Decriminalization and/or legalization of illicit drugs in the United States?

[d97c]

You really ready for pot to be advertised on the Super Bowl ads? Bongs, clips, cookies…Hey its America !! If pot is legalized, I want to file the lawsuit to allow pot and paraphernalia to be advertised LIKE beer…You people who equate booz and pot going to change your logic and now say that pot and beer should NOT be treated the same???

Catholics who want to learn facts can read the following and go to

teen-alcohol-addiction.com/teen_addiction/teen-marijuana-and-alcohol-abuse-can-lead-to-brain-damage.php

MARIJUANA AND INCARCERATION

Federal marijuana investigations and prosecutions usually involve hundreds of pounds of marijuana. Few defendants are incarcerated in federal prison for simple possession of marijuana.

In 2001, there were 24,299 offenders sentenced in federal court on drug charges. Of those, only 2.3 per cent (186 people) were sentenced for simple possession.55 In addition, it is important to recognize that many inmates were initially charged with more serious crimes but negotiated reduced charges to simple possession through plea agreements.56

According to the latest survey data in a 2005 ONDCP study, marijuana accounted for 13 per cent of all state drug offenders in 1997, and of the inmates convicted of marijuana offenses, only 0.7 per cent were incarcerated for marijuana possession alone.57

THE FOREIGN EXPERIENCE

The Netherlands

Due to international pressure on permissive Dutch cannabis policy and domestic complaints over the spread of marijuana “coffee shops,” the government of the Netherlands has reconsidered its legalization measures. After marijuana became normalized, consumption nearly tripled – from 15 per cent to 44 per cent – among 18 to 20 year-old Dutch youth.58 As a result of stricter local government policies, the number of cannabis “coffeehouses” in the Netherlands was reduced – from 1,179 in 199759 to 737 in 2004, a 37 per cent decrease in 7 years.60

About 70 per cent of Dutch towns have a zero-tolerance policy toward cannabis cafes.61

In August 2004, after local governments began clamping down on cannabis “coffeehouses” seven years earlier, the government of the Netherlands formally announced a shift in its cannabis policy through the United National International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). According to “an inter-ministerial policy paper on cannabis, the government acknowledged that ‘cannabis is not harmless’ – neither for the abusers, nor for the community.” Netherlands intends to reduce the number of coffee shops (especially those near border areas and schools), closely monitor drug tourism, and implement an action plan to discourage cannabis use. This public policy change brings the Netherlands "closer towards full compliance with the international drug control treaties with regard to cannabis."62

Dr. Ernest Bunning, formerly with Holland’s Ministry of Health and a principal proponent of that country’s liberal drug philosophy, has acknowledged that, "[t]here are young people who abuse soft drugs . . . particularly those that have [a] high THC [content]. The place that cannabis takes in their lives becomes so dominant they don’t have space for the other important things in life. They crawl out of bed in the morning, grab a joint, don’t work, smoke another joint. They don’t know what to do with their lives."63

Switzerland

Liberalization of marijuana laws in Switzerland has likewise produced damaging results. After liberalization, Switzerland became a magnet for drug users from many other countries. In 1987, Zurich permitted drug use and sales in a part of the city called Platzpitz, dubbed “Needle Park.” By 1992, the number of regular drug users at the park reportedly swelled from a “few hundred at the outset in 1987 to about 20,000.” The area around the park became crime-ridden, forcing closure of the park. The experiment has since been terminated.64
Canada:

After a large decline in the 1980s, marijuana use among teens increased during the 1990s as young people became “confused about the state of federal pot law” in the wake of an aggressive decriminalization campaign, according to a special adviser to Health Canada’s Director General of drug strategy. Several Canadian drug surveys show that marijuana use among Canadian youth has steadily climbed to surpass its 26-year peak, rising to 29.6 per cent of youth in grades 7-12 in 2003.65
United Kingdom:

In March 2005, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke took the unprecedented step of calling “for a rethink on Labour’s legal downgrading of cannabis” from a Class B to a Class C substance. Mr. Clarke requested that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs complete a new report, taking into account recent studies showing a link between cannabis and psychosis and also considering the more potent cannabis referred to as "skunk."66

