It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:28 PM
here is a possible scenario to think about...

Parents learn of a childs drug usage or purchase which of course would be a regular habit by the time mom and dad find out, shouldnt the parents have the freedom to talk to their kid and suggest treatment if a serious enough habit has developed ?
no this bill states that we turn that child over to police and get a criminal record built for them, and negatively affect the child's future in employment, school, whatever.
the other alternative is mom and dad protect the kids privacy and possibly go to jail themselves.
another criminal record created that affects employment not only for the child but the provider and guardian of that child also.

I do have to wonder if Mr Senselessnbrenner, ooopps i mean Sensenbrenner would turn his family members in if he had that knowledge, i mean he is the one that introduced the bill.

and also what better way to ruin our already weak economy then throwing half or more than half the U.S. population in jail ?

Maybe rex 84 isnt so farfetched after all

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:46 PM
I sure hope they think this one through. It does seriously sound like 1984. Another big problem other than "Big Brother" is the fact that several drugs... um well... kinda make people paranoid and well.. violent to the point of murder if confronted. I don't think "Big Brother" would want to be responsible for all of the "spying gone bad" scenarios. Think about it. If a family member comes to you right after you did some meth and says something about you taking drugs you would automatically know they were bugged or at least plan on turning you in. You have a knife or even worse a gun, you pull it out and boom you have a murder charge tacked onto the rehab time. Not a good situation. Granted this is probably the worse case scenario, but I'm sure if this is passed you would see things like this happening. I don't support doing drugs or supporting people who do, but I think there are better ways to solve the problem.

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:52 PM
Say your kid smokes weed. Under this law, you would have to report it if you found out, but for what? The kid can't get arrested for smoking it, he has to possess it to be in violation of the law... The only result would be your kid somehow being labelled as a drug user.

Yaknow, guys... I'm starting to think we already have enough laws, and the ones we have are jes' fine. Maybe we don't need lawmakers anymore. The only new laws that we need should deal with emerging technology and medicine and industrial/commercial/economical practices. We have enough personal and family laws and we don't need any more fussing with social theories at this stage, in my opinion.


posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:56 PM
Ya, affter they spy on there mom for pushing Heroin they better get out of the house. But then you wonder if there living in a whole family of drug dealers and they get taken from there parents and get there posesions tooken away from them, even the ones who didnt even know what there parents were doing. What about the people who grew up such as not to be Byast a rastafarian in the inviroment that smoking pot was natural and like a traditionall peparation. Im not saying I agrre with it but its very back and forth. I could probly name a few, a man I know; a Whight Jewish Rastafarian Pot Smoking Foot lenghthed Dred baring gutar playing Man who is a great person. But he dousnt live with anyone so his sister cant spy on him.

I think that as long as you arent doing any harm to the government or the eviroment or the economy, they wont care. I dont even know if they'll care if your dying from it. So in a way they think about themselves, but I dont know.

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:00 PM
Mabey if they traned all dogs to sence it, then legaly before you buy a dog you had to have paper saying that you dog was checked on sencing it. Then our uncles and brothers wouldn't have to spy on us as offten.

I dont think that many relatives would spy like that considering the family bonding stuation.
'Hmm, scott what do you think?'
"Mm, maby if we make them enemys then they would work for us"
'How would that effect the econome Scott.'
"Hmm... I , dont , know....

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:03 PM
Wouldnt they have to take some law or ammendment away to allow this. Because I know that parents ct spy on kids phone conversations by law; many have been sued for it. (Or can you sue your own parents?) And then people will start pying on there boyfriend for cheating ect.

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:47 PM
Yet another parallel to the rise of Facism in Germany during the late 1930's.

Welcome to the Machine.

