'Demon drug' propaganda doesn't cut it anymore

I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution.

That is a non-sequitur. I am simply saying that the commerce clause did not confer the right to the federal government to prohibit it (except maybe on federal property, like murder). That is not to say that states may not do so. (see 9th Amendment) It does not require that something be a personal "right" in order to say it is beyond the scope of the original understanding of a FEDERAL government in which states are sovereigns and not mere administrative districts.

And the Amendment that prohibits governments from the Federal to the local level from controlling or outlawing specified noxious drugs (i.e. the "right to smoke dope") is?

Your logic is the backward logic of the Left, i.e. that the federal government has all powers not specifically prohibitted to it, while in fact the basic principal of federal power before the New Deal Supreme Court (and taught as if it were still true when I went to school some thirty years ago) is that the federal government has only powers delegated to it in the Constitution. The onus is therefore on you to show the clause in the Constitution or Amendments upon which these bureaucracies are based rather than taking them as given and require a specific proscription to dismantle them. This is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Your view places you squarely on the Left.

I am simply saying that the commerce clause did not confer the right to the federal government to prohibit it (except maybe on federal property, like murder).(Your opinion, not necessarily that of the Supreme Coutt) That is not to say that states may not do so. (see 9th Amendment) It does not require that something be a personal "right" in order to say it is beyond the scope of the original understanding of a FEDERAL government in which states are sovereigns and not mere administrative districts.

Ah, yes, the old "ultra-republican" argument, under which the Federal Government can neither forbid nor permit anything, including slavery and secession. I think the courts have, for better or worse, worked their way around "conundrum" a long time ago. It sounds like the argument made by those who claim that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. Commercialized "legal" drugs which are moved and sold across state lines, do fall under the "commerce clause", as you well know.

If everyone would just mail their pot to me, I'd keep it locked up in a safe location, and ~~bang~~ bong, our nation's drug problem would be over. We'd need no War on Drugs.

If marijuana were "regulated like alcohol", the Federal and state taxes would soon make dope even more expensive than it is right now. More expensive dope would lead to (you guessed it) illegal "bootlegging", requiring more BAMTF (Bureau of Alcohol, Marijuana Tobacco and Fire Arms) Agents to insure that the Tax Man gets his cut.

You are basing your argument on a fallacy. What makes you think that legal pot would be more expensive than contraband pot? Illegal marijuana is quite expensive - the government could tax it and still sell it for less than half the street price. The drug lords would lose all their business. That's the whole point of legalization.

You're amazing. You make an argument which you freely acknowledge has been "overturned" by the "post New Deal Supreme Court", then you tell me that I have the "onus" of disproving your "overturned" arguments! We may not like every decision of the Supreme Court(s), but until they are "overturned" by succeeding courts, or through Constitutional amendment, they are the law (as opposed to your "previous understanding" or interpretation). Don't tell me how you interpret the Commerce Clause, 'cause your interpretation and a dollar won't even get you a cup of Starbucks these days.

You are basing your argument on a fallacy. What makes you think that legal pot would be more expensive than contraband pot? Illegal marijuana is quite expensive - the government could tax it and still sell it for less than half the street price. The drug lords would lose all their business. That's the whole point of legalization.

I bow to your knowlege of the price of illegal drugs, but I think you need to follow the chain of my replies to some of your fellow Rastafarians to know "where I'm coming from".

Ah, yes, the old "ultra-republican" argument, under which the Federal Government can neither forbid nor permit anything, including slavery and secession.

Slavery, as you probably know, was never prohibitted by the federal government, nor could it have been. It was prohibitted by the states with the Reconstruction Amendments. Back then, people had the quaint notion that was how it worked. The question of secession was never really resolved because the attack on Fort Sumter, federal property, shorted any peaceful legal process.

I think the courts have, for better or worse, worked their way around "conundrum" a long time ago.

As I said, you have more in common with the activist judicial philosophy of the Left. If you happen to argue against judicial activism as a philosophy in other matters, such as abortion or emminent domain, that does not make you a conservative, just incoherent.

It sounds like the argument made by those who claim that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional.

In what way? There is a 16th Amendment. Where is your provision?

Commercialized "legal" drugs which are moved and sold across state lines, do fall under the "commerce clause", as you well know.

There is no disputing that.

The point is that the Constitution need not prohibit Federal powers
but that the Feds possess only those powers which have been delegated
by the Constitution. There is no delegated federal power to determine
the substance from which we constitute ourselves nor is their one which
would allow the feds to control the chemistry of our minds.

Some seem to believe that an herb given by God to man and beast alike at the beginning of time and which has grown freely almost everywhere, including here long before our nation was formed, is permissibly eradicable or controllable by the federal government through powers granted by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. It is an impossible task to devise a logical explanation of how the commerce clause can prohibit the personal growth and consumption of an herb gifted by God. In light of the rest of the Constitution any such perceived mandate dissolves and exposes the government as deluded by its own grandeur.

I bow to your knowlege of the price of illegal drugs, but I think you need to follow the chain of my replies to some of your fellow Rastafarians to know "where I'm coming from".

Pot sells for an average of $200 an ounce. Probably costs $5 to produce. The government could put a $95 tax on it and it would still end up costing half of what illegal pot costs.

We may not like every decision of the Supreme Court(s), but until they are "overturned" by succeeding courts, or through Constitutional amendment, they are the law

You keep saying things that aren't true. Supreme Court decisions are OPINIONS and every one is explicitly labeled as such.

Article VI of the Constitution says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Nothing there about Supreme Court or any other courts making "law" and they are explicitly placed under it.

