When recreational drugs are legal...

[Tgace]

But we are getting into the weeds with Constitutional law...the individual States have their own laws regarding drug use and possession and most of the time its the state that prosecutes drug cases unless you are dealing with interstate/international trafficking or criminal enterprises/organized crime...where the feds step in.

The Feds get their enforcement authority....as they almost always do...through taxation and interstate commerce; and subsequent case law. And the handy "general welfare" clause of course.

The federal "war on drugs" assists the several states...

However since drugs are trafficked by means of INTERstate trafficking ...then Article I Section 8 Clause 3 applies...

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

I know of no USSC cases that state an individual States laws banning drugs violates the US Constitution.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.

Pretty much the same for the tenth.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Not when we are talking about actions that only take place within the state. The Feds have raided dispenseries indiscriminately in the past. It didn't matter if they actually WERE shipping pot over state lines.

 

[Steve]

My kids will always be my kids even when they are 50. I wasnt talking about minors I wouldnt want my kids at any age to use Marijuana.

I wouldn't want my kids to abuse anything, but I wouldn't have a problem if they were responsible adults and chose to smoke a doobie or eat a brownie. I wouldn't want them to abuse alcohol, but don't have an issue with the, drinking a beer or two as responsible adults.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Are you trying to pigeonhole me as a "conservative" or something?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I'm trying to point out that you're being philosophically and ideologically inconsistent. The label is just a shorthand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

Do you think that prohibiting alcohol in the UK would help with the alcohol related issues the UK is dealing with? That's the question I've asked you more than once, and you have still not answered.

Here, same question, but in multiple choice format:

Making alcohol illegal in the UK would:

A: have a positive effect
B: have a negative effect
C: have no noticeable effect
D: None of the above (please elaborate)

Regarding the other thing, it's as much me as it is you. I know that when someone presumes to tell me how I should be raising my kids, I get a little uptight. For example, when you said, "The drugs you should be worried about with your children are the things like...." That's a known trigger for me. It angers me because I take the welfare of my children very, very seriously, whereas I'm pretty sure you've never even met them. Once again, I'm trying to acknowledge that this is a trigger for me, and I'm asking as politely as I can for you to drop it, keep the discussion general in nature and to please not presume to tell me specifically what I should or shouldn't do with regards to the children I am raising.

Steve, you are going over the top to the point that you are getting offensive to be honest, I'm not telling you anything about your children, you mentioned them, you brought them into the conversation ,. I just pointed out that the drugs you mentioned aren't the ones that are popular these days. You really aren't reading what I'm saying here.

Why would we ban alcohol here? It plainly didn't work when you lot banned it so why would we even think about it here? Do I think it would work , of course not. I would have thought my previous answers where I gave you my opinion on what I think would work would have given you my opinion instead of you badgering me about things you think I haven't said and things you think I have.

 

[Steve]

Steve, you are going over the top to the point that you are getting offensive to be honest, I'm not telling you anything about your children, you mentioned them, I didn't say anything about them. I just pointed out that the drugs you mentioned aren't the ones that are popular these days. You really aren't reading what I'm saying here.

You are offended that I am offended? Yeah. Okay. I tried to be very specific. I know what you were trying to say. But that's not what you said. And once again, even though I quoted you and highlighted, boldest and italicized the exact phrase that bugged me, you're still refusing to own your own words. Okay. Sure. It must be that I'm just not reading what you're saying.

Why would we ban alcohol here? It plainly didn't work when you lot banned it so why would we even think about it here? Do I think it would work , of course not. I would have thought my previous answers where I gave you my opinion on what I think would work would have given you my opinion instead of you badgering me about things you think I haven't said and things you think I have.

Great. So, prohibition doesn't work. We agree. Was that so hard? So then, is it any wonder that 1/3rd of your country has tried illegal drugs, and almost 1 out of every 10 people is a regular user? We both agree that banning alcohol wouldn't be at all constructive. Would it work? Of course not, you said. Right? then why do you (and we) persist in a failing prohibition? It's he definition of insanity... Or at least cognitive dissonance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

I guess it comes down to perspective. You may know 5 or 10 responsible pot smokers and think oh Joe smokes and he's a good guy so its not bad. Where I have delt with 100s of irresponsible pot smokers and I don't deal with the good ones. So to me it is a problem to you its not.

 

[Tgace]

I'm trying to point out that you're being philosophically and ideologically inconsistent. The label is just a shorthand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How do you know what my ideology or philosophy is?

Because some of my beliefs may parallel what you consider "conservative" philosophy I now have to lock step with all the rest of what you believe to be conservative thought? Come on Steve.

All law is about restrictions on behavior or allowances of possession.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

How do you know what my ideology or philosophy is?

Because some of my beliefs may parallel what you consider "conservative" philosophy I now have to lock step with all the rest of what you believe to be conservative thought? Come on Steve.

All law is about restrictions on behavior or allowances of possession.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

In this thread, you have stated your position on both drugs and alcohol. These positions seem to be at odds, philosophically.

