Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Introducing a New Expert Content Section: Careers!

Guess what's happened since Portugal decriminalized personal possession of drugs

124

Replies to: Guess what's happened since Portugal decriminalized personal possession of drugs

  • nbachris2788nbachris2788 Registered User Posts: 4,447 Senior Member
    Because that is what the majority wants. Pretty simple.

    Because the majority is always right.
  • Dr.HorseDr.Horse - Posts: 1,289 Senior Member
    We don't live in a Democracy for the very reason that the mob is easily brainwashed. We live in a constitutional republic to protect the minority from the majority.
  • barronsbarrons Registered User Posts: 24,803 Senior Member
    Yes, and the Constitution does not say anything about a right to drink scotch or smoke pot. It's not protected stuff (unless you are Native American in some cases) so the majority rules. Some states are easy on it--some not so much. Choose accordingly.
  • fireforniafirefornia Registered User Posts: 140 Junior Member
    it's called the pursuit of happiness.
    The constitution was made to tell government what it Cant do not people
  • BigGBigG Registered User Posts: 3,885 Senior Member
    The Constitution was framed to protect the then soverign (under the Articles of Confederation) states from Federal government domination. We have seen how well that worked; about as well as the various treaties with Native Americans.
  • fireforniafirefornia Registered User Posts: 140 Junior Member
    Actually the constitution was written because the articles of confederation were ineffective in many ways. The states were unable to protect themselves from revolts-I.e the wiskey rebellion. So actuallythe states were soverign more so than before the constitution.
  • fireforniafirefornia Registered User Posts: 140 Junior Member
    I'm sorry I meant shays rebellion
  • barronsbarrons Registered User Posts: 24,803 Senior Member
    Well, try that pursuit of happiness angle as an excuse for not paying taxes. Not paying would sure make me much happier--but I do it.
  • BigGBigG Registered User Posts: 3,885 Senior Member
    Prohibition of alcohol was attempted during the "Prohibition Era". Basically a bunch of self-righteous temperance fanatics railroaded politicians with threats of block voting and public denunciation as "non-Christians". This from purported followers of One who turned water to wine at Cana.

    Organized crime loved it.

    The law of unintended consequences is a female canine.
  • nbachris2788nbachris2788 Registered User Posts: 4,447 Senior Member
    Yes, and the Constitution does not say anything about a right to drink scotch or smoke pot. It's not protected stuff (unless you are Native American in some cases) so the majority rules.

    You cannot be serious. So the Constitution says it's okay for the police and courts to arbitrarily criminalize products based on the prejudices of society?
  • LogicWarriorLogicWarrior - Posts: 3,670 Senior Member
    The written Constitution supported slavery and only gave voting rights to rich white people. It's supposed to be changed, there were 10 changes just a few years after it was written.
  • fireforniafirefornia Registered User Posts: 140 Junior Member
    The constitution did not support slavery. That is a outright lie.
    The founding fathers were the first to ever seriously attempt to abolish slavery.
    One must realize that the constitution would not of been ratified by all states if slavery were addressed.

    A common misconception about the founding fathers is that they were all hypocrites.
  • LogicWarriorLogicWarrior - Posts: 3,670 Senior Member
    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    "All other persons" means slaves.
    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    All slaves must be returned to their owners.
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The slave trade was constitutionally protected for 20 years.
    The constitution did not support slavery. That is a outright lie.

    You're wrong. Let's get back to discussing drugs.
  • fireforniafirefornia Registered User Posts: 140 Junior Member
    I do not think you understand that the 3/5th compromise was a win for the north(where slavery was abolished already) and reduced the power of the south(were there was slavery) by reducing the number of representatives they would have in congress.
    Like I said before, the founding fathers were the first to seriously attempt to dismantle slavery. Ofcourse this was an ongoing battle throughout history to fully abolish slavery.
    You have to be able to put history into context logic warrior. Simply pointing to a paragraph in a history text book without analyzing it, does no use.

    I would provide links and quotes to support my argument but Ive been driving from houston to los angeles since yesterday and I'm on my iPhone.

    Just google the founding fathers and slavery and you'll find plenty of good information.
  • LogicWarriorLogicWarrior - Posts: 3,670 Senior Member
    I wasn't talking about the founding fathers, but rather the lack of any inherent worth to the Constitution. It's a document that has changed for the better over the years, and may be changed for the better again.
This discussion has been closed.