More war on drugs lunacy

[lutherblsstt]

The Two Percent Company }- The Two Percent Company [] Rants -{have an article today eloquently exposing the lunacy of the war on drugs. Here we have a sting operation where the owners of convenience stores are being prosecuted for selling cold medicine, cooking fuel, and (get this) matchbooks – to undercover police officers - because these items can be used to make crystal meth. And the penalties could include up to 20 years in prison, forfeiture of their stores, fines of up to $250,000, and, in some cases, deportation.

Makes you feel good to know your tax dollars are being spent so wisely.

 

[RobInKuwait]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/States-consider-drug-tests-apf-14749108...

I think this is the best way to fight a war on drugs. Stop paying crackheads welfare! Give them random drug tests so the drug dealers actually have to look for a clientel versus setting up shop in the projects.

 

[EasyEJL]

I think just locking down our borders for real finally would do it. Over 3 million pounds of marijuana are imported a year....

 

[badfish51581]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/States-consider-drug-tests-apf-14749108...

I think this is the best way to fight a war on drugs. Stop paying crackheads welfare! Give them random drug tests so the drug dealers actually have to look for a clientel versus setting up shop in the projects.

But that grossly assumes that most drug users and on welfare which isn't really the case.

 

[EasyEJL]

But that grossly assumes that most drug users and on welfare which isn't really the case.

No, it assumes that most welfare recipients are on drugs.

 

[badfish51581]

I think just locking down our borders for real finally would do it. Over 3 million pounds of marijuana are imported a year....

Domestic production in 2006 was estimated at 22 million pounds...doubt it would solve much.

 

[EasyEJL]

Domestic production in 2006 was estimated at 22 million pounds...doubt it would solve much.

Marijuana isn't the only one imported. Most other drugs aren't as easily be able to be domestically grown.

And my thought isn't solely on the drugs, its also all the rest of what a border that porous means. How hard would it be to smuggle a small nuke, weapons, etc across the border if 3 million pounds of marijuana crossed? plus illegal aliens, terrorists, etc.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Where is the original report on this particular incident?

Look, if we were working at a local 7-11, and some guy dumped an armload of propane cylinders, matchbooks, and Sudafed on the counter, our first thought (assuming that we even put forth the effort to analyze what he was buying, which is a stretch) would be that he was going camping and had allergies. If he then told us to "hurry up" because he had to "go home and finish a cook," then we would assume that he had just run out the door, perhaps leaving a tin of muffins in the oven, and he wanted to get home quickly to finish them so he could take them on his camping trip. Never, ever, under any circumstances, would we make the connection to a meth lab without a suggestion from a third party. Never. It just wouldn't occur to us.

Outragious claims like this make the rest of the argument null and void; to me. I've worked at 7-11's and i've lived in urban areas my whole life and the first thing you pick up on is drug use and the millions of ways they can get their fix. Especially as a clerk. Back in Colorado where I worked at a 7-11 it was antifreeze and those antifreeze testing glass tubes. Mundane items by themselves can be mundane but in certain mixtures they can be ingredients used to blow up buildings. Large quantities and bought together can be used as evidence.

Should the clerk be charged with selling these things even with the knowing how they were to be used? I personally think it's a waste but that's just me.

 

[RobInKuwait]

But that grossly assumes that most drug users and on welfare which isn't really the case.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a market of people in every major inner city. These individuals:

1. Don't work, but have money, so some are always looking for drugs, and don't have to worry about real world responsibilities because they don't have to work and get money for free.

2. Are at a fixed location at projects, so the drug dealers always know where to go.

The effect of this is that there is a fixed demand that nurtures every level of the drug trade. There's a reason people from the suburbs drive to the inner city to get drugs.

Watch the Wire or the Corner and you can see a dramatized version of what I'm talking about. I've seen the neighborhoods firsthand in the projects in Baltimore. Listen to the song, "the First of the Month" by Bone Thugs....Chris Rock calls it "a welfare carol". Go to the projects on that day and see the flurry of activity by 8-10 year olds selling drugs to drug addicted people living off other people's money.