 

[Tez3]

Steve for the last time I said nothing about your children, you brought them into the conversation, if you're touchy don't mention them. And for the last time all I said was that the drugs you should be worried about aren't the ones you mentioned, you have taken offence at nothing. I know what I meant please don't try to be clever and make something out of my words that aren't there. You are making a mountian out of a molehill over the words I use, you seem to have a mental block when it comes to what I say, you seem to be postivie it's what you mean not what I mean. One one hand you tell me not to keep mentioning the UK on the other you are telling us what our problems are with drugs and alcohol, one thing or the other mate, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You said you couldn't talk about the UK and there you are talking about it roflmao!

Anyway I'm off to annoy even more Americans now in the run up to and during the Olympics, I'm harrassing them at airports just to make them feel at home with airport security.

 

[zDom]

While I don't think weed is the equivalent of heroin, I'm less than enthusiastic about putting yet another behavior altering drug into the sale market.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Unless, of course, it is a legally manufactured potion (such as Aility, Adderall, Ambirn, Antabuse, Aircept, Anafranil, Benperiodol, BuSpar, Benzodiazephiens, Celexa, Clorzaril, Concerta, Cymbalta, Depakote, Effexor, Elavil, Eskalith, Gabitril, Geodon, Haldol, Imipramine, INderal, Keeprya, Klonopin, ad nauseum on through to Xanax, Zoloft, Zyprexa, Zelepron, Zolpidem and Zopiclone) that a pharmaceutical company can make money off of, right?

Ever look at the list of adverse effects on some of these?

Let's take Xanax, for example.

According to Wikipedia:

"Possible side effects include:

• Disinhibition[SUP][35][/SUP]

• Change in libido[SUP][36][/SUP]

• Jaundice (very rare)[SUP][37][/SUP]

• Hallucinations (rare)[SUP][38][/SUP]

• Dry mouth (infrequent)[SUP][39][/SUP]

• Ataxia, slurred speech[SUP][40][/SUP]

• Suicidal ideation (rare)[SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP]

• Urinary retention (infrequent)[SUP][42][/SUP]

• Skin rash, respiratory depression, constipation[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP]

• Anterograde amnesia[SUP][45][/SUP] and concentration problems

• Drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, fatigue, unsteadiness and impaired coordination, vertigo[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP]

[h=3][edit]Paradoxical reactions[/h]Although unusual, the following paradoxical reactions have been shown to occur:

• Aggression[SUP][46][/SUP]

• Rage, hostility[SUP][35][/SUP]

• Twitches and tremor[SUP][47][/SUP]

• Mania, agitation, hyperactivity and restlessness[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP]

with alprazolam can lead to profound sedating effects."



(Hey but lets jail people for marijuana because pot is a DRUG (read, "illegal drug", because the above are the REAL drugs in the sense that they are manufactured from chemicals in a laboratory) and HEROIN is a drug so they are EQUAL IN BADNESS!!!

Really, Ballen? You really believe that? If somebody was able to influence politicians to list mother's milk as a drug, would it then be just as bad as heroin and pot? )

 

[Steve]

Steve for the last time I said nothing about your children, you brought them into the conversation, if you're touchy don't mention them.

Did you write the following sentence? "The drugs you should be worried about with your children are the things like...."

If so, could you please stop saying that you said nothing about my children? Can we at least put that one to rest?

And for the last time all I said was that the drugs you should be worried about aren't the ones you mentioned, you have taken offence at nothing.

And once again, it's odd to me that you seem to know what drugs are actually floating around my kids' high school here in good old Covington, Washington. Once again, you are presuming to tell me what I should be worried about.

I know what I meant please don't try to be clever and make something out of my words that aren't there.

Thing about me is that I take you at your word. If you write it, I presume you mean it, and frankly, I can't help it if I take more care in reading your words than you do in writing them. I'm literally quoting you to yourself and you continue to insist that's not what you wrote.

You are making a mountian out of a molehill over the words I use, you seem to have a mental block when it comes to what I say, you seem to be postivie it's what you mean not what I mean. One one hand you tell me not to keep mentioning the UK on the other you are telling us what our problems are with drugs and alcohol, one thing or the other mate, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You said you couldn't talk about the UK and there you are talking about it roflmao!

Yeah. You're right here. Since you seem determined to discuss the UK, I thought I'd try and respond to the content of your posts. My bad. You're right. But I felt like I had to acknowledge that you and I do actually agree that prohibition wouldn't work. That's pretty significant. If we agree that prohibition is untenable for alcohol, then there's something to be learned from that. No?

 

[zDom]

So what your saying is more were against it then for it? OK

That would only indicate that more VOTERS were against it than for it as of the last time it went before our states voters

Remember, older Americans vote in disproportionately high numbers while I would venture to guess that a lot of those in favor
of the initiative passing were too stoned to leave the house and vote

 

[zDom]

I guess it comes down to perspective. You may know 5 or 10 responsible pot smokers and think oh Joe smokes and he's a good guy so its not bad. Where I have delt with 100s of irresponsible pot smokers and I don't deal with the good ones. So to me it is a problem to you its not.

