The War On Drugs

Which is completely wrong.

 

Which have come from a dealer after being made by a manufacturer?

 

So then which level of government should make the abortion laws?

 

Or make them themselves.

 

None, it should be solei in the hands of the woman who is pregnant.

 

The Supremes left it up to the states, The actual laws will be written by the state legislatures. But it will take time until all 50 states have weighed in.

 

Yes, but that's a different matter to which level of government SHOULD make the abortion laws, as in the personal opinion of someone - in this case, @Cybred, to whom I asked the question, and who you have also been engaged with.

 

Okay, so is it actually your contention, that drugs users all over the country would all of a sudden start making their own if they could no longer get hold of the drugs from others?

 

Who SHOULD make the laws is a philosophical discussion. Who WILL make the laws is now a matter of law. Each state will make their own decisions... an outcome which makes sense to me and one which I fully support.

 

Druggies will always have labs to make their own medication. In order to sell their products LEGALLY requires FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval. There are druggies in jail for selling illegal products... probably always will be.

 

Absolutely. That's why I specified: "which level of government should make the abortion laws?"

 

All drug users?

 

Some would.

 

I never said ALL. But just as there will always be obnoxious Democrats (again, I'm not saying ALL)... there will always be a meth lab around run by druggies.

 

Yeah I'm sure that some would. But now that you have admitted that not ALL would, you have no choice but to admit that without people manufacturing and dealing drugs, there would be alot of people not taking drugs.

 

Booze. weed, heroin.

 

ABSOLUTELY. Does the world "without manufacturing and dealing drugs" start BEFORE or AFTER the Martians land and give us all immortality?

 

.

 

Can you rephrase?

 

How does manufacturing and dealing not apply to all of them?

 

You referenced a world: "]without people manufacturing and dealing drugs, there would be alot of people not taking drugs.[/QUOTE]
I was just wondering where this imaginary world is... or in what imaginary future time it might start.

 

Yeah, that was in reply to a poster who believes that people have the right to consume whatever substance they want. I am simply pointing out that those substances would not exist if it were not for the actions of the dealers and the manufacturers. This goes to my fundamental argument against at least lethal drugs such as meth, which is that: I believe that people have the right to consume whatever they want - but there is no right to manufacturing and dealing.

I mean, we can only HOPE for such a world can't we. Sadly though, we will never get it.

 

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?

 

Because those can be grown.

 

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?"