Posted on 09/07/2009 3:09:41 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
“Sorry pal, but you both are stretching the GW Clause beyond anything intended by the founders by attaching your pet causes to that power.”
Sorry, pal, but you are both wrong and lying.
“Drug use is a vice and a health issue.”
It’s also a public safety, criminal, and national defense issue.
“Fedgov has no business regulating intrastate drug policies.”
Way to ignore the international and national defense aspects. Keep ignoring them; maybe they’ll go away.
Your every assertion is just plain wrong as a matter of fact and reason. That said, I don’t propose to waste more time arguing drug legalization with a druggie.
“AFAIK, no one is arguing otherwise with regard to Congress legislating over drugs crossing the borders. The dispute is over which government - fedgov or the states - have constitutional authority over intrastate drug policies.”
Nonsense. The ultimate aim of the legalizers is just that: legalization, at every level. Arguing constitutional issues with people who are only trying to use them hypocritically as a means to an evil end is a waste of time.
“So I await your “yes” or “no” on the Wickard question in bold above.”
Sorry, not going to go down that rabbit hole with you. I am more committed to limited government and original intent than any of you druggies. You only pretend to be concerned with the Constitution because you hope it will be a means to gaining support from people who would otherwise have better sense.
“Are any of those other factors NOT related to the problems created by prohibition in the first place”
When you ask that, you pretend not to know that there are many reasons not created by prohibition.
However, you do know that.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Where in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is granted the power for Congress to prohibit the possession of certain kinds of plants or plant products set forth?
Since you agree that otherwise expansive terms are limited by the scope of the Constitution, I trust you can explain how prohibiting possession of certain plants or plant products is within that scope.
“Where in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is granted the power for Congress to prohibit the possession of certain kinds of plants or plant products set forth?”
Where in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is Congress granted the power to prohibit the practice of human sacrifice as a religious ritual?
From your previous post:
Definitions of sophistry on the Web:
•Sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
•An argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so; The art of using deceptive speech or writing; Cunning or trickery
•A seemingly plausible, but fallacious and devious, argumentation.
Until now, I wondered why you “argue” in the manner that you do. I now realize that you are indeed a sophist. Hell, you probably have a degree in Sophistry!
Besides its inherent deceitfulness, the flaw of sophism(philosophically speaking), is the presumption that one can know The Good; i.e., possess wisdom.
You sir, are no Socrates. Like all socialists, you are merely a sanctimonious fraud with the force of arms behind you.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-d.html#CHAPTERXIX
“But as men, for the attaining of peace and conservation of themselves thereby, have made an artificial man, which we call a Commonwealth; so also have they made artificial chains, called civil laws, which they themselves, by mutual covenants, have fastened at one end to the lips of that man, or assembly, to whom they have given the sovereign power, and at the other to their own ears. These bonds, in their own nature but weak, may nevertheless be made to hold, by the danger, though not by the difficulty of breaking them.”
The crimes involved with drugs are crimes because of drug laws, and the war on drugs has done more to limit freedom in the US than just about any other law in the country.
Not the freedom to use drugs but other freedoms, the right to own property, the right to carry our own money around in a suitcase if we desire too, without being arrested for it.
The bottom line is this: Outlawing drugs has caused more crime than it ever prevented. Your arguments are based on two things: Morality(yours)and the need to control others. People who are violently anti-drug, such as yourself, are usually motivated by religious beliefs(although there is nothing in the bible about not taking drugs)and the need to control others and make them conform to your beliefs.
Think about this(although you will not think about it other than how to make another one of your over long rants): Drugs were legal in this country before the turn of the century, we had no more addicts then than we do now(adjusted for population), drugs today are as plentiful, or maybe more so, than they were then, the difference being now you can't go about buying them openly.
The war on drugs has done nothing but accelerate crime, bankroll gangs and cause massive importation of drugs into our country up through the southern border(along with importing criminals).
The daily killings in Mexico over drugs can be directly attributed to our war on drugs. If there were no market for the illicit drugs(and there would be none if they were leaglized)there would be no mexican drug cartel.
Making something illegal has always had the effect of making a black market for it and increasing crime, BECAUSE OF THE MONEY INVOLVED IN THE SELLING OF SAID ILLEGAL PRODUCT. Cigarettes will shortly be in the same fix as drugs, being sold on the black market and causing needless killings and other crimes.
I know this comment will have not alter your opinion, you are beyond hope and will continue with your self righteous beliefs until the day you die.
Ah, another druggie weighs in, and, as usual, with nothing substantial.
