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

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.

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

No, I am not pro-drug, yet.

Your thread would seem to indicate that you are.

It was frustrating that I had to suffer in pain because some loser abuses codine.

It would appear to me that you had to suffer in pain because you had a bad dentist, that was also forgetful.

Then, Michael Graham spoke on his radio show that since the main ingredient in many OTC products like Sudafed is used to make methanfedamines(sp), congress is considering making these products to placed behind the counter.

Most pharmacies already keep the above mentioned drugs behind the counter to deter theft.

I am getting sick of laws that require me to alter my life because someone had an adverse effect.

Seek to change the laws.

I resent having to pay extra for my television because it now has the V-Chip. My children are grown. I choose not to watch certain shows.

No comment.

I resent that the state of Maryland restricts the purchase of firearms because someone is irresponsible and misuses them.

Agreed.

I resent having a corner camera at every stop light.

I have no problem with the cameras, besides they help the folks on CSI catch the bad guys.

I am all for certain interference, such as more thorough searches of luggage on airplanes, because a lack of security would welcome terrorists.

That is big of you.

One final word, seek a better dentist.

The 10th clearly says that the US Constitution & Amendments prohibits states from making laws that abridge our rights to life, liberty or property in the 14th. -- Prohibitions are abridgments.

Obviously. The "some" powers are those reserved by the Constitution.

No, the power to infringe upon individual rights are clearly prohibited by the US Constitution --- States have no power to prohibit; this power is prohibited to them by the 14th. -- Get it?

No, because it is wrong. States cannot prohibit in a way that violates enumerated rights such as the right to bear arms. But states are limited by enumerated rights ---

Wrong again. Unenumerated rights are not to be denied. -- See the 9th.

So you claim that your argument is solely a critique? Yet you conclude by arguing that slavery was a 'legal' right. Fine, play your word games.

Are you contending slavery wasn't "legal"?

I asked if you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist. - You answered:

In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.

Now you retort:

Was the ownership of slaves as property allowed under the Constitution or not? Clearly it was.
Did some States totally prohibit slavery or not? Clearly they did.

Laws forbidding violations of human rights do not deny a "right to own" a human being. A State cannot prohibit a right that does not exist, just as they have no delegated power to prohibit rights that do exist.

Therefore, are total prohibitions of the ownership of classes of property allowed to be enacted by States, or not?

Absurd reduction. Human beings are "classes of property"? No, the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.

Not one of the Framers contested a State's power do do so, that I can find. Indeed, they acknowledged it in Article IV, in the 3rd clause, which says slaves cannot avoid slavery by escaping into another jurisdiction where prohibitions exist.

It's understandable in that the founders were trying to hold together a shaky Republic by catering to slave owning autocrats. Why you want to argue for a 'right to own' human "classes of property" is beyond rational comprehension.

You sure are digging an amusing hole for yourself though.

Why you want to argue for a 'right to own' human "classes of property" is beyond rational comprehension.

You apparently have a great many problems with rational comprehension. Either that, or I must conclude that you are intentionally twisting my words. At no point did I argue for any such thing.

What I did argue was that States have the power to prohibit. I cited the prohibition of slavery by some States as an example of this power.

A State cannot prohibit a right that does not exist, ...

That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit. Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:
"Article XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [bold added]

slav·er·y
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

No, the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.

If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.? Note that while it took an Amendment for the Federal Government to do this, States had done the same for some time.

Laws forbidding violations of human rights do not deny a nonexistent "right to own" a human being. A State cannot prohibit a 'right' that does not exist, just as they have no delegated power to prohibit rights that do exist.

That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit.

How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].

Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:

An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.

"Article XIII. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

AS we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.

If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.?

There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read. Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected.

Keep digging.

"Unenumerated rights are not to be denied. -- See the 9th."

That's not what it says. It says rights exist that are not enumerated. The Constitution recognizes that other rights exist, and the bill of rights is not an exhaustive list. The federal government does not have authority to deny rights just because they are not included in the Bill of Rights.

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Your interpretation gives all government power to the federal government and none to states or local governments.

