In the midst of a presidential election year, Americans rightly expect to hear debates on almost every relevant topic. However, there is one topic that seems to be missing from the debate, even when it seems compellingly relevant: The “war on drugs.”
From a comment by lovingc:
The Prohibitionists, when they foisted their brummagem cure-all upon the country under cover of the war hysteria, gave out that their advocacy of it was based upon a Christian yearning to abate drunkenness, and so abolish crime, poverty and disease. They preached a [crime, poverty and disease free] millennium, and no doubt convinced hundreds of thousands of naive and sentimental persons, not themselves Puritans, nor even democrats.
My reply to that comment:
In an urban dictionary word (that I prefer to see popularized for the sake of clarity and liberty)… sadomoralism
Sadomoralists are (at least arguably) ironically the most destructive (so hypocritical) group from history through this moment.
If only the rule-of-law would primarily protect society from that outrageous group that powerfully leverages reason abuse to uphold law abuse “to protect the children”.
An unalienable right to liberty (as logically constitutionally enforced via the ninth amendment) should do exactly that, but pre-American conservatism across the political spectrum (responsible for then-sustaining slavery and other hideous examples of mass rights infringement via discrimination that still sometimes remains in place) still dominates “law” now.
Understand this is not limited to theological application, but sadomoralists exist in all segments of “social improvement”.
My additional comment there:
A minority of people use “illicit” drugs, and even a smaller minority passionately cares about ending the war on (some) drugs.
Moreover, our government (especially dominantly within our judicial community) powerfully benefits from that war, and politicians never want to be seen as opposing that community (opposing law enforcement likely opposes favorable election results for those politicians).
Moreover still, the mainstream media relies upon reporting tragic events, and the continuous suppliers of the freshest information about those events are governmental, so the mainstream media refuses to “bite” the informational “hand” that feeds (e.g. publicly report that the war on some drugs is irrefutably ineffective, seriously destructive, usually scientifically unwarranted, and flagrantly unconstitutional — all based upon the whole truth and nothing but).
Most importantly, nobody (especially the public mainstream) wants to talk about law itself, because it is a boring subject with excessive complexity.
Alcohol Prohibition required a federal constitutional amendment. There are two relevant amendments within the self-proclaimed “supreme law of the land”. One began that prohibition, and one ended it for basically the same reasons that should have prevented Certain Drug Prohibition (if you will).
The fact is nobody (including our public servants and the public mainstream) ever had authority to take a glass of wine out of the hands of somebody harmlessly enjoying it with their meal.
A self-evidently unalienable right to liberty should have kicked in via the ninth amendment (i.e. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” — noting the only place where rights are formally defined outside of our Constitution is our national declaration) to prevent Alcohol Prohibition at all levels of government due to the Supremacy Clause. For obvious reasons, under no circumstance can our Constitution conflict with itself.
Our nation was established against law abuse — the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, so an unalienable right to liberty (necessarily backed by objectively conclusively defined harm for fair, so just, and concrete application of that right) makes sense to prevent abusive law.
Instead, American society allowed (and still allows decades later) our Supreme Court to illegally redefine the Commerce Clause (i.e. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) to regulate any activity (not just commerce) having a substantial effect on commerce.
The Commerce Clause replaced the need for a similar constitutional amendment for Certain Drug Prohibition. Even the illegal redefining only includes regulate, but Congress banned (not regulated) the making (growing), possession, and transportation of certain drugs (including a popular plant consistently forming over 70% of “illicit” drug intake).
Science against these “illicit” drugs is not necessarily conclusive. In the case of cannabis, junk science merely suggests that “heavy use” may (or can) cause harm, while disclaiming more research is needed for verification. That junk science (which leaves out the critical scientific factors of intake method differential, precise intake amounts, and strain differential) was turned into tough-talking affirmations for what can only logically be described as sanctioned thuggery.
Meanwhile, you can kill yourself via alcohol poisoning without fear of prosecution (severely gross hypocrisy in the “land of the free” reigns destructively supreme — something else that nobody is talking about).
Our nation defeated the British military long ago, but British common law remains today, and it is factually irreconcilable with a firmly applied unalienable right to liberty.
Nobody (but yours truly) — at least to the best of my fairly strong knowledge — is even talking about those facts, so laws “to protect the children” continue to unhealthily dominate without dominating public question and consequent mature public force to put a firm stop to judicially sanctioned mass rights infringement (i.e. mass harm by law).
I started scientific constitutionalism (after several years of logically analyzing liberty and fundamental law), because (going even deeper to where nobody has gone) ultimately this is fundamentally a language issue.
Without certainty in language, there can be no certainty in law, and the absence of certainty negates the point of a protective Constitution by allowing judicial interpretation (including entrenchment in legal precedence) to clearly bypass unalienable rights by muddy terminology (e.g. commerce) to give us the exact same definition of liberty as anywhere else from history through this moment. You are at liberty to do whatever the people in power allow you to do (i.e. the people in power subjectively define harm, so liberty).
A self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (when liberty is objectively defined as the condition of being free from restriction or control) is certain. You can do whatever you want, as long as you do not infringe upon the right itself. That should be the seed of just law — and the powerful (and purely logical, so fair, and so just) base of actual progressivism/liberalism, American conservatism (not pre-American conservatism), and libertarianism — all to form logical political unity.
My bonus content here:
Our law comes down to rights and powers.
Those terms are not concisely defined, so they become easily muddied (usually for political gain).
A right without the power to exercise that right is not really a right.
The tenth amendment is the catchall amendment with respect to powers.
The ninth amendment is the catchall one with respect to rights.
The tenth amendment is cited.
The ninth amendment is never cited (and has been irrationally judicially disarmed).
In a nutshell, government powers trump rights, and those powers are not necessarily clearly defined, so can be easily muddied by the people in power for themselves to even negate the fundamental and critical point of having a Constitution (to prevent abusive law for national safety and integrity).
The irrefutable result is no just rule-of-law exists in the “land of the free”, but a supposed rule-of-law that forms an agenda system (generally for victorious oligarchical agendas) disguised as a justice system has always been the ironic base for our national fate (while the public majority continues idly by to secure that horrible fate in the “home of the brave”).
Scientific constitutionalism should appeal to everyone preferring to avoid corruption, but major societal shifts (even purely sound ones) take time.
Preferably sound reasoning finally prevails over abusive (albeit tragically popular) reasoning to finally establish the genuinely free and civilized nation that was supposed to be progressively established in 1776.