Posted on 08/10/2002 4:30:58 PM PDT by aconservaguy
Our guardians in the District of Columbia criminalize the consumption of particular substances. Endorsement of this policy is commonplace among Democrats and Republicans alike.
Why is this so? I’m convinced the sine qua non of supporting the War on Drugs is amnesia.
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget Reverend Elisha Williams in 1744: “As reason tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, i.e., with an equal right to their persons, so also with an equal right to their preservation…and every man having a property in his own person, the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his own, to which no one has right but himself...”
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget James Madison in Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution:
…if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence…
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget Jefferson in Notes on the State of Virginia: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget Frederick Douglass in 1852: “It is a fundamental truth that every man is the rightful owner of his own body.”
To support the War on Drugs, a congressman has to forget Lysander Spooner in 1875: “Vices Are Not Crimes.”
To support the War on Drugs, in other words, a congressman has to forget America.
Drug war advocates can claim to support individual liberty and states’ rights, just as one can claim that idolatry and murder are compatible with the Decalogue. Logic compels critical assessments of these claims.
Hopefully America will be remembered again.
April 25, 2002
Myles Kantor [send him mail] is a columnist for FrontPageMagazine.com and director of the Center for Free Emigration, which agrees with Frederick Douglass that "It is a fundamental truth that every man is the rightful owner of his own body."
On March 21, 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration outlawed Rezulin, a diabetes control drug taken by 750,000 Americans, because one of the drug's side effects had killed 61 of those 750,000. My father in law was one the 750,000 who did not die from Rezulin. And he is still alive. However, he has never been able to control his diabetes with alternative drugs as well he was able to control it on Rezulin, and has had one diabetes-related experience where he almost died a few months ago. If the only way to take away the power of the FDA to overrule my physician's judgement as to what drugs my family should take is to legalize all drugs, then I am reluctantly for it.
What would be totally absurd, however, would be to legalize disgusting recreational drugs while continuing to outlaw useful drugs like Rezulin.
P.S. When I posted on this once before, I got the reply that my father in law might get Rezulin abroad. However, besides the cost factor, it is out of the question because it would mess up his continuity of care and the need for one doctor to coordinate all his drugs.
"..the context of all these quotes.."
To answer your question, those cited above were expressing their general thoughts on individual liberty and State's rights. These quotes are trotted out every time the WOD is mentioned, as though the framers of the Constitution had Acapulco Gold specifically in mind when they wrote the Tenth Amendment.
I kinda figured that... i mean, i really don't think that Thomas Jefferson or (especially) Frederick Douglass was referring to drugs when he made the comment(s)...
Me thinks you should have stopped after your first sentence as your second is not reasonable. They no more had pot in mind when they wrote the tenth than they had the internet in mind when they wrote the first or semi-autos when they wrote the second. What they had in mind was preventing a federal government from legislating matters best left to the States or to individuals to decide.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."
Very simply, the right to ingest the substance of your choice is a "...other (right) retained by the people," and not to be denied or disparaged.
These quotes are trotted out every time the WOD is mentioned, as though the framers of the Constitution had Acapulco Gold specifically in mind when they wrote the Tenth Amendment.
They also weren't thinking of the virulent, hate-filled brand of neo-rightist reactionary conservative anti-anti-racist propaganda found on this web site when they wrote the First.
What good does this website do anyone? You're all wasting time that would be better spent feeding hungry children.
Well, it allows people like you to post your rantings.
"Kill The Pigs"
-- Charles Manson
I know.
As I expect conservaguy would like us to notice, none of these quotes (except, maybe, the one mentioning "vice") has anything to do with the right to drunkedness, or to be an opium eater, or to kill yourself with a laudanum overdose, etc. If all these pro-drugies are concerned about is the abstract right to your body, then why do they exclusively focus on the effects of the drug war on the minority of recreational drug users, when any non-absurd end to the drug war is going to deregulate all drugs and profoundly affect everyone's medical care?
Here's a modest proposal: Let's deregulate the thousands of non-psychoactive drugs first. If that goes well, then we can see about deregulating the freedom to take the handful of drugs which profoundly affect the psyche.
The purpose of this web site is to energize and educate a certain portion of the political spectrum to which you have the right not to belong. Although I have no problem with your being here, there are other places on the Internet where you could get an easier to understand picture of the conservative mindset. Check out http://www.city-journal.org, especially everything written by the great Heather Mac Donald.
True, but the context is important. Even though they weren't referring to a telephone when the mentioned "free speech", I doubt they would see a problem with it in the first place -- it's a machine that allows speech communication; "free speech" doesn't come into play at all, except in that you continue to have it with the telephone. The point is that could the same be said be said about drugs in reference to the other quotes by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Douglass, etc? Or are the quotes meaning questionable? Hence the reason for context. And, even if they didn't refer to a telephone with speech, that doesn't matter regarding these quotes -- the "right" to use drugs isn't the same as the "right" to "free speech." One is spelled out in the Constitution, the other is not. Drugs and free speech are two different things.
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.