Officer, Arrest That Dopehead

Posted on | June 7, 2010 | 93 Comments

When a guy thinks he can dictate to the Tea Party movement . . . Well, obviously, Jeffrey Miron is on drugs:

[D]rug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets, regardless of the level of government. Free markets should mean both that businesses can operate as they please and that individuals can purchase and consume whatever they want, so long as these actions do not harm others, even when such decisions seem unwise. Drug prohibition interferes with precisely these activities.
Thus, if the tea-party believes in its principles, it must choose the libertarian path on drug prohibition.

He’s on the faculty of Harvard, so he is an expert, who is qualified to tell you mouth-breathing morons in the Tea Party what to think.

Yeah. That’s what we need. Because it’s worked so well in the past.

UPDATE: Miron’s article was Tweeted to me by Joe Marier, who got it from Brian Lehman — who lives in Philadelphia, just in case any narcotics detectives are looking to make a bust. But seriously . . .

My Libertarian Argument
for The War on Drugs

If drugs are legal, they will be taxed, which will provide more revenue for government. More revenue for government is a bad thing.
If drugs are legal, they will be regulated, which will provide more jobs for bureaucrats — also a bad thing.
If drugs are legal, Big Business will take it over and squeeze out the small entrepreneur, lobbying government to create regulatory “barriers to entry.” As an example, consider how legalized gambling has killed the floating crap game, backroom poker, and the numbers racket. Used to be, somebody who wanted to play the numbers just dealt with their neighborhood hoodlum. Now, they’re standing in front of me in line at the convenience store, buying lottery tickets. This is not “progress.”
The black market for illegal drugs is one of the last bastions of genuinely free enterprise in which young poor people can become entrepreneurs. The ghetto homie hustling dime bags on the corner? That dude is a stone-cold capitalist, and yet “libertarian” intellectuals like Jeffrey Miron want to eliminate the only structure (i.e., illegality) under which ghetto dudes can practice unlicensed, unregulated, untaxed capitalism.
The War on Drugs serves a valuable social purpose, by ensuring that lots of stupid people go to prison. There are some people so stupid that they don’t need to be on the street. And if you’re a dopehead who can’t outsmart a narc, that’s an intense kind of stupid.

Back in the day, when I was a young Democrat — which is to say, a hellbound fool — I dealt dope in what we used to call “felony weight” and never once got busted. And yet all these so-called libertarians want me to sing the blues about stupid crackheads doing time for minor possession because they got pulled over for a broken turn signal and had a couple of rocks in their pocket?

Screw those losers. They’re in prison because they’re stupid. I’d rather have them in prison than standing in line for lottery tickets in front of me at the convenience store.

And we certainly don’t have a shortage of stupid people in the world, as I’m reminded every time I have to drive in D.C. traffic. Crackheads should take the bus.

UPDATE II: A dopehead libertarian in the comments — if you guys at the FBI want his ISP, just hit the tip jar, OK? — cites the alleged “failure” of Prohibition as an argument for legalizing drugs.

Prohibition was not repealed because it failed. Prohibition was repealed because the feds wanted whiskey tax revenue to pay for the New Deal. Compare and contrast:

Prohibition — Speakeasies, jazz, flappers, Calvin Coolidge, gangsters in cool pinstriped suits wih fedoras driving V-8 roadsters.
New Deal — Alger Hiss.

Any questions? Pay attention, class — this stuff might be on the final.

UPDATE III: Will Cain vs. Jacob Sullum:

Is Jacob Sullum on drugs? I’m not sure. But he must be a smart dopehead, otherwise he’d be in prison. Or buying lottery tickets.

Any narcotics officers in D.C. ever want to make an easy bust, I think you’d have no trouble arguing “probable cause” to frisk everyone at the Connecticut Avenue offices of Reason magazine. I mean, really, Matt Welch might be clean and Mike Moynihan is usually sober — at least during working hours — but any trained narc would spot Nick Gillespie for a stoner:

The glazed eyes? The slurred speech? The sideburns, the hipster mannerisms, the omnipresent leather jacket?

Your honor, I rest my case.

Where’s Sergeant Stadanko, now that we really need him?

