• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scalia: Federal Drug Laws Were a Mistake

Cold Highway

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia isn't a supporter of legalizing drugs. But he does believe that passing federal laws against them has done harm to the U.S. government. "It was a great mistake to put routine drug offenses into the federal courts," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal went on to reportScalia's belief that the laws forced Congress to enlarge the federal court system, and diminished "the elite quality of the federal judiciary."
Click to expand...

Global Warming & Terra Forming Terra: Scalia: Federal Drug Laws Were a Mistake

At least the SOB realizes that this mindless war fails at the federal level. I rather him say that the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an excuse to increase the prison population but I guess I have to take what I can get. (golf clap)
 
Dear Justice Scalia,

No ****.

Sincerely,

Sam.
 
You can't legislate human behavior no matter how hard you try or how much money you spend. Drugs are not the smartest thing on the planet to partake in but people who want to use them will regardless of consequence. No matter how idiot proof we try to make our laws the human condition will just create a better idiot.
 
Unfortunately the drug war will just keep going on and on...
 
Whoppletraps said:
Unfortunately the drug war will just keep going on and on...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you are correct IMO. There are two many groups that have a stake in it continuing.
 
I'm a firm believer in what goes around comes around. One day the war on drugs is going to turn around and bite the government in the ass, and every person in the U.S. who has been directly or indirectly affected by the war on drugs is going to be standing by idly watching it happen.

How many people have died, or have had their lives taken away by obscene prison sentences? How many families have been torn apart because of drug related violence?

The war on drugs is total insanity at this point, and only exists to maintain the employment of law enforcement.
 
Temporal said:
I'm a firm believer in what goes around comes around. One day the war on drugs is going to turn around and bite the government in the ass, and every person in the U.S. who has been directly or indirectly affected by the war on drugs is going to be standing by idly watching it happen.

How many people have died, or have had their lives taken away by obscene prison sentences? How many families have been torn apart because of drug related violence?

The war on drugs is total insanity at this point, and only exists to maintain the employment of law enforcement.
Click to expand...

It is insanity from the human perspective, but from the Corporate profit view it is awesome. Those legal drugs that get into the illegal system are produced legitamately and profitably. Big pharma and Afghanistan and our current war may be joined at the hip, don't you think? I'm more afraid of right wing wackos with guns than druggers, even left wing wackos with heavy placards, and then the police who are the worst of a bad lot.
 
Whoppletraps said:
Unfortunately the drug war will just keep going on and on...
Click to expand...

The states need to just say no, as in, "No, we are not going to participate in your drug war, and we will arrest any federal agents exercising unconstitutional and illegal powers in our state."

The states must interpose to protect their citizens from an out of control federal government that has completely lost its constitutional mooring. Someone has to uphold the constitution.
 
Cold Highway said:
Global Warming & Terra Forming Terra: Scalia: Federal Drug Laws Were a Mistake

At least the SOB realizes that this mindless war fails at the federal level. I rather him say that the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an excuse to increase the prison population but I guess I have to take what I can get. (golf clap)
Click to expand...

Hellooooo?? He didn't say "drug laws are a mistake," no matter how much you wish he had. He said it was a mistake to have Federal laws against them...requiring the Federal justice system to try them and Federal resources to police them. It's a state matter.

If you don't think it should be illegal to have a meth lab, be able to buy and sell coke, heroin, meth, whatever - well, I just don't know what to tell ya'. Except: WHAAAAT????

Marijuana? I'm with ya' there. But only just.
 
Centinel said:
The states need to just say no, as in, "No, we are not going to participate in your drug war, and we will arrest any federal agents exercising unconstitutional and illegal powers in our state."

The states must interpose to protect their citizens from an out of control federal government that has completely lost its constitutional mooring. Someone has to uphold the constitution.
Click to expand...

Or we could put the responsibility to voters who vote for legislators, executive offices, law enforcement, and district and state attorneys based on emotion rather than rationality.

Remember, the reason why the government has made its crusade against drugs is because voters keep electing officials who toe the line about the dangers of drugs. If voters would elect officials who would legislate, enforce, and prosecute drug policy in a rational and fair way, and, more importantly, if voters would actively support politicians who try to end the War on Drugs then more politicians would seek an end to the War on Drugs.
 
MaggieD said:
Hellooooo?? He didn't say "drug laws are a mistake," no matter how much you wish he had. He said it was a mistake to have Federal laws against them...requiring the Federal justice system to try them and Federal resources to police them. It's a state matter.

If you don't think it should be illegal to have a meth lab, be able to buy and sell coke, heroin, meth, whatever - well, I just don't know what to tell ya'. Except: WHAAAAT????

Marijuana? I'm with ya' there. But only just.
Click to expand...

The short of it is that drug laws are too draconian all across the country. And while I, personally, have no problem with the legalization of all recreational drugs having state governments regulate recreational drugs would go a long way, and as such minor recreational drugs, such as marijuana, can be used in states with enough users to warrant their legalization.

I still think the federal government will be needed for certain issues, such as the unauthorized transport of recreational drugs across state lines, but, yes, having the bulk of drug policy be decided by state governments will go quite far to ending the War on Drugs.
 
It's not common for a sitting Justice to telegraph his POVs like this. There's no particular set of ethics rules for the Supremes, but if a sitting federal District Court Judge had given this speech, he or she would be in hot water. Impartiality is SUPPOSED to be their hallmark.

Not that I wouldn't love to see virtually all drug laws repealed, but it makes me uncomfy that Scalia is announcing his bias.
 
MaggieD said:
Hellooooo?? He didn't say "drug laws are a mistake," no matter how much you wish he had. He said it was a mistake to have Federal laws against them...requiring the Federal justice system to try them and Federal resources to police them. It's a state matter.

