Replies

[...] combating drug abuse are not among the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal legislature, and as such, per the Tenth Amendment, are powers exclusively reserved to the individual States and to their citizens.

Not precisely true, FRiend. The federal government does have the right to control import/export into the country, and also interstate trafficking, so there is a proper role for the federal government in defining contraband.

That being said, I will meet you in the middle, and agree that the federal government has far out-stepped it's boundaries wrt the WOD. I will agree with the libertarians that states rights and private rights have been lost in the process, and need to be restored.

But I will still remain against the notion of legalizing all drugs, or a panoply of 50 different definitions, which would make interstate enforcement impossible. Some reasonable middle ground must be found.

I find the libertarian view to be short-sighted in this regard, as what one endorses, one will invariably get more of.

Who will pay for the increase in drug use? Crime will go up, legal or not... drug users cannot afford meth now, which is fairly reasonable to buy... but the nature of their addiction makes them useless as workers, so they steal for their fix. That will not change if their drug is legal. But since they cannot be processed by the system for their drug use, they will remain on the streets until caught actually committing a burglary.

And who will support the increase in unwed mothers and addicted children? More grist for the welfare system. What of all the illegitimate children pumped into the system?

Legalizing drugs will not make things better. It will make things predictably worse. And they are bad enough already.

But since they cannot be processed by the system for their drug use, they will remain on the streets until caught actually committing a burglary.

BS. The idea of drug zombies is nothing more than drug war propaganda with absolutely nothing in empirical evidence to support it. The idea of "precrime" is so foreign and abhorrent to a free society it hardly bears mentioning.

With respect to INTERSTATE commerce, the SOLE responsibility and authority granted the Central Government, per the words of the Founders, was to ensure a level field on trade between the Several States. For example, Maryland could not put a tariff on goods coming in from Pennsylvania either in transit to Virginia or for sale in Maryland. That sort of thing. They were VERY specific in their writings, because they KNEW that the government could and would try to regulate EVERYTHING under that clause and that was NOT their intent. So sorry, but the modern interpretations of the ICC are TOTALLY and UTTERLY at odds with the Founders’ view.