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.
Well roy, I support small government, and ending the nanny state BS in this country, and not having the government or anyone else telling people what they can and cannot consume!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Me too! ALL drugs should be legal. It's not a valid government role to tell us how to live our lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXboomerang
Well if you were actually a conservative, you would support ending laws that tells people they can't partake of a plant that grows naturally out of the ground and provides much better remedy for many debilitating diseases and chemo than absurdly expensive FDA approved remedies offer.
As a constitutional conservative I support upholding the US Constitution, even if I may disagree with the actions of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Therefore, Congress has the constitutional authority to prohibit the importation or trafficking of drugs, legal or otherwise.
What Congress does not have the authority to do is regulate intrastate commerce. If drugs were manufactured, or produced wholly within a given State, and sold for consumption only in that State, then the State would have the authority to make it legal or illegal and Congress would have no say.
However, if drugs cross a State or International border, then Congress has the authority to as they please with that product.
Personally, I also oppose legalization of drugs, including marijuana. However, I would support decriminalization. I cannot deny that Congress does have the constitutional authority, with regard to interstate and international commerce, to regulate or prohibit its sale within the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXboomerang
If you were a conservative, you would be outraged that the federal government shut down the hemp industry and has kept it shut down for decades to stop farmers from competing with cotton, wood pulp paper, and other ag industries that keep lobbying for it to be kept illegal under the guise that kids will get stoned and die if hemp is made legal. (Hint, Canada allows industrial hemp and people don't try to grow drug grade marijuana in it because the quality would be outrageously low with the risks of getting caught outrageously high).
If that hemp industry was isolated to within a given State, then Congress has no authority. That State would have the authority to make it legal or illegal. It is only when the hemp industry expands beyond the State they are located in that gives Congress the constitutional authority to do as they please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXboomerang
If you were a conservative you would be outraged that the DEA actively refuses to allow Native Americans to grow hemp on their reservations even though the US government treaties with them specifically state they can.
If those Indian Tribes are growing it only for their own consumption and the product never leaves the reservation, then the DEA and Congress have no authority. When those Indian Tribes grow hemp for the purpose of exporting the product beyond their reservation, then Congress has the authority to prohibit such practices.
It would appear that none of you have considered the authority the US Constitution gives to Congress to regulate international or interstate commerce. You may not like it, but you cannot deny that they have the authority.
I didn't read this entire thread as I imagine that it went like the other 20,000 on the net but there is a faceless guy in Florida that would disagree that we should end the war on drugs.
Eight-term Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes lost his bid for re-election in Texas Tuesday night, suffering a tough defeat to former El Paso City Councilman Beto O'Rourke.
I didn't read this entire thread as I imagine that it went like the other 20,000 on the net but there is a faceless guy in Florida that would disagree that we should end the war on drugs.
True. It seems rather absurd that people would want to make sure whatever drug that was behind that is perfectly legal.
There come a point where it's ridiculous to have Bernie Madoff in prison for conning people out of their money but letting them keep their minds and bodies, but the extremely greedy drug traffickers will do absolutely anything to get filthy rich, including pushing extremely addictive drugs and extremely toxic drugs even in middle schools.
True. It seems rather absurd that people would want to make sure whatever drug that was behind that is perfectly legal.
There come a point where it's ridiculous to have Bernie Madoff in prison for conning people out of their money but letting them keep their minds and bodies, but the extremely greedy drug traffickers will do absolutely anything to get filthy rich, including pushing extremely addictive drugs and extremely toxic drugs even in middle schools.
Bernie Madoff is in prison for doing precisely what Social Security has been doing for decades - running a ponzi scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Yet no one has a problem with the government's ponzi scheme.
True. It seems rather absurd that people would want to make sure whatever drug that was behind that is perfectly legal.
There come a point where it's ridiculous to have Bernie Madoff in prison for conning people out of their money but letting them keep their minds and bodies, but the extremely greedy drug traffickers will do absolutely anything to get filthy rich, including pushing extremely addictive drugs and extremely toxic drugs even in middle schools.
If they weren't illegal there would be more control, meaning far less "pushing extremely addictive drugs and extremely toxic drugs even in middle schools."
How many liquor stores set up shop inside middle schools? None, because they're a legal business. When was the last time that anyone was killed over alcohol distribution rights? Not since the end of Prohibition.
You fail to see that legal businesses, because they work within the system and thus are more transparent, are less prone to blatant abuse than illegal businesses.
If they weren't illegal there would be more control, meaning far less "pushing extremely addictive drugs and extremely toxic drugs even in middle schools."
Please, explain how this will work.
Quote:
How many liquor stores set up shop inside middle schools? None, because they're a legal business. When was the last time that anyone was killed over alcohol distribution rights? Not since the end of Prohibition.
When was the last time someone ate the face off another individual while consuming alcohol?
Quote:
You fail to see that legal businesses, because they work within the system and thus are more transparent, are less prone to blatant abuse than illegal businesses.
So, your suggestion is to legally sell whatever the guy in Florida took because it will then be more transparent? Nobody is less prone to abuse alcohol simply because it's legal.
I think you need to take a bit of time to think through this and try again.
Personally, I also oppose legalization of drugs, including marijuana.
Why?
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.
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.
