Is the Drug War a Conservative or Liberal Issue? (Warning: I am a Newbie to starting posts)

For many years, I have been a strong opponent of legalizing drugs. As you read this, remember that I am still against drug legalization, but I have more sympathy for the opposing argument.

The reason I have been opposed to drug legalization is to protect children. I grew up in a home that was one step up from a crack house..at least we had heat and food. I know first hand what can happen when a child lives in those conditions.

As a counter, I have always felt that use of tobacco and alcohol should be legal for those of a responsible age.

The reason I am considering a change is because of the pain I went through this last month. Four weeks ago, I had a root canal done on a tooth...it was Friday. Once the Novocain wore off, I was in serious pain because the doctor was inexperienced and left a partial root. I experienced pain worse than listening to Rosanne Barr sing the National Anthem. He forgot to write a prescription.

I called the emergency number only to be told I could see the doctor on Monday. TWO WHOLE DAYS IN EXTREME PAIN! I had some 800mg Ibuprofen in the medicine cabinet. That only took away enough pain to convince myself to not commit suicide to stop the pain.

On Monday, I was given a prescription of Tylenol 3 with Codeine and an antibiotic. That took away the pain. Until it ran out. Again, extreme pain. Another dentist did another root canal...and again did not get the whole root. I made sure he gave me a prescription for the pain, before I left the office.

Finally, when that ran out, and another dentist completed the root canal, the pain has subsided.

To be in the kind of debilitating pain I was in, cannot be described. Bill Cosby once talked about taking your bottom lip and pulling it over your head...that comes close.

I have always been an advocate of personal responsibility. That conflicted with knowing that some of the drugs offered today are so dangerous that they needed to be regulated. Then, I thought back about how things were a hundred years ago. The doctor prescribed a treatment, and you either made it yourself, or went to the pharmacist, who mixed up the more potential drugs.

Back then, the only regulation was, could you afford the cost? Drugs were available, and the pharmacist would determine whether you were abusing. If you OD'd on a drug from abuse, you died and life went on for others. But, you could get drugs if they were needed, and you did not have to wait until Monday. You didn't need to wait for approval from anyone to use a drug.

If drugs were to be legalized, they should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes...have a legal purchasing age. Also, if you do harm to another while under the influence of anything, you should be held personally responsible...to the fullest extent, especially capital punishment for causing a death. If you are taking drugs to get high, strap yourself into a chair and sleep it off.

If drugs were immediately legalized, we could expect some immediate effects. For one, the drug addicts would run out and by everything, and we would have a rash of overdosing for about a month. The rest of us could then go on with our lives, only mourning the loss of a relative, instead of daily living with the horror of a drug addict in our lives.

Currently, I believe law enforcement should be stronger. But, I could be moved to undecided if I heard good arguments for the opposite.

--Pray for our troops --Pray they have wisdom to do the right thing --Pray they remain courageous --Pray they know we love and support them --Pray they get the equipment they need to do the job --Pray for their safe return home to a hero’s welcome

No. Current DUI drivers are not sufficiently punished in most cases and I doubt an influx of additional offenders will result in more severe penalties.

So why not insist that DUI laws be strengthened rather than attempt an end-around by legislating in another area altogether?

Agreed, but I have yet to hear about the American Idol watchers stealing to support their habit, spreading diseases with dirty needles, or causing injuries, loss of life, etc.

Laws exist to prosecute these crimes already. Why would we need additional laws criminalizing drugs to alleviate the problems of, say, burglary? Would it matter, materially, if your house was robbed by someone who needed money to buy a Cadillac rather than to buy drugs?

"You're a nanny-stater then, not a true conservative at all."

Well I'm not a libertine if that's what you mean.

That's not what I mean. You're obviously not a libertine.

I would like to be able to live somewhere where I am not forced to bear the consequences of the irresponsible behavior of others and where the community is free to exercise its freedoms as a group.

Groups don't have freedom; individuals do. God grants rights to each individual man, woman, and child, not classes of men, women, or children. Collective rights are the realm of socialists.

