Posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT by Sensei Ern
For many years, I have been a strong opponent of legalizing drugs. As you read this, remember that I am still against drug legalization, but I have more sympathy for the opposing argument.
The reason I have been opposed to drug legalization is to protect children. I grew up in a home that was one step up from a crack house..at least we had heat and food. I know first hand what can happen when a child lives in those conditions.
As a counter, I have always felt that use of tobacco and alcohol should be legal for those of a responsible age.
The reason I am considering a change is because of the pain I went through this last month. Four weeks ago, I had a root canal done on a tooth...it was Friday. Once the Novocain wore off, I was in serious pain because the doctor was inexperienced and left a partial root. I experienced pain worse than listening to Rosanne Barr sing the National Anthem. He forgot to write a prescription.
I called the emergency number only to be told I could see the doctor on Monday. TWO WHOLE DAYS IN EXTREME PAIN! I had some 800mg Ibuprofen in the medicine cabinet. That only took away enough pain to convince myself to not commit suicide to stop the pain.
On Monday, I was given a prescription of Tylenol 3 with Codeine and an antibiotic. That took away the pain. Until it ran out. Again, extreme pain. Another dentist did another root canal...and again did not get the whole root. I made sure he gave me a prescription for the pain, before I left the office.
Finally, when that ran out, and another dentist completed the root canal, the pain has subsided.
To be in the kind of debilitating pain I was in, cannot be described. Bill Cosby once talked about taking your bottom lip and pulling it over your head...that comes close.
I have always been an advocate of personal responsibility. That conflicted with knowing that some of the drugs offered today are so dangerous that they needed to be regulated. Then, I thought back about how things were a hundred years ago. The doctor prescribed a treatment, and you either made it yourself, or went to the pharmacist, who mixed up the more potential drugs.
Back then, the only regulation was, could you afford the cost? Drugs were available, and the pharmacist would determine whether you were abusing. If you OD'd on a drug from abuse, you died and life went on for others. But, you could get drugs if they were needed, and you did not have to wait until Monday. You didn't need to wait for approval from anyone to use a drug.
That is enough about that for the moment.
If drugs were to be legalized, they should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes...have a legal purchasing age. Also, if you do harm to another while under the influence of anything, you should be held personally responsible...to the fullest extent, especially capital punishment for causing a death. If you are taking drugs to get high, strap yourself into a chair and sleep it off.
If drugs were immediately legalized, we could expect some immediate effects. For one, the drug addicts would run out and by everything, and we would have a rash of overdosing for about a month. The rest of us could then go on with our lives, only mourning the loss of a relative, instead of daily living with the horror of a drug addict in our lives.
Currently, I believe law enforcement should be stronger. But, I could be moved to undecided if I heard good arguments for the opposite.
--Pray for our troops --Pray they have wisdom to do the right thing --Pray they remain courageous --Pray they know we love and support them --Pray they get the equipment they need to do the job --Pray for their safe return home to a hero’s welcome
Oh yeah, I forgot this line. People go to rehab for pot "addiction" because they've bought... well, there's no polite way of saying this... they've bought the lies our government routinely parcels out on a daily basis with respect to drugs. Actually, I suppose "lies" is the polite way to say it; were I not going out of my way to be polite, I'd use an eight-letter word starting with B. The government spews the purest crap about drugs, and people in the government know they're spewing the purest crap about drugs, but they think it's just fine because drugs are bad, mmmkay? Doesn't that bother you at all?
Excuse me? I'm sorry to butt in here, but I'm really in shock about what I seem to be learning . . .
So in your definition, a 'conservative' could be in favor of big govt with unconstitutional powers if the purpose is to try and 'preserve' something that they percieve as good?
Funny, I truly thought that was the definition of a 'liberal'.
We definitely need a new term, then.
"Social Conservative" and "Political Conservative" are not the same thing. In fact, they appear to be opposites.
You can pick out the fake Libertarians/libertarians by asking them the simple Q: "Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo?"
If they refuse to answer or try to argue "she wasn't killed; she was allowed to die," they you can be sure they aren't interested in liberty at all.
This would seem to fit "Politically Libertarian" better. The current definition of Conservative being defined by smaller, less intrusive government is in response to decades of Liberals using the Government as an agent for Change. Conservatives have historically had no problem with using Government to bolster stability.
As to solving problems; that depends on how you frame what is considered a problem. What is the problem with abortion? Is it the wholesale killing of innocents, or the intrusion of government into individual choices? Which side is conservative, liberal, and libertarian? Here is a case where a conservative would argue for greater government intrusion, right? Is it a political problem or a social one?
The term for this is "classical liberal." Unfortunately it'd be impossible to use this label to mean what it actually means, since the word "liberal" has been irrevocably hijacked.
Just like gay.
?
I thought that the 'L v C' difference as defined today basically started with FDR era issues. I thought 'L' was 'for socialistic, collective govt solutions to individual problems" like FDR was, and that 'C' was 'against such solutions and for a Constitutionally limited govt'.
