OK-How is the majority imposing "tyranny" over you? [...] It's the feds who are messing with the people down in Mendocino Co. who have passed laws permitting citizens to grow weed on their property.
You have been arguing in support of anti-drug laws because they reflect the will of the majority. For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical.
"How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?"(my comment)
"Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs."
You're telling me that not one case would have been able to set precedent in the whole country?
Nothing like that. I'm saying that the liberal-dominated judiciary can't find the federal War On Some Drugs unconstitutional without acknowledging the relevance of the Tenth Amendment or the proper limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause---which would reveal the unconstitutionality of most liberal federal programs.
Please cite what part of the constitution protects the right to use drugs?
The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs.
"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?"
You can do whatever you want in your own home.We agree there I believe.The federal goverment limits who sells alcohol because it provides some level of control.
The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way.
Maybe this approach would work with narcotics as well-I doubt it though,as they are different animals,which you refuse to admit.
You refuse to prove it.
"At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported."
My claim that research often proves what gets it funded needs no support.
Beside the point---it doesn't support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings," since instinct and intuition are at least as biased.
I would say it is not right to punish someone for something they might do.But do you deny it is reasonable to take reasonable means to prevent someone from doing harm to another? Example:DUII arrests?
DUI laws are based on the public's ownership of the roads; it's legal to drive dunk on one's own property.
"So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?"
I am not in favor of banning commercially produced alcohol.
Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs.
"You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?"
I think your question provides it's own answer.
False. Quit dodging the question.
"It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated)."
OK-How about US citizens who are muslims fundamentalists?
What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?
I have not heard any links between dynamite possession and violence-why should the states regulate possession of it either?
I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring."
I don't care what the DOJ maintains
The enemies of freedom seldom care about facts.
"my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings."
Anything can be justified if we have the will to justify it.
YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't.
"No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants."
So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there.
<yawn> Will you be sharing your insight, or just gloating over it?
"Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose."
Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001.
<snicker> ALL emergency room episodes are air-related---let's ban air.
"Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom."
Speaking of homework,you should read report # NOJ188745 on the DOJ website you cited earlier.Seems as though they think MDMA is some pretty nasty medicine.
So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.