Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Big Government

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I hope we can all agree that in a mixed security lockup facility it makes sense to inspect for contraband at a degree consistent with the highest level of security.

As I see it, the fault here, if any, is not with the treatment of the individual at the detention facilities, but whether such a mixed security facility is reasonable and/or whether the individual was locked up in a facility appropriate to the offense the police had reason to believe the individual committed.

Both Burlington and Essex Counties in New Jersey are large enough that segregating minor offenders from major offenders (either at separate facilities or segregated sections of the same facility) should not impose an undue burden.

However, for the offense for which he was detained (not the traffic offense, but the outstanding warrant that was in error but which the police had no way of knowing was in error) I would conclude that being housed in a more secure facility was reasonable.

With the exception of Thomas, the majority justices left open the possibility that strip-searches for those held for less serious offenses would not be warranted.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, heroin is fiendishly addictive, but other than the need to procure it, it does not turn people into criminals.  It would be cheaper for society to treat this and most other drug addictions as a health issue rather than a criminal issue.  That we are unwilling to do so is because of our society's foolish insistence on treating addiction as a moral failing and because we don't have a universal health care system that we could place the costs on.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I partially agree with what you say, ernest, but disagree as well. Saying heroin turns someone into a criminal 'other than the need to procure it' is kind of like saying war isn't so bad other than all the killing. The crime almost invariably committed to support a heroin habit is the root of the problem. Also, all the available treatment in the world isn't going to dissuade a user who doesn't see sufficient consequences from their drug abuse to quit. The threat of incarceration and/or temporary incarceration often is the 'hitting bottom' necessary for an addict to want to make that change.

Simply put, there has to be a carrot as well as a stick to combat drug addiction.

Why would a heroin addict commit crime to get access to a drug that is provided to him through the public health system?

The cost to society of forcibly providing dissuasion is in most cases greater than providing a managed level of the addictive substance.  You're still approaching it from the viewpoint that addiction in itself is a moral failing and therefore society must correct them sternly because of that, no matter how much harm society itself suffers from applying that correction.