Political Crossfire Forums

[Sukoi]

perdidochas wrote: Drug laws are based on possession, not use. Congress obviously can (and it has been upheld in the courts).

Please show me where prohibition has been upheld in the courts. The closest cases that I am aware of are those of Timothy Leary and Angel Raich and prohibition itself was not judged in either of those cases.

[Sukoi]

Here is a short and concise history of how and why some plants and "drugs" became illegal in this country. It is primarily geared toward "marijuana" but it includes real "drugs" as well:
Why is Marijuana Illegal

[brian bennett]

bigstick61 wrote: I don't think you understood what I said. In RELATION to the Federal government, the States have rights. The Federal government is as much a government of the States as it is one of the people, since it was created by the sovereign States, who gave up a certain degree of their sovereignty while maintaining certain rights of sovereignty so they could enjoy the security and benefits of the Union.

i don't have reading comprehension problems, and states don't have "rights" -- people have rights. and they can grant powers to governmental entities for the invocation of and/or protection of those rights.

it is not just a semantic issue -- states are not in possession of "rights." find me anything anywhere in the constitution that says the states have "rights" -- you won't find it. the states have "powers" -- the founders knew the difference between rights (endowed by their Creator) and powers (conferred by the people to the government).

"state's rights" is pure mythology.


bigstick61 wrote:
As for drug laws themselves, I believe it is within the powers of the States to legislate in this area. However, I feel it is wrong to prohibit most drugs outright because the negative effects this has outweighs the good if the coercion is requisite to have the desired effect, and otherwise because the coercion is insuffuicient, making the coercion bad. Personally, I don't support drug use and believe it is up to social, not governmental, institutions to control their use to the extent possible, and I believe drug prohibition is a futile endeavor in which the negative effects outweigh the positive effects.

glad to know that you'er against the drug war. but states can't deprive the people of their basic rights either -- and you do indeed possess the "right" to alter your own mind as you see fit. no state can properly deny that to you, and they certainly can't legitimately punish you over it.

[micfranklin]

To me, it should be that your body = your choice.

[bigstick61]

Altering one's state of mind is not a fundamental right. I find it funny how people are always claiming things as fundamental rights which never were. Fundamental rights are things like the right to freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to travel freely, the right to property, and other such things. These are among your fundamental natural rights which are endowed upon us by God. It is well within the State's powers to restrict drugs and always has been. I don't think anyone can argue too well that drug use is good for society. While a State may regulate or prohibit such activities, outright prohibition of drugs is imprudent and the bad outweighs the good, although I still support the prohibition of drugs like PCP which alter the state of mind of an individual suh that they are a danger to others and their property just by taking it.

Also, nations do have certain rights in regards to other nations, which was the original basis for international laws. The States were once sovereign and to protect against centralized tyranny, in return for ceding some of their sovereignty and the rights which accompany it to create the Union, they made sure the Constitution guaranteed them the rest of their rights by making the powers of Congress enumerated, and eventually by ratifying the 10th Amendment. In relation to other governments, states, nations, countries, etc. have rights, unless they were created by a larger entity. It is in relation to the people that government does not have any rights whatsoever, merely powers granted to it by the people in their respective Constitutions.

[perdidochas]

Sukoi wrote: perdidochas wrote: Drug laws are based on possession, not use. Congress obviously can (and it has been upheld in the courts).

Please show me where prohibition has been upheld in the courts. The closest cases that I am aware of are those of Timothy Leary and Angel Raich and prohibition itself was not judged in either of those cases.

Drug convictions are not being overturned, hence, the courts are upholding that drug laws are constitutional. If they weren't, they'd get overturned.

[bigstick61]

perdidochas, just because the courts are holding up the convictions doesn't automatically make something Constitutional. If you read the comments on the commerce clause in the Federalist Papers, which is where the primary authors of the Constitution explain what everything means, you'd realize that Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Many court rulings in the 20th Century, especially the latter half, are contrary to what is said in the Federalist Papers, which makes one question the validity of the rulings. I'll take the word of one of the authors of the Constitution over a judge trying to "interpret" it.

[flamboyant]

brian bennett wrote: bigstick61 wrote: I don't think you understood what I said. In RELATION to the Federal government, the States have rights. The Federal government is as much a government of the States as it is one of the people, since it was created by the sovereign States, who gave up a certain degree of their sovereignty while maintaining certain rights of sovereignty so they could enjoy the security and benefits of the Union.

i don't have reading comprehension problems, and states don't have "rights" -- people have rights. and they can grant powers to governmental entities for the invocation of and/or protection of those rights.

it is not just a semantic issue -- states are not in possession of "rights." find me anything anywhere in the constitution that says the states have "rights" -- you won't find it. the states have "powers" -- the founders knew the difference between rights (endowed by their Creator) and powers (conferred by the people to the government).

