SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS (This Is Gettin' Scary)

New York Post ^ | September 16, 2004 | KENNETH LOVETT

[robertpaulsen]

Socialism? You lost me there, headsonpikes. Care to expound for the class?

[freeeee]

Soros needs to have an "accident" or suffer a mysterious stroke.

"Well, you're heart is in the right place, but I recommend a 'suicide'."

[Protagoras]

that all politics is local.

You can't get more "local" than each person deciding who or what to vote for.

This cannot be a good development.

Advancing ideas is always a good idea even if the ideas themselves are not. People can be trusted to get what they want,,,,or deserve.

[thoughtomator]

I thought you were interested in discussing the merits of repealing the Rockerfeller laws. What happened, did I ask a question for which you have no good answer? Remind me again please, why did we need to amend the Constitution for alcohol prohibition?

[tacticalogic]

Like you (you left-wing troll -- you gotta love the well-reasoned and thoughtful response to your arguments), I tire of reading the lies of the posters who like to use inflammatory words and phrases like "tyranny", "violation of the inalienable rights of man", "plain contravention of the ... Constitution", and "enable the government to more fully control its citizens".

But you'll fully support having those same people pay taxes to fund John Walters engaging in "hyperbole" that supports your view of the subject.

[Protagoras]

A sinister attempt to destroy the communities most harmed by drug dealing and drug use. Much as the first abortion clinics were opened in minority communities to keep that population down.

Tin Foil time. It's a vast left wing conspiracy.

[Tempest]

"contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party"

Now there's a catchy title for a pot smoking organization. Who couldn't love that.

[1Old Pro]

Albany would be dead if state government wasn't located there. WHY? Because the drug problem causes frightening crime and people stay away from the city.

So what's the DA gonna do? Not prosecute drug crimes? He doesn't change the law, it's the senate and assembly.

[wideawake]

If drug prohibition as it stands is constitutional, why then was it necessary to amend the Constitution for alcohol prohibition?

It was necessary because Prohibition was a nationwide ban - until that time the several states reserved the right to make decisions about alcohol availability.

The several states could ban alcohol if they wanted to, just as the states today can ban crack if they want to.

As it stands the Federal government has no power to prohibit drugs unless they cross state borders or the national borders. But the individual states certainly retain that right under the Tenth Amendment to internally legislate.

[robertpaulsen]

Numerous federal courts over the years have ruled that the second amendment only applies to the federal government -- your RKBA is protected solely by your state constitution.

New York is one of six states whose state constitutions are silent on the RKBA.

[Protagoras]

I wonder if you or any of these jokers understands what tyranny actually is.

Anyone who disagrees with you on the meaning of tyranny is a joker? That's pretty funny, so maybe you are a joker. That is, one who tells jokes. LOL

[freddiedavis]

oligarchist soros attacks again...

[Know your rights]

I'll define one form of freedom for you - the freedom in knowing that your day is your own and that it won't have to be spent in stealing, borrowing or begging for just enough money to buy your next fix.

If freedom ought not include the freedom to risk addiction, it seems clear that it also ought not include the freedom to risk death, so skydiving, rock climbing, etc. are right out.

And since some currently illegal drugs (e.g., marijuana) are less addictive than alcohol, you'll doubtless be calling for either the legalization of those drugs or the criminalization of alcohol. Right?

[68 grunt]

... I tire ...

You lie! If you were tired you wouldn't participate. You live for these threads, its where you, personally, get achieve the maximum division, as well as embarrassing those of us who revere the Constitution.

[Know your rights]

So what's the DA gonna do? [...] He doesn't change the law

No, but his office is a bully pulpit, and the voters didn't like what the incumbent was preaching.

[Protagoras]

I'll define one form of freedom for you - the freedom in knowing that your day is your own and that it won't have to be spent in stealing, borrowing or begging for just enough money to buy your next fix.

That's one form. I'm glad you are enjoying it. It seems like a good form.

But it's not the only kind.

You believe in theoretical freedom - I believe in the actual article.

The kind of "freedom" where one group of people with guns tells other people what they can and cannot ingest? That's actual freedom?

[wideawake]

Numerous federal courts over the years have ruled that the second amendment only applies to the federal government -- your RKBA is protected solely by your state constitution.

Is it really that simple? Could an individual state legislate to ban a certain religion for example?

Could an individual legislate to ban a free press?

New York is one of six states whose state constitutions are silent on the RKBA.

What are the other five?

[thoughtomator]

That seems sensible. The only problem is that it does not conform to reality. The ban on some drugs is also a nationwide prohibition, and, as is evidenced by the Federal interference in medical-marijuana laws passed by several states, the states apparently do not, according to the current regime, have the right to choose whether or not to ban the drugs in question. All the states have the right to do, apparently, is to make state drug laws more harsh than federal laws.

So do you feel that the Federal government is out of place in telling the states what to do on this issue? Do you then agree that a federal Drug Czar is a position for which there is no Constitutional justification?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

In the literal sense of the word a law passed by the duly elected representatives of a state cannot be tyrannical - you dislike the law so you call it tyrannical, but it can only be so described metaphorically - the actual conditions necessary for tyranny do not obtain.

Have you ever heard of a quaint little phrase that goes like this: "tyranny of the masses"?

[thoughtomator]

All you have to do is follow that logic to its natural conclusion in order to federalize every aspect of human life.

Let's say a person is sick with a disease that is fatal if untreated, but a cure is available. Should the government be able to force him to spend his money on treatment, and to undergo that treatment?