# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Why the War on Drugs is Constitutional, Will Never End, and Shouldn't

## Irascible Crusader

A classic from Political Forum and Political Buddies. I'm the original author.

It's one of the main piers for the Branch Paulinians and Libertarians in general, those who deem themselves the sole guardians of the Constitution and the only ones who know what it means. Anyone who deviates from the Paulinian POV hates the Constitution, doesn't understand it, and clamors for despotism. I don't need to explain this mentality, it explains itself.

But are they right about the War on Drugs being illegal?

They aren't even right about it being failed. But more to the point, the way our system of government is set up, states can enforce federal laws but the federal government cannot enforce state law. The reversal of key federal prohibition against controlled substances would mean that 50 different states would have 50 different laws regarding manufacture, sale, transportation, and use of drugs.

But here's where it gets tricky. Elimination of federal drug laws means the elimination of the DEA and Coast Guard efforts at drug seizures. It means that even though Nevada (for example) may prohibit drugs, the enemy can approach the gate unimpeded. However much the Paulemmings may insist that the federal war on drugs has failed, major drug seizures, asset forfeiture laws, education, and incarcerations have been very effective at keeping metric tons of drugs out of the country and off our streets and putting the poisoners behind bars where they belong. The fact that people can, at a high price and risk, still obtain drugs is heralded as proof of how feckless the war must be. Never considered is the how much more drugs would be used if they were legalized; and even in states where they remain illegal, how much more difficult it would be to enforce state laws when the federal government no longer plays a vital role.

Drug seizures from Mexico, Columbia, and other places wouldn't even occur without federal laws against transporting drugs into this country. This means that the sheer volume of drugs that police would have to labor to remove from the streets would make it an impossible task. Our federal government is charged under the Constitution as follows:

*Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution*

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this 
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect 
each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or 
of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." 

Federal enforcement of our borders, what comes in and what goes out, is a duty of the federal government under the constitution. Implicit in this duty are laws restricting those items that the federal government seeks to protect us against. The illegal invasion of drug runners is within the jurisprudence of the feds to prevent, and laws against their activities are required to provide a statutory basis for such enforcement. If Tennessee or Illinois want drugs to be illegal in their state, their laws require a uniformity of purpose with the federal government so that drugs cannot pour into those states unchecked. If the government does not do this, they are derelict in their Constitutional duty.

Some more duties of the federal government include: 

1. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

2. "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"

3. And lastly, and this is most important: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

All within Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and all very relevant to the War on Drugs. The defense of our borders against drug importation requires a uniformity of law regarding the manufacture, sale, transportation, and use of drugs, so that the streets of South Carolina cities aren't flooded with drugs because North Carolina wants them to be legal.

This is why the pro-drug Left is wrong on this issue, both morally and constitutionally

----------


## Guest

The government can make anything it wants illegal, but it doesn't make it either right, moral or Constitutional.  I would argue that the 9th Amendment guarantees that individuals have rights in respect to individual actions that promote their own personal definition of the "pursuit of happiness".

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





> Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of _Griswold v. Connecticut_ (1965):
>  The Framers did not intend that the first eight  amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I  do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an  independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the  States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and  indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions  upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment  prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal  liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such  liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is  surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal  rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In  sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that  the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from  infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted  to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf.  United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95.


But I recognize that you like the government controlling and protecting us from ourselves, Mike, so I'll let you have fun with this thread and decline from further participation.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> The government can make anything it wants illegal, but it doesn't make it either right, moral or Constitutional. I would argue that the 9th Amendment guarantees that individuals have rights in respect to individual actions that promote their own personal definition of the "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


This clause pertains to the powers granted by the Constitution, powers that I demonstrated are consistant with the War on Drugs.




> But I recognize that you like the government controlling and protecting us from ourselves, Mike, so I'll let you have fun with this thread and decline from further participation.


 I like government protecting my family from drugs and all that comes with it. Oh, and you can't resist.

----------


## Coolwalker

Not to be difficult but where does it state "drugs"?

*U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8*


"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To  promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for  limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their  respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To  provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for  governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the  United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of  the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To  exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such  District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of  particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of  the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over  all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in  which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and  other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

----------

The XL (01-02-2013),WalterSobchak (01-03-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

I laid that out in the OP.  The Constitution clearly gives the federal government the right to decide what comes in or out of the country and to pass laws consistant with that power.  So if the feds can prevent drugs from coming into this country, it can also pass laws making it illegal.  It's clear you didn't even read the OP.

----------


## Coolwalker

> I laid that out in the OP.  The Constitution clearly gives the federal government the right to decide what comes in or out of the country and to pass laws consistant with that power.  So if the feds can prevent drugs from coming into this country, it can also pass laws making it illegal.  It's clear you didn't even read the OP.


You must first ask yourself why this took place in the first place. Rational thought was not a part of the issue, it was knee-jerk to the end of Prohibition and liquor sales were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.

----------


## patrickt

"I like government protecting my family from drugs and all that comes with it."

That sentence is the sum total of your argument. The Constitution does not give the federal government control over what comes into the country.

If drugs were legalized, I still wouldn't use them although I realize you are afraid your family would, but if the drugs were taxed and had import duties, which even the junkies on the left couldn't pass up, the government could still deal with smuggling.

----------



----------


## Guest

> I laid that out in the OP.  The Constitution clearly gives the federal government the right to decide what comes in or out of the country and to pass laws consistant with that power.  So if the feds can prevent drugs from coming into this country, it can also pass laws making it illegal.  It's clear you didn't even read the OP.


They can make trafficking illegal by your assertion, but what about the home grower?

----------


## Coolwalker

To me this all goes back to freedom of choice. Don't deny my freedoms because of your assertions or issues.

----------

The XL (01-02-2013)

----------


## Guest

> To me this all goes back to freedom of choice. Don't deny my freedoms because of your assertions or issues.


Right on, Coolwalker!  More freedom is better than less freedom.  Let's punish crime when there are victims.  We punish drunk drivers, not people who drink alcohol.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Also based on what you say someone should go to the White House and arrest the president. Good luck on that one.


Is the president doing drugs?

----------


## Coolwalker

> I have choices too.  You only see infringement when it comes to your desire to smoke pot and get high.  I don't want to live in a society where my kid's teacher, the police man, the surgeon, the forklift operator, the truck driver, and the crane operator are half baked or otherwise debilitated by drugs.  You pretend it doesn't affect anyone but the user, but it does.  I know there's a smart side of you that sees this.


See your basic problem here is your "assumption" that I smoke pot. I am simply defending our rights under our constitution. You take things a level too high for the horse.

----------


## Coolwalker

> Is the president doing drugs?


He admitted it, there are photos of him smoking and being high and he said so when he first ran for president.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> He admitted it, there are photos of him smoking and being high and he said so when he first ran for president.


So he's not doing drugs right now.



> See your basic problem here is your "assumption" that I smoke pot. I am simply defending our rights under our constitution. You take things a level too high for the horse.


It's a bad habit of mine.  I apologize.

----------


## Coolwalker

> So he's not doing drugs right now.
> 
> It's a bad habit of mine.  I apologize.


Not a problem...who knows what he's doing there because he does not act rational.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I have choices too.  You only see infringement when it comes to your desire to smoke pot and get high.  I don't want to live in a society where my kid's teacher, the police man, the surgeon, the forklift operator, the truck driver, and the crane operator are half baked or otherwise debilitated by drugs.  You pretend it doesn't affect anyone but the user, but it does.  I know there's a smart side of you that sees this.


Your position is based on a strawman. Nobody argues that we shpuld legalize drugs and that's it. Even the most hardcore libertarians suggest taxing and regulating it after legalizing it.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Your position is based on a strawman. Nobody argues that we shpuld legalize drugs and that's it. Even the most hardcore libertarians suggest taxing and regulating it after legalizing it.


Yes, thanks for reminding me of one of the biggest hypocricies of the Pothead, Branch Paulinian Left.  You say you want to legalize pot to throw of the shackles of government, that the war on drugs is an example of government being too big and too controlling, and then you want to aggrandize it by giving it yet another tax and more regulating power.  I could at least half respect a position of decriminalizing drug use and nothing more, but you, YOU, want to feed the machine and make it bigger.  Every time you get angry at me calling you a statist leftist, I'll remember this, you wanting nationized health care, and other examples that vindicate my just opinion.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Your position is based on a strawman. Nobody argues that we shpuld legalize drugs and that's it. Even the most hardcore libertarians suggest taxing and regulating it after legalizing it.


I am constantly poking fun at my friends who smoke dope about their stupidity, re, their constant moaning to make pot legal.

