Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence

[Nolerama]

My family member, who chose to use drugs and became addicted to crack, deserves what she got. Her daughter, raped at age 2 in a crackhouse while her mom was turning tricks for crack, did not.

When you get the phone call in the wee hours of the morning from child protective services to go to the hospital for something like that, you won't be singing the same tune. Promise.

Good point. However, my post was meant to canvass the situation and not pertain to individual experience.

If I had a family member in that situation, I would feel terrible for making that statement.

However, the Live-Let-Live and Die-Let-Die attitude I'm taking towards hard drug use is from a logical point of view:

If all hard drug users overdosed, then there would soon be no drug problem. They're all dead.

From a personal vantage point, it's a terrible thing. That falls under killing a few for the greater good. It can always get ugly. Situations like that always bring on the emotional, which I sincerely did not intend to do.

However, I see your point, and I'm taking it Bill. I apologize if I offended.

 

[jarrod]

i'm all for keeping pot illegal. i'd also like to outlaw dandelions, since they are a nusance. i bet most of society would like it if there were no dandelions either. mucking up my yard & stuff.

stupid plants.

jf

 

[Bill Mattocks]

From a personal vantage point, it's a terrible thing. That falls under killing a few for the greater good. It can always get ugly. Situations like that always bring on the emotional, which I sincerely did not intend to do.

However, I see your point, and I'm taking it Bill. I apologize if I offended.

No offense taken, no worries. I used to think the same thing, before one of my beloved family members fell off the world. Decades of trying desperately to help her (we all did, not just me), having our property stolen (my apartment was burglarized, my dad's car stolen), money taken, threats made by drug dealers for US to pay her debts or the kids would get hurt (which they made good on), endless days in court trying to explain to brain-dead judges WHY the children should not be with a drug-addled crack ho mother, and on and on and on - you begin to realize, after a time, that we're connected to each other. For each junkie you wish their own personal hell and quick painless death, there is a family dying a much more slow, more painful death. And I have no fear of hell. I lived there for over ten years. It is full of crack heads and 'innocent' pot smokers. So I have a slightly different perspective.

Which is why I have said in this forum, and I will say to any illicit drug user's face - I have no use for them. Legalize drugs? I have a better idea. Death penalty for all drug dealers. Today. One conviction, any amount, bullet to the back of the head immediately after conviction. I despise drug dealers with an undying hatred - and I've no love for 'innocent' pot smokers either. May they roast in hell.

 

[terryl965]

My family member, who chose to use drugs and became addicted to crack, deserves what she got. Her daughter, raped at age 2 in a crackhouse while her mom was turning tricks for crack, did not.

When you get the phone call in the wee hours of the morning from child protective services to go to the hospital for something like that, you won't be singing the same tune. Promise.

I agree Bill drugs need to be banned but the problem is it is everywhere. How can we control something that has been out of control forever?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree Bill drugs need to be banned but the problem is it is everywhere. How can we control something that has been out of control forever?

I don't think we can. It's an endless cycle. Let's just take the border violence as an example. People say we could end the violence by legalizing the drugs. True. We could also end the violence by not buying the frickin things in the first place. How 'bout that, eh?

But suggest to a pot smoker that they are contributing to the violence, and they shove off any personal responsibility - it's not THEIR FAULT that people are being beheaded at the border - it's the fault of repressive drug laws. Uh, no, dope-smoker, it's your fault. It was illegal when you started smoking, it's illegal now. That's like blaming speed limits when you drive too fast and crash. You did the crime - nobody else.

We could all just quit taking the damned drugs, but I guess that's not possible. Too many weak-willed, selfish, self-centered, losers out there just looking to get high, man.

Or we could legalize the drugs and just give up - shrug our collective shoulders and let nature take its course - to hell with our society and the damage these idiots do to us.

Or we could try to find better ways to interdict drugs and stop smugglers, enact much stiffer drug-dealing penalties, and make it clear that yes, an ounce of pot DOES mean 20 years in prison. But we can't afford that financially, and the people are generally not in favor of it. Our prisons are overcrowded with violent criminals as it is.

So in the end, I guess we won't do much of anything about it. Not good, but I really don't know what the answer is.

