[unspun]

M, I don't mean to cast personal insults, please pardon if I have.

A bit of cannabis possession shouldn't bring a prison sentence, but it clearly should be penalized, since it is concomitant with supporting an economy in impairing, intoxicating and debilitating people accross the spectrum and society as a whole (and would also be, if legal).

Why are so many people in FreeRepublic.com so interested in augmenting the use of narcotics? Incredible.

[unspun]

"(and would also be, if legal)." -- much more so.

Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition.
Enormous burgeoning of abortion since its legalization.
Just imagine the American market in legal narcotics....

[motzman]

M, I don't mean to cast personal insults, please pardon if I have

I didn't think you were--no need to apologize; it's not like you're VaAdvogado or something...(lol)

A bit of cannabis possession shouldn't bring a prison sentence, but it clearly should be penalized, since it is concomitant with supporting an economy in impairing, intoxicating and debilitating people accross the spectrum and society as a whole (and would also be, if legal).

Then how can alcohol possibly be legal? It does all of the things you describe, only much, much, worse. Prohibition was a disaster. Drug prohibition is even worse. Prohibition is the only way to ensure that everyone suffers due to the vices of a few.

Why are so many people in FreeRepublic.com so interested in augmenting the use of narcotics? Incredible.

Because it is a violation of personal rights. It is also a tremendous waste of resources (personnel and money). And it is a catalyst for corruption.

Seems to me your arguement is against the bad behavior that some drug abusers (include alcohol in that) engage in. I have no tolerance for drunken driving or public intoxication, but I'm not looking to re-enact prohibition.

And we'd probably agree that the welfare state contributes to drug abuse by giving the irresponsible a means to avoid the consequences of their bad behavior. It's no coincedence that the "Drug Laws" started around the time of the New Deal, and that the "War on Drugs" was accelerated when "The Great Society" was enacted.

Notice, there was no "Drug Problem" prior to the welfare state...there's a connection there that most miss.

Good thread!

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Why are so many people in FreeRepublic.com so interested in augmenting the use of narcotics?

Who owns your body, you or the state?

[dirtboy]

A bit of cannabis possession shouldn't bring a prison sentence, but it clearly should be penalized, since it is concomitant with supporting an economy in impairing, intoxicating and debilitating people accross the spectrum and society as a whole (and would also be, if legal).

There are plenty of people who can't hold jobs because of drinking problems - probably far more than who have the same problem because of pot. I don't see you calling for alcohol to be banned. Do you consume alcohol? If you do, doesn't it therefore follow that YOUR habit is an impairment on society?

Why are so many people in FreeRepublic.com so interested in augmenting the use of narcotics? Incredible.

All these people in FR are interested in the Constitution being followed, and for laws to be proportionate. Equating pot with heroin is stupid and failes the proportionality test.

[dcwusmc]

The People have the freedom to legislate against narcotics, says the 10th Amendment

Actually, the People have the freedom to ingest or refrain from ingesting what they will. The several States have the authority to require that people not become intoxicated (on ANY substance) in public places or to drive or otherwise present a public danger while under the influence of any substance. No more. Churches and families have the authority to preach or rail against use of ANY intoxicant. FedGov has ZERO Constitutional authority in this (or most any OTHER) arena. Sorry, you lose again. How unsurprising.