As it stands now, the police turn a blind eye. That means you can pretty much get whatever grade of dope, cut with whatever floats your boat...and no hassles, except the limitations of a carried amount (and even then there is very little hassle)

Legalize it...here comes the taxman. Here comes the regulation man. Here comes your crazy high costs and no "specialty cuts" as they wouldn't be authorized to boot.

It makes me smile to grind their gears about how they are BEGGING to pay SIN taxes just like I do for my cigarettes.

----------

Irascible Crusader (01-04-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I am constantly poking fun at my friends who smoke dope about their stupidity, re, their constant moaning to make pot legal.
> 
> As it stands now, the police turn a blind eye. That means you can pretty much get whatever grade of dope, cut with whatever floats your boat...and no hassles, except the limitations of a carried amount (and even then there is very little hassle)
> 
> Legalize it...here comes the taxman. Here comes the regulation man. Here comes your crazy high costs and no "specialty cuts" as they wouldn't be authorized to boot.
> 
> It makes me smile to grind their gears about how they are BEGGING to pay SIN taxes just like I do for my cigarettes.


It's why, in my abiding opinion, that this isn't a philosophical argument about the role of government, it's a push to make pot legal so people can get high and not go to jail and then tossing governments statists a bone to make the idea more appealing.

----------


## garyo

Alcohol is a much more debilitating and addictive drug than Pot and much more toxic, so I have to assume you would like to see it outlawed also, would this be correct?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Alcohol is a much more debilitating and addictive drug than Pot and much more toxic, so I have to assume you would like to see it outlawed also, would this be correct?


Do you have something to debate the OP on?  You have to understand you're just yet another dude jumping on the dogpile, so I don't really feel inclined to undulge your off topic argument.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes, thanks for reminding me of one of the biggest hypocricies of the Pothead, Branch Paulinian Left.  You say you want to legalize pot to throw of the shackles of government, that the war on drugs is an example of government being too big and too controlling, and then you want to aggrandize it by giving it yet another tax and more regulating power.  I could at least half respect a position of decriminalizing drug use and nothing more, but you, YOU, want to feed the machine and make it bigger.  Every time you get angry at me calling you a statist leftist, I'll remember this, you wanting nationized health care, and other examples that vindicate my just opinion.


1) It's not hypocrisy. Only anarchists want to completely remove government from our lives. I am an anarchist at heart, but my head is a pragmatist. We've got a long way to go before we get anywhere near a tolerable anarchy.
2) Most "Branch Paulinians" are libertarian minarchists, not anarchists. That means they want small, limited government. Minor taxation and regulation is perfectly compatible with a small and limited government. 
3) I have never complained about you calling me a statist leftist. You really need to get new glasses, or have your wife read my posts for you. That, or just stop making shit up  :Tongue:

----------


## garyo

I asked you a serious question and I jumped on the dogpile, really.

----------


## Mainecoons

> Yes, thanks for reminding me of one of the biggest hypocricies of the Pothead, Branch Paulinian Left.  You say you want to legalize pot to throw of the shackles of government, that the war on drugs is an example of government being too big and too controlling, and then you want to aggrandize it by giving it yet another tax and more regulating power.  I could at least half respect a position of decriminalizing drug use and nothing more, but you, YOU, want to feed the machine and make it bigger.  Every time you get angry at me calling you a statist leftist, I'll remember this, you wanting nationized health care, and other examples that vindicate my just opinion.


Baloney.  Taxing and regulating it won't require near the huge and draconian police state that is failing miserably in trying to stamp it out.

Why are you so unrealistic about this?  Don't you understand that over half the population ADMITS to having used drugs at some point?

Every country that has decriminalized this and treated drug abuse as a public health matter has seen declines in drug use.  Do your damn homework and substitute reality for your emotionalism.

BTW I don't smoke dope and where I live, it is OK to grow your own MJ in your backyard.  And thanks to your U.S. government idiocy, you've created a vast and dangerous to the world criminal conspiracy that makes the prohibition-caused Mafia explosion look like a kindergarten class.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Baloney. Taxing and regulating it won't require near the huge and draconian police state that is failing miserably in trying to stamp it out.


  Federal, state, and local asset forfeitures bring in billions of dollars.  I think this escaped your equation.

----------


## The XL

> That's your "all the wars started by religion" myth, not mine.  Keep it to yourself.


