Big Drug War News (Congressman Dan Burton on the drug war)

The Agitator ^ | 17 December 2002 | Radley Balko

[sneakypete]

Amazing! My hat is off to Mr.Burton. Now if someone can just manage to get his ear and explain to him how this so-called war on drugs is destroying the Constitution,we may have a shot at seeing sanity prevail.

[sneakypete]

Maybe his kid got busted again.

Again?

[Jhoffa_]

A kid can’t be driving a brand-new Corvette when he lives in the inner city of Indianapolis in a ghetto. You know that he has gotta be making that money in someway that is probably not legal and probably involves drugs.

OMGosh!

Call Je$$ie JackSon, quick!!

It's time to Bork Lott, Dan Burton!

[nanny]

Now I would just like to ask all those who are so anti-legalization - what exactly they would do to stop this? What we are doing is not working - this is a given and if anyone is trying to argue that it will just be admitting they don't know what is going on. While I am a big states right person (WHICH DOESN'T MEAN SEGREGATIONIST), I don't think states can enforce an anti-drug policy any better than the Fed government can.

And, yes, I do think it is a power grab on the part of the federal government. Do I think there are some in Washington that are deluded into believing what they advocate is working? Sure. But it is costing the federal government (taxpayers) millions or someone said trillions to fight this. That is a lot of taxpayer dollars for those folks in Washington to direct to the proper place, taking a little postage costs out on the way. Now anyone who can't believe that just hasn't been watching our government lately.

You just cannot make laws to save people from themselves. So why not make laws to punish them if, in pursuit of their follies, they harm other people. Otherwise, let them do what they do, and pay the consequences. It appears they are going to get the drugs anyway, but if it did not cost so much, maybe so many innocent people would not get mugged, burglarized, or killed in the process.

Do I think anything will change? No, it is too profitable for everyone from the growers, smugglers, dealers, to the local law enforcement officials (remember they get to keep a lot of the money and property that is seized), on to the politicians that get to distribute taxpayer dollars and get drug contributions - whether they are aware of it or not. The forgotten person is the law abiding, tax paying, victim of violence caused by this problem.

Would this nation decend into a nation of drug users? Who knows, but what we are doing is not working at all. What you might be doing is freeing up those law enforcement people to actually tackle other problems in this country. You just might be freeing a lot of innocent people from the grip of this violence. You might be freeing taxpayers up from paying the huge costs of this failed policy.

I don't think we will see cocaine on the Wal Mart shelves and for those who think it would be abominable for some company such as R J REynolds to make a profit, is it more acceptable for murdering drug dealers to make their profits?

[PaxMacian]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.

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.

[PaxMacian]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.

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.

[Texaggie79]

"are reserved to the states respectively, or (in other words) to the PEOPLE."

You see, it is THROUGH the states in which we determine the mind of the people.

[Texaggie79]

Community Standards and Majority Rule (Locke's take on the issue)

[tpaine]

-- does this view of yours mean that any prohibitive state law cannot be "overpowered"?

Only by the constitution.
Still waiting to see where it enumerates the right to smoke crack.

Where does our constitution eumerate the right to smoke anything? -- It doesn't have to, as the 9th makes clear to anyone using half a brain.
-- And, in fact you just told us:

"Thusly, prohibitional laws by the states are not unconstitutional."

Which must mean that in your view, a state can prohibit ANYthing, including smoking tobacco, anywhere, anytime.

You have a very communitarian & authoritaran view of a 'republican form of government', aggie.

[MileHi]

Wow, almost 100 posts before you show up with another irrelevent post. No rebuttle, no commentary regarding the subject. Just a lame wise-ass post. You are reliable, if nothing else.

[Texaggie79]

Which must mean that in your view, a state can prohibit ANYthing, including smoking tobacco, anywhere, anytime.

Yes. The states are the will of the people.

[tpaine]

Which must mean that in your view, a state can prohibit ANYthing, including smoking tobacco, anywhere, anytime.

Yes. The states are the will of the people.

Thank you. You are not describing the principles basic to our constitutional republic.

You are advocating a system of democratic majority rule.
A tyranny of the 'peoples will'.

Incredible.

[Texaggie79]

I am advocating nothing different that what our founders set in place and believed.

[tpaine]

"I am advocating nothing different that what our founders set in place and believed. - TA79"


Tex, -- you are in complete denial about what you advocate.

For instance, your view of Lockes 'take' was blown completely out of the water by every respondent on this thread you so proudly reposted:

-- Community Standards and Majority Rule (Locke's take on the issue) [Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b729be36fda.htm

NO one on the thread agreed with your 'take' on community standards/majority rule. -- Now THAT is denial.

[MileHi]

I've proposed to Freepers that all drugs guns be licensed.

You would need a license to purchase and use any recreational drug gun (alcohol and tobacco included) (deer rifles and duck guns included). Much the same as you need a license to operate a car.

To obtain a license, you would be required to have health mental health insurance. This puts the health burden on the user, not the common citizen.

You would be required to read the latest literature regarding the known dangers of the drug guns and sign a release form. This puts the legal responsibility on the user.

All employers and health insurers of the user would be notified. Thus the financial burden is on the user. owner Employers would have to make their policy known for each type of drug gun before the user owner applies for a license though. The employer would have the right to continue the user's owners employment or not, based upon previously stated policy.

The license applicant would then pay some small administrative fee to process the application (like what is done for a drivers license). The benefit to the user owner is that he would be able to go to a licensed dealer, purchase the drugs Gun for much less than the cost from an illegal dealer, with better quality, and without fear of prosecution.

The restrictions of the license may vary from drug to drug gun to gun. Some of the harder drugs semi-automatic guns may restrict usage to personal residences only. Tobacco duck guns may have the fewest restrictions - just don't give it to minors

. Violation of the license would be a felony.

Why a license? Responsible users gun owners will have no problem with this. The burden of use will be all theirs. Problem users owners will be locked away for a long time. The illegal market then dries up.

Brilliant, moron. But you dreamed this up yourself? You should be nationally syndicated.

[Texaggie79]

LOL. They could only DISAGREE with what Locke said. It is pretty plain and simple, his point: every man that hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth hereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it, whether this his possession be of land to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and, in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government.

[Texaggie79]

To bad you cannot do this, which is what Libertarian's have TRIED to do for years, but have failed:

A well regulated Militia buzz, being necessary to the security of a free State of mind, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms crack, shall not be infringed

[Kerberos]

"Dan Burton: No I am not arguing anything. I am asking the question. Because we have been fighting this fight for thirty to forty years and the problem never goes way...

Sounds like Dan is starting to get a clue.

"When even pro-Drug-War congressmen start to see the insanity of the War on Drugs, something must be about to change."

What may be about to change is that the powers that be will realize that Dan may have to go. They can't have him out there talking sense like this.

[tpaine]

You're slipping into dementia.

Most rational conservatives here at FR agree with Lockes basic principles, -- when they are protected by a constitution based on upholding individual rights.

You interpret his principles as favoring a communitarian state. -- Dream on.  

[tpaine]

'Guess who' is sipping on his favorite mind altering crack substitute tonight.