Child Hands Out Heroin 'Candy' to Classmates

Yahoo News ^ | November 04 2003 | Reuters

[knighthawk]

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A five-year-old Dutch girl handed out "sweets" to classmates that turned out to be ecstasy, cocaine and heroin pills, police said on Monday.

The drugs were confiscated by a suspicious teacher before any were consumed at the primary school in Hilversum, southeast of Amsterdam. Police arrested the girl's older brothers aged 21, 19 and 16 and her 43-year-old mother.

Large quantities of soft drugs and hard drugs were found in the car of the eldest brother. The brothers were in custody, but their mother was set free after questioning.

[hosepipe]

AMSTERDAM <<--- american libertarian "almost" heaven....

[knighthawk]

We are going broke in the near future. The social security and free-everything-system is failing because of less and less people paying the bill (taxes). The aging is kicking in too, so now instead of feeding the people who don't want to work, we also have to to pay for the elder. They worked all their lives and deserve it, but they are the ones suffering from all the leeches.

[knighthawk]

With a little luck they wander off to 'De Bijlmer' (Amsterdam south east) and get cured instantly.

[CWOJackson]

The Netherlands and Canada...such shining examples of Constitutional principles!

Canada not only legalized pot, the GOVERNMENT actually grows it and gives it away for free! And now the enlighted Canooks have establish government funded shootup centers for the harder drugs. Now the hardcore junkies can come in, receive clean needles, have a nurse supervise their self administration for safety, then provide then a safe warm place to sleep it off...paid for by the tax payers.

Of course there is still the occassional accident...such as the pot head who flicked his bic and self ignited.

[Destructor]

The section in the preamble that empowers the government to "promote the general welfare." As you presumably know the preamble to the Constitution is wide open to this kind of interpretation.

[philman_36]

The section in the preamble that empowers the government...
No section of the preamble enpowers anybody!

[Destructor]

"So, based on the posts you have made, I can only assume that you are supportive of any interpretation of the "general welfare" declaration. If you are supportive of the WOD based on this, then you must also support the private property confiscation by governments to hand over to business that will increase the tax rolls!"

Can you read? Seriously, can you read? I clearly stated in post #96 that I don't support that interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause, because of the misuse of that interpretation. If you're an illiterate, then I don't care to waste any more time talking to you.

I support the War on Drugs, becaust I know right from wrong. I know that legalizing drugs will create more problems than it solves-- just like the relegalization of alcohol!

[Destructor]

Whoops! Make that alcohol.

[Destructor]

"The section in the preamble that empowers the government... No section of the preamble enpowers anybody!"

Oh, yes. How careless of me! All the preamble does is "ordain and establish" the entire Constitution! Naw, that doesn't empower anybody-- hell!

[philman_36]

I clearly stated in post #96 that I don't support that interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause, because of the misuse of that interpretation.
No you didn't...The section in the preamble that empowers the government to "promote the general welfare."
I don't see how you can say that! You stated that a section of the preamble has the general welfare statement you're applying, not a clause within the Constitution.

[philman_36]

All the preamble does is "ordain and establish" the entire Constitution!
The preamble states the objective, it doesn't enpower.

[kegler4]

"LeRoy was citing a "speical sauce" Zogby poll. The guy who said that Bush had a 6% lead in California in 2000."

Now, now, Zogby is Rush's favorite pollster. Or at least it was back when it was getting everything right about Republicans and the others were missing the boat.

[ShadowDancer]

Must have been a public school. Hahahaha. Just kidding, calm down.

[Destructor]

The phrase "ordain and establish" makes the entire document official, and it is not merely an objective statement.

That is why Congess in able to use the "General Welfare" clause to continually expand government.

[Destructor]

Like it or not, that's where the justification for the war on drugs and many other things is taken. I don't agree with that interpretation, because it is a foot in the door for government to get into every aspect of citizens' lives.

[CSM]

Your post #96:
"Constitutional Authority for the "War on Drugs." Simple. The section in the preamble that empowers the government to "promote the general welfare."

I know that you won't like that answer, and I'm not saying that I agree with this concept. Frankly, I think the intent of this passage has been distorted to include everything under the sun, and this is the root cause for our ever-expanding Federal government. Given this interpretation of the Constitution, the War on Drugs is perfectly legal."

And from #107
".....I clearly stated in post #96 that I don't support that interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause,"

"I support the War on Drugs, becaust I know right from wrong."

You justify federal authorization for the WOD with the "general welfare" clause, then state you are against the the "general welfare" clause, but then you state that you are for the WOD?

Do you support the expansion of gov't. powers by using the "general welfare" clause or don't you? Freedom means that we have to take the good or the bad.

"I know that legalizing drugs will create more problems than it solves-- just like the relegalization of alcohol!"

Yep, we are completely safe from problems because of the WOD and no problems ever existed during prohibition.

[Destructor]

You asked what the Constitutional justification was for the War On Drugs, and I told you to the best of my ability based on what I have read. Just because I've read something in order to learn more about it doesn't automatically mean that I agree with any of it. I've read the Communist Manifesto, and I certainly don't agree with any of that business!

I've got to go to work now. Some of us aren't unemployed drug addicts.

[CSM]

You are dancing on both sides of the issue. You say that the constitutional justification for the WOD is the "general welfare" clause. You say you are against the "general welfare" clause. You say you are for the WOD.

You can't be against something, yet support it when convenient for you. That is called hypocrital (note: not an oath doctors take).

"I've got to go to work now. Some of us aren't unemployed drug addicts."

Yep, when logic fails just get on with the ad hominem attacks!

[philman_36]

What a sticky wicket, eh?

[CSM]

Yep, the "freedom is great as long as I am not offended or inconvenienced and people live by my rules" crowd is great!