Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Osborn F Enready]

Soccerfreak said:
But to the argument, I completely agree with you that marijuana and drugs need to be legalized.

I say:
Well, I disagree on the rest of your post, but the part above we are in complete agreement on and that is what the thread is about. I won't continue on the other parts in this thread, those are another debate. Regardless, thanks for the honesty.

[Chancellor]

Chancellor It's my socialist nature that responds to attempting to use a source to provide help. No problem with conceding that is a view and is not an essential way to utilise the income from taxing these products. Hence my being ok with allowing those who might decide to stop utilising drugs, if they became legal to just either fund treatment themselves or going cold turkey.

In other words "Am I bothered?" NO

Socialism is a perverted choice, not a nature.

So, why do you believe (being the socialist you are) that it's government's responsibility to steal money from hard working people and waste it on treatment programs for people who had no business getting themselves addicted in the first place?

[Chancellor]

But to the argument, I completely agree with you that marijuana and drugs need to be legalized. If they weren't such taboos, half the people who try them wouldn't be so pressured by friends to do it, because it wouldn't be "cool" any more. The DEA acts like everyone is going to spontaneously become potheads.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that such substances NEED to be legalized, though I would support the idea of simply repealing the laws that made those substances illegal (and, no, the opposite of "illegal" is not necessarily "legal"). I don't think the federal government has any constutional authority to decide whether someone should or should not be allowed to consume certain substances. In other words, the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to give or deny "permission" to consume such substances.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said:
I don't think the federal government has any constutional authority to decide whether someone should or should not be allowed to consume certain substances. In other words, the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to give or deny "permission" to consume such substances.

I say:
I agree, and that is the basis of my entire argument.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that such substances NEED to be legalized, though I would support the idea of simply repealing the laws that made those substances illegal (and, no, the opposite of "illegal" is not necessarily "legal"). I don't think the federal government has any constutional authority to decide whether someone should or should not be allowed to consume certain substances. In other words, the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to give or deny "permission" to consume such substances.

Right, but it's a lot easier to say make it legalized then to say make it unillegalized.

[Chancellor]

Right, but it's a lot easier to say make it legalized then to say make it unillegalized.

I'm saying the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do anything with it one way or the other. They don't have the authority to say that consuming certain substances is legal (meaning it becomes legal by passing a law giving "permission") and they don't have the authority to say that consuming certain substances is illegal (meaning it becomes illegal by passing a law denying "permission").