Posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
You have just described Congress.
One person…told the FBI Talovic said he hated “faggots” and was smoking opium and crystal meth. ...(more)...here...
http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?p=2115
Noteworthy, but propabably on something more powerful than drugs. Jihad.
Rather than argue with you, I would urge you to post what you would like to see happen. That way your point of view gets aired without us bickering for hours.
That sounds like the gun grabber hysteria that if we 'legalise' citizens carrying guns then we'll have a return to the wild west with shootings every day on every corner.
Neither is true.
Absent the war, I doubt that it would either exist or be a problem.
When folks were able to sit inside and have a beer and a cigarette, they were much less likely to seek a faster, cheaper, longer-lasting high.
neo-prohibition and smoking bans have been a significant part of destroying a formerly congenial society.
Your bet is safe, PGalt. That would involve more personal freedom. Not going to happen.
I didn’t even comment on the “War on Drugs.”
I simply pointed out that it appears that Tom is angling for the Libertarian nomination. Is there something in this story that makes such a comment unreasonable?
Interesting pro/con discussion. Thanks to all posters.
/FR
That is left up to the states and municipalities.
The states and municipalities should be able to decide whether or not drugs are illegal.
The only thing the feds add is armament, prosecutarial succession beyond the lifetime of the perpetrator and military gear and tactics.
Singapore had at least a 70% higher rate of heroin addiction than the Netherlands. The US had about twice the rate of the Netherlands. Iran was reported by the BBC to have the worst heroin problem in the world. link
What is your evidence that the WOD reduces addiction, or that addiction would skyrocket without prohibition?
Haven't heard about meth, have you?
You do know that we are talking about “government”, and not simply “federal government”, right?
And the courts have longed ruled that the federal government has a constitutional authority to try interstate crimes, including murder, in certain cases. I have not seen a strong libertarian push to eliminate all federal crimes from the criminal statutes, but I suppose there could be a few people who would argue that point. I’m just surprised to find one.
First, there are federal laws for murder, as well as other crimes that cross state boundaries in certain circumstances. We even have a federal force called the FBI to investigate crimes that cross state boundaries. Some of those laws I might argue are outside the federal authority, but not all of them.
And we were talking about legalizing drugs and abandoning the war on drugs, not simply removing federal penalties. But certainly the federal government has the right to control commerce the crosses national boundaries, since it explicitly has the right to regulate interstate commerce AND to deal with other nations.
But really, we were discussing all levels of government, not just federal law, if we were going to legalize drugs.
Apathy or cynicism about failing to control the Southern border. What next, amnesty?
The Constitution grants FedGov jurisdiction in only THREE crimes. Now remember the Tenth Amendment. If authority is not granted, IT DOES NOT EXIST. The ONLY exception, as I pointed out, is under the Congress’ authority to regulate the military and naval forces, period. Which, of course, applies SOLELY to members of those forces.
Crime is LOCAL. The Several States (and their political subdivisions) are the ONLY LEGITIMATE authority to deal with crime. End of story. It is when well-meaning idiots think that there is something special about “interstate” crime that we have another building block for Leviathan. Now if you want to try to make a case for having a federal agency that could pick up and return a fleeing criminal to STATE jurisdiction, maybe we can talk, but Federal CRIMES? Forget about it. That is just ONE of the myriad of ways we got to the point we are at now. Piracy, Treason, Counterfeiting... those are ALL that are ALLOWED to be federal crimes. That was the clear intent of the Founders and that is what we need a return to today. This federal juggernaut is what it is because of allegedly well meaning people not too dissimilar to you. And you need to realize that it is now and has always BEEN wrong to involve the Feds where they are NOT ALLOWED TO GO. Never forget the camel’s nose and the tent. Right now about 95 percent of the camel is in the tent and there’s no room for who is SUPPOSED to be there.
“But really, we were discussing all levels of government, not just federal law, if we were going to legalize drugs.”
All that really needs to be done is to repeal the laws that criminalize the sale, possession and use of drugs. Simple, really. (Same thing with firearms: Repeal the NFA, GCA ‘68 and the other infringements, federal, state and local and be done with it.) You alluded to gun laws earlier, IIRC. The ONLY level of government that has ANY business writing laws which deal with weapons are the LOCAL governments which may ONLY properly define when and where a weapon may be discharged in a NON-emergency situation, such as going out for hunting or target-shooting. Same thing with drug use: LOCAL authorities may properly limit where one can use a substance outside of one’s home, just as they do with bars. No more than that. Of course, DWI laws can and should be enforced.
Agreed. The problem is that Wickard and its progeny opened the floodgates for fedgov to control just about every domestic concern at the expense of the Tenth Amendment.
Simple yes/no question: Do you think Wickard is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause?
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.