Marijuana Ballot Issues Have Little To Do With Drugs

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.

We nipped nothing in the bud. Drugs were legal in the US since colonial times, yet no one saw it as a problem for fedgov to handle until the progressives came along.

If you'll read the DEA link I provided, you'll see that addiction to opium was high in 1880 due to addiction by Civil War veterans - 400,000 in a population of 50M. That's 0.8% addicted to opium alone.

Yet by 1900, says the DEA, the addiction rate to either cocaine or opium was 0.5%. That's a significant decline that would be even greater if they had not included cocaine addicts in the 1900 figure.

So from 1880 to 1900, when drugs were legal, addiction fell. From 1900 to 2000 addiction rose. Your argument that prohibition nipped a growing problem in the bud is not credible.

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.

As has been pointed out to you several times, prohibition is based on expanded federal powers under the Wickard Commerce Clause. That's what you're endorsing when you endorse the War on Drugs. You have ceded any principled constitutional objection to programs such as the war on poverty, the EPA and federal control of health care.

“Cocaine and Heroin grow out of the ground too.”

Heroin is refined from poppy plants, and was first synthesized by a Chemist, no it doesn’t grow as a plant.

Cocaine is refined from Coca leaves. Chewing Coca leaves as the local have done for hundred of years is different than using the concentrated processed form.

Plants/Natural form OK chemically refined form not OK.

In this approach the pot plant would be legal chemically refined THC would not.

Your argument that we wouldn’t have turned out like China is not credible. China legalized Drugs. We Prohibited them. They collapsed, We survived. Figure it out.

Heh! According to you, the US in 1900 was headed for massive addiction, despite it never having occurred in the prior 200+ years, and that the only thing that prevented it was fedgov prohibition.

Even the silliest drug warriors are going to have a difficult time swallowing that one.

No one likes my plan.

1. Allow anyone (over the age of majority) to grow poppies and marijuana SOLELY for their own use. NO SELLING. Heck, let ‘em grow coca if they can.

2. Anyone selling OR buying gets publicly caned.

3. Increasing strikes for repeated offenses.

4. All other drugs prohibited, sellers get publicly caned, second offense for hard drugs like cocaine and meth, execution. Public.

I think it makes total sense. Those who want to be drugged and stupid and crazy, they can. But NO selling, and being able to grow ‘em will take down the price to rock bottom anyway.

Heh! According to you, the US in 1900 was headed for massive addiction, despite it never having occurred in the prior 200+ years, and that the only thing that prevented it was fedgov prohibition.

I'm sorry that you have such a poor education in history and understanding of past times, but the facts are that drugs did not become illegal until AFTER they became a problem. For the prior several hundred years, nobody was bringing cocaine or opium into the country in any large quantities. That was starting to change around the 1880s. Sure, morphine, opium and cocaine were available, but not in large quantities. Not in the Ton quantities at which they were shipped into China, but China didn't start out with those quantities. They started out small.

Before you can have a market, you have to have a demand, and with no huge demand, there was no huge market. (I think it's Silly that I should have to explain this stuff to a conservative, and supposedly someone who understand supply/demand, and free markets.)

The market was just starting to get larger when people started noticing that these medicines which were making people feel good were all too often getting them addicted as well.

1900 - Opium, morphine and cocaine in many patent medicines leads to addiction and death. Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup kills many children each year due to overdosing on morphine. Morphine is the syrup’s primary ingredient but it is not listed on the label.

There are a host of sources on the web which would explain all of this to you, but some how I don't think you want to look at them. You have your beliefs, and they are dearer to you than the truth, i'll wager.

Even the silliest drug warriors are going to have a difficult time swallowing that one.

And never let it be said that you are not one of the silliest drug warriors. Perhaps some soothing syrup for children might help you swallow it?

As has been pointed out to you several times, prohibition is based on expanded federal powers under the Wickard Commerce Clause.

Why are you lecturing me about stuff you seemingly do not know as much about as do I? The Pure Food and Drug act was in 1906, well before Wickard. The Harrison Narcotics act was in 1914, again, well before Wickard.

It begs the question. If these two landmark pieces of drug legislation both occurred before Wickard, how can you claim they are "based on expanded federal powers under the Wickard Commerce Clause" ?

That's what you're endorsing when you endorse the War on Drugs. You have ceded any principled constitutional objection to programs such as the war on poverty, the EPA and federal control of health care.

Nonsense. The War on Drugs is a legitimate National Defense Issue. The primary mandate of any government is to protect it's people from Danger, especially such danger as comes into the Nation from beyond it's borders. Fighting against those who seek to undermine and destroy our society is indeed a rightful and proper activity for our governments to undertake. Social Engineering (War on Poverty) and the endless expansion of the power of the Federal Bureaucracy (EPA) are not.

This argument is like equating any criticism of Obama with Racism. The two things are not equivalent.

