Posted on 09/01/2011 9:03:00 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy
Two and a half minutes.
That is the time it took for several armed men to storm a casino in northern Mexico, order the patrons to get out and torch the place with gasoline. Fifty-two people died in the blaze, mostly women and senior citizens who enjoyed playing bingo.
The daylight attack at the Casino Royale happened a week ago in Monterrey, Mexico. It was the worst attack on civilians since the massacre of 72 migrants last year.
...The United States shares responsibility for the thousands of people dead, injured and displaced in the five-year drug war that Mexican President Felipe Calderon has launched against the drug cartels. But we seem to ignore the connection between the high demand for illegal drugs and the violence associated with drug trafficking — not only in Mexico but in cities such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.
The connection is crystal clear: The U.S. represents a yearly $39 billion market for the drug cartels because an estimated 25 million Americans — 12 and older — consume some type of illegal drug, according to the Justice Department.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Nice try, but a hugh and series FAIL!! The Commerce clause, in the clearly stated intent of the Founders, is intended SOLELY to ensure that the states do not set up barriers to interstate trade, such as imposing tariffs on goods coming in from another state or even just passing through, so as to prevent competition to in-state businesses. They specifically noted that FedGov was NOT to have the authority it has USURPED ever since Teddy Roosevelt, Woody Wilson and FDR. So if that’s what you’re hanging your drug warrior hat on, you’re in good Socialist company... and 1,000% WRONG!
Well then I guess you better tell them that they are wrong and that they have no standing under the 10th amendment. I’m sure they will listen to you.
So I take it you’re all for legalization of narcotics too?
Show us all a good example of where doing so has resulted in low crime and a utopia for the citizens.
I’m waiting as are we all.
Ronald Reagan spoke of the philosophy of libertarianism numerous times, and made references to it's place in our history and elements of it incorporated into our founding priniciples. He wasn't talking about the Libertarian Party.
_____________________________________
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
______________________________________
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
J.Thomas, dissenting in Raich
I understand that Portugal has decriminalized drug possession and use with good results, but that misses the whole point, which is: It is no one’s business but the individual concerned WHAT he ingests. Specifically, it is NOT YOUR BUSINESS, none of mine, and most assuredly not ANY KIND of government’s business.
RE-legalizing drug usage will produce neither hell nor utopia. It will produce a society which treats its denizens as grownup, self-responsible, FREE adults, fully capable of making our own choices as to what we do with OUR bodies. And our own MISTAKES, for which each person bears full, PERSONAL responsibility.
You and Reid, Pel-lousy, et al, have much in common, not the least of which is the delusion that Americans are your children, to be molded and controlled to suit YOUR schemes and plans for us. But that’s all it is, a delusion, the product of an arrested development on your part. You seem to be projecting... liberals can’t trust themselves with firearms; therefore NO ONE can be trusted with them but .gov agents. YOU don’t trust yourself not to get addicted, first puff, hit, pill or injection of ANY sort you might take, therefore everyone else must be the same way. Sorry, but the lives of others are not YOURS to control, no matter which side of the coin you call yourself on. If you don’t think people will do a whole LOT to gain/regain their freedom and control over their own lives, you weren’t watching when the iron curtain came down, were you?
If you’re so afraid of FREEDOM and the America the Founders gave us, leave. There are any number of still tyrannical states who’d welcome you with open arms and just the right size chains to fit you. But you do NOT get to limit the freedom of Americans just because YOU’RE afraid of it. That you want to makes you not one bit different from the worst of the Lefties.
5.56mm
I’m not afraid of freedome. But you seem to miss the idea that your rights end, where mine begin. According to numerous sites I’ve read tonight, there is a lot of history behind the narcotics laws and their constitutionality. In the fist link I provide it lays out a good history and states where the USSC gave constitutial authority in passing such laws.
Since the Constitution gives congress the rights to make such laws, the USSC listed where the laws fall under the constitution. Guess the USSC doesn’t see it the same way you do. Sorry, but your libertarian ideas are not sound according to the USSC and the constitution.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/physician_and_feds.html
So you understand that Portugal has decrimininalized drug possession? That is a far cry from what you guys are proposing. You need to examine the effects of the numerous drugs on society when they were largly legal back in the 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s. Then get back to me on why it would not be in the best interests of society to end the avaliability of such narcotis. I know it probably gets in the way of you enjoying a good joint. Tough. We are a nation of laws, and if you don’t like the ones we have then get enough people behind you and change them. Obviously only a small minority of you do want them legalized and not enough to overturn the federal and state laws.
More links to read to show history and cases that gave the feds the authority to do this enforcment.
http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Narcotics_Acts
And I do hate using Wikipedia for such things, but their information was very well written. It even gives your side a little understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States
Maybe you libertarians should find a site that is more libertarian orented and hang out there. You’re not winning any friends here and we will refuse to surrender to your kooky ideas. This is a conservative site and not a liberal one.
You can stop posting to him. He got booted from FR today. They are working on doing this to all libertarians and liberals.
Yeah. I guess you’re so original and have so many valid points. Yet you fail to make even one. All you seem to do is attack the poster and call them names. Yes I have done the same, but at least I provide proof of the things I find. Where is any valid point you made other than gay comments and name calling?
The only babble here is coming from you.
FWIW, I let the moderators know to keep an eye on you. You might not be on FR very much longer. Buh buy.
