Libertarian Vs. Tea Party

[SemperFiUSMC]

on the drug issue:



Riddle me this:

1. What is the chapter and verse of the Constitution that allows the federal govt to set laws such as this? There is an answer - but it's steeped in controversy. One of those - where do you draw line? clauses that the progressives also keep using to screw us.

Commerce clause, Welfare clause, police power doctrine.

2. (this one I don't know, so I thought I'd ask - it's the journalism training, asking pesky questions): Higher per capita crime. What crimes are included in that? Vandalism, burglary, possession?

Don't know. The questions were rhetorical, intended to provoke thought rather than response. They were intended to show that there are issues that need to be addressed.

Also, how much of the crime is directly related to drug market?
Are some of the crimes directly related to getting enough cash to purchase the next hit?
How much of the crime is directly related to the gangs controlling the supply?

Again, don't know. That's what I want to know. I'm not sure there are any studies that show causation / corrolation of crime to drug use, distribution, or territory protection.

There are a lot of What Ifs in the war on drugs.

There are indeed. Which is what I would like to know before changing a long standing status quo.

+1 for not trying to answer the questions but allowing them to provoke thought. And +1 for not being so weak minded you were reduced to name calling.

I guess in the end I envision successful change to be a process, not an event. I guess that is why went I have sought change from the government I have been successful. I am willing to invest in change.

 

[dross]

+1 for not trying to answer the questions but allowing them to provoke thought. And +1 for not being so weak minded you were reduced to name calling.

Please understand this isn't the first time I've heard or thought about these questions. I was provoked in thought long ago concerning these questions and many others. So I answered.

 

[rambone]

clauses that the progressives also keep using to screw us.

Commerce clause, Welfare clause, police power doctrine.

Are the abuse of those clauses really something you support? Or is this the "realist" argument that we don't have a functional 10th Amendment and must accept that somebody long ago decided that we live in a Federal dictatorship?

I don't accept that somebody made an unconstitutional power grab long ago, and I will continue to speak out and fight against it.

 

[Phil502]

It must be debated philosophically, because you've already conceded the information/harm/benefit argument unless you are advocating making alcohol illegal, which is certainly more harmful than marijuana.

What makes you think that "pound for pound" marijuana is less harmful then alcohol, to the user? I am not sure that I believe that or that it can be evaluated properly due to the apples and oranges aspect of it.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

What makes you think that "pound for pound" marijuana is less harmful then alcohol, to the user? I am not sure that I believe that or that it can be evaluated properly due to the apples and oranges aspect of it.

Can you smoke enough marijuana to kill yourself in your sleep? I really don't know...but I'm pretty sure some people drink enough alcohol that they don't wake up. I could be wrong on both counts...I don't use either substance.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Are the abuse of those clauses really something you support? Or is this the "realist" argument that we don't have a functional 10th Amendment and must accept that somebody long ago decided that we live in a Federal dictatorship?
I don't accept that somebody made an unconstitutional power grab long ago, and I will continue to speak out and fight against it.

Of course I don't support it. I accept it is reality only because it in fact is reality. Do I want it to change? hell yes. But you don't effect change by whining like a two year old on an Internet forum. You get into the game. If the game is hockey you don't show up to play baseball. You play by the rules that are established. If you're good at it you'lll win.

 

[EnochRoot43]

What makes you think that "pound for pound" marijuana is less harmful then alcohol, to the user? I am not sure that I believe that or that it can be evaluated properly due to the apples and oranges aspect of it.

Actually this is very easy to prove.

According to CDC data, in 2007 14,407 people died from alcoholic liver disease; 23,199 "alcohol-induced deaths, EXCLUDING ACCIDENTS AND HOMICIDES".

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 13,041 people were killed in alcohol related traffic accidents in the same year (2007).

According to the Department of Justice, 75% of batterers involved in domestic violence were using alcohol at the time of the attack.

Various other statistical data shows a combined figure of 100,000 alcohol related deaths every year.


Marijuana has never been shown to have directly caused a single death.

Marijuana does not cause lung cancer.
According to Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years, "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 1992 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review of the role of drug use in fatal accidents reported, “There was no indication that cannabis itself was a cause of fatal crashes” among drivers who tested positive for the presence of the drug.[/FONT]



There is a starting point for you. There is a vast wealth of reliable information available concerning this topic, and with a little research you may easily come to the same conclusion.

