[jMyles]

I agree in full with everything you have said.

Where I'm a little lost is how you project this into a future where drug prohibition (and other consensual "crime") doesn't exist.

So, sure, you have a few gnarly guys who will perjur themselves for you - but what do you accuse people of? What is the crime that replaces drug possession?

Without victims, you can't really make this work...?

[simoncion]

> What is the crime that replaces drug possession?

Theft.

(As I've explicitly mentioned at least once. :) )

Other possibilities: False statements to authorities. Possession of a (loaded or unloaded) pistol in the cab of your vehicle, without possession of a pistol permit. Trespass. Assault. Traffic violations. (And then arrest for failure to appear for the same, or jail for failure to be able to pay the fines for the same.) Parole violations. (Here's where evidence planting gets you back to the quick path to jail time.)

You've gotta understand. The criminals who were running this scheme were dedicated. There are a wide variety of crimes that could be used for a relatively quick frame-up.

When you know that the DA isn't gonna closely examine your case, you know that IA isn't going to expose your scheme, and you're fairly certain that the folks you're targeting can't mount an effective defense, you get to do all sorts of things that reasonable people would expect to be impossible.

[jMyles]

What will this person have stolen? To whom will it belong? Someone will have to claim to be the victim.

I guess still, we're talking past each other.

We need to repeal laws against every one of those offenses except assault and theft (which will require a victim to come forward, again returning to my initial question).

My assertion (and one that I think it quite clearly backed up by the evidence in history on the matter) is that these victimless crimes are created precisely to target (typically racial) groups.

I don't view the unethical law and the racist enforcement as two different things, but as parts of the same motion.

[simoncion]

> What will this person have stolen? To whom will it belong? Someone will have to claim to be the victim.

Property from a collection of property owners who -just like much of the Dothan police department and parts of the DA's office and who knows who else- believe in the ongoing quest to target, harass, and jail a disfavored group of people?

I mean, have you personally known a rabid dyed-in-the-wool racist? I've known many. Several of whom would -if they had the means- jump at the chance to participate in such a scheme.

> We need to repeal laws against every one of those offenses...

We need to repeal laws that make illegal and/or unsafe possession of a firearm, trespassing, parole violations, and traffic violations illegal because... such laws could be used to disproportionately target a particular class of people?!

That's definitely throwing the baby out along with the bathwater.

Look. Your continued assertion that the biggest problem here is nuts-as-shit drug laws, and this would have never had happened if it wasn't for them is (deliberately?) obscuring the real problem.

What's the real problem?

* For roughly twenty years, evil people in positions of power successfully harassed, jailed, and -effectively- stole money and property from targeted members of a disfavored class of people.

* These evil people occupied positions of power in both the police force and the judicial system.

  These evil people used their influence and power to:

* Quash objections to their ongoing conspiracy.

* Terminate an official police investigation into their conspiracy -long after it turned up hard evidence regarding the nature and scope of the conspiracy-

* Promote those who furthered the goals of the conspiracy to higher office (including State Director of Homeland Security!)

* Demote or remove from positions of power those who attempted to dismantle or shut down the conspiracy

I get that you don't like drug laws in this country.

There's a much bigger and much more important story here.