Did you not understand my comment that I do not believe classifying laws as good or bad is helpful?
Well, it wouldn't be helpful to you if you gave an opinion that strict constructionist laws are good laws, since you have also said that the drug laws aren't strict constructionist laws.
I was trying to show that your opinion that the drug laws are good laws are just that: an opinion. And it isn't an opinion that squares with your opinion of what makes for good law, generally.
Although studies such as the Health and Human Services National Household Survey show that the majority of people who use and sell drugs are white, African-Americans and Latinos comprise about 94% of the drug offenders in New York State prisons: African Americans, 51.2%; Latinos, 42.5%; whites, 5.4%.
The cost of keeping an inmate in NYS prison for a year is about $32,000. In comparison, the cost of most drug free outpatient care runs between $2,700-4,500 per person per year; and the cost of residential drug treatment is $17,000-$21,000 per participant per year.
If blacks did not break the current drug laws, they would not be in jail...correct?
that's a really racist question
why should blacks have to worry about breaking a law more than whites?
Nevermind if a law is good or bad
so, if whites, who DO break these laws in as great if not greater percentages than blacks, don't go to jail and yet blacks do, you just say "nevermind"?
Well, it wouldn't be helpful to you if you gave an opinion that strict constructionist laws are good laws, since you have also said that the drug laws aren't strict constructionist laws.
I didn't say "strict constructionist laws are good laws." Strict construction is a method of interpreting the constitution. Strict construction should be the preferred method because it provides that more issues will stay in the political process. If the constitution does not specifically provide for a federal power or does not specifically limit states power in certain areas, then the political process has a wider range. Decisions such as Roe v. Wade limit the political power. That is unfortunate when there is no specific federal authority for doing so.
I've posted a lot of facts on why it's a problem for society, how about you post some facts showing what good it's done? You "facts" do not outweigh my view that legalized drugs will wreak havoc on society.
it's ineffectual for starters. tell that to all the people sitting in jail.
ares wrote: go back and re-read post 1013, jethro.
my post #1013 stated: They do not have that power. You should know that. However, the people can do away with the fourth amendment by adopting another amendment if they so choose.
I see nothing about remotely resembling the term or concept of arbitrary. You are reading something into my post that is not there. My statement is factual if the people decide to repeal the fourth amendment they can by enacting another amendment that specifically so states. It has been done before. See the Amendment XXI.
it's ineffectual for starters. tell that to all the people sitting in jail.
uh...you can get drugs in jail...perhaps even easier than on the outside. what is more difficult to get in jail are the legal, controlled drugs like alcohol.
You "facts" do not outweigh my view that legalized drugs will wreak havoc on society.
this is just plain ignorant
first of all, there are already legal drugs (alcohol)that wreak havok on our society. And when we made that illegal, all that happened is it made it worse.
really, we already know that prohibition laws don't make things any better.
when you say that your uninformed opinion outweighs facts, absolutely
Drugs wreak havoc in people's lives.
drugs don't do anything, they aren't alive. people wreak havok in their lives with all sorts of things, most of which are legal. Now, who appointed you to be everyone's mother? If I want to wreak havok in my own life, it's none of your fucking business. And besides, the vast majority of drug use wreaks no havok in anyone's life at all. Why punish the people who can handle drugs because some people can't?
besides, alcohol wreaks far more havok in people's live than all the illegal drugs combined.
Legal drugs will just cause more havoc because more people will do them.
and yet you can produce no facts to support this opinion, altough I can produce facts that show that drug use has increased due to the attempts at prohibiting it.
You can lie to yourself all you want but legal drugs will mean more users.
so what?
people use drugs.
always have, always will.
which is one of the reasons why trying to make laws against it is doomed to failure.
you are losing a war on drugs against people who are on drugs.
Get something straight, crabs. I am for keeping drugs illegal. I will do everything in my power to be sure that that happens. Let me also tell you if I see someone doing the drugs I am going to turn them in. I will enjoy watching them go to jail.
but not for bothering you, which is the reason you cited.
They are in jail because they violated the law.
but they didn't do anything to anyone
why are you incarcerating people who haven't done anything to anyone?
And they can keep doing drugs until they are busted.
and the odds of that happening depend on the color of your skin.
racist law.
You do not know that I do.
no more than you, but I DO know that the odds are that if you have more than a few neighbors, some of them are doing drugs, right now, and that it will not cause them to bother you.
You seem to think you know everything.
Not everything, no. But I know what I know. You seem to have no facts, just your uninformed opinion....for instance...
