Rand Paul blames Garner's death on cigarette taxes

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cigarette taxes and the drug war are complete opposite. I'm pretty most people in favor of ending the drug war talk about the tax revenue legalized drugs would bring to the government...

It's a talking point in favor of drug legalization, but the idea that you are going to stop the drug war at the same time as making a killing off drug taxes doesn't make much sense. If there are high taxes on drugs, then the drug war will to some extent continue.  The Whiskey Rebellion didn't happen because whiskey was made illegal.

Heck, the American Revolution didn't happen because tea was made illegal either.  Incidentally, the Boston Tea Party is really strange, and not just because of the costumes of the party goers.  To get Americans used to paying British duties, the tea was both taxed and subsidized, with the subsidies being enough that taxed British tea was cheaper than smuggled untaxed Dutch tea.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Higher cigarette taxes means fewer deaths. Shut up, Rand.

[Brittain33]

People saying "not wrong." Can you envision a world where NY has a $5.85 tax on cigarettes, and police enforce that law without using violence or killing people who break it? Yes? The reason Paul is wrong is because he's focusing on the tax, not the violence.

The fact that Paul is literally correct that without the tax, this specific incident would not have taken place is wholly irrelevant to the problem of people dying needlessly in incidents with the police.

Also, he's being a senator from Kentucky here, not a thought leader.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

People saying "not wrong." Can you envision a world where NY has a $5.85 tax on cigarettes, and police enforce that law without using violence or killing people who break it? Yes? The reason Paul is wrong is because he's focusing on the tax, not the violence.

The fact that Paul is literally correct that without the tax, this specific incident would not have taken place is wholly irrelevant to the problem of people dying needlessly in incidents with the police.

Also, he's being a senator from Kentucky here, not a thought leader.

If you make something an arrestable offense, you are implicitly saying the potential for violence is an acceptable cost for enforcing the law.  I don't know of any world where that isn't the case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

People saying "not wrong." Can you envision a world where NY has a $5.85 tax on cigarettes, and police enforce that law without using violence or killing people who break it? Yes? The reason Paul is wrong is because he's focusing on the tax, not the violence.

The fact that Paul is literally correct that without the tax, this specific incident would not have taken place is wholly irrelevant to the problem of people dying needlessly in incidents with the police.

Also, he's being a senator from Kentucky here, not a thought leader.

And what in the NYPD's long and ah rather tainted history suggests they are capable of this fairy tale non-violent enforcement you speak of. Its NY, and if they could, they would be smashing people's sculls like the good old days. It seems like tha never edning story of incidents followed by sensitivity training and new procedures only to see it happen again and again and again. At some point you realize it is the culture and nothing short of firing every one of them and replacing them all at once will fix it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Taxes are not to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Rand Paul is incredibly stupid.

Democrats are so adorable. The drug war has failed but the creation of black markets for cigarettes is a great idea.

America is in awe of such intelligence.

(Edited to remove reference to a deleted post - TF)

Excellent point. The left has been on the warpath vs cigs but thinks pot is the bees knees

Ah, yes, the cigarette tax pioneered by noted Democrat Michael Bloomberg.

I sense a pang of sarcasm.

It may not be well noted now but I am pretty sure Bloomberg was a noted Democrat until he decided he didn't want to go through a Democratic primary to become Mayor.

Also his present affilitation aside, he is clearly at the very least center left in the American political spectrum, not to mention decidely statist in an era when the right is defined by opposition to gov't. I should note, that one of the last ads Tillis ran against Hagan was that she supported Bloomberg's attempt to take away the average Joe's guns whilst Billionaire Bloomberg is protecred by armed guards. Don't know how accurate it is (probably not at all), but it probably had some impact considering the final result.

[Badger]

People saying "not wrong." Can you envision a world where NY has a $5.85 tax on cigarettes, and police enforce that law without using violence or killing people who break it? Yes? The reason Paul is wrong is because he's focusing on the tax, not the violence.

The fact that Paul is literally correct that without the tax, this specific incident would not have taken place is wholly irrelevant to the problem of people dying needlessly in incidents with the police.

Also, he's being a senator from Kentucky here, not a thought leader.

And Gravis wins the thread.

The "Rand is right" (partially or otherwise) range from pedantic to brain damaged. "Michael Garner died because of high cigarette taxes"?!? Please. Name a law. Any law. Enforcement carries the risk of confrontation. It is the execution and--most importantly--the oversight of such execution that truly governs the risk of deaths to people like Garner. NOT whether cigarettes are an extra buck or three per pack in the Big Apple.

