“It is only the business of government when you do something to other people.”
And that is exactly what I said.
“That is a moral issue.”
All legal issues are moral issues. The Constitution merely enumerates the rights God bestows upon us. If He does not bestow a right, no amount of Constitutional verbiage will serve to bring it into being.
“Benjamin Franklin (an opium user) would wonder where your idea of rights or who the left is came from.”
Yeah, and I suppose he was an atheist, a communist, and a homosexual as well.
“But the Federal Government’s rights DO derive from the Constitution.”
The federal government has no rights. It has only powers, and it rightfully has only those powers that we consent to.
“And the Federal Government has no right in the original understanding of the Constitution to prohibit drugs.”
It’s fine with me if the state governments take over that task...after we dispense with this fiction that there is some constitutional right to take intoxicating drugs.
“You need to do just one thing to convince me otherwise and that is to point to the provision in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government that authority.”
Just hold on a minute there, pilgrim. You’re the one arguing that the Constitution protects a person’s right to abuse intoxicating drugs. The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion, and you’re not going to get away with trying to turn the argument upside down.
You are trying to assert that the absence of a specific enumeration of that power in those words implies the positive existence of a right to engage in that behavior, and prohibits the government from enacting laws prohibiting it. That is not just illogical, it’s gibberish.
The fact is that we may, in the absence of a bona fide right to the contrary, pass laws prohibiting drugs. It is up to you do persuade people that such a right exists. Good luck.
The word “murder” does not appear in the Constitution, nor do the words “rape” or “theft.” And yet we have laws against these. How can that be? Are you arguing that these laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished?
Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” No?
Minimizing the depradations of drug addicts on our society certainly falls under the umbrella of “general welfare.” As there is no right to intoxication, we may pass laws prohibiting drugs.
“That is your inconsistency.”
Yours, on the other hand, is in approving of laws against murder, rape, and theft (You do, don’t you?), while deploring laws that seek to reduce murder, rape, and theft by minimizing drug use.
Something you may have overlooked: Prohibition was repealed not because some right to booze was discovered. It was repealed solely because people didn’t want it. Had they wanted it, it would still be in the Constitution.
“I’m really looking forward to this answer.”
Only because your desperate need to legalize drugs blinds you to the truth.
Keep your heads down when you come for our guns.
I doubt we'll be as passive about it as the pot smoker.
Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
Screw you and the commie horse you rode in on.
“And that is exactly what I said.”
No, you argued that bad effects were governable. That is the argument being used against second-hand smoke, transfats on healthcare costs and carbon dioxide emissions. You are a statist.
“All legal issues are moral issues.”
But not all moral issues are legal issues. If you are arguing that they can be one and the same, then you are arguing for the union of church and state and absolutism. Proper laws govern relations between people. When they seek to impose morals on the individual, they invade conscience.
“It’s fine with me if the state governments take over that task...”
There were state laws before the federal takeover. The feds took over because they felt state laws were ineffective at imposing absolutism - as it should be.
“You’re the one arguing that the Constitution protects a person’s right to abuse intoxicating drugs. The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion, and you’re not going to get away with trying to turn the argument upside down.”
I’m arguing bottom up - I have a right to conscience and whether one becomes privately intoxicated is a matter of conscience - as well as top down - the federal government was not given power to regulate intoxicating substances or anything else except as regards commerce between states.
“It is up to you do persuade people that such a right exists. Good luck.”
Rights do not come from the people. It is up to me to persuade people to recognize a right that exists regardless of whether they continue to trample it. It is much more difficult for 50 states to trample a right without the federal government to call on.
“The word “murder” does not appear in the Constitution, nor do the words “rape” or “theft.” And yet we have laws against these. How can that be? Are you arguing that these laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished?”
Has it escaped your notice that except on federal property, these are all state laws and that these all govern acts between people and are thus not matters only of conscience?
“Perhaps the power to enact these laws derives from the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” No?”
Providing is spending or setting aside for, not controlling individuals so you are distorting the language. Without any enumerated power to control people’s lives, you are willing to use any vagueness you can find to establish statist control based on your morality that happy hour is evil. There is no limit to the logic that left or right can put that mischief to.
“Yours, on the other hand, is in approving of laws against murder, rape, and theft (You do, don’t you?), while deploring laws that seek to reduce murder, rape, and theft by minimizing drug use.”
I look to minimize rape, murder and theft by laws against rape, murder and theft, not by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens as the left’s morality calls for or whatever connection you think drugs of themselves have with these. Murder and theft, in my view, are caused by the laws against drugs, much as Prohibition gave opportunities to organized crime in the 1920’s. It isn’t like we haven’t seen this before.