If you don't think it should be illegal to have a meth lab, be able to buy and sell coke, heroin, meth, whatever - well, I just don't know what to tell ya'. Except: WHAAAAT????

Marijuana? I'm with ya' there. But only just.
Click to expand...
Why pick and choose where you want the government to intervene? Perhaps just your drug of choice should be legal?
 
samsmart said:
Or we could put the responsibility to voters who vote for legislators, executive offices, law enforcement, and district and state attorneys based on emotion rather than rationality.

Remember, the reason why the government has made its crusade against drugs is because voters keep electing officials who toe the line about the dangers of drugs. If voters would elect officials who would legislate, enforce, and prosecute drug policy in a rational and fair way, and, more importantly, if voters would actively support politicians who try to end the War on Drugs then more politicians would seek an end to the War on Drugs.
Click to expand...

Agree, but with a proviso. The responsibility lies with the voters, for certain. But the responsibility for drug laws in my state begins and ends with the voters in my state, not the voters in any other state. On matters of drug policy, the citizens of California, for example, have no authority over the citizens of Pennsylvania because drug policy is not among the enumerated powers of the congress of these united states.
 
Centinel said:
Agree, but with a proviso. The responsibility lies with the voters, for certain. But the responsibility for drug laws in my state begins and ends with the voters in my state, not the voters in any other state. On matters of drug policy, the citizens of California, for example, have no authority over the citizens of Pennsylvania because drug policy is not among the enumerated powers of the congress of these united states.
Click to expand...

Well, Congress absolutely has the right to criminalize recreational drugs, as Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. However, I think it is better that Congress devolve the majority of these powers to the states.
 
MaggieD said:
If you don't think it should be illegal to have a meth lab, be able to buy and sell coke, heroin, meth, whatever - well, I just don't know what to tell ya'. Except: WHAAAAT????
Click to expand...

Why not?

As long as you're not hurting anybody else then it should be legal. If an somebody wants to shoot heroin or snort blow then they have the right to, this should be a free country.
 
This being Scalia, I sense ulterior motives. But maybe something good can come of this.
 
samsmart said:
Well, Congress absolutely has the right to criminalize recreational drugs
Click to expand...

They don't have the right to impose on people's liberty imo.

I am reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities(and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
 
Whoppletraps said:
They don't have the right to impose on people's liberty imo.

I am reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities(and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
Click to expand...

Well, nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say that the government does not have the right to impose on people's liberty, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the people's liberty may not be imposed by the government. Rather, the Constitution lists several explicit freedoms that people enjoy that the government may not infringe upon and the Constitution also lists several explicit powers to the government.

One of these explicit powers that the Constitution gives to Congress is the power to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress can criminalize the manufacture, distribution, use, and ownership of drugs.

So it is a disservice to the legalization effort to say that the government does not have these powers. Because, you know, they absolutely do.

However, a better effort would be to convincing politicians that while Congress has, indeed, the power to regulate drugs in this way they should be willing to not exercise that power and instead choose to devolve it to the state governments.

That argument, I think, we do much better than saying the federal government has no powers.
 
samsmart said:
Well, Congress absolutely has the right to criminalize recreational drugs, as Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. However, I think it is better that Congress devolve the majority of these powers to the states.
Click to expand...

Yes, congress has the power regulate commerce among the states. I don't see a power to criminalize drugs, or anything else for that matter.
 
Centinel said:
Yes, congress has the power regulate commerce among the states. I don't see a power to criminalize drugs, or anything else for that matter.
Click to expand...

They can deem certain goods illegal for sale as a part of their power to regulate interstate commerce.
 
MaggieD said:
Hellooooo?? He didn't say "drug laws are a mistake," no matter how much you wish he had. He said it was a mistake to have Federal laws against them...requiring the Federal justice system to try them and Federal resources to police them. It's a state matter.

If you don't think it should be illegal to have a meth lab, be able to buy and sell coke, heroin, meth, whatever - well, I just don't know what to tell ya'. Except: WHAAAAT????

Marijuana? I'm with ya' there. But only just.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't see any good coming from the legal rampant consumption of meth, coke, LSD, etc. Pot? I couldn't care less, legalize it, it's a friggen weed grown naturally.
 
samsmart said:
They can deem certain goods illegal for sale as a part of their power to regulate interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Do you mean illegal for sale within a state, or do you mean illegal for a person in one state to sell to a person in another state? It would seem that only the latter would be a possibility.

Additionally, in the language of the day, the term regulate meant "to make regular" or to "cause to function properly". (They would use the term "a well regulated clock" for instance.) So do you really think that if congress were granted the power to make commerce regular among the states that this power would extend to banning the commerce among the states? The reason the power was delegated to the union was to prevent states from erecting trade barriers against each other, thus the need for the federal government to keep trade regular and prevent such trade barriers.

However, even if, for the moment, we put aside what actual power congress has regarding commerce going from one state into another, I don't see any language that gives them the ability to deem any good illegal for sale within the borders of any particular state. That would be a power specifically reserved to the states and a violation of state sovereignty.
 
All of the thousands of people who shouldn't be in prison because of these stupid ****ing laws, and Scalia's concern is that these stupid ****ing laws reduced the elite quality of the Federal courts?

Really?

Hey, Scalia: Boo ****ing hoo. Eat a pouch of freeze-dried syphilis-riddled penis.

I'm a little more concerned with the thousands upon thousands of lives whose quality has been "reduced." You ****ing ego-centric small-minded short-sighted douchebag.

Anybody whose concern is the harm done to the U.S. government or to the court system is missing the goddamned point.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom