Talk Elections

With the TX primary out, tell me how I should vote.

Current ballot preference - Write - in Herman Cain.

TX Ballot:

Ron Paul   
 Newt Gingrich     
 John Davis 
 Rick Santorum   
 Charles 'Buddy' Roemer
 Jon Huntsman   
 Mitt Romney
 Michele Bachmann     

Based solely off of PM score, you should take a look at Buddy Roemer. He's very strong on anti-corruption and rides in the middle of the social spectrum. Much more reasonable than Herman Cain. Not my candidate, though.

His vetoes on abortion regulations make him unacceptable to me.

Current preferences:

Cain
Santorum
Bachmann
Perry
Gingrich
Davis
Roemer
Huntsman
Romney

Why is that so important to you?

Because I'm a practicing Catholic.

You're also male. Why should you (or any man) get to decide on this issue?

Women get themselves knocked up? Is that even possible?

I'm curious as to how your social score is essentially dead-center. What left or left-leaning social positions do you have? I've never seen one posted.

Based on his posts, his score should be like 6/8 not 6/0.

I don't need to sell you on Ron Paul. If you like what he stands for, wonderful. If you don't, also great.

I'm pro-life and anti-immigration and I'm -7.  One or two questions don't effect the outcome very much apparently.

I usually score anywhere from -.5 to -2 depending on the time of day.

Political compass is a terrible test.

"Always support my country right or wrong." Strongly disagree.
"No one chooses his country of birth" Disagree
"Our race has many superior qualities" Strongly disagree
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Disagree
"Military interaction that defies international law is sometimes justified" Strongly disagree
"Worrying fusion of information and entertainment" Disagree

See where this is going? I'm already -5 on the first page.

Abortion should always be illegal (strong agree)
All authority should be questioned (agree)
Eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth (strong disagree)
School classroom attendence compulsory (disagree)
same kind (strong disagree)
spanking (agree)
secrets from parents (agree)
children discipline (agree)
marijuana possession (strong disagree)
finding jobs (disagree)
disability reproduction (strong disagree)
savage civilizations (strong disagree)
troubled (strong disagree)
first gen immigrants (disagree)

You're using the wrong test.  We use https://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/POLMTX/

I'm wondering, what exactly are your issues with Paul?  It would seem you match up best with him.

Please, don't waste your vote. Vote Roemer!

1. individual autonomy vs collective security - usually agree (not critical)
2. government should punish outsourcing - usually disagree (not critical)
3. faith based organizations - agree
4. we should increase foreign aid - disagree
5. we should increase funding for education - usually disagree
6. heterosexual marriage - agree (x) this is a crucial issue for me
7. free trade hurts more than helps - disagree
8. we should reduce the number of government programs substantially - agree (x) this is a crucial issue
9. abortion should be illegal or heavily restricted - agree (x)
10. museums - disagree.

Strongly disagree with his drug policy, and I believe the military should not be cut before unconstitutional domestic agencies are cut, and I strongly disagree with his policies on marriage.

Fiscally though, Paul and I have quite a few similarities. He's closer than Santorum, fwiw.

Have you studied the effect of drug decriminalization on drug use in the Netherlands and Portugal?  Not only has our Drug Prohibition failed, but the empirical evidence shows that decriminalizing drugs leads to less drug use, as well as (obviously) less crime.

What's throwing the test off is that I'm strongly libertarian on certain questions.

Government regulation of radio and television - strong disagree. That should be the obligation of individual parents, not the government.

Violating individual rights to fight terrorism - strong disagree. I don't believe the Patriot act is a violation of individual rights. :)

Death Penalty, Strong disagree, and I support reducing the difficulty of legal immigration (but not amnesty).

So I can oppose abortion, gay marriage, dope and support faith based institutions and still score as a libertarian.

Yes, I have, and that fails to take into account demographic effects lowering the proportion of young men in both the Netherlands and Portugal. Yes, the crime rate is down, but other jurisdictions without this policy in the west have also seen across the board reductions in the overall crime rate as a ratio of the population.

