War on Drugs - Gov't Overstepping its Bounds?

1) I have observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that legalization of private possession and use of narcotics also implies the legalization of criminal activities done under the influence of drugs. I do not understand this leap. In what way does not arresting people who use drugs in the privacy of their home imply that a police officer will just wave to a passing crack head, as he drives by at 80 miles per hour, smoking a crack pipe.

2) I have also observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that people who support legalization simply wants to use drugs - as if this matters. First off, the motivations of the proponents of legalization do nothing to alter the substance or lack thereof of their argument. But, just to address this wildly popular notion: I, for one, have no desire to use any drug that is currently illegal, nor do I hope to need or desire any drug that is legal for medicinal or recreational purposes. I rarely even drink beer. My objection to the government prohibition on certain drugs is on the grounds that what people do in the privacy of their homes is none of the government’s business, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. Whether you want to possess drugs, weapons, or beanie babies should be no concern of your neighbor, your police department, or any echelon of government, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybody’s rights.

3) Likewise, I do not understand why proponents of legalizing drugs take such weak stances in favor of it, such as “well, alcohol is worse for you than pot, and alcohol is legal.” This assumes that the government's actions can be justified by their probability of positively influencing your health. Evidence exists that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol, as well. Should we ban cigarettes and arrest anyone who purchases, distributes, or smokes them? Since when is it the government’s responsibility to protect a person from himself? The purpose of government is to secure our rights, by protecting private property, and attempting to safeguard us from hurting each other. In other words, government’s role is to stop a man about to commit murder, not to stop a terminally ill cancer patient about to euthanize himself.

The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the government’s business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.

I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” - Benjamin Disraeli

Posted by Reagan Man:
“In the last Pew Center Research Report from August 2001, 86% of American's, do not agree with the following statement, ‘People should be allowed to take any drug they want so long as they don't hurt someone else.’”

So? My intent was to provide a brief case outlining why drugs should be legal. I am not attempting to say that most Americans support this notion. Consensus among morons is not a substitute for logic, so I do not consider it a significant point, in regards to this topic. About 50% of voters voted for Algore in the last election. That does not mean that he would make a good President.
The statistic that you quoted only means that a lot of people disagree with me. It contributes nothing to the search for a logical policy regarding drugs that are currently illegal.
I would wager that the disagreement is largely due to the fact that drugs have been illegal for so long. Therefore, legalizing them would be “not the way we’ve always done it” – a common logical fallacy that many fall prey to.

Posted by Reagan Man:
“Both the government and the people it represents, have every right to tell you, you can't snort cocaine. Period. The laws of the land are clear when it comes to the trafficking, purchase, possession and ingestion of those substances the people have declared harmful and illicit.”

I agree that people have the right to tell others that they cannot snort cocaine. I disagree that the people or the government have the right to imprison somebody for buying it, selling it, possessing it, or snorting it. Law grants government the power, but that does not grant it the right. Rights are not granted; they are inalienable.

I agree with Reagan Man’s last post, though:
“If an individual believes a specific law enacted by Congress is in violation of the Constitution, that person should fight within the political arena and the legal system, to reverse such a law. Until and unless a law is overturned, it remains legal and valid. It is the law of the land. Period.”

Public opinion needs to change, before there will be any hope of winning in the political or legal arena. This thread is part of an attempt at that change. Commander8 raised an important issue to consider, if this change were to occur, and legalization were to become a reality:

“Frankly, I would like to see the welfare state abolished before drugs are legalized.
If the welfare state is jettisoned first and then drugs leagalized, those who choose to ruin their lives with drugs will do so without some agency there to rehabilitate (translation:substitute their heroin with methodone.) them and they would have to either straighten themselves out or starve.”

>>>Consensus among morons is not a substitute for logic, so I do not consider it a significant point, in regards to this topic.

The people who support America's drug control policy aren't morons. These people are intelligent and responsible individuals who don't condone the use of illicit drugs and consider such behavior to be irresponsible and immoral. If you intend on continuing with this rhetorical tone, I suggest you take it to "The Smokey Backroom" Forum, where you can let loose with all manner of namecalling.

>>>I would wager that the disagreement is largely due to the fact that drugs have been illegal for so long. Therefore, legalizing them would be “not the way we’ve always done it” – a common logical fallacy that many fall prey to.

This isn't about a disagreement. Civilized society has advanced and mankind no longer considers such behavior, like drug abuse, to be in the best interests of the individual and society. We don't live in the dark ages any longer and we don't dwell in the jungle either.

