Replies

Is the Drug War a Conservative vs Liberal issue?

No...

It's a Constitutionalist vs Prohibitionist issue.

The Constitutution's 14th Amendment makes clear that no law shall abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process.
Prohibitionary type laws do so. There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.

No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.

What is truly amazing is that such a basic & understandable Constitutional concept can be opposed by certain groups of Conservatives & Liberals alike.

Lex Baird wrote:
" ---- as long as society has to carry the burden of the dregs of druggies, it also has the right to try to abate the problem in any way the society collectively decides."

Sensei Ern wrote:
" -- Your opinion is exactly how I feel."

Society "collectively decides" abatements in socialistic states, not in our Constitutional Republic.

Advocating collectivism is as bad a political gaff as advocating prohibitions.

The Constitutution's 14th Amendment makes clear that no law shall abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process.

Not only that, but the federal laws against drug prohibition flout the Constitution in at least one other way.

I strongly disapprove of alcohol prohibition, as do just about all sane people (a group in which I do not include MEGoody), but at least the alcohol prohibiters did it right: they amended the Constitution. Given that the Constitution contains no authority for the federal government to ban drugs, and given that we have the precedent of a Constitutional amendment being necessary to ban a particular drug, how can anyone find room in the Constitution as it is today to allow the government to ban illegal drugs?

Which, by the way, is why Gonzales v. Raich cost Justice Scalia my respect. We have one and only one Justice who respects the Constitution, and his name is Clarence Thomas.

Society "collectively decides" abatements in socialistic states, not in our Constitutional Republic.

You are mistaken. In a Constitutional Republic, society collectively makes its decisions through elections of people to represent us.

The People (i.e. the collective society) elect representatives. The reps create laws, each of which abates unfettered action in some way. The judiciary tries citizens according to these laws. That is due process.

There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.

And is therefore reserved to the States: "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." So any State can prohibit a drug or alcohol in accordance to its laws. Further, if any drug is transported across state lines for commercial purpose, it would Constitutionally fall under the Commerce Clause, and the power of Congress to regulate.

Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.

I cannot find the phrase "reasonably regulate" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments. Whom or what do you quote?