10 Years of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal

Broward County is the center of oxycontin and other pain killer businesses. Anybody can open up a “pain clinic” and sell pills to addicts who in turn take it to their home states to spread the misery around. This does show that making drugs easy to get makes them much more widespread throughout the culture.

In the event of TSHTF/CWII I hope somebody stashes away enough morphine or heroin to stock at least a couple of field hospitals and a bunch of field medics.

Did drug or alcohol prohibition exist under secular law in the Bible? Is there any admonition to prohibit these substances under secular law?

If your answers are "NO" and "NO", then there is no Scriptural justification for prohibition under secular law.

______________________________________

Repeating my earlier questions:

How do you justify supporting laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause?

What other sections of the Constitution are you willing to see trampled, aside from the original Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment?

"How did prohibition fail where the WOD is succeeding?"

Also, why did prohibition REQUIRE the passage of an Amendment to the Constitution while banning drugs somehow did not?

Seems that making anything people want easier to get, will make it more widespread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2744822/posts?page=2

Something that will be more trouble than the pot heads.

Did drug or alcohol prohibition exist under secular law in the Bible? Is there any admonition to prohibit these substances under secular law?

If your answers are "NO" and "NO", then there is no Scriptural justification for prohibition under secular law.

______________________________________

Repeating my earlier questions:

How do you justify supporting laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause?

What other sections of the Constitution are you willing to see trampled, aside from the original Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment?

I would encourage you to look up the meaning of the word secular; "secular law in the Bible" would refer to Biblical references to civil law outside of that which pertains to Jews and Christians.

Regarding Biblical prohibitition of substances, I would recommend a search for the word "drunkenness" in the Bible; biblegateway.com, using the King James version, is a quick and accurate way to do this. After that, I would recommend research on what the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" means in Reformed Christian theology. That will provide the doctrinal basis for understanding that simultaneous drunkenness and indwelling are incompatible, which is why the Bible and all serious Biblical scholars for 2,000 years have exhorted true believers to refrain from drunkenness. Drunkenness in the Biblical sense would include being "high" on any drug. That being said, we must likewise recall the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine - which was for guests at a wedding to consume. Surely if there was to be a Biblical prohibition we would find one explicitly given; the only verse which can be interpreted as a prohibition, of course, is specifically related to Church elders, namely bishops:

1 Timothy 3:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

and Titus 1:

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

I hope that you will find these suggestions profitable.

When you refer to "New Deal" and "Commerce Clause" I presume you're referring to the Uniform State Narcotic Act which finalized in 1932 as a model for States. Of course, there is a history of State regulation dating back into the early 1900's, so it can hardly be said that the Federal government "forced" regulation of cannibis on the States. Did the nylon industry want to halt production of hemp ? Perhaps. If we want to produce hemp for ropes with less regulation we should lobby our Congressman.

Regulation of things considered by Congress to be dangerous or bad for society, if enacted by Congress, would be under it's authority given in the General Welfare clause. The General Welfare clause, of course, has been overused ad nauseum. I think most reasonable people would agree that there are cases where laws and regulations under the authority of the General Welfare clause make sense, as many people are acutely aware of terrible wrongs committed by businesses and individuals who do not always "do the right thing" and will use the absence of any specific law as a moral loophole which they employ to commit all sorts of wickedness. But of course, the challenge for Congress is to only enact the minimum laws necessary, at which they have dismally failed, and, IMHO, perhaps 90% of our laws and regulations are unnecessary. I am no supporter of the mess of overregulation we currently have, but certainly recreational drug abuse can rise to a level where it is a detriment to the General Welfare of Americans. Of course the crucial analysis in considering such legislation is in determining the degree of the detriment and thereby be able to create legislation with the smallest possible limitations of personal freedoms. I can't help but think of the example of cases, quite numerous but again I leave the research to the reader, where physicians have abused drugs themselves or were involved in aiding others in various schemes. To eliminate all regulation of drugs is simply impractical, as is to leave this regulation entirely to the individual States, as this can cause undesired though unintended consequences. For example, alcohol purchase is illegal for those under the age of 21, a case of standarization that finalized in 1988. Prior to that I remember cases where the booze runs over state lines for teenagers were fatal all too often, as the young person, inexperienced in knowing their personal limitations in both drinking and driving, returned home with a carload of friends.

