Posted on 08/02/2002 1:38:04 PM PDT by bat-boy
Nor should it be, unless by a constitutional Amendment. Which I think is extraordinarily unlikely.
Speaking of the Constitution, do you think marijuana policies should be a State and not a Federal issue?
If yes, we are in agreement.
If no, please show me where the Constitution delegates to the Federal government this power, as the Tenth Amendment requires.
Secondly, it is noteworthy how those who promulgate this point of view never touch the question: why did we not have this problem until the 60? Very much like we never had the "gun problem:" until 1968, one could by a gun by mail, yet there were no school killings in the country.
What is it? Some Harvard chemist has discovered marijuana and other drugs? These drugs were all well known. What has changed is our values.
I have seen some novel defenses of usurpation of power by the federal government. But this one takes the cake. By following the law, WE FRIGGIN' DILUTE THE LAW? What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is that?
Federal welfare policy has rewarded single parent families and dependence.
Federal policies on education have promoted a liberal agenda and discouraged accountability and excellence.
I'm sure there are others that apply, but I think the point is made.
This makes sense to me and fits the time frame.
That is half the equation. The other half is to have a set of laws that is sensible, realistic, and ties the amount of punishment to the seriousness of the transgression. The 55 MPH federal speed limit is a classic example. No one respected it, because it was completely stupid.
Federal DUI laws are also working their way to that point. Arresting drunk drivers makes sense. Even though the vast majority of drunk drivers make it home without incident, the ones that do get into acccidents cause enough carnage that we have criminalized the act whether actual harm is caused or not. But now the feds have dropped the federal standard for blood alcohol content to .08. A lot of folks have said that criminalizes social drinkers going out to eat without increasing public safety. What happens if the level is dropped to .06 or.04? Or any alcohol at all in the bloodstream? At what point does the public lose respect for the law and ignore it completely?
IMO, that is what is happening with the marijuana laws. I do not pretend that pot is harmless. I instead contend that the severity of the enforcement against marijuana is severely disproportionate to the level of harm that marijuana causes society. And that is why the voters of the states are so actively engaged in referenda against the federal actions against pot. The feds may have usurped power, but the voters of the states are taking them back. You may consider that lawbreaking. I consider it to be in the spirit of the principles upon which this country was founded - the right for states to assume the powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. So be it.
Oh, and BTW, I don't smoke pot. You'll have to come up with some other way to refute my point of view here.
Democrats have the same problem with the public. We don't know how to properly spend our money. We don't know how to eat right. We buy the wrong type of cars.
As a conservative, is this the company you really care to keep? Guess what - I can't handle pot. It caused me problems for a short period of time in of my life. But I realized that, and I don't smoke it any more. But I also know quite a few people who smoke the stuff on a regular basis and it doesn't cause them any problems at all. But who has the right to make that determination? I made mine. They made theirs. But you wish to have the government make it for all of us, our own judgement and experiences be damned...
Pot will never be legalized on a national basis.
I'd hope not. It's not a federal issue.
I am glad. For children and adolescents, it's the best outcome.
Democrats are fond of doing things "for the children."
You poor dopers will just have to get used to drinking, or you'll have to break the law.
You addressed this post to All. All means ALL OF FREE REPUBLIC. Are you insinuating that everyone on FR is a doper?
Nice to see such contradiction from those who condemn others on a daily basis: "Constitution this," "Constitution that,"
Yeah, we're kinda funny that way, since this is a Constitutional restoration website. Sorry you find that annoying.
yet it's okay for you to break the law, which most of you are suggesting and encouraging.
So the feds should just pass a law, whether or not the Constitution grants them the power to do such, and we should bow to their authority? That is the route to totalitarianism.
For you, it is justified, right? The more these potheads speak, the more they prove that their position is wrong on this issue.....
Ah, the pothead slur again. Anyone who stands up to the federal government's usurpation of power in the drug war must be a pothead. Can't possibly be opposition to the federal behemoth. Nah, it must be the drugs, because if it wasn't, you wouldn't have to actually examine your premises...
Have a great day and week-end. Drug threads don't deserve any more time.
Instead you jump to bash him while you KNOW he is gone for the weekend! I honestly think you are doing it on purpose. To me that shows your class. (or lack of it)
The only addition I would like to make is a subtle and seemingly minor one, but it does make all the difference in the world.
The basic premise is that for a social system to change, values must change first. In your picture there are policies and social response to them. True, the society does respond to policies in both psychological and economic terms. But where have policies come from? How come there was a majority consensus to implement them?
If you look closely, it is always a small group of culprits that promulgate the change, whether it be communists in Russia, Nazis in Germany, or the anti-American part of the education elite in this country. But in all these cases, these minorities are successful only in a moral vacuum. So, whenever you see a change that you do not like, look for that vacuum first --- that is the hard part, the actors of change is usually hard to spot.
It is the slow but constant retreat of religion in the Western World, starting from the XIX century that is the real cause. This retreat has created a vacuum, into which socialists stepped in. It is my theory that the Church was slow to respond to the industrial revolution that created mass migrations of people and drastically changed the inter-personal relationships between people, from families to social classes. Ever since then the religion --- not only Christianity but Judaism as well (although the former is clearly more important in social terms for obvious reasons) --- have been on the defensive. That is, the religion, the source of our values, is in a reactive mode. The latest is the contraceptives "revolution," to which the religion still struggles to find a proper response.
In contrast, the social engineers --- communists, socialists, feminists, you name it --- have the initiative and dictate the terms. The masses are sufficiently confused by the social inventions of elites precisely because there is no adequate response within a traditional framework. This is the climate that makes possible the introduction of policies that you identified.
Like most people, you have presented what I call the first-order theory: it deals with the question, "What should the policies be." Everyone and his dog have an opinion about that. But the real question is, "Which society, with which values, will adopt these `optimal' policies." In simple terms, it is not enough to formulate the proper policies --- someone has to be convinced to vote for them. Thus, the social values are very important. The root lies therefore not in the sphere of politics but elsewhere. It is more likely to be found in the church and at the family dinner table than at the presidential debates.
Regards, TQ.
My point was precisely that: we get the government we choose and deserve, the one that corresponds to our values. For us to have a better government, we have to have a more moral people. And the gov't better stay away from formulating morality.
First of all, there is no evidence that marijuana was a problem when federal prohibition was imposed. A few states had laws on the books prohibiting or regulating it, but most people had never even heard of it. It was a make believe monster created to give some out of work federal bureaucrats something to save us from. Society never formed an opinion about it based on reality. Now they're having trouble figuring it out because everything they'd been told is turning out to be lies, and the people who've lied to them are the same people whose job it is to keep them from finding out the truth.
Secondly, it is noteworthy how those who promulgate this point of view never touch the question: why did we not have this problem until the 60? Very much like we never had the "gun problem:" until 1968, one could by a gun by mail, yet there were no school killings in the country.
What is it? Some Harvard chemist has discovered marijuana and other drugs? These drugs were all well known. What has changed is our values.
IMHO, our "drug problem" in general began to show up in the 60's because that's when synthetic drugs - barbiturates and amphetamines came into mainstream usage. They had many of the effects of natural drugs, but came without the historical stigma attached. The medical community and pharmaceutical companies assured us they were "safe" and we believed them. Societal values don't change overnight, and the change didn't start with the "hippies", but with their parents.
But societal values have changed, and many like yourself don't like the turn they've taken. That's understandable, but if you think that it is appropriate or desireable for the federal government to assume the role of re-shaping society into something you find more to your liking, then I believe you are very wrong. If you think society is messed up, look at what passes for values and character inside the beltway, and tell me you honestly think that they will be our salvation. It's society's job to determine what kind of government we will have. It's not government's job to determine what kind of society we will live in. I don't see how you can honestly say you support the idea of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people if you don't trust the people.
That's good, since it means users have to smoke less to get the same high. It will do less lung damage that way
My initial thought is the following.
The potential for radical and destructive movements to gain control of a society is always present. The French revolution, Peronism, and Communist Cuba are three examples that come to mind.
The Founding Fathers knew their history in regards to destructive movements and tendencies within societies. They built safeguards into the Constitution in recognition of this fact. Safeguards such as the Second Amendment and Tenth Amendment are two examples.
So, I don't know the common denominator as to why traditional values sometimes lose their hold on a society and permits such things as socialism, communism, etc. to take hold.
The fact remains, it does happen and it happens frequently.
Finding the root cause is worthwhile but ensuring that the safeguards in the Constitution are defended takes higher priority, IMO.
I will give some thought to the question of why traditional cultural values weaken in people in the first place, because it is an interesting one. I expect if you posted it as its own thread, you'd have as many different answers as posts. I'll try to come up with my own.
Regards
Liberal debate tactic #1: Engage in political pedophilia
Definition of political pedophilia: An adult using a child for their own selfish political goals.
Example: We need mandatory gun locks because children might get hold of the weapon and hurt themselves or someone else. It's for the children!
Rosie O'Donnell couldn't have said it better!
What I find so amazing is how conservatives, who normally can gin up cogent, rational arguments for issues such as state's rights, smaller government, lower taxes, and reduced regulation of businesses transmogrify into blithering idiots at the mere mention of drug decriminalization. They become completely incapable of coming up with a logical, rational defense of their positions.
If the Constitution were actually enforced, there would probably have to be about a dozen amendments to allow it to do the things that it actually should have the authority to do. Some examples: (1) build an airforce, using appropriations of greater than two years' duration; (2) place certain types of restrictions on the electromagnetic spectrum (the exact types being a legitimate matter of debate); (3) forbid private ownership of certain things like non-trace quantities of fisionable materials.
I don't think any of the above amendments would have had much difficulty passing; (2) might have had some trouble with people trying to agree on what the restrictions should be, but I think 75% of the states could agree on at least some sorts of restrictions.
Besides, even if there were a thousand amendments to the Constitution, it would still be much smaller than the U.S. Code, and if the reason for such amendments was that the Constitution was to be enforced literally, it would be possible for people to actually know what the law legitimately is (as opposed to what some men in black decide they would like it to be).
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.