Death penalty for drug dealers

[Kevin]

I'm OK with that.

I'm OK with public hangings of drug dealers.

I'm OK with expedited trials.

I'm OK with compulsory treatment for addicts.

I'm OK with mandatory testing for anyone having dealings with the law. Get stopped for drunk driving, get an order of protection entered against you, get in a car wreck, whatever - drug testing. If drugs are found in your system, off you go to treatment.

I'm OK with lots of things on this issue.

Around 1900, China saw 25% of their adult male population addicted to opium. Mao took the draconian steps above and got the situation under control. The biggest thing he did was to enforce a cultural change where people feared the consequences of becoming addicted. Sometimes, draconian action is needed. The biggest thing is to decrease demand and for that, fear of the consequences has to be accomplished first and then, within a generation, a disdain for drugs can grow.

Lots of other measures need to be taken as well. These are a first step in a multi-prong, multi-generational approach.

But you gotta start with enforcement of consequences. Otherwise, we are headed for a situation that China faced where 25% of their population was identified as being addicted. God only knows how many were addicted and not identified. Estimates are up to 50% of the population. I am not for waiting until that point to address this problem.

Not everything Trump is doing is bad. He's on the right track with this. He needs to do more but he absolutely needs to keep going down this track.

[TxMusky]

I with you on the drug testing, add alcohol to the mix as well, because they are both included together when we get random tested for work. If I have to do it to have a job, so should everybody else, especially criminals or others using public assistance.

China is shipping something much more deadly to us, the synthetic heroin called fentanyl that is many times worse and much more deadly than heroin or any of the other opiates. I have seen so many stories where people have lost their children due to that being used.

Consequences is something that we have let slide. Until consequences are mandatory as well as REAL sentences, instead of a slap on the hand, people will not take the threats seriously....on anything.

[Mike]

Rarely do I disagree with Kevin, but this time, I am not OK with a lot of what he has proposed.

I am not OK with the death penalty for any offense until we find a way to be 100% certain that the execution is just. Far too many people have already been wrongly executed. You can't take that back. At least a prison sentence can be reversed in case of a mistake.

I am not OK with compulsory treatment for addicts. If they commit a crime, jail 'em and make treatment available. If they choose treatment, make adjustments to their sentences. Medical treatment should not be forced on anyone. If they refuse, they'll probably die soon anyway.

Mandatory testing for just about everything? Really, Kevin? Let's just repeal the 4th Amendment, it will be so much easier for the fascist state.

I don't mean to allow drug dealers to walk, but to punish the user doesn't work. Our prisons are overflowing with users. What has that accomplished?

The war on drugs was long ago lost. It has cost countless billions of dollars and encroached on our rights and freedoms. Enough of that.

Education along with available voluntary treatment is the only solution I can think of.

[wacojoe]

Is Duturta’s methodology working? It is a tad more harsh, so if it is not working to stem illicit drug use, then that may be an indicator here. I have no idea whether it is having an effect other than summarily offing a bunch of people said to be drug dealers.

[Mike]

Is Duturta’s methodology working? It is a tad more harsh, so if it is not working to stem illicit drug use, then that may be an indicator here. I have no idea whether it is having an effect other than summarily offing a bunch of people said to be drug dealers.

Vigilantism at its finest!

[Kevin]

I teach history and I know what opium can do to a country. People in China were drugged out and lying in the streets. We can't let that happen here.

When faced with a threat to the country, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. Habeas corpus was also suspended to fight the KKK during Reconstruction.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[wacojoe]

I was bringing up efficacy with Dururta as opposed to the morality or legitimacy of his policies. If even official sanctioned murder does not work to slow down the drug trade (and I do not know if it has or not), then I doubt drawn out death sentence laws would either, is my query.

Having been a keen observer of American death penalty cases to the point of prosecuting three perps sentenced to the penalty, I am with Mike in my doubts about its 100% accuracy in application. Too many people found provably innocent on death row.

I am at a loss to offer a policy to slow down the obvious desire many people have to lose their minds to drugs. There seems to be an innate, and often uncontrollable, compulsion, whether physical or mental to lose rationality.

[Kevin]

Catch a guy with 10 rocks of crack on him, I'd say that's close enough to being a dealer for me.

[Mike]

I teach history and I know what opium can do to a country. People in China were drugged out and lying in the streets. We can't let that happen here.

When faced with a threat to the country, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. Habeas corpus was also suspended to fight the KKK during Reconstruction.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

An attack on the Constitution is a "cold dead fingers" issue for me. The same as it would have been under Lincoln.

[Mike]

Catch a guy with 10 rocks of crack on him, I'd say that's close enough to being a dealer for me.

Why would that make him a dealer? 10 rocks isn't that much, maybe they got a bulk discount. "shrug"

[Kevin]

I'm not certain what the distinction is between the suspension of habeas corpus is and a suspension of Constitutional rights. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1863 until the end of the Civil War. Habeas corpus was suspended again in 1871 to break the Klan.

If someone can be held without trial and the government does not have to even show cause for the detention, that would seem a violation of any number of Constitutional rights.

So we have a history of suspending Constitutional rights in response to an existential threat to the nation.

[wacojoe]

Wasn’t it Lincoln in the face of a SCOTUS ruling against his wishes who said, “The Supreme Court has made its ruling; now let them enforce it.” The start of federal supremacy can be traced unerringly to Abraham Lincoln.

[Fulltimer]

Andrew Jackson.


Worcester v Georgia

[Kevin]

The question you propose, Whether circumstances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrasing in practice. a strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. the laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. to lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. when, in the battle of Germantown, Genl Washington’s army was annoyed from Chew’s house, he did not hesitate to plant his cannon against it, altho’ the property of a citizen. when he besieged Yorktown, he levelled the suburbs, feeling that the laws of property must be postponed to the safety of the nation. while that army was before York, the Govr of Virginia took horses, carriages, provisions & even men, by force, to enable that army to stay together till it could master the public enemy; & he was justified. a ship at sea in distress for provisions meets another having abundance, yet refusing a supply; the law of self preservation authorises the distressed to take a supply by force. in all these cases the unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, & of the public safety controul the written laws of meum & tuum.

Poke here

The Constitution is not a death pact.

[TxMusky]

From your quote and link....

the laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. to lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us;

That would also explain and be a justification for the second amendment as well.