Cannibis is perhaps the substance that really gets into the gray area of the General Welfare clause, as the degree of detriment to society as a whole is less clear. Some use it without dramatically negative health effects for many years and make no effort to spread it's use to others; in that ideal case, one could argue that Congress need not act at all regarding it. For other people, it is only the first substance they experiment with, and they wind up moving on to far more destructive drugs, which for some eventually results in wretched misery. We must also remember that alcoholic drinks can also be an introduction to the "partying" scene and could also serve as a "gateway" as it were, and also the more pervasive the "partying" scene is, the more it impacts those parents seeking to keep their children out of it. The fact that both alcohol and cannibis are illegal is far more desireable for such parents, as they would not have the law on their side when setting up guidelines for their children if they were completely legalized.

IMHO, suffice it to say that a) I do not consider the current strategy of prosecuting upstream hard drug dealers and letting individual users of hard drugs continue using without significant prosecution efforts to be very wise since it only decreases supply and not demand, b) harsh laws against abusing hard drugs are wise since this abuse undeniably does result in societal misery (America learned this as a nation around the turn of the last century), c) cannibis is a challenging situation, since it is a "legacy" substance with a history of use. If one wants to evaluate it Biblically, strictly speaking, one would need to be assured that one had control of one's mental faculties while using it in order for it's use to not cause "drunkenness" in the Biblical sense of the word; I think that's where most (though presumably not all) Christians admit that one certainly does not have enough control over one's mind while using it for them to feel comfortable using it. Finally, d) from a purely historical review of the success of nations, it's fairly inescapable that where recreational cannibis use was rampant, it was in parts of the world that up until recently were woefully backward.

The New Deal Commerce Clause is the basis for federal control over health care, education, the environment and the War on Drugs. I can't believe anyone on this site would think that is consistent with the original Commerce Clause. Here are two quotes from Justice Clarence Thomas which make the point:

I am aware of no cases prior to the New Deal that characterized the power flowing from the Commerce Clause as sweepingly as does our substantial effects test. My review of the case law indicates that the substantial effects test is but an innovation of the 20th century.

--J. Thomas, US v Lopez

____________________________________________________

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

--J. Thomas, Gonzales v Raich

____________________________________________________

I really can't believe that anyone here would cite the General Welfare Clause as justification for the WOD. That is a display of contempt for the original understanding of that clause.

The following quotes from the Founders about the General Welfare Clause are from Dr. Walter E. Williams' website at http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/govt.html

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"

-- James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984)

____________________________________________________

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for 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 United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."

-- Thomas Jefferson

____________________________________________________

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:

With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

____________________________________________________

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

____________________________________________________

From a column by Dr. Williams:

Try this. Ask one of these Constitution-talking politicians how much respect we should have for the Tenth Amendment that says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Tenth Amendment simply and clearly says if the Constitution does not permit the federal government to do something, then the federal government doesn't have the right to do it. You tell me where in the Constitution is there delegated authority for federal involvement in education, retirement, health, housing, transportation, handouts and other activities representing more than three-quarters of federal spending.

http://mlvb.net/econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/99/Congressional-Contempt.htm

Do you love your Drug War more than the Constitution?

I’m not supporting the “war on drugs”. I never did because I knew from the start that it only goes after supply which will never do anything but increase street prices which makes matters worse.

US v Lopez is about gun control which of course there should be none other than careful aim.

Gonzales v Raich I agree with, if you grow weeds in your yard and smoke them and don’t try to get my kids to smoke with you then I’m happy for you.