In 2005, during a general election speech to concerned parents, British Prime Minister Tony Blair noted that medical evidence increasingly suggests that cannabis is not as harmless as people think and warned parents that young people who smoke cannabis could move on to harder drugs.67

 

[d97c]

THE LEGALIZATION LOBBY

The proposition that smoked marijuana is “medicine” is, in sum, false – trickery used by those promoting wholesale legalization. When a statute dramatically reducing penalties for “medical” marijuana took effect in Maryland in October 2003, a defense attorney noted that “[t]here are a whole bunch of people who like marijuana who can now try to use this defense.” The attorney observed that lawyers would be “neglecting their clients if they did not try to find out what ‘physical, emotional or psychological’” condition could be enlisted to develop a defense to justify a defendant’s using the drug. “Sometimes people are self-medicating without even realizing it,’” he said.68

Ed Rosenthal, senior editor of High Times, a pro-drug magazine, once revealed the legalizer strategy behind the “medical” marijuana movement. While addressing an effort to seek public sympathy for glaucoma patients, he said, “I have to tell you that I also use marijuana medically. I have a latent glaucoma which has never been diagnosed. The reason why it’s never been diagnosed is because I’ve been treating it.” He continued, "I have to be honest, there is another reason why I do use marijuana . . . and that is because I like to get high. Marijuana is fun."69

A few billionaires—not broad grassroots support—started and sustain the “medical” marijuana and drug legalization movements in the United States. Without their money and influence, the drug legalization movement would shrivel. According to National Families in Action, four individuals – George Soros, Peter Lewis, George Zimmer and John Sperling – contributed $1,510,000 to the effort to pass a “medical” marijuana law in California in 1996, a sum representing nearly 60 per cent of the total contributions.70

In 2000, The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelmann, Director of the Lindesmith Center. Responding to criticism that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelmann stated: "Will it help lead toward marijuana legalization? . . . I hope so."71

In 2004, Alaska voters faced a ballot initiative that would have made it legal for adults age 21 and older to possess, grow, buy, or give away marijuana. The measure also called for state regulation and taxation of the drug. The campaign was funded almost entirely by the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which provided “almost all” the $857,000 taken in by the pro-marijuana campaign. Fortunately, Alaskan voters rejected the initiative.72

In October 2005, Denver voters passed Initiative 100 decriminalizing marijuana based on incomplete and misleading campaign advertisements put forth by the Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER). A Denver City Councilman complained that the group used the slogan “Make Denver SAFER” on billboards and campaign signs to mislead the voters into thinking that the initiative supported increased police staffing. Indeed, the Denver voters were never informed of the initiative’s true intent to decriminalize marijuana.73

? The legalization movement is not simply a harmless academic exercise. The mortal danger of thinking that marijuana is “medicine” was graphically illustrated by a story from California. In the spring of 2004, Irma Perez was “in the throes of her first experience with the drug ecstasy” when, after taking one ecstasy tablet, she became ill and told friends that she felt like she was “going to die.” Two teenage acquaintances did not seek medical care and instead tried to get Perez to smoke marijuana. When that failed due to her seizures, the friends tried to force-feed marijuana leaves to her, “apparently because [they] knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients.” Irma Perez lost consciousness and d

Continued Declines in Marijuana Use among Youth

In 2005, the Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey recorded an overall 19.1 per cent decrease in current use of illegal drugs between 2001 and 2005, edging the nation closer to its five-year goal of a 25 per cent reduction in illicit drug use in 2006. Specific to marijuana, the 2005 MTF survey showed:

Between 2001 and 2005, marijuana use dropped in all three categories: lifetime (13%), past year (15%) and 30-day use (19%). Current marijuana use decreased 28 per cent among 8th graders (from 9.2% to 6.6%), and 23 per cent among 10th graders (from 19.8 per cent to 15.2%).75

 

[ahollars]

With regard to the way the war is fought, and I can personally verify this, the DEA is only interested in going after traffickers who supply dealers and locating the labs and/or crops. We also enforce the regulations regarding legal, controlled substances. We have agents spread across the country, but there aren’t as many as you may think. The DEA does not have the manpower of the FBI.

