Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
I feel this energy coming over me...sortov--b.Yeltsin/Zen-grrr!
Gunz up---fire!
Yes, it is a depressant. Narcotics are a different class.
Yes, I mispoke when I said alcohol was a narcotic. I should have said, "It's a depressant, with some narcotic effects." Because alcohol was in fact used as a narcotic, during the Civil War. (And there is truth to the Westerns that show people drinking alcohol prior to removal of a bullet.)
Here is a website with a nice animated-graphics presentation of the differences between classes of drugs:
Can you imagine the day after having that done? Besides the pain from the wound, there would be an awful hangover.
You need to be very careful with your wording, when you say, "government!" The Constitution (1Oth amendment) very clearly prohibits FEDERAL criminalization of possession/manufacturing of any drug.
But the case is MUCH weaker that the Constitution (9th amendment) confers any right of an individual to be free from state or local government criminalization of drugs. Especially for recreational use. My knowledge in that area is somewhat limited, but I'd bet that there was state or local criminalization of alcohol possession at least SOMEWHERE in the United States when the Constitution was written. (An I'm not referring to laws against being drunk in public. I'm referring to laws against alcohol possession, period.)
My knowledge is also limited, but I don't think there were any until after the Civil War.
You need to be very careful with your wording, when you say, "government!"
I was trying to be careful. That's why I said that some state constitutions allow for this sort of lawmaking; the Federal Constitution clearly says it's a state or people, not Federal, area.
Then you must not have joined the Party yet. It's on the back of every membership card. So don't delay! The cards are selling like hotcakes! ;-)
Oops. You were careful. I wasn't careful in my reading. Sorry. I missed this:
I assume that some state constitutions, maybe even all of them, would allow the state to attempt to ban certain substances. It's interesting that the only state-level drug laws prior to the 'progressive' and 'new deal' eras were anti-Chinese (opium) laws in California and Colorado. Period. Prior to FDR, MJ was not regulated
Personally, I'd be surprised if there was anything in any state Constitution that spoke directly to GIVING government the power to ban substances. But I wouldn't be surprised if the 9th-Amendment clones that exist in the various state constitutions aren't considered to give people the right to be free from criminalization of drugs. (For example, I'd be surprised if the Utah state constitution had something that specifically GAVE the state or local governments the power to criminalize alcohol or cigarettes, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Mormon towns had such laws.)
Sorry again about the lack of careful reading.
Incorrect. On a larger scale, conservatism is right and libertarianism is right. Law abiding citizens/societies have every right to restrict personal behavior of individuals, that they deem harmful to society at large.
Complete BS. Libertarians support the rule of law FAARRRRRR more than Republicans! It isn't even close!
Do you realize how absurd this sounds? I guess not. Libertarians have little resepct for American law and even less for American justice. Libertarians talk of dismantling the criminal justice system and abolishing victimless crimes, as though crimes againmst society and government, aren't real crimes. Now that's real BS!
Most certainly NOT when the "will of the people" is to take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The American people aren't taking away anyones rights, nor are their elected officials. You've got no respect for the will of the people and no respect for majority rule.
Jefferson said:
"The fundamental principle of the government is that the will of the majority is to prevail."
Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809
"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801.
Jefferson also reminded us:
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Not pessimistic, skeptical. Conservatives here pretend (I think they've actually falsely convinced themselves) that they care about freedom (the "Free" part of Free Republic) and the Rule of Law. But a significant minority, if not a majority, of posters on Free Republic express opinions that are incompatible with freedom and/or the Rule of Law. Opinions like support of federal laws criminalizing drugs (without a corresponding Constitutional amendment).
I'm an optimist and highly skeptical. You're a born pessimist. Natch, you're a libertarian. Conservatives are very mindful that the laws of the land and the Conmstitution, must be followed at all times. Conservatives respect both. Libertarians only mention the Constituion when it serves their purpose and aren't interested in abiding by the laws of the land. I note, you're starting to talk irrational and illogical once again. One more time, a Constitutional ammendment isn't required to make law.
Libertarians want absolute and unrestricted liberty, as in no limitations on individuals and their personal behavior.
Complete BS. As I just posted, Libertarians want liberty ONLY to the extent that it does not "forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others" to liberty.