This is exactly the opposite of what early America was about. You are assuming that states must be delegated specific powers. Just like the rights not enumerated, there are powers not enumerated. If powers are not enumerated they belong to the individual States.

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If a power is not specifically reserved to the federal government AND is not specifically (as in bill of rights) prohibited to the States (plural), then these powers belong to the States (plural). An individual State does not need to have a power delegated in order for that power to exist. Individual States "reserve" or "delegate" these powers through a State Constitution.

Article 1, section 8 specifies the scope of federal government. It is very basic. All other powers belong to the State governments UNLESS specifically reserved or prohibited.

If the Constitution did not exist, and the federal government did not exist, States would continue to have legal and moral authority to govern their people. Being part of the Union limits their current power ONLY in specifically limited areas. Outside of these specific limitations States are only limited by natural law - e.g. the right of people to be governed by consent.

It seems to me that the real trouble here is your understanding of what a right or power is. Rights are intrinsic - i.e given by God - so that government does not grant these rights but simply recognizes them. However, this does not mean rights are not subject to forfeiture. This is where "powers" come in. A right to life, liberty or property can be taken by a government that has the legal power to do so. This extends beyond regulations designed to protect rights. It is about punishment.

If someone commits murder, for example, Texas can execute them. But local citizens cannot form a lynch mob because this power is reserved by the Constitution where there is a right to trial by jury. For the same reason, Texas cannot also decide to allow judges to take the place of a jury.

It seems to me that the real trouble here is your understanding of what a right or power is.
Your interpretation gives all government power to the federal government and none to states or local governments.

Not at all. 'My interpretation', my position, - is based on, and mirrors that of Prof. Barnett:

The Rights Retained by The People
Address:http://www.randybarnett.com/rightsbypeople.html

At #470, you admitted that his article was "pretty good". -- I suggest you reread it, as he explains the position in detail.

III. Implementing the Ninth Amendment

A. The Presumption of Liberty

                 Implementing the ninth amendment challenges us to protect unen-umerated rights without determining a final list of such rights and without lending credence to illegitimate claims of right. This challenge has proved too much for most judges and constitutional scholars.
Even for those who have the will to implement the ninth amendment, there seems to be no practical way. But there is.
              As long as they do not violate the rights of others (as defined by the common law of property, contract and tort), persons can be presumed to be "immune" from interference by government.

Such a presumption means that citizens may challenge any government action that restricts their otherwise rightful conduct, and the burden is on the government to show that its action is within its proper powers or scope.

At the national level, the government would bear the burden of showing that its acts were both "necessary and proper" to accomplish an enumerated function, rather than, as now, forcing the citizen to prove why it is he or she should be left alone.

At the state level, the burden would fall upon state government to show that legislation infringing the liberty of its citizens was a necessary exercise of its "police power"—that is, the state's power to protect the rights of its citizens.

        Although originally the ninth amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was most likely intended by the framers to be enforced only against the federal government, this was not because it was thought that the people had surrendered all their rights to state governments—a suggestion belied by the swift incorporation into most state constitutions of provisions identical to the ninth amendment.
Indeed, many rights—such as the right of conscience or the right to acquire property—were thought to be unalienable, which means that the people could not surrender them to any government even if they wanted to.

Rather, the Congress and the federal courts originally lacked jurisdiction to protect the retained "privileges or immunities" of citizens from abuses by their states.
As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war.
Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right.

"At #470, you admitted that his article was "pretty good". -- I suggest you reread it, as he explains the position in detail. "

I read it and agree with the major thrust of his argument about the nature of rights, but only with regard to federal powers.

The two words "equal protection" of the 14th cannot be so easily construed to dissolve the retained unnamed powers of the states. The idea that states must show how each law is directly needed to protect a right just does not wash. In fact, this standard is not even a very good one for federal law.

The test for federal law is whether it is Constitutionally authorized. The burden does fall on all levels of government to prove it has not violated an enumerated right.