As for the rational comparing it to the prohibition, that was doomed from the start. Alcohol is as old as Noah, and violence never followed it, because it is not that difficult to make. Many of the drugs on the street are recent creations that have had violence follow them from their beginnings.

Legalizing it will solve nothing, unless you also agree that it shouldn’t be regulated either. 21 is the drinking age, 18 in some places, but teenagers everywhere are too young. Does that stop them? Does that mean teenage drinking should be legal as well? Does that mean the government’s enforcement is causing the problem, unjust, ineffective, or counterproductive? Same for smoking, too. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean there won’t be abuse. Take a look at steriods.

I am all for education, and so is the DEA, but that does not mean enforcement will shift or that the law will change.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Drugs are older than alcohol, no one developed marijuana or aspirin for that matter.

The well meaning attempt to reduce liberty and freedom in order to reduce drug abuse simply did not work and all data bears that out. Today the Federal Government has grown unjustly powerful on this issue. Today the DEA, FBI, CIA, State police, and local police are all HEAVLY DEPENDENT ON THE DRUG BUSINESS, for jobs, and budgets. They are joined by congress and the major drug manufactures. The average American citizen pays a higher price from the legal aspect of drugs than from the illegal aspect of drugs. That is simple the way it is.

 

[ahollars]

Drugs are older than alcohol, no one developed marijuana or aspirin for that matter.

The well meaning attempt to reduce liberty and freedom in order to reduce drug abuse simply did not work and all data bears that out. Today the Federal Government has grown unjustly powerful on this issue. Today the DEA, FBI, CIA, State police, and local police are all HEAVLY DEPENDENT ON THE DRUG BUSINESS, for jobs, and budgets. They are joined by congress and the major drug manufactures. The average American citizen pays a higher price from the legal aspect of drugs than from the illegal aspect of drugs. That is simple the way it is.

:hypno: I suppose next you’ll say that NSA is listening to our conversations by tapping into our phones. FYI, I wish we had that capability.

Heavily dependent?! The FBI, CIA, and police forces all have missions that have nothing to do with drugs, and the vast majority of their work has nothing at all to do with drugs. If anything, state and local police forces make more money from traffic fines than they do from drug busts. Even if the drugs were legalized, you would still need the DEA to enforce the regulations of said drugs. Drug use is up because our population has boomed, and drug dealers have more than just AK-47’s for weaponry, and those weapons are obviously not made in America. Finally, greed isn’t the only motive. Heroine money goes back to poppy farms in the Middle East where it is used to fund Islamic terrorism. This isn’t just about Woodstock pot or cocaine sold by the Bloods and Crips anymore. I have watched my brother-in-law lose his mind from using crystal meth to the point where I don’t know him anymore. Our War on Drugs is a just war, and the fight must go on.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

:hypno: I suppose next you’ll say that NSA is listening to our conversations by tapping into our phones. FYI, I wish we had that capability.

Heavily dependent?! The FBI, CIA, and police forces all have missions that have nothing to do with drugs, and the vast majority of their work has nothing at all to do with drugs

And there it is again “Lets pretend this to be true” so we never look at facts

. If anything, state and local police forces make more money from traffic fines than they do from drug busts.

“Lets pretend this to be true” so we can believe the public begs to fund traffic tickets.

Even if the drugs were legalized, you would still need the DEA to enforce the regulations of said drugs. Drug use is up because our population has boomed, and drug dealers have more than just AK-47’s for weaponry, and those weapons are obviously not made in America. Finally, greed isn’t the only motive. Heroine money goes back to poppy farms in the Middle East where it is used to fund Islamic terrorism. This isn’t just about Woodstock pot or cocaine sold by the Bloods and Crips anymore.

Who benefits them those who make it illegal so 90% profit is common, or those who use economic free market standards (cost = price)?

I have watched my brother-in-law lose his mind from using crystal meth to the point where I don’t know him anymore. Our War on Drugs is a just war, and the fight must go on.

How is it possible for your brother in law to have a drug problem, as that drug is illegal in the USA? Is your brother in law living outside the US? Do you practice a different standard for him (punishment is bad for him)?

 

[ahollars]

Unbelieveable. I suppose you’ll tell me that these numbers are not real:

VIrginia State Police: Budget Strategic Plan

Note: “drug money” falls into the category of “court awards of seized assets”.

