Posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT by Sensei Ern
For many years, I have been a strong opponent of legalizing drugs. As you read this, remember that I am still against drug legalization, but I have more sympathy for the opposing argument.
The reason I have been opposed to drug legalization is to protect children. I grew up in a home that was one step up from a crack house..at least we had heat and food. I know first hand what can happen when a child lives in those conditions.
As a counter, I have always felt that use of tobacco and alcohol should be legal for those of a responsible age.
The reason I am considering a change is because of the pain I went through this last month. Four weeks ago, I had a root canal done on a tooth...it was Friday. Once the Novocain wore off, I was in serious pain because the doctor was inexperienced and left a partial root. I experienced pain worse than listening to Rosanne Barr sing the National Anthem. He forgot to write a prescription.
I called the emergency number only to be told I could see the doctor on Monday. TWO WHOLE DAYS IN EXTREME PAIN! I had some 800mg Ibuprofen in the medicine cabinet. That only took away enough pain to convince myself to not commit suicide to stop the pain.
On Monday, I was given a prescription of Tylenol 3 with Codeine and an antibiotic. That took away the pain. Until it ran out. Again, extreme pain. Another dentist did another root canal...and again did not get the whole root. I made sure he gave me a prescription for the pain, before I left the office.
Finally, when that ran out, and another dentist completed the root canal, the pain has subsided.
To be in the kind of debilitating pain I was in, cannot be described. Bill Cosby once talked about taking your bottom lip and pulling it over your head...that comes close.
I have always been an advocate of personal responsibility. That conflicted with knowing that some of the drugs offered today are so dangerous that they needed to be regulated. Then, I thought back about how things were a hundred years ago. The doctor prescribed a treatment, and you either made it yourself, or went to the pharmacist, who mixed up the more potential drugs.
Back then, the only regulation was, could you afford the cost? Drugs were available, and the pharmacist would determine whether you were abusing. If you OD'd on a drug from abuse, you died and life went on for others. But, you could get drugs if they were needed, and you did not have to wait until Monday. You didn't need to wait for approval from anyone to use a drug.
That is enough about that for the moment.
If drugs were to be legalized, they should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes...have a legal purchasing age. Also, if you do harm to another while under the influence of anything, you should be held personally responsible...to the fullest extent, especially capital punishment for causing a death. If you are taking drugs to get high, strap yourself into a chair and sleep it off.
If drugs were immediately legalized, we could expect some immediate effects. For one, the drug addicts would run out and by everything, and we would have a rash of overdosing for about a month. The rest of us could then go on with our lives, only mourning the loss of a relative, instead of daily living with the horror of a drug addict in our lives.
Currently, I believe law enforcement should be stronger. But, I could be moved to undecided if I heard good arguments for the opposite.
--Pray for our troops --Pray they have wisdom to do the right thing --Pray they remain courageous --Pray they know we love and support them --Pray they get the equipment they need to do the job --Pray for their safe return home to a hero’s welcome
You have it correct.
It took a Consitutional Amendment to prohibit "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors" by the federal government. That didn't mean the states could not make it so, according to the will of the people.
Why wouldn't it take a Constitution Amendment to do the same thing for marijuana? The federal government, at this point in time, should not have the ability to prohibit "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors marijuana".
That doesn't mean the states cannot make it so, according to the will of the people but the all powerful, all knowing fedgov won't let the states decide this for themselves.
Interesting.
So you see 'gun control' as a 'goal', then? Or am I misunderstanding?
I see 'gun control' as a 'method'. The 'goal' being safety. I don't disagree with L's goal. It's the 'method' I disagree with.
The 'goals' concept is that stuff that all politicians preach -- we're (mostly) all for 'freedom', 'prosperity', 'security', 'charity', etc. We all pretty much agree on those.
But it's when different folks with different philosophies suggest specific remedies to problems that we start to split.
As in abortion. The goal of abortion is 'birth control'. We all agree that 'birth control' is a useful goal. Now does that mean that killing a baby to be free of it is a valid method?
If anything, I think the basic philosophy is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.", while the Libs is, "Try something new, even if it's wrong."
Very good summation of that definition. And, I think, of how that's not the definition I'm thinking about. I'm thinking more of how you define the 'conservative' philosophy when something *is* broke.
The 'goals' concept is that stuff that all politicians preach -- we're (mostly) all for 'freedom', 'prosperity', 'security', 'charity', etc. We all pretty much agree on those.
Those are all ideals. Goals are concrete steps toward ideals, but ideals can never be fully achieved. You can't get "safety", or "prosperity", because there is always a greater level of them.
