Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
I do believe libertarians are generally against these sorts Constitutional provisions as they conflict with libertarian principles as much as liberals are against the 2nd amendment. Therefore it is quite fair to say that both oppose the Constitution although on different points.
They are linked. If it can be deemed acceptable for the federal government to overstep its constitutional bounds and ban illicit drugs, how much of a stretch is it to assume they can and will do the same thing with fatty foods? Heart disease is supposedly one of the biggest killers in America, more deadly than illicit drugs. Doing something for "the future of America's children" is certainly noble but the war on drugsto the extent that it federalizes what should be a state and local issueis unconstitutional. To think that it isn't shows a shallow understanding of the serious issue of constitution abuse in America.
More free? I think your imagining that's the way it was. Ingesting drugs doesn't mean your more free. America wasn't more free 80 years ago. Women were just given the right to vote and minority voting, especially in the old south, was looked upon in an unfavorable manner. There were a whole lotta poor people living in America, both black and white, and the average America lived to the ripe old age of 50-55. Come on!
I don't think you realize, just how good you have it today. You're living in the greatest nation in world history.
It would seem as though you have put your finger on it Thumper--but Mrs. Graham has been taking after me lately and insisting that I hold soccer dads and church men equally responsible for the crimes that I normally attribute to evil soccer moms and church ladies. And, as usual, she's right, so I guess I'd say its more like the successors to teetotaling temperance bittys and insane and hypocritical men like Andrew Comstock, Elliot Ness, and Harry Anslinger that are most responsible for these crimes.
To learn about individualist libertarian women who opposed the bittys in the 19th century click here
I know where you are coming from, but to intelligent folks, I think the comparison is in poor taste. No pun intented.
Hypothetically speaking, anything is possible, of course. So you may have a point about the food police. But I don't see the comparisons between illicit drugs and fatty foods/heart disease, at least not the way you're looking at it. There is a small group of people, who are trying to overplay their hand and win a big payout in the courts. In their defense, the approach these people are taking, is about dishonest advertsing tactics. Lying about the content of fat in fast foods, could ring true to a jury. At least on the surface, these possible court cases have more validity, then the law suits brought against cigarette manufacturers did.
I understand the Constitution and the national drug control policy of the US. The national drug control policy isn't unconstitutional.
Well, let's put it this way: For the first ~150 years this country existed, after the end of the Revolutionary War, federal government spending never exceed about 5% of the national income, during peacetime. (And it was usually more like 3-4%.) Now, federal government spending is 25% of national income.
In all that time, there have been NO amendments that authorized the federal government to spend major money on new areas (like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, Agriculture, Energy, etc. etc. etc.). So the federal government has done ALL these things outside The Law. And The Sheeple have stood by all let the federal government do all those illegal things (and, of course, tax The Sheeple to pay for them...though the Republicans like to run deficits to force The Sheeple's CHILDREN to pay for things).
Yeah, I'd say the federal government is corrupt. And the people are fools and idiots...or they simply don't give a #@$% about their freedom. (I see a lot of that on "Free" Republic.)
In fact, look at what we're doing on THIS board...debating whether or not the federal government should spend a lot of our tax money doing something it clearly is NOT authorized to do; meanwhile, I seriously doubt whether any of the people on this board wrote a letter to G.W. Bush telling him he is a corrupt tyrant, for signing away our free speech (on CFR). (I didn't do that because I'm sure he already knows what *I* think of him...as I made it very clear before the election.)
Nowhere in the Constitution, is anything mentioned about any of thsese historical papers. My point was and still is, the US Constitution, is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its legislative process for making law.
Your "point" is ludicrous. And you've already demonstrated it with your "interpretation" of the "commerce clause." You take "regulate" to include "completely bringing to a halt." But that's as ridiculous as if the Constitution said, "The federal government should help The People be gay"...and you now interpret that to mean that the federal government should encourage homosexuality! "Gay" did NOT mean "homosexual" back when the Constitution was written, and "regulate commerce...among the several states" did NOT mean, "prohibit the travel of certain goods between states"! (Let alone the even MORE ludicrous, "Ban anything everywhere that MIGHT at some time cross a state line!")
Once again, read an American history book. Read why the Founding Fathers (the signers of the Constitution) WROTE the Constitution. One of the huge reasons was to INCREASE the unimpeded flow of goods between states! That was a DEFECT in the Articles of Confederation--that states could pass laws restricting trade with other states--that the Constitution was meant to remedy!
If the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have their full understanding and interpretation of the Constitution, they should have spelled out precisely what they meant the document to mean.
I'm an engineer. We engineers have a saying, "You can never make something idiot-proof. Idiots are too clever!" You wish that the Founding Fathers would have "idiot-proofed" the Constitution. But they never expected The People to be so totally devoid of knowledge of history and civics, that The People would ever LET elected officials butcher the "commerce" and "general welfare" clauses the way they are currently being butchered! (And the way in which YOU approve!) As Franklin said, when asked about the type of new government, "A Republic, ma'am. If you can keep it." (May not be an exact quote.)
I support much of the original intentions of the what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the Constitution, however, that doesn't make these so-called, associated documents, relevent to the current state of affairs.
