Does Anybody Argue That Drug Use Isn't Bad For You

[paperburn1]

good for you, I trust the founding fathers and the proccess. I think you only spout the words hence the rolling eyes

[TDPerk]

Oh? Do go on about where you see any support for the notion I don't support the process.

In fact, give any evidence the Democrats are particularly following it.

Where is a budget? Where does the notion that the debt ceiling can be evaded by the coining of a bullion coin 1/200,000,000 of it's face value? Or that IOU scrips are payment, and as such not debt? Or that an Executive Order can alter the constitution's plain meaning?

[GIThruster]

The current fuss about OBama planning to enter the gun control scene with an executive order is not worth concern. Several times in the past, US Presidents have tried to make law through executive order and were overturned by the courts. If OBama wants to make a political point by giving instruction to executive agencies alone, that is his prerogative. If for example he wants to tell all US Marshals they cannot carry handguns that take magazines that hold more than 10 shots, that is within his authority. If he wants to tell NASA personnel they can't carry weapons to work (what I'd expect is the current policy) he can do that. He cannot however make law for US citizens with an executive order. That's not what executive orders are all about, as several US Presidents have found in the past.

[paperburn1]

Here in front of me I have a machine that allows me to access the greatest works of mankind and I use it to look at cat and dog pictures and argue with strangers. I guess I just got carried away by the hype. Pardon me for thinking I knew you and sorry if I cuased you any stress.

[Diogenes]

Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?

Did people keep on using WWI surplus U-boats to smuggle whiskey into the country after Prohibition ended?

Can you think well enough to draw an obvious conclusion?

No it was far cheaper to make it at home, and I believe usage did go up a tad bit.

Then what good could Prohibition have done? Those who didn't mind the bottom of their mattresses wet made their own, and the smugglers' customers funded a certain regrettable Senator Kennedy and his son, and some 'shiners customers went dead or blind from bad whiskey.

A win-win for everything but society, that's all Prohibition ever is.

The most common fallacy I hear is the fallacy of false equivalency. You are trying to assert that All prohibitions are equal, regardless of the substance abused, or the steps taken against it. Alcohol prohibition is constantly being trotted out by you Libertarian types as evidence that you are correct, and that all forms of prohibition must follow this example as being immense folly and counterproductive.

This argument overlooks some very salient differences between what happened with Alcohol (Accepted by society and widely used for several thousand years prior to the attempt to ban it, Also not nearly so addictive or destructive as other drugs.) and what happened with Opium.

You would have us believe that the consequences are exactly the same, when they are in fact wildly different. This fallacy of false equivalency is nor a reasoned or rational argument, it is a childish attempt to use an emotional non-sequitur to rationalize a ridiculous position. (That all prohibited substances are equally non-addictive, and that the consequences of allowing them are also equal in severity.)


Pull the other one.

[Diogenes]

If that does not work move to a country that has the same view on the subject as you (AKA Johnny DEPP) But flapping you lips here does nothing but irritant people and lower your credibility . para fides paternae patria

Just wanted to point out that Socialist minded actor Johnny Depp who is all set to ask for tax increases on others here in the United States, decided to leave France when the shoe ended up on his own foot.


Al Gore quickly sold Current TV in 2012 so as to avoid the tax increases he's been saying everyone else needs in 2013. Warren Buffet makes a small salary on paper so he can dodge the taxes on his actual multi-billion dollar income.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal.

[williatw]

The current fuss about OBama planning to enter the gun control scene with an executive order is not worth concern. Several times in the past, US Presidents have tried to make law through executive order and were overturned by the courts. If OBama wants to make a political point by giving instruction to executive agencies alone, that is his prerogative. If for example he wants to tell all US Marshals they cannot carry handguns that take magazines that hold more than 10 shots, that is within his authority. If he wants to tell NASA personnel they can't carry weapons to work (what I'd expect is the current policy) he can do that. He cannot however make law for US citizens with an executive order. That's not what executive orders are all about, as several US Presidents have found in the past.

Not that familiar with the history of federal courts overturning presidential executive order, although I hope you are correct. I am worried that he seems to think he can simply bypass Congress on everything from the budget to raising the debt limit by presidential fiat. I am worried when there are those in our national media who seem to think that would be great…gun control without having to deal with those pesky Republicans in the House and Senate. He promised the Brady campaign “under the radar” gun control, looks like he trying to deliver. I understand he has been trying to "stack" the federal courts with justices favorable to his point of view. There was one whose name escapes me who argued that it was irrelevant what the framer's intent was with the 2nd amendment, only what in his estimate served the public interest mattered. Fortunately he was not confirmed after a public outcry.

