Drug Legalization - Expensive and Deadly Lie

Washington Witness ^ | by Eric Lobsinger

[Dead Corpse]

It is a vote amongst the populace of a state to get their state legislators to do something. If they want a referendum on an issue at the Federal level, they have three: one is called a Senatorial election, the other is called a Congressional election, and the other is called a Presidential election. Their job as citizens is to hold their reps accountable, and make it known what their priorities are. State referendums have nothing, zip, zilch, zero to do with the Federal government.

There is, to my less than certain knowledge, no way for the citizens of one state to vote on a referendum at the federal level. No where in the Constitution does it say that the FedGov can regulate peoples lives on such an intamate level. That right there should make it painfully clear that this is strictly a State power issue Vs. A Fed Power issue. A State referendum should be all that is required. As for the election nonsense... our two-party system will never allow the changes needed to return us to a level of freedom any where near what the Founders envisioned. They would never cut their own throughts that badly.

Absolutely, 100% INCORRECT. Slaves had NO RIGHTS. Could slaves vote? Could slaves publish a newspaper? Send out newsletters? Organize a party? Demonstrate? Petition? Own things? I hope you are really not so far gone as to think a pot smoker is in the same straits as a slave. Wow. That's really far gone. That is profoundly gone. You have the freedom to do all of the above activities, and thereby affect change in society through the process. They had no choice but to break the law. They were totally shut out. They were property. Wow. Are you really unable to make that distinction?

What I see is abrogation of rights of the slaves, and abrogation of the rights of those who wish to poison themselves with drugs. A convicted drug user get all of his property taken and their freedom revoked by the FEDERAL government. I'm sorry you cannot seem to see the analogy.

I think you are missing the point, again. I can keep saying it, but something tells me it just won't sink in.

No. I see your point. I just vehemently disagree with it. This is a FREEDOM issue. If we are no longer free to do with our lives as we see fit, without harming others that is, then we can no longer claim to have a truly free society. The latest round of government intrusions only makes this all the more poigniant.

This, as I said, is the argument conservatives have been making for what? 40 years? I am not opposed to less regulation, or a new tax set up, if it makes sense. Same thing applies as with drugs. The process is there to make the changes. Selling those changes to the people is the hard part. But the means are there.

The conservatives, if there are all that many left in Congress, have done NOTHING but expand federal power. No where near as much as the liberals, at least until the anit-US PATRIOT Act, but quite enough to give the lie to their supposedly "small government" philosophy. Yes, the process is there to make changes. These are supposed to start at the State level. California is one of the States trying to institute such changes, but the Federal Government oversteps itself by over-riding the voting public on an issue it Constitutionally has no power to be involved in.

[Don Myers]

"that's not true, many people see police kicking in doors and killing people as a bad thing. Not everyone is willing to accept the evil people in our culture attacking people for being different."

Yeah, drug users don't like the cops interfering in their affairs. And drug users are definitely different.

[Don Myers]

"Your making yourself look more stupid every post"

Only to drug users and their apologists. And it is getting a little silly for someone to say that I don't use drugs but........ That cliche no longer has meaning.

[WindMinstrel]

how is it a cliche? Is there no space in your mind for the possibility that reasonable people could believe that the war on drugs is immoral? Are you so poisoned with pride that you can't believe that someone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith?

[eleni121]

"Do you often turn to Hollywood for your facts?"

Nope (although I teach film class and I love the cinema) but seeing that so many of the Hollywood elite supports legalization I figured that evidence to the contrary from Hollywood would help in making my case against drug legalization. Actually Anthony Burgess (wrote Clockwork Orange) is not a Hollywood type. He is actually known for his stands on individual rights etc.

[JediGirl]

i've said it before, and i'll say it again---i know people who smoke weed and are better off than those who drink every weekend.

[Don Myers]

For cliches, here is anothr good one. I belong to the NRA, but I believe in sensible gun control.

[WindMinstrel]

Maybe you didn't see my original question: how is it a cliche? Is there no space in your mind for the possibility that reasonable people could believe that the war on drugs is immoral? Are you so poisoned with pride that you can't believe that someone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith?

[Don Myers]

You want to talk about immoral. Ok, lets. Last night, at the place where I work with troubled boys, we had to call the cops because a 14 year old boy was caught inhaling a white powder up his nose. All evening, this kid was showing he was under the influence, but we couldn't figure out what he was doing until a bit later. Immoral? You drug users and drug apologists people don't know the difference between moral an immoral.

[clamper1797]

What has that got to do with legalization or de-criminalization. That boy would have done what he had done in EITHER case ... as evidenced. Difference is that if they were legal I would NOT have to give up MY right in the failed attempt to keep drugs away from him. And ... even if drugs were legal they still would not be for minors ... just like alcohol. In FACT drugs would be MUCH harder for him to get if they were legal cause they would no longer be so pervasive on the street. Your arguments are TOTAL BS.

[WindMinstrel]

how so? I believe that whoever provided the "white powder" to the child should be prosecuted (if it was a drug, of course). I think he needs counseling/treatment. So? Is that all you've got?

[Don Myers]

"And ... even if drugs were legal they still would not be for minors ... just like alcohol. In FACT drugs would be MUCH harder for him to get if they were legal cause they would no longer be so pervasive on the street. Your arguments are TOTAL BS."

Not as much as your contention that alcohol is being kept away from minors. Talk about BS. You invented it.

[Don Myers]

I thought that you could really not care less about the effects of your drugs on the young. That is what I meant about not knowing the difference between moral and immoral. And if drugs were legalized, what punishment would be dealt to the person who sold the drugs, loss of a drug pushing license or maybe a misdemeanor fine?

[WindMinstrel]

treat it like alcohol or tobacco

[Don Myers]

That is what I thought. Alcohol and tobacco are readily available to the young. And not much is done to those who sell to them.

[AUgrad]

And if drugs were legalized, what punishment would be dealt to the person who sold the drugs,

There would be no punishment since the drug would be legal.The main difference would be WHO was selling the drugs. A thug who is willing to risk everything in order to participate in a market with around a 1000% profit margin and who will sell anything to anybody, or a clerk , trained to card and deny sales to minors. I believe the theory is called separation of markets. Several well known studies have shown that ILLEGAL substances are easier for minors to obtain than LEGAL alcohol.To be perfectly honest I have heard nothing but platitudes and simplistic statements from you that fail to address the valid points presented to you for discussion. To me your attempts at obfuscation and misdirection not only invalidate your arguments but prove the very points you attempt to refute.

[Don Myers]

"There would be no punishment since the drug would be legal.The main difference would be WHO was selling the drugs. "

At least, you are being honest. Many drug users and drug apologists would not be so honest.

[WindMinstrel]

Don, you haven't addressed his point, but you still claim victory. Why is that?

[Don Myers]

He made my point with his own words.

[clamper1797]

I never said alcohol was being kept away from minors ... nice try. I said drugs would be harded to get for minors if legal because they would not be so street prevelent. Right now drugs are easier to get than alcohol for kids. BTW I appreciate what you do for kids. But I think you are misguided in your logic. I don't want kids doing drug anymore than you do. BUT I am NOT willing to give up my rights in order protect people from it. As far as anyone selling drugs to minors I believe they should be dealt with SEVERLY.