 

[jarrod]

Which is why I have said in this forum, and I will say to any illicit drug user's face - I have no use for them. Legalize drugs? I have a better idea. Death penalty for all drug dealers. Today. One conviction, any amount, bullet to the back of the head immediately after conviction. I despise drug dealers with an undying hatred - and I've no love for 'innocent' pot smokers either. May they roast in hell.

i have to say bill, i'm intrigued by your proposal. it would have executed our last three presidents before they took office--as well as most people who've been to college & the vast majority of guys who deliver your pizza.

despite your advocacy of murdering a large portion of our population, i don't hope you burn in hell. instead i will wish you a sunburn in phoenix

jf

 

[Bill Mattocks]

i have to say bill, i'm intrigued by your proposal. it would have executed our last three presidents before they took office--as well as most people who've been to college & the vast majority of guys who deliver your pizza.

despite your advocacy of murdering a large portion of our population, i don't hope you burn in hell. instead i will wish you a sunburn in phoenix

jf

It's just a token of my extreme.

Sorry, I know I get a tad heavy-handed on these types of threads. It is very personal for me. Mea culpa.

And I lived in Albuquerque for several years, does that count?

 

[MA-Caver]

However, the Live-Let-Live and Die-Let-Die attitude I'm taking towards hard drug use is from a logical point of view:

If all hard drug users overdosed, then there would soon be no drug problem. They're all dead.

I honestly cannot believe you would call this a logical view point. Especially knowing that a street dealer isn't trying to cater to just regular customers but seeking out NEW customers to broaden their market base. So by that logic... you'll seriously depopulate the area in a relatively short period of time. (not angry just exasperated that the statement above was even made).

From a personal vantage point, it's a terrible thing. That falls under killing a few for the greater good. It can always get ugly. Situations like that always bring on the emotional, which I sincerely did not intend to do.
However, I see your point, and I'm taking it Bill. I apologize if I offended.

Kudos for owning up to your mis-step.
It's easy to say when it isn't directly affecting yourself personally. I know of a very nice elderly woman whose beautiful daughter will now be spending the next 3 years in prison for drug related charges, along with her husband. Her equally beautiful, bright and vivacious 4 year old daughter will be without her parents during that period of her life. How do you explain it to a child that young that their parents were bad and have to stay in jail? Do it without causing confusion and trauma to the child and comfort the child when the first 2-3 weeks go by and they wake up in the middle of the night with the knowledge (not the feeling) that mommy and daddy aren't there to protect her.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

It doesn't matter. It only matters what the will of the electorate happens to be on this issue.

This is not an attack, but if you take you argument to a logical extension, then it only matters if the electorate wants black people to be in slavery, not whether it is right or wrong.

I just don't get it.....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is not an attack, but if you take you argument to a logical extension, then it only matters if the electorate wants black people to be in slavery, not whether it is right or wrong.

I just don't get it.....

Then let me explain...

When 'the people' want something to be legal, or illegal, or required, etc - the will of the people is supposed to be obeyed. Typically, this is done via plebiscite, such as a referendum vote during a general election. Majority rules, end of story.

However, even 'the people' cannot overrule the Constitution without ratifying an amendment to the Constitution itself. The Constitution is the base document. And that is part of the reason we have a judiciary. To decide of the 'will of the people' contravenes the Constitution or infringes upon the civil liberties of citizens.

Slavery is unconstitutional. Once upon a time it was constitutional, but it isn't now. So no plebiscite could vote slavery back into being simply because the majority wanted it. Any such referendum vote would immediately be set aside by the courts as invalid.

Let's take an actual example. In California, the state passed a law allowing gay marriage recently. And after a couple of court challenges to determine if it was legal or not, it was found to be legal, and gay couples started getting married.

However, California just had a ballot initiative vote on whether or not to allow gay marriage. This question was put on the recent ballot by citizens of California who went out and gathered enough certified signatures to get it placed on the ballot, according to state law. Then they had an election and the people of California voted gay marriage down. It was called 'Proposition 8'.

It is the will of the people in California right now that gay marriage NOT be legal. That overrides the state legislature - they must obey the will of the people in a plebiscite vote. The only remaining question is whether or not the majority vote violates the civil rights of gay people. If it does, then it will be tossed out. If it does not, then it remains the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

So no, the will of the people is not sufficient to pass any old law, willy-nilly. But as long as the Constitution is not violated and civil liberties are not violated, the will of the people is the law of the land.

