|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Interesting post, I appreciate the input.
This:
Quote:
laughingdog said: At this point in time, drug enforcement is also a huge economic enterprise, that cannot just be stopped. It involves thousands of jobs and institutions. Then there is most likely more Olie North type hidden agendas.
I definitely agree with. You may be right, but I think, if you look at the sixties, and Nixon and his people, they definitely saw the contrast between themselves and the movement as a clash of cultures, and very much about the balance of power. Nixon, of course, declared the war on drugs, and I think this element of conservatism was foremost on his mind. He and many others were afraid of change.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Interesting post, I appreciate the input.
This:
Quote:
laughingdog said: At this point in time, drug enforcement is also a huge economic enterprise, that cannot just be stopped. It involves thousands of jobs and institutions. Then there is most likely more Olie North type hidden agendas.
I definitely agree with. You may be right, but I think, if you look at the sixties, and Nixon and his people, they definitely saw the contrast between themselves and the movement as a clash of cultures, and very much about the balance of power. Nixon, of course, declared the war on drugs, and I think this element of conservatism was foremost on his mind. He and many others were afraid of change.
And I agree as regards pot and acid and Nixon, and his fears. I have no TV but I hear on NPR there is a good TV show now about Columbia & Cocaine, which has a different history. Not a mind expanding drug, and more profit potential. An odd drug, to some it is addictive and to some not addictive - like alcohol and coffee.
Now the issue is also clouded by 'bath salts' and synthetic drugs, some of which actually are toxic; and also by fentanyl which lacks quality control, and is used in random quantities to cut other drugs, thus causing deaths, as the potency can be extreme. Then, it seems, there is a speed epidemic, in the midwest, which which again seems to actually have quite an addictive potential for the average bear.
Meanwhile iboga which has potential to cure addiction, is forbidden.
and , as you say, seems anything can be further screwed up by government ...
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Yeah, I've been thinking about your previous post, and I think it definitely has merit in the sense that to most people, the majority, drugs are drugs and drugs are bad. People don't make a distinction between psychedelics and other less constructive substances, as most here do. In that sense, you were spot-on. But I think there are also elements of truth, as you agree, with my points as well. I don't think we'll ever see full legalization, at least not anytime soon. Taking trillions out of the hands of organized crime and bloated federal agencies isn't high on the list, apparently. Vicente Fox, who was president of Mexico for six years, advocates full legalization of everything. And he ought to know it would work better. But nobody listens.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Therefore, prohibition of substances is illegal.
Simply not true. While I agree prohibition with drugs is doing the same thing over we did with alcohol and expecting a different result. The CS act of 1970 clearly defines what a CS is and the criminal penalties associated with possession, manufacturing and distributing it with out a DEA license.
Is it possible that that statute is unconstitutional?
No. Making a drug a controlled substance is not unconstitutional.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I think I know where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. What people choose to do in their homes, without impinging on their neighbors or being abusive in any way, should not be under the jurisdiction of the government, imo. If we were smart about it, society would function fine.
And look what they're doing to kratom! That is an abuse of authority, and I don't see why it wouldn't apply to other substances as well, especially psychedelics.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: What people choose to do in their homes, without impinging on their neighbors or being abusive in any way, should not be under the jurisdiction of the government, imo.
I completely agree, and share this same political POV. It's unfortunate that's not written in the constitution...
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
No, but these amendments to the Bill of Rights can be interpreted to support such a view:
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 10: 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.
If one considers psychedelic substances as sacraments, their use is explicitly protected by the first amendment. Also, given that the Constitution has nothing to say about psychedelic substances, the right to use them is delegated to the citizens, implying that denying this right is a violation of the tenth amendment, and unconstitutional.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
|