It's time to legalize drugs

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, asshole. We're talking about penicillin. Right.

On to iggy you go.

 

[BlindBoo]

1) Is drug use beneficial or detrimental to society?
2) Is eradicating drug use a desireable goal?

The answers to these questions are obvious to anyone with 2 functioning brain cells. Using a tried method we have the opportunity to eliminate or substantially curtail drug use in ths country. That is what we need to do.

1. Beneficial of course.
2. No, not at all.

So you admire how Mao killed all the drug users, is that correct?

So drug use is beneficial to society? Would you care to elaborate on that?

I had a headache this morning an I took a couple of advil and poof headache gone, getting work done....or I was really tired this morning and I had a cup of coffee to perk me up....or I had a glass of red wine with a steak last night to help with my digestion....after a long day of hard work I really enjoy a fatty to help me relax.

 

[mattskramer]

I agree we need to try something different. But turning this country into a nation of zombies isnt really what I would call a good change.
I proposed something different, and something with a proven record of eliminating drug addiction.

You didnt answer my ability to use pot, not to excess. why should I be banned from using it because someone else can't control themselves?

How would legalizing pot turn us into a nation of zombies?

Also the idea of killing people based on a drug test is, honestly, abhorrent, and reeks of fascism.

Law are not made on the basis of individuals. I can safely drive a car at 90mph. That doesnt mean speed limits shouldn't apply to me.
Legalizing drugs will incresae their use. Does anyone argue this is a good thing?
You dont like executing criminals? Sorry for you.

We legalized tobacco in spite of the drain that it puts on health-care costs. Alcohol is legal even though some people can't handle booze. Let's outlaw alcohol consumption. We can execute alcoholics.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didnt answer my ability to use pot, not to excess. why should I be banned from using it because someone else can't control themselves?

How would legalizing pot turn us into a nation of zombies?

Also the idea of killing people based on a drug test is, honestly, abhorrent, and reeks of fascism.

Law are not made on the basis of individuals. I can safely drive a car at 90mph. That doesnt mean speed limits shouldn't apply to me.
Legalizing drugs will incresae their use. Does anyone argue this is a good thing?
You dont like executing criminals? Sorry for you.

We legalized tobacco in spite of the drain that it puts on health-care costs. Alcohol is legal even though some people can't handle booze. Let's outlaw alcohol consumption. We can execute alcoholics.

Red herring of an argument.
Did you think of this one all on your own?

 

[ShackledNation]

Drugs should be legalized. If people want to use illegal drugs today, they do. Its called a black market. When you eliminate the free market legally, it will always sustain itself through a black market. On top of that you have wasted resources trying to stop that market (which is impossible).

Can somebody tell me where in the constitution the federal government has the right to outlaw marijuana? If you needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol, why is no amendment required for a different substance?

 

[Gadawg73]

Law are not made on the basis of individuals. I can safely drive a car at 90mph. That doesnt mean speed limits shouldn't apply to me.
Legalizing drugs will incresae their use. Does anyone argue this is a good thing?
You dont like executing criminals? Sorry for you.

We legalized tobacco in spite of the drain that it puts on health-care costs. Alcohol is legal even though some people can't handle booze. Let's outlaw alcohol consumption. We can execute alcoholics.

Red herring of an argument.
Did you think of this one all on your own?

Snorting Drano is bad for you. Do we prohibit it and send those to prison for 10 years that sell Drano?
Do we imprison pregnant women that poison their babies with tobacco smoke and alcohol?

The social and monetary costs of the bogus "War on Drugs" are ten times more than the societal and monetary costs when we legalize them.
No one stops anyone from doing drugs now. We could ad 1million new agents in the field and instead of 2% being stopped we could stop 3%.
Drugs are sold because AMERICANS DEMAND THEM. Laws stop the demand?
Education and treatment stops demand. Imprisoning those that do and sell drugs has not worked.
Show us where that has worked to slow the demand. Show us where the laws to ban it have stopped the use.
You can't because that is not how drug problems work. Drugs ARE A HEALTH PROBLEM.
Show me where there are cartels killing each other over territorial rights to sell tobacco and alcohol.
Where is that happening?
Or are you going to deny that tobacco and alcohol ARE DRUGS?
Then how come we do not have drug wars going on over them?
WELL DUH!!

 

[CitizenPained]

If you run for something else and win, can I have a job?

