Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
According to you, everything is lost, period. The Constitution has been trashed, the government is filled with idiots, the American people are a bunch of foolish, idiotic sheeple, President Bush is a corrupt tyrant and I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do. Did I about cover it? I think so.
I think you're looking at 21st century America, through historical events of the 18th and 19th centuries. In other words, you're living in th past. That may be okay for you, just don't expect the rest of us to live in the same world you've chosen to call home.
Here are a few facts.
The Constitution defines the fundamental law of the United States federal government and the essential principle that government must be confined to the rule of law. The Constitution represents a set of general principles out of which the implimentation of statutes and codes have emerged. The success of the Constitution, in remaining the foundation of American government, is based on the ability of successive Congresses and Courts, to be able to interpret it or readapt it to the demands of changing times. Contributions to Constitutional interpretation, are set by precedent, custom and usage.
Constitutional powers have provided for the creation of the "federal budget system, executive departments, federal courts, new states and territories, and controlling presidential succession". Article I, section 8, states that Congress shall have the authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the various powers allotted to the federal government by the Constitution. Other practices based on custom and usage have become practically unassailable and have been recognized as valid extensions of Constitution interpretation: political parties, procedures for nominating presidential candidates, the electoral college system, the appointment of a presidential cabinet.
Your absolute view of the Constitution, isn't consistent with the view of other American's. If the Founding Fathers were around today and were presented with the facts of events, covering the last 225 years, I don't think many of them, would side with you. Now, that may be somewhat presumptuous on my part, but whose to say I'm wrong and whose to say you're right.
Please be more original than "caffine or nicotine"! Neither of those are intoxicants unless consumed in near lethal dosage which is very unlikely...in the short run.
"Show me where in the constitution where it says Windsong gets to dictate what drugs people can and cannot take take."
Contrary to your anarchistic notions of right and wrong, what people do in the privacy of their own living rooms, especially where drugs are concerned, DO affect the rest of us. You libs constantly harp about how you dont want the government intruding into our private lives, yet strangely expect us to foot your bill for drug abuse. Why don't you show me where in the Constitution it grants you the right to not only destroy your own life, but mine and my kids as well. Show me where it says you can sniff as many lines of crack cocaine you want. Show me where it says you are entitled to grow marijuana in your own backyard.
Until then, America has enough nutcases running around without adding a few thousand more by making drugs legal.
"The ONLY one willing to fight the good fight for our rights"
And of course, smoke dope. :)
I'd have to say there is at least one other group - Those that oppose in on Constitutional grounds because of it's reliance on abuse of the Commerce Clause. While you may agree with the end, the chosen means serves to legitimize and help perpetuate the left's abuse of that same clause, and serves to advance FDR's New Deal policies and doctrines.
I don't think we've seen any evidence whatsoever that anyone is being discouraged at all. If I'm wrong and you can provide such evidence, please do. Pretty much everyone who wants to do drugs in this country does them. I sincerely doubt there are any adults in this country saying, "Boy, I'd really like to do some cocaine right now, but I'm afraid to deal with the ruffians that sell it."
My response to you about black markets was that the black markets for tobacco and alcohol are very small because both of those products are cheap (competitively priced) and widely available. Both are more widely abused than any illegal drugs in this country. They are abused because of their addictive nature, their price and their availability. For the most part illegal drugs are abused because of their addictive nature, why would you want to knock down the two remaining barriers?
There are many, many reasons, but let's go with the one that seems to be the most oft-repeated misconception by WOD'ers: "Use" does not equal "abuse". There are Americans in this country who regularly drink alcohol to excess and become unable to function in society as a result. There are others who occassionally drink alcohol in a responsible manner. The numbers are far less for tobacco, but the pattern holds true: There are some who smoke to excess for decades and die as a result, and others who occassionally smoke a cigarette or cigar (usually while drinking), or smoke for a short period of time and then quit.
Whether any pro Wo(s)D-ers choose to admit it or not, the same holds true for many currently illegal drugs, most notably marijuana and ecstacy. Some use excessively, to the point of legitimate abuse that hinders their ability to live a normal life. Many do not, and occassionally use the drug on a few weekends per year, in much the way many responsible adults use alcohol or tobacco. Some cocaine users fall into a dark pattern and eventually commit crimes to support their habit. Others do not.
To suppress the rights of all to avoid the excesses of some is not in any way an idea that conservatives should support. You may scoff at the notion, but it is exactly the same idea that could easily remove guns, tobacco, and unhealthy foods away from you in the future.
When the Toon was in office, he'd always wait until the poll results and focus group information came back to decide where he stood on a particular issue. Reminded me of the Hindmost (not to mention being two-faced). Not sheeple, Puppeteers.
It isn't about "liberty." It never was and never will be. It is about the freedon to get stinking drunk or high at someone else's expense and pretend that no one else in inconvenienced or harmed.
Hey, Komrade truenospinzone, Kommissar George Soros is proud of your efforts on behalf of the nannyland.
No other option makes any sense whatsoever. No one could possibly contribute so little to so many honest discussions without an ulterior motive. No one could possibly write so many words and say so very little without an illicit cause. No one could possibly do so much to undermine and lampoon a stance without being fully aware of it.
Then you don't like DUI and speed zone laws either. After all, some people can rip through a school zone drunk at 40 mph and never injure a child, let alone kill one.
In the name of "liberty" you would prohibit all laws that restrict the one exceptional citizen in a thousand who might be able to safely negotiate his way through devastation, or--if devastation results--can pick up the tab out of his own pocket.
Meanwhile the 800 who believe they can do the same, but cannot (dopers and drunks always grossly overestimate their abilities while smashed or stoned) would kill and destroy with reckless abandon and leave everyone else to pay the bills. That's not a problem in a nanny state, you see. Simply tax everyone else to pay the bills, and while you're at it treat the user/abuser as a "victim" in his own right and send him to tax-supported rehab.
The liberdopian mantra: "Drugs, drugs, drugs. Gimme drugs, drugs, drugs. But it ain't about drugs. It's about liberty. So gimme . . . drugs, drugs, drugs. If I kill or harm someone or damage their property, it wasn't me that did it. It was the drugs, drugs, drugs. I'm a victim, so pay up and make me better. Then gimme . . . more drugs, drugs, drugs."
Exactly how is it constitutional? The Constitution certainly gives the federal government control over the importation of drugs (under Article I, Sec. 8), but I hardly see how that applies to things like the Controlled Substances Act. If federal drug policy is allowed to stand, there is no end to what powers they can take away from the states. In my opinion, that is more detrimental to society than drugs.
The above article points to the Netherlands as an example of the problems of rampant drug use and the conclusions of the author are probably correct, but such problems should be addressed at the state level. Are you comfortable with what the federal government has already done with tobacco? Where do we draw the line in regards to government expansion?
Your petulance exposes your first grade intellect and pre-school mentality.(my apologies to elementary school children)
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.