Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator calls for study of habitual drug offender registry

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 10:59 PM
Original message
Senator calls for study of habitual drug offender registry
Senator calls for study
of habitual drug offender registry
By Staff

AUGUSTA (July 18): Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Cumberland County, submitted legislation Tuesday that calls for the study of a habitual drug offender registry, similar to Maine’s sex offender registry.

“An Act to Study a Maine Habitual Drug Offender Registry” asks the Legislature to direct the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee to examine the creation of a registry aimed at helping families protect their children from repeat drug dealers.

more:

http://waldo.villagesoup.com/government/story.cfm?storyID=75757
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gawd help me when they start an "Habitual Masturbator Registry." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Cool!
A list! Then I'll always know who to call to score some weed!

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. the Chimpanzee should be first on the list, and ugh, it's a Democrat ?
anyone know his history. is he a conservative leaning type ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, the scope seems pretty limited, if you look closely
It's not users he's after, it is people who deal, and especially to kids. The registry would primarily consist of repeat offenders; drug dealers who after serving time for their first offense, continue to deal drugs. A special emphasis would be placed on drug dealers who dealt to minors.

And he's simply suggesting that they STUDY the feasibility of this registry, not run off and do it without first seeing if there might be some utility to it downstream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. primarily?
And it's only a start. Drug offenders already have to register in California. They aren't put on the Internet, YET.

First drug dealers, then them.

Then probably DUI drivers.

Murderers will be last.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Well, you're fretting like it is a done deal.
If you are a Mainer, I recommend you write to the guy and share your view with him. All he's doing is proposing a feasibility study; as a prelude to entertaining any change in the law.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't want some asshole who regularly deals meth to kids and keeps doing it hanging around the schoolyard. If the scope is limited to that, fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Seriously, do you think the government limits itself once started?
Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program. In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS began to use it as a taxpayer ID number. The Privacy Act of 1974 required authorization for government agencies to use SSNs in their data bases and required disclosures (detailed below) when government agencies request the number. Agencies which were already using SSN as an identifier before January 1, 1975 were allowed to continue using it. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to establish identities. The Privacy Protection Study Commission of 1977 recommended that EO9397 be revoked after some agencies referred to it as their authorization to use SSNs. It hasn't been revoked, but no one seems to have made new uses of the SSN recently and cited EO9397 as their sole authority, either.

Several states use the SSN as a driver's license number, while others record it on applications and store it in their database. Some states that routinely use it on the license will make up another number if you insist.

http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/cpsr/privacy/ssn/SSN-History.html#history
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Well, this is a Democrat proposing this, just as FDR proposed
using the SS number for other government recordkeeping.

So, I guess you don't like the party of big government, then!

Look, this guy states clearly that his goal is DEALERS who REPEAT DEAL to kids. He is looking at the ramifications of the list, by asking for a STUDY, BEFORE he proposes legislation.

Now, forgive me for being an old fart, but I don't think drug dealers selling drugs to kids is a good idea. Anyone who is doing again after being caught once that has already slid pretty far down the slope, slippery or not.

And clearly, there must be a problem with repeat offender dealers in this guy's state, else why would he bring it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is a very, very bad idea
Why not just lock up every person convicted of a felony drug offense forever. That would be a whole lot easier and less hypocritical.

These registries don't work, period. They are a "there oughta be a law" knee jerk reaction by politicians who are creating a new class of criminals who abscond because the registry laws are virtually impossible to comply with. They are clogging the courts with insurmountable problems. Registries create crimes of status. The courts following the political winds, say they aren't crimes of status. Now the inevitable expansion to all fields of crime begins. Utimately, our society will be riddled with millions of non-persons, who do not exist, who cannot live anywhere and have no rights, whatsoever.

Once begun, this process will prove impossible to reverse because it's a favorite with cynical and opportunistic politicians, dumb voters, and even those who mean well.

Any professional who deals with these laws has to admit they are virtually impossible to work with as a practical matter and result in grave injustices on a frequent basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Paving the road to hell
one brick at a time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reckon Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
9. I call for a
habitual crooks and liar registry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. An alcoholic registry list would be much longer . . . .
Geez, if you live long enough in this country, you'll be on a registry given to law enforcement for one reason or another . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
11. Why are murderers always excluded? THEY can live next door!
(They aren't all killed or kept forever.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
12. We all ready have this
it's called NCIC and for California CHS. Anytime you ever get fingerprinted your in the systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. And DNA is taken at every birth.
That's the Left Coast for ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
14. I call for a habitual congressional bribe takers registry. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC