Animal sex with human. Animal sex machines. Sex animal. Animal sex….

He is swimming in a sea of patronage and has little interest in details

There should be some burden on the fed to demonstrate the tangible interstate effects.

dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Demonstrate to who?

Sorry..been out for a while and I’m just jumping in again. Have to go back and read the previous posts.

Wildcat84, I’ve come a little late to the party. Read your libertarian manifesto posted at 10:40 a.m. Lets see how libertarian you really are. As a social con I am willing to respect your rights to do whatsoever you please with your own body provided you also are willing to take complete responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. No going to the teat of government to fleece my pocket to pay for rehabilitation or medical treatment for any abuse of your body. No excuses that I have an illness (addiction) and am not responsible for the harming of others as a consequence of your personal choices. If you are agreeable then I will grant that you are truly libertarian. If not, I have as much right to come to the table and petition government for a redress of grievances.

chemman on March 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM

I’m in complete agreement. Freedom comes with responsibility. This is what we’ve lost. Now because of the excessive government intervention into every aspect of life people are encouraged to live very irresponsible lives free of consequences because other people will be obligated to pay the price.

In fact, those who lead responsible lives (which I do, I am not and never HAVE been a drug user), such as NOT using drugs, NOT leading a promiscuous lifestyle, etc, are the ones fleeced to PAY for the sins of the irresponsible, we are lampooned instead of respected for it.

As I said, I’m not against the Feds making drugs illegal (ie: drug prohibition). But they need to get that authority legally, as in amending the Constitution, just as was done when they decided to impose alcohol prohibition.

And, I am definitely opposed to drug users NOT being held responsible for their use. I won’t pay for their rehab, just as I oppose paying for AIDS treatment for the drug users and those who indulge in risky promiscuous sexual deviancy.

Freedom HAS to come with responsibility or else there is no check on it’s abuse.

You cannot condone gross violations of privacy for petty reasons, but you also must allow our law enforcement to protect and serve the interests of society.

Hawthorne on March 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Sure. If there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed against a victim, then knock the door down.

There should be a higher threshold for the government when the activity involves someone abusing themselves with drugs.

There should be a greater protection for privacy which would create a higher barrier for law enforcement when people are engaged in acts on their own property.

dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Indeed. So you are also advocating things like a higher barrier for prosecuting gangs that addict runaway girls to drugs and get them to serve as prostitutes for their fix. You also place a higher barrier on things like rape and incest. Many of the most objectionable crimes are committed on private property, and once your vision of the law is passed, it would become even worse.

Criminals have no scruples about what is fair. The will use whatever leverage you give them to make our society a hellhole. What you and many other Libertarians do not understand is that there must be a sensible balance. You cannot condone gross violations of privacy for petty reasons, but you also must allow our law enforcement to protect and serve the interests of society.

The Obama administration keeps saying one thing and doing another

Of course. How else can they protect their reputations as light workers?

The DEA has guns, & all kinds of cool surveillance eqmt. why don’t they break up crack rings, seize heroin coming into US ports or just shoot drug smugglers. wouldn’t that be a better value for our money?

kelley in virginia on March 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Too easy… SF “clinics” are low hanging fruit.

Just as California under President Bush asserted itself on issues ranging from gun control to medical marijuana…

Newsflash, CS Monitor: Gun ownership is protected under the Constitution; Marijuana isn’t.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Little Billy Maher isn’t going to be happy about this one bit…

D2Boston on March 27, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Especially if 10th Amendment Giant Sarah sends out a press release about the Feds overstepping. She can cc the ‘lost one’ and seal it with a wink.

Repeal all federal gun control laws.

Tell the G8 to go screw themselves on that copyright treaty crap.

Vote for The Reverend AG for president in 2012!

