War on Drugs - Gov't Overstepping its Bounds?

1) I have observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that legalization of private possession and use of narcotics also implies the legalization of criminal activities done under the influence of drugs. I do not understand this leap. In what way does not arresting people who use drugs in the privacy of their home imply that a police officer will just wave to a passing crack head, as he drives by at 80 miles per hour, smoking a crack pipe.

2) I have also observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that people who support legalization simply wants to use drugs - as if this matters. First off, the motivations of the proponents of legalization do nothing to alter the substance or lack thereof of their argument. But, just to address this wildly popular notion: I, for one, have no desire to use any drug that is currently illegal, nor do I hope to need or desire any drug that is legal for medicinal or recreational purposes. I rarely even drink beer. My objection to the government prohibition on certain drugs is on the grounds that what people do in the privacy of their homes is none of the government’s business, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. Whether you want to possess drugs, weapons, or beanie babies should be no concern of your neighbor, your police department, or any echelon of government, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybody’s rights.

3) Likewise, I do not understand why proponents of legalizing drugs take such weak stances in favor of it, such as “well, alcohol is worse for you than pot, and alcohol is legal.” This assumes that the government's actions can be justified by their probability of positively influencing your health. Evidence exists that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol, as well. Should we ban cigarettes and arrest anyone who purchases, distributes, or smokes them? Since when is it the government’s responsibility to protect a person from himself? The purpose of government is to secure our rights, by protecting private property, and attempting to safeguard us from hurting each other. In other words, government’s role is to stop a man about to commit murder, not to stop a terminally ill cancer patient about to euthanize himself.

The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the government’s business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.

I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments.

Frankly, I would like to see the welfare state abolished before drugs are legalized.
If the welfare state is jettisoned first and then drugs leagalized, those who choose to ruin their lives with drugs will do so without some agency there to rehabilitate(translation:substitute their heroin with methodone.) them and they would have to either straighten themselves out or starve.

>>>Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home...

Both the government and the people it represents, have every right to tell you, you can't snort cocaine. Period. The laws of the land are clear when it comes to the trafficking, purchase, possession and ingestion of those substances the people have declared harmful and illicit.

I see since our last discussion, you've revealed your true "libertarian" colors. Okay. This is a hot button issue. In the last Pew Center Research Report from August 2001, 86% of American's, do not agree with the following statement, "People should be allowed to take any drug they want so long as they don't hurt someone else." You have a whole lot of convincing to do. I'd get started asap.

WHERE does ANYONE get the right to tell you what you may or may not put into your own body? Do you mean to say that gooberment owns me? That YOU own me? Is that what you are saying? It sure sounds like it. YOUR true colors are showing. I do not now, nor have I ever ingested what are considered illegal drugs, nor will I when they are decriminalised. HOWEVER, I am still the owner of my body and my life, accountable ONLY to me, my wife and my God. Not to you, NEVER to you or gooberment, for what I do or do not ingest. Nor should anyone, for any reason, face criminal sanctions for doing some NON-VIOLENT, personal activity which does not involve non-willing participants. Or underage participants. No matter HOW shrilly you scream that you do not like it. Deal with it. It is none of your business, nor the business of gooberment. Nor is there any constitutional or even common law backing for your incomprehensible stance.

Deal with it.

Just when did the government get this right? Certainly not in the constitution. Congress may not pass any law that violates the limits of Federal authority spelled out in Article 1, section 8 or added by amendment.

You will note that when they wanted to ban alcohol, they still remembered this and passed an amendment to give them the authority. Absent the 18th amendment, they had no such authority. What is the number of the amendment that was passed to give them similar power over drugs? I can't seem to find it.

If you are truly a conservative, then you should be upholding the constitution and demanding an end to the unconstitutional and insane drug war. Otherwise people might think that you are showing some fascist colors.

You need to chill out and stop acting like a wild man. The facts are the facts. If you don't like the current drug laws in America, work to get them changed. Just stop all the whining and complaining already. The will of the people, carried out through their elected representatives, gives the federal government a mandate to enact laws against drug trafficking, purchase, possession and ingestion of harmful substances, like coacaine, heroin, and marijuana. America's national drug control policy has worked very well and has reduced drug use by 40% since 1979.

I suggest you follow your advice. >>>No matter HOW shrilly you scream that you do not like it. Deal with it.

>>>Just when did the government get this right?

The The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the Supreme Court decision in Touby v. United States, 1991, are the legislative and legal foundation for the federal governments efforts against the abuse of drugs and other substances.

