View Single Post
Old 01-09-2013, 11:48   #154
CLM Number 301
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 10,001
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
So you really are not so much for decriminalizing the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of drugs, you just want the federal government to cede that power to the states. You want each of the states to decide on their own whether the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of drugs should be permitted.

However, regardless of the laws, you want all programs related to treatment of drug users defunded. When you say defunded, do you mean private funding as well as tax dollar funding?

What about international suppliers? Who gets to deal with the flow of drugs from sources outside our international borders?
That would be a great start. As a matter of fact some States have already decided to ignore unconstitutional federal drug laws.

CF's answer covered it well.

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
That is what the Constitution mandates.

Defund all taxpayer-funded social programs.

That is clearly fed territory. No issues with regulating importation of cocaine, heroine or foreign weed, mexican meth, etc.

Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Why did it take an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit beverage alcohol but not to prohibit other recreational drugs, most of which were in use when the 18th amendment was passed?

Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Best of luck waiting for a response on that one.

Originally Posted by Bren View Post
The negative effects of drugs, including addiction and death, are actually about 50% of the reason I support complete legalization. Glad you guys are all weepy and sympathetic, but I am not. Protecting the lowest common denominator of our society from themselves just makes our society weaker. It got us where we are now. Drug laws to protect the stupid from themselves are as destructive as welfare.

Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Reestablish the concept of personal responsibility, in other words.
Was that easier to accept when Bren stated it?
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

Evan Farley
WQUZ848 - ZA
syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote