man argument here and a very poor one at that.

You also said, "None of this is a smoking gun for marijuana, but it is at least as dangerous as alcohol. To say that because alcohol (which has been legal in most locations for 6,000 years) is legal and thus marijuana should also be is like saying too wrongs make a right."

Marijuana has only been illegal for the last 70 years or so! Before that, it was legal for the last 6000 years too! Same for herion and cocaine. If it wasn't for the War on Drugs, we might not even have crack-cocaine and meth!

If marijuana is just as bad as alcohol, why are you not in favor of alcohol being illegal? Alcohol is clearly more easy to obtain and causes thousands of deaths each year in car accidents in our country. Even more people die each year due to health issues related to alcohol.

Remember Prohibition?
We gave up on it because the cure was worse than the disease.

Time we did the same with drug prohibition.


Personal injury lawyer on a banana peel?
http://www.givemetheinfo.com/blog/blogger.html

What's The Answer? Ask Benjamin...
Yes, Dr. Adams, the criminal justice system is broken. The answers are multi-faceted and complex... or are they really that complex?

Let's ask Benjamin Franklin and hear what he has to say about it...

"Wish not so much to live long as to live well."
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1738


"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district, all studied and appreciated as they merit, are the principle support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) US Founding Father in a letter dated March 1778 to the Ministry of France


"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity, will change the face of the world."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American printer, author, philosopher, diplomat and scientist.


"Educate your children to self-control, to the habit of holding passion and prejudice and evil tendencies subject to an upright and reasoning will, and you have done much to abolish misery from their future and crimes from society."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American printer, author, philosopher, diplomat and scientist.


"If you wouldst live long, live well, for folly and wickedness shorten life."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American printer, author, philosopher, diplomat and scientist.


"How many observe Christ’s birthday! How few, his precepts! O! ‘tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)


"Search others for their virtues, thyself for thy vices."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)


"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American printer, author, philosopher, diplomat and scientist.

I have about a hundred other quotes on the importance of morality, virtue and religion in America spoken by the Founding Fathers.

I won't bore you by listing them all. But the fact is that our great nation is in steep decline. The regain a foothold on this steep and slippery slope, we must gaze back into America's past for a moment.

OK, one more quote. From a relative of mine.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams (1735-1826) Second President of the United States.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com






wacky
Wacky isn't. That writer is the best yet. Keep on. Please. And thank you.

Decriminalization of drugs
It would probably work for marijuana. Much less likely for drugs that are more dependent on purity. The goverment would never allow 100% pure heroin for example - first, it's too deadly; second, "users" could make fortunes cutting it and reselling it at far cheaper rates. Instead government coke, heroin, ecstasy, etc. would all be at a fairly standard strength - probably no more than 50-65% purity. Thus, there would still be a market for stronger doses, since addicts tend to need stronger and stronger doses to achieve a comparable high over time.

But the bigger issue is simply that any politician who started to gain any momementum with a legalization movement would be dead in very, very short order. The drug trade uses lethal force to protect corners that generate hundreds of dollars in revenue. Are we to think that they'd sit idly by while an entire billion dollar industry was threatened? No way. The South American and Asian producers, the Mexican transporters, and the local distributors could easily bring ample death and destruction into cities in an effort to protect their business. How many deaths would they have to cause to force an abandonment of the legalization issue? Not all that many, I bet.

We can't legislate morality????
Give me a break.

I've read that inane comment several times as I scanned these posts. Apparently that idiotic reasoning didn't get left behind in my philosophy classes from 25 years ago in college.

What are laws if not society at-large imposing its morals on others?

Think about it: Murder, stealing, kindnapping, rape, assault. As a society we've decided these things are immoral and we've enacted legislation to prohibit it.

Also, whenever an argument is prefaced by "you can't legislate morality" the arguer has dug their own grave. They are essentially imposing their morality on you by insisting you can't impose your morality on them. Circular logic.

Rich
I repeated your mantra 4 times. Funny. Still doesn't help.

Prohibition of what? Murder? Rape? Incest? Assault? Stealing? Tax evasion?

Seems to me that nobody is willing to argue that removing prohibitions on the above activities is enlightened thinking.

Aren't ALL laws a form of prohibition? Either thou SHALT NOT... or THOU SHALT NOT FAIL TO...

nevadamistermom
You can add statutory rape to your list. Along with bans on honor killings.