And the onus in a philosophical debate is far different than the onus in a courtroom. Your argument that the Supreme Court said it and that settles it is an argument from authority. That is a fallacy. It also binds you to support all decisions to date, contradictory as they are, on abortion, emminent domain, religious symbols etc. What's more, it precludes you from having an opinion if their rulings change. It makes you a tool of the status quo, whatever it might be at the time. Or do you only present the status quo as a principle when it is to your liking?

pawdoggie wrote:

"I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution. "

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

Amendment 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.

And the Amendment that prohibits governments from the Federal to the local level from controlling or outlawing specified noxious drugs (i.e. the "right to smoke dope") is?

The 10th clearly says that some powers are prohibited to States.
The 14th makes clear that:
"--- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Drugs, guns, booze, - all sorts of "noxious" property can be 'reasonably regulated' using local police powers.. [those powers not prohibited in the 10th].
Fiat prohibitions on "noxious" property cannot be written or enforced without infringing on human rights outlined in the Constitution.
Thus there is no 'power to prohibit' delegated to any level of government anywhere in our Constitution.

The 18th was necessary in an attempt to 'prohibit' booze, and failed because 'we the people' refused to accept an unconstitutional act. -- Drug prohibitions are also unconstitutional acts, due to fail for the same reasons.

You keep saying things that aren't true. Supreme Court decisions are OPINIONS and every one is explicitly labeled as such.

Okay, so when conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade was "settled law", he was lying and you know better. Okay, got it.

And the onus in a philosophical debate is far different than the onus in a courtroom.

How very convenient, for you. Guess that leaves me free to say that I wish we had Singapore's drug laws, so that we could finally get a handle on the drug problem.

I want to see the drug lords wearing suits & ties, getting raped down [to] their last Centavo in a Vendor Cubicle in Bentonville by a Walmart buyer over the price of Sam's Choice Wacky Tabacky.

Like Patton rolling to Moscow it would be a beautiful thing to see Sam's Club scythe the Drug Lords down to size!

Unlike Patton rolling to Moscow, the Fall of the Drug Lords may actually occur...someday.

Sounds like fun

Here's the current one...

The War Between North and South

One poster is arguing that paper money is unconstitutional and we should go back to a barter economy.

Guess that leaves me free to say that I wish we had Singapore's drug laws, so that we could finally get a handle on the drug problem.

You are indeed free to say that, but once again, you would be wrong:

"The GOS [Government of Singapore] nonetheless is concerned about the increase in addiction rates and recidivism among drug offenders who have undergone treatment. There are currently about 9,000 addicts undergoing rehabilitation in Singapore treatment centers, the same number as in 1995."

--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html

For the Netherlands--

"Demand Reduction. The Netherlands has extensive demand reduction programs and lowthreshold medical services for addicts, who are also offered drug rehabilitation programs. Authorities believe such programs reach about 7080 percent of the country's 25,000 harddrug users. [my note: in a total population of 15.1 million]

--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html

_______________________________________

Using a population of 3 million for Singapore in 1996, that works out to an addiction rate of about 0.30%.

Using the State Dept. figures for the Netherlands, and a population of 15.1 million, the addiction rate was about 0.17%.

Also note that the Singapore figure only takes into account the addicts under treatment, whereas the figure for Holland is the estimate of the total number of addicts.

pawdoggie wrote:

"I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution. "

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

Amendment 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.

And the Amendment that prohibits governments from the Federal to the local level from controlling or outlawing specified noxious drugs (i.e. the "right to smoke dope") is?

The 10th clearly says that some powers are prohibited to States.
The 14th makes clear that:
"--- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Drugs, guns, booze, - all sorts of "noxious" property can be 'reasonably regulated' using local police powers.. [those powers not prohibited in the 10th].
Fiat prohibitions on "noxious" property cannot be written or enforced without infringing on human rights outlined in the Constitution.
Thus there is no 'power to prohibit' delegated to any level of government anywhere in our Constitution.

The 18th was necessary in an attempt to 'prohibit' booze, and failed because 'we the people' refused to accept an unconstitutional act. -- Drug prohibitions are also unconstitutional acts, due to fail for the same reasons.

Okay, so when conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade was "settled law", he was lying and you know better. Okay, got it.

Roe v. Wade is only "settled law" if we're willing to let it be. Is that what you want?

Okay, so when conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade was "settled law", he was lying and you know better. Okay, got it.

In legal parlance, that is called dicta. And if I were to confront him on the point he would have no choice but to concede. (You are arguing from authority again.)

Guess that leaves me free to say that I wish we had Singapore's drug laws, so that we could finally get a handle on the drug problem.

Yes it does. But you will also have to accept Singapore's Constitution.

"The price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, but spirit prices increased by only 270 percent,"

You've made my case, far better than me.

If I could grow my own tobacco, my pack would cost .75 a pack.
Not 8.00 a pack in New York and California.
If I could run my still, my bottle of bourbon would be
3- 4.00 a bottle. Not, 45.00 and up in New York and California.
Since neither is possible, both ( of any quality) are 7-10 times that.

Legal pot for "medicinal" use,in California, according to many posters on this thread is 850.00 a bag.

You could grow it in the back yard for pennies.

The government won't allow a "pot" garden any more than they allow a still, or a tobacco farm that doesn't report
how much crop they harvested.

Yikes man,

You keep wanting us to be Amsterdam.

Totally different government, and mindset.

Will never happen.

Pot smokers have had no problem forking out 200.00 - 850.00
a bag.

Don't look to the government to give you a discount.
They will only charge you more.