Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 12-16-2010, 05:45 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin View Post
Although it's already an American right?

Do you believe we should reestablish total prohibition then?

Isn't America letting you down by was billions of dollars in the drug war, creating global strife, and limiting a highly taxable commodity in what is essentially a depression?
Are you saying getting high is a legal right - do you think that's what they intended when they created our country?

Total prohibition on illegal drugs? Like I said before, if it's got a positive effect or industrial use, then that's fine.

Of course there's other things that I disagree with in our country, but those are different threads. I think claiming that marijuana will somehow save us from a depression is a cop-out. That's sort of taking advantage of an economic weak point in society to sneak in something that otherwise would never pass.

On a side note, consumer spending is significantly up this holiday season - take that for what you will, but it's at least a sign that we're bouncing back, even without legalizing any drugs!
__________________

__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 11:51 AM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin View Post
Yes they do.

U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page

This is a form of governmental control I support.
Screw the FDA. Go read the Constitution. Pay special attention to Article I Section 8 and the 10th amendment.

No, the Federal government does NOT have this right. Any laws, agencies or bureaucracies that are not covered by the specific enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 are implicitly out-of-bounds.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 11:54 AM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
I'm all for using it for other purposes. Just not legally endorsing getting high as an "American right." That's the part that disgusts me.
Of course it's a right. I have a right to wear goofy clothes, get drunk, smoke cigars, eat tofu and invest all my money in penny stocks.

10A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 12:56 PM  
Moderator Emeritus
 
Austin's Avatar

Texas
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,990 | Kudos: +90
Images: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian View Post
Screw the FDA. Go read the Constitution. Pay special attention to Article I Section 8 and the 10th amendment.

No, the Federal government does NOT have this right. Any laws, agencies or bureaucracies that are not covered by the specific enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 are implicitly out-of-bounds.
I didn't say it was a right.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 01:33 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian View Post
Of course it's a right. I have a right to wear goofy clothes, get drunk, smoke cigars, eat tofu and invest all my money in penny stocks.

10A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Hah I'm not questioning all those rights, but good points?

We're not talking about doing harmless things such as wearing clothes, penny stocks - I like all the cute examples, though. We're talking about illegal drugs, which are proven (over the long term, of course) to decrease brain efficiency and essentially add another legal version of alcohol to go out and endanger more lives, both by turning people into deadbeats and by traffic/other accidents. Fortunately, until the US legalizes it, that's not our right.
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2010, 01:34 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin View Post
I didn't say it was a right.
True enough, and a bad choice of words on my part.

The Federal government does not have the legal authority to tell us what we may or may not ingest; there is no provision for the FDA in the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 04:33 PM  
Mr. Happy
 
RiponredTJ's Avatar

Montreal, Quebec
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,908 | Kudos: +139
Images: 7
We wouldn't be having this discussion if pot was regulated and distributed just like other more debilitating drugs like liquor and sleeping/anxiety pills.
__________________
Алекс says don't drink and derive
.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2010, 04:42 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
We're not talking about doing harmless things such as wearing clothes, penny stocks - I like all the cute examples, though. We're talking about illegal drugs, which are proven (over the long term, of course) to decrease brain efficiency and essentially add another legal version of alcohol to go out and endanger more lives, both by turning people into deadbeats and by traffic/other accidents. Fortunately, until the US legalizes it, that's not our right.
Jake, let's get to the base issue. Does the Federal government have the legal authority to determine what we may or may not ingest? Does it have the legal authority to determine what is "harmful" and what is "harmless"? I argue it does not.

If you believe that it does, please explain how it comes by that legal authority, exactly.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 04:18 AM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Well, I'd be inclined to agree with you - the government has no right to regulate what we ingest.

However, you'll never see anyone arrested for 'smoking marijuana.' Instead, it's for 'possession.' The government can regulate, and set laws for, what comes into the country, and what is bought and sold.

But just for the sake of argument, let's go down that road. Would you be all for legalizing crack cocaine, cocaine, meth, heroin, lsd, prescription drugs - everything - to the general public? Or do you just use that argument for marijuana?
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 04:51 AM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
Well, I'd be inclined to agree with you - the government has no right to regulate what we ingest.

However, you'll never see anyone arrested for 'smoking marijuana.' Instead, it's for 'possession.' The government can regulate, and set laws for, what comes into the country, and what is bought and sold.
An argument could be built around importation laws and around commerce between the states. It would be flimsy but it could be done. However, it wouldn't address drugs grown or manufactured in a state and used within that state; the Fed has no claim over such transactions, manufacture or use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
But just for the sake of argument, let's go down that road. Would you be all for legalizing crack cocaine, cocaine, meth, heroin, lsd, prescription drugs - everything - to the general public? Or do you just use that argument for marijuana?
No, my argument holds for everything. There are plenty of harmful substances you can buy at the grocery store or hardware store that would certainly give you a buzz if you huffed, snorted or imbibed, yet they're not controlled.

Please understand that I do NOT advocate doing drugs of any sort. And it isn't that I want the government to get into the business of regulating (i.e. taxing) meth, crack, etc. It isn't that drugs should be legalized in this way, but that they should not be illegal to create, possess or use. At least not at the federal level. What states do is their business.

We are seeing laws now banning the use of trans-fats in restaurants. One genius legislator wanted to ban the use of salt in cooking. (Evidently, that legislator doesn't do a lot of cooking himself.) We see smoking bans in private establishments. San Francisco recently banned the sale of toys with McDonald's Happy Meals because it enticed kids to want to eat there. All of this is done under the guise that they know best what we should and should not ingest.

These are all wrong. Any sort of nanny-statist stuff like this is wrong.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.