I'm sorry but that is still nonsense. An amendment requires a 2/3 majority in each house followed by ratification in 3/4 of the states. That is more difficult by orders of magnitude than a simple majority in both houses and no state ratification for a law.

Even if state liquor laws are constitutional, that has no bearing on federal drug bans. Once again the 10th amendment controls. If not the people, then the states. But either way federal bans are not only constitutionally wrong, but also fail logically and practically.

It's easier for kids to get drugs now than alcohol, legalize put it in the stores tax and regulate it. If its in the stores less need of it on the streets where the kiddies can get it, sure they'll still be able to get it but it would become more difficult. 20 class A marlboro marijuana ciggarettes ( wonder if they would be able to advertise?)

You haven't shown how they are harmful to others. You just listed out things that are illegal and I told you that I don't agree with those either, as they harm nobody else and/or cannot be enforeced. We had a lot of irrational things in our country. Slavery being one of them. If you can't show me a good reason why something should remain banned, then it shouldn't. And no, "it's always been that way so we should keep it" is not a good argument.

No way! The pharmeceutical lobby would never allow that, even if prohibition were ended...

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Absolutely - unilateral federal bans on possessing items are thoroughly unconstitutional. If municipalities or states want drug-free, alcohol-free, cigarette-free, cheeseburger-free zones, then let it be put to a vote and resolved locally. To create victimless federal crimes is both draconian and unconstitutional.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Sounds like the voice of a man who has administered a dose of Narcan to a kid here and there...

I've certainly given my share.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Well what I don't quite understand about the Libertarian approach to policy is emphasis on individuals. I understand that American has a long history of placing value on negative freedoms, but as the world grows more globalized and we depend more on one another I would think we would need more positive freedoms. In the context of a global economy it would seem that one person's prosperity would have a multiplier effect, which deemphasizes the individual. So in the case of drugs, I would imagine that other’s drug addictions would indirectly affect the individual (e.g. An owner of a company depends on labor and costumers. If more people have access to drugs resulting in more drug use, which then leads to more drug addiction, then the company owner will be affected. He/she will have less reliable labor and few costumers. I guess unless you are a drug supplier). It seems that the Libertarian would feel that even though there might be more drug use, they would be benefiting because their personal freedoms are not being restricted in exchange. But if there is a reason to emphasize the individual please explain.

Just like repealing prohibition encouraged them to use alcohol.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Not quite. More like alcohol is was made illegal because a bunch of fools thought it would reduce its use.

Question: Where in the US Constitution is the federal government given the power to legislate against drugs? Dont even try the bit about interstate commerce because that wasnt good enough to justify making alcohol illegal.

The entire war on drugs is unconstitutional on its face. The existence of the 18th and 21st Amendments alone are proof of this.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Every action affects everything else in some highly indirect manner. I believe that's called the butterfly effect. Allowing me to legally kick rocks on the ground might result in someone's accident a week later because his tire tore on the rock in that one-in-a-million chance. But you can't honestly advocate the consideration of something THAT indirect, can you?

If you can't show me a good reason why something should remain banned, then it shouldn't.

That's a statement of your personal belief, not a historical or legal argument. I hope you can see the difference.

I'm not saying its correct. I'm just saying that is why it is legal. I bet if the colonists had smoked as much pot as they drank alcohol, pot would be legal right now.

That's exactly wrong.
In this country all rights are reserved to the people except those the constitution explicitly grants to government. Government must show a compelling interest to justify a limitation of those rights. I have never seen any such compelling interest.

all rights are reserved to the people except those the constitution explicitly grants to government.

That's wildly innaccurate. All powers not granted to the federal govt belongs to the states. There is no "right" to do drugs, or drive, or marry, or almost anything else.

You need to learn to distinguish between your opinion and facts.

__________________
War is the natural state of humankind.
Fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.

"reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"

And of course the states would also have to show a compelling interest.

The federal laws you are defending are not justified constitutionally, practically, or logically.