[HN Gopher] Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bron... ___________________________________________________________________ Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test Author : AiaAidan Score : 63 points Date : 2023-04-07 20:59 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | wellnessxyz wrote: | [flagged] | anigbrowl wrote: | I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws | are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that | rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence | of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence | of the USA. | eurleif wrote: | To oversimplify, that's why prohibition 1.0 had to be done via | constitutional amendment; but since then, we had the Wickard v. | Filburn ruling, which made virtually everything regulatable | under the Commerce Clause with its extremely broad | interpretation of the phrase "interstate commerce". | | In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew grain on his farm. He did | not sell this grain, whether across state lines or otherwise; | he merely fed it to his own livestock on the same farm. SCOTUS | ruled that this could be regulated via the Commerce Clause | because, if he grew his own grain, he could be expected to buy | less grain on the open market, which could indirectly affect | interstate commerce. By that logic, virtually anything can | affect interstate commerce, and be regulated as such. | newZWhoDis wrote: | Such an absurd ruling, but none of the current supremes have | the stones to overturn it | darkmarmot wrote: | Clarence Thomas actually dissented on this and said it was | crazy. | ceejayoz wrote: | The Ninth doesn't mean "you can't regulate anything we didn't | mention". | | It just says that any mere omission shouldn't be construed to | mean anything. The lack of an _enumerated_ right to privacy | doesn 't forbid the courts from deciding we have one. | goodells wrote: | Agreed, and virtually anything not enumerated would fall | under either the Elastic Clause[1] or the Commerce Clause[2] | giving Congress power to regulate it. | | [1] - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause | | [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause | (technically an enumerated power, but the broadest and | vaguest one by far) | tmountain wrote: | What's the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone | isn't hurting others? | comrh wrote: | Societal harm | avsteele wrote: | "This thing is inherently too risky/dangerous to use ... like | firing a gun off into the air" | watwut wrote: | Isn't the whole objection that it might hurt others? | metadat wrote: | This is dead wrong, and an extremely ignorant take. As an | analogy, it doesn't really translate to personal drug use. | | Firing a gun into the air is ill-advised and illegal | because such bullets have a tendency to randomly impact and | maim or murder bystanders within a radius of a couple of | miles. | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/15/fir | i... | | https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling- | bull... | tastyfreeze wrote: | With the welfare state that exists, a common argument is that | people that destroy their bodies or brains are a burden on | "society". | heap_perms wrote: | I sincerely think that even if all drugs were legal, the | rate of consumption wouldn't necessarily increase much. | "People who take drugs "don't give a damn if they're legal, | generally speaking. | tastyfreeze wrote: | I agree. I don't think there should be a prohibition on | any drugs as it is a personal choice and humans have been | drug consumers for millennia. Drug use isn't something | that can be legislated away. | reducesuffering wrote: | Imagine opioid pills were OTC. For a lot of people, they will | initially be instant feel-good happy pills, even though | people know there will be disastrous repercussions to taking | them indefinitely. How many people go through bouts of severe | depression? Won't some percentage of them, in moments of | weakness, decide to try the opioid pills, feel good, and get | sucked in? Shouldn't we as a society, try to curb humanity's | worst impulses for their greater good, like parents do for | their unknowing child? | justinator wrote: | I hear what you're saying, and generally I agree. But then | I also see how alcohol (which for all intents and purposes | will be our stand-in for opioids) abuse has ripped apart | lives and families. | frant-hartm wrote: | No we shouldn't. There is a big difference between a parent | safely bringing up a child and a state interfering with | what an adult person does to themselves. Otherwise you open | a can of greater good worms. | | If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers | throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. | Yes there are individual cases, but most of these would be | destroying their lives in some other available way if | opiods weren't available, like heavy use of alcohol. | Tao3300 wrote: | It usually boils down to someone's sky daddy not liking it. | magila wrote: | Drug prohibition in the US was motivated more by hate for | black/brown people than sky daddies. | yyyyttttvvvv wrote: | [flagged] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-04-07 23:00 UTC)