Our freedoms exist only to the extent that We, The People care to argue/agitate/revolt for them. When we have citizens who accept the absolute BS that federal officials feed them about the Constitution, we lose our freedoms. Exactly as we've lost the freedom to keep 25% of our income free from federal government control.
I obviously can't--and wouldn't bother to, even if I could--force you to pick up a history book, and read about why the commerce clause was put into the Constitution, to correct the perceived flaw in the Articles of Confederation. If you don't care about the federal government not following the intent of the Constitution...well, it's your (and my, unfortunately!) loss.
Gotta get to bed. (The first 2 hours of my work tomorrow are to pay unconstitutional money to the federal government...:-( )
That little, eh. Some "success." Oh, and what about what KIND of alcohol was consumed during that era. Few people bothered with wine and even fewer with beer. Hard liquor was the tipple of choice; it packed the biggest punch in the smallest package. Today it's pretty much the opposite.
Hi roscoe. Have you ever served in the US Armed Forces?
268 posted on 5/17/02 12:42 AM Eastern by dcwusmc To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
Wanna come over to MY house and say that to my face? Have you ever served in thd US Armed Forces?
269 posted on 5/17/02 12:43 AM Eastern by dcwusmc
Are you giving away money to veterans?
I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree.
I think you'll have to clarify what it is that's got you so incensed.
When social ills are at an all-time high, one cannot have a 'sharp rise' in them. (Many brought to you by the nanny state, BTW).
indulging in drugs is morally wrong, placing all substance abusers, and those around them, at risk for physical, psychological, and spiritual damage.
Since the topic appears to be the legislating of 'morality' let's take it a bit further, shall we:
How about a law that puts Jimmy Swaggert's ass in jail the next time he's caught with prostitutes (or for crying about it).
Another law suspending Oral Robert's $3Mill pleas for dough, less he be called 'home'.
And finally, a law forbidding the wearing of obscene layers of caked-on make-up while trying to shake down the flock as in Jim and Tammy Faye Baker.
Does your burqua loose it's effectiveness on the bedpost overnight?
1) Drug abuse does not happen in a vacum whether illegal or not.
2) Equivocating all drugs from nicotine to fentanyl as equally problematic is simply incorrect in my opinion.
Some drugs like nicotine, alcohol, or and pot to a degree are drugs that either have minimal intoxication inherently or may be consumed with that in mind. Pot barely qualifies in that regard these days given the quality of most sensemilla. Any drug beyond that realm is literally only abused. That is...it is taken to get rather high...not just relaxed or a little "buzzed". Last October, I was in emergency for an inflamed colon...yep middle age sucks LOL....anyhow they gave me an IV (slowly registered) of 16 mg of morphine and 100 mg of pheneragn as a kicker and anti-emitic. Man ...that was the highest I've been in over 20 years. I am VERY familiar with personal drug use and beyond. It felt so damn good ...I refused to nod and couldn't wait to get home a couple of hours later to lay on the couch and have a cigar and enjoy my high. Now, if I were able to go buy liquid morphine on a whim, would I go home and just pull out my works and shoot myself up on the sofa with a good dose while my wife is cooking supper and my soon to be 4 children are watching cartoons. The mere thought of that level of intoxication readily available for anyone is crazy. We have enough problems with drunks at home or work or in their cars. One could say the same about acid or crack or crank or X or God forbid Ketamine. I don't know how anyone can use these types of drugs responsibly and not affect those around them or society in general. There is a reason that even in the third world where pharmacies are very lax, they don't hand out morphine sulfate ampules like candy.
That's my perspective as an adult and a parent. I have a feeling quite a few of the pro-drug crowd on FR will sing a different tune when and if they enter family life....especially with regards to hard drugs.
I've watched 30 years of drug use and drug dealing and can tell you that no drug use is totally benign and rarely productive. I haven't smoked pot in 20 years but there was a time I thought it was something I would do forever. "Da herb! Mon" it's natural and all that. I was so naive.
I think the pro-drug camp on this forum is of two minds. One are the dopers who have a personal stake in legalization and the other are Libertarians and a few Conservatives who oppose it strictly on privacy grounds. While I may be a little sympathetic with the latter reasoning, I simply cannot support total legalization of all drugs.
Regards.
Nor do I think it would cure anything. The solution of the drug problem will be found beyond legalization or the WOD. It's a root cause issue but I don't think that's easily fixed either. In fact I think it's gotten worse since my childhood. I fear many of our young folks have never known a time when decency (however imperfect) was the norm. It's sad. Legalizing is like giving up.
I'm with you here. Some young folks (depending on how far back you wish to go) have had to endure the mandatory car seat, else their parents paid a heavy fine to the state. Others have watched as their friends have been victims of zero tolerance laws and placed in jails by the state for what may have seemed to them pretty benign possession violations. Seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, yup, it's like you say-- some young folks have never known a time when decency was the norm.
When I was about 4yrs. old, I got separated from my family by crossing a street (a busy downtown intersection- lots of people all around me so I just went with the flow) when a cop noticed that I was lost. He took me home (no one was there, they were now looking for me) so he drove me back and we found my mom, brothers and sisters. Today, they'd have taken me to a receiving home and my mom would probably be charged with some negeligence statute. You're so right, things have changed.
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.