I say this as a Christian and a conservative.
Posted on 07/05/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT by Sensei Ern
For many years, I have been a strong opponent of legalizing drugs. As you read this, remember that I am still against drug legalization, but I have more sympathy for the opposing argument.
The reason I have been opposed to drug legalization is to protect children. I grew up in a home that was one step up from a crack house..at least we had heat and food. I know first hand what can happen when a child lives in those conditions.
As a counter, I have always felt that use of tobacco and alcohol should be legal for those of a responsible age.
The reason I am considering a change is because of the pain I went through this last month. Four weeks ago, I had a root canal done on a tooth...it was Friday. Once the Novocain wore off, I was in serious pain because the doctor was inexperienced and left a partial root. I experienced pain worse than listening to Rosanne Barr sing the National Anthem. He forgot to write a prescription.
I called the emergency number only to be told I could see the doctor on Monday. TWO WHOLE DAYS IN EXTREME PAIN! I had some 800mg Ibuprofen in the medicine cabinet. That only took away enough pain to convince myself to not commit suicide to stop the pain.
On Monday, I was given a prescription of Tylenol 3 with Codeine and an antibiotic. That took away the pain. Until it ran out. Again, extreme pain. Another dentist did another root canal...and again did not get the whole root. I made sure he gave me a prescription for the pain, before I left the office.
Finally, when that ran out, and another dentist completed the root canal, the pain has subsided.
To be in the kind of debilitating pain I was in, cannot be described. Bill Cosby once talked about taking your bottom lip and pulling it over your head...that comes close.
I have always been an advocate of personal responsibility. That conflicted with knowing that some of the drugs offered today are so dangerous that they needed to be regulated. Then, I thought back about how things were a hundred years ago. The doctor prescribed a treatment, and you either made it yourself, or went to the pharmacist, who mixed up the more potential drugs.
Back then, the only regulation was, could you afford the cost? Drugs were available, and the pharmacist would determine whether you were abusing. If you OD'd on a drug from abuse, you died and life went on for others. But, you could get drugs if they were needed, and you did not have to wait until Monday. You didn't need to wait for approval from anyone to use a drug.
That is enough about that for the moment.
If drugs were to be legalized, they should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes...have a legal purchasing age. Also, if you do harm to another while under the influence of anything, you should be held personally responsible...to the fullest extent, especially capital punishment for causing a death. If you are taking drugs to get high, strap yourself into a chair and sleep it off.
If drugs were immediately legalized, we could expect some immediate effects. For one, the drug addicts would run out and by everything, and we would have a rash of overdosing for about a month. The rest of us could then go on with our lives, only mourning the loss of a relative, instead of daily living with the horror of a drug addict in our lives.
Currently, I believe law enforcement should be stronger. But, I could be moved to undecided if I heard good arguments for the opposite.
--Pray for our troops --Pray they have wisdom to do the right thing --Pray they remain courageous --Pray they know we love and support them --Pray they get the equipment they need to do the job --Pray for their safe return home to a hero’s welcome
"Vote for Gridlock".
Best tagline ever.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." June 28, 2004
Obvious fact? Then you should be able to prove your assertion. Once you've done that, I'll bother responding to the rest of your post. In the meantime, I'll await your evidence.
::::crickets::::
Society "collectively decides" abatements in socialistic states, not in our Constitutional Republic.
You are mistaken. In a Constitutional Republic, society collectively makes its decisions through elections of people to represent us.
But the 'decisions' made must be Constitutional. Outright prohibitions violate our basic constitutional liberties.
The People (i.e. the collective society) elect representatives. The reps create laws, each of which abates unfettered action in some way.
Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.
The judiciary tries citizens according to these laws. That is due process.
-- Not so, as due process must also be followed in framing the laws. The judiciary has the duty to strike down unconstitutional prohibitive laws that violate due process.
There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.
And is therefore reserved to the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So any State can prohibit a drug or alcohol in accordance to its laws.
Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.
Further, if any drug is transported across state lines for commercial purpose, it would Constitutionally fall under the Commerce Clause, and the power of Congress to regulate.
I would urge you to read Justice Thomas as to how that Clause is being abused.
Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.
I cannot find the phrase "reasonably regulate" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments. Whom or what do you quote?
Common law & common legal usage. The police power of States is limited by 'reasonable restraints': IE, States are bound to support the US Constitution's restraints as the supreme 'law of the land'. See Article VI.
