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

The Agitator ^ | 17 December 2002 | Radley Balko

[jayef]

None of the things you list is an infringement of your rights. You do not have a right to work in a successful company with coworkers whose choices you approve of. If these employees do not perform, your company should fire them. You do not have the right to live in a noise free environment. You do have the right to issue a noise complaint. You do not have the right to be free from the responsibility of raising your children. You do have the right to inculcate them with whatever values you wish and to protect them from physical harm. I find it hilarious that you would mention DARE programs, as if they were not a product of you precious War on Drugs. You do not have the right to determine who your insurance company chooses to insure. If you feel your insurance costs are too high, you do have the right to choose another carrier.

[jayef]

Thanks TJ. You beat me to it.

[Protagoras]

You claim that my neighbor has the RIGHT to put me and mine in harms way.

I never claimed that. You would be more than disingenious if you maintained that. Don't stoop just because you are looking childish. Don't feel the nned to prove it.

As to the origin of rights, you cling to the infantile notion that I need to show you one of your beloved documents in order for rights to be legitimate. It's back to the childish idea of proving a negative.

There is no paradox in the fact thet someone has the right to do anything that doesn't violate anyone else's right.

This other idea that you have some legitiamte power to violate my rights just because YOU deem something to be threatening is past ridiculous. I haven't addressed it because it is so dumb. But you force me to show how dumb it is and embarrass you so I shall.

A person who is very tall and dressed in tattered clothing and wearing a certain facial expression is walking down a street on the same dark night as I. I feel threatened. Therefore I have the legitimate power to use force to restrain him. That is the preposterous notion you advance.

[Protagoras]

TJ then threw it aside and claimed that the jury would be WRONG if they did find danger.

Please don't lie, it's beneath even you. Damn I hate it when people lie.

[tpaine]

Right, the constitution leaves the power of excluding activities or persons that impose danger upon their neighbors to the states. The founders supported such state laws. Witchcraft, sodomy, ect.

You are unable to specify the 'danger' in private acts of 'drug' use. -- or in witchcraft, sodomy, etc. -- You never have. -- Until you do, your 'argument' is specious, at best.

You are telling me that the founders saw no harm in sodomy or witchcraft yet STILL supported STATE laws against those things? Wow, you must think our founders were real losers.

Read the above. I 'told you' no such thing.

-- Once again aggie, you are making a fool of yourself because you cannot argue to support your positions. -- Thanks.

[Protagoras]

I find it hard to further engage you since you have become so shrill and have started to lie and such. But I'll just ask you one more question before discarding you onto the ash heap of logical thought.

Where do rights come from?

[kidd]

10th Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Since the Constitution does not give the Federal government the right to restrict drug usage, then this right is given to the States. Each and every state has laws prohibiting the usage of certain recreational drugs.

The ninth amendment is wide open for interpretation. Your extremely loose interpretation, in effect, gives the Federal government too much power. Madison specifically warned against this, "...it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government".(The Federalist No. 84 ). There was a threat that the Constitution would not be ratified specifically because there were those who felt that it would be dangerous to list some rights because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those omitted rights.

[Texaggie79]

There is no paradox in the fact thet someone has the right to do anything that doesn't violate anyone else's right.

Oh com'on! I thought you were a man of logic. In order to establish the rights in which you test another right against, you must ask youself if that right violates another right, but to know if THAT is a right you must ask yourself if it violates another right, but to know if THAT is a right you must ask if THAT violates another right. It is never ending. Everything rests on other rights that rest on it.

IMPOSED danger, at a certain level is a violation of one's rights. correct? Or do you argue that I may put you in as much danger as I wish up until the point I actually cause damage to you?

[Texaggie79]

God, and logic.

[PaxMacian]

"As for God, he issued no PERMISSION to consume anything and everything WHEREVER we want."

Dietary laws exist and are enumerated specifically.
Three types of Locusts are kosher, don't eat pork...
Nothing except the positive toward HERB
which I have already posted exists in the Bible.
Yet, you want the Bible to give specific permissions
rather than proscribe specific consumables.

[tpaine]

I hold that my neighbor smoking crack is too much of an endangerment to me and mine. -ta79-


Show us, - IE, -'the jury'-, how you are endangered.

Two bits you cannot. Make your case. -- You never have.
319 posted on 12/18/2002 8:45 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


To: tpaine
I already passed that qualifier. TJ then threw it aside and claimed that the jury would be WRONG if they did find danger.

It just goes to show how your rights seem to be established ONLY in your own minds.
320 - ta79 -


No, you did not 'make your case'.

Show us the post where you claim to have done so. -- Can you?

[Texaggie79]

How is that a lie? I asked you that if a jury found my neighbor guilty of endangering me and mine by using a drug, would they be wrong. You pretty much said YES.

[Texaggie79]

Sorry, I'm not Jewish.

[kidd]

Your arguments are beyond ridiculous. The 9th amendment protects these basic rights. If you counter with "well the ninth amendment protects the right to do drugs", then I argue that they are conflicting with my rights and that the tenth amendment applies.

[Protagoras]

Since the Constitution does not give the Federal government the right POWER to restrict drug usage, then this right POWER is given to the States. Each and every state has laws prohibiting the usage of certain recreational drugs.

Please learn the difference between rights and powers. Only individual human beings possess rights. Groups of people do not have rights. The government is nothing more than a specific group of people.

[kidd]

Sigh. See the ninth amendment.

[Texaggie79]

Why make the case if you would not accept the outcome?

By smoking crack, or crystal meth, or any other hard drug, my neighbor willingly gives up his ability to be a resposible citizen. Risking me and my family with the posibility of acting out in a harmful way. Devalueing my property by reducing the appeal, being that a crack user lives next door.

My state has established that this is a violation of my rights.

[dennisw]

First, let me say that I do not support a FEDERAL WOD. I believe it is a state issue. Specifically, I believe pot should be legalized, but I still believe hard drugs such as cocaine, heroine, pcp, meth, ect should remain illegal.

MEANINGLESS! Because once you legalize pot the rest will follow. Give an inch and they will take a mile. Legal marijuana is their Trojan horse. Same happened with affirmative action, which was originally just for Blacks and American Indians. Now everyone (except white males) has hopped on board that gravy train. Including women (51% of the population!) and fresh off the boat immigrants.

[Texaggie79]

Your obsession with the word is tasking. He used the word "right" in it's proper context. The word "right" means several things. My company BOUGHT the right to be the sole user of our trademark. We own that right. It is our RIGHT.

[tpaine]

Duty calls. -- I'll answer you later, if no one else does.