I like your answer better!
Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Because Congress chose to regulate this "plant" under the Commerce Clause power assigned to them.
Now, as a return favor, could you please support your statement, "In case you didn't notice it, this ban isn't working either."
So, it is your contention that the Interstate Commerce Clause enabled the fedgov to regulate any plant that they choose? And if they so desired, could forbid us from growing say tomatoes or peppers or whatever they wish?
I note with interest that you neglected to mention the recent increase.
I also note with interest that robertpaulsen is very selective about which data to look at. Two rows higher on the same chart shows drug usage increasing quite steadily from 31.3% in 1979 to 41.7% in 2001. Those stats are for all persons who have ever tried an illicit drug. Or, at least, all persons who have ever tried an illicit drug and actually 'fessed up to the pollster. Not very indicative of a working ban to me...
Why would they do this? Why are you asking the question this way?
Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Yes, they may regulate any plant they choose. Yes they may regulate tomatoes. Yes they may regulate peppers. Sam I am.
If Congress published a finding that your growing tomatoes or peppers substantially affected their interstate regulatory efforts, then yes, you cannot grow them.
I doubt that, unless there were a good reason, their constituents would allow them to do this. They'd be voted out of office.
Let me ask you. Do you believe that Congress does not have that power? And what is it, exactly, that makes you believe this?
I see. Your definition of a ban that is working is a ban that prevents someone from trying a drug once, huh?
You don't set the bar too high, now do you?
That's what it is, a recent increase.
Given that in the last 24 years, drug use declined 60% then remained flat for 10 years, do you consider an increase in the last year or two significant? Obviously, I don't.
You don't set the bar too high, now do you?
Nowhere in that table is there a breakdown done by the number of times a drug was used. The breakdown is usage in the past month, in the past year, or ever. All three of those categories could (and I'm sure do) include people who only tried one drug once. All three of those categories could (and I'm sure do) include people who used to use drugs on a weekly (or daily) basis, but have stopped. The data you referenced doesn't tell us anything about frequency of use of the responders, just about immediacy of use.
And I set the bar high enough when given data that supports a bar. Don't want to set the bar too high tho' - I'm kind of short...
Tracking those who use marijuana at least once per month, we find that the number of users dropped by over 60% since 1979, and remained flat for the last ten years (with the exception of the last year or two).
I call that a success. You say it's not working.
They may have the power to regulate commerce, but my personal garden is not a commercial enterprise and certainly not interstate. Therefore, none of their concern.
Let me ask you. Do you believe that Congress does not have that power? And what is it, exactly, that makes you believe this?
Oh, I believe they have the physical power. I do not believe that the Constitution grants them the power to regulate what I grow in my backyard garden. I do not believe that the founders intended them to have that power. In a country that was created celebrating the individual rights and freedoms, a fedgov with that kind of power is non-sensical.
That's nice. Your data doesn't tell you this though. Someone who smoked pot in the last month is not necessarily someone who smokes pot at least once a month.
"ever used" is a useless statistic
Hardly useless - it tells us the percentage of people in the US who have used an illicit drug. Not terribly relevant in a conversation about current users only, but hardly useless. It just depends on what point you're trying to make.
I call that a success.
This decline may have nothing to do with the WOD, as alcohol use declined during the same period. ("the per capita consumption of alcohol has continued to decline since 1980 among the populace as a whole, and among underage drinkers [...] Since 1980 per capita consumption among college students has slowly decreased mirroring a decrease among adults." - http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/kb.html)
It is certainly conceivable that your garden and 50 million more like it could affect the interstate commerce of produce. Whatever you produce, that is the less you buy.
So, if everybody grew their own tomatoes, that wouldn't affect the existing interstate commerce of tomatoes? And if Congress is regulating that commerce for the good of the nation, you should be allowed to undermine and subvert that nationwide effort?
What a selfish individualist you are.
Shades of il Duce.
For its own reasons that had nothing to do with the WOD.
"The creation of grass roots associations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, severe penalties against drunk driving, public outcry against fetal alcohol syndrome, decreases in legal blood alcohol concentration limit for impaired driving, 21 year old alcohol purchase laws, abstinence education in schools and colleges, tavern owners being liable for alcohol related incidence, and warning labels on alcoholic beverages are all part of the current movement."
Why, thank you. And here on FR, no less. Imagine that.
I guess that makes your position on this, collectivist, socialist, what would you prefer?
Does it not occur to you, that by using such a broad brush to interpret the commerce clause, you have effectively argued that the fedgov has nearly unlimited power? Strange, and here I thought that it's powers were to be limited to those clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Must be the new math.
For its own reasons that had nothing to do with the WOD.
Did I say it did? The decline in alcohol use without preceding anti-alcohol measures suggests that the decline in drugs may have had nothing to do with anti-drug measures.
"The creation of grass roots associations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, severe penalties against drunk driving, public outcry against fetal alcohol syndrome, decreases in legal blood alcohol concentration limit for impaired driving, 21 year old alcohol purchase laws, abstinence education in schools and colleges, tavern owners being liable for alcohol related incidence, and warning labels on alcoholic beverages are all part of the current movement."
You missed this part: "Most anti-alcohol counter measures have appeared within 20 years after the peak in per capita alcohol consumption during a period of decreasing consumption(Engs 1992b; Linder and Martin 1987). [...] It is interesting to note that most of the anti-alcohol legislation came after the beginning of this decreased consumption [circa 1980]."
I like your answer better!
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.