Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
I'm in favor of legalizing cannabis, and decriminalizing possession of personal use amounts of other substances.
I know.
It's hard to imagine any sentient soul arguing that one has a fundamental unalienable right to blow dope.
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.
Worth repeating. Thanks Kevin.
Representative gov't throughout history?
Through thousands of years, society has more often then not, placed reasonable restrictions on people, through basic moral and ethical considerations.
And there were no drug prohibitions, nowhere, nowhen (with the possible exception of the opium war when the Brits were trying to get China hooked) until the so-called 'progressive era', aka early US socialism. And there was no MJ prohibition anywhere, through all of history, until Anslinger and FDR during the 'new deal', aka maturing US socialism.
So what? This is of no concern whatsoever to the gov't.
Bwaahahahahaha! That's good! You're just like the good folks in Animal Farm who read the new commandments: "Four legs good, two legs better."
Instead of (foolishly) trusting the idiots on the Supreme Court (or worse, the idiot Presidents or Congresscritters)...why not simply READ the Constitution (and the supporting literature)?
If you do that, you'll see that there is no way in h@ll that the Founding Fathers ever intended the commerce clause to be used such that certain substances were BANNED...from interstate traffic, or ESPECIALLY from production within states (as cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc. ALL are).
The Commerce Clause was intended to "make regular" commerce among the "several states"...in the same way a LAXATIVE makes one "regular." Congress was given that power in order to INCREASE commerce among the "several states"...NOT to decrease (or especially BAN) commerce.
One can see that the Commerce Clause was intended to INCREASE commerce among the "several states," because the Articles of Confederation did NOT have such a Congressional power...and the states RESTRICTED commerce more than the Founding Fathers desired.
There is no supporting material written by anyone, that is considered part of the Constitution.
If you totally ignore the supporting documentation, you end up not understanding what the Constitution even means. You come up with your COMPLETELY WRONG understanding of "regulate commerce among the several states," for example.
Or you end up with the completely non-sensical idea that Congress can do ANYTHING that promotes the "general welfare."
Read the Constitution. Read the supporting literature (including simply American history). You'll see that there's no way in h@ll that the Constitution gives Congress the legitimate power to regulate ANY drug. That's precisely why an amendment was necessary for alcohol Prohibition. (Given your WRONG interpretation, do you think that the 18th Amendment was not necessary? Do you think Congress simply could have passed the Volstead Act, without a supporting Constitutional amendment?)
If you're in favor of anything short of complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations on all drugs, you're not in favor of following the Constitution. The Constitution gives the federal government absolutely NO power to criminalize or regulate any drug. The 10th Amendment forbids it, in fact.
With me, you're arguing with a person who has (apparently) forgotten more about American history and the Constitution than you've yet learned.
You too, Kevin Curry. (You idiot.)
You have no respect for people with which you disagree.
Thank You. I have believed for quite some time that some of our more strident, foaming at the mouth, anti-libertarian, pro-WOD, pro-jack booted thug types here are not what they claim.
The REAL Demorat disruptors are NOT the hit-and-run types that sign up, post some quickie anti-Republican garbage on multiple threads, and get quickly banned. Those guys are fun, but hardly the real disruptor threat.
The real Demonrat disruptors, IMO, are the deep cover ones with early sign-on dates, whose positions on certain issues are a little to close to the Hollywood stereotype of an "evil" conservative Republican, if ya know what I mean.
However, they are given away, for in their poor attempt at reproducing a Hollweird conservative stereotype, they actually fall into the big-government fawning, socialist camp.
"I know."
You are an insincere troller, and a lawyer, and a RINO.
Hey, you're the whole package! A career in government awaits you!(as if you weren't already sucking off the life-juices of the country)
Gingrich took the position while in Congress that drug dealers should be executed.
Trying it and legalizing it are to different issues. Only a fool would argue that is should be legalized. Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried.
Like in the US from 1776 until 1937
So what? This is of no concern whatsoever to the gov't.
So what?! Alcohol abuse was a concern to society, which made it a concern to the government. If it was no concern to society, the 18th amendment would never have passed into law.
Keyphrase is "federal" laws, hey?
Interesting point about the 10th, yet, some would say that it's debatable whether or not complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations would promote the general welfar... but I get what your saying about leaving it up to the States. I have mixed feelings about the FDA's process for approving new drugs and how they're scheduled, for instance, but I think we're better off overall with the approval process.
Only a fool (or an ignoramous) would support the federal government being involved in the regulation of any drug (absent a Constitutional amendment...which no wise person would support).
Gingrich took the position while in Congress that drug dealers should be executed.
Gingrich was a corrupt @ss. Just like G.W. Bush, and everyone in his Administration.
No person who takes an OATH to follow the Constitution, and then violates that oath, is worth even a bucket of warm spit.
True. The one thing I have always noticed about our militant pro-WOD, anti-libertarians is that, for the most part, their profile pages are either totally blank, or devoid of any sort of personal information, despite the fact that some of them have been around since 1998 or 99.
I mean, all my page tells you is where I live and where I'm from, but at least it's something. Wierd, dontch think?
Those who make their living from lawsuits and government favor will feel the full fury of an angry and aggrieved populace.
I sincerely hope the b*stards who are imposing Federal Socialism on Americans receive their historical due soon.
Yes, "federal" is the key...because the 10th Amendment is absolutely clear about what Congress made address, and what it may not.
...UNLESS one wishes to assert that there is a right, under the 9th Amendment, to put into one's body whatever one desires, as long as one isn't hurting someone else.
In my opinion, arguing that one has that right under the 9th Amendment, would potentially involve judicial activism. I would expect that there were state or local laws, at the time the Constitution was written, that prohibitted the use of...alcohol, for instance. If so, then an argument under the 9th amendment would be judicial activism, which I don't support.
...some would say that it's debatable whether or not complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations would promote the general welfare...
As I pointed out previously, the Constitution does NOT authorize Congress to do anything that is in the "general welfare" of the people. The Constitution ONLY authorizes the Congress to do the "general welfare" items that are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED (listed) in Article I, Section 8 (e.g., "coin money and regulate the value thereof," or "establish Post Offices."
I have mixed feelings about the FDA's process for approving new drugs and how they're scheduled, for instance, but I think we're better off overall with the approval process.
This reminds me of something I read from my mother just last night. She said that, even though the Constitution forbids it, it's probably still good that the federal government owns national parks or wilderness areas. But she was wrong. (Doesn't happen too often. ;-)) And you are wrong. We're NEVER "better off" when the federal government violates The Law. Because when they do it on one thing, and people don't complain/agitate/revolt until they STOP, they are just encouraged to violate The Law on something else.
If we're indeed "better off" with the FDA (not possible, in my opinion), it would ONLY be true if there was first (or second) a Constitutional amendment to allow the FDA.
The federal goverment should follow The Law. No exceptions. Instead, they virtually never follow The Law. And it's costing us, big-time (25% of our income, to start with).
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.