Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) came up with her own unique spin on the recent arrest of a Florida congressman for possession of cocaine.
Pelosi attempted to construct a teaching moment of sorts by making a giant leap from a drug possession issue to welfare. The congresswoman told an Internet publication maybe Republicans needed to “humanize” the way they thought about people who get food stamps. Republicans voted to require drug testing of those who get the stamps now dispensed in the form of a debit card.
I don’t think buy modafinil online sun pharma. I think accountability is. After all, there’s buy modafinil singapore, and my intuition tells me that is a conservative estimate. People sell the cards on Internet classified sites. Fact is many families legitimately (often temporarily) rely on those stamps in the form of EBT cards to feed their children. And drug testing certainly won’t clear up the fraud issue.
The GOP could have a conversation about the Florida congressman’s arrest since he is a Republican, however, and it would resonate with many outside the political class.
If a person is caught for possession of a controlled substance that doesn’t have explosive properties while being produced (like meth), where is the victim? There isn’t one, other than the user and his loved ones, and that isn’t a matter of law, it’s a family health matter. At present we often send drug users to jail, and that puts the taxpayer in the position of funding upkeep, medical care, and other expenses for people who pose no threat to society. What happens depends on a state’s drug laws regarding misdemeanors or felonies, and on federal drug laws.
Nonviolent felons are in a similar predicament. I know a case where a man made a mistake (nonviolent offense) when he was young; the courts granted him mercy, restoring all his rights except one. The right to possess a firearm. Many years later he ended up at a friend’s house. A policeman said he smelled marijuana in the apartment complex and he decided to search that particular house. The young man I know happened to have a firearm on him. He currently faces a long prison term for a completely victimless crime.
What to do? Since states and the federales are constantly in search of revenue, fine the heck out of people if you like. But it is the height of insanity and injustice to imprison a person who poses a threat to no one other than himself. The criminal justice system might then actually stop bleeding taxpayer money.
Drugs are nothing new on Capitol Hill, for employees in the government-industrial complex or for their children. Former Vice President Al buy modafinil paypalafter abusing substances like alcohol, marijuana, and prescription medication. In a story about Democrat senator Barbara Boxer’s (Calif.) aide, Politico said he was the “buy modafinil europe” that year by Capitol Police. Felonies are nothing new there either. From Fast and Furious to falsehoods told under oath about Benghazi, some very big heads should roll but haven’t.
Admission of felonies isn’t even new—our last three presidents have admitted doing illegal drugs at some point in their lives. President John F. Kennedy was a known, willing recipient of shots containing methamphetamine courtesy of Dr. Max Jacobson. Even after brother Bobby had the substance tested and told the president what it really was, JFK continued with the shots.
JFK wasn’t the only top leader on Jacobson’s official patient lists, according to records included in the book Dr. Feelgood. Presidents Harry S. Truman and Richard M. Nixon as well as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill are all listed as Jacobson’s patients. Sounds bipartisan, even downright global to me.
Nixon, perhaps terrified at the drugs permeating the nation’s leadership, declared “drug abuse as ‘public enemy number one’ in the United States.” Pundits often mention Nixon started the War on Drugs, but the point could be debated. [PBS,buy modafinil uk paypal]
What can’t be debated? PBS points out what pundits omit: “During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement.”
By 1976, a Democrat president went one further, as PBS recounted: “Noting that several states had already decriminalized marijuana, Jimmy Carter campaigns in favor of relinquishing federal criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. Carter’s drug czar, Dr. Peter Bourne does not view marijuana, or even cocaine, as a serious public health threat.”
Isn’t it curious that two presidents from different parties but who are both routine targets of character assassination actually agreed on a matter that is of critical importance?
The GOP could rethink the War on Drugs, and if one message would resonate with the real minority in the U.S.—those outside the political class and those who aren’t wealthy, regardless of skin color—consider the tax money we would save by refusing to imprison people who pose no threat to society.
Why not consider compensation to society rather than imprisonment? Isn’t this a domestic human rights issue?
Statute reform when it comes to nonviolent crime should be top of the list for Republicans and libertarians in future elections. Too many lives have been ruined because a person made a lousy choice and happened to get caught. Note I am making a case only for nonviolent offenders who don’t harm someone’s body or property.
The day will come when it will be necessary to allocate law enforcement and criminal justice resources in a manner that addresses violent crime. We cannot continue to grow federal, state, and local budgets with no end in sight.
If the GOP and libertarians really believe in individual rights, in limits on the power to search (4th amendment, U.S. Constitution), on limits on “cruel and unusual punishment” (8th amendment), and in individual liberty, statute reform should be a natural issue for candidates to address. At present, laws and often harsh sentences are applied only to those without wealth and power, or in the matter of our immigration system, those without political appeal.
Where, exactly, is the justice in that?
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Nov. 21, 2013)