Posted on 02/13/2012 7:12:20 PM PST by neverdem
In what way(s)?
So does a lot of things.
Which things? Should they be banned as drugs are?
Then why ban plundering?
Because plundering hurts the plundered. Now will you answer my questions?
I had a kid who was baked up to his eyeballs open a valve and burn a few of his coworkers. I had another at a different plant drive a fork truck into an acid tank and hurt himself, another coworker, and several on the hazmat team who had to clean up.
That's drugs-plus-potentially-hazardous-activities hurting others. That's no more an argument for banning drugs than it is for banning driving fork trucks.
In both cases, the law was I couldn't have them take a pee test randomly.
That's plain wrong; an employer should be able to set any conditions of employment they want.
Was this law particular to your locality? I've had to take pre-employment pee tests a number of times.
In fact, the first we knew the kid had a issue, and were prevented by the ADA from acting on that knowledge, as it would be a violation of his rights.
I'm not a big fan of the ADA either - and if you are required to hire someone with a past addiction, you should at least be able to test them.
But if the law prevents you from testing for the drug alcohol, that's wrong but not sufficient reason for banning alcohol - and the same is true of any other drug.
That doesn't count the lives of family members of addicts who get dragged down with them.
That's a "hurt" - but is it one that is any of government's business? I'd hurt my family by deciding to quit my job and become a street mime - should government prevent that?
Or those friends who get assaulted when the addict needs his fix and can't find the money.
You can thank drug criminalization for that, with its hyperinflation of drug prices; I've never heard of an alkie, even the most hardcore, assaulting someone to get money for booze.
Now, that does happen with alcohol to. It happens with over the counter meds, and all kinds of thing. If you want to have a discussion about legalizing drugs, and the cost/benefits of such, fine.
It's not the place of government to weigh the benefit of freedom against any "cost" other than a direct violation of rights or clear and present danger of same.
But that isn't what you stated. You said that the law should not deal with morals.
No, I didn't. Perhaps you're thinking of dcwusmc.
I believe FR etiquette calls for pinging someone if you talk about them. As it applies to me your statement is false; please don't put words in my mouth.
What I said was that government should not be involved in SIN, that is, things which might be wrong in GOD’S eyes, but which should NEVER be criminalized. Adultery is always wrong and sinful, but is not a crime, nor should it be so. Drug use may not be a good thing, but it does NOT rise to the level where it should be criminalized, not for ANY REASON. At most it should be between the user and God.
The only thing that has come out of the “war on (some) drugs” has been a major growth of government with a concomitant trashing of our Constitution and the Republic. Yet, for reasons I will NEVER understand, many who call themselves “conservatives” or “constitutionalists” are all in favor of the control over others that the WOSD gives them. Despite the fact that it was instituted by the same brand of leftist progressives we are suffering under to this day. How “conservative” is THAT?
In other words drugs. You are very fixated on that. But what are the limits? Very recently, it was a crime to cheat on your spouse under the Military Code of Justice. Not that long ago, there were states which fined and had jail time for adultery, homosexuality, and the such. In fact, using your argument, why is sex with minors wrong? Why is my merry band of pirates wrong?
By focusing on the "You can't outlaw (my favorite) sin!", you are totally missing the point. If you want to legalize drugs, go about the same way you would making a change to the speed limit. Show data, make a logical argument, make your case. Be prepared to defend yourself and that data. For instance, explain why things aren't a happy utopia in Portugal after the legalization of most drugs. By relying on an emotional argument, you will get only an emotional response.
First, since there is ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for the WOSD, I don’t HAVE to provide stats or anything else. You drug warriors have to do that and get an amendment passed in order to dump on the American People. Once upon a time, you just mighta done that. Not any more. And it’s not about drugs so much as it is about government controlling folks’ lives, something abhorrent and anathema to a free society. But the WOSD got fedgov’s foot in the door for people control and got you and yours used to being told by governments what to ingestion or what sort of firearms you could have, and now it’s getting naked pics taken of you whenever you want to fly somewhere. And all because some churches got lazy and thought to have government do God’s job. Whatever happened to self-reliance and self-responsibility and self-determination? You’ve made big government your god and your religion and you’re wallowing in that filth. Sad thing is, you want to drag the rest of us down with you.
The black/jewish axis came out of the closet to promote and protect their cherished utopia
the axis is the coalition of the devil, an abomination
Here is the problem. There is no amendment banning heroin, crack, or what ever it is that you do, but there is that little loop hole the size of Texas called the general welfare clause.
