[Bren]

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.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Bren

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.

That's probably the most effective way of dealing with the problem. Let nature do what nature does.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Bren

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.

Reestablish the concept of personal responsibility, in other words.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by RussP

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

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.

Agreed

Originally Posted by railfancwb

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

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.

Agreed

Originally Posted by RussP

Reestablish the concept of personal responsibility, in other words.

Was that easier to accept when Bren stated it?

[dwhite53]

While finding some teenage girl dead in the Wal-Mart bathroom is horribly sad, it's our problem, not Mexico's or Columbia's or Afghanistan's, however, through our own set of failed values, we are killing hundreds, if not thousands of Mexicans annualy indirectly.

If WE leagalize the stuff, the killing in MEXICO will STOP almost OVERNIGHT. Then WE start fixing OUR problem.

Yeah, the faces of the meth heads look a little bad. Doesn't even come close though to the chopped up, mutilated, beheaded, hung, garroted, bullet ridden DEAD BODIES that are found in MEXICO EVERY DAY. The meth heads had a choice. The aforementioned CORPSES in MEXICO usually DID NOT.

If we really want to fight a "war on drugs" we send F16's, A-1 Abrams tanks, Marines, Army. You drop "Daisy Cutter" bombs. If we did this right, we could be done with it in a month.

The politically correct crap we're trying to do in Mexico ranks right up there with the way we fought Vietnam in the last few years of that conflict.

The only reason I can see the U.S. "fighting" this the way we do is because we know the starvation that will follow after Mexico's prime source of income is gone.

"Drug War". What a load of crap.

All the Best,
D. White

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

As a matter of fact some States have already decided to ignore unconstitutional federal drug laws.

How so?

By changing the state penalties for drug offenses?

You really don't get federal/state jurisdiction at all do you?

I think I'm beginning to understand the disconnect in your postings.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by RussP

Reestablish the concept of personal responsibility, in other words.

The same we we establish things like immunity to disease - through evolution - those that don't have it die off, until only those that do have it are left and reproducing.

Currently, we try to protect our population from every danger, like they live in a bubble. That lets the worthless reproduce as much as (or more than) the best. Thinning the herd is recognized as necessary and beneficial for other species, but we never mention it in relation to people.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

How so?

By changing the state penalties for drug offenses?

You really don't get federal/state jurisdiction at all do you?

I think I'm beginning to understand the disconnect in your postings.

By removing the penalties for some drug "offenses" regardless of the federal guidelines.

I know exactly of which I speak. I'll let you tend to the imaginary arguments about Judicial Review, the Incorporation Doctrine and the misuse of the commerce clause.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

By removing the penalties for some drug "offenses" regardless of the federal guidelines.

I know exactly of which I speak. I'll let you tend to the imaginary arguments about Judicial Review, the Incorporation Doctrine and the misuse of the commerce clause.

So, you really think that when a state decides to stop making something illegal under state law, that automatically makes it legal under federal law, or supercedes the federal law?

What law school did you go to?

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

So, you really think that when a state decides to stop making something illegal under state law, that automatically makes it legal under federal law, or supercedes the federal law?

What law school did you go to?

Nice strawman. Where did I say it became legal under federal law?

Really reaching now aren't you?

All I stated was that some states have decided to ignore federal guidelines in regards to schedule 1 drugs and allow there possession and recreational use.

Amazing.

[syntaxerrorsix]

The real point you still fail to see is that the Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Those laws are the responsibility of the State according to the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Of course you can keep supporting the perversion of our laws and justify it anyway you like. It will still be funny when you start *****ing about how the government doesn't protect the laws and rights that support your agenda.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

The real point you still fail to see is that the Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Those laws are the responsibility of the State according to the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The real point is you seem to think that your opinion is controlling authority.

The founding fathers saw this one coming.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

The real point is you seem to think that your opinion is controlling authority.

The founding fathers saw this one coming.

If you can find a shred of evidence that can support federal drug laws after reading the 10A I'll be impressed. Want me to wait?

Or is this going to be another one of those moments when you realize you can't support your argument similar to your attempt at judicial review?

Did you even spend 15 minutes and Google it? Were you shocked when you discovered the Marbury v Madison was essential a power grab and that it was never presented to the people or states for ratification? Just an assumed power afterwards?

No, probably not. You continue on with platitudes and coy remarks. You've got it all figured out and fully accept that the government is your master.

Enjoy it.

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

If you can find a shred of evidence that can support federal drug laws after reading the 10A I'll be impressed. Want me to wait?

Or is this going to be another one of those moments when you realize you can't support your argument similar to your attempt at judicial review?

Did you even spend 15 minutes and Google it? Were you shocked when you discovered the Marbury v Madison was essential a power grab and that it was never presented to the people or states for ratification? Just an assumed power afterwards?

No, probably not. You continue on with platitudes and coy remarks. You've got it all figured out and fully accept that the government is your master.

Enjoy it.

And again I reiterate, how does it feel that no matter what you type you are still wrong?

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by Ohio Copper

And again I reiterate, how does it feel that no matter what you type you are still wrong?

Your opinion has been found wanting. You don't seem to be able to debate with facts either. So I feel fine knowing that some people can't be re-taught things they hold sacrosanct.

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

Your opinion has been found wanting. You don't seem to be able to debate with facts either. So I feel fine knowing that some people can't be re-taught things they hold sacrosanct.

I can live in fact.

This is what I abide by:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2925

I can't really recall ever enforcing a federal law. If we do, I've never seen a summons for one

This is all I do. Catching an addict with three grams of Heroin isn't going to land him in Club Fed. Even the guys charged with aggravated trafficking are charged through the lower courts.

[Sharky7]

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Ohio Copper

I can live in fact.

This is what I abide by:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2925

I can't really recall ever enforcing a federal law. If we do, I've never seen a summons for one

This is all I do. Catching an addict with three grams of Heroin isn't going to land him in Club Fed. Even the guys charged with aggravated trafficking are charged through the lower courts.

I take this post as confirmation that if the law says you must seize guns, you will. You abide by the code.

I suspect you'll beat your chest about it too, what with all the guns you see associated with crime.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by series1811

To save time, I just want to reference my comments the last 87 times this topic was discussed.

Originally Posted by Bren

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.

I am uncertain it is to our advantage as a species to have school crossing guards at high schools.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

I am uncertain it is to our advantage as a species to have school crossing guards at high schools.

I agree. Do they have those now? My generation survived, or didn't, without crossing guards.

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I take this post as confirmation that if the law says you must seize guns, you will. You abide by the code.

I suspect you'll beat your chest about it too, what with all the guns you see associated with crime.

I have already taken guns via court order.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Ohio Copper

I have already taken guns via court order.

You can make a joke about it but I think it's obvious what side of that line you will be on if guns are ever made illegal.

You will.....enforce the law.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I take this post as confirmation that if the law says you must seize guns, you will. You abide by the code.

I suspect you'll beat your chest about it too, what with all the guns you see associated with crime.

Which law would that be?

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You can make a joke about it but I think it's obvious what side of that line you will be on if guns are ever made illegal.

You will.....enforce the law.

You compare arrests for drug offenses to me taking guns door to door?

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by RussP

Which law would that be?

None. He is just being as anti-LE as he always is.