For example, what right is protected by raising taxes? The only argument, by your standard, is that taxation is a necessary evil. Well, guess what, anything can be called a necessary evil. Taxation does not protect any specific enumerated or unenumerated right. It is, however, Constitutional because this power is specifically retained.

This power is also not prohibited to the individual states. This is why States can raise taxes, not because taxes protect rights.

The power to punish crime does not protect rights directly. It is a power retained to the federal government for certain causes and not prohibited to the States. (Although there are limitations to this power.)

" As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war. Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right."

Not exactly. Federal government has the power to be sure that states protect each person within their respective jurisdictions equally. That means a state cannot make one set of laws for white people and another set for black people. It does not give federal government jurisdiction over rights and powers not enumerated. It only concerns equality.

That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit.

How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].

That's because you have a habit of logical fallacy, among which is the tendency to define something with reference to the thing being defined.

You said it was a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property"... That is a declaration: prohibitions=abridgments. Now the 13th is a prohibition. It says slavery SHALL NOT exist, thereby PROHIBITING it. So, by your own unequivocal definition, the 13th, being a prohibition, MUST = abridgment.

You are the one that insists that all prohibitions are abridgments of "rights". Now here is a clear prohibition: neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Yet, you also say, "There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read." So, which assertion of yours is wrong?

You go on to try to explain your inconsistency with: "Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected." But the 13th A. is not a declaration of protection; it is a prohibition of an existing practice. If "anyone can read" it as a protection, why the need for the 14th A.?

At #470, you admitted that Barnett's article was "pretty good". -- I suggest you reread it, as he explains the position in detail.

I read it and agree with the major thrust of his argument about the nature of rights, but only with regard to federal powers.

Our constitutional rights are to be upheld by -all- empowered officials in the USA, fed/state or local. You need to reread Article VI, which you consistently ignore.

The two words "equal protection" of the 14th cannot be so easily construed to dissolve the retained unnamed powers of the states.

Who has claimed that?
-- Barnett claims that the 14th 'fundamentally changed' the ability of States to make laws abridging our rights to life, liberty or property without due process. He is correct.

The idea that states must show how each law is directly needed to protect a right just does not wash.

Laws cannot be written that abridge or infringe upon our rights. So says the 14th. -- You refuse to abide by the 14th? Fine.

In fact, this standard is not even a very good one for federal law. The test for federal law is whether it is Constitutionally authorized. The burden does fall on all levels of government to prove it has not violated an enumerated right.

Under the due process clause, that 'burden' is obvious. Laws written that violate our rights also violate due process.

For example, what right is protected by raising taxes?

Weird example. Who claims a 'right' is being violated? -- The governments power to tax is constitutionally enumerated. A violation of that power would violate the Constitution, not a human right.

The only argument, by your standard, is that taxation is a necessary evil. Well, guess what, anything can be called a necessary evil.

Again, weird.. You are arguing a position I haven't even made.

Taxation does not protect any specific enumerated or unenumerated right. It is, however, Constitutional because this power is specifically retained.

No kidding.

This power is also not prohibited to the individual states. This is why States can raise taxes, not because taxes protect rights.

Feel free to tell someone who thinks "taxes protect rights".

The power to punish crime does not protect rights directly. It is a power retained to the federal government for certain causes and not prohibited to the States. (Although there are limitations to this power.)

Tell someone who needs your lecture.

Barnett:
"As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war. Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right."

Not exactly. Federal government has the power to be sure that states protect each person within their respective jurisdictions equally. That means a state cannot make one set of laws for white people and another set for black people. It does not give federal government jurisdiction over rights and powers not enumerated. It only concerns equality.

-- All the privileges, immunities & rights to life, liberty, or property mentioned by the 14th are enforceable, according to its last clause.
-- But of course, you simply reject that concept. -- Have you ever sworn an oath to support the Constitution? -- Did that include support for the BOR's & the 14th?

That is a tautology. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist to prohibit.

How droll that you repeat my point, and then call it tautologous [repetitious].

That's because you have a habit of logical fallacy, among which is the tendency to define something with reference to the thing being defined.

Your unsupported opinion on my so-called 'logical fallacies' only makes your comments more redundant, and amusing.

