You: It is immoral or anti-consititution for people to choose to live in states where there are laws against any or all emancipation of slaves? Clearly it was not at one time (see the Dred Scott Decision) What changed?
,
It has been my experience in life that when people answer a question with another question of dubious relevance, it is because they either don't have an answer or they know their answer is bankrupt.
I'll answer yours though. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights which renders slavery a violation of that principle. Drug use isn't an unalienable right but understanding that liberty allows stupid choices, in my world, you could pursue those stupid choices in places where others agree with you.
In your world, you would force me and others like me to live under the tyranny of a small minority who think that drug use is an unalienable not legislatable by the citizens of states. So who's the statist here?
I, for one, believe that it's the FEDERAL component of the drug war that is the most anti-freedom and statist. Take, for example, the recent busts of the CA medi-pot clinics by the DEA. They were operating LAWFULLY under CA law, but Asa Hutchinson and his fedgov jackboots decided that they knew better what was good for the citizens of California and shut down the clinics, confiscating plants, supplies, and records. And this just 6 weeks after the WTC attacks, when one would think that law enforcement's priorities have changed.
A much better approach would be to put the DEA out of business and allow states to regulate marijuana and other drugs, just like they regulate alcohol. Some states (or even localities, like "dry counties" in states like Kentucky) would have prohibitory laws; others would be more lenient. This would be a Constitutional approach, and one that would work much better than the unconstitutional War on Drugs.
State or local [or federal] government cannot write law depriving you of life, liberty or property, without due process, - ie - indictment & trial by jury for criminal actions. --- Prohibitions are attempts to make non-violent actions criminal by fiat law, - by the say so of a majority.
So yes, JW, it is both immmoral & unconstitutional for your peers to criminalize non violent behavior.
You may however, volunteer to belong to a community, and regulate each others lives to your hearts petty desires, upon pain of banishment. - Just buy into a condo type association, and enjoy.
It's been my experience in life that when people answer a question with a patronizing lecture that they haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about.
I'll answer yours though. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights which renders slavery a violation of that principle.
Really. Does that reasoning apply to the criminal, the insane, and the young, as well?
Drug use isn't an unalienable right
Actually, it is--by the light of the Supremes who have repeatedly struck down laws forbidding it under the 1st amendment. You have the right to think or feel anyway you want, by any means you want. It is possession or sale that is supposedly permitted by the Commerce Clause.
but understanding that liberty allows stupid choices, in my world, you could pursue those stupid choices in places where others agree with you.
As arguments go, this is shameless twaddle, not much removed from the "it's illegal, so it should be illegal argument." The fact is, I live here, I have a right to live here, and I have both a right and a duty to see to it that the laws I live under here make sense.
In your world, you would force me and others like me to live under the tyranny of a small minority who think that drug use is an unalienable not legislatable by the citizens of states. So who's the statist here?
So, if I get 51% of the electorate on my side, do you suddenly become the statist? You need to sit on the dictionary for a while until your word usage becomes a little more discriminating. Untrammeled democracy and statism go hand in hand. The restraints of our Federal Republic were precisely and only put there to avoid popular caprice becoming law. Freedom from fear of drug addicts is exactly such a caprice, akin to fear of witches. You want to put people in jail, I do not. That means we are not playing on an even playing field on this subject, the onus of demonstration is on you. Show us that tolerating drug addicts is the death of the Republic--obviously it is not, if booze is not, so obviously, you have no case.