On Trump and his administration policies

[Slade3200]

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Of course it is a 10th amendment issue and the states have the rights to make those laws. The fed also have the right to enforce the federal laws which trump the laws of the state. Though in this case it would be very unwise. We are seeing the same debate happening with sanctuary cities.

 

[BluesLegend]

I don't need drug tweaked losers breaking into my home stealing my property to support their habit or killing people on public roads and streets. So fine take all the drugs you want, but if you commit a crime you pay a heavy price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

And the rampant property crimes and theft due to drug addicts trying to support their habit? The rampant meth and heroin trafficking and associated crime?

 

[Slade3200]

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

And the rampant property crimes and theft due to drug addicts trying to support their habit? The rampant meth and heroin trafficking and associated crime?

Again, show some stats on where legalization has increased these crimes and actions.

So before we kick the can to the next argument, do you acknowledge that a legalized system would help the street dealing situation?

 

[OKTexas]

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.


.

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the powers of the Courts and gives Congress the power to organize it, which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789

SECTION 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


The courts have no authority to rewrite or alter laws in any manner, that is left to congress. Also you didn't provide the authority the feds have over marriage, at least drugs can be covered under the interstate commerce clause.


.

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

 

[my2¢]

I voted no because when I think of war it is a case of win at any cost. Yes, I want them to enforce drug laws. Declaring it a war strikes me as granting a greater priority to it than it merits.

 

[Slade3200]

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the powers of the Courts and gives Congress the power to organize it, which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789

SECTION 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


The courts have no authority to rewrite or alter laws in any manner, that is left to congress. Also you didn't provide the authority the feds have over marriage, at least drugs can be covered under the interstate commerce clause.


.

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

The discussion was the power of the courts not just DOMA and the Oberfel (spelling?) decision had nothing to do with DOMA.
What did they rewrite, the penalty that was in the law was declared unconstitutional, Roberts decided not having insurance could be a taxable event, even though direct taxes, unless proportioned are unconstitutional. The only constitutional exception is for income, not for not having health insurance. They did that even though the government said it was a penalty and NOT A TAX in their arguments. The second rewrite came when they ignored 9 separate exclusions, in black letter law, for subsidies in any instance except when health insurance was being purchased form a State exchange. I could go on but I've got to leave for a bit.


.

When I make a point and you completely ignore it and bring up something else I lose respect for your argument and have no reason to keep reading your stuff. You brought up the courts rewriting law and used gay marriage as an example. You failed to show how they rewrote the law and ignored my explanation of the rationale behind it.

As for the ACA argument, the congress has the right to "tax and spend" that is in the constitution. It was determined that penalizing or fining people for not having healthcare is unconstitutional but the government could apply a tax on people without insurance. The process is handled by the IRS and treated like any other federal tax. I completely understand your opposition to the policy but where in the world are you getting the argument that SCOTUS was rewriting law?

 

[Slade3200]

I voted no because when I think of war it is a case of win at any cost. Yes, I want them to enforce drug laws. Declaring it a war strikes me as granting a greater priority to it than it merits.

The "war" as they wage it is counter productive to the interest of our citizens.

 

[CowboyTed]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

Wow, going for the deflection on the first post, thats Ballsy! How about you address the OP before you try and change the subject?

See how the far left reacts when you point out that their "wars" are failures?

The far left will always bash anything Trump. So why address someone that is a part of the far left religion and does not care about living in reality?

The far left is here to push their failed religious agenda and nothing else.

Just for your information there is no major 'Far Left' Organisation in the US...

Your post doesn't even show us if you are Far Right but does show us you are very uneducated in politics or wilfully ignorant...

 

[Thinker101]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

Wow, going for the deflection on the first post, thats Ballsy! How about you address the OP before you try and change the subject?

See how the far left reacts when you point out that their "wars" are failures?

The far left will always bash anything Trump. So why address someone that is a part of the far left religion and does not care about living in reality?

The far left is here to push their failed religious agenda and nothing else.

Just for your information there is no major 'Far Left' Organisation in the US...

Your post doesn't even show us if you are Far Right but does show us you are very uneducated in politics or wilfully ignorant...

You may want to consider learning how to spell "Organization" or learn how to use spell-check before calling someone uneducated or ignorant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it.


.

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing..

Wrong. Take a course in ConLaw, your simple explanation is much more complicated than you know. You may wish that States Rights are sacrosanct, they are not, nor are most of the Bill of Rights.

So in other words, Lefty Is an America Hating Cock Sucking Commie Bastard.

No wonder they are always so grumpy.

You're not only insane, you're a complete asshole too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

Wow, going for the deflection on the first post, thats Ballsy! How about you address the OP before you try and change the subject?

See how the far left reacts when you point out that their "wars" are failures?

The far left will always bash anything Trump. So why address someone that is a part of the far left religion and does not care about living in reality?

The far left is here to push their failed religious agenda and nothing else.

Just for your information there is no major 'Far Left' Organisation in the US...

