The "War on Drugs" is dinosaur technology

Huffington POst ^ | 03/22/2015 | Johann Hari

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually commerce is cited here because that's what the USSC uses to justify the War on Drugs. I agree that it is laziness/convenience that they use Wickard, but the fact is that they do use it.

Yes, I know they cite it. As I explained before, they cite it because it's easy. The Courts already gave the government broad powers under Wickard (and remember all but one of those judges were FDR appointees) so the legal authorities use it because it allows for it.

It isn't a very good justification, but they don't have to fight any new court battles to use it, so they just use it. This doesn't mean that their activity isn't authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, the war on drugs is authorized in the part that provides for the common defense, and specifically defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Except there's a huge difference: chemical and biological weapons are deployed regardless of the will of those exposed to it; while, on the other hand, drugs aren't used by those who don't want them.

You have too narrow of an understanding of what constitutes a chemical weapon. If a nation dropped gas on us that turned our population into suicidal zombies, you wouldn't doubt that this is a chemical weapon. The only difference between this and what we have now is the delivery mechanism.

[DiogenesLamp]

War on drugs brings Policing for profit. My liberty is infringed upon When my property can be targeted for confiscation for activity I have no knowledge of.

Making me pay for the policing necessary to keep drug addicts from stealing from me is an infringement upon my liberty. Allowing people to roam around infecting my children with a drug addiction is an infringement upon my liberty. Paying for worthless dead beat weed smokers on welfare is an infringement upon my liberty.

I think the seizure laws are wrong, and an obvious violation of the fourth and fifth amendments, but that doesn't have anything to do with the need for our society to halt or slow the spread of drug addiction.

We can still do so without anti-constitutional seizure laws.

[ConservingFreedom]

This doesn't mean that their activity isn't authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, the war on drugs is authorized in the part that provides for the common defense, and specifically defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Which clause of the Constitution discusses enemies foreign and domestic?

[DiogenesLamp]

Using drugs on someone else is relatively rare - yes, drinks have been spiked with Rohypnol, but I know of no case ever of A having used (unspiked) marijuana on B.

I am not going to let you get away with confining this discussion to marijuana. Marijuana is just a stalking horse for full drug legalization, of which you have admitted to being an advocate.

Your stated beliefs are that all drug usage should be legal, including crack, heroin meth, etc.

[DiogenesLamp]

The US had a much smaller govt without mayhem.

You are going to have to elaborate what you mean, because I can't make any sense of your point in the context of what you responded to.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nice story. The US and Canada had opium dens for the Chinese contract labor too. and here is one for you Death of Donald P. Scott

And once again, the connection between your response and to what you have responded is unclear.

Legal drugs make drug dealers far richer than do illegal drugs.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course - but that's not the shoot-dealers-on-sight proposal to which I was responding in post #87. To execute them Constitutionally we first have to arrest them - and we're doing that no faster than they're replaced.

Well that has a lot to do with the fact that we aren't executing them in sufficient numbers to give others pause. I suggest we remedy that situation by executing a lot more and faster.

[Lurker]

Thanks for revealing that you’ve never actually read the Constitution.

Another faux conservative unmasked.

L

[DiogenesLamp]

Concern trolling?

[DiogenesLamp]

Which clause of the Constitution discusses enemies foreign and domestic?

The one you mentioned.

[Secret Agent Man]

I do. Your post doesn’t address anything I said in #15.

[OneWingedShark]

You have too narrow of an understanding of what constitutes a chemical weapon. If a nation dropped gas on us that turned our population into suicidal zombies, you wouldn't doubt that this is a chemical weapon. The only difference between this and what we have now is the delivery mechanism.

Ridiculous, there is a difference — I do not will to have drugs and so I don't. (This can be illustrated in the cases where I do will to have a drug like, [e.g.] a beer or an aspirin, and so do.) — when I was in the Army, an exposure to chemical attack was a distinct possibility, and one I would not will to have.

Your assertion that the only difference is the delivery mechanism completely devalues personal responsibility and accountability because it implicitly denies free will.

It [Wickard/Commerce-clause] isn't a very good justification, but they don't have to fight any new court battles to use it, so they just use it. This doesn't mean that their activity isn't authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, the war on drugs is authorized in the part that provides for the common defense, and specifically defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.

That is a very dubious assertion, especially when there is an actual and far more solid case of national defense that is being ignored: the invasion (aka undocumented immigrants).
...but if the government isn't going to respond correctly to the more straightforward case, why should it go for the far more obscure/questionable case?
Indeed, if it is a national defense problem, why would you be more vitriolic about drugs than an actual invasion?

[Gene Eric]

The context concerns my original statement about the (tertiary) risk of small govt, and your response regarding social collapse which I inferred to be cautionary.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for revealing that you’ve never actually read the Constitution.

Thanks for revealing that you are a simple mind who can't tell the difference between Liberty and License.

Another faux conservative unmasked.

Your name calling doesn't win your argument.

[OneWingedShark]

Legal drugs make drug dealers far richer than do illegal drugs.

Absurd and patently untrue — organized crime in prior the `20s was a piddly little thing, but when Prohibition came along it made alcohol very, very profitable and that is where the mafia got its money and power.

See:
Mafia in the United States
How Prohibition backfired and gave America an era of gangsters and speakeasies

[Ken H]

Take it as a word to the wise. The first google hit to my query turned up the following from the expertlaw.com forum =>

___________________________________________________________

Can You Get in Legal Trouble for Calling Someone a Drug Dealer

-snip-

When you ask about trouble, do you mean could he sue you? It's possible, and as the allegation would presumably be defamation per se you would have to prove your statement was true or be held liable.

-snip-

Some state have criminal-libel statutes and Virginia is one of them.

Virginia
“Any person who knowingly and willfully states, delivers or transmits by any means whatever to any publisher, or employee of a publisher, of any newspaper, magazine, or other publication or to any owner, or employee of an owner, of any radio station, television station, news service or cable service, any false and untrue statement, knowing the same to be false or untrue, concerning any person or corporation, with intent that the same shall be published, broadcast or otherwise disseminated, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.” VA Code Ann. § 18.2-209. Speaking or publishing imputations of a woman’s want of chastity is also a Class 3 misdemeanor; if the defendant disproves malice, he will lessen the penalty he will receive if convicted, but lack of malice is not a defense to the crime. Id. at 18.2-417

If, as you say, he is a drug dealer I doubt he will be going to the police to file charges against you. And as Mr. K points out, he could sue you for libel and not go to the police. But that would be a very expensive proposition for him.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172999

[Ken H]

Take it as a word to the wise. The first google hit to my query turned up the following from the expertlaw.com forum =>

___________________________________________________________

Can You Get in Legal Trouble for Calling Someone a Drug Dealer

-snip-

When you ask about trouble, do you mean could he sue you? It's possible, and as the allegation would presumably be defamation per se you would have to prove your statement was true or be held liable.

-snip-

Some state have criminal-libel statutes and Virginia is one of them.

Virginia
“Any person who knowingly and willfully states, delivers or transmits by any means whatever to any publisher, or employee of a publisher, of any newspaper, magazine, or other publication or to any owner, or employee of an owner, of any radio station, television station, news service or cable service, any false and untrue statement, knowing the same to be false or untrue, concerning any person or corporation, with intent that the same shall be published, broadcast or otherwise disseminated, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.” VA Code Ann. § 18.2-209. Speaking or publishing imputations of a woman’s want of chastity is also a Class 3 misdemeanor; if the defendant disproves malice, he will lessen the penalty he will receive if convicted, but lack of malice is not a defense to the crime. Id. at 18.2-417

If, as you say, he is a drug dealer I doubt he will be going to the police to file charges against you. And as Mr. K points out, he could sue you for libel and not go to the police. But that would be a very expensive proposition for him.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172999

[DiogenesLamp]

Ridiculous, there is a difference — I do not will to have drugs and so I don't.

People who have been infected by drugs no longer have a functioning will.

Your assertion that the only difference is the delivery mechanism completely devalues personal responsibility and accountability because it implicitly denies free will.

You are familiar with the consequences of a chemical addiction? Free will is the first casualty.

That is a very dubious assertion, especially when there is an actual and far more solid case of national defense that is being ignored: the invasion (aka "undocumented immigrants").

A failure to comply with one defense, does not justify a failure to comply with another defense. Yes, you are right, we should be stopping illegal immigration, but we should also be stopping drug distribution. Just because we fall down on one job, doesn't mean we should fall down on the other.

Indeed, if it is a national defense problem, why would you be more vitriolic about drugs than an actual invasion?

You have not heard me rant about illegal immigration, but rest assured I do. We should make the border a free fire zone with automated guns and remote cameras, the same way Israel protects their border. We need to toss people in jail who knowingly hire illegals. We need to deny any sort of public assistance to illegals. We should not recognize their children born here as citizens. We need to deport them back to their home country as soon as they finish their mandatory jail term for sneaking into the country illegally.

But again, just because this nation is completely blowing it's response to illegal immigration, it does not justify being incompetent regarding drug distribution as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[ConservingFreedom]

Using drugs on someone else is relatively rare - yes, drinks have been spiked with Rohypnol, but I know of no case ever of A having used (unspiked) marijuana on B.

I am not going to let you get away with confining this discussion to marijuana.

I know of no case ever of A having used heroin or meth on B either.

[ConservingFreedom]

Which clause of the Constitution discusses enemies foreign and domestic?

The one you mentioned.

Sorry, the correct answer is: there is no such clause.