I have to get back to work in a few so I can’t address everything at this time. I will touch on a few points here while I have a few minutes.
Never said it was a perfect solution. But at the same time, given current technology it is but a matter of an hour to get a blood test taken and processed. You can then judicially find out what was going on, and if it is a case of wilful intoxication assault or homicide, well, too bad, we take you back to the place where you killed someone else and put a bullet in your head.
I didn’t include lifelong damage to children for one simple reason: There is nothing anyone can do about it whether drugs are legal or not. Note that cocaine, heroin, opium, PCP and other such substances are illegal in all 50 states even now; also note that the horror-story babies that are in your wife’s NICU are *still happening anyway* despite the illegality of the substances responsible. I would submit that as with Prohibition, the stats on that wouldn’t change either way in a significant manner. And, again, I have no objection to a state continuing to regulate said substances if they so wish; I just do not see any justification in the Constitution for internal regulation by the Federal government. At least with Prohibition they added it to the Constitution.
The counterpoint to your item regarding immoral behavior in general is this: If you give the Federal government the power to regulate that behavior in a way that pleases you, this also means they have the power to regulate that behavior in a different way than intended. The Obama Administration is providing perfect examples of this as we speak - their advancement of gay and lesbian relationships is done using the tools and laws given to them to promote hetero marriage, which is why it has suddenly advanced so fast! The Federal government has proved it cannot be trusted with this power, so wouldn’t it be safer if they didn’t have it and it was reserved to the states to decide what they wanted? Every time you give the Federal government power it is a double edged sword.
As for your black market hypothesis: This is no more or less than what we have *now* anyway.
I have no problem with Federal regulations banning import of narcotics - that power IS in the Constitution - but the regulation and consumption of such materials already in the US is not listed as an enumerated power in the Constitution anywhere I that I can see.
You did say it was better than mine.
There is nothing anyone can do about it whether drugs are legal or not.
Nonsense. We wouldn't have the word "deterrence" in our vocabulary if it was not at least partially effective. Our problem is over-reliance upon a single means, rather than combining means into overall strategies.
The counterpoint to your item regarding immoral behavior in general is this: If you give the Federal government the power to regulate that behavior in a way that pleases you, this also means they have the power to regulate that behavior in a different way than intended.
I don't think you've seen me advocate the Federal government regulating moral behavior unless it is crimes over state lines, and even then I think Congress should be figuring out how to turf the prosecution to the States. Yet I do want politicians who understand the importance of morality. Yet there is one place where your idea breaks down: Are children property? Do they have rights? If they do, somebody has to enforce those rights, even against the parents. The very existence of police powers is what threatens liberty. It is why law enforcement should never have been "professionalized" the way it has been. Yet it is the hierarchy of enforcement that inculcates Federal power. So the moment children have unalienable rights, such cases eventually reach that level. Accordingly, legislatures should be designing their laws as principles for the people to enforce, more than instructions. The more explicit they get, the more convoluted are the means to avoid them.
The point there is that liberty and morality are inextricable, just as the Founders said they were, immorality being destructive to the general wealth of the society. There is simply no such thing as a fiscal conservative in practical terms simply because immorality breeds conflict, ESPECIALLY because of the children it breeds. The more conflicts there are between value systems and cultures, the more police powers must be invoked to settle them. When Democrats said, "diversity is OUR strength" they weren't talking about anyone but themselves.
I am on record here as saying that States should have the liberty to set up a State religion, or not. I am on record here as saying that States should have the rights to set up gay marriage. Let Natural Law competition show everyone the results. The same goes for firearms regulation, porn, speech, etc. In short, if the people of a State want tyranny, let them learn their lesson (I say that as a resident of California). The Constitution was largely a compact among the States designed to restrain the Feds. In that respect, I regard the 14th and 17th Amendments as an abomination for which we have the GOP to thank, particularly in how it confers the rights of citizenship to fictitious persons. That's bogus.