Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zack Bass]

....  Join the libertarians who say, "Yes, recreational drug use is probably not good for you, and we certainly disaprove, but we have to stop the policy that makes drug use more appealing to kids."

I prefer the libertarians who say, "Lots of things are risky, but the Government has no business whatsoever having any policy at all on drug use, or any involvement other than to make sure that what is sold as crank actually contains the proper percentage of pure methamphetamine, and what is sold as crunchy frogs actually contains real crunchy frogs."

[Steve]

Zack said:
I prefer the libertarians who say, "Lots of things are risky, but the Government has no business whatsoever having any policy at all on drug use, or any involvement other than to make sure that what is sold as crank actually contains the proper percentage of pure methamphetamine, and what is sold as crunchy frogs actually contains real crunchy frogs."

At the political level, we should have the self restraint to keep our *should* opinions to ourselves.  
And I know I hate soggy frogs.

[Zack Bass]

And I know I hate soggy frogs.

I used to work as a chemist at the FDA in Wash.D.C., and many of the inspectors had a reasonable attitude.  One of them said he went to one place where they were mixing the vitamins in a large bucket, with a shovel.  But when he tested samples, they showed consistent and adequate levels of all the ingredients, so he said what the heck.
But there was one guy, my supervisor's supervisor, nearer to policy level, who was complaining about the recent (this was in 1964) proposal to grind up fish for high-protein "fish meal" supplements.  He said, "they grind up the shit and everything.  I don't want to eat shit."  I couldn't help thinking even then, years before I knew I was a libertarian, why not label it Fish With Shit and let people decide.
(I guess he never ate shrimp.)

[Penfist]

"We are losing the drug war, so let's just give up and legalize it."  what a stupid argument!  That's like saying, "Well, we have laws against murder, but people are still being murdered, so let's just leagalize it and watch the crime rate go down!"  Well sorry folks, drugs are bad, so is kiddie porn and abortion.  Yes, that's a value statement, its MY value statement, and yes, I try to impose it on others, peacefully of course.

You're obviously missing the most important difference between doing drugs and being murdered. People who ingest drugs do so voluntarily. People who are murdered never consent to it.

Ironic that a poster named Scoobie Snaxxx is complaining that society shouldn't have the freedom to do drugs. Are we supposed to take you seriously?

How do you impose your values on others peacefully? The definition of impose is: To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others. That doesn't sound too peaceful to me.

What I hear you saying is that you'd join us if we were just willing to accept that it is alright for you (and probably anyone you authorize) to impose their will on other people for reasons other than self-defense.

Why don't you work on expressing yourself more straightforwardly so I don't have to spend time intrepreting your comments in the future. Stop muddying the waters by lumping murder and kiddie porn together with victimless "crimes"  such as drug use.

You end your ridiculous post by signing as the "Hammer of God." Please keep your hammer to yourself. We have enough people insisting they are carrying out God's will on earth already. I'm more interested in joining with people who mention God very little and ask lots of questions when they do. People who think they have all the answers relating to God's will are, in my experience, best kept locked up.

[Penfist]

I prefer the libertarians who say, "Lots of things are risky, but the Government has no business whatsoever having any policy at all on drug use, or any involvement other than to make sure that what is sold as crank actually contains the proper percentage of pure methamphetamine, and what is sold as crunchy frogs actually contains real crunchy frogs."

Good answer, my apparentely naked brother!

[Robert H.]

Already, the feds have 'allowed' limited manufacturing and distribution even though it is contrary to CSA and following legal code.  However, I can assume that the Free State legalization would result in mass manufacturing and distribution.  This would be a whole new ball game, and you can bet your britches the Feds (ATF?) would arrest, confiscate, jail, and 'shoot in the line of duty'.  They need no constitutional justification for their actions; they act according to legislation and following legal code.  (legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment).

No offense to Fubar here, but this idea that "legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment" is a very dangerous doctrine.  There may be no phrasiology in the Constitution to the effect that:  "Congress must first determine the constitutionality of legislation before enacting it," but the Constitution does strictly limit what Congress may legislate on in the first place, thereby creating the necessity for legislators to ensure that they are not stepping over their constitutional limitations in enacting legislation.  There is also the fact that all members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which oath would include adhering to the 10th amendment's limiting Congress's legislative authority to its delegated powers.

The doctrine that Fubar refers to is an ultimate product of the Marshall Court, which originated the doctrine of judicial review, and has had a progressive effect of everyone expecting the Supreme Court to proactively strike down unconstitutional measures of the Executive and Legislative branches.  That expectation has, in turn, essentially freed the Executive and Legislative branches of any constitutional conscience when it comes to enacting various measures.  Congress and the President now basically do what they want and say:  "Let the Supreme Court strike it down if they want to."  They have ever more progressively run amok when it comes to constitutional restrictions on their authority because they no longer consider themselves concerned with constitutional issues (with regard to the vast majority of items that come down the pike).

This is a dubious, and I contend, dangerous, doctrine because it effectively unties those hands that the Constitution was intended to bind.


"But what is of most importance is the high sanction given to a latitude in expounding the Constitution which seems to break down the landmarks intended by a specification of the Powers of Congress, and to substitute for a definite connection between means and ends, a Legislative discretion as to the former to which no practical limit can be assigned.  

In the great system of Political Economy having for its general object the national welfare, everything is related immediately or remotely to every other thing; and consequently a Power over any one thing, if not limited by some obvious and precise affinity, may amount to a Power over every other...The British Parliament in collecting a revenue from the commerce of America found no difficulty in calling it either a tax for the regulation of trade, or a regulation of trade with a view to the tax, as it suited the argument or the policy of the moment."  - James Madison

[5pectre]

Alcohol has been a part of our culture for literally thousands of years.

*laugh*, so have opium, marijuana, magic mushrooms, peyote, coca (not cocaine), ayhausca and many more currently 'illegal' drugs. yet you would advocate the continuing prohibition?

perhaps you should do some research before spouting rhetoric.

[rob_marlett]

For the topic of considering constitutional government, The question is not if drugs are dangerous to the user, nor if they should be illegal because of the harm done to those around the user (there are already good laws concerning harming others) there should not even be discussion as to whether or not the drugs should be illegal at all. the question very simply is whether or not the FEDERAL government has the constitutional authority to ban such an item. the exact argument applies to the federal regulation of firearms, medications, and all other products or goods - excluding imports and exports - which they do have the responsibility to "regulate" and tax.  There are many things against which there should perhaps be laws, but these rights are retained by the people and the states individually - at which level of government there is a lot more direct accountability to the people. I fear however, that in actual practice, state soveriegnity died with the Civil War.

[rob_marlett]

I'm not an expert either, but even a simple reading of the text of the constitution reveals that they have no such authority... forgive my style, but I like to ask questions sometimes just to point out the obvious answer.
as to the "can" issue... sure they can as long as we let them.  The entire purpose of the second amendment was so that we didn't have to let them. (just in case this gets read by someone who has been fed the liberal line on that one... e-mail me at rmarlett@bellsouth.net and I'll send you the proof.)
Just from my 30 hours or so of reading into it, it looks to me like FSP is a last ditch effort to avoid having to excersize the second amendment rights (in light of the numberous quotes concerning its purpose made by the founding fathers.)
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." – Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." – Thomas Jefferson
"...it is indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst (against) the incapicity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." - James Madison
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."  - Daniel Webster
 The most distressing thing I've found in recent years however, is that the actual text of the US Constitution is virtually irrelevant in a federal court - they rely now on case law interperatations more than on the text. I was at risk of having my entire lawsuit (challenging the Constitutionality of an ordinance) thrown out, because I had not (at first) supported it with case law... I've since corrected my mistake (of assuming the Constitution was still the Supreme law of the land, but I'll never be able to view the court system with any respect at all again.

[rob_marlett]

the great thing about FSP, that seperates it from groups that just get gunned down by ATF and FBI versions of the KGB, is that there is not a common location - you're all moving to a state, not a rural spot in one county. It is easy enough for the government to make excuses for raiding the Montana freedmens compound, or anhilating the Branch dividians in Waco, texas...  but a series of 20000 swat style raids all over the state? that would be a tough one for even the liberal media to swallow.
Obvious to the carefull thinker, is that this project was carefully thought out, even if only half planned (for good enough reasons, as has been explained in other places.)
I am neither financially nor physically able to move, and (unless I win this lawsuit against the city) I'm not sure I ever will be again.
I certainly agree with the "try everything else first" approach to the use of force. I've advocated just that in the several articles I've written and published in conservative newsletters, but it is important that people recognize that an attempt to overhaul a state government and challenge the authority of federal laws via state soveriegnity could result in the installation of martial law to "create stability in the region".  particularly if many of the people involved have already been labled as radicals for one reason or another.
while I'm at it... what is so darn radical about wanting the government to abide by the laws that created it?  I know, I'm preaching at the choir.  In other forums, articles, posts, etc... I found a heck of a lot of enthusiasm, and only a few voices of thoughtfull reason... having looked close enough to eventually find out, it seems the right people are in the right positions to make this work if it can, but I would have to suggest that some carefully thought out articles be made availible for those who know only enough to comprehend that our current government isn't constitutional... these are people on whom FSP is depending on to be activists... they need educated if they are willing to learn, and I'd suppose they are if they are willing to move !!! has this already been addressed? I've spent many hours on this now, and still haven't seen all of the various threads !!!

[Reaper]

Perhaps many of us moving to the chosen state should make an effort to "become the media"?

If we had a porcupine or two working in every major media establishment in the chosen state it could lead to more favorable, or at least honest, coverage.

Perhaps some of us should start gather press experience and upon arrival apply to the bigger newspapers, television newsrooms for work.

[JasonPSorens]

We should definitely start a newspaper and some have already mentioned that they would be interested in buying radio stations.

[rob_marlett]

in the short term, I think it may be wise to do some carefully designed advertising in areas where FSP ideology seems to already have a foothold, and in each of the prospective target areas... might be good to know something about which areas would be happiest to have FSP moving in... has anybody compared membership roles to see if any of the target areas are already populated with members?  If it's a close run between 2 states, except that one already has 25 or 30 members more than the other, it makes good sense to give that some consideration...
I think advertising, rather than polling might be the best use of strained resources ... any results from the advertising could certainly assist in determining what percentage of the population would be open to liberty based theories.
perhaps the number of members in each of the target states could be made public prior to the decision, thus assisting members with their own choice in voting for states.

[JasonPSorens]

Membership is remarkably even across states, even candidate states.  Some older but still relevant statistics can be found on a thread in the "General Discussion" board called "What the FSP Looks Like."  NH and Maine recently have pulled ahead in terms of # of FSP member because their state Libertarian Party organizations have endorsed us and promoted us to their membership.  However, we're hoping to get the other 8 candidate states to do the same.

[rob_marlett]

there was an amazing corolation in those early numbers between the states with the most regulatory and tyrranical governments and the membership levels !!!! Is there any plan for updating those numbers?  looks like there's gonna be a lot of cold people from florida, texas and california... definitely worth it for freedom though.