P.S.- A pound of marijuana contains over 1,000 "doses". If you could consume it all at once, you would be rather worthless for a period of time but would eventually sober up no worse for wear. A "pound" of alcohol , at 0.78 grams/ml, would be about 19 fluid ounces. This equals about 34 beers or shots of liquor. If consumed all at once, this would be a fatal dose of alcohol for nearly everyone.

 

[rambone]

Of course I don't support it. I accept it is reality only because it in fact is reality. Do I want it to change? hell yes. But you don't effect change by whining like a two year old on an Internet forum.

Really, I didn't realize you were against the War on Drugs. You always seemed to value the purported safety of these behavior controls. Asking for empirical evidence that freedom is worth having. Et cetera.

Also I think there is some value to winning people over on a discussion forum. The more supporters you can gather for a cause, the better your chances of effecting change. I do more than just cry on the internet, moaning and groaning about the death of freedom.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Really, I didn't realize you were against the War on Drugs. You always seemed to value the purported safety of these behavior controls. Asking for empirical evidence that freedom is worth having. Et cetera.

Also I think there is some value to winning people over on a discussion forum. The more supporters you can gather for a cause, the better your chances of effecting change. I do more than just cry on the internet, moaning and groaning about the death of freedom.

I agree the war on drugs has been ineffective. I LEGITIMATELY DISAGREE that the only other alternative is to legalize drugs. Not because I don't think you have a right to kill yourself if you want to. You do. However, thie point that I am not making is that I don't agree that you are just harming yourself. I think you bring harm to others around you. Not just your family, but people that may come into contact with, let's call it the drug system. I am not saying I can't be swayed, because I could. I am saying that at this point I think the harm to society is greater than any perceived right. That's all. I really don't understand how you can think only in pure bianry.

With all due respect, there is no one on this forum that can change anything. You have to convince the system to change. That is what I've been saying all along. If you chose to stay on the sidewalk and do nothing but complain, no one will ever change anything.

The thing that pisses me off is the absolutist "you have to agree with everything or your a sandwich statist" attitude so many display here. It's total group think on the part of the Libertarian crowd. I think it's pretty sad that rather than have rational discussions and educated debate there is state of denial that other reasonable and valid opinions can coexist. It's starting to make me wonder if I might be better focusing attention elsewhere.

 

[dross]

The thing that pisses me off is the absolutist "you have to agree with everything or your a sandwich statist" attitude so many display here. It's total group think on the part of the Libertarian crowd. I think it's pretty sad that rather than have rational discussions and educated debate there is state of denial that other reasonable and valid opinions can coexist. It's starting to make me wonder if I might be better focusing attention elsewhere.

I don't like absolutist rhetoric either, but you are affecting a lack of understanding that doesn't match the intelligence of some of your arguments.

You want to argue this issue as harm or benefit to society. For those of us who believe this is a right, a natural right, endowed at birth, the harm/benefit equation is moot. To engage with us, you are first being asked to counter our position that it IS a right.

Without settling that question, we never get to the harm/benefit issue.

We argue a right, you brush that aside without addressing it, and go back to harm and benefit.

Racist speech is harmful to the children raised in it, the children who it is aimed at, and to society at large. Yet we protect it.

Many of us here see private matters like drug use in the same way.

This is the disconnect. You don't have to agree that it is a right, but you if you refuse to engage on the primary issue, it is you who is demonstrating stubborness, for the one is subordinate to the other.

Unless you are arguing either that the harm is so great it supercedes a right, which requires YOU to produce the evidence of the great harm. Or perhaps you are arguing that rights are always superceded by any demonstrable harm at all, in which case you would meet my definition of a statist.

P.S. If this post seems to you to be an example of groupthink, or is an example of a lack of intelligent argument, I'll withdraw as unable to engage you at your lofty heights.

 

[Phil502]

Actually this is very easy to prove.

According to CDC data, in 2007 14,407 people died from alcoholic liver disease; 23,199 "alcohol-induced deaths, EXCLUDING ACCIDENTS AND HOMICIDES".

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 13,041 people were killed in alcohol related traffic accidents in the same year (2007).

According to the Department of Justice, 75% of batterers involved in domestic violence were using alcohol at the time of the attack.

Various other statistical data shows a combined figure of 100,000 alcohol related deaths every year.