 

[CitizenPained]

Drugs should be legalized. If people want to use illegal drugs today, they do. Its called a black market. When you eliminate the free market legally, it will always sustain itself through a black market. On top of that you have wasted resources trying to stop that market (which is impossible).

Can somebody tell me where in the constitution the federal government has the right to outlaw marijuana? If you needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol, why is no amendment required for a different substance?

Article I, Section 8.

 

[ShackledNation]

Drugs should be legalized. If people want to use illegal drugs today, they do. Its called a black market. When you eliminate the free market legally, it will always sustain itself through a black market. On top of that you have wasted resources trying to stop that market (which is impossible).

Can somebody tell me where in the constitution the federal government has the right to outlaw marijuana? If you needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol, why is no amendment required for a different substance?

Article I, Section 8.

I don't see illegalize substances anywhere in the listed enumerated powers. Why was it necessary to have an amendment for prohibiting alcohol? What would make marijuana different so that it doesn't need an amendment? Reason is not on your side.

 

[Gadawg73]

Prohbitions of drugs in America has it's history in religion and control.
Both liberal philosophies.
The Founders drank a shit load of alcohol and smoked everything and anything they could get their hands on.
While the religous dominated monarchies in Europe had prohibitions on tobacco and other drugs.
Things THE FOUNDERS RAN FROM.

 

[Kuros]

Drugs should be legalized. If people want to use illegal drugs today, they do. Its called a black market. When you eliminate the free market legally, it will always sustain itself through a black market. On top of that you have wasted resources trying to stop that market (which is impossible).

Can somebody tell me where in the constitution the federal government has the right to outlaw marijuana? If you needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol, why is no amendment required for a different substance?

Article I, Section 8.

I don't see illegalize substances anywhere in the listed enumerated powers. Why was it necessary to have an amendment for prohibiting alcohol? What would make marijuana different so that it doesn't need an amendment? Reason is not on your side.

It gets in because the Commerce Clause was gutted in 1942.

Wickard v. Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

That's right, do you get that? Crops grown and consumed wholly upon and within a farm are interstate commerce. I officially stopped identifying as a liberal after reading that case.

Gonzales v. Raich

 

[ShackledNation]

Article I, Section 8.

I don't see illegalize substances anywhere in the listed enumerated powers. Why was it necessary to have an amendment for prohibiting alcohol? What would make marijuana different so that it doesn't need an amendment? Reason is not on your side.

It gets in because the Commerce Clause was gutted in 1942.

Wickard v. Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

That's right, do you get that? Crops grown and consumed wholly upon and within a farm are interstate commerce. I officially stopped identifying as a liberal after reading that case.

Gonzales v. Raich

Its absurd, isn't it? But the courts are not infallible. Those rulings are unconstitutional.

 

[CitizenPained]

Drugs should be legalized. If people want to use illegal drugs today, they do. Its called a black market. When you eliminate the free market legally, it will always sustain itself through a black market. On top of that you have wasted resources trying to stop that market (which is impossible).

Can somebody tell me where in the constitution the federal government has the right to outlaw marijuana? If you needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol, why is no amendment required for a different substance?

Article I, Section 8.

I don't see illegalize substances anywhere in the listed enumerated powers. Why was it necessary to have an amendment for prohibiting alcohol? What would make marijuana different so that it doesn't need an amendment? Reason is not on your side.

Not sure if you've noticed, but Constitutional Amendments are generally written to protect liberties, not restrict them.

There's no need to amend the Constitution to create legislation. If we had a habit of doing that, nothing would ever get done.

 

[ShackledNation]

Article I, Section 8.

I don't see illegalize substances anywhere in the listed enumerated powers. Why was it necessary to have an amendment for prohibiting alcohol? What would make marijuana different so that it doesn't need an amendment? Reason is not on your side.

Not sure if you've noticed, but Constitutional Amendments are generally written to protect liberties, not restrict them.

There's no need to amend the Constitution to create legislation. If we had a habit of doing that, nothing would ever get done.

Yes, which is why marijuana should be legal. The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.