 

[Jimi]

Bill, I have discussed this with you before and I am still disappointed to see you prefer to see violence done to any drug dealer ( Big time coke dealer or college kid passing on herb). So I make this point, this thread was started to discuss if Legalizing Drugs to stop violence will work. Many here seem to think it is not that clear cut (Pot, Coke, China White, whatever,they are all different substances & will have differing effects if legal) but it seems that as long as any drugs are still illegal you wish to be violent and kill convicted drug dealers of any substance. So why ask the question? Then if your opinion on the legalization of drugs (Which you make it sound as though your opinion is the voice of all our nation) can stop violence when you yourself subscribe to the execution of dealers.
It is illegal = I want them KILLED. If it becomes legal = I want them KILLED anyway. Seems you are more for violence regardless of a drugs legal or illegal status. That is VIOLENT all around man.
With that said Bill, again, I am sorry that drug use and a family members choices have caused you pain, misery and even suffering.
I can understand you are empassioned, but this topic is about LEGALIZE DRUGS TO STOP VIOLENCE? How does that help to prevent Violence? Don't do what I hate & I won't kill you!? Marijuana will not become Legal for many many years if ever at all. Same for other drugs. Your posts also touch on how our nation & govmt work out these things which is great resource man, but our own govmt has twisted its own works from with-in. Look into how Marijuana was made illegal and then one mans obsession against it who enevitably set things up with-in our laws to make a Marijuana tax stamp. The Govmt then offered a tax stamp for it to be taxed but keep it illegal and made it manditory for a farmer to get the tax stamp, he must have the Marijuana in hand to get the stamp. When a farmer showed up with any Marijuana in hand to get the supposed legal tax stamp they arrested him for possession. Do you really think that after the govmt can be twisted like this against its own people trying to be law abiding, that people would trust the govmt to not be as faulty as any other corupt person can be? That is just an example.
So do you think that after this loop hole catch 22 by a man Harry Anslinger? (Kinda sounds like you with an obession against DRUGS) that his only mistake was not to execute the farmers who applied for the tax stamp with herb in hand? I am simply playing devils advocate opposing Bill here since i feel Bills posts are a little extreme as well. I am not pushing for Marijuana to be Legal in my opinion here, just pointing out that Bill sounds Violent if drugs are Legal or not. Again, how does that help? Other than making Bill feel better about his familys misfortune by stating how he would like to see drug dealers killed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Fair enough, thanks for pointing it out. I agree, my response is extreme and not useful. My apologies! :asian:

 

[Jimi]

I am not saying your points are useless. I am pointing out that your points sound Violent.

 

[jarrod]

if it's worth anything bill, friends & family of mine have been hit by addiction (nothing compared to what happened to the two year old though) so i understand your frustration. it's pretty much how my dad felt when we shipped off my brother to rehab at age 16. but it still comes down to the choices people make, pure & simple. otherwise you have to start executing gun dealers, liquor store clerks, people at gas stations who sell tobacco, & virtually everyone who has purchased one of those things. followed to its logical conclusion, you either end up with everyone dead, or everyone living in a society that is FAR from free.

one night my high school guitar teacher got a hunting rifle, killed his wife & two little girls, then offed himself. in spite of this i still think guns should be legal, because what happened was his choice & not the result of the availability of an inanimate object.

peace,

jf

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Then let me explain...

When 'the people' want something to be legal, or illegal, or required, etc - the will of the people is supposed to be obeyed. Typically, this is done via plebiscite, such as a referendum vote during a general election. Majority rules, end of story.

However, even 'the people' cannot overrule the Constitution without ratifying an amendment to the Constitution itself. The Constitution is the base document. And that is part of the reason we have a judiciary. To decide of the 'will of the people' contravenes the Constitution or infringes upon the civil liberties of citizens.

Slavery is unconstitutional. Once upon a time it was constitutional, but it isn't now. So no plebiscite could vote slavery back into being simply because the majority wanted it. Any such referendum vote would immediately be set aside by the courts as invalid.

Let's take an actual example. In California, the state passed a law allowing gay marriage recently. And after a couple of court challenges to determine if it was legal or not, it was found to be legal, and gay couples started getting married.

However, California just had a ballot initiative vote on whether or not to allow gay marriage. This question was put on the recent ballot by citizens of California who went out and gathered enough certified signatures to get it placed on the ballot, according to state law. Then they had an election and the people of California voted gay marriage down. It was called 'Proposition 8'.

It is the will of the people in California right now that gay marriage NOT be legal. That overrides the state legislature - they must obey the will of the people in a plebiscite vote. The only remaining question is whether or not the majority vote violates the civil rights of gay people. If it does, then it will be tossed out. If it does not, then it remains the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

So no, the will of the people is not sufficient to pass any old law, willy-nilly. But as long as the Constitution is not violated and civil liberties are not violated, the will of the people is the law of the land.

Ok, so now that I understand your position, I'll ask the following: barring importation into the U.S., or the state to state commerce in the flow of narcotics traffic, would you say that any Federal law banning the growing, manufacturing, sale, or use of drugs should not be allowed to flourish. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Federal government to regulate such things.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If you have ever seen what drugs do to a person, do to their family, do to their friends, then you would have seen why they are outlawed.

