A Reminder For The Coming New Year

[Robo]

I agree, but what comprises 'constitutionality' is debatable. It's why we have a Supreme Court lol.

If the Drug War is constitutional, then the Supreme Court needs to articulate why the federal government found it necessary to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol in 1919.

I don't care about the taxes. Politicians have a seemingly infinite number of ways to raise taxes. I'd prefer they do it in some other way than legalizing hard drugs.

Then you have no problem that drug cartels and terrorist collect huge tax-free profits from the prohibition of some drugs and you prefer, (over government taxation), they reap the spoils of addiction, right?

I like my idea better. There's no good reason for jailing drug addicts. It's costly and over crowds jails and prisons. For the same cost, they can be placed into rehab for 12 months. It would create an immediate demand for drug rehabilitation centers and create private sector jobs.

I think we both agree that creating jobs is the best way to increase government revenue.

Many States are already doing that because they have discovered that rehabilitation cost no more and maybe even less than incarceration and it relieves jail overload.

However, your idea does nothing to relieve the violence in our streets and along our borders. It does nothing to reduce the corrupting of politicians and cops. It does nothing to reduce the billions of dollars the federal government waste on a failed absurd Drug War. It does nothing to take away the huge tax-free profits that criminals and terrorist realize from the Drug War and it does nothing to restore respect and promoting of our Constitution.

 

[Robo]

Nothing can be dumber than arguments suggesting that Americans should be free to buy and use any drugs they want.

Yet, in liberal and libertarian loony land, drug addiction is good and rules controlling them bad. Yes, they really are THAT fucking dense.

Don't worry moron I'll never expect you to present anything rational or honest to any conversation.

 

[Robo]

Drug addicts aren't locked up for their drug use you insufferable idiot.

OK desh's daddy. You're no more relevant to any conversation than she is.

 

[Darth Omar]

I disagree with your proposition.

If your proposal has any merit, I’ll look forward to your explanation of the near total vanishing of bootleg alcohol after the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol.

Market principles, relative to over pricing only come into play with legal products when government over regulation and or government over taxation come into play.

The problem is in the alcohol/hard drugs analogy: it's a tad simplistic.

Alcohol is one drug and hard drugs is a diverse category covering everything from meth, heroin, cocaine, crank and some others. New ones are popping all the time---some of them are pretty scary.

So simply because bootlegging disappeared doesn't mean black marketing of hard drugs would. Then there's the question of getting something like meth past the FDA lol. The stuff is, literally, poison. And yes, tobacco is a kind of 'poison' but most reasonable people are going to see the distinction.

So right off the bat, meth will be exempt from your constitutionalist 'solution', which doesn't appear to be much of one.

 

[Robo]

The problem is in the alcohol/hard drugs analogy: it's a tad simplistic.

Alcohol is one drug and hard drugs is a diverse category covering everything from meth, heroin, cocaine, crank and some others. New ones are popping all the time---some of them are pretty scary.

If they’re “more scary” than alcohol, how come drug enforcement officials admit that if alcohol were to be discovered today, it would be classified as a Class One Narcotic?

What’s more scary than a drug that causes thousands of auto accidents annually, causes hundreds of divorces annually and causes thousands of domestic violent attacks annually and even some murders?

The only difference between alcohol and every other drug is politicians, cops and judges love to drink the stuff and most are biased partisan, authoritarians

So simply because bootlegging disappeared doesn't mean black marketing of hard drugs would.

Why not?

Then there's the question of getting something like meth past the FDA lol. The stuff is, literally, poison. And yes, tobacco is a kind of 'poison' but most reasonable people are going to see the distinction.

Most everything can be called poison when ingested in excess, including most every food product.

What would the FDA’s excuse be for prohibiting anything that can be called a poison when so many, even most, poisons are simply regulated by government?

So right off the bat, meth will be exempt from your constitutionalist 'solution', which doesn't appear to be much of one.

Meth can be constitutionally regulated by government just like every other narcotic/poison. Nothing, that doesn’t violate anybody’s rights to life, liberty or property, can be constitutionally prohibited by government without a constitutional amendment.

