There is obviously a social cost to legalize drugs like cocaine. It's silly to deny something so obvious. But there's also a cost to keeping them illegal. If anyone doubt me they could just travel to Mexico or to Chicago during the prohibition era. Which cost is the larger one?
I don't see anything in the US Constitution that grants gov't the power to regulate substance use, cognitive liberty, or human consciousness.
-
-
The commerce clause?
-
Ok, so what _wouldn't_ the commerce clause allow gov't to do?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Legally I agree with you but without the language to deal with this in our culture it will cause problems. Legally ok != Functionally/morally ok.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the whisky revolution. the constitution allows government regulation.
-
That's a terrible example...the Constitution grants the power to tax, not prohibit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
At least the early progressives had the decency to pass an Amendment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.