[BibChr]

Yeah, I understand theft continues even though cops try to catch thieves. Same with murder. Well, rape, fraud, violence and kidnapping too.

Better admit failure and legalize all crimes.

Makes good druggie sense.

Dan

[Dead Corpse]

Come on now Dan. The flaw in that logic has been pointed out so many times you should really be ashamed of yourself.

Crime perpetrated on a victim is one this, someone doing themselves harm is completely different.

Knock it off already. People may begin to think you are dim witted.

[Dead Corpse]

Come on now Dan. The flaw in that logic has been pointed out so many times you should really be ashamed of yourself.

Crime perpetrated on a victim is one thing, someone doing themselves harm is completely different.

Knock it off already. People may begin to think you are dim witted.

[MrLeRoy]

I understand theft continues even though cops try to catch thieves. Same with murder. Well, rape, fraud, violence and kidnapping too.

Better admit failure and legalize all crimes.

Unlike drug "crimes," the crimes you mention all have victims---which means that they (unlike drugs) are the legitimate business of government, and that existing and potential victims (or next of kin) stand ready to resist the crime and assist in catching the criminal.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Yeah, I understand theft continues even though cops try to catch thieves. Same with murder. Well, rape, fraud, violence and kidnapping too.

Dan, that dog don't hunt and you know it.

[motzman]

One day, in the not so distant future, Abortion and Drug Prohibition will be viewed as shamefully as Slavery and Alcohol Prohibition.

Perhaps you should re-examine your position...

[motzman]

One day, in the not so distant future, Abortion and Drug Prohibition will be viewed as shamefully as Slavery and Alcohol Prohibition.

Perhaps you should re-examine your position...

[Wallace T.]

The War on Drugs is a Federally driven initiative to combat the sale and use of illegal narcotics and other drugs. It dates back to the Nixon Administration, although Federal involvement in banning narcotics goes back to the early 1900s. The first test of any Federal action should be: is it Constitutional? The Constitution does give the Federal government exclusive authority over foreign affairs, including the regulation of overseas trade. Inasmuch as heroin, cocaine, and some other narcotics come from foreign nations, it would appear the Federal government has the authority to stop their importation.

With respect to domestic sale and usage of narcotics, where is the Constitutional support for Federal involvement in this matter? The justification that has been cited is the widely abused "interstate commerce" clause. The language in the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to "regulate" interstate commerce. However, we must also look to the intent behind the words. The Federalist Papers indicate that the Federal government was given the authority to regulate interstate commerce for the specific purpose of preventing the states from creating tariff barriers. The intent was to create a common market within the several states, not to give the Federal government carte blanche to regulate the economy and to create numerous categories of criminals. Particularly in the last 70 years, the "interstate commerce" clause has been used to virtually eradicate states rights and individual liberties.

It is unfortunate that many "big government" conservatives, though opposed to the expansion of Federal authority in economic and environmental matters, applaud its expansion in the name of restricting narcotics, pornography, and other vices. I am not saying that state or local governments should abolish their laws in the area of vices; they have a duty to maintain public order and decorum in their communities. Many libertarians discredit themselves when they assert they have no problem with a property owner using his land to build a rendering plant or a topless bar despite the damage and lowered quality of life such a facility would have on his neighbors. State and local governments are the most appropriate level at which problems such as narcotics use should be addressed.

[Mark Bahner]

"Yeah, I understand theft continues even though cops try to catch thieves. Same with murder. Well, rape, fraud, violence and kidnapping too."

"Better admit failure and legalize all crimes."

No, there's a huge difference between murder, rape, fraud, kidnapping, and drugs. In a drug deal, neither the buyer nor the seller is interested in reporting the crime to the police.

With rape, fraud, kidnapping and murder, *someone* (if only the family of the person killed) is interested in reporting the crime, and seeing that the crime is prosecuted.

That's why buying/selling drugs is fundamentally different from a crime in which there is a victim (unwilling participant).

[clamper1797]

Better admit failure and legalize all crimes.

I have personally seen you on at least a dozon threads where the difference between drug use which is relatively victimless act as opposed to crimes like rape murder robbery which have direct victims has been pointed out ad infinitum. Anyone who could not have gotten that point by now would have to be one of the densest people on the planet.

[thepitts]

It is past time to end the War on Americans, AKA The War on Drugs.

[Protagoras]

Better admit failure and legalize all crimes.

Some "crimes" are just crimes because legislators say they are. Like crimes in one state aren't crimes in another. Or city to city.

RElegalizing the use of all substances isn't close to what you are attempting to characterize it as. Just as when it was a crime to drink alcohol, but now it isn't. You know the difference, too bad you won't admit it.