Category: Crime, Tea Party

Comments

93 Responses to “Officer, Arrest That Dopehead”

Corrindium
June 7th, 2010 @ 6:33 pm

Stacy. Dude. That was hilarious. Thanks.
Corrindium
June 7th, 2010 @ 2:33 pm

Stacy. Dude. That was hilarious. Thanks.
Bob Belvedere
June 7th, 2010 @ 6:51 pm

Wow…there are certain issues that just get everybody in a tzzy, even on a Monday.

This issue has become like abortion: you can rarely have a discussion without people getting the vapors.

PS: Whether I agree with you or not, Stacy, that was well written.
Bob Belvedere
June 7th, 2010 @ 6:51 pm

Wow…there are certain issues that just get everybody in a tzzy, even on a Monday.

This issue has become like abortion: you can rarely have a discussion without people getting the vapors.

PS: Whether I agree with you or not, Stacy, that was well written.
Bob Belvedere
June 7th, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

Wow…there are certain issues that just get everybody in a tzzy, even on a Monday.

This issue has become like abortion: you can rarely have a discussion without people getting the vapors.

PS: Whether I agree with you or not, Stacy, that was well written.
Daniel
June 7th, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

Oh and I don’t I support the use of drugs just your right to do them if thats what you want to do with your life. Just like freedom of speech I can support your right to it with out supporting what you say.

“I support the Tea Party and I support Jeffrey Miron on this issue. I would go into why but it would not change your mind but I will say that when it comes to drugs so many have not learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017“
Daniel
June 7th, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

Oh and I don’t I support the use of drugs just your right to do them if thats what you want to do with your life. Just like freedom of speech I can support your right to it with out supporting what you say.

“I support the Tea Party and I support Jeffrey Miron on this issue. I would go into why but it would not change your mind but I will say that when it comes to drugs so many have not learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017“
Daniel
June 7th, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

Oh and I don’t I support the use of drugs just your right to do them if thats what you want to do with your life. Just like freedom of speech I can support your right to it with out supporting what you say.

“I support the Tea Party and I support Jeffrey Miron on this issue. I would go into why but it would not change your mind but I will say that when it comes to drugs so many have not learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017“
Estragon
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

Remember this “libertarian” idea applies not only to “illegal” drugs, but to ALL drugs. They do not believe you should need a prescription or have to sign your name to purchase ANY drug the pharmacy stocks.

Of course, we had this system for over a century. It doesn’t work. So before we ever considered an income tax or direct election of Senators, we decided on the FDA and regulating drugs.

Now, some may argue that this drug or another should not be on the lists of controlled substances, but that’s an entirely different debate than whether there should be a list at all.
Estragon
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

Remember this “libertarian” idea applies not only to “illegal” drugs, but to ALL drugs. They do not believe you should need a prescription or have to sign your name to purchase ANY drug the pharmacy stocks.

Of course, we had this system for over a century. It doesn’t work. So before we ever considered an income tax or direct election of Senators, we decided on the FDA and regulating drugs.

Now, some may argue that this drug or another should not be on the lists of controlled substances, but that’s an entirely different debate than whether there should be a list at all.
Estragon
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

Remember this “libertarian” idea applies not only to “illegal” drugs, but to ALL drugs. They do not believe you should need a prescription or have to sign your name to purchase ANY drug the pharmacy stocks.

Of course, we had this system for over a century. It doesn’t work. So before we ever considered an income tax or direct election of Senators, we decided on the FDA and regulating drugs.

Now, some may argue that this drug or another should not be on the lists of controlled substances, but that’s an entirely different debate than whether there should be a list at all.
Ron Jones
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

@RHJunior – excellent points. I couldn’t agree more! Let’s see…how much change has their been to the overall percentage of the population who uses “illegal drugs” since they became illegal? hmmmm, I’d venture to guess, not much. Certainly not several Trillion dollar’s worth.

For my part, it comes down to TWO insurmountable points. As a parent, it is MY job to educate my children on the folly and danger of drug use. It’s not the job of the national(ist) government.

Second, economics 101 (which most folks cannot grasp) provides a simple explanation for the crime associated with the drug trade:

If we want to make a dent in the drug trade, hit ’em where it hurts…the profit margin.

Artificially high barriers to entry (into the drug distribution industry), insure massive profit margins for the few very big players at the top (kind of like the oligarchs that control the banking cartel). These big players have a vested financial stake in keeping the existing drug laws on the books, not to mention their support for ever harsher sentences.

Like the banking cartel, the big players in the illegal drug trade who reap the real profits…are insulated from upstart providers, and more nimble competition, by these restrictive legislative and regulatory initiatives.

