The New Anti-Drug Commercial

[korn469]

DanS

Laws are made by lawmakers and in our country the lawmakers are voted into office by securing a majority of votes.

votes do not equal a majority of actual support for a candidate by the citizens of that area, first many citizens are prohibited from even being able to register to vote, people under 18, people with felony convictions and others, secondly many people who do have the right to register to vote don't, third many people who have registered don't vote, fourth many times voting is choosing between two evils instead of actually getting to make the choice you want, where is the none of the above category? plus because winning a majority of the votes almost invariably is only made possible by accepting vast sums of money from various special interest groups it is the interest groups and not the voters that really help dictate policy

Y'all seek to make this an individuals versus government argument, but you can't hide from the fact that the lawmakers and police are just carrying out the wishes of the majority. The majority hates drug use and is well within its rights to tell you that you can't use whatever it sees fit that you can't use

i disagree, as pointed out above congress does not represent the will of the majority, and if you added up all of the people that have used either an illegal substance, or a legal substance illegally (including underage smoking and drinking), then i am sure you can say that more people have abused drugs than have voted for any president

probably the most widely abused drug in my area is OxyCotin, a prescription painkiller, of which the proceeds most certainly do not fund UBL, closely following OC abuse (possibly even surpassing) is weed, i live in a rural area and much of the weed comes from this area, funding rednecks not islamic revolutionaries
of course underage drinking and smoking easily surpass all illegal drug use, and morally it is on the same level with illegal drug use

Duly elected by the people

the people have little to do with the election process, in the past presidential election, no candidate won a majority of the votes, and even the candidate who won a plurality of the votes lost


i am not a drug user, and i do agree with your fundamental point that many drugs are harmful to people, however i disagree with how to best manage the harm, i think that drug legalization is the best way to eliminate many of the risks and crimes associated with drug abuse, and it is certainly the most effective way to end terrorists making money off of drugs (which i think is overblown anyways); also when it comes to weed, it is less dangerous than alcohol, yet it is criminal to use it while beer ads run right along side "drugs fund terrorists" ads...it doesn't seem right to me

[mactbone]

If drugs are legalized I will advocate for no health for them. It's their own goddamn fault they're ****ed up, and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. I already hold the drug community at large for any deaths caused by drug usage.

BTW, Korn, if you don't vote it's your own fault, if you don't find a candidate, it's your own fault (you can run on your own ticket for smaller offices), and special interest groups are really only used to sway about 10% of the people. 45% almost always vote Repub, and the last 45% almost always vote Dem., so you can start blaming your party for those faults you see. Although I agree that special interest funding should be drastically reduced.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are ingrained in our society. Tobacco has been embedded in our culture for about 500 years, alcohol for time immemorial.

So they are ok because they are ingrained in our society? This is consistancy?

Congress. Duly elected by the people.

So Congress has the right to violate the Right to Privacy that the USSC indicated existed in Griswold v. Connecticut?

Look, it makes you feel good to be on the side of individual rights. But the argument is weak in this instance.

Actually the argument is very strong. If you want to be on the side of individual rights and individualism, then banning drugs is something that clashes with that view, and you have to reconsile that.

What is the argument? That the 'majority' believes that it should be banned? So is the majority always right? What about the South during the slavery period? Prohibition?

It is better for society? Aren't individual rights more important than societal rights if you believe in individualism (or capitalism).

[Berzerker]

DanS -

Berzerker, nothing is "inherently" criminal. Laws are made by lawmakers and in our country the lawmakers are voted into office by securing a majority of votes.

Ever hear the phrase "crimes against humanity"? These were "legal" crimes committed by governments against the people as in Nazi Germany. Imagine we are part of a small group of people before government came into existence, and I murdered your family, would you react as if I had done nothing wrong? Of course not! Why? Because murder is inherently criminal.

There is no power from on high that deems criminality, except perhaps through common law.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Either government "invented" crime by writing laws or government was invented to combat crime.

Y'all seek to make this an individuals versus government argument, but you can't hide from the fact that the lawmakers and police are just carrying out the wishes of the majority.

I'm trying to "hide" from majority rule? Slavery was once "legal", does that make it right? Would you be extolling the virtues of majority rule if the majority enslaved your family?

The majority hates drug use and is well within its rights to tell you that you can't use whatever it sees fit that you can't use--whether in your home or otherwise.

The majority has no rights, only individuals.

If you use drugs, despite the fact that you know it's illegal, the "I don't think it's inherently illegal" defense will get you nowhere in any court that I know of and doesn't expiate your responsibility one iota.

Who said anything about "inherently illegal"?

The burden is on you to make the case that the minority should be protected from the will of the majority. Where will you find the reasoning to thwart the will of the majority?

Our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The burden is on the victims to convince the perpetrators not to harm them?

