While every molecule in my body detests illegal drugs and I have nothing but disdain for drug users, as believer in our Constitution, I certainly question; If an Amendment was required for the Federal Government to ban alcohol, how come they can ban any drug without a similar Constitutional Amendment?
The “War on Drugs” IMO is completely unconstitutional and has done nothing but waste tons of money and created a lucrative and deadly industry.
Let the druggies ingest whatever they want but under no circumstances allow a penny of taxpayer’s money be spent on them for ANY reason. If they cannot pay for some medical procedure, let them die. As it is now, people are dying and many are external to the drug trade. Remove the huge illegal profit motive from the equation and then you only have to deal with the scum who want to damage their brain.
And for the status quo people who will do a Saul Alinsky and claim well what if they get in a car and kill someone, well they are doing that now and so are drunks. Stiffen the DWI penalties with mandatory prison terms.
Let the druggies ingest whatever they want but under no circumstances allow a penny of taxpayer’s money be spent on them for ANY reason. If they cannot pay for some medical procedure, let them die.
Works for me. That would apply to the drugs alcohol and tobacco as well, right?
This history of our drug laws is quite byzantine (to say the least), but the the very first drug law, was, in fact, a tax law. The Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937, which basically required a tax stamp for the sale and possession of cannabis. The logic was this: require a tax stamp, and then refuse to issue one. Presto. The substance is prohibited. It was modeled after the Firearms Transfer Act of 1931 which used the same mechanism to outlaw machine guns. Because, after all, Congress has the power to tax (just ask Justice Roberts).