Government abuses power over citizens

by Schuyler Clark, staff writer

 

So I was cruising the streets of Littlefield recently when I happened to pass an off-duty police

officer's house.

He was washing his fire-red Silverado with his kids playing some sort of variation of a neo-cops and robbers gig in the front yard. When I passed by in my untagged and uninsured 1971 F-100, minding my own business, the game turns against me, an unsuspecting bystander in a game of increasing political tension between the police and their opponents, those who stand up for their rights, and the general population. 

They heard my truck and their already-tuned ears identified me as a possible intruder, which translates to a probable threat worth investigating.  They engage their game and involve me by shooting at me with their plastic guns and folded hands to make a gun in police fashion, riddling me with, regrettably for them by their facial expression, invisible bullets. 

This made for an extremely disturbing image, startling and frightening me about what this meant for the future of a faulty law enforcement.  His children were already participating in the morbid game of legality and taking care of the dangerous ”lawbreakers” who present such an impeccable and sheer danger to the American public, even if all they are doing is as simple as not wearing a seatbelt or going a few miles over the speed limit

The more I thought about how this fear and rejection of forms of unofficial lifestyles such as the social drinker (until they reach the mature old age of 21, then drinkers can be responsible), the social smoker (no hope in sight for equal rights), and, generally, the people who refuse to be subjected to the increasingly harsh punishments and investigative methods of modern law enforcement(those who rock the proverbial boat.)

Police seem to be more  blatant and irresponsible without being held accountable for their actions. The Man, as amusing as this label has become, protects his own over the citizens he is supposed to protect.  The incredibly lax policy for searches and seizures has traveled an extremely long way since it was first mentioned in America's history in the lovely pack of documents known as the Bill of Rights. 

For those of us who slept through history class, there is a part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees protection from unlawful search and seizure. But the Bush Administration conveniently must have forgotten about it when they decided to subjugate everyone's promised privacy in the name of fighting terrorism.  Telephone service and Internet are now monitored to ensure that the terrorists haven't infiltrated America. 

What is so convenient about declaring war on a non-definite enemy is that liberties can be taken away and rights trampled because the opponent is not finite.  With the president defining the enemy, he can also interpret as he wishes, since his war is so ambiguous. 

I find it ridiculous that America still has growing problems with sex crimes and homicide rates steadily increasing, but we insist on taking care of the “real” criminals. That is why, as of 2006, more than a staggering SEVEN million Americans were either incarcerated, on probation or on parole.  This is the highest incarceration rate in the world. 

China has a total population of more than a billion people, while the population of the United States is 281 million, roughly a fourth of China's.  China has the second highest number of incarcerated people in the world.  There is something wrong with those statistics, and it sure isn't the numbers.

Somewhere around one out of seven of those who either are currently or recently have been imprisoned was for non-violent crimes.  The American prison system population has more than quadrupled since the mid-1980's, when the “war on drugs,” first instituted by President Richard Nixon in 1969, was enacted upon and enforced strictly by Ronald Reagan's Administration. 

The results of yet-another disastrous war has been nothing but misery, failure, and ungodly financial costs to accommodate persecuting those pesky drug-runners and abusers.  What is funny and ironic is that while the importation of drugs has been reduced by a decent percentage, the quantity and quality of drugs produced within the United States has dramatically increased, along with drug use.  As of 2006, marijuana was America's number one cash crop,  putting more than a million Americans behind bars with the rapists, murderers, child molesters and thieves of all sorts who are successfully prosecuted.  

I find it amazing that the government can rake in the money from tobacco and alcohol with both long arms to fund an illegitimate war in the Middle East, senselessly and systematically killing our own American soldiers, yet the legalization of marijuana is such a taboo subject.  Vice is an ever-growing market in America and getting bigger everyday.  This is one of the main sources of funds for the government after they take their cut of our income.

More taxes were the answer to America's demand for alcohol, and the recent increase of a dollar a pack for cigarettes makes no exception.  When the state put this into place, they were figuring on the cessation, or at least a noticeable decrease, in the purchase of tobacco products as a result of this ludicrous tax increase.  Instead, the opposite happened, and tobacco sales have barely dropped, making Texas exorbitant amounts of cash.

Tobacco users cried foul and rape in protest at first.  But in the end, they just gave in to buy another pack.  With this profound statement on the addictiveness of manufactured tobacco, and Alcoholics Anonymous running stronger than ever, I find it hard to believe that marijuana can't be legalized because of its “highly addictive nature.”  Of course, this is only one of about 10 reasons cited for the refusal to legalize of the plant by the “all-knowing” government. 

Some wise man once said that the government's duty is to protect the people from each other. But when it attempts to protect a person from himself or herself, it has gone too far, which is the infringement of freedom.  If the government wanted to keep people from harming themselves, fast food businesses would no longer be allowed to make high-calorie meals, Marlboro would be bankrupt, and we would be living in the days of Prohibition again. The absurdity of these what-ifs only exists as long as we stand on this side of the line.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that if we had been raised with those preventative measures previously mentioned, it would be absolutely normal, and only the hardcore rebels and addicts would still be eating greasy food and smoking cigarettes.  The stark reality of the contrast shows how truly redundant our government is.