Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Dope & Change: Terrible Drug War Expansion Bill Being Pushed by House Dems

Nick Gillespie | 9.21.2010 1:03 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Via the Drug Policy Alliance's Facebook page:

House Democrats have scheduled a horrible drug war bill for a vote tomorrow (Wednesday). The Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2010 (H.R. 5231), written by Rep. Lamar Smith (a Republican drug war extremist), would expand problematic drug conspiracy laws, apply mandatory minimum drug sentences to more people, increase racial disparities, and subject Americans to incarceration for drug offenses and public health interventions that are legal in the foreign country in which they're committed. It expands the drug war at a time that most Americans want major drug policy reform.

More here.

Given that the GOP and the Dems suck so much, is it any wonder people are fed up with the two-party system?

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: I.M.P.

Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason and host of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

PolicyWar on DrugsNanny StateDrug PolicyDrugs
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (56)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Pip   15 years ago

    Thread jack, yes, but this is really shitty:

    Justice Dept. Shrugs About Potential GI Voter Disfranchisement
    Thanks to some states' illegal lagging, soldiers abroad may lose their vote.

    Saturday, September 18, marked 45 days before the election. According to the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act), that was the deadline by which states had to have sent unmarked ballots overseas. This period should have allowed ballots to reach GIs, from bases in Germany to trenches in Afghanistan, in time for them to be returned by election night.

    However, these five states have received waivers from the MOVE Act, essentially giving them extensions on their homework. Primary elections on Tuesday, September 14, gave four of those states (Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island), along with Wisconsin, only four days to determine party nominees, print ballots, and send them off. Rather than employ this cramming-for-finals approach, election officials in these states should have scheduled primaries early enough to avoid this headache. Meanwhile, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands also previously indicated an inability to adhere to last Saturday's deadline.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....oy-murdock

  2. Paul   15 years ago

    But...but... it's all about to come down like a house of things that come down really quickly.

    1. Pro Libertate   15 years ago

      House of pancakes?

      1. lunchstealer   15 years ago

        Pancakes never fall. They are tasty, and are eaten before gravity can take hold.

        1. waffles   15 years ago

          why do pancakes get all the glory?

          1. lunchstealer   15 years ago

            If you don't like it, you can go back to Europe. And take French Toast with you!

    2. mr simple   15 years ago

      World trade centers? (too soon?)

      1. lunchstealer   15 years ago

        If that doesn't work, try the Challenger/Columbia.

  3. VikingMoose   15 years ago

    seems like a bi partisan (read: sure to encroach liberty) plan...

    1. TrickyVic   15 years ago

      ""seems like a bi partisan""

      Yeah. It's co-sponsored by a CA democrat Adam Schiff.

      In the Senate it's S.3218 and sponsored by Kent Conrad a democrat from ND. It's co-sponsored by Jeff Sessions, a republican.

  4. mr simple   15 years ago

    So let me get this straight. If I am going to go o another country, purchase and use a good the is fully legal in that country, but illegal here, an I'm with other people, I can go to jail? At what point does it become a crime? Is it illegal just to talk about or do we actually have to go do it? What if we're all thinking it, but it is never spoken? How can they possibly enforce this?

    And to be fair, this mound of festering retard is a Republican penned bill. Or is that position just assumed and the title of the post referring to the shock we all feel that the dems would do this?

    1. Johnnybegood   15 years ago

      "written by Rep. Lamar Smith (a Republican drug war extremist)"

      RTFA.

      1. mr simple   15 years ago

        That's the original article, not Reason's addition. Also, RTF headline, tuffgui.

        1. MINION OF URKOBOLD   15 years ago

          WRONG. MR. SIMPLETON. THAT IS NOT A TUFFGAI. YOU HAVE HIM CONFUSED WITH JOHNNYBEBAD

  5. J sub D   15 years ago

    If we put more troops in Afghanistan, secular democracy with respect for human rights will take root and flower.

    This bill is just as fucking delusional. You go Dems, keep convincing me to never vote for a major party candidate again.

    1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

      Where the fuck is Tony? He told me that I should vote for Democrats because "they're the only ones who will vote against the WoD".

      1. John   15 years ago

        I said on a thread the other day. Liberal Democrats are every bit the social scolds that Social Conservative Republicans are. They just have a different idea of what constitutes sin. Sadly, the one sin they both agree on is drug use. Add that to the money the drug war gives to public employees and their unions and we are pretty much fucked on this issue.

  6. John   15 years ago

    " subject Americans to incarceration for drug offenses and public health interventions that are legal in the foreign country in which they're committed."

    Lets go bust college kids who go to the cafes in Amsterdam. That will help. The drug war is big business. Both parties make money off of it. Think of all the good union dues paying prison guards this thing will employ.

