4 ms·
It's unjust, particularly in it's current implementation, and it completely circumvents due-process. At least in the US, which wasn't a nation in 1600, this is
by snsr 10y ago
It's unjust, particularly in it's current implementation, and it completely circumvents due-process.
At least in the US, which wasn't a nation in 1600, this is a prohibition-era deterrent that was reinstated by Reagan to punish drug users, and has been more currently used to fund law enforcement agencies in an astonishingly offensive manner.
- DannyBee 10y agoSure, i'd agree it's unjust in some of the current implementation (there are something like 800+ federal statutes that have some form of asset forfeiture, so you'd need to be more specific which you think are unjust) While i think, policy wise, it's as dumb as the next guy, I'm just pointing out this is being painted with too broad a brush from a constitutional standpoint