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.
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.