Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote:


I think this is the biggest point for me. A great example of how two people can look at the same thing and draw the opposite conclusion. Alcohol causes way more harm and is legal. so you say drugs that cause less harm should also be legal. I see it as, other drugs dont get used as much as alcohol because they are illegal. so the last thing we should do is make them like alcohol.



I have to go to work, so I will reply in more deatil later, but I wanted to address this one point.

You said this is how two people can look at the same information and draw different conclusions, but you can't answer any of the questions I asked.

You don't even know how many people die a year from overdose deaths.

We haven't looked at the same information, as you have not done the research.

You are letting personal experiences be the sole basis for forming your opinion, so please stop saying that two people can look at the same information, as I have probably looked at 100 times more informatin than you have.


My comment was specific to your point about how much harm alcohol causes. We are both in agreement on the fact that alcohol is very destructive. but we both apply that same fact to support different conclusions. thats not to say there isnt other facts that Im not aware of, or even that those facts taken with the previous fact might sway my conclusion. since I dont know those facts I cant imagine their relevance. I have no problem admitting that you know far more statistical info on this subject than I do.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote:


I think this is the biggest point for me. A great example of how two people can look at the same thing and draw the opposite conclusion. Alcohol causes way more harm and is legal. so you say drugs that cause less harm should also be legal. I see it as, other drugs dont get used as much as alcohol because they are illegal. so the last thing we should do is make them like alcohol.



I have to go to work, so I will reply in more deatil later, but I wanted to address this one point.

You said this is how two people can look at the same information and draw different conclusions, but you can't answer any of the questions I asked.

You don't even know how many people die a year from overdose deaths.

We haven't looked at the same information, as you have not done the research.

You are letting personal experiences be the sole basis for forming your opinion, so please stop saying that two people can look at the same information, as I have probably looked at 100 times more informatin than you have.


My comment was specific to your point about how much harm alcohol causes. We are both in agreement on the fact that alcohol is very destructive. but we both apply that same fact to support different conclusions. thats not to say there isnt other facts that Im not aware of, or even that those facts taken with the previous fact might sway my conclusion. since I dont know those facts I cant imagine their relevance. I have no problem admitting that you know far more statistical info on this subject than I do.

Why should drugs be illegal?

I believe I already posted this quote, but it is sums up my views very nicely, for a single sentence.

"If the reason to make some drugs illegal is to keep people from harning themselves and others, then it is clear, the wrong drugs are illegal."

The quote is from the book "The Longest War: Rethinking the War on Drugs."

It is a little old, early 90's, but it is still relevant.

How many people die a year from alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs?

If you support keeping drugs illegal, in order to keep people from harming themselves and others, then you should also want to make tobacco and alcohol illegal. If not, then your views are inconsistent and illogical.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: [

If you support keeping drugs illegal, in order to keep people from harming themselves and others, then you should also want to make tobacco and alcohol illegal. If not, then your views are inconsistent and illogical.


Ill concede to you on this point. You are absolutely right. So we either accept the inconsistency, or we outlaw alcohol and tobacco. I think the the way it is is what will stay. except the tide is turning for pot.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: [

If you support keeping drugs illegal, in order to keep people from harming themselves and others, then you should also want to make tobacco and alcohol illegal. If not, then your views are inconsistent and illogical.


Ill concede to you on this point. You are absolutely right. So we either accept the inconsistency, or we outlaw alcohol and tobacco. I think the the way it is is what will stay. except the tide is turning for pot.

The tide is turning for pot, but it will still be a struggle to legalize it. In case you didn't know, the reason marijuana is illegal is not because pot is dangerous, or because it is a gateway drug, but because the products that can be made from hemp would compete against well established industries.

But don't take my word for it, do your own research.

Anyways, thanks again for being so patient and for the discussion.

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: [q

Anyways, thanks again for being so patient and for the discussion.

I have enjoyed it, You've given me a lot to think about. I will consider your perspective as I watch this issue evolve.