But for most other drugs, if you follow the practicalities down the line, you will see that this is just nasty sh!t--inherently unsafe products.

Are cigarettes inherently unsafe? I was unaware the Constitution allowed Congress to protect me from myself, maybe you can quote the Constitution.

Nobody, including the gov't, is going to make the bargain you're asking and sell these inherently unsafe products.

Umm...drugs are being sold, so how can you claim nobody would sell them?

Practically speaking (since we're talking practicalities here), these are another class of substances. They are ingrained in our society. Tobacco has been embedded in our culture for about 500 years, alcohol for time immemorial.

Marijuana was brought to the New World by Europeans - it has a much longer history in "our culture" than tobacco and was grown by George Washington among others.

-"Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about"

Quite so. And those protections stand. But the constitution doesn't say anything about recreational drug use and distribution, as far as I know.

Make up your mind, first you tell us all about majority rule and then admit our system was not meant to be a democracy. The Constitution says nothing about eating ice cream either, that doesn't mean eating ice cream is not a right. The Bill of Rights was not meant to be a comprehensive list of our rights, that's why Madison added the 9th Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution is a charter that enumerates certain powers to be exercised by the 3 branches of the federal government - and the Constitution contains NO congressional power to decide what we ingest beyond the Foreign and Interstate Commerce clauses. Btw, ever hear of the 1st Amendment? It says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Many people happen to use illegal drugs as part of their religions.

Congress. Duly elected by the people.

So Congress can do whatever it wants? Why have a Constitution then?

[Berzerker]

DanS - One last point, the Constitution was amended to allow for the prohibition of alcohol. Why was amending the Constitution required if Congress and the majority can outlaw alcohol or any other "drug"? Because Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to ban drugs!

MacTBone -

If drugs are legalized I will advocate for no health for them. It's their own goddamn fault they're ****ed up, and I refuse to pay for their mistakes.

Then I trust you won't try to compel me to pay for your health care. For all I know, you're a sugar "junkie" on the road to diabetes...

I already hold the drug community at large for any deaths caused by drug usage.

Do you hold the alcohol and tobacco communities responsible for the millions of deaths caused by those products? I don't... I believe in personal responsibility, not "collective" responsibilities.

[korn469]

MacTBone

Korn, if you don't vote it's your own fault, if you don't find a candidate, it's your own fault (you can run on your own ticket for smaller offices), and special interest groups are really only used to sway about 10% of the people. 45% almost always vote Repub, and the last 45% almost always vote Dem., so you can start blaming your party for those faults you see. Although I agree that special interest funding should be drastically reduced.

i don't belong to a party (no single party holds even the majority of my veiws), but i have voted in every election since i've turned 18 except for one in 96, including primaries most years, so far i voted in the republican primary in 2000 though i eventually ended up voting for Nader, and i voted in the democratic primary in 2001,

though even in your 45/45 figures were right, then special interest groups are only trying to buy a majority of the swing voters, so without proper funding even if you cover your party base and get the 45% from your party, the person who got all of the donations will beat you, even if 49% voted republican in every election, and 49% voted democratic, the politicians would still have to campaign to win the remaining 1%, and that would take money, and whoever had a bigger war chest would have a better chance of winning, and relying on well funded special interest groups would be the way to win elections, and while it might not completely make a candidate beholden to a group it certainly seems that way

[DanS]

"One last point, the Constitution was amended to allow for the prohibition of alcohol. Why was amending the Constitution required if Congress and the majority can outlaw alcohol or any other "drug"? Because Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to ban drugs!"

Says who? Berzerker? Congress has the authority, which has been tested in the Supreme Court many times. Even if the congress didn't have the authority, then the states would have the authority. This is a really bogus argument. The constitution offers only a fig leaf on these issues.

"Read the Declaration of Independence."

Is that case law?

"Are cigarettes inherently unsafe? I was unaware the Constitution allowed Congress to protect me from myself, maybe you can quote the Constitution. "

Sure, the congress is allowed to do it. They do it all the time. If they feel like it, they'll do it some more.

"Umm...drugs are being sold, so how can you claim nobody would sell them? "

I'm talking on the right side of the law. The liabilities for a legitimate business trying to sell this crap are just astounding.

"Marijuana was brought to the New World by Europeans - it has a much longer history in "our culture" than tobacco and was grown by George Washington among others."

While I recognize the validity of this argument, you've got a long row to hoe. What %-age of the populace are regular users? Compare to the %-age of tobacco and alcohol users and you can see why my practicality argument makes sense. Compare further to the %-age of regular cocaine users and you start to get a feel for what is practical and what isn't. It is perfectly practical to outlaw most drugs.

"So they are ok because they are ingrained in our society? This is consistancy? "

Imran: Sure, it's consistent. If everybody does it, then it's hard to make illegal. It would be like banning cannibalism in a cannibal tribe.

