Posted on 09/01/2011 9:03:00 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy
Blah blah blah. Typical loser comments. When you’ve been bested you resort to calling someone gay. You must be a libertarian. Go find a libertarian site where you can sell your legalization crap. And maybe you all can get a couple more fools to support Ron Paul.
HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Vote libertarian and prove you don’t matter. HA HA HA HA HA
“I have to go run some errands. If I have time later, I will respond to the multiple falsehoods in your post. I think that others can rip it apart just as easily, however, and they very well might.”
It doesn’t matter what you do after running your drugs to your clients. I am done listing to your tripe. I couldn’t care less what you believe or don’t believe. Go spend some time in a country that has legalized drugs and tell me how wonderful it is. If you survive that is.
You’ve ripped nothing apart. If anything you’ve given me more reason to believe I’m right. Your “logic” has proven that I am right and all you’re doing is blowing hot air. Same crap I’ve heard from libertarians over and over and over again. Yet, they base their theories on nothing factual. It’s all in their belief system. You guys remind me of those who keep screaming about global warming, oh no.HA HA HA. Go try to campaign for Ron Paul.
You keep pinging me to this thread. Is this about drug leagization, or the drug war?
The federal drug war is a blatant abuse of the Commerce Clause, just like the EPA, OSHA, Departments of Energy and Education, NLRB, and legislation like the Assault Weapons Ban, the Endangered Species Act, and the VAWA. But ending the federal drug war is not “legalization”. Every state has their own drug laws on the books. If the DEA was disbanded tomorrow all the drugs that are illegal in your state would still be illegal.
Don’t drag me into a semantic mess that’s got drug legalization conflated with ending the federal drug war and where nobody involved understands the difference or cares that there is one.
It’s about both. I advocate for legalization but I realize you are not for that. Apparently, however, some in this thread don’t understand the limits that the Tenth Amendment places on the Feds, so that is why.
Furthermore, technically, I didn't call you gay, I simply called you, since you want to go there, a co**su**er (substitute the last two letters of your name for the **). Big difference and not quite the same thing.
And your feeble attempts to pigeon hole me are pathetic. You would think that after all these years you control freaks could come up with something new. Sadly, you can't.
It is also true that states could not afford to wage a real war on drugs if they didn’t have the help of the Feds in waging it.
Alaska has fully legalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. If the federal laws were removed tomorrow, it would still be legal to possess small quantities in Alaska.
You're helping them keep that idea going.
Why is that true? Why couldn't the same tax money now being given to and spent by the fed not be used just as effectively if given to and spent by the state for their enforcement efforts?
Nope, I’ve made it clear that there are two separate arguments: a constitutional argument that fedgov has no power to wage a WOD, as well as the practical argument that even though states have the power to wage such a war, it does more harm than good.
Um, because the Feds borrow money as well as printing it out of thin air in order to wage the WOD. States must balance their budgets and they cannot print money. When you say money given to the state, what do you mean? Yes, state taxpayers could decide they are fine with paying for a WOD, but state legislators are typically a bit more accountable to people than Congress has been. Different states can take different approaches and we could see what works.
How did you come to the conclusion that the money to fund the drug war was borrowed and printed out of thin air, and the money that's actually paid in taxes went somewhere else?
We know that they are borrowing 43 cents on every dollar currently, right? I’m assuming that 43 cents of every dollar spent on the federal WOD is borrowed or printed. No reason not to assume that.
To elaborate, we have to assume that because of the way the feds operate. They make a budget of how much they will spend on every dept , agency, and if revenues don’t match desired outlays, they simply borrow and print the difference. The DEA is behind entitlement programs and defense in funding priority anyway.
Have you tried assuming that if the agencies and federal programs that have been authorized under the substantial effects doctrine were eliminated, the tax burden would be reduced to the point where the current drug war could be fully funded at the state level by the taxpayers?
You're so fixated on the drug war you seem to have lost the ability to comprehend the consequences of the abuse of the commerce clause beyond that, or what ending those abuses would mean.
Oh I’ve considered that. At least then we will have the decisions made exclusively at the state level, and I think some states will experiment with new approaches. Prop 19 might pass in California next year. If the fed gov wasn’t so out of control, the state wouldn’t have to worry about them interfering. I’m fixated on the drug war to an extent, but certainly not completely. I also post a lot about the abuses of the BATFags and the problems with the Feds distorting the market for medical care. Don’t you remember when I was in that thread saying that regulating pornography should be done at the state level, if at all? My primary concern is reviving the Tenth Amendment and getting us back to a constitutional form of government. If I post about the WOD a lot, it’s because I get angry reading about all of the innocent people killed as a result of it.
I think if you read my page you would see that I care about quite a few other issues as well.
Yet you don't see any reason not to assume that if we could stop it, the federal government wouldn't keep right on having to borrow 43 cents of every dollar they spend.
I do not understand your line of reason. The conclusions you draw do not seem to based on a comprehensive grasp of the basic premise.
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.