Sure it would make the drugs cheaper. But a desperate drug addict HAS NO MONEY. So what would cost 5 bucks or 20 bucks is irrelevant. They will be desperate and will kill for 5 bucks just as quick as for a 20.

Now as for gangs. You think it will stop that to? Hmmm we have moonshine runners, we have cigarette smugglers, we have human smugglers. So why would legalizing stop smuggling? Unless you are not going to tax them or regulate them (for the drug’s safety) then they will still cost money and smugglers always will bring them in to undersell the taxed and regulated versions.

Deaf

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ok, so now that I understand your position, I'll ask the following: barring importation into the U.S., or the state to state commerce in the flow of narcotics traffic, would you say that any Federal law banning the growing, manufacturing, sale, or use of drugs should not be allowed to flourish. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Federal government to regulate such things.

But there is, according to the Supreme Court. The US has always maintained that the Controlled Substances Act is built upon the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This assumption was challenged, and the case granted cert in Raich v. Ashcroft, in 2004. The SCOTUS held that the CSA is constitutional, and that the Commerce Clause applies to it. The federal government may regulate drugs that have been scheduled on the CSA, even if they are not involved in interstate commerce directly. The case, strangely, hinged on a case involving wheat farmers from the 1930's - the federal government claims the authority to tell farmers what to grow and how much of it to grow if they want to - a farmer named Filburn refused. He lost.

So the federal government has the right to control drugs through the CSA. It is settled law, unless the SCOTUS grants cert to another such case.

However, I would tend to agree with the dissenting justices on this one. It is creeping federalism, and it is wrong. This is not just about drugs, but about state's rights.

The problem here is that if the CSA should crumble and fall, the same argument could be applied to federal agencies left, right, and center. The FAA, the FTC, the FDA, the BATF or whatever it calls itself these days, etc, etc. Federalism is a big, bad, ugly ball of yarn. You can't just unravel a few strands - if it comes down, it all comes down. And not even I want that.

Be that as it may - let's pretend that the SCOTUS wakes up and recognizes state's rights tomorrow, and declares the CSA unconstitutional (which, yes, I agree with you it probably is). The power to regulate drugs would then devolve on the states, and in most (all?) of them, the majority still do not want marijuana to be allowed for recreational use. And harder drugs like coke, smack, speed, etc? No way.

Long story short - I don't see the CSA going away anytime soon, constitutional or not. And even if it does, the states will still keep most drugs illegal - it is what the people want. For now.

 

[jarrod]

Now as for gangs. You think it will stop that to? Hmmm we have moonshine runners, we have cigarette smugglers, we have human smugglers. So why would legalizing stop smuggling? Unless you are not going to tax them or regulate them (for the drug’s safety) then they will still cost money and smugglers always will bring them in to undersell the taxed and regulated versions.

Deaf

are there more or less moonshine runners now compared to the prohibition era? also, it was my understanding that the moonshine trade primarily flourished in dry counties.

i don't know any stats off hand; does anyone know about crime rates in the netherlands? they have pretty permissive drug laws, but i don't hear of a lot of drug-related violence. it seems like that would be a good place to look for a comparison.

jf

 

[Flea]

This is off-topic but ... does it strike anyone else as a little bizarre that while certain drugs will net someone a huge sentence, other drugs (some of which have turned out to be very destructive) are aggressively marketed with the government's blessing? Or that some people are forcibly drugged by state mandate?

 

[Scott T]

An interesting, and well-voiced editorial on CNN today, worth a read:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories



Thoughts? Opinions?

First thought? Jeffery A. Miron should change his name to Jeffery A. Moron.

Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue.

Really? When's the last time you saw somebody prostituting themselves on the street corner so they can afford their next toke?

Read the following while knowing I support the decriminalization of pot.

I do disagree with his postulation about the health concerns. For marijuana users the health concerns are direct. Have a toke, lose a few brain cells. The damages don't go much beyond that (Ok, it's a little more than that, but still nowhere near as bad as processed tobacco). And if you smoke pot (and I do occasionally) you have brain cells to spare, since you're not using them.

Mister Moron's commentary deals only with direct cause/effect at the upper levels of the chain. Sure, legalize all drugs and the amount of gang wars may go down, but there will be no reduction of drug-related crime when talking about the users. Hell, it may even go up as taxation may make it less affordable for the common crack-whore. B&E's, assaults: they won't go down. People will still need money to buy the crap, and if they use it to any real degree they'll be useless in the workforce.

Hello prostitution and street level violence.