States & Localities can reasonably regulate public aspects of how 'dangerous' items like porn, drugs, and guns are used. Total prohibitions are not reasonable regs.
The 14th specifically says that States can not make laws that abridge [take from, regulate away] our rights to life, liberty or property.

Repeating your opinion does not make it so. Can you point to case law or Constitutional provision that states that prohibitions employed by States are not reasonable regs when dealing with deadly dangerous substances?

The 14th is that provision, backed up by the provisions of the 9th & 10th Amendments and Article VI of the Constitution, -- as I've pointed out earlier. --- You continue to ignore these arguments in order to repeat your opinion that 'I'm wrong'. "-- Repeating your [unsupported] opinion does not make it so. -- "

Your quote from Harlan: "[Liberty] is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . ", does not obtain, since the restraint of prohibitions need not be arbitrary and purposeless. Indeed, the opposition would argue that prohibitions of drugs are targeted and to specific purpose, in a word, reasonable.

Then the 'opposition' must show that a Constitutional power to prohibit drugs exists and that it is not "arbitrary and purposeless." -- This has never been done.

If a prohibition in all cases is unconstitutional, what barrier is there to owning radioactive waste, small pox virus, rabid or diseased animals, or other inherently dangerous items?

Reasonable regs can be adopted to control usages of all the above. -- As we all have agreed numerous times on this thread already. Why do you keep repeating the same refuted arguments?

Besides, there are things absolutely prohibited to us to own, right within the Constitution. Namely, fellow humans.

Weird comment. Do you think you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist?

"Groups don't have freedom; individuals do. God grants rights to each individual man, woman, and child, not classes of men, women, or children. Collective rights are the realm of socialists."

There is a big difference between "classes" of people and communities. Classes are arbitrary distinctions. Communities are based on the right to associate with people of your own choosing and the ability to enter into contracts.

For example, some communities regulate the use of signs by deed restrictions. This can protect property values as well as making the areas you live and work more pleasant. Some people do not want them and are free to buy property without those restrictions.

I would even go further and say states and nations have rights. Don't we have a "collective" right to defend our nation against foreign attacks?

"So why not insist that DUI laws be strengthened rather than attempt an end-around by legislating in another area altogether? Laws exist to prosecute these crimes already. Why would we need additional laws criminalizing drugs to alleviate the problems of, say, burglary?"

I guess prevention versus punishment is the reason. I would vote today to turn power back over to local communities as long as it is across the board. Further, I think the idea that local communities can make their own decisions is the best way to unify the cause of freedom.

The pioneers of this nation had very strong, conflicting opinions about religion, morality and how government should treat these issues. But the idea of independence struck a cord of agreement because each diverse group understood that they would be able to live according to their beliefs. Without allowing local communities to set their own standards it is impossible to unify so many different persuasions. Allowing local communities to set their owns standards also encourages healthy competition. We can observe the effects of drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, religious vs. secular education. When the federal and state governments take power away from communities it is more difficult to see which way works best.

There is a big difference between "classes" of people and communities. Classes are arbitrary distinctions. Communities are based on the right to associate with people of your own choosing and the ability to enter into contracts.

I meant class vis-a-vis classifications of men, women, and children, i.e. the groups and organizations you suggest in your post. My bad for being unclear. But my point still stands: individuals have rights, groups of people do not. Organizations may have the authority to exercise power, and that power often mimics the application of rights, but there's an important distinction here: organizations get the power to act from men, not God. Take away government, and man would still have rights. Take away government, and organizations would not.

I would even go further and say states and nations have rights. Don't we have a "collective" right to defend our nation against foreign attacks?

No. We each have the right to defend ourselves and our property. Collectively, we apply this right by giving our government the power to act on our behalf.

The 14th is that provision, backed up by the provisions of the 9th & 10th Amendments and Article VI of the Constitution,

That is your interpretation of the 14th, but amounts to a "penumbra" such as which the "right to privacy" is found because bans on prohibitions are not concretely mentioned. Is there any case law regarding drug prohibitions you are aware of that supports your interpretation? Do you know of any rulings that have found prohibitions of drugs by States (like dry counties) to be unconstitutional? (p.s. did you mean Article IV, not VI?)

Weird comment. Do you think you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist?

