Is the Drug War a Conservative or Liberal Issue? (Warning: I am a Newbie to starting posts)

Sensei Ern

[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

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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.

When did you drop out of school---sixth grade?

[musanon]

Prohibitionism is a socialistic political disease. -- Apparently incurable.

[Sensei Ern]

I agree. I am not for recreational use. I am all for proper usage being unrestricted.

My pastor teaches that the original intention of the scriptures, when mentioning "sorceries" is the Greek word for "pharmaceudicals" and means drug abusers. Thus, the Lake of Fire is reserved for Satan, his demons and drug abusers, as well as others.

[A CA Guy]

Who does illegal recreational drug usage serve?

Here's a hint!

[A CA Guy]

You have doctors restricting usage based on a condition to create more good than harm.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Who does illegal recreational drug usage serve?

Twelve-year-old boys everywhere scoff at your maturity level. If I remember correctly, you're the Freeper who used to brag about his 40-second urination on his FR homepage.

[A CA Guy]

"Just Say No" Drop in instead of dropping out!

[A CA Guy]

I never had a home page, your memory is wrong as is your taste in drug activism.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I never had a home page, your memory is wrong as is your taste in drug activism.

Yeah, right . . .

[unlearner]

Pretty good article in your link but it did not address states rights in much detail.

"The necessity of a prohibition Amendment, & its repeal, make clear that no level of government in the US was ever empowered to outright prohibit."

Incorrect. This only applies to the federal government. The feds can only make laws under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

States can only enact laws under the jurisdiction of their respective state Constitution. States can reserve ANY power through their constitution EXCEPT those reserved to the federal government, i.e. the "United States". Any federal law or treaty that is Constitutional supersedes ALL state and local laws.

The powers retained by the people are those not reserved to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution AND not reserved to the respective state by its own Constitution.

[Pessimist]

"When you can show me the rate of fat people having car accidents because of their fat is as high as the rate of violent crimes committed by people who are high, then we'll talk."

Ahhh... So its the rate that bothers you. And I suppose you should be appointed arbiter of what rate is acceptable.

"Funny, this a##holes rap sheet is full - and it's all related to drug use. He doesn't have one crime in his rap sheet prior to his first bust for violent behavior committed while he was high."

That's irrelevant. Its still the guy who is the criminal, not the drugs. I suppose you're for gun control too, right?

You sure you're on the right board?

[Pessimist]

"I think drugs, gambling and prostitution should all be legalized."
"You are in the wrong forum. You want the DU, down the hall and to your left."

I beg to differ. It is YOU who are in the wrong forum. Why don't YOU join your buddies over at DU, where you can all decide how many more laws we need to get everyone to act in a manner you feel is "correct"?

[mugs99]

My pastor teaches that the original intention of the scriptures, when mentioning "sorceries" is the Greek word for "pharmaceudicals" and means drug abusers.

Your pastor is wrong. The greek word for pharmaceuticals is pharmakeia. "Sorceries" is the Latin *sortiarius" and means "one who influences fate".
...

[A CA Guy]

Here's a link to the far left's love and defense of illegal drugs at DU which YOU SHARE.
Autie Pinko! LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/02/68.html

[mugs99]

ROFL!
Is that your prophet?

[A CA Guy]

That is the god of illegal recreational drugs.

[musanon]

The necessity of a prohibition Amendment, & its repeal, make clear that no level of government in the US was ever empowered to outright prohibit.

Any federal law or treaty that is Constitutional supersedes ALL state and local laws.

Exactly what Article VI says, -- and remember, you just agreed that fed 'laws' on drug prohibition are unconstitutional.

States can reserve ANY power through their constitution EXCEPT those reserved to the federal government, i.e. the "United States".

Not true. The 10th clearly says that the US Constitution & Amendments prohibit some State powers.

States can only enact laws under the jurisdiction of their respective state Constitution.

-- Correct, -- but as you admit, Article VI subordinates State constitutions to the US Constitution. -- So we see that the US Constitution does not delegate a power to prohibit, -- and that it prohibits states from making laws that abridge our rights to life, liberty or property in the 14th. -- Prohibitions are abridgments.

Thus, - States have no power to prohibit; this power is prohibited to them by the 14th. -- Get it?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

You, a newbie, are telling ME (someone who's been here since 1998, despite the date you see), that I'm in the wrong forum?

I'm in a Conservative forum where I can freely espouse my Conservative views. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution are not Conservative values. Sorry to disappoint you. Newbie.

[musanon]

LexBaird wrote:

Now, is there any case law, precedent, history, or custom to support his [14th amendment] appeal, and thus likely overturn the conviction and the law?

---

Here's a typical case similar to your example:


Lawsuit asserts right to get drunk on private property
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1439161/posts


And typically, -- the courts will not allow this case to proceed. The drunk cannot make his Constitutional argument, lest it upset the systems political applecart.

[mugs99]

That is the god of illegal recreational drugs

Oh...I thought that was the God of the Garden of Eden.
...