What they did was decriminalize small amounts of it but there is no regulation, so it was a black market open air drug den. BUT one could say this is also just the addicts self-sorting out of the population.. kind of cruel but true, anyways I was thinking more like what Portugal has done, though maybe there's no perfect template anywhere yet. I don't have strong opinions on it either way, only that what's being done now is not working, and I've always struggled with the concept of making possession of an object a crime, whether that be a plant product or a M80 machine gun. Where do you draw the line? The Constitution seems to favor the libertarian point of view.
BUT one could say this is also just the addicts self-sorting out of the population..
Yep, that's absolutely frankly a benefit.
By all means; make treatment / rehab / therapy more widely available, but some people just literally can't break their addiction, for myriad reasons.
I definitely agree 1,000,000% that the war on drugs is unsupportable & completely insane what it's doing / done to society & people.
Something definitely has to change; even if it's a short, 5-10 year legalization / de-criminalization; SOMETHING needs to change......
As for where I personally draw the line; if you can find me specifically & exactly where in the Constitution it explicitly delegates to the fed gov the rights & powers to regulate / control drugs, chemicals, substances, etc; if you can show me that, I'll support keeping the status quo.
Until then, in my smooth little brain; if it's not explicitly in the Constitution, it was written that way by design, and that's the document we agree to adhere to as Americans.
They definitely had drugs / alcohol back then....weren't some of the founding fathers pretty big hemp growers or is that more stoner propaganda? 😂
What they did was decriminalize small amounts of it but there is no regulation, so it was a black market open air drug den. BUT one could say this is also just the addicts self-sorting out of the population.. kind of cruel but true, anyways I was thinking more like what Portugal has done, though maybe there's no perfect template anywhere yet. I don't have strong opinions on it either way, only that what's being done now is not working, and I've always struggled with the concept of making possession of an object a crime, whether that be a plant product or a M80 machine gun. Where do you draw the line? The Constitution seems to favor the libertarian point of view.
Yep, that's absolutely frankly a benefit. By all means; make treatment / rehab / therapy more widely available, but some people just literally can't break their addiction, for myriad reasons.
I definitely agree 1,000,000% that the war on drugs is unsupportable & completely insane what it's doing / done to society & people.
Something definitely has to change; even if it's a short, 5-10 year legalization / de-criminalization; SOMETHING needs to change......
As for where I personally draw the line; if you can find me specifically & exactly where in the Constitution it explicitly delegates to the fed gov the rights & powers to regulate / control drugs, chemicals, substances, etc; if you can show me that, I'll support keeping the status quo.
Until then, in my smooth little brain; if it's not explicitly in the Constitution, it was written that way by design, and that's the document we agree to adhere to as Americans.
They definitely had drugs / alcohol back then....weren't some of the founding fathers pretty big hemp growers or is that more stoner propaganda? 😂