Posted on 10/23/2002 1:04:07 AM PDT by Roscoe
As interpreted by our court judges.
Obviously, and our courts are balanced by the other two branches of government. Your point?
------------------------------
Federal & state drug ~prohibition~ laws do not so comply on any number of grounds.
Then do drugs and see if the courts will save you from going to jail.
Such juvenile wit adds nothing to the issue.
---------------------------
Reasonable law ~regulating~ the commercial sale & public use of mind altering substances on public health & safety grounds are perfectly constitutional, as you well know, as per alcohol.
Test it in the courts. I'll stand back and watch.
See above.
------------------------------
Which leaves this question. -- Why do you support unconstitutional prohibitionary type laws, -- laws which in their enforcement are destroying the very principles our free republic is built upon?
Our republic wasn't built on drug freedoms any more than it was built on the right of people to have sex in public.
Diversionary remark. -- Can't answer, can you?
You're the one that believes that states don't have the right to outlaw drug use, aren't you. So much for the myth of "state's rights Libertarians". LOL
Yep, you 'laugh', and make wisecracks. Grow up and learn to debate.
The constitution is clear on states 'rights'. - States/localites have delegated powers, subordinate to our individual rights.
Obviously, and our courts are balanced by the other two branches of government. Your point?
My point is do it and see what the judge says.
------------------------------ Such juvenile wit adds nothing to the issue.
Like it or not, judges decide what the constitution says, not individuals.
--------------------------- ------------------------------ . Diversionary remark. -- Can't answer, can you?
Should people be allowed to have sex in public?
Yep, you 'laugh', and make wisecracks. Grow up and learn to debate.
So the feds can tell the states what to do in regards to legalizing drugs or not?
The constitution is clear on states 'rights'. - States/localites have delegated powers, subordinate to our individual rights.
So you don't believe that states can outlaw anything?
Yeah, right. Now you're just whining.
The identified terrorist activities are in Somali, which you assert Somaliland should be part if. 198 posted on 10/25/02 1:27 AM Pacific by Roscoe
Nope; I merely asserted that these countries were in "the same part of the world".
Get back to me after your remedial literacy courses.
Then why are drugs prohibited? Nobody's bothered to bring it up before the courts?
Which leaves this question. -- Why do you support unconstitutional prohibitionary type laws, -- laws which in their enforcement are destroying the very principles our free republic is built upon?
I think the states should be the ones to prohibit drugs. But I don't live and breathe the drug issue like you nutty Libertarians do and it's pretty far down on my list of worries. You think it's legal to do drugs then do them, get arrested, take all the way to the Supreme Court, I'll watch you do it.
Then why are drugs prohibited? Nobody's bothered to bring it up before the courts?
Why indeed? What drives you prohibitionists to ignore our constitution?
Which leaves this question. -- Why do you support unconstitutional prohibitionary type laws, -- laws which in their enforcement are destroying the very principles our free republic is built upon?
I think the states should be the ones to prohibit drugs. But I don't live and breathe the drug issue like you nutty Libertarians do and it's pretty far down on my list of worries. You think it's legal to do drugs then do them, get arrested, take all the way to the Supreme Court, I'll watch you do it.
Violations of constitutional law are far down your 'list', and nutty.
-- Thanks, -- I'll take that as your answer.
Is it your position that states are not allowed to outlaw anything?
Violations of constitutional law are far down your 'list', and nutty. -- Thanks, -- I'll take that as your answer.
Saying that the states cannot outlaw things in their borders is nutty. Should everyone be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb?
People "know how" to manufacture "white lightning", but very few people do... because less dangerous substitutes are readily available.
The fact is, your beliefs are contraverted by the evidence. The manufacture of both crack cocaine and crystal meth are indisputably prohibition-era phenomena -- encouraged by the economics of prohibtion, just like their white-lightning, bathtub gin "soul-mate".
In the 1980s the retail purity of heroin and cocaine increased, and highly potent crack became cheaply available in American cities. At the same time, the average potency of most legal psychoactive substances declined: Americans began switching from hard liquor to beer and wine, from high-tar-and nicotine to lower tar-and-nicotine cigarettes, and even from caffeinated to decaffeinated coffee and soda. The relationship between prohibition and drug potency was, if not indisputable, still readily apparent.
