It's time to legalize drugs

[MikeK]

You gotta wonder if the left is crazy or they see a weak administration that they can bully into any stupid left wing scheme. At a time in history when cigarette smoking has been regulated to death they want to legalize a drug which is ten times more harmful.

If you are referring to marijuana you have been seriously misinformed. Compared to tobacco, marijuana is totally benign. If you doubt that I urge you to research it.

The first thing you need to know is while smoking tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of Americans annually and causes many more medical problems, there is no record in the annals of medical science of anyone dying or being made sick from using (uncontaminated) marijuana. In fact the Swiss recently conducted research which determined that occasional marijuana use is perfectly safe -- even for teen agers.

Swiss Research Shows Occasional Marijuana Use Not Harmful To Teens

 

[The Rabbi]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Neither is it disposable. Appeals to emergency ethics are the excuse for pretty much every regime that's ever sought to eliminate freedom and expand state power. It's an effective tool, because if the argument is real, if our very survival as a people requires ignoring the laws that protect our freedom - well, of course we should. That's what martial law is for and it's why we suspend our our usual concern for liberty in times of war. And that's why those who want to control us invoke the language of war for every other campaign they engage in.

But that's bullshit. Drug abuse isn't war, and it doesn't threaten our continued existence as a nation. Neither are most of the other things that are plugged into the "War on *" slogan (drugs, crime, poverty, terror, obesity, ...)

That;s a slippery slope fallacy.
Sorry. You'll have to do better.
The presence of illicit drugs causes tremendous damage to society. It is well within the scope of government responsibility to regulate it, preferably with an eye to eliminating it entirely.

 

[ShackledNation]

Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

LOL... oh, that's rich. This is why the Constitution is so watered down in the first place. It's all the "Except on this issue"s that have painted us into the corner we're in. The view you're representing here is why we're facing a law ordering us to buy health insurance. If you think the commerce clause (or the general welfare clause, or whatever) grants the federal government the power to tell us what drugs we can use, then you open the door to giving them many of the powers you don't like.

This is why I argue this point so vehemently. I don't really care whether druggies have the right to get high. But I do care that all of us have the right to think for ourselves and live our lives free from government meddling.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The way you seem to be interpreting it, it is.

 

[ShackledNation]

Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

So you must also agree that alcohol, having no reedming value to society, should be prohibited? And tobacco?

 

[The Rabbi]

Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

So you must also agree that alcohol, having no reedming value to society, should be prohibited? And tobacco?

Who says alcohol and tobacco have no redeeming value? You ever been to a family reunion?

In any case that is again a fallacious argument because we aren't discussing alcohol or tobacco or bannana skins or Nutmeg.

 

[ShackledNation]

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).

OK, so there is no part of the Constitution that guarantees a right to free exchange of drugs. This is unlike the Bill of Rights that does guarantee rights to specific things.
As for the power to ban, that is inherent in the power to regulate interstate commerce, as elucidated by Supreme Court opinions. This is why you cannot buy plutonium over the counter.
Your point has been refuted. Maybe you want to try another tack?

The Constitution does not enumerate rights. It enumerates Federal Powers. Everything not listed as a Federal Power is guaranteed as a right "to the states or to the people." The 9th amendment clearly states that we have more rights than just those listed in the bill of rights. If the Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate is constitutional, will you blindly follow them as if they are uncorruptable and infallible? Because you seem to be insinuating that because the courts say so, it must be right.

The power to regulate commerce does not mean the power to ban commerce. Maybe you have heard of this man? Thomas Jefferson said, “[t]o make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling … if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external.”

Another quote:

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”

But then again, maybe you disagree with the founding fathers and would rather have a leviathan government.

And you still haven't answered the alcohol prohibition question. Why did alcohol prohibition require an amendment if the commerce clause was enough to allow it through federal law?

 

[The Rabbi]

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).

OK, so there is no part of the Constitution that guarantees a right to free exchange of drugs. This is unlike the Bill of Rights that does guarantee rights to specific things.
As for the power to ban, that is inherent in the power to regulate interstate commerce, as elucidated by Supreme Court opinions. This is why you cannot buy plutonium over the counter.
Your point has been refuted. Maybe you want to try another tack?

The Constitution does not guarantee rights. .

Ever hear of the "Bill Of Rights"?

 

[ShackledNation]

Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

So you must also agree that alcohol, having no reedming value to society, should be prohibited? And tobacco?

Who says alcohol and tobacco have no redeeming value? You ever been to a family reunion?

In any case that is again a fallacious argument because we aren't discussing alcohol or tobacco or bannana skins or Nutmeg.

Who says marijuana has no redeeming value? Who gets to determine what has redeeming value? The free market. The reason people smoke weed is because it has redeeming value to them.

Pointing out hypocrisy in current laws is not a fallacy. The fallacy is central economic planning. It is the notion that government knows what has redeeming value to people (even though redeeming value is completely subjective) so government can tell people what they can or cannot not buy.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you must also agree that alcohol, having no reedming value to society, should be prohibited? And tobacco?

Who says alcohol and tobacco have no redeeming value? You ever been to a family reunion?

In any case that is again a fallacious argument because we aren't discussing alcohol or tobacco or bannana skins or Nutmeg.

Who says marijuana has no redeeming value? Who gets to determine what has redeeming value? The free market. The reason people smoke weed is because it has redeeming value to them.

Pointing out hypocrisy in current laws is not a fallacy. The fallacy is central economic planning. It is the notion that government knows what has redeeming value to people (even though redeeming value is completely subjective) so government can tell people what they can or cannot not buy.

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

 

[ShackledNation]

OK, so there is no part of the Constitution that guarantees a right to free exchange of drugs. This is unlike the Bill of Rights that does guarantee rights to specific things.
As for the power to ban, that is inherent in the power to regulate interstate commerce, as elucidated by Supreme Court opinions. This is why you cannot buy plutonium over the counter.
Your point has been refuted. Maybe you want to try another tack?

The Constitution does not enumerate rights. It enumerates Federal Powers. The Constitution does not enumerate rights. It enumerates Federal Powers. Everything not listed as a Federal Power is guaranteed as a right "to the states or to the people."

Ever hear of the "Bill Of Rights"?

If you had read my post in context, you would have noticed I quoted the 10th and 9th amendments. Your answer is a cop out. I am not going to restate myself. Read the whole post. It was longer than one sentence.

 

[SuMar]

Pot sure without question.

And put a hefty tax on it..Increase tobacco and liquor tax as well.

 

[martybegan]

You gotta wonder if the left is crazy or they see a weak administration that they can bully into any stupid left wing scheme. At a time in history when cigarette smoking has been regulated to death they want to legalize a drug which is ten times more harmful.

If you are referring to marijuana you have been seriously misinformed. Compared to tobacco, marijuana is totally benign. If you doubt that I urge you to research it.

The first thing you need to know is while smoking tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of Americans annually and causes many more medical problems, there is no record in the annals of medical science of anyone dying or being made sick from using (uncontaminated) marijuana. In fact the Swiss recently conducted research which determined that occasional marijuana use is perfectly safe -- even for teen agers.

Swiss Research Shows Occasional Marijuana Use Not Harmful To Teens

To be fair if people smoked pot as much in a day as they smoked tobacco you would have the same issues with cancer/emphysima, etc. Combustion products are the prime issue in smoking, not the chemically active component. This is found in both pot smoke and tobbacco smoke.

That being said people who smoke cigarrettes usually inhale far more times than your average pot smoker. Plus the current vaporization technology reduces significantly the combustion products, reducing the harmful risks even further.

 

[ShackledNation]

Who says alcohol and tobacco have no redeeming value? You ever been to a family reunion?

In any case that is again a fallacious argument because we aren't discussing alcohol or tobacco or bannana skins or Nutmeg.

Who says marijuana has no redeeming value? Who gets to determine what has redeeming value? The free market. The reason people smoke weed is because it has redeeming value to them.

Pointing out hypocrisy in current laws is not a fallacy. The fallacy is central economic planning. It is the notion that government knows what has redeeming value to people (even though redeeming value is completely subjective) so government can tell people what they can or cannot not buy.

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Odd, because just a moment ago you called it a fallacy to reference other drugs. I guess you changed your mind. And if you think drugs can be banned based on if they have redeeming value or not, marijuana clearly has redeeming value to those who use it, so you have absolutely not reason to ban it other than your own ignorance. As for other drugs: do people use crack or meth? If so, they have redeeming value to those people. If you want to make the argument that government can ban marijuana, you have to make the argument that government can ban alcohol and tobacco. You have provided zero refutation of that point, and you have constantly ignored the question about alcohol prohibition.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

In other words, you can't come up with a valid response to anything, so you resort to the fallacy of ad hominem. You failed to provide any reason for why alcohol prohibition required an amendment yet marijuana does not. All of your arguments about interstate commerce logically must apply to tobacco and alcohol, yet you intuitively no banning such things is ridiculous so you brought up "redeeming value" as if value is objectively determined by government and not subjectively determined by individuals. I don't think a million goods sold have redeeming value, but that does not mean they can be banned.

Wake up. Social statism is no better than the economic statism you hypocritically despise.

 

[American Cowboy]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ckIv1tiaU&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪I DO NOT FREE BASE COCAINE‬‏[/ame]

 

[BlindBoo]

You gotta wonder if the left is crazy or they see a weak administration that they can bully into any stupid left wing scheme. At a time in history when cigarette smoking has been regulated to death they want to legalize a drug which is ten times more harmful.

