[LearsFool]

You're absolutely right about the abuses of tyranny; I'd never argue that tyrants behave well.

But that's one of the choices is the dilemma we face - not a dilemma which good people have made, but one forced upon us by the druggies.

If you don't like the consequences of the drug war, if you don't like the tyranny of the drug warriors, come down on the druggies like a ton of bricks and thereby remove the tyrants' excuse.

[Steel Wolf]

If you don't like the consequences of the drug war, if you don't like the tyranny of the drug warriors, come down on the druggies like a ton of bricks and thereby remove the tyrants' excuse.

Yeah! I mean... what?

Start my own SWAT Team? Go Charles Bronson on the Zeta Cartel? Kidnap drug dealers and inject them with their own product? Burn their crops with my flamethrower? Roundhouse kick the cartel leader into a vat of black tar heroin?

[10thAmendmentGuy]

If you don't like the consequences of the drug war, if you don't like the tyranny of the drug warriors, come down on the druggies like a ton of bricks and thereby remove the tyrants' excuse.

Let's get back to basics. Ken H, a great Freeper, has pioneered this great little quiz -- but I'll do it for him because he isn't here right now:

Here we go, LearsFool:

The federal government derives its authority to prosecute the federal War on Drugs from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Do you think the original Commerce Clause delegates authority to fedgov to impose national marijuana prohibition? If you think that they do, then you are contributing to the same perverted notion of the Commerce Clause that gives us things like ObamaCare. Obama's attorneys are using the Commerce Clause as a basis for forcing Americans to buy health insurance from a private company. What say you?