That one always brings out the fancy footwork (call it the Prohibitonist Polka).
Posted on 03/26/2012 11:07:14 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
Drug War = Assured Government Employment.
We need to just let the states decide on this matter the whole “federal drug war” needs to stop as it gives the feds too much power.
If they want a Damned Drug war they need to actually declare an actual WAR as defined in the constitution.
[ Or pass a new Prohibition amendment. ]
Amendments should always be of the:
“Government Shall not do this to the people” type
And MOST Certainly NOT: “The People are not permitted to do X”
When alcohol was illegal there was a lot of “cutting” involved in illicit alcohol and crappy quality control on what was put in alcohol things like methanol were put in.
When you take any product or service into the black market the quality and thus the safety of the product goes way down as people selling it don’t give a crap about your safety because the producsers are far more disconnected from the users. Because if the users know who was smuggling/making the drug the supply would be quickly cut off.
“Government Shall not do this to the people” type
And MOST Certainly NOT: “The People are not permitted to do X”
The 18th was of the latter type - and it turned out to be a terrible idea.
"the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."
The Conservative Argument against Federal Drug Prohibition: There exists no Constitutional Amendment authorizing a 2nd prohibition.
BFL
http://www.google.com/search?q=BFL - first hit:
“www.flwoutdoors.com/bassfishing/bfl/
“FLW Bass Fishing League (BFL) - Weekend Bass Tournaments - News, Results, Photos - FLW.”
When your job depends on locking people up you’re going to do what it takes to keep your job. The Drug War is a failure and the government just won’t admit it. Here’s a question for the prohibitionists : If the drug war is such a success why don’t you add alcohol and tobacco to the list of prohibited substances?
That one always brings out the fancy footwork (call it the Prohibitonist Polka).
Ha. It usually starts with “The government can’t tell ME what to do!”. Oh, yes it can.
Followed by “We tried to ban alcohol and it didn’t work. We had crime, violence, poisoned hooch, people still drank anyway...”. Oh, the irony.
What is the most powerful drug known to mankind?
Government Money.
If, through inaction we allow the government to outlaw a vegetable, please don’t complain if they outlaw a meat like beef or lamb.
There are studies to show that beef and lamb contain harmful substances so the government could ban them (for our own good, of course) under the same sort of legal reasoning by which they ban marijuana.
Butter, bacon anything could be banned.
LOL!!
The war on drugs keep a lot of people across many different fields, employed.
It wastes a lot of taxpayer money that either would not have to be confiscated from taxpayers.
I say we let the government and pharma make safe synthetic drugs, pure, clean. If people get addicted, and commit crimes, they are placed into centers they cannot get out of but they can have as much drugs as they want, and they can either overdose eventually, or they can have a momoent of clarity and ask to get clean.
If they get clean and relapse, they go back into the locked building center, get their drugs, and they never get let out alive.
Simple as that. The people who want drugs will get them. The people that want to get clean, can get clean (once). If they backslide they really didn’t want to get clean. The rest of society who wants to be safe from being killed or robbed by drug addicts, will be.
It’s flawed nanny-state big brother logic.
There are plenty of legal things that are harmful that are legal.
More people die from alcoholism and smoking than illegal drugs. More people kill others driving under the influence and texting /talking on cell phones than illegal drugs.
Yet government makes a ton of money from alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, gas taxes.
Government just can’t figure out how to legalize drugs after spending so much money and time on “the war on drugs” and really would be afraid so many people on drugs would be dangerous to others if they drove or were armed or out in public and they freak out. Which is legitimate. Which is why my prior solution to drug users would have to be employed.
Companies can be allowed to make pure synthetic safe drugs. If you could handle drugs fine. If not, and you steal or commit crimes on drugs, you’d be locked into a govt drug facility where you’d get as much drugs as you wanted. Either you eventually overdose or you ask to get clean. You get one time at being rehab’d. You get put back into society after becoming clean. IF you stay away from drugs you’re fine. You fall back into drugs again, you’re back in the locked facility and you don’t get out. You get all the drugs you want and eventually you overdose because you made the choice drugs were what you really wanted.
That’s how people can choose or not to do drugs, but not be a danger to society at large. THe ones that can handle drugs have no reason to be removed from society. The ones that can’t and commit crimes on drugs get removed from society.
And personally I would not mind using the same model for dangerous alcoholics.
Yes but a lot more people also knew how to make various alcoholic beverages safely too, because they learned from their parents who learned from their parents how to make certain alcoholic beverages from the old country. Wines, brandies, other certain liquors were often made by families as just part of something the family did.
What irony?
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.