Posted on 11/28/2004 9:20:33 AM PST by Ellesu
I do not believe that the regulation of drugs belongs at the state level, and I do not believe that the regulation of drugs would work at the state level if it were there (assuming an amendment similar in wording to the 21st amendment were ratified).
The only reason that it worked at the state level for alcohol was that all states wanted to legalize all forms of alcohol. That is certainly not the case for drugs. Plus there are international agreements and treaties that would need to be addressed.
It seems to me that there are some posters on this board, including you, who have a death wish for this country. You will argue that the drug decision belongs at the state level. You will try to make a constitutional case for that end.
What if you're right? What if the drug decision really does belong, constitutionally, at the state level? Do you think that's the best way to deal with that issue?
I can see you now saying, "Whether or not it will work at the state level is not our point, robertpaulsen. It belongs at the state level, and by God that's where we'll put it no matter if this country goes down the toilet because of it!"
It's like the technical side of the argument is more important to you and your ilk than the practical considerations.
You want the states to handle the decision. Why? Will any state legalize more than marijuana, if they legalize anything at all? You don't think a state would legalize heroin, or methamphetamine, or OxyContin, or even cocaine (which can be easily converted to crack), do you?
So we're to go through this huge upheaval in our drug laws and our drug classification system, drug approval method, prescription system, et cetera, for what? So that a few states can legalize pot for adults?
Are you nuts?
Knowing you, though, you'll just then shift to "FDR's New Deal Necessary and Proper Clause".
Well, it'll at least be a change.
"Are you nuts?"
No, but I do believe 2 things.
One, the Constitution as written and intended should be allowed to work the way it was designed.
Two, most problems we face between "right" and "left" are because the federal government has implemented "one size fits all" solutions to many of our problems. Education, welfare, retirement savings, drug policy, abortion, etc... and thus America is "more divided than ever".
I believe that America was designed to consist of individual "social colonies" within one nation. Will there be some problems initially by reasserting States' rights? Of course. Will they be worse than what we have now? I don't see how.
"Do you think that's the best way to deal with that issue?"
Yes, I do. As I said, the federal government is TOO big and it is trying to handle TOO many issues. Since it has proven it cannot effectively do so, the only solution in my mind is to relegate some powers back to the States. Since we cannot put States in charge of coining money, establishing a national army, or negotiating international policy, we must give States the powers they are capable of handling, in accordance with the Constitution.
Once we deviate from the Constitution as intended, it becomes irrelevant and meaningless. At this point, we can either revert to a Constitutional republic, or we may as well abandon the whole thing all together in favor of a democracy, monarchy, or some militaristic dictatorship. I prefer the Constitutional republican approach.
Better get busy. You've got a boatload of history to rewrite.
Hah! Essentially what I predicted from you in my post, but without the reference to "down the toilet".
You want to play hardball and go that route, fine. The USSC says the Constitution is working the way it was designed. Therefore, if you want the drug decision at the state level, pass an amendment similar in wording to the 21st, just like the country did for alcohol.
No more compromises from robertpaulsen. Get your 2/3 of Congress and your 3/4 of states before you do anything with drugs, especially marijuana. Let the vast majority of states that wish to maintain illegality have their say. Let the states decide if they wish to share a border with a state that legalizes drugs.
Any state that starts dickin' around with things like "medical" marijuana or not arresting mere "users", federalize the National Guard, round up those those responsible, and charge them with treason. No more of this "withholding federal highway funds" bull$hit.
Changes to the Constitution were intended to be accomplished via the amendment process. Since you're the quintessential advocate of constitutional procedure, you and your friends can start a petition.
So there.
Awwww. Wait, I think I hear America the Beautiful playing in the background.
And when that "social colony" legalizes drugs and experiences an increase in addiction, crime, injury, insurance cost, unemployment cost, health care cost, who pays for that? Is that increased cost confined to the "social colony"?
Not today it isn't, and I'll be damned if I'm going to subsidize some state with my federal taxes that wants to turn on, tune in, and drop out.
You need to consider dismantling this huge nanny state we've created before you even think about taking an action that would dramatically increase the number of people on federal social programs.
I like it. Seat belt laws, BAC, all of it. You either do what the feds want, or you pick up an gun and say "No.".
Are states violating the Supremacy Clause if they do not have these laws?
Troll.
Who knows? Until the USSC says one way or another there's just no telling, is there?
Not you.
There is no federal seat belt law or federal BAC law. There would be no Supremacy Clause violation. There would be no violation of oath of office.
You meet the definition of a troll. Wear the title proudly.
Even without considering things like seat belt laws and BAC, the idea of nationalizing the NG, and turning them against the eight states that have MM laws, it's going to be interesting. Those were passed by initiative, approved by a majority of the voters. That's going to be a lot of people being charged with treason.
Sir,
The federal government ONLY has the initial authority to regulate drugs IF there is such a provision in the Constitution EXPLICITLY. I can't find one.
You seem to read the Constitution exactly backwards and inside out.
"And when that "social colony" legalizes drugs and experiences an increase in addiction, crime, injury, insurance cost, unemployment cost, health care cost, who pays for that?"
Let's see, the cops not investigating drug users will free them up to solve "real" crimes.
Health insurance and care is NOT a right, and if insurance companies were allowed to operate freely, they could exclude high risk people like drug users, smokers, fat people who don't exercise...
What insurance cost?
Unemployment cost? I don't know what that is. If anything, it will be easier for me to get a job, since all these people are going to become drug addicts overnight, so I can get their jobs.
You sound like a social marxist who thinks it is the job of either me or the government to make sure other people lead their lives in a healthy, responsible, positive manner. I believe that is impossible.
They go to jail.
Which "state officials" would those be, in the case of a voter initiative?
What did you do -- a word search for "drugs"? Well no wonder.
The framers weren't that specific. Did you expect them to be?
Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. Since then, it has been challenged in a number of federal courts on a number of grounds. With the exception of Raich (to be decided shortly), every single court, every single ruling, without exception, has found the legislation constitutional.
You can't find one? Well, the USSC did, and they're the ones that count.
The legislators who then wrote the unconstitutional state law.
Are you saying that a state voter initiative to re-institute segregation, and passed by a majority of voters, would be constitutional law? That state legislators can draft a segregation statute without legal consequences?
"Real" crime has been going down, even without legalizing drugs.
Big "if" with the insurance companies. And until that happens, the insured (me) share the risk. More risky people in the group, the higher the premiums for all of us.
"Unemployment cost? I don't know what that is."
Short memory? You don't remember Bush extending unemployment benefits?
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush signed a bill Wednesday to extend another 13 weeks of federal unemployment benefits to more than 2 million laid-off workers, including about 800,000 whose benefits ran out after Christmas.
-- Wednesday, January 8, 2003
"You sound like a social marxist who thinks it is the job of either me or the government to make sure other people lead their lives in a healthy, responsible, positive manner."
Just the opposite. You asked about my position on the issues and I responded. Remember that?
I want the government out of the position of taking care of us from cradle to grave. What in the world have I said to deserve the "social marxist" label? That I'm against drugs? Pretty quick with the labels there.
I would be VERY slow to label any USSC since Earl Warren showed up as reading the Constitution in a "strict Constructionist" manner.
I understand your statement, but I have previously said that stare decisis is invalid when the precedent is based on faulty judicial interpretation and/or activism.
In other words, I expect Scalia (and the judges we're supposedly going to get soon from Bush) to agree with me, specifically that the federal government has no business dictating whether or not I may take a certain herb, pill, drug, or other substance.
"Big "if" with the insurance companies."
That's why I said "if they were allowed to operate freely", which they aren't, just as auto manufacturers, airlines are not either.
I'm wondering why you never responded to my suggestion of a PRIVATE company taking the place of the FDA. You asked how I would handle it, and then ignored the response.
Government should not be providing unemployment compensation for anybody, so I don't factor that into a discussion which revolves around these hypothetical discussions. Besides, I would suspect that a person who gets fired for missing work due to a drug addiction would not qualify.
You claim that you don't want womb to tomb gov't, but you want gov't to tell us which drugs are "acceptable". I see that as inconsistent. I want individual liberty in all forms to the greatest extent possible. Liberty means allowing people to make bad choices. I labeled you because you seem to want gov't to prevent people from making bad choices (bad according to you).
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.