- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/dan-lungren-drug-warrior-reelection_n_2159755.html
Dan Lungren, Drug Warrior, Loses Bid For Reelection
First elected to Congress in 1978 at the age of 32, Lungren rose in stature with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and quickly became a darling of the tough-on-crime crowd and the rising moral majority movement. No new anti-drug law was too tough for the young congressman. In 1984, he was a sponsor of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, at the time one of the most sweeping pieces of anti-crime legislation in U.S. history. The bill gave prosecutors the power to appeal sentences (previously, only defendants could do that) and eliminated the right to bail for people accused of certain drug crimes, according to Smoke and Mirrors, a book by journalist Dan Baum. Lungren had already worked to make increasingly less serious crimes subject to increasingly longer sentences, and he ended a federal policy of allowing young, first-time drug offenders to clear their records after they had served their sentences and if they committed no future crimes, Baum wrote.
But the most odious part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act -- and the part that, over the years, Lungren has taken most pride in -- gave the government broad new asset forfeiture powers. Civil asset forfeiture gives the government the ability to seize property connected to certain crimes under civil law, instead of criminal law. Because the law is civil, the government's burden of proof is lower, and police and prosecutors only need to show probable cause that what they've seized is connected to drug activity. The burden then switches to the property owner to show he obtained the property or earned the cash legitimately. The owner never needs to be charged with a crime -- indeed, in most cases they aren't.
The 1984 bill included a provision allowing police departments and prosecutors' offices to keep the proceeds from these forfeitures, creating an enormous incentive for them to "find" connections that may not have existed. The bill also allowed local police to call the DEA with information after finding certain property. The DEA would take a cut of the bounty, and then give the rest back to the local police agency. The policy allowed police departments to get around the laws some states had passed to make forfeiture proceedings fairer. Additionally, the 1984 bill allowed the government to seize a drug suspect's assets before filing charges, leaving suspects with no money to hire legal representation. (Property owners had no right to a court-appointed attorney in civil forfeiture cases.)
Lungren wanted to make it illegal for anyone to accept money from a drug dealer. "Make it illegal for a dry cleaner or a grocery store to take money from a drug dealer, [Lungren] argued, and if they do, seize the business. Put the merchant in jail."
Lungren wanted to ban any "substance which has a stimulant, depresant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system," Baum wrote. "That would include coffee, alcohol, and a long list of legal pharmaceuticals." Not to mention nicotine.
And that's some of the crap this guy did.
Anyone who wants to talk about why California has problems today, just look at the damage this guy did, especially when he was attorney general of California.
Dan Lungren, Drug Warrior, Loses Bid For Reelection
First elected to Congress in 1978 at the age of 32, Lungren rose in stature with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and quickly became a darling of the tough-on-crime crowd and the rising moral majority movement. No new anti-drug law was too tough for the young congressman. In 1984, he was a sponsor of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, at the time one of the most sweeping pieces of anti-crime legislation in U.S. history. The bill gave prosecutors the power to appeal sentences (previously, only defendants could do that) and eliminated the right to bail for people accused of certain drug crimes, according to Smoke and Mirrors, a book by journalist Dan Baum. Lungren had already worked to make increasingly less serious crimes subject to increasingly longer sentences, and he ended a federal policy of allowing young, first-time drug offenders to clear their records after they had served their sentences and if they committed no future crimes, Baum wrote.
But the most odious part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act -- and the part that, over the years, Lungren has taken most pride in -- gave the government broad new asset forfeiture powers. Civil asset forfeiture gives the government the ability to seize property connected to certain crimes under civil law, instead of criminal law. Because the law is civil, the government's burden of proof is lower, and police and prosecutors only need to show probable cause that what they've seized is connected to drug activity. The burden then switches to the property owner to show he obtained the property or earned the cash legitimately. The owner never needs to be charged with a crime -- indeed, in most cases they aren't.
The 1984 bill included a provision allowing police departments and prosecutors' offices to keep the proceeds from these forfeitures, creating an enormous incentive for them to "find" connections that may not have existed. The bill also allowed local police to call the DEA with information after finding certain property. The DEA would take a cut of the bounty, and then give the rest back to the local police agency. The policy allowed police departments to get around the laws some states had passed to make forfeiture proceedings fairer. Additionally, the 1984 bill allowed the government to seize a drug suspect's assets before filing charges, leaving suspects with no money to hire legal representation. (Property owners had no right to a court-appointed attorney in civil forfeiture cases.)
Lungren wanted to make it illegal for anyone to accept money from a drug dealer. "Make it illegal for a dry cleaner or a grocery store to take money from a drug dealer, [Lungren] argued, and if they do, seize the business. Put the merchant in jail."
Lungren wanted to ban any "substance which has a stimulant, depresant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system," Baum wrote. "That would include coffee, alcohol, and a long list of legal pharmaceuticals." Not to mention nicotine.
And that's some of the crap this guy did.
Anyone who wants to talk about why California has problems today, just look at the damage this guy did, especially when he was attorney general of California.
Facebook
Twitter