A safer society? Legalize drugs

Meanwhile, politicians puff sanctimoniously about ``cleaning the streets" and ``ridding the projects of drug dealers

But if you take a decision altering drug, which alcohol, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs are, then you will most likely do things that you otherwise would not do, and lose control over functions wyou would normally have under control.

How very liberal to blame the object instead of holding the person responsible.

PUBLIC SAFETY demands that these things be regulated. The argument is not to deny you of liberty, it is to exercise responsibility required for public safety.

So you would be in favor of a law that allowed drug usage in a secured environment?

And based on your post you obviously are in favor of legalization with regulation. Right?

"whereas the much more harmful drug, alcohol, can be sold and used legally?"

What more do you want the government to do? They tried to make alcohol illegal and failed. The people did not want alcohol illegal, despite the harm. That's a dead issue. Forget about it.

They DO want pot illegal.

After all, your core concern is the harm illegal drugs cause."

That's not MY core concern. I've stated numerous times on this forum that no one has been able to give me one good reason why marijuana should be legalized. Other than, "Because, dude!", which doesn't qualify.

What more do you want the government to do? They tried to make alcohol illegal and failed.

I am asking what YOU think the government should do. You are concerned, after all, about the harm done by drugs. Booze does a lot more harm that pot. It does more harm than all illegal drugs put together. So why then are you not calling for it to be illegal?

They DO want pot illegal.

Really. Then why do so many state medical marijauna initiative pass, only to get thwarted by the feds?

I've stated numerous times on this forum that no one has been able to give me one good reason why marijuana should be legalized.

Only in your opinion. There are plenty of good reasons, such as the fact that it is less harmful than the legal drug alcohol and making it legal would free up law enforcement resources to go after actual hard drug problems.

But you don't care to hear it.

I've stated numerous times on this forum that no one has been able to give me one good reason why marijuana should be legalized.

Because you "stated" it and because you didn't like the answer, is not the same as not getting an answer.

Other than, "Because, dude!", which doesn't qualify.

How childish.

Name a poster who said that. Oh, you made it up? How unusual....not.

In a totally free society, anyone could take any of the drugs they wanted.

The problem will arise though, when the drug users start killing and maming people in public, will they be held responsible? I say "Yes, absolutely"

But you will VERY quickly realize that drug users, for the most part, cannot take financial responsibility for the havoc ad destruction they cause.

So, the government takes steps to protect the general public by restricting the use of the drug.

What other options are there?

Post a $1,000,000 bond and then let them have all the coke they want? That is stupid.

Drug laws ned to be enacted to protect us from drug users. The EASIEST way to do that is to make the drugs illegal to begin with.

There is NO SUCH THING as a 100% free society. We have to give up some liberties to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

IMO, the ability to protect the general public from irresponsible people who cost society billions with their drug use is something the government needs to do.

I am 100% against legalization of recreational drugs. I would approve marijuana legalization for doctor certified patients in need, and HIGHLY restrict the usage by the person authorized to take it for public safety.

It may not be affordable, but it is easy to get -- at least, according to every single teen survey.

Of course it will be easy to get if a kid is willing to pay that much for it. However, since kids can't afford that much, they are using hard drugs instead.

Thanks to the War on Drugs. If it were legal, it would be cheaper.

And if it were cheaper, kids would be far less prone to use drugs such as meth, herion or cocaine, which are cheaper than pot precisely because of the war on drugs.

Thank you so much for making my point for me. But, then again, drug warriors usually end up doing so.

jmc813

"Us [libertarians] favor cutting off welfare completely."

Paulsen, pretending to be rational:

Let's do that first, then talk about legalizing drugs. Even if drugs are never made legal at least we'll then have gained something.

Robby, the prohibitionistic socialist faction you represent will ~never~ agree to "cutting off welfare". 'Social benefit programs' give them the excuse needed for more control over society. - Which is the main agenda.

Nice spin on your normal agitprop tho...

In a totally free society,

Straw man. No one has advocated that.

Post a $1,000,000 bond and then let them have all the coke they want? That is stupid.

Since you are the only one I have ever seen propose it I'm glad you recognized it.

Drug laws ned to be enacted to protect us from drug users. The EASIEST way to do that is to make the drugs illegal to begin with.

Wrong, but you are entitled to be wrong.

There is NO SUCH THING as a 100% free society.

Twice in one post,,,not bad!

We have to give up some liberties to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

My rights are not broker-able by you. You may give up your own rights, not mine.

IMO, the ability to protect the general public from irresponsible people who cost society billions with their drug use is something the government needs to do.

Goody. Liberals agree with you. The Nanny state is a good place to live for some folks. Not me however.

I am 100% against legalization of recreational drugs

So you advocate the reinstatement of prohibition, right?

Kids? Define!
I was legal to drink at 18 and grandfathered when it went to 19.
I was legal to drink at 19 and grandfathered when it went to 21.
I watched friends a couple days younger drawn into illegal activities
to compensate for the changes of their legal status made by their
state under unconstitutional federal blackmail regarding funding
for highways. It is always for the children that we oppress the other.

But, then whose child are you and who do you call father?

Matthew 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is
in heaven.

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

In the name of what child do you wage war? Damien? 6/6/06?

Reinstatement? Last I checked the ONLY legal recreational drug was alcohol. The rest are prohibited. And alcohol is prohibited to minors (up to 21) in some states.

What do you think the constitution did, remove all laws and restrictions on the citizens of this country?

We ordained a constitution in order to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

If you agree to live in the US, your 'unlimited rights' have already been brokered.

