Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I love how he always avoids the question.

Do you understand a word he's saying?

---

I also do not resort to the fallacy of non sequitur if I have enough logic and reason to present a cogent argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

If it were for sale, most drugs would probably be purchased in the same manner as any other recreational drug that is currently legal.

---

No they wouldn't. Product liability laws, lawsuits, insurance, and a host of other factors would come into play to make commercial manufacture and sale of intoxicating drugs economically unfeasible. And if they WERE produced, they would not be nearly the same potency as today's street drugs so we would still have dangerous street drugs being passed out on the streets.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

No they wouldn't. Product liability laws, lawsuits, insurance, and a host of other factors would come into play to make commercial manufacture and sale of intoxicating drugs economically unfeasible. And if they WERE produced, they would not be nearly the same potency as today's street drugs so we would still have dangerous street drugs being passed out on the streets.

- Carl

---

We may have to agree to disagree. However, in my opinion, legislating a recreational drug category would be no worse than what we currently have now, and we could be generating a substantial amount of tax revenue, and not expending such revenue on forms of prohibition that have never worked in the history of the US.

I think your position would be more credible if there were no abuse of legal drugs that require a prescription.

A recreational drug category could reduce the occurrence of legal drug abuse.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I think your position would be more credible if there were no abuse of legal drugs that require a prescription.

A recreational drug category could reduce the occurrence of legal drug abuse.

---

Ah ... so ... ABC pharmacy that makes crystal meth for recreational use would NOT be sued when users OD'd, died, became vegetables, beat their wives, beat their kids, or became brain dead? You really think so?

If you review a number of product liability suits for legal products - including pharmaceuticals - there are already a multitude of lawsuits out there. What keeps the prices on prescription meds down is that they also have a legitimate medical use - most recreational drugs do NOT have such a use.

So, you are talking about a product that when used as intended stands a high chance of doing great harm ... unless we create an unheard of exception to liability laws, no pharmaceutical company will be willing to take this on.

Tobacco companies still lose lawsuits by smokers and we have known smoking is bad for you for 30+ years! Drug manufacturers get sued every week. You can collect hundreds of thousands for coffee in your lap. And ti just goes on.

No, sorry, no one is going to be willing to open themselves up to that kind of liability. If they did, the price would be so high as to be prohibitive or the potency would be greatly reduced. And, likely, street drugs would be far cheaper and more potent.

Even in those European nations where many drugs are legal, they have a HUGE illicit drug problem. Legalization has not been the panacea.



- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Unless the feds carve out an unheard of exemption to product liability laws, NO ONE is going to make street level heroin, cocaine, meth., etc. Anyone who tried would soon be sued into oblivion.

- Carl

---

In the conventional format, no - but consider if the Controlled Substances Act were repealed, and you could once again walk into a pharmacy and get anything you wanted without a physician's prescription...Already available in pharmaceutical grade minus those pesky undesirable street variations/additives:

- Ritalin/Concerta/Adderall is pharmaceutical methamphetamine and highly abused

- Oxycontin/Vicodin/Percocet/Dilaudid etc are drugs of choice amongst opiate addicts

- Benzodiazepines

- Other sedatives/hypnotics/tranquilizers

And even when used as prescribed currently they pose a great deal of risk depending upon the population they are prescribed to. I have yet to hear of an outpouring of liability lawsuits against the makers of any of the narcotic opiates from whose abuse many people die every year. There was some initial buzz surrounding the liability for the makers of Oxycontin but that has died down.

I don't foresee great leaps/bounds in product liability so long as the instructions remained the same, were the federal controls removed on these drugs.

I fear I'm in agreement with Palos. Scary as that may be, he does have a point.

Carl, heres some homework for you:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Read what you fellow brother-in-blue say about the War on Taxpayers! Wait, did I say that? I meant "war on drugs".

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

A recreational drug category could reduce the occurrence of legal drug abuse.

