Indeed, it is my point that launching such lawsuits might be the means to an unanticipated installation of a tyrant. If we give away our legislative right to decide to the judiciary, what is then the appeal process when the judiciary makes decisions contrary to the Constitution? And how is that different from having a king? I prefer a process that is not only Constitutional (even if the outcome not always is), but also self-correcting. e.g. My lesson from the O.J. trial was not that we should get rid of trial by jury in favor of Roman Law, despite the fact that Roman Law would most certainly have found O.J. guilty.
Although I would not call them your allies, there are equally some real nut jobs arguing for legalization by any means. Should tpaine think that's a reference to him, its not.
I've yet to hear anyone making the argument that I am. You are confusing the argument that drugs should be illegal with my argument that the decision should not be taken away from the People.
Reverse the order of S-mans points. In effect he claims that:
"-- the decision should not be taken away from the People --- ; --- that drugs should be illegal --"
We see a fine example of word gaming type sophistry.
Pikes:
Sample has made pretty clear that he believes the current drugs regime is injudicious, so I am prepared to believe that he is not being disingenuous or sophistical in this instance.
His words are clear in that he believes that the decision to make drugs illegal "should not be taken away from the People".
S-man:
If we give away our legislative right to decide to the judiciary, what is then the appeal process when the judiciary makes decisions contrary to the Constitution?
Our legislators & executives, indeed ALL of our officials, are duty bound to ignore "decisions contrary to the Constitution". -- As per the unconstitutional 18th, we first ignored, then repealed prohibition. We are in the process of now ignoring the 'war on drugs', with the exception of those who insist in believing that the decision to make drugs illegal "should not be taken away from the People".
-- there are equally some real nut jobs arguing for legalization by any means. Should tpaine think that's a reference to him, its not.
Thanks for the faint praise, and for realizing that I am not making a personal attack on you either. -- This debate on governmental prohibitional power ['states rights'] has been going on since the Constitution was ratified. -- In effect we fought a civil war about it