You should support Mitt Romney so we can try to put the Republican Party back together and give ourselves the best chance of defeating President Obama in November. You make a big deal out of needing a pro-life president and while Mitt Romney has not been consistently pro-life in his career he has at least been inconsistent. Like it or not, on your ballot come November the race will be between Barack Obama (D) and Willard "Mitt" Romney (R) for President of the United States. If you want to really change the abortion laws in this country, the first requirement is getting a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade. In order to do that you first need a president willing to appoint them and a vacancy. 2016 is probably too late and Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy could have retired by then. What do you think the chances President Obama appoints a pro-life justice are? Like zero. Who knows what President Romney would do but you can't get worse odds than zero.

Absent Santorum from the race, the primary is over and voting for other candidates will only embolden the left to the fissures within the Republican Party and help to ensure President Obama is re-elected. It's time to throw everything we can behind Mitt Romney and hope for the best.

Quite false. Mitt Romney's actions have been entirely consistant. His words have not. He's willing to say whatever he believes will get him elected.

As for his nominees, he has a 6 to 1 ratio of nominating liberals over conservatives.

Romney losing will benefit conservatives because we'll be rid of the Mittbot.

...and guarantee legal abortion for the next 20-30 years.

If the choice is enemy fire or friendly fire, I chose enemy fire.

If Mitt thinks we're going to come over and support him after he's been shooting at us, he's got another think coming. At least I can toss grenades at Obama without hitting our own team.

What then is your argument for drug prohibition?  I just don't see any advantages of the policy.

Drug trafficking is harmful to people and neighbourhoods where it occurs. 

So you don't actually care whether abortion is legal or not, just whether it comes from 'enemy fire' or 'friendly fire' or who you can criticize without hurting your side?

Given the choice between a pro abortion candidate for the democrats and a pro abortion candidate for the republicans, I much prefer having a pro abortion candidate for the democrats.

Does it really need to be explained to you why? Obama can be defeated with zero collateral damage to team conservative.

Ben Kenobi, I'm just as Pro Life as you, but I want Obama OUT!

I don't care if Romney is the nominee or if Poopy Pants Pedro is.

If you really want Obama out you should at least consider Mittens.

I'm not sure how I get Obama out by voting for someone with the exact same positions in.

But Obama can't be defeated by anyone else and Mitt Romney isn't pro-abortion, at least not by what he is currently saying. He is saying such for political expediency, but what makes you so certain he won't appoint pro-life judges if the Republican Party demands it of him? Why are you so determined to lose?

Obama and Romney are not equally pro-abortion. There isn't some magic line out there somewhere that everyone on one side of is pro-life and everyone on the other side of is pro-abortion. There are nuances and varying degrees of both. President Obama is one of the most solidly pro-abortion politicians in the country and Mitt Romney is whatever people want him to be. Surely you can see the difference?

Oh no rino alert. :p ;)

Mitt Romney is pro abortion in his actions as governor of Massachusetts in implementing both public funding for it and forcing the people of Massachusetts to pay for it. I'm aware that Mitt Romney is saying he'd eliminate planned parenthood, but before that he was saying he was the rational one on the women's rights issue. He'll say whatever he believes helps him for political expediency.


Because he didn't do so in MA.


I should ask of you the same question. Why are you so determined to win on technicalities, but lose on points? Nominating Romney, even in the event that he does win is an enormous loss. It does us no good to remove Obama if we are installing someone who believes in the exact same things.


Yes, there is.


You are arguing I should vote for Mitt and see what I get? No thanks. I'll go get a hamburger from the Mickey D's. At least I know what I'll be getting.

If drugs were legalized, that harmful activity would dissipate and the quality of life in those neighborhoods would improve.  I think that just strengthens the legalization case.

Prohibition turns free markets into black markets.  It happened with alcohol and now it's happening with other drugs.

Abortion is a question that America has answered.  It will never, ever be illegal in any state.  Thus, basing your vote on a candidate's position on abortion is absurd.

The harms of drug trafficking are intrinsic not extrinsic.

So you're speaking of drug use, not drug trafficking?  If drugs were legal, there would be no significant drug trafficking business.  Either way, legalization has been shown to decrease drug use, something our expensive War on Drugs hasn't.

Shhhh. They don't realize they lost the culture war decades ago. Gay rights is the closing act.

I'm speaking specifically of drug trafficking. In many different communities it's one of the most productive economic activities in terms of actually earning money. This will persist after legalization because there will always be people without the permits and choosing to reject government intervention. Just like there are people who make and sell moonshine today.


That's not what legalization is showing. Quite the opposite. Demand increases substantially with legalization. Selling it without a permit is a quick buck.


Not so. Demand increases substantially with legalization.

The Republican Party in MA is not the same as the Republican Party nationally. They are quite used to running pro-abortion candidates because they aren't used to winning.


I'm not trying to win on technicalities; you're the one who wants to do that. The only way to win on the issue is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The only way to do that is to have a Supreme Court willing to. The only way to get that is having a president who will appoint pro-life justices. That is not a technicality; it is the main point. Things like parental consent laws and vaginal ultrasounds are technicalities. When you try to achieve an objective, the correct way to approach it is to do whatever gives you the highest probability of achieving it. President Obama gives you zero chance. Any Republican will give you a better chance than him simply because a Republican will appoint other Republicans, some of whom are probably pro-life.


President Obama voted against a law while in the Illinois State Legislature that forbid the killing of babies who survived botched abortions. Mitt Romney would never have supported that. They are different. If you take "pro-life" to mean banning abortion under all circumstances then nowhere near 50% of the US is pro-life. About half the country considers themselves pro-life because they interpret "pro-life" as wanting to give life a chance in some vague general sense. In real life, people don't always take positions for ideological consistency. There are people out there who believe just about every position imaginable.

[/quote]

That is a completely illogical statement. You are trying to make a decision based on emotion rather than doing what has the best chance of giving you the right result. By doing so, you will only guarantee the worst result possible. Get ready for four more years of President Obama forcing the Catholic Church to do whatever he wants it to do.

Come on TJ, most Catholic hospitals and universities were already providing full contraceptive coverage, and now Obama has made the insurance companies foot the bill.  If anything, Obama has helped the Church not have to pay for something against its doctrine.

Yeah, Ben, you're using the wrong test.  Not that you can't prefer one or the other, but you might want to remove it from the site listing since it messes with the charting averages and such.

That's already guaranteed.  At most swinging the balance of court might be enough to get Roe v. Wade and their successors overturned and the issue of abortion sent back to the state legislatures to decide.  (Which I happen to agree with.  Abortion depends upon the definition of when a human life begins which is a a subjective decision, not an objective one.  As such it should have been left to the legislative power to decide, not the judicial, and to the state governments, not the federal government.)  Thing is once returned there, I expect there are at most one or two Plains states plus Utah that would completely ban abortion.  Most would keep it legal in at least the first trimester, or if they didn't would soon repeal the first trimester restrictions once new elections were held.

No. The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Utah could all conceivably ban abortion if they could, and there are fair number of states that would ban second trimester abortions.

Granted, the vast majority of abortions are first trimester, and for about 90% of Americans they wouldn't have to cross a state line to get one, but if the Supremes returned abortion to the state legislatures, abortion access would tighten up considerably in most states.

And the majority of us who are not Republican party from MA are very displeased with Romney as the nominee.


Yes, and Roe is bad law.


Which means backing a candidate who is going to support and select pro life justices. That's why we've been backing Santorum all this time. We don't trust Romney to nominate solid prolife justices given his pitiful track record in MA.


Absolutely. Mitt has a 6:1 odds of nominating a liberal over a conservative. Given the average number of supreme court selections in a term, that gives him net odds of exactly zero over Obama.

Ergo, even if Santorum has less a chance of winning the nomination, we are maximizing our chances of seeing a conservative justice nominated by supporting Santorum over Romney. It's a perfectly rational decision given all these premisses.


Mitt Romney did support a bill requiring folks in Massachusetts to purchase health care coverage which includes abortion services. On the important issues of today he is pro abortion.


That's the first intelligent question you've asked. Prolife means that one believes that the unborn child is a person from conception onwards. That's it, no more or no less. Romney does not believe this, ergo he is pro abortion.


And 50 percent of the country believes they are prochoice because they are aborting 'tissue'. Show them fetal ultrasound and that number drops.


As I outlined already, supporting someone who believes what I do is eminently rational. Supporting someone that 'may' believe what I do (who probably doesn't, otherwise I'd already support them), is completely irrational.

Your best argument for me supporting romney is that I don't really know what he believes, and neither do you. That to me is frankly, astonishing. All you are doing here is reinforcing my decision to go third party.


Nonsense, If everyone did as I did, we would see a prolife nominee to the presidency.

