Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

mercedesrules
May 23, 2005, 03:06 PM
Gun Control and the War on Drugs
by Anthony Gregory (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0502e.asp)

"Many opponents of gun control support the war on drugs, and many critics and reformers of America's drug laws tend to believe in gun control. Conservatives tend to fall into the first category and liberals into the second.

In reality, these two issues are more similar than many people might think...."

"Both types of laws are terribly immoral, as they are affronts to basic personal liberty."

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Werewolf
May 23, 2005, 03:17 PM
The author is a day late and a dollar short. Most THR's figured this out ages ago...In both cases -- laws that restrict which guns people may buy, own, and carry; and laws that restrict which drugs people may buy, possess, and ingest -- what we're dealing with are possession crimes: victimless offenses against the state, whereby merely having something is branded a crime and punishable by fines and imprisonment.

Both types of laws are terribly immoral, as they are affronts to basic personal liberty. In a free society, all individuals own themselves and the products of their labor and exchange, and are free to do as they wish so long as they do not commit violence and fraud against other people. Arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people for the weapons they choose to own or the drugs they choose to consume are immoral violations of the rights of self-ownership, and the corollary rights to control one's own body and property. "Many opponents of gun control support the war on drugs, and many critics and reformers of America's drug laws tend to believe in gun control. Conservatives tend to fall into the first category and liberals into the second.Maybe... But probably not. The author is assuming that conservative=gun owner/RKBA mindset. Not necessarily so. IMO most gun owners who believe in the RKBA also believe that the WOD's and drug laws fall into the same BS category as gun control laws.

Still - all in all - a good article well worth the read.

Henry Bowman
May 23, 2005, 04:57 PM
I largly agree with respect to possession. No one is harmed by mere possession. However, both carry inherent responsibilities for their use and/or misuse.

I don't need to discuss the criminal and civil implications of gun use/misuse whether for sport or self defense (or for tyranny control). The implication of drug use/misuse would be greatly minimized were it not for our current social and medical welfare system. But it is what it is, and I don't want to have to pay for some stoner or tweeker's food/housing/children/medical care.

javafiend
May 23, 2005, 05:07 PM
But it is what it is, and I don't want to have to pay for some stoner or tweeker's food/housing/children/medical care.

And especially not his incarceration at $40,000 per year.

pete f
May 23, 2005, 05:09 PM
possession of Crack or meth harms all those around, heroin too. If yolu think not then you living a dream.

Henry Bowman
May 23, 2005, 05:17 PM
possession of Crack or meth harms all those around, heroin too. How so? We are talking possession, not production or use.


And especially not his incarceration at $40,000 per year. Agreed. And alcohol use/misuse has its own set of social/medical costs. But how do we adjust the system (without massive breakdown) to allow drug possession and its attendant use/misuse?

mercedesrules
May 23, 2005, 05:18 PM
possession of Crack or meth harms all those around, heroin too.

Exactly how, Pete? :confused:

javafiend
May 23, 2005, 05:26 PM
But how do we adjust the system (without massive breakdown) to allow drug possession and its attendant use/misuse?

An excellent question.

See Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566398592/qid=1113885047/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-4114179-9719101?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by James P. Grey, a California Superior Court justice.

Henry Bowman
May 23, 2005, 05:33 PM
Java, that book looks very interesting, but pricey. If anyone will loan me a copy, I will read it and return it. If it's as good as it sounds, I'll buy 2 copies to loan out to anyone who will read it. (Or I'll check my local library.)

mercedesrules
May 23, 2005, 05:37 PM
But how do we adjust the system (without massive breakdown) to allow drug possession and its attendant use/misuse?


Coercive, socialistic systems cannot be improved by adjustment, reform or fine-tuning; they must be repealed. Everyone should pay for his own medical treatments.

Justin
May 23, 2005, 05:49 PM
Or have his/her medical treatment covered by insurance coverage, family members, or chartible/religious organizations.

Gordon Fink
May 23, 2005, 05:51 PM
“Possession of [ … ] harms all those around. If you think not then you’re living a dream.”

Insert your demon of choice, be it guns, drugs, books, intelligence, etc.

~G. Fink

Old Dog
May 23, 2005, 06:12 PM
Insert your demon of choice, be it guns, drugs, books, intelligence, etc. No.

Gun owners, book owners/readers, etc. can be productive members of society, capable of raising children, holding jobs, participating in the society. After a certain point, your addicted crackhead or tweaker is incapble of functioning as a productive member of society.

jnojr
May 23, 2005, 06:15 PM
What would be the point of legalizing possession of a drug, but not its use?

