Federalism should extend to marijuana raids

The Politico ^ | September 11, 2007 | Radley Balko

[tpaine]

As far as I can see there's whole bunches of laws that are just there to make folks 'feel' better about whatever those laws deal with.
The law should exist to protect our inalienable rights.

As we see, there are plenty of people who don't care about inalienable rights. - To them laws can be made to control behaviors that do not harm anyone.

--- They believe in the evil concept that non-violent acts can be decreed to be criminal felonies:

Malum Prohibitum - An act which is supposedly immoral because it is declared to be illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral.

Malum in se - An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include rape, theft, and murder.

The utterly insufferable arrogance of a power to prohibit, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition.
-- Nothing can be done about it. -
Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'moral law' to others.

[tpaine]

- Is Gun Possession a "Violent Felony"?
Address:http://www.volokh.com/posts/1186716304.shtml

[Ransomed]

Howdy robertpaulsen. I see what you mean now. I reckon we disagree on what the inevitable nature of gubberment is when it is given power over folks for no good reason. If you think that substance abuse/use is a good reason for gubberment involvment as it affects the rights of others in and of itself, well I disagree but can respect that opinion. If you think that the gubberment should be involved in substance abuse/use because it hurts the abuser/user and that’s a shame, well I don’t get where you are coming from at all.

Freegards

[Ransomed]

“The utterly insufferable arrogance of a power to prohibit, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition.”

Well, I will say that gubberment has an inevitable nature that stems from what you have said so eloquently above. That’s why paying attention to our inalienable rights is so important.

Freegards

[tpaine]

Thanks for your reply.
Something puzzles me tho.

How can you disagree with but still 'respect' an opinion that allows our government to infringe upon our basic rights to life, liberty or property, without using due process?

[robertpaulsen]

"the inevitable nature of gubberment"

Well, as they say, we are the "gubberment" -- every two years we elect the people who write the laws.

Prohibition lasted 13 short years. Laws against drugs have been on the books 70 years now with no end in sight. My guess is that the majority of citizens want these laws.

[tpaine]

.

The utterly insufferable arrogance of a power to prohibit, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition.

Well, I will say that gubberment has an inevitable nature that stems from what you have said so eloquently above.

-- Nothing can be done about it. -
Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'moral law' to others, --- claiming that the only way to 'protect society' is to write yet another law.

-- Do people wonder -- why there are so many laws?

[Ransomed]

I said that if one believes the use/abuse of drugs in and of itself infringes on another’s inalienable rights I could understand why such a person would want the gov’t to step in and prohibit that use/abuse. The law should exist to protect our inalienable rights. I reckon I shoulda said something like “ I respect how such an argument can be made, but I don’t reckon that I agree that drug use/abuse violates anyone’s inalienable rights, so I think you are wrong in wanting gubberment to interfere.”

Freegards

[Ransomed]

I reckon inalienable rights aren’t dependent on what the executive executes, the legislature legislates, the judiciary judges, or how a majority of folks vote. The law should only concern itself with protecting our rights, otherwise gubberment will do what it’s nature dictates: grow at the expense of liberty.

Freegards

[robertpaulsen]

"I reckon inalienable rights aren’t dependent ..."

Doing drugs is not an inalienable right. An inalienable right, like life, liberty, or property, cannot be taken away without individual due process (ie., it is a God-given right that every man, woman, and child has, and can only be taken away from an individual in a court of law).

All other rights are natural rights which may be reasonably regulated by society.

[tpaine]

"-- if one believes the use/abuse of drugs in and of itself infringes on another's inalienable rights --"

That's the real problem here, -- there is no rational believable argument being made, - by gov't or anyone else, - that "the use/abuse of drugs in and of itself infringes on another's inalienable rights --"

We simply have a Congressional 'finding', - a decree -, that this infringement happens, justifying a prohibitionary 'war'.

I can't respect that type of argument.

[Ransomed]

Well, I guess we disagree!

Freegards

[Ransomed]

Exactly. If somebody said we should ban drugs because taking drugs infringes others inalienable rights as the “atlantis crystal-wavelenths” of a substance taker give “bad karma” to others, well I can take that wacked-out argument easier than if someone says we should ban drugs because drugs are bad and icky.

Freegards

[tpaine]

I reckon inalienable rights aren't dependent on what the executive executes, the legislature legislates, the judiciary judges, or how a majority of folks vote.

Congrats. You have an admission that inalienable rights like life, liberty, or property, cannot be taken away without individual due process. -- I.E., that every man, woman, and child has a right to self defense [thus the use of arms], and that this right can only be taken away from an individual in a court of law.

Naturally this admission is speciously qualified by the claim that certain aspects of life, liberty or property are not inalienable, - thus these aspects can be decreed [by majority legislation] to be subject to prohibitive 'regulations'..

The socialistic urge to prohibit [a political disease] leads to amazing logical contortions.

[Murray the R]

The socialistic urge to prohibit [a political disease] leads to amazing logical contortions.

All the more so when one wishes to prohibit yet call oneself a "conservative."

[Terirem]

When they had a federal ban on alcohol, they recognized that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to do so without an Amendment. Where’s the “marijuana prohibition” amendment? I’m not in favor of legalized marijuana or any other elicit drugs, but it is NOT in the powers of the federal gov’t to have a say in it.

Your statement just blew me away. I never thought of it that way before. Why did it take a constitutional amendment for a federal ban on alcohol but not for a federal ban on marijuana or any other drug?

I looked real quick via google and it seems the authority came via a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. It seems that since the 20th century the growing federal govt has advanced its powers through technicalities and broad interpretations of the constitution to the point where the constitution is a mere shadow of itself. The constitution has been nickled and dimed to death as the federal power over the states has grown and centralized.

[Terirem]

PS: The reason I stumbled onto this thread is I am watching the Hillbilly documentary on the History channel and they mentioned that Kentucky hillbillys are now in the pot growing business switching from moonshine to pot. I consider Appalachian hillbillies the canaries in the mine - if the Feds are going after them for a reason I take notice.

So I did a trace on FR to see if there was any articles on the subject and came across your post.

Thanks again.

[Despot of the Delta]

When they had a federal ban on alcohol, they recognized that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to do so without an Amendment.

Where’s the “marijuana prohibition” amendment?

I’m not in favor of legalized marijuana or any other elicit drugs, but it is NOT in the powers of the federal gov’t to have a say in it.

In 1969 the SCOTUS declared the Marijuana Tax act of 1937 unconstitutional and for a time was legal until Congress got creative and made it a controlled substance. So it's not really illegal per se, but made a controlled substance with a classification of having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment and lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.