It's time to legalize drugs

[G.T.]

Caffine causes panic attacks in some people.

When you drink it your body releases adrenaline, the fight or flight drug.

Pot also gives some people panic attacks.

Of course most people who suffer from panic attacks do not smoke pot.

However I would not be surprised to discover that most of them do drink coffee or other caffinated beverages.

Maybe we ought to drive coffee onto the black marekt so we create another criminal cartel and add to the already huge number of human rights violating laws we seem to love so much.

then we can legalize it, and tax the crap out of it.

That'll make everybody happy, won't it?

When it comes to drugs, this society, and especially this society's governments, are plum loco.

I just miss Mary, she enhanced my Music experience 1000 fold. : (

I'm askurred

Here's a possible solution........

Get some relaxing type of tea that doesn't have caffiene, and then, after drinking the tea for a bit, light up a fatty and see what happens.

Oh yeah.......don't forget to play your favorite relaxing music.

this is actually a great idea. Thanks dude!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Just here to help GT.

Lemmie know how it turns out.

 

[dblack]

That;s a slippery slope fallacy.
Sorry. You'll have to do better.

No I don't.

Just as long as we're clear which 'side' you're on when it comes to Constitutionally limited government. You're making all the same arguments used to justify the welfare state (and just about every other questionable expansion of state power). Basically, your view is that anything you feel strongly about should be constitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

That;s a slippery slope fallacy.
Sorry. You'll have to do better.

No I don't.

Just as long as we're clear which 'side' you're on when it comes to Constitutionally limited government. You're making all the same arguments used to justify the welfare state (and just about every other questionable expansion of state power). Basically, your view is that anything you feel strongly about should be constitutional.

You again engage in a slippery slope fallacy. My views on narco-terrorism arent related to anything else.

Can you actually make an argument that is sound and logical? I haven't seen it yet.

 

[ShackledNation]

That;s a slippery slope fallacy.
Sorry. You'll have to do better.

No I don't.

Just as long as we're clear which 'side' you're on when it comes to Constitutionally limited government. You're making all the same arguments used to justify the welfare state (and just about every other questionable expansion of state power). Basically, your view is that anything you feel strongly about should be constitutional.

You again engage in a slippery slope fallacy. My views on narco-terrorism arent related to anything else.

Can you actually make an argument that is sound and logical? I haven't seen it yet.

Saying you are using the same arguments as others on different issues is not the slippery slope fallacy. The fallacy is calling every argument you disagree with a fallacy.

 

[dblack]

You again engage in a slippery slope fallacy

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Can you actually make an argument that is sound and logical? I haven't seen it yet.

Well, you know the old adage about leading a horse to water, right?

You're arguing against the idea of taking Constitutional limits on principle, that we should make exceptions for this or that, that each law should be judged on a case-by-case basis (and that in this case ignoring the constitution is perfectly justified because, "drugs are bad, mkay?"). Well, that's exactly the view of every 'living document' yahoo that wants us to ignore the constraints the Constitution imposes on the state for their pet cause. You surely think your fear of drugs is a 'special' case, but constitutions don't work that way. They codify general principles and set limits on the kinds of laws government can impose on us. When the court decides that the federal government has the power to tell us what drugs we can take it establishes a precedent and, from then on, they have the power to make similar decisions for us. It's not a 'slippery slope', it's a door that's either closed or open.

 

[The Rabbi]

You again engage in a slippery slope fallacy

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Can you actually make an argument that is sound and logical? I haven't seen it yet.

Well, you know the old adage about leading a horse to water, right?

You're arguing against the idea of taking Constitutional limits on principle, that we should make exceptions for this or that, that each law should be judged on a case-by-case basis (and that in this case ignoring the constitution is perfectly justified because, "drugs are bad, mkay?"). Well, that's exactly the view of every 'living document' yahoo that wants us to ignore the constraints the Constitution imposes on the state for their pet cause. You surely think your fear of drugs is a 'special' case, but constitutions don't work that way. They codify general principles and set limits on the kinds of laws government can impose on us. When the court decides that the federal government has the power to tell us what drugs we can take it establishes a precedent and, from then on, they have the power to make similar decisions for us. It's not a 'slippery slope', it's a door that's either closed or open.

I see you dont have a clue as to what I actually believe, despite numerous pages of posts here. I don't know whom you are responding to, but it isnt me in any recognizable way.

There is no guarantee in the Constitution for a right to do drugs. There is none.
There are powers granted to the government that are constantly interpreted, because that's how law works. Currently no court has ever held the Fed gov't does not have the power to regulate drugs. Much less state governments, which is where a lot of minor drug cases end up.
So you are simply incorrect on your understanding of the Constitution.

As to drugs themselves, you take the narco-libertarian approach that people are not hurting anyone when they take them. That is demonstrably untrue. Look at any inner city and many rural areas for that matter and amid the poverty and misery you will always find drugs. Always. If someone lives on a ranch in Montana and his nearest neighbor is 5 miles you might have a point. But most people don't.

