Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marijuana Ballot Issues Have Little To Do With Drugs
Shout Bits Blog ^ | 07/30/2012 | Shout Bits

Posted on 07/30/2012 10:38:42 AM PDT by Shout Bits

This November, as many as eight States will have marijuana ballot issues before their voters. Most are medicinal issues, but States like Oregon and Colorado will decide on full legalization. Just as judging the average alcohol drinker by observing gutter drunks is unfounded, most marijuana users are not actually wild smelly Occupy Wall Street hippies (as annoying as they can be). Pollsters estimate that 25 million Americans regularly consume marijuana, and there simply are not enough Rasta cab drivers and jazz fans to fill those ranks. Politically, the tide is turning in favor of recreational marijuana use, but for the 90% of Americans who are not regular partakers, the marijuana issue has more impact than getting high. In fact, the marijuana issue is a test bed for the entirety of the wrongs Washington imposes on the States and the People.

Marijuana has, of course, been proven to be medically benign. Contrary to government propaganda, marijuana does not engender violent or dangerous behavior – unlike tequila. Further, the drug's use does not seem to rise or fall based on its legality. In The Netherlands, where marijuana is more or less legal, its use is less prevalent than in the US, where marijuana is mostly illegal. Dreamers who think states can balance their budgets by taxing marijuana like tobacco or booze will be disappointed as marijuana usage cannot generate a large tax base as do cigarettes and liquor. Those who foresee a fall in crime as the illegal profit is eliminated are also overly optimistic. Until all vices are legal and regulated, cartels will still trade in violence. In short, should marijuana become legal in the US, expect essentially no impact.

Why, then is the marijuana issue relevant? The marijuana issue brings the 10th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause to a poignant head and is a colorful wedge for those who generally support individual liberty and responsibility. Washington's corruption withers in the light of the marijuana issue.

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that FDR's multi-year attempt to help farmers by forcing them to farm less acreage than they wanted was constitutional. They held that even if farm produce were grown in a single state with seed, fertilizer, and water from only that state, for consumption intrastate, the Commerce clause allowed Washington to dictate any aspect of that farm's operation because the activities of the farm might affect markets out of state. Nothing had to cross state lines to be regulated as interstate commerce. Fast forward 80 years, and this same logic (under a different name) allows Washington to force individuals to buy a minimum level of healthcare products. For those who think Washington knows best, these rulings are wonderful news, but for the libertarian they invite tyranny.

Regardless of Supreme Court decisions, the plain language and original intent of the Commerce Clause is to ensure that states do not enact trade barriers between themselves. It does not say that commerce may be regulated within a state; it does not say that the commerce of individuals may be regulated. The Commerce Clause puts regulating interstate commerce at the same level as trade with foreign nations and Indian tribes, clearly implying that Washington's role is to facilitate free trade, not to dictate how many acres a farmer may plant. Quite often the plain language reading of a law is truer than the convolutions of talented specialist minds.

FDR outlawed marijuana about the same time as he regulated farmers and under the same Commerce Clause authority (in the form of a tax, if that sounds familiar). Indeed, most of Washington's departures from the Constitution's enumerated powers stem from the abuse of the Commerce Clause. Should a State fully legalize marijuana this November, the very heart of Washington's bloat will be tested. Interestingly, Justice Roberts's horrid logic that Obamacare was illegal under the Commerce Clause but legal as a tax gains traction in such a showdown. Should a State's perfect document, its Constitution, be amended to legalize marijuana, that State would be obligated to take the issue to the Supreme Court unless Washington backs down. The marijuana issue may give libertarians another swipe at the Commerce Clause, a gift given by States broadly in favor of Obamacare.

Can Washington imprison someone for growing a plant in Colorado using Colorado materials, all for Colorado or even personal consumption? Is there any boundary to Washington's power over the States and the People? Is Washington's law supreme over a State's, even when Washington's law is not authorized under the Constitution? Does the 10th Amendment mean anything? Should marijuana be legalized somewhere this November, these questions might be revisited and the tide of Washington's tyranny over its purported masters could be reversed. Even for those who find the herbal libation distasteful, these are good reasons to vote to legalize marijuana.

Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/ShoutBits


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: drugs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last
To: DiogenesLamp; tacticalogic

>> “We The People... Have a Right and a Duty to ban dangerous and destructive substances.” <<

.
Marijuana is neither.

Like many other things, it is a mostly beneficial substance that can be abused in certain ways.

You must be a democrat, with your bent on control.


101 posted on 07/30/2012 3:00:52 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
I'm having a hard time establishing the moral equivalence between

(a) those who attack law-abiding merchants or travelers on the high seas, killing or kidnapping them and stealing their property, and

(b) those who wish to sell a product to citizens who would (other than their private use of said product) be considered law-abiding and respectful of their neighbors.

I guess it's just me.

No, you are just cherry picking your terms to spin an activity by dangerous criminals into something benign and acceptable. Pirates are Criminals independent of a Nation-State's control. In that regard, they are exactly like Drug Dealers. The "product" is not benign, it is concentrated poison designed to enslave those who take it, and tends to have a side-effect of death.

You are just not being honest about the obvious correlation between Drug Dealers and Pirates. (Who also engaged in smuggling, be it slaves or rum or whatever.)

102 posted on 07/30/2012 3:08:29 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You’re tampering with moral/spiritual issues, and trying to insert government where it doesn’t belong.

Opium is another herbal substance that has powerful healing properties, as well as being the safest pain killer available.

The “war on Drugs” has attacked the wrong drugs, and weakened us as a nation from a moral standpoint as well as medical.


103 posted on 07/30/2012 3:09:03 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
That's why they made us get an amendment and have it ratified by the States - then we get chance to find out and clarify exactly what "dangerous substances" means.

Federal powers are supposted to be explicitly granted by the States, not invented by lobbyists and career bureaucrats in back rooms, hidden away from the People and absent their advice and consent.

104 posted on 07/30/2012 3:10:55 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Marijuana is a healing substance of high value, and for that reason its tie to drugs should be severed.

We should not allow our governments to regulate possession or use of any herb (except driving or operating machinery under the influence thereof).

Most of the force behind marijuana laws comes from those who would lose their cash cows if it were legalized, such as big pharma and the AMA.

And now you are advocating self-Dosage of medicines? I suppose people should take as much Vicodin as they see fit?

You may have an argument that Marijuana has medicinal properties, but you do not have an argument that Dangerous medicines should be administered without a physicians directions.

105 posted on 07/30/2012 3:13:21 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Fair enough. Now, which level of government are you going to use to do it? If you're going to have your state do it, then all you need is for the legislature to enact that prohibition and make the necessary provisions to enforce it. If you want the national government to do it, then you need to enumerate a power for that, because there is currently no "dangerous substances" power granted to Congress by the States, and enumerated in the Constitution.

And under what Constitutional power do we have a right to ban fissile material? You tell me.

106 posted on 07/30/2012 3:17:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Me: So do you support the Tenth Amendment authority of states to regulate intrastate mj - yes or no?

You: I am of divided mind on the issue. I would agree that an appeal to the tenth amendment is the best argument I have heard regarding the legalization of Marijuana.

So is your answer to the question 'yes' or 'no?'

107 posted on 07/30/2012 3:20:48 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Marijuana is neither.

It is just as dangerous as Lotus leaves... and for the same reason.

Like many other things, it is a mostly beneficial substance that can be abused in certain ways.

It's abuse is inherent in it's use. It affects the brain's ability to make decisions, including about it's own consumption.

You must be a democrat, with your bent on control.

I am a conservative, not wanting to have Total Government, and not wanting to have NONE either.

108 posted on 07/30/2012 3:26:57 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You’re tampering with moral/spiritual issues, and trying to insert government where it doesn’t belong.

Eh? Do you know of a functioning Marijuana use state?

Opium is another herbal substance that has powerful healing properties, as well as being the safest pain killer available.

That's on the plus side. On the down side it addicted 90 million people in China who lived short miserable lives, working as slaves for the British.

The “war on Drugs” has attacked the wrong drugs, and weakened us as a nation from a moral standpoint as well as medical.

And yet a nation that permitted legalized drugs had a horrible result from it.

109 posted on 07/30/2012 3:32:33 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
So is your answer to the question 'yes' or 'no?'

The coin has landed on it's edge. Be perceptive enough to realize it. I would hear more arguments, both pro and con.

