Comment: The issue: REPRESENTATION; Had only with MUCH SMALLER STATES

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Oh, and the marijuana (see in situ)


I had a discussion on the old Campaign for site a couple of years ago with one of their writers who advocated legalizing "drugs" and ending the war on drugs.

You brought up one of the many points that I had brought up which indicated that legalizing drugs just "isn't that easy";

I will try to post many of those discussions on our new web site when finished at

It is a state issue, not a federal issue within or between states;
State('s - joint operations)& local citizen militia issue, not a federally controlled National Guard issue;

It is a State police issue within the state, not a military policing issue. Militias (singular or in joint operation) CAN be used to stop "smuggling" (James Madison - Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: "...would this be denied?" i.e. it wouldn't be denied; Madison also gave a reference of a occurrence to back up his point.)

The issue of a standing army requires a declaration of war; They cannot be used as "police"; Another issue of proper definitions.

The Constitution allows the federal government to define and prosecute only 4 crimes; and cannot govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington, DC (See the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 see link this page).

One of the issues I brought up, was that you could make the federal government end its war on drugs; BUT you cannot force the "states" by federal law to end their war on drugs; Which if given to the states and local communities where it belongs, aside from possibly of marijuana, the states and local communities would probably not change the laws much.

(Here I had brought up the issue of the need to define what was a drug and what was a poison. As the definition is important in law - addictive mind altering drugs you simply will never legalize without other issues arising which I will summarize below)

The next problem is the attempt to make the federal government make a "federal law" that "forces the states" to legalize drugs; which is both unconstitutional as it is outside the federal authority of the constitutional compact;

Now the broader problem, if you legalize "drugs" (undefined) in the United States without forcing legalizing drugs all over the world, you will simply create a smuggling cartel(s) situation here in the states (like Columbia) to supply countries where drugs are still illegal...

Not a good thing...

Nor is Taxing drugs a solution (as some propose) Taxing drugs is not legalizing drugs, it simply grants "exclusive privileges" to the producers (like oil) and the money derived from taxes feeds larger government, regulations and dependency on the bureaucracy built upon it. It does just the opposite of what they propose;


"AND" such taxation EMPOWER CORPORATIONS, UNIONS and SPECIAL INTERESTS (i.e State born exclusive privileges of cartel) by expanding government union and corporate contracts and dependency on the unlimited flow of money to government;

Such exclusive privileges should not exist in a free country as was warned by the founders; As when they do, free trade becomes "privileged trade" and freedom of contract becomes "privileged contracts";

The video on another post proposing drug legalization, attempted to say that the unemployment and degradation of communities in the US was a drug "caused" issue; This is far fetched;

More likely these communities fall into ruin when government regulations, zoning laws and the allowance of exclusive privileged entities mentioned above, stifle true free trade;

In the video, one can ask if you see vendors in the streets they show? Of course not; because it is against ZONING REGULATIONS that prevent it, and grant EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES to those in "COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS";

Drugs are more an an after effect of government restraint (on honest constructive trades), no hope and idle hands.

So, drug laws are bound to remain; but smaller states (republics) will reflect more accurately the will of local societies to define how they want their society to be.

See our 2008 News Letter on the APP site "Republics and Representation" which covers the smaller states and representation issue.

There are more points, but I will have to wait till I post the old article on the APP 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.