People who are addicted to heroin, crystal meth, etc. are not capable of being part of society. Their addiction and lifestyle choices leave them incapable of supporting themselves, so they must commit crimes to supply their habit. So, yeah, I want to see tweakers, dopers, etc. jailed... as long as they're in jail, they aren't mugging me or breaking into my home. As long as we, as a society, aren't willing to put a bullet in the back of their head, we have to either pay to incarcerate them, or pay a much greater cost in property losses, injuries, illness, higher insurance premiums, security, etc.

Art Eatman
May 23, 2005, 06:17 PM
Golly, gee, Batman, how did the country survive when opium and cocaine and marijuana and laughing gas and peyote were legal? How did we ever make it through those hundred and some-odd years?

Oh. The U.S. of A. is merely a fig-newton of my imagination...

Art

mercedesrules
May 23, 2005, 06:18 PM
No.

Gun owners, book owners/readers, etc. can be productive members of society, capable of raising children, holding jobs, participating in the society. After a certain point, your addicted crackhead or tweaker is incapble of functioning as a productive member of society.
Does everyone owe "society" a certain number of children or amount of participation and production?

Art Eatman
May 23, 2005, 06:27 PM
"...your addicted crackhead or tweaker is incapble of functioning as a productive member of society."

So what? Where is it written that everybody MUST be a productive member of society?

Bet: There are more non-addicts who are non-productive than there are addicts who are non-productive.

Ah, well. If we just pass enough laws and write enough regulations, we'll have us a warm, snuggly perfect world...

Art

Matthew748
May 23, 2005, 07:29 PM
If people would sign some sort of legal release forfeiting their rights to any and all government sponsored social care programs in exchange for the right to use “hard” drugs I would be one third of the way towards being in favor of total legalization. To get another third of my support, the federal government would have to truly embrace the 2nd amendment and allow all citizens to carry concealed weapons without any permits or licenses like we have today. To get the final third, nation wide laws streamlining self defense cases would have to be put in place.

Its all well and good for someone in a very rural or low crime area to talk about putting events like these in motion, its another when you live in within walking distance (OK, 15 minute car ride distance) from terrible areas that no sane person would walk at night. I know that this is within my power to change, and I am working on it.

Of course, this is totally pointless and will never happen. If it did, the do-gooders would still force the working class to pick up the tab, gun laws would keep getting stricter, and self defense cases would still be dependent on state laws and political bias.

Unrestricted access to opiates worked years ago because life was hard. Its that simple. If you screwed up and did not have family to help, the best you could hope for were hand outs from a church. In the 1850s there was no such thing as welfare or social security.

centac
May 23, 2005, 07:38 PM
The society of 1850 didnt have the distribution mechanisms of today. Furthermore, life expectencies were low enough that drug use was largely a self correcting problem.

rdbrowning
May 23, 2005, 07:49 PM
Centac wrote "drug use was largely a self correcting problem" and I think that the observation is pretty close.

"drug use IS largely a self correcting problem"

I believe that if hte flood gates were opened the prices would drop, as with any free market comodity. Then those that can afford to will blow or sniff their brains out. Same effect on the gene pool as a good shot of chlorine.

Standing Wolf
May 23, 2005, 08:09 PM
...how do we adjust the system (without massive breakdown) to allow drug possession and its attendant use/misuse?

It's not up to us to "allow" anything. It's up to us to stop preventing people from living their own lives, wretched though some of them may well turn out.

The only sane thing to do with immoral laws is nullify them P.D.Q.

fjolnirsson
May 23, 2005, 08:20 PM
The society of 1850 didnt have the distribution mechanisms of today

Correct. Instead of waiting in darkened parks and seedy places, to buy your dope from a hardened criminal, it was possible to purchase opium and heroin derivatives over the counter from the local pharmacist. At a reasonable price per bottle, it was easy to overuse. The scourge of abuse was an oft lamented fact of the times. However, our jails weren't full, and our streets weren't overun by gangs of violent illegals. We didn't have laws allowing government to seize and redistribute property on suspicion of wrongdoing, and our borders weren't a joke.

Other than that, the new drug laws are great. :rolleyes:

The Rabbi
May 23, 2005, 10:20 PM
1) Where do people find this crap? :barf:

2) What good is rehashing these arguments over and over again? This must be the 5th thread in 2 months that touches on these issues. What was wrong with the other 4 or 40 or 400? What points will anyone make that havent been made before?

3) This "expert" btw is a 24 year old guy living in Berkeley. Anytime I find a 24 yr old guy saying anything worthwhile it is time for a drink.
http://www.anthonygregory.com/aboutme.html

publius
May 23, 2005, 10:50 PM
I'll quit rehashing it when it quits being relevant.

But until then, to rehash one more time, drug and gun laws at the federal level share the same Constitutional history. They were both born as taxes, then later, the Constitution grew to the point that both are now regulated at the federal level under interstate commerce clause authority.

There are two current Supreme Court cases on that very issue, Raich and Stewart. Stewart is the gun case, and the fate of that case, like the fate of other gun laws in our history, rests on the precedents we set in the drug war.

In other news, another drug war precedent has reached out to touch our firearms rights, that being civil asset forfeiture abuse. See this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=138275

When gun grabbers stop following in the trails blazed by drug warriors, we can stop paying attention to the failed tax-and-spend drug war. :neener:

Justin
May 23, 2005, 11:49 PM
3) This "expert" btw is a 24 year old guy living in Berkeley. Anytime I find a 24 yr old guy saying anything worthwhile it is time for a drink.

So might I inquire as to at what age does one have worthwhile things to say?

Orthonym
May 24, 2005, 12:02 AM
As long as they don't annoy other people and disrupt society?

It is arguable, though, that if one takes very much of any drug for very long, that actual physical change may happen in his brain, and/or behavioral changes in his psyche (whatever that is) which make him, well, not a grownup anymore. One who needs to be controlled, for his sake and others.

There have been laws treating this since way back when, about "habitual, incorrigible drunkards" and such like.

We even have the Marchman Act, here in FL. A policeman told me about that one, late at night, one time.

Don't ask!

javafiend
May 24, 2005, 12:05 AM
Gun owners, book owners/readers, etc. can be productive members of society, capable of raising children, holding jobs, participating in the society. After a certain point, your addicted crackhead or tweaker is incapble of functioning as a productive member of society.

As Lew Rockwell observed: "Rush Limbaugh, who has taken huge doses of synthetic opiates for more than five years, was able to do his job with great success. Does this give the lie to some of the drug-war propaganda? Being a drug addict is not a good thing, but I am reminded of the way British physicians used to treat heroin addicts - with maintenance doses - until the US forced the Brits to outlaw the practice. Absent politics, physicians thought maintenance was healthier physically and mentally than cold turkey. Limbaugh is now going through Hell on earth when he might be better off, all thing considered, still taking some pills. At any rate, this should not be the DA's decision."

Illuminaughty
May 24, 2005, 12:15 AM
Gun control is taking away one's freedom.
Drug control is taking away one's freedom.

CONTROL TAKES AWAY ONE'S FREEDOM.

People have the right to destroy themselves without benefitting an industry (See: Pharmecuticals and Psychiatry, See: Alcoholism, See: Television).

RevDisk
May 24, 2005, 12:15 AM
3) This "expert" btw is a 24 year old guy living in Berkeley. Anytime I find a 24 yr old guy saying anything worthwhile it is time for a drink.

Hmm. I turn 24 next month. So... starting next month am I automatically discounted for an entire year? What's the magical year that one turns wise and knowledgable on all matters?


2) What good is rehashing these arguments over and over again? This must be the 5th thread in 2 months that touches on these issues. What was wrong with the other 4 or 40 or 400? What points will anyone make that havent been made before?

What good is rehashing CCW reform? Or legal aspects of various other RKBA issues? For that matter, why keep re-stating the Four Rules of gun handling?

The War on Drugs has trashed a good number of civil liberties. When it's possible for the govt to seize assets based on "probable cause" and without trial, something is wrong. I've never used an illegal drug, with the exception of a bit of underage drinking after I joined the Army. I dislike illegal drugs, and dislike the damage they cause.

Ultimately, the only effects of the War on Drugs have been higher street prices of drugs and a gutting of the Bill of Rights. By any standard I've seen, the War on Drugs has failed, miserably and expensively.

Orthonym
May 24, 2005, 12:18 AM
Was his name Ostler, maybe, one of the founders of Johns Hopkins medical school, who accomplished amazing academic and medical deeds while being mostly zonked, for years and years, on either cocaine or morphine.

m'self, I self-medicate for the anxiety with alcohol, with all of its adverse effects of brain damage, liver damage, social disapproval, addiction, and, yes, drunkenness, but on looking up the anxiolytics commonly prescribed by MDs, I find that they are even more toxic and addictive, and you can't buy them at the 7-11 anonymously.

beerslurpy
May 24, 2005, 12:20 AM
possession of Crack or meth harms all those around, heroin too. If yolu think not then you living a dream.

Meth heads are just as dead as sober people if they break into my house.