Consider the lesson here. Ethical debates aside, the principal objection to all drug legalization proposals is that they invite higher levels of drug use and misuse by making drugs not just legal but more available and less expensive. Yet the late-nineteenth-century experience suggests the oppo- site: that in a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition. ~~ Prof. Ethan A. Nadelmann, Princeton University
Dunno. Last time that Libertarians announced that they were building a nuclear bomb in downtown New York City, the Federal Government promptly shipped them Top-Secret DOD specifications, and the City of New York tried to give them money. This seems non-sensical to me, but who am I to argue with the infallible wisdom of Government?
Liberals use the same arguments against Guns, you know. Someone who owns a gun just might be the next Beltway Assassin!! If it will save even 11 lives and 3 wounded, it justifies general Confiscation, right??
The argument is invalid because neither Guns nor Vodka nor Opium pipes are equivalent to hydrogen bombs. You can't contain the externalities of a hydrogen bomb; but you can contain the externalities of Guns, Vodka, and Opium by simply staying in your house. Most do; some do not (which is why we have Drunk Driving and Public Intoxication laws).
All of which is irrelevant to the core public policy issue: "In each case, prohibition forced switches from drugs that were bulky and relatively benign to drugs that were more compact, more lucrative, more potent, and more dangerous." ~~ Prof. Ethan A. Nadelmann
In short, it may be true that "the more potent, the more some want it"; but on balance "in a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition."
This is a historical fact demonstrated with all sorts of intoxicants, from nicotine to opiates, time and time again. If you want to reduce "hard" drug usage, eliminate the economic incentives to package and market the "hard" variety. "In a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition."
Historical fact.
For the sake of those murdered by people on hard drugs, you should pray for it if that's the kind of stuff you pray for.
Prayer for those murdered by Drunk Drivers does not lead me to believe that Home-Invasion to confiscate vodka is a "christian" behavior, or to support a Prohibition which would inevitably lead to the home-manufacture of alcohol which is "more compact, more lucrative, more potent, and more dangerous".
Try as I might, I can't make myself see...
...as being something I could morally Pray to God.
And if I as a Christian can't morally Pray for it...
...Then I as a Christian I can't morally Vote for it.
As always, JMHO. Best, OP
Is it your position that states are not allowed to outlaw anything? Saying that the states cannot outlaw things in their borders is nutty. Should everyone be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb?
Same principle applies. --- Obviously, states can regulate ownership of 'H bombs', and can 'outlaw' criminal behavior. It's part of their delegated police power.
You always this dense, or is it just a ploy, - a part of what you consider reasoned debate?
I agree.
But I don't live and breathe the drug issue like you nutty Libertarians do and it's pretty far down on my list of worries.
Bollocks. YOU brought it up!!
Drug Legalization is not even "on" my own personal "mental legislative agenda" of the Top Ten Things that need to be done. To paraphrase High Fidelity, "Maybe it might sneak into the top one-hundred, but there's just no room for it in the Top Ten". Too many other important issues.
I very rarely even bother with the issue until some Drug Warrior yanks it out as a cheap way to impugn Libertarians.
And so it goes....
They can simply buy Everclear. Almost 200 proof, it doesn't get any harder than that.
The fact is, your beliefs are contraverted by the evidence. The manufacture of both crack cocaine and crystal meth are indisputably prohibition-era phenomena -- encouraged by the economics of prohibtion, just like their white-lightning, bathtub gin "soul-mate".
Everclear exists now. People would not settle for diluted drugs, they would want the meth.
Dunno.
Nutty Libertarian. An H-bomb in every garage. LOL
Last time that Libertarians announced that they were building a nuclear bomb in downtown New York City, the Federal Government promptly shipped them Top-Secret DOD specifications, and the City of New York tried to give them money. This seems non-sensical to me, but who am I to argue with the infallible wisdom of Government?
I don't care what the government did to yank their chain. You're trying to change the subject because you're afraid of my question. I'll try again: Do you believe that police should be allowed to remove an H-bomb from someone's garage in a city? If you truly believed your propaganda, you would answer my question boldly and honestly.
Liberals use the same arguments against Guns, you know. Someone who owns a gun just might be the next Beltway Assassin!!
Then they can vote against guns. I don't feel that way about guns and will vote accordingly.
If it will save even 11 lives and 3 wounded, it justifies general Confiscation, right??
If the second amendment was repealed, millions would die like in Russia and Germany. Liberals can't see that...or maybe they want that.
The argument is invalid because neither Guns nor Vodka nor Opium pipes are equivalent to hydrogen bombs.
