Is the Drug War a Conservative or Liberal Issue? (Warning: I am a Newbie to starting posts)

Sensei Ern

[FreeReign]

Actually, it often seems that the laws against "victimless crimes" actually create more "victims" than they proport to protect.

Hmmm. I know that people who commit, crimes create victims. Tell me how a law against the selling of psychoactive, highly addictive drugs creates victims?

[WhiteGuy]

"The American citizens voted for R's and D's in the last presidential election to the tune of about 99%."


Right you are!

Pathetic isn't it?

The apathy, ignorance and capitulation of the masses (at least the 50% or less of the population who actually put forth the effort to vote) has gotten us to this point.

There is hope.

If enough of the "engaged" have the courage to force change and can motivate a sufficient percentage of the nonparticipant into action then the will for freedom as a nation can be resurrected.

After all, only about one third of the colonists in the 1770's wanted independence from the crown...........

[Redcloak]

I favor a more radical approach to drug laws: Legalize everything.

Our only drug laws should prohibit sales to minors. Beyond that, if you're stupid enough to want to abuse a particular chemical, then you ought to be allowed to screw your life up as much as you want. The State ought not take over the role of your mother.

[Quick1]

Our only drug laws should prohibit sales to minors.

Let's throw in impaired driving laws, also. :)

[Redcloak]

Would you care to amplify upon your post?

[Quick1]

You said that the only laws regarding drugs should be sale to minors. I simply think we should also keep our current impaired driving laws, as well.

[Redcloak]

Laws on impaired driving aren't "drug laws". They do not prohibit the use of any intoxicating substance; only the operation of motor vehicles while intoxicated.

[Politicalities]

Hmmm. I know that people who commit, crimes create victims. Tell me how a law against the selling of psychoactive, highly addictive drugs creates victims?

Do you mean "highly addictive" drugs like marijuana, or highly addictive drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine?

And there's an entire thread about how these laws create victims. Thanks to drug prohibition, we have violent turf wars where innocent bystanders get gunned down in the streets. Thanks to drug prohibition, every single one of us has seen his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure eroded to the point of nothingness. Thanks to drug prohibition, people die because violent criminals have to be released early to make room in the prisons for drug offenders. Is that enough victimization for you, or shall I go on?

[Quick1]

Ok. You say tomato, I say tomato.

[musanon]

Tell me this. -- Why do you want a State to have the power to prohibit dangerous objects? - Isn't their power to regulate enough?

Okay, I finally see what you have been trying to argue.
Correct if wrong: You contend that no government can ban anything outright, because that is a violation of the 14th A. guarantee to property. That is, it is pre-emptive to your possession. Correct?

You're getting close. --- The power to prohibit is not delegated to any level of government in the USA. The 14th reiterated that fact to the rebel States in 1868. -- Although the 14th is still ignored today by States like CA & it's ban on 'assault weapons'.

But, after you possess that same item, the government may then, under a "reasonable regulation", such as a ban on the use, sale, transport or transfer of said dangerous item, arrest and prosecute you with all due process applied if you actually do anything with your property. Is that your contention, or am I still not following you?

Do you agree that CA has the Constitutional power to outright prohibit assault weapons, or booze, or drugs? -- I think 'laws' of that sort are unreasonable regulations, - thus unconstitutional, and unenforceable.

Why do you want States to have such powers?

[musanon]

Your point?

[mugs99]

The commercial sale of alcohol has definitely made it much more accessible to children and teenagers who are often put at risk by it

Not True. During Prohibition teen deaths from alcohol overdose and bad hooch reached epidemic proportions. Bootleggers did not check ID. Alcohol was as easy to get for kids as marijuana is now. That's why Pauline Sabin led the million mom march on Washington to repeal prohibition. The mothers of America got prohibition repealed because it was killing their children!
...

[FastCoyote]

"Every offense on this guy's rap sheet was committed while he was high. But I guess you had to give it a shot."

So, what you are saying is that the doper could have been arrested multiple times, but the cops were too busy busting potheads to tend to serious crimes? Or am I somehow mistaken?

[philman_36]

I am sick and tired of people disregarding the dangers of drug use in order to feed some need they have.

It's called individual rights. Any questions?

[FastCoyote]

"Often, as a young child, I wished my brothers would OD because they were destroying my family. Any finances my mom saved were wasted in bail payments. Much of anything of value we had was "stolen" (my brothers claimed it was stolen, but I suspect they sold it for drug money)."

I didn't mean to minimize the problem, I've known plenty of dopers. The question is how to deal with the ones that are over the edge. I think you can control the problem just as well by enforcing the laws against robbery, child abuse, etc. as having weak drug laws that are ignored 80% of the time.

[unlearner]

Don't forget Soros on your list.

A simple search will produce a list of rehab facilities that treat marijuana addiction.

I also do not consider "medical marijuana" by prescription to be the same as legalizing marijuana (to be used to get high). In fact, I think the pharmaceutical form of marijuana is legal already.

[unlearner]

"If you're trying to say that it's easier for a teenager to get a pack of ciggarettes or beer, than it is to get a bag of weed or make a batch of methamphetamines, you would be completely and utterly wrong."

Considering that around half of American teenagers admit to drinking alcohol, I disagree.

[unlearner]

You are back tracking.

Your "rhetorical question" presupposes the existence and rightful place of supreme authority belonging to the Creator.

The fact is you recognized God has the authority to determine right or wrong on these issues.

The judging others - mercy - compassion ploy is just a smokescreen to hide that you realize that your behavior is wrong. To pretend that self-destructive behavior is OK is neither compassionate nor merciful.

You're the one who brought up "God", not me. You need to defend your position, not me.

Are you prepared to argue that God is for using marijuana to get high. I met a guy years ago who argued that and even quoted (i.e. misquoted) from the Bible to make his case. When I asked him if he actually believed the Bible, he went berserk and starting cursing and screaming and claiming Jesus was a homosexual.

"what you think the prison terms should be for adultery and/or failing to respect one's parents."

People who do these things are worthy of death according to the Bible. Old Testament law did not proscribe incarceration.

The truth will set you free. It may make you angry first.

[unlearner]

"Not True. During Prohibition teen deaths from alcohol overdose and bad hooch reached epidemic proportions."

OK. I'll bite. What constitutes "epidemic proportions"?

Considering about half of American teenagers admit to drinking alcohol, are you claiming more were drinking during prohibition? I don't buy that.

You also seem to be arguing that prohibition CAUSED their irresponsible behavior. That does not impress me as a very conservative position.

I can't seem to follow the logic of those advocating drug legalization. First they argue that drugs like marijuana are not addictive. Then they argue that people do these drugs because they can't help themselves.

[68 grunt]

There is no longer any difference between them. We have one party now. The Establishment Party, divided into two camps...Christian and Secular.

These is very little difference between the two national parties, divided into two camps ~ national socialist and communist socialist. Each camp uses Christian/secular propaganda as they need.