As Thomas Sowell said, “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
“the flaw of sophism(philosophically speaking), is the presumption that one can know The Good; i.e., possess wisdom.”
1. No, the flaw of sophism is not the presumption that one can know The Good. Not even close. As a matter of fact, that statement is so bad, it’s not even wrong.
Since you have chosen to bring up the irrelevant matter of Sophism as a school of philosophy, even though it has been defunct for thousands of years, let’s just clear the air.
“Plato, the most illustrious student of Socrates, depicts Socrates as refuting the sophists in several Dialogues…”
“Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the “sophist” as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning.”
“The Sophists certainly were not directly responsible for Athenian democracy, but their cultural and psychological contributions played an important role in its growth. They contributed to the new democracy in part by relativizing truth, which allowed and perhaps required a tolerance of the beliefs of others.”
The flaws in the ancient school of Sophism are many, but they do not include “the presumption that one can know The Good.” This is not a flaw because it most certainly is possible to know the Good. Oh, sure, our understanding is inadequate to know the totality of everything that there is, but some things are quite clearly one or the other, when viewed through the lens of a properly formed conscience.
Even those of us who lack wisdom need only determine which of the many voices that clamor for our attention represent wisdom. Luckily, there are ways to do that.
However, all that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. As is clear, I use the term in its modern sense, in which it refers to an argument that appears to be valid, but actually is not. The only “flaw” in that sort of sophism is that it is intentionally deceptive (except as parroted by the deceived, in which case it is unintentionally deceptive).
“Like all socialists”
Yeah, you try and sell that to people who know me.
The really ironic thing about this is that it was our socialist enemies who, seeing the spark of an opportunity, fanned the flames of a very minor drug problem into an epidemic. This was done through both propaganda and the actual supply of drugs.
A reasonable man would look back to the sixties, when the drug problem first exploded, and see that drugs were associated with the political left. As, indeed, they still are.
“No matter how bad drugs are for you, prohibition is a violation of Liberty borne out of the same union of state and religion that brought about the prohibition of alcohol but without the same formality of Constitutional authority.”
Your assertion is incorrect.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-d.html#CHAPTERXIX
“But as men, for the attaining...”
Yeah, uh, I guess you didn’t get the memo. Hobbes was wrong about pretty much everything.
Particularly since marijuana, opium, and coca were known and available to the American people at the time of the writing of the Constitution, just like alcohol, yet the Founders saw no pressing need to regulate any of them at the time.
One big reason was that, in the absence of the Welfare State, there were obvious and immediate consequences to being too drunk/stoned/high to work, and family and friends would generally intervene to try to get the affected person straightened out.
Making yourself doubly so wrong...
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. "Morals' are a deceptive replacement for the "avoidance of sin."
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
But, since we are all properly obeying the * modern interpretation * of the First Amendment, good & evil isn't the question... Good & bad, right & wrong, etc., etc., ad nausea; are all inherently religious ideals.
The modern interpretation of the First Amendment (according to the liberal-tarians) says government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, government must never consider issues of morality and right and wrong...
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturdays. But it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean, whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
The mythical rights of men and women are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion. Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights." Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...
Excuse my sarcasm...
As calex59 points out, Hobbes notwithstanding, the laws prohibiting or excessively taxing any substance that has a wide desirability are more dangerous than any such known substance and probably will always be. The only way that such laws can be made to change by a substantial minority is to flout them to the point they are unenforceable.
“If you believe that guns don’t cause crime and should be lawfully carried then you are a hypocrite if you believe drugs should be banned.”
Utter nonsense. But I guess that’s why they call it dope.
The right to carry guns is part and parcel of our God-given rights to self-defense and self-government. Recreational drug use partakes of that in no way whatsoever.
“The crimes involved with drugs are crimes because of drug laws”
So, your argument here is that crimes are crimes because of laws making them illegal?
“and the war on drugs has done more to limit freedom in the US than just about any other law in the country.”
Funny, I haven’t seen it.
“the right to own property”
As long as congress has the power to tax, nobody owns anything.
If you’re talking about the forfeiture laws, I agree that they are an outrage. However, the solution to that is to correct or repeal the law, not to legalize drugs.
“the right to carry our own money around in a suitcase if we desire too, without being arrested for it.”
Same answer as above.
“The bottom line is this: Outlawing drugs has caused more crime than it ever prevented.”
Are you checking what you write? I think I know what you were trying to say, and again, the solution is to get serious, not give up.
“Your arguments are based on two things: Morality(yours)”
No, morality (yours). You will answer for it, the same as I.
“and the need to control others.”
Dr. Freud, is that you?
“People who are violently anti-drug, such as yourself”
And now we decline into the fever-swamps of personal attack.
“Drugs were legal in this country before the turn of the century, we had no more addicts then than we do now (adjusted for population), drugs today are as plentiful, or maybe more so, than they were then, the difference being now you can’t go about buying them openly.”
Even if that’s true, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. In the 19th century (we’re in the 21st now; better update your boilerplate) the public perception of drug use was entirely different.
“The war on drugs has done nothing but accelerate crime, bankroll gangs and cause massive importation of drugs into our country up through the southern border(along with importing criminals).”
Judging by the recurrence of the same typos, I’m beginning to think somebody is posting under several user names.
This “war on drugs, war on drugs, war on drugs” mantra is exactly the sort of bogeyman that the left loves so well. No matter how bad a job the government did in trying to reduce the drug problem, the answer is not legalization.
When murder rates were so high in New York City, did anyone propose legalizing murder as the solution to the problem?
“The daily killings in Mexico over drugs can be directly attributed to our war on drugs.”
No, the killings are on the heads of the users in this country.
“If there were no market for the illicit drugs(and there would be none if they were leaglized)there would be no mexican drug cartel.”
If drugs are legalized and taxed, there will be a booming market for drugs that are tax-free and more potent than the US Government brand.
“Making something illegal has always had the effect of making a black market for it and increasing crime, BECAUSE OF THE MONEY INVOLVED IN THE SELLING OF SAID ILLEGAL PRODUCT.”
Drug addicts will commit crimes whether drugs are legal or not, because they will still need living expenses and money for other luxuries.
The way to ameliorate the drug problem is to (a) reduce the number of druggies, and (b) get serious about stopping importation and distribution.
“Cigarettes will shortly be in the same fix as drugs, being sold on the black market and causing needless killings and other crimes.”
Yes, prohibiting cigarettes is a bad idea. However, there is already a booming black market for tax free cigarettes.
“I know this comment will have not alter your opinion, you are beyond hope and will continue with your self righteous beliefs until the day you die.”
From the 1960s until the 1990s my opinion was the same as yours is now. Then I realized that I was full of crap, and changed my opinion to better match reality. Maybe someday you’ll get it right, too.
“Excuse my sarcasm... “
I’m going to ignore it instead. Having lost the debate on the merits of legalization, you’re turning now to impugning the motives of the opposition.
I don’t see where that’s going to be either useful or fun, so I’m going to drop any attempt to reason with you all.
You can get tangled up in deep and conflicting philosophy.
Or you can look at it simply.
“Interstate commerce” once meant transactions across state lines and was meant to keep states from taxing or restricting imports and exports between them by giving the federal government the power to regulate. But when the New Deal Court corrupted it to mean anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce, the federal government stole the power to regulate all commerce and anything that might affect commerce.
The conflict of rights and morality has been summed up with the axiom “Your rights end at my nose.” The morality of law is that it can be generally agreed by each person that they will follow the morality they chuse. The disagreement comes when one man’s morality demands that he compel others to follow it and attempt to use government to effect that end. Then the argument is that what you do affects me somewhere far short of my nose. This argument leads to regulation of everything you do and its end is absolutism. (For illustration, just imagine the imposition of strict Sharia with 50.1% of the vote with a majority Muslim electorate.) This argument must therefore be rejected no matter how much you or I may be agitated with each other’s personal behavior.
What's your point? Congress is not granted that power, and thus laws concerning murder (including human sacrifice) of nearly everyone except federal agents, and individuals murdered "on the high seas" or in the District of Columbia, are the purview of state governments.
This is why 18 USC 1111(b) specifies the scope of the penalty for murder as "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
“What’s your point? Congress is not granted that power, and thus laws concerning murder (including human sacrifice) of nearly everyone except federal agents, and individuals murdered “on the high seas” or in the District of Columbia, are the purview of state governments. This is why 18 USC 1111(b) specifies the scope of the penalty for murder as “Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
Good grief.
If congress is not granted that power, then federal laws against murder are invalid. By your logic, murder is legal on any military base, except insofar as it might fall under state jurisdiction.
No, federal laws against murder are not invalid, because they only apply to federal personnel and federal property under Article I Section 8.
A military base is under federal jurisdiction/authority: "Congress shall have the power ... to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."
That's my logic, what's yours?
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.