The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (23 comments)

  1. 6rfiulkhljt7ikulk

    I have sympathy for the innocent victims of the drug war like the girl who was burned. I don’t have sympathy for drug users. They pay for the drugs they use and that money funds drug gangs that do much more harm to innocent people who don’t use drugs that police raids do. No one is forced to buy drugs.

    I’m against the war on drugs it creates more problems than it solves, like prohibition did. But I am not sympathetic toward people who give financial support to drug gangs. Drug use should not be a crime, but giving financial support to drug gangs that harm innocent people should be.

    1. morganovich

      this argument seems somewhat circular. if drugs were legal, there would be no drug gangs. does your neighborhood have beer pushers having gun fights over corners?

    2. Now, see….I have never worried about a drug dealer busting down my door and gunning me down. How often do you hear of drug dealers bombing the wrong house? The damn drug dealers have better intel (and care more) than the popo. I’m forced to provide financial support to the police terrorists. Why is that not a crime?

      How do you feel about giving your support to alcohol drug dealers? I bet you don’t lose a moment’s sleep over buying liquor from your local dealer and probably because he isn’t in a gang. But, during prohibition, he would have been in a violent gang because black markets do not have institutions in which disputes can be settled peacefully. Violence is the only way. As a user of alcohol (which is a pretty bad and dangerous drug) Why do you consider yourself so superior to other drug users? Because the Magnificent State has sanctioned your use?

      (I realize I’m being aggressive and perhaps you’ve not thought about it before, but we seriously need to be harder on ourselves when it comes to our own hypocrisy.)

    3. Why am I being forced to fund violent police departments who burst into people’s homes, gunning down the innocents within them and then engage in elaborate cover-ups that are more ham-fisted but no more moral than any other murderers?

  2. Absolutely inexcusable. Criminal charges seem appropriate,. Financial restitution with taxpayer money means nothing to those responsible for this type of “collateral damage”.

    1. My husband and I just discussed this yesterday. He said what you said. However, police are funded locally and local politicians are much closer to their constituencies. If police error becomes a reason for increased taxes the uproar from angry taxpayers (coupled with their ability to move relatively easily) would result in pressure on the police department to be more careful.

      Neither the cops nor politicians really give a damn if the citizens are safe or not. Ask anyone who lives in the ghetto how much they can rely on police protection and watch them laugh. Most cops are egomaniacs eager to exercise and abuse whatever power is given them over helpless people and politicians just want to keep getting elected in order to move up from local politics to more lucrative national politics. The danger for both are the local voting tax base.

      1. I think it depends on jurisdiction and assignment within a department whether it’s most cops, or a minority who are power-mongers. In cities where armed self-defense is encouraged, I think the cops tend toward protect and serve, and that the minority of power-mongers end up as narcs. I’ll accept your assertion entirely when we’re talking about cities with a unilateral personal disarmament policy.

  3. Of course no criminal charges were filed. The police are allowed to make mistakes. Citizens are not. Someone will get reprimanded I’m sure for getting the house wrong, but that’s it. Someone should be getting a felony for throwing a grenade through a window and burning that girl.

    I don’t understand how these wrong-address attacks happen so often. Don’t the police have to monitor the house and gather evidence to present to a judge before they can raid it? One of these happened here in Salt Lake just last week. The SWAT team busted down the front door without knocking of some elderly woman as she was watching TV.

    1. morganovich


      i suspect that the reason such attacks happen so often is that there are few consequences when they do. if the penalty for such a thing is low, then there will be less care taken. it works just like the price of a good or service.

      this seems to me to be a strong argument to hold police more accountable for such things. the way to stop is is to fine the officers that were out of line or provided the bad intelligence (or their agency as a whole).

      if the price of screwing up was higher, more care would be taken.

  4. PeakTrader

    Damage could be avoided if “Peaceful Americans Who Use Intoxicants Not Currently Approved by the US Government” obey the law.


    1. PeakTrader

      Controlled Substances Act of 1970

      Passed U.S. House 392-16
      Passed U.S. Senate 97-2

      Every President since Nixon supported it:

      “The next two presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, responded with programs that were essentially a continuation of their predecessors… Bush maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor and former boss…The next three presidents – Clinton, Bush and Obama – continued this trend, maintaining the War on Drugs.”

      U.S. Supreme Court – Gonzales v. Raich

      “The starting point for the Court’s opinion was the fact that it was conceded that Congress had the power to control or ban marijuana for non-medical uses:

      Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA (Controlled Substances Act), as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress’ commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.”

      1. Peak

        U.S. Supreme Court – Gonzales v. Raich

        That’s not a good example for you to use as it involves the medical use of marijuana, something I don’t believe even you are arguing against.

        It is instead a fine example of the extent of Federal Government overreach.

      2. Agreed wholeheartedly, PeakTrader

        Always obey the law. ALWAYS. Without question. Majoritarian rule is always correct and just.

    2. morganovich

      oh really? that girl asleep in her bed was following the law as far as i know. did it protect her?

      you are making the absurd argument that “everyhting would be wonderful if all people were perfect.”

      i note for the umpteenth time:

      yo have never once provided any justification at all for the notion that the peaceful activities of citizens that do not infringe upon the rights of others are any business of the government’s.

      thus, your construction is precisely backwards.

      it is the laws that are unjustified and their removal that would reduce unnecessary violence.

      until you can give us a reason for that such peaceful activity is any of the government’s business, then you are just a moral reactionary trying to force your own choices upon others by wielding totalitarian power.

      1. oh really? that girl asleep in her bed was following the law

        And so are countless other people who are mowed down or robbed by the Drug Gestapo every single year. In the name of public safety….of course.

    3. Intoxicans not approved by the US Government–now tell
      me why the US Government should be allowed to tell me
      why what I use is their business? I am certainly not going to ask them what I can or can’t use in my own home. Frankly I consider it “none of their business”.

  5. bill reeves

    It’s simple: the police aren’t on your side,they’re on they’re side. And the more things that are against the law, the more power they have. The Cali Prison Guards Union was a top funder against the last marijuana legalization referendum.

    The drug war deastroys

    1. All drugs do not destroy—they are called medicine, some
      are gathered along the banks of local streams, some from
      drug stores, where and what is my business, just as it was my families for many years

  6. bill reeves

    It’s simple: the police aren’t on your side,they’re on they’re side. And the more things that are against the law, the more power they have. The Cali Prison Guards Union was a top funder against the last marijuana legalization referendum.

    The drug war destroys trust in cops.

    1. Very true.

  7. I’m not typically a conspiracy theorist, but the US leads the globe in weapons sales. In 2011, arms deals tripled to a record high resulting in over $66 billion in revenue. We are involved in wars and “skirmishes” all over the globe. Drones fly overhead both here and abroad. Our police forces are now armed to the teeth with the latest in techno-gadgets, at the same time as their power is also expanding.

    I am not sure where this is all heading but I do know it can come to no good. If all you have are guns, then everything looks like a bullseye..

    1. It’s almost crunch time, Moe, get yourself armed while you can. :)

      As the saying goes, “Washington didn’t defeat the British using his right to free speech, he shot them.”

  8. Have had a gun since early teen years and I am not about to give it up now, certainly not to the government

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content