Who benefits them those who make it illegal so 90% profit is common, or those who use economic free market standards (cost = price)?

Cost does not equal prices with items that create a dependency, legal or not. Just look at the health care system that liberals love to complain about.

How is it possible for your brother in law to have a drug problem, as that drug is illegal in the USA? Is your brother in law living outside the US? Do you practice a different standard for him (punishment is bad for him)?

I am not diluted like some people who insist on protecting family at the expense of what is right. Punishment is not bad for him, and I hope he rots in jail for what he did to my sister and nieces, but there was a time when he did his duty right by them.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Unbelieveable. I suppose you’ll tell me that these numbers are not real:

VIrginia State Police: Budget Strategic Plan

they support my assertion, it is unclear whether the 1,581 for 15 million is completely independent of the 3,546 for 13 million however it becomes are seizers alone a 1.3 million or 2.2 million dollar a month category. either way they employee large numbers of the police. All the categories have drug contributions.

Note: “drug money” falls into the category of “court awards of seized assets”.

your looking at the wrong money

Cost does not equal prices with items that create a dependency, legal or not. Just look at the health care system that liberals love to complain about.

? it is called a risk premium

I am not diluted like some people who insist on protecting family at the expense of what is right. Punishment is not bad for him, and I hope he rots in jail for what he did to my sister and nieces, but there was a time when he did his duty right by them.

? ? I can not follow your post. If he did drugs then he went to jail was punished and no problems exist RIGHT. If not the current system does not work.

 

[wabrams]

You may think I am joking but the more www.justice.gov I read the more I believe the Justice department is a bigger problem than any legalized drug could ever be !!! Their data shows the war on drugs is increasing drug use!!! Also look at this statement “The increasing use of marijuana is responsible for more than increased crime” justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm now would that seem like a statement deserving of a reference? The concept of their opinion being accepted as unquestionable fact is far more dangerous than any drug. Add to that the constant contradiction more drug war = more drug use, and reduction of liberty to increase “justice” power which corresponded to increase drug abuse. That is wacko logic, unless you desire power which could be gained through pretending to work at the justice department. So is it about power or drug use?

Very, very true. After DARE was implemented, drug use went up among youth enough to raise some eyebrows.

 

[wabrams]

You really ready for pot to be advertised on the Super Bowl ads? Bongs, clips, cookies…Hey its America !! If pot is legalized, I want to file the lawsuit to allow pot and paraphernalia to be advertised LIKE beer…You people who equate booz and pot going to change your logic and now say that pot and beer should NOT be treated the same???

It wouldn’t be advertised on tv just like cigarettes and cigars aren’t advertised on tv.

:hypno: I suppose next you’ll say that NSA is listening to our conversations by tapping into our phones. FYI, I wish we had that capability.

I’d be willing to bet that we have that capability. But texasroofer is correct, drug enforcement brings in big bucks to law enforcement, especially county and municipality. All they have to say is “homeland security” or “drug problem” and they get a substantial chunk of change. Plus, property seized through drug busts (cars, houses, boats, planes, etc) get auctioned off to help fund the departments that seized them.

Don’t know if you are aware of the, but the DEA will seize business that are used as fronts for drug cartels and then turn them over to the US Marshal Service, who then business awhile before selling it. Who keeps those profits in the interim? The federal agencies. Got an MBA? Apply to the US Marshal Service and see how quickly you get hired.

and drug dealers have more than just AK-47’s for weaponry, and those weapons are obviously not made in America. Finally, greed isn’t the only motive.

Your average drug dealer on the street carries junk guns they can just toss after a crime. You’re not going to spend $400+ on a gun you’ll use once and then trash it.

Heroine money goes back to poppy farms in the Middle East where it is used to fund Islamic terrorism. This isn’t just about Woodstock pot or cocaine sold by the Bloods and Crips anymore. I have watched my brother-in-law lose his mind from using crystal meth to the point where I don’t know him anymore. Our War on Drugs is a just war, and the fight must go on.

I agree that heroine and crystal meth and the like should remain banned; but the illegalization of marijuanna & cocaine was based purely on lies and sensationalism. Remember, alcohol got thrown in that mix as well.

