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.
-- "Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds authority to outlaw drugs?"
You must have missed the part about repelling enemies, setting standards, regulating interstate commerce, and collecting taxes.
None of those enumerated powers give governments the ability to ignore the Constitution in order to prohibit/'outlaw' property like guns & drugs. -- Did you 'miss' that?
Plus, and this is very important and gets to the heart of the matter, the drug legalization [anti-prohibition] people don't really want the government to remove the heavy hand of coercion from their necks ~ nosirreebob ~ they want it lifted up and placed on the rest of us to keep us from protecting ourselves against them.
Not true in that you can protect yourself from 'addicts' of every stripe by allowing them to over-use their easily available poison. Alcoholics die young when left alone.
So you're proposing "the guv'mnt" intentionally create several thousand acres of fire hazard?
However, in the absence of some kind of government control on this stuff, we'd all have to provide our own protection against druggies.
The gov't control, aka the WOD, has inflated prices and provided huge profit incentives to dealers. Turf wars are because of the high profits and hence the high consequences for fouling up.
Decriminalize marijuana and you'll reduce the profits and reduce the incentives for crooks and other criminals.
"Druggies" won't have to steal or mug (not that those are the major problems associated with drug addiction) if prices are low. In fact, if drug use was not criminal, more abusers would be able to get treatment. After all, if Brett and Rush and Betty's addictions to controlled substances should be treated as medical problems, why not treat the less elite the similarly?
Sadly you make it seem like your house is under siege by wild eyed, crazed "druggies" and I'm pretty sure that isn't the case.
As you have admitted, alcohol prohibition did not work. It actually increased crime.
And you have unwittingly admitted that the WOD cannot work and has actually increased crime.
"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.
What makes you think it would be any different with drugs? Worse, since drugs are far easier to smuggle across state lines.
-paulsen-
Eagle Eye spots bobbies error:
As you have admitted, alcohol prohibition did not work. It actually increased crime.
And you have unwittingly admitted that the WOD cannot work and has actually increased crime.
Nice catch. -- But don't expect any rational reply from paulsen.
He's a past master of BS bafflegab when it comes to explaining away his many obvious problems with logic.
That is written in the Second Amendment ~ the part where it says "it's OK to "bear arms" against any and all intruders, particularly dopers.
What are you trying to get at?
If you want to get off dope you have to do it yourself.
What are you trying to get at?
A plant who's cellulose turns to alcohol at 180 degrees is a lot bigger fire hazard than your run of the mill vegetation. Particularly if it's big, fibrous plants.
You are prepared to defend the cost of the inevitable property damage and loss of life in order to accomplish your goal of causing some second or third degree burns to the handful of marijuana smokers who are too dumb to set a match to a pinch of it before they harvest or buy it, aren't you?
You must have missed the part about repelling enemies, setting standards, regulating interstate commerce, and collecting taxes.
None of those enumerated powers give governments the ability to ignore the Constitution in order to prohibit/'outlaw' property like guns & drugs. -- Did you 'miss' that?
Plus, and this is very important and gets to the heart of the matter, the drug legalization [anti-prohibition] people don't really want the government to remove the heavy hand of coercion from their necks ~ nosirreebob ~ they want it lifted up and placed on the rest of us to keep us from protecting ourselves against them.
Not true in that you can protect yourself from 'addicts' of every stripe by allowing them to over-use their easily available poison. Alcoholics die young when left alone.
Hmmm ~ typical junky talk.
Typical 'junk' reply by an advocate of anti-constitutional prohibitions.
Onliest way I can think of to deal with junkies quick and easy, and at minimal expense, should there be even the slightest disturbance of my pleasure of my own property, is to shoot them.
Lotsa bluster from a guy that believes in the power of governments to 'ban' property. Where would you get your gun to shoot 'junkies' once your government prohibited other 'dangerous & evil' items of property like firearms? --- And even more apropos, where would ~you~ get the guts to defy big brother?
That is written in the Second Amendment ~ the part where it says "it's OK to "bear arms" against any and all intruders, particularly dopers.
Sure, pretend like someone here is against your right to shoot intruders. -- Whatta joke.
BTW, back in the Carbonoferous Age the air had quite a bit more oxygen than it does now. When lightning would hit a large plant it would burst into flames.
And when it comes to fire hazard, hot cellulose is no more risky nor does it contain any more calories than alcohol.
It's just that alcohol is much more convenient to deal with than a double-retort reduction system.
Find the Amendment that says you can smoke dope.
If you think hot cellulose is no more volatile than alcohol, I invite you to try running an IC engine on raw cellulose.
Look, the Second Amendment recognizes my God-given right to keep and bear arms.
Find the Amendment that says you can smoke dope.
The 9th says all rights are not enumerated. -- The 14th says that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be deprived without due process. Prohibitions on 'smoking' our property deprive us of due process.
I didn't say anything about volitility.
You'all should have looked to your dope, not your slaves, when you started the conflict.
Too late now.
"And when it comes to fire hazard, hot cellulose is no more risky nor does it contain any more calories than alcohol."
What is it primary risk factor of combustibles, if not volatility?
And then there are jack tar pine forests.
Indeed. And how fast would the flames spread if the plants at the edge of the flame are producing alcohol, versus remaining cellulose?
Your stuff'd be cooked like a goose anyway if that happened.
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.