“In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.”
These are your words, not mine.
Having drug addicts live with personal responsibility and consequences of their freedom is something that is entirely constitutional, yet that is entirely absent discussions about legalizing drugs.
In other words, give me my drugs, and pay for my consequence. In other words “gimme gimme gimme”.
I think the legalize drugs crowd really just love their drugs, and have no special reverence for the Constitution.
If you love the Constitution, then with legalized drugs would come no drug treatment, real throw-away-the-key punishments for crime related to drug use, no “great society” programs, etc. This would, of course, have grave consequences for a great many people, should states legalize drugs (which they won’t do if we are truly going back to Constitutional principles).
So which parts of the Constitution do you want? Just the parts that allow you to get a fix for freedom? Or do you really want the freedom and liberty to choose so poorly you end up dead or in jail for life?
In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.
These are your words, not mine.
My words accurately express your position - and I'll be happy to keep both sets of words in each post so FReepers can judge for themselves.
Having drug addicts live with personal responsibility and consequences of their freedom is something that is entirely constitutional, yet that is entirely absent discussions about legalizing drugs.
And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.
In other words, give me my drugs, and pay for my consequence.
Nonsense - there's no basis for concluding from one's silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X.
If you love the Constitution, then with legalized drugs would come no drug treatment,
I fully support an end to federal funding of drug treatment.
real throw-away-the-key punishments for crime related to drug use,
The Constitution is silent on that point. I think real crimes with actual victims (murder, theft, etc.) should be punished without regard to the lawbreaker's drunkness, druggedness, or lack of same - 'I was drunk/drugged' should be neither a mitigating nor an aggravating factor.
no “great society” programs, etc.
I fully support an end to such programs.
This would, of course, have grave consequences for a great many people, should states legalize drugs (which they won’t do if we are truly going back to Constitutional principles).
How do Constitutional principles stand in the way of states legalizing drugs? The Constitution says it's each state's decision to make since no authority over the matter is granted to the federal government.
So which parts of the Constitution do you want?
All of it - and the more the better. I'd never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate.
do you really want the freedom and liberty to choose so poorly you end up dead
Yes. Do you want to return to Prohibition of the potentially fatal drug alcohol?
or in jail for life?
Not sure what you're trying to ask - if one ends up in jail, it should be only for doing something one has no legitimate liberty to do.