Posted on 04/18/2012 1:18:55 PM PDT by sussex
A FORMER British MI6 chief has joined growing calls to end the “war on drugs” and consider legalising them. The battle has left tens of thousands dead in Latin America but failed to reduce drug-use around the world. Here Nigel Inkster, of the International Institute For Strategic Studies, argues that we need to rethink our approach to narcotics.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
“Besides, its just a way for the government to get involved in our personal lives. They should just tax it.”
As if taxing it isn’t a way for them to get involved in personal lives.
“Because the Prohibition of Alcohol was what Created the Crime Syndicates”
No, organized crime predates prohibition. Without it they’d still have had plenty of government interference to exploit: prostitution, gambling, labor laws, etc. Banning booze made for boom times, is all.
“AND the Expansion of the unholy Commerce Clause fits Everything rule.”
Actually, that was caused by the New Deal. Drug Warriors used Wickard to fuel their mothering.
There is nothing moral or Christian about putting people in jail for marijuana, it is oppression..most likely driven by the federal “G” gangsta for the business..folks are much better off not involved with drugs, but to judge others on such an issue is to invite judgement,,there has been a lot of pain issued on decent folks in the name of mistaken morality..
the ten commandments are the rules for our lives, it displays God’s desire for our moral centers..and allows for people to live many different styles of lives while keeping their lives between the ditches of life’s road..any other morally based issues are man made and oppressive..
seek God, all else will pass into obscurity, too bad folks feel the need to imprison others to make themselves feel justified..
If you believe in the scientific method of research them we have gone through the theory phase and the experimental phase of the research with the 18th and 21st amendments to the Constitution and Richard Milhous Nixon’s war on drugs. Based on what happened during prohibition. Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger and others shooting up the nation to control illegal liquor and now every drug dealer in sight or out of sight shooting each other I think we have pretty good experimental evidence of the illegal side of drugs.
Now since most of you obviously don’t approve of the scientific method I think we should reintroduce prohibition.
The comparison of drugs to murder is poor logic IMHO. Make a better argument.
Your burglary affects me. You're stealing my property.
The drugs affect you. I don't give a damn.
If you steal my property to buy drugs, then the burglary laws are sufficient to punish you.
Um, it's from the headline, dude:
"The "War on Drugs" has failed - time to consider legalisation?"
Actually I didn't say whether I wanted to end the drug war or not (talk about putting words into mouths!).
The argument that because outlawing something doesn't eliminate the outlawed activity, therefore we should get rid of the law, is absurd as a matter of logic.
I know nanny staters.
That’s why I’m in favor of shipping them to Canada.
It's not just the headline, the point is made in the VERY FIRST sentences of the article:
A FORMER British MI6 chief has joined growing calls to end the “war on drugs” and consider legalising them. The battle has left tens of thousands dead in Latin America but failed to reduce drug-use around the world.
Again, the mere fact that outlawed activity does not go away is NOT in and of itself a logical argument for getting rid of the law.
Look at places like Kalipornia, the left and leftarians are in full alliance.
“We’ll let you have your socialist welfare police state if we can have our drugs and immoral sex.”
....
Protecting children from perverts.... is that being a nanny stater too? Of course it is. Some liberaltarians even admit it. The Free West Alliance even lists the “victimless crimes” they want to legalize, like organ trafficking and incest.
I agree with your points, but I have to point out one thing.
Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, and John Dillinger were all bank robbers, who sprung up during the Depression, mainly in response to the bad economy and new cars, guns, and highways that gave them an edge over law enforcement. That would have happened even if alcohol had been legal still. Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Deanie O’Banion, Dutch Schultz, those were the kind of guys who were warring over the bootlegging.
I lost any idea that the WOD was about drugs on the first case I did where a cop let a drunk go instead of arresting him. This POS then traveled about 5 miles down the interstate and killed most of a nice young family.
The COP was waiting on the interstate to arrest a drug/money courier that supposedly was going to come through his community. He didn’t do his duty because of the ability to confiscate cash and vehicles and enrich his department.
As usual the COP was protected because you can’t sue them for doing or not doing their duty. So some kids are growing up poor and without a parent.
As always follow the money and power it ain’t about the drugs.
Point noted and correction appreciated.
It’s not my “strawman” argument, it was in the headline and intro to the article that was posted.
Another enemy of the Constitution reveals himself. Thanks.
enemy of the Constitution.... where does it say drugs have to be legal?
Hey, since it doesn’t ban Child Rape I guess thats okay too??
state or fed, I am still against child rape.
“Lucky for you guys there is no war on ignorance and illogic. At least not yet. “
Ditto.
Anyway who sees drug abuse as a victimless crime is tragically ignorant.
And to call a war against a certain crime “a failure” because all incidents of that crime have not ceased is illogical.
“Do you think states should decide issues like medical marijuana under authority of the Tenth Amendment, or do you think fedgov should have that authority under the Commerce Clause?”
If all of our ducks were in a row, the states should do it.
However, our chain of command is so screwed up right now I don’t see a quick answer to the dilemma. Theoretically, the states. But I’d need to see the proper alignment of all states/federal rights at the same time. No cherry picking.
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.