Limbaugh at it again.

Justification of the War on Drugs
rests upon the implied proposition
that when government was created,
or at sometime thereafter,
it was granted jurisdiction to restrain citizens
from ingesting whatever thay chose,
or
from relieving whatever pain, however intense it might be,
unless government approved of that.

I am skeptical of these propositions.
In my opinion,
if a referendum granting this jurisdiction to government
had been held,
these powers wud have been WITHHELD from government.

If I am correct,
then the War on Drugs is an exercise in USURPATION
of power in ultra vires activity,
having as much legitimacy as a stickyfingered bank guard.


In my opinion,
addictive narcotics are poisons.
Government was never granted authority to prevent people from
intentionally indulging in self-destructive activity.

The function of government is to defend citizens
from abuses imposed upon them by OTHERS.

David

i have to qualify your statement about narcotics: they're harmful if abused. even aspirin will kill you if you take too much. but agree with your last 2 statements pretty much, although government should protect children & the mentally ill/challenged from harming themselves.

Agreed.
OK, under medical supervision,
or for any reason,
as I defend citizens' right to indulge in self-destructive activity,
including opting to end their lives when they choose to do so.



I dissent from that,
insomuch as it violates the fundamental principle of government BY CONSENT.
David



.