“Nice try, but a hugh and series FAIL!! The Commerce clause, in the clearly stated intent of the Founders, is intended SOLELY to ensure that the states do not set up barriers to interstate trade, such as imposing tariffs on goods coming in from another state or even just passing through, so as to prevent competition to in-state businesses. They specifically noted that FedGov was NOT to have the authority it has USURPED ever since Teddy Roosevelt, Woody Wilson and FDR. So if that’s what you’re hanging your drug warrior hat on, you’re in good Socialist company... and 1,000% WRONG!”
Guess what. I’m not as wrong as you think. Go here and see what just one (of many) legal sites says about the meaning of the Interstate Commerce clause. http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/interstate-commerce/
You can find more at other sites but I’m not going to do all the work for educating you. It’s a fools game to educate those who already think themselves above intellegence.
I’ve proven my point, yet see nothing in your posts other than your interpretation and assumptions. What you and the other libertarians here believe seems to fall short of the facts and just because you understand something different than the rest of us doesn’t mean you’re right. In some cases we agree on much, but in other cases I don’t see eye to eye with you. On the idea of legalizeing drugs I will never see a benefit to society on doing so.
Have fun voting for Ron Paul. He’ll need all of you to get his 1 percent of the vote again this election cycle.
So who got the Commerce Clause right, Scalia or Thomas?
...at least I provide proof of the things I find.
Not that I see. All I've seen is your opinions and talking points.
FWIW, I let the moderators know to keep an eye on you.
Well goody-goody gumdrops for you, you little wimp! You dish it and can't take it. You take a little heat and you go crying to Mama! Here's a clue...they already know to keep an eye out for me.
You might not be on FR very much longer.
We'll see, won't we. How many times have you had to retread your tires? I'm still on the same set after more than ten years.
BTW, since you avoided answering my questions, which I figure might show you in a bad light and you don't want that, I'll ask them again...
Should Alberto have kept a cool head too?
Just how many "mistakes" are acceptable to you?
Go ahead...you can answer them and show what a good little WODdie warrior you are.
I answered your post when you asked that question before and you are obviously too dumb to read it. Your post #84? Sorry. I didn’t read it, and your not somone I think is important enough to go back and read. You’re a liberal dip$hit it’s obvious.
Liberals believe in legalization of drugs. So do you.
Libertarians and liberals believe in open borders. Do you?
Libertarians and liberals believe in abortion on demand. Do you?
Libertarians and liberals believe in gay marrage. Do you?
You are a libertarian, and not a conservative. It’s obvious by your posts. Libertarians are liberals who have gone so far left they are now anarchists. Anarchists are good for nobody. They are scum.
My opinion is to agree with Thomas actually. But my opinion nor yours changes the facts and presidence.
Listen, I’ve done drugs in the past. Quite a varied assortment. I took my chances and know the effects and risks. I saw the harm and damage it does to people. The narcotic effects, the destruction to their lives, the cost to society in dealing with these individuals. I quit cold turkey and never went back.
Do I think the government has too much power? Yes. But legalization of drugs is the wrong direction for our country.
If by conservative you mean “maintain the status quo,” you’d be correct. However, JimRob says HE means to see the Constitution and limited government restored, not quite the same thing. The damage done to the Constitution by your precious war on Americans in the NAME OF protecting them is incalculable.
And MY dog in this hunt is NOT the use of drugs for recreation. I don’t even use tobacco anymore. My issue is the spillover of the unconstitutional activities of the drug cops into pain management. You see, I suffer every single day from serious, severe pain from injuries suffered while I was serving my country, as well as from normal - if you can call it that - aging pains, like joint deterioration and arthritis. All I can get is narcotics from the VA but no one is interested in really looking at different pain management regimens because no one wants to draw the attention of the c#$%s¥£:)¦> drug cops. Because jerkoffs not unlike you want to treat Americans like children because YOU know so f/?*&&$ much about what’s good for us. You can take your drug war and shove it where the sun don’t shine, stud. I’m sick of you know-it-alls. Get OUT OF MY LIFE.
Explain why that is not contempt for the original Commerce Clause.
Yeah, I've been reading some of your replies and you like to accuse people of a lot of things without evidence.
Liberals believe in legalization of drugs. So do you.
There are plenty of conservatives who do as well so I know I'm in good company.
Libertarians and liberals believe in open borders. Do you?
Well that's exactly what I'm talking about. You apparently don't know how to seek out a person's position on issues yet it doesn't stop you from making accusations beforehand.
Just as an FYI...before you ever got here I was for closing the border...November 04, 2002#10
Close the borders! Promote legal immigration and process the illegal aliens immigrants the hell outta here!
I don't understand the insanity.
Libertarians and liberals believe in abortion on demand. Do you?
How about I let someone else answer that for me...January 25, 2003
#24 (courtesy ping MHGinTN)
Actually, you made a very poignant statement. It immediately evoked from me sadness at the thought of all those millions of American children who never got the chance to enjoy the wonder of fairie tales and lilting poems, never held a dolly or pushed a toy around.
Oh, you should love this reply of mine, you wolf posing in sheep's clothing...
Anti-abortion American (that would be yours truly) Considers Pro-Abortion Leaders So Extreme, Has One Word For Them...
MURDERERS!
Libertarians and liberals believe in gay marrage. Do you?
Hell no!
You are a libertarian, and not a conservative. It’s obvious by your posts.
You obviously have no idea what my posts say. You're just miffed at me because I shot down your WOsD argument as the BS it was so you've got nothing left but trying to impugn my character.
You're nothing but a smear merchant who is full of BS with nothing whatsoever to back up your assertion.
My posting history speaks loud enough for me and if you had done even a cursory search you would know better than to try what you're doing.
But you go ahead and dig on that hole some more smart guy! Just remember Rule #1 of Digging Holes...Stop Digging!
I see. What a loser.
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.