Posted on 07/14/2018 8:42:17 PM PDT by Ken H
Nearly one hour of Nigel Farage and callers discussing cannabis legalization in the UK. He is in favor of it.
And, again, said profit motive could be made against all illegal narcotics.
Wrong - if the narrowed war on drugs could be won, then it would no longer be true that its primary effect is to enrich criminals.
Again, you make the argument for removal of most laws since folks will somehow “profit” from them.
Nonsense - nobody profits from laws against murder, rape, or theft, at least not to anywhere near the degree they do from laws against drugs.
Of course people profit off of illegal activities, virtually whatever they may be.
Who profits from rape, and how?
So let's have the same - but no more - for marijuana.
Agreed?
Some alcohol usage can have beneficial health effects.
So can some marijuana use.
Only in the medically appropriate cases
Ditto for alcohol - still no difference.
There’s a profit motive for murder worldwide.
Peanuts compared to drug profits - and not easy money, since people seek to avoid being murdered, whereas all direct participants in a drug "crime" want it to succeed.
If you consider it to be unconstitutional. I do not.
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. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee (a dependency-forming chemical stimulant).
You lost me on this one.
That's not and never has been the purpose of those laws.
"Who profits from rape, and how?"
Ask people involved in sex trafficking.
Still, my point stands. You can make the argument for removing the illegality of countless things because there will always be a profit motive somehow.
Darn good thing, then, that I don’t drink, smoke, take illegal drugs or caffeine.
Who "needs" alcohol - or tobacco? Should we ban them?
No one needs tobacco, and we have a near de facto public ban on it already.
So let's have the same - but no more - for marijuana.
Agreed?
No one needs tobacco, and we have a near de facto public ban on it already; so since it is likewise true that no one needs marijuana (apart from medical situations), we should likewise have a near de facto public ban on marijuana ... but not a total public-or-private ban.
Some alcohol usage can have beneficial health effects.
So can some marijuana use.
Only in the medically appropriate cases
Ditto for alcohol - still no difference.
For alcohol as for marijuana, there are some cases where it is medically appropriate and others where it is not. If the medically appropriate alcohol cases justify the general legality of alcohol as you seemed to suggest, then the medically appropriate marijuana cases must justify the general legality of marijuana.
That's not and never has been the purpose of those laws.
Red herring - whatever the INTENT, the primary EFFECT of an overly broad prohibition is to enrich criminals.
Who profits from rape, and how?
Ask people involved in sex trafficking.
The ones who commit the rapes in that context are not the ones profiting - and if consensual prostitution were legal, the market for trafficked women would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. And a great many rapes involve no profit whatsoever.
Who profits from assault and battery?
There’s a profit motive for murder worldwide.
Peanuts compared to drug profits - and not easy money, since people seek to avoid being murdered, whereas all direct participants in a drug "crime" want it to succeed.
Still, my point stands. You can make the argument for removing the illegality of countless things because there will always be a profit motive somehow.
The argument is much stronger for removing the illegality of acts that profit greatly with no resistance from any direct participant. When an act profits only weakly and with effort, the argument for its legality is overcome if that act also violates rights - as murder does but drug sale does not.
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.
Still no reasons to offer?
That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee (a dependency-forming chemical stimulant).
Darn good thing, then, that I don’t drink, smoke, take illegal drugs or caffeine.
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.)
Unless it's for medical purposes, there's no need for anyone else to use it. Unfortunately, there's more of a stigma attached to tobacco use than marijuana use today, and that's a problem.
"For alcohol as for marijuana, there are some cases where it is medically appropriate and others where it is not. If the medically appropriate alcohol cases justify the general legality of alcohol as you seemed to suggest, then the medically appropriate marijuana cases must justify the general legality of marijuana."
Not really, since I reject the argument that m/j is beneficial outside of those in dire circumstances (I'll add as well that the chemicals that produce said "high" should be removed when administering it medically - which then would likely anger more than a few taking it for those purposes). Conversely, a small amount of alcohol consumed responsibly does not create problems. The whole purpose for most folks using m/j IS to get high. Most people enjoying an adult beverage aren't doing so to get drunk. It's why I argue there's no way for folks to "reasonably" use m/j because of the goals here.
If you consider it overly broad. I don't. So it goes back to my counterargument.
"The ones who commit the rapes in that context are not the ones profiting - and if consensual prostitution were legal, the market for trafficked women would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. And a great many rapes involve no profit whatsoever."
You asked the question, I gave you an answer. I wasn't talking of consensual prostitution, I'm talking about where women/girls are captured like slaves.
"Who profits from assault and battery?"
Those that would stand to profit from engaging in said acts.
A small amount of marijuana consumed responsibly does not create problems.
The whole purpose for most folks using m/j IS to get high. Most people enjoying an adult beverage aren't doing so to get drunk.
Many are doing so to get 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'.
I'm closer to the argument made by another fella up the thread when it comes to drug pushers. I believe that for hard-core pushers, it should be a capital offense (See Singapore). I believe they are dealing in death and contributing to innumerable societal problems.
As I've said, I disagree that it can be "used responsibly" given the results.
"Many are doing so to get 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'."
Some are, not many, otherwise everyone running a restaurant, bar or other event where alcohol is served would be having to send their patrons home en masse in taxis, Ubers, et al. That's not happening.
If you consider it overly broad. I don't.
It's not about your consideration nor mine, but about effects: a good working definition of "overly broad" would be "having the primary effect of enriching criminals" as was the case for alcohol Prohibition and is the case for marijuana prohibition.
The ones who commit the rapes in that context are not the ones profiting - and if consensual prostitution were legal, the market for trafficked women would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. And a great many rapes involve no profit whatsoever.
You asked the question, I gave you an answer.
And I pointed out how that question and answer have limited comparability to drug policy.
I wasn't talking of consensual prostitution
I was - because it's another prohibition that's fueling the genuine crime.
Who profits from assault and battery?
Those that would stand to profit from engaging in said acts.
ROTFL! That's a textbook case of a circular statement. Quit joking around and answer the question.
There is no recorded case of anyone dying from the proximate cause of consuming too much marijuana - but many such cases for alcohol.
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.