 

[ahollars]

I give up. As I said before, I handle information that is not open to the public. I see the reports from various divisions, and the orders going out, and our aim has nothing to do with losers in their basements getting stoned. If people want medical marijuana or cocaine, then they need to wait for the FDA to finish its studies like with any other drug, but don’t get your hopes up. Drug dealers do what they do because their operations are cheaper than anything a pharmaceutical company can construct. To change that you would still need a system of regulation, and their would still be abuse. Until then, what is happening now should not be ignored or considered minor, let alone unjustified.

 

[d97c]

In the 80s, when we had lots of anti drug messages, and DARE, drug use went down…when you have lots of anti smoking messages…smoking goes down…
Strong messages and the stick of effective and swift prosecution…you cut the rate of use. Drugs are for losers!!! Why do you think they call it DOPE !!!
…(that’ll get em mad !!!)

 

[Jermosh]

With regard to the way the war is fought, and I can personally verify this, the DEA is only interested in going after traffickers who supply dealers and locating the labs and/or crops. We also enforce the regulations regarding legal, controlled substances. We have agents spread across the country, but there aren’t as many as you may think. The DEA does not have the manpower of the FBI.

As for the rational comparing it to the prohibition, that was doomed from the start. Alcohol is as old as Noah, and violence never followed it, because it is not that difficult to make. Many of the drugs on the street are recent creations that have had violence follow them from their beginnings.

Legalizing it will solve nothing, unless you also agree that it shouldn’t be regulated either. 21 is the drinking age, 18 in some places, but teenagers everywhere are too young. Does that stop them? Does that mean teenage drinking should be legal as well? Does that mean the government’s enforcement is causing the problem, unjust, ineffective, or counterproductive? Same for smoking, too. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean there won’t be abuse. Take a look at steriods.

I am all for education, and so is the DEA, but that does not mean enforcement will shift or that the law will change.

Some of the most historically known Gang violence was directly due to bootlegging. Criminilizing anything only puts money in the pocket of criminals.

That said, some drugs have been used just as long as alchohol, infact they are all chemical stimulants.

 

[d97c]

For parents of Catholic kids…there are some good things to help your kids to not use drugs or at least get the information to help them avoid use.

1. Talk about the dangers in terms of people who have ruined their lives or died from them (links posted previously)
2. Give them the real facts and answer their questions about what they hear from High Times or their stroner pals…or stoner Catholic Answers posters…
3. You cant be with them 24/7, but you can open your eyes and be tough when it comes to drug use and toleration…

justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html

Learn about steroids…kids see their sports heros use them…

justice.gov/dea/concern/steroids.html

Learn to speak out AGAINST legalization !!!
justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/speaking_out-may03.pdf

and then PRAY that this nation will fight and win against drug legalization…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In the 80s, when we had lots of anti drug messages, and DARE, drug use went down…when you have lots of anti smoking messages…smoking goes down…
Strong messages and the stick of effective and swift prosecution…you cut the rate of use. Drugs are for losers!!! Why do you think they call it DOPE !!!
…(that’ll get em mad !!!)

Smoking is not illegal thus it follows free market economics the price has reason from ~$0.50/pack to ~$4.00/pack thus the demand dropped. Illegal drugs enjoy a risk premium often 10x cost. Whether illegal drug use rose or not in the 1970s depends on which numbers you look at, if you look at all ages who ever tried a drug the numbers are up moving from 12% to 24%. (whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/). All that information is bunk because it is generated to FUND DRUGS both sides “government” and illegal producers need the “advertizing”. The real issue involves a small percent of the population which is or becomes addicted. Today that small population has abundant access to drugs both legal and illegal which is why the current system is utter failure. We should repeal the current drug laws, install misdemeanor laws and implement addiction systems.

 

[wabrams]

For parents of Catholic kids…there are some good things to help your kids to not use drugs or at least get the information to help them avoid use.