There is a chance that that is side effect of illegal drugs.
you don't even know if I take any drugs at all.
for all you know, I may be in that 2% of people who don't.
we tried making alcohol illegal and it made it worse, not better. No we did not. It was repealed because enough people wanted to drink. If you get enough people that want to take drugs you may get those laws changed, too.
Take your racism allegations and shove them up your ***. If you can find it in your drug induced state.
and yet, drug use is still rampant. I don't think it is "rampant."
all you are saying is that the law isn't there to prevent drug use, it's there to incarcerate people. The laws do prevent drug use by some people.
not until we get rid of these bads laws it's not Like I said the war isn't over. These good laws will remain
when exactly do you think you can declare victory? When people like you decide to stop doing drugs or are in jail.
you are for maintaining laws that are demonstratably racist and classist.
I will do everything in my power to be sure that that happens.
Yea, I know drug dealers who feel the same way. It's really lucrative for them. Nice to know that you are on their side, making sure that they can make a ridiculaous amount of untaxed money. I'm sure that drug dealers everywhere thank you. Not to mention the terrorist who rely on this underground source of money to do their business.
Let me also tell you if I see someone doing the drugs I am going to turn them in.
too bad people generally have more sense than to do them in public.
Nonsense. Crabs, you ares so warped, probably because of the drugs, that you can't be taken seriously.
and yet you bring no facts with you
what is nonsense is saying that they repealed Prohibition not because it was creating many problems and solving none, but that it was repealed simply because people wanted to drink.
that is just flat-out false. people were still drinking during Prohibition. The only thing the law did was create an underground organized crime syndicate, which is why it was repealed.
We figured out then that Prohibition doesn't work, why can't we figure that out now?
Yes and with the repeal organized crime was repealed?
just removed a huge source of income for it and a reason to fight over it. When was the last time Budweiser and Miller had a gunfight in the streets?
Prohibition of certain drugs works just fine, thank you.
define "works"
because unless all you want it to do is to put people in jail who haven't done anything to anyone and create a bunch of crime and a black market that otherwise wouldn't exist, it hasn't accomplished a damn thing.
Yes and with the repeal organized crime was repealed? just removed a huge source of income for it and a reason to fight over it. When was the last time Budweiser and Miller had a gunfight in the streets?Did the mob stop fighting when Prohibition was repealed? Of course not.
because unless all you want it to do is to put people in jail who haven't done anything to anyone and create a bunch of crime and a black market that otherwise wouldn't exist, it hasn't accomplished a damn thing. It accomplishes plenty. It keeps some people on the sober path that would otherwise ruin their lives.
It keeps some people on the sober path that would otherwise ruin their lives.
i find it ironic that you would use that as an argument, jethro. isn't their tendencey to want to protect people from themselves, for want of a better way to put it, one of the frequent complaints conservatives have about liberals?
find it ironic that you would use that as an argument, jethro. isn't their tendencey to want to protect people from themselves, for want of a better way to put it, one of the frequent complaints conservatives have about liberals?
I don't give a damn about them. It would be fine with me if they turned themselves off. I just don't believe that it would be a very pleasant world to live in with legalized drugs every where.
Yet, that argument would NOT be a strict, constructionist argument.
I am not sure that it would not be.
Are laws that conform to a strict, constructionist argument, GOOD LAWS?
Did you not understand my comment that I do not believe classifying laws as good or bad is helpful?
Are laws that conform to a strict, constructionist argument, GOOD LAWS?
I do believe strict construction of the constitution provides less opportunities for circumventing the democratic process.
jethro bodine - 03:04pm Apr 16, 2003 PST (#1018 of 1019)
Well, it wouldn't be helpful to you if you gave an opinion that strict constructionist laws are good laws, since you have also said that the drug laws aren't strict constructionist laws.
I was trying to show that your opinion that the drug laws are good laws are just that: an opinion. And it isn't an opinion that squares with your opinion of what makes for good law, generally.
However, the people can do away with the fourth amendment by adopting another amendment if they so choose.
the people can, huh? you just blew what little credibility you may have had with that post, jethro. anyone care to explain to the class why?
anyone care to explain to the class why?
Something about the special nature of the Bill of Rights, perhaps? I don't know. Tell us Ares
the people can't just amend the constitution. it starts out in congress. if jethro were half the lawyer he claims to be, he'd know that.
It's not a question of the term being helpful. It's the fact that the term is accurate.
I have gone to great lengths to show exactly how it's a bad law.
It harms society in profound and fundememtal ways.
