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

The Agitator ^ | 17 December 2002 | Radley Balko

[sneakypete]

(I mean come on, the Feds refused to prosecute, and the locals wanted the charges dropped? Puh-leeze).

Neither made these decisions on their own. Pressure came down from above telling them to either do this,or have their own careers ended.

[MileHi]

Freedom from tyranny is a right. Your big government bureaucracy is lame. So was your reply.

Sorry I don't think you are smart as you think you are. I would invite you to follow your own suggestion.

[Protagoras]

If you start the libertopia bs, we can forget the whole argument and focus on your drug use and that of your family. Which of course would suit you fine since it would shift the focus away from your childish misunderstanding of rights.

I took my neighbor to court, sighting the danger in which he places my family, and I WIN, you have no problem with him receiving a judicial punishment, right?

Wrong, and no amount of setting up false scenerios will make you correct. In the first place, courts and juries do not grant rights any more than laws and documents and kings do.

In the second place, even though it's irrelevant, on what grounds would you sue him? Even if you could "sight" him. LOL

[Protagoras]

Gun ownership is a right.

Correct

Drug usage is not.

Incorrect.

[Protagoras]

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

I seee you are still stuck on this nonsensical BS that rights come from the constitution or some other place like that and that they have to be spelled out somewhere. Put your dunce cap back on.

[Kerberos]

The following is a link that may help both of you in determining the use of opiates in the latter half of the 19^th century. Be advised that it is a long read but has some useful information.  You will also find other articles on this site that is a great compilation of the  history of drug use and the development of drug laws in our country.

THE OPIUM PROBLEM

To make the statement that the majority of people during the late 1800’s were addicted to opiates is to say the least an overgeneralization, however it is a fact that many people where addicted to opiates during that time period.  From the material presented in the above link it can be determined that there are at least three truism that can be found.

1. That opiates were in widespread use through a variety of products. Unfortunately, there was little to no information available to the public as to the addictive properties of opiates.  Lack of factual information lead to the public perception that these products could be used without consequences, which of course lead to bad decisions by the public.  Not a whole lot unlike the situation we have today with the propaganda being disseminated through the war on drugs.
2. Due to the demonizing of the use of alcohol by the temperance movement, many people turned to the use of opiates, as it did not have the same social stigma as the use of alcohol.  A sterling example of the consequences of moralizing a problem, absent factual information, leading to bad policy and or decisions.  Again much the same problem as we have today.
3. Women were more likely to be addicted to opiates than men. To much free time and nothing to fill it with?

.

[kidd]

You like to criticize. Its easy to criticize, any brain dead zombie can do that. People who criticize without offering alternatives are generally of low intelligence. I am not impressed with simple criticism. People who offer alternatives, on the other had, are demonstrating that they are applying themselves. Is there a problem with my proposal? Ok, explain where it fails. Offer an alternative to my proposal, otherwise:

1) just accept the fact that you are a moron, dude. Its ok.
2) don't try to participate in the intelligent discussion that goes on in this forum, dude. Try a Playstation forum...maybe you'll learn some really cool game cheats.
3) and know that when you really are this stupid that self-gratification (such as screwing yourself) is the best thing that you can offer to society. It keeps you out of the way.

The WOD is big government tyranny. Forcing me to accept and pay the costs of unrestricted drugs is also big government tyranny.

I'm offering a solution that shifts the burden of usage away from the general public and to the user, with minimal government involvement. I've discovered that most drug users will only approve of a system that the rest of society has to pay for or doesn't inconvenience them. I'm not a socialist and I don't want to pay for someone else's recreation. Offer a better solution.

Free drugs? Prescriptions? Legalization? So who is going to pick up the bill for the increase in addiction, overdoses and worktime losses? How do you keep the heroin addicts off the street? Most Libertarians like to point to the example of Denmark and other Socialist countries. But they like to ignore the fact that these systems depend upon socialized medicine and big goverment programs to work.

Keep things the same? The WOD comes out of everyone's pockets; users and non-users.

Offer a better solution. Otherwise, I recommend following the steps that I've enumerated above.

[Protagoras]

".....are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Cute editing, but it won't fly with adults.

The tenth amendement refers to POWERS. It limits those of the federal government and says that those not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. It doesn't talk about rights and it doesn't grant any power desired by either the state or the people. Your childish reading of it in order to use it to control the rightful actions of other people says that the federal government has the power to do certain things and after that the states and people have the legitimate power to do anything else they desire. It's a fifth grade interpretation.

[kidd]

You're right. It was the xxx th ammendment to the Constitution that says "The Right to Posses and Use Doobage Shall Not Be Abridged". I forgot what ammendment that was.

Or maybe thats in one of the Constitutions of the states. Let's see, which one is it?....I can't remember, help me out here - which state constitution states that drug usage is a right?

You sure its a right?

[FreeTally]

Documents don't grant rights, as you and others have been told dozens of times in this thread, and thousands of times in other threads.

Your continual idiotic comments about "where does it say drug use is a right" just shows how immature and ignorant you are.

[MileHi]

Is there a problem with my proposal? Ok, explain where it fails.

It fails in the same fashion as Hillarycare, ballistic fingerprinting, and most other goverment programs that are for "our own good."

Free drugs? Who called for that, not me. Prescriptions? Legalization? So who is going to pick up the bill for the increase in addiction, overdoses and worktime losses? you assert that but the experience of Prohibition doesn't bear that out, al least not the calamity you imply. How do you keep the heroin addicts off the street? Hwo does it now? What about the winos? who pays for that? Should we register drunks?

As the article stated, we spend trillions (with a "T") on this failed "war". For that kind of dough, we could deal with a few problem addicts and still give you a good chunk of change back. Oh, and my 4th ammendment rights as well, if you don't mind.

You get a little touchy when your ox is in line for a goreing I see (my original post). You belie the weakness of your position by your sophomoric insults. But, hey, have a nice day anyway.

[kidd]

You are correct. Documents do not grant rights, they protect rights.

I will rephrase my question then. There is a document that protects the right to own a gun. Which document protects the right to use drugs? Do any of the states have a document that protects the right to use drugs?

I'll help you out, the 21st ammendment can be interpretted (loosely) as a protection of the right to consume alcohol. But thats only one drug. What are some others?

[tpaine]

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28
276 - ta79 -

As has been pointed out to you two ad nauseum, -- the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES refered to above are outlined in our constitution, and are not to be decreed by the whims of a moralizing majority.

[Texaggie79]

To make the statement that the majority of people during the late 1800’s were addicted to opiates is to say the least an overgeneralization

I know, it was meant to say the majority of the population USED opiates or cocaine.

[Texaggie79]

Wrong

So, you would say the jury is wrong?

[Texaggie79]

Right, the constitution leaves the power of excluding activities or persons that impose danger upon their neighbors to the states. The founders supported such state laws. Witchcraft, sodomy, ect.

Why your blind dedication to drugs makes you so blind to that fact, I do not know.

[MileHi]

Which document protects the right to use drugs?

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

It is not about the straw-man "right to do drugs", it is about the right to live your life without interference so long as you respect other peoples right to do the same.

The proper question is, by what authority does the government wage war on its citizens. I haven't been able to find that anywhere.

[slimer]

You think that giving Phillips & Morris the job of supplying Cocaine or Heroin that they won't make BIG money? What are you smoking?

Um...crack? ;>)

[MileHi]

Witchcraft,

A great example, really. An imagined danger. People were killed but since "most good citizens" supported it, it was ok, right.

That really is a perfect analogy.

[FreeTally]

I will rephrase my question then. There is a document that protects the right to own a gun. Which document protects the right to use drugs? Do any of the states have a document that protects the right to use drugs?

I don't care what men have written in documents. If the 2nd amendment wasn't there, I'd still have the natural right to protect myself by any means possible, including with a gun. Men and governments can write all sorts of things and do all kinds of things to people. Hell, "government" doesn't even recognize the clear intent of what some men back in the late 1700's wrote concerning keeping guns for protection against enemies, foreign and domestic. Do you realy expect the same government to recognize that each person owns his/her own body and we are all not just at the disposal and whims of the State?

Do you not understand the utter foolishness in believing that men can take a pen and write on paper, "you cant do this" and people magically lose their natural rights to engage in any activity that does not violate the same rights of others?