Posted on 04/15/2006 2:21:22 PM PDT by Know your rights
SCOTTISH police officers have sparked anger after calling for the legalisation of all drugs - including heroin and cocaine.
The Strathclyde Police Federation has called for a dramatic change of direction in the battle on drugs crime, and the issue will be debated later this month.
The body, which represents 7000 officers, is set to argue that all drugs should be licensed in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol. Officers claim this would cut drug deaths and divert police resources to other crime-fighting priorities. It is the first time that an organisation representing officers has made such a demand.
Opponents today said the move would only increase the availability of drugs. But the federation believes millions of pounds are wasted on enforcing existing laws, with little impact on the availability of drugs on the street.
Inspector Jim Duffy, chairman of the federation, said: "We are not winning the war against drugs and we need to think about different ways to tackle it."
The Scottish Executive said that drug legislation is reserved to Westminster.
You asked, "Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds authority to outlaw drugs?" Now you're changing the subject and saying there's no basis in the Bible or even in the history of jurisprudence.
Geez Louise. Make up your mind. I answer one question, complete with a U.S. Supreme Court cite,
What a howler! You did not show us -- "Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds authority to outlaw drugs?" -- You showed us an opinion by a Justice who was ignoring restrictions on Congressional powers; claiming that legislation can be written to prohibit "-- immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin. --"
Under our Constitution, legislators shall make no law respecting the theories,establishments, dogmas, etc, of the Catholic Church, nor any other religion.
Like I said, then don't ask for a religious source of our laws.
No one 'asked for' that, bobby.
-- As usual, unable to actually address the issue, you're throwing out an inane diversionary comment.
Answer the question.. -- "Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds authority to outlaw drugs?"
Your response makes no sense. Is it true or false that a legal, well regulated market would severely curtail street dope dealer profits, and therefore reduce the opportunity for corrupt officials to profit as well?
Sounds like a pipe dream. Get it?
Also, I heard you posited that the reason there was no latex found in the Duke rape allegation case, was because someone at Duke had invented a new material for condoms which did not leave traces. Did you say that?
We know how to handle alcohol if not MJ.
You are 100% correct.
Since I said "how alcohol is currently regulated", I fail to see your point:
b. Regulate them all in a manner similar to how alcohol is currently regulated.
"Dry" states, however, found that alcohol was being shipped in from "wet" states. They petitioned the federal government for help and Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act, forbidding this activity. It wasn't effective, and Prohibition soon followed.
And that was a huge flop. What followed was much more sensible.
What makes you think it would be any different with drugs?
We are already at the Prohibition stage, using your alcohol comparison. If it follows in alcohol's staggering path, then I see no reason that prohibition would be reimposed.
Sure, there's stolen, hijacked, and smuggled goods sold in liquor stores. This is a different black market than existed during prohibition.
What's the difference between how alcohol is currently regulated by the states and the way it was regulated before Prohibition?
The only difference I see is that, today, alcohol is legal in all states. The only way your scheme would work is if all states legalized all drugs. Without that, we'll have a similar "flop".
Just let him answer the question the way it was posed.
Who's stopping him?
It is, in fact, "well regulated" anything that gives rise to the "no regulation at all" process.
In response to the question about why "NO LATEX" was reported, I merely suggested that "LATEX WAS NOT USED".
Now that can mean a whole lot of things. One of your little buddies with a serious mental problem decided he wanted to diddle with that for a while.
Here we are in a different thread and you seem bound and determined to hijack it.
Seems to me you should spend more time focusing on "W"'s travels. The recombinant DNA enzyme story came out at the time he mentioned a "technological breakthrough" in pursuit of energy independence. "Switch Grass" was touted as being part of it, and that involved using recombinant DNA technology to insert an enzyme in the switch grass genome which, when the harvested switch grass was heated to 180 degrees (or thereabouts)would cause the cellulose to turn to alcohol.
Sorry you missed the story. But, then again, you're merely a Democratic party disrupter and wouldn't have a clue what "W" is up to.