"state's rights" is pure mythology.

I think if you read him again, the states have certain rights as state members of the federal government.

[perdidochas]

bigstick61 wrote: perdidochas, just because the courts are holding up the convictions doesn't automatically make something Constitutional. If you read the comments on the commerce clause in the Federalist Papers, which is where the primary authors of the Constitution explain what everything means, you'd realize that Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Many court rulings in the 20th Century, especially the latter half, are contrary to what is said in the Federalist Papers, which makes one question the validity of the rulings. I'll take the word of one of the authors of the Constitution over a judge trying to "interpret" it.

Regardless, it hasn't been ruled unConstitutional.

[bigstick61]

Perhaps not by the courts. But since when are court rulings absolute. The argument is whether or not Federal drug laws are unconstitutional, not whether or not a court has ruled them as such. In regards to the former argument, they are obviously unconstitutional, but in regards to the latter, it is well-known that hardly any part of our current drug laws have been stricken down by the courts; if they had they would not be on the books now.

[Sukoi]

perdidochas wrote: bigstick61 wrote: perdidochas, just because the courts are holding up the convictions doesn't automatically make something Constitutional. If you read the comments on the commerce clause in the Federalist Papers, which is where the primary authors of the Constitution explain what everything means, you'd realize that Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Many court rulings in the 20th Century, especially the latter half, are contrary to what is said in the Federalist Papers, which makes one question the validity of the rulings. I'll take the word of one of the authors of the Constitution over a judge trying to "interpret" it.

Regardless, it hasn't been ruled unConstitutional.

It hasn't been ruled constitutional either. The fact is that constitutionality of prohibition has never been ruled on at all. Remember, it took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal under the constitution, so where is the amendment that makes plants and "drugs" illegal under the constition? Nothing in that document grants the government such power.

Prohibition is clearly unconstitutional as it violates several amendments, not the least of which are the 9th and 10th amendments. I don't see how anyone could read the U.S. Constitution and find that prohibition is constitutional as prohibition goes against the very things that this document was meant to protect; the freedom and liberty of the people of the United States.

[brian bennett]

flamboyant wrote: brian bennett wrote: bigstick61 wrote: I don't think you understood what I said. In RELATION to the Federal government, the States have rights. The Federal government is as much a government of the States as it is one of the people, since it was created by the sovereign States, who gave up a certain degree of their sovereignty while maintaining certain rights of sovereignty so they could enjoy the security and benefits of the Union.

i don't have reading comprehension problems, and states don't have "rights" -- people have rights. and they can grant powers to governmental entities for the invocation of and/or protection of those rights.

it is not just a semantic issue -- states are not in possession of "rights." find me anything anywhere in the constitution that says the states have "rights" -- you won't find it. the states have "powers" -- the founders knew the difference between rights (endowed by their Creator) and powers (conferred by the people to the government).

"state's rights" is pure mythology.

I think if you read him again, the states have certain rights as state members of the federal government.

nope. doesn't matter how frequently the words get read -- there is no such thing as "state's rights." forming a group of people confers no special "rights" upon the members of the group. they still only have their individual rights.

kindly define for me, if you will what sort of "right" you believe a group to have that is not the "right" of an individual.

[brian bennett]

bigstick61 wrote: Altering one's state of mind is not a fundamental right. I find it funny how people are always claiming things as fundamental rights which never were.

my good man, THE fundamental right is to exercise your will upon yourself. your mind is the most sacrosanct property you possess. if you honestly believe that you don't have the fundamental right to freely alter your own mind, then i'm afraid i can scarcely consider you human.

i find it funny how people can't comprehend that without the absolute right to act upon oneself as one sees fit, one simply has no rights.

[bigstick61]

You seem to fail to understand the concept. We're talking about the relations of governments to other governments. In the case of relations between governments and the people, it is always individuals and in certain cases, corporate persons who have rights, not the government. To deny the concept of State's rights is to permit the Federal government to intrude into the areas in which the States rightfully have power.

As for the latter post you made, I assume you are a libertarian in ideology. I have a quote for you from one of the founders of the Libertarian Party and the first Libertarian Presidential Candidate, John Hospers, from the conclusion of an essay he did on the matter of freedom and virtue and libertarians and conservatives called "Differences of Theory and Strategy."