110 posted on 07/30/2012 3:34:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

That’s it for me people. I’m done for the day.


111 posted on 07/30/2012 3:35:48 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
By 1900, 90 million Chinese were addicted to opium.

China's population was 400M in 1900.* That's an addiction rate of 22.5%. Drugs were also legal in the US in 1900. The DEA sez the addiction rate to either opium or cocaine was 0.5%:

By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

____________________________________________________________

Fast forward to 2000:

...the Office of National Drug Control Policy pegs the current number of cocaine addicts at around 3.6 million people.

http://www.thecyn.com/cocaine-rehab/cocaine-addiction-united-states.html

"For example, numbers like heroin addiction. You can find numbers that go from 255,000 up to the one I'm currently using, 980,000, if I remember the last time we updated it, and those are all valid scientific studies." --Drug Czar Mcaffrey

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/symposium/panelmccaffrey.html

____________________________________________________________

Adding the ONDCP numbers for cocaine and heroin addiction together yields an addiction rate of about 1.5%. So after a century of increasingly aggressive prohibition, our own government is telling us that addiction has gone from 0.5% in 1900 to 1.5% in 2000. Which historical example is more relevant to the US in 2012, Chinese history from 1900 or American history from 1900?

_________________________________________________________

* http://www.populstat.info/

112 posted on 07/30/2012 3:43:53 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“The conclusion is, if some significant portion of the population cannot use something responsibly, we either have to ban it for everyone, or somehow license it to people who will not misuse it.”

That’s where I can’t agree with you, because I don’t see how your logic supports that conclusion. There are thousands of things out there that people can choose to use responsibly or irresponsibly, and we are not forced to make the conclusion you suggest. Instead, we just let the irresponsible people suffer the consequences for their actions when it affects only themselves, and punish them legally or civilly if their irresponsibility effects others.


113 posted on 07/30/2012 3:45:46 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The coin has landed on it's edge. Be perceptive enough to realize it. I would hear more arguments, both pro and con.

So the Tenth Amendment isn't enough to persuade you?

114 posted on 07/30/2012 3:53:47 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
And under what Constitutional power do we have a right to ban fissile material? You tell me.

We can ban fissible material from being imported from foreign countries under the Commerce Clause. I told you that already.

Currently there is no enumerated power to ban or regulate fissible material in interstate commerce. Unelected career bureaucrats regulate it anyway, and the end result is that our nuclear industries are crippled, being unable to produce isotopes needed for medical and industrial purposes and leaving us dependent on foreign countries for our supplies.

You cry "We the People have a right and responsibility to ban dangerous substances!", and don't seem to care who does it or how. That's exactly how we ended up with CO2 being declared a "pollutant".

115 posted on 07/30/2012 3:56:19 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: jimt

there is no roadside test for DUI. Also potheads are actually busted for the posession and any other charges that can be found.

I will raise you “like 1000” and see you a the equivalent autopsies.


116 posted on 07/30/2012 4:23:05 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Roadside EXERCISES (not tests) are easily surpressed and anyone with 1/2 a brain knows the proper action is to refuse EVERYTHING and take the administrative hit.

If it is being sold as “medicinal” then as “medicinal” like other drugs/diagnoses the doctor is obligated to report it to authorities so the license can be suspended until the drugs/diagnoses is no longer an ongoing impairment.

Surgeons on pot should not operate either.


117 posted on 07/30/2012 4:32:07 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
So why are traffic deaths lower in states with MM?

Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths; Leads to lower consumption of alcohol

118 posted on 07/30/2012 4:32:20 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I read. They lumped the high density population with the low density. The states with legal pot have lower density or have greater use of mass transit.

IOW pot heads have no money for cars or gas.

just google marajuna driver accident and you have more than enough news stories.


119 posted on 07/30/2012 4:38:08 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

God’s word denounces “physicians.”

Healing is to be administered through our spiritual leaders, not Mystery Babylon.

All herbs are for our use; Genesis says so. Nowhere does it say that we’re to go to governments of men for permission. Government has defiled us deeply, because we have failed to shackle it sufficiently.

The “war on drugs” has been the biggest criminal enterprise in the history of this country.