But Vodka, hard drugs, and hydrogen have different degrees of danger to the country and the citizens therein. In my opinion, alcohol is tame enough to stay legal, hard drugs and hydrogen bombs are not and I will vote accordingly.
You can't contain the externalities of a hydrogen bomb; but you can contain the externalities of Guns, Vodka, and Opium by simply staying in your house. Most do; some do not (which is why we have Drunk Driving and Public Intoxication laws).
People get addicted to hard drugs at too high a rate and threaten the citizenry for hard drugs to be legal. Therefore I will vote accordingly.
In short, it may be true that "the more potent, the more some want it"; but on balance "in a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition."
Too many want the potent stuff to make them legal.
This is a historical fact demonstrated with all sorts of intoxicants, from nicotine to opiates, time and time again. If you want to reduce "hard" drug usage, eliminate the economic incentives to package and market the "hard" variety. "In a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition."
Then why was there a crack boom in the 80s? They didn't have to package it that way. They did it because people wanted the more potent stuff.
Historical fact.
Bull.
Prayer for those murdered by Drunk Drivers does not lead me to believe that Home-Invasion to confiscate vodka is a "christian" behavior, or to support a Prohibition which would inevitably lead to the home-manufacture of alcohol which is "more compact, more lucrative, more potent, and more dangerous".
People want the potent drugs like crack, meth, and ecstacy. If they didn't, they would simply smoke pot. For you to deny that is just another case where a Libertarian must deny reality for his philosophy to make sense.
Try as I might, I can't make myself see...
You know, Jesus told us not to make a spectacle of ourselves when we pray. You're using Him. In an ignorant drug debate no less when the bible says drug dealers are hellbound.
And if I as a Christian can't morally Pray for it... ...Then I as a Christian I can't morally Vote for it.
I don't think he wants to here prayers that are not prayers but sideshows.
Wouldn't this delegated police power apply to drugs?
You always this dense, or is it just a ploy, - a part of what you consider reasoned debate?
So are you now saying that states can outlaw drugs?
You pinged me wanting me to move to Costa Rica to live with Libertarians. LOL I said I couldn't live with Libertarians because I don't believe their philosophy on drugs. You proceded to try and change my mind on drugs. I didn't try to change your mind on drugs and am still not trying. Now I'm simply responding to your posts.
Drug Legalization is not even "on" my own personal "mental legislative agenda" of the Top Ten Things that need to be done. To paraphrase High Fidelity, "Maybe it might sneak into the top one-hundred, but there's just no room for it in the Top Ten". Too many other important issues.
Coulda fooled me.
I very rarely even bother with the issue until some Drug Warrior yanks it out as a cheap way to impugn Libertarians.
I didn't impugn you. I said I don't agree with you. You got angry that I joked about being stoned by Libertarians. I simply said OK to let the issue die but you kept pinging with this idiotic drug crap. From where I'm standing, it looks to me like it's very much in your top ten.
Libertarian: "Bush should not be increasing spending on Federal Education. Reagan was right to seek the Abolition of the Education Department". Drug Warrior: "Yeah, right, Bush-basher.... You're just saying that because you want to sell heroin to babies!!" Libertarian: "In the first place, that's a slanderously false ad hominem; in the second place, it's a non-sequitur; in the third place, Legal Pharmacists have an economic incentive to seel ONLY to adults (to keep their license); and in the fourth place, what does this have to do with my critique of Bush's education policy?" Drug Warrior: "Uhhh.... ummm.... Liberdopian!! You smoke crack!!" And so it goes....
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say those things.
Is it your position that states are not allowed to outlaw anything? Saying that the states cannot outlaw things in their borders is nutty. Should everyone be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb?
Same principle applies. --- Obviously, states can regulate ownership of 'H bombs', and can 'outlaw' criminal behavior. It's part of their delegated police power.
You always this dense, or is it just a ploy, - a part of what you consider reasoned debate? - 209
Wouldn't this delegated police power apply to drugs?
Drugs are not in themselves criminal, any more than alcohol. [or guns, for example]
You always this dense, or is it just a ploy, - a part of what you consider reasoned debate?
So are you now saying that states can outlaw drugs?
I guess this is not a ploy? - You really think these silly tactics are 'debate'? Grow up.
Per'Zackly.
How many people actually buy Everclear (let alone drink it straight, which practically nobody does), and how many people buy Beer and Wine?
