Marijuana Ballot Issues Have Little To Do With Drugs

Shout Bits Blog ^ | 07/30/2012 | Shout Bits

[DiogenesLamp]

An utterly false statement.

And you seemed so sensible on the Natural Born Citizen issue.

China’s problem was their pagan, Christless culture. Without Christ, you have nothing.

A Christian culture is not immuned from drugs. It isn't even immuned from the evil influence of Hollywood. It requires the faith of a Saint to counteract the effects of Chemical reactions within your brain synapses. Most Christians would succumb to addiction if given a few samples of Heroin.

I am not disparaging faith, I am only pointing out the realistic facts of addiction. Only those truly touched by God would be able to resist it.

[tacticalogic]

Why you would want to pick the Commerce Clause is beyond me. I regard it as a Defense issue, not an issue of Commerce.

I do that because that's where the people passing the laws claim they find the authority, and they leverage that to claim authority far beyond. That you consider it "Defense" doesn't change that. It is what it is, and that's what we have to deal with - not what it would be in your perfect world.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message.

The rest of it was about the unintended consequences. That you won't be bothered with it is not surprising, but it is telling.

[DiogenesLamp]

I do that because that's where the people passing the laws claim they find the authority, and they leverage that to claim authority far beyond. That you consider it "Defense" doesn't change that. It is what it is, and that's what we have to deal with - not what it would be in your perfect world.

I argue that they only cite the Commerce clause because they are lazy, and have become accustomed to citing it so often to justify anything which they do. I argue that the proper clause of the U.S. Constitution to cite is Section 8 dealing with Defense of the nation.

My point is, the U.S. Constitution does grant authority to interdict any material which may be regarded as being used in an attack upon the nation. Nerve Agents, Biological Warfare Agents, Nuclear Fissile Material, and Drugs all Constitute Legally prohibited Contraband in Lawful accordance with the Articles and Requirements of our U.S. Constitution.

"Commerce" only applies to lawful exchanges of goods and services.

[editor-surveyor]

You are certifiably full of ka-ka.

You reject all logic to support your pro-tyranny position; what’s in it for you?

Are you a cop?

[tacticalogic]

My point is, the U.S. Constitution does grant authority to interdict any material which may be regarded as being used in an attack upon the nation. Nerve Agents, Biological Warfare Agents, Nuclear Fissile Material, and Drugs all Constitute Legally prohibited Contraband in Lawful accordance with the Articles and Requirements of our U.S. Constitution.

Where in the Articles do these appear?

"Do not emanate into the penumbra."
-Sign in Clarence Thomas' office.

[DiogenesLamp]

The rest of it was about the unintended consequences. That you won't be bothered with it is not surprising, but it is telling.

Yes it is telling. It is "telling" you that I don't agree with your assertions, and I likewise regarded the rest of your message as not worthy of consideration. I am long accustomed to Libertarian types giving me their "Chicken Little" routine, and I have long grown tired of hearing them screech about how the "Sky is falling" just because we keep very dangerous and addictive substances illegal. (Though we have done so for over 100 years.)

I doubt most libertarians have given any serious thought as to what happened in China, and I likewise doubt they can come up with any reasonable argument as to why a similar disaster would not happen here if we were so foolish as to do what the Chinese did. (Legalize drugs.)

I would suggest you not bring up the topic of "unintended consequences" until after you've come up with an explanation as to how the "unintended consequences" we would face in this nation will not resemble the "unintended consequences" which the Chinese faced after they had legal drugs for so many years. As near as I can tell, legalizing drugs is tantamount to a nation putting a gun to it's head and pulling the trigger. Except that it happens slowly.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are certifiably full of ka-ka.

You reject all logic to support your pro-tyranny position; what’s in it for you?

What's in it for me? Not getting robbed by drug addicts. Not having people run into me on the highway because they are too stoned to drive straight. Not having to support worthless bums who want to sit around all day getting high. Not having a society on a path towards suicide. THAT's what's in it for me.

Are you a cop?

No. Not even close. Electronics Engineer/Tech.

I think i'm done arguing with you. I'm starting to hear Twilight Zone music every time I see your name pop up.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where in the Articles do these appear?

Already covered this. Read up thread. It's under Section 8 Dealing with Defense of the Nation.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm an original intent Constitutionalist.

There is no enumerated power for the federal government to conduct the domestic "war on drugs". You claim they use the Commerce Clause because they're too lazy to use Defense, but all that does is excuse you for being too lazy to be bothered with getting the amendment we need to enumerate the power, and do it the way it was intended.

[tnlibertarian]

I won't blame marijuana for his loss, but I bet there were plenty of times that he could have been training in the pool but he decided to get high instead.

"I was going to train for another gold, but then I got high.
I was going to do just what my coach told, but then I got high.
Now Subway's going to drop me cold, and I know why.
Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high."

[tacticalogic]

Already covered this. Read up thread. It's under Section 8 Dealing with Defense of the Nation.

None of the things you mention appear in that section.

[editor-surveyor]

Every one of the problems that you mention began here when the drugs were outlawed.

The mystique of the forbidden.

[editor-surveyor]

Waste of time to communicate with the kook.

Notice his use of “graphics” in post 148.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no enumerated power for the federal government to conduct the domestic "war on drugs". You claim they use the Commerce Clause because they're too lazy to use Defense, but all that does is excuse you for being too lazy to be bothered with getting the amendment we need to enumerate the power, and do it the way it was intended.

It is a mistake to believe that the Constitution will have specificity on many issues. It is an outline of General Principles. James Madison explains why it is not more specific here.

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”

The U.S. Constitution does not mention meteorites. Yet were someone to drop meteorites on us from above, who would argue that we can do nothing because the constitution doesn't mention attack by meteorites?

Bringing drugs into our country is an attack on our society. Whether the intent behind this smuggling is to destroy us or merely profit from us is irrelevant to the consequences. Our people die as a result, and some of our people's lives are ruined. Add to that the damage they do to the rest of society on their spiral downward and you easily have sufficient justification for attacking and killing anyone who engages in this activity.

The Constitution specifies that we defend our nation from attack. It does not need to list all manners of attack.

[DiogenesLamp]

Waste of time to communicate with the kook.

Yes, but which kook?

[longtermmemmory]

not for perpetual impairment. people who have have seizures or special meds are suspended pending reexamination and medical release as a matter of course. ANY use of “medicinal” pot would fall in the same class.

Odd how none of the potheads ever discuss the fact that there are commecially available, dose controlled, drugs which have the idential alleged medicial properties as pot. As always this is just a pretext for recreational pot.

[tacticalogic]

Bringing drugs into our country is an attack on our society.

Why do you keep arguing points that are not in contention?

Any interdiction at the border is well within the original intent of the Commerce power. Burying my doctor in paperwork that I'm going to end up having to pay for is not, and isn't stopping anyone from bringing drugs into the country.

[Aevery_Freeman]

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is a chemical and an exorbitant tax is a de facto ban but if you wish to trust the government, feel free. I, for one, remain skeptical.

I have no objection to the Government insuring that Ammunition is produced with the Public's safety in mind.

Nope, I can't trust the government to ensure the safety of anything involving my Second Amendment rights (and damn little else).

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope, I can't trust the government to ensure the safety of anything involving my Second Amendment rights (and damn little else).

Fair enough. A lot of people feel the same way, and that's why guns and ammunition sales are the highest they've ever been. I would suggest that any attempt by the Government to ban or severely hinder sales of Guns or Ammunition ought to be regarded as an attempt at tyranny to which the public should respond appropriately.