First you advocate a dictatorial enforcement of drug laws that have no foundation in the Constitution. Now you say, "the Founding Fathers gave us the neccessary tools to operate a orderly and law abiding society" (which by the way I agree with in spades). But the Constitution has a Bill of Rights which guarantees freedom FROM excessive intrusion into the peoples lives. Yet earlier you posited that those who proposed drug legalization had no right to impose their own rights on the rest of society. Hum, someone is confused here, and I suspect it ain't me.
Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substancesThe Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
(1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because -
(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession. (4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
You are very confused and using the standard convoluted approach to debate your points.
I advocated no dictatorial enforcement of any kind and putting words in my mouth, doesn't prove you right.
My entire point was, we live in a country that is governed by the rule of law and through the will of the people, in a free and open election process. If you have problems with law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system, work to get them changed. If you don't like the laws, work to get them changed. If you don't like your representatives, vote them out. If you don't like what the majority supports and believes in, too bad.
As a minority voice, you have all the rights of the majority, just not the power and influnce of numbers. If you think its that bad here in the good old USA, then move somewhere that is more to your liking. Otherwise, you have the freedom of speech to moan and groan all you want, but that doesn't mean people will take you seriously, or not object to your rhetoric.
The national drug control policy isn't intrusive or excessive, to law abiding people. American's support it in overwhelming numbers and believe intervention and incareration are proper efforts against reducing drug dealing and drug abuse. Remember, illicit drugs aren't called that for nothing. They are illegal! Period.