Replies

"For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical." I agree you should be able to do whatever you want,in your own home,as long as your not harming others.That is a non-argument. "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" Yes I agree here too. As an example of this I would say the situation in Mendicino Co. is a good example.As well as California's medical pot law,and how the feds have raided medical pot facilitys,ignoring Calif. laws,enacted by a vote of the people. "The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs." Could you explain this a little more in detail? "The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way." I favor state regulation over federal control,didn't Arizona vote on drug legalization not long ago? I realize you feel a majority should not excercise control over individuals,but a vote of the people seemed like a good reasonable idea to me. Different animals? I refuse to prove it? How many people OD on alcohol,and how many OD on narcotics? Alcohol poisoning is not a really common form of death. "DUI laws are based on the public's ownership of the roads; it's legal to drive dunk on one's own property." I'm not saying that people should not be able to do what they want on their own property.No argument there-Fine-if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great. A penalty of life in prison for furnishing minors with narcotics would be an acceptable addition to ofset the possible dangers. "Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs." Maybe legally there isn't sound basis.Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms. "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 understand the basis you base your argument on.I can see it is true that the federal goverment has no right to wage the WOD.But the actual ramifications of legalized drugs in my opinion must be examined from a position of the actual effect this would have.I think your arguments are actually much more meaningful than the typical liberal's which would also include passionate bleeding heart stuff about prisoners suffering due to the WOD. I commend your quest for freedoms,and I can clearly see you are not a liberal.I just don't favor easy access to narcotics for the general public,and you know this already.We need to find a way to end the WOD,but not open up the floodgates at the same time. "What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?" No-Muslim fundamentalists possessing dynamite illegally,yes. Seems there are alot of freepers out there who would favor a general round-up of Muslims,but I think internment would be a bad idea. "I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring." I'll accept that,and admit defeat on that one,but by that logic shouldn't gas ovens be prohibited too? "I don't care what the DOJ maintains" "The enemies of freedom seldom care about facts" Well from reading that website it seems facts point out the number of drug related hospital "incidents" is enormous. "YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't." Your perception that I am opposed to "drug freedoms" is false.I am opposed to the ramifications of providing the general public with easy access to narcotics that is true.I feel you are unrealistic,that's true too. "So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there." " Will you be sharing your insight, or just gloating over it?" Just seeing here that if even you don't want Abdul's heroin emporium next door,most people won't want it within 3500 miles of them. "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." I see you can blow off the facts and figures as easily as you can cite them. "So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.(refering to MDMA page) No,it talks more about destroyed minds.If the only side effect of MDMA was people hugging each other and holding pacifiers in their mouths,it wouldn't be much to worry about.I can't see how you can offer this stuff even one bit of support.

"For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical."

I agree you should be able to do whatever you want,in your own home,as long as your not harming others.That is a non-argument.

Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others.

"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"

Yes I agree here too. As an example of this I would say the situation in Mendicino Co. is a good example.As well as California's medical pot law,and how the feds have raided medical pot facilitys,ignoring Calif. laws,enacted by a vote of the people.

So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws.

"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs."

Could you explain this a little more in detail?

Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none.

"The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way."

I realize you feel a majority should not excercise control over individuals,but a vote of the people seemed like a good reasonable idea to me.

Acts of tyranny always seem "reasonable" to the ones imposing them. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny.

Different animals? I refuse to prove it? How many people OD on alcohol,and how many OD on narcotics?

As I've shown, ODs are largely caused by anti-drug laws.

Alcohol poisoning is not a really common form of death.

You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen).

"Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs."

Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.

Still waiting for evidence ....

I can see it is true that the federal goverment has no right to wage the WOD.But the actual ramifications of legalized drugs in my opinion must be examined from a position of the actual effect this would have.

So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?

We need to find a way to end the WOD,but not open up the floodgates at the same time.

What we need to do is obey the Constitution. And I see no reason to believe that there are any "floodgates"---nobody I know is itching to start using heroin.

"What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?"

No-Muslim fundamentalists possessing dynamite illegally,yes.

American Muslim fundamentalists who have not been convicted of any crime should have the same rights as any other American; I do not support a general right of any American to possess dynamite, for reasons I have explained (see below).

"I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring."

I'll accept that,and admit defeat on that one,but by that logic shouldn't gas ovens be prohibited too?

My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage.

Well from reading that website it seems facts point out the number of drug related hospital "incidents" is enormous.

See a few lines below for my dissection of that nonsense.

"YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't."

Your perception that I am opposed to "drug freedoms" is false.I am opposed to the ramifications of providing the general public with easy access to narcotics

What do you imagine "drug freedom" means, then?

even you don't want Abdul's heroin emporium next door,most people won't want it within 3500 miles of them.

What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business.

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.

I see you can blow off the facts and figures as easily as you can cite them.

No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."

"So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.(refering to MDMA page)

No,it talks more about destroyed minds.

Alcohol does that too.

I can't see how you can offer this stuff even one bit of support.

I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks.