• 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!

Is the U.S. Drug War unConstitutional?

Unethical? Yes. Unconstitutional? Depends. If the drugs are produced, sold, and consumed within a state or between states that agree to it, then I think the Federal government has no business getting involved. The Federal government's involvement should be limited to stopping it at the border and handling interstate trafficking. Or perhaps providing assistance when a state asks.

The above is my personal interpretation of the Constitution. Obviously the courts disagree.
Great post!
 
Yes SB & C.

We may wish to debate the legitimacy / relevance of the intra-State / inter-State distinction separately. But in short, if a 30 year old can drink a beer in Oklahoma, why should he not be able to do so in Texas too?
ARTICLE 4. SECTION 2.
1 The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Problem is, stare decisis weighs in here. Things were fine until the 1930's.
“Well article 1 section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Beginning in the 1930's progressives used the commerce clause to claim that the government could do virtually anything it wished. It culminated in the case mentioned in the opening post to this thread, Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, Mr. Filburn had grown a few hundred bushels of wheat over his allotment in FDR's disastrous price fixing scheme. The wheat was entirely for Filburn's own consumption but the Supreme Court held that Filburn's fines were Constitutional because the wheat he grew for himself would otherwise have to be procured off of the open market and that affected interstate commerce.
After that there were practically no limits to the scope of government power.” Cincinnatus87
My opinion is this was a horrid ruling that should be reversed.

But until it is, it remains the supreme law of the land.
 
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?

We have never had an actual, true, real live-up-to-its-name-and-billing-and-hype War on Drugs so that negates the premise.
 
We have never had an actual, true, real live-up-to-its-name-and-billing-and-hype War on Drugs so that negates the premise.

Really? With our bulging prisons half full or better with drug offenders? With virtually every police department in the country receiving surplus military equipment, much of it used to serve drug warrants? With the military providing intel to Customs at least since the time of Reagan? With hundreds of innocents shot and imprisoned by zealous drug warriors serving warrants at the wrong address?

What rock have you been living under?
 
The bandits backed a moving van up to the bank late Friday night.
They spent the next two and a half days clearing the bank out.
Not only did they take all the paper currency, not only in the vault, but from the safe-deposit boxes as well.
The thieves also took all the coins, all the negotiable bonds.
They also took the carpet, and all the furniture; the banker's office furniture, desk, office chair, credenza, lamp. They even took all the stools the tellers used to sit on.

BUT !!

The thieves left behind a ballpoint pen, the one on a chain, for account holders to fill out their deposit slips.
So it wasn't a bank heist.

//////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

During the '68 Tet Offensive, the U.S. suffered a setback in its War in Vietnam.
So because Westmoreland's strategy wasn't perfect, Vietnam wasn't a real War.
"We have never had an actual, true, real live-up-to-its-name-and-billing-and-hype War on Drugs so that negates the premise." hm #53
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif
No insult intended. No doubt the poster is a prominent MENSA member.

But the above quoted post is about the most conspicuously absurd barge-load of bullspit I've read this year.

Turns out the unactual, false, fake, die-down-to-its-nickname-and-payment-and-rumor War on Drugs is a War against the People.

#53 would be a valid point if:
- there was no prisoner of Drug War. But there are.
- the U.S. hadn't spent a $Trillion on Drug Wars so far, apparently only compounding the problem. But we have.
- the martial oppression of Drug War didn't drag the U.S. economy down on BOTH sides of the equation; not merely costing US ~$35K / year per prisoner of Drug War to house, feed, clothe, guard, doctor, and sometimes educate. But also taking them off our tax roles. But we do.

Drug War in the U.S. isn't some trivial blemish that causes only the most superficial cosmetic inconvenience; a problem a dab of Maybelline solves every time.
Drug War in the U.S. is a $hemorrhage in:
- loss of human rights
- unwisely misallocated resources

The U.S. Drug War is self-defeating, BY DEFINITION!! It is a War the nation wages against itself.

And the assertion in #53 is the premise is negated because the author deems U.S. Drug War strategy not "actual, true, real" ?!
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif
Genuinely comical, and a little sad. Talk to those that have served time as prisoners of Drug War. You tell them* Drug War isn't "actual, true, real". Good luck with that.

* Before you do, you may wish to join a dental HMO. For telling such persons such thing may well necessitate some reconstructive dental surgery.
 
Really? With our bulging prisons half full or better with drug offenders? With virtually every police department in the country receiving surplus military equipment, much of it used to serve drug warrants? With the military providing intel to Customs at least since the time of Reagan? With hundreds of innocents shot and imprisoned by zealous drug warriors serving warrants at the wrong address?

What rock have you been living under?

Could you tell me what would have been the reaction in 1943 in the USA if a group of people we were at war with set up shop in cities and towns across America and were open and blatant about it?
 
T7 #58
war is regarded as nothing but the continuation of politics by other means.
Karl von clausewitz (1780-1831), prussian soldier, strategist. On war, preface (1832)
 
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?

You seem to be confused. The war on drugs is unconstitutional, but it has nothing to do with Article 3.

The government has only the powers specifically given it by the Constitution. Do you see any paragraph in the Constitution that gives government jurisdiction over what medicine or substances a private citizen decides to put in their own bodies?

If there is no "specific" clause giving government that power, then the government does not have that power. The 9th and 10th amendment's makes that perfectly clear.
 
Yes SB & C.

We may wish to debate the legitimacy / relevance of the intra-State / inter-State distinction separately. But in short, if a 30 year old can drink a beer in Oklahoma, why should he not be able to do so in Texas too?

Problem is, stare decisis weighs in here. Things were fine until the 1930's.

My opinion is this was a horrid ruling that should be reversed.

But until it is, it remains the supreme law of the land.


The flaw in that ruling is that private consumption and private property is not commerce, but you are talking about the same administration that robbed the American people of their wealth by force and sold them out to the bankers.
 
" is not commerce " jd #61
No one opposes the Wickard v. Filburn ruling more than me.

BUT !!

I don't recall the court having suggested private consumption is interState commerce.

Instead, I gather the reasoning was, it AFFECTS interState commerce.

One of the bitter ironies is;
- a doctor could grow a vegetable garden without violating the commerce clause.

- A lawyer could grow a vegetable garden without violating the commerce clause.

- A plumber, an electrician, a school crossing guard could grow a vegetable garden without violating the commerce clause.

BUT !!

Vegetable farmers cannot.

And our high court does not see this as a conspicuous violation of our principle of equality under law. Vegetable farmers are second class citizens.
 
As TTWTT has pointed out, the militarization of police forces that has been going on for decades now in the name of the Drug War, does seem to give a bit of traction to the argument that effectively, by bringing this militarization Congress has declared de facto war against its citizens.

From that perspective the Article III Section 3 claim may be plausible.

But even before the militarization, the government does not have the authority to tell the citizen what he may ingest.
 
As TTWTT has pointed out, the militarization of police forces that has been going on for decades now in the name of the Drug War, does seem to give a bit of traction to the argument that effectively, by bringing this militarization Congress has declared de facto war against its citizens.

From that perspective the Article III Section 3 claim may be plausible.

But even before the militarization, the government does not have the authority to tell the citizen what he may ingest.

Might = right. All rights are alienable if nobody dares to defend them against an opposition. The government obviously does have the authority and exercises it regularly. Many people seem to think the federal government is over reaching regarding the MJ issue though. Not soon enough considering how many lives have been inexcusably destroyed via a criminal record, or worse, lengthy incarcerations over an almost harmless plant.
 
Quote Originally Posted by sear
#56
Same as today?

"What does that even mean?" hm #64
No disrespect to you, or the original poster hm.
It's simply a logical short-cut to: - what difference does it make? -
"Might = right. All rights are alienable if nobody dares to defend them against an opposition." P #65
Sadly, it has been observed (just as you've asserted), we have only those rights we're willing to defend. Ceausescu
"The government obviously does have the authority and exercises it regularly."
BUT !!

In the 18th century U.S. governments were our benevolent servants.
In the 21st century U.S. governments are our punitive masters.
Nearly 2/3 of the U.S. federal prison population is serving time for a drug offense. [source Chris Bury, Up Close ABC-TV News Dec. '02
 
Art.3 Sect.3 defines treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution.

a) Does Drug War violate Art.3?

b) If not, why not?

c) If so, what should the Trump administration et al do about it?

drugz like pot n crack kill millions of ppl imo, n must be banned 4ever in this country so its constitutional
 
"drugz like pot n crack kill millions of ppl imo" 1B #67
"As safe as Aspirin" used to be a cliche' in the language.
No more.
Turns out Aspirin may kill many thousands every year.