Of course, they are also protected from the “business end” of the barriers to entry (the arrogant, ill-tempered, heavily armed thugs with government-issued clown suits, talismans, and a free-fire mandate [aka JBT’s] who visit death, destruction and asset forfeiture upon any Joe six-pack unlucky enough to be implicated by any Confidential Informant with a grudge).

Of course…I’ll bet there are some Liberty activists that read this blog who STILL think there was “something evil afoot” at WACO. After all, they were religious folks with guns (kind of like the Pilgrims). And let’s not get started on the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver by federalist assassins…. (who haven’t been dealt justice to this day).
Ron Jones
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

@RHJunior – excellent points. I couldn’t agree more! Let’s see…how much change has their been to the overall percentage of the population who uses “illegal drugs” since they became illegal? hmmmm, I’d venture to guess, not much. Certainly not several Trillion dollar’s worth.

For my part, it comes down to TWO insurmountable points. As a parent, it is MY job to educate my children on the folly and danger of drug use. It’s not the job of the national(ist) government.

Second, economics 101 (which most folks cannot grasp) provides a simple explanation for the crime associated with the drug trade:

If we want to make a dent in the drug trade, hit ’em where it hurts…the profit margin.

Artificially high barriers to entry (into the drug distribution industry), insure massive profit margins for the few very big players at the top (kind of like the oligarchs that control the banking cartel). These big players have a vested financial stake in keeping the existing drug laws on the books, not to mention their support for ever harsher sentences.

Like the banking cartel, the big players in the illegal drug trade who reap the real profits…are insulated from upstart providers, and more nimble competition, by these restrictive legislative and regulatory initiatives.

Of course, they are also protected from the “business end” of the barriers to entry (the arrogant, ill-tempered, heavily armed thugs with government-issued clown suits, talismans, and a free-fire mandate [aka JBT’s] who visit death, destruction and asset forfeiture upon any Joe six-pack unlucky enough to be implicated by any Confidential Informant with a grudge).

Of course…I’ll bet there are some Liberty activists that read this blog who STILL think there was “something evil afoot” at WACO. After all, they were religious folks with guns (kind of like the Pilgrims). And let’s not get started on the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver by federalist assassins…. (who haven’t been dealt justice to this day).
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

I was being sarcastic with my commnent above. I am for maybe legalizing pot (and taxing and regulating the hell out of it). Decriminalizing some possession of other drugs might make sense. But there are no easy answers to any of this and we have to ask ourselves–which course will cause the least amount of harm. Total legalization of all drugs will likely cause more far more harm than the status quo.

Certain drugs (meth, heroin, crack cocaine, as examples) are just plain evil. Anything that promotes more of their use is wrong.
Joe
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

I was being sarcastic with my commnent above. I am for maybe legalizing pot (and taxing and regulating the hell out of it). Decriminalizing some possession of other drugs might make sense. But there are no easy answers to any of this and we have to ask ourselves–which course will cause the least amount of harm. Total legalization of all drugs will likely cause more far more harm than the status quo.

Certain drugs (meth, heroin, crack cocaine, as examples) are just plain evil. Anything that promotes more of their use is wrong.
ak4mc
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:59 pm

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue itself, its interface with real-world politics suggests that making drug legalization a cornerstone of the Tea Party movement would mean instant marginalization and ultimate defeat.

If the gay rights movement had seen fit to ask me how to win on same-sex marriage, I might have urged them to push for it in the courts as they tried to do — but only because I oppose SSM. And Walter Williams has said that if the KKK had wanted to destroy the black family in America, they couldn’t have come up with a better strategy than what America’s liberals created starting with LBJ’s Great Society.

In a onetime negotiation you demand more than you really want so you can bargain for what you really want. In culture-war politics the opposite is true — you ask for less now, while planning to ask for more later.
ak4mc
June 7th, 2010 @ 8:59 pm

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue itself, its interface with real-world politics suggests that making drug legalization a cornerstone of the Tea Party movement would mean instant marginalization and ultimate defeat.

If the gay rights movement had seen fit to ask me how to win on same-sex marriage, I might have urged them to push for it in the courts as they tried to do — but only because I oppose SSM. And Walter Williams has said that if the KKK had wanted to destroy the black family in America, they couldn’t have come up with a better strategy than what America’s liberals created starting with LBJ’s Great Society.

In a onetime negotiation you demand more than you really want so you can bargain for what you really want. In culture-war politics the opposite is true — you ask for less now, while planning to ask for more later.
ak4mc
June 7th, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue itself, its interface with real-world politics suggests that making drug legalization a cornerstone of the Tea Party movement would mean instant marginalization and ultimate defeat.

If the gay rights movement had seen fit to ask me how to win on same-sex marriage, I might have urged them to push for it in the courts as they tried to do — but only because I oppose SSM. And Walter Williams has said that if the KKK had wanted to destroy the black family in America, they couldn’t have come up with a better strategy than what America’s liberals created starting with LBJ’s Great Society.

In a onetime negotiation you demand more than you really want so you can bargain for what you really want. In culture-war politics the opposite is true — you ask for less now, while planning to ask for more later.
SteveN
June 7th, 2010 @ 9:05 pm

Hey Daniel,

When it comes to drugs, do you think there might be some of us who haven’t learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition? Just wondering. And do you think that repeating your stock phrase is persuasive?

We’ve got at least a dozen our-future-is-on-the-line issues to struggle with before it’s worth even thinking about this one.
SteveN
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

Hey Daniel,

When it comes to drugs, do you think there might be some of us who haven’t learned the lessons from alcohol prohibition? Just wondering. And do you think that repeating your stock phrase is persuasive?

We’ve got at least a dozen our-future-is-on-the-line issues to struggle with before it’s worth even thinking about this one.
Armed Criminal Gangs Support the War on Drugs!
June 7th, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

[…] "Officer, Arrest That Dopehead" directed me to the following Drug War article on National Review. […]
Kurt Russell
June 8th, 2010 @ 2:55 am

Simply turn it over to the states to legislate – every state can make various drugs legal or not.

Once Californica makes everything under the sun legal, we can build a big frickin wall around it and dump the druggies from the rest of the country in there. On the off chance that the Presidunt’s plane happens to crash in there, we can always send Snake Pliskin in to rescue him (or drag him out kicking and screaming, whichever he prefers).
Kurt Russell
June 7th, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

Simply turn it over to the states to legislate – every state can make various drugs legal or not.

Once Californica makes everything under the sun legal, we can build a big frickin wall around it and dump the druggies from the rest of the country in there. On the off chance that the Presidunt’s plane happens to crash in there, we can always send Snake Pliskin in to rescue him (or drag him out kicking and screaming, whichever he prefers).
ccoffer
June 8th, 2010 @ 3:16 am

Hoho. I shut it off when the amoral dude said, “whether or not a fetus becomes a person”. He intimated that this was not a distinction to be made by those in the field of medical science, but instead by whoever wins a particular argument. Presumably by people not in the medical business since they all agree on the answer to his shitstupid conjecture.)

Gee. I wonder if my mother is alive. I suppose I should make a list of all the things I want in life, think of my relationship with my mother in the present moment, and then ask someone in the business of killing people’s mothers whether or not she’s even alive in the first place.

And then be proud of my personal “choice”.
ccoffer
June 8th, 2010 @ 3:16 am

Hoho. I shut it off when the amoral dude said, “whether or not a fetus becomes a person”. He intimated that this was not a distinction to be made by those in the field of medical science, but instead by whoever wins a particular argument. Presumably by people not in the medical business since they all agree on the answer to his shitstupid conjecture.)

Gee. I wonder if my mother is alive. I suppose I should make a list of all the things I want in life, think of my relationship with my mother in the present moment, and then ask someone in the business of killing people’s mothers whether or not she’s even alive in the first place.

And then be proud of my personal “choice”.
ccoffer
June 7th, 2010 @ 11:16 pm

Hoho. I shut it off when the amoral dude said, “whether or not a fetus becomes a person”. He intimated that this was not a distinction to be made by those in the field of medical science, but instead by whoever wins a particular argument. Presumably by people not in the medical business since they all agree on the answer to his shitstupid conjecture.)

Gee. I wonder if my mother is alive. I suppose I should make a list of all the things I want in life, think of my relationship with my mother in the present moment, and then ask someone in the business of killing people’s mothers whether or not she’s even alive in the first place.

And then be proud of my personal “choice”.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 8th, 2010 @ 8:04 am

Fun piece.

What I really came away from it with is that the best way to end the drug war is to end the state itself.

