How Should We Then Live?

Drug use

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:30 pm

I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would prohibit any federal restrictions on the recreational use, manufacture, or transport of any drug. Exceptions would include regulations that apply to all other sectors of the market (Interstate commerce laws, health regulations of manufacture, age restrictions, etc) In other words the drug industry would be treated just like any other sector of the market with most of its restrictions being regulated at the state and local level - think alcohol for a good comparison. Who's with me?

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by XianSmitherman on Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:26 pm

If you're including narcotics in this, I'm definitely going to say no. Alcohol and meth aren't even on the same level.

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:48 pm

XianSmitherman wrote:If you're including narcotics in this, I'm definitely going to say no. Alcohol and meth aren't even on the same level.
Yes, I'm including ALL drugs. In what ways are they not even on the same level? More importantly, how should this variance in levels, that is yet to be defined, affect their legal standing?

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by XianSmitherman on Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:57 am

They are not the same in addictive potential, psychological dependence, physical dependence, and how it psychologically affects the individual to name a few. Recreational drinking doesn't exactly lead to addiction but recreational drug use does. The addictive properties of heroine, cocaine, and meth are much more dangerous than alcohol. http://www.drugs-forum.com/photopost/data/641/Nutt_D_King.png Alcohol dependence usually takes at least several years to develop. Narcotic dependence only takes weeks. You libertarians seem to think that alcohol and narcotics are the same for some reason, but that's like comparing the common cold with H1N1. Sure, they're both viruses, but the mortality rate is extremely different. In the same way, you can't compare alcohol and narcotics.

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:26 am

I certainly agree with your post and I most assuredly do not assume alcohol to be equal to all drugs in every way. However that is why I asked my second question which I will now repeat. How should the variance in "levels" of drugs determine their legal standing? what is the role of government as determined by the constitution? Is it to protect me from myself?

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by Jeremyshall on Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:07 am

In the same way that there are restrictions on the sale and use of alcohol based on age and apparent intoxication, would you think that there could be some type of parameters set around the sale of the drugs?

____________________
Jeremy
avatar
Jeremyshall

Posts : 102
Join date : 2012-03-02
Age : 42

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by Jeremyshall on Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:15 am

XianSmitherman wrote:They are not the same in addictive potential, psychological dependence, physical dependence, and how it psychologically affects the individual to name a few. Recreational drinking doesn't exactly lead to addiction but recreational drug use does. The addictive properties of heroine, cocaine, and meth are much more dangerous than alcohol. http://www.drugs-forum.com/photopost/data/641/Nutt_D_King.png Alcohol dependence usually takes at least several years to develop. Narcotic dependence only takes weeks. You libertarians seem to think that alcohol and narcotics are the same for some reason, but that's like comparing the common cold with H1N1. Sure, they're both viruses, but the mortality rate is extremely different. In the same way, you can't compare alcohol and narcotics.

Christian, are these addictive properties and potential side affects your factors in deciding the legality of something? According to this article, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm, it has been found that McDonalds can be as addictive for some people and poses very serious health risks. Should the government step in and make eating there illegal? Also, to the people that are being damaged, weeks or months doesn't really matter. Once they are addicted, they are addicted. Do you think we should protect people from the faster acting stuff, but leave the slower methods alone? Why? It is either the job of the federal government or it isn't.

____________________
Jeremy
avatar
Jeremyshall

Posts : 102
Join date : 2012-03-02
Age : 42

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by XianSmitherman on Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:55 pm

Joel: It should affect their same legal standing the same way that is treated with certain weapons. I'm completely okay that I can't just get an RPG off of eBay, and I feel the same with drugs. And with this issue, I do think that protecting someone from themselves is an acceptable route. When people first use drugs, even if they say they understand what they are doing, they honestly do not. And by arguing that we shouldn't protect people from themselves on this one matter of opiods and narcotics, you are only advocating for a broken system as we see with healthcare. Preventive medicine is much less expensive than interventionist medicine, and the same applies with drugs. It's much cheaper to keep people from getting on it than having to get them off.

Jeremy: You're asking for black and white answers and absolutely no one in the recovery industry could give you that. But I do not personally think that they could sell it with parameters because of their inherent properties. I could see it with the depressants (alcohol and cannabis), but for the stimulants, hallucinogen, and central nervous depressants, I don't think it would ever be possible simply because of the factors above.

And yes, I do think that addictive properties and potential side affects should be used as factors in deciding the legality of something. For your example, you are using something that all humans need: food. We are arguing about something that alters brain chemistry: drugs. I would put those in two different categories. Yes, they may be addicted to McDonald's, but obesity is a much different thing. To cure obesity, you eat better and get on a treadmill. To cure drug addiction takes a twelve step program, rewriting neural pathways (to a much more severe extent than with food addiction), and the knowledge that you'll never actually be the same because brain cells, with few exceptions, don't grow back. I would also use withdrawal severity as a factor in coordination with the others. McDonald's withdrawal and narcotic withdrawal don't even compare.

