meth cooks plying their trade near other homes creates severe environmental hazards for others.
OK, I may have overstated my case; some forms of drug manufacture may in some circumstances violate the rights of others, and those should be banned---meth-making (if there was a market for it in a world of legal drugs) should take place in zoned areas and with proper safety measures.
With that asterisk in place, my statement remains sound.
For citizens to have the right to do whatever they want is a good intention,but in this case the realitys would be grim.
The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim.
"So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws."
Until a majority of citizens feel the same way you do about the issue,or the supreme court rules against the WOD,how is this situation going to change?
It won't---that's why I'm on a public forum arguing for freedom.
Maybe if the supreme court somehow upholds the rights of the states to govern themselves this could have implications for all illicit drugs. Is this true of false?
True, I suppose---but I'm not holding my breath.
"Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none."
It would seem to me until the supreme court unsurps the power of the feds to enforce drug laws that are unconstitutional,how is the situation going to change?
It won't. What's your point---that we should give up on our Constitution?
" Tyranny of the majority is tyranny."
Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional.
Not only then, but in all cases.
Natural law is hard to define as I see it.
I already defined it for you.
"You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen)."
You can honestly assert that the number of alcohol poinsoning deaths is comparable to the number of narcotics OD's.
I have no idea; do you have any data on this point?
to OD on booze,you've gotta drink a hell of a lot and this is much different than a substance where a few extra cc's could stop breathing.
If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD.
"Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.
"Still waiting for evidence .... "
Addiction cycles,widespread use leading to OD's,curious non-users experimenting,
All true of alcohol.
violent behavior,
"Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner." (U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service, publication NCJ 145534)
You tell me how the use of MDMA and crack would be of benefit to someone
It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them. How is eating Cheetos while watching action movies "beneficial"?
I know meth use results in violent behavior,you assert it does not.
Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?
Would it be worth chaos to claim another right?
If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs; certain states would move faster than others, letting the rest see the effects---that's the "laboratory of democracy" that is one of the benefits of states' rights.
"So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?"
What about state laws? If the federal goverment suddenly bowed out of the WOD would you be happy adhereing to state drug laws?
No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer and would continue arguing that to my fellow Illinoisans---but an end to the feds' unconstitutional activities would be a significant step in the right direction.
"nobody I know is itching to start using heroin."
You have to understand the way people end up trying and using heroin.Many people are curious about it.The usage of it by teens
I'm discussing the rights---and behaviors---of ADULTS.
went way up in the last ten years
Provide evidence for your claim.
because the idea that it was fairly safe was put in their heads by others who were using .
More so than in the years before that? Provide evidence for your claim.
Over the past several years there has been a problem with youngsters ODing on a combination of junk and alcohol.Dropping like flys as they did'nt realise the combination of the two is sneaky and lethal.
This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled.
"My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage."
OK-how does that support your point? What if the neighbors happen to be visiting?
The law does not and should not restrict our freedoms on our own property for the sake of hypothetical visitors. It's a civil matter if A visits B's property and is harmed.
How can a law prevent people from possessing dynamite assuming they are going to let it get old and explosive,or that they will allow it to come in contact with static electricity and explode?
The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances.
"What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business."
That figure was obviously thrown in to get the point across.
It failed---what was your point?
Who are you to make a judgement on how close is too close though?
Since Joe's making (with the above caveats), distributing, selling, buying, or using drugs violates nobody's rights, Joe's skin defines the distance beyond which it's nobody's business.
"No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."
Air is a big stretch-
Support your claim.
You did'nt actually refute the fact that these people had been using drugs prior to the visit.
You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit.
Why don't you just admit drugs are dangerous
Why don't you just admit air is dangerous?
"I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks."
And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths,
Yup---not government's business.
drugs getting into the hands of teens and children,
We risk that with alcohol now.
potential violent behaviors,
We risk that with alcohol now---MORE so than with many illegal drugs.
increased divorce rate and family problems,
Yup---not government's business.
kids getting the idea that since drugs are legal,they must be safe,
We risk that with alcohol and tobacco now.
as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked.
I don't understand what you're asking here.