Posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
DENVER -- Admitting that it may be "political suicide" former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said its time to consider legalizing drugs.
He spoke Wednesday to the Lincoln Club of Colorado, a Republican group that's been active in the state for 90 years. It's the first time Tancredo has spoken on the drug issue. He ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform that has brought him passionate support and criticism.
Tancredo noted that he has never used drugs, but said the war has failed.
"I am convinced that what we are doing is not working," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
Why not, if the law he broke "has to be enforced at all levels of a society"?
I was not being critical of Rush as an addict, being one myself. It is my understanding that the law was satisfied where Limbaugh was concerned - So I don't get your point.
Do you see a fundamental difference in government limiting your freedom to use drugs because of the harm you might cause me and the government limiting your freedom to drive the wrong way on the highway because of the harm you might cause me? Or limiting your freedom to drink and then drive, because of the harm you might cause me?
I understand that we could debate the relative risk of harm to me for each of those actions, and choose to limit your freedom for some but not others based on the RISK of harm.
I just want to know if you believe the government HAS a right to limit your freedom in order to protect my person and property, and if so why you believe that it is constitutional to do so in some of those cases, but not for mind-altering chemicals.
I say this because, in my opinion, if you accept that there is an inherent risk to me in drug legalization, and accept that government can constitutionally limit one person’s freedom in order to protect another’s life or property, then I don’t think it is a constitutional question anymore, but simply a question of value — whether the limits are worth the rewards in this case.
I simply don’t see how you can draw the drug question in stark black-and-white terms, unless you also draw those other things above in the same black-and-white terms. If you do, that is great — I am just seeing if there is consistancy. I would understand a philosophy which says that government can ONLY act to punish actual harms, and cannot limit freedom merely to limit the PROBABILITY of harm.
And to use the driving example, many of us drive as if the important thing is whether we cause actual harm, and we don’t truly respect the government’s limitations on us. Most of us speed, some people float through stop signs, some will go through stop lights if they think it safe, or cross railroads with flashing lights. These are actions which indicate a disdain for the government’s right to limit MY freedom simply because something I do MIGHT harm someone else.
The Constitution was not intended to protect our rights, but to limit the power of government. Some thought it necessary to add a list of rights, others were afraid that would make people think the Constitution granted those rights, so they specifically added the amendment that states that we retain all our other rights, including the rights to vice, unless the constitution specifically grants the government the power to regulate those vices.
In my opinion, the government has no right to limit what I do to myself, unless it impacts other people. I've never used illegal drugs, but it bothers me that I can get drunk if I want (I don't drink either), but I can't EVER legally try pot just to see what it is like.
And what REALLY bothers me is that I can't grow pot in my back yard, even if I never smoke it -- and that if I do so, they could take my house away without ever taking me to court. God for whatever reason made this plant, and the government says that I forfeit my property if that plant grows in my yard.
He’s right. It’s a massive drain on resources and grows the federal government.
Legalization is the conservative position.
The government has NO authority to abridge rights, period. It only has the authority to PROTECT the equal rights of all under its jurisdiction. YOU are the one responsible for PREVENTING harm to yourself. YOU are, as always, your own first line of defense, not government. Government’s job (and the Supremes said so) is to come in AFTER THE FACT and pick up the pieces. Then they place blame and punish the guilty. They CANNOT be “preemptive.” In First Amendment cases the courts call it “prior restraint” and outlaw it.
But that is not really an answer, because I have the right to enjoy my property and to be free from harm by others. Can the government act ahead of time to protect me from harm by others, or is their only constitutional authority to punish people who violate my rights?
Government’s job (and the Supremes said so) is to come in AFTER THE FACT and pick up the pieces
They said that government has no enforceable OBLIGATION to prevent harm to you by others. That's not the same as saying Government has no constitutional authority to prevent harm to you by others.
In First Amendment cases the courts call it “prior restraint” and outlaw it.
The court has ruled that if you yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, you CAN be arrested and put in jail, even if nobody is hurt. That is just the type of prior restraint we are talking about here. The government will not put a police officer on your tail to make sure you never use drugs, but if they catch you they will prosecute you.
It is true the government can't generally make it illegal for you to speak, simply because they think you will say something that would violate the law.
To use the "wrong-way street" analogy, the government doesn't use "prior restraint" by preventing you from driving your car simply because you might drive the wrong way. But, they do have a law against driving the wrong way, and they will act with "prior restraint" by arresting you and throwing you in jail for driving the wrong way, even though you didn't hurt anybody.
Do you think that traffic laws are unconstitutional because they limit your freedom in order to protect me from potential harm, rather than simply punish you for actually harming me?
YOU are, as always, your own first line of defense, not government.
As a practical matter, yes, because the government can pass a law but they can't keep people from breaking that law. But that is different from government only passing laws that punish people for doing actual harm, rather than limiting activities with the potential for harm.
