Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (April 2010, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:07:35 -0700
Reply-To:     Robert Fisher <garciasghostvw@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Robert Fisher <garciasghostvw@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      FW: It's Phinally Phriedae,
              and Drug prohibition created the drug lords. (was (ironically)
              Re: HIJACKED - update)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Well that's supposed to say "so long as it does _not_ inherently cause...".

Cya, Robert

-----Original Message----- From: Robert Fisher [mailto:garciasghostvw@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:29 AM To: 'vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM' Subject: RE: It's Phinally Phriedae, and Drug prohibition created the drug lords. (was (ironically) Re: HIJACKED - update)

I agree with both of you: Dave says "no market, no industry"; Mike says "no prohibition, no market" - therefore no industry. I once read a an article that maintained that you could break down the known drugs into two broad categories: Those that approx. 90% of a given population could take/use without becoming addicted, with the other 10% experiencing varying degrees of addiction, and vice versa. The proposal was that the (mostly) non-addictive drugs should not be regulated, and that the (mostly) addictive drugs should, with the legal bent being that society would endeavor to help users overcome their addiction (to either kind) and that the illegal distributors of the regulated kind would face penalties. Apparently in those western societies that have de-criminalized drugs, most people that use are content with the readily available "soft" drugs and cap their use with those. I don't have a problem with any of that.

I don't think that amounts to liberalism (raving or not), conservatism (nut job or not) or liberalism (bleeding heart or not). I think it's just common sense analysis of what works and what doesn't. Basically the courts have consistently ruled that a legislative body may regulate any behavior they choose as long as the regulation is not in conflict with those rights granted by the Constitution. There is, however, a growing argument that an individual has a constitutional right to do whatever he wishes so long as it does inherently cause or has a significant likelihood of causing a "real and measureable harm", an idea/term with which the courts have long been used to working and defining.

Having said that, I'm guessing the mods were probably speaking of the broad topic of "the dangers or lack of, of travelling in Mexico" when they said save it 'til Fridaye, and that a politically-tinged discussion of the North American Drug Trade (Its Constitutionality, Causes and Effects) is not quite what they had in mind. But that of course is up to them.

Cya, Robert


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.