What do the members of this forum have to say about our current "War on (some) Drugs?"
For, against, indifferent?
For, against, indifferent?
Don't forget, while we are on the subject of constitutional law, what the War on Drugs has done to the Commerce Clause. The defining case is now Raich, which was also a "drug case." I do not really believe Scalia would have signed on to the majority opinion had it been about, in the words of Justice Thomas, "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states," rather than marijuana.jrm said:It (the "War") is devastating our society. Here are a few of the adverse effects:
1. Because of a desire to eradicate drugs, the 4th Amendment has been demolished. It is very hard to find a 4th Amendment court opinion written in the last 30 years that isn't about drugs. And, the net result of all those opinions has been to erode the warrant requirement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00564.htmlBy a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Congress's constitutional authority to regulate the interstate market in drugs, licit or illicit, extends to small, homegrown quantities of doctor-recommended marijuana consumed under California's Compassionate Use Act, which was adopted by an overwhelming majority of voters in 1996.
. . .
Writing for the court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case was "troubling" because of users' claims that they needed marijuana to alleviate physical pain and suffering. But he concluded that the court had no choice but to uphold Congress's "firmly established" power to regulate "purely local activities . . . that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
. . .
But Stevens concluded that the court was still bound by a 1942 Supreme Court decision that defined interstate commerce broadly to include, under certain circumstances, even subsistence wheat farming.
. . .
Stevens was joined by the court's three other consistent supporters of federal power, Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. He also picked up the votes of two justices, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy, who usually support states' rights.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented.
A non-lethal solution would be to yank the rug out from under them.That's why I advocate executing drug dealers.
Whatever...we can address the 'drug problem'.jrm said:Yes. The Netherlands, with legalized marijuana, has much less of a drug problem than we do.
johnpeace, my point was that, if we were to legalize marijuana, we likely would see a decrease of use (as the Netherlands has).johnpeace said:Whatever...we can address the 'drug problem'.
Would there be an increase of use? Maybe. Is it worth enduring that as a society if it means law enforcement can protect us from legitimately dangerous criminals?
I think we would see a temporary increase as a bunch of people go all out once it becomes legal. Long term though I think we would see a stable number. I doubt it would increase or decrease in the long term but we would save a lot of money from not persuing this war on drugs. We have spent so much money and put so many people in jail and we haven't put a dent in drug use. It's obvious (to me) that this war on drugs is a failure. We as a country need to rethink the way we're approaching this situation.jrm said:johnpeace, my point was that, if we were to legalize marijuana, we likely would see a decrease of use (as the Netherlands has).
I dont think that would happen. Drugs are cheap and easy to get as it stands. The overall rate of drug use in this country hasn't changed in the last 50 years, or longer.wwomack said:I think we would see a temporary increase as a bunch of people go all out once it becomes legal.
gunsmoker, I think this paragraph hit the nail on the head. While I have had coworkers that were fairly regular users of recreational drugs, and that functioned just fine at work and were good employees, I know more people that are fairly regular users that can't hold a job or a relationship. I think drugs are attractive to people that can't hold a job or a relationship, but the drugs don't ususally cause those inabilities (I'm sure they can, but I think gunsmoker is right that it is more of a correlation than a causation).gunsmoker said:And I think that while a lot of lazy, useless bums and shiftless criminals do drink, smoke dope, and do harder drugs, that relationship may be more of a CORRELATION than a CAUSATION. It is also true that most criminals have tattoos, but that doesn't mean that an otherwise law-abiding citizen with good morals is more likely to become a criminal if he decorates his skin in that way. In other words, a certain percentage of the general population is simply going to do bad things, with drugs or without drugs. That's simply who they are and all they aspire to be.