Thought police, seriously...

[lighthorseman]

Let me prefix this by saying that I really like America, and Americans. I spent 2 of my most formative years there, age 2-4, and for a long time I considered America "home". Which is, I think, why this sort of stuff shits me off so much...

The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they’re carried out. H.R. 313, the “Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011,” is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.

“Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for reforming the country’s drug laws. “The strange thing is that the purchase of and smoking the marijuana while you’re there wouldn’t be illegal. But this law would make planning the wedding from the U.S. a federal crime.”

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html

[Smurfette Principle]

Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution

Hell, not even if they plan to do it! Discussing a hypothetical scenario in which such a thing occurs would be a federal crime! Idiots.

[anti-nonsense]

and the so-called "war on drugs" gets ever stupider.

[brendanrizzo]

Therein lies the rub, Smurfette. Hell, if you interpret it strictly enough, then the very people who drafted this law will have violated it if they continue their jobs after it went into effect.

[rookie]

Because fuck other nations' sovereignty? Can they do that? I mean, is that in any way even close to legal? Well, it's nice that the bill passed the committee I guess. But it's lucky that, right now, this doesn't mean anything.

[Her3tiK]

Oct 15, 2011 9:24:51 GMT -5 rookie said:

Because fuck other nations' sovereignty? Can they do that? I mean, is that in any way even close to legal? Well, it's nice that the bill passed the committee I guess. But it's lucky that, right now, this doesn't mean anything.

Silly Rookie, America doesn't care what those lesser nations think. How can their laws matter, when they don't do anything to help American corporations citizens?

[SimSim]

I get what they were trying to prevent, drug trafficking, and why they're trying to prevent it. That being said, the bill is vague and way too broad. There has to be a better way to go about it.

[erictheblue]

Oct 15, 2011 10:27:43 GMT -5 SimSim said:

I get what they were trying to prevent, drug trafficking, and why they're trying to prevent it. That being said, the bill is vague and way too broad. There has to be a better way to go about it.

This. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime, and the crime would be trafficking. Agree 100% that it is too broad.

Under the legal test for strict scrutiny (which would be used because this law impacts a fundamental right - free speech), a law is unconstitutional if it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. There is a compelling government interest (stopping the import of illegal drugs), but it is not narrowly tailored.

[ironbite]

Therefore first challenge, it goes away forever and can never be drafted again.

Ironbite-until the next schmucks draft it

[Old Viking]

I think we should be able to prosecute foreigners in their own countries if they do anything we consider dubious or unpleasant.

[Smurfette Principle]

We already do that. It's called "war." Or, alternatively, "funding resistance groups."

[Damen]

Oct 15, 2011 15:21:51 GMT -5 Smurfette Principle said:

We already do that. It's called "war." Or, alternatively, "funding resistance groups."

I thought that was Preemptive Democracy.

[Admiral Lithp]

What exactly constitutes "conspiracy to commit crime"? I'd think most people would agree that if the standards were this vague for, say, assault, we'd have violated it several times.

[ltfred]

Conservative political correctness strikes again!

[erictheblue]

Oct 15, 2011 18:31:19 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

What exactly constitutes "conspiracy to commit crime"?

In FL:

A person who agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or persons to commit any offense commits the offense of criminal conspiracy,

Other state statutes are similar.

I'd think most people would agree that if the standards were this vague for, say, assault, we'd have violated it several times.

They aren't vague at all. If you plan with another person to commit a crime, that is conspiracy.