We can put all the stipulations in the world on companies receiving government funds, but its suddenly wrong for individuals receiving government money? Randomly piss test welfare recipients. I, as a taxpayers should not have to supplement a drug addicts habit.

 

[badfish51581]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a market of people in every major inner city. These individuals:

1. Don't work, but have money, so some are always looking for drugs, and don't have to worry about real world responsibilities because they don't have to work and get money for free.

2. Are at a fixed location at projects, so the drug dealers always know where to go.

The effect of this is that there is a fixed demand that nurtures every level of the drug trade. There's a reason people from the suburbs drive to the inner city to get drugs.

Watch the Wire or the Corner and you can see a dramatized version of what I'm talking about. I've seen the neighborhoods firsthand in the projects in Baltimore. Listen to the song, "the First of the Month" by Bone Thugs....Chris Rock calls it "a welfare carol". Go to the projects on that day and see the flurry of activity by 8-10 year olds selling drugs to drug addicted people living off other people's money.

We can put all the stipulations in the world on companies receiving government funds, but its suddenly wrong for individuals receiving government money? Randomly piss test welfare recipients. I, as a taxpayers should not have to supplement a drug addicts habit.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but I think that this population of people pales in comparison to the people who use and hold down full time jobs. Drugs user has become a very loaded word and the article you posted and your comments further supported that stereo-type that this population is on welfare, does nothing all day, and spends government money on drugs AND that if we started drug testing them, it would be the best way to support the war on drugs.

Point being that I live near Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn and work in Manhattan and disagree based on what I see. The volume of sales that crackheads buying $20 rocks are nothing compared to the business people who buy eight balls at a time.

Like I said, the idea isn't a bad one, but I think there is a gross generalization about what the average "drug user" in this country actually looks like.

 

[killfat]

Marijuana is grown legally in Mendacino County, California. Latin America is the last place to blame. If there wasn't such a HIGH demmand for narcotics in this county, we wouldn't have a drug problem. Mendacino ships out nationwide and DEA can not touch them. Those dudes are RAKING in the money there. Legalizing drugs is the only solution, once tax is added, the shadyness of the business is gone. People who are going to do it are gonig to do it anyway. Closing the borders is like living in a gated community; it's a good idea but who exactly are you closed in with?

 

[Jayhawkk]

Making it legal won't solve the issue. Because there's still a cost to it, that will mean there will be people who can't afford it. It's a lot easier to knock over a pharmacy than holding up an armed dealer. The only real effect would be making it legal and free with zero restrictions because as soon as there's a price tag and restrictions there will be people resorting to breaking the law. What I really believe it boils down to are people wanting it to be readily available to 'them'. Legalize it and tax the hell out of it!!!!! But i'll still be able to get my hands on it without socializing with known criminals... still doesn't change how most users we're having crime issues with will still be in that same sector.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but I think that this population of people pales in comparison to the people who use and hold down full time jobs. Drugs user has become a very loaded word and the article you posted and your comments further supported that stereo-type that this population is on welfare, does nothing all day, and spends government money on drugs AND that if we started drug testing them, it would be the best way to support the war on drugs.

Point being that I live near Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn and work in Manhattan and disagree based on what I see. The volume of sales that crackheads buying $20 rocks are nothing compared to the business people who buy eight balls at a time.

Like I said, the idea isn't a bad one, but I think there is a gross generalization about what the average "drug user" in this country actually looks like.

I hear you. But just as most people draw a line between a bailed out company giving out bonuses and an independent company giving out bonuses, I feel the same way about welfare recipients. I have no issues with people spending their OWN money on drugs, however, some crackhead who hasn't worked a day in their life spending my family's money to buy crack.....**** that.

You're right though, its not the answer to the war on drugs, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

 

[lutherblsstt]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a market of people in every major inner city. These individuals:

1. Don't work, but have money, so some are always looking for drugs, and don't have to worry about real world responsibilities because they don't have to work and get money for free.