In contrast, the pharmacological affects of marijuana use are deemed by medical experts to be quite mild.
"n must be banned 4ever" 1B #67
a) Your premise is flawed.

b) Your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

c) Water has probably killed many more humans than marijuana has.

There's no compulsion for water to "be banned 4ever". And while I tend to shy from predictions, I suspect it never will be.

d) your conclusion does not qualify as legal reasoning.

There's nothing in the Constitution about protecting U.S. citizens from themselves.

"its [Drug War] constitutional" 1B #67
Perhaps.
But you have posted no valid Constitutional argument to support your conclusion here. You are welcome to attempt to do so.
 
Might = right. All rights are alienable if nobody dares to defend them against an opposition. The government obviously does have the authority and exercises it regularly. Many people seem to think the federal government is over reaching regarding the MJ issue though. Not soon enough considering how many lives have been inexcusably destroyed via a criminal record, or worse, lengthy incarcerations over an almost harmless plant.

The government has the authority? Where is it found, in the US Constitution?

Your saying it does not make it so. Richard Nixon's saying it does not make it so. Are you more honest than Nixon? Are you able to cite that part of the document which grants the authority to the government?
 
The government has the authority? Where is it found, in the US Constitution?

Your saying it does not make it so. Richard Nixon's saying it does not make it so. Are you more honest than Nixon? Are you able to cite that part of the document which grants the authority to the government?

The fact that the government can and does persecute people for using substances makes it so. I don't need to cite anything when reality is obvious regarding where authority lies and the extent of its power. Why cite something that is disregarded by the people who are supposed to respect it? The prohibition of marijuana and other drugs had been occurring long before Nixon.
 
"The fact that the government can and does persecute people for using substances makes it so." P #70
I never disputed whether it was so, or not.
The topic question is:
Is the U.S. Drug War unConstitutional?
Does the U.S. federal government wage martial Drug War against the People of the United States of America? OF COURSE they frick in doo!!

Is it Constitutional?
I know of no Constitutional stipulation which authorizes it.
And I've already cited at least one which criminalizes it on at least two grounds.
"I don't need to cite anything when reality is obvious regarding where authority lies and the extent of its power." P #70
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif

It would be comical to hear any attorney say that at SCOTUS oral argument.

If #70 was correct, then the U.S. government could duplicate the Nazi Holocaust PRECISELY, and the mere fact that they were doing it would legitimize it.
Fortunately, in reality: "we're doing it" does not render it Constitutional.
 
No but it does violate cruel and unusual punishment. Only have to look at the entire rest of the world to understand that
 
The fact that the government can and does persecute people for using substances makes it so. I don't need to cite anything when reality is obvious regarding where authority lies and the extent of its power. Why cite something that is disregarded by the people who are supposed to respect it? The prohibition of marijuana and other drugs had been occurring long before Nixon.

Yes, you don't need no stinkin' constitutional authority to justify pernicious public policy. Thank you for clearly demonstrating just how and why it is that we have the government we deserve. :thumbs:
 
Yes, you don't need no stinkin' constitutional authority to justify pernicious public policy. Thank you for clearly demonstrating just how and why it is that we have the government we deserve. :thumbs:

I never disputed whether it was so, or not.
The topic question is:

Does the U.S. federal government wage martial Drug War against the People of the United States of America? OF COURSE they frick in doo!!

Is it Constitutional?
I know of no Constitutional stipulation which authorizes it.
And I've already cited at least one which criminalizes it on at least two grounds.

View attachment 67216782

It would be comical to hear any attorney say that at SCOTUS oral argument.

If #70 was correct, then the U.S. government could duplicate the Nazi Holocaust PRECISELY, and the mere fact that they were doing it would legitimize it.
Fortunately, in reality: "we're doing it" does not render it Constitutional.

My response was to the question "The government has the authority?". The exercise of force on substance abuse may not be constitutional, but it is practiced. Hence, the government does have the authority and they will disregard the constitution to acquire an agenda. The constitution is not the limit to power we the people wish it to be.
 
The US guvmint has not won a "war" since 1945. We should be careful what/who we declare war on!
 
Back
Top Bottom