It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitutional Question 18 Ammendment

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   


Make me King i will fix this mess




posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition on alcohol on January 16, 1919. The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution -

Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...


So why did they feel they had to have an amendment back then to make alcohol illegal?

Why has no amendments been passed to legitimize the war on drugs?

Does this make the war on drugs illegal and show that the want to kill folks over drugs to be against the law?

Is it premeditated attempted murder to try to enforce such or just a conspiracy against the U.S.A.?


You demonstrate excellent insight and knowledge into the US Constitution, and by comparison, the respect shown Constitutional principles by those who crafted the 18th and the Volstead Act, as compared to the idiots who crafted the Controlled Substances Act.

All your questions are valid and well thought out.

With the 18th, a close reading shows that mere possession of alcohol was not criminalized. Only the manufacture, sale or transportation of the offending alcohol was criminalized.

With that, they recognized that the federal government has no legitimate authority to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. They could prohibit manufacture, sale or transportation, but not mere possession or use.

The CSA by comparison criminalizes mere possession, something the government has no power to do.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

here is the secret answer




posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: projectvxn
What I don't get is why we punish addicts. And yes, we DO punish addicts for being addicts, even if the letter of the law doesn't say it, in practice it is what's happening.


The mentally ill as well. And there's a crossover there.


Agreed.

There is definitely room for criminal justice reform. Specifically, redefining what ACTUALLY is a criminal.

We won't get that with this administration, or the next, or the next, unless we demand it.

But the truth is, out of sight out of mind. Most people don't care as long as they don't have to be the ones dealing with it.

Unfortunately, this brings us face to face with these problems when they manifest in drug abuse, and in the case of mental illness, self-harm or harm to others.

PREVENTION is the key here, not punishment after the fact.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




How do you not punish an addict? If the person is unreliable and unsafe in the commission of a job, then they are unsuited to the work. Do you keep them on just to avoid punishing them for their habit?


This is a strawman argument.

No one is speaking of taking unnecessary liabilities for the sake of the drug addict.

I'm speaking of changing the law enforcement approach to a treatment and rehabilitation approach.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




But the truth is, out of sight out of mind. Most people don't care as long as they don't have to be the ones dealing with it.


By design the peeps are concerned with what the msmers tell them is important, of coarse between the graphic violence episodes and heart warming fuzzy creatures doing stuff.

Oh yea we had better pay our taxes then figure out what is for supper.

Rinse and repeat!



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Again, I suspect that much like with the mentally ill, you will not be able to force addicts into treatment soon enough because they will have rights.

Not to mention, the reason why we lack adequate mental health facilities now is mainly because the mentally ill have rights and the government institutions set up to deal with those who clearly could not cope with larger society were more or less shut down. Right now, the left likes to blame this on Reagan, but it was a combination of the endless decay and corruption inherent in government-run institutions that combined with pressure of patients' rights groups.

How long would it take before we'd have the same problems all over again? The combined corruption in the system creating horror stories coupled with addicts' rights groups telling us all that treatment of the clearly disabled is inhuman?

As for creating a strawman ... I assumed you were talking about the full range, especially when it was compared to mental illness. People often complain that the only problem we have with them is the barriers and stigmas they have that bar them from full participation into societal participation as if their addiction to mind altering substances has no bearing on their ability to fully function in the full range of necessary daily activities.

Sure, we can keep them out of jail, but that doesn't mean they will be able to function. Jobs? Paying bills? Etc.? How many more homeless would there be? We talk about how the homeless are there because we don't have adequate mental health, well how many more addicts will soon be hitting the streets because it's the only place for them?



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




How long would it take before we'd have the same problems all over again?


Long enough to infuse our society with freedom and morals.



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: howtonhawky

Sorry if its been stated, I didn't see it. Women's Suffrage, Temperance League, they clamored to ban "Demon Rum". You see. all the men had gone off to fight the war in Europe, leaving the women in charge of reason .

(slowly backs away)

:


dem sponges

Prohibition gave rise to the largest crime syndicate in the country. Bootlegging illegal liquor, often poisonous, the crime syndicate that murdered many more people and still people were finding ways to get liquor to feed their addiction.

It didn't work. Banning anything, doesn't work. What it does is make the banned thing more profitable... greases the wheels of the Justice System, the gubment, the prisons, the gangs, the Gubment, did I mention, the gubment?



So we should ban gubment then.

Limited gubment. What we have today is grown way out of bounds.

The bounds of the Continental US, the bounds of Washington, the bounds of reason.
edit on 21-3-2018 by intrptr because: additional



new topics




 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join