Heroin problem: 'We're not going to arrest our way out of this'

The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus [IL] ^ | January 18, 2015 | Rachel Warmke

[JoeFromSidney]

Switzerland, which offers heroin addicts access to clinics with clean needles and pure heroin as part of drug treatment services, as examples to emulate.

I don't think Swiss "needle parks" are anything to emulate. Still, I favor decriminalization.

[gdani]

>>>In any event, how exactly does the Government (or anyone else) get reliable figures on how much of any kind of illegal, underground activity occurs?

>Methodologies are cited in the report.

Ahh, yes. Now I see. They paid people $30 to take interviews. Seems pretty airtight.....

[Lurker]

Still trying to square it with Article 1, Section 8 and that pesky 10th Amendment thingy I’m afraid.

Looks to me like it’s Un-Constitutional on its face.

Have you had any luck finding that specific, enumerated power we discussed earlier? Maybe your eyes are better than mine because I’m having a devil of a time finding it.

Why don’t you just come out and admit that you don’t give a rodents anus for what’s in the Constitution and be done with it. At least then we could have an honest discussion.

L

[DiogenesLamp]

While you’re at it please cite for me exactly where in Article 2, Section 8 the federal government is granted the specific, enumerated power to regulate what people put in their bodies.

It's called THE DEFENSE CLAUSE. As it is apparent from history, that NOT STOPPING DRUGS will destroy a nation, it is within the mandate of DEFENSE OF THE NATION to stop people from putting mind altering substances into their or anyone else's bodies.

It falls under the umbrella of defense against enemies foreign and domestic.

[outpostinmass2]

I found something:

Article 1 Section 8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

How did you make out?

[Lurker]

“It’s called THE DEFENSE CLAUSE”

Do you mean to say the power to declare War?

L

[ConservingFreedom]

it is within the mandate of DEFENSE OF THE NATION to stop people from putting mind altering substances into their or anyone else's bodies.

Y'know, like Roe v Wade's "emanations" from "penumbras" or Wickard v Filburn's "substantial effects" - a new frontier in the 'living Constitution'.

[Lurker]

“Article 1 Section 8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

Oh dear, no I’m going to have to refer you to another set of documents called The Federalist Papers so you can learn what was intended by that one. Guess what, it wasn’t what you think it was.

Isn’t learning about the Constitution fun?

L

[ConservingFreedom]

I don't think Swiss "needle parks" are anything to emulate.

They're not referring to Needle Park, which Switzerland quickly abandoned; it's obvious that legalizing in a single small area will concentrate sale and use in that small area, with all the predictable harms.

[gdani]

Article 1 Section 8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

Luckily, past administrations and sessions of Congress have only used their Commerce Clause authority in the most narrowly-defined & conservative of purposes.

No, wait...

[DiogenesLamp]

The grownups will stay here and enjoy the limited, constitutional government our Founders gave to us.

You flatter yourself. You are Anything but a grown up. You are a winy little Libertarian doper who thinks the world will blow up in a Fascist apocalypse if someone slaps your hand and tells you "no".

You don't have a right to do dope, you NEVER had a right to do dope, and the rest of us who want to live peaceably in this world do not want to deal with the problems caused by you childish little brats who think you ought to be tolerated in the smoking of your dope.

This is what you look like to the real grownups in this country.

I want my DOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

[Lurker]

No, it isn’t. And no amount of capital letters will make it so.

Now, I believe you have a move to arrange. Singapore, wasn’t it? Don’t forget to write. Oh and enjoy paying a $60,000 tax on an automobile.

Don’t forget the chewing gum prescription. It’s terribly important.

L

[outpostinmass2]

I don’t what you’re talking about I’m having an adult conversation just like you asked. So when is the Supreme Court going to dissolve the FDA?

[ConservingFreedom]

"You posted a cartoon graphic, so you must be right. You win the debate! Good job!"

[DiogenesLamp]

Please quote the favorable claim about drugs and drug usage in this article.

Not going to play your stupid word games. Your message is loud and clear. "ARRESTING DOPERS DOESN'T WORK".

It is just another Pro-Dope ADVOCACY piece from you.

[ConservingFreedom]

So when is the Supreme Court going to dissolve the FDA?

Right after they allow the states to restrict abortions. Are you really arguing on a conservative site that the Supreme Court is a reliable measure of adherence to the Constitution?

[Lurker]

“So when is the Supreme Court going to dissolve the FDA?”

Now that’s the best question of the thread. About the same time they admit Roe v Wade or Wickard v Filburn were mistakes I suppose.

L

[outpostinmass2]

“Article 1 Section 8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

Oh dear, no I’m going to have to refer you to another set of documents called The Federalist Papers so you can learn what was intended by that one. Guess what, it wasn’t what you think it was.

Isn’t learning about the Constitution fun?

L

---

I agree this is fun. What do you think of the 100 patients who died due to sulfanilamide medication poising? Those jerks brought about the FDA. The owner of the company, when pressed to admit some measure of culpability, infamously answered, You should read up on the Elixir sulfanilamide disaster. This is what the owner of S.E. Massengill Company had to say: “We have been supplying a legitimate professional demand and not once could have foreseen the unlooked-for results. I do not feel that there was any responsibility on our part.”

[ConservingFreedom]

articles highlighting some favorable claim about drugs and drug usage.

Please quote the favorable claim about drugs and drug usage in this article.

"ARRESTING DOPERS DOESN'T WORK".

How is that a favorable claim about drugs and drug usage?

[DiogenesLamp]

Singapore itself seems less gung-ho about the success of its current drug policies than some FReepers:

More like an effort to deal with whiny country's who object to their citizens getting hung, rather than due to any lack of effectiveness at curtailing drugs. I assure you, there is ZERO RECIDIVISM for *THEIR* convicted drug dealers.