Posted on 07/14/2018 8:42:17 PM PDT by Ken H
Some are, not many
That's far too thin a reed on which to hang the complete illegality of recreational marijuana versus the general legality of recreational (i.e., non-medical) alcohol.
And note that when alcohol was illegal, very few used that drug for any reason other than getting drunk.
And with each drug, there are degrees of effect; someone using marijuana to get a little high may be no more affected than someone having two beers to 'relax'.
No response?
I offered up a reason way back in post #33.
"Should drink, tobacco, and caffeine be illegal? Would a federal law against within-state commerce in those chemicals be Constitutional? (I say no and no.)"
Tobacco is inching closer and closer to that. If there was enough impetus on the part of the public that these were substances that posed enough of a danger to the public health, they might very well go that direction of Prohibition.
You were defining it as overly broad, I was not, so you already established this was about your personal opinion vs. mine. Prohibition occurred because there was a critical mass on the part of the public to ban alcohol as a clear and present danger to the social fabric and health of the country. It was abolished when its enforcement was deemed too problematic and a majority of Americans supported its abolition. The ban on narcotics went with the same argument of the dangers it posed to the health and safety of the public. And we're back once again to the point that most anything illegal people can profit from. Que sera sera. Enriching criminals was never a stated goal or purpose as you seem to imply.
"And I pointed out how that question and answer have limited comparability to drug policy."
Well, I disagree with that conclusion.
"I was - because it's another prohibition that's fueling the genuine crime."
Well, I wasn't. So I presume you are in favor of legal prostitution ?
"ROTFL! That's a textbook case of a circular statement. Quit joking around and answer the question."
I answered the question. You asked who would stand to profit, I said it would be those individuals engaged in said actions for profit. It's like asking who profits from the illegal sex trade/enslavement of women: those involved with it (but not the women). I can't help it if a simple question has a simple and self-evident answer. It reminds me of a time when a Communist asked me why Communism doesn't work and I replied, "Because it doesn't." It really is that simple. It doesn't require a lengthy or erudite answer or one that can fill volumes of books.
You cut out the part where I said dealing hard-core drugs. I’m surprised, since you’ve been rather careful in quoting the convo going back a few lines.
Well, since you disagree with most of my arguments so far, I can't help you here. I fundamentally reject the argument you make and the comparisons. I'll reiterate again: the purpose of every rec m/j users is to get high, it's that simple. That is not the goal of every user of alcohol.
"And note that when alcohol was illegal, very few used that drug for any reason other than getting drunk."
If that point is 100% true, then the reasoning behind enacting Prohibition was entirely sound.
"No response?"
I did reply. I reiterated my point above in this very post.
But it is - it is based on a "substantial effect" test for interstate commerce authority that is found nowhere in the language of the Constitution and that Justice Clarence Thomas has condemned as a "rootless and malleable standard." (The same test that has authorized the federal big-welfare state, by the by.)
I disagree.
While offering no reason for anyone else to share your disagreement.
I offered up a reason way back in post #33.
Not a word about the Constitution in post #33.
Should drink, tobacco, and caffeince be illegal? Would a federal law against within-state commerce in those chemicals be Constitutional? (I say no and no.)
Tobacco is inching closer and closer to that.
I see no movement toward a federal ban. (I missed your answer: would such ban be Constitutional?) As for the state and local laws: Do you want to see that movement end in a ban?
Enriching criminals was never a stated goal or purpose as you seem to imply.
Is English not your first language?
Who profits from assault and battery?
Those that would stand to profit from engaging in said acts.
Your answer remains circular - but let's try it this way: How does one go about profiting from assault and battery, apart from simply committing assault and battery - since many commit assault and battery but don't thereby profit?
There is no recorded case of anyone dying from the proximate cause of consuming too much marijuana - but many such cases for alcohol.
You cut out the part where I said dealing hard-core drugs.
The usual phrase is "hard drugs"; "hard core" (outside its original context of porn) implies dedication.
Do we agree that marijuana - the subject of the original post - has never been documented as proximate cause of any death?
If that point is 100% true, then the reasoning behind enacting Prohibition was entirely sound.
So ... if under Prohibition very few used alcohol for any reason other than getting drunk, then the reasoning behind enacting Prohibition was entirely sound?! Sorry, that's self-evidently lunatic.
I'll reiterate again: the purpose of every rec m/j users is to get high, it's that simple. That is not the goal of every user of alcohol.
So the only people using alcohol responsibly are the ones who feel NO effect? And it's the existence of such usage that justifies the legality of alcohol - although many use it to the point of relaxation (and not a few to the point of drunkenness)?
I’m just going to say we’re going in circles trying to parse and re-parse our statements and positions. We’re simply not going to agree on this subject. I don’t want to waste our time anymore with this.
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.