Posted on 09/30/2001 4:34:24 PM PDT by RJCogburn
The best thing about conservatism and conservatives is that they have a healthy regard for reality. They won't discard the evidence to preserve a theory. That can't be said of leftists.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
That said, I would draw the line at Pot. Cocaine, powder or Crack, Heroin, Meth and other forms of Speed are too dangerous to be used privately. However, if Pot were legalized, it would no longer be a 'gateway' drug to these other harder drugs, because the customers would not be dealing with the criminal element to obtain it.
Yes, there is an "amendment in the U.S. Constitution that specifies a right to ingest the substance of one's choice," it is the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since the Ninth Amendment is the constitutional basis for a "woman's right to her body," and thus, the right to an abortion, it surely can be the constitutional basis for ingestation in to one's body of the drug of their choice.
The federal Congress' legislative jurisdiction to make laws "prohibiting drugs" comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause." But this legislative jurisdiction is for the act of "distribution" across state lines only, not private and personal ingestation.
I will relunctantly grant our federal government legislative jurisdiction over the distribution of drugs across state lines. But will not grant jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, as Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, clearly defines Congress' jurisdiction. And no where in that enumerated power is the Congress' legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, unless the state's legislature grants that legislative jurisdiction. (Missouri, where I live, has not.)
But even acknowledging interstate distribution legislative jurisdiction, Congress cannot prohibit the private "growing" or "manufacture" of drugs for personal consumption.
Unfortunately, we all have been intimidated into granting legislative and judicial jurisdiction to our federal government because of our federal government's illegal and unconstituional seizures and arrests of fellow citizens.
Oh, the high price we pay of loss liberties because we do not know how to exert our unalienable rights, guaranteed and enumerated for all to know, in our state and federal constitutions.
"As a (non-using) Conservative...."
What does this mean? What aren't you using? Obviously cocaine, heroin and meth...as you speak out against those. But what about tobacco, caffeine, sugar, partially hydrogentated vegetable oil?
Not anymore, yes, yes, and yes.
I also used to use Marijuana in my youth, but no longer. And you also left out alcohol, which I use in extreme moderation, especially when compared to my use in previously mentioned youth.
"Cocaine, powder or Crack, Heroin, Meth and other forms of Speed are too dangerous to be used privately."
This is fine, you shouldn't have to use them if you don't want. But isn't danger relative? And if it is relative, then isn't it up to each of us to decide what is to dangerous and what isn't?
Libertianism taken to an extreme is no different than Liberalism or Conservatism taken to extremes. Tell you what, if you pledge to refuse all payments for medical treatments, either from private insurance companies or from the Government, that arise from your use of heroin, crack or meth, then I will reconsider your 'right' to use those drugs. Of course, then you'll have to ask me to make the same pledge regarding 'Big Macs.'
Whatever happened to the principles behind "...I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." If they're not hurting you, then why bother them? And if they are hurting you, then does it matter whether they were stoned or not when they did?
Perhaps you are unaware of the experiments in the Netherlands with legalizing Heroin? Producing a generation of drugged out zombies does affect us all in terms of national health care and national productivity.
If you want to obtain a Doctor's prescription for Heroin to control your pain during a terminal illness, God bless you. If all you want to do is stay stoned all day, then sooner or later you ARE going to affect the rest of society in some way.
And I still defend to the death your right to say Heroin should be legalized. I just don't agree with your statement.
Provide evidence that the Netherlands' heroin policy produced a generation of drugged out zombies.
If all you want to do is stay stoned all day, then sooner or later you ARE going to affect the rest of society in some way.
Everything affects everybody. In a free society, goverment's only legitimate concern is HARM, not EFFECT.
Crazy Sheldon's Drug and Gun Emporium. [This week's special is free meth with the purchase of a Glock. Sampling of either or both on the premises is encouraged.]
Our beloved government certainly has it back-assed backwards.
If one accepts the premise that the unborn child is a living human being, then one could also argue for the criminalization of abortion. It is, afterall, the government's responsibility to protect our rights, and one certainly can't have ANY rights if they are murdered.
Now compare this to the drug war, where these same mind numbed dolts say that one individual does not have the right to treat their own body as he/she sees fit -- even when said actions are peaceful.
So much for THIS government. Our politicians are just a bunch of whores. They don't care about "we the people" nor do they care about rights.
There are a lot of politicians making a hugh amount of illegal money from this drug war. On the other hand, there's no money to be made off of a child -- so murdering them is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to them.
What a bunch of low-life, devious, evil, blood-lusting morons we have in Washington. If I happen to obey their STUPID UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws, then it will simply be a coincidence, not because I agree with a DAMN thing they've got to say. I WILL live my life as I want, and that means ingesting ANY DAMN THING I WANT. The collective be damned!
On the contrary, the average age of the heroin user in the Netherlands has increased since the change in status. What does that mean? It means that those who used, continue to use, and young folks aren't finding their way to heroin.
In this country, according to the DOJ's stats, young folks in the US are starting younger with drugs, and experimenting with harder stuff, like heroin and designer drugs like ecstasy.
In addition, criminalization of any substance creates demand, and exorbitant profits. Turkey did the groundwork and traced back both drugs and profit to organizations like bin Laden's.
Please name me two scotch distilleries (or rum distilleries, or Napa valley wineries) who are currently providing funding for terrorist organizations.
Good post.
Very good for you. I am thrilled that you will exert your Ninth Amendment right. I wish more citizens would.
Be American by getting free of Drugs! Stop the support of terrorists!
Whether good or bad, human nature has shown time and time again, that people (especially the young) desire that, which they are forbidden to have.
The best and only solution is to provide education, versus the blatant regurgitated government propaganda we currently have. I taught my young'ns, and NOT ONCE did it even cross my mind to get government involved in my parenting shtick.
Brawhahahahahaha!
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.