Attorney General Eric Holder stops local and state police from using federal law to seize personal p

For those who have read post from me before, this is another example of the ying/yang that goes on within our country. First, people got frustrated that they could not get convictions against high level drug dealers. So, they made a law where large sums of cash could be confiscated due to the possibility that the money had been involved in the sale of illegal drugs. Then police departments found out that this was a great way to finance their departments and actively sought out of town motorists on the highways so that they could confiscate money. Now, finally the federal government is trying to put an end to the program due to it rampant misuse. How are we ever going to find a middle ground that keeps way too potent drugs off the streets without infringing on individual rights?

Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with local, state police


Equitable Sharing Program


New Order Jan 16 2015

a reply to: feldercarb

Legalize drugs.

I thought Holder was supposed to have left DOJ at the end of December. What happened?

a reply to: TheArrow

I don't think that will end up being a good solution. It is already being reported that the marijuana being sold today is in the neighborhood of being 30 times more potent than that smoked in the '60s. Also, we don't need people high on PCP to be in a position where they can hurt somebody. Sometimes, laws do have a reason behind them.

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: TheArrow

I don't think that will end up being a good solution. It is already being reported that the marijuana being sold today is in the neighborhood of being 30 times more potent than that smoked in the '60s. Also, we don't need people high on PCP to be in a position where they can hurt somebody. Sometimes, laws do have a reason behind them.

What does PCP have to do with MJ?

Stop listening to the fear mongering of FOX news and it's counterparts and do some independent research?

Look at Afghanistan and the cash crop the US government is protecting there, and then take a look at the growing heroin problem in the country and ask yourself, "Is there really a war on drugs?"!

originally posted by: queenofswords
I thought Holder was supposed to have left DOJ at the end of December. What happened?

He is staying on until a replacement is made, which might take some time considering the Senate has to confirm his replacement. It comes down to how bad does the GOP want Holder out? Are they going to confirm an Obama nomination?

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: TheArrow

I don't think that will end up being a good solution. It is already being reported that the marijuana being sold today is in the neighborhood of being 30 times more potent than that smoked in the '60s. Also, we don't need people high on PCP to be in a position where they can hurt somebody. Sometimes, laws do have a reason behind them.

Treat drugs like alcohol. Public consumption of alcohol is a criminal offense that can get you tossed in jail.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: queenofswords
I thought Holder was supposed to have left DOJ at the end of December. What happened?

He is staying on until a replacement is made, which might take some time considering the Senate has to confirm his replacement. It comes down to how bad does the GOP want Holder out? Are they going to confirm an Obama nomination?

And I think that's why Holder made this announcement! His selected replacement has a history of making a ton of money for the state of NY by using this so called law that Holder is so conveniently making this announcement!

I'm not buying it!

He is trying to apply some fabric softener for his replacement. Pretty obvious considering that the policy Holder is repealing doubled the income during his tenure, don't you think?

originally posted by: queenofswords
I thought Holder was supposed to have left DOJ at the end of December. What happened?

Obama issued a delay order.

Other shoe: If it's a federal law it's the feds' money and property

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without proving that a crime occurred.

Maybe Eric is planning a road trip vacation.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: queenofswords
I thought Holder was supposed to have left DOJ at the end of December. What happened?

He is staying on until a replacement is made, which might take some time considering the Senate has to confirm his replacement. It comes down to how bad does the GOP want Holder out? Are they going to confirm an Obama nomination?

And I think that's why Holder made this announcement! His selected replacement has a history of making a ton of money for the state of NY by using this so called law that Holder is so conveniently making this announcement!

I'm not buying it!

He is trying to apply some fabric softener for his replacement. Pretty obvious considering that the policy Holder is repealing doubled the income during his tenure, don't you think?

So this is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason?

Pretty weak position.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: queenofswords
I thought Holder was supposed to have left DOJ at the end of December. What happened?

He is staying on until a replacement is made, which might take some time considering the Senate has to confirm his replacement. It comes down to how bad does the GOP want Holder out? Are they going to confirm an Obama nomination?

And I think that's why Holder made this announcement! His selected replacement has a history of making a ton of money for the state of NY by using this so called law that Holder is so conveniently making this announcement!

I'm not buying it!

He is trying to apply some fabric softener for his replacement. Pretty obvious considering that the policy Holder is repealing doubled the income during his tenure, don't you think?

So this is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason?

Pretty weak position.

Not sure if your disagreeing with me or understanding my skepticism, but as much as I agree with what Holder is saying today? History tells me something isn't right about it popping up all of a sudden.

Especially since I already did my homework on his replacement.

EDIT: Why the hell does my browser skip over Lucidity's post? Anyone else having an issue with reading it?

originally posted by: seeker1963
Especially since I already did my homework on his replacement.

You've got more information than I do, I didn't know a replacement was named.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: seeker1963
Especially since I already did my homework on his replacement.

You've got more information than I do, I didn't know a replacement was named.

Loretta Lynch!

Check out the link in my first post.

Not confirmed yet, but I have yet to see any other names tossed out there.

Good deal. There's good news one day a year now. I am wondering how this is going to become a # storm. I know no good can come from Holder. There is an ulterior motive. People died because of Holder. I'll always remember the fast and the furious. He doesn't get an out. He can't bribe me by doing the right thing. The right thing is going to prison.

State and local government are going to make seizures acceptable. The fed looks like a good guy and the state and local governments get paid. Good cop bad cop is getting old. Then there's the flip side. Maybe the fed wants the state and local government to bite. They roll out a federal police force to clean corruption up. After the corruption is cleaned up, the boots are on your throat. I'm not cheering just yet.

originally posted by: feldercarb
For those who have read post from me before, this is another example of the ying/yang that goes on within our country. First, people got frustrated that they could not get convictions against high level drug dealers. So, they made a law where large sums of cash could be confiscated due to the possibility that the money had been involved in the sale of illegal drugs. Then police departments found out that this was a great way to finance their departments and actively sought out of town motorists on the highways so that they could confiscate money. Now, finally the federal government is trying to put an end to the program due to it rampant misuse. How are we ever going to find a middle ground that keeps way too potent drugs off the streets without infringing on individual rights?

wtf is "way too potent drugs"?

a reply to: infolurker

I'm waiting for the "but"....

Yep, had to check my calendar because I don't think it's April Fool's Day yet. Holder does something I agree with, who woulda thunk? I am curious as to what percentage of asset seizures this would affect since it's only the ones associated with the feds. That still leaves bully local & state stops.

While police can continue to make seizures under their own state laws, the federal program was easy to use and required most of the proceeds from the seizures to go to local and state police departments. Many states require seized proceeds to go into the general fund.