2. Are at a fixed location at projects, so the drug dealers always know where to go.

The effect of this is that there is a fixed demand that nurtures every level of the drug trade. There's a reason people from the suburbs drive to the inner city to get drugs.

Watch the Wire or the Corner and you can see a dramatized version of what I'm talking about. .

Watch this non-fictionalized account:

Drug War Reality Tour
http://gnn.tv/videos/16/Drug_War_Reality_Tour

 

[RobInKuwait]

Watch this non-fictionalized account:

Drug War Reality Tour
http://gnn.tv/videos/16/Drug_War_Reality_Tour

I take it that it wasn't an accident that you censored out the part of my post where I said that I've seen the neighborhoods first hand?

Watch the Wire or the Corner and you can see a dramatized version of what I'm talking about. I've seen the neighborhoods firsthand in the projects in Baltimore. Listen to the song, "the First of the Month" by Bone Thugs....Chris Rock calls it "a welfare carol". Go to the projects on that day and see the flurry of activity by 8-10 year olds selling drugs to drug addicted people living off other people's money.

That's kind of like me doing this:

I love cock.

:laugh:

 

[lutherblsstt]

I take it that it wasn't an accident that you censored out the part of my post where I said that I've seen the neighborhoods first hand?



That's kind of like me doing this:

:laugh:

How was the video?

Drug War Reality Tour
http://gnn.tv/videos/16/Drug_War_Reality_Tour

 

[elementrip]

Making it legal won't solve the issue. Because there's still a cost to it, that will mean there will be people who can't afford it. It's a lot easier to knock over a pharmacy than holding up an armed dealer. The only real effect would be making it legal and free with zero restrictions because as soon as there's a price tag and restrictions there will be people resorting to breaking the law. What I really believe it boils down to are people wanting it to be readily available to 'them'. Legalize it and tax the hell out of it!!!!! But i'll still be able to get my hands on it without socializing with known criminals... still doesn't change how most users we're having crime issues with will still be in that same sector.

EXACTLY, every strung out individual wanting a quick fix will be robbing the local walgreens every friday. The last thing we need is an increased police state because robbery goes up 1 million percent after the (in my opinion infinitely retarded) proposal of legalizing all these substances passes.

 

[RobInKuwait]

How was the video?

Drug War Reality Tour
http://gnn.tv/videos/16/Drug_War_Reality_Tour

"There are two main sources of income here, welfare and drugs. Drugs is here because there's no jobs here. Drugs is here because there's no healthcare. Drugs is here because housing is deteriorating. The drug economy is taking the place of a bigger vibrant economy."

Let me break this statement, this perception down to the most basic levels.

The drug industry is by its a nature a customer service industry. No different than McDonalds, except it is illegal, unregulated, and addictive. Just as with McDonalds, customers have to have money to buy goods. By the man's admission, there are two main sources of income, welfare and drugs.

What I have been saying is that if you cut the welfare recipients off as drug customers, it will necessitate that the drug customers find another market. Its a vicious cycle of poverty and despair, but keep in mind, that without easy money from entitlements, drug markets in the inner city would be significantly hindered.

 

[lutherblsstt]

"There are two main sources of income here, welfare and drugs. Drugs is here because there's no jobs here. Drugs is here because there's no healthcare. Drugs is here because housing is deteriorating. The drug economy is taking the place of a bigger vibrant economy."

Let me break this statement, this perception down to the most basic levels.

The drug industry is by its a nature a customer service industry. No different than McDonalds, except it is illegal, unregulated, and addictive. Just as with McDonalds, customers have to have money to buy goods. By the man's admission, there are two main sources of income, welfare and drugs.

What I have been saying is that if you cut the welfare recipients off as drug customers, it will necessitate that the drug customers find another market. Its a vicious cycle of poverty and despair, but keep in mind, that without easy money from entitlements, drug markets in the inner city would be significantly hindered.

Thanks for actually watching it prior to commenting on it.