I’ve posted before that 90% of Federal gov’t is unconstitutional - I agree on all those points.

As far as having no laws regulating recreational drugs, it sounds like a fine libertarian ideal, but drug users that I have known (people with extraordinary capability to handle drugs) have exhibited effects so bad on their mind, body and life that it strains credulity to think that all drugs should be 100% legal. The Founders, IMHO, would see that some of our modern problems are indeed relevant to the General Welfare (perhaps we could find out if they took any drastic actions related to individual rights early on under the authority of that clause). I’d be curious to look at some of the rampant immorality and social problems of today from their personal viewpoints - I’m sure much of our society they would find repugnant.

And please - I am not for any unconstitutional SWAT raids - I do not think those type of entries are even necessary unless it is to save lives. All LE has to do is sit outside your house or someplace you frequent undercover and wait for you to leave and have your vehicle disabled or blocked. They can then take you into custody rather easily, but it’s not like an action movie, it’s rather boring.

I found an interesting 29 page paper written by Mark A.R. Kleiman and Jonathan P. Caulkins, who also authored a book that delved into some of the details of legalization and the state of things at this point that had a lot more detailed information than I knew; perhaps it might help you to take a second look at how complete abolishing of all drug laws at once could have some unintended negative consequences.

I'm not supporting the "war on drugs". I never did because I knew from the start that it only goes after supply which will never do anything but increase street prices which makes matters worse.

If you support keeping in place federal laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause, then you are walking over the original Constitution. If you support abolishing them and turning such matters over to the states, then you are respecting the original Constitution. It's that simple.

Here's a simple either/or question. Do you support keeping in place federal drug laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause, or should such laws be repealed?

I've posted before that 90% of Federal gov't is unconstitutional - I agree on all those points

What section(s) of the Constitution did fedgov violate to bring this about, in your opinion?

As far as having no laws regulating recreational drugs,...

Stop it. No one in this discussion said anything of the sort. Recreational drugs are regulated by every state in the union, so abolishing federal drug laws based on the New Deal Commerce Clause does not equal having no laws against them.

The Founders, IMHO, would see that some of our modern problems are indeed relevant to the General Welfare (perhaps we could find out if they took any drastic actions related to individual rights early on under the authority of that clause).

What nonsense to think the Founders would act in a way that contradicted everything they said about the General Welfare Clause. These were honorable, principled men.

They knew that unforeseen problems would arise, so they provided a method for amending the Constitution. If drugs are such a menace that federal control is needed, then do the honorable thing and pass an amendment.

I'd be curious to look at some of the rampant immorality and social problems of today from their personal viewpoints - I'm sure much of our society they would find repugnant.

They would see that we've become a democracy. The entire Congress is popularly elected, it has virtually no restraint on what it can regulate, and it can spend whatever it wants. That's what the Founders would find most repugnant.

I am confident their solution would be a return to the original Constitution, rather than pass unconstitutional federal laws to deal with it.

Why should I feel bad for people that use drugs and get caught and pay for it the rest of their lives?

There’s a very easy solution to this, don’t use drugs. Do people absolutely have to? I guess according to some morons they can’t help themselves.

Get caught carrying under 28 grams of dope, how about a nice $500.00 fine and go to school like a speeding ticket instead of thousands of dollars of court costs, probation and weekly psychobabble sessions which you pay for.

Several states have done that. For example, it's a $100 civil fine in CA. In Alaska, it's legal under state law to possess up to 2 or 3 ounces in your home. IIRC, MA voted about 60-40 to decriminalize small amounts. This was despite police organizations and the state's DAs opposing the measure. (heh!)

The war on marijuana has all but collapsed. Once austerity hits for real, I believe the WOD will be one of the first things thrown overboard.

I'm a lot more concerned about us morons having to pay to lock up, put on trial, babysit on probation, because they are too stupid to know not to smoke dope

Let them pay the cost of their stupidity and not us