Article - Conservative view on drugs per the Constitution

[JsJs24]

I do not intend for this to be another heated debate, but instead, would rather people simply read this article by The Cato Institute to hear a different perspective on this controversial topic. This is worth reading by those who support or oppose the legalization of drugs. The author does a fine job in pointing out the confusing and hypocritical stance by many conservatives according to conservative principles, more specifically, the Constitution. The author also brought up a very good point that I never considered; the fact the Constitution does not authorize any powers to the government to outlaw a product, thus the reason for the 18th Amendment for the prohibition of alcohol. In the case of drugs, no amendment was ever created, thus the government has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries, which means it is unconstitutional. Furthermore, any powers not expressly permitted to the Federal Government are reserved for the states by the 10th Amendment. The author does a very good job at respectfully presenting his case, which is what you can expect from The Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12179

Hopefully some of you read it, as it really is a great article. I'm not suggesting it will change anyone's view on the matter, but it should at least make clear the hypocritical stance by many conservatives with regard to the Constitution.

[horsepwr]

Re: Article - Conservative view on drugs per the Constitution

That's exactly what I mean when I say how rediculously stupid it is to outlaw inanimate objects, and substances. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Inanimate objects can't break the law. Hell, drugs can't break the law. It takes a living person to act with the object or substance, in an irresponsible...well, not just irresponsible, but in an unconstitutional, violent or harmful manner towards others to break the law.

They have it right with alcohol. The alcohol can do nothing wrong sitting on the shelf. It takes a human to act illegally after alcohol consumption. Then, true crime has been comitted. And the government has it right with alcohol after someone does harm to another after alcohol consumption. The alcohol is not charged. The person takes the criminal charges and resposibility. That's the correct way. The Constitutional way. Therefore, should be the conservative way.

I just got in and have interuption after interuption, so, excuse the post if it didn't come out sensible.
I look forward to reading the Cato link when I get a minute.