I would bet that most people for legalization are against regulating tobacco to death too. I know I am.

 

[shintao]

Now, if you want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been unnaturally strained and the FedGov needs to be reined in from this kind of stuff, go for it. I'm with you.
Except on this issue. Because drugs have no redeeming value to society.

So you must also agree that alcohol, having no reedming value to society, should be prohibited? And tobacco?

It does, but so does MJ.

 

[martybegan]

Who says alcohol and tobacco have no redeeming value? You ever been to a family reunion?

In any case that is again a fallacious argument because we aren't discussing alcohol or tobacco or bannana skins or Nutmeg.

Who says marijuana has no redeeming value? Who gets to determine what has redeeming value? The free market. The reason people smoke weed is because it has redeeming value to them.

Pointing out hypocrisy in current laws is not a fallacy. The fallacy is central economic planning. It is the notion that government knows what has redeeming value to people (even though redeeming value is completely subjective) so government can tell people what they can or cannot not buy.

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

 

[American Cowboy]

You gotta wonder if the left is crazy or they see a weak administration that they can bully into any stupid left wing scheme. At a time in history when cigarette smoking has been regulated to death they want to legalize a drug which is ten times more harmful.

I would bet that most people for legalization are against regulating tobacco to death too. I know I am.

I am for smokers rights, no matter what you are smoking.

 

[ShackledNation]

Who says marijuana has no redeeming value? Who gets to determine what has redeeming value? The free market. The reason people smoke weed is because it has redeeming value to them.

Pointing out hypocrisy in current laws is not a fallacy. The fallacy is central economic planning. It is the notion that government knows what has redeeming value to people (even though redeeming value is completely subjective) so government can tell people what they can or cannot not buy.

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

I agree. The redeeming value argument is bogus. Value is subjective. If people use a certain drug, it is because they prefer using the drug to not using it. It has value to them.

Are not cost and benefits determined by supply and demand? To me the cost and benefit argument is just the same as redeeming value. Each individual can decide the costs and benefits of whatever drug they please. There are no benefits to banning any drug. People still use them in the same proportions, illegal or not.

 

[martybegan]

Does crack or meth have redeeming value? Because if you want to make the argument that gov't can't ban those things too then you'd have to explain their redeeming value to society.

Frankly your arguments are pathetic retreads of standard narco-libertarian fare. I am losing interest rapidly in this discussion as your ability to express yourself and factual knowledge are pitiful.

The overall argument is where to draw the line. Currently we allow tobacco, alcohol, and caffine to be on the good side of the line, with other drugs being on the bad side. All of these have physiological impacts on people, and are biochemically drugs.

To me the socially redeeming value argument has no merit. What is the socially redeeming value of sitting on your couch eating cheetos all day? Can we ban that because it has no value to society?

To me the argument revolves around cost benefit. With alcohol prohibition people rapidly found out that the cost of prohibition far outweighed its benefits. Crime went up, people went on drinking, respect for the law decreased.

Our current "all or nothing" war on drugs needs to be looked at under the same light, by looking at each drug in question as a unique substance to be banned, or not banned. To me the cost of pot prohibition outweighs the benefit society gets from it. On the other hand the benefit of banning meth outweighs the cost of applying such a ban.

Biochemically speaking all these substances affect human personality and actions, it is only the law that discriminates them by thier effects, and of course laws are decided by the people at a given time.

I agree. The redeeming value argument is bogus. Value is subjective. If people use a certain drug, it is because they prefer using the drug to not using it. It has value to them.

Are not cost and benefits determined by supply and demand? To me the cost and benefit argument is just the same as redeeming value. Each individual can decide the costs and benefits of whatever drug they please. There are no benefits to banning any drug. People still use them in the same proportions, illegal or not.

I disagree slightly. Banning does make access harder, and does allow the state to prosecute for sales and possession. Cost/benefit in the case of drug banning does not equate directly to supply and demand, although they are related. When you look at cost and benefit in this case you are looking at both the individual and society as a whole.

In my opinion, hyper addictive drugs, ones where most users end up not being able to control thier use (crack, heroin, meth) are too risky to legalize. By banning we create a stigma attached to them. What we have now however, with a general ban on ALL drugs except the "big 3" (booze, nictoine and caffine) is we dilute the seriousness of the reasons why the harder drugs ARE banned.

Lifting the ban on marginal drugs, pot, E, Shrooms (im still up in the air on acid) allows law enforcement and treatment centers to concentrate on the hard core addicts, instead of recreational users. I know some people can use heroin recreationally, but the percentage is far lower than for recreational pot users.