Posted on 02/18/2006 6:28:37 PM PST by MRMEAN
Spending billions in taxpayer dollars with no clear progress? Inserting government agents into Americans' private lives? Holding a million men and women in prison for what are mostly nonviolent crimes?
Please, how does any of that promote the values that principled conservatives hold dear?
None of it does, of course.
But now, seemingly all of a sudden, people on the left aren't the only ones expressing doubts about America's war on (some) drugs. Some of America's most energized conservatives - activists and intellectuals on the right - are openly asking, "Isn't there a better way to deal with drug abuse than the old lock-'em-up-forever approach?"
At week's end, thousands of conservative activists gathered in Washington for the annual CPAC, the massive Conservative Police Action Conference, half pep rally and half conservative family reunion. The attendees were regaled with the usual conservative litany - warnings about illegal immigration, attacks on the liberal media, throaty calls for a muscular war on terrorism. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove revved up the crowd.
"Conservatism is the dominant political creed in America," Rove declared approvingly.
But this power group of fired-up conservatives also heard something else, a message that seemed to come as a surprise to some in the sprawling meeting room: pointed and serious questions about America's 35-year campaign to rid the nation of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs.
Who'd have expected this at a CPAC meeting? Extended comments from the podium by Ethan Nadelman, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a man who has been called the invisible hand of drug reform in America. A former Princeton University professor, Nadelman has guided the national fight for medical marijuana and been a key player in the battle to ease the draconian Rockefeller-era drug laws in New York.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
1.5 million arrests and $39 billion tax dollars last year!
What costs are these alleged "risks" creating for the clinics? They're operating openly.
Oh? The pot "clinics" are endlessly promoting legalization.
First, many clinics do not grow their own supply. They must buy from growers who risk jailtime. That is why it costs 300/oz wholesale.
Second, the feds seem to enjoy busting these legal clinics from time to time.
Go figure.
Why would they need to do that?
I thought it was supposed to be so easy.
Like the Oakland city council? That didn't work.
Yes, it's really right. It takes a social liberal to even want recreational drugs.
Is that the Lew Rockwell Child Care Center?
Could be, but I don't quite see any adults in the picture spitting on the child, so I can't be certain.
LOL!
They're just following the law the voters passed. You don't support the right of the voters to self determination?
.
ROFL!
Did she drink that bottle of Seagrams too?
Was that the page following 'President Bush Meets With Space Aliens'?
.
Nope. Proposition 215 did not allow sales.
I bet you can't see it, but it is precisely that kind of unsupportable hyperbole that makes so many conservatives turn completely off, when any discussion about legalizing drugs come up.
There is virtually no rational argument that could be advanced to support your contention that the "DEA and its agents" are an unconstitutional entity of the U.S. government. The "Necessary and Proper" clause, Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18, specifically empowers Congress "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the...powers vested by this Constitution".
And in the case of regulating drugs like heroin and cocaine, there are two types of constitutional powers Congress is "carrying into execution". First, they are enacting anti-drug laws, through the exercise of the power granted them in the "Foreign Commerce" clause (not the "Interstate Commerce" clause), Art. I, sec.8, cl. 3 which grants them plenary authority over all foreign commerce.
The second power they are "carrying into execution" is that of the President's duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Art. II, sec. 3), by creating what ever executive agencies, personnel, training or equipment that Congress deems necessary to aid the President in that task.
Nor are there any 9th or 10th Amendment rights "retained by the people" that apply in such a case, since in matters of foreign commerce and foreign affairs, the Constitution grants those powers exclusively to the national government.
Every bit of what I described above follows the Constitution down to the last letter. In no way, is it unconstitutional, as you claim.
No, I live in the real world where our drug laws are working much better than Prohibition did. Maybe you can explain why you feel differently, rather than firing off one line repartees.
There's about 20 million drug users and we're only arresting 1.5 million of them. Plenty of room to decrease the number of users and increase arrests.
"You guys told us that teen use of marijuana would skyrocket in California if we passed the medical marijuana initiative."
So when you say illicit drug use increased, you're going by what some people said would happen? Why aren't you using actual facts instead?
"You still have not shown a decrease in anything that can be attributed to the Sin War."
Then you would have to believe that ending the "Sin War" would not increase the use of drugs. You may be the only one who believes that.
"The Commerce Clause of the Constitution now trumps the Constitution itself. That was done to enforce marijuana prohibition."
One question for you. Are you saying that Congress does not have the power to regulate the commerce of drugs between states?
Legalize marijuana and you still have $50B of "underworld smuggling, killing and laundering U.S. currency".
Unless, of course, you are proposing the legalization of ALL drugs. Are you?
Liberty carries with it responsibility. What's responsible about smoking a drug to get high? What's "free" about being hooked on drugs?
You're acting as though you live on an island and that your actions have no effect on the rest of society. Every day we see the impact of alcohol use. Why would I want to add another legal drug to the mix?
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.