120 posted on 07/30/2012 5:10:04 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Government will never be qualified to determine anything; it is too easily manipulated by evil men, and relies on premises not found in God’s word.


121 posted on 07/30/2012 5:15:45 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

>> “IOW pot heads have no money for cars or gas.” <<

.
True, but also equally true for all other types of psychological dependency. The founders were right, only property owners should vote.


122 posted on 07/30/2012 5:19:21 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I read. They lumped the high density population with the low density. The states with legal pot have lower density or have greater use of mass transit.

HUH? They compared the change in traffic fatalities in states since MM laws were enacted to the change in traffic fatalities in neighboring states without such laws.

Your claim makes no sense and I doubt you actually read the study.

123 posted on 07/30/2012 5:49:28 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If a government can proscribe a weed, it can certainly proscribe say, ammunition or the components of ammunition.

No they can't. Ownership of such items is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution under Amendment II. Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.

Ha! Ha! No they can't declare lead or Potassium Nitrate or anything they want a public health hazard and ban it. No they can't declare Big Gulps Public Enemy Number 1 either.

Thanks for the laugh. Oh, that it were true.

124 posted on 07/30/2012 6:48:46 PM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (All Y'all White Peoples is racist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Mushrooms grow out of the ground as do hemp plants. So IMO both should be legal.


125 posted on 07/31/2012 2:03:32 AM PDT by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
Grass is a gateway drug to harder crap. It devolves you to the point where the only thing that matters is the next fix. Not only do you use drugs, you use people.

I'm throwing the maudlin melodramatic flag on this bravo sierra, Old Sarge.

I know and have known plenty of potheads, and even the crunchiest, Phishiest, most patchoulied up among them never reach the Reefer Madness-like state you suggest here.

126 posted on 07/31/2012 5:23:34 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You are confusing the term "addiction" with a tacit acknowledgement that we must have a government to enforce laws.

Enforcement of laws is one thing. However, based on your activity on this thread, you seem to be addicted to a form of government that attempts to reduce an extremely generalized and highly nebulous social "risk" by criminalizing a naturally-occurring substance.

That's about as "conservative" as your garden variety leftist societal engineering project.

127 posted on 07/31/2012 5:32:20 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Well, people who would refuse those roadside exercises would also refuse breathalyzers and similar tests, so even if they were just drunk, we’d have to do a blood test, same as with marijuana, or prescription drugs like the ambien that Kennedy was on when he crashed. I really don’t see what the big difference is here.

As for suspending licenses, it’s only done for prescription drugs or a medical condition that will cause some perpetual impairment. I don’t see how that applies here so that doctors would have to report anything.


128 posted on 07/31/2012 6:26:54 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost; Lazamataz

Ask Laz about it, that’s why I pinged him to it.


129 posted on 07/31/2012 9:36:13 AM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Adding the ONDCP numbers for cocaine and heroin addiction together yields an addiction rate of about 1.5%. So after a century of increasingly aggressive prohibition, our own government is telling us that addiction has gone from 0.5% in 1900 to 1.5% in 2000. Which historical example is more relevant to the US in 2012, Chinese history from 1900 or American history from 1900?

Not sure why or how you are trying to twist this. Bottom line, China went from very low addiction to very high addiction between the time Britain started importing opium and the time it stopped. On the other hand, We nipped it in the bud back around 1900 and as a result of the war on drugs, our addiction rate is still only 1.5%, and that's by YOUR numbers.

You are simply re-proving the same point I am making. The war on drugs is a HUGE success, because we didn't end up with 20% of our population addicted to drugs.

130 posted on 07/31/2012 10:09:19 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
That’s where I can’t agree with you, because I don’t see how your logic supports that conclusion. There are thousands of things out there that people can choose to use responsibly or irresponsibly, and we are not forced to make the conclusion you suggest. Instead, we just let the irresponsible people suffer the consequences for their actions when it affects only themselves, and punish them legally or civilly if their irresponsibility effects others.

If you really believe that, then lets discuss dynamite. Its usage currently requires an explosives license, but if I am to understand you correctly, you have no objections to letting anybody play with it. Do I understand you correctly?

How about pharmaceuticals? Apparently you feel that people ought to be able to prescribe themselves whatever medication that they see fit, rather than licensing doctors or Pharmacists. Your position seems to be: "We don't need no stinking license!"

