Drug Czar: Tide Turning in Drug War

Fox News ^ | Wednesday, February 18, 2004 | By Peter Brownfeld

[TKDietz]

WASHINGTON

[WhiteGuy]

"America is achieving historic successes in the war on drugs"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA................

This is from "tho Onion" right?

[swarthyguy]

If dope wasn't illegal, how would cops get their stash?

Like the rest of us? Heaven forbid.

Kids don't need dope these days; hear what the young girls are like today. They're busy downing Viagra to keep up the demands of le jeune filles.

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Isn't the FEMA concerned with tornados, earthquakes and stuff like that? For what do they need M-16's?"

Why does Anniston, Al. need M113's?

[NewRomeTacitus]

Rechecked that, the ad was for Citizen Emergency Response Team. No firearms involved:
http://www.citizencorps.gov/programs/cert.shtm

The Volunteers in Police Srvice may be another story:
http://www.citizencorps.gov/programs/vips.shtm

[Enterprise]

No firarms? Dang! It doesn't look like I'll be volunteering for either program though.

[oyez]

Now the coalition forces have liberated the world's largest opium producing country from the Tali-ban the farmers there are now free to grow all kinds of potatoes, tomatoes, beans, turnips, corn, peanuts and all sorts of other goodies. Of course it will take a few years for fruit production to catch up.Um-hum.

I hate to say what I really think.

[1L]

There's no constitutional right to say "The sky is blue today".

You wanna bet? I suggest you read the US Constitution, amendment 1. While you have every right to prevent me saying this or anything else on your property, the government doesn't have a right to prevent me from saying it, essentially anywhere, so there is a constitutional right as such.

By your reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable to imprison people for uttering just those words, or for any other reason, at the whim of the federal government, because it is not listed in the Constitution.

Don't be an idiot. Saying "by my reasoning" is an untrue statement, since what I stated was factually correct and involved little if any "reasoning." Besides, your statement is incorrect for the reasons listed above.

the reverse of what you said is the actual truth

BS.

The federal goverment has no right to make the consumption of a particular substance illegal.

The hell it doesn't. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

[philman_36]

It starts out like a liberal is talking...It's for the children.
I'd be willing to bet that not a single one of those high tech gadgets stopped a single teenager that does use drugs from using them.
Those high tech gadgets are for use against adults!

[tacticalogic]

The hell it doesn't. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

You forgot "to regulate commerce among the several states", FDR style.

[LaraCroft]

I'd tell you, but we aren't allowed to make personal attacks.

[LaraCroft]

I don't have the time to write about all the rights we have lost because of the drug war, and it saddens me greatly that the people aren't educated enough anymore to recognize it.

There are other organizations that have enumerated this subject exhaustively however, I doubt that you will ever look into it, because you are so sure you are right.

Pity.

[Ken H]

The federal goverment has no right to make the consumption of a particular substance illegal.

The hell it doesn't. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

LBJ would no doubt agree. He used general welfare as the basis for his War on Poverty.

"The Congress is charged by the Constitution to "provide . . . for the general welfare of the United States." Our present abundance is a measure of its success in fulfilling that duty. Now Congress is being asked to extend that welfare to all our people"

--President Johnson's War on Poverty Speech, March 16, 1964

http://wwwa.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00078.html

[Ken H]

Retry link-- http://wwwa.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00078.html

[takenoprisoner]

You're a tugboat?

[Jack of all Trades]

The specifics of my example have no bearing on my original argument. The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of individual rights. The fact that every possible whim is not covered dovetails rather nicely with my assertion that the powers of the government are actually very limited. Claiming that the power to create and regulate a “drug war” is based on common defense and general welfare is a stretch IMHO, as is interstate commerce. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I doubt that that is what the framers had in mind when listing those powers. To me, it seems that the 10th amendment applies to this situation. The authority lies with the states, or the people themselves.

Back to the example at hand, your free speech rights are limited by what people reasonably believe to be proper. Try yelling Fire! in a crowded room, making a threat of violence, or libeling someone. Certainly outlawing an arbitrary statement of fact is an extreme case of unreasonable limitation. If the drug war is legal on constitutional grounds as you contend, it is still subject to interpretation as to what is reasonable and proper. Unfortunately, the drug war has morphed into a drug Jihad and there is little room for such discussions. Right is right, and anyone who questions the foundations is bound to be labeled an ..idiot.. spouting ..B.S..

[takenoprisoner]

LBJ and congress then behaved beyond the limits of enumerated authority granted by the constitution. Such is the trend today.

[tacticalogic]

General Welfare and Substantial Effects (New Deal Commerce Clause) are both referenced in the CSA. It's that "living document" thing.

[R. Scott]

How much of the decline is do to law enforcement technology and how much is normal fluctuation or due to anti-drug education?

[Enterprise]

Definitely not a starship!

[jayef]

You're joking, right? Don't watch TV or listen to too much music, do we? I can assure you that there are much stronger advocates for marijuana use than Bill Clinton. I can further assure you that their influence is orders of magnitude stronger than BJ's.