Do you believe that police should be allowed to remove an H-bomb from someone's garage in a city? If you truly believed your propaganda, you would answer my question boldly and honestly.
I already answered your question, quite specifically (see #187).
You're dodging my question -- if it is a HISTORICAL FACT that the Absence of Prohibition makes producers less likely to manufacture "H-Bomb drugs", why would you support a Prohibition that AS A FACT makes producers more likely to manufacture "H-Bomb drugs"??
Historical fact. ~~ Bull.
"Bull"??
That's not an argument, it is willful blindness to all evidence and established facts of the case.
In the 1980s the retail purity of heroin and cocaine increased, and highly potent crack became cheaply available in American cities. At the same time, the average potency of most legal psychoactive substances declined: Americans began switching from hard liquor to beer and wine, from high-tar-and nicotine to lower tar-and-nicotine cigarettes, and even from caffeinated to decaffeinated coffee and soda. The relationship between prohibition and drug potency was, if not indisputable, still readily apparent.
Consider the lesson here. Ethical debates aside, the principal objection to all drug legalization proposals is that they invite higher levels of drug use and misuse by making drugs not just legal but more available and less expensive. Yet the late-nineteenth-century experience suggests the opposite: that in a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition. ~~ Prof. Ethan A. Nadelmann, Princeton University
Again: If it is a HISTORICAL FACT that the Absence of Prohibition makes producers less likely to manufacture "H-Bomb drugs", why would you support a Prohibition that AS A FACT makes producers more likely to manufacture "H-Bomb drugs"??
You know, Jesus told us not to make a spectacle of ourselves when we pray. You're using Him. In an ignorant drug debate no less when the bible says drug dealers are hellbound.
You're becoming uncomfortable, because you morally realize that the Christian Ethic absolutely contraverts violent home-invasion to prevent private intoxication.
Well, I'm not telling you how to live your life. But if my argument weren't correct, you would not be getting so upset about it.
...as being something I could morally Pray to God.
And if I as a Christian can't morally Pray for it...
...Then I as a Christian I can't morally Vote for it.
As always, JMHO. Best, OP
I'm not shoving my Moral argument down your throat, #3Fan. You may do with it what you will.
It just happens to be a correct argument about Jesus-Like Christian behavior.
Such arguments make many Christians uncomfortable.
Well, tough.
Looks like to me drugs are. What about hydrogen bombs? Hydrogen bombs don't kill people, the people that set them off kill people.
I guess this is not a ploy? - You really think these silly tactics are 'debate'? Grow up.
Why don't you just answer the question? You don't have much faith in your philosophy, do you, or else you wouldn't be afraid of my question.
Does not apply to Texas as by our treaty of annexation (1845) we retain the right to split into 5 states. Of course it would take a majority referendum.
Like I said... you brought it up. I did not even bother with your "drug" post at first, I just upbraided you for "joking" that Libertarians wanted to murder you.
I then dropped it, and did not even re-visit the matter until later -- when you were still arguing drugs with "BureaucratusMaximus".
I didn't impugn you. I said I don't agree with you. You got angry that I joked about being stoned by Libertarians. I simply said OK to let the issue die but you kept pinging with this idiotic drug crap.
You said NOTHING of the sort. I did let the issue die between us -- in both #136 and #150, I deliberately avoided the "drug" issue you had raised and ONLY addressed the virtue of blood-libel as a form of humor.
I then dropped it, and did not even re-visit the matter until later -- when you were still arguing drugs with "BureaucratusMaximus".
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say those things.
That's why I used Generic Titles. I wasn't accusing you of saying those things, just noting a common trend among Drug Warriors in raising the "drug issue" on irrelevant subjects.
If you don't think the shoe fits, I am not forcing you to wear it.
Drugs are not in themselves criminal, any more than alcohol. [or guns, for example]
Looks like to me drugs are. What about hydrogen bombs? Hydrogen bombs don't kill people, the people that set them off kill people.
How many times must I answer your silly H-bomb example? And drugs are no more dangerous than guns. They can be used, or abused. If abused in a criminal manner the criminal can be prosecuted.
I see this is not a ploy - You really do think these silly tactics are 'debate' dont you?
Why don't you just answer the question? You don't have much faith in your philosophy, do you, or else you wouldn't be afraid of my question.
Pretending that I am not answering your questions only makes you look like a bigger fool. Feel free to continue.
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.