[TDPerk]

Here in front of me I have a machine that allows me to access the greatest works of mankind and I use it to look at cat and dog pictures and argue with strangers. I guess I just got carried away by the hype. Pardon me for thinking I knew you and sorry if I cuased you any stress.

De nada. And thank you, you made me laugh.

[hanelyp]

I understand he has been trying to "stack" the federal courts with justices favorable to his point of view.

Of that I have no doubt. Stacking the court could easily be the most damaging facet of his legacy. One or two more solid supporters on the court and the 2nd amendment option may be the only barrier between the regime and unrestricted tyranny.

As far as courts overturning an illegal executive order, that takes time. If the executive order in question is to disarm "we the people" or silence descent, "we the people" may resolve the issue before the courts can act.

[williatw]

I disagree. I think Diogenes has hit the nail on the head here--the goal is not to win a war but rather to fight a mitigating action.

Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?

Your argument overlooks the most salient aspect of the discussion. Drugs KILL people. Thousands every year. And that's with them being ILLEGAL. If you let them establish a safe beach-head in society, the numbers of people being killed by them will go up into the millions just like they did in China. Alcohol kills something like 75,000 people per year,and it is relatively benign compared to most drugs.


Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.

Is the death toll in Portugal and the Netherlands many orders of magnitude worse? Remember we are talking about decriminalizing 1st, maybe eventually legalized and in the case of harder drugs if legalized strictly regulated as to concentration/availability. Treating drug addiction as a medical condition. Other than being conquered like China was that would be the only way Opium would be legalized today. Of course Opium was legal in the states and Britain at the time the British forcibly legalized it in China. Yes I know you will say it only hadn't had enough time, or wasn't available enough to produce the same level of deleterious effects it did in China. In the States Opium laced products were being sold as "health tonics" or such, people didn't even know what they were buying. After all they used to put cocaine in Coca Cola sold to children, obviously regs were needed. We should have simply regulated concentration and availability instead of going whole hog on the Prohibition bandwagon. The war on drugs (and terror) can get us to an authoritarian socialist quasi-democracy just as surely if not more so than gov health care. Warantless no knock entry and searches, to say nothing of asset forfeiture. Being told by the courts you have no legal right to defend yourself from law enforcement forcing their way into your home even if they didn't identify themselves as such and have no warrant. Personally I don't think Obama has the Cajuns to be a dictator (he also doesn't I think have nearly enough support from the military..and of course a disarmed populace) but this rule by presidential fiat worries me because it would establish a precedent. One that will live long after Obama leaves office in 2016.

[TDPerk]

Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.

Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them.

And it's not.

[paperburn1]

T
Not that familiar with the history of federal courts overturning presidential executive order, .

Executive order can be overturn by the court or they can be rescinded by another executive order (E.G. Bushes stem cell research order was removed by President Obama). So although they seldom get changed the mechanism to make the change is well understood and has precedent in law.

[ladajo]

Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.

Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them.

And it's not.

So speaks the all knowing Oz.

Just what makes you think you know what other people have in their heads?

I bet you let your kids play with loaded guns by themselves.

[GIThruster]

The fact 91% of people don't use illegal drugs but the vast majority use alcohol seems to demonstrate that prohibition does keep most drugs out of the hands of most people. Most people are law abiding and if a drug is illegal, they will have nothing to do with it. Conversely, legalizing a drug makes people interested and want to try it.

Seems pretty obvious that prohibition does indeed keep most drugs out of most people's hands.

Just a little reality check for Perky--those of us who don't use, don't want any contact with illegal drugs. I not only don't use, I don't date women who use, don't allow drugs into my home and never entertain thoughts of illegal drug use. It's a closed issue for me now and has been since I quit at the age of 18. Those of us who have made a conscious decision not to violate the law for the sake of a high want nothing to do with those of you who do.

[Stubby]

Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.

Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them.

And it's not.

So speaks the all knowing Oz.

Just what makes you think you know what other people have in their heads?

I bet you let your kids play with loaded guns by themselves.

Will you say the same thing to GiT?
He claims to know what law abiding citizens think.

And really ladajo an ad hominem?