Posted on 01/01/2006 8:11:50 AM PST by Wolfie
Maybe Abraham Lincoln said it best, "The Constitution was not meant to be a suicide pact".
"You are ignoring the issue IMO."
The issues we're addressing are different, best I can tell. You're looking at this as a drug issue, and I a constitutional issue, therefor we have a failure to communicate.
"It is more important to have one policy on the Federal level that works in all states than 50 policies, one for every state."
Then do it the right way and amend the constitution.
"The enemies that would bring drugs to us or would make drugs among us would use the various policies of 50 separate states against us as a weapon."
I don't think it would be any worse than any other crime that crosses state lines, and once it crosses it's within the federal powers to act. The states do most of the work anyway, and if a state wants to legalize then that's one less state the fed has to worry with.
"We need Federal control and enforcement. It is like having no Gorelick wall between the states."
I don't think this would be the issue you claim, when the states have crime that's crossing the state line they go to the fed now.
"Like I said, this is a survival issue as the terrorism issue is. This is not a Constitutional issue when we are dealing with a threat at the national level it is."
Then all the more reason to keep the fed busy at the border, no telling what's coming in at this point. As for the constitutional aspect, anytime the fed exerts power over the states you bet it's a constitutional issue.
My honest opinion seeing how you're a CA Guy, me thinks you want the fed to save you from your states voters. Any truth in that statement?
01
No no no. We want potential jihadists to smoke as much pot as possible. They will then be much too stoned, man, to catch their planes.
"The Federal drug laws won't shift that much from President to President."
And here is where we are stuck, it's not the federal "drug" law, it's the exercise of federal power that is not enumerated in the constitution. You can replace the word DRUG something else and if it's not enumerated in the constitution I have a problem with the fed using its power.
01
Nobody cared about pot till well into the 20th century.
The Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact, so I have no problem with the Feds exercising it's power regarding drug laws that the people's representatives wrote into law after the people voted them in.
The enemies would use the weak states with liberal laws against the whole nation, so there has to be the Federal power with one minimum standard for all.
We can not operate in the states like the Gorelick wall did between the CIA and FBI, we would be destroying ourselves to the delight of other nations that hate us.
It is OK to have laws beyond the minimal standards of the Feds in the states, but the Feds should maintain a minimum law for our survival.
Gotcha.
Wait till 51% decides not to 'protect' your right to worship as you wish, or speak your mind (what little you have) or own guns, or vote....
L
In other words, changing attitudes?
I believe only Hawaii initiated decriminalization in the legislature -- all others states were via voter referendum. You favor pure democracy?
No, I don't, but voter referenda are probably a better indicator of those changing attitudes than a vote in the legislature.
Well you can stop screaming. As I demonstrated to you (without rebuttal, I might add), drug use is relatively flat. Any increase in spending is due to the increase in population.
I wouldn't try to rebut and in fact in my first post to you on this thread I also said that drug use was relatively flat. Federal spending though is up from what it was in the seventies and that's on a per capita basis.
Keep in mind, half the federal ONDCP budget goes to anti-drug advertising, education, and drug treatment.
I'm think the only reason they can claim this is because of some budget trickery, but I can't find a link right now and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow.
Unlike other illegal drugs, marijuana mellows a person out, and I think of all the people with high-stress jobs that smoke marijuana, on their off-work hours, to mellow out instead of going postal and killing all their coworkers.
Just think about it.
And no, I am not on anything.
Amending the constitution will take more than that.
An uninformed, knee-jerk attitude, led by activists and motivated voters (ie., dope smoking druggies) spewing propaganda, dutifully reported by the biased press.
Not a way to run a country.
Where do you get your "facts"?
Where do you get your facts? Reliable source Please?
L
That's what I'd like to know.
Some of it from here.
"With a record-setting 2 million people locked up in American jails and prisons, the United States has overtaken Russia and has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country."
"In 1980, says Marc Mauer, assistant director of the Sentencing Project in Washington, about 40,000 Americans were locked up solely for drug offenses. Now the number is 450,000, three-fourths of them black or Hispanic, although drug use is no higher in those groups than among whites."
Also, from here, indicating that only 28% of state inmates were charged with possession. But, I would venture to guess that most of those possession cases were actually drug dealing, and plea-bargained down.
Also, I would guress that almost all of the federal drug prisoners are there for dealing.
We have simply decided not to protect your right to do recreational drugs.
The only rights we have to protect are those we said we would protect. You can find those protections in your federal and state constitutions.
Now, are those ALL your rights? Nope. They're just the ones we've decided, as a society, to protect.
Reality
9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Paulsen attempts to 'clarify' his previous statement:
I didn't say the constitutions were a source of rights. I said the constitutions listed the protections of rights.
Obviously, neither U.S. nor State Constitutions can list them all.
Paulsen, your skewed vision of what our Constitution actually says is becoming truly bizarre..
Where do you get these strange ideas that some of our inalienable rights to life, liberty or property are NOT protected by our Constitution?
Who gets to decide to protect which rights?
Where exactly is this vision of yours written into our Constitution?
I believe that's correct. (And today most Nevada counties regulate but don't criminalize the victimless 'crime' of prostitution.)
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.