    1. Mongo   15 years ago

      I got hassled big time when the customs guy axed if I smoked hash at a coffeehouse on my return trip from Amsterdam.

      He kept shouting:"Don't you know it's illegal!?!"

  7. TrickyVic   15 years ago

    ""The Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2010 (H.R. 5231), introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (the only House member to speak against reforming the racist crack/powder disparity), creates a new crime of conspiring with one or more persons, or aiding or abetting one or more persons, to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute a violation of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act if committed within the United States.""

    Talk about expanding government authority.

    1. Bingo   15 years ago

      Does this mean if you can be thrown in jail for buying Tylenol-3 over the counter in Canada?

      1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

        Codeine is legal in some states, so no.

        1. John   15 years ago

          What states is codeine legal in? I have never heard that.

          1. mad libertarian guy   15 years ago

            All 50.

            You just need a prescription.

            1. John   15 years ago

              That is what a thought. But "over the counter" means you can buy it without a prescription. I didn't think there was anywhere in the US you could do that. But you can buy Tylenol 3 in Canada without one? That I didn't know.

            2. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

              You can get syrup w/o a script in a few states. However, the dose is likely to do little for you other than help with your cough.

          2. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

            VA is one, I believe. You have to go to the pharmacists counter and ask. Then you have to sign a book.

            1. TrickyVic   15 years ago

              The original question was about Tylenol-3. Is anyone saying you can buy that over the counter?

              If it's over-the-counter here, and you get it over-the-counter there, it doesn't run afoul of the bill.

      2. TrickyVic   15 years ago

        If it passed. Yes.

  8. Virginia   15 years ago

    How did something this absurd reach the floor for a vote?!

    Lamar Smith and 1 WHOLE FUCKING co-sponsor: Adam Schiff [D-CA29]

    Who is Adam Schiff and what's his malfunction? Something to do with sheep perhaps.

    1. Pip   15 years ago

      There are some who say that Adam Schiff [D-CA29] is so tough on drugs in order to over compensate for his 3/4 inch erection.

  9. lunchstealer   15 years ago

    Can we take the Commerce Clause out and shoot it now?

    1. TrickyVic   15 years ago

      ""Can we take the Commerce Clause out and shoot it now?""

      The Commerce Clause only applies to states, not other countries. The law would probably be unconstitutional if passed.

      1. lunchstealer   15 years ago

        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; [emphasis added]

        If the government-can-do-anything-it-wants-ever brigade can interpret this to include non-commerce within a single state, I have no doubt they can interpret it to include non-commerce entirely within a foreign nation.

        1. TrickyVic   15 years ago

          Ok, haven't look at it for a while.

          But the US government would need permission from the foreign nation. US law doesn't extend to foreign nations anymore than foreign law applies to the US.

  10. Night Elf Mohawk   15 years ago

    I think they're missing the opportunity to issue speeding tickets to drivers coming home from Germany.

    1. Brandon   15 years ago

      +1

    2. lunchstealer   15 years ago

      And to fine Ford et al for selling cars in Europe that haven't passed EPA and DoT testing.

  11. R C Dean   15 years ago

    This is a major departure from traditional notions of jurisdiction, which say that a state can govern activities that happen on its own soil.

    This is, essentially, a statement that the US Government controls, not US territory, but you. This is a law for serfs, not citizens, adopted by a totalitarian autocracy, not a democratic republic.

    1. Bingo   15 years ago

      +1000

    2. cynical   15 years ago

      Considering that citizenship is, for many people, granted based on the parcel of land they were born on rather than as a free and informed choice to belong to a specific demos, there are shades of serfdom there by default.

      Actually, TBH, the idea of jurisdiction following people rather than land could just as easily have libertarian implications, as it could allow for a reorganization of power based on voluntary association rather than control of territory. That said, I don't think it's actually practically feasible, for better or for worse.

      1. TrickyVic   15 years ago

        """Actually, TBH, the idea of jurisdiction following people rather than land could just as easily have libertarian implications,"""

        Yeah? If you don't like the jurisdiction that is following you, how can you escape it?

  12. NeonCat   15 years ago

    Back during the previous administration, IIRC, it was made illegal for US citizens to "trade with Cuba", i.e. it's illegal for you to buy Cuban cigars and smoke them while walking around Niagara Falls, ON. I still don't understand the legal justification for that.

  13. P Brooks   15 years ago

    This is a law for serfs, not citizens, adopted by a totalitarian autocracy, not a democratic republic.

    Exactly.

    This is where you end up when you believe "society" "allows" you to enjoy its benefits.

  14. Rrabbit   15 years ago

    Which "two-party system"? This is a one party system.