That part never disappeared.
Public Law 97-280MFurthemore, consider the words of a couple of men that dwarf you and I in knowledge and application of the law;97th Congress: Congress Confesses the Bible is “The Word of God”
[S.J.Res. 165] 96 Stat. 1211
October 4, 1982
Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”
Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;
Whereas many of our great national leaders—among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson—paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;
Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Approved October 4, 1982.
1 U.S. Cong. & Adm. News '82-29 96 Stat. 1211
"Religion and morality...are the foundations of all governments. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged and the religion of the country....it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws..." -- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1824, Updegraph v The Commonwealth, 11 serg.&R. 393-394, 398-399, 402-407 (1824)."Christianity is part of the common law" -- Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, appointed by Pres. George Washington
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." -- President George Washington
"America was born a christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture" -- President Woodrow Wilson
"What do I think of the Bible? It is the infallible Word of God." -- Assoc Justice US Supreme Court William Strong
etc etc....
Christianity is the foundation of all free nations today, either directly or indirectly by the actiong of a Christian nation toliberate a non-Christian nation.
No other nation was ever founded free that did not base its laws on Christian values and doctrines.
Atheists ONLY ever founded tyrannical depostic regimes such as the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, N. Korea, etc etc...
The less influence of Christians in a nation then the more and more it becomes socialistic, tyrannical and deprives man of freedoms.
Furthermore, the more the US population mecomes non-Christian then the more the US COnstitution is threatened and upended. No Muslim, no atheist, no budhist, ever could long support the tenets of the COnstitution. History has shown the truth of this.
" Paulsens ignorance of American history is astounding. "
--- Indeed it is. He said:
don't ask for a religious source of our laws.
No one 'asked for' that, bobby.
-- As usual, unable to actually address the issue, you're throwing out an inane diversionary comment.
Answer the question, paulsen..
-- "Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds authority to outlaw drugs?"
No, it's not in error. Do you think the black market in alcohol is proportionally as large as it was during Prohibition?
It is, in fact, "well regulated" anything that gives rise to the "no regulation at all" process.
So the alcohol and tobacco markets have no regulation at all?
You went further than that:
My point with the Duke story was that you come up with some wacky stuff sometimes. It's quite a leap to conclude that this proposed new genetically modified mj plant will replace all other strains.
It's the primary argument the Libertarian/tine movement(s) use to justify free dope.
However, just because overregulation stimulates a black market, it does not follow that underregulation will destroy the black market. As is all too often the case, there are "regulatory mechanisms" in place of which we are only vaguely aware.
As an example of a "regulatory mechanism" most folks don't think about, think of the young mothers who don't want their kids using dope. Yet, in a totally unregulated (free) market, you would find those young mothers with no lawful process that would, in their minds, protect them and their children from the dopers. One might well anticipate that some (not all), just some of those young mothers would begin turning their communities into rifle ranges ~ often driving by in their SUVs to gundown dopers and their private sector dealers everywhere. If the post office began providing vending machines for the dopers, these same young mothers would begin knocking off post offices.
So, young mothers with children constitute a regulatory mechanism in the dope business we usually don't think about.
Oh, yes, and their husbands? They'll be out there providing covering fire for their young wives protecting their young children.
So, what would the dopers and the Liberatarian/tines do about this fine state of affairs? Would they perhaps send the armed forces out to suppress young mothers?
No doubt that's what they would ask for ~ that's what their hero George Sorros would want ~ sending the army out to gun down young mothers where they stand.
That's just one of the reasons nobody trusts the dopers. They'd misuse normal stuff, not just dope.
All the modified plants need do is stand there in the same field with the other plants. If you can't tell the difference, you can't tell the difference eh?!
Then again, one might not.
No strawman there!
So, let's "flip" the situation ~ and, lo and behold, that very thing (too much government force) is now claimed to be a "straw man".
There's certainly no need for petty consistency in these debates is there?
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.