Marijuana has never been shown to have directly caused a single death.

Marijuana does not cause lung cancer.
According to Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years, "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 1992 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review of the role of drug use in fatal accidents reported, “There was no indication that cannabis itself was a cause of fatal crashes” among drivers who tested positive for the presence of the drug.[/FONT]



There is a starting point for you. There is a vast wealth of reliable information available concerning this topic, and with a little research you may easily come to the same conclusion.

P.S.- A pound of marijuana contains over 1,000 "doses". If you could consume it all at once, you would be rather worthless for a period of time but would eventually sober up no worse for wear. A "pound" of alcohol , at 0.78 grams/ml, would be about 19 fluid ounces. This equals about 34 beers or shots of liquor. If consumed all at once, this would be a fatal dose of alcohol for nearly everyone.

Thats pretty interesting, I really thought that lung cancer would be on the table!

I think the jury is still out about other harm though but maybe not as bad with lung cancer out of the way, lung cancer is damn near a death sentence, it almost always gets you.

One thing though, it's a lot easier for the novice to smoke pot everyday then it is too drink, sitting around getting high all day robs you of your ambition, some people have a real hard time breaking out of that. I suppose thats their problem though.

I still think there is a social cost to legalizing pot, I just don't know how much the cost is.

 

[antsi]

I still think there is a social cost to legalizing pot, I just don't know how much the cost is.

This is only true if you believe there are substantial numbers of people who now want to smoke marijuana, but (a) can't get it due to its being illegal, or (b) are deterred from using by its being illegal.

Personally I see very little evidence that people have any respect for these laws, or that they are at all effective in reducing access.

It appears to me that the decision whether or not to smoke MJ is based on other factors than whether or not it's legal.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

One thing though, it's a lot easier for the novice to smoke pot everyday then it is too drink, sitting around getting high all day robs you of your ambition, some people have a real hard time breaking out of that. I suppose thats their problem though.

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" -Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

This world would be much better if some of us had less ambition.

 

[SirRealism]

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" -Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

This world would be much better if some of us had less ambition.

Ha ha, for some reason, that makes me think of the "rock the vote" campaigns waged by MTV and the likes. They want to get lazy, uninformed voters to the polls. I'd prefer they stay at home... maybe a joint would help curb their ambition. Stupid and lazy is indeed better than stupid and industrious in some circumstances.

 

[photoshooter]

I don't like absolutist rhetoric either, but you are affecting a lack of understanding that doesn't match the intelligence of some of your arguments.

You want to argue this issue as harm or benefit to society. For those of us who believe this is a right, a natural right, endowed at birth, the harm/benefit equation is moot. To engage with us, you are first being asked to counter our position that it IS a right.

Without settling that question, we never get to the harm/benefit issue.
...

There is a secondary argument to the debate on "is it an inalienable right"...

Does the federal government have the legitimate ability to enact and enforce the drug laws.

They currently hold that power because the government assumed it. But, is it legitimately their power to wield based on Constitutional law?

We have to have a discussion of the meaning of two different clauses within the Constitution.

Neither of those clauses is definitively set in their boundaries, and are routinely used by both parties to gather more and more power for the federal government. Social Security and every other "welfare" program is based on the "general welfare" clause.

As for commerce: The feds usurped rights they didn't have back in the 1940 by telling farmers what they can and cannot grow on their own land for their own consumption.

Sensible folks look at those clauses and want to debate the limits to which the federal government is allowed to go - and those boundaries need to be firm, IMO. What exactly does "regulate" and "interstate commerce" entail as it was written and intended by the Framers?

In fact, those clauses keep being used to skirt the 9th and 10th amendments. We need to define and set the boundaries for the 2 clauses, in light of the later amendments, as to what the powers of the federal government really are - before we can decide if the federal govt has usurped power it should not have.

So, where exactly are the Constitutional boundaries that reign in the power of the federal govt? Can they regulate the manufacture and sale of ammunition through the Interstate Commerce clause? Can they limit, or eliminate the possession of ammunition by private citizens due to the General Wellfare clause? If not, why do they get to use those same clauses to circumvent the 9th and 10th amendments in the issue of possession of marijuana?

 

[dross]

There is a secondary argument to the debate on "is it an inalienable right"...

Does the federal government have the legitimate ability to enact and enforce the drug laws.

They currently hold that power because the government assumed it. But, is it legitimately their power to wield based on Constitutional law?

We have to have a discussion of the meaning of two different clauses within the Constitution.

Neither of those clauses is definitively set in their boundaries, and are routinely used by both parties to gather more and more power for the federal government. Social Security and every other "welfare" program is based on the "general welfare" clause.

As for commerce: The feds usurped rights they didn't have back in the 1940 by telling farmers what they can and cannot grow on their own land for their own consumption.

Sensible folks look at those clauses and want to debate the limits to which the federal government is allowed to go - and those boundaries need to be firm, IMO. What exactly does "regulate" and "interstate commerce" entail as it was written and intended by the Framers?

In fact, those clauses keep being used to skirt the 9th and 10th amendments. We need to define and set the boundaries for the 2 clauses, in light of the later amendments, as to what the powers of the federal government really are - before we can decide if the federal govt has usurped power it should not have.

So, where exactly are the Constitutional boundaries that reign in the power of the federal govt? Can they regulate the manufacture and sale of ammunition through the Interstate Commerce clause? Can they limit, or eliminate the possession of ammunition by private citizens due to the General Wellfare clause? If not, why do they get to use those same clauses to circumvent the 9th and 10th amendments in the issue of possession of marijuana?

It's simple to me. If the General Welfare clause and the Commerce clause mean what the left says they mean, then the federal government has unlimited power. Since it is clear they weren't meant to have unlimited power, those clauses can't mean what the left says they mean.

Unfortunately that ship has mostly sailed. Unless the current court pulls back on the reins. Another reason why it's so important for a Republican to be President, appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Yes, there have been several nightmare justices appointed by Republicans. But ALL the justices appointed by Democrats in recent years have been nightmares.

 

[Phil502]

This is only true if you believe there are substantial numbers of people who now want to smoke marijuana, but (a) can't get it due to its being illegal, or (b) are deterred from using by its being illegal.

Personally I see very little evidence that people have any respect for these laws, or that they are at all effective in reducing access.

It appears to me that the decision whether or not to smoke MJ is based on other factors than whether or not it's legal.

Yes I believe that there is a lot of people that would smoke it but are kept back because of drug testing or other reasons. They just don't think the risk is worth it.

 

[Phil502]

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" -Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

This world would be much better if some of us had less ambition.

interesting but I don't think the General had many guys smoking up in the 1930's.

Well, maybe this guys cousin.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There is a secondary argument to the debate on "is it an inalienable right"...

Does the federal government have the legitimate ability to enact and enforce the drug laws.

They currently hold that power because the government assumed it. But, is it legitimately their power to wield based on Constitutional law?

We have to have a discussion of the meaning of two different clauses within the Constitution.

Neither of those clauses is definitively set in their boundaries, and are routinely used by both parties to gather more and more power for the federal government. Social Security and every other "welfare" program is based on the "general welfare" clause.

As for commerce: The feds usurped rights they didn't have back in the 1940 by telling farmers what they can and cannot grow on their own land for their own consumption.

Sensible folks look at those clauses and want to debate the limits to which the federal government is allowed to go - and those boundaries need to be firm, IMO. What exactly does "regulate" and "interstate commerce" entail as it was written and intended by the Framers?

In fact, those clauses keep being used to skirt the 9th and 10th amendments. We need to define and set the boundaries for the 2 clauses, in light of the later amendments, as to what the powers of the federal government really are - before we can decide if the federal govt has usurped power it should not have.

So, where exactly are the Constitutional boundaries that reign in the power of the federal govt? Can they regulate the manufacture and sale of ammunition through the Interstate Commerce clause? Can they limit, or eliminate the possession of ammunition by private citizens due to the General Wellfare clause? If not, why do they get to use those same clauses to circumvent the 9th and 10th amendments in the issue of possession of marijuana?

It's simple to me. If the General Welfare clause and the Commerce clause mean what the left says they mean, then the federal government has unlimited power. Since it is clear they weren't meant to have unlimited power, those clauses can't mean what the left says they mean.

Unfortunately that ship has mostly sailed. Unless the current court pulls back on the reins. Another reason why it's so important for a Republican to be President, appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Yes, there have been several nightmare justices appointed by Republicans. But ALL the justices appointed by Democrats in recent years have been nightmares.

The Constitution states Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That is undebatable.

The original intent was that Congress would ensure that Virginia could not prohibit tobacco grown in North Carolina from being transported thru Virginia on its way to New England. Nor could Virginia impose tariffs on North Carolina tobacco sold in Virgina. Was that the only intent of the commerce clause? History tells us no.

Tyranny did not begin in the 1940s. It began in 1791 with the passing of an excise tax on whiskey. George Washington led the Army against Pennsylvania whiskey distillers to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The full force of the federal government was levied against a product produced in Pennsylvania for consumption in Pennsylvania. By our founding fathers. Our first president lead the Army to put down a rebellion by US citizens.

Our founding fathers were the first to use the power of the Federal government to abuse American citizens. Were they leftista libtards, or just a bunch of guys trying to govern a country?

The Federal government grew fivefold under Jefferson. I could go on and on and on. History is littered with examples of overreaching Federal overlords. To say that Federal abuse is a recent phenomenom is to ignore that history.

The question was raised whether the Federal government can regulate the interstate commerce of ammuniiton. The answer is yes, they do, and it is any ammunition place into commerce whether inter or intra state. Start an ammunition manufacturing company without ATF approval and you will have some new friends. Federal law also regulates the amount of powder you are permitted to have in a single building, and how that powder has to be stored. Could they regulate the amount of ammunition you possessed? Yes, but it would be political suicide everywhere except Chicago. In fact much anti-2A effort has been expended on pushing for microstamping ammunition (a non-existent technology) as an alternative to taking away guns.

The 10th Amendment is dead, and has been for 150 years. It was killed by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment created the Nanny state. The only way to end Nannyism is to repeal the 14th Amendment. Who thinks that could ever happen?

 

[dross]

The Constitution states Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That is undebatable.

The original intent was that Congress would ensure that Virginia could not prohibit tobacco grown in North Carolina from being transported thru Virginia on its way to New England. Nor could Virginia impose tariffs on North Carolina tobacco sold in Virgina. Was that the only intent of the commerce clause? History tells us no.

Tyranny did not begin in the 1940s. It began in 1791 with the passing of an excise tax on whiskey. George Washington led the Army against Pennsylvania whiskey distillers to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The full force of the federal government was levied against a product produced in Pennsylvania for consumption in Pennsylvania. By our founding fathers. Our first president lead the Army to put down a rebellion by US citizens.

Our founding fathers were the first to use the power of the Federal government to abuse American citizens. Were they leftista libtards, or just a bunch of guys trying to govern a country?

The Federal government grew fivefold under Jefferson. I could go on and on and on. History is littered with examples of overreaching Federal overlords. To say that Federal abuse is a recent phenomenom is to ignore that history.

The question was raised whether the Federal government can regulate the interstate commerce of ammuniiton. The answer is yes, they do, and it is any ammunition place into commerce whether inter or intra state. Start an ammunition manufacturing company without ATF approval and you will have some new friends. Federal law also regulates the amount of powder you are permitted to have in a single building, and how that powder has to be stored. Could they regulate the amount of ammunition you possessed? Yes, but it would be political suicide everywhere except Chicago. In fact much anti-2A effort has been expended on pushing for microstamping ammunition (a non-existent technology) as an alternative to taking away guns.

The 10th Amendment is dead, and has been for 150 years. It was killed by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment created the Nanny state. The only way to end Nannyism is to repeal the 14th Amendment. Who thinks that could ever happen?

The fact that liberty has been abused in the past is not justification for its future abuse. To concede everything that's happened in the past is to legitimize every encroachment in the future. As soon as it's passed and in place for a while, the pragmatist shrugs his shoulders and adjusts to his new world.

The 10th amendment wasn't killed by the 14th, but its power was adjusted downward. I don't have a problem with the BOR being incorporated to the states.

You seem to be saying that because the Commerce clause and the GW clause have been abused throughout our history, that you concede that the federal government has complete power over the states. I'll concede that the do in practice. I won't concede the moral argument, however.

Do you believe in natural rights? Or are you saying that since in practice our rights are only whatever our overlords say they are, that you just concede that fact and so there's no point in arguing the moral case?

You don't like being labeled a statist, but I'm having trouble seeing how you are not. I see you enjoy popping folks' uninformed ballons, and that's fine, but I'm not getting a picture of your closely held beliefs, or perhaps I am, though you seem to take exception to what your arguments imply.

Please clarify where you stand.