WOW! ISN'T THIS DRUG WAR GREAT!

Boortz.com ^ | 11-22-2006 | Neal Boortz

[Dick Bachert]

Atlanta police went to a home on Neal Street in Atlanta last evening to execute a search warrant. When they kicked the door in the only occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, started shooting. She hit all three police officers. One in the thigh, one in the arm and another in the shoulder. All police officers will be OK. The woman will not. She was shot and killed by the police.

I'm not blaming the cops here. Not at all. They had a valid search warrant, and they say they were at the right address. Shots were fired, three cops hit, and they returned fire. A 92-year-old woman who was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she had burglar bars on every door and window, is now dead.

The blame lies on this idiotic drug war we're waging. We have all the studies we need, all of the comprehensive data is in. We can do a much more effective job of reducing drug use in this country if we'll just take a portion of this money we spend for law enforcement and spend it on treatment programs. A Rand study showed that we can reduce illicit drug usage in this country a specified amount through treatment programs at about 10% of the cost of reducing drug usage by that same amount through criminalization and law enforcement.

There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated. We think they're stupid and ignorant for getting mixed up with those drugs in the first place. And you know what? We're right? But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The founding fathers argued that the fed had no power to outlaw murder -

I don't know which Constitution you have been reading...

Amendment V.

No person shall be... deprived of life,... without due process of law;...

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.... No state shall... deprive any person of life,... without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The Right wants to outlaw... abortion,... Neither is legal, in my humble viewpoint.

I don't know which Constitution you have been reading...

Amendment V.

No person shall be... deprived of life,... without due process of law;...

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.... No state shall... deprive any person of life,... without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[napscoordinator]

War on Drugs is a huge waste of money that could be used on the War on Terror. I always thought that we should not have a war on drugs.

[Mojave]

Government is a LIE.

So sayeth the liar.

[Mojave]

There is a flock of anarchists here on FR that incessantly bleats about the Constitution without ever having bothered to read it.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

There is a flock of anarchists here on FR that incessantly bleats about the Constitution without ever having bothered to read it.

Yep, they want anarchy, but when someone like me is all too willing to give it to them, they will pee all over themselves and run to the "nanny state" and the very same "jack-booted thugs" they claim to oppose for protection.

My complaint about the "war on drugs" is that it has not been conducted like a real war with real soldiers. The proliferation of recreational drugs has been chemical warfare waged against the young people of this country since the 1960s. Send in the Marines...

[Zon]

You nailed it.

[Zon]

You nailed it (him) again. In spades. Well worth repeating:

Of course you know this but like to be obtuse because it suits your evil purposes to misstate and misquote and misinterpret. We know that, but it would be nice if you'd grow up and get a life minding your own business instead of all your neighbors' business.

[Mojave]

So sayeth the cultist.

[Zon]

Honesty is not a cult. That you despise it is telling of you. See tag line.

[robertpaulsen]

"Actually, the point I was making, was the Federal USSC decision that decided growing hay, and feeding it to your own cows, effected interstate commerce."

Participants in a federal program to control the amount of wheat in the market agreed to produce a certain amount. In return, the federal government agreed to a higher price per bushel.

A farmer, producing more than his allotted share in order to provide for his personal use, will not buy that additional amount in the market. Multiplied that by a few million farmers and it would have a substantial affect on the interstate commerce that Congress was constitutionally regulating.

"Robert, not everything needs to be a federal case."

Not everything is.

[robertpaulsen]

That bears repeating.

[dcwusmc]

Read this for the Founders' view of the Commerce Clause:
Constitution.org

[tpaine]

Mojave:
There is a flock of anarchists here on FR that incessantly bleats about the Constitution without ever having bothered to read it.

Nonsense. -- FR's flock of 'majority rulers' who bleat against our constitution's controls over governments, are those who refuse to honor the document.

Franny:
Yep, they want anarchy,

Nope, we want you majority rule communitarians to take a walk.

but when someone like me is all too willing to give it to them, they will pee all over themselves and run to the "nanny state"

We just saw above a good example of which faction runs for 'nanny' when opposed, - yelling liar. liar...

My complaint about the "war on drugs" is that it has not been conducted like a real war with real soldiers.

The governments of the USA are not delegated the power to wage war on the citizens of the USA. -- As any bleating flock member, who wants soldiers to protect him, - should know.

The proliferation of recreational drugs has been chemical warfare waged against the young people of this country since the 1960s. Send in the Marines...

Marines are pledged to protect & defend our Constitution Franny, not to violate its principles by obeying a loony majority.

[tpaine]

Participants in an unconstitutional federal program to control the amount of wheat in the market were coerced to produce a certain amount.

In return, the federal government unconstitutionally enticed them by paying them a higher price per bushel out of public funds.

A farmer, - choosing to opt out, who produced more than his allotted share in order to provide for his personal use, obviously will not buy that additional amount in the market. Multiplied that by a few million farmers and it would have a substantial affect on the gov't scheme to control the market.. --
-- An interstate commerce that Congress was unconstitutionally regulating.

[Zon]

Thanks for the link.

[Phantom Patriot]

I have tried to back off of this one because they attacked me early on and branded me a druggie. Thanks for post 494.
It amazes me how in a free country you cannot have an opinion contrary to these posters without them making accusations. And engaging in name calling. But I guess they are empowered since this is a written argument and we aren't face to face. Mini potaters opps I mean dictators. Ignorance is bliss and they are having a wonderful time.

[patton]

"Rehnquist explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority." Referring to Lopez, Rehnquist said, "Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional state concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and state authority would blur." He argued that "it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign." As Rehnquist put it, "if Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to regulate murder." Justice Thomas' concurring opinion also expressed the concern of "Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.""

[Zon]

-- An interstate commerce that Congress was unconstitutionally regulating.

Correct. To elaborate...

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce that occurs "among the several States," which we have seen meant "between state and state" or between persons in one state and persons in another. It does not speak of a power to regulate commerce that "concerns" more than one state, or even commerce between persons of the same state that somehow "concerns" other states. By the same token, the Commerce Clause also empowers Congress to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, . . . and with the Indian Tribes."¹⁷⁹ It does not empower Congress to regulate commerce that concerns or affects foreign nations or that concerns or affects Indian tribes¹⁸⁰.102RP6

[Zon]

It amazes me how in a free country you cannot have an opinion contrary to these posters without them making accusations. And engaging in name calling.

Perhaps a wider scope will help. It's a free country where a person is free to make unfounded accusations (accusations without proof) and engage in name calling -- often as a replacement when the person lacks rational argument. A person's arguments speak for themselves. ...That is, it adds or detracts from their credibility. And  mental note is made for future reference.

BTW, thanks for assisting them to show their discrediting, true colors.