It's not your right to "do" drugs that's infringed upon, it's your right to POSSESS them that's regulated. It's the substance itself that's contraband. You have the "right" to consume any drug you wish, but the government has authority, under its police power, to regulate or ban the possession of nearly any substance or object in the interests of public peace and order. Bans on substances like pot or heroin are based on public policy considerations that address the secondary effects of the drug trade, like crime and addiction that creates policing and public safety problems for society.sandinista wrote:I was directing the question at seth. Anyway, he said specifically, "Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.". That sounds wrong. Take drug laws for instance, it would seem to me that the individual right to do drugs, any drug really, is subject to popular vote.Coito ergo sum wrote:Almost all laws interfere with liberty. However, liberty is never unfettered. We live in a Republic. The fact that liberty is something to value doesn't mean that a society has to be anarchic.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.
The analogy would be that while you have the right to keep and bear arms, you do NOT have the right to operate or discharge them anywhere you please, and the government is fully empowered, under it's police powers, to regulate how, when and where you may operate a firearm, in the interests of public safety. The same applies to drugs and alcohol. With alcohol, the government regulates who may sell it, under what conditions, and where, and it regulates how the consumer may consume it, and where. It forbids you from drinking alcohol in a public place, and it forbids you from being drunk in public or while driving. The level of regulation of other drugs depends on the drug, and can include an outright ban on possession of the substance if the legislature, in its representative wisdom, deems possession to be too dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare to be permitted.
The President does not propose legislation. Any member of Congress, either in the House or the Senate, can draft and propose legislation. It's up to the representative democratic process as to whether such legislation is passed. Then the President has a chance to veto it. If he does, Congress can override his veto and the bill becomes law without the President's signature.Would you not have to elect a president that would start the ball rolling for federal legalization?
I disagree with CES about the propriety of the President being able to legitimately refuse to enforce validly passed legislation merely because he thinks a law is "unconstitutional." There's a thread discussing that legal issue here.
Of course one's life and property are "effected" (sic) by laws. But being affected by a law is not the same thing as a "democratic" vote to remove or repudiate those rights. In the first place, laws affect everyone equally. A law regulating my use of private property for some police-power reason also affects your use of your property. I'm not talking about such things. I'm talking about you, and the other members of the community in which I reside getting together and "voting" to take my land away from ME because you, as a group, either want it or believe I'm unworthy of owning it.With the same example, a persons life and property are also effected by these laws.
I agree, it does sound a bit strange, and I'd agree with you that the government ought not be regulating what plants individuals can grow and consume, or to what extent. You'll find that such defense of liberty is a staunchly Libertarian argument, but that liberals, socialists and progressives have no problem with the use and abuse of government regulatory authority because their entire political philosophy is based in the rejection of individual liberty and property.Just seems funny an american talking about "Individual rights to life, liberty and property" and defending them to the deathwhen you can go to prison for growing a plant.
You are aware that under Stalin, and Castro, and other socialist/Marxist/Communist societies, individually growing pot can be a capital offense, right?
The very essence of socialism in all its forms is authoritarianism, not anarchy or even Libertarianism. In all such systems, the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life, in the interests of proletarian solidarity and to eliminate dangerous counterrevolutionary thoughts like "I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor" and "I have the right to think and speak as I please," and suchlike liberties that are dangerous to socialist ideology.