Posted on 09/10/2012 11:32:30 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Edited on 09/10/2012 11:58:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Can you provide a link to evidence for the "fact" that what the government provides depends on the legal status of the addicting substance?
So you are saying there’s a right to dope in the constitution the way the constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? Don’t see it, sorry. What I do see is that the government can have ‘controlled substances’ if they feel the need.
If you don’t think taxpayer’s money is being stolen right now to pay for the drug war, I’d like to know what you consider theft to be. It’s not just money, but liberty that is being taken from us. Decriminalization of marijuana doesn’t mean the taxpayers will have to buy joints for everyone who wants get high, or supply addicts of other drugs. Even if we have to pay for treatment programs, like we already do, it would be better than paying the cultural and financial price of the black market, militarized police forces, and thousands who are in our prisons who don’t need to be there. ...I’ve been all over the board on this, trying to figure out where I stand. On the one hand, I don’t want to see the spread of drug use, or anyone destroying themselves with drugs, not even marijuana. None of it is a victimless crime. On the other hand, the drug war is doing little to stop supply, despite the billions we’ve spent on it, and we will never win this war, not even with all of our high tech gadgetry, and de-facto state of posse comitatus we exist in. Maybe by getting the Fed out of it, and letting states come up with their own solutions, we can turn the corner on all of this. I fail to see how we could be worse off. And then, as far as I’m concerned, anything that shrinks the power and ability of the Fed to lord over us is good, even if it hurts for awhile.
it seems to me that enforcement is going to be ineffective when you have parents not bothering to actually parent.
So they're not parenting when it comes to pot, but they are parenting when it comes to beer and cigarettes?
Incredibly frusterating when their ‘clients’ steal from you to feed their habit
The drug war's hyperinflation of drug costs, thus increasing the incentive to steal, is another reason for ending the drug war.
But go on - tell me how it’s a victimless crime. It’s not. First victim, the users.
Preventing self-victimization is not the proper business of government - unless you support e.g. NYC's ban on 32-oz. sodas.
Rights are not created by the Constitution but recognized - and the Constitution gives the federal government no authority over intrastate drug matters.
Don’t see it, sorry. What I do see is that the government can have ‘controlled substances’ if they feel the need.
You see authorization for defining ‘controlled substances’ in the Constitution? Please provide an exact quote.
The government can put tariffs on whatever is imported. If you’re telling me that the dope trade is mostly intrastate, then I’ve got a bridge in brooklyn to sell.
Tell me what, sir, are doctors and nurses supposed to refuse to treat someone who’s accidentally OD’ed and ends up in an emergency ward? Should they leave them to die on the street?
You willing to compensate me personally and my family for our financial losses of theft from the perpetrators of ‘victimless crime’?
If you’re telling me that the dope trade is mostly intrastate
Nope, I agree that the feds have constitutional authority over imported drugs. But they have none over intrastate drug matters - and marijuana is the #1 cash crop of several states.
What I do see is that the government can have ‘controlled substances’ if they feel the need.
You see authorization for defining ‘controlled substances’ in the Constitution? Please provide an exact quote.
Can you support your claim to see in the Constitution that the government can have ‘controlled substances’ if they feel the need?
Yep, I’ve seen some. Have a good friend who’s paranoid schizophrenic and ‘treats’ himself with dope. The results? Not pretty.
But then you haven’t had to go to the hospital to see him...
Answer my question about the doctors and nurses first. Should doctors and nurses be able to refuse treatment to addicts?
The drug war's hyperinflation of drug costs, thus increasing the incentive to steal, is another reason for ending the drug war.
You willing to compensate me personally and my family for our financial losses of theft from the perpetrators of ‘victimless crime’?
As I explained, it's the drug war that incentivizes that theft - go ask the Drug Warriors for compensation.
(And for the record, I never used the phrase ‘victimless crime' - so it's rather deceptive of you to keep throwing it in my face.)
“Who cares! So you have to clean up after them.”
You force people to treat them, look after them without compensation and then you tell people that you are so ‘enlightened’ as to respect freedom?
Freedom? Hell. If you were truly libertarian, you’d be telling us to leave them to rot on the street and die. But you don’t. You want freedom from consequences, not true freedom.
And yes, I’m part of the old guard. I’m not a libertarian. Society relies on people ‘taking care of business’ and cleaning up the bullshit to keep society running. The fewer people doing the cleaning up, the worse society runs. I see this, and I know I’m not the only one who sees it.
If we want to truly reduce government spending then we should be discouraging people from using drugs of all kinds. Why? Because addiction is hella expensive.
“As I explained, it’s the drug war that incentivizes that theft - go ask the Drug Warriors for compensation.”
The theft disappeared from the neighbourhood when the dope pusher was arrested. Thanks for being so libertarian as to expect other people to bear the costs and the consequences... That sounds very libertarian to me.
Wow. So whenever the government "feels the need," they can do whatever the hell they want?
Are you sure you're a conservative type of person?
If you’re telling me that the dope trade is mostly intrastate
Nope, I agree that the feds have constitutional authority over imported drugs. But they have none over intrastate drug matters - and marijuana is the #1 cash crop of several states.
What I do see is that the government can have ‘controlled substances’ if they feel the need.
You see authorization for defining ‘controlled substances’ in the Constitution? Please provide an exact quote.
Answer my question about the doctors and nurses first. Should doctors and nurses be able to refuse treatment to addicts?
I forgot that one, since it had nothing to do with what we'd been discussing. I'm very open to the argument that there is no governmentally enforceable obligation to treat those who have voluntarily rendered themselves in need of medical care - through drug use including alcohol and tobacco, overeating, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet (just to name a few).
Your turn.
You’d better alert the medical journals, then. AFAIK there has never been a documented marijuana OD.
Freedom isn’t free. Someone is bearing the costs. Right now, it’s the folks having to put up with property crimes, and the doctors and nurses treating those suffering from various forms of chemical addiction.
I suspect that if society were to really let addicts crash and suffer the consequences then we’d have fewer of them. If you knew there wasn’t going to be someone there to bail you out and save you, would you really be using?
If society is going to help those suffering from addiction at no cost to themselves, then yes, it’s appropriate for society to regulate the distribution of said substances.
The theft disappeared from the neighbourhood when the dope pusher was arrested.
Doesn't change the fact that it’s the drug war that incentivizes that theft by hyperinflating drug prices. Are there any alcohol dealers in your neighborhood - or anyone stealing in your neighborhood to get money for the addictive drug alcohol?
Thanks for being so libertarian as to expect other people to bear the costs and the consequences...
The costs and the consequences are from the drug war.
“You’d better alert the medical journals, then. AFAIK there has never been a documented marijuana OD.”
The connection between marijuana and triggers for schizophrenia is documented. Again - marijuana isn’t harmless to the users. Far from it. Of course that doesn’t fit in with the cheech and chong agenda...
“Are there any alcohol dealers in your neighborhood - or anyone stealing in your neighborhood to get money for the addictive drug alcohol?”
Oddly enough - no. So you’re telling me that alcohol has the same addiction effects on it’s users as dope? Don’t believe it. Don’t see the alcoholics driven to steal to feed their habit.
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.