If you can't follow my logic, I perceive that it is only because you don't want to. It's easy to follow, but some people do not like where it leads.

131 posted on 07/31/2012 10:19:13 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
So the Tenth Amendment isn't enough to persuade you?

Sure, but only if I can first be persuaded that Marijuana cannot pose the sort of threat that Opium or Cocaine poses. I regard some of the harder drugs to be existential (Threatening our very existence) threats to our nation. I have read quite a lot about what Opium did to China, and I am convinced it was the breakdown in society which was caused by Opium addiction that led first to the Japanese invasion of China, and thereafter to the ascendency of the Communist Mao government with it's 100 million subsequent deaths.

Now could Marijuana trigger such an event here? If the answer is yes, then the 10th amendment cannot protect it. If the answer is no, then allowing it would seemingly fall within the tenth Amendment's purview.

The question I am not certain of in my own mind is which side of the line is Marijuana on? Would ubiquitous society-wide usage of the drug destroy our ability to maintain a functioning nation? I don't know. I know it makes worthless lazy bums out of the people I know who use it, but presumably it may not have that effect on everyone.

I would suggest that Licensing it's usage would address this issue. It would establish the idea that the State has a right to regulate it (Under the State's tenth amendment powers) and that it is being watched closely enough to guarantee that any unintended consequences can be ameliorated by tightening the requirements for licensing.

For that matter, I think consumers of Alcohol ought to have a box on their drivers license that can be checked to verify that they have been advised of their rights and responsibilities, and which can be unchecked for people convicted of drunk driving or other abuses of the substance.

It would keep the sales and use of it legal, while reducing traffic accidents by repeat offenders. (I know a guy with 5 D.U.I.s and another with 7 D.U.I.s.) Bartenders could ask to see their license (which they often do anyways) and if they don't have that box checked, they can be refused service.

But getting back to Marijuana, the question is just how much of a threat to a functioning society is Marijuana? I don't know. I would suggest the best way to figure this out is to look at societies that have already legalized it and see what kind of bad consequences resulted.

People claim that Portugal is having success with this approach, but there are dissenters who claim the Portuguese government is just making up their claims of success. People often cite Amsterdam Netherlands as an example of successful integration of Marijuana and Society, but the latest news from that Country is that they are now banning it's sale or use by Foreign Tourists.

From my perspective, it's still an open question, though I would think allowing licenses for it would address my strongest concerns.

132 posted on 07/31/2012 10:39:16 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
We can ban fissible material from being imported from foreign countries under the Commerce Clause. I told you that already.

Why you would want to pick the Commerce Clause is beyond me. I regard it as a Defense issue, not an issue of Commerce. But the point remains. If we can legitimately ban the import of fissile material under the Commerce Clause, we can likewise legitimately ban the import of Drugs under the Commerce Clause.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message.

133 posted on 07/31/2012 10:43:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The “war on drugs” has been the biggest criminal enterprise in the history of this country.

Even if what you say is true (Which I do not believe) then I will point out to you that the Lack of a War on Drugs is what destroyed China, and caused the deaths of over 100 million people.

Had our History gone the other way, you would be weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth all the while asking "Why?!! Oh Why didn't we stop this horror when it was small?!"

This is what legalized drugs looks like.

What is worse than the War on Drugs? The alternative is worse. Far worse.

134 posted on 07/31/2012 10:55:18 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman
Ha! Ha! No they can't declare lead or Potassium Nitrate or anything they want a public health hazard and ban it. No they can't declare Big Gulps Public Enemy Number 1 either.

Regulation of Chemicals is not banning.

Thanks for the laugh. Oh, that it were true.

Take a deep breath and consider the distinction calmly. I recognize the State's duty to insure the safety of the public from misuse of dangerous substances. Chemicals ARE dangerous, and a release of Chlorine gas has the potential to kill thousands of innocent people. In an effort to insure that incompetent people are not handling dangerous Chemicals, they are regulated by State and Federal agencies.

Regulation is not banning. They are still available for use by Demonstrably competent people to use for making products which require them. Ammunition is one such product. I have no objection to the Government insuring that Ammunition is produced with the Public's safety in mind.