Whether the government can arrest someone for driving the wrong way down a 1-way street, when I am driving I need to be looking out for people going the wrong way, because the police aren't going to prevent people from driving the wrong way. But I am much safer because I know that people know that if they drive the wrong way, they will likely get caught and if so they will be prosecuted. If there was no threat, no law, I would be in much greater danger, and in fact if I managed to protect myself the people who put me in danger would not suffer any consequences.
I'm still not sure if you are opposed to all laws of prior restraint, or just the drug laws, and if not all laws, how you distinguish between the ones you oppose and the ones you support.
So, would you legalize drunk driving, and only make it a crime if the drunk driver actually caused an accident? Or is drunk driving dangerous enough to others that you are willing to impose governmental prior restraint by making it illegal to drive while drunk even if you don't hurt anybody?
I agree. But since the Constitution does not specifically protect these vices, they are *not* comparable to gun legislation, which is the accusation being cast upon me - The RKBA specifically *is* Constitutionally protected, and serves a specific purpose, far more important and noble than these petty vices which others would compare it to. For that reason, the comparison is made null and void, and that is the gist of my point.
Incidentally, while the Constitution does limit the federal government, and I will declare (as I have already) that federal legislation in this vein is unlawful, with the exception of import/export, and interstate trafficking, It puts no such limitation upon the states.
If the states, singly or severally, decide to limit the public access to a substance, or to regulate it's use, or to deign it to be illegal altogether, that is well within the states' rights and is a lawful endeavor.
In my opinion, the government has no right to limit what I do to myself, unless it impacts other people. I've never used illegal drugs, but it bothers me that I can get drunk if I want (I don't drink either), but I can't EVER legally try pot just to see what it is like.
But the states do have that right, whether you like it or not. In your own words, which I agree with whole heartedly, The Constitution is a limiting document. But what it does not specifically limit, it passes on to the states, primarily, and by them, to the people.
That is the difference between a federal republic and a democracy, as you probably already understand. The sovereignty here is meant to rest in the several states, with the power of the people being the ability to depose their government, by the means provided to them, as they see fit.
Unless you would care to argue that your right to vices is extrapolated by way of penumbra, from the words "Pursuit of Happiness", your right to them is not protected.
And we are not arguing marijuana alone, as you may have surmised, it is an unlimited access to any substance which is being discussed herein.
And what REALLY bothers me is that I can't grow pot in my back yard, even if I never smoke it -- and that if I do so, they could take my house away without ever taking me to court. God for whatever reason made this plant, and the government says that I forfeit my property if that plant grows in my yard.
That bothers me too - or rather the forfeiture before the fact bothers me immensely. That is an unlawful, unconstitutional abrogation of the "Pursuit of Happiness", on it's face.
I will state yet again that I am *not* for the current status quo. I do not agree with the federal power that is currently at large.
Hell, I am not even entirely happy with the FDA- I recognize that it has a legitimate function (weights and measures type of thing, uniformity, consistency necessary for exports/imports), but I would much rather it's working structure, spending capability, and decision making capacity were made from representatives of the states severally (Governor's appointees, perhaps), rather than the current structure, where the federal government ordains and the states must obey.
I would prefer such a structure for *every* federal bureau or department whose authority is not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution, if that bureau or department must be there at a federal level in the first place...
Addicted CW veterans were in their 60s by 1906, and in their 70s by 1914. If you accept that there were large numbers of addicted veterans, then a large decline from 1880-1920 was already in the cards.
I am going primarily from my own knowledge on the matter, not by DOJ's numbers.
What are the specific addiction numbers you are using for each of the periods we've been discussing, including 1980-2000, and what is your source for each of them?
I will grant you that the government numbers often favor the WoD, but likewise, the material offered by the other side are likewise biased in their own favor, and take a fairly paranoid view, without reason.
The thing is, the fedgov agencies charged with leading the WOD have apparently decided that these are the best addiction numbers, and are presenting them to the public. In the court of public opinion, this is like an expert witness for the prosecution giving testimony favorable to the defense.
As I have already asserted, the *gigantic* rise came with the hippies in the 60's (Perhaps because of Viet Nam too, to some degree), and ran through to 1980, where there was a decided drop during Reagan's terms, Then right back at it, unabated, till today.
So the increasingly harsh laws failed to prevent or stop addiction in its tracks during the 1960s and 1970s, then they did stop it in the Reagan years, then they didn't after the Reagan years. And then despite getting ramped up to cabinet level status under Bush I in 1989, addiction still resumed its upward march.
It is beyond a stretch, IMO, to assign causality to the laws for any declines in addiction during this period.
The thing is, the fedgov agencies charged with leading the WOD have apparently decided that these are the best addiction numbers, and are presenting them to the public.
By "best addiction numbers" I mean the most accurate addiction numbers available, in the judgement of the DOJ/DEA.
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.