Nevertheless, here is the Constitution prohibiting something that was perfectly legal across the South:

An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.

As we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property.

That is a declaration: prohibitions=abridgments.

Of course it is. How redundant of you.

Now the 13th is a prohibition. It says slavery SHALL NOT exist, thereby PROHIBITING it.

An Amendment forbidding slavery/involuntary servitude, - a violation of human rights, -- does not deny/prohibit a nonexistent "right to own" a human being.

So, by your own unequivocal definition, the 13th, being a prohibition, MUST = abridgment.

That I made such a "definition" is YOUR logical fallacy, not mine. -- Amusing try though; - good bafflegab.

If it is a "fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property", which of these were abridged by the total prohibition found in the 13th A.?

There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read. Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected.

You said " As we see , the "presumption of liberty" in our Constitution leads us to the fact that total prohibitions are abridgments/infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property."...
You are the one that insists that all prohibitions are abridgments of "rights".

There you go again, repeating.. Sigh.

Now here is a clear prohibition: neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. Yet, you also say, "There is no 'right' being abridged or prohibited by the 13th, as anyone can read." So, which assertion of yours is wrong?

Neither.

You go on to try to explain your inconsistency with: "Instead, a right to be free & the presumption of human liberty is being protected." But the 13th A. is not a declaration of protection; it is a prohibition of an existing practice.

"That is a tautology." -- In your own words.

If "anyone can read" it as a protection, why the need for the 14th A.?

Read the eras history. The 13th was ratified in 1865. -- And the human rights of exslaves were completely ignored by the south. This necessitated the ratification of the 14th, which made clear that States were required to obey the "Law of the Land" as outlined in Article VI.

"Our constitutional rights are to be upheld by -all- empowered officials in the USA, fed/state or local. You need to reread Article VI, which you consistently ignore."

I agree that all levels of government must not violate our rights whether enumerated or not. The problem is with who determines what a right is and when it has been violated. Many believe abortion is a right. I would argue that it is an invented "right".

My point is that the government, at all levels, does not bear a burden to show that every law directly protects actual rights. Laws do exist that don't serve the function of directly protecting rights - such as taxation and criminal punishment and a military draft. The burden of proof is whether a law is Constitutional. Violating a REAL right would be unconstitutional.

"Barnett claims that the 14th 'fundamentally changed' the ability of States to make laws abridging our rights to life, liberty or property without due process."

It expands federal jurisdiction beyond merely the right to jury trial, etc. Where we differ is the handling of unenumerated rights. For federal courts to rule on unenumerated rights is unconstitutional because it is not in their jurisdiction. (Due process is a specifically enumerated right, not a way of lumping all other rights into federal jurisdiction.)

Local laws must be presumed to abide by due process as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution or the particular state Constitution.

"Who claims a 'right' is being violated? -- The governments power to tax is constitutionally enumerated. A violation of that power would violate the Constitution, not a human right."

Ownership is a right. Unauthorized taxation is a violation of it. The federal government has Constitutional authority to tax. Where do States get the power to tax? It is an power not prohibited and therefore permissible. Otherwise my state would be violating my right of ownership to tax me without specific authorization.

"you simply reject that concept. Have you ever sworn an oath to support the Constitution? -- Did that include support for the BOR's & the 14th?"

I reject your interpretation of the 14th to encompass unenumerated rights. You come across as if disagreeing makes me unpatriotic.

Barnett wrote:
"As we all know, this arrangement was fundamentally changed by the enactment of the fourteenth amendment after the civil war. Today, if a state government infringes upon a right the people retained against their respective states, there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing federal protection of this right."

I reject your interpretation of the 14th to encompass unenumerated rights.

You are rejecting the fact that our Constitution demands [in Article VI] that sworn officials at every level support & defend our Constitution, notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary.. - State laws that would infringe on unenumerated rights as well as enumerated.

You come across as if disagreeing makes me unpatriotic.

If you've ever sworn such an oath, [and most of us have, in some capacity] then logically it included support for the BOR's & the 14th.

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.