"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.
"Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others."
This could be true in a perfect world.As it is,meth cooks plying their trade near other homes creates severe environmental hazards for others.Again,what you are saying is true,in a perfect world.I just think the facilitation of narcotics procurement to the general public is a bad idea.For citizens to have the right to do whatever they want is a good intention,but in this case the realitys would be grim.
"So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws."
The history of the WOD since it's inception has been an attempt to protect citizens from harm. Granted it has many bad aspects.Until a majority of citizens feel the same way you do about the issue,or the supreme court rules against the WOD,how is this situation going to change? States currently are fighting the feds over the medical pot issue.Maybe if the supreme court somehow upholds the rights of the states to govern themselves this could have implications for all illicit drugs. Is this true of false?
"Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none."
It would seem to me until the supreme court unsurps the power of the feds to enforce drug laws that are unconstitutional,how is the situation going to change?
" Tyranny of the majority is tyranny."
Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional.Natural law is hard to define as I see it.
"You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen)."
You can honestly assert that the number of alcohol poinsoning deaths is comparable to the number of narcotics OD's. Any way about it,by weight narcotics are much more lethal than alcohol. You and I both know that to OD on booze,you've gotta drink a hell of a lot and this is much different than a substance where a few extra cc's could stop breathing.My original point is valid.
"Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.
"Still waiting for evidence .... "
Addiction cycles,widespread use leading to OD's,curious non-users experimenting,violent behavior,all factors which you refute.You tell me how the use of MDMA and crack would be of benefit to someone,sure it would be great to have the right to do what we please,but aside from that,what purpose would it serve? I know meth use results in violent behavior,you assert it does not.You feel drugs should be legal,I claim it would be a can of worms.I wish to avoid drug chaos,you feel chaos would not result.Would it be worth chaos to claim another right?
"So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?"
What about state laws? If the federal goverment suddenly bowed out of the WOD would you be happy adhereing to state drug laws?
"nobody I know is itching to start using heroin."
You have to understand the way people end up trying and using heroin.Many people are curious about it.The usage of it by teens went way up in the last ten years because the idea that it was fairly safe was put in their heads by others who were using .Over the past several years there has been a problem with youngsters ODing on a combination of junk and alcohol.Dropping like flys as they did'nt realise the combination of the two is sneaky and lethal.There are many curious individuals who would try anything they can get their hands on.What happens when everything is readily available.You don't have to agree with me,just acknowledge they could be some potential problems.
"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."
OK-how does that support your point? What if the neighbors happen to be visiting? How can a law prevent people from possessing dynamite assuming they are going to let it get old and explosive,or that they will allow it to come in contact with static electricity and explode? Does this not presume harm may result and attempt to protect them?
"What do you imagine "drug freedom" means, then?"
Drug freedom in a sense that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies and minds is a concept I support. The part of your vision I can't get behind is the actual result of allowing them to do this.And as you well know,I feel there would be some real complications with getting the drugs into their hands and some questions about what other hands the drugs would end up in.
"What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business."
That figure was obviously thrown in to get the point across.Who are you to make a judgement on how close is too close though?
"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."
Air is a big stretch-You did'nt actually refute the fact that these people had been using drugs prior to the visit.That's a huge number of incidents,I'd call that a clear blow-off.Why don't you just admit drugs are dangerous,and you're willing to assume the risks,at any cost?
"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."
And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths,drugs getting into the hands of teens and children,potential violent behaviors,increased divorce rate and family problems,kids getting the idea that since drugs are legal,they must be safe,etc.
And I realise all that I say is conjecture and speculation,but as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked.