4 ms·

... and Trump, and any major party candidate for the past 75 years. The unfortunate truth is that it's a democracy and the majority of the voting public still

by api 10y ago

... and Trump, and any major party candidate for the past 75 years. The unfortunate truth is that it's a democracy and the majority of the voting public still supports the drug war. That support in softening, but very slowly.

logfromblammo 10y ago
No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. As such, place the blame where it belongs: the majority of Democratic and Republican party politicians, who have employed the drug war as a means to preserve or increase their political power, and to distract and propagandize the aforementioned voting public away from any issues of real importance that cannot be solved effectively without doing something unpopular among certain blocs of the electorate.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. No, its supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating laws that violate essential liberty and forcing the minority to live under them. Its not supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating stupid laws, though of course one hopes that stupid laws would, if they fail to be recognized as such before passage, be corrected in short order most of the time. Though experience would, perhaps, show that to be overly optimistic.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    It would seem that the issue in dispute is whether a law can be stupid without also violating essential liberty in some way. I think we can agree that all laws that violate essential liberty are intrinsically stupid. Let's not examine it too closely, though, lest we uncover that republics may, in fact, be designed to protect the privileges of the land-owning elites from the sheer numbers of the unwashed rabble, and the defense of their essential liberties may only be a beneficial side effect.
- api 10y ago
  You're correct, but unfortunately there is nothing about personal sovereignty over one's own biochemical processes in the constitution. The constitutional also permits the Federal government to enforce laws on interstate commerce, which effectively allows this kind of prohibition even if the states disagree internally.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    The interstate commerce clause has been used as a dumping ground for federal overreach for a long time. It is likely that it was only intended to provide authority sufficient for the federal government to prevent a state like Missouri from treating Colorado cannabis any differently from California cannabis, if either happen to be imported into its jurisdiction. This interpretation is considered obsolete by many federal judges. Interpreting it such that a cannabis plant grown, harvested, prepared, and consumed entirely within the state of Colorado, exclusively by Colorado persons, may still be subject to federal law is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. But the prestigious paid professionals still do it. It took the 18th Amendment to prohibit "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors...for beverage purposes" at a federal level in 1920. The Volstead Act was able to use that amendment as the basis for its authority. The 21st explicitly repealed it, thus obviating Volstead, which had already been unpopular for years. Note also that consumption was never outlawed. Even so, it was a disaster. There was no such amendment to authorize prohibition or control of other, non-alcoholic intoxicants for recreational purposes. What happened to the Constitution between 1920 and 1970 that would have allowed Congress to pass another prohibition law like the Volstead Act? Nothing. Nothing at all. Or rather, New Deal politics happened. Federal power expanded without explicit authorization, just because of a temporary confluence between economics and political opportunity. The various drug war laws are probably not authorized by the commerce clause, just as justices O'Connor and Thomas dissented (Rehnquist concurring with O'Connor) in Gonzales v. Raich [0]. It would seem that, looking also at Wickard v. Filburn [1] and US v. Lopez [2], the SCotUS is not likely to be of any help here. The underlying argument is that "drugs can be sold, therefore there exists an interstate market for them, therefore federal regulations on them are authorized by the commerce clause." Wickard v. Filburn seemed like politically-motivated bullshit to me, but who am I to argue with the precedent? The laws will, like Volstead, mainly be overturned by the court of popular opinion long before any official federal action occurs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

by api 10y ago

logfromblammo 10y ago

No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. As such, place the blame where it belongs: the majority of Democratic and Republican party politicians, who have employed the drug war as a means to preserve or increase their political power, and to distract and propagandize the aforementioned voting public away from any issues of real importance that cannot be solved effectively without doing something unpopular among certain blocs of the electorate.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. No, its supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating laws that violate essential liberty and forcing the minority to live under them. Its not supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating stupid laws, though of course one hopes that stupid laws would, if they fail to be recognized as such before passage, be corrected in short order most of the time. Though experience would, perhaps, show that to be overly optimistic.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  It would seem that the issue in dispute is whether a law can be stupid without also violating essential liberty in some way. I think we can agree that all laws that violate essential liberty are intrinsically stupid. Let's not examine it too closely, though, lest we uncover that republics may, in fact, be designed to protect the privileges of the land-owning elites from the sheer numbers of the unwashed rabble, and the defense of their essential liberties may only be a beneficial side effect.
api 10y ago
You're correct, but unfortunately there is nothing about personal sovereignty over one's own biochemical processes in the constitution. The constitutional also permits the Federal government to enforce laws on interstate commerce, which effectively allows this kind of prohibition even if the states disagree internally.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  The interstate commerce clause has been used as a dumping ground for federal overreach for a long time. It is likely that it was only intended to provide authority sufficient for the federal government to prevent a state like Missouri from treating Colorado cannabis any differently from California cannabis, if either happen to be imported into its jurisdiction. This interpretation is considered obsolete by many federal judges. Interpreting it such that a cannabis plant grown, harvested, prepared, and consumed entirely within the state of Colorado, exclusively by Colorado persons, may still be subject to federal law is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. But the prestigious paid professionals still do it. It took the 18th Amendment to prohibit "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors...for beverage purposes" at a federal level in 1920. The Volstead Act was able to use that amendment as the basis for its authority. The 21st explicitly repealed it, thus obviating Volstead, which had already been unpopular for years. Note also that consumption was never outlawed. Even so, it was a disaster. There was no such amendment to authorize prohibition or control of other, non-alcoholic intoxicants for recreational purposes. What happened to the Constitution between 1920 and 1970 that would have allowed Congress to pass another prohibition law like the Volstead Act? Nothing. Nothing at all. Or rather, New Deal politics happened. Federal power expanded without explicit authorization, just because of a temporary confluence between economics and political opportunity. The various drug war laws are probably not authorized by the commerce clause, just as justices O'Connor and Thomas dissented (Rehnquist concurring with O'Connor) in Gonzales v. Raich [0]. It would seem that, looking also at Wickard v. Filburn [1] and US v. Lopez [2], the SCotUS is not likely to be of any help here. The underlying argument is that "drugs can be sold, therefore there exists an interstate market for them, therefore federal regulations on them are authorized by the commerce clause." Wickard v. Filburn seemed like politically-motivated bullshit to me, but who am I to argue with the precedent? The laws will, like Volstead, mainly be overturned by the court of popular opinion long before any official federal action occurs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez