This bothers me.<p>I know this is a bit of a 'libertarian fantasy', but I think the constitution ought to be amended to contain something like the following:<p>1) No person shall be subject to any criminal penalty exceeding one year of incarceration or $300 in fines for any non violent offense relating solely to the possession, sales, distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an intoxicating substance.<p>2) The purpose of this article is to limit the scope of criminal penalties that may be applied to "non violent drug offenders". It's provisions shall be interpreted with such intent in mind.<p>3) This article applies to all jurisdictions with the Several States, the United States, and any territories or possessions thereof<p>4) Any forfeiture of assets resulting from the conviction of a "non violent drug crime" must be limited to:<p>a) The intoxicating substances constituting the "core element of the crime"<p>b) Any asset materially and predominantly used for the manufacture, production, and possession of such substances.<p>Provided that such seized assets do not also have reasonable, fundamental, predominant, and legally authorized uses. In such case any seizure must be subject to the provisions of "eminent domain".<p>5) Congress, or the states, acting within the provisions otherwise authorized by this constitution, may adopt measures to ensure assets actually used in the commission of a "non violent drug crime", when not seized in accordance with this constitution, are only used in accordance to lawfully authorized purchases.