property
Would this idea to allow drug confiscation be constitutional?
<p>I had an idea to solve the drug problem, and I want to know if it would be considered constitutional.</p>

<p>Suppose you made "drugs" legal for the police to confiscate, but attached no other civil or criminal penalties to the possession of the "drug."  That way, police can still intervene to take the drugs away and stop people from doing drugs, but you don't have the problem of turning people into criminals or filling up the jails. </p>

<p>Would it violate some principle of property rights to have a set up like this?  To allow the police to take your stuff (drugs) without any other due process?</p>

<p>The 5th Amendement says "...nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and the 14th Amendment say that states cannot either. Under your proposal, a person could be deprived of his property without proper procedural application of the law, since it would not be illegal to own drugs, and there would not be a neutral third party who make the decision that taking property is "allowed". In the US, there is explicit separation of legislative power, the result of which is that police are not under the judicial branch of government. Basically, the courts have the sole power to "decide", and no power to "do". They are supposed to objectively compare what a person has done, what the law forbids, and let the state derive the person of life, liberty or property if and only iff the person has done something forbidden. Your proposal short-circuits the due process requirement by usurping the "decision" power, and by removing the requirement that the act be forbidden.</p>
