I Wear Pants;1542900 wrote:False, you'll not find many people (perhaps not any) who created or advocate for the law saying that the reason for it is that we just, really need to punish people that do drugs. They're bad and they need to pay for doing drugs by being arrested, with deadly force if needed, and locked in a cage for decades.

No, the law was and is intended to protect the public health from the effects of addiction and the violence that comes with the drug trade. The problem is that the law has not reduced addiction or use and has increased the violence while at the same time spending massive sums of money. You cannot spin that as a success. It is a complete failure.

Con_Alma;1542897 wrote:That's not the belief of all people.

Con_Alma;1542903 wrote:Are you suggesting there wasn't a believed reason for it to be illegal when it was legislated????

For laws such as this to be reversed or overturned they tend to require either a judicial ruling of unconstitutionality or a mass majority putting pressure on their representative. I believe that will happen sooner than later....just not today. It's clear society is moving in that direction.

Heretic;1542907 wrote:And neither is the whole weed thing. I don't think it should be illegal, therefore the laws aren't the belief of all people.

queencitybuckeye;1542908 wrote:I'm not aware that the majority of people needed to overturn such foolishness need be any greater than the majority required to pass it in the first place.

justincredible;1542914 wrote:I just can't fathom how someone can view legislation that has violently murdered fellow citizens, locked millions in cages (to potentially be violently assaulted), because "drugs are bad" as a success. It absolutely boggles my mind.

Con_Alma;1542906 wrote:????

I view it as a success. Nothing more.

The feds have an obligation to uphold the law. That's why they take such action. I expect them to do so until til the laws are changed.

There are laws in place that don't deter action but rather do nothing more than punish. The illegality of drugs, the death penalty, simple traffic violations are just some examples.

Con_Alma;1542868 wrote:The majority???? Maybe, maybe not. They are a reflection of the representatives of the people at the time they are legislated.

Con_Alma;1542919 wrote:I appreciate you being honest with your declaration of not understanding. I hope I have never said "drugs are bad". They are simply illegal. Morality is subjective.

justincredible;1542914 wrote:I just can't fathom how someone can view legislation that has violently murdered fellow citizens, locked millions in cages (to potentially be violently assaulted), because "drugs are bad" as a success. It absolutely boggles my mind.

justincredible;1542927 wrote:I guess I'm glad I'm able to look past the legality of things to see what is right and wrong. I'm not saying smoking weed is right. But subjecting someone to prison rape for smoking it is absolutely wrong. Anyone that thinks it is morally superior to lock someone in a cage for smoking pot than to just leave them alone is an asshole.

I Wear Pants;1542925 wrote:That may be the case for some laws but it is not the case for the drug war. The laws were and currently are in place to deter use and the societal effects of use and the drug trade. That's not speculation, that's how the laws were explained initially, it's how they're currently lobbied for, it's how the people running the organizations enforcing them describe and defend them. You are wrong about the purpose of the drug war.

justincredible;1542927 wrote:I guess I'm glad I'm able to look past the legality of things to see what is right and wrong. I'm not saying smoking weed is right. But subjecting someone to prison rape for smoking it is absolutely wrong. Anyone that thinks it is morally superior to lock someone in a cage for smoking pot than to just leave them alone is an asshole.

ernest_t_bass;1542936 wrote:If the govt. wants to make money on drugs, then just start issuing hefty (DUI level) fines for being caught (in public, not your home) smoking pot. Don't lock 'em up, just fine them, and let them go about their business.

ohiobucks1;1542933 wrote:I agree with you, but what I'm saying is that our system is based on the belief that if enough people agree with you, then there will be no punishment for smoking. As of now, the tides are turning.

Incest is wrong. I'm sure 99.5% of America agrees, and the laws (enforced or not) are there because society deems them necessary enough to not repeal.

justincredible;1542941 wrote:A system that allows something like this to go on for over 40 years is not a good system.

I Wear Pants;1542900 wrote:The problem is that the law has not reduced addiction or use and has increased the violence while at the same time spending massive sums of money. You cannot spin that as a success. It is a complete failure.

Belly35;1542951 wrote:Could the same be said for social welfare programs... Hasn't reduced poverty, stimulate achievement, lowered drop out rate, strengthen family unity but has developed an entitlement social class.

ohiobucks1;1542926 wrote:our system is based on the belief that our reps represent us.

justincredible;1542914 wrote:I just can't fathom how someone can view legislation that has violently murdered fellow citizens, locked millions in cages (to potentially be violently assaulted), because "drugs are bad" as a success. It absolutely boggles my mind.