We already learned that during Prohibition, but you just won't learn, will you?
racist law
wasteful law
harmful law
Once again crabs. If blacks did not break the current drug laws, they would not be in jail...correct?
Nevermind if a law is good or bad. If they didn't break it, they wouldn't be in jail...correct?
that's a really racist question
why should blacks have to worry about breaking a law more than whites?
so, if whites, who DO break these laws in as great if not greater percentages than blacks, don't go to jail and yet blacks do, you just say "nevermind"?
that's incredibly racist of you
The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States
Well, it wouldn't be helpful to you if you gave an opinion that strict constructionist laws are good laws, since you have also said that the drug laws aren't strict constructionist laws.
I didn't say "strict constructionist laws are good laws." Strict construction is a method of interpreting the constitution. Strict construction should be the preferred method because it provides that more issues will stay in the political process. If the constitution does not specifically provide for a federal power or does not specifically limit states power in certain areas, then the political process has a wider range. Decisions such as Roe v. Wade limit the political power. That is unfortunate when there is no specific federal authority for doing so.
the people can, huh? you just blew what little credibility you may have had with that post, jethro. anyone care to explain to the class why?
Who puts the members of Congress in their seats?
have gone to great lengths to show exactly how it's a bad law. you have gone to great lenghts to state your opinion
It harms society in profound and fundememtal ways. No it is good for society.
you just ignore all the facts I've posted?
how is it good for society?
I've posted a lot of facts on why it's a problem for society, how about you post some facts showing what good it's done?
how is it good for society?
it's ineffectual for starters.
the citizenry does. that doesn't mean the citizenry can just arbitrarily amend the constitution as you suggested.
I've posted a lot of facts on why it's a problem for society, how about you post some facts showing what good it's done? You "facts" do not outweigh my view that legalized drugs will wreak havoc on society.
it's ineffectual for starters. tell that to all the people sitting in jail.
the citizenry does. that doesn't mean the citizenry can just arbitrarily amend the constitution as you suggested.
Now did I say anything about arbitrarily amending the constitution? No,
go back and re-read post 1013, jethro.
ares wrote: go back and re-read post 1013, jethro.
my post #1013 stated: They do not have that power. You should know that. However, the people can do away with the fourth amendment by adopting another amendment if they so choose.
I see nothing about remotely resembling the term or concept of arbitrary. You are reading something into my post that is not there. My statement is factual if the people decide to repeal the fourth amendment they can by enacting another amendment that specifically so states. It has been done before. See the Amendment XXI.
uh...you can get drugs in jail...perhaps even easier than on the outside. what is more difficult to get in jail are the legal, controlled drugs like alcohol.
this is just plain ignorant
first of all, there are already legal drugs (alcohol)that wreak havok on our society. And when we made that illegal, all that happened is it made it worse.
really, we already know that prohibition laws don't make things any better.
why can't you learn?
And you are an expert on ignorant?
like you live next to black people.
keep it up and there will be so many jails that you will have a jail next door anyway.
the real question is, as long as they aren't bothering you, what the fuck do you care what the people next door are doing?
and you know what, chances are that the people next door are doing drugs anyway...and absolutely in the neighborhood.
Because if they do drugs they will be bothering me sometime.
when you say that your uninformed opinion outweighs facts, absolutely
drugs don't do anything, they aren't alive. people wreak havok in their lives with all sorts of things, most of which are legal. Now, who appointed you to be everyone's mother? If I want to wreak havok in my own life, it's none of your fucking business. And besides, the vast majority of drug use wreaks no havok in anyone's life at all. Why punish the people who can handle drugs because some people can't?
besides, alcohol wreaks far more havok in people's live than all the illegal drugs combined.
and yet you can produce no facts to support this opinion, altough I can produce facts that show that drug use has increased due to the attempts at prohibiting it.
so what?
people use drugs.
always have, always will.
which is one of the reasons why trying to make laws against it is doomed to failure.
you are losing a war on drugs against people who are on drugs.
you seem to think that you don't live near drug users.
hate to tell you, but odds are that you do.
this is pre-emtive incarceration.
you are advocating putting people in jail not because they have done anything to anyone, but because they might do something to you in the future.
people already take drugs without bothering you. You don't even know who does and doesn't.
and we already have laws against people (drug users or not) bothering you.
You have proven no such thing. Drug use is not up because they are illegal. Now that is fricking ignorant.
