The drug issue is something that one has to look at in several different ways.
A few issues:
The federal government cannot either be for or against drugs, nor has it been given any authority to prosecute drug crimes ("No other Crimes WHATSOEVER" than the 4 granted it (Drugs isn't one of them),
See The Kentucky Resolutions 1798 #2 Paragraph - Thomas Jefferson:
Just as strongly, the federal government cannot "make any regulation that MAY effect the citizens of the Union at Large" -
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter
So the Federal government cannot make a sweeping law that forces the states to legalize drugs.
The federal government can provide a organizing militia support by surrounding state militias to stop "Smuggling" Where smuggling occurs that is against a particular state law - at the request of the state (only)... Something you do not hear, but clearly written as to the intent by the founders in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 - Use a word search on the Document "will this be denied";
Note also: That the Standing army (US Military) Nor National Guard is "Militia" as defined by the Founders; James Madison described the Militia as an "OPPOSING CIVILIAN FORCE" to the standing army; "Officered by men - Chosen among themselves" (very local), not by the standing army, nor the government; With the whole of the Civilian Militias having a 20 to 1 ratio of superiority of force against the standing army as the limit set to any country.
You also have "Common Law" that trumps all of the Constitution; See same Convention http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter and word search on the Common Law and Bill of Rights being a "PREEXISTING RIGHT IN THE PEOPLE" that belong to us "whether written in the Constitution OR NOT".
Now what has that to do with drugs?
The principle is found in John Locke's Treaties on Civil Government:
John Locke #6:
"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is "NOT a state of licence"; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The "State of Nature" has a "Law of Nature" to govern it, which obliges every one, and REASON, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, "health", liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.
And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, "health", limb, or goods of another..."
John Locke #57:
"...So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO FREEDOM". For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which CANNOT BE WHERE THERE IS NO LAW; and is NOT, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he lists (i.e. WANTS)." For who could be free, when every other man's "HUMOR" might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. ..."
This is just one example;
The last illustrates the separation between Constitutional thought (common Law republic respecting the law of nature) and Libertarian thought (i.e. anything he lists / i.e. wants)
There are from 2 of the 4 Suggested Reading Founders Documents on our web site.
American Patriot Party.CC
RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC
John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: