[Texaggie79]

But no, the do gooders seek to save them from themselves and thus we have this so called "drug war."

If all the hard drug users only destroyed their own lives, I would say, more power to them. I ONLY see the need for intervention because hard drug users are a THREAT to others. They cannot act responsibly, they have no control over their addiction to a substance that drastically alters their mind. I don't support a FEDERAL WOD because the FED has no constitutional power to do so. Drug laws should be kept to the state level and smaller.

[tpaine]

If you buy into a condo development in your state, could the condo association insert a clause in the contract [prior to your signing of course] specifying that they can inspect your property at any time, without notice, for any violation of the association rules?
- [Said rules being subject to change at any time by majority vote, of course.]

-- And, --- that the penalty for a refusal to inspect would be an immediate eviction, pending a forced sale of your unit?

Is this basic scenario constitutional, in your opinion?
403 tpaine


Condos are simply a purchase of a smaller amount of rights of a certain property. If you buy rights to a condo while the assoc. retains the right to searching the property at any said time, they can. Now, rummaging through your PERSONAL property, such as bags, boxes, ect is not permissible, because that is truly personal property.
The government, however, is bound by the 4th amendment. It cannot subject us to search and/or seizure without just cause and a warrant.
-ta79-

Yes aggie, invading your home, "rummaging through your PERSONAL property"; -- guns, drugs, "bags, boxes, etc. is not permissible, because that is truly personal property", as you admit.

The condo association and fed/state/local governments, are "bound by the 4th amendment. It cannot subject us to search and/or seizure without just cause and a warrant." - Just as you admit.

Its getting close to game, set, match, aggie. Time for you to concede?
- Or will you scuttle off again, as usual, hoping that your odd views on our constitution are not noted?
410 tpaine

_________CRICKETS?_________

I notice you concede states cannot violate the 4th amendment, but will not concede that states do NOT have the power to violate our constitution in the drug war:

"I don't support a FEDERAL WOD because the FED has no constitutional power to do so. Drug laws should be kept to the state level and smaller."
-ta79-

Can you resolve your contradictions? - I bet not.

[Ben Bolt]

Thats a damn big if even for a Texan . You only see a need because hard users are a threat to others ?

What ever you see must be a good thing in the long haul I guess . From where I am you seem to chase storms in the night .

[takenoprisoner]

I ONLY see the need for intervention because hard drug users are a THREAT to others.

Our very existence is a THREAT to us all. In each and everything we do and everyplace we go there is potential THREAT. Guess what? Well that's life.

One theory has it that man once slept on the slopes of cliffs in order to avoid becoming victim of prey to the many predators of the time...theorizing this is why some have spiraling falling nightmares. Obviously that was a THREAT. And if you read the Bible, one will discover violence, war, and sexual deviations beyond imagination...obviously a THREAT for the time.

Today some folks perceive some backstreet drug addict as a THREAT to their very existence and way of life. If true, then it would seem that these folks who are fearful of some backstreet drug addict disturbing their own existence...well to me, it just doesn't say much for their own existence if it is that weak.