U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-01-2018, 02:50 PM
 
1,206 posts, read 555,508 times
Reputation: 1875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Well, in regards to some modern drug laws, law enforcement DOES have a part in making the laws, a good example is the DEA with opioid prescriptions, that was all the DEAs doing.


How thats not a major conflict of interest, is beyond me!
DEA doesn't make laws. DEA is tasked with creating regulations relating to enforcing laws promulgated by Congress, just like EPA, Treasury, etc. Those agencies also have armed law enforcement personnel who carry out enforcement activities related to the laws and regulations. DEA reacted to the opioid epidemic by writing new regulations, which had public comment periods and didn't occur over night.

 
Old 12-01-2018, 05:01 PM
 
9,585 posts, read 7,509,315 times
Reputation: 23440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
The Constitution does not explicitly grant authority to the federal government to regulate the production, distribution, possession, or consumption of drugs, thus the 10th Amendment makes it a state issue.
The Constitution does not explicitly grant authority to the federal government to regulate the production, distribution, possession, or consumption of MANY things. There was no way for the founding fathers to know what issues would arise in the country 200 years later.
 
Old 12-01-2018, 11:43 PM
 
7,037 posts, read 1,706,378 times
Reputation: 5004
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
DEA doesn't make laws. DEA is tasked with creating regulations relating to enforcing laws promulgated by Congress, just like EPA, Treasury, etc. Those agencies also have armed law enforcement personnel who carry out enforcement activities related to the laws and regulations. DEA reacted to the opioid epidemic by writing new regulations, which had public comment periods and didn't occur over night.
How is that not a conflict of interest for them?



Drug laws, essentially benefit the DEA, LE and the drug cartels. Ive said it before, DEA is like the cartels lobbyists and enforcers in the US, they make sure tough drug laws are in place and they have little to no competition, when pharma started encroaching into their turf with pain pills, DEA was fast to act and shut it down...now all the pill addicts are doing cartel supplied heroin (win- win for DEA and drug cartels).



Moderator cut: not suitable for great debates

Last edited by toosie; 12-02-2018 at 03:32 AM..
 
Old 12-02-2018, 10:12 AM
 
1,206 posts, read 555,508 times
Reputation: 1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
How is that not a conflict of interest for them?
It's not a conflict of interest because Congress has written the laws in such a manner that the agencies responsible for enforcing laws (which are all written by Congress. not the agencies) are also responsible for developing regulations relating to enforcement. While you can argue that Congress is abdicating its responsibilities to a certain extent, it is a fact of modern life that there is too little time, and too little expertise, for Congress to get buried in the details of enforcement. Regulations also allow for flexibility as situations change. DEA could change marijuana to a different schedule without any action by Congress, if convinced that would be reasonable.
 
Old 12-02-2018, 01:13 PM
 
9,573 posts, read 2,626,959 times
Reputation: 8699
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
This topic has me really outraged lately, just today, I saw a young man in Boone County, Indiana who was arrested for being what police described as a mid level marijuana dealer, apparently the police had been investigating him for the past year and finally made the arrest yesterday.

Can anyone else think of some good ideas how we can refuse to comply or disobey?

mod note - the OP advocates for citizens to disobey current drug laws. Agree or disagree and provide supporting evidence for your assertions.
As with most Great Debates, the answer is always "it depends".

Since the majority of Americans have tried pot, it's obvious that most people will "break the law". No, Police are not just "doing their job" - but rather caught up in big money that was often given to them to hire new officers and use new equipment which they are forced to show results for. They also, like most jobs, want to keeps theirs going. Even the Police Officer that smokes dope every weekend will arrest people for it if it pays their salary, benefits and pensions.

Those I know who enjoy pot never let the laws stop them. But many, like myself, who might use it medically or just a little would stay away just due to having to find a source and carry it in public, etc.

Our state (MA) decrimed it a long time ago. Now it is fully legal both as medicine and as FUN. If you are 21 you can walk into the local Dispensary and buy most any flavor and form...truly amazing! I wish I liked the stuff more (but that is besides the point)....