---

Of greater concern is drug abuse period regardless of whether or not it is legal or illegal - mind altering substances are mind altering substances.

Having drugs illegal doesn't reduce demand or reduce the problem.

Having drugs legalized creates a whole host of other problems.

Perhaps having drugs decriminalized is a better solution because I have a concern that legalizing drugs tells kids that they are safe or okay to use - and they aren't.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Ah ... so ... ABC pharmacy that makes crystal meth for recreational use would NOT be sued when users OD'd, died, became vegetables, beat their wives, beat their kids, or became brain dead? You really think so?

If you review a number of product liability suits for legal products - including pharmaceuticals - there are already a multitude of lawsuits out there. What keeps the prices on prescription meds down is that they also have a legitimate medical use - most recreational drugs do NOT have such a use.

So, you are talking about a product that when used as intended stands a high chance of doing great harm ... unless we create an unheard of exception to liability laws, no pharmaceutical company will be willing to take this on.

Tobacco companies still lose lawsuits by smokers and we have known smoking is bad for you for 30+ years! Drug manufacturers get sued every week. You can collect hundreds of thousands for coffee in your lap. And ti just goes on.

No, sorry, no one is going to be willing to open themselves up to that kind of liability. If they did, the price would be so high as to be prohibitive or the potency would be greatly reduced. And, likely, street drugs would be far cheaper and more potent.

Even in those European nations where many drugs are legal, they have a HUGE illicit drug problem. Legalization has not been the panacea.

- Carl

---

I think an important question to ask is "are the drug problems and costs of addiction to those societies where drugs are legal or decriminalized greater or less than the size of the drug problem in the USA and the costs of addiction to American society in the form of courts, jails, prisons, theft, other property damage, and huge health care costs?"

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Ah ... so ... ABC pharmacy that makes crystal meth for recreational use would NOT be sued when users OD'd, died, became vegetables, beat their wives, beat their kids, or became brain dead? You really think so?

If you review a number of product liability suits for legal products - including pharmaceuticals - there are already a multitude of lawsuits out there. What keeps the prices on prescription meds down is that they also have a legitimate medical use - most recreational drugs do NOT have such a use.

So, you are talking about a product that when used as intended stands a high chance of doing great harm ... unless we create an unheard of exception to liability laws, no pharmaceutical company will be willing to take this on.

Tobacco companies still lose lawsuits by smokers and we have known smoking is bad for you for 30+ years! Drug manufacturers get sued every week. You can collect hundreds of thousands for coffee in your lap. And ti just goes on.

No, sorry, no one is going to be willing to open themselves up to that kind of liability. If they did, the price would be so high as to be prohibitive or the potency would be greatly reduced. And, likely, street drugs would be far cheaper and more potent.

Even in those European nations where many drugs are legal, they have a HUGE illicit drug problem. Legalization has not been the panacea.



- Carl

---

You are probably resorting to a popular misconception of a hypothetical, recreational drug category. No one is suggesting that recreational drugs would not have an FDA warning label. Also, why would ABC pharmacy not create a better product at lower cost to the individual consumer? We can already agree that they would not set up a lab in the employee bathroom to keep to an "original" recipe.

I still have to disagree with you concerning drugs. Most pharmaceuticals know they are taking a risk when creating new substances and that is one reason they have clinical trials and obtain FDA approval. A recreational drug category would simply provide the FDA with guidelines for drugs in such a category.

Quote:

---

Quoting Soft_Touch

---

Of greater concern is drug abuse period regardless of whether or not it is legal or illegal - mind altering substances are mind altering substances.

Having drugs illegal doesn't reduce demand or reduce the problem.

Having drugs legalized creates a whole host of other problems.

Perhaps having drugs decriminalized is a better solution because I have a concern that legalizing drugs tells kids that they are safe or okay to use - and they aren't.

---

I think simple decriminalization does not solve the problem of regulating a commercial product and raising tax revenue from it. I also don't think it is much better than keeping it illegal, for those same reasons.