NEWS: Proposed Legislation Will Force Americans to Spy on Family Members

A proposed legislation will force Americans to spy on family members and neighbours in order to fight the 'War on Drugs'. Under this legislation, Americans will have twenty-four hours to report in drug use within their neighbourhood or family. Failing to due so will result in a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence.



In the proposed legislation, one would have to report any drug use within 24 hours which virtually eliminates any time to talk with your family member about their drug use. This legislation also has the ability to force people to go undercover in the family in order to discover drug use.

Is this America's 'last ditch' attempt on the War on Drugs? Forcing Americans to spy on their family?

I actually welcome this new method simply for the fact that it is so obviously absurd, ill-planned and desperate that virtually no American will comply by these laws sending a firm smack into the face of those in power who believe that a 'War on Drugs' will solve anything.

lol, if they think i gonna do that well they are dreaming, i don't have time to spy on my families, and who cares about my next door friends lol

ahhhhhhhhhhhh.. it's so nice to live in the new AMERIKA. so i wunder how the pole-leaz will know if it has been 24 hours??? just another failed attempt in the 'war on drugs'....which has been soooooooooooooo succsesfull. everybody...take a deep breath.. do you smell that?.. it is the decay of America..thanks to the politicians and corporations.
America was the land of the free, home of the brave..now its 'AMERIKA..land of the suspected guilty, home of the uncarring manipulated.

clearmind

What's the significance of spelling America Amerika

[edit on 5/22/2005 by Simulacra]

The German spelling if im not mistaken.

How do you prove that some one knew about the drug use? Thats like trying to prove a negative.

subz
How do you prove that some one knew about the drug use?

Exactly. After billions of dollars being pumped into the 'War on Drugs', after years of efforts and countless and equally senseless imprisonments, this is the best that the U.S. Government could do?

If this is the only way our government could fight their infamous 'War on Drugs' then I embrace it for its obvious flaws. It would be impossible to enforce. If this legislation goes through, we would see the decimation of Americas 'War on Drugs' in about a years time.

[edit on 5/22/2005 by Simulacra]

What a joke, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I had a situation where I became aware of "activity" too close for comfort. Then workers at my house went into the thickly wooded lot next to me to pee and discovered a garden, and announced it on a Nextel - I was horrified. I could care less what people do in their spare time, but when you start inviting neighborhood traffic of god knows what going on 24 hours a day, that's a little beyond my comfort level. Then the inevitable rash of buglaries around us.

I called some cops I know from out of state to ask what I should do about it if anything. This is from cops I trust mind you, who would only give advice in the interest of my safety. I couldn't believe what I was told. Ignore it as long as you can, and if you can't ignore it anymore, go out of town to a payphone and report it on the anonymous number, but never reveal your identity or you will be in jeopardy (obviously).

Luckily they moved shortly after that, so the problem resolved itself.

H.R. 1528 is a good bill. It will force sheeple to wake up.

How do you prove that some one knew about the drug use? Thats like trying to prove a negative.

Finding the parents fingerprints on the drug package or drug paraphernalia would prove they knew about them.

Currently parents will just sit the kid down and try and get them to change their ways because they do not want them to go to jail or in some cases even help because they do not have the money to pay for drug treatment.

This bill if passed may make parents think twice when they discover drugs knowing they could end up in jail for two years.

Interestingly, neither the original story, nor anyone complaining about what it says has actually posted the actual text of the proposed legislation. I went and looked it up for you:

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:h1528ih.txt.pdf

(m) FURTHER PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Part D of the Controlled Substances Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘FAILURE TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM DRUG TRAFFICKING ACTIVITIES
‘‘SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).
‘‘(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of the person under the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall be sentenced to not less than three years or more than 20 years.’’.

Sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, and 426 refer to, among other things, drug trafficking to chlidren and drug trafficking where children are present - eg. near a school or in a home around kids. The bill is obviously attempting to toughen the laws for the a$$40735 that sell drugs to kids, near schools, and run meth labs in their homes around their kids.

The bill also creates or increases penalties for those that intice (or attempt to intice) those that are in drug treatment programs to use drugs - another form of drug trafficking.

The only reference to marijuana in the entire bill excludes the application of mandatory minimum sentences for those that give drugs to folks in treatment facilities:

The mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to first offenses involving 5 grams or less of marijuana.

So all the hand wringing in the original article is not the real story. They are, in my opinon, an intentional twisting of the language to make this a story about pot. Based on the comments here and at alternet.org, he has succeeded.

I think selling drugs to kids is completely despicable, don't you?

I think using your house to make and sell drugs while your kids are around is despicable, don't you?

What about undermining the treatment program of people trying to get off drugs? despicable.

Can a narrow reading of the bill's language lead to issues like the original author suggests? Sure. But that's what the legislative process and judicial review processes are for. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And please, let's not make this about pot? Please?

Well atleast the construction industry will make some money. They'll have to build lots, and lots, and lots of prisions. I doubt that them making money will matter, as you cant be doing wonders for your economy sending the masses into jail.

Ahhh.. land of the free!

I believe this bill will force the populous to work against the cops. Nobody wants the government to tell them what to do inside there own house. You will get a few narcs making a bunch of calls that will tie up the cops in a bunch of paper work making less time for serious crimes.

originally posted by ChemicalLaser ...intentional twisting of the language...

Beg pardon? You may be technically correct, but isn't law based upon interpretation of said documents, and is not this (according to my understanding) known as the colour of the law? Just because we want to interpret it a different way does not in any fashion guarantee that the courts will not interpret it a different way.

Do ya think? Or do ya believe in the System?

...a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) from a month ago. Regular readers of this column may remember that the SJC decided that a child can be forced to testify in a criminal matter against her non- custodial father. Children cannot be forced to testify against custodial parents.

Children cannot be forced to testify against their parents Why is the reverse not true? This legislation will not be passed if I understand it correctly. A very large and overriding portion of America knows someone close with a drug problem. Hell, the President and his family might all be guilty of remaining silent.

This is utter foolishness. I don't see how this provides any safety to anyone or anything. This basically amounts to extortion.

Zip

Who cares what the rest of the law says?

It seems to be a tactic lately to tack unpopular or controversial legislation onto other bills. i.e. Patriot Act 2

I wonder if you'd also use the same argument if a law called for the protection of baby seals but also asked that adult seals, whales, dolphins and every other animal be slaughtered.

Does the fact that it protects baby seals change the fact that the rest of the bill is totally unacceptable?

Although the majority of the bill looks designed to protect children the fact that the bill also calls for 2 year jail times for not informing is unjustifiable. Just say your neighbour gets arrested for drug trafficking. Whats to stop the police from arresting you? They could argue in a court of law, using this legislature, that it was obvious by the constant comings and goings and the apparent affluence of your neighbour that they were trafficking drugs. You didnt report it to the police, youre going to jail for 2 years. Prove you didnt know they were drug trafficking, good luck

Sometimes in the 1990s, Peter Jennings and ABC aired a news documentory called "Pot Of Gold", about Cannabis production in the US.

I'm reminded of what that Georgia ex-Sheriff said after everyone in his county voted him out because he was too gung-ho about going after the #1 cash crop there.

"You can only police the people as far as they want to be policed."

Originally posted by subz
How do you prove that some one knew about the drug use? Thats like trying to prove a negative.

"Exactly."

Stupid piece of legislature. It's not serious, though, just an attempt to bring the issue to light and make a point. I hate when they waste everyone's time with these.

"Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act"

Jerk.

heh I suppose locking up a kids parents for 2 years will do wonders for "child protection". I wonder how many of them will fall into a drug habit BECAUSE of this legislature.

Imagine it, a mother and father of 3 are locked up for 2 years because their eldest 14 year old son was arrested for marijuana sales. They couldnt prove they were unaware of their sons drug problem so this law demands they are jailed. Their 2 other kids (10 and 12y.o) are forced into child protective services, you know, the birth place of all thats wrong in unparented kids.

[edit on 22/5/05 by subz]

Does that mean pill abuse as well?

mm, another step forward in the war on personal freedoms.

Who lets the drugs in?

ps: worry not about the doochie, if you are truly concerned Meth is thy enemy

[edit on 22-5-2005 by Lysergic]

Chances of the legislation being passed are as bright as America becoming drug free.

The congressman must have been on dope when he wrote this nonsensical law