  15. jtuf   15 years ago

    1) I sincerely wish the drug legalization community would find to courage to campaign against the DINOs over this.

    2) If this bill passes, it will greatly affect my future plans. I was planning to get dual USA and Israeli citizenship and spend part of each year in Israel and the rest in the USA. Medical marijuana is legal in Israel but illegal under the Dem controled USA. I get insomnia sometimes and was hoping to try medical marijuana in Israel for it. If this bill passes, I'm likely to not return to the USA once I get Israeli citizenship.

    1. TrickyVic   15 years ago

      ""If this bill passes, I'm likely to not return to the USA once I get Israeli citizenship.""

      You'll love the health care.

      From Wiki
      Health care in Israel is both universal and compulsory, and is administered by a small number of organizations with funding from the government. All Israeli citizens are entitled to the same Uniform Benefits Package, regardless of which organization they are a member of, and treatment under this package is funded for all citizens regardless of their financial means. According to a 2000 study by the World Health Organization, Israel has the 28th best health care in the world.

      1. jtuf   15 years ago

        Oh, I'm not fond of government run health care. A freeish healthcare market was one of the things keeping me in the USA. However, by the time I'm old enough to need significant levels of healthcare the USA will have nationalized healthcare too.

  16. Chris   15 years ago

    The major-party choices in TX-21 this fall are Lamar Smith and this idiot:
    http://www.laineyforcongress.com/

    I don't think the Democrats even fielded a candidate in 2008, the Democratic landslide year. No wonder Smith's office doesn't even try to match the form letter to the subject of things I've written to him about.

  17. JohnRCitizen   15 years ago

    American voters are sick of politicians who continue to push the hard line/prohibition agenda. It's prohibition that got us into this mess & pushing it even harder is only going to make the violence worse. Prohibition = Anarchy. Legalization = regulation. Vote out anyone who keeps pushing prohibition. Because, do the same failed things the same failed ways will never be successful. Coming this close to the elections is a clear cut example of prohibiton forces trying to hoodwink voters into doubting they're right to vote for the legalization of cannabis. Lamar Smith is aiming his diatribe squarely at California's voters. Please, don't be fooled again. Remember, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. As a conservative I'm ashamed of Mr Smith. But, Democrats are just as involved in pushing prohibition. Find out who's involved in this scam & get rid of them. Vote for politicians who want to end the drug wars. The Volstead Act didn't end use of the drug called alcohol. Now, we need to get rid of the rest of drug prohibitions I call Volstead Act II. Visit LEAP.cc for the facts & how to end this madness.

  18. Geoff Dennis   15 years ago

    The 'War on Drugs' is simply a war on the poor.

  19. M. Simon   15 years ago

    O'Donnell in DE is fairly sensible considering the current state of the polity. - It is not a Federal Issue. It is a State Issue.

  20. None   15 years ago

    A bill written by a Republican means Democrats suck.

    Oh.

    Maybe we need a third party in this county but it won't be you Libertarians.

    What a bunch of dishonest scum you are.

  21. carouser   15 years ago

    So as much as you think there is more tolerance to drug use, or a move towards it, whether you personally think tolerance should be heeded, it seems the bigger issue at hand is the heavy weight of the law which going forward will be keeping tabs on your goings on no matter where you are in the world.

  22. caouser   15 years ago

    So as much as you think there is more tolerance to drug use, or a move towards it, whether you personally think tolerance should be heeded, it seems the bigger issue at hand is the heavy weight of the law which going forward will be keeping tabs on your goings on no matter where you are in the world.

    http://scallywagandvagabond.co.....tle-bitch/

  23. Lady Bouvier   15 years ago

    As much as you think there is more tolerance to drug use, or a move towards it, whether you personally think tolerance should be heeded, it seems the bigger issue at hand is the heavy weight of the law which going forward will be keeping tabs on your goings on no matter where you are in the world.
    So whether you like to get high or not, the bigger question, are you in the mood to have every action on your part scrutinized for the sake of national security and hegemony?

    http://scallywagandvagabond.co.....tle-bitch/

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Alton Brown on Cultural Appropriation, Ozempic, and the USDA

Nick Gillespie | From the June 2025 issue

James Comey's Deleted '86 47' Instagram Post Is Obviously Protected by the First Amendment

Billy Binion | 5.16.2025 4:48 PM

New Montana Law Blocks the State From Buying Private Data To Skirt the Fourth Amendment

Joe Lancaster | 5.16.2025 4:05 PM

Trump's Tariffs Are Sapping Small Business Optimism

Autumn Billings | 5.16.2025 12:00 PM

Andor Is a Star Wars Show About the Brutality of Bureaucracy

Peter Suderman | 5.16.2025 10:10 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!