"Gee, I dunno, maybe we can take a lot of the law enforcement resources currently used against pot and deploy them against actual hard drugs instead?"

So what are you saying here? Some cop is arresting a kid on some pot charge, he sees another kid with heroin but let's him go because he's too busy with the kid with pot? You think that happens a lot?

If pot were decriminalized (ie., treating possession like a traffic ticket), you'd accomplish basically the same thing. You don't need to legalize the drug.

"And free up more prison space for violence offenders?"

So we save $30,000 per year by letting the pot offender go, and replace him with a $30,000 violent offender. Savings = $0.

Second, most marijuana offenders are in prison for dealing or trafficking, not using, making them bad people to begin with. I want them in prison. They earned it, they should get it.

"And quit slapping a criminal record on someone using a drug less harmful than the legal drug alcohol?"

Again, decriminalization treats possession like a traffic ticket. No record.

You can get 95% of what you want with decriminalization. Legalization is not necessary.

Some seem to believe that an herb given by God to man and beast alike at the beginning of time and which has grown freely almost everywhere, including here long before our nation was formed, is permissibly eradicable or controllable by the federal government through powers granted by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. It is an impossible task to devise a logical explanation of how the commerce clause can prohibit the personal growth and consumption of an herb gifted by God. In light of the rest of the Constitution any such perceived mandate dissolves and exposes the government as deluded by its grandeur.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness."

Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Nowhere in the Constitution is it enumerated what one may put into ones body. Therefore, that right is reserved for the states or the people. However,
since God has already specified in the Bible what one may consume, it is, in fact, the People’s God given right.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers
of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Some cop is arresting a kid on some pot charge, he sees another kid with heroin but let's him go because he's too busy with the kid with pot? You think that happens a lot?

No, if a cop isn't worried about busting someone with pot, they can concentrate on hard drugs, instead of carting a pot user off to jail.

If pot were decriminalized (ie., treating possession like a traffic ticket), you'd accomplish basically the same thing. You don't need to legalize the drug.

I would be fine with decriminalization the way Colorado handles it.

So we save $30,000 per year by letting the pot offender go, and replace him with a $30,000 violent offender. Savings = $0.

It isn't about cost and you know it. Violent offenders are often let free because drug offenders cannot be let go early under mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Well, you've proven yet again that you are a dishonest poster, I won't waste further time with you. Later.

"most marijuana offenders are in prison for dealing or trafficking, not using, making them bad people to begin with"

Show the figures to prove that one! It is a simple fact that most herb users
sell. It is one reason it will never be eradicated because the distribution has
too many tiers which are constantly shifting. Your judgement of others as
'bad people' is seriously misguided. All people are redeemable and your
haste to judgement is bound to bite you in the end. Evil has no substance.
It is nothing but action adverse to the will of God!

GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

paulsen wrote:

"The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit."

You lost that debate on the FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts

I didn't realize that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause was done by a FR poll.

BS. -- You know the 'poll' wasn't the issue. -- We argued the issue for over 3000 posts, and you & your faction left the field in defeat..

That sounds too much like "rule of man" vs. "rule of law"

Petty little nitpick. Typical.

--- seeing the USSC has made a ~lot~ of dubious opinions over the years its not surpising to see you defend the Big Gov position.

Be that as it may, Marbury v Madison says that the dubious opinion stands.

Nope, Marbury says that socalled 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution are void from the day they are passed.
Learn to read.

The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit -- no question begging necessary.

Millions of words have been written to rebut that totally unsupported begging question. -- Some of them here at FR. -- Words you cannot refute:

FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms? Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts

SOBER:

1) to be of sound mind

a) to be in one's right mind

b) to exercise self control

1) to put a moderate estimate upon one's self, think of one's self soberly

2) to curb one's passions

2Cr 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, [it is] to God: or whether we be sober, [it is] for your cause.

1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober.

1Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:11 Even so [must their] wives [be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Tts 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

Tts 2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

Tts 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Tts 2:6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.

1Pe 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Since God has instructed us to be sober (clear minded), that pretty much rules out pot, cocaine, meth, LSD, alcohol, speed, marijuana, heroin and the list goes on....

The religous angle is a no-go.

From a state standpoint, the US Constitution does NOT give you unlimited rights at the expense of other's rights. The state has the right to secure the population. We, as a government "of the people", have a right to impose a level of control in our society. It is done through the democratic process.

I know the druggies don't like that, but that's just tough.

"I am asking what YOU think the government should do."

About alcohol? Nothing different than they're doing now.

"So why then are you not calling for it to be illegal?"

Because I'm a pragmatic person.

"Really. Then why do so many state medical marijauna initiative pass, only to get thwarted by the feds"

All but two of the medical marijuana initiatives passed by public referendum, not the state legislature -- a process that tpaine has called "mob rule". These initiatives represented the will of maybe 10% of the citizens of the state, motivated and organized to vote for it.

The will of that small minority is thwarted by the will of the national majority, speaking through the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, saying that federal law trumps state law.

"There are plenty of good reasons"

There are plenty of reasons, none good enough to cause me to actually go out and vote for it. And unless you can convince 51% of the voters to do just that, it ain't gonna happen.

"However, since kids can't afford that much, they are using hard drugs instead."

As my cohort Mojave would say, "Begs the question".

(That means your argument is based on an unsupported fact, a fact which you are trying to use as your argument. I'll need you to back that up first, then we can discuss it. I'm sure you can see why that must be.)

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.