TheAgitator.com
My Fox column…
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008…this week commemorates the 75th anniversary of the repeal of alcohol prohibition by contrasting it with the ongoing drug prohibition.
15 Responses to “My Fox column…”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Good article.I’m still amazed that many people I know,who stop and have a beer after work,can’t make the connection.
Good column and I agree with you on everything. Drugs shouldn’t be illegal (or at least not at the federal level). Each state should be able to regulate what drug or drugs are to be used and in what manner (kind of like the medical marihuana law in California).
Why should the federal government spend so much of our tax dollars trying to stop something that the states should be regulating to begin with?
Obama inhaled so maybe he’ll be able to do something about it (though I doubt it).
I can’t wait to see the e-mail you get in response to this article.
Great article directed at a listening audience.Since you state that the WOD is illegal, why/how is it allowed to continue? Who exactly can stop it?
I think it has to start in the church.
Now, as an atheist it pains me to say that, but I think that might be the way to go. After all, why are recreational drugs illegal? Because they are immoral. Why are they immoral? Because they are illegal is the usual refrain. That and messing up your body, being a temple and all.
If you can convince enough mainstream churches with a large enough following that the evils of prohibition are worse than the evils of drug use, you’ll see people start to change their votes, and see politicions more willing to confront it.
chance,
I think the problem is that the “mainstream churches with a large enough following” are typically populated by middle class white folks. They are not the 400,000 who are in jail for possession or small-time drug charges, or the people whose neighborhoods have been destroyed by the drug trade.
Sadly, as long as the drug war continues to disproportionately affect black people in poor neighborhoods, most people with power (even those that partake) won’t care enough to risk their reputations or livelihoods to change things.
Legislators abuse the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to claim they have the right to regulate anything sold across state lines. The Commerce Clause is probably the most abused clause in the Constitution.
Neither the FED nor the individual States hold the authority to ban anything until and unless the authority is explicitly given. The 18the amendment has proven such at the federal level. Our concept and plan of government of sovereign individuals throught their consent proves such at the state level.
Another good book: Who Killed the Constitution? – Woods and Gutzman. Get it with The Cult of the Presidency.
Who’s to blame? EVERYONE. You, me, the other guy. If We the People fail to hold our elected servants accountable, if We the People hold those who violate the Constitution up as heros (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, etc) then we get what we deserve for not adhering to our own rules.
Cheif Justice John Marshall was either corrupt, a liar, or ignorant. Many if not all of his opinions were flatly wrong. Gibbons v Ogden was based on the word “among”, as in “among the States”, as being much more than the word “between”. Now anyone with a basic education in English grammar knows that between is grammarically correct ONLY when two parties are involved. If more than two are involved, the grammarically correct term is “among”. But Marshall used “among” to make the first expansion.
Any judge that “interprets” the Constitution other than in the simple direct manner that its words convey is guilty of “bad behavior” and should be removed from office. If We the People would require “good behavior”, that is adherence to the Constitution, from our elected public servants, we might be marching down a different path.
But then the public education system has been used by the government to inculcate “their” lies in the minds of the children thereby corrputing our understanding of what is and is not legitimate.
And We the People fail because we have allowed the judges to think, and we think it too, that they have the final say in anything. Learn the following quote. It is one step in the proper direction.
“For, whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”
Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6
And remember this:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgobllins, all of them imaginary.” – HL Mencken
Tiocfaidh ár lá!
FWB — If I could give you more than +1 for that I would.
It comes down to what Mr. Mackey said — drugs are bad, mmmkay? Judges, politicians, and the majority of the American public are willing to ignore the constitution because drugs are “bad”. Period. And if they can’t find something in the constitution to state that, they’ll make it up — judges are masters at twisting the law to fit the verdict they desire.
Maybe you should reread your Bible for youself and not listen to what others tell you it says. Paul and Peter state emphatically that everything on Earth was created by God and that everything God created is good. You may eat whatwever you wish and you should not criticize what your brother eats. If it bothers you, stay away from it.
Why are most recreational “drugs” illegal? Ipse dixit.
The truth is that most recreational drugs are biotoxins. Nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, and strychnine are all alkaloid compounds produced by plants to prevent predation, to protect the plant and its offspring from that around the plant that would destroy it. In managed quantities, the toxic properties can be utilized for man’s benefit. However, humans are prone to overconsumption. BTW, THC is not an alkaloid.
Dominus providebit!
Yeah the public education system is a big problem. Cops are even in the schools now teaching the kids to cower and fear. It’s pathetic.
You should get some real interesting and “intellectual” mail on this one Mr. Balko. Probably about crack vending machines in kindergartens and elementry school student prostituting themselves for drugs if you have your way. Should make for amusing reading.
Radley,
I whole-heartedly agree but I do think that the Commerce Clause includes the ability to ban products sold in interstate commerce (i.e. that cross state lines). I vehemently disagree with the Raich decision, but I think it is difficult to argue that the word “regulate” in terms of commercial goods does not include the ability to ban outright.
The purpose of the commerce clause, as I was taught during my studies, was to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies and to be able to negotiate more effectively in terms of trade agreements with foreign countries. I.e. having 13 (or 50) different entities each negotiating commercial agreements with foreign nations would be too chaotic and bad for the national economy, along with the fact that it would likely lead to more state protectionist bullcrap.
While perhaps some people would throw other reasons behind the drafting of the clause, I don’t think many people would disagree with this. If that is the purpose how could a ban on say, swedish-made vacuum cleaners not be a type of commercial regulation? And if you can ban vacuum cleaners, why can’t you ban drugs?
*please insert disclaimer here about not in anyway supporting the drug war, or the ridiculous abuses and expansion of the commerce clause.
“I think the problem is that the “mainstream churches with a large enough following” are typically populated by middle class white folks. They are not the 400,000 who are in jail for possession or small-time drug charges, or the people whose neighborhoods have been destroyed by the drug trade.”
I agree that is a problem, but this same group has huge political power. You may not win their approval, but you at least have to avoid outright disapproval.
Other arguments need to be interjected.
1) All of the drug wars and corruption around the Mexican border such as the recent Tijuana beheadings would come to a screaching halt. An entire corrupt and violent industry would virtually disappear.
2) Homeland security is having a cow over the fact that marijuana is coming in from Canada and those who smuggle the pot COULD (key word) smuggle in terrorist through their routes. That concern would go “poof”.
3) The economic model of restructuring legalization and treating drugs socially instead of criminally by overcrowding prisons with non violent offenders would make for a powerfull argument.
4) Innocent lives would be saved by eleminating most all unnecessary high risk, premeditated, no knock paramilitary raids on non violent offenders.