This probably has less to do with drugs than it does setting vaguely defined and dangerous legal precedents for Civilian type police forces. This happens generally when the facist governments can no longer afford the implementations and enforcement of their legislations because of ridiculous military expenditures. Partly because their legislations were based on broad ideals, gaining public support only through propogand and supported financially only by radical extremists of the esoteric and military industrialists. Without the support of broad coporate backing (as no coporation in the world would want their retail and service dependent industries backing such ridiculous concepts as spying and ratting on your family and neighbors), these legislations have to be pushed through under a false premise, for example, why not go after the most vocal and well funded of the opposition to Coporate Sponsored Government, which is the Environmentalists, for instance.
Those Deadly Dangerous, WMD Touting Environmentalist Terrorists... This makes people think well yeah i guess we better start telling the cops if we think our neighbor is smoking the wrong kind of plants, or if they maybe look a little arabic. I have read case studies in sociology that proove this ALWAYS degenerates into a mob behavior. Throw that into a mix with a little athority figure and you have a free police force for Big Brother, comprised of vengeful and suddenly empowered regular Joes who might turn you in to the SS for being late on that house payment or because your son is dating a daughter of his. All it takes is a phone tip, and the broad powers given to the Facist State by these Hooey legislations can construe anything they like out of you. It doesn't matter who you are, if they say you're a terrorist on the news and had some duct tape in your garage to proove it, well off you go.
Read your history. The Bolsheviks, Napoleon, Austria Hungary, Rome...
This same pattern has persisted in Government at least since we started writing things down, hell since Rome and Babylon. Our most recent example for a long time was Nazi Germany, now it is the US. The really ironic thing is, when toto pulls the curtain up and we see the wizard for who and what he is, we find out the same people, the same money and families like the Rothchilds, Merovingians, etc. through history have been behind these movements, then funding their opposition. Order from Chaos. New World Order. The word Order suggests not slaves, but followers, folks. They aren't going to make you obey, your going to follow the Piper like any members of any cult, because you are sold on their lies.
Here's a thought...
Order- (Middle English ordre, from Old French, variant of ordene, from Latin rd, rdin-. See ar- in Indo-European Roots)
In other words, Ordained into a belief, a cult. This Cult.

Welcome to the new world.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by dawnstar
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.'.

Oh my...

It seems the nature of this bill is to nab kids for the government. Why should they SPECIFICALLY jail parents with kids for twice as long as those that dont? Hitler Youth 2?

If the rise to Nazi Germany showed us anything its that an entire generation can be corrupted to believe ANYTHING and fight to the death for it.

I'd always wondered how the NWO would get our soldiers to turn on us. This is one good way of doing it, get your own indoctrinated, Hitler-youth-esque personal army.

I predict that if this bill passes we'll see amendments to existing child protection laws. Maybe the creation of consolidated and centralized orphanages with little to no public access allowed,...for the kids protection of course

[edit on 23/5/05 by subz]

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:03 AM
Give me liberty or give me death

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:56 AM
Wow, all I really have to say to this, is the following.

How about no?

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 05:34 AM
I don't know, but my biggest worry would be this....

I've found a website while surfing one day that well, I could find the political contributions of alot of the people in my town and where that contribution went to....thus, who supports the republicans, who supports the dems....

considerin the way people express themselves on these boards, , I wouldn't put it past some to sit on that site, take note of those who don't support their views, pass that note around to their likeminded friends, and well, start ruining lives for no other reason than they don't agree with them. And, ya, you have a chance to defend yourself in a court, and have a lawyer represent you, but in order to get a court appointed lawyer, you have to PROVE that you cannot afford one. If nothing else, people can play havoc with your reputation, and your finances.....

and hey, they might actually luck out, and well, there might be a chemical or two in your house that is used to make a drug... or an actual drug. Up till now, hearsay has not been significant evidence to presented in a court. But the term "learns of" seems to me that it might involve hearsay....

I might hear alot, but it doesn't mean that it is real...

they've spent over a decade developing their scapegoats, and this seems to be a good avenue to use to start the game.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 05:38 AM
oh crap, what did I do!!!

sorry.....but didn't want to do that.....

but well, since I made this post insteading of editing the one above, does anyone know what the legal status of ephedra is now?

[edit on 23-5-2005 by dawnstar]

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 08:00 AM
Here is a post by Allen St. Pierre from norml on the website

I am writing today to urge you to take action against a dangerous bill that is currently making its way through Congress. H.R. 1528, "The Safe Access to Drug Treatment & Child Protection Act of 2005" would dramatically increase mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses.


I am writing today to urge you to take action against a dangerous bill
that is currently making its way through Congress. H.R. 1528, "The Safe
Access to Drug Treatment & Child Protection Act of 2005" would
dramatically increase mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug
offenses. Under the proposed legislation, sponsored by House Judiciary
Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), any person age 21 or over who attempts
or conspires to offer marijuana to someone younger than 18 years old shall
face a mandatory sentence of 10 years in prison. The mandatory penalty
for a subsequent violation of the statute is life in prison.

Defendants found to have distributed marijuana near a drug treatment
facility, or who have offered cannabis to someone who is currently or has
been previously enrolled in drug treatment program, would receive a
mandatory prison sentence of five years to life under the proposal. This
effectively means that anyone caught passing a joint near a treatment
facility, or to anyone who has even been in drug treatment, will face a
mandatory five years in prison.

Please take two minutes to write your member of Congress today and urge
him or her to oppose H.R. 1528, an outrageous and expensive addition to an
already failed public policy. NORML has provided pre-written letters that
you can access at:

H.R. 1528 has already passed the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and will likely be considered shortly in
the Judiciary Committee. If your Representative serves on the Judiciary
Committee it is vital that you call him or her today and voice your
opposition to H.R. 1528.

The following Representatives serve on the House Judiciary Committee:

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI 5th), Chair - (202)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI 14th), Ranking Member - (202)
Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL 6th) - (202) 225-4921
Representative Howard L. Berman (D-CA 28th) - (202) 225-4695
Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA 9th) - (202) 225-3861
Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT 3rd) - (202) 225-7751
Representative Steve Chabot (R-OH 1st) - (202) 225-2216
Representative Howard Coble (R-NC 6th) - (202) 225-3065
Representative William Delahunt (D-MA 10th) - (202) 225-3111
Representative Tom Feeney (R-FL 24th) - (202) 225-2706
Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6th) - (202) 225-2635
Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA 4th) - (202) 225-6365
Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ 2nd) - (202) 225-4576
Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA 24th) - (202) 225-5811
Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX 1st) - (202) 225-3035
Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA 6th) - (202) 225-5431
Representative Mark Green (R-WI 8th) - (202) 225-5665
Representative John N. Hostettler (R-IN 8th) - (202) 225-4636
Representative Henry J. Hyde (R-IL 6th) - (202) 225-4561
Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC 4th) - (202) 225-6030
Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA 49th) - (202) 225-3906
Representative William L. Jenkins (R-TN 1st) - (202) 225-6356
Representative Ric Keller (R-FL 8th) - (202) 225-2176
Representative Steve King (R-IA 5th) - (202) 225-4426
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX 18th) - (202) 225-3816
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA 16th) - (202) 225-3072
Representative Dan Lungren (R-CA 3rd) - (202) 225-5716
Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA 5th) - (202) 225-3411
Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY 8th) - (202) 225-5635
Representative Mike Pence (R-IN 6th) - (202) 225-3021
Representative Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA 39th) - (202) 225-6676
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA 29th) - (202) 225-4176
Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA 3rd) - (202) 225-8351
Representative Adam Smith (D-WA 9th) - (202) 225-8901
Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX 21st) - (202) 225-4236
Representative Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D-MD 8th) - (202) 225-5341
Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA 35th) - (202) 225-2201
Representative Melvin L. Watt (D-NC 12th) - (202) 225-1510
Representative Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY 9th) - (202) 225-6616
Representative Robert I. Wexler (D-FL 19th) - (202) 225-3001

To support NORML's Congressional legislative efforts, please visit:

Thank you for your help on this important issue.


Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director

Here is the reasoning behind such draconian drug laws. Instead of learning from the past they have decided to repeat history and come out with a big stick to beat the populous down instead of attacking the problem with a common sense approach.

by Joseph A. Califano Jr., (Source:Iowa City Press-Citizen)
Regional News

The increased potency of today's marijuana and the greater knowledge we have of the dangers of using it justify the increased attention that law enforcement is giving to illegal possession of the drug. But the disappointing reality is that a nearly 30 percent increase in marijuana arrests does not translate into a comparable reduction in use of the drug. Something more is needed.

Rudolph Giuliani's success in slashing New York City's crime rate by, among other things, going after low-level street crimes such as smoking and selling small amounts of marijuana inspired many other mayors to follow suit. When President Bush announced in 2002 a goal of reducing illegal drug use by 10 percent in two years and 25 percent in five years, he knew he had to focus on cutting marijuana use. Eliminating all other illegal drug use combined would not even get him close to his highly touted objective.

