Restricting Cold Medicine Won't Curb Meth Use

[Beren]

There is no constitutionally protected right to keep and use drugs, so firearms are not a good corollary IMO.

The "right to keep and use drugs" is as protected as any other right. The enumeration of certain rights within the Constitution does NOT preclude the existence of other rights.

May I direct your attention to the Tenth Amendment?

"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."

If that wasn't clear, perhaps the Ninth?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The federal government has no business regulating intrastate drug use. Raich and Wickard will one day, if we are very fortunate, be seen in the same light as Dred Scott. The States may have the power to regulate drug use, but the federal government has no business getting involved except where interstate commerce is directly concerned. (None of this 'If a butterfly flaps its wings in California, it impacts tobacco prices in North Carolina, therefore we ban the killing of butterflies' BS our federal government is rapidly approaching.)

Please offer some real benefit.

People who choose to use the drug would be free to do so without threat to their person or liberty - at least, no more than they incur through their decision to use the drug.

You might remember this snippet from a certain well-known Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

While this is not written into our Constitution, it does illuminate its intent.

You wouldn't mind a 'meth bar' in your neighborhood with all the attendant comings and goings? You wouldn't mind someone jacked up on meth driving down your street? How is that a good idea? Who benefits?

If someone's driving under the influence of a drug I would expect it to be treated the same as any other driver under the influence of alcohol.

If someone's walking down the sidewalk high on meth, I could give a patoot. I doubt they would be much more of a nuisance than the drunks starting fights.

Who benefits? Evidently that person thinks they do, and that's all the more justification they need until their "benefits" cause harm to someone else.

 

[R.H. Lee]

It's a stretch to assert that the FF intended unregulated drug use. If so, they would have provided for same with an amendment similar to the 2nd. Nonetheless (and not to get sidetracked), every state has statutes prohibiting certain 'controlled substances', so the constitutional argument with regard to federal power over drugs is moot, as they are controlled by each state.

Now, then, I agree with you on the Raich ruling. In fact, I voted for 'medical marijuana' when it was on the ballot here awhile back. It passed and reflected the will of the people of the state of California. Indeed, the federal .gov has no business overriding states rights when they are less 'restrictive' than federal law. OTOH, California (and a number of other states) have gun control measures which are more restrictive than federal law and clearly in violation of the 2nd amendment - an enumerated right under the constitution-supposedly the 'law of the land'. Why is the federal .gov not stepping forth to intervene, as it did/does in 'civil rights violations' cases?????? Seems to me a double standard.

Hope that settles the constitutional argument, as meth is prohibited by states, and I think you'll agree they have the right to do so. The topic of this thread discusses whether states/municipalities should or have the right to regulate cold medicine-because it can be chemically altered to produce an illegal substance. I say no.

My original point was that such restrictions on a legal substance that has a legitimate purpose are wrong, set a bad precedent, and are emblematic of government laziness and sloppiness. Law enforcement should be doing it's job to find, arrest and prosecute individual offenders. Lax law enforcement is not an excuse for legislative restrictions.

Your solution was to legalize and regulate meth. I submit and continue to assert that is the wrong choice; it will create more problems than it solves.

 

[Beren]

My original point was that such restrictions on a legal substance that has a legitimate purpose are wrong, set a bad precedent, and are emblematic of government laziness and sloppiness. Law enforcement should be doing it's job to find, arrest and prosecute individual offenders. Lax law enforcement is not an excuse for legislative restrictions.

Where we differ is on the definition of "legitimate purpose." I see no need for any legitimate purpose. "I want" is all the justification necessary. It's up to law enforcement to control intoxicated drivers or disturbances of the peace.

"I want" a beer. I don't need to justify it to anyone. All I have to do is pay my $1, drink the beer, and live with the consequences. I don't see that it should be any different for meth, coke, or gasoline. It's your life. Live it well, or not.

 

[RevDisk]

Please offer some real benefit.

I'm a big tobacco nut. Pipes, cigars, cigarellos, cigarettes, water pipes, you name it. Love my tobacco. Someone once asked me the same question about my tobacco, as she was reaching to snatch my pack of smokes. "It keeps me from killing idiots." Hand moved back, real quick.


War on Some Drugs is just another one of dozens of federal programs that are just as evil. The goals are to decrease civil liberties, increase taxes, and also increase power in the hands of a select few.

No where in the Constitution is Congress given authority over drugs, except "Interstate Commerce". Yet, this somehow gives Congress authority over intrastate commerce as well. Congress bans a product, driving up the price and the black market, which increases violence, which causes Congress to crack down on said product even more. Cycle repeats endlessly. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I feel your pain. However, that still doesn't stop states from regulating/restricting the use of various substances. For example, California prohibited smoking in public places awhile back. I'm in agreement with the sentiment, but opposed to the legislation, and it's still reconciles with the U.S. Constitution, correct? ("Reserved to the states" and all that............)