It's time to legalize drugs

[DiAnna]

Prohibition doesn't work. It never has. It never will. Adults will always choose what they wish to put into their bodies and what they don't wish to put into their bodies. All prohibition does is create a large, vibrant criminal element to fill the demand.

If marijuana was legalized nationally, criminal drug cartels around the globe would instantly lose billions upon billions of dollars. If all drugs were decriminalized, global drug cartels would immediately implode, because they will be impotent and irrelevant.

Government cannot legislate to adults which they can and cannot imbibe or drink or smoke without creating a dynamic backlash. That backlash is always the creation of a dynamic criminal enterprise stepping up to provide what government has forbidden.

This concept, proven by history over and over, is not difficult.

 

[whitehall]

You gotta wonder if the left is crazy or they see a weak administration that they can bully into any stupid left wing scheme. At a time in history when cigarette smoking has been regulated to death they want to legalize a drug which is ten times more harmful.

 

[dblack]

Do you have a better response? His point was the Constitution protects free exchange of drugs. Where does it protect such a thing?
I dont care what your idea about the constitution is. It is irrelevant here. I am responding to an erroneous claim.

You're simply misunderstanding the Constitution. It protects our rights by omission. The government has no power to take away our rights other than those powers specifically listed in article 1 section 8. This was the entire reason for the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (wikipedia article). The Federalists worried that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the original constitution would confuse the issue - that people might not understand the self-limiting nature of the federal constitution.

And, as you seem to be proving here, they were apparently right. Most liberals today think that government can do anything that doesn't violate the rights that are expressly protected - but that was never the intent. As the ninth amendment points out, our list of protected rights is infinite. The only rights the state can violate are those impacted by the exercise of the enumerated powers. In order for a federal law to be constitutional, it must be supported by one of those powers.

This is why alcohol prohibition was implemented by a legitimate constitutional amendment. The advocates of that policy, however wrong they may have been, at least recognized that it was not constitutional to use the federal government to ban the sale or consumption of alcohol. So they amended the constitution to allow for it. That policy was an overwhelming failure and the amendment was repealed. There has been no such amendment supporting drug prohibition. It is as unconstitutional as alcohol prohibition would have been without the amendment.

 

[ShackledNation]

You gotta wonder if the left is crazy or they see a weak administration that they can bully into any stupid left wing scheme. At a time in history when cigarette smoking has been regulated to death they want to legalize a drug which is ten times more harmful.

10 times more harmful? Really? What else did you excrete from the crevice between your buttocks today?

 

[ShackledNation]

dblack, I think you deserve a medal.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you have a better response? His point was the Constitution protects free exchange of drugs. Where does it protect such a thing?
I dont care what your idea about the constitution is. It is irrelevant here. I am responding to an erroneous claim.

You're simply misunderstanding the Constitution. It protects our rights by omission. The government has no power to take away our rights other than those powers specifically listed in article 1 section 8. This was the entire reason for the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (wikipedia article). The Federalists worried that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the original constitution would confuse the issue - that people might not understand the self-limiting nature of the federal constitution.

And, as you seem to be proving here, they were apparently right. Most liberals today think that government can do anything that doesn't violate the rights that are expressly protected - but that was never the intent. As the ninth amendment points out, our list of protected rights is infinite. The only rights the state can violate are those impacted by the exercise of the enumerated powers. In order for a federal law to be constitutional, it must be supported by one of those powers.

This is why alcohol prohibition was implemented by a legitimate constitutional amendment. The advocates of that policy, however wrong they may have been, at least recognized that it was not constitutional to use the federal government to ban the sale or consumption of alcohol. So they amended the constitution to allow for it. That policy was an overwhelming failure and the amendment was repealed. There has been no such amendment supporting drug prohibition. It is as unconstitutional as alcohol prohibition would have been without the amendment.

I think this is mostly a nit-picking, semantics argument. Much as I hate to do it, I think I have to side with The Rabbi on this.

Would it not be constitutional for any or all of the various states to create laws banning drugs? If that is the case, then the constitution does not protect the free exchange of drugs. Even if the federal government cannot constitutionally make such a ban, if the states can do it then the protection doesn't exist (or is very limited in nature).

I understand and accept your argument that the constitution protects by omission, at a federal level. So in a way, you could both be said to be correct. However, the statement The Rabbi was responding to was 'The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.'. That does not state or seem to imply he was talking only about the federal government.

This argument went way beyond the scope of the original complaint.

 

[Kuros]

Do you have a better response? His point was the Constitution protects free exchange of drugs. Where does it protect such a thing?
I dont care what your idea about the constitution is. It is irrelevant here. I am responding to an erroneous claim.

