Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-25-2017, 12:41 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 5. Pot use was all over the place in the 1970's/1980's. I've also partaken in using other drugs. Like I said, I was in the "stoner" group. I've done it all. I've used booze, weed, speed, downers, etc. I can see regulation of stuff like speed/opiates/downers. Pot has a side effect profile that's a lot less harmful than booze. That's a scientific fact.

7. With all of that said, no government agency / religious zealots have no right what so ever to dictate what I put in my body. Can you agree to this? You have a business, right? Should government decide who you hire? Should government decide how you conduct your life? As for myself, should government decide what I do with my body? Should government decide how I conduct my life? Should religious organizations decide how I conduct my life? Here's my take. You should conduct your business in a manner that maximizes your profits and wellbeing. You owe nothing to snowflakes. You owe nothing to political correctness. If some snowflake tells you how to run your business, I'm with you. You have a right to ignore said snowflakes. Now for myself, I also demand the right to use any substance for any reason I think useful. Government has no right to interfere with my rights... or yours.

Hmm...  My instinct is to come at it from a different level in terms of theory of government.  I don't disagree with you in many ways, but the style of your argument seems to require comment.

At a top level, the will of the majority is checked by the rights of the individual.  Thus, when the government is doing something unpleasant, it is often tempting to argue one has a right, that thus the government has no power to breach that right.  In this case, you are proposing that the People have a right to decide what substances belong in said individual's body.

Where did this right come from?  Is it listed in the Bill of Rights?  Did nine old men on the Supreme Court invent this right out of thin air?  No.  The right simply doesn't exist save by the mighty power of wishful thinking.  Because you want control of your body doesn't mean there is any sort of legal right.

The states are sovereign.  Legislators can dictate the supposed will of the People.  The federal government is not sovereign.  In theory the federals only have powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  In practice, if a drug crosses a state line, they will invoke the commerce clause.  They will usurp power that was never intended to be given to the federal government.  That, however, is a battle lost.

I can see two plausible excuses for government intervention regulating recreational drugs.  The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens.  If a drug is dangerous enough to have a deadly or debilitating effect on the person using the drug, the state will presume authority to act.  Also, if a drug makes someone apt to harm others, or if a drug makes criminal acts likely, again the state will presume authority to act.  I see this as quite reasonable for the states, but don't see it as clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

I don't have a problem with the prescription system.  If a drug is potentially dangerous but has offsetting benefits, a trained professional ought to be overseeing the process of using the drug.

I tend to see marijuana as a reasonably benign recreational drug, quite similar to alcohol in the scale of its effect.  That booze is allowed and weed is not is much more a matter of cultural prejudice than any real danger.  Sure, there ought to be laws for stuff like driving under the influence of a mind altering substance, but that ought to apply regardless of the nature of the substance.

I agree with attempts to regulate stuff like stuff like speed/opiates/downers, but that line ought to be drawn by the will of the people, by ordinary legislation.  It shouldn't be written into the Bill of Rights.  I'm also dubious about prohibitions.  If people want the stuff they will generally have a way to get it.  The legitimate legal authority of a legislator to ban a substance generally does not result in the substance being banned.