My point is:

Those people would be problems even without pot. They aren't problems because of pot; they are scofflaw *******s who are going to create more work for you no matter what sort of mind-alterning drug they get ahold of.

If you could magic away all the illegal drugs and heck, alcohol too for that matter, they would be swallowing handfuls of Xanax and sniffing model airplane glue.

 

[Tgace]

Unless, of course, it is a legally manufactured potion (such as Aility, Adderall, Ambirn, Antabuse, Aircept, Anafranil, Benperiodol, BuSpar, Benzodiazephiens, Celexa, Clorzaril, Concerta, Cymbalta, Depakote, Effexor, Elavil, Eskalith, Gabitril, Geodon, Haldol, Imipramine, INderal, Keeprya, Klonopin, ad nauseum on through to Xanax, Zoloft, Zyprexa, Zelepron, Zolpidem and Zopiclone) that a pharmaceutical company can make money off of, right?

Right. These are controled by prescription and not sold as "recreational" intoxicants...as weed would be. If you are caught with a (controlled) substance not perscribed to you, you are subject to arrest. If you are caught with an uncontrolled pill thats not your perscription you can be charged with a state health law violation (in my state).

 

[Tez3]

Did you write the following sentence? "The drugs you should be worried about with your children are the things like...."

If so, could you please stop saying that you said nothing about my children? Can we at least put that one to rest?And once again, it's odd to me that you seem to know what drugs are actually floating around my kids' high school here in good old Covington, Washington. Once again, you are presuming to tell me what I should be worried about. Thing about me is that I take you at your word. If you write it, I presume you mean it, and frankly, I can't help it if I take more care in reading your words than you do in writing them. I'm literally quoting you to yourself and you continue to insist that's not what you wrote.Yeah. You're right here. Since you seem determined to discuss the UK, I thought I'd try and respond to the content of your posts. My bad. You're right. But I felt like I had to acknowledge that you and I do actually agree that prohibition wouldn't work. That's pretty significant. If we agree that prohibition is untenable for alcohol, then there's something to be learned from that. No?

Steve, get a grip man the emphasis is yours not mine. You are changing the sense of the sentence by bolding words I didn't to make it mean something I didn't. Stop with the hysteria and the strange stuff about prohibition, it's getting worrying.

 

[Steve]

Steve, get a grip man the emphasis is yours not mine. You are changing the sense of the sentence by bolding words I didn't to make it mean something I didn't. Stop with the hysteria and the strange stuff about prohibition, it's getting worrying.

The emphasis was mine, to point out to you that you did indeed say what you are now insisting you didn't. Honestly, I admitted to you that it's a trigger. When people presume to use the words "you should" and "your children" to me in the same sentence, my temperature begins to rise. I have said as much more than once. That you continue to push that button, knowing this, is troubling to me.

And don't you understand how prohibition is relevant to the subject at hand, considering that we are specifically discussing the prohibition of recreational drugs? It worries you that I'm trying to post on topic? Now you're accusing me of hysteria? Tez, come on. Just own your words. Be responsible for what you have written. You have agreed that prohibition would never work. I agree. So, the next question is, why is anyone surprised that it isn't working for weed?

 

[zDom]

Right. These are controled by prescription and not sold as "recreational" intoxicants...as weed would be. If you are caught with a (controlled) substance not perscribed to you, you are subject to arrest. If you are caught with an uncontrolled pill thats not your perscription you can be charged with a state health law violation (in my state).

And the new designer drugs that are driving people ******* crazy are sold as "bath salts."

But we know that is ********, don't we?

Somebody once speculated that I was "self medicating" with marijuana. Maybe it wasn't about recreation for me but to alleviate anxiety.

I could have been prescribed Xanax or any number of anti-anxiety concoctions mixed up in test tubes by pharmaceutical companies but I rejected them. I learned to work out anxiety through martial arts. Hard workout is good medicine for the mind as well as the body.

And marijuana is being approved in a growing number of states for its medicinal properties, not as a recreational drug. And many of those who get prescriptions for that list of legal drugs controlled by prescription have learned how to game the system so they can legally obtain them for recreational use.

And you don't have to explain legal / illegal. I have been a journalist for 15 years, a college graduate (cum laude) and halfway to a master's degree.

 

[ballen0351]

That would only indicate that more VOTERS were against it than for it as of the last time it went before our states voters

Remember, older Americans vote in disproportionately high numbers while I would venture to guess that a lot of those in favor
of the initiative passing were too stoned to leave the house and vote

So when a state votes to legalize it the feds need to respect that and leave the state alone but when a state votes no they are just old and out of touch?

 

[rickster]

Pot is like Heroin they are both drugs and they are both illegal. No matter how hard you rub your little bong and wish upon the magic Bubba Kush fairy thats reality.

Pot is not lke heroin. Heroin is highly addictive