NavigationBanners
McCain-Feingold
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1916 guests online.
|
Response to WaltersSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 2002-07-24 15:41.
I wrote the following letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal
in response to Drug Czar John P. Walters'
Don't Legalize Drugs.
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:41:28 -0400 On July 19, the Journal printed an article by John P. Walters. I could give a point-by-point refutation. His article is loaded with misunderstandings, or lies. But none of his arguments matter. It doesn't matter how harmful drug abuse is to individuals or society. And it doesn't matter how many people want the government to do something about it. No drug law is allowed. Mr. Walters is operating from a mistaken view of our constitutional republic. The U.S. government exists to preserve individual liberty. Period. To do this, the Constitution grants the government a small set of enumerated powers. It may do nothing else. In particular, the government has no business deciding what people may or may not consume. I'm sick of drug war exceptions to the Bill of Rights: warrantless searches, compelled self-incrimination (breath, urine, blood, and hair tests), theft of property without due process (asset forfeiture), murder by SWAT team, and the massive imprisonment of peaceful people whose only "crime" is modifying their consciousness. It's time to end the war on some vegetables. Don't just legalize drugs. Completely deregulate them. Eliminate the DEA, BATF, ONDCP, and FDA. Raze their buildings to the ground so that not one stone is left standing on another, and sow salt on the ruins. Arrest, try, and imprison, under 18 USC 242, any legislator, bureaucrat, cop, judge, or soldier who violates, under color of law, the civil rights of any U.S. resident, citizen or non-citizen. These civil rights include, but are not limited to, every one of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The war on drugs has nothing to do with drugs. It is a war on freedom. End it.
Bill St. Clair add new comment | quote | 1217 reads
|
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair TTLB |
Recent comments
1 day 20 hours ago
3 days 2 hours ago
3 days 2 hours ago
1 week 4 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago