Posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
I’ll answer that for you... since the original intent of the founders was solely to ensure a level playing field on trade between the States (to prevent, for example, Maryland from imposing a tariff on goods coming from Pennsylvania to either sell in Maryland or continue on to Virginia), that would be a “NO” for sure!
And we could watch the fireball while stoned....coooooool dude!
I don't know if we can blame ALL of the loss of civil liberties on the WOsD, but certainly a good bit.
Just like the left only has 'tolerance' for those that agree with them, many on the right want to pick and choose which civil liberties are important. It's like those that pick and choose certain parts of the Bible to follow.
Is there anything that says that you have to comment on a topic before I solicit your opinion on that topic? I don’t think so.
If you don’t wish to comment, no problemo, don’t.
IMO stating that the WOD has been lost and should be discontinued is only a sign of sanity, nothing more.
Sure I have. It's here. In town.
That is a fair reading of the intent of the founders, and one which I agree with, in large part. However, whose authority is to prevail in a condition where one state allows the export of a product that another state bans as contraband? What is to stop California (as an instance), from producing heroine by the truckload and sending it merrily on it's way into many states that do not allow heroine distribution or sales?
The spirit of the ICC is to keep peace between the states severally, to prevent trade wars, where one state might use law to the disadvantage of it's peers. While interstate contraband was not addressed specifically, I would think it falls within that federal sphere.
Bear in mind that I give that authority sparingly, though - I stand closer to the libertarians on this issue than they might think. The realities of interstate highways, railroads, and air flights are what give me pause. These were not foreseen (nor could they be) by our forefathers. That contraband from one state could enter another half a continent away in less than a day makes any authority but federal rather unworkable.
A poor analogy. Guns are not addictive.
Neither is true.
And my statement certainly is true. Anything one endorses, or makes easier, one will get more of. Look at *any* example, and it is always the same.
"No-fault" divorce - There's a good one... Make divorce easy to do, divorces go through the roof. Legalize abortions - BOOM! abortions skyrocket. Legalize gambling, suddenly there's a slot machine in every mini-mart, and you can't find a decent place to eat without those bloody machines going off in the background. Why would drugs be any different?
It is all about mainstreaming the worst of mankind's vices, things which have not been native here, nor in polite society historically. It isn't liberty. It is libertine, and it is wrong.
Nonsense. People experiment with all kinds, any kind of thing to get their high. The next iteration will be cheaper, more addictive, and a better high. It is pharmakopia and has been going on since the beginning of time.
No, good analogy.
Just as the gun grabbers are wrong, so are the Reefer Madness hyperbolists.
Curren drug laws not only increase drug abuse they make criminals out of medical patients ala Rush Limbaugh.
Designer drugs are a direct result of the WOD, attempting to skirt the law by slightly altering the chemical structure of other illegal drugs.
The WOD also corrupts police and the judiciary.
Nice to see where your priorities are when you defend the WOD.
It is about individual freedom and liberty. This is...well was...a free country or was founded to be one.
Divorce isn't relevant to this discussion but just because one isn't easy to obtain doesn't mean than those involved are healthier than those who can get divorced.
“Yay! Another advocate for Freedom and Liberty!”
If I had my way pot smokers would be executed.
I nominate a cousin to be first!
What other vices would you deem worthy of death?
IMO the country was lost the day I had to present ID and sign for cold medicine.
Following your own first link lead to this, statistically:
And using 1900, an historical high (pardon the pun), due to morphine addictions growing out of the civil war is rather disingenuous. That decade (00-10) spurred the first federal laws (1914) regarding narcotics in food products and medicines because of a growing awareness of a runaway addiction problem, don't you know. Those laws delivered an almost immediate decline in addiction which lasted all the way into the 50's.
Look. It is my position that the WoD is wrongly applied in the first place. I agree with the libertarian view that it is failing, or has failed, but I disagree wholly with the reason for that failure, and with the idea that we should just simply throw up our hands and give up.
Enforcement, properly and lawfully executed, must certainly be part of the equation. Though I would do it in an entirely different manner. Perhaps looking for common ground would be more constructive than being diametrically opposed.
Secondly, societal norms must be restored to curtail the growing subculture that encourages the use of drugs. Family must be readily encouraged and preferred, discarding the notion of easy divorces, and the current preference toward single parent households. What one endorses, one will get more of - Endorse vice, get more vice. Endorse virtue, get more virtue.
To a degree you are right. It is about justice and liberty together. We are a nation of laws, not people. Individual freedom for everyone is called anarchy.
Reefer Madness? This goes FAR beyond "Reefer Madness" into the legalization of every narcotic known to man. An absurd proposition, by any account.
Curren drug laws not only increase drug abuse they make criminals out of medical patients ala Rush Limbaugh.
That statement is beyond absurd. As a current addicted prescription user of oxycontin/vicodin, I am asking you, do you have any idea what doses are involved to cause hearing loss?
The WOD also corrupts police and the judiciary.
I know. I am not in favor of the current state of affairs, and I have said as much.
Nice to see where your priorities are when you defend the WOD.
I do not defend the WOD. I have stated several times on this thread that I believe the current federal incarnation to be malformed, and that it not only removes vital personal rights, but states rights also, and gives them unlawfully to the federal government. I am *not* for that, and require that those rights are removed from the federal government with all due haste.
But neither do I subscribe to your rather narrow "Do your own thing" view. There will be no way to remove the burgeoning welfare system without addressing the flotsam left in the wake of drug abuse. Nor will drug abuse be curtailed without reducing the welfare system. One creates the other.
What are you talking about? The article said there were 400,000 opiate addicts in 1880 due to addicted Civil War veterans. That works out to 0.8% (population 50,000,000). By 1900, only 0.5% were addicted to either cocaine or opiates. That means there was a substantial fall in the addiction rate while drugs were still freely available. I'm not sure where you get that 1900 was a high.
Those laws delivered an almost immediate decline in addiction which lasted all the way into the 50's.
How do you know this was a causal relationship? Alcohol prohibition didn't reduce drinking for very long. By the time it was repealed, consumption was near pre-prohibition levels.
What one endorses, one will get more of - Endorse vice, get more vice. Endorse virtue, get more virtue.
Doesn't seem to work out that way when you look at addiction figures for Singapore, the US, Iran, and the Netherlands. And the addiction rate now is triple what it was in 1900, according to the DOJ.
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.