Legalizing Drugs Is Constitutional

Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2012 | Katie Kieffer

[Clintonfatigued]

Ping

[joe fonebone]

bump for later

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

I agree with Katie regarding the constitutionality.

Yes, the states *SHOULD* be able to legalize drugs and tell the federal government to get out of it’s business.

And every state should do just the opposite, and ***not*** legalize them.

Just because they can legalize them, doesn’t mean they should. But enough is enough with the totalitarian federal government.

[rsobin]

I’ll bet there are many millions of jobs directly and indirectly dependent on this war.

[circlecity]

Although I agree with the author the USSC does not and has ruled the commerce clause gives the Federal Government jusrisdiction to preempt the entire field on this issue.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Having a right and it being right are two different things.

[riverrunner]

I have always said if we needed a Constitutional amendment to out law alcohol.

But not one for drugs how come

[ALPAPilot]

A serious discussion would include the arguments made in SCOTUS case Gonzales v. Raich in which Thomas’s dissenting opinon demonstrated that he is THE conservative on the court.

[varmintman]

I don't have anything to do with drugs and recommend everybody on the planet do the same; every drug problem in the world would vanish within five days if the whole world were to do that...

Nonetheless that's never going to happen, hence the "War on Drugs(TM)", instituted under Richard Nixon. This is the single biggest issue I have with Republicans and there is little if anything to choose between demmy and pubby pols on the issue. The "war on drugs" leads to

• "No-knock" raids, which are a clear violation of the fourth amendment and of the common law principle of a man's home being his "castle". In fact technically a homeowner who were to shoot and kill one or more government agents in the process of conducting a "no knock" raid would be entirely within his or her rights.
• The incarceration of large numbers of people who would otherwise never have had contact with prison systems. For many this amounts to a career training program for serious crime.
• Gang wars, drive-by shootings and the like.
• Corruption, the rise of drug cartels, and outright civil wars in other nations which supply drugs to the illegal drug enterprises here.

It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/

The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.

Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.

Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.

"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."

The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

• Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
• Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.
• Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.
• Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?

[G Larry]

So is jumping off of a bridge.

Be my guest...

[Steamburg]

Heck, pharmaceutical grade heroin on the grocery shelves would be a great way to clean up our society, but only after I have made heavy investment in a body bag company. /sarc, maybe/

[beef]

The Narcotics Officers Brotherhood and the Drug Lord Industry Association, in a rare show of solidarity, have banded together to fight the legalization of mariijuana, for the children of course.

[Aevery_Freeman]

Yes, ready access to hard drugs would solve much of the problem.

See Darwin for clarification.

[TPOOH]

So “states” could allow felons to carry handguns???

[WayneS]

Yes.

[ExTxMarine]

So “states” could allow felons to carry handguns???

In a word, "YES!" In fact, they used to give guns to ~GASP~ released-felons, when they left prison. Heck, some of the best lawmen in the old west, at one time or another, were wanted by the law for murder and attempted murder.

I know several people who are convicted felons and I trust them with my life more than any police officer that I DON'T KNOW! It is about the people, not their past! Believe it or not, there are many people who go to prison, actually learn their lesson and then re-assimilate into normal life without ever blinking an eye.

We USED to be a forgiving society, because that is what the Bible tells us to do - not so much now, because most people don't know of the Bible's redeeming power!

[cincinnati65]

"Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals."

Government Centers??? Are you serious???? The lawsuits for overdoses by the family members alone would bankrupt your program. Or you could ration the amount of product that a user could get, but that would lead to "street drugs" to get around the government rations. Either way, Government Centers don't work!

[ExTxMarine]

We have spent more money, lost more rights, lost more lives and ruined more families than probably ALL the other wars the United States has fought - COMBINED! And all in the name of this “War on Drugs!”

We tried “legislating morality” with prohibition; that didn’t work out either! But, at least back then the American public was smart enough to realize that we were wasting time, money, resources, lives and CREATING a HUGE criminal element where a very small one had existed before!

The United States government has created a world-wide, illegal drug market and yet still doesn’t understand why the problem isn’t going away or getting smaller! DUH!

[ModelBreaker]

If the drugs travel across state lines, they are in commerce. Even very traditional interpretations of the commerce clause from before the New Deal destruction of the Constitution would allow the feds to regulate interstate drug sales. But they have no authority to regulate heroin grown and consumed in, say, California.