There is a theoretical legal dichotomy between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes.

Mala in se crimes are crimes that are wrong in fact, or rather, crimes that reflect society's moral compass.

Mala prohibita crimes are crimes that are wrong solely because they are illegal. These are crimes that do not impact, or touch on, society's moral code.

There is a third class of "crimes" (that kind of throws out the "dichotomy" thing, but bear with me). These are "crimes" that go against society's moral code, but which society has not outlawed.

In Pre Historic Times;
Our high school was built on the edge of a prairy.
A series of gulches and washes crossed that prairy and each one was lined with loco weed.
No one ever bothered it.
Loco weed? Yep, that's another name for Mary Jane.

Now in this day & age;
I took some volunteer black walnut trees to the river and planted them back behind the toulies.
The next day we went back to water them again and found someone had stripped all the leaves off them!
Wonder how those black walnut leaves taste in a smoke?

about alcohol
i have an issue with the drinking age being 21. why is it illegal for a person who can be called up to fight in a war and vote for the leaders of our country to have a alcoholic beverage when they want to.

Legalizing drugs would no make all the problems go away the gangs are too well entrenched now. it would just shift the gangs to do something else but many of the smaller drug gangs would disappear or join into some of the larger gangs. what it would really do is get the non violent users out of jail. I remember hearing a study from Britain that after they legalized marijuana usage numbers did not change. I am personally more concerned with police using the SWAT style teams more and more for drug raids causing more and more police killings that don't need to happen

difference
Murder? Rape? Assault? Stealing?

the difference between these and drug laws is that all of these infringe on another persons rights directly where as a person merely doing drugs does not hurt any other person by the mere fact they are doing the drug


beer safer....
Vic wrote:
> (generally would run about 0.04 BAC until
> 10:00 am or so).

A 0.04 BAC isn't good for operation of heavy equipment but remember that (a) it can be measured while drug influence can not be, (b) it will be out of his body that morning - unlike drugs and (c) there are specific standardards of excess which do not exist for drugs.

Any competent police officer can easially determine exactly if a person is "drunk" or not - 0.04% for commercial equipment, 0.08% for private vehicles. I think the standards got put a little bit too low but it may just be protection for officers arresting the person at .11% and wanting a standard below that which they enforce, like speed limits.

There is no standard for drugs in your body.
There is no standard (easy for cops) means to determine if drugs are in you. There is no concept of drug roadblocks and ones formed along the lines of OUI ones are thrown out of court.

Take it one step further, alcohol is hard to conceal. It is a fairly large volume, ounces in concentrated form, much larger when diluted, liquid reqiring containers, distinctive odors -- it is hard to hide. Drugs on the other hand can be put in a woman's bra (quite common in colleges) or otherwise concealed.

Drugs are in colleges big time now because (a) they are far easier to get into the dorms and (b) they are cheaper -- Boston Globe says heroin goes for $5, cheaper than a 6-pack.

It isn't that alcohol is inherently less dangerous (although it is water not fat based and hence much shorter lasting) as much as we have an elaborate system of measuring/punishing abuse of it. Run over someone drunk and you will get busted for drunk driving. Run over someone stoned or high and they will find the .01% BAC from the beer you had to wash everything else down....

chr335
I'm not going to argue for or against the morality of drugs. I could do so, but don't want to waste the pixels. My point is simply this whole absurd notion of "you can't legislate morality." Of course you can. We do it every single day. Our lives are governed by not only our own morals, but the morals of others imposed on us in the form of our legal codes.

Also, we have plenty of laws where the only person hurt is the person "doing it." Underage drinking and smoking come to mind. Most states also have laws against suicide.


And God saw that it was good
In fact, everybody that is currently taking anti-depressants in this sick nation should instead have prescriptions for marijuana; which the Lord himself called good: -And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.- Genesis 1:17


Really? Wow! Now that's amazing. I guess there is no such thing as a poisonous plant - NOT.

All life forms serve some purpose. Human consumption is not always that purpose. God saw that each seed yielded it's own kind - not some other kind, such as crab grass producing a maple tree. That is what God saw as good. He didn't mean everything was to be consumed. For example - God made the "apple tree" but he didn't think it was good for Adam & Eve to eat it's fruit.

Repsonse to Pirate
The "limit" for detected in drugs in the occupations that I mentioed in my post is zero (0.0). If you are detected with any drugs showing in your system you are fired.

ignorant
Most states also have laws against suicide.
if you think suicide hurts only one person you are mistaken. yes drugs can cause the same pain but only long term besides outlawing suicide is stupid because your only charged if you fail what punishment do you get? isn't it like mandatory time in a phsyc hospital. Why cant we have mandatory rehab for people who posses drugs and i don't mean like 500 lbs of the stuff but like one or two doses.
Legalizing drugs or at least shifting from a substance control to a rehabilitation program for addicts would one cost less and two make less users for dealers to sell to.

besides
suicide laws are not felons where as drug crimes are if i understand them correctly.

its broken
except for illeagal aliens,for them its working just fine.

Tragic comedy
A biblical defense of pot. Wow.

There are individuals I know personally who are ruining their lives because of their non-addition to THC and its effects. Friends of mine, or at least I used to call them that. They are shells of the people I once knew, and I have left them behind.

Are there prices to be paid for drug use? Sure. Friends pay. Employers pay. Users pay. But in the end, if people want to screw up their lives, they have a right to do so.

Legalize, and pull the plug on any and all support systems that help to aliviate personal responsibility. Let the surplus population weed itself out (pun not intended, but I'll leave it in because it's just too good).

Government couldn't solve this problem. God can't (or won't) solve this problem. A free market can, but only if it is unencumbered by legislative restriction.

Think it through.

what?
Legalize, and pull the plug on any and all support systems that help to aliviate personal responsibility.
how will legalizing mean pulling the plug on the support system when under our current system the people on drugs get jail time and most of the time no access to treatment programs. How is this support

grammar lesson
"Legalize, and pull the plug..." means exactly what it says. It identifies the two concepts as distict, seperate actions. One could discern it to mean legalize drugs and end food stamps, rehab programs, treatment, or any other manner of government subsidized programs that permit unaccountability.

"Leagalize; pull the plug..." would have matched your interpretation, and would have been an incoherent statement, which is why I didn't make it.

vic
You are absolutely correct about certain occupations and the blood/drug testing.

Used to be with FAA, Have contact with an aircraft that has an accident, drug testing ASAP. Also they had "random" drug testing and "random" alcohol testing. The Department of Transportation has random drug testing for anyone in a "safety" position ever since the subway engineer that was stoned on pot rammed into the back of another subway train. So all of you deniers, please don't say pot never causes any damage.
Like the commercials would you really want to be operated on by a doctor that just fininshed his joint, or have your airliner controlled by an Air Traffic Controller that spent his smoke break inhaling some good ole THC. (Cannabis)?
Hum?

Empyrius and the "Black Market"
Can't speak for the whole Army Emp, but the unit I was in (ARNG) in MO and Iowa were 80% and 90% white respectively. The vast majority held good jobs outside the Nat Guard (unit went to Iraq in 03), and generally better educated than their peers. Your generalizations about the military, Army specifically, as being poor, black or mexican are unfounded, untrue and (I am speculating here) spoken by someone who appears not to like the military, nor someone who doesn't much like the US.
If I am taking my generalizations too far and my speculations unsound, please let me know.
Taproot

21 year old Scotch
21 yo Scotch, especially a peaty mellow single malt, is a drink fit for the gods.
Mike, I salute your taste.
Taproot
PS. If you haven't tried it, don't knock it. Never has asphalt tasted so good, and it's probably just as well, otherwise, many of the roads laid would quickly disappear.
Taproot

Ontime
Seems like Ontime just can't get his caplock button fixed. Yelling at us isn't going to win friends and influence people Ontime.
Taproot

$
One could discern it to mean legalize drugs and end food stamps, rehab programs, treatment, or any other manner of government subsidized programs that permit unaccountability.

I was under the impression that most rehab centers are privately owned am i wrong? And how does a rehab center permit unaccountability when its sole purpose is to rehabilitate a person either after an accident, surgery or to get clean of drugs or alcohol. So your saying we should leave them addicted so they can take responsibility or just lock them up so we can throw them back in once they get out and need their fix

Crimina Justice System-Broken? In NC?
Dr. Adams:
My goodness your article is timely. Considering the subject matter and your Geographic location? Isn't Nifong somewhere in your vicinity? Never has the Justice System displayed a better example of being broken than this! Why haven’t the higher judicial powers intervened in this case? I mean; doesn't Nifong have oversight? Does he have to answer to higher authorities? Or is there anyone higher than Mike Nifong on this earth? (I am being facetious of course.) The worst case scenario has certainly come into full view of the Judicial Authorities and the public per se. What is Nifong taking for his obvious mental problems? This guy needs help, or else the Criminal Justice System in NC will be stigmatized as; drop-dead-stupid!

