[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)