Obama's “progressive” war against medical marijuana is the biggest of any president in history

wordpress ^ | April 7, 2015 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

[DiogenesLamp]

Heroin and crack, yes. But not nuclear weapons and biological agents.

So you agree with the concept in principle, you just disagree as to the level of danger posed by different substances. I would suggest you study the drug history of China to get a better understanding of just how dangerous drugs can be to the survival of a nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t care what you think. You push for the legalization of all drugs. You are part of the problem with our societal decline.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can't support the federal War on Drugs and not support the dismantling of the Constitution. What's interesting is that they're under the delusion that they're American conservatives.

We are. You are not. You are Libertarian, not conservative. You support policies which wreck society through a ridiculous and expansive advocacy of what is regarded as "license" otherwise known as "libertine."

Here is a quote from John Locke. Perhaps you will eventually be able to comprehend the difference between Conservative and Libertarian.

Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions:

...

Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

[ConservingFreedom]

if you believe it says ANYTHING on the Federal Regulation of Drugs when Interstate Commerce is not plausibly involved.

What have I posted that suggests to you that I believe that?

[grundle]

Ms. Manners refers to herself in the third person.

[grundle]

Drugs are indeed bad and dangerous. But the war on drugs is even worse and more dangerous.

[ConservingFreedom]

You can't support the federal War on Drugs and not support the dismantling of the Constitution. What's interesting is that they're under the delusion that they're American conservatives.

he has not liberty to destroy himself

American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration) - which is why Moochelle can't force us to eat healthy, nor can the feds force us to not use unhealthy substances like alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.

[ConservingFreedom]

being sneaked across our border

The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

[DiogenesLamp]

Drugs are indeed bad and dangerous. But the war on drugs is even worse and more dangerous.

This is what the Libertarians have been saying for the last fifty years, but this is not true. Allowing unfettered access to drugs is far more dangerous than stopping it, but people never hear that side of the argument.

Once again, I point out what happened to China. Around ~1840 China lost the Opium war with England, and thereafter had legal drugs. Their population continued to grow in addiction until the loss of population and economic activity destroyed the ability of that nation to defend itself.

It was invaded and conquered by much smaller Japan (who also made large profits shipping drugs into China) and eventually the nation was taken over by a Dictator.

Drugs wrecked the nation of China. They CAUSED massive death and Misery to that nation. They will do the same thing if they become legal here.

This is not speculation, this is history. We know what will happen because this experiment has already occurred, and that is what did happen.

Stop listening to people who tell you the drug war is worse. No, having legal drugs is far worse. Again, we've already watched this play out once before.

[DiogenesLamp]

American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration)

But they did. You just refuse to grasp the foundation upon which both documents was built.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams

- which is why Moochelle can't force us to eat healthy, nor can the feds force us to not use unhealthy substances like alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.

Here is your false comparison again. Drugs wreck lives and kill people. Bad food choices may contribute to a decline in health, but drugs are concentrated death.

[DiogenesLamp]

The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

If it constitutes a threat to the nation, then yes they do.

[grundle]

Are you saying the U.S. should go back to having alcohol Prohibition?

[ConservingFreedom]

American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration)

But they did.

Quote the text in either document that does so.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

Which doesn't say government can make people moral - so what's your point?

- which is why Moochelle can't force us to eat healthy, nor can the feds force us to not use unhealthy substances like alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.

Bad food choices may contribute to a decline in health, but drugs are concentrated death.

Nobody ever died because someone smoked pot. (People have died because someone smoked pot and then drove, which is no more an argument for banning pot than it is for banning cars.)

[ConservingFreedom]

The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

If it constitutes a threat to the nation, then yes they do.

Emanate that penumbra, Al Gore.

[DiogenesLamp]

Give it a break. No one is interested in indulging fraudulent comparisons between drugs and alcohol. Likewise If that is the only concept that you can garner from what I posted, then I regard it as a complete waste of *MY* time to attempt to engage you in discussion on this issue.

[DiogenesLamp]

Quote the text in either document that does so.

No you idiot, you quote in the constitution where the word "bullet" is mentioned. Stop your deceitful lying by asserting that a word must be used for a constitutional concept to be valid.

You are a deliberate prevaricator.

[DiogenesLamp]

Emanate that penumbra, Al Gore.

Defending the nation against dangerous threats is not a "penumbra", it is the most essential function the government is tasked with.

*YOU* stop lying about the constitution being unclear on this. It is very clear that dangerous threats to the populace must be dealt with.

[ConservingFreedom]

American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration)

But they did.

Quote the text in either document that does so.

No you idiot, you quote in the constitution where the word "bullet" is mentioned.

Quit hiding behind straw men - I didn't say any particular word had to be there.

[ConservingFreedom]

The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

If it constitutes a threat to the nation, then yes they do.

Emanate that penumbra, Al Gore.

It is very clear that dangerous threats to the populace must be dealt with.

And yet you quote no Constitutional text to that effect. Hmmm ...

[DiogenesLamp]

Quote the text in either document that does so.

Quit hiding behind straw men - I didn't say any particular word had to be there.

Cognitive dissonance is not your friend.