>>>Law grants government the power, but that does not grant it the right. Rights are not granted; they are inalienable.

Baloney! This is a typical libertarian propaganda and misinterpretation. The will of the people, as represented through their elected officials, determines what is suitable, acceptable and proper behavior in our society. Immoral behavior will not be tolerated and at this time, that means drug use remains outlawed. I agree with Jefferson, when he wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

The bold emphasis is mine, of course.

The will of the people, carried out through their elected representatives, gives the federal government a mandate to enact laws.....

If a majority of the people were to demand that left-handed people be executed, so that we didn't have to worry about the costs they impose on society (left handed golf clubs, etc.), would that be acceptable?

According to your rationalization, it would be OK. And, it's exactly that attitude that our form of government was designed to prevent: tyranny of the majority. They recognized that unrestricted democracy would lead to this kind of abuse, and that's why our government is a constitutional republic.

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. Drug prohibition isn't one of them. You might be able to make the case that states are free to do so, depending on your interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Currently the feds won't even allow states to relax the draconian laws for medical purposes. That violates the will of the citizens of those states. How do you rationalize that?

Baloney! This is a typical libertarian propaganda and misinterpretation.

It's in your own citation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

Emphasis is mine. As Schmedlap said, rights are not granted by government. Rights are secured or protected by government. Unfortunately, they don't always fulfill that obligation.

Having said that, your point about "consent of the governed" is valid, even though I still ask where you would draw the line. The Clinton administration committed a number of serious abuses of government power, all with "consent of the governed". How much are you willing to tolerate? Is it always OK, or only when you happen to agree with it?

Jefferson's proposed alternative of abolishment is so extreme that only anarchists would support it. Alteration is what we are talking about, and a honest consideration starts with historical precedent. Prohibition is an interesting case study, because it addresses a lot of relevant issues:

The authority of the federal government.
The effectiveness the law.
The consequences (intended and unintended)
The potential consequences after repeal

All of these issues are relevant to the War on Some Drugs, and there's no evidence that the results have been or would be any different than Prohibition.

I think that the abuse of mood-altering drugs is irresponsible, too. But, I don't believe in using government to enforce morality, because it results in nothing more than a power struggle among competing interests. If you want to promote your vision of morality, do so on your own, rather than crying to Uncle Sam to do it for you under force of law.

But, there are responsible uses of drugs that are currently illegal. And even the effects of irresponsible use are confined to the user, unless they go out and commit a crime like driving under the influence. We don't blame alcohol when a drunk driver kills someone: we blame the drunk driver.

One of the most important issues is absent from this discussion: who profits from the War on Some Drugs? Entire federal and state bureaucracies have been built to prosecute it and are literally competing with each other for tax dollars. Like LBJ's "War on Poverty", one should not expect a bureaucracy to eliminate itself by eradicating the very set of circumstances that prolong its existence.

But to justify its existence, the bureaucracy has to appear to be doing something. So, they claim that drug use is down or propose new programs. But mostly they demand more laws to give them additional powers. And that's the worst part of the War on Some Drugs: the damage it is doing to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You probably don't care now, but the precedents are being set for them to use the same abuse of power to come after you for violation of something you hold dear, but are out of step with the majority.

Don't believe me? The National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted as a "revenue measure" and was upheld on that basis in Sonzinsky v. US, due to the precedent already set by the Harrison Narcotic Act (one of the first skirmishes in the War on Some Drugs). The record of committee hearings shows that was exactly the plan, as explained by the Attorney General when challenged on that point. I presume that you know the subsequent history of US v. Miller and the resulting state of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence that resulted from that particular subterfuge.

>>>Are you saying that if we think that the laws passed by Congress are bad, unconstitutional and that we are unsuccessful in winning in the political arena and/or the courts that there is no alternative to a violent revolution? Surely there is something short of that, like civil disobedience, demonstrations, jury nullification, etc.
The idea that there is nothing we can do about bad law short of over throwing the govt is not the American way. There are other measures between going to court and going to war.

I believe you missed the point I was making. Allow me to address your concerns. This was about, how American's can effect change in laws they disagree with. The only way you can change existing law, is through the political process, or the legal system. Revolution is part of the political process, albeit a radical approach. I don't believe revolution is the answer though. Civil disobedience and public demonstrations are expressions of free speech and have always been part of the political process in America.

I specificlly included this entire portion of Jefferson's writings to keep things in context and I was very clear about what I was saying and my bold emphasis highlighted that. For our system of government to operate properly, our freedom, our liberty and the rights of the people are paramount and must be protected. And as Jefferson said, "...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." In this regard, the will of the people, as expressed through the ballot box and represented by their elected officials, dictate what is proper and acceptable for our society. Saying you disagree with a specific law and condemning it is one thing. Saying a law is in violation of the Constitution, when its the law of the land, is a bogus charge and totally without merit. If individual American's or factional political groups start calling every law invalid and illegal, that doesn't mean its true. That was my point.

>>>... rights are not granted by government. Rights are secured or protected by government. Unfortunately, they don't always fulfill that obligation.

While I agree with you, that government doesn't always do the job I expect them to do, government, nonetheless, through the power of "We The People...", have always secured, granted and protected the rights of the people. And I would like to think, with the blessings of God. That's the reason why I highlighted what I consider to be the most important part of what Jefferson said. Again, "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Most of the time our leaders have done a good job when it came to upholding the rights of the people and sometimes they've done a lousy job. Remember, the Constitution is a governing document and isn't holy scripture. Man is responsible for his actions, good and bad, right or wrong. Through the strong moral compass of individuals, mankind will succeed or fall.

government, nonetheless, through the power of "We The People...", have always secured, granted and protected the rights of the people

There's "granted" again. Government doesn't "grant" the people anything. It's the other way around: the people grant powers to the government. It was intentionally constructed in a way to prevent tyranny of the majority, but it's been corrupted since the New Deal. Prior to that time, the government's own education material (for the military) expressly warned about the perils of a "true democracy", but that provision has faded away as they became guilty of exactly that.

Through the strong moral compass of individuals, mankind will succeed or fall.

Morality might play a factor in it, under the color of law it is more likely to contribute to failure -- because the necessary measures are more likely to provoke a rebellion. For instance, "Islamic law" is just another form of moral code, and the corruption of government by their zealots has stunted their development for centuries. And, you know what they think about our lack of adherence to their moral code.

However, I noticed that you avoided response to my explicit example of how the War on Some Drugs has enabled the War on Guns. Is it too painful to admit that you might be wrong?

That's what I said!

No it isn't. I quoted it exactly:

government, nonetheless, through the power of "We The People...", have always secured, granted and protected the rights of the people

Had you simply written secured and protected, I wouldn't have corrected you.

You see a sinister plot behind everything to do with the government. I don't. The fact is, you do not trust government at all. Period.

I don't trust people that use government to pursue personal agendas they couldn't implement without the power of law. That includes bureaucrats, politicians, and otherwise well-meaning voters that believe they are morally superior.

But, it's no sinister plot. It's the natural order of government in general and bureacracies in particular, which has been repeated again and again throughout history.

I have a basic trust of government, but remain skeptical and vigilant.

I just documented a specific case in which your "skepticism and vigilance" has failed. A precedent set by the War on Some Drugs has already been used to infringe one of the very rights that you have stated as important to you:

I'm a big supporter of my right to own firearms for protection and recreation.

But, instead you roll out the ad hominem argument -- a sure sign that your carefully constructed rationalization is crumbling around you.

I can reasonably be accused of typographical, punctuation, or grammatical errors, but not of name-calling or similar “rhetorical tone.” I used the term “morons,” intentionally, because of its dictionary meaning. But, my point holds true, whether one agrees with the accuracy of the term or not. The opinions of civilized society, whether composed of morons or geniuses, are not an appropriate substitute for logical reasoning. I have yet to see anyone justify otherwise.

Reagan Man - I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of rights, which you have demonstrated quite clearly throughout this thread. Case in point; you responded with “Baloney!” to the statement below:

“Law grants government the power, but that does not grant it the right. Rights are not granted; they are inalienable.”

You also responded by quoting the Declaration of Independence, but you clearly demonstrate that you do not understand it, when you advocate that government may grant itself the right to use coercion to regulate behavior beyond violation of individual rights. Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. That government has a power does not mean that it has a right.

We are the government – you and I. Neither of us can grant government a right that we do not possess, for the same reason that you or I cannot grant ourselves a right that we do not possess – that is the job of whatever higher power created us, not government. You seem to confuse the two. When government has the power to do something that is not within the bounds of its rights, it is simply usurping the power to violate rights.

Government does not derive rights from popular opinion and it cannot accumulate rights which the people themselves do not possess. Government can only rightly accumulate powers that are within the bounds of its rights. If you are engaging in a behavior that does not violate the rights of another individual, then I do not have the right to stop you from doing it, nor can I grant government the right to do this on my behalf. When government grants itself powers beyond the rights of the people, that falls into one of two categories: tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the majority. The difference between the two is the amount of public support behind the tyranny. The purpose of government is to ensure that the rights of the people are not violated. When government exerts power to violate the rights of a citizen, it defeats its own purpose for existence.

