Posted on 05/13/2010 9:11:14 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
MEXICO CITY (AP) – After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Sometimes, even propaganda is true.
The "war on drugs" is lost. The War on our Rights continues apace.
Please point out to me just WHERE the Founders said it would be OK for FedGov to use the ICC to ban or prohibit one solitary thing. Anything at all. Because their sole purpose for putting that clause in there was to ensure that the Several States did NOT do stupid stuff like put tariffs on goods coming in from another State or even just passing through from seaport to another State. THAT was their whole intent, not some penumbra or emanation that gave Congress authority to ban stuff or behave as they are with the so-called health care bill. Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers plus the writings of Jefferson. What you allege is mentioned as NOT being a power given to FedGov.
And if you don’t LIKE what I post, don’t read it. Because it’s all part and parcel of the same thing: RESTORING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC.
And if you want to talk about the States, fine. Remember, the Founders specifically stated in the ORIGINAL Founding Document that ours was to be a government whose JUST powers were given to it with and by “consent of the governed.” Now, I don’t know about you, but an HONEST man will acknowledge that he cannot give his consent to having something done in his name or on his behalf THAT HE HIMSELF DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO DO INDIVIDUALLY IN THE FIRST PLACE. He cannot hire someone to take from another to fund HIS well-being because HE HIMSELF is enjoined from doing so to begin with.
Likewise, he cannot prohibit his neighbor from eating pork, say, because HE hates pigs. So how does he legitimately give his “consent” to having a third party (government) do it for him? HE CANNOT. At MOST he and his other neighbors may properly enjoin the pork eater from cooking and consuming IN A PUBLIC AREA off the pork eater’s property.
You with me so far? Or do I have to use smaller words and put in pictures? Because as long as people like you and your pals want to trash the Constitution in the name of some “war” on something or other, it matters not what, you jackasses are leaving the door wide open for the Left to do the same thing in THEIR turn. FREEDOM means you have to put up with stuff you may not like very much in order to be able to do what YOU want to do.
And that is why I am dead set against ANY form of prohibition by government. It violates the very principles this nation was founded on, the very bedrock of the Republic.
I am going to ask you the same question I asked pissant (and have yet to see answered by anyone. Do YOU have the stones to try?)
In your zeal to control others’ lives by ignoring the Constitution, what exactly is it that would set you apart from the likes of Obambi, Pelousy or Harry Reid?
For a professed Christian, your reply was insulting. Clearly you take the WOD very seriously, but that’s no cause to insult or demean other posters.
“You with me so far?”
“Or do I have to use smaller words and put in pictures?”
“Because as long as people like you and your pals want to trash the Constitution in the name of some “war” on something or other...” (No hyperbole there at all...)
“...you jackasses are leaving the door wide open for the Left to do the same thing in THEIR turn.”
“The same place that says it is OK to have control over people’s lives where Gay Marriage is concerned, Murder is concerned, Deviancy is concerned, Lying is concerned, child abuse is concerned, etc. etc. etc.
“God’s word, the Bible.”
What Bible would that be? I’ve read the Bible many times, and cannot find anywhere in the Bible, after the collapse of the Kingdom (OT), that it ever says Christians are supposed to use government to force their moral views on other people. All I can find are verses telling Christians to obey the government and pray for peace and freedom to worship as they believe.
Perhaps you can point to one of those verses that says, “Christians should influence the government to make all people behave as thought they were Christians, whether they are or not,” or something like that.
Hank
A Christian professes Christ crucified. I am insulted ny many Christians every day, as I watch their lives...
Demean implies you are correct in your assumptions and bigotry. Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is...
dcwusmc: “In your zeal to control others’ lives by ignoring the Constitution, what exactly is it that would set you apart from the likes of Obambi, Pelousy or Harry Reid?”
Your logic is faulty and extreme.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/False_dilemma?qsrc=3044
If I don’t agree with you that drugs should be completely legalized, then I’m trashing the US Constitution. There’s no middle ground, only your definition of the US Constitution applies, and I’m trashing the document if I don’t agree. That’s faulty logic—a false dilemma.
Plus, you present another false dichotomy. Even if I was ignoring the US Constitution, it doesn’t mean I’m like Obama or Pelosi. Opposition to the unfettered distribution of hard drugs is not the same thing as taking property from one citizen to give to another, forcing people to enroll in government health care, etc.
You see the WOD as a simple black and white issue, but that is an extreme view of the US Constitution. I’m not trying to insult you. Even if you could stack the SCOTUS with sympathetic judges and overturn the WOD, the states would set an amendment speed record to grant that power back to the fed. No significant portion of the voting public will ever support the sale of meth, crack, etc. at Wal-Mart.
I’m not posting this to try and convince you to change your mind or because I have the “stones” to refute you. I’m posting this so that others will see the faulty logic in your posts.
Under our beloved constitution that is not the case. However, it is also true that states are free to have whatever drug laws they wish without federal interference.
President Reagan was a good man, but he should have listened to Mrs. Reagan regarding drug policy - "Just Say No" is the only sane thing to do. Asset forfeiture (and the ability of police to confiscate property that is "suspected" as being involved in a drug "crime" is unAmerican. As are the anti-financial privacy laws his administration enacted. Only the corrupt rich get it. Everyone else gets screwed.
Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug in America (behind only alcohol and tobacco), and has been used by nearly 100 million Americans. According to government surveys, some 25 million Americans have smoked marijuana in the past year, and more than 14 million do so regularly despite harsh laws against its use. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.
Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, “The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco.”
Get the facts. See our Library
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7305
Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, roughly 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.
NORML supports the eventual development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe legal source. This policy, generally known as legalization, exists on various levels in a handful of European countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, both of which enjoy lower rates of adolescent marijuana use than the U.S. Such a system would reduce many of the problems presently associated with the prohibition of marijuana, including the crime, corruption and violence associated with a “black market.”
WVKayaker: “Demean implies you are correct in your assumptions and bigotry.”
No. Demean means to treat others poorly, without the dignity fellow FReepers deserve in a civil society and polite forum. Even if you and others think I’m a “jackass” for opposing the legalization of drugs, it doesn’t justify personal attacks on my intelligence.
dcwusmc is very concerned about following the exact letter of the law. Well, there’s a board rule against personal attacks. I can handle the insults. I’m simply pointing them out, because this is supposed to be a polite forum. Calling me a “jackass” doesn’t improve the weight of his arguments.
You really are an Obama. Being concerned about something does not require destroying the liberty of the republic in its pursuit.
I ... don't ... like ... drugs. Period. Was that slow enough for you to understand?
I also think the War on Some Drugs ranks as one of the biggest disasters of the Republic (right up there with the Federal Reserve, direct election of Senators, IRS, Medicare, and Social Security).
I have 0 tolerance for drugs in my own household. That gives me exactly 0 security against being invaded by police in search of it. That is the problem. Not that that is any of your or the government's business. It isn't.
As you apparently have not either. The Jesus Christ I read about in the New Testament was a man of peace who sought to persuade people by example not force. You are not any different than the radical animals who call themselves Muslim who have declared war on the US.
You're apparently OK with having other people do your killing for you. Are you willing to do it yourself? Are you willing to tie a bomb around your waist, go into a place where drugs are being dealt, and set it off? Hey, you'll maybe kill a drug dealer or two and many users. It's a big win, right?
Correct ...
(I'm laying it on thick today!)
Sadly, no.
WVKayaker: “...more than 14 million do (smoke marijuana) so regularly despite harsh laws against its use.”
People who smoke marijuana, knowing that it’s illegal, are dishonorable people who deserve no sympathy from law-abiding citizens. It’s one thing to disagree and attempt to change the law. It’s something else to choose to be a criminal, especially when doing so supports other criminal enterprises not related to marijuana.
If you are that thin-skinned, you ought to seek another sandbox. This one is where the kicks are pretty high in the air, and everybody gets dirty. A plea such as yours usually indicates a poorly protected position.
There are no winners in these discussions, only participants. It is all based on personal bigotry and preference. I am also a Christian. Christians believe in Christ. Their sins have been forgiven. They still sin, since it is our nature.
I like Grant's Scotch, a blend. I buy it because it seems as good as Glenmorangie, (to me) along with one of my cigars. I buy it to save money. When tasted alone, it is just a good drink, not great. I smoke a wide variety of different cigars. I buy expensive Scotches, as well, but usually reserve them for special occasions (or not).
The Constitution gives no credence to any of your arguments. There is no license for the Fedrool Gum't to control behaviors. It is clear that the states alone have the right to make these "sin" laws. If you support the WOD, you are also speaking against the United States Constitution.
I will gladly accept correction, if you can PROVE otherwise. A USSC decision, made at variance with the clear writings, is not acceptable proof. Abortion and sodomy laws are also at variance... with this one!
What part of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is misunderstood in your mind?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
People who smoke marijuana drive 56 in a 55 zone, knowing that it’s illegal, are dishonorable people who deserve no sympathy from law-abiding citizens.
I cannot answer for my fellow FReeper, but as one who has a similar opinion I can say that we have been flamed too many times by the same people using the same refuted arguments to be anything other than frustrated.
The "War" on Drugs is "lost". Give it up. Mrs. Reagan is right. Just Say No! Holding society to blame for your shortcomings as a parent just doesn't cut it. That's really what it boils down to and the lack of personal responsibility involved being advocated on this site is rather perplexing.
Personal responsibility? What does that have with the question?
I am personally responsible for MY ACTIONS. God is my judge. Your opinion is anti-thetical to the Constitution, and to the Scriptures. How does that relate to personal responsibility?
You imply that it is wrong to smoke a green plant, since you agree it should be the gum't s job to define it that way. I see nothing in my Scriptures which would prohibit it. Do you find it in yours? I see lots of moderation required ... but the only forbidden thing was found in the Garden of Eden!
Your statist views are duly noted... and liberty apparently has no place in your economy.
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.