[Brittain33]

If you make something an arrestable offense

What's the legal definition of an "arrestable offense"? Would you consider jaywalking or speeding an arrestable offense?

I'm pretty sure that Garner was guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony. And deadly force is never appropriate when enforcing a misdemeanor.

[Silent Hunter]

Taxes are not to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Rand Paul is incredibly stupid.

Democrats are so adorable. The drug war has failed but the creation of black markets for cigarettes is a great idea.

America is in awe of such intelligence.

(Edited to remove reference to a deleted post - TF)

Excellent point. The left has been on the warpath vs cigs but thinks pot is the bees knees

Ah, yes, the cigarette tax pioneered by noted Democrat Michael Bloomberg.

We've had taxes on cigarettes in this country for decades.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ah yes, the Libertarian Contrarian (TM). We needed his insights desperately.

[AggregateDemand]

People saying "not wrong." Can you envision a world where NY has a $5.85 tax on cigarettes, and police enforce that law without using violence or killing people who break it? Yes? The reason Paul is wrong is because he's focusing on the tax, not the violence.

All laws are enforced with violence. Pretending otherwise is the lie people tell themselves so they can sleep at night. The business end of every law is financial ruination, life in a cage, or death. Rand Paul understands the situation, and he laments the careless creation of a black market with clumsy tax policy.

Telling libertarian factions that you don't understand the problem is irrelevant. Creating complex protocols is not going to save lives, it will only delay the inevitable conflict, especially in this instance. If you want to save lives, don't create black markets with stupid laws. Isn't this the basica tenet of the anti-drug-war movement?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you make something an arrestable offense

What's the legal definition of an "arrestable offense"? Would you consider jaywalking or speeding an arrestable offense?

I'm pretty sure that Garner was guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony. And deadly force is never appropriate when enforcing a misdemeanor.

An arrestable offense is an offense someone can be arrested for. What that consists of depends on the jurisdiction. People can be arrested for jaywalking in many places, and with speeding it usually depends on how far it is above the speed limit. 

I don't know why it would be an "either/or" here between whether the problem here is the law or the execution of the enforcement. Why only look at one way to reduce the likelihood of these deadly encounters?  The more things are criminalized, the more opportunity there is for police brutality, as well as for unintentional death in the course of subduing someone.

[free my dawg]

Actually, he's partially right. If people don't want black markets, then don't try and push it underground. Since banning tobacco outright (like the moralist cabal in NYC most likely wants to) is politically infeasible, they're trying to start an economic War on Tobacco instead of a law-based war. Obviously, an overreaching police officer was the direct cause of Eric Garner's death, but people are driven to these sorts of activities by an overreaching government that has no right to dictate what we put in our bodies.

[Badger]

People saying "not wrong." Can you envision a world where NY has a $5.85 tax on cigarettes, and police enforce that law without using violence or killing people who break it? Yes? The reason Paul is wrong is because he's focusing on the tax, not the violence.

All laws are enforced with violence. Pretending otherwise is the lie people tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

Oh really? How badly were you tased or choked the last time you were stopped for speeding?

[AggregateDemand]

Oh really? How badly were you tased or choked the last time you were stopped for speeding?

What happens if I refuse to comply with the law governing traffic tickets? What happens if I refuse to comply with the law suspending my drivers license? What happens if I refuse to be taken into custody? They can only pile on infractions and crimes, until they finally let the attack dogs off the hook to make someone comply.

Wasn't Garner arrested 31 times? Idjits think the problem will be solved if we write a law so that chokeholds start after 32 arrests. People marching on the police when they should be marching on city hall and the state capitol.

Humanity is buried under so many layers of stupid, it's amazing the average person makes it to 80 before they drop dead.

[Badger]

Oh really? How badly were you tased or choked the last time you were stopped for speeding?

What happens if I refuse to comply with the law governing traffic tickets? What happens if I refuse to comply with the law suspending my drivers license? What happens if I refuse to be taken into custody? They can only pile on infractions and crimes, until they finally let the attack dogs off the hook to make someone comply.

So you concede I'm correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You couldn't make an cognizable point with a very, very sharp stick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We all think that everytime you post, bubbie.

[AggregateDemand]

Oh really? How badly were you tased or choked the last time you were stopped for speeding?

What happens if I refuse to comply with the law governing traffic tickets? What happens if I refuse to comply with the law suspending my drivers license? What happens if I refuse to be taken into custody? They can only pile on infractions and crimes, until they finally let the attack dogs off the hook to make someone comply.

So you concede I'm correct?

If voluntary compliance is a viable model, why do you need ticketing authorities? You're creating the illusion of civility to reassure yourself that law enforcement doesn't stray into a dubious area in human ethics.

Giving someone multiple chances to comply voluntarily is reasonable, but people can't pee their pants in fear when police finally use the business end of the law after 30 prior arrests.

If you're not willing to put someone in a chokehold for selling loose cigarettes then don't write a law that says selling loose cigarettes is illegal and don't tax cigarettes to the point that black markets flourish.

[useful idiot]

On Hannity Paul was interviewed at far greater length about the topic than he was on Hardball. It's even more clear there that the point he was making was the the police shouldn't be out trying to arrest people for minor silly crimes with the same sort of vigilance they would if they were arresting a violent criminal. He also mentioned a case in which someone died for spray painting graffiti when they were put in a chokehold, and compared it to arresting a granny for jaywalking. Paul also called for the cop to be fired. This all sounds reasonable.

These cases have exposed the hypocrisy of the two dominant modes of thinking within the party bases. Liberals want to give every power possible to the government by legislating against every little thing they dislike and forcing people to do everything they want, and then cry foul when that government acts in a way in which all governments with too much power behave: brutally. Conservatives pay lip service to wanting a smaller government and freedom, but then defend every action taken by the out of control and reckless officers who largely constitute the police forces in this country, and want to see selective brutality against those they dislike (ie young blacks, illegal immigrants, etc).

I'm disgusted by the whole thing, particularly because the Democrats have dropped the ball on this in a massive way by turning this into a racial thing (marginalizing the issue) rather than making it clear that police brutality and unchecked power are a bad thing for everyone.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

On Hannity Paul was interviewed at far greater length about the topic than he was on Hardball. It's even more clear there that the point he was making was the the police shouldn't be out trying to arrest people for minor silly crimes with the same sort of vigilance they would if they were arresting a violent criminal. He also mentioned a case in which someone died for spray painting graffiti when they were put in a chokehold, and compared it to arresting a granny for jaywalking. Paul also called for the cop to be fired. This all sounds reasonable.

These cases have exposed the hypocrisy of the two dominant modes of thinking within the party bases. Liberals want to give every power possible to the government by legislating against every little thing they dislike and forcing people to do everything they want, and then cry foul when that government acts in a way in which all governments with too much power behave: brutally. Conservatives pay lip service to wanting a smaller government and freedom, but then defend every action taken by the out of control and reckless officers who largely constitute the police forces in this country, and want to see selective brutality against those they dislike (ie young blacks, illegal immigrants, etc).

I'm disgusted by the whole thing, particularly because the Democrats have dropped the ball on this in a massive way by turning this into a racial thing (marginalizing the issue) rather than making it clear that police brutality and unchecked power are a bad thing for everyone.

Democrats haven't "turned this into a racial thing". Those who are victimized by police brutality and constant police surveillance "turned this into a racial thing". The Democratic establishment's policy response has largely focused on the granular details of the justice system and policing rather than an all-encompassing racial critique of American society.

For what it's worth, I'm increasingly convinced that this isn't only a racial issue. The reality of pervasive racial inequality necessarily dictates that those penalized by a criminal justice system that has overstepped its bonds will be largely Black and Latino. That doesn't change the fact that white Americans are at risk in this society. Hundreds of white Americans have been killed by police officers under questionable circumstances and tens of thousands of white Americans are locked behind bars for dubious reasons. This situation is a travesty for all Americans. That being said, you'd have to be blind to reality to not see this as a kind of new Jim Crow.

I've had my civil liberties violated by police officers on a number of occasions and I'm a white-passing Latino. A police officer asked me "if I have ever smoked marijuana" and threatened to bring out a dog to sniff my car because at a routine headlight stop. The American citizenry is besieged by the boys in blue. As angry as I am about racial profiling, the baffling racist logic of "broken windows" policing and the asymmetry between Whites and Latino/Black experiences with America's enforcement bureaucracy, I'd prefer effective police reform to re-litigating battles over race relations that are sadly unwinnable.