Fibbies still indulge in civil asset forfeiture; a violation of 14th Amendment? Also, what DEA downgrade on pot means


Here’s an anti-libertarian story from USA Today by Brad Heath, “DEA regularly mines Americans’ travel records to seize millions in cash”.

There are some pretty obvious red flags, like buying one-way tickets, especially with cash.  And it usually happens when people carry lots of cash, especially from the few states where recreational marijuana is at least partially legal (most of all, Colorado).

The Obama administration had pledged to look the other way (especially on Colorado) except in the most egregious cases.

But it seems that the government is using surveillance techniques that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would certainly lobby against.

And part of the problem is that federal law makes it very difficult for “legal” pot businesses to use banks or financial institutions in a normal way.

But police and federal agents can seize cash and assets (including cars) without due process, and keep them in many cases.  I don’t know how the government is getting around the Fourteenth Amendment.


True, “Ordinary People” (like in the 1980 movie) traveling in a “normal” way buying transportation online with credit cards would probably never run into this.

Note that Vox has, in a piece by German Lopez, explained what the DEA’s keeping marijuana as “schedule 1” really means. .   The “schedule 1” refers to the drug’s not having legitimate medical uses – although the DEA says it will look at specific chemicals in marijuana as medically legitimate on their own. Can isolated component of THC reverse nausea from chemotherapy or control seizures?

(Published: Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:30 PM EDT)


Update: Aug. 29, 2016

Washington D.C. will cause tenants to be evicted from homes or apartments under “nuisance” laws even when tenants are not prosecuted, as in this case involving marijuana use, story by Derek Hawkins and Kate McCormick, “Forced out of a home over a marijuana joint“. Landlords, even individual homeowners who rent, are supposed to be responsible for illegal behavior on their premises.  What effect would this have on housing refugees or asylees?