You're simply misunderstanding the Constitution. It protects our rights by omission. The government has no power to take away our rights other than those powers specifically listed in article 1 section 8. This was the entire reason for the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (wikipedia article). The Federalists worried that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the original constitution would confuse the issue - that people might not understand the self-limiting nature of the federal constitution.

And, as you seem to be proving here, they were apparently right. Most liberals today think that government can do anything that doesn't violate the rights that are expressly protected - but that was never the intent. As the ninth amendment points out, our list of protected rights is infinite. The only rights the state can violate are those impacted by the exercise of the enumerated powers. In order for a federal law to be constitutional, it must be supported by one of those powers.

This is why alcohol prohibition was implemented by a legitimate constitutional amendment. The advocates of that policy, however wrong they may have been, at least recognized that it was not constitutional to use the federal government to ban the sale or consumption of alcohol. So they amended the constitution to allow for it. That policy was an overwhelming failure and the amendment was repealed. There has been no such amendment supporting drug prohibition. It is as unconstitutional as alcohol prohibition would have been without the amendment.

I think this is mostly a nit-picking, semantics argument. Much as I hate to do it, I think I have to side with The Rabbi on this.

Would it not be constitutional for any or all of the various states to create laws banning drugs? If that is the case, then the constitution does not protect the free exchange of drugs. Even if the federal government cannot constitutionally make such a ban, if the states can do it then the protection doesn't exist (or is very limited in nature).

I understand and accept your argument that the constitution protects by omission, at a federal level. So in a way, you could both be said to be correct. However, the statement The Rabbi was responding to was 'The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.'. That does not state or seem to imply he was talking only about the federal government.

This argument went way beyond the scope of the original complaint.

The States can do it, but the Federal should not be able to do it. But since 1942, interstate commerce includes "stuff I grow and consume that never leaves the farm." So the Federal government can regulate all commerce now.

Yay.

 

[CitizenPained]

I don't see illegalize substances anywhere in the listed enumerated powers. Why was it necessary to have an amendment for prohibiting alcohol? What would make marijuana different so that it doesn't need an amendment? Reason is not on your side.

Not sure if you've noticed, but Constitutional Amendments are generally written to protect liberties, not restrict them.

There's no need to amend the Constitution to create legislation. If we had a habit of doing that, nothing would ever get done.

Yes, which is why marijuana should be legal. The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.

And the prohibition amendment did not protect liberties. Are you forgetting that bit of history?

Can you read?

If the legislation is unconstitutional, then you MUST amend the constitution or guess what: you can't allow it. This isn't rocket science. There are specific powers granted to the federal government by the constitution. If the powers are not there, the federal government cannot use them. Outlawing marijuana or alcohol or any substance is not there. That is why the prohibition amendment had to be passed to outlaw alcohol. Nowadays when banning other drugs, politicians just say f*ck the constitution and pass whatever laws they want.

Congress has the right to pass federal law and regulate commerce. If you need help with this, may I suggest a class on 20th C. history or Con Law 101? I'm sorry. I don't have time to give you a lecture on judicial review and progressivism.

 

[ShackledNation]

Not sure if you've noticed, but Constitutional Amendments are generally written to protect liberties, not restrict them.

There's no need to amend the Constitution to create legislation. If we had a habit of doing that, nothing would ever get done.

Yes, which is why marijuana should be legal. The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.

And the prohibition amendment did not protect liberties. Are you forgetting that bit of history?

Can you read?

If the legislation is unconstitutional, then you MUST amend the constitution or guess what: you can't allow it. This isn't rocket science. There are specific powers granted to the federal government by the constitution. If the powers are not there, the federal government cannot use them. Outlawing marijuana or alcohol or any substance is not there. That is why the prohibition amendment had to be passed to outlaw alcohol. Nowadays when banning other drugs, politicians just say f*ck the constitution and pass whatever laws they want.

Congress has the right to pass federal law and regulate commerce. If you need help with this, may I suggest a class on 20th C. history or Con Law 101? I'm sorry. I don't have time to give you a lecture on judicial review and progressivism.

Can I read? Did you read my reply? If the legislation does not fall within the enumerated powers of Congress, then it CANNOT pass. It can only be allowed if an amendment is passed. That is why prohibitionists had to pass the prohibition amendment, the point you keep ignoring. The courts aren't infallible. They acted unconstitutionally themselves. You are falling back on the same old endlessly trodden argument that amounts to the US government can do whatever it wants because the US government has told itself it can.

 

[ShackledNation]

Do you have a better response? His point was the Constitution protects free exchange of drugs. Where does it protect such a thing?
I dont care what your idea about the constitution is. It is irrelevant here. I am responding to an erroneous claim.

You're simply misunderstanding the Constitution. It protects our rights by omission. The government has no power to take away our rights other than those powers specifically listed in article 1 section 8. This was the entire reason for the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (wikipedia article). The Federalists worried that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the original constitution would confuse the issue - that people might not understand the self-limiting nature of the federal constitution.

