Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 01/23/2012 4:52:49 AM PST by Kaslin
Ther is no need to LEGALIZE them, simply repeal the laws making them ILLEGAL. No, I do not favor doing so, unless we are protected from the unintended consequences.
Yes. Anyone who cannot be trusted to be armed should not be out among us. They should be dead or incarcerated.
Case in point: Newt. Only God knows if his conversion is sincere; I'll take his word (God's word that is, about casting the first stone).
Meanwhile, take a look at the billion$ made by the tobacco industry. Hemp is easier to grow, produces animal feed, paper, cloth, biodiesel, and people would line up to pay $10 for a pack of hemp cigarettes.
Cops would have to fight real crimes while hundreds of thousands would find employment in a multi billion dollar industry that's no more complicated than letting a weed grow. And people who want to get together and laugh a little bit, to do so without destroying their lives.
Stupid, lazy and cowardly American illegal drug users are too stupid, lazy and chicken to change their reality, so they use illegal drugs to try and ignore their reality for a few minutes. How many Mexicans have died so that stupid, lazy and chicken American illegal drug users could ignore reality for a few minutes? Tens of thousands? I don’t care about alcohol. Illegal drugs as medicine? For what? Hangnails? I don’t care about legalizing drugs so that the stupid, lazy and cowardly American illegal drug users can get their drugs cheaper. I do care about Americans and America. The only way to fix this problems is for the American illegal drug users to grow up and face their reality. There are too many people becoming millionaires off the misery of American illegal drug users. Legalizing drugs doesn’t eliminate that misery. We’d just be giving different people the money. We compete with other nations and they have an interest in seeing our people using illegal drugs to escape reality. It makes our country weak. And legalizing these drugs doesn’t eliminate this weakness. It just transfers the money to other people. Would legalizing drugs mean that suddenly, the drug users had become smart, hard-working and brave? Or is this argument just about redistributing the money from illegal drugs?
Nobody wants to see ANY drug use. But illegal drugs are out there, just as readily available as ever. (Ask your teenager how long it would take to score a bag of weed, then brace yourself for the answer!)
The “War on Drugs” has been an expensive, abysmal failure. For every big drug bust in the news, there were ten more shipments that got through. And the police can’t do anything to stop it except to get paid handsomely for trying. Ridiculous.
So what can we actually DO about illegal drugs? Simple.
Educate your kids. You trust your kid not to bring a gun to school and to stay sober behind the wheel, all because you taught them right from wrong. Do the same for illegal drugs and trust them to make the right decisions. (And don’t set a bad example by using them yourself, dummy!)
Beyond that, let the states decide. Every state has drug laws on the books, so there is no need for federal intervention, and no Constitutional basis for it, either.
As I noted, that was an ideal solution, but you could simply legalize it all and we’d be vastly better off than we are. I assume the reason that doesn’t happen is that there is too much money and too many yuppy careers tied up in drugs, the war on drugs, and the prison/industrial complex at this point.
Your post sounds like a left-wing caricature of what a conservative opinion on this subject would be.
How much you makin’, or takin’?
Everything you’ve said is true. Thanks for your discernment.
And government gets the authority to make criminals out of these folks from where??? Remember the ORIGINAL Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence? Recall the part that speaks of “...consent of the governed...”? What does that actually mean to you? Do you REALLY think it means that YOU can consent to limitations on, for example, MY God-given RIGHTS??? Why EVER would you think a stupid thing like that? No, in order to give consent to a third party (in this case, government) to do something in your name and on your behalf, YOU MUST FIRST HAVE THE (LEGAL/MORAL) AUTHORITY TO DO FOR YOURSELF. You cannot give away (or even lend) that which is NOT YOURS. No one outside yourself may properly control your life/body/property without your consent, nor may you control others or give consent to a third party to do so FOR you. Our governments, at all levels, derive the small bits of legitimate authority they have from We, the People. We, the People, can only lend the authority WHICH WE LEGITIMATELY POSSESS. And it should go without saying that no government can be greater than its master. Which is exactly how the Founders designed our system to be.
If you call yourself a conservative, ask yourself just what it is you want to conserve, the God-inspired system the Founders set up or the Progressive utopia people from Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson down through Billy Jeff Clinton and Barky Obummer have been trying so mightily to jam down our throats or shove up our butts.
My choice is easy: I support the Founders and the Constitution I swore an ETERNAL oath to protect and defend. I am also at least wise enough to know that different folks do different things, not all of which are either wise or popular. But that’s the reason for having a government in the first place: to protect the right of folks to do things that are not popular or even wise, but which don’t involve forcing others to participate. Even now the Left attacks and tries to limit our freedom to worship our Creator. By giving a patina of legitimacy to the limiting of SOME freedoms, the dumb and unpopular ones, you play right into their hands.
By not trying to impose your will on others with respect to what substances they might ingest or what caliber pistol they pack, AND LETTING THEM FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS, good, bad or indifferent, you are standing tall on the shoulders of the mighty and Godly men who were privileged to found this nation.
Just kidding, man. Pass it over here. ;^)
Regulate Commerce, means making sure that commerce is free from tariffs between the states, not controlling it.
No fair making Constitutionally based arguments with logic and wisdom. It will confuse the Progressives that rule the GOP and the Dim parties.
“Regulate Commerce, means making sure that commerce is free from tariffs between the states, not controlling it.”
Do you know of text from the constitutional debate that supports this? I know tariffs were a major concern. But if the founders had been concerned about ONLY tariffs, they could have said that much more clearly. “Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate commerce between the states.” seems much broader language.
Personally, I would like to limit the Fed’s power as much as possible. But I think you need a constitutional amendment to get to your result.
I've always assumed that's what "legalize" means.
No, I do not favor doing so, unless we are protected from the unintended consequences.
What will protect us from the unintended consequences of the current drug laws: innocents killed in drug turf battles, enrichment of criminals, and the consequent increase in criminal firepower and ability to corrupt the justice system?
Weed is one thing.
Crack and meth are another.
The problem is the USSC was not granted the authority to enumate new powers for the federal government. Only the States are supposed to be able to do that by the process of Amendment. We need to overturn Wickard v Filburn, and make Congress limit itself to only exercising the powers that were granted to it, within the scope of the original intent of that grant of power.
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.