Once I point this out you engage in slippery slope fallacies to say, Well if you want to ban drugs then you also need to ban XY and Z. No, I don't. That is why it is called a fallacy. Every item is an independent case with difference circumstances. You cannot argue the merit of drugs alone without resorting to false comparisons with other things.


So we have established that drugs are harmful. And we have established that the government has the power to restrict the trade. The case is closed.

 

[G.T.]

Alcohol is harmful, that is proven.

 

[The Rabbi]

Alcohol is harmful, that is proven.

So is aspirin.
Is there a point here?

 

[G.T.]

Sure is. You seem to believe in some harmful things being legal, and some harmful things being illegal. It's not quite an across the board belief, and since, as you say, the Government "has da powaaa" to regulate these things, you're only using your subjective opinion on which should be legal. Based on what, exactly? Tradition? That's pretty silly.

 

[Article 15]

Is there a bigger Authoritarian on this board than the phony Rabbi?

 

[G.T.]

Is there a bigger Authoritarian on this board than the phony Rabbi?

 

[dblack]

There is no guarantee in the Constitution for a right to do drugs. There is none.

That's the strawman you keep tilting at, but it's not the argument I'm making. Despite the Bill of Rights, the Constitution isn't formulated as a list of our protected rights. Instead, it's a limited list of the 'rights' of government, i.e. the powers that we the people grant to government. For drug prohibition to be defended constitutionally you have cite one of those powers to justify the policy. You seem to be following the lead of most modern statists and using the broad interpretation of the commerce clause. But I think that you, and yes, the precedents set by the court, are flat out wrong on this issue. The commerce clause was intended to allow the federal government to prevent trade disputes between the member states - not to be used as a tool to micro-manage our lives.

Once I point this out you engage in slippery slope fallacies to say, Well if you want to ban drugs then you also need to ban XY and Z. No, I don't. That is why it is called a fallacy. Every item is an independent case with difference circumstances. You cannot argue the merit of drugs alone without resorting to false comparisons with other things.

You're confused. I'm disputing the merits of the broad constitutional interpretations you're using to defend your position. I'm pointing out to you that these same mistaken interpretations were used to justify a long list of expanded government powers. They've been the lynch-pin of government bloat and intrusive state power. This is NOT a 'slippery slope' argument because I'm not predicting some imagined catastrophe - it's already happened. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives like you who want to pretend they defend the constitution, when they're more than happy to abuse it in exactly the same ways as liberals - you just hire a different 'nanny'.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no guarantee in the Constitution for a right to do drugs. There is none.

That's the strawman you keep tilting at, but it's not the argument I'm making. Despite the Bill of Rights, the Constitution isn't formulated as a list of our protected rights. Instead, it's a limited list of the 'rights' of government, i.e. the powers that we the people grant to government. For drug prohibition to be defended constitutionally you have cite one of those powers to justify the policy. You seem to be following the lead of most modern statists and using the broad interpretation of the commerce clause. But I think that you, and yes, the precedents set by the court, are flat out wrong on this issue. The commerce clause was intended to allow the federal government to prevent trade disputes between the member states - not to be used as a tool to micro-manage our lives.

Once I point this out you engage in slippery slope fallacies to say, Well if you want to ban drugs then you also need to ban XY and Z. No, I don't. That is why it is called a fallacy. Every item is an independent case with difference circumstances. You cannot argue the merit of drugs alone without resorting to false comparisons with other things.

You're confused. I'm disputing the merits of the broad constitutional interpretations you're using to defend your position. I'm pointing out to you that these same mistaken interpretations were used to justify a long list of expanded government powers. They've been the lynch-pin of government bloat and intrusive state power. This is NOT a 'slippery slope' argument because I'm not predicting some imagined catastrophe - it's already happened. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives like you who want to pretend they defend the constitution, when they're more than happy to abuse it in exactly the same ways as liberals - you just hire a different 'nanny'.

Go sue the government. See how far you get.
You live in a narco libertarian fantasyland where the Constitution means what you want it to.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure is. You seem to believe in some harmful things being legal, and some harmful things being illegal. It's not quite an across the board belief, and since, as you say, the Government "has da powaaa" to regulate these things, you're only using your subjective opinion on which should be legal. Based on what, exactly? Tradition? That's pretty silly.

You don't think aspirin is regulated?

 

[G.T.]

Sure is. You seem to believe in some harmful things being legal, and some harmful things being illegal. It's not quite an across the board belief, and since, as you say, the Government "has da powaaa" to regulate these things, you're only using your subjective opinion on which should be legal. Based on what, exactly? Tradition? That's pretty silly.

You don't think aspirin is regulated?

i think alcohol is legal while lesser harmful drugs are illegal, is what I think.

