Posted on 10/15/2014 10:34:50 AM PDT by Wolfie
It’s not a trick question. I’m trying really hard to understand what you’re point is.
He didn't go on to say that all non-angelic behavior should be punished by government - and he certainly gave no such sweeping authority to the federal government, nor even the authority to regulate intrastate growing, distributing, selling, buying, or using of any drug.
Our government's anti-drug laws have reflected the values most Americans hold to.
Nonsense - polls show more Americans favor than oppose legalizing pot.
You don't get how destructive drugs are.
I'm well aware of how destructive drugs can be to irresponsible users - a family member has been laid waste by use of the drug alcohol.
you see dope as a fine recreational activity for responsible adults.
I've nver said it's "fine" - it is one they must as free-willed individuals be at liberty to do.
The reality is it's a plague on our society regardless of whether it is worse than alcohol or not.
If, like pot, they're not worse than alcohol, with which our society is coping quite well, then they're not a plague on our society.
it's impossible to go back and say you're only talking about pot. Because you've made it clear that you'd be okay with legalizing all drugs.
If I were king, I would not legalize any other drug until after having legalized pot and taken a good few years to assess the impact - at which point I predict that the weight of the evidence will support answering 'should we legalize other drugs?' with a 'yes.'
So you think the enumerated powers explicitly allow for smoking pot,
I think we both know "smoking pot" is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. If you don't then it's time you read it.
or you think they don’t allow states to make pot smoking illegal?
Likewise, there's no enumerated power to dictate whether the states must either criminalize it or legalize it.
So there you have it - two choices, both based on an invalid premise, and either one I choose is going to be wrong.
And you can stop with the feigned incomprehension. If you hand me a loaded question I'm going to do my best to unload it, take it apart and hand it back to you in pieces without pulling the trigger. If you don't want that done with them, don't hand them to me.
The point about Madison is that he believed we needed government because men are not angels. You may not realize it but the drugs you are keen for were not available when Madison was writing. You probably don't realize it but most Americans would never believe that the Founding Fathers would have been keen for legalizing pot or the other drugs.
I agree that more Americans are shifting to pro-pot laws. Yet only two states are in the pot bag so far. So the truth is that historically and presently most Americans do not share your pro-pot views.
I know you say you're personally opposed to pot but in favor of everyone using it if they want, but that's just more sophistry, like the Democrat claptrap on abortion.
How do you believe that our society copes well with alcohol yet you've lost a family member to it? No cognitive dissonance with your pro-drug stand and the personal consequences in your family? And with both pot and alcohol legal are you unaware of what that will mean to people who use both drugs? http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-when-stoned-and-drunk-2014-3
If you were king, you'd not want a besotted, doped up, stoned nation of dolts. But I could be wrong.
What is your position on pot and the constitution then, or is that unfair?
My position on pot and the constitution is that when the Constitution was written and ratified, there was no enumerated power transferred to the national government intended to give them the authority to control pot. Unless and until that is modified by an amendment properly ratified by the States it remains as it was understood and intended by the people who wrote and ratified it.
What's your position?
The same. I have not advocated or implied that the federal government make any laws on pot. My reference to Madison had to do with the need for government, not the need for a federal pot law.
The point about Madison is that he believed we needed government because men are not angels. You may not realize it but the drugs you are keen for were not available when Madison was writing.
Marijuana and opiates have been known for millennia - in fact, Ben Franklin was one of many who used a tincture of opium in alcohol (laudanum).
You probably don't realize it but most Americans would never believe that the Founding Fathers would have been keen for legalizing pot or the other drugs.
What I realize is that the Founding Fathers put no federal authority in the Constitution to regulate the intrastate growing, distributing, selling, buying, or using of any drug - which makes moot whatever "most Americans would never believe" about it.
historically and presently most Americans do not share your pro-pot views.
Nationwide "54% favor marijuana legalization": http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape/
I know you say you're personally opposed to pot but in favor of everyone using it if they want, but that's just more sophistry, like the Democrat claptrap on abortion.
Abortion violates a nonconsenting person's right to life - drug use violates nobody's rights.
How do you believe that our society copes well with alcohol yet you've lost a family member to it?
Society goes on without him; if we ban everything with which people might choose to harm themselves, what will be left?
Here's the comment I originally replied to:
As Madison said, "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government." Our government's anti-drug laws have reflected the values most Americans hold to.
How did you manage to exclude the federal government from "our government's"? Unless we're all living in the same state, that's the only one that's arguably "ours".
All I can say is that you understand where those drug laws come from to be something that I did not imply.
I understand how failing to make that distinction helps advance the perception that it does not exist.
The harm done by drugs is not just to the poor, weak-minded druggie. The harm is to the rest of us as well. We're right not to want it legal as we're forced to bear the burden of drugs and its consequences.
That what does not exist?
Nationwide "54% favor marijuana legalization": http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape/
It's been 13 months since a poll showed American favoring the legalization of pot. That seems to confirm my point that historically Americans have objected.
What are you trying to say here - that to you "historically" means less than 13 months ago? And is there evidence that things have changed in those 13 months?
We're right not to want it legal as we're forced to bear the burden of drugs and its consequences.
Society has through its elected representatives chosen to create programs through which this burdening takes place. The conservative position is to end such rights-violating welfare/redistributive programs, not to use them as an excuse for still more rights-violating policies like drug criminalization.
The difference between the state and national governments that defines a constitutional republic. That thing that Franklin said they'd given use "if we could keep it".
The US experiment with legalizing pot will end soon, well before you're king.
Okay, and you believe I implied Madison’s comments were only meant in reference to the then new federal government not to government in general.
It’s not hard to prognosticate on this topic. The US Army de facto legalized pot in the 1970s by turning a blind eye to it’s use and abuse. The outcome was an ineffective army. To have good order and discipline, they had to change back to zero tolerance. Society will always have it’s fools who prefer to sleep under bridges stoned and drunk. But to legalize drugs that will cause more addiction and more crime will prove to be folly.
What the Army allows is not thereby "legalized" - and as a free society America has never imposed on itself the standards of its military.
to legalize drugs that will cause more addiction and more crime
No reason to expect more addiction - and every reason (lower prices) to expect less crime.
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.