Horses**t! Libertarians only care about themselves, they don't give a rats arse about other people. Their lust for drugs is a good example of their selfish desires.
Its impossible to have any further reasonable communication with you.
Heh, heh, heh! You're just like the guys I "debated" about evolution...
I think we've reached that point again, you know, were you claim to be for civilized debate and then throw a rhetorical pie, it in your opponents face, when he speaks the truth. I know you like the back of my hand.
If you have anything further to say, I'll be around. But I suggest you make any future comments relevent and salient. I won't be wasting anymore time, responding to your endless diatribes, about how right you are and how wrong the rest of the world is. Suffice it to say, your reactionary absolutism is obvious and evident.
Wrong.
Human error is forgivable. It's not honest error that bothers many of us. It's a culture of greed and corruption that permeates the system. If greed wasn't a factor they wouldn't have appraised Donald Scott's property before they raided it and killed him: nor would they seize money without proof of wrongdoing. If their goal truly was justice instead of profit wouldn't it be prudent to wait until at least conviction before seizing assets?
Second paragraph, first line:
On a larger scale, conservatism is right and libertarianism is right wrong.
Here's a great point for debate; you want to restrict the meaning of the word to its political-economic sense, that of possessing the goods of society in common, or some variant thereof.
I choose to acknowledge its conceptual links with other 'ideals', in addition to the obvious.
Socialism, broadly conceived, is the notion that all human desires, rights, and ambitions must be subordinate to, and where possible in the service of, the whole of society rather than in the service of individuals.
This view could argue that modern socialism is an attempt by the fearful to re-create the holistic social order of the Middle Ages, in which your place in life was defined and immutable under ordinary circumstances. Many soi-disant conservatives on this site yearn for a type of social-moral solidarity that would only be possible under just such a feudal regime. They have 'bought into' the basic premise of the iron logic of socialism; namely that the new and improved modern state, born to this world through the travails of WWI, is a perfect vehicle for the social transformation of this imperfect world. Such is their vanity.
The intellectuals of the various factions of 'socialists' have been striving for supremacy ever since that awful French Revolution. First communists and socialists, and then post-WWI the fascists, national socialists and welfare statists, all were convinced that the 'liberal' model of society as developed in Britain and America and copied in many other countries was a failure. The success of the U.S. War Production Board, for example, in rationalizing and expediting the production and delivery of war materiel was taken as proof that planning was superior to market competition from both an efficiency and a humanitarian point of view. The tragedy of the 20th Century is that for decades, few people argued with this view.
Since WWI, the entire world has raced towards the ascendency of the one perfect socialist state, which will plan the whole world! We live in a world much more chaotic than the one Orwell prophesied, but the ominous tendency of mankind to facilitate these totalitarian dreamers is equally frightening. There is no doubt in my mind that the leading and most successful candidate for the socialist crown of this world is none other than the good old U.S. of A. And some of these aspiring 'vanguard elements' are as American as apple pie and are posting on this forum.
The vain ambition to make perfect this imperfect world is the true enemy of liberty...and Constitutional government.
"Vanity. All is vanity."
did Reagan Man post that I missed the post it is wrong wanting freedom for yourself and your fellow citizens is not selfish it is fair and just
No, it is right. I've got news for you, you have no right to ingest illicit drugs. Freedom isn't about breaking the law. Grow up already!
See! Even your rhetoric is shared with your marxist competitors for the position of 'King of the Cannibals'.
I post and post and post, but can rarely draw one of these lunkheads out.
They prefer to ignore me but I post anyhoo.
Just for the charm of running into fine folks like you. ;^)
All the best to you and yours in sunny Tucson.(I am envious!)
Of couse we do. - Thats why we gave our states the power to run a criminal justice system, but only under our US Constitutional restrictions preventing violations of individual rights.
You may consider that socialism, but you'd be wrong.
You know very well why people consider what you advocate 'socialism'. You won't agree on what is plainly written in the constitution. You think society can change the rules, without amendment, to whatever they 'deem necessary'. That's a form of socialism.
Its law and order that reigns supreme in a civilized society and not chaos and anarchy.
Authoritarian tyranny by majority rule 'law & order' is just as chaotic as anarchy, as we see in our present WOD's. -- Respect for our constitution must be restored.
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.