Posted on 08/08/2005 8:54:06 PM PDT by neverdem
Well if people's lives are affected, the government must do something. That's what it's for.
Not only with legalizing dangerous drugs but with abortion as well. Liberatarians I know support abortion. They are also against the War on Terror/Iraq.
Not a pretty picture with these guys.
Between the massive tax break we'd get, the huge drop in prices for formerly illicit substances, and the fact that anyone getting out of control would promptly be ventilated by a civvie, things would shake out for the better.
Just like the Slimes to inpugn the character of the man they are interviewing because he is a conservative.
I can't imagine saying the same about Clinton for example: "The former President and convicted liar."
LEAP: Because there are REAL criminals doing REAL damage to be caught.
Drugs in America should be under the purview of the Surgeon General, not the Attorney General.
Who's your favorite jack-booted thug? What constitutional right would you prefer to give up the most?
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
Oh let's see. I guess it would be the constitutional right to toke my brain out of existence. Would it be ok with you if the states, as they already have, made coke, meth, crack, pcp, etc, illegal?
The question comes down to whether you own yourself, or whether you are chattel of the state.
The idea that the State has the authority to tell you what you may and may not take into your own body extends right out to the ongoing attack on fattening foods.
By "State" I meant the individual states have the right if the people of that state so choose, and they have, make the hard drugs illegal.
Yes, of course, I understood that. Did you understand my response to your query?
Some states used to have legal slavery, too, that didn't make it right or moral or just in the framework of individual liberty on which this nation was founded.
Conversely to your point, some states have made certain drugs legal, but have been slapped down by the Federal government on specious "commerce" grounds.
Some states used to have legal slavery, too, that didn't make it right or moral or just in the framework of individual liberty on which this nation was founded.
Then in this case did you approve of the jack booted thugs of the Union army, telling you that slavery was illegal? Did that make you chattel of the state?
Conversely to your point, some states have made certain drugs legal, but have been slapped down by the Federal government on specious "commerce" grounds.
I am not a constitutional scholar so I will not debate this point with you. Other than to say, it has always occured to me that if the majority of the people wanted illegal drugs made legal, it would be done so.
On a federal level, at least, the people have never had a chance to speak on the issue---the FDA refuses to even consider the re-classification of marijuana, which to this day remains a Schedule 1 drug despite the fact that 10 states permit its use as medicine.
How does debunking BS become meth cheerleading? Do you doubt his government references? Do you want to re-instate alcohol prohibition? What about tobacco, or are the revenues too critical? Please read the links in comment# 11.
There's a difference between freeing individuals from slavery, as opposed to imposing slavery by seizing control over what you eat, smoke, inject, or inhale.
Why would you want to do any of the above?
You've obviously never read any of the anti-WOD material I've contributed over the past six years here at FR. While I'm anti-WOD, I do believe the state can make a compelling interest to make certain drugs or substances illegal through constitutional means. And from what I know of meth, it's one of those substances for which I think the state can make such a case.
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.