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.
So, I'd suggest it's the money eh?!
I think it's the actual act of distilling the fermented product that's illegal. The fermenting part is ok. At least it is in my State. You're mileage may very, especially if you live in Utah... LOL.
L
Nope ~ making the mash is the illegal part. For the most part no one pays attention to folks who make beer for consumption at home. You go out on the block with that stuff and they'll nail you for the mash.
It's the taxes with the federales. The law is the same all over the United States.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, if so this is why certain people need to be beat up. I think that's the only way to deal with certain would-be nannies.
muawiyah: What's motivating them? Well, in that line of work they came into close contact with dope dealers. So, I'd suggest it's the money eh?!
Bull. A legal, well regulated market would severely curtail the street dope dealers profits, and therefore reduce the opportunity for corrupt officials to profit as well. How much of a black market is there in the alcohol trade compared to illegal drugs?
What should our national policy be toward currently illicit drugs?
a. Keep them all illegal at the federal level.
b. Regulate them all in a manner similar to how alcohol is currently regulated.
c. Regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. Keep all others illegal.
Congress has the authority to regulate trade and commerce.
Drugs are trade, a commodity that can be regulated and taxed. Section 8 is more than just those words “general welfare.”
If Congress taxes some drugs at 100%, it is their exclusive authority to do so.
The proliferation of recreational drugs is chemical warfare against the young people of this country and Congress is also authorized to provide for the “common Defense.”
To put it plainly, you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about...
The druggies like the sex perverts can only perpetuate an ever increasing market for their filth by molesting the minds and bodies of the young ones... this is the only way they get new Demo-rat voters... it is CHEMICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!
Make them legal and tax them at 100%... perfectly Constitutional...
Huh? The Alcohol Black Market was neutralized, and indeed went away. With it went control of that Black Market by organised crime, the lucrative profits from bootleg booze, and the turf wars over alcohol.
What we have today is an unprecedented profit motive in the illegal-drug Black Market. Organized crime thrives on Black Markets - do you not recognize that empirical fact?
Still want to promise us utopia if only we would legalize all drugs?
I am not neccessarily for that extreme measure. Apparently your utopia includes having some drugs illegal-yet-readily-available 24/7 in every city and town across the USA - including to minors.
The "beat up" part will merit you even more lawyers.
Watching you cave in so easily to the "corrupt officer" argument.
Having grown up next door to a Mafia soldier, I can assure you that the black market for alcohol never disappeared. It's alive and thriving.
You'd have us believe this would happen -- just legalize drugs and organized crime will go away. Why else do you bring it up?
Instead let me introduce Thomas Jefferson, had you been familiar with this man at all you would have understood my comments.
Jefferson expains precisely what I said about the limits of Section 8, but of course he says it far better;
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that "all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people" [XIIth. Amendmt.]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless feild of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. (just what I said)...snip...
1. "To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means, was rejected as an end, by the Convention which formed the constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, The Founders' Constitution Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, Document 10
Before you step in and debate further I suggest a review of the writings of the founders.
The very problem we have with the monstrous, outrageous government to day is that men are undeducated and no longer behave like men.
"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.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Does Congress have to power to prohibit certain types of commerce among the several states -- in other words, does the phrase "to regulate" include (among other things) "to prohibit"?
"-- Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means, was rejected as an end, by the Convention which formed the constitution.-- "
-- Thomas Jefferson, The Founders' Constitution Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, Document 10
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Felton comments on the above:
Before you step in and debate further I suggest a review of the writings of the founders.
The very problem we have with the monstrous, outrageous government to day is that men are undeducated and no longer behave like men.
76 Mark Felton
Paulsen asks:
Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states. -- Does Congress have to power to prohibit certain types of commerce among the several states -- in other words, does the phrase "to regulate" include (among other things) "to prohibit"?
Read much paulsen? -- Jefferson in effect answered your question, as was quoted:
-- A Congress with the unlimited power to do "whatever would be for the good of the U.S." -- would be the sole judges of "good or evil", and would be also have a power to do whatever evil they pleased.
"-- Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. --"
Prohibitive laws violate constitutional due process in both how they are written, and how they are enforced. -- They are repugnant to the principles of our Republic.
"Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds authority to outlaw drugs?"
paulsen dissembles with a non-answer:
''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''
-- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. US, 267 U.S. 432 (1925) 35
Felton ignores the non-answer:
"There is no basis in the Bible or even in the history of jurisprudence to suggest the use of recreational drugs is immoral, or evil"
Paulsen, hypocritically:
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.
and now you want a passage from the Bible? Give me a break. Even if I did cite the Bible, you'd probably scream about the separation of church and state and tell me that the U.S. isn't a theocracy!
Drug use is immoral.
Government prohibitions on drug use are 'immoral' violations of due process.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
So what? Under our Constitution, legislators shall make no law respecting the theories,establishments, dogmas, etc, of the Catholic Church, nor any other religion.
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.