Is the Drug War a Conservative or Liberal Issue? (Warning: I am a Newbie to starting posts)

Sensei Ern

[LexBaird]

Tell me this. -- Why do you want a State to have the power to prohibit dangerous objects? - Isn't their power to regulate enough?

Are you aware of any total prohibitions, as opposed to highly restrictive regulation, in the drug laws? Perhaps I'm not getting the distinction you are making. If a State says only MDs can administer heavy narcotics, or only researchers can possess PCP for experimental purposes, how is that any different from a total prohibition for any practical purpose to street users?

[LexBaird]

Again, not true. Most lower courts do not even allow Constitutional defense arguments.

Which is why appeals are part of the process.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Is the Drug War a Conservative or Liberal Issue? "

At this point in time I believe most Freepers understand this issue very well. I would like to see a poll done at Freerepublic on this issue one day.

[mugs99]

I guess people who go to rehab for pot addiction are wasting their time since you say it is nonaddictive?

There are no pot addicts in rehab. Marijuana is not addictive and all of the following organizations stated exactly that when they supported the medical marijuana intitiative:
Alaska Nurses Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Medical Students Association
American Preventive Medical Association
American Public Health Association
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Medical Association
California Nurses Association
California Pharmacists Association
California Society of Addiction Medicine
Colorado Nurses Association
Federation of American Scientists
Florida Medical Association
Institute of Medicine
Kaiser Permanente
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Mississippi Nurses Association
Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network
National Association for Public Health Policy
National Association of Attorneys General
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Nurses Society on Addictions
New England Journal of Medicine
New Mexico Nurses Association
New York State Nurses Association
North Carolina Nurses Association
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Your sources?

[WhiteGuy]

I believe that the conservative element of the party in power has been successfully crippled.

There is no longer any interest in constitutional government, reduced spending, elimination of waste, and respect for personal liberty and property.

Instead the gop has become the Al Davis party - "Just win baby!"

The corrupt war on drugs, the extra-constitutional "laws" and regulations as contained in the "patriot act" and other legislation, the unbelievable money pit that is being passed off as "rebuilding" iraq, and the 800 pound gorilla in the corner - a wide open, look the other way administration policy toward our borders, ports, and natural resources prove to me (if to no one else) that the elected elite are willing to sell out Americans for the opportunity to enrich themselves and remain in power.

In the R vs. D game, the American citizens lose.

[LexBaird]

"Too much Conservatism is stagnation and repression."

I disagree. Conservatism, in my mine, is adherence to the constitution, not 'interpreted' by 9 black robes.

As Conservatism is in the USA, you are right, since that "conserves" our society in the framework of our social contract. But, in a greater sense, the idea of being conservative can mean a rejection of change or desire for the stability of the status quo, and can be carried too far. I have seen those here advocate the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution. I have seen advocates for the stability of a Saddam controlled Iraq over the risky change of an Iraqi democracy.

[mugs99]

In the R vs. D game, the American citizens lose.

There is no longer any difference between them. We have one party now. The Establishment Party, divided into two camps...Christian and Secular.
...

[WhiteGuy]

We have one party now. The Establishment Party, divided into two camps...Christian and Secular.

Mugs,

That is the most concise and articulate analysis of our current system of partisan politics I have ever heard.

Well put!

Regards

[pax_et_bonum]

Pinggggggggg

[Quick1]

The commercial sale of alcohol has definitely made it much more accessible to children and teenagers who are often put at risk by it.

If you're trying to say that it's easier for a teenager to get a pack of ciggarettes or beer, than it is to get a bag of weed or make a batch of methamphetamines, you would be completely and utterly wrong. For most teens, it's far easier to get that dime bag, as a drug dealer isn't likely to be checking IDs before making a sale.

[musanon]

> So any State can prohibit a drug or alcohol in accordance to its laws.

Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.

Your logic is circular.

Hardly. The Constitutions logic is not circular.

If a law has passed Constitutional review, as most drug prohibition laws have, then they have passed due process.

Nope. --- Opinions made by the SCOTUS are not 'laws' -- such reviews do not confer permanent constitutionality on a law, as any law is always open to further constitutional review.

If a power isn't delegated to the Feds, nor prohibited to the States, then the States reserve that power, or the people do. If the people of a State elect their State Reps, and empower them to prohibit drugs (or, conversely, permit them or otherwise regulate them), due process has been followed per the 10th A. Thus "dry" counties in Tennessee, or Medical MJ permits.

Laws repugnant to basic constitutional principles, laws that abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process, are unconstitutional according to the 14th Amendment.
Prohibitionary type laws do so. There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution. See the 10th as to powers prohibited to states. The 14th prohibits States from making laws that abridge/prohibit property without due process.
No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.

Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.

You omit the all-important "without due process."

Nit picking. That particular line 'omits' the words due process. My posts here do not.

The State can take your life, liberty, and property, as long as due process is given, and the laws are equally applied to all.

Correct only if you are convicted by a jury. -- Prohibitive laws attempt to make individuals automatically guilty by mere possession of 'illegal objects'. Juries are even 'directed' that they must convict if possession is proved. -- Prohibitions result in a parody of due process.

The Constitutional vetting of the law is part of the due process of individual cases.

Again, not true. Most lower courts do not even allow Constitutional defense arguments.

Tell me this. -- Why do you want a State to have the power to prohibit dangerous objects? - Isn't their power to regulate enough?

Are you aware of any total prohibitions, as opposed to highly restrictive regulation, in the drug laws?
Perhaps I'm not getting the distinction you are making.
If a State says only MDs can administer heavy narcotics, or only researchers can possess PCP for experimental purposes, how is that any different from a total prohibition for any practical purpose to street users?

Try 'getting' this.. Instead of refuting my points, or answering why you want prohibitions, you now apparently want to chat about how the WOD's prohibitions aren't really [to all "practical purposes"] destroying the basics of our Constitutional Republic.

Dream on.

[Quick1]

Most laws do legislate someone's morality.

Actually, most of our laws are an extension of the Rights we all enjoy. For example, murdering someone is infringement on their Right to Life. However, I'll definitely give you that there are laws based on legislating morality. You tend to see a lot of them in "Dumb Laws" books and the like. Legislating morality is also the reason a liqour store stays closed on Sundays.

[Indy Pendance]

You're looking at the extremes, every group has them. Most of us aren't extreme in the sense of "the article of confederacy", but only want adherence to the constitution, not making up things that aren't there, eminent domain, abortion, etc. If you happen to find an oil well on your property, don't let the government know about it. You'll be moving to a condo lickity split. You've been here long enough know know the difference of who's the extremist and who's just wanting limited government. That's really my take on all this. Government is not by the people anymore, it's for those who can generate dollars for their party.

[Politicalities]

If the people of a State elect their State Reps, and empower them to prohibit drugs (or, conversely, permit them or otherwise regulate them), due process has been followed per the 10th A. Thus "dry" counties in Tennessee, or Medical MJ permits.

Hmm, not sure how I missed this. Ladies and gentlemen, I present the 21^st Amendment to the United States Constitution:

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

So "dry" counties are permitted because they are explicitly in the Constitution. So tell me, if the states have the power to infringe the rights of their citizens to consume intoxicating drugs, why was it necessary to specifically include it in the 21^st Amendment? If the federal government has the power to prohibit drugs, why was the 18^th Amendment necessary at all in the first place?

[Quick1]

The basis of our laws were formed from the Ten Commandments

I have to disagree with you there.
Where are the laws banning worshipping other Gods?
How about laws banning adultery?
Coveting?
Idolatry?
Remembering the Sabbath?
Lying (except for when you are under oath)?

[LexBaird]

Okay, I finally see what you have been trying to argue. Correct if wrong: You contend that no government can ban anything outright, because that is a violation of the 14th A. guarantee to property. That is, it is pre-emptive to your possession. Correct?

But, after you possess that same item, the government may then, under a "reasonable regulation", such as a ban on the use, sale, transport or transfer of said dangerous item, arrest and prosecute you with all due process applied if you actually do anything with your property. Is that your contention, or am I still not following you?

[FreeReign]

You again.

You're the poster who when I said this: Bearing arms is an enumerated unalienable right in the U.S. Constitution.

You responded with this: It's not an enunmerated right in the CA Constitution, is it.

[MarkL]

I have never understood victimless crimes.

Actually, it often seems that the laws against "victimless crimes" actually create more "victims" than they proport to protect.

Mark

[FreeReign]

In the R vs. D game, the American citizens lose.

The American citizens voted for R's and D's in the last presidential election to the tune of about 99%.

[LexBaird]

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

I think you are reading this wrong. This clause restores the situation to the status quo anti prohibition. That is to say, just because liquor is now legal in the USA again, that doesn't mean you can take it into places where the States or localities have made it illegal.

Many of the individual States were dry before the 18th A. Many remained so for a while afterward.