Newt Gingrich: Drug test everybody, Singapore-style

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I thought it would be good to thoroughly hash out Newt Gingrich's disturbing views on personal freedom, privacy, and capital punishment regarding drugs.

    In this interview, Bill O'Reilly explains that the War on Drugs isn't working. Of course his idea of a system that "works" is to point to a fascist Nanny State that searches anyone it wants without a warrant and executes people for non-violent activities. Singapore, really?! They cane people to death in Singapore!!

    Gingrich responds by saying that America needs to "get the stomach" for Singapore-style tyranny. He cares so much about your health and sobriety that he is willing to turn the United States into a totalitarian police state. He loves you that much. And his record backs up that he means this 100%.


    Newt Gingrich: Let the Drug testing Begin
    ORLY: I don't know whether you know this, but I did one of my papers at Harvard on this -- on how to reduce demand for drugs. But the United States has never figured it out. You can't lock up drug users, I mean, that doesn't work. And you can't force them into rehab, you have to want rehab, and even if you want it, it's very hard to get off hard drugs and alcohol. Very hard.

    What you can do, though, is sanction people along the way. And this is what they do in Singapore. If you're caught possessing drugs -- and that means drugs in your bloodstream, they have a little hair thing, and they put it in there -- then you have to go to mandatory rehab. And they have centers where you go. Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built.

    The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker.

    GINGRICH: Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPmcgwd5vZ0[/ame]
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    How bad is Singapore?

    To expand on Singapore, and grasp just how horrific of a model that Gingrich and O'Reilly support, look a little closer at what they do there. Citizens are harassed any time, searched without warrants, treated as guilty-until-proven-innocent, and forced to give bodily fluids on demand. If they are found guilty, they are caned, imprisoned, or executed.

    Singapore is the textbook system that we should be striving against. Nothing they do there resembles freedom, or would be compatible with a constitutional republic such as ours.


    Newt Gingrich, Drug Warrior Extraordinaire
    There’s much more. In 2009, Gingrich agreed with Bill O’Reilly’s call for Singapore-style drug laws in America. In Singapore, the police can force anyone to submit to a urinalysis without a warrant. They’re permitted to search you without a warrant. And if you’re seen in a building or in the company of drug users, you’re assumed to have been using drugs as well, unless you can prove otherwise. They also have Gingrich’s favored mandatory execution of anyone possessing over a specified amount of illicit drugs. (And there’s little evidence that the policies are working.)

    Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The statute's penal provisions are draconian by most nations' standards, providing for long terms of imprisonment, caning, and capital punishment. The law creates a presumption of trafficking for certain threshold amounts, e.g. 30 grams of cannabis. It also creates a presumption that a person possesses drugs if he possesses the keys to a premises containing the drugs, and that "Any person found in or escaping from any place or premises which is proved or presumed to be used for the purpose of smoking or administering a controlled drug shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been smoking or administering a controlled drug in that place or premises." Thus, one runs the risk of arrest for drug use by simply being in the company of drug users. The law also allows officers to search premises and individuals, without a search warrant, if he "reasonably suspects that there is to be found a controlled drug or article liable to seizure". Moreover, Section 31 allows officers to demand urinalysis of suspected drug offenders.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    Personally, I'd like to see drugs legalized. It would end a lot of crime here IMO. Otherwise, if drugs are so bad, I can see a case for executing dealers. For the record, I have never used drugs.
     

    hooky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Mar 4, 2011
    7,032
    113
    Central Indiana
    Personally, I'd like to see drugs legalized. It would end a lot of crime here IMO. Otherwise, if drugs are so bad, I can see a case for executing dealers. For the record, I have never used drugs.

    I agree with this in principle, but couldn't get behind it until we stopped subsidizing the behavior's outcomes via welfare, medicaid, etc...
     

    NYFelon

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 1, 2011
    3,146
    36
    DPRNY
    holding

    Jeezus Kryste (the preceding exclamation is not meant as a mockery, but rather as a means of using an expression without offending the faithful or pious amongst us)! Really, Mr Speaker? The solution to the demand for illicit drugs is to curtail the civilliberties of Americans further, expand government even further by building and operating at taxpayer expense more punitive facilities? What is mandatory rehab if not a minimum security prison sentence, especially if it houses people not looking to be rehabilitated? So apparently what makes sense to a supposedly fiscal conservative former Congressman is spending more money to expand America's criminal justice system.

    Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme change.

    Why is it taboo to have a rational discussion about ending the war on drugs? The use of (what are currently) illicit drugs is analagous to alcohol use in every way. It is not the consumption itself which is illegal. It is the activities undertaken while under the influence, which put others' lives at risk which is to be punished.

    Dear universe,
    Please send the comet.
    Thanks in advance
    Lou
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Zoub

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 8, 2008
    5,220
    48
    Northern Edge, WI
    I wonder what he meant by "drugs come in, guns go out".
    It is a page taken from the playbook of the Chinese Capitalists of the 80's AKA the Generals of their military. They brought guns in and used the funds to pay for the drugs which in turn made them even more money. Clinton was their buddy, Detroit was their base in the 80's. When the Chinese pissed him off, he made life for AK's in America much harder.

