Child Hands Out Heroin 'Candy' to Classmates

Yahoo News ^ | November 04 2003 | Reuters

[knighthawk]

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A five-year-old Dutch girl handed out "sweets" to classmates that turned out to be ecstasy, cocaine and heroin pills, police said on Monday.

The drugs were confiscated by a suspicious teacher before any were consumed at the primary school in Hilversum, southeast of Amsterdam. Police arrested the girl's older brothers aged 21, 19 and 16 and her 43-year-old mother.

Large quantities of soft drugs and hard drugs were found in the car of the eldest brother. The brothers were in custody, but their mother was set free after questioning.

[Legerdemain]

soft drugs are tolerated, hard drugs are not...well sort of...I remember heroin park...jeez, Holland is so confusing

[philman_36]

Come back when a majority of the people support it.
And there you have it boys and girls! An open and frank admission that this "person" doesn't even understand the principles of a republican form of government and believes America is a Democracy.
You have no clue, do you?

[CSM]

"I wonder if the dopeheads will be singing that same tune when someone offers THEIR children drugs?"

I wonder if the gun owners will be singing the praises of gun ownership when their children get shot in a school. Better to prohibit gun ownership than to live by the constitution!

[CSM]

"I am proud to oppose the usage of drugs and I want to see them disappear so children cannot be poisoned by the junk you people want to put out in the streets freely."

I am proud to oppose the ownership of guns and I want to see them disappear so children cannot be shot by the junk you people want to put out in the streets freely.

How about telling us about your tax structure? What percentage of their pay does a productive person pay in taxes? What type of social programs does your government provide to non productive people?

[Destructor]

Please cite the exact section of the Constitution, or the exact amendment to the Bill of Rights that specifically recognizes your God-given, inalienable Right to get high.

[Destructor]

I've encountered that lame comment many times. Especially on the pro-pot threads! You pro-dope types never cease to amaze me. You spend half of your time making outrageous statements such as "drugs are harmless," or "pot makes you a better driver." Then you deny ever having made those statements.

I can only conclude that the government studies that have shown how marijuana use effects memory are dead on right!

[CSM]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Destructor]

You're ducking the question by trying to hide behind two Amendments that were left intentionally vague. The Second Amendment specifically recognizes the Right of the individual to Keep and Bear Arms.

Again, show me an Amendment that specifically recognizes your God-given, inalienable Right to get high. If you insist on comparing a recognized Constitutional Right to recreational drug abuse, then show me the connection.

[CSM]

"You're ducking the question by trying to hide behind two Amendments that were left intentionally vague."

It would be impossible to list all rights and it would be
dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. You are one of those that are now seizing on the absence of a listed right to assert that the government has the right to seize that right. Ammendment 9 was intentionally left blank to allow for us to have all rights protected.

The 10th Ammendment was expressly written to ensure that the fed government could not exercise undue power over the states and the people. It says very specifically that any rights not listed in the constitution or ammendments was to be governed by the states. According to the 10th ammendment if a state wanted to outlaw gun ownership, it would not be constitutional because the 2nd specifically lists the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, according to the 10th if a state wants to prohibit any substance not listed in the constitution then they have that right and it is to be left to the states. The Federal prohibition is as unconstitutional as if a state attempted to ban gun ownership!

Of course all you have to do is read the two ammendments to get what I have said above. They are quite clear to me.

[Destructor]

In other words, "Selective Interpretation." The mark of a true liberal.

The correct answer is that there is no Constitutional Right to get high, therefore there is no logical basis for comparison between the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and mere recreational drug use/abuse.

Personally, I resent potheads trying to draw a link between the two. I don't want my hunting, and target shooting associated with your illegal drug use in any way shape of form!

[CSM]

You should buy a clue. What you are saying is that the only rights we have are the ones listed in the constitution. By that thinking, the fed government could start restrictions on just about any aspect of your life and you would say it is constitutional. By your reasoning, they could limit the ability of a family to procreate, they could limit what morals are taught by parents, they could restrict family sizes. Any number of things could be restricted, because they are not specifically listed in the constitution.

Freedom means we take the bad with the good. No I am not a promoter of drugs, I am a promoter of the states governing themselves for anything not specifically governed by the federal constitution. If a state or locality wants to prohibit alcohol that is fine, if a state or locality wants to prohibit drugs that is fine. I can chose where to live based on the type of society I want to participate in.

What you advocate is the complete opposite of what the founders established. You are exactly what they feared and you are as dangerous to our country as the liberal socialist that would eliminate all individualism in favor of a ruling state!

[philman_36]

Well then, since you've so thoroughly "smashed" CSM then how about you telling us "specifically" where in the Constitution the WOsD is authorized.
The CSA ain't cutting it and the commerce clause ain't cutting it either.

The correct answer is that there is no Constitutional Right to get high...
There is no Constitutional Right to do anything according to what you're saying. Are our Rights totally encompassed solely in the BoR?

[CSM]

Let me give you a couple of concrete examples to prove my point:

It is unconstitutional for the fed government to set a federal speed limit. It is also unconstitutional for the fed government to set a federal BAC standard. Both are accomplished with blackmail.

Show me in the constitution where it lists the right to drive at a certain rate of speed. Show me where it lists the right to drive with certain levels of alcohol in one's blood!

[Destructor]

I will refer you to post #83. CSM turned this into a Constitutional debate with the following statement: "I wonder if the gun owners will be singing the praises of gun ownership when their children get shot in a school. Better to prohibit gun ownership than to live by the constitution!"

CSM brought up the Constitution here. I'm merely challenging him/her to demonstrate how the Constitution applies here. I offer you the same challenge. What part of the Constitution recognizes your God-given, inalienable Right to get high?

[knighthawk]

We got a 32,35% rate in the first scale (up to 15.000 Euro), the second scale is 37,35% third one is 42% fourth one is 52%.

And we got all imaginable social programs, like free healthcare for illigal immigrants, handicapped people can get refunds when visiting prostitutes, armies of unemployment workers and social staff, you name it.

Why people even bother to work is beyond me.

[Destructor]

Constitutional Authority for the "War on Drugs." Simple. The section in the preamble that empowers the government to "promote the general welfare."

I know that you won't like that answer, and I'm not saying that I agree with this concept. Frankly, I think the intent of this passage has been distorted to include everything under the sun, and this is the root cause for our ever-expanding Federal government. Given this interpretation of the Constitution, the War on Drugs is perfectly legal.

[philman_36]

I know that you won't like that answer, and I'm not saying that I agree with this concept.
Given your previous answers it seems that you are agreeing with that concept.
You want your cake and to be able to eat it too.
BTW, the "general welfare" part is in the Constitution!

The section in the preamble that empowers the government to "promote the general welfare."
The "General Welfare" By Joseph Sobran
As you presumably know, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

[CSM]

I brought the constitution into it because the argements made were that children had gained access to these substances and that justifies keeping them illegal. Children, here at home, have gained access to guns and some of these instances have resulted in the death of other children. By the "it's for the children reasoning" then guns should be outlawed. At least the supporters of the argument "for the children" should be consistent instead of flopping around like Wesley Clark!

[CSM]

So, based on the posts you have made, I can only assume that you are supportive of any interpretation of the "general welfare" declaration. If you are supportive of the WOD based on this, then you must also support the private property confiscation by governments to hand over to business that will increase the tax rolls!

[CSM]

Thanks for the information. Sounds like the issues in your area are caused by much more than the single issue of drug legalization.

" Why people even bother to work is beyond me. "

Exactly, the productive are starting shrug and all you get left with is the dregs!