You want a return to the true intent of the 2nd Amendment?

[leadcounsel]

Stage 2

One of the most sobering experiences of my life was to see a newborn baby wrapped in trashbags being pulled out of a dumpster barely alive, all because her mom was a meth addict.

And meth is illegal, right? This is precisely what happens BECAUSE of the prosecution and persecution and silliness of narcotics laws.

If they were legal, there would be no pushers to hook people, hence probably less users. There would be no drug crimes, so no fear of prosecution to get help. There would be more education and rehabilition without fear of prosectuion. There would be no prostitution for drug money, so less unwanted babies would be murdered like this.

All of the current drug laws and criminalization CREATE this exact scenario.

Users of hard drugs are often pushed into the use of these drug by pushers due to the powerful lure of easy money. It breeds corruption and vile activities such as pushing, prostitution, violent crime, property crime, etc. This crime perpetuates more crime.

Without the financial incentive for PUSHERS, much of this activity would dry up. I suspect people don't necessarily go searching for an addictive life destroying drug for the first time -- their daily pushers give them a free sample because they see the economic incentives of ruining others' lives in their pyramid schemes of drug sales, pushing, transportation, sex, etc. for the illegal drug trade.

The only thing that legalizing drugs will do is produce more addicts.

Tell us WHY it will create more addicts? Availability? It's a fact that anybody that wants to use already can. So, I disagree. I think legalization will create less addicts through less pushers, less trafficers, more education, and more rehabilitation.

 

[Redworm]

but if an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want drugs legal, I'd be more inclined to think its an accurate representation rather than a statistical anomaly.

You're ignoring the misrepresentation of the drugs.

You cannot reproduce the same high without all of the side effects that are responsible for reprehensible behavior.

Untrue.

The only thing that legalizing drugs will do is produce more addicts.

Also untrue. Do you drink?

 

[MidnightRambler]

Also, I'm not sure the overwhelming majority of Americans do want drugs illegal. It seems everytime I converse with someone, they usually agree that drugs should be legalized. They also usually agree alcohol is a worse drug than cocaine or marijuana, a fact the government has openly admitted in the past.

 

[MidnightRambler]

I'm not so sure the stats that the majority of Americans don't want pot or cocaine legalized are true. I've talked to very very few people over the years that didn't think they should be legalized.

 

[johnsonrlp]

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."

Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921

Prohibition has never and will never work.

 

[Hal]

No one has confirmed the statement by KenpoPro. regarding the way it is working in other countries, or is it?

Harley,
Amsterdam is the usual example cited for the success story for legalized drugs.

As far as the claim that legalizing drugs will eliminate or cut down on "street sales"...

Check out any travel site and travel to Amsterdam. There's several warnings to not buy drugs off the street.

If *it's working* like so many claim it to be, then why are there street dealers?

 

[Al Norris]

First, Congress through the commerce clause and the general welfare clause has the ability to regulate narcotics.

I rebutted your contention that there is a so-called "general welfare clause," here. You apparently didn't see it.

As for the Commerce Clause, in light of Raich, see Oregon. Two Supreme Court cases that hinged upon the regulation of drugs by the Commerce Clause. Two cases that were decided in opposition to each other.

We gave up the power to regulate narcotics when we gave congress the power to regulate commerce.

One might look at it in that manner, had not the 10th amendment been passed: Those powers which are not enumerated, are forbidden to the general government and belongs to the States or if not within the States Constitutions, the People.

Commerce, means commerce as it meant at the time of the passage of the Constitution. It does not mean what we want it to mean today. Then, once an object left the interstate realm and became a wholly intrastate item, it left the realm of federal legislation. Thanks to Wickard, the meaning changed to: Regulation of any item that may enter interstate commerce can be regulated.

Based upon subsequent precedent, it now means the above plus once an item enters into commerce, it is always in commerce. Hence it may always be regulated.

That line of logical fallacy is what you, and the Supreme Court, are relying upon.

This line of reasoning was thoroughly trounced by Justice Thomas as the fallacy it is, in his dissent of Raich. It was further highlighted by the majorities opinion in Oregon, and there, Thomas rightfully chided his fellow Jurists with their own hypocrisy!

In light of all this, you either believe in the unlimited powers of the Federal Government, or, like the founders, you believe in a limited Republican Government. From your writings, it appears that you believe in the former.

 

[Harley Quinn]

The Bill of Rights

Antipitas mentions:

In light of all this, you either believe in the unlimited powers of the Federal Government, or, like the founders, you believe in a limited Republican Government.

HQ thinks the topic is 2nd Amendment and is the Bill of Rights, second.
The rest is just some political agenda that generally happens when Lead Counsel is around.

HQ

 

[Glock 31]

I think this will be my last post on this thread as I realize I am patently outclassed. Also, for some reason, it didn't appear there were any new posts in my subscribed threads since my last post, thus the delay in response.