This is a conservative website and I am a conservative. If you don't agree with America's national drug control policy, work to get it changed. Just watch the inflammatory rhetoric.

Both the government and the people it represents, have every right to tell you, you can't snort cocaine.

True dat - the government and the people can tell you that you cannot own a gun - all it needs to do is pass a law (one that repeals the 2nd amendment).

But would that make it right?

Then I suppose that congress can pass a law that no one can carry or own a gun unless an employee of the government and that would be the law of the land. NOT

The legislative branch does not have unlimited power. Its powers are defined and limited by the constitution and if they violate it, they are no longer making laws, rather they are making waste paper.

Paraphrasing the first chief justice, John Jay: Any law that is in contradiction to the constitution imposes no obligations and provides no protections.

That means that a policeman that arrests you for violating these invalid laws is a kidnapper. Everyone else along the way, prosecutor, judge and prison guards are co-conspirators to the kidnapping and subsequent false imprisonment. Jurors have the ability to end it by nullifying bad law but if they convict, they too are part of the conspiracy though they have the defense of ignorance. The system does its best to keep jurors ignorant starting during their public school education.

This thread is about America's national drug control strategy and what FReepers think about that policy. It isn't about the second amendment right, to keep and bear arms. I'm a big supporter of my right to own firearms for protection and recreation. I'm also a law and order conservative who supports the federal governments efforts against illicit drugs. If you don't support anti-drug laws and believe the governemnt isn't acting in accordance with the Constitution, then work hard in the political arena to get those drug laws changed. I will continue to support and promote what I consider both a moral and worthwhile effort by the federal government to keep these harmful substances in question, illegal.

This thread is about America's national drug control strategy and what FReepers think about that policy. It isn't about the second amendment right, to keep and bear arms.

My reference to gun rights was as an example. If the Congress cannot pass a law on a subject than any law they do pass is void. Any subject whether it is your favorite or my favorite. FREEDOM IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO GRANT IT TO OTHERS!

So, it remains that there is no authority to prohibit drugs and therefore all those laws are invalid. If you think that the government should use its guns to punish people for using them, that is an issue for state governments with their general police power.

We will then have some states where it remains illegal and others where it will become legal. Then our 50 laboratories of democracy will find out what works better.

>>So, it remains that there is no authority to prohibit drugs and therefore all those laws are invalid.

At best, your statement is false. At worse, its delusional. I don't know what America you live in, but in the real America of the 21st century, the law of the land is quite clear when it comes to illicit drugs. If you traffic, purchase, possess and/or ingest these harmful and illegal substances and are caught by law enforcement, you will pay the price. Period. Once again, if you choose to oppose America's drug laws in the political arena, thats fine. If you choose to engage in criminal activities related to illegal drugs, thats fine too. But the latter will probably get you locked up in prison and thats fine with me.

Once more: Do YOU own MY body? Do you own Mike4Freedom's body? If so, demonstrate where you (and by extention, FedGov) managed to acquire ownership. Otherwise YOU are being delusional AND committing some serious felonies against your fellow Americans. Would that we could have you and your ilk pay the proper penalty for your nefarious actions.

Now, massa, when and how did you manage to gain ownership of other people? Huh? If you didn't, then your whole house of cards is going to soon or late come down around your ears.

You are missing the point. As a conservative, most of the things that you complain about in our current government system are examples of the government ignoring restrictions in the constitution. For example, you argue for gun freedom on both practical (crime reduction) issues and constitutional issues (second amendment). You not only say that you have a need for self defense but that any law that restricts your ability to own or carry guns is a violation of a clear provision of the constitution and is invalid-Don't you?

My point is the same. When congress passes laws in violation of the constitution, those laws are illegal and invalid. Sure, you might get arrested if you assert your rights but you should be able to argue the constitutional point both to the judge AND to the jury. (I hope that if you find yourself on a jury in such a case, you will refuse to enforce unconstititional laws via nullification, no matter whether it is a gun case or a drug case or whatever.)

Libertarians and conservatives should be fighting for Bill of Rights compliance for everyone and everyone's favorite right, guns, drugs, tax issues, business regulation, environmental regulation, all of it. We stand together or we hang seperately.

>>>When congress passes laws in violation of the constitution, those laws are illegal and invalid.

I appreciate your opinion.

If an individual believes a specific law enacted by Congress is in violation of the Constitution, that person should fight within the political arena and the legal system, to reverse such a law. Until and unless a law is overturned, it remains legal and valid. It is the law of the land. Period.

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.