Slashdot Mirror
Time To Discuss Drug Prohibition?
gplus writes "December 5th was the 75th anniversary of the end of alcohol prohibition in the US. The Wall Street Journal has an op-ed which argues that now may be the time to discuss our war on drugs and the drug prohibition currently in place. The article argues that the harm caused by the banned substance must be balanced against the harms caused by the prohibition. As to why Americans in 1933 finally voted to end prohibition, while we barely even discuss it: 'Most Americans in 1933 could recall a time before prohibition, which tempered their fears. But few Americans now can recall the decades when the illicit drugs of today were sold and consumed legally. If they could, a post-prohibition future might prove less alarming.'"
Ask him their stance about the viewing of child pornography, since in a utopian Libertarian society, it's not "harmful" because no children are harmed.
I was banned from the local Libertarian meetings due to the lol responses generated from this simple question. They say children are not harmed in child pornography - DUH - how do you think it was generated?
Libertarians = support pot legalization and viewing child porn
Enjoy
That's the most retarded non-answer I've ever heard.
If you don't have an opinion, maybe you should just shut up.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Do you seriously think that drug use wouldn't balloon if it was made legal?
And he goes on to blur the lines between oral consumption of opium, smoking of opium, and injection of opium. The GP also ignores a particular substance developed in 1874.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
That reply makes no sense at all. Assuming that pot were at a reasonable price if made legal the dope dealers would have even greater incentive to push a user towards more profitable, illegal drugs. The illegal channels would stay open and might be even harder to close down. Pot is bulky and smelly compared to other drugs. That means that a shipment that also contains pot is more likely to be detected. Also consider the harm that a motorcycle with its handle bars filled with heroin can do compared to the same handle bars filled with pot. In other words legalizing pot could cause greater harm from stronger drugs in many ways. But above all it would send the message that getting high is OK. We need our young people to know that we are more than willing to throw them into oblivion if they get high even once.
> > Legalizing them condemns to death and abyss, many people that need protection.
> Exactly. Which is why I usually advocate legalizing it all,
??? so you agree with condemning people to death and the abyss.
> note: you can make meth safe. It's called Desoxyn.
Safe? Warning from your link on Desoxyn:
MISUSE OF METHAMPHETAMINE MAY CAUSE SUDDEN DEATH AND SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS.
End Illicit Drug prohibition and more people will use them, and the DUI charges will increase and more innocent people will get killed in DUI accidents.
What amount of money can you put on a human being's life snuffed out by a pothead or cokehead who couldn't control their car? It is bad enough we got drunk driving and boozeheads killed plenty of innocent people already, we don't need to drive that number up.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
That logic is flawed if you agree that current ban on other drugs limits there usage to any extent.
If there is alternative market flows then you need to try to get rid of those.
Anyway even if you can't stop people from burning their own brew, or supplying their local market, you would still get rid of the average joes consumption in restaurantes with food our out in clubs (if the clubs would still remain at all ..)
So yes, addicts may solve it, the occasional party might have a supply, but the weekly consumption would probably take a hit, and it's not only addicts failing life which dies thanks to alcohol.
Also if you go out and there's no alcohol I guess peoples urge to get it lowers as well. And in many muslim countries they don't drink alcohol do they?
Maybe we shouldn't criminalize murder, rape, voilent abuse, child molesting, ... either? I mean, they are criminalized and it happens anyway? ...
You'd save lots of lives. Directly and indirectly.
And cost lots of lives, due to an insanely higher crime rate.
One solution is to treat the addicts (drug or alcohol) and educate the people on the dangers of abuse.
That requires social programs, which are not popular, as it involves less people dressing up in fancy police uniforms with shiny guns dispensing justice as only they know how.
15 people is considered too small of a sample size by anyone into science. If I ran 15 people studies, I could fund conclusions that state anything.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Then FDR came along. FDR didn't give a damn about the Constitution
Horseshit.
FDR threatened to pack the court
If you gave a damn about the Constitution, you might know that it doesn't limit the Supreme Court to 9 justices. There's been as few as six and as many as ten sitting justices, and FDR's plan was not only perfectly Constitutional, it had precedent. Ah, consistency: the enemy of all wingnut arguments.
Otherwise all this New Deal stuff (wage controls, price controls, etc.) would (and did) fail the Constitutionality test.
Wrong again. Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If you're response to that is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I, Section 8 uses the word "provide." And if your response to that is that General Welfare is limited to the specific list in Section 8, then Common Defense is also similarly listed, since it's not only in the same section, but the same sentence as General Welfare.
In other words, if Social Security is unconstitutional because it's not specifically spelled out as a Congressional power, then so is the Air Force, as Congress only has the power to fund an army or a navy. As well as the CIA, the NSA, and any other intelligence agency not attached to the Army or the Navy. Ditto for our spy satellites, border patrol, and large parts of the FBI.
But I've bet you've never heard a wingnut bitch about the unconstitutionality of the New Deal and the Air Force. It's almost like their standards and ethics depend entirely on the situation, like they were partisan hacks or something. Huh, interesting.
So, I would assume the issue is what Democrats like to call the "Living Constitution" meaning that the Constitution doesn't mean what it meant when it was written/ratified, but what 5 Justices think it means today (president be damned). Like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty, words mean only what he says they mean. Conservatives refer to these people as "Activist Judges", and in stead believe that the way to change the Constitution is via Amendments (last one passed during Clinton). In short, the Constitution is a social contract and means what it meant when written/ratified.
You mean liberal activist judges like Antonin Scalia?