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

The Agitator ^ | 17 December 2002 | Radley Balko

[steve50]

One little known fact is that after the War Between the States the largest cause of heroin addiction, after battlefield causes, was that is was the treatment of the day for alcoholism. Our demons change with time. I'm no fan of hard drug usuage, but our current approach on all drugs is a total failure. Time for new priorities.

[Protagoras]

Daryl Strawberry is a figment of our imagination.

Please list all your rights that Strawberry has violated. Thank you.

[MrLeRoy]

Does this qualify as a "government-is-full-of-evil-boogie-men-who-just-want-to-control-us tune"?

"the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people."

[Ken H]

I'm with you on ending the Federal WOD and leaving it up to the States to decide.

Do you think that the office of the drug czar and his agency should be abolished?

What about all Federal WOD funding of local governments, police departments, clinics, DARE, etc?

[Texaggie79]

Conservatives don't mistrust government?

Indeed I don't trust it. I agree with TJ, it is a necessary evil. However, I do not go so far as to actually believe that every government official if pondering how to control my life.

I don't believe that every law passed is simply an attempt at CONTROLLING us. I actually see use for some laws.

[tpaine]

I know you want to make this a "It's my damn body, I'll do what I want." issue, but that only goes as far as the FED.

Thus, you now admit that our constitution protects us from federal efforts to ban substances? How inconsistant can you get? Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.

When it get's down to the state level, communities can set limits on the risks they are willing to take. If they don't like the risk of alcohol, they can ban it. Many counties do.

All levels of government can constitutionally 'regulate', within reason, the public use & sale.
-- As you admit above, outright prohibitions are unconstitutional without amendments.

[Texaggie79]

None of mine, however Straberry's neighbors have a different take on the matter.

[Texaggie79]

I agree with that.

[Protagoras]

Which of theirs?

[Protagoras]

I actually see use for some laws.

Me too. The ones which defend my rights.

[MrLeRoy]

I do not go so far as to actually believe that every government official if pondering how to control my life.

Straw man. Who here does believe that?

[semaj]

"...you INCREASE the motivation of users and non users to use MORE."

I don't buy it. People who are intent to do drugs, will, whether they are illegal or not. People who don't do drugs wont do drugs, even if it is made legal to do so. For those that want to do drugs and get high, I say we should give them all the drugs they want free of charge and let them kill themselves. The drug problem would solve itself.

[Texaggie79]

I would have no problem if the federal WOD were reduced to only assisting states that wished to be helped in their fight against drugs there. However, they would have no SAY in the laws.

[Texaggie79]

Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.

Only defending why it was done. I never said it was constitutional.

[Texaggie79]

Well, if their state chose to criminalize crack, and his neighbors felt threatened by his usage, then they have the right to see him properly punished.

[Texaggie79]

The USC states. THOSE HELD BY THE PEOPLE. Well, I hold my safety, the security of my community, ect to be a right. And someone using HARD drugs violates that.

[Texaggie79]

Well, do you actually believe that the FED narcotics act was simply a power grab? That the congressmen of that time simply wanted to CONTROL our lives?

[Protagoras]

And someone using HARD drugs violates that.

Nonsense, you made that up, no such right exists.

[jmc813]

I think it's quite telling that the only anti-legalization/decrim posters who showed up on this thread were the intelligent ones who give thoughtful response when challenged (TexAggie, Chemist Geek, etc.), as opposed to the usual gang (Dane, Kevin Curry, Roscoe), the only exception being Cultural Jihad who couldn't resist throwing in a quick jab, but then retreated when posed with a direct question.

[Texaggie79]

No such righ to smoke crack in a community exists either.