They are incarcerated for violation of the law.
we tried making alcohol illegal and it made it worse, not better.
black people.
and yet, drug use is still rampant.
all you are saying is that the law isn't there to prevent drug use, it's there to incarcerate people.
not until we get rid of these bads laws it's not
when exactly do you think you can declare victory?
because I can gaurentee you that people will do drugs no matter what the law is.
Is your goal to prevent people from doing drugs or is it to incarcerate certain classes and races of people?
because the former is not happening and the latter is.
Get something straight, crabs. I am for keeping drugs illegal. I will do everything in my power to be sure that that happens. Let me also tell you if I see someone doing the drugs I am going to turn them in. I will enjoy watching them go to jail.
but not for bothering you, which is the reason you cited.
but they didn't do anything to anyone
why are you incarcerating people who haven't done anything to anyone?
and the odds of that happening depend on the color of your skin.
racist law.
no more than you, but I DO know that the odds are that if you have more than a few neighbors, some of them are doing drugs, right now, and that it will not cause them to bother you.
Not everything, no. But I know what I know. You seem to have no facts, just your uninformed opinion....for instance...
you don't even know if I take any drugs at all.
for all you know, I may be in that 2% of people who don't.
we tried making alcohol illegal and it made it worse, not better. No we did not. It was repealed because enough people wanted to drink. If you get enough people that want to take drugs you may get those laws changed, too.
Take your racism allegations and shove them up your ***. If you can find it in your drug induced state.
and yet, drug use is still rampant. I don't think it is "rampant."
all you are saying is that the law isn't there to prevent drug use, it's there to incarcerate people. The laws do prevent drug use by some people.
not until we get rid of these bads laws it's not Like I said the war isn't over. These good laws will remain
when exactly do you think you can declare victory? When people like you decide to stop doing drugs or are in jail.
you are for maintaining laws that are demonstratably racist and classist.
Yea, I know drug dealers who feel the same way. It's really lucrative for them. Nice to know that you are on their side, making sure that they can make a ridiculaous amount of untaxed money. I'm sure that drug dealers everywhere thank you. Not to mention the terrorist who rely on this underground source of money to do their business.
too bad people generally have more sense than to do them in public.
I have no doubt.
Will you also enjoy paying for it?
They violated the law that is good enough for me.
It is people like you that buy from them. It is people like you that cause the crime.
wrong.
it was repealed because it was creating more problems than it was solving. It didn't stop anyone from drinking. All it did was create organized crime.
Really, try to read something about it first.
many states have already done that, but to no avail.
People who want to do drugs can still do drugs, because the laws are ineffectual for anything except oppressing minorites.
no, here is where you cited that the reason is because they may bother you.
and yet you bring no facts with you
what is nonsense is saying that they repealed Prohibition not because it was creating many problems and solving none, but that it was repealed simply because people wanted to drink.
that is just flat-out false. people were still drinking during Prohibition. The only thing the law did was create an underground organized crime syndicate, which is why it was repealed.
We figured out then that Prohibition doesn't work, why can't we figure that out now?
The only thing the law did was create an underground organized crime syndicate, which is why it was repealed.
Yes and with the repeal organized crime was repealed? There was crime before there will always be crime.
We figured out then that Prohibition doesn't work, why can't we figure that out now?
Prohibition of certain drugs works just fine, thank you.
just removed a huge source of income for it and a reason to fight over it. When was the last time Budweiser and Miller had a gunfight in the streets?
define "works"
because unless all you want it to do is to put people in jail who haven't done anything to anyone and create a bunch of crime and a black market that otherwise wouldn't exist, it hasn't accomplished a damn thing.
Yes and with the repeal organized crime was repealed? just removed a huge source of income for it and a reason to fight over it. When was the last time Budweiser and Miller had a gunfight in the streets? Did the mob stop fighting when Prohibition was repealed? Of course not.
because unless all you want it to do is to put people in jail who haven't done anything to anyone and create a bunch of crime and a black market that otherwise wouldn't exist, it hasn't accomplished a damn thing. It accomplishes plenty. It keeps some people on the sober path that would otherwise ruin their lives.
It keeps some people on the sober path that would otherwise ruin their lives.
i find it ironic that you would use that as an argument, jethro. isn't their tendencey to want to protect people from themselves, for want of a better way to put it, one of the frequent complaints conservatives have about liberals?
find it ironic that you would use that as an argument, jethro. isn't their tendencey to want to protect people from themselves, for want of a better way to put it, one of the frequent complaints conservatives have about liberals?
I don't give a damn about them. It would be fine with me if they turned themselves off. I just don't believe that it would be a very pleasant world to live in with legalized drugs every where.
over alcohol, absolutely