John Hospers wrote: Freedom is a great thing, but one should not run the danger of destroying oneself in pursuit of it.

On the issue of compulsion, whether it be drug related or in some other area, I think one of the greatest comments were made by Fitzjames Stephen in his book, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" written in 1892, partly in response to John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," and also cited in the aforementioned essay by John Hospers.

Fitzjames Stephen wrote: The question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or bad thing. It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstances...
Compulsion is bad--
(1) when the object aimed at is bad.
(2) when the object aimed at is good, but the compulsion employed is not calculated to obtain it;
(3) when the object aimed at is good, and the compulsion employed is calculated to obtain it, but at too great an expense.
Thus, to compel a man to commit murder is bad, because the object is bad.
To inflict a punishment sufficient to irritate but not sufficient to deter or to destroy for holding particular religious opinions is bad, because such compulsion is not calculated to effect its purpose, assuming it to be good.
To compel people not to trespass by shootig them with spring-guns is bad, because the harm done is out of all proportion to the harm avoided.
If, however, the object aimed at is good, if the compulsion employed such as to attain it, and if the good obtained overbalances the inconvenience of the compulsion itself, I do not understand how...the compulsion can be bad.

I am against the drug war, not because getting rid of drugs and halting their usage is bad in and of itself (it is in fact a good thing), but because the bad outweighs the good and the compulsions necessary can never be achieved without even worse consequences.

[Norrin Radd]

ja wrote: As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent to Raich, "Respondents use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

So what do you do when the rule makers and rule enforcers break the rules?

Awesome.

We have one supreme court judge who actually understands the constitution. ONE.

CLARENCE DISSENTED ON THE ISSUE OF COLLEGES AWARDING POINTS TO MINORITIES FOR ENTRANCE APPLICATIONS. Funny how a black judge was against reverse discrimination, but it just shows how little most of our judges care about justice, or the constitution.

The government oversteps it's authority on a daily basis. It had no right to pass an Income tax, as it was expressely forbidden from taxing the people in any way that was not uniform. An amendment does not make it o.k. for the government to do what it was forbidden to do by the constitution, although many people will disagree.

Does the government have the right to coerce states into passing laws? They did just that with seat belt laws, the drinking age, BAC levels and speed limit laws.

As far as drugs are concerned, it is obvious to any person who understand what individual liberty means, that the government does not have the right to make drugs illegal. Forcing prescriptions to be needed tog et drugs could possibly be argued, but there is not one single drug on earth which should be illegal.

As to marijauna, you would think that people would wonder why the FEDGOV will not allow medical marijauna, even though there are thousands of other prescription drugs which are much more harmful. Eleven states have passed laws allowing medical marijauna, yet the FEDGOV threatens to throw doctors in jail if they prescribe it. After the Supreme Court ruling on medical marijauna, they did state that doctors are allowed to reccomend to their patients to take marijauna, thus they basically admitted there is some medical benefit, but still bowed to the will of the FEDGOV.

It is asinine to allow doctors to recommend to their patients to but marijuana illegally, but not allow it to be prescribed. What are they afraid of?

What they are afraid of is their puppet masters who do not want HEMP to become legal. There are tens of thousadns of products which can be made from hemp and because anyone can grow hemp, this would hurt the control of natural resources which the corporations enjoy.

Hemp can be used to make paper, food, cloth, paints and varnishes, rope, canvas, many health and beauty products, fuel, plastic, as well as many other products.

Today, the USA is the only developed nation that has not established hemp as a crop, the Congressional Research Service says. Great Britain lifted its ban in 1993; Germany did so in 1996 and Canada followed two years later. The European Union has subsidized hemp production since the 1990s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-22-hemp-crop_x.htm

So why is the US the only industrialized country without a hemp crop?

Because the puppet masters tell our government to fight it tooth and nail as they know if hemp is ever legalized, it will hurt their control of natural resources.

Too bad their aren't more thinking people in America who are capable of asking themselves why the government fears hemp.

Too bad these sheeple actually buy the government's argument that hemp growers will mix marijuana in with hemp, when anyone who knows anything about marijauna knows that the majority of pot sold in America is grown indoors and that only fools would mix pot in with hemp because of cross pollination problems.

If anyone is interested, I highly recommend reading some of the info from the hearing on the marijauna tax act, especially the testimony of Dr. Woodward.

MARIJUANA TAX ACT 1937

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

DR. WOODWARD TESTIMONY

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/woodward.htm

Thinking people would ask themselves why the government sponsored films such as reffer madness and why claims were made that people who smoked marijuana would be driven to rape and murder.

