Free not to snort, not to smoke, not to inhale, not to shoot up, not to swallow.

The Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Now argue with it.)

A law is a law until it is no longer a law, despite whoever disapproves of it. Break a law of which you disapprove, in the presence of law enforcement officials, and you will discover this mystery.

The preamble exposes the purpose for the composition of the constitution and, therefor, allows for the reasonable addition to it of other articles that could better assure the achievement of that purposre.

I guess you have not read the preamble, have you Archer? The preamble is short. Read it. It sets the premise for ANY law necessary to protect the people against harm from anyone, even fromundisciplined drinkers who take no responsibility for their addictions.

I think that there exists that which is even more destructive of respect for a government and its law than passing laws which cannot be enforced. I guess this means that I disagree with Albert Einstein. Well, he does not have to be right about everything. He regretted the results of his research and contributions in the area of atomic weaponry.

I prefer wine.

The founders were not omnisicent and they had no way of foreseeing that drug abuse would become the major problem it has become, with a negative impact on all of society. If they had known, they would have included in the Constitution specific attention to that. As it stands, the preamble seems to present basis enough to justify absolute prohibition of most illicit drugs.

Great plan, Archer. And where will you buy the bullets for your guns when the bullets you have now are all spent. Or I guess you could just take them at gunpoint. Yeah, that would be effective in reforming American society.

When people spend as much time participating in a genuine reformation process, as they do watching television, perhaps there will come a genuine reform. Most people are not willing to risk opposition to power.

It sounds like demogoguery, given the lack of detail.

The quote tries to make a point, unrelated to half of the comments.

Can't argue with it.

Well said.

Actually, everyone has the power to make moral judgments. This is obviously so, since they do it every day. Even judges do it. That they have, or do not have, the authority to impose these is another issue. But neither has to do with what I wrote initially, which is: Judges should not be totally indifferent to public opinion, where this is morally superior to the law. This relates to the quote, unlike some comments that twist the meaning of what I plainly stated.

Can anyone point out where I wrote what has been attributed to me? I don't think so. Talk about a severe lack of reading comprehension. I did not write that law is written to promote personal morality. So, read it again and again until you get it.

Sometimes the law is just, and sometimes the law is immoral. The same goes for judges, and for people, in general. Judges should not be totally indifferent to public opinion, where this is morally superior to the law.

According to this, it should be fine to preach the extermination of Jews, or anyone else.

I publish criticism of our government constantly. Some people are paranoid.

One of the outrageous abuses that takes place in courts throughout the United States is the failure on the part of judges and attorneys to properly inform jurors of their right to judge not only the facts of a case but the law itself, a power known as jury nullification. John Adams said about the juror, "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Also, juries have an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge," according to a 1972 decision by the Washington, DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet judges commonly would have us understand the opposite to be true, which we understand to be the capricious and dictatorial wish of a body in opposition to the legitimate rights of the People. We, however, have the capacity to rule as we see fit.

When I am called for jury duty, I usually state that it would be for the benefit of all if I were excused, since I would vote against the majority. No one has held me in contempt, although I am in contempt of court, or courts, and say so. I say that I do not believe in the integrity of the system, or in the word of police witnesses, who, I say, I have known to lie under oath. No one finds me in contempt. Hmm....imagine that. If called to serve on a jury, I would never think to do other than judge the law first, and the fact later.

Drug abusers are a danger to the public.

Blustering vomit.

I know...you all just want the one regulation: Do as you please. Great idea. I will get my guns ready.

Reston: What's up? You deny the reality of totalitarianism? Or that slavery is practiced in several countries? Or do you simply disagree that man was born free?