This is much like the bailouts, which disrupt natural evolution of business… Make catastrophic business decisions, suffer catastrophic failure so that what you did serves as a lesson to others (and yourself) and the businesses who didn’t take unwarranted risks and engaged in bad behavior will be able to step in and prosper even more.

wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I agree with letting the chips fall where they may. Currently, I’d rather that we didn’t spend the billions in tax money each year to prevent people from their own drug use. If they want to get high and possibly damage their own lives, so bet it.

I don’t think private firms will be able to withstand legal challenges if they have a policy against hiring people using legal substances.

cs89 on March 27, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Private companies have a lot of discretion when hiring and firing at-will employees. There are limitations involving members of “protected classes” (e.g., race, religion, age, gender, etc.). Smokers, drinkers and drug users aren’t protected classes.

I don’t think private firms will be able to withstand legal challenges if they have a policy against hiring people using legal substances.

cs89 on March 27, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Really?

As a parallel, you can be fired/not hired if you are demonstrably under the effect of alcohol during interview/work hours. I don’t think you can be refused employment for recent legal use, or if you drink off-duty.

I don’t think private firms will be able to withstand legal challenges if they have a policy against hiring people using legal substances.

There are private (AND PUBLIC!) employers who are doing just that today… But with how vilified tobacco is smokers aren’t deemed worthy of equal protection under the law. Much like AIG executives, only more numerous.

Freedom dies when people aren’t free to be irresponsible, and obligated to TAKE responsibility.

wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Clarification: You’re saying that people should be required to take responsibility for their own actions. Correct?

Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Yes.

Want to take drugs? The consequences are YOUR problem, not mine, and you have no moral right to confiscate my resources to deal with the outcome.

Want to share drug needles or bugger other men and end up with AIDS? The consequences are YOUR problem, not mine, and you have no moral right to confiscate my resources to deal with the outcome.

Both drug addiction and the contraction of AIDS are afflictions that are almost 100% the result of a BAD PERSONAL DECISION. You got yourself into it, get yourself OUT of it. All too often such irresponsibility is enabled by the government because it seeks to remove the suffering and adversity that naturally NEEDS to happen in order for there to be a desire to AVOID such behavior so as to not suffer the consequences.

This is much like the bailouts, which disrupt natural evolution of business… Make catastrophic business decisions, suffer catastrophic failure so that what you did serves as a lesson to others (and yourself) and the businesses who didn’t take unwarranted risks and engaged in bad behavior will be able to step in and prosper even more.

LIBERAL DILEMMA

Oh joy! Which side do we choose?

I love the people who think that if marijuana was legalized it would lead to a horde of zombies just sitting at home all day and not working. You do understand that private businesses would still be perfectly able to drug test and refuse to hire, and fire anyone who tested positive, right? And since when has that argument been used for any of the other things we have?

thphilli on March 27, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I suspect it would be difficult to legally justify refuse to hire someone who was not under the influence at the time of application/testing, but tested positive for recent use.

As a parallel, you can be fired/not hired if you are demonstrably under the effect of alcohol during interview/work hours. I don’t think you can be refused employment for recent legal use, or if you drink off-duty.

I don’t think private firms will be able to withstand legal challenges if they have a policy against hiring people using legal substances.

Why wouldn’t the DEA simply refer the matter to the California AG instead?

You mean moonbeam?
Do you have to ask?

I hate these threads. All of the libertarian whackos come out and start lecturing everyone on their own unique interpretations of the constitution. LOL

Blake on March 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM

How about we read it.Then follow and enforce it. Some things dont need to be interpreted.Unless you need someone to spell out what the government is limited to?

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.

So anything not specifically stated in the Constitution as a power for the Federal Government will be stripped from their control?

Cool. Public Education going back to the states then (unless someone can point out the Education Amendment)… heck half, maybe 2/3rds of the Federal Government’s spending is going to take a hit from this one.

Maybe Obama won’t run the country bankrupt once most of his spending is declared in violation of the 10th Amendment and Unconstitutional. Hey, a Libertarian can dream can’t he?

Well said. Thanks for that.