“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.
“That is the argument being used against second-hand smoke, transfats on healthcare costs and carbon dioxide emissions. You are a statist.”
I don’t know whether you are mistaken or lying. Don’t much care. You have a moral obligation to make a legitimate effort to understand what a person says before you engage in detraction.
“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.”
That’s how leftards argue. Assign the worst possible interpretation to a person’s remarks, stretching and distorting as desired, then attack your own creation. I don’t have much patience with such dishonesty.
“There were state laws before the federal takeover.”
And you go so far as to ignore places where I agree with you?
“I’m arguing bottom up”
You’re arguing bass ackwards. That is why you arrive at incorrect conclusions.
“I have a right to conscience”
No, you have a right to a *properly formed* conscience. In America we extend others the freedom to cling to a distorted conscience, but that’s a freedom, not a right.
“and whether one becomes privately intoxicated is a matter of conscience”
Dead wrong, on any number of grounds. No point in repeating them yet again, as you just put your fingers in your ears.
“the federal government was not given power to regulate intoxicating substances or anything else except as regards commerce between states.”
The federal government is given the power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Insomuch as it is recognized that such crimes as murder, rape, and theft are criminalized as detrimental to the general welfare, behavior that leads to those crimes is seen also to fall under that purview.
“Rights do not come from the people.”
Laws, however, are supposed to. As this is not a Constitutional issue, you can either lobby for the laws you want or lobby for a Constitutional amendment. If you want either of those outcomes, you need to persuade others.
“…recognize a right that exists…”
Buncombe. No such right ever has existed, or ever could.
“…these all govern acts between people and are thus not matters only of conscience?”
And neither is recreational drug use solely a matter of conscience.
“Providing is spending or setting aside for”
Perhaps you can cite a (non-leftist) constitutional authority for that. Your reading would require the federal government to out-source national defense. Silly.
“Without any enumerated power to control people’s lives”
Like the enumerated powers government has to criminalize murder, rape, and theft?
“you are willing to use any vagueness you can find to establish statist control”
As Thomas Sowell wrote, “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
I have refuted your arguments using facts and reason. Now you attempt to answer my arguments by attributing bad motives to me.
“…based on your morality that happy hour is evil.”
So, am I to understand that you’re a God-hater too? Btw, it’s not *my* morality.
“There is no limit to the logic that left or right can put that mischief to.”
As H. L. Mencken wrote, “It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”
“I look to minimize rape, murder and theft by laws against rape, murder and theft, not by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens”
We wave a fond farewell, as you drift further and further from any argument actually presented against your position, eventually to become mired in the Sargasso Sea of personal slur and stalking horse arguments.
It happens that I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, I regard any restriction on weaponry as unconstitutional.
“Murder and theft, in my view, are caused by the laws against drugs”
Yeah, I used to think that myself. In later decades I realized that I was wrong. Even if we provided free dope, housing, and food to junkies, they would still prey on others and deprive others of their right to be secure in their persons and their property.
“much as Prohibition gave opportunities to organized crime in the 1920’s.”
It was the demand for hooch and the willingness of society at large to break the law that gave opportunities to organized crime. Dope is neither the medical nor the moral equivalent of booze.
“It isn’t like we haven’t seen this before.”
Yes, it is. Laws against the recreational use and eventual addiction to, say, Fentanyl, are not the equivalent of the 18th Amendment.