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
Are you aware of any total prohibitions, as opposed to highly restrictive regulation, in the drug laws? Perhaps I'm not getting the distinction you are making. If a State says only MDs can administer heavy narcotics, or only researchers can possess PCP for experimental purposes, how is that any different from a total prohibition for any practical purpose to street users?
Which is why appeals are part of the process.
At this point in time I believe most Freepers understand this issue very well. I would like to see a poll done at Freerepublic on this issue one day.
I disagree. Conservatism, in my mine, is adherence to the constitution, not 'interpreted' by 9 black robes.
As Conservatism is in the USA, you are right, since that "conserves" our society in the framework of our social contract. But, in a greater sense, the idea of being conservative can mean a rejection of change or desire for the stability of the status quo, and can be carried too far. I have seen those here advocate the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution. I have seen advocates for the stability of a Saddam controlled Iraq over the risky change of an Iraqi democracy.
Mugs,
That is the most concise and articulate analysis of our current system of partisan politics I have ever heard.
Well put!
Regards
Pinggggggggg
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 permanent 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?
Are you aware of any total prohibitions, as opposed to highly restrictive regulation, in the drug laws?
Perhaps I'm not getting the distinction you are making.
If a State says only MDs can administer heavy narcotics, or only researchers can possess PCP for experimental purposes, how is that any different from a total prohibition for any practical purpose to street users?
Try 'getting' this.. Instead of refuting my points, or answering why you want prohibitions, you now apparently want to chat about how the WOD's prohibitions aren't really [to all "practical purposes"] destroying the basics of our Constitutional Republic.
Dream on.
Hmm, not sure how I missed this. Ladies and gentlemen, I present the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution:
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
So "dry" counties are permitted because they are explicitly in the Constitution. So tell me, if the states have the power to infringe the rights of their citizens to consume intoxicating drugs, why was it necessary to specifically include it in the 21st Amendment? If the federal government has the power to prohibit drugs, why was the 18th Amendment necessary at all in the first place?
But, after you possess that same item, the government may then, under a "reasonable regulation", such as a ban on the use, sale, transport or transfer of said dangerous item, arrest and prosecute you with all due process applied if you actually do anything with your property. Is that your contention, or am I still not following you?
You're the poster who when I said this: Bearing arms is an enumerated unalienable right in the U.S. Constitution.
You responded with this: It's not an enunmerated right in the CA Constitution, is it.
Actually, it often seems that the laws against "victimless crimes" actually create more "victims" than they proport to protect.
Mark
The American citizens voted for R's and D's in the last presidential election to the tune of about 99%.
I think you are reading this wrong. This clause restores the situation to the status quo anti prohibition. That is to say, just because liquor is now legal in the USA again, that doesn't mean you can take it into places where the States or localities have made it illegal.
Many of the individual States were dry before the 18th A. Many remained so for a while afterward.
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.