Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Reagan Man
Law abiding citizens/societies have every right to restrict personal behavior of individuals, that they deem harmful to society at large.

And if the Constitution allows for lawmaking in this area, 'society' can enllist the government to help. In the case we're talking about, it doesn't. Consider: Alcohol prohibition relied on a Constitutional amendment. Wise or unwise, at least it was legal. The National Firearms act relied on sleight-of-hand: Congress does have the authority to levy excise taxes. (there's a USSC precedent that I can't think of the name of now that says they should only levy taxes to raise income, not to control the citizens, but it hasn't been enforced in years). The deception here was that FDR never intended to issue the tax stamps.

This chicanery was the model for the MJ tax act. At least back then they gave lip service to the Constitution.

Now we have the CSA, which doesn't even pretend to be Constitutional. It's just the raw exercise of power.

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

You may consider that socialism, but you'd be wrong. Its law and order that reigns supreme in a civilized society and not chaos and anarchy.

The laws were put in place by the socialist-leaning FDR, and opposed by the conservatives. It is not at all obvious that the laws in question have done anything to make society more orderly; I'd say they've done quite the opposite.

440 posted on 05/17/2002 3:05:33 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies ]


To: Virginia-American
And if the Constitution allows for lawmaking in this area, 'society' can enlist the government to help. In the case we're talking about, it doesn't.

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.)

444 posted on 05/17/2002 3:22:40 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson