The War On Drugs

Well, so then what do you think it was about? I have always been under the impression that the court in that decision found a right to abortion in the Constitution.

Well where did I say that exactly? I am perfectly aware that Roe v Wade was overturned last year.

 

You didn't know that drugs like meth make people go nuts?

 

I'm gonna tell you that illegal drugs fuel more crime than legal.

 

So does booze.

 

Yes that's true. But you don't equate alcohol and meth do you?

 

Ok, so they should remain illegal?

 

This doesn't at all surprise me, given your attitude about the whole discussion. You sound a bit like my mother on the topic, who frankly didn't know spit about spit when it came to mind-altering drugs except the fact that to her, it was a simple answer... They were illegal, therefore they were bad, therefore no son of hers would ever (note... "would", not "should") touch them, and people who use them are just junkie trash who should go to jail and stay there. Of course, that is the old circular argument about them, because the reverse hypothesis... They are bad, therefore they are illegal... Is equally true to those who think as you and she do/did.

This is your brain.

This is your brain on drugs.

Any questions??

Yeah, she bought all that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Anyone with enough cash, sure. What, do you suppose there is some list somewhere of who would be, even hypothetically, able to do so, and if you ain't on that list, no soup for you??

Quality Control. The ability to be absolutely certain that when you go to a... let's just call it a 'drug store' since it's still a hypothetical conversation, and ask for some {BLANK}, then you're gonna get {BLANK}, not fentanyl or some other more dangerous drug that you didn't ask for and do not want, and also purity control, so you don't get something that is, say, 50% pure when you are used to stuff that is 5% pure (totally made-up numbers), and therefore take 10x more than you intended to because what you have is 10x more potent that you are expecting... Those sorts of things simply would not happen in a legal market, and those sorts of things account for large numbers of overdoses and deaths... You don't think these people getting hurt or killed taking fentanyl asked for that do you??

In fact, I don't even consider that an overdose, I consider that a homicide by poisoning, unless the buyer/user actually got what they asked for, in which case it's their issue.

Of course it does. If we recognize that individuals have the bodily autonomy to inject, smoke, snort, vape, inhale whatever substances they want to, based on the theory that it's their body, and therefore their choice, and their choice alone to make, then you must enable a legal market. Otherwise it would be like the federal government saying, "Fine, we accept that the 2A protects your right to own firearms, but we're going to make it illegal to design, manufacture, sell, or transfer any firearms of any type, so... Good luck with that!

No, that's not how it works. IF they will ever admit that such bodily autonomy actually exists and is an individual right, as I believe it to be, then criminalizing supplying that otherwise legal product makes no sense at all.

 

For driving people nuts yep.

 

Follow Portugal.

 

What's the difference? From a practical perspective, not the chemical formula or how they're used, but what makes meth 'worse' than booze?

 

It's way harder to recover from for a start.

 

WTF?

 

Says a guy who's never done it.

 

No relevant scientific qualifications required to obtain a license?

So who exactly would manufacture these drugs in a legal market?

Ah, so then even in a world where all drugs were legal, you think that there should be a 'purity' standard, in which say a product which was only 5% pure should be illegal because it can kill someone?

Yeah, except that the right to bear arms is an explicit right in the Constitution, via the 2A. Is there an explicit right to consume drugs?

It might make "no sense at all", but would it be a violation of bodily autonomy?

 

Um... No. As the owner/operator/principal you would, naturally, need to hire those sorts of folks, even if they are one, but as one of the previously listed titles, what's important is that you have business acumen, and if you have either the money or the ability to raise it, then it's natural to assume you have that. Manufacturing drugs is all sorts of difficult, and made even moreso by the frankly unreasonably controlling and onerous regs that the FDA... for example, I had a drug manufacturer customer once who had to buy... get this... 20 year old parts for a particular brand and type of computer, from a company that no longer existed and for a system that was hopelessly obsolete, from EBay for super inflated prices no less, because that is what they used during the initial certification tests! And this particular system only counted pills, a task that any business computer could do with the same or similar software. Typical bureaucratic nonsense.

One advantage they would have is that for most mind-altering drugs, there are no patent fees to worry about, so all they'd need are the skills to do what today cartels and gangs full of uneducated thugs are doing, so it can't be all that difficult.

I don't know, but if we ever get to that point and nobody puts their hand up, give me a call. I'd be more than happy to make billions of dollars in profit selling a recession-proof product. Rest assured, I'm not alone.

I don't know enough about the chemical compositions of these kinds of drugs to know what a good end-user level purity standard would be, and I'm sure it would vary from drug to drug and formula to formula anyway. I don't know necessarily that laws would be necessary, because it's a relatively easy thing to figure out, and in most cases is already known what the "right" purity levels are to have an "out of the bottle" ready-to-use substance. It's just like the medical marijuana concentrates I use now, which I prefer because they are vaporized instead of smoked, and aren't as hard on your lungs, and a tiny bit... A gram more or less, if it's even that much (like 1/3-1/2 a grain of rice is the measurement I use) is about the right dose for me... A little less if I wans to stay awake, a little more if sleeping is on the agenda, and it ranges from about 80% pure THC (and sometimes CBD) to about 95%. Most of the rest is terpenes... fragrances and other things that come straight from the plant. It's essentially a whole marijuana plant with all the inactive ingredients removed. The point in explaining this is only to point out that while for concentrated mj, those are the purities commonly used, and while I can't tell you, for example, what cocaine would be, I expect it's much lower, and that there are more inactive ingredients if for no other reason than a "line" of coke is probably 10x or more the amount of concentrates that are typical.

But, yes, there are levels where the LD50 (which is the scientific term that means half of people who take THIS amount will die, and almost everything, even water, has an LD50) is small, so those might need to be sold in single use amounts depending on the route of administration.

Like many people, you seem to have a backwards understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution does not, nor does it even attempt to list all the rights that We the People have. For a few extraordinarily important things, like the RKBA, the press, assembly, and all the other things listed in the BOR they have gone out of their way to list them, but those almost offer double protection... Even if the 2A didn't exist, there is nothing in the rest of the Constitution that authorizes Congress or the Federal Government to legislate anything with regards to that subject. So, since there is no authority granted to the Congress to regulate or control firearms, they can't unless and until they obtain an Amendment that gives them that authority.

This is why they needed an Amendment to ban booze. The right to drink alcohol is not enumerated in the Constitution, but... more importantly, prior to the Prohibition Amendment, there was no legal authority for them to ban it, either, which is why they needed and ultimately got the Amendment. Likewise, when it comes to the drugs we've been discussing, they simply do not possess the authority to ban them, and if you disagree, then I challenge you to quote me the text that grants them that authority... Because it's not in there!

All this to say that the current war on some drugs is in fact Unconstitutional. Plain and simple. You could make a case that the States can, but I would argue that the incorporation clause of the 14A prevents that, too, because if the Feds can't do something, in general neither can the States. The Constitution isn't a giant permission slip outlining what We the people have the Rights to do, it's the exact opposite... We are allowed to do anything and everything except those things that government has explicitly been given the authority to regulate, control, or ban. Which is why so very much of what our federal gov't does is Unconstitutional even now, and is something that desperately needs to be corrected to get government back in it's lane.

Yes. If I have the right to do drugs on the legal theory that it's my body, and I have the right to put my own body in a position where it might or even will cause it harm, if government prevents me from exercising that right by making it impossible for me to get whatever it is I need, they are in fact violating MY rights, even if it's nudge, nudge, wink, wink, well, you can still DO drugs, you just can't GET them! No difference.

 

Portugal Drug Laws under Decriminalization - Portugal.com

 

Decriminalization of possession and use still leaves the cartels and street gangs "in charge" of distribution and retailing. That is no bueno.

 

Overdose deaths.
1999 369
2017 30

Worth it.

 

Yup. Including unborn babies.

 

And where are those unborn babies living?

 

Roe v Wade was wrong/ The Court said so. You know... like they once said slavery was wrong after years of it being legal. The Court can change its mind. That's ESSENTIAL now that there are women on the COURT! (Watch uptight wokists with no sense of humor lose their minds at that comment! LOLOL)

 

They are living in the location where they were created.

 

And where is that?

 

The baby is in the location where the mother created it: inside the mother's womb.

 

So you finally admit that there is another sentient human involved.