I never said you supported the power of the supreme court to decide what you can put in your body. [...] I'm saying I'd rather let a majority decide these decisions,including drug reform,than the supreme court jesters. Tell you what---if the Supreme Court declares that drug use is mandatory, I'll be on your side against them. Barring that, it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court.
"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs."
How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?
Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs.
"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?"
No-and I feel this should apply to drugs as well. I'm not going to try and mandate how much dope you can shoot in your own home. But I feel the distribution of narcotics should be as limited as possible
If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?
"Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."
much research done in this world is funded by someone,and often has specific intentions,which may add an element of bias.
At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported.
"it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do."
Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings
If you like; if you don't like, then natural law. Do you deny that it's wrong to punish someone for what they MIGHT do?
If it was as simple as citizens simply possessing drugs in their own home,produced by themselves,it would be alot easier.
So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?
"So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?"
The pants are fine.Lose the tye-died shirt though.(See-I'm starting to get this down-you might make a freeper out of me yet)
You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?
Why should the federal goverment be able to restrict someone's rights to possess dynamite?
It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated).
" How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?"
Because I'm interested in hearing your instincts and gut feelings about what you would be doing. [...] this will enable us to see if your moral fundamentals will allow you to sell the stuff.
Your question is founded on a false premise---my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings.
If your permit gets denied for the narcotics store(since you have too many firearms around your house)are you happy that Abdul has opened up Abdul's House of Heroin next door to your house?
No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants.
"The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property."
But why does it matter what arbitirary line is crossed if I'm not harming persons or property?
The public can be as arbitrary as it wants in restricting the use of the public's property, just as I may be as arbitrary as I want in restricting the use of my property.
I can't cite figures on how many people ODed on prescription drugs-don't quite a few bite the dust after combining prescription drugs and alcohol?
Could be---but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether stabilizing drug purity decreases ODs.
"That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes."
Not in a single episode-what I meant is over time it is difficult to judge how tolerant to a substance a person has become.
Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose.
"My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals."
"You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim."
Guess I've got some homework to do to further my arguments ........I'm confident I can produce some data that suggests my assertions are true.
Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom.
"it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court."
OK-How is the majority imposing "tyranny" over you? Buy not raising hell over the current state of affairs concerning drug laws and possible reforms? It's the feds who are messing with the people down in Mendocino Co. who have passed laws permitting citizens to grow weed on their property.And this I would classify as victimless crime.
"How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?"(my comment)
"Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs."
You're telling me that not one case would have been able to set precedent in the whole country? Please cite what part of the constitution protects the right to use drugs?
"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?"
You can do whatever you want in your own home.We agree there I believe.The federal goverment limits who sells alcohol because it provides some level of control.Maybe this approach would work with narcotics as well-I doubt it though,as they are different animals,which you refuse to admit.And it's obvious we are not going to agree on that point.
"At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported."
My claim that research often proves what gets it funded needs no support.I will admit this is not always the case.
"Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings
"If you like; if you don't like, then natural law. Do you deny that it's wrong to punish someone for what they MIGHT do?"
I'll consult my natural law attorney on this one.No,I would say it is not right to punish someone for something they might do.But do you deny it is reasonable to take reasonable means to prevent someone from doing harm to another? Example:DUII arrests?
"So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?"
I am not in favor of banning commercially produced alcohol.But it would take away alot of the profit motivation and TV commercials that keep people interested in it and buying.
"You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?"
Half a compliment-But I am no drug warrior,I just consider myself a conservative who is prudent about legalized drugs.I think your question provides it's own answer.Actually,I consider your opinions valid,and you have provided some decent logical reasons for them.As you can see,I am prudent about legalized narcotics though.
"It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated)."
OK-How about US citizens who are muslims fundamentalists? I have not heard any links between dynamite possession and violence-why should the states regulate possession of it either? All I can say is if you don't belive there is any link between Meth use and violence,you ain't been around areas where it's use is common.I don't care what the DOJ maintains-Not all people who use it are dangerous,but many are.Why facilitate it's use?
"my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings."
Anything can be justified if we have the will to justify it.
"No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants."
So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there.
"Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose."
Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001. I'm sure all these folks were in full realization of how much tolerance they had developed.
"Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom."
Speaking of homework,you should read report # NOJ188745 on the DOJ website you cited earlier.Seems as though they think MDMA is some pretty nasty medicine.Check out all the dangers and side effects they mention.I'll read more of their information when I have time-Thanks for your time-RS