You should vote for Newt Gingrich.

- Has a transformational, profound vision.

- Catholic.

- Likes heterosexual marriage so much he's done it three times.

- Cheerful.

This is actually unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause, which reserves this to the federal government.


Completely false. It's an objective decision, and also one which can only be done on the federal level. Again, refer to the 14th Amendment as to why, when they struck down Dred Scott.

Even more than adultery, which he's only done twice.

NOW, NARAL, the entire Democratic Party and a lot of Republicans will NEVER allow enough justices on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Never.  It is politically impossible.

OK now we're onto something.  You're comparing post-legalization drug traffickers to moonshine sellers.  How big of a market do underground moonshine salesmen get?  Answer that question, and that is the kind of market that you will see with underground drug salesmen.  Think of the analogy like this:
The Al Capone bootlegger era is to today's post-prohibition moonshiners as the Drug Prohibition era is to the future's post-legalization underground drug traffickers.

See: Moonshine example.  How many gangsters traffic moonshine?  Very few, cause it isn't a big enough market due to alcohol being legal.

Then why does the empirical evidence show the opposite?

That won't actually end the war on drugs, it will simply shift to attacking unlicensed sellers and distributors.


What empirical evidence to support your position have you provided?

Those 2 countries over there in yonder Europe

The government has more important things to be doing than attacking drug salesman.  It's funny how "conservatives" get all offended of the government trying to make healthcare affordable, but then you want the government telling you what you can and can't buy for recreational use.

No, its subjective.  Neither the pro-life or pro-choice advocates are in favor of aborting a human life, but those who are pro-choice don't define human life as beginning at conception.  There is no objective standard for whether life begins at conception, quickening, viability, or birth that can be drawn from natural law, just subjective preferences for one of those four most popular dividing lines.  Nor is there a subjective standard that is in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to rule on.  Possibly one could argue that it is a Federal question that the Congress could set a standard for if it chose, but that still would leave it as something to decided by a legislature, not a court.

You seem to be advocating overturning Roe with a constitutional amendment, but there is zero chance of one passing anytime soon, or of a Federal definition of marriage being placed into the Constitution to name another hot button social issue.  Even in the unlikely event it got pass Congress, it would never get the necessary 38 states.

If we assume President Romney will appoint two justices (with the 6:1 odds you gave) then he has a 1/7 chance of appointing a pro-life judge on each nomination and 6/7 chance of nominating a pro-abortion judge. So, he has a 36/49 chance of nominating two pro-abortion judges. That means there is still ~27% chance he nominates at least one pro-life justice. ~27% is a whole lot better than zero.


Rick Santorum is no longer running for president. There are two remaining options for President of the United States with a non-negligible chance of being elected: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Saying "Things are good in Netherlands" isn't empirical evidence.

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.

Two, regulation of the distribution of controlled substances is a constitutional power of the federal government. It's that pesky constitution again.

Actually, it's exactly empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence - the record of one's direct observations or experiences

I hope you realize that there was no such thing as "controlled substances" when the constitution was written.  There was no drug war until the 1900s.

It's fine if you want to waste more government resources on a complete and absolute failure that doesn't even accomplish its mission, but don't try to make the argument that the Constitution encourages it.

Once again, moonshine example.  How many resources does the government devote towards cracking down on independent moonshine sellers?  How about black market tobacco salesman?

Vote Paul so you can later say: "Don't blame, I voted for sanest man in the field!"

No it's not. Legally the standard at present is set at birth, and yes, it's in the 14th amendment, and yes, it's a power of the federal government, via the privilieges and immunities. I suggest you take the time to look up the clause before arguing that it's subjective. No, it's a very clear and objective standard.

The argument is over which objective standard should be used, conception or birth. Prolifers argue for conception, pro abortion people argue for birth. 


Roe is terrible law. There is no consitutional basis for a trimester framework to personhood.


Actually, if Roe could establish abortion, then the removal of Roe would not entail a constitutional amendment. I am in favor of establishing a constitutional basis for personhood of the unborn, but removing Roe would be the first step towards this.
 

What's the odds of Santorum winning in 2016 and appointing prolife judges. Keeping the field clear is more beneficial than 8 years of Romney, because Romney's record is so poor. Thus, any option to Romney other than Obama is a superior option.