To answer your last question, yes, I do because of the immediacy of the impact afterwards. Rates of death from McDonald's are nowhere near the rates for narcotics. And again, there you go with the black and white. I do think it is the job of both the federal government and the states TO AN EXTENT. I do think it's okay to regulate some of the things that are dumped into rivers. I don't think it's okay to regulate everything that goes into rivers, such as urine or spit. In the same way, I think it's okay to regulate some but not all.

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:49 pm

Ill respond in depth later when Im not on my phone but I have to make one quick point: most of what your saying is true but your talking for granted that making these substances illegal does something to help eliminate those problems when in fact in most cases it makes the problem worse. Quick question, do you think the war on drugs is successful in preventing those who wish to try drugs from doing so?

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by XianSmitherman on Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:50 pm

No, simply because much of the resources are being directed towards the wrong place. I'm not worried about pot dealers. If that were legalized, those forces could be used on harder drugs and then the war on drugs could be successful.

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:25 am

Do you worry at all about even going after the harder drug users / dealers in regards to it being an attack on personal liberty? Can you cite any constitutional authority for preventing me from doing something to myself that doesn't hurt anyone else?

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by XianSmitherman on Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:53 am

Again, I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, so I'm completely okay with people not having complete personal liberty. And yes, my citation would be the general welfare in the preamble, but more importantly, your question is a complete farce. It is assuming that one can do something that will have absolutely no effect on anyone else. Drug use destroys families and friendships. But let us assume that this person has no living family nor friends. Drug addicts are consistently shown to be less productive, thus, if they even have a job, how does their "personal liberty" to use drugs for entertainment trump a business owner's personal liberty for a productive worker? Even if it's a measly $10 a week, that translates to over $500 a year. The way the law is worded right now, you and I know that that business owner wouldn't be able to fire his employee for only losing $10 a week in productivity. So how can you justify that. I know Jeremy is going to bring up obesity again, so I'll say that if their weight has something to do with their job, it should be applicable as well. But what if the drug user, again with no friends and family, OD's from having a good time or is on welfare while having a good time (and random drug testing wouldn't be allowed from a libertarian perspective because that would be an invasion of privacy and an infringement on personal liberty)? The taxes I would pay would be used to support his lifestyle or clean up his body. Why should I have to bear that burden because he wanted to be entertained? I just don't think that my personal liberty should be limited in what I can do with my money simply because someone else wants to have a good time.

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by XianSmitherman on Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:55 am

And another quote of why alcohol and drug use can't be compared: “Of the 115 million Americans who consume alcohol, 85 percent rarely become intoxicated; with drugs, intoxication is the whole idea.”

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by drainey on Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:45 am

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by XianSmitherman on Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:56 pm

Daniel knows where it's at.

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by drainey on Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:15 pm

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:14 pm

drainey wrote:I do not think we should start out by legalizing all drugs. We should start out by legalizing marijuana, and see where that takes us. The War on Drugs is poorly fought. Either we find a way to successfully fight the War on Drugs or we find another way. 50 percent of Americans approve of marijuana legalization, 46 percent disapprove50 percent. A whopping 70 percent approve of medical marijuana.70 percent

Because of this, an amendment should be raised and debated on the floor of the House. Solely on the evidence that the will of the people desire it.
While I disagree that the "will of the people" should be what pushes the issue to legislative debate I sorrowfully admit that Constitutional grounds will not be enough to remove this terrible prohibition. While in principle of course I advocate complete liberty on practical grounds I agree that the battle will prob have to start with marijuana.

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by drainey on Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:47 pm

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:50 pm

XianSmitherman wrote:Again, I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, so I'm completely okay with people not having complete personal liberty.
I must be taking this sentence the wrong way so I'm asking for clarification. Are you saying that you let the political "label" you prescribe to form your ideology? Also in a slightly related issue I'm not a libertarian. I do appreciate you using the lowercase "l" though!

XianSmitherman wrote:And yes, my citation would be the general welfare in the preamble, but more importantly, your question is a complete farce. It is assuming that one can do something that will have absolutely no effect on anyone else. Drug use destroys families and friendships.
Drug use does not effect anyone else [in the legal] sense which is the only one we can practically discuss when considering the [legal] merits a substance's [legal] standing. No one denies that there are destructive outcomes to "families and friendships" but those are outcomes of personal decisions of value that have no end. For your argument to be consistent you would indeed have to prohibit ALL decisions that lead to "destruction of friends and families." Logically speaking a law against spending too much time at the office or on the golf course would be just as justified. Christian, as much as you may want to you cant legislate us into a society where everyone makes good decisions. One day we have to let go of Big Brother's hand and just do the best we can.



XianSmitherman wrote:But let us assume that this person has no living family nor friends. Drug addicts are consistently shown to be less productive, thus, if they even have a job, how does their "personal liberty" to use drugs for entertainment trump a business owner's personal liberty for a productive worker?

I'm not trying to be trite, but again this is simply inconsistent with other statements that would be equally valid if your premise were true. Ill will use your exact phrasing and substitute one phrase to make my point. "The sleep deprived are consistently shown to be less productive, thus, even if they have a job, how does their "personal liberty" to sleep less than eight hours a night trump a business owner's personal liberty for a productive worker?
You are arguing against bad decisions in general not drug use specifically.

XianSmitherman wrote:Even if it's a measly $10 a week, that translates to over $500 a year. The way the law is worded right now, you and I know that that business owner wouldn't be able to fire his employee for only losing $10 a week in productivity. So how can you justify that.

If a business owner cant fire a worker for not getting the production out of his or her employee that he or she expects that I would lay that blame squarely at the feet of those advocating big government intrusion into our lives not at the feet of those advocating liberty. In my world (the world that views the constitution as the final authority on all federal laws) people would have the right to put what they want into their bodies and employers could fire people for lack of performance.
You cant use one overstepping of government to justify another.

XianSmitherman wrote:But what if the drug user, again with no friends and family, OD's from having a good time or is on welfare while having a good time (and random drug testing wouldn't be allowed from a libertarian perspective because that would be an invasion of privacy and an infringement on personal liberty)?
Again I'm not a libertarian and I have no "label" that forces me into political positions. I try to maintain consistent political positions with the Constitution as my guide. I have no problem with any kind of drug testing from an employer as he is the owner of the job that the employee is filling. As long as the employee knows going in that drug use is prohibited as a condition of his employment then testing for it with termination if caught is perfectly appropriate. That is a legal agreement between employer and employee in which government should kindly see its way out of. Again it seems strange to use current political abuses of power to say that others are justified.
XianSmitherman wrote:The taxes I would pay would be used to support his lifestyle or clean up his body. Why should I have to bear that burden because he wanted to be entertained? I just don't think that my personal liberty should be limited in what I can do with my money simply because someone else wants to have a good time.

Well there is one point on which we agree!

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by b2054972426 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:53 pm

I disagree with the legalization of any drug. the reason I disagree about marijuana is because it can lead to the other drugs for one a junky doesn't just get addicted and say I'll only smoke this much and no more than that. They continue to have more and more cravings for the high and soon later need something stronger and to legalize any drug you would have make ten more laws at least to keep everyone else safe and not jeporize their right to live. Ex. you can't drive drunk was not a law until they remove the probition on alcahol. Two I have personally seen drugs get both of my uncles in jail, my aunt in her grave, and her children, my brother and sister have to be in foster care when they were in 1st and 2nd grade until we adopted them, then twelve years later after reconecting with their birth mother my aunt thinking she had finally sober up died from an overdoes of herione. This is how drugs can affect everyone's lives around them let alone their own lives. However, I agree with Danial about the caffine, the government better stay away from my coffee or it's anarchy:D

____________________
Brandon Privette
avatar
b2054972426

Posts : 13
Join date : 2012-03-08
Age : 25
Location : Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:03 pm

XianSmitherman wrote:And another quote of why alcohol and drug use can't be compared: “Of the 115 million Americans who consume alcohol, 85 percent rarely become intoxicated; with drugs, intoxication is the whole idea.”
Its irrelevant to my arguments but I would like to see your source here. I'm interested to know how the author / study defines intoxication. If they are alluding to impairment level than the statement is misleading at best. For example, If I was about to pass an oncoming car on a two lane road, I would MUCH rather be passing a guy who just took a large amount of cocaine than a guy who is blowing an .079 on a breathalyzer. Again, not incredibly relevant to my arguments but just a side note.

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:15 pm

drainey wrote:Why shouldn't the will of the people push something to legislative debate?
I apologize, i misspoke. I should have said while I disagree that the "will of the people" should be the main thing that pushes the issue to legislative debate. The constitutionality should trump the will of the people that continues to ebb and flow and is discriminatory to the minority position at any given time.

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by drainey on Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:28 pm

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by JoelKizz on Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:17 pm

drainey wrote:If 75 percent of the people are for something, it IS constitutional. You just amend it!

That is exactly not the case, which in my opinion illustrates the beauty of a Constitutional Republic as the ideal form of government. Because ratification requires 3/4 STATE approval there are lots of times where 75 percent of people in the country could be for something and yet the constitution not be changed.

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by drainey on Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:37 pm

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Drug use

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum