Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[Roscoe]

Do I think that the Founding Fathers would have approved of cocaine from Columbia flooding our streets?

No. They weren't Libertarians.

[tacticalogic]

For someone who claims to have all the answers, you seem to have a lot of trouble dealing with one simple question, Roscoe. Do you think this was the intent of the founders when they wrote the Commerce Clause? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

[Roscoe]

Do I think that the Founding Fathers would have approved of cocaine from Columbia flooding our streets?

No. They weren't Libertarians.

[tpaine]

Me: Is it immoral or anti-constitutional for people to choose to live in states and communities where there are laws against any or all drug use?

State or local [or federal] government cannot write law depriving you of life, liberty or property, without due process, - ie - indictment & trial by jury for criminal actions. --- Prohibitions are attempts to make non-violent actions criminal by fiat law, - by the say so of a majority.

So yes, JW, it is both immmoral & unconstitutional for your peers to criminalize non violent behavior.

You may however, volunteer to belong to a community, and regulate each others lives to your hearts petty desires, upon pain of banishment. - Just buy into a condo type association, and enjoy.

[eno_]

This is what is comes down to: Have we allowed the Constitution to be abused, or not?

Roscoe of course ignores the fact the states and localities would be free to prohibit drugs. This is in fact the way we can gradually stand down from the federal drug war: transfer the drug laws to the states and allow them to prohibit or not, as the people choose. Scaremongering about allowing cocaine to flood the country is beside the point. There is no reason to think that would happen, or that states would act irresponsibly.

Who wants to bet the Drug War writes Roscoe's paycheck?

[tacticalogic]

Like I said, you don't like to talk about where the authority to wage your drug war comes from. Keep running from the truth Roscoe. It might hurt you.

[Roscoe]

....it is both immmoral & unconstitutional for your peers to criminalize non violent behavior...

You're confusing the Constitution with LP press releases.

[Roscoe]

You want the CSA findings posted again? They've been posted a half dozen times in this thread alone. Unanswered, of course.

[Roscoe]

...allowing cocaine to flood the country is beside the point...

Wrong.

[WindMinstrel]

tell me, Roscoe, is there anyone on "you side" of the WOD who is capable of reasonable discourse? I see people like you, Dane, Avocado, etc spewing a lot of bile, but little in the way of a cogent arguement. I'll skip the obvious thesis -- only stupid people support the WOD -- and look for a more subtle solution. Maybe you haven't researched it beyond DARE pamphlets? Or is it just easier to post nasty attacks rather than thoughtful discussion?

[Roscoe]

...spewing...

Try discussing.

[tacticalogic]

The CSA findings are not in dispute. Their constitutionality is. Do you think the logic that was used to arrive at these findings is in accordance with the original intent of the Commerce Clause?

[Roscoe]

The CSA findings are not in dispute. Their constitutionality is.

Alice In Wonderland. The CSA findings ARE the arguments for the act's Constitutionality.

[dcwusmc]

If they ARE the arguments in favor of the WOsD, they fail miserably.

Amendment X
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.

Can you point to ANY article in the Constitution which grants FedGov the authority to ban anything? Remember, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the Land and specifically puts limits on GOVERNMENT, mostly on FedGov, some on states. The specific powers NOT delegated to FedGov are reserved elsewhere. There is NO power granted to ANY level of government to make war on our own people.

[tacticalogic]

Alice In Wonderland. The CSA findings ARE the arguments for the act's Constitutionality.

And do you agree with the argument, and agree that they are consistent with the intent of the Commerce Clause?

[Roscoe]

Can you point to ANY article in the Constitution which grants FedGov the authority to ban anything?

Slave trade. Have you ever even LOOKED at the Constitution?

[tpaine]

....it is both immoral & unconstitutional for your peers to criminalize non violent behavior...

You're confusing the Constitution with LP press releases.

Your deliberate ignorance of the constitution is not amusing.

[dcwusmc]

The Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves after a certain cutoff date. However, there's a MAJOR difference between outlawing a vile trade in human beings and banning the simple posession and use of inanimate objects by consenting adults.

[tpaine]

Can you point to ANY article in the Constitution which grants FedGov the authority to ban anything?

Slave trade. Have you ever even LOOKED at the Constitution?

It is obvious that you haven't. - Slavery is a criminal, violent action.

Whatta dolt.

[eno_]

Oh good, a quote out of context, and a dodge. The original was:

Roscoe of course ignores the fact the states and localities would be free to prohibit drugs. This is in fact the way we can gradually stand down from the federal drug war: transfer the drug laws to the states and allow them to prohibit or not, as the people choose. Scaremongering about allowing cocaine to flood the country is beside the point. There is no reason to think that would happen, or that states would act irresponsibly.

Who wants to bet the Drug War writes Roscoe's paycheck?

Of course Rosecoe snips here:

allowing cocaine to flood the country is beside the point.

Perfectly illustrating the general quality of the "legal" argument by Drug Warriors. They think a bunch of double talk written by hacks trumps the Xth amandment. They argue that anything invented since 1800 is outside the Constitution so the feds can do anything they want with it. They feel they have to justify themselves otherwise they would be a lower life-form than an IRS employee - at least they HAVE an amendment legalizing their jobs.

Which is the point of that question Roscoe dodges: Is Roscoe's paycheck made possible by the Drug War?