135 posted on 07/31/2012 11:02:56 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“If you really believe that, then lets discuss dynamite. Its usage currently requires an explosives license, but if I am to understand you correctly, you have no objections to letting anybody play with it. Do I understand you correctly?”

No, I’m talking about currently unlicensed items which can be used irresponsibly. Take inhalants for example. Anyone can go buy spraypaint (though minors are usually barred by local ordinance). Most of us only use it to paint stuff, but a few fools choose to inhale it and get high, get addicted to it, and ruin their lives. We aren’t forced to either license spraypaint or ban it because of that situation. We simply let the fools do what they will, and lock them up when they become a nuisance or danger to the rest of us.

There are thousands of other examples that could be brought up of similar things that don’t force us to make the choice you suggest.


136 posted on 07/31/2012 11:13:01 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Enforcement of laws is one thing. However, based on your activity on this thread, you seem to be addicted to a form of government that attempts to reduce an extremely generalized and highly nebulous social "risk" by criminalizing a naturally-occurring substance.

That a substance is "naturally occurring" is irrelevant to the point. There are a multitude of "naturally occurring" substances that are down right deadly, and of course we don't let just anyone play with them. Arsenic, Hemlock and Strychnine come to mind.

The Socially destructive effects of drugs are not "nebulous" there are very well documented and innumerably verified consequences to tolerance of drugs in any society or culture. The argument here is whether or not Marijuana is sufficiently dangerous as to be a threat to the existence of a society. Opium obviously is, and I would expect the evidence to reveal that meth and cocaine are as well.

This is not guess work. This is not "theory." These experiments have been run, and the consequences of tolerating highly addictive drugs have been uniformly horrifying. To my knowledge there are no good examples of a working culture which embraces highly addictive and dangerous drugs.

The question in my mind is, "Will Marijuana cause the same results, albeit slower?" I don't know. Everyone I know who smokes the stuff is a worthless bum. Maybe this doesn't happen to everyone who smokes it, but it certainly seems to happen to a lot of people who do.

137 posted on 07/31/2012 11:15:48 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Leto
Mushrooms grow out of the ground as do hemp plants. So IMO both should be legal.

Cocaine and Heroin grow out of the ground too.

138 posted on 07/31/2012 11:20:30 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

>> “then I will point out to you that the Lack of a War on Drugs is what destroyed China, and caused the deaths of over 100 million people.” <<

.
An utterly false statement.

China’s problem was their pagan, Christless culture. Without Christ, you have nothing.


139 posted on 07/31/2012 11:24:09 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
No, I’m talking about currently unlicensed items which can be used irresponsibly. Take inhalants for example. Anyone can go buy spraypaint (though minors are usually barred by local ordinance). Most of us only use it to paint stuff, but a few fools choose to inhale it and get high, get addicted to it, and ruin their lives. We aren’t forced to either license spraypaint or ban it because of that situation. We simply let the fools do what they will, and lock them up when they become a nuisance or danger to the rest of us.

I do not know about your community, but in my community the City Council passed an ordinance regulating sales of the stuff. The State passed a law limiting the purchase of Meth ingredient Pseudo-Ephedrine.

It is not in any communities best interest to have drug addled kooks wandering up and down their streets.

There are thousands of other examples that could be brought up of similar things that don’t force us to make the choice you suggest.

Possibly, but why would we have need of regulating substances that are not being abused? It is only as a result of the abuse of Medical elixirs in the late 1800s that prompted the creation of laws banning the use of certain ingredients (mostly cocaine) in those patent medicines. It was the result of a widespread and rapidly increasing addiction to those patent medicines that led lawmakers to take action against them.

Again, why ban or regulate something which is NOT being abused?

140 posted on 07/31/2012 11:29:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
An utterly false statement.

And you seemed so sensible on the Natural Born Citizen issue.

China’s problem was their pagan, Christless culture. Without Christ, you have nothing.

A Christian culture is not immuned from drugs. It isn't even immuned from the evil influence of Hollywood. It requires the faith of a Saint to counteract the effects of Chemical reactions within your brain synapses. Most Christians would succumb to addiction if given a few samples of Heroin.

I am not disparaging faith, I am only pointing out the realistic facts of addiction. Only those truly touched by God would be able to resist it.

