Posted on 05/03/2015 7:59:56 PM PDT by Yollopoliuhqui
Nearly fifteen years ago, Portugal had one of the worst drug problems in Europe, with 1 percent of the population addicted to heroin. They had tried a drug war, and the problem just kept getting worse. So they decided to do something radically different. They resolved to decriminalize all drugs...
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Those who value children's souls should recognize that drug criminalization has failed to protect children; teens have been reporting for years that they can get pot more easily than cigarettes or beer - which stands to reason, since only sellers of legal goods have incentive to 'card' buyers.
No, I'm not a libertarian.
No, I'm not a libertarian.
There are millions of libertarians? And all of them are now deterred from drug use by the risk of jail but under legalization would be undeterred by addiction and death?
Can you provide and reason for anyone to believe either of those claims?
So, you have no particular view on shooting looters, but you affirm that shooting drug-dealers is unconstitutional. Just to get it straight.
Scratch a drug warrior and you find a totalitarian right there at the surface. It has been amply demonstrated on this thread.
> No, because I’m not a drug dealer.
You assume that this will stay restricted to drug dealers.
If the War on Drugs has taught us anything it is that this is simply a ridiculous assumption.
War on Drugs or is it Party with the Cartel?
Actually commerce is cited here because that's what the USSC uses to justify the War on Drugs.
I agree that it is laziness/convenience that they use Wickard, but the fact is that they do use it.
> A more rational authorization for drug interdiction is in the section responsible for defending the nation. Drugs are no different than chemical or biological weapons, and therefore the constitution authorizes the government to stop them.
Except there's a huge difference: chemical and biological weapons are deployed regardless of the will of those exposed to it; while, on the other hand, drugs aren't used by those who don't want them.
Not till they get hooked because someone else used them on them.
Read this and get smarter.
_____________________________________
Yeah. Right.
Reading crap from the Puff Ho designed to encourage stupid, risky, anti-social, unconservative behavior just ain’t gonna happen.
War on drugs brings Policing for profit. My liberty is infringed upon When my property can be targeted for confiscation for activity I have no knowledge of.
War on drugs brings Policing for profit. My liberty is infringed upon When my property can be targeted for confiscation for activity I have no knowledge of.
Not till they get hooked because someone else used them on them.
Using drugs on someone else is relatively rare - yes, drinks have been spiked with Rohypnol, but I know of no case ever of A having used (unspiked) marijuana on B.
Good catch.
It appears Yollopoliuhqui is a liberal troll with an agenda to agitate.
“When you post an article, be sure to include the original title where appropriate. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.” - http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm#guidelines
I have no interest in playing your fallacy of false choice game. I believe we can execute drug dealers constitutionally.
The US had a much smaller govt without mayhem.
Of course - but that's not the shoot-dealers-on-sight proposal to which I was responding in post #87. To execute them Constitutionally we first have to arrest them - and we're doing that no faster than they're replaced.
You should look up internet libel and review some of the cases.
Dead drug dealers are even less of a threat to children.
I wouldn't have added that comment either. FReep as you will, however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.