And the prohibition amendment did not protect liberties. Are you forgetting that bit of history? If the legislation is unconstitutional, then you MUST amend the constitution or guess what: you can't allow it. This isn't rocket science. There are specific powers granted to the federal government by the constitution. If the powers are not there, the federal government cannot use them. Outlawing marijuana or alcohol or any substance is not there. That is why the prohibition amendment had to be passed to outlaw alcohol. Nowadays when banning other drugs, politicians just say f*ck the constitution and pass whatever laws they want.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't see illegalize substances anywhere in the listed enumerated powers. Why was it necessary to have an amendment for prohibiting alcohol? What would make marijuana different so that it doesn't need an amendment? Reason is not on your side.

Not sure if you've noticed, but Constitutional Amendments are generally written to protect liberties, not restrict them.

There's no need to amend the Constitution to create legislation. If we had a habit of doing that, nothing would ever get done.

Yes, which is why marijuana should be legal. The constitution protects the liberty of free exchange of whatever drugs you want.

Which article or amendment is that in?

 

[dblack]

Which article or amendment is that in?

Really? You think the way the Constitution protects freedom is by explicitly prohibiting government from doing something?? I realize that is the currently held liberal-statist view, but it's not the way constitutionally limited government is meant to work. The purpose of having a constitution in the first place is to list the things the government can do - everything else is off limits. So, if your opinion is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to ban drug use - the onus is on you to find the article or amendment that supports your claim. If you can't - you lose.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which article or amendment is that in?

Really? You think the way the Constitution protects freedom is by explicitly prohibiting government from doing something?? I realize that is the currently held liberal-statist view, but it's not the way constitutionally limited government is meant to work. The purpose of having a constitution in the first place is to list the things the government can do - everything else is off limits. So, if your opinion is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to ban drug use - the onus is on you to find the article or amendment that supports your claim. If you can't - you lose.

The statement made was that the constitution protects the free exchange of drugs. Obviously he thinks it is explicit somewhere, like the free exercise of religion or right to keep and bear arms.
So where is it?

 

[dblack]

The statement made was that the constitution protects the free exchange of drugs. Obviously he thinks it is explicit somewhere, like the free exercise of religion or right to keep and bear arms.
So where is it?

Read my last post again. Read it over and over until you get it. Read the ninth amendment twice as many times. The Constitution protects our rights by not giving government the right to trample them in the first place.

Do you realize that the ideology you're arguing for is that of the big government liberals you think you're opposed to? Here's a hint: you're not. You buy into their core beliefs and support the nanny state every bit as much as they do. So quit kidding yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

The statement made was that the constitution protects the free exchange of drugs. Obviously he thinks it is explicit somewhere, like the free exercise of religion or right to keep and bear arms.
So where is it?

Read my last post again. Read it over and over until you get it. Read the ninth amendment twice as many times. The Constitution protects are rights by not giving government the right to trample them in the first place.

Do you realize that the ideology you're arguing for is that of the big government liberals you think you're opposed to? Here's a hint: you're not. You buy into their core beliefs and support the nanny state every bit as much as they do. So quit kidding yourself.

Read the post I responded to. Read it a few times. Then read my response. Do you have a better response? His point was the Constitution protects free exchange of drugs. Where does it protect such a thing?
I dont care what your idea about the constitution is. It is irrelevant here. I am responding to an erroneous claim.

 

[ShackledNation]

Which article or amendment is that in?

Really? You think the way the Constitution protects freedom is by explicitly prohibiting government from doing something?? I realize that is the currently held liberal-statist view, but it's not the way constitutionally limited government is meant to work. The purpose of having a constitution in the first place is to list the things the government can do - everything else is off limits. So, if your opinion is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to ban drug use - the onus is on you to find the article or amendment that supports your claim. If you can't - you lose.

The statement made was that the constitution protects the free exchange of drugs. Obviously he thinks it is explicit somewhere, like the free exercise of religion or right to keep and bear arms.
So where is it?

The constitution limits federal government by specifically enumerating what powers it has, not what powers it doesn't have.The constitution protects free exchange of any good, drug or not, because the Constitution gives government no authority to ban any good or service. Drug prohibition runs contrary to free markets by banning goods from the market. If you think government has the power to ban drugs, then it has the power to ban alcohol, tobacco, cheeseburgers, soda, nonorganic foods, and anything else we put in our bodies that can be deemed unhealthy or harmful.

Tell me specifically where in the constitution it says Congress has the power to ban any good or service. And then, for the final time, explain why it was necessary to have a prohibition amendment rather than just write a law saying no alcohol (hint: because banning alcohol, like marijuana, is unconstitutional. And when something is unconstitutional but you want it anyway, you pass an amendment).