"So Congress has the right to violate the Right to Privacy that the USSC indicated existed in Griswold v. Connecticut?"

Why hasn't the USSC struck down all of these laws, if that's the case? Cert denied.

"That the 'majority' believes that it should be banned? So is the majority always right?"

Of course not. But normally what the majority says, goes. Re the slavery bit, that is a case in point supporting my argument. The majority, construed in its broadest scope, didn't want slavery. So they abolished it. Simple enough.

[Dis]

drugs are bad

why can't you people get a clue?

yes I know alcohol is bad as well. I don't make the laws, I just obey them.

I don't drink heavily or smoke either.

I don't do things that are harmful to me.

drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

[klesh]

Originally posted by Dissident
drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

I guess I'll go support some terrorists.

*Kaboom!*

-FMK.

[Berzerker]

DanS -

Says who? Berzerker?

Not me, the 18th Amendment. You still haven't explained why the 18th Amendment was required if Congress had the power to ban alcohol under the Constitution...

Congress has the authority, which has been tested in the Supreme Court many times.

Who do you think confirms members of the Supreme Court. There is the Constitution and what it says, and there is what the Democrats and Republicans claim it says. Only people who don't care what the Constitution says would argue Congress has the authority because Congress says it has the authority - more circular "logic".

Even if the congress didn't have the authority, then the states would have the authority.

That would depend on what the various state Constitutions said, and a number of states don't share the fed's desire to wage the war on drugs.

This is a really bogus argument. The constitution offers only a fig leaf on these issues.

You're largely ignorant of the Constitution.

Is that case law?

You claimed there was no power from on high determining what was or was not criminal, I merely pointed to the Declaration of Independence to show the Founding Fathers disagreed with you.

Sure, the congress is allowed to do it. They do it all the time. If they feel like it, they'll do it some more.

Are you agreeing that cigarettes are inherently unsafe? If so, that refutes your claim that no one would sell inherently unsafe products. As for Congress, the fact they are doing something doesn't mean they have the constitutional authority.

I'm talking on the right side of the law. The liabilities for a legitimate business trying to sell this crap are just astounding.

More astounding than the liabilities of alcohol and tobacco dealers? The fact we need tort reform is another matter.

While I recognize the validity of this argument, you've got a long row to hoe. What %-age of the populace are regular users? Compare to the %-age of tobacco and alcohol users and you can see why my practicality argument makes sense.

Your position is not about practicality, it's about the comparative power of lobbies and voters and their "drugs" of choice. Practicality would have us ban alcohol and tobacco because they are the 2 deadliest drugs in the country.

Imran: Sure, it's consistent. If everybody does it, then it's hard to make illegal. It would be like banning cannibalism in a cannibal tribe.

Then explain how the 18th Amendment was ratified.

But normally what the majority says, goes.

Might makes right is not a moral argument.

Re the slavery bit, that is a case in point supporting my argument. The majority, construed in its broadest scope, didn't want slavery. So they abolished it. Simple enough.

Why did it take centuries for a "majority" to make this decision?

Dissident -

drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

I will applaud your bravery for insulting people from behind a computer.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Dissident
drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

Agree with you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why hasn't the USSC struck down all of these laws, if that's the case? Cert denied.

Ask them while your at it why they've ripped apart the ****ing 4th Amendment!

Of course not. But normally what the majority says, goes.

So that is right? What if the majority said alcohol was illegal? Oh wait, they did once!

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Osweld

Originally posted by Dissident
drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

Agree with you.

Me too.

[Maj]

A relevant point worth considering revolves around the reasons why people use mind altering substances in the first place. Most of you are tackling this issue from a moral and legal perspective but little insight has been placed (aside from "drug users are stupid")in analyzing the motives behind drug use. Because I'm ignorant, maybe those of you who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes/marijuana/crack, inhale cocaine and/or inject heroin, etc. choose to willfully consume a product that you very well know has harmful side effects on health in both the short and long terms. The question is sincere and not meant as a slight. I do not look down upon drug users but wonder what forces compel them to use drugs.

With that in mind, I was also wondering if anyone here can think of an example of a society wherein recreational drug use has been prohibited in its entirety with little to no deviance to that effect by its members. Is the curiousity aroused in the potential drug user produced by a natural force or by the structural and moral aspects of his/her society?

To those of you who live in Belgium or Amsterdam, how has the decriminalization of "soft" drugs affected the general ambience of your society and would you say your nation is better or worse off after the introduction of that legislation?

- Maj

[Maj]

"Because I'm ignorant, maybe those of you who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes/marijuana/crack, inhale cocaine and/or inject heroin, etc. can explain why you choose to willfully consume a product that you very well know has harmful side effects on your health in both the short and long terms"

Proof read BEFORE you post you idiot :P

- "You"