Even though marijuana use has leveled off or waned slightly over the past several years, the number of children and teenagers in treatment for marijuana dependence and abuse has jumped 142 percent since 1992, and the number of teen emergency room admissions in which marijuana is implicated is up almost 50 percent since 1999. Though alcohol remains by far the teen substance of choice, teens are three times likelier to be in treatment for marijuana than for alcohol ( and six times likelier to be in treatment for marijuana than for all other illegal drugs combined ).

The drug adversely affects short-term memory, the ability to concentrate and motor skills. Recent studies indicate that it increases the likelihood of depression, schizophrenia and other serious mental health problems. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has repeatedly expressed concern about the adverse effect of marijuana on the brain, a matter of particular moment for youngsters whose brains are still in the development stage.

The issue of marijuana use ( and most illegal drug use ) is all about kids. If we can get kids not to smoke marijuana before they reach age 21, they are virtually certain never to do so. So let's do more than trumpet the arrest rate. Let's focus on discouraging children and teens from getting involved with the drug in the first place.

Availability is the mother of use, so doing a far better job of reducing availability is high on the list. Beyond that -- and recognizing that reducing demand is key to that goal -- we should use the increased arrest rate as an opportunity to discourage use.

Reach Joseph A. Califano Jr., president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University and secretary of health, education and welfare from 1977 to 1979, via www.casacolumbia.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:13 AM
Oh my God, that last article is absolutely ridiculous. I followed the NORML link (never thought I'd ever be doing THAT...) and printed out a letter for my congressman. I dropped it in the mailbox just now.

Emergency room admissions? Marijuana dependence? If ONLY ONE drug needs to be targeted, that drug isn't marijuana, that drug is CRYSTAL METH.



EDIT: By the way, I strongly encourage the rest of you to drop your congressmen a line. It only costs a few cents and you might get something done. Vocalizing your dissent on ATS is a good start, but you won't make a difference until you tell your lawmaker where your vote is going.

Please stand up for our rights, it takes no time, costs very little, and feels really good.


[edit on 23-5-2005 by Zipdot]

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:38 AM
Zipdot, way to get involved. Here is a website that you can find the represenatives for your State. There is also a link to find the newspapers in your are if you choose to write to them as well.
I know the website is the NRA website and some of you are opposed to them but the link is quick and easy to use to find your represenatives information.

I agree that crystal meth is the drug to go after it only one is chosen but it is the hardest to erradicate do to the ease of manufacture of the drug. It has been made in vehicles that just drive around untill the drug is made.

The real issue is how do we help people that have problems with drugs. Prohibition has not worked on any form of drug in America, ever!!!! It is time for a new approach.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:10 PM
"James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)"

Let's change his name to Commrade Sensenbrenner. Forcing people to become agents of the federal government? I don't think so. It will be a cold day in he.... well. You know. Time to throw this communist out of office. Maybe the R stands for Red.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:31 PM
Hmm I wonder how many millions of young peoples lives are ruined by alcohol and cigarettes? A damn sight more than marijuana I expect. But the chances of corporations as powerful as those in them industries will never allow that.

If it was really about protecting kids they would atleast ban cigarettes completely. There is nothing positive about that drug.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:35 PM
Isn't this basically the game plan of the Nazis and Communists? Seems I remember from my days in school (years and years ago) that we were taught about the evils of Communism because of family members basically spying on family members. They were basically threatened in to becoming agents of the state. It is the same with any fascist regime. You either become an agent of the state or you risk getting put in jail. This is a VERY dangerous path these fools are trying to lead us down. I hope people are wise enough to put aside political differences and vote these traitors out of office next election.

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Patriot36
Maybe rex 84 isnt so farfetched after all

It never was...

Nazism and Communism are very different, don't forget that. But what the Nazi's were having done was totally different level. This is, supposedly, to encourage the findings of drug abuse; the nazis did it to encourage the death of dissidents.


posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:12 PM
So this passed in the House Sub Committee and is now going to be voted on by the committee? Does anyone know when that might be?

(By the way, this is absolutely ridiculous-- as most of you know.)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in