Your post doesn't even show us if you are Far Right but does show us you are very uneducated in politics or wilfully ignorant...

You may want to consider learning how to spell "Organization" or learn how to use spell-check before calling someone uneducated or ignorant.

You might want to look up captious, before you call anyone ignorant or uneducated.

 

[Slade3200]

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it.


.

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing..

Wrong. Take a course in ConLaw, your simple explanation is much more complicated than you know. You may wish that States Rights are sacrosanct, they are not, nor are most of the Bill of Rights.

So in other words, Lefty Is an America Hating Cock Sucking Commie Bastard.

No wonder they are always so grumpy.

You're not only insane, you're a complete asshole too.

Don't fret yourself with the low IQ douchebags. They get off on trying to get a rise out of people. Don't give them the satisfaction or time of day.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

Can't hardly tell which was the Bigger Loser: War on Drugs, Poverty or Terrorism

A. The war on drugs, and then the war on terrorism. The acts by OBL were the acts of a criminal, and had we defined 911 in that manner we might have prevented all of the problems we have today.

There will always be poverty and the poor, it has been exacerbated by the greed and a callous disregard for the needy, since Reagan and his "it's you money" and "welfare queen" comments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

And the rampant property crimes and theft due to drug addicts trying to support their habit? The rampant meth and heroin trafficking and associated crime?

Clinics providing Methadone and counseling (group and individual) can reduce the illegal drug trade. It would be cheaper, safer and reduce crime if heroin users could be provided H freely and in a safe environment, transitioned to Methadone while engaged in counseling.

That's not the panacea, but it beats the bullshit Session's is peddling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing..

Wrong. Take a course in ConLaw, your simple explanation is much more complicated than you know. You may wish that States Rights are sacrosanct, they are not, nor are most of the Bill of Rights.

So in other words, Lefty Is an America Hating Cock Sucking Commie Bastard.

No wonder they are always so grumpy.

You're not only insane, you're a complete asshole too.

Don't fret yourself with the low IQ douchebags. They get off on trying to get a rise out of people. Don't give them the satisfaction or time of day.

I agree, but I have a need to punish bullies and assholes. There are too many who post nothing but hate and echo each other.

 

[BluesLegend]

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

And the rampant property crimes and theft due to drug addicts trying to support their habit? The rampant meth and heroin trafficking and associated crime?

Again, show some stats on where legalization has increased these crimes and actions.

So before we kick the can to the next argument, do you acknowledge that a legalized system would help the street dealing situation?

Dude, its so bad in Washington National Geographic filmed a documentary on it.

 

[Slade3200]

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing..

Wrong. Take a course in ConLaw, your simple explanation is much more complicated than you know. You may wish that States Rights are sacrosanct, they are not, nor are most of the Bill of Rights.

So in other words, Lefty Is an America Hating Cock Sucking Commie Bastard.

No wonder they are always so grumpy.

You're not only insane, you're a complete asshole too.

Don't fret yourself with the low IQ douchebags. They get off on trying to get a rise out of people. Don't give them the satisfaction or time of day.

I agree, but I have a need to punish bullies and assholes. There are too many who post nothing but hate and echo each other.

Agreed, I get myself in the mud a bit more than I should. Some of these guys just need to be put in their place. It rarely ever registers though, so as soon as I hit that wall I disengage, leads to a much more peaceful life.

 

[BluesLegend]

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

And the rampant property crimes and theft due to drug addicts trying to support their habit? The rampant meth and heroin trafficking and associated crime?

Clinics providing Methadone and counseling (group and individual) can reduce the illegal drug trade. It would be cheaper, safer and reduce crime if heroin users could be provided H freely and in a safe environment, transitioned to Methadone while engaged in counseling.

That's not the panacea, but it beats the bullshit Session's is peddling.

Drug abusers can rot in prison, the thieving losers.

 

[Slade3200]

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

And the rampant property crimes and theft due to drug addicts trying to support their habit? The rampant meth and heroin trafficking and associated crime?

Again, show some stats on where legalization has increased these crimes and actions.

So before we kick the can to the next argument, do you acknowledge that a legalized system would help the street dealing situation?

Dude, its so bad in Washington National Geographic filmed a documentary on it.

Post a link to back up your point. I'm not going to take your word on some NG documentary that I haven't seen. Come on man, step up the arguments, put some substance in there and stop making me ask for it all the time.

 

[Slade3200]

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

And the rampant property crimes and theft due to drug addicts trying to support their habit? The rampant meth and heroin trafficking and associated crime?

Clinics providing Methadone and counseling (group and individual) can reduce the illegal drug trade. It would be cheaper, safer and reduce crime if heroin users could be provided H freely and in a safe environment, transitioned to Methadone while engaged in counseling.

That's not the panacea, but it beats the bullshit Session's is peddling.

Drug abusers can rot in prison, the thieving losers.

Do you think the same should go for alcoholics? If no then why, whats the difference?