Here are my thoughts:

We can't stop the source, but we can scuttle the profitability of the illegal distribution network and allow our Public Health/Medical systems to deal directly with the drug consumer.

If we legalize drugs, we can inform the consumer, regulate usage and use the distribution system to offer medical help and alternatives to the consumers.

There are hundreds of people who use hard drugs in an attempt to treat undiagnosed organic problems or PTSD. These people could be reached and medically helped through information given out at Legal Drug Distribution Centers.

The bored thrill seeker would get information on how to use safely, and reduce their risk of hurting themselves or others. So, we'd take away the huge profits that feed the violence in our cities, install legal use centers where people would be taught safe® usage of the drugs and given alternatives to help alleviate the REASONS behind their drug use.

Other than magically wishing all drugs away forever, what better free-world alternative do we have?

 

[RobInKuwait]

Thanks for actually watching it prior to commenting on it.

Here are my thoughts:

We can't stop the source, but we can scuttle the profitability of the illegal distribution network and allow our Public Health/Medical systems to deal directly with the drug consumer.

If we legalize drugs, we can inform the consumer, regulate usage and use the distribution system to offer medical help and alternatives to the consumers.

There are hundreds of people who use hard drugs in an attempt to treat undiagnosed organic problems or PTSD. These people could be reached and medically helped through information given out at Legal Drug Distribution Centers.

The bored thrill seeker would get information on how to use safely, and reduce their risk of hurting themselves or others. So, we'd take away the huge profits that feed the violence in our cities, install legal use centers where people would be taught safe® usage of the drugs and given alternatives to help alleviate the REASONS behind their drug use.

Other than magically wishing all drugs away forever, what better free-world alternative do we have?

On most issues, I have a libertarian viewpoint, however, you can't throw libertarianism wholesale to the masses weaned on a nanny state.

I support the legalization of Marijuana, Shrooms, and Steroids.

Plus, how would legalizing Heroin and Cocaine drugs help the inner city drug problem. There is still a large group of people living off subsidies. Does it matter if they're spending it off a dealer or the local legal bodega? I don't think anyone, even in the depths of poverty in the worst ghettos doesn't know that drugs are bad for them. If anything, my friends who grew up in rough inner city neighborhoods are more cogniscient of the dangers of crack and heroin.

I think the solution to the inner city cycle of drugs and poverty is through cutting off the demand's free money, not through fighting the supply side of the equation. Free money equates to free spending. End free money.

 

[searl12]

Domestic production in 2006 was estimated at 22 million pounds...doubt it would solve much.

ya but your domestic american weed is crap, people will always import it from British Columbia Canada, because that is where the best herb is grown, Legalize weed, tax the fuk out of it, theres easyily as couple hundred million for the U.S Government. Alcohol is os much worse for you, so many more dumb things happen while wasted as opposed to getting baked , rotting on a couch and eating your face off.

 

[lutherblsstt]

I support the legalization of Marijuana, Shrooms, and Steroids.

:cheers:

 

[lutherblsstt]

On most issues, I have a libertarian viewpoint, however, you can't throw libertarianism wholesale to the masses weaned on a nanny state.


Plus, how would legalizing Heroin and Cocaine drugs help the inner city drug problem. There is still a large group of people living off subsidies. Does it matter if they're spending it off a dealer or the local legal bodega? I don't think anyone, even in the depths of poverty in the worst ghettos doesn't know that drugs are bad for them. If anything, my friends who grew up in rough inner city neighborhoods are more cogniscient of the dangers of crack and heroin.

I think the solution to the inner city cycle of drugs and poverty is through cutting off the demand's free money, not through fighting the supply side of the equation. Free money equates to free spending. End free money.

A big part of the poverty issue has to do with the huge percentage of the lower class that are serving hard time for non-violent drug crimes instead of supporting themselves or their families. Then when they are eventually released they often find that nobody wants to hire convicted felons EXCEPT their old buddies in the drug trade.

