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
Spot on.
Individual rights do not include the right to endanger others. Any questions?
Please explain to me how you got this out of what I said, which was:
"Every offense on this guy's rap sheet was committed while he was high. But I guess you had to give it a shot."
Indeed. But if you've read my other posts, you know that this guy had quite a rap sheet - and every offense was committed when he was high. While it is likely he had the tendency toward violence within him, the drugs were what lowered his inhibitions so that he would act on that tendency.
As it is, making it illegal to be under the influence is too much big brother for my taste.
Not for me.
Yep, they do. And if you've read my other posts, you already know that I wouldn't have any issue whatsoever with making alcohol illegal.
And of course, the Cato Institute is an unbiased source of information. :::rolls eyes:::
I didn't say every single one, did I. But I certainly don't know of any who are productive citizens, and you don't know of any either. I wonder if anyone on the thread knows of a meth addict who is a productive citizen.
Wholly irrelevant to the question of whether it'd grow or shrink should the price change.
The question wasn't about the size of the group growing or shrinking.
Are you?
Yes, I'm still waiting for you to prove your statement. Apparently, you cannot or you would have done so by now.
Have a nice day.
::::sigh:::::
Have you actually read any of my posts? It sure doesn't seem like it.
The guy was high when he did this. His record showed that any time he committed a crime, he'd been high. There was no record of violence on his part when he wasn't high.
Does that help your understanding?
Nicotine and alcohol are drugs.
Better tell that to a defenseman taking a slapshot from the blue line, then.
I know this was meant as a joke, but in some jurisdictions, they monitor electric usage for "patterns" of drug growing.
I read last year of a families house who was raided because they woke up too early and set the washing machine to start at 4am or something. It turns out the the cops monitor electricity usage, and got warrants for houses that show a pattern of power usage that pot growers typically use.
I'm sure that you are right about that.
Remember 9/11?
What was it, 2 weeks and the PATRIOT Act was voted into law? The plan was sitting on someone's shelf just waiting for the right time to impose it.
I am against the WoD just as I am against the WoPoverty and most of the domestic WoTerror. Until we have secure borders, do you really think that we can fight either the WoD or the WoT?
If we're not serious about either of these wars, what is the purpose of waging them?
What if she was raped and thrown out a window by a drunk? Does that count? I forget what percentage of "acuantaince rapes" and "domestic violence" were committed under the influence of alcohol, but the numbers were very high.
If you've read my previous posts, you know I wouldn't have a problem with alcohol being made illegal.
MEGoody: "Not for me."
Surprize, surprize, surprize ~
Wow. I guess I really do have to explain the concept of the "rhetorical question" to you.
I wasn't literally asking which particular person's demise elevated you to the position of God. I should think this would be obvious, since the obvious answer to such a literal question would be "God", and there's little or no evidence to suggest that you are next in the line of succession to Godhood anyway. If you like, feel free to substitute "who died and made you dictator", "who died and made you Grand High Poobah", or if you really truly can't grasp the concept here and insist on being strictly literal, "what gives you the right to decide how people should behave".
The judging others - mercy - compassion ploy is just a smokescreen to hide that you realize that your behavior is wrong.
My behavior? I don't use drugs, thank you very much.
To pretend that self-destructive behavior is OK is neither compassionate nor merciful.
Neither is punishing allegedly self-destructive behavior by destroying the self-destructive individual with a prison term. And to declare that everything that's not illegal is "OK" is horribly destructive to the concept of individual rights and limited government. Hey, I don't think that nosepicking is "OK"... should we institute a $20 billion War on Nosepicking and sentence the guilty to mandatory years-long stretches in the pokey?
You're the one who brought up "God", not me. You need to defend your position, not me.
You're the one who's ludicrously misinterpreting my position. For the record, I highly doubt that any rational supreme being would approve of our near-suicidal policy on drugs, but that shouldn't be a factor in deciding the law anyway.
Sheesh. I thought that MEGoody was the silliest person in this thread, but you're really giving him a run for his money.
Are you prepared to argue that God is for using marijuana to get high.
Are you prepared to argue that everything God is not "for" should be against the law? You don't own any clothing made of two different kinds of fabric, do you? 'Cause if you do, off to the slammer with you!
I met a guy years ago who argued that and even quoted (i.e. misquoted) from the Bible to make his case.
Good for you. I met a guy years ago who wore a tinfoil hat and raved that the government put mind-control chemicals in our Raisin Bran. Why either of our acquaintances is relevant to this discussion is beyond me, but hey, you brought it up.
"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.
Wow. So you think that a kid who mouths off to his parents should be stoned to death under the laws of the United States? Naw, I doubt it. You don't seem completely insane. But like many otherwise normal people, you have a really hard time of gracefully conceding a position that's plainly wrong.
Why do you want States to have such powers?
It is not that I particularly want the States to have that power, but that I believe the 10th A. reserves that power to the States, or to the people of that State. I believe that assault weapons are a particularly special case, as the RKBA is specifically protected under the 2nd A., and so per the 10th A., the banning of them is a power specifically prohibited to the States.
That you or I believe such laws to be unreasonable doesn't matter, unless you are a member of a large enough percentage of the population that you can vote them down or pass a State Constitution provision banning that power. The 14th may provide an approach to challenge them on a Constitutional basis, but I don't see that as a strong enough argument to overcome the States powers (often mischaracterized as "State's Rights") described in the 10th.
The power to prohibit is not delegated to any level of government in the USA.
But it is. Because it isn't specifically reserved to the Fed, nor specifically denied to the States in the Constitution, it is reserved by the States or the People. The 14th isn't specific enough to cover this, any more than it covers regulatory power. In places like CA, the people have ceded prohibitionary power to the Government, by approving laws and electing representatives that use this power.
The question isn't so much whether which drugs should be legal and which side of the drug war liberals and conservatives should be on. It's more whether or not such things are the province of the federal government at all.
My opinion is that drug law is up to the states, but the Supreme Court recently ruled otherwise, noting that the interstate commerce clause gives the feds pretty much total power.
So to all on this thread, suffice it to say that, after what happened to my sister, you can count on me to NEVER be in favor of legalizing drugs.
Rant and rave all you like. Twist what I have said. Ignore the parts you don't wish to acknowledge. Use all the silly hyperbole you like. None of that is going to change my position. . .it is not going to change how and for whom I vote.
If that bothers you, so be it. I'm sure it doesn't bother you near as much as having your sister raped and thrown out a window.
Good day to you all.
Rant and rave all you like. Twist what I have said. Ignore the parts you don't wish to acknowledge. Use all the silly hyperbole you like. None of that is going to change my position. . .it is not going to change how and for whom I vote.
If that bothers you, so be it. I'm sure it doesn't bother you near as much as having your sister raped and thrown out a window.
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.