It's no myth, it's fact.  There are no recorded deaths due to marijuana overdose.  I'm sure there are a few freak accidents here and there, like some dude blazed out of his mind accidentally drowning in his shower or some shit, but those are likely extremely rare.  Meanwhile, our current wars in the Middle East are religious wars, and throughout history, there have been millions, probably billions killed because of idiotic religious conflicts.






> Breaking the law isn't "no reason".  I'm 37 years old and don't even  have an arrest record. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to make your  lamentation come true.


An Unconstitutional, evil, law has no business existing in this country.  Would you stop practicing your religion if it was illegal to do so?  Probably not.  There is literally no difference in that scenario versus this one.  




> And I'm going to keep voting for these "assholes".


Of course you will.  You're a big government authoritarian statist.  It's ludicrous that someone like yourself had the nerve to call Rina a big government leftist. Absolutely ridiculous that you'd have the nerve to type that shit, I hope you didn't have a straight face on while doing so. 




> That's assuming that your bullshit claim that I'm doing  something wrong is accurate.  The only ill effects that will befall me  and society as a whole will be if we idiotically and suicidally enact  drug legalization schemes.  Your invectives mean nothing to me as YOU  mean nothing to me.  You're just yet another hack jumping on the  bandwagon.  Notice that nobody comes to my defense when I pose this  argument, yet when it comes time to vote, people vote to keep drugs  illegal and to sustain the war on drugs.  I speak for the silent  majority, most of whom have been shamed into silence by shrill pothead  zombies like you.


I don't care whether the majority support the drug war or not, it's irrelevant.  You ARE in the wrong, advocating and voting in politicians that take away freedom from non violent people.  Who the hell do you think you are anyway?  You support alcohol legalization, have probably consumed a drink before, yet you want to throw people in prison for the use/possession/sale of something that is not nearly as dangerous.  It's evil, hypocritical, and nonsensical.  If there is any justice in the world, you and people like you will suffer the same fate as the people you foolishly and irrationally condemn, and I won't feel an ounce of compassion for you.  

Not to mention, the fact that you have the nerve to outwardly support and think policy should derive from organized religion, something far more lethal than marijunana, while wanting to throw pot smokers in jail for no reason, makes me sick.  

For the record, I have no criminal record, and have never done any drug, illegal or otherwise, aside from the occasional drink.  But I believe in freedom, and don't feel the need to impose my will on others, unlike yourself.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> It's no myth, it's fact.  There are no recorded deaths due to marijuana overdose.  I'm sure there are a few freak accidents here and there, like some dude blazed out of his mind accidentally drowning in his shower or some shit, but those are likely extremely rare.


  I was talking about your bullshit claim that religions start wars. Please try to keep up.




> Meanwhile, our current wars in the Middle East are religious wars, and throughout history, there have been millions, probably billions killed because of idiotic religious conflicts.


 "Probably billions?"  How very academic of you.  How many people actually died in wars in which religion was the primary motivator?




> An Unconstitutional, evil, law has no business existing in this country.


  Unconstitutional? Incorrect. Evil?  Your opinion.




> Would you stop practicing your religion if it was illegal to do so?  Probably not.


  Religious freedom is in the Constitution. You're "right" to get high isn't.




> There is literally no difference in that scenario versus this one.


  It's all the difference in the world.




> Of course you will.  You're a big government authoritarian statist.  It's ludicrous that someone like yourself had the nerve to call Rina a big government leftist. Absolutely ridiculous that you'd have the nerve to type that shit, I hope you didn't have a straight face on while doing so.


  You definitely have a talent for getting nasty, but you can't refute the OP. You don't have it where it counts.




> You ARE in the wrong, advocating and voting in politicians that take away freedom from non violent people.


 That's your opinion, no more forceful than mine.




> Who the hell do you think you are anyway?


  An archangel.




> Not to mention, the fact that you have the nerve to outwardly support and think policy should derive from organized religion, something far more lethal than marijunana, while wanting to throw pot smokers in jail for no reason, makes me sick.


  You keep bringing up "evil".  You aren't capable of having a rational discussion about this, are you?




> For the record, I have no criminal record, and have never done any drug, illegal or otherwise, aside from the occasional drink.  But I believe in freedom, and don't feel the need to impose my will on others, unlike yourself.


  Even anarchy involves imposing one's will over another. There's no escaping this trait of human existance. We'll talk about this more when you're calmed down.

----------


## The XL

> I was talking about your bullshit claim that religions start wars. Please try to keep up.


Our Middle East wars are all religious conflicts.  The Crusades were as well.  That alone counts for more death than marijuana.  




> "Probably billions?"  How very academic of you.  How many people  actually died in wars in which religion was the primary motivator?


Billions was hyperbole, but the death toll is easily in the millions.  Again, more than the drug you hate, marijuana.  




> Unconstitutional? Incorrect. Evil?  Your opinion.


It is Unconstitutional.  9th Amendment.  

And anyone who thinks that depraving liberty from non violent people isn't evil probably is a fan of some of the more evil rulers throughout history.  What Hitler may have done isn't necessarily evil, right?  I mean, it's only an opinion, after all.  



> Religious freedom is in the Constitution. You're "right" to get high isn't.


9th Amendment, buddy.  Where is it stated that the government has the right to tell anyone what they put in their body, anyway?  




> It's all the difference in the world.


Incorrect.  




> You definitely have a talent for getting nasty, but you can't refute the OP. You don't have it where it counts.


You're so beyond delusional.  You've been thoroughly destroyed already by multiple people already, including myself.  You have no case, the war on drugs has already been proven multiple times in this thread to be Unconstitutional.  



> That's your opinion, no more forceful than mine.


Gandhi being more evil than Stalin could be considered an "opinion" as well.  But going by decent peoples morals, you're evil and certainly in the wrong.  




> An archangel.


Nope, you're a hypocritical big government authoritarian.  




> You keep bringing up "evil".  You aren't capable of having a rational discussion about this, are you?


You support an irrational policy, and have no rational argument for supporting it.  If anything, I'm the only rational one in this conversation.




> Even anarchy involves imposing one's will over another. There's no  escaping this trait of human existance. We'll talk about this more when  you're calmed down.


What am I trying to impose on anyone?  I want people to be free.  I don't even smoke pot, but I don't want to play God, like you do.  Hell, I'm all for you practicing your faith, I'm merely pointing out the glaring hypocrisy in your stance.  

What this likely boils down to is you wanting drugs, and other things, including probably porn, banned because of your religious beliefs.  Which has no place in our country.  Live the life you wish, but keep out of other peoples lives.

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Billions was hyperbole, but the death toll is easily in the millions. Again, more than the drug you hate, marijuana.


  You can't even prove it's in the millions.




> It is Unconstitutional. 9th Amendment.


 doesn't protect your 'right' to get high.  The OP laid out a solid constitutional case.  You've yet to refute it.




> And anyone who thinks that depraving liberty from non violent people isn't evil probably is a fan of some of the more evil rulers throughout history. What Hitler may have done isn't necessarily evil, right? I mean, it's only an opinion, after all.


  So now wanting drugs illegal is like being Hitler.  Got it.




> You're so beyond delusional. You've been thoroughly destroyed already by multiple people already, including myself. You have no case, the war on drugs has already been proven multiple times in this thread to be Unconstitutional.


  This isn't a video game. I haven't been "destroyed" by anyone much less you.




> Gandhi being more evil than Stalin could be considered an "opinion" as well. But going by decent peoples morals, you're evil and certainly in the wrong.


 I guess over half the country is "evil" by that standard.




> Nope, you're a hypocritical big government authoritarian.


  You forgot poo-poo head.




> You support an irrational policy, and have no rational argument for supporting it. If anything, I'm the only rational one in this conversation.


  Yes, keep calling me evil for my opinion and then pass yourself off as rational.  What a winning plan!

----------


## The XL

> You can't even prove it's in the millions.


All the Crusades wound up with a death toll around 1-2 million.  I'm sure the Palestine/Israel conflict is at least high 5 figures.  Our involvement in the Middle East has religious roots, and the ensuing blowback gave us 9/11 and the Afghanistan war.  Probably also gave Bush the support to justify Iraq via ignorant citizens and politicians.  

Like I said, easily in the millions.  Give me your numbers for marijuana deaths, I'd love to see them.  




> doesn't protect your 'right' to get high.  The OP laid out a solid constitutional case.  You've yet to refute it.


The problem with your "solid Constitutional case" is the fact that there is nothing solid about it at all.  It directly contradicts the 9th Amendment, something multiple people, including myself, have pointed out.  

I'm humor you anyway, though.  Let's just pretend what you say is correct.  That only applies to people bringing drugs into the country anyway, there is no case for the prosecution of dealers/users who acquired the drugs when they were already in the country.  You have no case for the prosecution of those people, even in your scenario.

And, again, I'm playing by your hypothetical scenario, just to make this one sided thrashing somewhat challenging for me, but tell me, what would you do for drugs grown/made within the country?  You can grow marijuana, crystal meth can be made, so can ecstasy, along with others.  All of these could be produced and sold within the country.  

In the real world, and in the pretend world, where I play a little make believe and say your case is solid, nothing changes.  Constitutionally speaking, you fail.  You lose either way.  




> So now wanting drugs illegal is like being Hitler.  Got it.


I'm taking your logic of morals being subjective and stretching it.  What's the matter?  It was your logic to start, after all.



> I guess over half the country is "evil" by that standard.


Putting a non violent person in prison against his or her will is pure evil.  If half the country meets that standard, then yes, half the country is evil.  




> You forgot poo-poo head.


Poo-poo head is something a child like would say.  Big government authoritarian describes you perfectly.  Not quite the same thing.  




> Yes, keep calling me evil for my opinion and then pass yourself off as rational.  What a winning plan!


You want to put people in prison for an act that hurts nobody.  That is the definition of evil.  I just want people to be free and live their lives the way they see fit, as long as they don't directly effect another non consenting person.  I'd say that's pretty rational.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

@Trinnity This one.

----------

Trinnity (07-22-2013)

----------


## Guest

@Irascible Crusader,

are you up for a debate this week?  If not, want to plan a time when you can spare me an hour away from the kids and wife?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> @Irascible Crusader,
> 
> are you up for a debate this week?  If not, want to plan a time when you can spare me an hour away from the kids and wife?


Rina, I already answered you the first time you asked.  Buh-bye!

----------


## Guest

> Rina, I already answered you the first time you asked.  Buh-bye!


Grrr. Didn't see it.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> A classic from Political Forum and Political Buddies. I'm the original author.
> This is why the pro-drug Left is wrong on this issue, both morally and constitutionally


I don't see the moral case here, unless your morality is that the intended end justifies the means or that morality is determined by government decree.

----------


## Guest

> Rina, I already answered you the first time you asked.  Buh-bye!


I went back and looked at that thread.  I don't see it.

----------


## wist43

> A classic from Political Forum and Political Buddies. I'm the original author.
> 
> It's one of the main piers for the Branch Paulinians and Libertarians in general, those who deem themselves the sole guardians of the Constitution and the only ones who know what it means. Anyone who deviates from the Paulinian POV hates the Constitution, doesn't understand it, and clamors for despotism. I don't need to explain this mentality, it explains itself.
> 
> But are they right about the War on Drugs being illegal?
> 
> They aren't even right about it being failed. But more to the point, the way our system of government is set up, states can enforce federal laws but the federal government cannot enforce state law. The reversal of key federal prohibition against controlled substances would mean that 50 different states would have 50 different laws regarding manufacture, sale, transportation, and use of drugs.
> 
> But here's where it gets tricky. Elimination of federal drug laws means the elimination of the DEA and Coast Guard efforts at drug seizures. It means that even though Nevada (for example) may prohibit drugs, the enemy can approach the gate unimpeded. However much the Paulemmings may insist that the federal war on drugs has failed, major drug seizures, asset forfeiture laws, education, and incarcerations have been very effective at keeping metric tons of drugs out of the country and off our streets and putting the poisoners behind bars where they belong. The fact that people can, at a high price and risk, still obtain drugs is heralded as proof of how feckless the war must be. Never considered is the how much more drugs would be used if they were legalized; and even in states where they remain illegal, how much more difficult it would be to enforce state laws when the federal government no longer plays a vital role.
> ...


- Why did the Feds have to pass an amendment to outlaw alcohol?? 

- Gary's question was perfectly logical and prescient; yet, you dismissively dodge it b/c it's too tough to answer??

- Suppose I grow a plant in my basement, from seeds that I crapped out of my ass (no interstate commerce involved); and suppose I smoke the sweet bud in the privacy of my own home - you will kick my door down, shoot my dog, confiscate my property, jail me, and do everything outside the bounds of decency to ruin by life - under what constitutional provision??

Your arguments are false on their face - unfortunately, citizens like you are legion, which is why our government is out of control.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (07-23-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

To quote myself to another progressive on BIG PF: I'm sure the Prohibitionists of the 20s thought their cause was unassailable, too.

You can only say it "will never end" if you see the future. Since none of us do...it's bullshit.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (07-23-2013)

----------

