What you actually wrote, to refresh your memory, is:
Besides that, drug users and even dealers engage in consensual "crimes". They are not murders, thieves or rapists whose targets/victims do not consent.
"They are not murders[sic], thieves..." I disagree.
Many drug dealers are murderers and thieves. Now you want to change what you wrote to mean that the drug trafficking itself is not harmful to anyone else, but that isn't what you wrote, and it's a significant difference in the context of this debate. In fact, if drug dealers were not frequently violent criminals, I'd assert that SWAT teams bashing in front doors would be entirely unnecessary, and therefore rare to nonexistant, to take them down.
I addressed that issue in my previous post. Alcohol prohibition was constitutionally valid because it was made law via an amendment to the constitution. Congress knew that was the only way to make alcohol prohibition constitutionally valid.
Not really. A related whine that prohibition was really really mean too isn't an answer. Both laws were legal and valid. Your argument seems to be that congress should be barred from passing legislation that you don't like.
I will point persons that support and take part in supporting unconstitutional laws.
Which laws are unconstitutional? The no-knock warrant, or laws against illicit drug trafficking and use?
And whose definition of "unconstitutional" do we use? You seem to be claiming the right to define that word yourself, since the definition used by five of the nine Justices doesn't sit well with you.
The word "unconstitutional" seems to be a favorite among libertarians much in the same way "fascist" is for liberals. It's used as an emotional hammer, with little regard to its actual meaning.
No-knock warrants and anti-drug laws are constitutional. They were passed by a majority of elected representatives and signed by the POTUS. State anti-drug laws were passed according to the provisions of their state's constitution. You just don't like them, so "unconstitutional" is the negative label you choose to hang on them.
My position is that I and every person may do whatever they chose[sic] so long as they do not violate the live[sic] or property rights of another person.
That may very well be your position, but that isn't what the Constitution says, nor is it the legal environment in which the Framers lived and for which they hoped. And it isn't the world in which you live now, though you may wish it were.
Laws that don't fit with your philosophy are not, therefore, unconstitutional.
It seems abundantly clear to me that you've been manipulated into supporting collectivist.group-think.
Oh come on, you can do better than that! Call me a poo-poo head or something.
Many drug dealers are murderers and thieves.
Some are but most aren't. But that's besides the point. The act of possessing drugs and the act of buying and selling drugs is not murder rape or assault. They are consensual interactions. So perhaps we had a misunderstanding.
Zon: Besides that, drug users and even dealers engage in consensual "crimes". They are not murders, thieves or rapists whose targets/victims do not consent.88
It is clear that the context I wrote about was the act of possessing and dealing drugs is consensual. Whereas the acts of murder, thievery and rape have targets/victims that do not consent.
Now you want to change what you wrote to mean that the drug trafficking itself is not harmful to anyone else, but that isn't what you wrote, and it's a significant difference in the context of this debate.
I didn't change the context. It's right there in my 88 post. I was talking just about possession and trafficking. I even differentiated the "crimes" of illicit drug possession and trafficking from violent crimes of murder, thievery and rape by means of the former being consensual and the later being non-consensual.
It is you that changed the context. Not I.
In fact, if drug dealers were not frequently violent criminals, I'd assert that SWAT teams bashing in front doors would be entirely unnecessary, and therefore rare to nonexistant, to take them down.
In my last post I addressed the context that you had changed to. You changed to the context of crime that is spawned by the prohibition of drugs. Like alcohol prohibition before it, drug prohibition spawned crime.
Not really.
Yes really. Your denial of reality is a delusional.
Aside from the rest of your misguided post the below is the only real comment worth responding to.
Laws that don't fit with your philosophy are not, therefore, unconstitutional.
I see nothing in the constitution that it permits congress to prohibit drugs. If it were the 1920's I could point to the part of the constitution that prohibited alcohol -- the 18th amendment.. Please post the part of the constitution that you think permits congress to prohibit drugs.
You claim that I want the constitution to say whatever I want it to when in fact you are projecting. For it is you that want the constitution to to say what you want it to. Drug prohibition is unconstitutional. Apparently you find it difficult to acknowledge having lived your life under a false premise and chose to rationalize continued living under a false premise.
Zon: It seems abundantly clear to me that you've been manipulated into supporting collectivist.group-think.
Oh come on, you can do better than that! Call me a poo-poo head or something.
I couldn't resist responding. What argument do you give for supporting unconstitutional laws even if you weren't aware that they were unconstitutional? You give a group-think response in support of the laws being valid. They aren't valid. You've been manipulated, via your own lack of critical thinking and research, you've gone along to get along.
See LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). A fast growing segment of persons that have or have had careers in the justice system. In the trenches of the drug war, so to speak. You don't want to believe me, fine. Perhaps persons in similar fields as yours will get through to you.
If that's the standard, then there can never be an unconstitutional law.