I'm thinking more of how you define the 'conservative' philosophy when something *is* broke.
Then, a Conservative will seek to restore it to working order, using a model of a known working method, whereas a Liberal will see it as an opportunity to experiment with something new. Take the way the schools are failing. Conservatives push for a return to tried and true 3R's and discipline. Libs push for the latest whole language, new math method fad.
As in abortion. The goal of abortion is 'birth control'. We all agree that 'birth control' is a useful goal. Now does that mean that killing a baby to be free of it is a valid method?
I demur, because you have phrased this in the terminology of the Left. "Birth Control" isn't about the control of birth. It's about the control of pregnancy. Using abortion to control the state of pregnancy is an extreme and abject travesty because it only need be employed if you have first failed to abstain, then failed to time your actions, then failed to employ contraception for either the male, or the female or both, and finally have determined to not live with the consequences of your serial failures. Nevertheless, we see millions of these travesties.
But the goal is pregnancy control, while the ideal behind it is freedom from the consequences of biological functions being abused.
Do you agree that CA has the Constitutional power to outright prohibit assault weapons, or booze, or drugs? -- I think 'laws' of that sort are unreasonable regulations, - thus unconstitutional, and unenforceable.
Why do you want States to have such powers?
It is not that I particularly want the States to have that power, but that I believe the 10th A. reserves that power to the States, or to the people of that State.
Why then would you believe the 10th gives States the power to prohibit 'dangerous' items like arms, drugs, etc.? Such a power unquestionably infringes on the peoples individual rights, privileges & immunities protected throughout the rest of Constitution.
I believe that assault weapons are a particularly special case, as the RKBA is specifically protected under the 2nd A., and so per the 10th A., the banning of them is a power specifically prohibited to the States.
Again, - you are arguing that unless a right is enumerated [a 'special case"] it is not protected. Reread the 9th Amendment.
That you or I believe such laws to be unreasonable doesn't matter, unless you are a member of a large enough percentage of the population that you can vote them down or pass a State Constitution provision banning that power. The 14th may provide an approach to challenge them on a Constitutional basis, but I don't see that as a strong enough argument to overcome the States powers (often mischaracterized as "State's Rights") described in the 10th.
Even a super majority population percentage cannot 'amend away' our inalienable basic rights. --- States 'powers' cannot overcome the principles embodied in our supreme law, the Constitution. Reread Article VI.
The power to prohibit is not delegated to any level of government in the USA.
But it is. Because it isn't specifically reserved to the Fed, nor specifically denied to the States in the Constitution, it is reserved by the States or the People.
Again, - you are arguing that unless a right is enumerated [a 'special case"] it is not protected, thus a 'States power' can infringe upon it.. Reread the 9th Amendment.
The 14th isn't specific enough to cover this, any more than it covers regulatory power.
The 14th specifically says that States can not make laws that abridge [take from, regulate away] our rights to life, liberty or property.
In places like CA, the people have ceded prohibitionary power to the Government, by approving laws and electing representatives that use this power.
Even a super majority of people cannot "cede" away their inalienable rights [to bear arms, for instance] and give such a prohibitionary power to the Government.
In fact, their elected representatives swear an oath to the US Constitution that they will not abuse their powers. Reread Article VI.
"IOW, you believe that those who don't think like you do should be considered criminals."
No. You are free to have a different opinion and not think like me. You are free to express those opinions. But if you sell, possess, use or distribute illegal drugs then you are a criminal. That is a simple fact.
That is also the main focus of this debate. Some people believe that using drugs to get high is immoral but should not be illegal. Some do not see it as immoral and think it should be legalized. Some think it is immoral and think that the laws prohibiting these drugs are reasonable. I am in the last group.
. . . by government decree alone. You have no problem with government legislating by decree . . . by not formulating a basis for legislation in natural law? If 51% of the electorate in your community decided that eating potatoes was detrimental to the public health, would you gladly stop eating potatoes?
Put another way, absent government action, what portion of natural law, except for the law of survival, makes consuming one substance a crime and consuming another not a crime? Do you not have a natural law right to sovereignty over your own body?
The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This does not prevent what you have termed "reasonable regulation" of those rights. Your argument hinges on whether a total prohibition of some given item is reasonable or not. Such decisions are typically left up to various communities to decide for themselves (for example, obscenity laws).
The 14th specifically says that States can not make laws that abridge [take from, regulate away] our rights to life, liberty or property.
Unless Due Process is applied in an equal manner to all. For due process, you must have a law legally enacted, then a person must be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and have the conviction upheld throughout the appeal process. Further, that same process must be equally applied to all citizens. As long as this due process is done, your life, liberty or property can be forfeit.
