The War On Drugs

SCOTUS today and yesterday are here to protect the status quo and fool the public, kinda like the Warren Commission and the 911 Commission. Perpetuate falsehoods.

 

The SCOTUS exists to ensure that laws are interpreted properly.

It must be quite a burden for you to go through life thinking everyone that disagrees with you is evil and everything sucks.

 

Is having sexual intercourse 100% guaranteed to result in conception. Yes or no?

 

You already asked me this. And the answer is no.

However, if a mother makes a child insider her body, then in that case it did.

 

Then no she didn't intend for it to be there.

 

Well, she caused it to be there through her actions. Therefore it is there because of her (poor) choices. Now she's made a child inside of her. Bummer for her if she didn't want that.

 

Of course it does! There is a lot of resistance to the ideas I am promoting, and entire federal agencies... DEA, FDA, ATF, and likely more stand to lose a lot, or possibly be completely disbanded, so they are not going to make things easy. Even if a miracle occurs and we come to our collective senses on the subject of Prohibition (which will necessitate relearning the lessons we learned a century ago... Namely that it not only doesn't work, it's worse for society than individual freedoms would be), many people, agencies, and the like will do everything they can to throw obstacles in the way, just as the state of California has done with legal weed and in the process, they have essentially become no better than the cartels themselves.

My wife works for a hospital, and the CEO is not an MD, because that job requires business knowledge, not the ability to cut out a tumor, and the same concept applies here... The HDIC doesn't need to know all the ins and outs of how to make the stuff, he or she just needs to hire people who do.

Yes, I am special. I have over 3 decades of experience in business in various functions (though mostly in the IT world), and I have an IQ in the top 1% of all humans. Not bragging, just the facts. But I don't know why you presume that "nobody" will want to get into the business, I suspect people will be fighting each other to get a place in line because... Money. There are lots of dollars to be made by becoming a legal and legitimate supplier of the very mind-altering drugs that there is already a huge demand for, but demand that is only being met by the black market. If you are able to position yourself as a legal provider without necessitating charging the customer ridiculous premiums over what they're paying now, it's as close to printing free money as you can bet, but still be legal.

There will be far more applicants than there are available slots (I anticipate that gov will, at least at first, try to unreasonably control the market as most states have done with legal weed and only allow so many players, though I think it should be treated like any other business, with no artificial constraints... I can start a business selling widgets tomorrow for a couple hundred bucks in application fees, and I can enter an already saturated market at my own risk so long as I have enough to cover those couple hundred bucks and I'm willing to put my capital at risk. There is no reason that legal drugs need to be controlled any more than that, but they will be, at least at first.

However, rest assured, there will be no shortage of companies chomping at the bit to get in on the ground floor.

I'm not sure what you mean by regulated, but what I have in mind is that, just like prescription pills and other meds are now, the dosages would be consistent. Which is to say, and I'm making up numbers here as I don't know enough about individual drugs to give real ones, but for example if you want to buy cocaine, it would come in (hypothetically) 1 oz. packages that are 35% pure, with safe fillers making up the rest. They would always be 1 oz. packages at 35% purity, so end-users don't have to worry about either getting a batch that is double the purity because some street gang just forgot (or didn't know how) to mix it properly, and they would know to close to an absolute certainty that when they buy 35% pure cocaine, they're getting 35% pure cocaine with no unsafe fillers or other drugs added or substituted because they were cheaper for the dealer, or once again, perhaps the dealer spends all of his time getting high on his own supply and simply wigged out when he mixed the stuff and added some extra whatever.

However, while I think it's reasonable to have instructions included as to what a typical dose is and how much is safe (or perhaps safer), but no restrictions on how much they can purchase.

For the same reason they drafted and included the Third Amendment and all the others in the BoR... They had just finished fighting a war to win their independence and freedom, and they learned certain lessons from that war... One of which is when you piss off the government, one of the first things it does is try to disarm the citizenry, and another is to put their own soldiers into civilian households against the will of the owners of said household, and with no options to appeal. Some might say that the 3rd is obsolete because our military has bases and barracks, and soldiers who don't live there tend to have homes or apartments of their own, but a better way to look at it is perhaps the 3rd is obsolete because it existed in the first place, and as our military grew over time, knowing they were prohibited from housing soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in civilian homes, made arrangements to have those barracks and etc. Yes, because there is no authority granted to the Congress to regulate firearms (or to house soldiers in civilian homes) it is in fact a bit redundant, but that was caused by a bit of paranoia and well-learned lessons.

Not to mention that if the 2A didn't exist, given the complete lack of respect our government has given to the Constitution and taking powers and authority they don't actually have (like creating a Department of Education without an amendment authorizing it first), I'm fairly sure that by now our RKBA would long since have been taken from us.

But, my point remains... Just as Congress needed an Amendment to prohibit the possession and use of alcohol, I see no authority in the Constitution that gives them power over other drugs (alcohol IS a drug, just one that is much more commonly used and socially acceptable), meaning to ban or regulate them, they need an Amendment for that, too, which they never bothered even trying to get.

In practice, unfortunately yes it would seem so, but in black and white text... No. What the Constitution does and does not say is pretty transparent, known (or at least knowable) by every American (and non-Americans, too) who care enough to get a copy and read it, and in theory our government is only supposed to do that which it explicitly has authority to do, sadly, however, in practice they've essentially gone down the road of 'As long as we can get 50%+1 to say yes, and the President to assent, we can do whatever we want.' That needs to stop, and it has much larger implications than just realizing that their authority to regulate drugs does not exist... Much of what the Feds do, and much of their agencies and etc. simply would cease to exist if the Constitution were properly followed, but the pols don't want that as it would reduce their power by an order of magnitude. This applies to both parties, at least for now. Hopefully one or both of them will come around on this subject, and someone will start filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit to force the Judiciary to weigh in on Congress assuming powers it does not have.

Semantics, it's the same thing.

 

Just like you caused getting mugged, auto crash, etc. It happened because of your (poor) choices

 

Nothing at all. Her having a child inside her is an exclusive consequence of her choosing to have sex.

 

If that was true then women would get pregnant 100% of the time.

 

Nope. Some of the time. But they don't get pregnant unless they have sex. (Barring medical procedures)

Children don't magically appear inside women. They do something to make them appear.

 

Just like you drove that car when it crashed.

 

Me?

the baby didn’t ask to be created

 

So?

 

So it’s tough **** for the mom that she created a child inside her precious body

 

No its not.

 

Well, she created a baby inside her. And now she says she doesn't want a baby inside her.

 

Sorry but she didn't want it there in the first place.

 

Then why did she put it there?

 

She didn't, just like you drove that car when it crashed

 

Did the child in her body spontaneously appear?

 

So you don't understand that just because someone does things that can have negative consequences that that means that they wanted those consequences to occur.

 

How does a child appear inside a woman’s body?

 

Magic.

 

Wet, bloody, vulnerable....