Posted on 11/02/2017 11:20:11 AM PDT by Bonston
The author apparently hasn't seen the dead victims of drugged drivers. The article is crap.
As I've pointed out to you: "the rate of opiate addiction in America increased throughout the nineteenth century, from not more than 0.72 addicts per thousand persons before 1842 to a maximum of 4.59 per thousand in the 1890s; thereafter the rate began a sustained decline."
That's certainly a broad, Hamiltonian view of the boundaries of the Constitution. Inanimate objects, wholly without life, even, can actually be considered "enemies" of a state?
A weaker statement than your previous "100% addictive from the first time you use it."
The author apparently hasn't seen the dead victims of drugged drivers.
Did everyone who is in prison for possession kill while driving drugged? If not, here's a radical idea: imprison only those users of alcohol or other drugs who DO drive under the influence?
“Would you care to elucidate on your conservative credentials”
Apparently, you are unwilling to share more about your general perspective.
That leads us to believe you are a (probably libertarian) troll.
But my offer remains: Give us some bona fides, and we’ll consider your posting and opinions in light of them. Failing that, my point above stands.
We like to be welcoming. But over the years, we’ve seen dozens or hundreds of libertarian drug pushers arrive, get outed, and leave. Please demonstrate you’re not another, and you’ll be welcomed into the fold.
Nothing is 100% and nothing is addictive from first use... Well maybe oxygen.
There should be at least one legal recreational drug formulation per brain receptor system.
For cocaine, this might be a form of (unsweetened) cola beverage.
For opiate users, maybe codeine solution (red - lethal to non-addicts, orange for moderate users, yellow - not likely to kill novices).
It’s not like the war on drugs has led to gross abuse of the Constitution! Only a couple dozen clauses and half as many Amendments have been sacrificed to this false god of safety. If it saves even one child, it’s worth every totalitarian usurpation.
You silly constructionists still believe words have inherent meaning when simply everyone knows words are only imbued with meaning by the divine penumbras emanating from the nether regions of the five sacred black robes.
“China”
Until 1909 you could walk into a pharmacy and buy opiates and cocaine legally in the USA. And you could buy jars with Cocaine and Heroin labels to store the purchases.
Legally required prescriptions for ordinary drugs came about around 1948 because of Democratic pharmacist and Senator Hubert Humphrey.
And the famous soda Coca-Cola used the original formula for decades.
Dr. Bartalo in “Barber of Seville” (1818) hated Figaro because Figaro doped up the member’s of Dr. Bartalo’s household.
“You really want that for sale at your local Wal-Mart?”
Let’s take the warning labels off everything and let nature takes its course. We’ve got just way too many stupid people breeding.
Do you really need to be told that meth is bad for you? Do you? Cigarettes have come with warning labels for 60 years. People still smoke. Let them. Go die. I could care less.
Are addictive drugs bad? Yes.
But addictive drugs of unknown potency are worse.
Addictive drugs of unknown nature and potency are worse still.
The police and prosecutors have tried hard, but their will be recreational drug dealers as long as recreational drugs fetch high prices or poverty exists in the USA.
Neither a war on poverty or on drug dealers can be won.
One needs to accept addiction and work to make the supply of recreational drugs of controlled quality as the utmost priority.
Drug overdoses are never accidental - they are the result of public policy.
If people want to taper off opiates, methadone treatment is possible. If they don’t, their fixes must be non-lethal.
The fact that I'm not trying to dope up my fellow citizens.
Nice conservative answer.
It is a nice conservative answer. People who attempt to make a profit by harming other Americans need to be regarded as enemies.
Tobacco doesn't induce people to rob and steal. Dope does.
And as I probably pointed out to you, anyone who claims to have such records is a liar. Nobody was keeping records of addicts in 1842. The East India trading company *WAS* keeping track of their opium imports to China, and that's why *those* records are valid.
You don't have any real data from that time period.
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.