All of this is well and good, but if any of it translates to "we should be able to put into our bodies whatever we want," then it is NOT in the best interests of the citizens of this country.
Seb, Then the next logical questions would be WHO decides what we put into our own bodies, and where does power come from?
Yes - those are the right questions.
A1: The answer is not always "us."
A2: In our case, the U.S. Constitution - which supposedly gets its power from "us."
Meanwhile, here's "like mother, like daughter" - just another example of what happens when somebody decides to put whatever she wants into her body:
I see another senseless death on the horizon......
A1: I understand what is NOT the answer, but again, it's not "us" who decides, than it has to be someone else. Correct? If we are not able to make our own choices, than who is?
A2: So are you saying that within the Constitution it gives the Federal Goverment the power to regulate personnel consumption of drug/alcohol?
I have seen the article you posted. I understand the story as well. There is indeed sad stories, but this is also a good example of how our current policies are not working. As hard as the moral busybodies will try, you can't outlaw bad role models.
Did you watch the clips I posted, Seb?
Yes I did. As to drugs/alcohol, the solution to violation of the law is not to eliminate the law. This in effect is what Paul is suggesting.
Obviously the Constitution empowers the control of drugs and alcohol, since that's the current state of affairs.
We live in a representative government. Whether we like it or not, our representatives are US. Therefore, WE decide. We ARE making our own choices - through our representatives. That's why we elect them.
No system is perfect. No system will conform to every want or desire of every single citizen. Our society is based on a "majority rule" principle.
IMHO - the libertarians will NEVER be in the majority so almost all of these arguments are moot.
As we are getting TOO basic here (as in Civics 101), I think this blog string - for me - is exhausted. Again, I'll let you have the last word.
Speak it well.
I'm fairly certain there is not mention in the constitution empowering the Federal goverment to control substances. Rather, as I said in my piece, since it IS NOT with the constitution, it is there by left up to the individual States, per the 10th Amendment. I would assume just because the Federal Goverment does something, doesnt make it constitutional. I have many examples of how they do not act in such a manner. One specifically would be be the auto bailouts. I beg anyone to cite the authority for that.
Just because a substance is legal if prescribed by a Dr. does not make it good for your body.
Just because it is illegal does not make it bad for your body.
The choice should belong to the individual.
The VA ships railroad car loads of high powered drugs to vets at their mailboxes every day.
Individuals decide what to put into their bodies. Re: Drugs; legalize them, tax them, and educate the populace re: the pitalls of use. The money being made by the Narco-Terrorists is approaching the trillions of non tax paid benjamins. Take it away from them and give it to the lesser of two evils: the Federal Government.
And to pacify LD: let the Fed's parcel out the new found money proportionatly to the States that can demonstrate their total number of abusers\addicts. The more abuser\addicts the more money for treatment and education...etc. That way each state will have a sayso into how many of their citizens have chosen what substances they have put into their bodies and can thereby get reimbursed for it.
Forgive me Jim, but past experience has left me skeptical about the idea of "proportionatly." If the Stimulus Bill is any example, more money goes to "supports" and less to "non-supporters"
But it's defiently an interesting idea, none the less.