[sparsely]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: [q

Anyways, thanks again for being so patient and for the discussion.

I have enjoyed it, You've given me a lot to think about. I will consider your perspective as I watch this issue evolve.

There is no "issue" to "evolve". If people would just get out of one another's goddamn business when it doesn't concern or affect them and stop limiting goods to weild power from demand, it would resolve itself.

My car releases more poision into the atmosphere than all the pot I'll ever smoke.
So we have to tolerate a bit of our fellow mans differences and preferences... big f***ing deal

[lovebush]

[quote="sparsely"] lovebush wrote: [
There is no "issue" to "evolve". If people would just get out of one another's goddamn business when it doesn't concern or affect them and stop limiting goods to weild power from demand, it would resolve itself.



that would be the "issue"

[ubikk]

flamboyant wrote: I have a basic understanding of the grounds on which these laws were passed, but I'm not well-versed enough in constitutional law to even begin formulating an opinion on it, so I'll pose two questions simply and hope I can learn from the discussion:

EDIT: Does congress have the constitutional power to tell the citizens of the United States that they cannot posses drugs for their own personal use?


IF we make drugs illegal, then only criminals will have drugs !!! :-D

[lovebush]

ubikk wrote: [


IF we make drugs illegal, then only criminals will have drugs !!! :-D

:rotf:

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: [

that would be the "issue"

I posted some of my info on pot and health studies on the following thread.

If you have time, you might want to read my two posts on the following page........

Me thinks you will find it interesting.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63230&start=100

[lovebush]

Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: [

that would be the "issue"

I posted some of my info on pot and health studies on the following thread.

If you have time, you might want to read my two posts on the following page........

Me thinks you will find it interesting.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63230&start=100

one problem I see with hyping the dangers of pot , is how we loose credibility with kids.

[Norrin Radd]

lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: [

that would be the "issue"

I posted some of my info on pot and health studies on the following thread.

If you have time, you might want to read my two posts on the following page........

Me thinks you will find it interesting.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63230&start=100

one problem I see with hyping the dangers of pot , is how we loose credibility with kids.

I couldn't agree more, as many kids will try pot, almost half, then they realize that pot is no big deal and if they were lied to about pot they might wonder what else they were lied to about.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: lovebush wrote: [

that would be the "issue"

I posted some of my info on pot and health studies on the following thread.

If you have time, you might want to read my two posts on the following page........

Me thinks you will find it interesting.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63230&start=100

one problem I see with hyping the dangers of pot , is how we loose credibility with kids.

I couldn't agree more, as many kids will try pot, almost half, then they realize that pot is no big deal and if they were lied to about pot they might wonder what else they were lied to about.

First POT, then the War against Iraq ? :gmo: Where will it all end ?

[Harbinger]

bigstick61 wrote:
The commerce clause was meant to settle commercial disputes between States, which were a common occurrence under the AoC. It certainly wasn't meant to allow Congress to control anything which might have the slightest effect on interstate commerce. That is a complete and utter perversion of that article.

I totally agree with you. So when federal law enforcement agents, clad in body armor and toting assault rifles, brake into peoples homes to confiscate their drugs and haul them off to prison, they're just settling an intrastate commerce dispute? :lol: YA RIGHT!

Sounds to me like the commerce clause was a big mistake and needs to be repealed. Why do the states need help to settle their commercial disputes? Are they not capable of settling them themselves? What sort of commercial disputes could they even have that are so serious as to require federal intervention?

[Harbinger]

perdidochas wrote: bigstick61 wrote: perdidochas, just because the courts are holding up the convictions doesn't automatically make something Constitutional. If you read the comments on the commerce clause in the Federalist Papers, which is where the primary authors of the Constitution explain what everything means, you'd realize that Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Many court rulings in the 20th Century, especially the latter half, are contrary to what is said in the Federalist Papers, which makes one question the validity of the rulings. I'll take the word of one of the authors of the Constitution over a judge trying to "interpret" it.

