| > The Controlled Substances Act is flawed because of the locked and immutable nature of it, besides the fact that the drug wars are a failure and it is a health issue not a criminal one. The Controlled Substances Act has multiple flaws. For one, the CSA explicitly grants different rights to different people on the basis of disability; which is not equal. "Equal Justice Under Law" is etched across the US Federal Supreme Court Building.
The US (and now Vietnam) Declarations of Independence read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Controlled Substances Act is predicated upon flawed logic: in order to prove a universal quantification ("it doesn't help anyone") one must show that for person in all_people: for condition in all_conditions: doesnt_help_with(x, person, condition;
which is impossible when you're not an agency that funds drug research on all people with all conditions. A single counterexample (an existential quantification) disproves a universal quantification. Maybe computers and radar required logic skills that would've gone into law. Furthermore, (1) write a function to determine whether a given Person has a (natural inalienable) right: what information may you require? (2) write a function to determine whether any two Persons have equal rights. Furthermore, does the Constitution grant legislators the right to grant right-granting privileges to non-legislators? > Any drug on the CSA should have to be re-proven every 1-3 years to be medically dangerous to be kept on the list. One epidemiological statistic which could be used as a threshold is called "Margin of Exposure" (MOE). If alcohol sets that standard for legal dangerousness, most other substances are not too dangerous for persons with rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. > We need a Right to Body amendment at some point to get the state out of it and make drugs a health related matter not a criminal one. Alcohol Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; the Commerce Clause was already in place at the time and yet they felt that the Constitution did not enumerate the power to ban alcohol. Regarding a person's liberty over their own body and mind: liberty is a natural inalienable right. As is pursuit of happiness. A person can go buy, say, a chainsaw, and on their own property intentionally remove a limb while holding an apple in their mouth to be shot with flaming arrows on live television, and the government claims no loss; indeed the government has no right to claim loss due to dangerous acts entered into by citizens which do not infringe the rights of others. More notes on the substance abuse problem and the other problems (e.g. human trafficking) it's complicitly creating: https://is-this-valid.github.io/liberty It's good to see that the FDA recognized the medical utility of CBD. Rescheduling or descheduling would be great for research. |
A 19-year-old woman[0] is going to be serving 1 month of jail each year, for the next 6 years, due to circumstances quite similar to the example provided; perhaps rightfully so.
I do generally agree with you though -- the drug problem in the US is a health issue and (in the vast majority of situations) should not be a criminal matter. I can't fathom how we can have an AG that wants to use resources to "crack down" on marijuana when that same approach fails to curtail our opioid problems, an unquestionably more serious problem right now.
The disconnect from leadership versus on the ground 'real life' is completely unfathomable. I'm really not sure what a solution would look like when political campaigns are thriving at the extreme ends of the spectrum however.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/2...