Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sargon

Did it ever occur to you that NOT legalizing dope is NOT “draconian”?

Numbing the minds and the ambitions of an increasingly larger segment of our youth will only make true Fascist control that much easier to impose.

So, you can either fight or light up, but you’ll never do both.


67 posted on 03/06/2015 4:47:39 AM PST by G Larry (I'm not here to make liberals happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: G Larry
So, you can either fight or light up, but you’ll never do both.

The War on Pot doesn't prevent many from lighting up, but does enrich criminals in the attempt; and preventing someone from lighting up doesn't mean he'll fight at all, much less fight on the right side.

69 posted on 03/06/2015 6:59:09 AM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry
Did it ever occur to you that NOT legalizing dope is NOT “draconian”?

Have you ever considered that the War on Drugs has damaged over 90% of the Bill of Rights>

Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment  9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”
Amendment  8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even if you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment  7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment  6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment  5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment  4 Kentucky v King
”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”
In other words: Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!

Amendment  3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment  2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment  1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs (Employment Division v Smith), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed.

So, that’s 90% of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If that's not cause for concern, and impetus for stopping the War on Drugs then is there anything that cannot be done in its name?


73 posted on 03/06/2015 7:33:58 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson