War on drugs hits new low

The Austin Chronicle ^ | NOVEMBER 25, 2005 | JORDAN SMITH

[William Terrell]

I trust then that when someone kills a close relative of yours through malice or stupidity you'll shrug it off as the end result of an unforseen chain of random events, easily forgiven.

I trust I won't express my remorse and anger in a way that supports an assault on the basic rights of all in my nation.

Things happen for a reason. . .

My point exactly, and you don't know what the reason is.

[William Terrell]

LoL.

[William Terrell]

Well, did you start off neither for nor against cannabis, and, through study and analysis of compilations of research and objective evidence, inescapably arrive at the conclusion that cannabis posed a clear and present danger?

[GBA]

I wondered about that myself. Most of what I've seen here are emotionally based arguments that often degenerate into an ad hominem attack.

I'm sorry that anyone is ever killed by an impaired driver. We have laws against that. But in this case it could just have easily been a drunk driver, someone on an over the counter cold med, someone with a sleeping disorder...the list of things that impair drivers who then have an accident is long. There was a story here this weekend about a kid text messaging who hit and killed a guy on a bicycle.

From the research I've done, it's far more benign than drinking in every way. Anecdotally, I've known several regular users, but unless they told you, you'd never know. It was for them what having a cold beer or two after work was for another. There are better, more productive ways to relax, but let people decide that one for themselves.

I have know many people who lost their lives due to drinking, either theirs or someone else's. I've seen more than a few alcohol fueled fights and craziness. Pot doesn't seem to make people as aggressive nor as stupid as alcohol. But I'm not for making it illegal again. We tried that and it doesn't work. Doesn't seem to be working with marijuana either.

[William Terrell]

There are hundreds of thousands of people every year that cause fatal accidents that haven't been taking anything. I would be interested to see what percentage out of all automobile fatalities are found to be impaired by any drug.

A person who has cannabis in his blood could have taken it a month ago and none since, so the test proves nothing.

A person cannabis-positive after an accident in no way proves the accident was a result of cannabis, even if he had taken it just prior. That is an assumption, not born out according to studies by the US Transportation depart, by the way.

Actually, the slight paranoia induced by delta9 tetrahydrocanabinol has been found to make a driver tend to be more careful and aware, and the chemical does not depress the CNS like alcohol, but rather, being a stimulant, enhances it.

A drunk person is aware of his debility but can do nothing physical about it; a high person is aware of his debility but can do something physical about it.

[dcwusmc]

And just WHERE is the authority granted to the government to protect people from bad drugs???

YOUR homework assignment is to READ the Constitution for the United States, starting with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and then report back on the SPECIFIC SOURCE of FedGov's authorization to "protect" us from bad drugs or its specific source of authority to ban the possession or ingestion of ANYTHING.

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

Ninth and Tenth Amendments are dead letters. Deal with it.

Thank God for the Interstate Commerce Clause. Without it, we'd be Canada with nukes.

[Nipplemancer]

I've always wondered how that interstate commerce thing works. Sure, congress has the right to regulate it, but what does that mean and how can the government regulate a form of commerce that officially can not exist because they banned it? Penumbras and eminations of law?
The Commerce Clause was designed to prevent states from taxing each other to death with protectionist tariffs and import/export quotas. In effect turning the entirety of the nation into one giant free trade zone. It was not designed as a backdoor for Congress to regulate anything that has a dollar value, for which they have used it.
The government's job is not to save me from myself but from my neighbors foreign and domestic.
You keep saying that alcohol is acceptable because it's been used by man for thousands of years. Marijuana is not acceptable for the same reasons. Sure, 'Western' people knew nothing of this plant's euphoric properties because of their climate. Cannabis will grow anywhere except in the most northern latitudes and is found naturally in Europe and North America. The big difference is that when it's grown in warmer temperatures it produces much more cannabinoids than in the cold. Grown nearer the equator and it'll get you high. Grown in the British Isles it'll make a nice fiber for paper or clothing, but won't do much for your party.

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

Thee: I've always wondered how that interstate commerce thing works. Sure, congress has the right to regulate it, but what does that mean and how can the government regulate a form of commerce that officially can not exist because they banned it? Penumbras and eminations of law? >>

Me: Regulation ultimately involves making something available, or less available, based on circumstances as set by the Government. Banning is a form of regulation, which is obvious on its face.

However, Marijuana, being a natural plant and not a chemical requiring manufacturing facilities, is regulated like this: 1) You grow it by farming. 2) Federal law says you cannot farm it or possess it without a license. 3) The federal government never (well, hardly ever) issues a license to grow and possess the stuff. Voila! It's banned. All legal, all constitutional, end of story.

Thee: The Commerce Clause was designed to prevent states from taxing each other to death with protectionist tariffs and import/export quotas. In effect turning the entirety of the nation into one giant free trade zone. It was not designed as a backdoor for Congress to regulate anything that has a dollar value, for which they have used it.
The government's job is not to save me from myself but from my neighbors foreign and domestic.>>>

Me: Au contraire, it was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to allow Congress to establish itself as the preeminent regulator of interstate trade. That's been settled since the days of the old Interstate Commerce Commission in the 1880s. As for your opinion about government's job is "not to save me from myself", again, you show your ignorance. Of course that is precisely the Government's job, otherwise you could get crack at the local pharmacy. And besides, selling drugs of any sort, pot included, includes externalities--dangers and negative side effects involving innocent people completely uninvolved in the transaction. Like, oh, say, my three friends killed in various accidents. Or the three year old girl killed by a stray bullet from a drug deal gone wrong.


Thee: You keep saying that alcohol is acceptable because it's been used by man for thousands of years. Marijuana is not acceptable for the same reasons. Sure, 'Western' people knew nothing of this plant's euphoric properties because of their climate. Cannabis will grow anywhere except in the most northern latitudes and is found naturally in Europe and North America. The big difference is that when it's grown in warmer temperatures it produces much more cannabinoids than in the cold. Grown nearer the equator and it'll get you high. Grown in the British Isles it'll make a nice fiber for paper or clothing, but won't do much for your party.>>

Me: Bingo. If this were China you might have an argument. It ain't, so deal with it.