It's all connected, man. If we really want to help make society less crappy then we should treat drug abuse as a social disease, like alcoholism. Money would be far better spend on prevention and treatment than continuing the long-since-lost "war on drugs."

 

[EasyEJL]

A big part of the poverty issue has to do with the huge percentage of the lower class that are serving hard time for non-violent drug crimes instead of supporting themselves or their families.

Gee, where is your warped study statistic for this one?

A big part of the poverty issue is birth rates higher than income can support, birth rates higher than replacement (which means the problem gets worse year after year). Serving hard time has minimal effect on that. Nice try though!

 

[RobInKuwait]

A big part of the poverty issue has to do with the huge percentage of the lower class that are serving hard time for non-violent drug crimes instead of supporting themselves or their families. Then when they are eventually released they often find that nobody wants to hire convicted felons EXCEPT their old buddies in the drug trade.

It's all connected, man. If we really want to help make society less crappy then we should treat drug abuse as a social disease, like alcoholism. Money would be far better spend on prevention and treatment than continuing the long-since-lost "war on drugs."

I'm not sure if its that cut and dry. If you stopped enforcing drug laws, you'd essentially be condoning the drug trade and basically just boosting the profit margins of the drug trade.

Users are very rarely targeted. Its the dealers that police typically enforce the drug laws on. Drug abuse could be categorized as a social disease, however, you'd have a hard time convincing me that selling drugs is a social disease however.

As for the not being able to find jobs....I'm going back to the welfare thing. In that video, they were complaining about how the jobs left the neighborhood, as if the world owed them jobs. It used to be people had to move to find jobs if there weren't jobs in their neighborhood. There were mass migrations all over the US. Its how many southern blacks found work following the civil war. Now many people have the attitude that if there is no job in their neighborhood, its not on them. If people's own survival was on their own shoulders, I guarantee they'd be going wherever the jobs were instead of living off of people's taxes who work.

 

[EasyEJL]

If people's own survival was on their own shoulders, I guarantee they'd be going wherever the jobs were instead of living off of people's taxes who work.

Its that, the effective push towards senescence that "progressive" policies gives us that makes me despise them. That the effort of the individual isn't that important anymore, if you don't feel like bothering, someone will take care of it for you.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Its that, the effective push towards senescence that "progressive" policies gives us that makes me despise them. That the effort of the individual isn't that important anymore, if you don't feel like bothering, someone will take care of it for you.

Note how the nature of drug crime - bare possession - lessens the need for proof of "bad will" or intent to harm others or their interests; the so-called drug "criminal" need not have an iota of actual harmful intent in his heart, in order for her to be cast into the same pit as violent felons, and predators.

How fair is that?

Is this calculated to help the vulnerable?

Is not protection of the vulnerable the only justification for penal sanctions for drugs?

Is this not an abuse of the criminal law itself, which is directed in all other cases at the vicious, that is, the intent or recklessness of harm to others, and which thereby justifies its attack on an individual's liberty?

This unwarranted enlargement of the scope and reach of the criminal law brings the entire edifice of the Law into disrepute.

Unless "vicious" is taken to mean precisely "not to obey the commands of the State, no matter how arbitrary or unreasoned".

The un-American view, that what the King says, goes. Period. No discussion. Analogous to persecuting protestants, by the criminal law, in a catholic country....

A rather viciously circular definition of "vicious": "it is whatever the King says it is": and its off to prison with the disagreeable "subject"...in the US that used to be, "citizen".

And it is certainly not vicious to advocate the execution of those who traffic in harmless or beneficial and popular contraband, no sir, not in the Land of Liberty.

 

[EasyEJL]

you are apparently missing the whole idea of the social contract that is government, except when it is useful for you to provide additional benefit to those who you happen to feel need it.

Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order.

Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, an individual’s actions are bound only by his or her personal power, constrained by conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of contractarianism, which formed the theoretical groundwork of democracy.

The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural rights" nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end — the benefit of all — and (according to some philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau), is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest ("general will" in Rousseau). Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.

