Posted on 09/27/2010 7:19:45 AM PDT by bassmaner
They want the federal government to have absolute control of the drug laws so they can trade permission to use drugs for votes.
They may support the idea that there are some drugs the federal government should simply decline to criminalize but they will never accept an argument that there is any instance where it is simply not the federal government's perogative to regulate or prohibit anything they want.
They may argue that they people should be allowed to use medical marijuana, but they don't mean for anyone but the federal government to have the authority to say they can.
Prop 19 should be a big boost to getting out the Barbara Boxer voters.
What do you think they chances are that if it passes you'll see a single Democrat in Congress argue that initiative carries more legal authority that the DEA claims under the Commerce Clause?
I believe that liberal elected officials will help their leftist, core voters, as much as they can, at any given time, without them overly risking their offices.
The DEA is still busting MM users in CA under Obama. They'll do what they can for their constituents, but they'll reserve for themselves the authority to do it.
They will not under any circumstances submit that it is within their constituent's authority to do it for themselves and not be dependent on their congressional representatives to do it for them and be beholden to them for doing it.
I don’t know what your point is, maybe it is that politicians are not always on a direct line to their constituents goals.
I do know that the left wants drugs legalized.
The left loves the drug war. It helps centralize power and authority in DC, and gives them cover by making the right complicit in their abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Are you denying that the pressure to legalize drugs comes from the left, that the funding, the foot soldiers, the legislation, the ballot measures, the positive media coverage and encouragement, comes from the left?
Are you denying the the drug war is a bastard child of the New Deal, based on the same "substantial effects" doctrine that the EPA wants to use to declare CO2 a pollutant, and effectively implement a back-door "cap and trade" by regulation?
There's two sides to this issue, and I've got no patience for people peddling half-truth and selling as the whole truth.
You are not denying it, you just want to keep staying away from that primary point, legalizing drugs is undeniably, a left wing goal.
My personal opinion is that I'm willing to keep drug prohibition in effect when approved by state electorates, but all the police state accretions of the last thirty years (no knock raids, asset forfeiture) have to go.
I thought the primary point was the abuse of statistical data and overblown hyperobole being used to justify the drug war. Just because there's a Democrat lying to me about something that doesn't mean a Republican will tell me the truth about it.
You're pushing a fallacy of over-simplification. The Democrats control the executive and both houses of Congress. If ending the drug war was really one of their objectives, they'd have done it, or at least tried. You're right that most of the activism to legalize marijuana comes from the left. It's also true that leftist organizations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation consistently push for increased federal control of all health care issues, including all drugs.
Well if we can get Afghan Opium into Nebraska, how could it possibly interfere with other states, or our foreign policy goals.
If Louisiana legalizes it, then the Taliban could ship it to New Orleans and it could be disseminated to Louisianans and delivered by air cargo for dissemination to Nebraskans.
Legalized Opium and reducing the size of government seem like conflicts to me.
The undeniable fact is that legalizing drugs is a leftist goal, a major, very important goal for the radical left.
Even many Democrat politicians, and mainstream Democrat voters are usually not willing to move that far left.
Regulating everything that Congress "finds" has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce is not.
Oh, I think the issue of Opium production and movement globally, is a bigger issue than just being a commerce issue.
The undeniable fact is that the domestic drug war is a federal abuse of the original intent Commerce Clause.
If you're not willing to leave it to the states and have some faith in your fellow citizens, then you're not really getting the idea of a constitutional republic.
Exactly what kind of issue do you think it is, and what do you suggest we do about it, globally?
Actually, your argument is an opinion that may be valid or not, to date it doesn’t seem to be the case, although my bet would be that the left uses that approach, or will if they aren’t yet.
The undeniable fact is that legalizing drugs is a leftist goal, a major, very important goal for the radical left.
If mine isn't valid then neither is Clarenc Thomases, and the writings of the Founders with regard to the Commerce Clause are nonsense.
The undeniable fact is that legalizing drugs is a leftist goal, a major, very important goal for the radical left.
Repetition of statements as self-evident fact is a common propaganda technique. As soon as the audience recognizes you're doing it, it doesn;t work any more.
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.