Posted on 02/24/2010 3:24:36 AM PST by Scanian
I am open to changing strategies in dealing with drugs. If it could be proved that legalization would be better for society, it should be done.
My main gripe with a lot of the Libertarian arguments on the issue is that they are not based upon practical considerations, but on a phony, sanctimonious cry for “freedom from government oppression” that interferes with their “inallienable right” to snort, inject, smoke or otherwise consume whatever they want, no matter how great and how likely the harm to other people is.
Drug use is not a constitutional right and drug policy is not an issue of civil rights or freedom, but one of public policy.
Are you going to set aside special money to keep non-violent drug users in jail when the money is gone?
Will your priorities change as to who to keep in jail and who to let out?
We are long beyond the stage when the cry of “State’s Rights” was potent enough to win elections or sway the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Constitution requires states to give full faith and credit to the judgments of sister states, so, absent the federal Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriages in one state arguably have to be recognized in other states. In addition, drugs and pornography readily travel across state lines and incontestably implicate the commerce clause in that respect at least.
Alcohol prohibition. As I stated earlier, you don't see Budweiser and Coors delivery guys gunning each other down in the streets.
People like me see the trillions wasted in trying to impose a failing solution and wonder if there isn't a better way to do things.
Got you covered on that.
The costs of federal law enforcement against drugs and the worst forms of pornography are relatively small and aid in the enforcement of similar state laws. Do the math: it is federal entitlement programs that imperil our finances, not the federal costs of chasing drug dealers and child pornographers.
Who should be in jail should be determined on a case by case basis. I’d imagine most of those imprisoned for drugs probably deserve the sentences they received, and more. Keep in mind there are undoubtedly a lot of murderers, rapists, robbers in prison for drugs, because that is the crime they were caught committing. There are probably a lot less truly “non-violent” drug offenders in prison than you think.
If there are some who received excessively long sentences for mere possession, or very low level distribution, I wouldn’t mind seeing them released to make room for more dangerous offenders.
That said, I believe more prisons should be built. There are a lot of people walking the streets and terrorizing society, who belong in a cage, but are not because of the lack of prison space. I believe that the cost of a prison cell is one of the best investments society can make.
It is really a private property right issue.
When you don’t own your body, the government does. When your private property is not secure from unreasonable search and seizure, you have no property rights. We’ve seen this happen again and again with mistakes in addresses, false tips given to police. Innocent people have died, because the drug warriors have traded their rights away for the illusion of security.
If someone is whacked out and driving on a public road, I want them removed from the public road to protect others. If they are walking and in danger of falling in front of a vehicle on a public road, I want them removed so my car doesn’t get hurt. (trying to be funny, sorry)
If it is my neighbor that is whacked out on any substance and they pose a provable harm to me by their actions, the police have a right to get involved.
Wrong answer. Setting drug policy is not a function the Constitution GIVES to government. Nowhere in Art 1 Sec 8 does that duty lie.
As for how it is currently being upheld by the courts, therein lies my real issue with the whole topic. They have had to come up with the most insane and convoluted reasoning to continue their illegal laws. This disrespect for our governing framework has been used against the firearms industry, tobacco, the automobile industry, medical care, salt, fatty foods, and only the Gods know what else.
Do some folks just want to get high? Yes. More than likely. Should we have to pay for their medical care or incarceration? No. These costs are only a burden to the rest of us because of government. "More government" is almost never the right answer to any given problem.
The constitutional issues were raised and decided in the US Supreme Court. In brief, the Court held repeatedly that federal authority on those issues is based on the expansive view of the federal commerce clause that was adopted during the New Deal. That was after Prohibition. In addition, even when Congress has the power to act by statute, they may nevertheless propose a constitutional amendment so as to consult the states and secure both a political consensus and undisputed constitutional authority.
“The LP got co-opted by the 9/11 Truthers and “Anti-war at any cost” crowd.”
Same folks I was referring to. Nowadays the LP is not worth being associated with.
We have the highest incarceration levels of the industrial world. 2.5 million in our jails. I’d like to reserve that space for criminals that have actual victims.
That is less than 1% of the population. Sadly, I have little doubt the criminal population is considerably higher than that.
If I had to make the choice between releasing a low level crack dealer and a serial rapist, or child molester, I would without a doubt let the dealer go. However, we should not need to make that choice.
It has been proved. Look to the past for the proof. Before the turn of the 20th century drugs were legal in this country, there were no more addicts per thousand people than there are now, in fact there may have been fewer per thousand than there are now. There was never a "temperance" movement to outlaw drugs, only Alcohol(why was that if drugs are so evil) and that was a big mistake. If you haven't learned the lesson of prohibiting things such as drugs and alcohol from the history of prohibition in the USA then you will never learn the lesson.
Beck, the Tea Party, and this new conservative movement all give me hope though. As long as it doesn't get torpedoed from within by RINO power brokers. They are every bit as much a threat as the Democrats IMO. I've been saying the same since I started posting here back in 1999.
07-24-2009:
47% support
42% oppose
11% undecided
11-22-2009:
49% support
38% oppose
12% undecided
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/california/49_in_california_favor_legalizing_taxing_pot
______________________________
If CA votes to legalize, will you support their authority to do so under the Tenth Amendment, or do you want fedgov to shut it down under the authority of the Commerce Clause?
The length of time a false belief is held does not lend it veritas. People thought the world was flat for a thousand years, it didn't make them factually correct.
“Beck, the Tea Party, and this new conservative movement all give me hope though. As long as it doesn’t get torpedoed from within by RINO power brokers. They are every bit as much a threat as the Democrats IMO”
I agree with every word you posted there.
Careful. We might turn you into a “l”ibertarian yet. ;-)
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.