 

[Gadawg73]

You again engage in a slippery slope fallacy

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Can you actually make an argument that is sound and logical? I haven't seen it yet.

Well, you know the old adage about leading a horse to water, right?

You're arguing against the idea of taking Constitutional limits on principle, that we should make exceptions for this or that, that each law should be judged on a case-by-case basis (and that in this case ignoring the constitution is perfectly justified because, "drugs are bad, mkay?"). Well, that's exactly the view of every 'living document' yahoo that wants us to ignore the constraints the Constitution imposes on the state for their pet cause. You surely think your fear of drugs is a 'special' case, but constitutions don't work that way. They codify general principles and set limits on the kinds of laws government can impose on us. When the court decides that the federal government has the power to tell us what drugs we can take it establishes a precedent and, from then on, they have the power to make similar decisions for us. It's not a 'slippery slope', it's a door that's either closed or open.

I see you dont have a clue as to what I actually believe, despite numerous pages of posts here. I don't know whom you are responding to, but it isnt me in any recognizable way.

There is no guarantee in the Constitution for a right to do drugs. There is none.
There are powers granted to the government that are constantly interpreted, because that's how law works. Currently no court has ever held the Fed gov't does not have the power to regulate drugs. Much less state governments, which is where a lot of minor drug cases end up.
So you are simply incorrect on your understanding of the Constitution.

As to drugs themselves, you take the narco-libertarian approach that people are not hurting anyone when they take them. That is demonstrably untrue. Look at any inner city and many rural areas for that matter and amid the poverty and misery you will always find drugs. Always. If someone lives on a ranch in Montana and his nearest neighbor is 5 miles you might have a point. But most people don't.

Once I point this out you engage in slippery slope fallacies to say, Well if you want to ban drugs then you also need to ban XY and Z. No, I don't. That is why it is called a fallacy. Every item is an independent case with difference circumstances. You cannot argue the merit of drugs alone without resorting to false comparisons with other things.


So we have established that drugs are harmful. And we have established that the government has the power to restrict the trade. The case is closed.

You are arguing Constitutional arguments that have nothing to do with people living unhealthy lifestyles doing drugs, eating too much, not exercising, smoking and drinking.
And you believe government is the solution instead of personal responsibility.
Classic liberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."



Well, you know the old adage about leading a horse to water, right?

You're arguing against the idea of taking Constitutional limits on principle, that we should make exceptions for this or that, that each law should be judged on a case-by-case basis (and that in this case ignoring the constitution is perfectly justified because, "drugs are bad, mkay?"). Well, that's exactly the view of every 'living document' yahoo that wants us to ignore the constraints the Constitution imposes on the state for their pet cause. You surely think your fear of drugs is a 'special' case, but constitutions don't work that way. They codify general principles and set limits on the kinds of laws government can impose on us. When the court decides that the federal government has the power to tell us what drugs we can take it establishes a precedent and, from then on, they have the power to make similar decisions for us. It's not a 'slippery slope', it's a door that's either closed or open.

I see you dont have a clue as to what I actually believe, despite numerous pages of posts here. I don't know whom you are responding to, but it isnt me in any recognizable way.

There is no guarantee in the Constitution for a right to do drugs. There is none.
There are powers granted to the government that are constantly interpreted, because that's how law works. Currently no court has ever held the Fed gov't does not have the power to regulate drugs. Much less state governments, which is where a lot of minor drug cases end up.
So you are simply incorrect on your understanding of the Constitution.

As to drugs themselves, you take the narco-libertarian approach that people are not hurting anyone when they take them. That is demonstrably untrue. Look at any inner city and many rural areas for that matter and amid the poverty and misery you will always find drugs. Always. If someone lives on a ranch in Montana and his nearest neighbor is 5 miles you might have a point. But most people don't.

Once I point this out you engage in slippery slope fallacies to say, Well if you want to ban drugs then you also need to ban XY and Z. No, I don't. That is why it is called a fallacy. Every item is an independent case with difference circumstances. You cannot argue the merit of drugs alone without resorting to false comparisons with other things.


So we have established that drugs are harmful. And we have established that the government has the power to restrict the trade. The case is closed.

You are arguing Constitutional arguments that have nothing to do with people living unhealthy lifestyles doing drugs, eating too much, not exercising, smoking and drinking.
And you believe government is the solution instead of personal responsibility.
Classic liberal.

No, idiot, I am not arguing that. Try reading for a change.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure is. You seem to believe in some harmful things being legal, and some harmful things being illegal. It's not quite an across the board belief, and since, as you say, the Government "has da powaaa" to regulate these things, you're only using your subjective opinion on which should be legal. Based on what, exactly? Tradition? That's pretty silly.

You don't think aspirin is regulated?

i think alcohol is legal while lesser harmful drugs are illegal, is what I think.

You think crack or meth is less harmful than alcohol?

I'd love to visit your universe someday.

 

[G.T.]

Did I say crack or meth, douch towel? Try no.