71–80 of 135 posts
I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where in the constitution is that power described or given?
Article III, Sec. 2, clearly, which begins: > The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution … Let’s not continue this conversation. The view I’m presenting is long established and can be found better and much more extensively made in a great many sources which no one should have any trouble finding, should he wish. You, I infer, do not wish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article III, Sec. 2, clearly, which begins: > The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution … Let’s not continue this conversation. The view I’m presenting is long established and can be found better and much more extensively made in a great many sources which no one should have any trouble finding, should he wish. You, I infer, do not wish.
It is amazing how many people have trouble understanding that a dispute of the form “is this action the government is taking lawful, given the existence of Congressional action X and Constitutional provision Y” is case arising under the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
The odd thing, really, is that it took a decade and a half, until 1803, for the Supreme Court first to find it necessary to tell another of the other branches of government that it had broken the rules.
I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.
> I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, Probably because most people want regulations and enforcement around pharmaceuticals. If we decide that the government has no power to pass laws surrounding drugs we'd be hurting ourselves.
The war on drugs would have never gotten off the ground. We would have whole above board industries for recreational drugs which would just be "agriculture" instead of black markets and cartels. Government couldn't touch birth control, PrEP, or whatever bs de jour they want to ban. People wouldn't have to worry about living with chronic pain because they get labeled as a drug seeker.
> Thus, opium alkaloids were detected in Late Bronze Age containers > different hallucinogenic compounds, mainly nicotine, tryptamines and tropane alkaloids have been chemically documented in Prehispanic artefacts from the Americas, and psychoactive compounds of Cannabis in archaeological wooden braziers from China. > The alkaloids ephedrine, atropine and scopolamine were detected, and their concentrations estimated…
A fascinating thought is that we might have been doing this since _before_ homo sapiens emerged as a species. We've got plenty of evidence that we had cultural propagation of knowledge among our early ancestors for over three millions of years via the Oldowan and Acheulean stone industries. Since hunter gatherers naturally passed along knowledge of the safety of edible plants, at what point did they figure out how to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone isn’t hurting others?
it was supported by progressives and feminists in the early 1900s and actually resulted in fewer deaths from alcohol and lower domestic violence. The anti-prohibition rhetoric in modern times was essentially manufactured by corporate interests to imply it doesn't work https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit... https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra...
> Thus, opium alkaloids were detected in Late Bronze Age containers > different hallucinogenic compounds, mainly nicotine, tryptamines and tropane alkaloids have been chemically documented in Prehispanic artefacts from the Americas, and psychoactive compounds of Cannabis in archaeological wooden braziers from China. > The alkaloids ephedrine, atropine and scopolamine were detected, and their concentrations estimated…
A fascinating thought is that we might have been doing this since _before_ homo sapiens emerged as a species. We've got plenty of evidence that we had cultural propagation of knowledge among our early ancestors for over three millions of years via the Oldowan and Acheulean stone industries. Since hunter gatherers naturally passed along knowledge of the safety of edible plants, at what point did they figure out how to…
People had no aspirin, no painkillers, multiple parasites, diseases, rotting teeth, etc.
While getting high may have been part if it, for some, it may have been relief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine opioid pills were OTC. For a lot of people, they will initially be instant feel-good happy pills, even though people know there will be disastrous repercussions to taking them indefinitely. How many people go through bouts of severe depression? Won't some percentage of them, in moments of weakness, decide to try the opioid pills, feel good, and get sucked in? Shouldn't we as a society, try to curb humanity's…
Banning doesn't fix that, the allure is still there. Teaching what addiction is like is much better at curbing it. The easiest way to do that is to have someone hold their breath as long as possible until their body is screaming for air each time, for about half an hour. Because that is what drug addiction is like, and taking the drug is like taking that breath of air, instant relief, until you run out of air again a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it was supported by progressives and feminists in the early 1900s and actually resulted in fewer deaths from alcohol and lower domestic violence. The anti-prohibition rhetoric in modern times was essentially manufactured by corporate interests to imply it doesn't work https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit... https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra...
Uh, that’s not exactly a complete picture. Prohibition also allowed the mafia to gain a foothold in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sincerely think that even if all drugs were legal, the rate of consumption wouldn't necessarily increase much. "People who take drugs "don't give a damn if they're legal, generally speaking.
I agree. I don't think there should be a prohibition on any drugs as it is a personal choice and humans have been drug consumers for millennia. Drug use isn't something that can be legislated away.
Make the really hard stuff only available by prescription.