Uh... already done. There's a group of drug users who are able to afford their habits without resorting to crime. There's a separate and distinct group of drug users who are not. If the price declines, the former group increases in size while the latter group decreases. Is that not obvious? Would you like me to prove that the sun rises in the East and that 2+2 equals 4 next?
Once you've done that, I'll bother responding to the rest of your post. In the meantime, I'll await your evidence.
Here, allow me to translate that from Idiot into English for you: "I'm getting tired of getting my ass consistently thrashed in this debate for which I am clearly woefully unequipped, so I'll declare victory and slink away with my tail between my legs, in the probably futile hope that nobody will notice."
It is because of the cost to everyone else when you get screwed up and have to have everyone else take care of you.
Nobody HAS to take care of you. That would be slavery.
Why, thank you.............
Very kind of you so notice.
Sadly its our only chance to stop the steady march toward the end of our Republic.
I appreciate your screen name......................
The last real leader we've had.
Keep the faith
So you know of a group of meth users who can afford their habits without resorting to crime? Just how big is this group?
There's a separate and distinct group of drug users who are not.
Ah, thank you for admitting it.
Still waiting for you to prove your statement.
Believe it or not, I'd want to rip the lungs out of the bastard whether the scum was on legal drugs, illegal drugs or stone cold sober. For you apparently, a crime is much worse if the perpetrator puffs a joint before committing an abominable crime.
Of course for a prohibitionist like yourself, the solution is patently obvious: simply ban windows.
Uh, no... but if you're asserting that every single one of the tens or hundreds of thousands of users of meth resorts to crime to finance his habit, I'm afraid you've just shifted the burden of proof back to yourself. Good luck.
Just how big is this group?
Wholly irrelevant to the question of whether it'd grow or shrink should the price change.
Ah, thank you for admitting it.
"Admit" it, nothing, I trumpet it. I'll scream it from the rooftops in loud, all-caps boldface if you want: HEY! THE WAR ON DRUGS PROMOTES REAL PROPERTY CRIME BY ARTIFICIALLY INFLATING PRICES TO ABOVE-MARKET LEVELS!!!
Still waiting for you to prove your statement.
Are you? So not only are you illogical, not only do you rely on anecdotal evidence to justify sweeping policy, not only do you make ridiculously overbroad assertions without evidence while simultaneously demanding that your opponents prove that the sky is blue... you don't even recognize proof when you see it. Which public school did you attend?
And penises. Don't forget penises. After all, every single time this one particular criminal committed rape, he was in possession of a penis.
I would be in favour of legalising drugs if there was a policy change which meant those abusing recreational drugs received no public money or support. You know that we are all going to have to pay the cost for trying to revive a crystal meth user who has OD'ed. You know that we'll have to pay for that user to be buried. And so on. His rights to abuse himself end the moment he starts to pick my pocket to clean up the mess he leaves behind.
So by all means legalise. But this means the following:
1. Absolutely no treatment of OD'ed users. Let them die (unless they have health insurance - but let health insurance coverers not cover them).
2. Confiscate user's assets for them to be buried. If they don't have enough, donate their bodies to science, for education on drug use.
3. Allow employers the unlimited right to discriminate in who they employ on the basis of drugs. Make it so that no drug user can be in the military, work for the government, and be in sensitive jobs like airline pilots.
I hear a lot about legalising, but not much about doing the above.
Regards, Ivan
I say this as a Christian and a conservative.
Hey, I'm all for that too. But let's suppose that isn't an option. Suppose the existing social support structures were to remain in place, meaning that when uninsured drug users injure themselves, the burden falls on society in general. That's a cost. Now, compare that cost to the following:
There's plenty more; that's just what I've come up with off the top of my head.
Yes, the ideal situation would be one where people could make their own choices and fully bear the responsibility for the consequences of those choices. But even if we don't reach this ideal, even if society assumes some of the costs imposed by drug users, we're still immeasurably better off without prohibition.
Twist definitions, assign motives, change the basis of the argument, then declare victory and retreat.
You were wrong, I refuted you. Deal. The fact is that EVERY society is a collective society; that is to say, a collection of individuals with common bonds. You are the one insisting that I refer to the Communistic model, with its distorted definition of "collective". By doing so, you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.
I think that maybe we are on the same fence. I just don't think that our so-called representative gov't should be legislating morality, and that is what victimless crimes are all about.
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.