1. Talk about the dangers in terms of people who have ruined their lives or died from them (links posted previously)
2. Give them the real facts and answer their questions about what they hear from High Times or their stroner pals…or stoner Catholic Answers posters…
3. You cant be with them 24/7, but you can open your eyes and be tough when it comes to drug use and toleration…

justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html

Learn about steroids…kids see their sports heros use them…

justice.gov/dea/concern/steroids.html

Learn to speak out AGAINST legalization !!!
justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/speaking_out-may03.pdf

and then PRAY that this nation will fight and win against drug legalization…

Whom are you refering too?

 

[PPeterson]

i’m hoping that we’ll legalize drugs by the time I retire. I abstain because it’s illegal, and for the well being of my family, but I’d very much enjoy the odd bowl or mushroom cap every few months or so someday.

 

[stringbeanduck]

For parents of Catholic kids…there are some good things to help your kids to not use drugs or at least get the information to help them avoid use.

1. Talk about the dangers in terms of people who have ruined their lives or died from them (links posted previously)
2. Give them the real facts and answer their questions about what they hear from High Times or their stroner pals…or stoner Catholic Answers posters…
3. You cant be with them 24/7, but you can open your eyes and be tough when it comes to drug use and toleration…

justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html

Learn about steroids…kids see their sports heros use them…

justice.gov/dea/concern/steroids.html

Learn to speak out AGAINST legalization !!!
justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/speaking_out-may03.pdf

and then PRAY that this nation will fight and win against drug legalization…

So this shouldn’t apply to atheist kids, protestant kids, and other religions? Don’t you think you’re being bias? I personally think all kids of any ethnic backround should be talked about the negative impacts that drugs have.

Also who you calling stoner Catholic posters? That is a fallacy of assumption.

Well the problem I have with that DEA site is that they don’t back up all their statement’s with scientific studies and/or statistics. And statements like that without something to back them up are not facts. If I told you I was 100years old, would that be a fact? No. If I told you I was 100 years gave you a copy of my birth certificate that would be a fact. For example DEA talks about this Alaska study, but doesn’t give the actual study to look at. How am I to know the conditions this study was done under? The DEA sure has a lot of statements claiming that we shouldn’t follow Dutch policies, but fails to mention that drug usage among the Netherlands is a lot lower than that of the U.S.

In 1975, Alaska’s Supreme Court held that under their State Constitution an adult could possess marijuana for personal consumption in the home.
The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. A 1988 University of Alaska survey showed that the state’s teenagers used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. The report also showed a frequency of marijuana use that suggested it wasn’t experimental, but a well incorporated practice for teens.
Fed up with this dangerous experiment, Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana. But 15 years of legalization left its mark-increased drug use by a generation of our youth.

First, the DEA failed to link me to the actual “study” that was done. Just because they are the DEA doesn’t mean they don’t have give a link. That is an Appeal to Authority which makes it mere weak propaganda. To me that shows a huge embarrassment in such an organization. If I’m going to support them, then I expect nothing below excellence! Not showing me the study is not excellence in my book!
I would put this in my own words, but I lack the time to do so. But this counter’s the Alaska study.

By 1979, eleven states containing 32.6% of the U.S. population[1] had “decriminalized” marijuana, i.e., a jail sentence was no longer a penalty option for somebody apprehended with a small quantity of marijuana.[2] Offenders in these states typically are not arrested: They are given a written citation at the site of the offense, similar to a traffic ticket, and they are required to pay a small civil fine.
The federally funded researchers who have been studying high school students’ drug use and attitudes since the mid-1970s examined the effects of criminal penalties on marijuana use and attitudes during the time period of 1975-1980. Reported usage rates (lifetime, annual, monthly, and daily) among high school seniors in the decriminalized states were compared to the rates in the rest of the states, where criminal penalties remained in effect. The researchers concluded that “decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people in this age group.”
-------- “Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth, 1975-1980,” Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper 13, L. Johnston, J. Bachman, and P. O’Malley; Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1981; Pp. 27-29.

 

[d97c]

Wellllllllllllll…first…this site is called CATHOLIC ANSWERS !! so talking to Catholics is hardly…ummmm…“biased.” Why would an athiest be on this site?
Maybe there is a site called www.“Athiest Druggies”.com
Ora pro nobis !!

 

[TenBobNote]

Why does the federal government have any right to determine what goes into an individual’s body?

What the federal government is doing is unconstitutional, therefore illegal, therefore anti Catholic, according to the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.