In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution. At the same time, citizens of the USA residing in Vermont were absolutely prohibited from doing so in their State. That's one of the things behind Dred Scott: Was an escaped slave still property, even if that person was residing in an area where owning slaves was prohibited?

-- The pioneers of this nation had very strong, conflicting opinions about religion, morality and how government should treat these issues.

And they settled on empowering a Republic governed by the rule of Constitutional law.

But the idea of independence struck a cord of agreement because each diverse group understood that they would be able to live according to their beliefs.

Yep, as long as those beliefs did not infringe upon the rights of other individuals.

Without allowing local communities to set their own standards it is impossible to unify so many different persuasions.

Private communities do have wide powers to 'set their own standards'. State & local governments however, must follow Constitutional standards. See Article VI.

Allowing local communities to set their owns standards also encourages healthy competition. We can observe the effects of drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, religious vs. secular education.

Yep, private associations can make rules about drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, religious vs. secular education, - whatever, - on their private community property. Buy some acreage, and feel free to set up a voluntary religious or secular community. [Within the bounds of criminal law tho, - remember what big brother trumped up on Waco.]

When the federal and state governments take power away from communities it is more difficult to see which way works best.

State/county/city/town governments have never had the power to outright prohibit drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, guns, -- whatever; -- even though some have been allowed to assume that power unconstitutionally. They only have the power to reasonably regulate such matters.

LexBaird wrote:

Can you point to case law or Constitutional provision that states that prohibitions employed by States are not reasonable regs when dealing with deadly dangerous substances?

The 14th is that provision, backed up by the provisions of the 9th & 10th Amendments and Article VI of the Constitution,

That is your interpretation of the 14th,

The 14th specifically says that States can not make laws that abridge [take from, regulate away] our rights to life, liberty or property.
This is not my 'interpretation' it is an observable fact if you read the 14th in its constitutional context. - You seem unable to concede that point. Why?

-- , but amounts to a "penumbra" such as which the "right to privacy" is found because bans on prohibitions are not concretely mentioned.

Our right to privacy is not enumerated, but it exists. The 14th also exists. I suggest you learn to support & defend both.

Is there any case law regarding drug prohibitions you are aware of that supports your interpretation? Do you know of any rulings that have found prohibitions of drugs by States (like dry counties) to be unconstitutional?

I cite the words & principles of our Constitution, not 'rulings' from corrupted courts.

(p.s. did you mean Article IV, not VI?)

Article VI makes clear that all officials are bound to support & defend the US Constitution, -- notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary. -- Get it?

Do you think you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist?

In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.

Fine, you argue that they did have that 'right'.

At the same time, citizens of the USA residing in Vermont were absolutely prohibited from doing so in their State. That's one of the things behind Dred Scott: Was an escaped slave still property, even if that person was residing in an area where owning slaves was prohibited?

Apparently you think it is arguable; -- you could have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist.
I can't dispute your right to believe that, repugnant as it is to our Constitutions principles.

"philosopy--in this country, the protection of rights. Otherwise, we're being governed by decree or fiat."

You have a good basis for arguing that the protection of rights is central to American legal philosophy, but I see that as being distinct from the issue of rule by decree. Our courts often claim to be protecting rights when they are governing by decree. Look no further than last years discovery of a constitutional right to engage in sodomy. Of course abortion is another landmark example. Neither of these came from consensus of elected representatives. It is the rule of man rather than the rule of law.

I do not think law based only on rights can exist. There are also responsibilities and obligations that go along with those rights. Exactly what would be the basis for collecting any form of tax based on individual rights? (And I am not trying to be argumentative - just asking your opinion of how tax would fit into your legal philosophy.)

I don't know why you are having a hard time distinguishing between my critiquing your ideas, and being an advocate against them. Of course I don't support slavery, but that does not change the fact that it was legal under the Constitution, regardless of being morally and ethically abhorrent. And it doesn't change the fact that some States were allowed under the Constitution to totally prohibit it, citing its moral outrage. The point of the example is that prohibitions by States are Constitutional, not that slavery is acceptable.

This is not my 'interpretation' it is an observable fact if you read the 14th in its constitutional context. - You seem unable to concede that point. Why?