Read More of My Opinions At: http://macsbetweentheeyes.townhall.com/

We are way off the path!
We are no longer walking the narrow path that the Puritans and the Founding Fathers set out for the United States of America.

The superfluous instances of divorce, single parenthood, alcohol and narcotics abuse, domestic violence, child molestation, school violence, bulging prison population and more are not the reason for our broken criminal justice system.

These things are not to blame for our broken criminal justice system. These things are merely symptoms of a drifting nation. We have drifted far from the path set out for us in the 17th and 18th centuries by our Founding Fathers.

They well knew that in a free constitutional representative republic, with a pretty radical amount of individual freedom, that the citizen would have to have a moral, ethical and religious character in order that true human freedom should survive.

I'll give you one quote, even though I have more than one hundred such quotes at the ready...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams (1735-1826) Second President of the United States.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Court Cases
Dr. Adams'article has stirred up more replies/comments than most other person's articles as he goes directly to the heart of the subject.

Rudy Guilani worked similarly going directly to the heart of the crime problem in New York by enforcing the law.

Could anyone suggest that the breakdown in families and law and order could be related to our changes in morality ?

Federal regs create more probs
Federal regs create more chaos than intended to solve.
Drug War is a prime example of social liberalismand the chaos it causes.
Spend endless amounts of money for the so called "good of all." A concept straight out of the communist manifesto I might add.
Unfortunately, prohibitions will not produce these well-intentioned pipe dreams so many have been endoctrinated to believe in, since Nixon(speaking of criminals who don't fess up to wrong-doing or get punished) stepped up and started what we know now as the failed "Drug War" and in my opinion a "boondoggle".
An open-ended excuse to spend wastefully.
Continued policies such as the drug war is a good part of why America's grandchildren will still be paying long after were gone for our failures to elect leaders with vision to end the waste like drug war in DC."
With higher tax rates, they will sure to be using drugs to cope with the hopelessness of those higher tax burdens.
Will we learn from history and leave a better situation for them. I hope so.

Consideration
I've read through many of the comments, and as far as I can see, many people have legitimate concerns and grievances with the legal system in the United States. However, the simple question can be asked- What is this legal system, made for people who have inherited a great British legal tradition hinging on individual freedom and made it even FREER, trying to do?

It's trying to be fair.

To be fair, it must be impartial. To be impartial, it must sometimes act as if it is being patently UNfair. It is like the perfect definition of a compromise- a deal where nobody comes from the bargaining table happy. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence here that shows the Family Courts etc. being "evil" and being biased in a certain way. This is certainly not the case.

If you go down to the local court, you will find many hard working judges (Almost NONE of them "liberal" in the way most people seem to use the word here) drawing up judgments that strike a fair balance between parties- trying to act according to the finest judgment ever made (in my opinion) by Andrew Jackson while he was a judge- "Do what is RIGHT between these parties; that is what the law always MEANS."

What is RIGHT is NOT what one of the parties thinks the judgment should go his or her way.

If you really want a completely arbitrary system of law where all these nebulous "factors" are factored into judgments instead of hard headed considerations as to the best possible outcome that satisfies the law (In family courts, the welfare of the child, for example) try China. In China, any offence can be punished with the Death Penalty "If a Supreme Court of the People thinks the offence worthy of it."

You're not meant to come crying to a judge every time someone jerks you around. You go to the court because you have no other option but to use the law, the final arbiter between people. Don't expect them to treat you with compassion and mercy, because that's not what they're meant to do. Don't expect the law to "help" police bring in criminals, because that's PRECISELY what the United States DOESN'T stand for.

Before you complain about the justice system, I really do suggest you go down to the courts and take a look, not as a party, but as an observer, with no preconceptions. It WILL open your eyes.

