Posted on 10/05/2007 7:17:45 AM PDT by cryptical
Nicely put Steve..
The whole point of having a Bill of Rights [to stop government from 'regulating' what we ingest] was to make certain things vote-proof.
As Justice Robert Jackson said:
"-- The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
(West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943
“Not the federal government. Not today.”
Yes, the Federal government, today.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
I know. You are clueless.
This is your brain on drugs.
Spinal Tap! You sir are indeed an enigma. :-)
How so? How is it more rational to prohibit one drug over another? How is it rational to prohibit any drug?
If you can't challenge it any better than by resorting to, "if alcohol is legal then all drugs should be legal to be consistent", then you need to withdraw.
Childish. I presented a predicate and a conclusion, you presented "it is so because it is so." You know that your argument is empty and intellectually dishonest as well as I do.
But since this is what the citizens want, and it's constitutional, it is the proper function of government to implement it through their police power.
I see, so if the citizens suddenly decide it is time for robertpaulsen to give up everything he owns and live naked in a cave, then you will conclude that such is a proper function of government. You have a lot to learn. I suggest you start with a google search of the phrase "tyranny of the majority."
As for the constitutionality of these laws, that is debatable, but once again, this discussion is on whether it is a proper function of government to micromanage individual behavior. If you argue that it is, then you are a fascist and a statist by definition, and we have nothing further to discuss.
So we're supposed to believe you when you say the drugs in your possession are for you to ingest? They're not going to be sold to children? They're not going to be shipped interstate? Gosh, do you promise?
Yes, and you have to take my word for it. Only fascists disbelieve the citizenry and seek to micromanage behavior. Substitute guns for drugs in your example and remove the reference to ingestion. I guess you will want a war on guns as well.
Are you saying each state does not have the power to prohibit some or all recreational drugs within the state?
Not at all, but if you had been paying attention, you would know that I have been arguing that such power is not a proper function of government, regardless of at what level.
Perhaps you do not understand what is meant by "proper function of government." The phrase refers to what the bounds of the social contract are. It does not refer to any powers the state (as in government) assigns to itself or are assigned to it by the herd. Drug prohibition is not a proper function of government because it impinges on the rights of the individual for a behavior that does not impinge on the rights of others.
Your entire argument is ex post facto. You defend the drug laws because they are the laws. Your argument is that they are proper because they are the law. Those of us who oppose those laws will continue to work for their removal. We are making progress. More mainstream politicians have begun to understand that the war on drugs is pointless and destructive. At the point where these laws disappear, then by your logic, we will have reached an acceptable state and you will be beholden to defend the absence of any prohibition.
The WOD violates basic rights. For the rest I place responsibility with the individual.
For example, the WOD forces no one to steal or commit prostitution.
Yes.
Conservative drug warriors are enablers for drug real crime. They tell criminals that it was the drug that did it. Just like liberals tell criminals it is because daddy never gave you a hug.
How is it rational to pretend that beer and meth are the same?
“Maybe next time, I will turn off my car and lock it,” she said.
lol... maybe? Some people are slow learners but this is ridiculous.
My own beef with Reagan is that he increased the Government with the War on Drugs...
Reagan was pretty good at upsetting the leftists among us.
I’m not a lefty.. It seemed kinda odd that he promised to reduce the size of government when he increased it with drug war..
Less dope, less welfare dependency. Leftists don't want their beoved welfare state to falter in its growth, which is why hate Reagan.
I’m still mad about the Reagan Administration bullying the states into lowering their speed limits.
Nobody’s perfect. Not even RR.
That is my point.. I still like Reagan except the drug war and the speed limit..
As do I, with the same caveats.
So, behavior that does not impinge on the rights of others should be allowed. Like DWI.
How is it rational to pretend that beer and pot are the same?
How is it rational to pretend that tobacco and pot are the same?
If there is no accident then there’s no difference between impaired and sober drivers, except that sober drivers are involved in twice as many fatal accidents as impaired drivers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.