The sticking point is that you consider outright prohibitions to be unreasonable regulation, and therefore not "legally enacted", but judges trying people under such laws have not agreed with you. Usually, the case depends on the balancing of conflicting rights. Is it legal to prohibit you from cooking meth in your backyard? Yes, if the damage to other citizen's right to life is found to outweigh your right to property.
I'm gonna have to side with Lex on this one. There is no Constitutional bar to the states enacting laws prohibiting drugs. Such laws are stupid, counterproductive, and anathema to the ideals of personal liberty, but are not unconstitutional.
Federal laws prohibiting drugs are a different kettle of fish, and are plainly unconstitutional... even if the bastards on the Supreme Court refuse to recognize it.
I would also argue, since Lex brought up speeding (which is not, after all, a federal crime), that attempts by the Feds to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on their authority through backdoor means such as mandating state legislation by threatening to withhold funds constititute de facto federal overstepping and are themselves unconstitutional.
Except insofar as they constitute international or interstate commerce. Which is why the recent medical mj overstepped Constitutional bounds.
I would also argue, since Lex brought up speeding (which is not, after all, a federal crime), that attempts by the Feds to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on their authority through backdoor means such as mandating state legislation by threatening to withhold funds constitute de facto federal overstepping and are themselves unconstitutional.
Of course, many of those funds are provided unconstitutionally in the first place, via an overreaching of the "general welfare" clause. Why is the Federal Govt. providing funds for highways? Well, the initial justification by Eisenhower's administration was to provide troops with a means of rapid transcontinental transport (i.e. to provide for common defense). Now, it is just self-perpetuating bureaucracy. Same-same with education funding, arts funding, "national" forests, etc. Once Nevada became a state, why did the Federal govt. continue to "own" 85% of the state?
I disagree. I vehemently oppose Wickard v. Filburn and I think the Commerce Clause has been stretched far, far beyond its original intent. The Commerce Clause, as most of the judiciary seems to have forgotten, grants Congress the authority "to regulate commerce among the several states." This does not mean that Congress has carte blanche to do whatever it wants to any activity as long as such activity has the barest connection to interstate commerce. Seeing as how everything in a modern economy has some effect on interstate commerce, such a reading effectively gives the Federal government limitless power.
Again, any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that would permit the federal prohibition of drugs would have mooted the 18th Amendment. Seeing as how the 18th Amendment was plainly considered necessary to permit Congress to prohibit alcoholic beverages, the absence of a similar amendment granting the authority to prohibit drugs makes federal drug prohibition unconstitutional.
Of course, many of those funds are provided unconstitutionally in the first place, via an overreaching of the "general welfare" clause.
Of course, they are. But it's possible to mitigate a wrong, and one way of doing so is a solid, common-sense ruling that Congress may not use its (possible illegitimate) authority to dole out funds to the states as a club to circumvent the limits on its powers.
Even a super majority of people cannot "cede" away their inalienable rights [to bear arms, for instance] and give such a prohibitionary power to the Government.
In fact, their elected representatives swear an oath to the US Constitution that they will not abuse their powers. Reread Article VI.
By your argument, no government has any powers not specifically granted in the Constitution.
Not at all. I've argued all along that States have the powers delegated to them by the people, -- but only powers that are not prohibited to them by the US Constitution. -- Thus, - CA has no power to prohibit guns or drugs, even though a majority of Californians vote for such prohibitions. Such outright prohibitions on life, liberty, or property violate Constitutional due process.
Any law can be construed to "unquestionably [infringe] on the peoples individual rights, privileges & immunities protected throughout the rest of Constitution.". The law that says I cannot race at excessive speeds thru a school zone is an infringement on my inalienable right to travel freely. But, is it a reasonable infringement?
Let a fully informed jury of your peers decide, in the case at hand. Reasonable men will convict you and uphold the law as a reasonable regulation.
The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This does not prevent what you have termed "reasonable regulation" of those rights.
We agree.
Your argument hinges on whether a total prohibition of some given item is reasonable or not. Such decisions are typically left up to various communities to decide for themselves (for example, obscenity laws).
States & Localities can reasonably regulate public aspects of how 'dangerous' items like porn, drugs, and guns are used. Total prohibitions are not reasonable regs.
The 14th specifically says that States can not make laws that abridge [take from, regulate away] our rights to life, liberty or property.
Unless Due Process is applied in an equal manner to all.
As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . " Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S.
For due process, you must have a law legally enacted, then a person must be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and have the conviction upheld throughout the appeal process.