I'm not going to bother quoting you. Natural Hemlock is deadly, as is Nightshade. As are other toxic plants. That brings us back to basic biology. Do you know why plants synthesize toxins which operate on the mammalian nervous system? TO KILL PREDATORS!

It is a self defense mechanism to make animals which eat them stop eating them and go away. Along comes stupid humans who like the disorienting effect of the plant toxins, and decide to tamper with their nervous system on a regular basis.

Beyond that, Marijuana is continuously being hybrid into varieties with nearly deadly concentrations of THC. How do you put that into your philosophical "nature is good" pipe and smoke it?

For the prior several hundred years, nobody was bringing cocaine or opium into the country in any large quantities. That was starting to change around the 1880s. Sure, morphine, opium and cocaine were available, but not in large quantities.

It was available in enough quantity to satisfy demand, just like today. As far as worsening addiction, the DEA flat out refutes you. Their numbers say addiction fell substantially from 1880 to 1900. This is the equivalent of the star witness for the prosecution giving testimony in favor of the defense. It knocks your whole premise out from under you.

Here's a better explanation. Like their liberal descendants of today, Progressives were hell bent on increasing the size and scope of the federal government, and were not above using demagoguery and dishonesty to achieve their goals. The same era that began drug prohibition also gave us the 16th and 17th Amendment.

Big government, like prohibition, is a legacy of the progressives.

“I do not know about your community, but in my community the City Council passed an ordinance regulating sales of the stuff.”

Yes, I did say there are usually local ordinances, though in the case of spraypaint they are ordinances concerning graffiti and not substance laws. Still, some places have no ordinances, and we have no Federal laws on the issue. There are quite of few of those kinds of substances that have absolutely no regulation, so that a 10 year old can buy them anywhere in America. Somehow, we manage to survive this mortal threat though.

“Possibly, but why would we have need of regulating substances that are not being abused?”

I’m not talking about substances that aren’t abused. Inhalants like spray paint, paint thinner, toluene, even gasoline, are abused. Still, we don’t need a federal law to deal with them. In most cases, we don’t even need state or local laws.

You made an argument that if pot were legal, some people would use it irresponsibly and ruin their lives, so we would have to either ban it or license it. What I’m saying is, we have plenty of other substances that are legal that people do use irresponisbly and we aren’t forced to ban or license them. Society survives just fine using other methods to deal with those substances.

The WOD that you are defending is indeed based on Wickard. Read Clarence Thomas's dissent in Raich:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

More education for you from the opinion of the Court, written by Stevens:

The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

So which side are you on, Stevens or Thomas?

____________________________________________________________

The War on Drugs is a legitimate National Defense Issue.

Garbage. There is no legislation or case law that cites national defense provisions in the Constitution as a delegation of authority to regulate intrastate drugs. It's the Wickard Commerce Clause. That is what you are endorsing, rationalizations notwithstanding.

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.

Consider, if you will, why "we don't let just anyone play around with" the substances you just mentioned.

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.

Hmm. With all due respect, I think you're not applying consistent logic here with your argument. You insist on viewing marijuana through the dangerous, destructive, socially catastrophic lens that is more accurately applied to drugs like opium, heroin, meth, etc. You're leading the witness and the witness you're leading is yourself.
Marijuana is not the same as the drugs you're trying to lump it it with.

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.

Everyone I know isn't. Evidently, you should hang out with a better class of people.

I’d postulate that a lot of peeps here would continue the WoD, hell, PRAISE it even. As most of those touting its ‘rousing success’; I consider those in the same group as the NIMBYs

They still believe the gov’t has SOME role to play, and the power comes from....pick your poison (excuse the pun). No matter that Prohibition needed an Amendment (2 actually); but NOT for the WoD!

Hell, it’s worked SO well for the past 100 yrs (leaving aside it was only a problem since the Dawn of Man, until 100 years ago), why mess with it now. Hell, S.Security has worked SO WELL for almost 100 years; the Fed. Reserve....Why, even the DoE has been just dandy for over 30 yrs.

How about this: Return the Constitutional powers (IE: Regulate as it should be read - to make regular). People can do what the hell they want, when they want (and I’m talking ADULTS here) and prosecute, when/if that infringes on others Rights, for damages/etc..

Companies can hire whom they want, users can enjoy the drugs...or OD. Just don’t go all ‘it takes a community/village’ or ‘they can’t handle reading the labels’ BS. Life should have consequences for those weak of will or just stupid.

I, for one, don’t need the Nanny State (nor Nanny Neighbors) dictating to me. When you lose the rights to do what you wish TO yourself, you are no longer free, but a slave.

Well philosophically I agree with the Bible:

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

Genesis 1:29

Note God didn’t say SOME he said EVERY.
Words matter.

Works for me.

If you drink too much water it will kill you.

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.