141 posted on 07/31/2012 11:37:06 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Why you would want to pick the Commerce Clause is beyond me. I regard it as a Defense issue, not an issue of Commerce.

I do that because that's where the people passing the laws claim they find the authority, and they leverage that to claim authority far beyond. That you consider it "Defense" doesn't change that. It is what it is, and that's what we have to deal with - not what it would be in your perfect world.

142 posted on 07/31/2012 11:45:47 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message.

The rest of it was about the unintended consequences. That you won't be bothered with it is not surprising, but it is telling.

143 posted on 07/31/2012 12:13:13 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I do that because that's where the people passing the laws claim they find the authority, and they leverage that to claim authority far beyond. That you consider it "Defense" doesn't change that. It is what it is, and that's what we have to deal with - not what it would be in your perfect world.

I argue that they only cite the Commerce clause because they are lazy, and have become accustomed to citing it so often to justify anything which they do. I argue that the proper clause of the U.S. Constitution to cite is Section 8 dealing with Defense of the nation.

My point is, the U.S. Constitution does grant authority to interdict any material which may be regarded as being used in an attack upon the nation. Nerve Agents, Biological Warfare Agents, Nuclear Fissile Material, and Drugs all Constitute Legally prohibited Contraband in Lawful accordance with the Articles and Requirements of our U.S. Constitution.

"Commerce" only applies to lawful exchanges of goods and services.

144 posted on 07/31/2012 12:13:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You are certifiably full of ka-ka.

You reject all logic to support your pro-tyranny position; what’s in it for you?

Are you a cop?


145 posted on 07/31/2012 12:15:37 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
My point is, the U.S. Constitution does grant authority to interdict any material which may be regarded as being used in an attack upon the nation. Nerve Agents, Biological Warfare Agents, Nuclear Fissile Material, and Drugs all Constitute Legally prohibited Contraband in Lawful accordance with the Articles and Requirements of our U.S. Constitution.

Where in the Articles do these appear?

"Do not emanate into the penumbra."
-Sign in Clarence Thomas' office.

146 posted on 07/31/2012 12:22:34 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The rest of it was about the unintended consequences. That you won't be bothered with it is not surprising, but it is telling.

Yes it is telling. It is "telling" you that I don't agree with your assertions, and I likewise regarded the rest of your message as not worthy of consideration. I am long accustomed to Libertarian types giving me their "Chicken Little" routine, and I have long grown tired of hearing them screech about how the "Sky is falling" just because we keep very dangerous and addictive substances illegal. (Though we have done so for over 100 years.)

I doubt most libertarians have given any serious thought as to what happened in China, and I likewise doubt they can come up with any reasonable argument as to why a similar disaster would not happen here if we were so foolish as to do what the Chinese did. (Legalize drugs.)

I would suggest you not bring up the topic of "unintended consequences" until after you've come up with an explanation as to how the "unintended consequences" we would face in this nation will not resemble the "unintended consequences" which the Chinese faced after they had legal drugs for so many years. As near as I can tell, legalizing drugs is tantamount to a nation putting a gun to it's head and pulling the trigger. Except that it happens slowly.

147 posted on 07/31/2012 12:23:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You are certifiably full of ka-ka.

You reject all logic to support your pro-tyranny position; what’s in it for you?

What's in it for me? Not getting robbed by drug addicts. Not having people run into me on the highway because they are too stoned to drive straight. Not having to support worthless bums who want to sit around all day getting high. Not having a society on a path towards suicide. THAT's what's in it for me.

Are you a cop?

No. Not even close. Electronics Engineer/Tech.

I think i'm done arguing with you. I'm starting to hear Twilight Zone music every time I see your name pop up.


148 posted on 07/31/2012 12:29:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Where in the Articles do these appear?

Already covered this. Read up thread. It's under Section 8 Dealing with Defense of the Nation.

149 posted on 07/31/2012 12:31:50 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I'm not a Libertarian, I'm an original intent Constitutionalist.

There is no enumerated power for the federal government to conduct the domestic "war on drugs". You claim they use the Commerce Clause because they're too lazy to use Defense, but all that does is excuse you for being too lazy to be bothered with getting the amendment we need to enumerate the power, and do it the way it was intended.

150 posted on 07/31/2012 12:38:51 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson