Replies

>>>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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Immoral behavior will not be tolerated . . "
Oh dear! And WHOSE morality are we discussing here? Yours? Yours may possibly differ from mine. Some old ladies think that horses should wear pants. What do you think?
the ONLY morality that government is empowered to enforce is the morality of mutual respect for persons and property. PERIOD! No more, and no less. What you do in your home is fine with me.