Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
I, for one, believe that it's the FEDERAL component of the drug war that is the most anti-freedom and statist. Take, for example, the recent busts of the CA medi-pot clinics by the DEA. They were operating LAWFULLY under CA law, but Asa Hutchinson and his fedgov jackboots decided that they knew better what was good for the citizens of California and shut down the clinics, confiscating plants, supplies, and records. And this just 6 weeks after the WTC attacks, when one would think that law enforcement's priorities have changed.
A much better approach would be to put the DEA out of business and allow states to regulate marijuana and other drugs, just like they regulate alcohol. Some states (or even localities, like "dry counties" in states like Kentucky) would have prohibitory laws; others would be more lenient. This would be a Constitutional approach, and one that would work much better than the unconstitutional War on Drugs.
Wrong. Libertarians question the very basis upon which such unconstitutional (prohibitory) legislation (re. your post #499 and elsewhere) was enacted. If the Constitution was followed in all judicial decisions, the CSA would be rendered unconstitutional and voided, and the finding of the administrative judge in this case would be rendered academic.
But the politics of the drug war trumps common sense. And it is the politics of EMOTION rather than REASON, just like the politics of the Left.
As for the Drug Warriors posting the commerce clause fig leaf from the CSA as if it answers the constitutional issue, it actually illustrates the opposite: You could reliably find every federal law of dubious constitutionality by searching for the same phrases.
In fact the commerce clause is only supposed to enable the federal government to prevent state governments from interfering in interstate commerce. So even the underlying basis of this make-believe link to constitutionality directly contradicts the Drug Warriors' position.
Most simply stated: Why did it take an amendment to prohibit booze, and why is an amendment not needed to prohibit certain drugs?
Have a cup of coffee.
Persistent nonsense.
Because the regulation and prohibition of alcohol had a well established history of exclusive state and local control.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
And there is NOTHING in the Constitution providing for government to make war on its own people. Got it yet? It's not about using drugs; it's about violating the SUPREME law of the land and that MUST STOP!
Zon ... I would hope that you know what I think of the VA "person" and I have NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that I agree with him on. Let it be known that as far as I'm concerned VA does NOT exist. I will not respond to him or acknowledge his presence.
Bravo sierra.
Where in the Constitution has the federal government given any authority to prohibit anything? The invocation of the interstate commerce clause is really the "persistent nonsense" - if it were invoked constitutionally, there could be no law passed preventing citizens from growing marijuana or any other psychoactive plant on their property for their own use, but we all know how far that would get :-(.
The temperance movement types realized that it would be unconstitutional to pass a federal law banning booze in the early 20th century and successfully sought a Constitutional amendment giving the government that authority. It promptly exercised that authority with the Volstead Act, and ushered in 14 years of lawlessness known as Prohibition. Thankfully, common sense eventually prevailed and that abomination of liberty was repealed. You Drug Warriors, however, hide behind the generalized raping of the Constitution that was justified by FDR's New Deal, and never saw fit to change the Constitution to further your goals.
That's why drug prohibition is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Then why the need for a federal constitutional amendment, if the states and localities were so good at it? And why no federal constitutional amendment allowing federal drug prohibition?
By such "reasoning", there isn't any such thing as illegal aliens. Can't "prohibit" illegal entry into our country, can we now?
Perhaps that's why the leftists and their Libertarian allies support open borders and opposed Proposition 187.
Regulatory powers necessarily include powers of prohibition.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ?
No answer, of course.
Really? Who is doing that?
The rationalizations of the legalize "crack and smack" crowd grow ever more absurd.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ?
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.