The political angle is this.....
1. Just by THINKING correctly you are, in fact, changing the system. Polls are taken of what people think and politicians read the polls.
2. Donate to groups that help decrim and legalize it - and to groups that are trying to do away with prison and jail for lower-level non-violent crimes.
3. Petition your state to change their laws - join groups to get it on the ballot (if your state has ballot measures). Most all pot measures on state ballots have passed.

Let me quickly say how this was dealt with in MA, perhaps the most progressive state in the USA (Progressive means Progress - that is, dealing with things instead of the status quo)...

1. First, it was made obvious by the citizens that we didn't want LE busting users. Therefore, this slowed down or even stopped even before legislation was made. The local town here had a "420" day on April 20th each year in the town common with THOUSANDS lighting up and Police just hanging out nearby.

2. Then, with the help of that Devil :-) Soros and the MA. Libertarian Party, Decrim was put on our ballot statewide. It passed and so that meant absolutely no penalties (traffic ticket level or less)...Medical was legalized and is very loose - unlike other states, you don't have to be seriously ill to get a license here.

3. In 2016 Recreation legalization was put on the ballot and passed. It is now fully legal, regulated and taxed for over 21. You can also grow it in quantities enough to feed your head and a numbers of others. You still cannot SELL it, because that is lab-tested and regulated as to exact content (like food and drugs).

The idea that many millions of Americans have been negatively affected by this is ridiculous and one more reason the nation is "unhappy".
 
Old 12-04-2018, 07:11 AM
 
7,037 posts, read 1,706,378 times
Reputation: 5004
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
As with most Great Debates, the answer is always "it depends".

Since the majority of Americans have tried pot, it's obvious that most people will "break the law". No, Police are not just "doing their job" - but rather caught up in big money that was often given to them to hire new officers and use new equipment which they are forced to show results for. They also, like most jobs, want to keeps theirs going. Even the Police Officer that smokes dope every weekend will arrest people for it if it pays their salary, benefits and pensions.

Those I know who enjoy pot never let the laws stop them. But many, like myself, who might use it medically or just a little would stay away just due to having to find a source and carry it in public, etc.

Our state (MA) decrimed it a long time ago. Now it is fully legal both as medicine and as FUN. If you are 21 you can walk into the local Dispensary and buy most any flavor and form...truly amazing! I wish I liked the stuff more (but that is besides the point)....

The political angle is this.....
1. Just by THINKING correctly you are, in fact, changing the system. Polls are taken of what people think and politicians read the polls.
2. Donate to groups that help decrim and legalize it - and to groups that are trying to do away with prison and jail for lower-level non-violent crimes.
3. Petition your state to change their laws - join groups to get it on the ballot (if your state has ballot measures). Most all pot measures on state ballots have passed.

Let me quickly say how this was dealt with in MA, perhaps the most progressive state in the USA (Progressive means Progress - that is, dealing with things instead of the status quo)...

1. First, it was made obvious by the citizens that we didn't want LE busting users. Therefore, this slowed down or even stopped even before legislation was made. The local town here had a "420" day on April 20th each year in the town common with THOUSANDS lighting up and Police just hanging out nearby.

2. Then, with the help of that Devil :-) Soros and the MA. Libertarian Party, Decrim was put on our ballot statewide. It passed and so that meant absolutely no penalties (traffic ticket level or less)...Medical was legalized and is very loose - unlike other states, you don't have to be seriously ill to get a license here.

3. In 2016 Recreation legalization was put on the ballot and passed. It is now fully legal, regulated and taxed for over 21. You can also grow it in quantities enough to feed your head and a numbers of others. You still cannot SELL it, because that is lab-tested and regulated as to exact content (like food and drugs).

The idea that many millions of Americans have been negatively affected by this is ridiculous and one more reason the nation is "unhappy".
YEs, I do support all of those things, and the fact that Ive stopped calling police, when I see drug activity makes me feel a little better, Ive convinced a handful of employees at our stores to do the same, in the past, they were very quick to call police if they saw drug dealing or use in our parking lots. After having a long conversation about it, they saw my side and agreed not to do that anymore, (that felt REALLY good).


I talked to my doctor about this at length the other day too, he suggested using HIPPA may be a good way to prevent law enforcement from enforcing drug laws (in relation to prescription drugs anyway), as a patient, we MUST give consent to ANYONE to know our medical treatment, this includes prescribed medicine, HIPPA was created to protect the patients privacy, so actually, law enforcement has NO right to know what medicine I am taking, as long I do not consent.
 
Old 12-07-2018, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Kenmore, WA
7,392 posts, read 6,265,191 times
Reputation: 10636
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
This topic has me really outraged lately, just today, I saw a young man in Boone County, Indiana who was arrested for being what police described as a mid level marijuana dealer, apparently the police had been investigating him for the past year and finally made the arrest yesterday.


Another poster on another drug related thread here on CD, mentioned that "police are only doing their jobs, enforcing laws"...but just a few decades ago, police in the south were also 'just doing their jobs, enforcing the laws' in relation to where black people could go, eat, sit down, etc....more recently, police were again, just doing their jobs, enforcing laws in relation to sodomy/ gay laws.


I think this is a perfect fit for the Great debates board.


Its time more people disobey/ refuse to comply with drug laws, Ive said this before in other threads and usually many people will say things like "yeah and watch how fast you end up in jail"...but they dont stop to think, people fighting for civil rights went thru the same thing, MANY people were arrested numerous times in those days...but eventually, they were honored and recognized for doing these things.
R/COLOR]
Drug laws started as a means to incarcerate traveling black musicians who were smoking pot. I believe it started in California. It still remains the means to incarcerate societies' less popular citizens. The laws are rarely enforced with "upstanding" citizens, and even in the event of an arrest, they sentences are slight and often they just get a warning.

If you want to change the laws you should address the source of the laws at the root, and show your local lawmakers why it would advantage them and the community to eliminate the laws.

Personally, I am in favor of stopping the war on drugs and move back to the war on poverty, but I've always been an "outside the box" thinker.
 
Old 12-07-2018, 06:37 PM
 
Location: the Permian Basin
4,116 posts, read 2,873,208 times
Reputation: 5713
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
The Constitution does not explicitly grant authority to the federal government to regulate the production, distribution, possession, or consumption of MANY things. There was no way for the founding fathers to know what issues would arise in the country 200 years later.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any clause in the Constitution that explicitly grants authority to the federal government to regulate the production, distribution, possession, or consumption of any particular thing. The only obvious exception is the 18th Amendment, which was nullified by the 21st.


As far as the framers not knowing what issues could arise in future times, they didn't have to know what issues could arise, they only had to know that issues would arise the likes of which could not have been predicted at that time. Because they knew that the Constitution would need to be amended, they created the amendment process and wrote Article V. The transcript of such and a link are included below.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...article-v.html

Spoiler
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
 
Old Yesterday, 12:46 AM
 
7,037 posts, read 1,706,378 times
Reputation: 5004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any clause in the Constitution that explicitly grants authority to the federal government to regulate the production, distribution, possession, or consumption of any particular thing. The only obvious exception is the 18th Amendment, which was nullified by the 21st.


As far as the framers not knowing what issues could arise in future times, they didn't have to know what issues could arise, they only had to know that issues would arise the likes of which could not have been predicted at that time. Because they knew that the Constitution would need to be amended, they created the amendment process and wrote Article V. The transcript of such and a link are included below.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...article-v.html

Spoiler
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Do you really think the founding fathers of this country would agree with how drugs laws have been created and enforced...for the purpose they were (a tool to control minorities and eventually a tool for the police state, to collude with criminal organizations)..CMON...really? LOL


That is basically a govt agency using our system of law and order to benefit criminal cartels, if there were no drug laws, there could not be a black market for them, of course, that means no BIG money to be made.


I have a feeling our founding fathers would probably want to see everyone involved in creating those laws, to be hung in the public square, for all to see.
 
Old Yesterday, 08:49 AM
 
15,661 posts, read 9,238,175 times
Reputation: 67979
bring it back on topic in the present day, please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top