And, as you seem to be proving here, they were apparently right. Most liberals today think that government can do anything that doesn't violate the rights that are expressly protected - but that was never the intent. As the ninth amendment points out, our list of protected rights is infinite. The only rights the state can violate are those impacted by the exercise of the enumerated powers. In order for a federal law to be constitutional, it must be supported by one of those powers.

This is why alcohol prohibition was implemented by a legitimate constitutional amendment. The advocates of that policy, however wrong they may have been, at least recognized that it was not constitutional to use the federal government to ban the sale or consumption of alcohol. So they amended the constitution to allow for it. That policy was an overwhelming failure and the amendment was repealed. There has been no such amendment supporting drug prohibition. It is as unconstitutional as alcohol prohibition would have been without the amendment.

I think this is mostly a nit-picking, semantics argument. Much as I hate to do it, I think I have to side with The Rabbi on this.

Would it not be constitutional for any or all of the various states to create laws banning drugs? If that is the case, then the constitution does not protect the free exchange of drugs. Even if the federal government cannot constitutionally make such a ban, if the states can do it then the protection doesn't exist (or is very limited in nature).

I understand and accept your argument that the constitution protects by omission, at a federal level. So in a way, you could both be said to be correct. However, the statement The Rabbi was responding to was 'The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.'. That does not state or seem to imply he was talking only about the federal government.

This argument went way beyond the scope of the original complaint.

Nitpicking? The 9th amendment is nitpicking? The fact that the Constitution enumerates powers and prohibits anything not listing is immensely different from the delusion that the constitution lists bans and allows everything else not listed.

As for your question, that would depend on the state constitutions and state bill of rights. And of course I was talking about the Federal government. Current drug law relevant to this debate is handled by the Federal government. And free exchange among the states is protected by the Constitution. It's called the commerce clause.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? You think the way the Constitution protects freedom is by explicitly prohibiting government from doing something?? I realize that is the currently held liberal-statist view, but it's not the way constitutionally limited government is meant to work. The purpose of having a constitution in the first place is to list the things the government can do - everything else is off limits. So, if your opinion is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to ban drug use - the onus is on you to find the article or amendment that supports your claim. If you can't - you lose.

The statement made was that the constitution protects the free exchange of drugs. Obviously he thinks it is explicit somewhere, like the free exercise of religion or right to keep and bear arms.
So where is it?

The constitution limits federal government by specifically enumerating what powers it has, not what powers it doesn't have.The constitution protects free exchange of any good, drug or not, because the Constitution gives government no authority to ban any good or service. Drug prohibition runs contrary to free markets by banning goods from the market. If you think government has the power to ban drugs, then it has the power to ban alcohol, tobacco, cheeseburgers, soda, nonorganic foods, and anything else we put in our bodies that can be deemed unhealthy or harmful.

Tell me specifically where in the constitution it says Congress has the power to ban any good or service. And then, for the final time, explain why it was necessary to have a prohibition amendment rather than just write a law saying no alcohol (hint: because banning alcohol, like marijuana, is unconstitutional. And when something is unconstitutional but you want it anyway, you pass an amendment).

OK, so there is no part of the Constitution that guarantees a right to free exchange of drugs. This is unlike the Bill of Rights that does guarantee rights to specific things.
As for the power to ban, that is inherent in the power to regulate interstate commerce, as elucidated by Supreme Court opinions. This is why you cannot buy plutonium over the counter.
Your point has been refuted. Maybe you want to try another tack?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, which is why marijuana should be legal. The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.

And the prohibition amendment did not protect liberties. Are you forgetting that bit of history?

Can you read?

If the legislation is unconstitutional, then you MUST amend the constitution or guess what: you can't allow it. This isn't rocket science. There are specific powers granted to the federal government by the constitution. If the powers are not there, the federal government cannot use them. Outlawing marijuana or alcohol or any substance is not there. That is why the prohibition amendment had to be passed to outlaw alcohol. Nowadays when banning other drugs, politicians just say f*ck the constitution and pass whatever laws they want.

Congress has the right to pass federal law and regulate commerce. If you need help with this, may I suggest a class on 20th C. history or Con Law 101? I'm sorry. I don't have time to give you a lecture on judicial review and progressivism.

Can I read? Did you read my reply? If the legislation does not fall within the enumerated powers of Congress, then it CANNOT pass. It can only be allowed if an amendment is passed. That is why prohibitionists had to pass the prohibition amendment, the point you keep ignoring. The courts aren't infallible. They acted unconstitutionally themselves. You are falling back on the same old endlessly trodden argument that amounts to the US government can do whatever it wants because the US government has told itself it can.

