Posted on 10/14/2003 1:53:04 AM PDT by ambrose
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:06:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
And what will be your answer when that doesn't work?
Having Rush Limbaugh sentenced to death as a message to drug users?
I accept that you've read the Constitution. As you know, the Constitution requires that the Federal government must have a power granted to it to exercise that power.
Where, in your reading and understanding of the Constitution, does it grant to the Federal government the power to wage a WOD?
"He only steals cars and beats up women because they want him to", she added.
Efforts that have had no demonstrable effect other than to create new deaths, destructions, and heartbreaks.
I agree that I am currently in the minority as to whether or not we should have bans on the use of some drug. I do hope, however, that your is not reflective of some confusion between democracy and liberty. Democracy is a form of government. Liberty is an inalienable right and, in theory at least, beyond the purview of government. The right to free speech, for example means we don't get to vote on whether or not to ban the publication of the New York Times.
I am probably as opposed to the abuse of drugs as you are. I am certain that the reason I don't consume drugs has nothing to do with whether they are banned or not. I firmly believe that prohibition of drugs, like that of alcohol, has the net effect of increasing their use as people are attracted to the forbidden and desirous of thumbing their noses at those who would shackle them.
Beyond the restriction of liberty which I believe is the most serious and damaging consequence of prohibition, there are other deleterious side effects. The establishment of a black market yields alternative methods of law enforcement including gang intimidation and violence, corruption of legitimate power, untaxed commerce, and impure product. Enforcement of prohibition requires appropriation of resources that might be more effective used in combatting crimes of coercion and terrorism, and imprisons what would otherwise be productive members of society, depriving us all of that productivity, compelling us all waste resources on the trials and incarcerations, and propelling some into a life of legitimate crime as they learn on the "inside" and find their opportunities limited as ex-cons.
Prohibition also corrodes societal trust as prohibitionists find it necessary to lie when they fail to achieve their goals via enforcement. Decades ago, a story, supposedly published but I suppose it could be what is now called an urban legend, about a group of college kids who went blind after smoking marijuana and staring into the sun. On this forum, we were recently treated to the testimony of those that assured us that Rush Limbaugh could not possbily be guilty of taking all those drugs as he would have been either comotose or dead.
I believe the most effective method of dealing with drugs is by simply telling the truth. Given the right information, we will, by and large make responsible decisions. We aren't all at risk of imminent addiction should some statutes be overturned. Will some become addicted? Most likely, but that's the case now. To suggest we will become a nation of addicts is ridiculus. Will there be fewer or more addicts? My honest opinion is there will be fewer, experimentation may increase, but addiction will decline.
And as far as the laws being overturned...it sure as hell won't happen in my lifetime, perhaps not even yours.
You will be proven at least partly wrong. Britian and Canada are moving away from marijuana bans. Citizens of our states are beginning to favor the approval of medical marijuana. Bans will begin to crumble. It will happen.
Provide evidence for your claim.
Provide evidence for your claim.
Take a hike, clown. I can't help it if you have no common sense.
Provide evidence for your claim.
Take a hike, clown. I can't help it if you have no common sense.
This is what passes for reasoned debate among WODdies.
Provide evidence for your claim.
look at your OWN profile page.
Where is the evidence there that the anti-WOD crowd had not made any significant headway?
Prove that the LP has not made headway you challenge
Wrong. Re-read for comprehension:
"Where is the evidence there that the anti-WOD crowd had not made any significant headway?"
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.