Thinking people would wonder why the US FEDGOV fights so hard against hemp.

Thinking people would ask themselves why the government fights states so hard on hemp trials and medical marijauna.

Unfortunatly, there are not many thinking people left in America.

[kaptinemo]

It has already been established that the drug laws of this country were justified (by their proponents and no one else) under the rubric of being taxes, and thus 'legal' under (admittedly, a very liberal) interpretation of the Commerce Clause of Constitution.

Had this been a period of strict adherence to the Constitution, it is doubtful that such laws would have been passed. But any good history of that period will show a willingness on the part of forces that would be later called 'liberalism' or 'progressivism' to abandon former Constitutional boundaries such as encompassing taxation (the drug laws came into being in the same period as the income tax) in favor a of a more relaxed interpretation of Congressional and Executive powers.

In such an environment the very first Federal drug laws were passed, according powers to the Federal government that previously had been denied to it. From that period of early (and perhaps, incredibly naive) social activism designed to influence human behavior (and in effect 'legislate morality') do our present drug laws originate.

One has every right to ask, given what has happened in the intervening 92 years, whether this effort has been worth it.

What has happened since, is that law after law, built on the foundation of that almost Pollyanna-esque naivete, have been making ever more incremental infringements upon the rights of the citizens. Which brings us to the question: As President Carter pointed out almost 30 years ago, a bad law should not be adhered to if it causes more harm than the behavior it is meant to regulate. What to do when a law that was deemed Constitutional in one era is being viewed as increasingly destructive of Constitutional rights in a later era?

The obvious answer is to change the law. But if that law happens to be the underpinning of a bureaucracy whose very survival requires the law remain intact? The implications should be obvious, for that is precisely the situation that we presently experience. To make matters worse, in a twisting of the original intent of the law, those agencies that benefit so greatly from the prosecution of those laws have the full use of taxpayer resources to sabotage any popular efforts to try to change those laws. In fact, this has been stated as official policy.

That this is in violation of the Hatch Act as applying to civil servants using taxpayer funded resources for partisan purposes should be obvious. However, just as in the past, with the passage of Federal drug laws in an earlier era, in this era, such interpretations of what is legal or illegal apparently depends entirely upon who is in power.

[lovebush]

flamboyant wrote: bigstick61 wrote: The simple answer to that question is "no." It is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress and as such, and also as reinforced by the 10th Amendment, it is a matter left entirely up to the States, provided one believes in obeying the Constitution. However, Congress may regulate, place a tarriff on, or prohibit the importation of drugs, and also regulate the interstate commerce of drugs (as with any other good; this does not imply a power to prhibit, just the power to settle the differences between States), as well as place excise taxes on drugs as is done with alcohol, tobacco, and NFA weapons.

Damn, you know your stuff then. I had to look all that up. Hopefully we can get some who favor criminalization in here and that's when we can start getting into the finer points.

I think it would be really cool actually if we could take the little bit from the Constitutional Issues section of the article and put it into more detail at Wikipedia.


Im for criminalisation of most drugs, but Im on the fence for pot. maybe this thread will sway me.

Isn"t there a clause that says something to the effect of "ensuring the general welfare..."? If there is it could be aplied here.

[lovebush]

brian bennett wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Altering one's state of mind is not a fundamental right. I find it funny how people are always claiming things as fundamental rights which never were.

my good man, THE fundamental right is to exercise your will upon yourself. your mind is the most sacrosanct property you possess. if you honestly believe that you don't have the fundamental right to freely alter your own mind, then i'm afraid i can scarcely consider you human.

i find it funny how people can't comprehend that without the absolute right to act upon oneself as one sees fit, one simply has no rights.



Would you also argue that what one does in that altered state, if it harms or endangers someone else they should lose their liberty. and if they harm themselves they are solely responsible for their own medical expenses. I have a friend who thinks all drugs should be legal and also believes in socialized medicine. to me liberty must be coupled with responsibility. I dont see that likely to happen any time soon.

[lovebush]

bigstick61 wrote: Y

I am against the drug war, not because getting rid of drugs and halting their usage is bad in and of itself (it is in fact a good thing), but because the bad outweighs the good and the compulsions necessary can never be achieved without even worse consequences.



As a former iv meth addict who would no doubt be dead if it werent for the war on drugs, Im inclined to disagree.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: [

Unfortunatly, there are not many thinking people left in America.


Justice Thomas is great! but just because someone doesnt think like you doesnt mean they dont think. It might be possible there is an aspect of the issue that you haddnt thought of.