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
Yes, there is. I look forward to the day when the SCOTUS allows such a case to be argued.
All right. For the fourth time, what are the cites that support your interpretation of the 14th A.? What gives you the confidence that the SCOTUS or an Circuit Court would decide your way?
Are you contending slavery wasn't "legal"? Then why were these included:
"IV, 2, Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
"I, 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
To term anti-slavery statues as 'prohibitive laws' is another example of specious wordplay.
So, you don't believe that anti-slavery statutes were prohibitions of owning slaves?
Paying taxes has long been part of the social contract between government and the governed. I'm not suggesting government is always wrong, or always bad, but rather, when government restricts, takes away, or otherwise legislates, it must have a sound, compelling, and Constitutional reason for doing so.
No, I am not pro-drug, yet.
It was frustrating that I had to suffer in pain because some loser abuses codine.
Then, Michael Graham spoke on his radio show that since the main ingredient in many OTC products like Sudafed is used to make methanfedamines(sp), congress is considering making these products to placed behind the counter.
I am getting sick of laws that require me to alter my life because someone had an adverse effect.
I resent having to pay extra for my television because it now has the V-Chip. My children are grown. I choose not to watch certain shows.
I resent that the state of Maryland restricts the purchase of firearms because someone is irresponsible and misuses them.
I resent having a corner camera at every stop light.
I am all for certain interference, such as more thorough searches of luggage on airplanes, because a lack of security would welcome terrorists.
Article [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.
Your interpretation of this amendment is the most obtuse I have ever heard.
You need to get out and hear more.. Check out Barnett's:
The Rights Retained by The People
Address:http://www.randybarnett.com/rightsbypeople.html
I hope you realize you are not a strict constructionist. Your position would hand all states' authority over to the whims of unelected federal judges who can arbitrarily decide which laws are "reasonable".
Not at all. The powers of Fed judges are checked & balanced [ideally] by the other branches of both fed & state governments, and ultimately by the people acting through juries or civil disobedience.
This ideal is not working because it has been corrupted by our political system, with its various prohibitive 'wars on liberties'.
I will concede that prohibition is proof that the federal government does not have constitutional authority, without an amendment, to prohibit drugs. It is a states' right - subject to their respective constitutions.
And State constitutions are subject to the "Law of the Land". Reread Article VI as to "any Thing in the laws or Constitution of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I would support a constitutional amendment restricting drugs, but would prefer a change of cultural and political climate that would permit it to be handed back to the states.
The States already have the power to restrict by reasonably regulating, -- and the power to ignore unconstitutional Federal 'laws'. They only lack the political will to do so.
I agree with that.
It's what I call a LOSING issue.
I'm pretty sure those that want to legalize recreational drugs share many of the same common goals with satan.
The downfall of man...
In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.
Fine, you argue that they did have that 'right'. I can't dispute your right to believe that, repugnant as it is to our Constitutions principles.
I don't know why you are having a hard time distinguishing between my critiquing your ideas, and being an advocate against them. Of course I don't support slavery, but that does not change the fact that it was legal under the Constitution, regardless of being morally and ethically abhorrent.
So you claim that your argument is solely a critique? Yet you conclude by arguing that slavery was a 'legal' right. Fine, play your word games.
Are you contending slavery wasn't "legal"?
I asked if you would have a 'right to own' human beings if the 13th Amendment did not exist. - You answered:
In 1850, citizens of the USA and living in Alabama did, according to the Constitution.
I'm pretty sure those that want to legalize recreational drugs share many of the same common goals with satan.
The downfall of man.
I'm pretty sure those that want to criminalize/prohibit various items of property & liberties share many of the same common goals with socialists .
The downfall of the Republic.
Pro vice and crime or it's the downfall of the Republic?
ROTFLMAO
Oh, that doesn't sound like anarchists at all ""Sarcasm Off""
The downfall of man...
You know, we can always count on you to bring so much to this particular discussion. You really are a simpleton, aren't you . . .
Oh, you envision Christ blessing you with the sign of the cross as you self medicate with dangerous drugs and destroy yourself and others. DREAM ON!
You are with the dark side with the illegal drug use for recreation.
Sure, the Hallmark CHannel, every night at 7pm and 8pm EST.
Also, Conan O'Brien plays several bits from it.
Quiet, junior . . . the adults are trying to have a nice discussion.
Your trying to play dress up on a conservative board.
There is nothing shy of being an anarchist if you are for recreational drug use.
Pro's get into "vice & crime" because the prohibitions make them extremely lucrative.
Our republic is in danger because individual liberties are being prohibited, along with the 'evil' items like guns & drugs.
Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?
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.