Conversely they could represent a mistake and/or bad data. How they would get accurate data on drug addiction in 1880 is itself a cause for speculation.
For China, we have good records because the British KEPT very good records of Opium shipments.
Posted on 07/02/2014 11:27:52 AM PDT by Rebelbase
You are minimizing the difference between a "law" and a Constitutional Amendment. Just more disingenuous crap from you.
You are implicitly denying it by asserting that there was no upside to Prohibition. Again, you do not seem to have the ability to be honest when you debate a topic.
Were we losing 70,000 people per year from Alcohol in 1933? No.
What were your cons again, and how do they stack up to 70,000 dead people per year?
Then all you have done is to impugn the credibility of the link you yourself provided. Well done!
You are minimizing the difference between a "law" and a Constitutional Amendment.
So you agree that a Constitutional amendment would be required to re-ban alcohol? Do you agree that a Constitutional amendment is required to give the federal government legitimate authority to ban drugs other than alcohol? (My answers are yes and yes.)
Wrong - the DEA's numbers showing low and declining opium addiction when it was legal constitute a 'statement against interest' and thus have credibility, unlike their self-serving misconclusions.
I knew I would be wasting my time going in. I have argued with the legalization crowd for years, and they simply aren't amenable to looking at facts, reasoning or history.
They want what they want and they have a childish stubbornness to get it. Reasoning with them is pointless. The topic is always over their head because they only understand things in "simple" terms.
It isn't simple, but the pro-drug people are.
You are implicitly denying it by asserting that there was no upside to Prohibition.
Re-read the underlined passages - Prohibition did not effectively address alcohol-related damage:
The cons of Prohibition: 'Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
'Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition'
- Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure
The pros of Prohibition: It made 'Progressives' and other nanny-statists feel good.
No. Drugs are an existential threat to the existence of government and are therefore expressly covered under the defense clause of the US Constitution.
It is no different in effect than that of someone importing biological weapons to use against us. Actually biological weapons are probably not as deadly to our system of governance as are drugs.
China legalized drugs. Drugs Destroyed the nation of China. Legalized drugs are an existential threat to any government which tolerates them.
He may be - see post #195 and replies.
No. Drugs are an existential threat to the existence of government and are therefore expressly covered under the defense clause of the US Constitution.
So all government needs to do to ban Z is declare it "an existential threat to the existence of government"? Have you considered what a Democratic/RINO Congress might do with such authority?
I’ve read most of your posts - you are engaging in some deliberate obtuseness, though the possibility exists that you’re not pretending.
“Drugs are an existential threat to the existence of government...”
Sounds like someone got a little freaky after eating shrooms and is now over-compensating to appear normal to The Watchers. ;^)
bump
You cannot argue with people who think Brave New World was a guidebook to Utopia
Conversely they could represent a mistake and/or bad data. How they would get accurate data on drug addiction in 1880 is itself a cause for speculation.
For China, we have good records because the British KEPT very good records of Opium shipments.
It certainly is another way to rationalize “War on X” where “X” is the demonized (and often, but not always, inanimate) thing of the day. X could be pot, liquor, guns, dissent, Jews... (yeah, color me biased, I visited a Holocaust memorial the other day).
You are purposefully missing my point.
Scumbags are scumbags. Blaming inanimate objects for their scumbag behavior is illogical. Blame the scumbag. Quit getting your panties in a wad about inanimate objects.
And all this opium rage represented Chinese making free choices? No pushing?
Or better yet, hold the scumbag responsible to go to the Lord and mend his ways.
I myself noticed that we are losing *75,000 people to Alcohol every year, and I very much doubt this would be happening were Alcohol illegal.
Yes, the people who like drugs and alcohol have written for years that prohibiting it was a great mistake. As you pointed out regarding "statements against interest" I will point out that most of these "research" essays are "statements for interest" and therefore cannot be accepted on the face of them as being objectively correct. They are merely supporting the same old agenda these people have always pushed.
*I'm going to keep increasing this number till you decide to look up the actual number and correct me. Since I think you play fast and loose with the facts, I feel no obligation to be reasonable or consistent either.
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.