Another serious failing of this Administration. Asset forfeiture policies:

[truedelphi]

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I lay this squarely at the feet of Eric Holder, and President Obama, who appointed Eric Holder.

Most of us are aware that a Gallup poll taken recently showed us that over 50% of all Americans want marijuana legalized. (Actually, this poll was concluded back in mid October, 2011)

Another poll done in April of 2013 showed the American people that even among Christian youth, half of them wanted it made legal. And even among those Christian youth who opposed legalizing marijuana in general, a major majority were for it, (60 to 40 split), if there was a medical reason for its use.

The war on this drug should be over, Sirs. It should no longer be even an item for debate.

However, the vast sector of society that relies on continual spying proclaims that this drug war is necessary. How else can Diane Feinstein, who currently heads the Senate Committee on Intelligence justify what should be a massive Peace Dividend, but instead is hundreds of billions spent on "Intel." Yet without another "necessary military program," how could she have confidence that tens of millions of dollars will continue to flood to her bank account, via her husband's gift for procuring military/Surveillance contracts?

As long as such massive Surveillance efforts continue, many of which will allow her husband Richard Blum to sign up for contracts regarding Surveillance processes, buildings, and the rest of it, she is secure in the knowledge that the Feinstein-Blum financial empire is expanding.

But there is more to it than mere contracts. As part and parcel of the War on Some Drugs, the disturbing and sinister asset forfeiture aspect of this assault on citizens continues. Because of this war, there are numerous "DUI checkpoints" installed on our highways. Because of this war, there are "immigration checkpoints"" and some of those checkpoints exist a full one hundred miles from any border.

The personal stories of citizens who have suffered from forfeiture are harrowing. This week's "The New Yorker" magazine presents us with several different individuals and families whose lives were ruthlessly turned upside down after their vehicle was stopped by police.

From the following article, we understand the vast sums that end up getting distributed among various police departments:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/31/federal-asset-forfeiture-skyrockets-unde


Here's a list of the largest asset recipient states in 2011:

California cops received $79 million
New York cops received $48 million
Florida cops received $38 million
Texas cops received $31 million
Georgia cops received $30 million
Illinois cops received $16.9 million
Michigan cops received $12.8 million
North Carolina cops received $10 million
Ohio cops received $9.9 million


Having done some research on this facet of "American life" back in the nineties, I discovered that one of the things that happens is that various individuals inside the police/governmental officials back channels are allowed to distribute the monies. For instance, for a while, I heard the same individual's name pop up as being behind the monetary distribution for the San Francisco area in California. It should go without saying that such an individual would have plenty of political clout.

There is also the fact that those police who feel that perhaps they can play dirty (Since they' re watching us, but who is watching them?) do end up being caught, their misdeeds with the assets of the asset forfeiture program much too close at hand. Some decent stories about that aspect of the policy are here:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/taxonomy/term/53?page=2

But far worse than the Feinstein-Blum types making big bucks from Surveillance, and worse than dirty cops skimming the proceeds, is the fact that families go through long torturous nightmares of existence once caught int he dark web of asset forfeiture. Should any American family who are simply out for a ride on a sunny day suddenly find themselves being told to give up their assets, which includes the car they're in, and any cash they happen to have on them? Or else they risk the custody of their young children? Should any hard working individual have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to try and keep access to their car?

Bear in mind that these types of things simply do not happen to the One Percent. For instance, when friends of President Ron Reagan had their luxury boat seized because one crew man was dealing drugs, it was quickly returned to them. (Now there is an instance of when a President got something done - no sniveling about how he simply can't use his office to make good for someone.) But for the rest of us, we have to simply hope we get a decent cop the day we are pulled over. because otherwise it is a Kafka-esque struggle to return to normalcy, especially given that lawyers usually don't want these cases and often end up making more money than the assets that are taken.

The excellent people at BoingBoing offer up discussion as well:

http://boingboing.net/2013/08/06/civil-forfeiture-americas-d.html

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R

[Nye Bevan]

2. "Civil forfeiture" is an abomination.

Police departments enriching themselves by seizing stuff with the flimsiest of evidence and due process.

Nobody should be allowed to seize anything unless guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Dawson Leery]

4. This is nothing but legalized theft by the cops.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Yep. When they want an SUV, they take one. No due process required (nt)

[KoKo]

3. Interesting...We know about DIFI but the Reminder of her and the rest ...Important!

K&R!

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. One of the oh-so-many absolute outrages that Americans would rather pretend can't happen here,

even though it has been going on for over 30 years. From the small businessman that used to own an air charter company that had everything seized when some clients left a roach under a seat cushion in one of his planes, to the multimillionaire who today lives on welfare and the few bucks he can scrape together working near minimum wage temp gigs, though he's never even been charged with any crime.

I like to think that people would be outraged if only they knew, but spending time reading here fills me with doubt about that.

[truedelphi]

11. I didn't know of those two examples. But I know of many

Others.

Back in 2005, Bill Clinton was interviewed by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter, and he volunteered, without being asked about the issue, that someone should see to it that marijuana is legalized. That it really is high time someone does so.

And she added at the end of the interview how it is a mystery that if Clinton held that viewpoint, then why didn't he act on it. After all, he was the president for eight long years. Any President in office can appoint someone to the office of Attorney General and that person can then simply re-schedule it off the drug schedules!

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. The first was from the '80s and is the first story I ever saw on this when the law was new,

and the second is one that is current and I know the victim personally and have been trying to help him as much as I can (without being noticed by the enforcers myself).

Your example is, unfortunately, so typical and why I lost all my respect and enthusiasm for Clinton. I was one of his biggest fundraisers in Atlanta in the 91-92 campaign. By 1996 I was voting for someone else (Dick Lamm from my home state).

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. The founders would vomit.

[blkmusclmachine]

8. .

.

[jaysunb]

9. It's not a DRUG !! n/t

[truedelphi]

10. Someone here on DU quite a while back, posted

Photos of two women's outfits they had obtained that were made of hemp.

Both were circa 1840 - and neither had any moth damage, or any damage of wear. I presume the garments had been worn by whomever owned them back in the Nineteenth Century. CLothing was expensive as it was often hand made - and so no one bought clothing unless they planned to wear it.

In our more modern era, we buy cotton clothing if we can find it -- and the stuff disintegrates in a few years if it is worn frequently.

The hemp dresses were really a lesson to me of why the PTB wanted to make hemp illegal.

[forestpath]

12. K&R

[truedelphi]

14. Good news from CNN's Dr Gupta:

CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon, apologized on Wednesday for publicly opposing marijuana legalization, saying science was clearly on the side of the drug. “I think we have been terribly and systematically misled in this country for some time, and I did part of that misleading,” he told CNN host Piers Morgan.

Though studies on marijuana in the United States tended to focus on the drug’s negative effects, Gupta explained, research from across the world had made marijuana’s positive effects clear. He said there was “no scientific basis” to claim marijuana had no medical benefits.

“I think it is irresponsible of the medical community not to offer this as an alternative,” Gupta added, citing the high rates of deaths from prescription drugs. “I couldn’t find one documented case of someone dying of a marijuana overdose.”

Gupta also admitted he had tried smoking marijuana, but “didn’t particularly care for it.” He said it made him feel anxious.