So? You did *not* refute the fact that making the activity illegal did not stop it, which is the point I have been making all along. Its corollary is that making an activity legal causes it to increase. All you are telling me is that a high chance of getting caught doesn't even stop people from committing a crime. I'm glad you finally figured out that I am talking about the incidence of the activity, and not its nature.
To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal
Who claimed that?
That was the claim in post #38 of this thread. Furthermore, I have seen legalized drug advocates make this claim many times...to the point where it seems to be their *only* argument in favor of legalized drug abuse.
Probably true for some definition of "regular and prolonged" (including alcohol use) - a definition that many users don't meet.
Actually, I would say that if they are using regularly, they meet the definition.
Sorry, but the Constitution mandates that the government both protect the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic
No it doesn't - search the text of the Constitution at the following link and you won't find those words: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.
and that the government provide for the general welfare (which is a synonym for well-being, and has nothing to do with endless handouts).
That's a general statement of purpose, not a grant of authority; it occurs once in the preamble and once just before an enumerated list of congressional powers. Federalist 41 makes this crystal clear.
Then the bit about "all enemies, foreign and domestic" must have been in the oath I took when I joined the military.
I'm not talking about the Federalist papers, I'm talking about the Constitution, which is a legally binding document. The general welfare clause is one of the justifications for a number of agencies dedicated to protection of health--FDA, CDC, USDA, etc. I know that a lot of libertarians would love to see all of those agencies disbanded, and allow anyone to sell anything regardless of safety...from everything you've written, I think you are probably one of them.
Like it or not, the brain damage that drug abuse causes makes some people violent, an effect which can manifest when they are sober and is exacerbated when they are high. Remember what I said about drugs changing the physical structure of the brain? Violence is one possible outcome of that kind of damage.
Sounds like urban legend to me - have any scientific studies to back that up?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=marijuana+brain+effects
Yep, urban legend.
So? You did *not* refute the fact that making the activity illegal did not stop it, which is the point I have been making all along.
I never claimed nor argued otherwise.
Its corollary is that making an activity legal causes it to increase.
No, that's not its corollary - its corollary would be that making an activity legal doesn't bring it into existence.
All you are telling me is that a high chance of getting caught doesn't even stop people from committing a crime. I'm glad you finally figured out that I am talking about the incidence of the activity, and not its nature.
You should be - as I've shown, the effect on its incidence of its legality is strongly influenced by its nature.
To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal
Who claimed that?
That was the claim in post #38 of this thread.
That post says only that it has not worked well.
the majority of users don't become addicted at all. It is immoral to punish non-harming addicts and nonaddicted users for what some addicts do (in general, and particularly the noncriminal harms of being homeless and begging).
Anyone who continues using an illicit substance on a regular and prolonged basis is addicted or well on the way to becoming addicted, regardless of their claims to the contrary.
Probably true for some definition of "regular and prolonged" (including alcohol use) - a definition that many users don't meet.
Actually, I would say that if they are using regularly, they meet the definition.
Possibly true for some definition of "regular" - but, again, that's a definition that many users don't meet. There are such persons as nonaddicted users and non-harming addicts - and it's immoral to punish them for the harms some addicts do.
Sorry, but the Constitution mandates that the government both protect the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic
No it doesn't - search the text of the Constitution at the following link and you won't find those words: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.
and that the government provide for the general welfare (which is a synonym for well-being, and has nothing to do with endless handouts).
That's a general statement of purpose, not a grant of authority; it occurs once in the preamble and once just before an enumerated list of congressional powers. Federalist 41 makes this crystal clear.
Then the bit about "all enemies, foreign and domestic" must have been in the oath I took when I joined the military.
Such protection must occur within the bounds of lawful Constitution authority.
I'm not talking about the Federalist papers, I'm talking about the Constitution, which is a legally binding document. The general welfare clause is one of the justifications for a number of agencies dedicated to protection of health--FDA, CDC, USDA, etc.
It's the rationalization for many liberal big-government programs - one that is flatly contradicted by the father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 41.
I know that a lot of libertarians would love to see all of those agencies disbanded, and allow anyone to sell anything regardless of safety...from everything you've written, I think you are probably one of them.
The federal government has broad Constitutional authority over commerce between states, and states have even broader authority over commerce within their borders. Talk of "anyone selling anything regardless of safety" is textbook liberal hysterics.
Like it or not, the brain damage that drug abuse causes makes some people violent, an effect which can manifest when they are sober and is exacerbated when they are high. Remember what I said about drugs changing the physical structure of the brain? Violence is one possible outcome of that kind of damage.
Sounds like urban legend to me - have any scientific studies to back that up?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=marijuana+brain+effects
The term "violence" occurs nowhere on that page. Adding that term to the search string narrows the result list to four - two of which don't actually mention violence, one of which is about treating aggression, and one of which makes no mention of changes to the physical structure of the brain.
Still sounds like urban legend.
That turns out not to be the case -- alcohol use and abuse actually increased during alcohol prohibition (do you propose to reinstate that, BTW?) and fell afterward as the "forbidden fruit" allure went away.