Posted on 03/05/2015 6:14:02 AM PST by Ken H
No they didn't. That's another deceitful Libertarian talking point which I have destroyed too many times to count.
It is a deliberate effort to mislead the public about the fact that drugs were mostly unknown in the early days of the Republic, and not till they became widespread after the Civil War did anyone realize just how dangerous they were.
Laws to regulate them came shortly thereafter.
the mostly Democrat kooks in Colorado
Don't forget red state Alaska.
A State law may not override a Federal law.
And a valid federal law must not exceed Constitutional bounds on federal authority - which authority does not extend to intrastate growing, selling, buying, or using of pot.
And of course you are wrong about this, but still trying to mislead everyone into going along with your drug fantasy dreams.
He's on your side you know.
The sheriffs have a right to sue. Why should they be forced to quit their jobs over bad policy they aren’t responsible for?
Its the same as a county clerk or judge being forced to issue marriage licenses to queers.
Statements like that are a public embarrassment to this site.
First, I’m not a kook. Redoubling your efforts in the face of an unremitting history of failure is the nature of a kook. Second, do you honestly believe drug laws prevent any appreciable number of users from using drugs? Without question their primary effect of such laws is to enrich dealers. Drinkers drank during prohibition and the law simply made the Mob rich. Drug users will continue to use drugs and our billions spent on enforcement will simply enrich the dealers and strengthen the cartels. Third, yes, let stupid users of heroin and crack meet their chosen fate; I no longer wish to spend billions to keep the fools from the consequences of their choices.
But you go ahead and blame the boogieman, Conservatives.
A stoned society is not productive and is your perversion of freedom.
Wrong. You nor anyone has standing to tell another what they can put in their own body.
______________________________________
How strange it is that this argument is the same used by pro-aborts.
/s
Face it. Pro-dopers are equal to pro-abortion advocates. Their blathering are immoral.
I am well aware of “soldiers disease”, you should keep reading.
And of course you are wrong about this
And of course you will make no actual argument in support of your claim.
I responded to the wrong post. Sorry about that.
You can keep saying that, but it won't make it true.
What makes it true is Article I Section 8, which grants federal authority only over commerce among the several states, and the Tenth Amendment, which reiterates that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
I absolutely do. Do you have any idea of what happens when you *DON'T* have laws against drugs? This is what happens.
Now you can have a theory, but this was a real world experiment, and it shows that drug usage will continue to grow if the substances are legal and available.
Without question their primary effect of such laws is to enrich dealers.
And if it were legal, the secondary effect would still be to enrich drug dealers, but the primary effect would be to kill citizens. Take a look at this chart again. What it represents, among other things, is an enrichment of Dealers. Those are sales numbers.
Drug users will continue to use drugs and our billions spent on enforcement will simply enrich the dealers and strengthen the cartels.
Which is far less of a problem than would be the mass death caused by legalized drugs. The Fire is not an improvement over the frying pan.
Third, yes, let stupid users of heroin and crack meet their chosen fate; I no longer wish to spend billions to keep the fools from the consequences of their choices.
Allow the stuff to be legal, and the "fools" receiving the "consequences of their choices" will be your children and grandchildren. Drugs tamper with the mind in a way to make it seem like taking them is a good idea. Usage of them grows in exactly the same manner as an infectious disease, and the best solution is to prevent infection in the first place.
I thought the conversation was about weed.
People pushing the legalization of drugs while claiming to be "Conservative" are an embarrassment to this site.
“Wrong. You nor anyone has standing to tell another what they can put in their own body. The law has standing to hold them accountable for their actions while under the influence but choosing one plant over another is not the role of a civil government.”
So, what you are saying is second hand smoke from joints affecting smokers’ children by making them high as a kite is none of our concern???
Where do we draw the line? Opium is a plant. Coca is a plant. Most of the “high as a kite” drugs come from “plants”. It’s like homosexual marriage. “Let them do it”. Then the pedophiles want marriage. Then polygamists. Then it rolls down hill from there.
Laws have to draw the line somewhere. Where’s that line and who draws it???
Then you're no better than they are.
Now that's funny right there. Your obsession is causing you to project now. You ought to get some help. You are becoming hysterical.
The vice-police help ‘shame’ and crucify those who don't fall into the ‘condoned behaviors’. Not to mention now saying (like we all knew would happen) that ‘now’ that the government owns our bodies (ObamaCare) anyone who smokes, drinks, fat, etc. are a like a thief to your neighbor's pocketbook. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who are illegal aliens or participate in PC OK behaviors (sleeping w/####, ‘active’ lifestyles like skateboarding, violent protests).
Those of you who want to put down my ‘Conservatism’ because I KNOW our Founding Fathers never meant for the government to forbid them to drink, smoke, or what have you, I challenge you to show me where any of them thought the government should outlaw those things. And no, they are not the same thing as gay marriage. Gay marriage is totally new ‘idea’ which would have never seen the light of day. It is something that never happened in history. But now that we given up what a Free Society is even based upon (self-rule and family centered) and now we are influenced by fixed statistics, polls, focus-groups, and the whims of a government bureaucrat.
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.