 

[Darth Omar]

If they’re “more scary” than alcohol, how come drug enforcement officials admit that if alcohol were to be discovered today, it would be classified as a Class One Narcotic?

What’s more scary than a drug that causes thousands of auto accidents annually, causes hundreds of divorces annually and causes thousands of domestic violent attacks annually and even some murders?

Propofol is scarier. It's a highly addictive anethesia drug and unlike alcohol, where only a small segment of the population will get addicted to it, virtually everyone who abuses Propothol gets addicted. It's a one and done deal. It's a big problem amongst healthcare workers.

So should Propofol be legal too?

The only difference between alcohol and every other drug is politicians, cops and judges love to drink the stuff and most are biased partisan, authoritarians.

You don't know what you're talking about lol.

Why not?

I showed why.

Most everything can be called poison when ingested in excess, including most every food product.

What would the FDA’s excuse be for prohibiting anything that can be called a poison when so many, even most, poisons are simply regulated by government?

Meth can be constitutionally regulated by government just like every other narcotic/poison. Nothing, that doesn’t violate anybody’s rights to life, liberty or property, can be constitutionally prohibited by government without a constitutional amendment.

Things intended for human consumption are regulated by the FDA, for good or bad. No way meth would get by the FDA.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I disagree with your proposition.

If your proposal has any merit, I’ll look forward to your explanation of the near total vanishing of bootleg alcohol after the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol.

Market principles, relative to over pricing only come into play with legal products when government over regulation and or government over taxation come into play.

Your usage of the phrase "...near total vanishing..." is an admission that it didn't go away.
People are still moonshining, today.

 

[kaz]

America’s National Drug War is a miserable expensive failure costing taxpayers billions every year

The war on drugs has been a huge lever for government to pry into our private business without warrants. It causes shootouts in the streets terrorizing inner cities, destabilizes governments from Columbia to Afghanistan and in the end ... doesn't work. We pay all that price, yet teenagers even can get all the drugs they want.

Ending the war is a no brainer, continuing it is no brains

 

[kaz]

Things intended for human consumption are regulated by the FDA, for good or bad. No way meth would get by the FDA.

You mean like cigarettes?

 

[Darth Omar]

Your usage of the phrase "...near total vanishing..." is an admission that it didn't go away.
People are still moonshining, today.

Anyone who doubts that needs to tailgate at a WVU football game lol. Some of it's actually pretty good.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Another dumb, naive and idiotic comment from the dumb and naive; do you live in an enclosure insulated from reality? This notion that people can self regulate themselves and their behavior is lacking not only common sense, but anything remotely connected to reality.

Dumb.

you have never read any of the founding fathers comments or arguments concerning freedom, have you? you are that dumb

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The problem is in the alcohol/hard drugs analogy: it's a tad simplistic.

Alcohol is one drug and hard drugs is a diverse category covering everything from meth, heroin, cocaine, crank and some others. New ones are popping all the time---some of them are pretty scary.

So simply because bootlegging disappeared doesn't mean black marketing of hard drugs would. Then there's the question of getting something like meth past the FDA lol. The stuff is, literally, poison. And yes, tobacco is a kind of 'poison' but most reasonable people are going to see the distinction.

So right off the bat, meth will be exempt from your constitutionalist 'solution', which doesn't appear to be much of one.

this is also bullshit. it implies that the founders created the government to 'think' for us and adjudicate what is best for us when they did no such thing in prescribing those powers.

 

[Robo]

Propofol is scarier. It's a highly addictive anethesia drug and unlike alcohol, where only a small segment of the population will get addicted to it, virtually everyone who abuses Propothol gets addicted. It's a one and done deal. It's a big problem amongst healthcare workers.

So should Propofol be legal too?

Have people stopped using it because it's illegal? Can you prove more will use it if it's legal? Will you begin using it if it's legal? Do you submit that everybody but you will start using it if it's legal? Are you and the government smarter than everybody else?

You don't know what you're talking about lol.



I showed why.

Humor me and tell me again.

