The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Ending this Modern Prohibition
Amino
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
Hey y'all, just wondering if anybody here wished this hypocrisy of a War on Drugs would end and put down like the farce it is.
I can make the argument saying that alcohol and cigarettes do more damage then anything else in this country, that alcohol prohibition just created the environment that allowed the mafia movement to become so pervasive, that marijuana does have actual medicinal properties, or the billions of tax dollars to imprison non violent prisoners that this society creates (i am refering to the jack-holes who were caught smoking the sticky-icky outside school parking lots, but with a federal mandatory sentence, they are in prison with the REAL criminals such as rapists and killers).
But my point is bigger then any of the points i mentioned. A person should be allowed to put anything in his body, PROVIDED he does not infringe on other peoples rights in any way. And thats how it should be, in any country that calls itself free.
I love this coun- i mean I love the Constitution of the United States of America as well as the Bill of rights (Just the first 10 Amendments)
I can make the argument saying that alcohol and cigarettes do more damage then anything else in this country, that alcohol prohibition just created the environment that allowed the mafia movement to become so pervasive, that marijuana does have actual medicinal properties, or the billions of tax dollars to imprison non violent prisoners that this society creates (i am refering to the jack-holes who were caught smoking the sticky-icky outside school parking lots, but with a federal mandatory sentence, they are in prison with the REAL criminals such as rapists and killers).
But my point is bigger then any of the points i mentioned. A person should be allowed to put anything in his body, PROVIDED he does not infringe on other peoples rights in any way. And thats how it should be, in any country that calls itself free.
I love this coun- i mean I love the Constitution of the United States of America as well as the Bill of rights (Just the first 10 Amendments)
Amino on
0
Posts
Like, deep.
Woah.
And I see you say you only like the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
So you are against the abolishment of slavery, due process, voting rights, womens' suffrage, presidential term limits, and etc?
"Dude that's not fair!"
I was wondering about that. Maybe he is an old school pre Reconstruction kind of stoner.
I'd go with Rondroid, myself.
I don't legalization is going to stop the local dealers from dealing. So for me, I guess I would still be calling the law when the local addicts get released and go back to stealing.
Aw fuck. The signs are there, too.
Its pot man, not freaking crack!
Go get the Raid?
Only if Raid makes something that can nuke this thread from orbit.
Legalization does not make individual's abuse problems go away. I don't see the idiots selling pot (as well as acid, cocaine, crack, heroine, meth, etc) in my neighborhood going away just because theres a $5 pack of marijuana cigarettes down at Krogers.
I do.
Or read about Prohibition
Neither of them go NEARLY as far enough (For me at least).
This is about the legalization on drugs, not of my character, but I will say why I only see that the first 10 amendments were needed.
I think congress can get too law-writing happy.
Just look at the 18th and 21 amendment; those are 2 amendments that were useless, but cost countless lives and money.
The abolishment of slavery should have happened much sooner (at the time of the revolution) but did not. If the federal wanted to free the slaves, the goverment could have bought the slaves themselves.Writing an amendment was not needed.(Same with racial and womans suffrage)
Having an amendment barring a president to only serve 2 terms was not needed i think. George Washington set the precedent for taking to terms max, and (relatively speaking) only FDR broke that tradition. Writing an amendment for that i think was not needed. (The 14 amendment was just redundant; the constitution already states habeus corpus and it is again repeated in the 5th amendment)
And the 16th amendment violates the constitution; there shall be NO non-appropriated tax.
I say that the war on drugs (as well as government taking action against euthanasia) violate the 9th amendment;
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
++
Was already limed, I had no choice.
The end of prohibition did not end abuse problems with alcohol. The social problems of drug abuse will still be here whether or not you can buy the goods legally down the street. I could give two shits whether marijuana is legalized or not, but its not going to stop my car being broken into when the local drunk needs a few bucks for a beer or my brother needs a quick high.
Not even the same thing. I can't name one marijuana user (myself included) that would break into a fucking car to get high. Apples to oranges. This isn't a call for legalization of heroin. It's a call for legalization of a drug that has (at best) the same addictive effects of currently-legal substances (tobacco, alcohol).
Okay, you're fucking clueless.
Oh, and regarding the 16th Amendment, it's very much constitutional, since it's a fucking amendment. Go look up "doctrine of implicit repeal" sometime. There's a reason that there's only one amendment that has an explicit repeal of another part of the constitution - because that's all it did!
My car has been broken into for someone needing a few bucks for his marijuana addiction. The next door neighbor has had the law almost shoot their son because he was incredibly out of control on a binge drinking spree. Another local boy is spending four years in jail for trying to run his whore of a girlfriend over because she stole his fucking dime bag of weed. A drug does not have to be at the levels of heroine to be destructive to the community due to people abusing it. Marijuana is no different in this matter... legalization is not going to magically make the abusers become upstanding citizens and the dealers to go clean. I'm all for sturdier rope, but c'mon drug abuse is drug abuse.
For you know, murderers and rapists.
So you endorse a blanket-ban on all mind-altering substances on the grounds that some people who use them are jackasses. Do you also support a blanket-ban on firearms?
Lol.
Guy probably broke in to your car for a few bucks to buy a pack of cigarettes.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that an amendment must specifically repeal another provision of the Constitution. In fact, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution, and only one of them specifically repeals an earlier provision. (The 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition, specifically repeals the 18th Amendment, which started Prohibition.)
If this argument were correct, then the losing presidential candidate would be the vice-president of the United States, because the 12th Amendment did not expressly repeal Article II, Section 1, clause 3 of the Constitution. And Senators would still be selected by state legislatures, because the 17th Amendment did not expressly repeal any part of Article I, section 3, of the Constitution.
This analogy isn't really any good given that he has explicitly stated that he's talking about all the drugs, not just pot and not just the ones that are already illegal.
Wiat, what do you mean Congress gets too law-happy? That's what it's there for. Anyway, you'll not win any constructionist arguments on these boards, so on to the meat of your thread.
And if you want to talk about the legalization of drugs, let's talk. Okay, if there's all this benefit to legalizing marijuana (and I agree, mind you) then where do you stop? Should it be okay for a government to let it's people buy products which kill the user? Yes, cigarettes cause cancer and alcohol nukes brain cells, but not only does alcohol have a historical basis for consumption in western society but the news of the harmful effects of cigarettes is relatively recent. Okay, given that bit, let's say marijuana is legal and almost overnight, dealers lose their business. Everyone throws a party because hey, less crime. But dealers are still selling crack, speed, heroin, and all of the other illicit stuffs that can make life wonderful for a couple hours. Does the government license companies to produce and distribute those drugs as well? If a fmialy member ODs does the remaining family get to sue the company for marketing and producing a lethal product? There's a hell of a lot more very pertinent questions that arise over the legalization of drugs.
Now, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana because, really, it's not as dangerous as it's made out to be. My problem with it is that it sets a precedent which could lead to stuff that shouldn't be legalized becoming legal.
Not necessarily. Not anymore than legalizing gay marriage sets a precedent for legalizing cross-species marriage, anyway. The way he's phrasing it is awful though, and his phrasing actually does set the precedent you describe.
I'm for harsher sentencing for those committing crimes on mind-altering substances, and those who use fire-arms (or any other regulated weapon) in crime. I have no problem with legalization of marijuana to standard controlled substance levels (but little beyond that), but my entire argument is that its silly nonsense to assume that it make society somehow better that you can buy it in a store instead of Carlos down the street.
Its not going to make where I live better. I grew up in the neighborhood who didn't think marijuana was bad and thought the government was the over-reaching bad guy. The problem is, a lot of kids here got addicted to marijuana, then alcohol, and in some cases harsher drugs and theyre still addicted and committing serious crimes because of those childhood experiences.
Its just like alcohol. Some people can handle a beer, and some make it their life to the detriment of others.
It was weed, and the moron got caught shortly after because his fingerprints popped for a previous drug related offense.
What exactly would be wrong with me continuing to buy from my dude instead of going and getting a pack of joints at the gas-station, exactly, provided I continue to pay for it with money I earned by working at a job?
I don't know how to tell you this, but the chance it was weed is small.
In fact, since posession of marijuana generally carries a lighter sentence, if somehow he got popped later and he confessed he wanted a dub sack (why you keep your wallet in your car is beyond me), it's probably due to that.
Sounds like the guy wanted some meth, coke, or crack.
Well if your dude wants to get a business license and/or conform to the standard commercial laws of the country, state, or county why not? I have no qualms with a legal business.
Although, I assume your dude might be like the dudes around here and have many other things they are selling... and undercut the whole taxation thing and eventually bring in their loyal customers to more harder drugs that are not legal. Hypothetically of course.
First of all, life would be better the more you get drugs out of the hands of criminals, because that saps an enormous (the primary) source of funding for organized crime, which might not exist where you live but sure as hell thrives in most large (and even medium-sized) cities.
It also makes life easier for addicts, because without the legal stigma they’re more willing to search for assistance and it is easier for them to, say, get a job after they get clean so they can actually move on with their lives and stay clean.
Sounds like the shit in your neighborhood has very little to do with the substances in question, honestly. Sounds more like you just live in a kind of fucked up area.
Am I reading this wrong or did you just post against your own point of view about the legitimacy of the 16th Amendment? You wrote that the amendment is ineffective as a change to law because it doesn't specifically repeal past law. Then you go to quote a guy who explains that specifying what you're repealing is unnecessary.
"The Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed," the Amendment is ineffective to change the law."
then
"There is nothing in the Constitution that says that an amendment must specifically repeal another provision of the Constitution."
:?:
Guy stole from someone else previously and is picked up with marijuana on him after the popo check the local pawnshop for the stolen goods. Later caught stealing from me on a visit back from college (had some possessions in my car). Personally know the family he is from, and they're just as sick of his behavior as I am.