legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

That's true. But another argument about the Constitution that I wanted to address is the argument that the federal government has no constitutional right to ban marijuana and other drugs.

All that says is that what the federal government doesn't have the constitutional power to do, the states have the right to make decisions about it. The Constitution never says that states don't have the right to ban drugs. It gives states the rights to ban drugs.

 

Not necessarily true because powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution can be exclusively reserved to the People. The presumption that the "State" has all powers not delegated to the federal government is false as that power may reside solely with the People.

Let's look at the 9th Amendment where a Right of the People does not need to be enumerated in the US Constitution for the Constitution to protect it. The consumption of plants, whether processed or not, is arguably a Right of the Person and protected by the 9th Amendment which would prohibit the States from infringing upon it.

 

BTW An interesting perspective on the "Gateway Drug" theory that seems to indicate that alcoholic beverages, not marijuana, is far more likely to be the "gateway" drug leading to harder drug use related to both prescription drug abuse as well as illegal drug use.

http://screen.yahoo.com/pot-not-gateway-drug-discovery-130000568.html

 

Not under our Constitutional form of government and our doctrine of separation of powers under our republican form of Government. States have the equivalent to our Ninth Amendment regarding powers only delegated.

 

Some people say that legalizing marijuana will reduce the amount of kids using it. They say that making it illegal makes it easier for kids to get it, because drug dealers don't check for ID. However, compared to the amount of kids that have tried alcohol, what's the percentage of kids that have tried out marijuana? What's more widely used-alcohol, or pot? If more kids use alcohol (which is a legal substance) than smoke pot (which is an illegal substance), then this shows that legalizing pot will actually increase teen usage of marijuana.

Teens don't see marijuana advertisements. But they see alcohol being advertised.

 

Honestly, if legalizing pot actually caused minors to use pot more and alcohol less, that might be a good thing.

 

What about the fact that some people die of their bodies overheating, while they are high on ecstasy? Ecstasy sometimes causes people to die because the drug causes their bodies to overheat. This dangerous drug should not be legalized.

 

I wouldn't say that alone is enough cause to make something illegal. Again, it's not the job of the government to protect people from themselves.

 

What about the fact that some people die of hypothermia while high on ecstasy? Their body temperature overheats and they die from that. And sometimes people even get heart attacks or they get comas from taking one pill of ecstasy. It's a very dangerous drug.

 

Not being an expert on ecstasy so I did a little research.

http://www.ecstasyeffects.net/Ecstasy_Overdose.htm

First of all there have been an insignificant number of deaths if this is accurate. With only 50-60 deaths occurring as of 1995 the number per year is extremely small. By comparison it's estimated (depending upon the source) that anywhere from about 60 to as many 500 deaths each year are attributed to aspirin alone. Admittedly a lot more people take aspirin but the point is that in total number of deaths aspirin that we consider to be completely safe does result in more deaths per year.

This doesn't disregard the fact that having anyone die from a drug overdose is something we should attempt to limit regardless of whether it's aspirin, ecstasy or any other drug.

There are several advantages to legalization of ecstasy not the least of which is that the dose can be regulated to non-lethal levels which does not occur in the black market. It can also come with warning labels related to overdose which also doesn't occur in the black market. The product quality can also be controlled which, once again, doesn't happen in the black market. Finally, it can be kept out of the hands of young people far better in a regulated market as opposed to the black market where no age limits apply.

All of these factors would dramatically reduce the possibility of overdose and potential deaths from ecstasy.

 

Right on the bottle of any prescription drug there are a bunch of warnings on it which well you not to drive on it, drink with it, etc. Your doctor also consults with you before you take the medication to make sure everything goes smoothly. Proper consolation on drug usage would prevent those deaths. Imaging that if in our legal prescription drugs there were no recommended dosages, there were people who cut the drug with any dirt cheap product they could find, a doctor doesn't walk you through the usage and check to see if you are fit to take the drug, idiots who don't care about your life with limit knowledge try to make and sell the drug, there were no regulations at all about the drug, and much much more. If this were the case with legal prescription drugs Millions across the would would die.

 

Growing up in America I can tell you that as a young teen marijuana was extremely easier to get compared to alcohol. High schools are flooded with people selling weed/whatever. In order to get alcohol you would have to wait in front of a liquor store or convince store until you see an adult who seemed like they would be willing to buy alcohol for you; this is called shoulder tapping. I would say that getting weed was 10 times easier to get then alcohol since it was so readily available for anyone to purchase and since with alcohol you had to find a person who was 21 to buy it for you.

