Damn! Too bad Jefferson wasn't able to convince the other Founding Fathers of his reason and logic. If he did, you might have had a point. As it is, you have nothing.
Well, you do have that one-line quote. Out of context. Which means we don't know what he was talking about.
Unless, of course, you can reference the entire text and post it. Lacking that, the quote is worthless.
Too bad Jefferson wasn't able to convince the other Founding Fathers of his reason and logic. If he did, you might have had a point.
Apparently the founders knew as well as Jefferson and thus didn't include the power for government to prohibit any object but only to regulate interstate commerce.
Unless, of course, you can reference the entire text and post it. Lacking that, the quote is worthless.
You just love to frame the debate to suit your constitution-is-a-living-document ideology.
I've asked you several times to explain how drugs in a person's home harms you. Not aspirin, valium or other over the counter or prescribed drugs, though those too can be abused, but how illicit drug possession harms you. To no avail. You can't explain because you haven't been harmed. When you do respond it's typically your authoritarian and/or communitarian twisted logic and perversion of honest justice.
Primary Source Document
Francis Walker Gilmer, a lawyer and author, was one of Jefferson's numerous correspondents in the years after 1812. In the following letter to Gilmer of June 7, 1816, Jefferson discoursed on the extent to which natural rights must be relinquished in civil society, and expressed his profound disagreement with the Hobbesian view that justice is conventional only, and not natural. The letter reflected Jefferson's abiding faith in Republican government, the main if not the sole function of which was, in his view, to preserve those rights that man has, ideally, in the state of nature.
"I received a few days ago from Mr. Du Pont the enclosed manuscript, with permission to read it, and a request, when read, to forward it to you, in expectation that you would translate it. It is well worthy of publication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound, sound, and short.
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. Every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him. And, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right. The trial of every law by one of these texts would lessen much the labors of our legislators, and lighten equally our municipal codes.
"There is a work of the first order of merit . . . by Destutt Tracy on the subject of political economy. . . . In a preliminary discourse on the origin of the right of property, he coincides much with the principles of the present manuscript; but is more developed, more demonstrative. He promises a future work on morals, in which I lament to see that he will adopt the principles of Hobbes, or humiliation to human nature; that the sense of justice and injustice is not derived from our natural organization but founded on convention only. I lament this the more as he is unquestionably the ablest writer living, on abstract subjects..."
Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to American Presidents