In regards to "paying for the medical care of some crackhead's medical expenses" getting rid of the social welfare state would require them to pay for their own meidcal care or die. Or break into my house, and die.

fallingblock
May 24, 2005, 12:26 AM
"responsible drug use" is not.

The use of recreational drugs diminishes the capacity of the user.

It lessens the individual's personal responsibility.

The more frequent/heavy the use, the less responsibility.

Folks, narcotics and such do need to be regulated.

Despite the obvious tax law relationship between recreational drugs and firearms, there is virtually no correlation of the social costs when comparing RKBA and recreational drug use.

Nor is addiction fundamental to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

As The Rabbi correctly opines:
*********************************************************
" What good is rehashing these arguments over and over again? This must be the 5th thread in 2 months that touches on these issues. What was wrong with the other 4 or 40 or 400? What points will anyone make that havent been made before?"
*********************************************************


And, of course, publius' position regarding the legal history shared by these issues is absolutely correct:
*********************************************************
"drug and gun laws at the federal level share the same Constitutional history. They were both born as taxes, then later, the Constitution grew to the point that both are now regulated at the federal level under interstate commerce clause authority."
*********************************************************

Fix the %^$&#@* commerce clause, restore the Constitution, respect the Second Amendment, and regulate narcotics for the good of society.

The operative word is 'regulate', not 'criminalize'. ;)

O.K., I'm going back to my searching for a thread on the filibuster 'compromise now. :D

beerslurpy
May 24, 2005, 12:43 AM
I have known as many responsible drug users as I have responsible gun owners. With one or two minor exceptions from each group, they are largely responsible and thoughtful in their use of these potentially dangerous objects/substances. Those who are stupid around potent drugs are just as short-lived as those who are stupid around guns. Think about it. Please tell me you arent so stupid you cant see this obvious parallel.

You people who think that drugs are somehow magically harmful while guns arent are deluding yourselves that it is impossible to responsibly use mind-altering substances. Guns give me the ability to kill people from very far away and in large numbers, but that never happens because I dont run around doing stupid things. Likewise, most drug users take pains to ensure that their drug use doesnt intrude into the public or into the lives of other people.

You are no more likely to see someone drop acid at work than you are likely to see me put up a target 3 cubicles down and start practicing pistol marksmanship.

Millions of people have taken acid, heroin, coke (our president! for 10+ years!), weed (the previous president!), shrooms, beer (me and countless other americans) and nicotine (millions of cancer deaths and growing!) in the privacy of their own homes for years without anyone (even themselves) being significantly harmed. Just as machine guns are dangerous unless you take great care with them, the extremely hard drugs are dangerous unless you take great care with them. Why is the human mind capable of one of these responsible acts and not the other?

2nd Amendment
May 24, 2005, 01:15 AM
If you want to actually accomplish something you don't punish personal choice, you punish irresponsible acts resulting from the choice. We arrest drunk drivers. We fire people who are drunk at work, etc. What bizarre substances people pump into themselves are not the business of government. What stupid acts they may do in public or on the job are, on a case by case basis.

OTOH I'll submit that there are certain things that should be done in response to legalized drugs. It's not the responsibility of the insurer to cover resulting health problems. It's not the responsibility of the community to pick up the medical tab, either. In other words yes, if you rot your body with drugs die on the sidewalk and serve as a testimony to others to not make the same stupid, abusive mistakes.

Employers should be able to require largely random drug screenings and fire, without means of retribution, those who refuse(assuming there is a legitimate reason to screen them in the first place) or fail. Public use should get the same punishment as public intox and DUI, etc. Punish the individual for their actual acts.

But that's not what the Wo(some)D is about. It's about expanding government power and intimidation, all while making big money.

Oh...

2) What good is rehashing these arguments over and over again?

Why do you insist on trying to stifle debate, "Rabbi"? Does it bother you that much that a great many people don't think in lockstep with you? If you don't like a discussion you know there is something you can do about it: Don't participate.

Kim
May 24, 2005, 01:52 AM
The problem as I see it is I am aganist legalization of recreational drugs until the welfare state is abolished. I will not agree to having to pay more taxes to take care of the problems drug abuse causes. When that drug addict shows up in the ER I do not get real happy sticking down a tube to suck out their somach or having to bind them down with the leathers all the while having them spit and puke everywhere.(while listing to them cuss up a storm) Plus I don't want to see their children in the ER or my clinic because they are being neglected and abused with starvation, cig burns or when they have gotten into their drug addled parents drugs. Nor do I want to see the pregnat drug addicted woman give birth to cocaine babies or meth babies that I have to watch go through withdraw. There is nothing worse than the meth head at this time. They are violent, hallucinating and dangerous to those around them-----there is no medical treatment that works. They would kill their mother and sell her body parts for their next fix so strong is the urge to use. You solve these problems then I might take you up on the legalizing of drugs. Alcohol abuse causes enough problems as it is. Marijuana I might agree to at this time but not the others. :mad:

beerslurpy
May 24, 2005, 02:03 AM
So let the health care system go bankrupt and let the streets run wild with meth heads. The meth heads will last about 5 minutes and the health care system will be replaced with one that works, or at least one that sucks in a more affordable manner.

