What is a better solution than stop and frisk

Were? Both are still in use.

 

1. No they aren't. You give someone who wants to get high the limited choices of oxycodone or meth, and neither of those choices are very good. Freedom of choice will gravitate towards less risky options.

2. Decriminalize everything and turn imprisonment for drug use and addiction for harder drugs into mandatory treatment with no criminal penalties.

3. Sure. Kids shouldn't use drugs. Just like kids shouldn't drink.

But we don't make alcohol illegal for all adults in order to prevent kids from drinking, do we?

 

Absolutely......

The notion that if drugs were legal that people will just run out and get high is ridiculous...

Look, if people want drugs they're available. It's not like they're hard to get now. The problem with now is that they're illegal and we have gangs fighting over the best areas to sell drugs.

If drugs were legal the gangs wouldn't be fighting over drug turf - they would essentially be put out of business.

 

The alcohol prohibition argument is a poor one, because there are so many differences between alcohol and the kinds of drugs killing children. There are differences in why people use drugs. There are differences in the kinds of people using drugs.

 

Alcohol kills plenty of kids every year. Should we ban alcohol for adults to stop it from happening?

 

Prohibition is not Regulation.

 

It most certainly is. You regulated an item to the point where its forbidden.

 

to regulate means to make regular; did you forget your, "gun catechism"?

 

Obfuscation; you're merely deflecting. The Chinese are introducing compounds faster than we can outlaw them; many are life threatening, so it's not like there will never be need for law. It's simply a question of where we draw the line.

 

Compliance with the provisions of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. No person can be searched without probably cause. "Stop and Frisk" is not based upon probable cause and that clearly violates the US Constitution.

Is it really surprising that when it comes to the US Constitution more often than not it's the "conservatives" that oppose following it.

 

Shooting lessons so innocents are not accidentally killed?

 

I think black males need a huge dose of man the phuck up. They cant accept the reality or truth that blacks males disproportionately commit crime way more than other races.

Off topic, but this whole black lives matter bs pisses me off. Blacks seem to believe they have a right to be aggressive with police officers and resist being arrested without getting dropped.

 

reg·u·late
[ˈreɡyəˌlāt]
VERB
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly:
"a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function"
synonyms: control · adjust · [more]
control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations:
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"
synonyms: supervise · [more]
set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard.

In the modern sense "regulate" means to have control, usually in legal sense to restrict or have government oversight. Prohibition is a form of regulation.

 

gun lovers or the right, don't care about natural rights if it is not about guns.

 

Then, why are gun lovers upset about wellness of "regulation" for the unorganized militia regarding guns. According to You, simply Prohibiting guns is ok, because the term, well regulated, appears in our Second Amendment.

Only the right never gets it.

 

The real epidemic in this country is coming from pharmaceutical company created synthetic opioids.

You said killing drug dealers was the solution, so when are you going to lead a death squad into the Pfiser offices?

 

I've seen countless lives effected by heroin, life long addicts; in my own immediate family there have been at least three deaths over the last forty years. And sure today they're lacing it with far more dangerous opioids. But it's not for citizens to execute the dealers; I want the state to execute them. I want zero tolerance and a mandatory death penalty for all drug dealers.

 

Because "regulate" meant something different at the time of the writing of the constitution. It changed since then.

 

Do not let them frisk you,
Just show them all the compartments including the contents of your pocket.

 

moving the goalposts?

it means, to make regular.

don't forget your gun catechism.

 

So you want to increase the profit margins for heroin, thus ensuring the black market becomes even more entrenched?

 

Did you know, that the US government is the largest purchaser of drugs, in the entire world?

 

No I'm not and no it doesn't. Words change meanings throughout history. The word "cool" meant not hot and the word "gay" meant happy. The same with "regulate" when referring to the constitution we use the definitions of that time. When talking about modern legislation we use modern definitions. The word "regulate" during the 1700s meant "well trained" and today it means "having government oversight." Where on earth are you getting your definition?

 

Or you can walk around naked. There's not much places to conceal a weapon.

 

Are you claiming to regulate, does not mean and imply and express, to make regular

or,

to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:

In Any Case;

this is the actual text of the social Power actually delegated by the People (who are the militia):

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

The social Power delegated is to Regulate (even Controversial forms of) Commerce.

Thus, there must be some trade in Order to regulate it.

Prohibition, regulates, nothing.

The proof is, legal drugs have an FDA label on them. A, proof positive, form of regulation.

Is it merely sloth on the part of our federal Congress; you decide.

- - - Updated - - -

i agree to let women, take point, on this one.