Big Drug War News (Congressman Dan Burton on the drug war)

The Agitator ^ | 17 December 2002 | Radley Balko

[PaxMacian]

I believe you are thinking about Paul's admonition to PRIESTS of the church not to be drunken specifically in the church.

[tpaine]

The only thing "skyrocketing out of control" in that pre WW1 era was the fanatical prohibitional socialists.
-- We see the results of their misplaced political zealotry all about us.

[Texaggie79]

Jesus DRANK wine. However, not unot drunkenness. Also, through translation wine was utilized for fermented grape juice AND fresh grapejuice.

The NT even has a scripture that tells us to not ONLY drink water, but to drink wine for our belly's sake. Nothing is wrong with alcohol consumtion until you drink enough to be DRUNK.

[Texaggie79]

Ga 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I SEE, so Paul was only addressing Priests and their behavior in CHURCH? eh? So murdering OUTSIDE of church is fine?

[tpaine]

Crickets on #180, 214, & 222 aggie. -- You give up trying to answer constitutional questions?

I can understand, of course.
Chatting about scripture is more your style of late.

[Texaggie79]

What constitutional questions are there? I oppose FED regulations, because they are unconstitutional. The states, however have the full constitutional ability to prohibit substances, so long as they remain representative republics.

[mvpel]

I could take super small amout of cocaine, or the tiniest whiff of an 8ball and probably do the same. We are talking practicality here. If legalized, cocaine could not be used as casually and harmlessly as alcohol. Same for any hard drug.

Well documented history proves you wrong.

Back in the early days of its brand, a bottle of Coca Cola contained an amount of cocaine equivalent to a small but respectable line. The construction worker who downed that bottle on his lunch used it casually and harmlessly.

So did kids with scraped knees or sore teeth, whose mothers applied cocaine-containing topical anesthetics:

When my nose was being operated on to correct a deviated septum, I was administered cocaine in solution as a topical anesthetic as part of the surgery.

[mvpel]

Okay, I admit it! I have a heroine addiction! And I LIKE IT!!!

[tpaine]

Thus, -- you now admit that our constitution protects us from federal efforts to ban substances?
How inconsistant can you get? Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.

Only defending why it was done. I never said it was constitutional.

Very well, you admit to defending unconstitutional acts. Thank you.

Shut up.... I never said I supported it.
171 posted on 12/17/2002 2:02 PM PST by Texaggie79

I should 'shut up' about your admitted defense of unconstitutional acts?
-- I'd say your irrational denial of not 'supporting' acts you defend is worth speaking about on a site dedicated to defending the constitution.
- 180 - tpaine

I oppose FED regulations, because they are unconstitutional.
The states, however have the full constitutional ability to prohibit substances, so long as they remain representative republics.

Not so. The states are bound by the same constitutional bounds as the feds, according to the Supremacy Clause, and the 14th Amendment.

How many times must you be informed of these basic facts, aggie?

[Protagoras]

HA! Now PROVE that me smoking crack doesn't violate my neighbor's rights.

Son, even a young boy like you should know that asking people to prove a negative is a non starter.

So the onus is on you, which right?

[Protagoras]

Go to the USC. How else do you propose we determine those rights held by the people, or the states respectively?

The constitution does not grant rights. Some of them are enumerated there. I know I have told you this before. And the constitution recognises that fact in the ninth amendment.

Rights come from God. (or just exist naturally for people who can't concieve of God) Anything that doesn't violate rights of others, is a right. And as Seth said: "Some things are true even if you don't believe them." You choose not to believe, but it doesn't matter.

You are confused (as usual) about rights and powers, and now are trying to change the subject to a discussion of the division of powers between the states and the federal government. It won't wash.

[philman_36]

Most interesting article and thread!

[tpaine]

[Texaggie] - "You are confused (as usual) about rights and powers, and now are trying to change the subject to a discussion of the division of powers between the states and the federal government. It won't wash. - TJ -

Tex is ALLways 'confused' about something. -- I believe the only time I've seen him answer a question candidly, was here quite some time ago during one of his anti-libertarian rants. I forget who asked him:


Why are you consistantly trying to challenge our beliefs {tex}?


"Several reasons. First (and I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet) I like to argue. It's no fun to go from thread to thread agreeing on everything."

"Second, I myself lean libertarian on many aspects. I support the Republican Liberty Caucus and I think libertarianism could be so great if not for the massive push within it's ranks to force immorality on America (drugs, prostitution, and abortion)."

"It just saddens me that just great potential is ruined. I think the libertarian movement would be so much larger if Libertarians would recognize that STATE drug laws are wise."
62 posted on 2/12/02 10:06 PM Pacific by Texaggie79

[MileHi]

To: Dane

So Burton is a George Soros loving liberdopian, right?

ROTFLMO!

[Texaggie79]

The unconstitutional matter of the FED telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies is unconstitutional because it overpowers the states. THAT is why it is unconstitutional. The STATES, are states, therefore are not overpowering the states. Thusly, prohibitional laws by the states are not unconstitutional.

The FEDERAL prohibition on alcohol required an AMENDMENT, yet the states did not.

[Texaggie79]

So, if I lived next to a crack head, in your Libertarian utopia, and I took my neighbor to court, sighting the danger in which he places my family, and I WIN, you have no problem with him receiving a judicial punishment, right?

[Texaggie79]

The constitution does not grant rights. Some of them are enumerated there.

I agree.

I want you to tell me EXACTLY what this means:

".....are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tell me where we can find those rights. Tell me how we determine them.

Sure, you can state That which does not violate another's rights is a right, however that creates a conundrum. You must FIRST, establish what those rights are before you can go adding in the qualifier of "whatever doesn't violate a right is a right."

[Texaggie79]

WOW! I have a fan.....

[tpaine]

Mmmmm, -- then in your view state governments have been given the constitutional power to tell "us what we can and cannot put in our bodies"?
-- Where do you see this prohibitionary power enumerated or implied?

And, -- does this view of yours mean that any prohibitive state law cannot be "overpowered"?

[Texaggie79]

does this view of yours mean that any prohibitive state law cannot be "overpowered"?

Only by the constitution. Still waiting to see where it enumerates the right to smoke crack.