1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured House GOP to D.C. residents: Guns OK, marijuana dangerous Read more: http://www.wjl

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Jul 19, 2014.

  1. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is plenty of medical evidence that drugs are bad but more and more people don't care what happens to drug users.
     
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You express a multitude of commonly held misconceptions about Prohibition. This list of myths vs. truths, as proven in research by the National Instute of Health, is exceptional.

    MYTH: Drinking increased during Prohibition.
    FACT: The pre-Prohibition annual per capita consumption rate in the U.S. was 2.2 gallons. It fell by more than half in the first two years after enactment of the Volstead Act, and did not rise again above 2.2 gallons until the mid-1970s.

    MYTH: Organized crime flourished during Prohibition.
    FACT: Organized crime existed long before Prohibition was enacted, and continued just as strong without it through the 80s, and continues to trouble society and law enforcement today.

    MYTH: The failure of enforcement caused the repeal of the Volstead Act.
    FACT: Changing economic realities made the repeal possible. People forget the Volstead Act was possible because of a differing attitude toward alcohol fully 100 years leading up to Prohibition. Canada, several European countries and czarist and Soviet Russia enacted similar laws around the same time.

    MYTH: Prohibition did not work, therefore we should legalize other drugs.
    FACT: Prohibition did work in reducing consumption and in making people more aware of excessive drinking. Medical issues relating to heavy drinking, such as cirrhosis of the liver and alcoholism, have never again risen to pre-Prohibition levels. The perception of failure is related primarily to the political nature of the Volstead act as opposed to the actual effect the Act had on drinking in the U.S. The repeal was possible because of changing sociopolitical context rather than to the result of the enactment of the law itself.

    The reason Prohibition will not work for drugs or guns is not because it did not work for alcohol. The reason it will not work for drugs or guns is simple: Far more people favor the retention of the status quo for both, than did those who were for enactment of alcohol prohibition 95 years ago.
     
  3. General Mung Beans

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    2
    Then I hope you are consistent and do not object to the far milder restrictions on tobacco use in New York City elsewhere. And that logic just as easily applies to guns as it does to drugs.
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uh, I must have missed the Constitutional amendment that says "the right of the people to possess and use drugs shall not be infringed."

    Could you point me to where I can find that amendment?
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is a whole lot MORE medical evidence that eating red meat is bad. Do you plan to outlaw that too?

    There is a whole lot MORE medical evidence that eating processed sugar is bad. Do you plan to outlaw that too?

    For some odd reason you seem to be regurgitating Bloomberg's nanny state talking points!
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Muder is bad.
     
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Misinformation designed to muddle the debate. The number of studies proving physiological and psychological damage done by marijuana at any level of usage number in the hundreds. Exactly three studies claim to show red meat is harmful at any level of consumption. There is a difference between "harmful" and "ill-advised" which is what most studies of red meat consumption conclude.
    Valid and peer-reviewed studies concluding that "eating processed sugar is bad" number exactly zero. There is no such research. There is considerable research that calls into question the current level of average daily consumption of sugar by Americans as perhaps being unhealthy, but there are none that prove the matter, unlike the multitude of studies proving marijuana use at any level of consumption is dangerous. Do you plan to outlaw that too?
    [​IMG]

    The use of the name "Bloomberg" and the term "nanny state" did it to me.
    Misinformation designed to muddle the debate. The number of studies proving physiological and psychological damage done by marijuana at any level of usage number in the hundreds. Exactly three studies claim to show red meat is harmful at any level of consumption. There is a difference between "harmful" and "ill-advised" which is what most studies of red meat consumption conclude.
    Valid and peer-reviewed studies concluding that "eating processed sugar is bad" number exactly zero. There is no such research. There is considerable research that calls into question the current level of average daily consumption of sugar by Americans as perhaps being unhealthy, but there are none that prove the matter, unlike the multitude of studies proving marijuana use at any level of consumption is dangerous. Do you plan to outlaw that too?
    [​IMG]

    The use of the name "Bloomberg" and the term "nanny state" did it to me.
     
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, the nanny state types will worry about your diet and connect it to your Obamacare.

    Democrats like Crabby do not care if the residents of DC have drugs--they just don't want them to have guns. This is very revealing on Crabby's part because it seems racist to deny civil rights to the residents of Democrat DC.

    It was Texas Preacher Lester Roloff (Corpus Christi) who said that modernist don't care for people in the ditch.
     
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Very fine post!

    The Democrats like Crabby want DC to have drugs but not their civil right to own a gun.
     
  10. General Mung Beans

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    2
    See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
     
  11. General Mung Beans

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    2
    So what if someone is a Democrat like me who thinks that neither gun or drug bans are particularly beneficial in helping the residents of DC? Its not that I "don't care" as opposed to the fact that criminalizing and sending to jail thousands of young men and women for the sole offence of possessing marijuana does more harm than good.
     
  12. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] Epic fail.

    The Ninth is essentially a right to privacy. The first time it was cited was in Griswold v. Connecticut in which a law making it illegal to prescribe contraceptives was overturned, not on the basis of the Fourtheenth Amendment as the plaintiffs had argued, but based on the rights to privacy in a marriage. The majority opinion asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. It has nothing to do with being able to use drugs even though state and federal laws prohibit such use, and everything to do with the rights of the individual to act within the laws of the nation and his resident state.

    The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified. Most states have chosen to outlaw certain drugs and substances. The Tenth doesn't pretend to curb such laws. It in fact gives license to the states to do so.

    You're arguments are worthless in the context of drug use.
     
  13. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Crabby was alarmed at the idea of Democrats in DC having both guns and drugs....
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You seem confused.

    9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Not a word there about the possession and use of drugs being a constitutional right that cannot be infringed.

    10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Not a word there about the possession and use of drugs being a constitutional right that cannot be infringed.

    Would you care to try again?
     
  15. General Mung Beans

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    2


    What then constitutes a right to privacy, if as the Supreme Court ruled, contraceptives were to be considered as such?

    I don't think any drug legalization proponent has urged the federal government to force all jurisdictions to legalize drugs. Instead we are opposed to federal bans and the "War on Drugs" primarily so that bans on drugs can be overturned state by state. Similarly most opponents of Prohibition are not terribly concerned with several jurisdictions in the United States that still prohibit alcohol.
     
  16. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All of this is off the topic of should the residents of DC be allowed to have the civil right to carry a gun? Crabby seems to think that the GOP crossed a red line by suggesting that civil rights be given to the residents of DC. Crabby deplored the idea of people with bazookas and joints:

    "We will probably have people with joints in the pockets and semi-automatic rifles. What a great combination."
     
  17. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This bears repeating.
     
  18. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Contraceptives aren't against the law. Schedule I drugs are. Your right to privacy doesn't extend to selling or distributing drugs that are illegal. Using them is a different story, but if one is stupid enough to be caught driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, arguing "right to privacy" would be idiotic. As an addictions professional, I favor treatment over imprisonment for simple possession. Five pounds of marijuana in your trunk, for example, is not "simple possession."
    Why do you suppose Colorado and Washington have both challenged the federal laws concerning marijuana? Do you expect the legislators there actually believe the feds will leave them alone? They have set up a situation that could turn very ugly and will paint any federal involvement in superseding local laws with federal enforcement in the worst light possible. It is nothing more than an effort to force national legalization, and if the feds handle it badly -- as they are bound to do -- it might work.
     
Loading...