Posted on 07/05/2011 8:11:24 AM PDT by Nachum
Ten years ago this month, Portugal rejected the conventional approach to drug policymore laws, stiffer prison sentences, more policeand went the other way by decriminalizing all drugs, even cocaine and heroin. The drug warriors predicted a disaster. They said drug use would spike and there would be a public health crisis. That did not happen. As Glenn Greenwald showed in a 2009 Cato report, Portugal is doing better than before and in many respects is doing better than other countries in the European Union
(Excerpt) Read more at cato-at-liberty.org ...
Broward County is the center of oxycontin and other pain killer businesses. Anybody can open up a “pain clinic” and sell pills to addicts who in turn take it to their home states to spread the misery around. This does show that making drugs easy to get makes them much more widespread throughout the culture.
In the event of TSHTF/CWII I hope somebody stashes away enough morphine or heroin to stock at least a couple of field hospitals and a bunch of field medics.
If your answers are "NO" and "NO", then there is no Scriptural justification for prohibition under secular law.
______________________________________
Repeating my earlier questions:
How do you justify supporting laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause?
What other sections of the Constitution are you willing to see trampled, aside from the original Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment?
Also, why did prohibition REQUIRE the passage of an Amendment to the Constitution while banning drugs somehow did not?
Seems that making anything people want easier to get, will make it more widespread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2744822/posts?page=2
Something that will be more trouble than the pot heads.
I am aware of no cases prior to the New Deal that characterized the power flowing from the Commerce Clause as sweepingly as does our substantial effects test. My review of the case law indicates that the substantial effects test is but an innovation of the 20th century.
--J. Thomas, US v Lopez
____________________________________________________
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
--J. Thomas, Gonzales v Raich
____________________________________________________
I really can't believe that anyone here would cite the General Welfare Clause as justification for the WOD. That is a display of contempt for the original understanding of that clause.
The following quotes from the Founders about the General Welfare Clause are from Dr. Walter E. Williams' website at http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/govt.html
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"
-- James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984)
____________________________________________________
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson
____________________________________________________
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
____________________________________________________
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
____________________________________________________
From a column by Dr. Williams:
Try this. Ask one of these Constitution-talking politicians how much respect we should have for the Tenth Amendment that says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Tenth Amendment simply and clearly says if the Constitution does not permit the federal government to do something, then the federal government doesn't have the right to do it. You tell me where in the Constitution is there delegated authority for federal involvement in education, retirement, health, housing, transportation, handouts and other activities representing more than three-quarters of federal spending.
http://mlvb.net/econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/99/Congressional-Contempt.htm
Do you love your Drug War more than the Constitution?
I’m not supporting the “war on drugs”. I never did because I knew from the start that it only goes after supply which will never do anything but increase street prices which makes matters worse.
US v Lopez is about gun control which of course there should be none other than careful aim.
Gonzales v Raich I agree with, if you grow weeds in your yard and smoke them and don’t try to get my kids to smoke with you then I’m happy for you.
I’ve posted before that 90% of Federal gov’t is unconstitutional - I agree on all those points.
As far as having no laws regulating recreational drugs, it sounds like a fine libertarian ideal, but drug users that I have known (people with extraordinary capability to handle drugs) have exhibited effects so bad on their mind, body and life that it strains credulity to think that all drugs should be 100% legal. The Founders, IMHO, would see that some of our modern problems are indeed relevant to the General Welfare (perhaps we could find out if they took any drastic actions related to individual rights early on under the authority of that clause). I’d be curious to look at some of the rampant immorality and social problems of today from their personal viewpoints - I’m sure much of our society they would find repugnant.
And please - I am not for any unconstitutional SWAT raids - I do not think those type of entries are even necessary unless it is to save lives. All LE has to do is sit outside your house or someplace you frequent undercover and wait for you to leave and have your vehicle disabled or blocked. They can then take you into custody rather easily, but it’s not like an action movie, it’s rather boring.
I found an interesting 29 page paper written by Mark A.R. Kleiman and Jonathan P. Caulkins, who also authored a book that delved into some of the details of legalization and the state of things at this point that had a lot more detailed information than I knew; perhaps it might help you to take a second look at how complete abolishing of all drug laws at once could have some unintended negative consequences.
If you support keeping in place federal laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause, then you are walking over the original Constitution. If you support abolishing them and turning such matters over to the states, then you are respecting the original Constitution. It's that simple.
Here's a simple either/or question. Do you support keeping in place federal drug laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause, or should such laws be repealed?
I've posted before that 90% of Federal gov't is unconstitutional - I agree on all those points
What section(s) of the Constitution did fedgov violate to bring this about, in your opinion?
As far as having no laws regulating recreational drugs,...
Stop it. No one in this discussion said anything of the sort. Recreational drugs are regulated by every state in the union, so abolishing federal drug laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause does not equal having no laws against them.
The Founders, IMHO, would see that some of our modern problems are indeed relevant to the General Welfare (perhaps we could find out if they took any drastic actions related to individual rights early on under the authority of that clause).
What nonsense to think the Founders would act in a way that contradicted everything they said about the General Welfare Clause. These were honorable, principled men.
They knew that unforeseen problems would arise, so they provided a method for amending the Constitution. If drugs are such a menace that federal control is needed, then do the honorable thing and pass an amendment.
I'd be curious to look at some of the rampant immorality and social problems of today from their personal viewpoints - I'm sure much of our society they would find repugnant.
They would see that we've become a democracy. The entire Congress is popularly elected, it has virtually no restraint on what it can regulate, and it can spend whatever it wants. That's what the Founders would find most repugnant.
I am confident their solution would be a return to the original Constitution, rather than pass unconstitutional federal laws to deal with it.
Why should I feel bad for people that use drugs and get caught and pay for it the rest of their lives?
There’s a very easy solution to this, don’t use drugs. Do people absolutely have to? I guess according to some morons they can’t help themselves.
Several states have done that. For example, it's a $100 civil fine in CA. In Alaska, it's legal under state law to possess up to 2 or 3 ounces in your home. IIRC, MA voted about 60-40 to decriminalize small amounts. This was despite police organizations and the state's DAs opposing the measure. (heh!)
The war on marijuana has all but collapsed. Once austerity hits for real, I believe the WOD will be one of the first things thrown overboard.
Let them pay the cost of their stupidity and not us
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.