It odes fall within the enumerated powers and there are many court cases that uphold that.
You are simply on the wrong side here.
Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

 

[CitizenPained]

This is why you cannot buy plutonium over the counter.
Your point has been refuted. Maybe you want to try another tack?

 

[Gadawg73]

You're simply misunderstanding the Constitution. It protects our rights by omission. The government has no power to take away our rights other than those powers specifically listed in article 1 section 8. This was the entire reason for the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (wikipedia article). The Federalists worried that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the original constitution would confuse the issue - that people might not understand the self-limiting nature of the federal constitution.

And, as you seem to be proving here, they were apparently right. Most liberals today think that government can do anything that doesn't violate the rights that are expressly protected - but that was never the intent. As the ninth amendment points out, our list of protected rights is infinite. The only rights the state can violate are those impacted by the exercise of the enumerated powers. In order for a federal law to be constitutional, it must be supported by one of those powers.

This is why alcohol prohibition was implemented by a legitimate constitutional amendment. The advocates of that policy, however wrong they may have been, at least recognized that it was not constitutional to use the federal government to ban the sale or consumption of alcohol. So they amended the constitution to allow for it. That policy was an overwhelming failure and the amendment was repealed. There has been no such amendment supporting drug prohibition. It is as unconstitutional as alcohol prohibition would have been without the amendment.

I think this is mostly a nit-picking, semantics argument. Much as I hate to do it, I think I have to side with The Rabbi on this.

Would it not be constitutional for any or all of the various states to create laws banning drugs? If that is the case, then the constitution does not protect the free exchange of drugs. Even if the federal government cannot constitutionally make such a ban, if the states can do it then the protection doesn't exist (or is very limited in nature).

I understand and accept your argument that the constitution protects by omission, at a federal level. So in a way, you could both be said to be correct. However, the statement The Rabbi was responding to was 'The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.'. That does not state or seem to imply he was talking only about the federal government.

This argument went way beyond the scope of the original complaint.

The States can do it, but the Federal should not be able to do it. But since 1942, interstate commerce includes "stuff I grow and consume that never leaves the farm." So the Federal government can regulate all commerce now.

Yay.

So let only the states do it.
And the Feds will keep the carrot of Federal $$$ funding it like they do with the highway funds and we are back at ground zero.
Prohibition never works. Politics takes over.
And it is unbelievable so called "conservatives" don't see it. Buckley did 50 years ago.
WAKE UP DUMB ASS AMERICANS.

 

[dblack]

Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

LOL... oh, that's rich. This is why the Constitution is so watered down in the first place. It's all the "Except on this issue"s that have painted us into the corner we're in. The view you're representing here is why we're facing a law ordering us to buy health insurance. If you think the commerce clause (or the general welfare clause, or whatever) grants the federal government the power to tell us what drugs we can use, then you open the door to giving them many of the powers you don't like.

This is why I argue this point so vehemently. I don't really care whether druggies have the right to get high. But I do care that all of us have the right to think for ourselves and live our lives free from government meddling.

 

[editec]

Land of the FREE and home of the BRAVE, my ass!

America is a nation of clueless dupes and happy slaves.

If you don't OWN your own body, how can you tell yourself that you are a free man?

 

[The Rabbi]

Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

LOL... oh, that's rich. This is why the Constitution is so watered down in the first place. It's all the "Except on this issue"s that have painted us into the corner we're in. The view you're representing here is why we're facing a law ordering us to buy health insurance. If you think the commerce clause (or the general welfare clause, or whatever) grants the federal government the power to tell us what drugs we can use, then you open the door to giving them many of the powers you don't like.

This is why I argue this point so vehemently. I don't really care whether druggies have the right to get high. But I do care that all of us have the right to think for ourselves and live our lives free from government meddling.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[Gadawg73]

With the likes of Rabbi no wonder we have large support for bans on sweet tea, fast food and anything that is bad for you to eat.
The nanny state is for liberals, not conservatives.
You can not stop folks from making poor health choices with LAWS.

 

[The Rabbi]

With the likes of Rabbi no wonder we have large support for bans on sweet tea, fast food and anything that is bad for you to eat.
The nanny state is for liberals, not conservatives.
You can not stop folks from making poor health choices with LAWS.

Are you really not able to distinguish between sweet tea and crack cocaine? Pity.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Neither is it disposable. Appeals to emergency ethics are the excuse for pretty much every regime that's ever sought to eliminate freedom and expand state power. It's an effective tool, because if the argument is real, if our very survival as a people requires ignoring the laws that protect our freedom - well, of course we should. That's what martial law is for and it's why we suspend our our usual concern for liberty in times of war. And that's why those who want to control us invoke the language of war for every other campaign they engage in.

But that's bullshit. Drug abuse isn't war, and it doesn't threaten our continued existence as a nation. Neither are most of the other things that are plugged into the "War on *" slogan (drugs, crime, poverty, terror, obesity, ...)