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

[church mouse guy]

There is plenty of medical evidence that drugs are bad but more and more people don't care what happens to drug users.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

One thing we learned in this country, and we learned it the hard way, is that prohibition does not work. All alcohol prohibition did between 1919 and 1931 was INCREASE the amount of beverage alcohol that was drunk, and create a criminal underclass to supply the demand.

The same is true today with marijuana (and other drugs). We now have a violent criminal underclass that supplies the demand. The main reason the police do not want decriminalization of drugs is that they would no longer have an excuse for the legal (?) theft of property called "asset forfeiture."

Gun control laws do NOTHING to take guns out of the hands of criminals, and "gun free zones" are simply advertisements of soft targets where the victims will be unable to defend themselves.

Prohibition does not work.

It does not work for alcohol.

It does not work for drugs.

It does not work for guns.

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.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Chop logic. Leftist don't know right from wrong.

Liberals don't want to give civil rights to residents of DC. Modernists don't care for people in the ditch--that is why you want to legalize drugs, etc., because you don't care for the people that it will put in the ditch.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

And that logic just as easily applies to guns as it does to drugs.

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?

 

[TCassidy]

There is plenty of medical evidence that drugs are bad but more and more people don't care what happens to drug users.

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!

 

[Revmitchell]

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!

Muder is bad.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is a whole lot MORE medical evidence that eating red meat is bad.

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.

There is a whole lot MORE medical evidence that eating processed sugar is bad.

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?

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

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

There is a whole lot MORE medical evidence that eating red meat is bad.

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.

There is a whole lot MORE medical evidence that eating processed sugar is bad.

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?

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

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

 

[church mouse guy]

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!

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

Very fine post!

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

 

[General Mung Beans]

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?

See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[General Mung Beans]

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.

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.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

Crabby was alarmed at the idea of Democrats in DC having both guns and drugs....

 

[TCassidy]

See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

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?

 

[General Mung Beans]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

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."

 

[Aaron]

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.

This bears repeating.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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

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."

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.

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.