Posted on 02/25/2015 7:36:18 AM PST by MadIsh32
Sorry, when any aspect of society - IN AN OVERWHELMING WAY (like the drug culture that the country is quickly diving into) - creates a populace that can't sustain the core aspects of the country (defense, productivity, re-population)...
...then it is actually very valid for a legitimate government to take action against that aspect.
That action can be done stupidly, or it can be done smartly. But it has to be done. Otherwise the country itself becomes kaput.
One normally doesn't see these actions take place in "modern" countries, because the fact that they are modern means that the countries' societies, at least until recently, have been doing well, or well enough. But, as the West becomes more and more dysfunctional, we can expect to see the need for cultural interventions to arise. (I'm not looking forward to them, and it's going to get ugly.)
Yep! It’s the only tune that politicians dance to (cue themesong from "Best Little Whorehouse In Texas").
So would you honor the Tenth Amendment and have states regulate intrastate marijuana, or would you have fedgov calling the shots?
In this case, the federal government. It has to do with the core of the country, just like slavery and abortion.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Our country is suddenly unable to function and people can no longer reproduce - because of an "OVERWHELMING" drug culture?
Are you on drugs? I'm just glad you're not in charge of anything.
Try putting down the bong and re-reading for comprehension, libertarian bitch.
LOL! You mad, bro?
Fine, then show me the clause in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to forbid me to eat a cheeseburger, smoke a joint or inject heroin into my veins. I’m pretty sure you can’t do so.
Now, if you want to create laws that prohibit PUBLIC consumption of drugs, much like the laws that prohibit public consumption of alcohol, I think you’re on more solid ground. Further, if you want to increase penalties for criminal actions that are proven to be related to drug use, I think you have a solid argument there as well.
Don’t get me wrong: drugs are not a good thing. Nobody should take drugs. However, it is not and should not be the government’s job to protect its citizens from their own stupidity. I oppose mandatory seat belt laws, but still wear my seat belt when I’m in the car. I oppose mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle riders. I oppose laws regarding prohibition of unhealthy foods, such as the NYC laws governing large sodas and trans-fatty foods. I also oppose drug laws for the same reason even though I personally do not and never will use drugs.
Hypocritical Big Government Republicans Nanny State PING!
Right after you show me the clause that bans Nuclear weapons. What? It doesn't exist? OMG! They didn't put a ban on Nuclear Weapons in the US Constitution, therefore the US Government has no power to regulate them!!!!!
Nope. The Government's ability to ban drugs derives from the same constitutional authority to ban/regulate Nuke weapons, Chemical Weapons, (which drugs are.) Biological weapons, Toxins, Explosives, and so forth.
It is part of the defense clause, and it is a pretty big umbrella of justification for dealing with anything that threatens the security of the nation.
Dear God, you really are a communist
No my friend, not putting up with drug indulgence is not communism. As a matter of fact, Chinese Communism is THE RESULT of a nation putting up with drug indulgence.
Legalized Opium destroyed the country, and Mao came along and picked up the pieces. A Dictator always emerges in a collapsed nation.
All the Meth heads and Crack heads I know/used to know started out with weed.
Thanks for the ping!
Not just legal opium. The British government played a huge role in getting the population addicted to the stuff. It stands to reason that the drug war is essentially our own government looking over it’s own shoulder in trying to prevent us from sharing a similar fate. It wasn’t entirely in ignorance either. Initial British leaders refused to sell Opium because they knew how bad the effects were on people. The overall British authority ruled to do it anyway
“Drugs are not Liberty. Never were. They are just childish self centered indulgences at odds with the best interests of society.”
Kind of like high calorie foods, beer, and fast cars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.