You can have your S-T-R-E-T-C-H back. I didn't agree with Ashcroft. I completely see your point about the lunacy of the "new" drug law proposed (assuming you have your facts straight). I just disagreed with your comparing Padilla's mass-murdering intentions to someone's legal problems pertainig to toking and driving.
See the article below. BTW, it was John Walters, not Ashcroft. Intentions have nothing to do with due process. EVERY citizen deserves due process whether they are accused of plotting mass murder or planning to smoke pot. My point was that this administration believes that due process should not be afforded to people it can arbitrarily define as "enemy combatants." Since we are using language that defines our failed attempts at prohibition as a "war," it really is not that much of a stretch to try to apply the "enemy combatants" label to people accused of drug crimes. This was clearly illustrated by the ads trying to link mar1juana users to terrorists and by the various uses of the PATRIOT Act to harass drug reformers and further prosecute the WoD. That stretch looks smaller and smaller, doesn't it?