Because you are wrong. Observable facts are concrete. When you use context to determine something, it is by definition an "interpretation", relative and subject to different readings depending on how the context is applied. When certain things are not specifically said, then they must be inferred from context, experience, and example, and a consensus arrived at. What I'm trying to get at is if there is any of that to support your interpretation. Is yours a common reading of the 14th, or unique to you?

Allow me to propose a hypothetical. Musanon goes out and acquires a large amount of a prohibited substance, then goes into the nearest police station to be arrested. His intent is to force a civil rights case to have the prohibitionary laws struck down. He is convicted of possession, and appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the prohibition of possession violates his rights under the 14th A., being a pre-emptive infringement of his ability to own property.

Now, is there any case law, precedent, history, or custom to support his appeal, and thus likely overturn the conviction and the law? Or would the courts, when consulting similar cases, find that such prohibitions are reasonable regulations of dangerous substances, and thus hunky-dory?

Article VI makes clear that all officials are bound to support & defend the US Constitution, -- notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary. -- Get it?

And Article IV establishes the privileges or immunities reiterated in the 14th. I was just curious if you had transposed the Roman numeral, since you were citing it as support for the 14th.

I cite the words & principles of our Constitution, not 'rulings' from corrupted courts.

How about the words and principles found in Article III?

Do you think you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist?

In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.

Fine, you argue that they did have that 'right'. I can't dispute your right to believe that, repugnant as it is to our Constitutions principles.

So you claim that your argument is solely a critique? Yet you conclude by arguing that slavery was 'legal'. Fine, play your word games.

And it doesn't change the fact that some States were allowed under the Constitution to totally prohibit it, citing its moral outrage. The point of the example is that prohibitions by States are Constitutional, not that slavery is acceptable.

Prohibitions that deny liberty & human rights are not comparable to State laws that uphold them. To term anti-slavery statues as 'prohibitive laws' is another example of specious wordplay.

_____________________________________

This is not my 'interpretation' it is an observable fact if you read the 14th in its constitutional context. - You seem unable to concede that point. Why?

Because you are wrong. Observable facts are concrete.

The Constitution is written in concrete words that enumerate concrete facts.

When you use context to determine something, it is by definition an "interpretation", relative and subject to different readings depending on how the context is applied. When certain things are not specifically said, then they must be inferred from context, experience, and example, and a consensus arrived at. What I'm trying to get at is if there is any of that to support your interpretation. Is yours a common reading of the 14th, or unique to you? Allow me to propose a hypothetical. Musanon goes out and acquires a large amount of a prohibited substance, then goes into the nearest police station to be arrested. His intent is to force a civil rights case to have the prohibitionary laws struck down. He is convicted of possession, and appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the prohibition of possession violates his rights under the 14th A., being a pre-emptive infringement of his ability to own property. Now, is there any case law, precedent, history, or custom to support his appeal, and thus likely overturn the conviction and the law?

Yes, there is. I look forward to the day when the SCOTUS allows such a case to be argued.

Article VI makes clear that all officials are bound to support & defend the US Constitution, -- notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary. -- Get it?
I cite the words & principles of our Constitution, not 'rulings' from corrupted courts.

How about the words and principles found in Article III?

? -- I have no problem with Article III, - do you?

"See the 10th, wherein States are prohibited, by the Constitution and its Amendments, specific powers. The necessity of a prohibition Amendment, & its repeal, make clear that no level of government in the US was ever empowered to outright prohibit. -- They are all limited to reasonable regulations, regs that do not infringe on our basic rights to life, liberty, or property."

Article [X.] - 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.

Your interpretation of this amendment is the most obtuse I have ever heard. I hope you realize you are not a strict constructionist. Your position would hand all states' authority over to the whims of unelected federal judges who can arbitrarily decide which laws are "reasonable".

I will concede that prohibition is proof that the federal government does not have constitutional authority, without an amendment, to prohibit drugs. It is a states' right - subject to their respective constitutions. I would support a constitutional amendment restricting drugs, but would prefer a change of cultural and political climate that would permit it to be handed back to the states.

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.