Of course, I can’t think of any issue I don’t come away from that with.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 8th, 2010 @ 8:04 am

Fun piece.

What I really came away from it with is that the best way to end the drug war is to end the state itself.

Of course, I can’t think of any issue I don’t come away from that with.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 8th, 2010 @ 4:04 am

Fun piece.

What I really came away from it with is that the best way to end the drug war is to end the state itself.

Of course, I can’t think of any issue I don’t come away from that with.
Bob Belvedere
June 8th, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

Thomas: How come I find myself feeling the same way these days? [in my weaker moments]
Bob Belvedere
June 8th, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

Thomas: How come I find myself feeling the same way these days? [in my weaker moments]
Bob Belvedere
June 8th, 2010 @ 8:27 am

Thomas: How come I find myself feeling the same way these days? [in my weaker moments]
dustbury.com » Get your gin out of my bathtub
June 8th, 2010 @ 9:11 am

[…] Stacy McCain explains it thusly: Prohibition was not repealed because it failed. Prohibition was repealed because the feds wanted whiskey tax revenue to pay for the New Deal. Compare and contrast: […]
Marianne7
June 8th, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

I seriously doubt you will have drugs legalized anytime soon. Think of the crisis! Drugs would be going through normal distribution channels like alcohol, so:

1) Mexican narco gangs would collapse from lack of funds.

2) Afghanistan taliban would run out of dough

3) politicians for the War On Drugs would lose all the campaign funds from Mexico.

4) border patrol would not have the opportunities they now have for padding their retirement funds.

5) The inner city kids would discover they might have to stay in school and get a regular schmuck job instead of a glamorous high-paying one with freeby perks.

6) Inner city gangs would have a much harder time recruiting “to keep the peace” if they ran out of the serious funds.

Too much money in drugs. Just try and stop them and watch your opponents rake in the campaign cash. One of the top ten billionaires in the world is now a Mexican drug lord.
Marianne7
June 8th, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

I seriously doubt you will have drugs legalized anytime soon. Think of the crisis! Drugs would be going through normal distribution channels like alcohol, so:

1) Mexican narco gangs would collapse from lack of funds.

2) Afghanistan taliban would run out of dough

3) politicians for the War On Drugs would lose all the campaign funds from Mexico.

4) border patrol would not have the opportunities they now have for padding their retirement funds.

5) The inner city kids would discover they might have to stay in school and get a regular schmuck job instead of a glamorous high-paying one with freeby perks.

6) Inner city gangs would have a much harder time recruiting “to keep the peace” if they ran out of the serious funds.

Too much money in drugs. Just try and stop them and watch your opponents rake in the campaign cash. One of the top ten billionaires in the world is now a Mexican drug lord.
Marianne7
June 8th, 2010 @ 9:23 am

I seriously doubt you will have drugs legalized anytime soon. Think of the crisis! Drugs would be going through normal distribution channels like alcohol, so:

1) Mexican narco gangs would collapse from lack of funds.

2) Afghanistan taliban would run out of dough

3) politicians for the War On Drugs would lose all the campaign funds from Mexico.

4) border patrol would not have the opportunities they now have for padding their retirement funds.

5) The inner city kids would discover they might have to stay in school and get a regular schmuck job instead of a glamorous high-paying one with freeby perks.

6) Inner city gangs would have a much harder time recruiting “to keep the peace” if they ran out of the serious funds.

Too much money in drugs. Just try and stop them and watch your opponents rake in the campaign cash. One of the top ten billionaires in the world is now a Mexican drug lord.
Officer, Arrest That Dopehead « Thatmrgguy's Blog
June 8th, 2010 @ 11:35 am

[…] Officer, Arrest That Dopehead. […]
The Javelineer
June 8th, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

RSM wrote

The glazed eyes? The slurred speech? The sideburns, the hipster mannerisms, the omnipresent leather jacket?

ROFLMAO RSM, your culture jamming is killing me.

Estragon wrote

So before we ever considered an income tax or direct election of Senators, we decided on the FDA and regulating drugs.

Uh, no. The Chemistry Division of the Department of Agriculture was created by the 1909 Food and Drug Act as part of the progressive program of Teddy Roosevelt. It was strictly limited to investigating fraud in interstate commerce.

The modern FDA was created by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as part of FDR’s progressive program.

So, we considered an income tax long before the FDA. Same for the direct election of senators.

Estragon, you should go back to the tree and wait for Godot.

