In a thread on a forum I regularly visit, there was a discussion about the "War on Drugs". I thought it would be interesting to bring that discussion here.
It is telling in how far away we have come from the idea of a free country, of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, the rule of law, and the Constitution that in less than 100 years, a federal mandate that would LIMIT something that our citizens could do was deeemed radical enough to require a Constitutional amendment. The 18th amendment effectively made illegal the consumption of alchohol. That experiment in social engineering from central planning lasted all of 13 years. Mercifully, it was repealed by the 21st amendment.
What about today? Where is the amendment for the "War on Drugs"? Did Congress declare war? I must have missed it. One could argue that for the amount of taxpayer money that has been spent on this war, our return on investment has been negligible. Now, I will concede that it is a noble undertaking to protect people from the devestating effects of drug abuse, but at what price? Is it even the place of our federal government to take on such a fight? How much liberty have we exchanged for the promise of security?
7 comments:
If you start with the assumption that the laws prohibiting the sale/possession/use of narcotics are constitutional, you have to look at the "War on Drugs" through the same lens as illegal immigration. It is universally acknowledged that the federal government is constitutionally bound to protect the borders of the United States. This means, when you do the math, enforcing the laws of the US as it relates to the border. Crossing into the US without a visa/citizenship is illegal. Posession of narcotics is illegal. The government has to enforce our laws at the border. When it extends onto the supply side, like the use of Blackhawks in Columbia, it starts to get a little iffy.
Now, as to whether the laws that ban the posession/sale of narcotics are constitutional, that's an entirely different question. Clearly, the justification for almost all of these laws is rooted in the commerce clause, and the incredible expanse of Congressional power that came with its liberal interpretation by the Supremes. If you believe, as I do, that the commerce clause is more limited than is currently practiced, it is quite possible that federal drug laws are not constitutional. Almost all state governments would continue to proscribe the use/sale/possession of drugs, however, in that case, could the federal government enforce state level drug laws at the border?
It's quite clear in Ashcroft vs. Raich that Justice Thomas believes it's an overreach when he wrote in his dissent:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
I'm of the opinion that the Feds shouldn't have any say in whether a state wants to decriminalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or crystal meth..Until they get a Constitutional amendment.
Now, whether this quote was mis-attributed to Caesar or not, it really fits in well with the Drug "Czar" calling marijuana growers terrorist in California recently, during Operation "Alesia".
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
-Sparky
Sparky-
I'm familiar with this quote and I think you can attribute it to none other than Barbara Streisand:
http://www.barbrastreisand.com/index.php?page=truths&n_id=125
The rhetoric "Declaring War" seems to apply to nearly everything that politicians want to take on as their pet projects. Whether it's the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror". Or most recently Tommy Thompson and his announcement that if elected President he would declare "war on breast cancer".
In fact it seems like our government (and our Congress) don't seem to mind declaring war at all...except when it comes to taking military action against another country.
Almost all state governments would continue to proscribe the use/sale/possession of drugs, however, in that case, could the federal government enforce state level drug laws at the border?
I think that might become a moot point, At least for marijuana that is, because the demand would probably be met by growers domestically (or locally).
"I'm of the opinion that the Feds shouldn't have any say in whether a state wants to decriminalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or crystal meth..Until they get a Constitutional amendment."
Here's the problem with this line of thinking... and for purposes of this argument, I'm excluding pot grown for personal use or sold in the same state as it is grown in. The core products that cocaine and heroin are derived from are not grown in the US, and it is my understanding that it is not possible to grown them in any significant quantity. This means that there would have to be commerce with a foreign nation in order to import these drugs or their sources of manufacture. Art. I, Sec. 8, the commerce clause, allows Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and it is a tough argument to say that they would not have authority here.
With meth, you have a different problem. Clearly, the products from which meth is derived are sold in interstate commerce. This gives Congress the right to restrict their sale/usage. The question becomes how far that right goes. Do they only have the right to give an up/down on the actual sale of the item, or do they have the right to dictate what purposes the item can be used for? What does the term "regulate" mean in this case?
I wonder if they made the commerce clause so vague on purpose.
Post a Comment