Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[citizenK]

This is a good editorial piece that nicely connects the erosion of American liberties and dissolution of the Bill of Rights to the on-going drug wars. Those on this thread that cannot, or refuse to, see the connection between the drug wars and the general loss of freedoms in this country (including, but not limited to the assualt on 2nd Ammendment rights) are completely sold on the propaganda techniques of both the drug warriors and the gun grabbers, and which, incidently, makes up a large part of the argument forwarded by the author of the posted letter.

Perhaps not everyone has seen this recent ad - but it shows two teenage type boys in the family den getting stoned (smoking a bong) and handling a firearm. One of the boys comments that the gun is not loaded, then blam - the gun goes off and the editing implies that the one stoner shot the other dead. This ad represents a blatant example of the propaganda as discussed by the author where the government connects the issue of drugs and guns in a single advertisement, and plays on both the drug and gun fears to which your average American is now conditioned.

I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government. Many people who support the drug wars think they are supporting conservative values, when in fact they are supporting the degradation of our Constitution and an elusive if not totally ficticious concept of a compelling societal interest that equates to socialist collectivism. Thinking people need to come to understand why this view is erroneous, and need to realize that recognition of the socialism that enters our backdoor via the drug wars does not mean that one need support the abuse of drugs in our society. is that drug abuse by some in our society (let's face it, there are about 2% of the population or so who would inhale gas fumes from your car if that's all that was available) is far more tolerable than government abuse of the Constitution. The question remains whether or not you want to live in a free society, or a society that only claims to be free.

[Cultural Jihad]

'Facists' reading the news...

[Cultural Jihad]

I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government.

That famous colonial melodious sensation,
"Banned in Boston," played live before the
ganja-smoke-filled Continental Congress
-Intaglio etching courtesy of Ideologue's Historical Revisionism, Inc.

[tpaine]

The treatment of addicts is not a reward.

So, the legalization of drugs is "treatment"? LOL.

Laugh away, pup. -- That was Caltrops concept, at #18.

------------------------

Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?

Sorry, the FACT that I do not agree with the legalization of drugs does NOT make me a socialist.

Sorry, but I differ, and the facts in the article support my view. Why don't you try refuting them to make your case?

So you know...I am a rightwing conservative, MANY gun owner, christian.

Then you should realise that supporting the drug war works against your self interest.

Perhaps, you'd be better served by surfing over to the Ultra Liberal website that bears your moniker?

Thanks, but having been here for five years, FR 'serves' me fine, -- and the closet socialists here are about all I can stomach.

[tpaine]

Calm yourself weikel, -- I just likes to jank your fuse.

[Roscoe]

[weikel]

How are you conservative in any CJ? I can't recall a single socialist program on FR that you didn't like.

[tpaine]

Good lord CultistJ !! -- That guy on the rights hairstyle makes him a dead ringer for Tricky Dicky !!

- You may have went too far this time CJ, -- I hear many of FR's bushbots are thinking of elevating Nixon to RINO Sainthood. As we speak they are out searching for miracles among the faithful.

[Cultural Jihad]

N.W.O. Bavarian Illuminati Maltese Build-a-burger stormtroopers out to hinder and thwart the inalienable rights of ideologues to engage in fantasy victimization politics, eh? ;)

[anobjectivist]

As long as drugs remain illegal the black market for drugs (read: the economy that will continue to exist and continues to cost the US billions in trying to stop it) will continue to expand. Do you forget the submarines that the government of our country and South American countries have found and destroyed, along with smuggling aircraft and vehicles that continue to arrive at our shores? The potential market for drugs is so high that it can fund almost any technology short of space travel.

If the government was really serious about the drug trade, we would have a military border along 100% of our shoreline and land borders. That would cost many more billions of dollars along with the prospect of not being able to go to a beach without seeing a soldier. Let's not forget the numerous civil rights involved.

If we were serious about legalizing drugs, the black market would collapse along with the vast majority of organized and violent crimes. The only real drawbacks is well, drugs would be illegal. However, so is alcohol, a substance that can kill in high enough amounts and also create enough "accidents" with vehicles that it is a problem. But we learned our lesson with that drug from prohibition.
Right now, we are neither serious about either one of these realities. We are at the halfway point, which means we spend billions on the drug war, which is just enough to keep mass drug use underground, yet not enough to ever stop it. Billions of our dollars are wasted each year on this, just think of what good could come out of the same money if put back into the hands of the people that make our country as great as it is.

The people that are addicted to drugs and trash their lives will continue to do so, only after legalization it won't be so lucrative.

[Roscoe]

In a NUTshell.

[anobjectivist]

drugs would be illegal should read legal

[caltrop]

Actually, I don't think drugs should be legalized but should be distributed at cost by the various local Boards of Health to those certified as drug addicted. My sole interest is in eliminating the profit in addictive drugs. I couldn't care less about the drug addicts as I'm convinced they're beyond help.

The only people who seem to oppose my solution, interestingly, seem to be Christians who think it isn't Christian to not try to help the drug addicts. They never seem to care about those who, by continuing the current policy, are going to be induced into the drug culture and wind up in prison, prostitution and drug induced misery.

[tpaine]

citizenK: I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government. #41 -CK-

Extremely well written & reasoned post, K. -- Thanks - As you can see below, FR's irrational gun-grabbing 'cultist' has arrived. Gotta love him for his comic relief.

That famous colonial melodious sensation, "Banned in Boston," played live before the ganja-smoke-filled Continental Congress -Intaglio etching courtesy of Ideologue's Historical Revisionism, Inc. 43 -CJ-

[anobjectivist]

What else do you know about the Netherlands? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are pretty socialistic up there where you can get paid plenty for doing nothing.

As far as bank robberies, making them legal would violate even the most basic of human rights, so your reductio ad absurdium need not apply here.

[anobjectivist]

So now we are subsidizing drug users? Well then, I'm addicted and I want my cocaine!

Seriously, we already have plenty of drug users in our country. Legalizing drugs is not going to change that by a large factor. Even with millions of drug users in the U.S, we still have the healthiest economy in the world.

Let's not forget the unspoken amounts of money that the drug trade supplies to drug dependent countries and keeps democracy from taking power there.

[tpaine]

N.W.O. Bavarian Illuminati Maltese Build-a-burger stormtroopers out to hinder and thwart the inalienable rights of ideologues to engage in fantasy victimization politics, eh? ;)
49 -Cultural Jihad-


In a NUTshell.
51 -roscoe-

Roscoe, totally agree, -- I find it refreshing that you've finally put CJ in his place. -- Thanks.

[Wonder Warthog]

"According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere."

The Bill of Rights doesn't CONFER rights. There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so. It's called the "reserved powers" part of the Bill of Rights. That's why they had to pass the "Prohibition amendment" to have the fedgov regulate liquor in the first place.

[caltrop]

I've tried, obviously without success, to make the point that I don't favor legalization. What I'm advocating takes the profit out of illegal drugs, ensures they aren't available to any but those already addicted (unless you believe drug dealers will continue to deal even without any prospect of profit and still running the risk of draconian punishment) and will greatly reduce addiction in the US over time.

I'm happy to have someone suggest a better idea but I'm still waiting to hear it.

[tpaine]

There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so.

Not so, under the Supremacy clause, or under 'due process' of the 14th. - States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns. -- Study the threads posted article.
Also, on the 14th, -- Justice Harlan recognized:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, .
. . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

_________________________________

Thus, the states can make legally 'reasonable' regulations under their reserved powers.

Outright premptive bans on various items of property cannot be rationalized as due process.