By 2017 he won't be replacing Ginsburg and Kennedy, he'll be replacing Scalia and Thomas so it will be a break-even proposition.

The ability to lay tariffs permits the federal government to regulate the importation of many goods, among which include drugs and alcohol. There is no right to unregulated distribution.


The constitution does not encourage anything. It simply permits the federal government to regulate. The government is acting within it's constitutional limits in regulating the distribution of drugs. There are many unconstitutional agencies, (education, natch), that should be abolished.

When did I ever say there was a right to unregulated distribution?  All I said is that if drugs were legal, not many people would willfully break the law for it to make a difference, hence why there's no huge moonshine or tobacco crackdowns.

You implied that the Constitution favors the War on Drugs, and I just told you that it doesn't.  It's not like I was making a constitutional argument in favor of abolishing the War on Drugs myself, so this whole argument and discussion is moot and simply a sidetrack.  I'm not sure where in the Constitution you're referring to, but it doesn't even pertain to this discussion so I don't care.

I'm not trying to make a legal/constitutional, or even philosophical argument.  I'm keeping things purely pragmatic.

Your pissed off with the establishment right? You want to give them the middle finger, don't you? Vote for Ron Paul. BTW, if you don't mind me asking, which part of Texas do you live in?

How can anyone vote for Ron Paul with the way he has defamed the Federal Reserve? He and Alex Jones should be sued.

That's demonstrably false. The pittance in fines and confiscated cash that come from drug arrests is nothing compared to the huge cost of imprisoning millions of people on drug charges, as well as the cost of enforcement itself (and the opportunity cost to police forces, too- they presumably have many better things to do with their resources besides arresting drug dealers). In this paper published by the CATO Institute (http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/budgetary-impact-ending-drug-prohibition), Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the War on Drugs will net $41.3 billion per year from savings alone, and that the taxation of narcotics at a comparable rate to alcohol or tobacco will provide another $46.7 billion. That's $88 billion in total that drug legalization would bring to government. Regardless of your opinion on drug legalization, an argument that current policies save money doesn't really hold up at all.

It's pretty obvious that the feds spending resources to bust marijuana collectives that places like Oakland are taxing is a net loss to the governments.

Not to all people

That's the consequence to nominating Romney.

Then you concede an important point that the government has a constitutional ability to regulate the distribution.


But they are not legal and the government has the constitutional ability to regulate drugs in this manner.


And you're entirely incorrect. You've already stated that the government does have the power to regulate distribution, ergo, they also have the ability to ban it outright if they choose to do so.


And I lift up my hands and say, ayiyo, I'm Galileo. Handwaving doesn't reinforce your position.


Then you'd best look up the reference I already cited.


And guess what, I'm making a legal/constitutional argument. If you choose to concede the point, then we can move on.

Austin at present. That may change in the near future. I prefer San Antonio to Austin.

I like Ron Paul, but saying that gay marriage should be left up to the individual states is an appealing, but wrong position. The 10th only regulates powers not delegated, and naturalization is a power reserved to the feds.

I'm not really saying that. All I'm saying is that constitutionally, it's a legal power of the federal government, and I believe that legalization is contrary to the best interests of the US.

It's like the military. Sure, it's going to be a net loss to the budget, but unlike many other things, it's actually constitutional. Cut the unconstutional agencies (like education), and then we'll talk about Customs.

When we can't even agree on how to apply the words objective and subjective, I despair of us having a useful conversation, but I'm willing to still try for now.  Conception and birth as the starting point of life are both subjective standards for which we can objectively measure whether they have been met.  However, that does not make them objective standards.


There is almost no constitutional basis to personhood anywhere in the constitution.  There is a bare minimum of being born, but more expansive definitions are not prohibited therein.


Quite the reverse if anything.  If there is anything in the 14th Amendment that establishes when personhood begins, as opposed to citizenship, then it would be that personhood begins at birth the same as citizenship.  However, the 14th is mostly silent on the issue of personhood.  While a citizen must be a person which implies that personhood begins at birth or earlier, not all people are citizens.

As for whether a reversal of Roe would lead to a constitutional amendment on abortion, I think it is extremely doubtful.  I don't see how either a pro-choice or a pro-life amendment would be able to pass the 38 state hurdle.  Plus if Roe is reversed, that will energize the pro-choice side politically, possibly even to the point where an amendment affirming a right to abortion could pass Congress, but not enough to get the three-quarters of states

my reply got ate. *sigh*.

GO READ THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY CLAUSE. Thank you. Then we can continue discussion.

Neither Article IV Section 2 nor Amendment XIV Section 1 are applicable to the unborn.  They aren't citizens under the 14th Amendment, but that gives no constitutional guidance as to whether they are people entitled to due process and equal protection under the laws.

That leaves it up to either the common law or to State law.

No, but the point of this is that the Federal Government sets the criterion for citizenship, not the states. Thus, anything that excludes one class of people from citizenship cannot be decided by the states.


It sets the jurisdiction to the Feds, not the states and is an enumerated power. Legal recognition of the unborn can only come from the feds, and rejection of legal recognition can only come from the feds, not the states.

By what enumerated power does the Federal government have the sole power to set the definition of personhood in your opinion?  Personhood and citizenship are not synonymous.

It's not an important point at all.  The government has a constitutional ability to ban water and table salt.  That doesn't mean they should do it.

Circular logic

They have the constitutional ability to do a lot of things but that doesn't mean they should.  I like water.

By your flawed logic, the constitution then favors banning water.  My argument is that the government has the power to do so but should make the choice not to for pragmatic purposes, such as crime reduction, saving money, and (although I'm not arguing this cause it's more philosophical) personal freedom.

I never engaged you in the argument over that point, so don't act like you've won anything.  The Drug War may be permitted by the Constitution, but it's not in our best interest.  That has been my position from the beginning, and you keep trying to deflect away from that.

The 14th explicitly says that all born persons are considered citizens. The feds reserve this power to themselves in the 14th to overturn laws on slavery imposed by the states. If the states had control, then they could have maintained slavery laws per Dred Scott.

And drugs are necessary to live?


Drugs have no explicit purpose other than getting high.


Terrible argument.


Don't take away my tokes, bra!

Pragmatic = it's not in your perceived best interest. Not really convincing me here. If you believe that drugs are necessary for you to live, then you're making my case for me.


Well then, you can't claim to have address my argument in any meaningful fashion.


I have. You've conceded that the feds have the constitutional ability to regulate drugs. Now you've made the argument that it isn't in their best interest to do so. That's a huge concession.


How so?

So if something isn't necessary to live, our government response should be to ban it and waste all our tax dollars enforcing it and propping up gangs by doing so?

What's your point?  A lot of things only have entertainment value, some of them dangerous.  However, persisting to use the same failed big govenrnmnt solutions to these things isn't the way.

Anytime someone says "terrible argument", it usually means they have no counterargument.

Pragmatic = it's not in the country's best interest.  The country would be better without a Drug War than with one.  Even if drugs were the worst thing ever, Prohibition hasn't stopped them from being used, and it also wastes money basically swinging at windmills, at the same time leading to way more organized crime.

So the government can ban anything that isn't necessary to live?

One, arguing that drugs are like water is false analogy. Ergo your comparison between the two is not valid. Two, drugs have a profound negative effect on the user, and on society in general from the standpoint of addiction. Water is a necessity of life.

Two, I think the government has an obligation to regulate the distribution of drugs, and to ban substances that are harmful to the people as a whole.


The point being that society uses plenty of resources to help get people off of substance addictions, and that this money is money that you need to include in your estimate of the cost to society. Is it worth it to get your 'entertainment', if it means an extended seclusion in a detox ward?


Are you suggesting that society doesn't have an interest in preventing the sale of these substances to minors? I know drug pushers and yes they try to sell or give away to children when they can. Future customers.



If everyone were a user would the country be better off?

Has the government ban reduced the number of people on or the number of people selling drugs?

WRT importation? I don't think it makes a difference. Within an individual state, is one matter. I don't think the US can control the distribution of stuff within a state. But anything that comes into the country is fair game.  

NC Yankee - How far back do you want to go? Back to the days before the FDA?

Actually the 13th prohibits slavery, so the 14th had nothing to do with that.  It also has nothing to do with whether the unborn are people.  I find your constitutional arguments on this and other matters to be incoherent nonsense, and I will waste no more time on them.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

It's a power that is reserved to the federal government, not the states. The 10th does not apply in this case.