 

Legalize all drugs? Yes. But levy a tax on previously illegal drugs. The tax should be relative to other sin taxes. While I'm all for legalizing marijuana, I think it'd be incredibly f***ed up to maintain an alcohol and tobacco tax but not have a marijuana tax. If it were just up to my discretion, the marijuana tax in my state would be the alcohol tax + tobacco tax, with sales tax applied as normal. If it could be fixed like that, then we'd have more support for lowering the other sin taxes (which I think would be good, they hit the poor disproportionately).

For me, the real question I wrestle with isn't legalization or regulation, it's prescription. The rationale for legalizing things like marijuana, carried through, would mean that I should be able to get riddlin without a prescription. While I believe that would be fine for intelligent people (amongst which I include myself), we all know what idiots would do - misuse, overdose, but I suppose that's the case with alcohol, tobacco, sugar, etc.

 

I agree. I would not punish people for having or using drugs. That's their affair, and I have not justification for stopping them.

But I would not tax them. I'm not big on taking other people's money by force.

I would also not require people to ask my permission to buy or take any drug. Again, that's their affair, and God did not appoint me to be king over them.'

 

Legalize drugs .... bad idea ... especially if everyone have guns ....

 

Only the people with guns, government that is, should have the power to decide what people put into their bodies.

 

Sounds like you picked three bits out of two full paragraphs to respond to and deliberately cut out my meaning. But w/e

 

Yes, I responded what I saw as your three major points: decriminalization, taxation, and prescription. My apologies if I missed any others.

 

a sheet ton of qualifying statements

 

I found out an interesting fact last week related to a "controlled substance" because I was running low on my Tylenol-Codeine 30 mg (Acetaminophen and Codeine) prescription that I occasionally use for pain. I only get 30 per year but it's approaching the end of the year, I'm running out, and the only way I can get another prescription is to go to the doctor and pay for an office visit. About 100 miles from here Tylenol-Codeine 8 mg is available over the counter in Canada so a prescription isn't necessary.

So basically I can get the Tylenol-Codeine 8 mg but would have to take 3 1/2 of them to equal the Tylenol-Codeine 30 mg but there is a serious problem and it's not related to the codeine. Both have 300 mg of Acetaminophen each so I'd be consuming 3.5-times more Tylenol and if I took the Tylenol-Codeine three times a day I'd be approaching an overdose on the Acetaminophen. The Acetaminophen (regular Tylenol) is more dangerous than the codeine but the codeine is controlled while the Tylenol is not. About 120 people die from Tylenol overdoses each year from what I've found.

This is not to say that people don't die from codeine overdose but in almost all cases it's prescribed and it is an intentional overdose related to suicide. Rarely do people die from an accidental overdose of codeine which is a controlled substance in the United States while Tylenol is not.

 

Sure, but people don't have the right to harm other people around them through reckless behaviors. That's why certain drugs are illegal. Drug use impairs judgement. That's why many people on drugs do things that they normally would neither do, which harm other people around them. And there's more to this, too.

Here's why maybe alcohol should be legal, but harder drugs like acid, cocaine, and meth, shouldn't.

Alcohol is legal because of the fact that people can use it responsibly. Somebody can drink a beer or have a glass of wine and not have their judgement impaired to any significant extent. Sure, their inhibitions are lowered to some extent, but they still have enough judgement to know not to get behind the wheel of a car and drive. They still have enough judgement to know not to commit crimes or become violent. Some people use alcohol irresponsibly, and they get drunk and get into car accidents and commit crimes while under the influence, and those people are punished (just like how irresponsible drivers are punished.)

Not everybody drinks alcohol to get drunk. Lots of people do it responsibly. However, everybody that uses acid, crack, and meth, uses those drugs to get high, and people high on those drugs are a danger to other people around them, which is why those drugs should be illegal.

 

The only problem in the US, is that our federal Congress is only delegated the social Power to legislate in "all cases whatsoever" in the federal districts.

 

I've got guns so I assume that I should be able to decide what I put into my body.

BTW The "government" is a political construct and cannot "possess" guns but people employed by the government can possess guns. So a soldier in the US military might have a gun but the "government" doesn't have a gun. This also implies that a US soldier in possession of a gun can decide what they put into their bodies just like a police officer can decide what they put into their bodies because both have guns,

 

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

That the social Powers of the general government are few and defined.