Posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
And what of the chemicals that cross state borders? Also, most meth nowadays is smuggled in from Mexico.
If no one sinned anymore, then all the problems related to sinning, would disappear!!!
There’s no conspiracy. It’s just modern government by the numbers.
But it is regulated, isn’t it? And the govt gets revenue from it?
I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 issue. The support of the "Drug War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society. Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in the Congress would not enjoy the power they now posses to attack the Bill of Rights.
To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first Prohibition in America was. It is a classic example of the attempt to control a vice -- drunkeness -- by police power. It made all use of alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that it gave a name -- The Roaring Twenties -- to an entire decade. It lead to the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the land.
And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that time. Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen: after 1920 they were all violent criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by shootings and the use of machine guns by criminals. We now have the same effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.
It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand the whole Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the 2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premiss of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premiss of Drug Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or irresponsibles. All use is abuse. This is an extremely dangerous idea for a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, because that is the chief defense in the constitution against abuses of government power.
Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has been spared from attack. There has been an enoromous increase in police power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others? We understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to all guns owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use -- "all use is abuse" -- in the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited. Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited.
Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same. Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs. If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, the return of the drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defence of liberty.
Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user will become an addict? In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and a minority of drug users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And without Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why isn't this obvious to all of us?
It is because both guns and drugs havve become fetishes to some people in America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractible ills of society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object. They succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminsh the most precious possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint -- Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the price they charge for their promise of our security.
Sincerely
Amicus Populi
SHOTGUN NEWS
Vol. 50, Issue 33
What of food, or minerals, or finished goods?
James Madison, to Joseph Cabell:
"For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."
Can you demonstate that any of these chemicals crossing state lines constitutes an "injustice among the states" that would require federal intervention to remedy?
Also, most meth nowadays is smuggled in from Mexico.
Then that meth is within the federal governments authority to prohibit, under it's currently authorized powers in the Constitution.
Agreed in principle, BUT...when you've (I don't mean you personally, but generally) drugged yourself into a perpetual state of uselessness, government initiates force against me to relieve me (all of us productives) of funds to keep you high 'til you die. Since choices no longer have consequences, why bother to behave rationally?
I think he'd have agreed to shut down his distilleries given a properly ratified Constitutional Amendment authorizing the federal government to order it. He'd have resisted the idea that they could do it as an exercise in "regulating commerce".
Bingo! I said the same thing below.
Do you support CA's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment to enact such a program? Or do you think fedgov should have legitimate authority under the Commerce Clause to shut it down?
That’s a complete strawman, but hey, I’ll shred it anyway.
Why not deal with this the way the Founding Fathers intended? Get the one-size fits all fedgov out of it. The phrase “government of limited powers” ring a bell?
Then states get to experiment and compete. Maybe California would legalize everything, letting its citizens “Abuse all the children you want, since you are free to be a pedophile, but don’t complain when the other folks stone you in the town square for your harm to thier innocent children.” Meanwhile, Texas would be free to string up child abusers and pedophiles (assuming the fedgov would also let us, which it doesn’t right now). Gee, how long do you think it would take for CA to either fix the problem or become depopulated by people moving to Texas?
In the drug context, the issues aren’t as clear as “pedophiles are vermin.” Different states would try different approaches. Out of 50 states, some would find approaches that work much better than others. Given the stakes involved, people would move to those states or the failing states would have to adapt.
That approach would, over time, work far better than the fedgov shredding our rights in a “War on Drugs” that they have no incentive to win and every reason - namely money and power - to keep dragging on forever...
Anything run by the government is rarely the lowest cost option.
And what do you submit is the consequence of them not passing that test? That they are therefore subject to federal regulation?
What I think is immaterial - what matters is what five justices on SCOTUS decide. Which is why you have to look at the actual scope of the dissent, since Thomas reflects one of those potential votes.
Another of the reasons for term limits. They should not be in office long enough to make the connections!
What is that supposed to mean? Getting tax revenue does not make up for all the other costs to society that go a long with the low life culture of drugs, gambling, alcohol and prostitution.
I was working in Atlantic City when they voted to bring in gambling. The property owners were excited to be able to sell their properties for such huge profits and the blacks were excited at the prospect of good paying jobs. Well, the property owners got what they wanted, but the poor blacks got nothing but trouble. The only jobs that they got were in kitchens and hotels, as maids. Their daughters got into prostitution and the drugs and alcohol were everywhere. You see, it is not just a single issue of drugs, or prostitution, or alcohol, it’s a whole low life culture that degrades the potential of the people. Then druggie parents raise druggie kids and things just keep getting worse.
These politicians need to be identified, outed and put away forever- preferably mixed in with the street thugs and gangbangers. Subsequent politicians need to be trem limited out before they can get on the payoff list.
Look up the Whiskey Rebellion and get back to me. Washington has no problem applying federal force against those resisting a rather dubious federal tax.
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.