I don't think I can logically, even by my morally supported logic, support the continued keep drugs illegal argument anymore. That doesn't mean I believe it will make any kind of positive change on people's physical health, and thus their lives. But I can't argue it politically anymore. Because I have heard it from the horse's mouth.

I started discussing this with some of the guys down at the pizza shop and got alot of the similar viewpoints made by those here for legalization. I also heard a theory that one of the original reasons for pot being outlawed was some rope or thread merchant was upset that hemp products could possibly outsell him since his stuff wasn't as high quality as hemp ropes at the time. So he got somebody to look at it from his viewpoint, and had it banned solely for a reason to boost his profits. I know that's vague but whether it is true or not, I have no clue.

But, I also brought the subject up with a guest at my hotel. It just so happens that he was a lawyer in Amsterdam, here on vacation. Why he would choose New Mexico is beyond me, were just a big desert afterall. Anyway, I asked him and he said that after the legalization of pot and other 'soft' drugs, crime dropped in Amsterdam. He said they still have extremely tough measures on 'hard' drugs such as coke and meth. And that their biggest problem, as far as regulation and enforcement, is from foreign Russian dealers trying to get their own products in without the regulation restrictions. So maybe Juan will still be a problem, even after legalization. Just not as big a problem.

One thing that doesn't equate between them and us though, is that they have no gun rights period. So, with all the evidence presented to me for legalization, it has eroded my opinion down to just a basic concern now. People want to legalize drugs here. But does that mean they are for controlling the doses, again such as Zurich? And regulating where people can go, and making people, who do use these drugs, enter into rehab programs? And all the other control measures that go with it, or is the majority just for letting them all in and whatever will be will be? Because if the majority is for regulation, while myself, and I'm sure other members here, can differentiate between guns and drugs. I'm not convinced those in Washington can. Will we be able to push for drug control, without inadvertantly pushing for gun control at the same time? How would we be able to seperate the two so hard headed liberals can understand it? See Amsterdam didn't have to hash that out since they don't have gun rights, so the lawyer couldn't really help on that one.

So basically, how do we push for drug freedom, and the gun freedom. Without pushing for gun control, while pushing drug control? Thanks for the debate.

 

[STAGE 2]

I rebutted your contention that there is a so-called "general welfare clause," here. You apparently didn't see it.

I saw it and I explained that "law nerds" like myself refer to that portion of the constitution as the general welfare clause for lack of a better term. You won't see it in a text book or a brief, but if you hang around law school and talk with con law profs you will hear it ad nauseum.

As far as commerce goes, the government has the power to regulate items in interstate commerce. That much we can agree on. If some kind of narcotic crosses state lines, or come from a foreign country it is clearly in interstate commerce. As a result congress can completely prohibit those narcotics that either cross state or national boundaries.

As for the rest, congress has the authority via Butler as you mentioned, to regulate narcotics that are not involved in interstate commerce.

However, even if you were to strike the butler opinion, in all practicality there are very few instances in which people are goign to know whether what they are smoking/shooting/getting high off of came from their own state or from another state or country. Given that there is a presumption that objects are in interstate commerce unless otherwise proven, most people will be out of luck, because "I bought it from that dude down the street" won't suffice.

Furthermore, even if you want to go back to the pre-butler meaning of general welfare, congress would still have the legal authority to tax narcotics enough to where they would be completely unattainable for the common user, regardless of whether they were in interstate commerce or not.

Granted the power of government has expanded too much, but legalizing drugs would still be possible regardless of these expanses.

 

[Hugh Damright]

As far as commerce goes, the government has the power to regulate items in interstate commerce.

I think the power regards regulating interstate commerce, not the items that travel in interstate commerce. Everything travels in interstate commerce. The feds try to say that they have gun control powers because guns travel in interstate commerce. I do not respect that at all.

 

[Al Norris]

I liked your edit STAGE 2. It must have occurred to you that in order to get around to the true intent of the 2nd amendment, we would have to get the fed.gov to honor the meaning of the words in the Constitution... If that wasn't the meaning for your edit, PM me. I'm genuinely curious.

And that of course, was the whole purpose of my posts. Words mean things. And words within the Constitution mean what they meant when they legislated, not what they might mean now.

But... Since you seem to agree with so many of your Law Profs, tell me. What changed, that required a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, as opposed to simply regulating (through legislation and not an amendment) drugs? There's an interesting dichotomy in all this....

 

[DonR101395]

I'd vote for getting rid of all laws that protect us from ourselves as long as it has a Darwin clause attached. Meaning if you do something stupid, you and only you pay for your stupidity. Stick a needle in your arm get hepatitus, hiv etc. you pay for your own treatment or die whatever miserable death come with being stupid. I could care less if you want to do drugs, just don't expect me to have any compassion when you can't pay for your medical treatment, or cry to me about your hard life on the streets, don't ask me for anything and I don't care what you do with your body. You're free to abuse it anyway you like. Snort, inject, smoke and drink all you like.............................just don't look to me for any sympathy.