Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
And my screenname is Reagan Man, not Regan Man, stupid!
Hardly 'crazy-wacko'....;^)
You should think about changing your screen name to GregoryFool. That certainly fits you better.
"All is vanity."
He flat out refuses debates of substance; i.e., where he can't use his collection of hackneyed sound-bites as a substitute for honest contention.
Honesty is a virtue these types are unacquainted with. They must think simple conformity suffices as a substitute for all the difficult bits of moral reasoning.
Or someone who cares about the Constitution. Which obviously doesn't include the majority of conservatives. (Present company included.)
And a majority of Americans fully support the recently passed Campaign Finance Reform legislation. A majority of Americans support the federal government violating their Constitutional rights in a large number of ways.
But this country, BY LAW, is not a democracy. It's supposed to be a constitutional republic.
And they are constitutional.
You keep writing this, but to my knowledge, you've NEVER explained why a Constitutional amendment was (or was not) required to prohibit alcohol manufacture and sale, but somehow was not required for drugs. The reason you can't explain it is because drug laws are NOT constitutional.
In addition, those people who support legalization and who act as enablers to these low life scum drug dealers/users, should be ashamed of themselves.
No, U.S. citizens who support the federal government violating The Law (the Constitution) should be ashamed of themselves. But none of them are.
There is absolutely no redeeming social value in the use of these drugs.
Many DOCTORS (people with actual medical degrees) advocate use of marijuana in specific situations (to avoid nausea from chemotherapy, for example). In fact, people who oppose allowing sick people to get whatever medicines their doctors think are appropriate should ALSO be ashamed of themselves. But none of them are either.
I always listen to my mother. Even when she's wrong. :-)
As far as the history, I know Theodore Roosevelt...
Yes, Teddy Roosevelt. One of a never-ending line of Big Government Republican presidents, unbroken even to the present.
...but, I really don't have the time to research all the arguments regarding whether or not the actual creation of FDA was unconstitutional (and I'm not gonna take your word for it that it wasn't)
Well, assuming you already know that "general welfare" only applies to specific things in Article I, Section 8, the only way the FDA COULD be Constitutional would be under the clause, "regulate commerce...among the several states." Then you could look at what was meant by "regulate." Since the Articles of Confederation INHIBITED commerce among the several states, the idea of "regulate" was amost certainly to "make regular"...as a laxative makes a person "regular." In other words, the idea was to ease the flow of commerce among the "several states." The FDA most certainly does NOT ease the flow of commerce among the several states. The hoops that the FDA makes companies jump through before a medicine is approved DELAYS, by many years, the flow of commerce between states. In other words, the FDA does basically the opposite of what the writers of the Constitution intended.
In fact, it's even WORSE than that, because the FDA doesn't even allow production WITHIN the state where the medicine is being made, until the FDA approves. There's NO WAY the writers of the Constitution ever intended the federal government to be able to reach WITHIN a state to INHIBIT (make "irregular") trade!
The country and world changed and many crimes involve international criminals and multiple states. That's why Congress and the judical system allowed for the expansion of crimes to be prosecuted by the Federal government.
Wrapping one's self up in the constitution is simply a smoke screen to achieve your goals of being able to smoke weed without getting busted.
Truth is, CFR isn't even on the radar screen for most American's and only gained enough support for final Senate passage, because of Congressional response following the Enron mess. I believe the USSC will find portions of the CFR legislation, to be clearly unconstitutional and those parts will then be removed from the law. This is specific to the parts that infinge upon free speech, such as the ban on running issue ads against incumbants, 60 days prior to an election.
But lets not forget, this thread is about Libertarian's and illicit drugs. The idea that certain legislation that becomes law, is viewed by some people as unconstitutional, but by other people as constitutional, has been standard fair in America since the earliest days of our Republic. And America's national drug control policy is constitutional.
... to my knowledge, you've NEVER explained why a Constitutional amendment [was not] required for drugs. The reason you can't explain it is because drug laws are NOT constitutional.
I have explained it more then once. Article I, section 1 of the US Constitution, provides that "[a]ll legislative [p]owers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,..." I can't help it if you're not satisfied with that. I've posted the Controlled Substances Act several times, along with the 1991 USSC decision, Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160, that gave the CSA its legal binding and lawful status.
The federal government isn't violating the law, in the case of the CSA, or the NDCP.
Many DOCTORS (people with actual medical degrees) advocate use of marijuana in specific situations (to avoid nausea from chemotherapy, for example). In fact, people who oppose allowing sick people to get whatever medicines their doctors think are appropriate should ALSO be ashamed of themselves. But none of them are either.
From what I've read and from personal experiences with cancer patients, a majority of the medical community, believes there is no therapeutic value in smoking MJ, for those people suffering from serious/terminal illnesses. There are perscription drugs, that come in pill form, that are available and do a much better job, in relieving the pain and discomfort related to cancer and other horrible afflictions. Bottom line, the federal government is simply doing their job, by enforcing drug laws. Personally, I believe if someone receives comfort, through the psychosomatic relief of smoking pot, they should be allowed to use it, but only under the approval and strict control of a physician.
LOL! I had and that's what prompted my comment on the other thread.
That's all *I* can think of. What else did you have in mind? The country and world changed and many crimes involve international criminals and multiple states.
That's what extradition is for. Whatever crime occurs, it occurs in one place. That's the appropriate place for the trial...unless no unbiased jury can be found at that place.
Wrapping one's self up in the constitution is simply a smoke screen to achieve your goals of being able to smoke weed without getting busted.
Complete BS. I've come to expect this from conservatives. Just like liberals! I don't smoke...anything...and have never been "high" on any substance (unless chocolate qualifies).
Anyhoo, pro-WOD or anti-WOD really misses the entire point in my mind. For those who are anti-WOD (especially the decriminalization of narcotics crowd), a quick question: Is the American body politic truly ready for decriminalization of narcotics?
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.