Posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT by Sensei Ern
Did it? Got reliable crime stats to prove that?
Do you think Kennedy would have gotten a job in a factory or something?
Not unless you could prove that Joe Kennedy would have been a model citizen doing something else that was perfectly legal.
No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.
Not only that, but the federal laws against drug prohibition flout the Constitution in at least one other way.
I strongly disapprove of alcohol prohibition, as do just about all sane people (a group in which I do not include MEGoody), but at least the alcohol prohibiters did it right: they amended the Constitution.
Given that the Constitution contains no authority for the federal government to ban drugs, and given that we have the precedent of a Constitutional amendment being necessary to ban a particular drug, how can anyone find room in the Constitution as it is today to allow the government to ban illegal drugs?
Tis a wonder that self described conservatives can advocate a "Power to Prohibit", but they sure do. -- Some here even go so far as to say that States [like CA] have a power to prohibit arms.. -- Figure that.
Which, by the way, is why Gonzales v. Raich cost Justice Scalia my respect. We have one and only one Justice who respects the Constitution, and his name is Clarence Thomas.
I agree. Thomas gets better with every decision, and Scalia seems to get worse. It's sad.
You misinterpret me. I use the term "society" in the same manner as the Constitution uses "the People", not as the Government, as you would have it.
Alcohol does things other than affect motor skills, e.g. loosen inhibitions, reduce self-control. Pot does some of that as wlel, although I will say that people under the influence of pot don't tend to become violent.
Eliminating the WOD, however, would be more than just making pot legal. And we all know there are drugs out that that increase the tendency toward violence.
Thus far, yours is the only post back to me that has indicated that not all drugs should be legalized. I find that interesting.
Nope. I used an analogy of your idea. Burglar is to fence as street dealer is to drug supplier; both are the bottom link of the crime chain.
So let me get this straight. You believe that a druggie will be able to buy 6 hits of his drug of choice for $5, AND that said druggie will be able to hold a job in order to earn that $5? If that is truly what you believe, then I have to disagree.
I wasn't talking about crimes committed under the influence
I was.
As for the "raping women and throwing them out windows" crap, you've got a vastly overinflated idea of the power of drugs
It's not crap. . it happened. And according to this guy's record, he has committed violent acts before - always while high. If you have a hard time dealing with that, so be it.
It'd sell at the price determined by the free market... you know, supply, demand, competition, all that sort of thing.
Exactly. And desparate druggies will pay a premium for their high.
I honestly think that Prohibition-related crime disappeared when Prohibition ended.
Way to dance around the question. I see that dealing with the issues is a difficult thing for you.
I'm not your "dear", and my mind isn't blank.
Apparently it is, since you seemed unable to fathom what my original post was all about. You're still struggling with it (or perhaps just being purposefully dense).
If one wants to label the war on drugs as conservative or liberal, I believe the criteria should lie at government's role. Many of the liberals I know that support drug legalization would use tax revenues from sales to pay for state sponsored drug rehab programs, among other things. In other words, legalization expands the role of government in everyone's lives. Likewise, enforcement seems to have a similar result. Those who push for huge funding projects on enforcement also expand the role of government in people's lives. Anytime people advocate bigger government for public safety, I see that as a "liberal" policy.
I've always thought that many so-called conservatives miss the snake in the grass on this topic. Advocating the expansion of government for something you personally disaprove of isn't very conservative at all.
If his daddy hadn't been a multi-millionaire, then he would have never been a seantor.
Like I said earlier, I won't report it if a fence robs my house.
LIke I said, using the Kennedys doesn't prove my point. Joe was a criminal looking for a crime.
It does tend to upset me when things like that happen to my sister. I would hope that you would care enough to be upset if your sister was raped and thrown out a window.
Hard to say though. For some people, the war against the WOD supplants everything else.
Do you HONESTLY think Joe Kennedy would have just gone out and gotten himself a little factory job if the opportunity to bootleg wasn't available?
Read the Preamble to the Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Sounds a whole lot like a group doing something collectively, doesn't it? And then there is the Declaration: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies..."
Could they possibly be acting for the collected People of the Colonies? In fact, it is not a Declaration of individuals, but "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America."
Hey, I have admitted that the Kennedys didn't prove my point. But the fact that many people are into selling illegal drugs because of the easy money. Take the money away and they will find something else to do. Some will still choose crime but some will not. Many gangs whose primary source of income is the sale of illegal drugs will beome much smaller.
There will always be crime, however, creating criminals by legislative act only serves to empower the government, not the people. Laws cannot free you. They can only imprison you.
Oh, never fear, your record of disagreement with obvious facts is well on display in this thread.
Contrary to your belief that you appear to cherish with a nearly religious intensity, the vast majority of drug users are productive members of society. And as for a reduction in property crimes accompanying the reduction in price that would come with legalization, sheesh, how obvious can you get? Some drug users make enough money to support their habits without resorting to crime. Some do not. If the price drops, the former group will grow larger and the latter group will grow shorter. That's pretty basic economics.
I wasn't talking about crimes committed under the influence
I was.
Unfortunately for you, when you're trying to refute someone you have to refute what he means, not what you mean.
It's not crap. . it happened.
It is crap... because you are using an anecdote to decide policy. Many or even most drug users do not rape and defenestrate. But because you have personal experience with a rare exception, you're willing to subscribe to an insane policy of prohibition... which was fully in place when the aforementioned rape and defenestration occurred, and didn't prevent it.
I bet you find a lot of common cause with the gun grabbers. After all, guns are involved in a lot of crimes, too. Best we should ban them all. Also, cars are used to break the law a lot... and, in fact, cause a heck of a lot more deaths than drugs to. Put them on the banning list while you're at it. Also also, it's a known fact that 100% of violent rapists consume oxygen. We'd better ban that, too. You know, just to be safe.
Exactly. And desparate druggies will pay a premium for their high.
And if the price is above the equilibrium market value, more suppliers will be attracted by the profit potential, causing prices to fall. You know, the way things always work in a free market. Please, help me out here, are you seriously asserting that a black market doesn't result in dramatically inflated prices? Are you able to keep a straight face while you claim that the War on Drugs hasn't made drugs many times more expensive than they'd be in a free market? I mean, you seem like you're serious, but the allegation is so outlandish, so ludicrous, so obviously false that I find it hard to believe that anyone with the intelligence to work a keyboard would buy into it.
Apparently it is, since you seemed unable to fathom what my original post was all about. You're still struggling with it (or perhaps just being purposefully dense).
I'm not dense, purposely or otherwise. Don't blame me if you're unable to clearly put forth your ideas. Exactly what am I misinterpreting? Because it sure seems to me that you're saying that eliminating criminal markets doesn't reduce crime. Have I misunderstood?
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.