The War On Drugs

Finally? I assumed you already understood. Yes, I was referring to the woman who created the baby insider her own body. Pretty stupid of her to create a baby inside her own body if she didn't want one there, right?

 

Is having sexual intercourse 100% guaranteed to result in conception. Yes or no?

 

Of course not. Why do you ask that?

 

Because that completely negates your post.

 

So you're saying that the baby just magically appeared inside the mother's body? She did nothing to cause it to be there? It's not there because of something she chose to do?

 

She did not choose for it to be there.

 

Of course she did. It would not be there other than through her choice.

 

So if a woman get mugged its her fault because she CHOSE to go down the street where the mugger was, that's the logic your using.

 

Nope. The logic I'm using is that if the woman didn't have sex, then a child could not magically appear insider her body. It appeared insider her body because she chose to have sex.

 

Which does not negate the fact she didn't want it there.

 

Yes, but that court DID find a right to abortion in the Constitution, no?

 

So is it your opinion that all drugs should be legalised?

 

"The law made drug possession for personal use legally prohibited, while drug trafficking remains a criminal offense."

So it made drug possession for personal use legally prohibited?

 

The most current decision doesn't really address that one way or the other. It simply says that the issue belongs in the hands of the VOTERS in EACH STATE. Its not a federal issue.

 

This disagrees:

"If you’re a drug manufacturer or thinking of starting this type of business, you will be subject to federal and state government licensing laws. These laws also extend to anyone who distributes, dispenses, and sells prescription drugs and devices." https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/drug-manufacturing-licensing-requirements

Exactly, so all the more reason to suspect that nobody would get into the business, no?

Oh, so you would have the "shitload of money up front" which you referred to earlier? And the fact that "manufacturing drugs is all sorts of difficult, with "unreasonably controlling and onerous regs" from the FDA, would somehow not be a barrier for you? Are you special or something?

So no matter how small the meth's LD50 is, you would say that it should be perfectly legal to manufacture, but it should just be dose-regulated?

So then why do you think the founders decided to draft the Second Amendment?

What I have placed in bold, that is your personal opinion, right?

"They are in fact violating MY rights." I note that you did not say: they are in fact violating my bodily autonomy.

 

Which is harder to recover from? Meth or alcohol?

 

It's not about what the current decision addressed! Surely you understand that the court DID find a right to abortion in Roe v Wade!

 

Roe v Wade is gone... done... over... left the building. The court recognizes no such right anymore.

 

Yep.

 

Yep, its just not crime you get jailed for.

 

Well then it was a pretty stupid decision for her to have put it there.

 

She didn't.

 

Of course she did. What do you think, children just magically appear inside women's bodies?

 

Except that it IS a federal issue, by way of the 14th and 9th Amendments.

The purpose of SCOTUS is to protect the elite and the status quo.

 

You say one thing, the SCOTUS says another. SCOTUS wins.
SCOTUS isn't out to protect anyone. Its role is to ensure that the law is interpreted and enforced properly.