Please take notice that nowhere in the Declaration of Independence is there a phrase that reads “so long as the majority grants its arbitrary approval.” Were such a phrase inserted after “…pursuit of happiness;” then you would correct. But, no such phrase is present, and you are incorrect. We may pursue happiness so long as we do not violate the rights of one another. Neither you, nor I, nor our government has the right to use coercion to prevent such pursuit.

Ad hominem argument? Say what!

I quote: You see a sinister plot behind everything to do with the government.

And in the next paragraph of your your most recent posting: You're reactionary absolutism is showing.

Look it up:

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

You have presented convoluted rhetoric that makes no sense at all. The federal governemnt hasn't infringed on my right to keep and bear arms.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention. Maybe this will help:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/

About halfway down the page are links to compilations of Supreme Court, state court, and circuit court decisions related to the National Firearms Act of 1934. Take a look at the lists that include summaries/descriptions. I'm sure you could find something in there that you could consider an infringement.

Until recently, the federal government has consistently taken the position that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Ashcroft has given lip service to repudiation of that view, but hasn't followed up with any action.

Did you really not know any of this, or are you just pretending because I backed you into a corner?

I agree with Reagan Man?s last post, though:
?If an individual believes a specific law enacted by Congress is in violation of the Constitution, that person should fight within the political arena and the legal system, to reverse such a law. Until and unless a law is overturned, it remains legal and valid. It is the law of the land. Period.?

Then you are as wrong as he it. Look up Marbury v. Madison. To paraphrase, a law repugnant to the Constitution is invalid FROM THE DAY it is ENACTED, NOT just from when it was found so. As such it need not be enforced or obeyed.

This is all in the decision and it has never been challenged, which would tend to mean that RM, like his counterparts who unconstitutionally enacted and currently ENFORCE this legislation will, at some point and sooner than RM wants to see, be liable for their actions. Hopefully it will entail CRIMINAL liability and if there's any justice, the enactors and the JBTs who enforce this crud will be on death row for all the murders that they have committed in so doing. The damage they have done and continue to do to the very fabric of the Republiic is incalculable.

You are correct, that a law repugnant from the Constitution is invalid from the day that it is enacted. That means that if you are imprisoned for violating said law, that you should be released from prison, when it is found unconstitutional. It does not mean that we are supposed to pick and choose which laws that we want to obey, based upon our rationale for determining a law’s constitutionality. An ignorant nation (such as ours) would be quickly reduced to near-anarchy, if this were the case.

For those who believe that a law is unconstitutional, civil disobedience is a means for winning the public opinion battle, to increase the odds of winning in the political and legal arena. Those people still go to jail, though, no matter how strongly they believe in the unconstitutional nature of the law.

As for determining liabilities incurred through enforcement of our current drug laws, I cringe at the ugliness that will accompany this. Clearly, there are legal or possible monetary reparations that are due to people whose rights have been violated by the so-called War on Drugs (more appropriately called the War on Individual Rights), but this will not be so simple as pointing the finger at people to imprison or sue. What precedent do we set when we can punish law enforcement personnel who enforce laws that are later deemed unconstitutional? Also, think of how many people are behind bars, only because they plea bargained to give a guilty plea on the drug charges, in return for dropping other legitimate charges. Think of how many people were only caught committing a crime, because law enforcement was given authority to snoop on them because law enforcement agencies had probable cause to believe that the individual was in possession of drugs. It will be a field day for lawyers. The courts will be as clogged then as they are now, until this is sorted out, which will take a long, long time.

Saying a law is in violation of the Constitution, when its the law of the land, is a bogus charge and totally without merit. If individual American's or factional political groups start calling every law invalid and illegal, that doesn't mean its true. That was my point

I still ask-What are we to do when laws are passed by our elected representatives that clearly violate the limits set down in the constitution?

Surely I can use free speech and point out the error of their ways. I can demonstrate my displeasure and campaign against legislators that voted for the bad law.

Can I also use civil disobedience, like blatently violating the law and arguing the invalidity in court, when I get arrested. What is to be done if the judge does not let me argue the constitutional issue or present relevant facts? (example-medical use of marijuana and I am prevented from presenting medical evidence).

As a juror, can I refuse to convict one of those who practiced civil disobedience because I agree the law was bad?

What if I withheld taxes because the govt was misusing the money due to one of these bad laws? (IMO)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.