Replies

Totally false. You try to argue from authority, thinking that if you repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth. However, most people who know how to think for themselves reject that sort of argument, prefering one which is based on demonstrable and objective fact rather than one colored by self-serving rhetoric. Sadly for you, self-serving rhetoric is all you have available. You do not have fact, the Founding Dads were against your position and you haven't even LOGIC on your side. Your position was founded on the lies of Harry Anslinger and the Harrision of the 1916 Narcotics act and compounded through the years with more lies and delusions. It was and is based on nothing else but asserting FedGov control over larger and larger segments of the population. You have seen the evidence for this and yet you still "counter" with more self-serving, self-deluding roscoe like CSA and court decisions. You are a sad case, Roscoe, and your delusions are pathetic. You have been presented with evidence time and again but you counter with a few illiterate words and some cut-n-paste (tm), but no rational argument.

Backwards. You post falsehoods, then when facts are posted exposing them

Court rulings are not called facts, they are called opinions and rightly so. This is evidenced by the fact that over time, opinions are reversed and overturned.

Most conservatives believe that "right" and "wrong" are moral absolutes which do not change with time. Cultural Jihad is the only one who I have seen consistently attempt to support he drug war on these terms, which is why the arguments against his are fundamentally different (based in religion and not constitutionality).

The hurdle that you have to overcome, Roscoe, is not to prove to us that the government courts have backed government use of force against the people in the drug war - that much is obvious. Government (ab)uses its power in literally hundreds of areas to which I stand opposed, but might does not make right in any of them.

You have continually asserted that law that has been tested and upheld in multiple courts meets your standard of constitutionality. I have asked you time and again if you also apply that same standard to Roe, Brady, Lautenberg, or any other pile of claptrap that opposes the 'conservative' agenda. You have responded with commentary like:

Empty rhetoric

Brilliant. Seems to me that behind the opinions you have posted, there is little fact. Please do not pretend to be the righteous defender of truth when you have given us none.

And by the way, this is at least the fourth time I've asked with no answer: "Do you think the actions of the agents were appropriate to the situation?"