PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Drugs - up to the individual or the state?




Teenager For Ron Paul
04-04-2012, 05:40 PM
I know Ron says that drugs' legality should be left up to the states. But can someone tell me why the federal government can't tell an individual what he or she can do with his or her own body, but a state can? It seems like any argument for any governmental authority at any level over drugs would be overriden by self-ownership.

I know the statists on the MSM already think putting it to the states is crazy, and they'd classify ron as even more of a madman if he suggested that individuals can do what they want with their own bodies, whether it harms them or not.

Some explanation would be appreciated.

phill4paul
04-04-2012, 05:48 PM
This is the way I look at it.

End it on the Federal level. Stop with the taxation to fund it. Stop with the with-holding of Federal funds to states for Federal compliance.

This is what Ron Paul wants and I feel that it is as good a start as we are gonna get.

Then let the states decide individually. Things will work themselves out from there.

GuerrillaXXI
04-04-2012, 05:53 PM
I completely agree that if it's wrong for something to be outlawed at the federal level, it's equally wrong for it to be outlawed at the state level. Rights are rights, and the right to do as one wishes with one's own body and health seems to be as fundamental as a right can be.

Having said that, I see phill4paul's point about the current political reality. The elimination of federal drug laws would at least be a big step in the right direction.

Feeding the Abscess
04-04-2012, 06:59 PM
Individual.

pcgame
04-07-2012, 10:15 PM
...

MaxPower
04-08-2012, 07:05 AM
I know Ron says that drugs' legality should be left up to the states. But can someone tell me why the federal government can't tell an individual what he or she can do with his or her own body, but a state can? It seems like any argument for any governmental authority at any level over drugs would be overriden by self-ownership.

I know the statists on the MSM already think putting it to the states is crazy, and they'd classify ron as even more of a madman if he suggested that individuals can do what they want with their own bodies, whether it harms them or not.

Some explanation would be appreciated.
Have you studied the Constitution? It stipulates that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As such, a faithful federal officeholder, having sworn to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution, will oppose any federal drug legislation and acknowledge that the issue is to be decided at the state, local, or individual level, depending upon the contents of each given state's constitution. Regardless of whether Ron Paul thinks individuals should be allowed to use drugs if they so desire, unless some kind of drug-freedom constitutional amendment is passed, he can't lawfully nationalize any standard to that effect.

No Free Beer
04-08-2012, 07:15 AM
A lot of people don't make it easy on these people.

10 Amendment of the US Constitution states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Basically, if something is not specifically stated in the US Constitution, the power is then given to the states.

The problem is, like almost everything, the federal bureaucrats abuse their power by saying the fed as the right to prevent drugs being used with the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Interstate Commerce clause: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Inter means "between". Intra means "within"

The federal government has NO RIGHT to tell any state that they can't create their own drug laws.

It's that simple.

mrsat_98
04-08-2012, 07:36 AM
I know Ron says that drugs' legality should be left up to the states. But can someone tell me why the federal government can't tell an individual what he or she can do with his or her own body, but a state can? It seems like any argument for any governmental authority at any level over drugs would be overriden by self-ownership.

I know the statists on the MSM already think putting it to the states is crazy, and they'd classify ron as even more of a madman if he suggested that individuals can do what they want with their own bodies, whether it harms them or not.

Some explanation would be appreciated.

To understand the answers to your questions first you have to understand that you can't read on the level the law is written in. In a nutshell they write the law very carefully. So carefully that if you where playing basketball, the system could send someone out to regulate you with a book for playing billiards and you and/or the enforcer would more than likely never no the difference.

I would suggest that you go find out just exactly what the definition of "is" is and get back with me. While your looking try searching for "man or other animals" and you will see that drugs are for the diagnosis and treatment of "man or other animals" on the federal level, most states are the same some are "man or animals", "humans or animals". Another term is "animals other than man". In an nutshell we are no longer men made in gods image with dominion over the animals with rights given from our creator. See Genesis and the Declaration of Independence.

It helps in understanding this to have all ready submitted the idea that the current system is described in the book of Revelation but that is another story. After it has sunk in just exactly what "man or other animals" means then go look real hard at Genocide and Human Trafficking and see if you recognize the current system in action. To start your journey for the truth look at adask.wordpress.com there is at the top right "man or other animals".

http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/

I am no longer certain that this is a state issue.

Lishy
04-08-2012, 07:52 AM
Individual. Period.

We need usage laws, not prohibition!

ZenBowman
04-08-2012, 08:31 AM
Individual.

Government, federal or state, has no business dictating what you put into your body.

With reference to the 10th amendment, the Constitution is imperfect, it can be amended to allow for greater liberty. Just as state governments are not allowed to infringe on the 1st and 2nd amendments, they should be disallowed from infringing on what individuals do with their own bodies as well.

LibertyEagle
04-08-2012, 09:01 AM
The simple answer is that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in the whole drug issue, because it is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power. That means that according to the 10th amendment, the decision is left up to the states and the people. Ron Paul is running for a federal office, therefore his actions on this issue would pertain to restricting the federal government to the Constitution.

Then, if you do not like the drug laws in your own state, you work at the state level to get them changed.

As a general rule, we do not want one-size-fits-all federal mandates. Because even though it might seem like a much easier way to accomplish something that we want to see done, rather than also have to get busy in our own state and local governments, the more you hand over to the federal government to decide, the more power you give them. The more power they have, the bigger they get.

Our Founders intended for us to have 50 republics; not one superstate.

mrsat_98
04-08-2012, 09:27 AM
Then, if you do not like the drug laws in your own state, you work at the state level to get them changed.



Can you show me where the states have the authority to reduce us to animals without rights or are we unwittingly allowing this by not objecting ?