Prohibition Amendment?

[nibor]

This is true. Unless snorting jello should infringe on anybody else's life, liberty, property, opportunities, etc. etc. etc. protected by the Constitution, it is presumed legal. And any other substance that is not specifically designated as illegal or by prescription only and that does not infringe on anybody else's constitutional or legal rights is also presumed illegal.

Personally I think alcohol was banned via constitutional amendment because it was so much a part of the American way of life and that was the ONLY way to effectively ban it. Social pressures for virtue and morality in that day also got the amendment ratified, but, like any such laws that people do not choose to obey, it quickly created a vast underground illegal commercial network producing a product people wanted but could not acquire legally. And that illegal network proved to be far more of a problem than any obviously created by alcohol alone. So the amendment was repealed.

Cocaine was legal and as widely used in Colonial and Victorian America up to the early 20th Century and was as debilitating then as it is now. Because of its negative effects it became socially unacceptable much as tobacco has become socially unacceptable now. And when enough people agreed that cocaine was unacceptably harmful, it, along with various other narcotic substances, was made illegal on the open market but this time without a constitutional amendment to do it. And voila, the effect was the same and we now have a huge illegal underground network producing and providing the stuff to people who want it.

Most people do not buy and use illegal substances, however. Would making the substances illegal encourage more people to use them? Recovering addicts say yes. I honestly don't know.

Allowing organized crime and bankers to control this stuff is totally ridiculous.............making statements about what most people do and need to do is vague at best...............but yes I'm sure they'd rather not break unfair laws................

I think it's not a point of actual encouragement but it must be controlled in better away from kids, people under stress will always seek inebriants to take the edge off of whatever.................so the substances allowed must be better handled in stead of declaring BOGUS WARS while ramping up supplies on everyone who want to take the edge off..................

 

[Foxfyre]

Allowing organized crime and bankers to control this stuff is totally ridiculous.............making statements about what most people do and need to do is vague at best...............but yes I'm sure they'd rather not break unfair laws................

I think it's not a point of actual encouragement but it must be controlled in better away from kids, people under stress will always seek inebriants to take the edge off of whatever.................so the substances allowed must be better handled in stead of declaring BOGUS WARS while ramping up supplies on everyone who want to take the edge off..................

I edited my post to make the last paragraph read:
Most people do not buy and use illegal substances, however. Would making the substances legal encourage more people to use them? Recovering addicts say yes. I honestly don't know.

I have some experience and a modicum of expertise in dealing with addicts so I will use myself as a source for my comments here. Most recovering addicts do not want illegal recreational drugs legalized.

As for the rest of my post, "most" is not a vague term. In this context it means a majority or larger amount than fewest. That is not a difficult concept for most people--dang used it again--but at least the statistics on illegal drug use will support my opinion that 'most' people do not use illegal drugs.

Legalizing drugs certainly could reduce crimes committed by the organized underworld as well as crimes committed by people desperate to obtain the drugs or means of getting the drugs. Based on the experience of countries who have legalized recreational drugs, however, there is a measurable increase in experimentation with such drugs and a corresponding increase in persons addicted to the drugs and the social implications of that are not inconsequential. There is also increased incentive for illegal drug dealers to target kids who would not have access to legal drugs.

So do the potential advantages outweigh the likely disadvantages? I think that is where the debate should be.

 

[Taomon]

I'm not sure that your original statement is totally correct, opium was legal, I'm not sure that heroin was.................

As far as hemp goes, our forefathers had not only crops, there were plantations full...................and the uses you gave were WAAAAAAY understated........

LSD was forced on the scene BY THE FED as a social experiment............while testing it on our military which they're still doing.

There was also college research teams, which used actors, writers and other famous people as willing guinnea pigs. Aldous Huxley was one, so was Clark Gable and Timothy Leary.

Heroin was used as an anethestic before it was replaced with Morphine.

 

[manifold]

I would venture a guess that the size and amount of power the Federal government has assumed and endowed upon itself from then to now would make a REAL difference.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

 

[midcan5]

Yikes! I was looking up laws on this and came across this piece of complexity. Please read, there will be a test tomorrow.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...bchapters/i/parts/d/sections/section_841.html

 

[Foxfyre]

Yikes! I was looking up laws on this and came across this piece of complexity. Please read, there will be a test tomorrow.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...bchapters/i/parts/d/sections/section_841.html

Laws forbidding or controlling use of substances that create risk or harm others of course are prudent and proper for government to enact. In your link, such laws are described.

Obviously laws forbidding or controlling what substances can be distributed to others against their knowledge or imposed upon children are also prudent and proper for government to enact.

The question for us is whether it is prudent for government to impose laws or forbid substances (or activities) that pose a hazard only to the person using or doing them. Give or sell cocaine to kids. Sure. This along with pot, tobacco, alcohol, or any other potentially harmful or addictive substance should not be allowed. Nor should you be able to sneak it into somebody's food or drink without their knowledge.

But using these things yourself in the privacy of your own home? What is the rationale for government to forbid that?

Should the government have the right to restrict you from entering a certain area for no other reason than it would be hazardous for you? Should you have to wear a helmet when riding your bicycle or motocycle? Should seatbelts and airbags be mandatory in automobiles? How about the right to smoke a cigarette or cigar in a restaurant where the owner wants to permit smoking?

Where do we draw the line about what government should be able to restrict or not restrict?