Since civil rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who choose to violate their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, abdicate their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968).

If a majority believed as you did, then drugs would be legal. They do not, so drugs are not.

 

[lutherblsstt]

you are apparently missing the whole idea of the social contract that is government, except when it is useful for you to provide additional benefit to those who you happen to feel need it.


If a majority believed as you did, then drugs would be legal. They do not, so drugs are not.

We were intended to be a representative Republic. A Republic is a system in which certain things will never be up for a vote.

Only things outlined in the Constitution would be subject to a vote, all others would not. In a Republic, the majority would never be able to vote on an issue such as, should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his establishment?

This would never be up for a vote in a Republic, but in a Democracy, everything is on the table.

If they are going to perpetuate the lie of Democracy, they should at least call it by its rightful name, Mobocracy!

It should never be possible for a group of people to decide what a property owner can do with his or her property, or what someone can put into their body,no matter how big the group or how good the cause.

I have noticed signs when driving down the road announcing that there will be a meeting of the people to decide if Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store on land they legally purchased. I find this absurd! Who the hell should have the right to decide what the property owner can do with his property, except the property owner?

 

[Jayhawkk]

A big part of the poverty issue has to do with the huge percentage of the lower class that are serving hard time for non-violent drug crimes instead of supporting themselves or their families. Then when they are eventually released they often find that nobody wants to hire convicted felons EXCEPT their old buddies in the drug trade.

Not quite that simple. I grew up in poverty and never went the drug route. I knew the consequences and knew what I wanted to do with my life. It's a choice you make based off your goals, intentions and convictions. If you choose the easy route then you'll most likely pay the price. That price is usually poverty and in a lot of cases drugs are a part of this. I don't believe it has anything to do with being victimized by taking part in drugs and being jailed for it.

Simple possession isn't a felony.
The laws are there.
Agree with it or not drugs are illegal and the penalties are open for everyone to know.
If you make the conscious decision to break the law that has nothing to do with 'the man' keeping you down. It isn't a surprise to someone that smokes a joint or deals crack what their choice can bring them.

 

[EasyEJL]

We were intended to be a representative Republic. A Republic is a system in which certain things will never be up for a vote.

Only things outlined in the Constitution would be subject to a vote, all others would not. In a Republic, the majority would never be able to vote on an issue such as, should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his establishment?

This would never be up for a vote in a Republic, but in a Democracy, everything is on the table.

If they are going to perpetuate the lie of Democracy, they should at least call it by its rightful name, Mobocracy!

It should never be possible for a group of people to decide what a property owner can do with his or her property, or what someone can put into their body,no matter how big the group or how good the cause.

I have noticed signs when driving down the road announcing that there will be a meeting of the people to decide if Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store on land they legally purchased. I find this absurd! Who the hell should have the right to decide what the property owner can do with his property, except the property owner?

Or who a business owner should hire? What race they have to be? Or what sort of qualifications allow someone of a particular race into a college?

 

[RobInKuwait]

We were intended to be a representative Republic. A Republic is a system in which certain things will never be up for a vote.

Only things outlined in the Constitution would be subject to a vote, all others would not. In a Republic, the majority would never be able to vote on an issue such as, should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his establishment?

This would never be up for a vote in a Republic, but in a Democracy, everything is on the table.

If they are going to perpetuate the lie of Democracy, they should at least call it by its rightful name, Mobocracy!

It should never be possible for a group of people to decide what a property owner can do with his or her property, or what someone can put into their body,no matter how big the group or how good the cause.

I have noticed signs when driving down the road announcing that there will be a meeting of the people to decide if Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store on land they legally purchased. I find this absurd! Who the hell should have the right to decide what the property owner can do with his property, except the property owner?

I agree with what you are saying, in its application to the Federal government. However, the Constitution spelled out no such limitations to state and local governments. The Constitution was no intended to do anything other than establish the functions and structure of Federal government. For example, the Bill of Rights initially did not apply to anyone other than federal law. The 14th amendment and supreme court decisions changed this later.