Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
There's another poster here who has the same childlike faith in lawyers and politicians that you do.
You seem to share the naive belief that 'My government wouldn't lie to me'.
And, FWIW, I believe that not a few of you pro-'WOD' posters have substance abuse problems of your own.
The reality is, in fact, that more than a few Republicans admit using marijuana. Including the former Speaker of the House, and the current President of the United States. I guess that would make them "anti-drug dopeheads," right?
Mark (Libertarian...never smoked marijuana, never smoked a single cigarette.)
lol, of course I do.
Various state and local governments, the National Highway Safety Administration, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (yes, there is such a department of our government, probably a waste of money and/or redundant), Department of Transportation, National Transportation and Safety Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control, etc.
If you want websites, statistics of alcohol-related accidents, etc. I can dig it up or you can check google and do a few searches.
Yes, but The People have also placed restrictions on the government. (Unfortunately, the government gives The People the finger, and does what it wants.) Those restrictions are in the Constitution...including the 10th Amendment. The People's representatives have the authorized power to criminalize drugs at the local or state level. They do NOT have that legitimate power at the federal level, absent a Constitutional amendment.
Sure, liberal Republicans like Michael Bloomberg have proudly admitted their marijuana use. What's surprising about that?
And in any case, the War on Some Drugs is NOT like alcohol Prohibition...because no Constitutional amendment has been passed to prohibit any drugs, like was done for alcohol. So the War on Some Drugs is completely in violation of The Law.
Your minority opinion is noted, for the record.
Now onto the facts.
America's current national drug control policy, is part of the National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 and is based on the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. There is nothing unconstitutional about this policy. Link here to the CSA of 1970 and link here to the USSC decision. Tobey v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) that supports the CSA of 1970.
The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive-branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can so long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure/guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law (due process, review and comment, etc).
And honest conservative Republicans, like Newt Gingrich and G.W. Bush, admit their marijuana use. (Though G.W. Bush is NOT willing to admit to his cocaine use.)
Another stupid liberdopian argument. But then, is there any other kind?
Complete BS. Why do you think the government didn't regulate alcohol under the Commerce Clause, but instead passed a Constitutional amendment. (The answer is obvious: they FOLLOWED The Law for alcohol, and BROKE it for other drugs.)
The Controlled Substances Act is NOT Constitutional! Anybody who can actually read the Constitution (and the supporting material of those who wrote the Constitution) should be able to see that. Or else they need a remedial reading course.
With that ridiculous remark, any credibility in your argument, just went out the window.
So! You are part of the Dark Side!
Now I understand why you won't answer any of my questions.
I hope they pay you enough to compensate for the loss of your eternal soul.
What the #%@$ are you babbling about? I wasn't even addressing you...I was addressing "Ol' Sparky"...who wrote that Libertarians were "pro-drug dopers" because (he wrote) that "most" of them (that he has corresponded with) use marijuana.
I was simply pointing out two of the MILLIONS of "anti-drug doper" Republicans who have used marijuana.
IMO legalization in some form with some kind of taxation would save money, and it would not make the problems we have now worse.
Your point is noted. And I agree. I've seen data that show reduced alcohol consumption during Prohibition, too. But that's a silly reason to call Prohibition a "success"...unless reduced usage is the SOLE factor in your definition of "success."
(You can always tell the savages when they use abstract words like Society and Community as subjects of verbs, and attribute states of mind or benefits to it. "Society needs...", "Society wants...", et cetera. It would be easier to counter if they would use golden calves and totems like the old school.)
It's not about preserving a free state, it's about using guns to make people obey and placate the tribal god. That's "the law"!
Of course its constitutional. If it weren't, it would have been overturned long ago. Not every law you disagree with, is unconstitutional. I believe Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. So far my side has had no success turning that decision around in the USSC. The same is true of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. You can moan and groan all you want, it will get you nowhere.
Anybody who can actually read the Constitution (and the supporting material of those who wrote the Constitution) should be able to see that.
This is very easy to understand. The Constitution is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its law making and governance of the USA. There is no supporting material written by anyone, that is considered part of the Constitution. Period! No Federalist Papers, NO papers of Thomas Jefferson, NO papers of James Madison. Nothing!!! The Constitution is a stand alone document, from which all subsequent written law is based on.
Nervous Nellies? Don't you mean honest people?
My own opinion is that the gov't should be, by a Constitutional amendment, forbidden to tax any drug, including alcohol. Think of it as punishment for their previous lies.
Liberty is the liberdopians' fig-leaf. The gross ugly nakedness behind it is and always has been their overweening passion to score dope without fear of punishment.
Didn't you know, the idea behind prohibition was to stop people from drinking alcohol. In that regard, banning the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages, the act of prohibition, was a success. I don't consider the actions of a criminal element, to be a factor in the original reasoning behind the 18th amendment, nor did criminal activities have any bearing behind the 21st amendment.
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.