So if I'm incorrect in that, then I don't understand something -- does "smaller, less intrusive govt" have anything to do with 'Conservative' at all?
Am I not actually a 'Conservative'? Am I in the wrong place???
Libertarians (and classical liberals) believe that one of the few true functions of government is to protect citizens against the nonconsensual initiation of force or fraud by others. Abortion is one of very few issues that actually divides libertarians, because it boils down to whether one believes the fetus is a person and hence has rights, or a nonperson and hence has none. A ban on abortion is perfectly consistent with libertarianism, just as a ban on murder is. Both involve the initiation of force against a nonconsenting other.
"Who died and made you God?"
By this question, you are admitting that God does have the right to say how people should live.
No I do not claim to be God. But I do know what God has to say about intoxication.
You know, I was watching The Flintstones the other day, and was amazed that as late as 1966 it was possible to say "we'll have a gay old time" without being grossly misunderstood.
Now I'm even more confused.
I thought a 'classic liberal' was one who felt that 'workers have rights'. In effect, we're all classic liberals now.
I'm pretty sure that's what the term use to mean.
Then in the 20s or so, the L v. C debate was reframed as 'pro-socialst' and 'anti-socialist', I thought. The difference there being 'collective v. individual' type solutions.
Did you sue the dentist for pain and suffering??
Way to inflate another strawman. Do you want to discuss this rationally, or throw brickbats and play "gotcha"?
I see political identity as being on a x-y axis chart. On such, any position can be taken to the extreme. Certainly, conservatism could be taken to an extreme of enforced orthodoxy, as in "no change shall be allowed". You end up with something like the Shogunate era in Japan, with great stability and stagnation. Call that way out on the x-axis to the + side.
At the way -x end, out past the Liberal end of the scale, is a chaos where Change is embraced to the point of chaos.
On the y-axis, I see anarchy (no government at all) at the extreme + and totalitarianism (government in control of every aspect) at the extreme -.
Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.
Your logic is circular.
Hardly. The Constitutions logic is not circular.
If a law has passed Constitutional review, as most drug prohibition laws have, then they have passed due process.
Nope. --- Opinions made by the SCOTUS are not 'laws' -- such reviews do not confer permanant constitutionality on a law, as any law is always open to further constitutional review.
If a power isn't delegated to the Feds, nor prohibited to the States, then the States reserve that power, or the people do. If the people of a State elect their State Reps, and empower them to prohibit drugs (or, conversely, permit them or otherwise regulate them), due process has been followed per the 10th A. Thus "dry" counties in Tennessee, or Medical MJ permits.
Laws repugnant to basic constitutional principles, laws that abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process, are unconstitutional according to the 14th Amendment.
Prohibitionary type laws do so. There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution. See the 10th as to powers prohibited to states. The 14th prohibits States from making laws that abridge/prohibit property without due process.
No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.
Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.
You omit the all-important "without due process."
Nit picking. That particular line 'omits' the words due process. My posts here do not.
The State can take your life, liberty, and property, as long as due process is given, and the laws are equally applied to all.
Correct only if you are convicted by a jury. -- Prohibitive laws attempt to make individuals automatically guilty by mere possession of 'illegal objects'. Juries are even 'directed' that they must convict if possession is proved. -- Prohibitions result in a parody of due process.
The Constitutional vetting of the law is part of the due process of individual cases.
Again, not true. Most lower courts do not even allow Constitutional defense arguments.
Tell me this. -- Why do you want a State to have the power to prohibit dangerous objects? - Isn't their power to regulate enough?
Perhaps that came out poorly? I didn't mean to offend, and reading back over it I don't see how I did. That was an accurate statement I didn't mean in any way as a 'dig', just an observation of reality. I am truly sorry if I somehow offended.
I'm not even debating this topic. I simply was asking about terminology.
I don't agree that 'Conservative' means 'opposed to change', personally. If that were so, then Conservative would change meanings every time some rules were changed. The D party would be 'Conservatives' when they try to defend affirmative action, and all that.
I'm fascinated by this subject.
I'm off to dinner, I'll respond to any posts later.
Again, I'm truly sorry if I in any way offended.
Oh, great, here we go. I suppose now I'll have to introduce you to the concept of a "rhetorical question".
No I do not claim to be God. But I do know what God has to say about intoxication.
Do tell. While you're at it, tell me what He has to say about judging others, or exactly to whom vengeance belongs. Throw in whatever quotes you have from the big guy on the subjects of mercy and compassion.
Also, if you please, I'd like you to go on record as saying that you think the government of the United States should punish people for failing to live up to God's laws. Include, if you would, what you think the prison terms should be for adultery and/or failing to respect one's parents.
I fail to understand this argument. In my mind the crime here is the rape and assault. If you state that it was because the person was under the influence I would agree the sentence should be increased if you are under the influence.
As it is, making it illegal to be under the influence is too much big brother for my taste.
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.