Because of that, the states and Fedgov have the authority to make sure that I don't send out a bunch of product with E. Coli in it. Or sell whole milk (if you want to see something impressive, try to sell whole milk on the open market.) Further more, it has been settled law for over a hundred years. When the government mandated pasteurized milk, there were several challenges, some of which reached the USSC. The laws were upheld.
Now, that isn't to say that a new challenge wouldn't be successful, but that it is not likly to succeed. The general welfare clause of the USConst is the basis for the regulation of food and drugs.
That is why you have to prove that you drug of choice is relatively safe.
At the time that clause was put in the Constitution the germ theory of disease was not known ~ that came later. However, they did understand quite well how mixing chemicals in error, or not according to formula, could give you good gunpowder or bad gunpowder, or even infection ~ even if you didn't know about germs.
Somebody thought a single authority should "control" purity of ingredients and also knew that "weight" and "volume" were very good ways to do that.
Now that we can measure and weigh things down almost to the level of granularity of the Universe, seems to me that if you wanted to put the Controlled Substances on a proactive W&M basis you'd get as much control as you do by starting from the Tax Basis used for much of the last century. (NOTE: at the time the USSC didn't think the federales could control dope, but they could control taxes, which the dope peddlers didn't pay. So, Congress passed a tax on MJ, and the rest is history).
Remember, the theory was you could set a standard on almost anything from a central source ~ to wit, Congress (and the agencies created under laws they pass).
Argument from "nature" must extend beyond the substance into relative granularity and topicality. Oh, yes, they got everything they needed at the Constitutional Convention.
Wrong answer. The “general welfare” clause is NOT a grant of authority DESPITE the best efforts of generations of statist thugs. You know, people (and I use the term loosely) not unlike you.
Nor do I use any substance not prescribed for me by competent medical personnel. Or likely would, even when such are re-legalized. My “drug of choice” is being left alone by government and not have to face the ever increasing probability of having my door kicked in or being otherwise violated in the name of protecting me from myself.
Their non-taxability was established LONG BEFORE IRS was created.
As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I'm proud to post this:
"Lutheran Church Missouri Synod President, Rev. M. C. Harrison, will take part in a Capitol Hill hearing Thursday (today). The hearing will focus on the issues of freedom of religion and conscience in relation to (Oberfuehrer Obama's recent diktat on feminine 'health care' insurance)"
(.....editorial comment insertion mine, all mine).
Divided we fall......
Leni
You can quibble semantics, but the fact is, IRS declares you political you lose your tax exempt status, so churches avoid saying what needs said. Churches should stop worrying about it, and pay cesar his blood money if need be, but speak the damned truth.
End of story.
IRS has misinterpreted this at times imagining that this particular ruling turned churches into mere nonprofit institutions who were subject to the speechcodes they created to impose on nonprofits.
Interesting that the USPS, using the FORMER legal standard once shared by IRS and Post Office Department, doesn't give a good golly what nonprofits say, and continues to maintain a separate classification for CHURCHES.
I'm an expert in those matters and try as I might I've never found a court decision that ruled that churches were not exempt ALSO under the first amendment ~ which, BTW, really does give them a special treatment ~ (read Brennan closely in how he treats "special treatment" in hispart). An "establishment of religion" can be anything from a gong at a Buddhist temple to the Crystal Cathedral with a choir singing from a standard hymn book. There is NO FREE EXERCISE if any of this is hedged in by taxes.
Maybe - but that idea never made it into the Constitution. To "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" is merely to say, for example, that a pound of weight is officially defined in such and such a manner - nothing more.
Remarkable how imaginatively Drug Warriors and other liberals are willing to read our founding document when it suits them.
and also knew that "weight" and "volume" were very good ways to do that.
"purity" of ingredients is a derivative of that authority ~
"Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006" - Scientific American, April 7, 2009
after the legalization of most drugs.
Another Drug Warrior fantasy - "Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime."
"purity" of ingredients is a derivative of that authority ~
Wrong - the authority to set official definitions for smaller-than-quark units of measurement STILL confers no authority to regulate purity.
The standard of measurement can be in picocuries per gram, and on top of that, another measurement can be in picocuries per gram per microsecond, and that gets you in range to regulate burning tobacco.
BTW, “NO” still means “NO” and where the Constitution says “Congress shall pass no law.....” that means NO.
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.