Things intended for human consumption are regulated by the FDA, for good or bad. No way meth would get by the FDA.

Government has no constitutional authority to prohibit any act that doesn't violate somebody's rights to life, liberty, or property.

 

[Robo]

The war on drugs has been a huge lever for government to pry into our private business without warrants. It causes shootouts in the streets terrorizing inner cities, destabilizes governments from Columbia to Afghanistan and in the end ... doesn't work. We pay all that price, yet teenagers even can get all the drugs they want.

Ending the war is a no brainer, continuing it is no brains

We have to wonder why some people can't fathom the absurd negatives of the stupid Drug War vs freedom.

We live in a nation of morons enslaved to and brainwashed by BIG intrusive authoritarian government.

 

[Darth Omar]

this is also bullshit. it implies that the founders created the government to 'think' for us and adjudicate what is best for us when they did no such thing in prescribing those powers.

Your rejoinder is bullshit lol. I'm advocating a less government approach, since keeping addicts out of jail and housing them in private rehab settings takes the government out of the equation.

What does that even have to do with the constitution, much less the founders. Feel free to explain.

 

[Robo]

Your usage of the phrase "...near total vanishing..." is an admission that it didn't go away.
People are still moonshining, today.

I don't know of anything that was once prohibited by government or is still prohibited by government that ever went away, do you? If you contend that moonshine is as available and being used as when alcohol was prohibited by the government you're either severely uninformed or you're a serial liar.

 

[Darth Omar]

Have people stopped using it because it's illegal? Can you prove more will use it if it's legal? Will you begin using it if it's legal? Do you submit that everybody but you will start using it if it's legal? Are you and the government smarter than everybody

Actually, I am smarter on this subject than most people because I work around this stuff. Unfortunately, there are no shortage of stupid people and/or people who [through no fault of their own] have no idea how dangerous a drug like Propofol is.

If it's made legal, be prepared to deal with the consequences. This is nothing like legalizing pot in CO. It would be a nightmare.

Thankfully, it will never happen.

 

[kaz]

Actually, I am smarter on this subject than most people because I work around this stuff. Unfortunately, there are no shortage of stupid people and/or people who [through no fault of their own] have no idea how dangerous a drug like Propofol is.

If it's made legal, be prepared to deal with the consequences. This is nothing like legalizing pot in CO. It would be a nightmare.

Thankfully, it will never happen.

Right, because people don't take illegal drugs. That's the whole point...

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Your rejoinder is bullshit lol. I'm advocating a less government approach, since keeping addicts out of jail and housing them in private rehab settings takes the government out of the equation.

What does that even have to do with the constitution, much less the founders. Feel free to explain.

the bullshit part is that you imply a difference between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition simply because one is deadlier or not. the constitution makes no such distinction in regards to government power over things.

 

[Robo]

Actually, I am smarter on this subject than most people because I work around this stuff. Unfortunately, there are no shortage of stupid people and/or people who [through no fault of their own] have no idea how dangerous a drug like Propofol is.

You didn’t answer the question, “do people NOT use it because it’s illegal?” “Can you prove more people will use it if it’s legal?” “Will you use it if it’s legal?”

If it's made legal, be prepared to deal with the consequences. This is nothing like legalizing pot in CO. It would be a nightmare.

Thankfully, it will never happen.

And the difference in the “consequences” from illegal to legal would be what?

It will never happen because what? Because there’s way more idiots that think the Drug War is the governments right of passage and BIG government needs to own the average citizen’s body because nobody is as smart as you and biased partisan BIG government authoritarian people like you are? Because in your world it’s better for criminals and terrorist to realize massive tax-free profits than it is for government to tax it? Because it’s better to have drug cartel violence along our borders and among gangbangers in our streets than it is to take the huge profits out of some drugs for dealers? Because it’s better to keep supporting BIG government wasting taxpayer’s money by the billions on a totally failed unconstitutional institution than use that loot to pay down the national debt? Because it’s better to corrupt cops and politicians with illegal drug money than it is for them to not have such temptations?

And you call yourself smart? YEAH RIGHT!!!!!