BTW, the 17th amendment was a death sentence upon federalism. The direct election of senators is very bad idea, and should be repealed.
The Javelineer
June 8th, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

RSM wrote

The glazed eyes? The slurred speech? The sideburns, the hipster mannerisms, the omnipresent leather jacket?

ROFLMAO RSM, your culture jamming is killing me.

Estragon wrote

So before we ever considered an income tax or direct election of Senators, we decided on the FDA and regulating drugs.

Uh, no. The Chemistry Division of the Department of Agriculture was created by the 1909 Food and Drug Act as part of the progressive program of Teddy Roosevelt. It was strictly limited to investigating fraud in interstate commerce.

The modern FDA was created by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as part of FDR’s progressive program.

So, we considered an income tax long before the FDA. Same for the direct election of senators.

Estragon, you should go back to the tree and wait for Godot.

BTW, the 17th amendment was a death sentence upon federalism. The direct election of senators is very bad idea, and should be repealed.
The Javelineer
June 8th, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

RSM wrote

The glazed eyes? The slurred speech? The sideburns, the hipster mannerisms, the omnipresent leather jacket?

ROFLMAO RSM, your culture jamming is killing me.

Estragon wrote

So before we ever considered an income tax or direct election of Senators, we decided on the FDA and regulating drugs.

Uh, no. The Chemistry Division of the Department of Agriculture was created by the 1909 Food and Drug Act as part of the progressive program of Teddy Roosevelt. It was strictly limited to investigating fraud in interstate commerce.

The modern FDA was created by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as part of FDR’s progressive program.

So, we considered an income tax long before the FDA. Same for the direct election of senators.

Estragon, you should go back to the tree and wait for Godot.

BTW, the 17th amendment was a death sentence upon federalism. The direct election of senators is very bad idea, and should be repealed.
Finrod
June 10th, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

There’s no way you can stand up and say that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and at the same time say that the US drug laws are constitutional, without being completely inconsistent with regards to the Constitution.

We needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, cause it’s not one of the Limited Powers assigned to Congress. Where’s the constitutional amendment to make drugs illegal? There isn’t one? Then all those drug laws are just as unconstitutional as the Federal Reserve is. C’mon, Stacy, you can’t be a half-defender of the Constitution. Either man up and argue for a constitutional amendment giving Congress the authority to make drugs illegal, or come over to the side of Freedom and denounce the War on Some Drugs as the horrible affront to the Constitution that it is.

No one has been executed by police in ‘no-knock’ raids because of the Federal Reserve, after all.
Finrod
June 10th, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

There’s no way you can stand up and say that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and at the same time say that the US drug laws are constitutional, without being completely inconsistent with regards to the Constitution.

We needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, cause it’s not one of the Limited Powers assigned to Congress. Where’s the constitutional amendment to make drugs illegal? There isn’t one? Then all those drug laws are just as unconstitutional as the Federal Reserve is. C’mon, Stacy, you can’t be a half-defender of the Constitution. Either man up and argue for a constitutional amendment giving Congress the authority to make drugs illegal, or come over to the side of Freedom and denounce the War on Some Drugs as the horrible affront to the Constitution that it is.

No one has been executed by police in ‘no-knock’ raids because of the Federal Reserve, after all.
Finrod
June 10th, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

There’s no way you can stand up and say that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and at the same time say that the US drug laws are constitutional, without being completely inconsistent with regards to the Constitution.

We needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, cause it’s not one of the Limited Powers assigned to Congress. Where’s the constitutional amendment to make drugs illegal? There isn’t one? Then all those drug laws are just as unconstitutional as the Federal Reserve is. C’mon, Stacy, you can’t be a half-defender of the Constitution. Either man up and argue for a constitutional amendment giving Congress the authority to make drugs illegal, or come over to the side of Freedom and denounce the War on Some Drugs as the horrible affront to the Constitution that it is.

No one has been executed by police in ‘no-knock’ raids because of the Federal Reserve, after all.

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Officer, Arrest That Dopehead

Comments

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

THE PATRIARCH TREE

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Search the Blog

Blog-Fu Ninja Masters

ADVERTISEMENT

Axis of Fedorables

AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!

Archives

Wombat's Wizards of Blog

SHOP NOW FOR AWESOME COMPUTER DEALS!

Can't Get Enough of That Hot Bloggy Stuff

Blogroll