Yep. "Legally enacted" is key to our discussion. How can a 'law' that outright prohibits life, liberty or property be Constitutionally "legal" ?
Further, that same process must be equally applied to all citizens. As long as this due process is done, your life, liberty or property can be forfeit.
Yep, you can lose all those if you are convicted of violating "legally enacted" laws by a fully informed jury of your peers. -- Todays jurys cannot even hear a defense based on our Constitution. Many juries are directed to find guilt from mere possession of 'illegal objects'. This is not due process.
The sticking point is that you consider outright prohibitions to be unreasonable regulation, and therefore not "legally enacted", but judges trying people under such laws have not agreed with you.
Yep, judges too are ignoring their primary oath to support & defend our Constitution. Damn shame.
Usually, the case depends on the balancing of conflicting rights. Is it legal to prohibit you from cooking meth in your backyard? Yes, if the damage to other citizen's right to life is found to outweigh your right to property.
Correct. -- State/local governments can make reasonable regulatory laws about cooking meth. What else is new?
[Lex] -- Unless Due Process is applied in an equal manner to all.
As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . " Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S.
[Lex] --- For due process, you must have a law legally enacted, then a person must be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and have the conviction upheld throughout the appeal process.
Yep. "Legally enacted" is key to our discussion. How can a 'law' that outright prohibits life, liberty or property be Constitutionally "legal" ?
Further, that same process must be equally applied to all citizens. As long as this due process is done, your life, liberty or property can be forfeit.
Yep, you can lose all those if you are convicted of violating "legally enacted" laws by a fully informed jury of your peers. -- Todays jurys cannot even hear a defense based on our Constitution. Many juries are directed to find guilt from mere possession of 'illegal objects'. This is not due process.
[Lex] -- The sticking point is that you consider outright prohibitions to be unreasonable regulation, and therefore not "legally enacted", but judges trying people under such laws have not agreed with you.
Yep, judges too are ignoring their primary oath to support & defend our Constitution. Damn shame.
Usually, the case depends on the balancing of conflicting rights. Is it legal to prohibit you from cooking meth in your backyard? Yes, if the damage to other citizen's right to life is found to outweigh your right to property.
Correct. -- State/local governments can make reasonable regulatory laws about cooking meth. What else is new?
____________________________________
Politicalities writes:
I'm gonna have to side with Lex on this one. There is no Constitutional bar to the states enacting laws prohibiting drugs. Such laws are stupid, counterproductive, and anathema to the ideals of personal liberty, but are not unconstitutional.
See above as to Constitutionality, and feel free to argue specifics.
Since you went for the 'pointy head' joke first, I'm not going to read your comment.
Does that help your understanding?
No, it does not. Do you favor the creation of laws for every anecdote in history?
I don't care if some guy commits rape and murder only when he is high, drunk, angry, unhappy, or whatever. There are literally millions of us that don't. You believe that it is a proper government power to take things away from us because of the actions of others. That is a belief of a collectivist who thinks the good of society outweighs that of the individuals.
I believe we must punish the rapist and the murderer whatever their motivation may be. Being high while committing a crime should be an aggravating circumstance during sentencing, not a mitigating one. Drug abusers who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences not more lenient ones. But people who are not committing crimes should not be punished. Period.
So, I don't think that I am going to change my unstated opinion of the drug war based on your experience. But good luck.
I am sorry, but why do you give him excuses for his actions?
That is the key right there why drugs are illegal.
“I wasn’t in a right frame of mind. It wasn’t me it was the drugs.” It is exactly the same argument the libs use dealing with guns. “the gun shot him.”
An old friend of mine is a drunk. Everytime he does something STUPID the next day he will appologize for being drunk but not for his actions. I tell him, 'I am upset over the actions not because you were 'drunk.' I know, you where drunk but that isn't an excuse for your actions.
He gets all upset and says, "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! You don't even drink or do drugs! bla bla bla..."
How a person uses his body affects other people who live in the same civilization. This is even true where no government exists.
There are many ways drug abuse affects other people. Traffic safety is just one example.
I do not think these laws were necessary in earlier days in this country. There were no cars and freeways. There was a stronger work ethic and general acceptance of personal responsibility.
Our nation was also strongly influenced by broad participation in the voluntarily observance of Biblical morality. Those who did not were often ashamed due to both being shunned by the community as well as the guilt from their own conscience (due to an awareness of God's laws).
When large numbers of people abuse freedom burdensome laws become inevitable.
If this nation were to return to its Christian heritage people would abstain from drugs like marijuana without the need for government to codify it. If a small number of people did use these drugs, laws regulating them would not be necessary either.
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.