In response to Save the Guns -Marc
It's not America's non-violent drug users and addicts breaking the drug laws I'm worried about. Now maybe the rapist, murders, getting out early to rape and kill again, when a non-violent addict is put in jail in their places,... that just might be worthy of the term "War" entitled into a policy that would keep that from happening. How about this for the title, "War on stupid polticians and their not so commonsense policies"

More importantly what concerns me is the lack of commonsense, rule of law and lack of respect for constitutional authority of the leaders we elect in both main liberal parties in America nowadays.

The "drug war" concept in itself, is communistic in ideology and the same tactics can be found in their manifesto.

This is why I can't understand the social conservatives, of the Republican Party.
I can understand it from the left but the so-called right, never.
This is no where near fiscal conservatives, if conservative at all. Nor compassionate I might add.

It seems they hide there socialist tendency of acceptable big government behind the veil of "legalism".. ( this is what God would have us do morally. )
Please stop with the rhetoric it doesn't serve us well or do much good. Let's get real.

God does say,... don't be like the drunkard. Many use drugs (legal and illegal). Most are not like the drunkard we see on the streets messed up all day long.

Heck, look at liberal conservative pundit, "Rush Limbaugh" and his oxycotin addiction.
Would you call him a drunkard?

Even President Bush used legal and illegal drugs to the point of addiction and he's the President of the United States. He doesn't seem like a drunkard to me. He makes dumb decisions, but not a drunkard.

Our forefathers didn't have anything different under the sun than what we do now except a understanding of individual responsibility to one's self. In no way did they believe Government should be a "nanny" of the people.
(They would never dreamed of giving over to the government the responsibility of one's self. Not even if everyone became a drunkard.)They knew socialism was even more deadly than a town full of drunks.

Socialism keeps men from their responsibility to relationship with their creator in many ways.

Even though they knew it would take Christian actions for our country to survive, they knew where the battle was, not in the fleshly world, but the spiritual one.

That perspective keeps the flesh from being a drunkard, no matter what drugs we use or even they used in moderation.
This perspective kept them honest, respecting individualism, self-reliance and responsibilty.
This perspective kept them respecting the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Guess what Mark, not one of them ever experimented with socialism for any of the same problems people had morally then, that we still have today.

Marc, God created alot of the drugs we use today. Not only did he create them but he called them good. Some like "marijuana" or the real name "cannabis", bibilical name "kanan bosh" I believe, (google it)has been used for milleniums.

Our forefathers never would have dreamed up a "boondoggle" like the "War on Drugs". Socialist always begin with assaults on personal liberties and private property on their way to taking over.

Now what can conservatives do to preserve the liberty our forefathers had.

First let me say this... we all know as conservatives we have different factions within Repub Party.

Here's an example...

Why should pro-life conservatives be fiscally conservative first rather than socially conservative first?

Liberals and moderates will never let social conservatives end legal abortions until the "culture of lfe" (as W. Bush coined it) comes to fruitation.
Then how do conservatives get there, ultimately ending abortions.
Sticking to fiscal conservatism first will get us there, not everyone can agree on ending abortions, but a majority can agree on government defunding of abortions. This will require social conservatives to be fiscally conservative first.
As government neither condemns it, nor supports it, abortions will decrease and create a culture of life. No tax monies or politicians will have to be involved and smaller government in the process.

Now if that isn't the conservative and moral way of doing things, then in my opinion the Repub Party is too liberal and without vision for me.

The fiscal conservative model is the only scenerio we haven't tried yet.


Nifong Off Case
Fox News reports North Carolina Attorney General Agrees to Mike Nifong's Request to Be Removed From Duke Lacrosse Case.

Working just fine
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others... The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

---Excerpt from the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger, director at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate in 1937.
GO SEAHAWKS

grubby writes
".....the macabre family court experience knows the taste of totalitarian socialist rule - the kind the liberals are trying to impose on the rest of us."

(YES, GRUBBY, THE GARBAGE LEGAL SYSTEM epitomizes the TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST RULE, in america. This is because the garbage legal system is the perfect place for worms to try to exalt their putrid thrones above the throne of God, just like their father, the devil, said he would do. It's not by chance that they outlawed prayer in school, and ever since, have sought to remove recognition of God, in society. God's throne interferes with the thrones that these worms want to establish for themselves. That their system is one of injustice, rather than justice, and perversion, rather than truth, testifies to who their father is: THE DEVIL.)

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.