Regardless, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

It only means the Judicial branch isn't doing it's job. Judges who support federal anti-drug laws are deliberately refusing to hear cases that challenge these laws. (Doesn't that infringe on the right to "seek a redress of grievances"?) When they finally do hear them, they just fall back on the poor rulings of previous judges and call it 'precedence'.

[bigstick61]

Quote: Sounds to me like the commerce clause was a big mistake and needs to be repealed. Why do the states need help to settle their commercial disputes? Are they not capable of settling them themselves? What sort of commercial disputes could they even have that are so serious as to require federal intervention?

Under the Articles of Confederation, it was indeed found that States at times could not handle it themselves. Many of these disputes resulted in the abuse of citizens of other States, and sometimes approached armed conflict, mainly when both or all States involved refused to budge. It is a necessary article, but it needs to be placed in proper context and used in accordance to what the person who wrote it said about it. Anything more is a usurpation of power. It may be grossly abused, but so are many parts of the Constitution; it is a general issue.

[Harbinger]

bigstick61 wrote:
Under the Articles of Confederation, it was indeed found that States at times could not handle it themselves. Many of these disputes resulted in the abuse of citizens of other States, and sometimes approached armed conflict, mainly when both or all States involved refused to budge. [The commerce clause] is a necessary article, but it needs to be placed in proper context and used in accordance to what the person who wrote it said about it. Anything more is a usurpation of power. It may be grossly abused, but so are many parts of the Constitution; it is a general issue.
And, according to wikipedia.com, the meaning of the term 'commerce' in the late 18th century extended far beyond economics to include all kinds of human interaction. This must be how they justify a lot of federal law.

Then lets pass an amendment to substitute the phrase "regulate Commerce" with the phrase "resolve Economic disputes" in the clause.

"To resolve Economic disputes with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

[bigstick61]

Wikipedia would be wrong on that one. The legal meaning of commerce today covers far more things than the definition did back then. This is reflected in the Federalist Papers. The meaning of commerce then even excludes a couple of things which the common non-legal understanding of the term means today. The attempt to include just about evrything into the term commerce is really a mid-20th Century phenomenon which has continued to this day.

[Harbinger]

bigstick61 wrote:
Wikipedia would be wrong on that one. The legal meaning of commerce today covers far more things than the definition did back then. This is reflected in the Federalist Papers. The meaning of commerce then even excludes a couple of things which the common non-legal understanding of the term means today. The attempt to include just about everything into the term commerce is really a mid-20th Century phenomenon which has continued to this day.

Obviously, when words have to many definitions it makes it very difficult to communicate. The Constitution itself is riddled with ambiguity due to it's broadly interpreted terminology, no wonder the rest of our laws are just as screwed up as the Constitution. What we need then is to create an official dictionary of the United States. It should give every word and phrase one, and only one, definition. Then we can require that all laws be composed with only the words and phrases from this dictionary. This way, the precise meaning of every term in the law can be looked up in seconds and nobody can argue about it.

[lovebush]

Harbinger wrote: bigstick61 wrote:
The commerce clause was meant to settle commercial disputes between States, which were a common occurrence under the AoC. It certainly wasn't meant to allow Congress to control anything which might have the slightest effect on interstate commerce. That is a complete and utter perversion of that article.

I totally agree with you. So when federal law enforcement agents, clad in body armor and toting assault rifles, brake into peoples homes to confiscate their drugs and haul them off to prison, they're just settling an intrastate commerce dispute? :lol: YA RIGHT!

Sounds to me like the commerce clause was a big mistake and needs to be repealed. Why do the states need help to settle their commercial disputes? Are they not capable of settling them themselves? What sort of commercial disputes could they even have that are so serious as to require federal intervention?

I actual think there might be some good uses for the interstate commerce clause, wouldnt it be better if it was amended so as not to be so readily abused rather then getting rid of it altogether?