The War On Drugs

Right, and the US military exists to protect this country from invasion.

 

That's like saying a hospital exists to treat broken arms. There's a lot more to it than that. We have fought in Europe, Africa, Asia... in many, many places ... so we can stop aggressors before they reach our boirders.

 

You're pro-life?

 

It's not about me.

 

Do you not have a position?

 

No, I don't.

 

Oh, so then you would have no issue with either a law which permits abortion at any point, or a law which bans abortion at any point.

 

Ok, but as you can see from above quotes, you said "no" to my question: "No relevant scientific qualifications required to obtain a license?" So were you just giving your personal opinion, as in, "NO", relevant scientific qualifications and a license should not be required, and that "anyone with enough cash" can start a pharmaceutical company?

So you would have the "shitload of money up front" which you referred to earlier? And the fact that "manufacturing drugs is all sorts of difficult, with "unreasonably controlling and onerous regs" from the FDA, would definitely not be a barrier for you?

My position is not that "nobody" will want to get into the business of destroying lives. There are certainly pieces of human waste out there who would immediately jump at the chance to make a quick buck out of human suffering for sure - as you say: "money." My position is that the existing well known pharma companies will not want to get into the business of destroying lives.

But again, I thought that it was so incredibly difficult, bordering on impossible perhaps, requiring a "shitload of money up front" and having to deal with "unreasonably controlling and onerous regs" from the FDA. Unless you mean that there will be far more applicants than there are available slots in your ideal drug legalised world?

Okay, but what about 20% pure, or 10% pure, or even less? Legal, or illegal in your ideal drug legalised world?

What would be the problem with a batch that is double the purity?

Are "instruction" and "restriction" opposites?

So since there is no authority granted to the Congress to regulate or control child pornography, they can't unless and until they obtain an Amendment that gives them that authority?

Is this really the "legal theory" by which you have the right to do drugs? Isn't it simply that you have the right to do drugs because "we are allowed to do anything and everything except those things that government has explicitly been given the authority to regulate, control, or ban?"

 

I'm not sure that there is enough support for an amendment that would allow congress to enact drug prohibition.

 

So this is drug possession. What about drug manufacturing and dealing? Should those be crimes you get jailed for? Should they be crimes at all?

 

I would hope that there would be enough support for an amendment that would allow congress to enact child pornography prohibition

 

No
No

 

Okay, so you have no problem with people destroying lives by manufacturing and dealing drugs like meth.

 

YES I KNOW THAT! But in 1973, the court DID find a right to abortion in Roe v Wade!

 

I certainly oppose people forcing others to take drugs.

 

If there were no drug manufactures and dealers, how would drugs even be available to people to chose to take them?

 

People will make them.

 

Which has been made irrelevant by the more recent decision, just as slavery was once legal... and now its not.

 

Then what did you mean earlier when you said:

 

So is it actually your contention, that if all drug manufacturing and dealing stopped tomorrow, drugs users all over the country would all of a sudden start making their own?

 

They can change their mind as they did with slavery. Its the LATEST decision that counts.

 

Won't happen.

 

Ok, so then what did you mean by: "people will make them?"

 

In the end, the VOTERS in each state will decide what abortion laws will be in their state.

 

No matter what you do people will seek out and acquire drugs.