    You don't want to ship air, so the Mexicans bring in drugs and take home guns. Control the border and you break their economic chain and in turn also bring money and jobs home. Growers here in the US can pick up the slack. The Mexicans will just have to use boats and planes but God knows they don't do that now. (40 years ago I knew two teens in our hood in LA who flew Daddy's plane to Mexico and were never seen again)

    I love how Newt frames the drug debate as having only two sides, right and wrong. Weak or strong. He does not see legalizing as a third perpsective, just part of the wrong. This is where Newt sounds like a Liberal, just create an entire class of criminals, then prosecute them.

    He needs to go back to his fried chicken and his whores and maybe drink some more of his legal bourbon.
     

    ALB

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2011
    51
    8
    Personally, I'd like to see drugs legalized. It would end a lot of crime here IMO. Otherwise, if drugs are so bad, I can see a case for executing dealers. For the record, I have never used drugs.

    I agree, legalize drugs and tax them. Unfortunately this will never happen as the "war on drugs" is a huge business that employs thousands of people.
     

    level.eleven

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 12, 2009
    4,673
    48
    Does Newt know that in Singapore legislators are tested as well? That would be fun, mandatory hair tests for all of Washington and their staffs.
     

    straittactical

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   1
    Dec 16, 2008
    420
    34
    the need to start out by drug testing people on Unemployment, and welfare first !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    if you fail all benefits are revoked.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Gingrich loves execution for non-violent crime

    Otherwise, if drugs are so bad, I can see a case for executing dealers.
    I strongly disagree. Executing people for non-violent crimes? We are better than that. We are supposed to be a free country. That's what happens under despotic regimes in totalitarian countries. Our Federal Government has no constitutional grounds to prohibit drugs in the first place, let alone execute people because of them.

    But Professor Newt must have not gotten that memo. He can't wait to start executing people.

    He introduced the Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996 which would execute people for as little as 2 ounces of marijuana.

    "The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, 'Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?' the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically." -- Newt Gingrich, 1995 (NY Times)​
     

    straittactical

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   1
    Dec 16, 2008
    420
    34
    Our Federal Government has no constitutional grounds to prohibit drugs in the first place, let alone execute people because of them.

    I dont agree with executing people for drugs. Yes i agree with freedom. but to me it sounds like you just want people running around doing what ever they want. I dont think you are being realistic with that statement.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I dont agree with executing people for drugs. Yes i agree with freedom. but to me it sounds like you just want people running around doing what ever they want. I dont think you are being realistic with that statement.
    Last time the Federal government tried to implement prohibition, they added a constitutional amendment. Despite their horrible ideas, they at least realized that the Constitution gave NO authorization of the Federal government to ban a beverage. The amended the constitution so that they could.

    Nowadays, the Feds just ban whatever they want to. I stand by my comments. Drug laws don't belong at the Federal level.
     

    finnegan

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Nov 7, 2011
    536
    18
    Clark County
    the need to start out by drug testing people on Unemployment, and welfare first !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    if you fail all benefits are revoked.

    They tried that in Florida. It costs them more for testing than it did to keep them on welfare. I believe it was only 2% failed the test.
    Of course some just didn't apply since they knew they would fail and made money however they had to.

    The thing is a lot of people will slip through the system because they'll have prescriptions for the controlled substance; and even worse a doctor's note to go with it. Loritabs, Oxys, etc are flooding the streets since doctors will write scripts for pretty much anything nowadays. Opium is the opium of the masses.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    I strongly disagree. Executing people for non-violent crimes? We are better than that. We are supposed to be a free country. That's what happens under despotic regimes in totalitarian countries. Our Federal Government has no constitutional grounds to prohibit drugs in the first place, let alone execute people because of them.

    But Professor Newt must have not gotten that memo. He can't wait to start executing people.

    He introduced the Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996 which would execute people for as little as 2 ounces of marijuana.
    "The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, 'Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?' the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically." -- Newt Gingrich, 1995 (NY Times)

    Many people die, innocent and guilty because of the drug trade. How many bystanders have been hit in the crossfire of warring drug dealers? How many homes, apartments, and cars have been broken into by drug addicts stealing to support their habit? How many people have been robbed at gun or kniife point by addicts? I suggest crime would go way down with drugs being legalized. But, as I posted earlier, if we are serious about totally ending it, the punishment must be severe enough to deter.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Many people die, innocent and guilty because of the drug trade.
    Every man dies. Not every man really lives.

    But, as I posted earlier, if we are serious about totally ending it, the punishment must be severe enough to deter.
    I guess I am not interested in pursuing that fantasy. People have been looking for ways to get inebriated for thousands of years. No amount of government is going to stop them. Its not the government's job to try. That logic will lead to the death penalty for alcoholics too. It would bring more pain and suffering than they set out to prevent.
     

    TMU317

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 2, 2011
    130
    18
    Indy
    I agree with this in principle, but couldn't get behind it until we stopped subsidizing the behavior's outcomes via welfare, medicaid, etc...

    Exactly. I do not see this ever happening, however. It appears our society will continue to support those who choose to not support themselves and instead rely on the government. Now, if an individual were to decide to use narcotics and was forced to deal with any resulting consequences without the support of government tax dollars to fund his/her expenses, it would be a different story.
     

    Shoots4Fun

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    74   0   0
    Dec 21, 2008
    1,771
    38
    Indianapolis, IN
    To me, legalizing drugs is like what happened when legalizing gambling. The tax dollars generated are plentiful, but at what cost? The money is filthy and seldom goes to what was promised.
     

    bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    the need to start out by drug testing people on Unemployment, and welfare first !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    if you fail all benefits are revoked.

    I've got a better idea: test the rich! If you fail, the government gets all your money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Top Bottom