I will still be doing accupuncture and herbs long after the hmos are gone.

Once we have done away with the crap laws, we can do away with the parasites that enforce them. Savings for everyone.

Sindawe
May 24, 2005, 02:16 AM
MUST...NOT...GIVE IN...TO..URGE...TO...RESPOND....TOO...LATE

The problem as I see it is I am aganist legalization of recreational drugs until the welfare state is abolished. No argument from me Kim.When that drug addict shows up in the ER I do not get real happy sticking down a tube to suck out their somach or having to bind them down with the leathers all the while having them spit and puke everywhere.(while listing to them cuss up a storm) Well, that IS one of the hazards of the job, is it not? Like dealing with carcinogens and teratogens was part of the job when I worked in the Bloodmines of Boulder, and tunnel-carpel is now for me in IT. They are violent, hallucinating and dangerous to those around them-----there is no medical treatment that works. Sure there is. If folks make a point of going about making pests of themselves, they end up getting shot. Don't be a pest, you'll be fine. The sad fact of life is that some folks are just too dumb to survive. In ages past they'd do stupid stuff like poke sleeping lions with sticks and get 'et up, challenge bull moose in rut and get stomped or run out after the fish exposed by the suddenly retreating ocean and get down'ed. Today, we "protect and look after" these fools, to the detriment of us all. If some bozo choses to abuse a chemical substance, be it legal or not, and ruin their lives. Well, its sad when that happens, but no more so than when another fool rides their crotch rocket wearing nothing more than polyester running shorts, flip-flops and sunglasses and end up being road pizza.

And yes, I've had close friends who've chosen to be meth-heads and squander this life, relations who've chosen to be pests and have ended up shot, and co-workers who've done boneheaded stunts on the bike and become road pizza. Life is DANGEROUS. Some of those dangers are worth the risks, some are not. We have ample data to show which risks are worth taking, and which are not. If some people chose to ignore that data, well, like I said, some folks are just too dumb to survive.

publius
May 24, 2005, 07:17 AM
The phrase: "responsible firearms use" is sustainable.....
"responsible drug use" is not.


Oops! Better quit letting doctors prescribe them!

Or did you mean "recreational" drug use? Because I'm about to have 40 or so of my best friends out here to camp on the property over Memorial Day weekend, and they might drink beers. It's bound to make us less responsible, so we'll start after we get done shooting, but irresponsible we shall be. :D

publius
May 24, 2005, 07:44 AM
Fix the %^$&#@* commerce clause, restore the Constitution, respect the Second Amendment, and regulate narcotics for the good of society.

The operative word is 'regulate', not 'criminalize'.

I'm with you there, in part at least.

The commerce clause, as I mentioned, is being fixed right now (http://federalism.typepad.com/ashcroft_v_raich).

That fix may be applied to gun laws (http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf) as requested by the Justice Dept.

publius
May 24, 2005, 07:52 AM
Because it seems to me that it took about 20 years for the precedent set by the Harrison Narcotics Act to be applied to guns in the National Firearms Act. It took about 20 years from the Controlled Substances Act and Nixon's WOD for the precedents set there to be applied in the GCA of 86 and the Mean Looking Weapons Ban. And it took about 20 years from the time they started using civil asset forfeiture laws as criminal punishments (without that bothersome criminal conviction) in the drug war under Reagan until that precedent was recently applied to gungrabbing up in New Jersey.

Looks like it takes about 20 years from the time a tactic is adopted in the drug war until the time it is adopted in the gungrabbing war. When was all that zero tolerance nonsense again?

RealGun
May 24, 2005, 09:24 AM
As long as there are those who are weak, irresponsible, or dishonorable, or those too ignorant or dysfunctional to make choices in their best interest, society as a whole will find a rationale to regulate and impose prior restraint. They have to do that, because there is no allowance for purging the gene pool or even insisting that everybody conform to a detailed standard. People have rights, sort of.

One reason why there are drug laws which will remain is that to withdraw would be to condone the associated behavior. I am not sure we are yet at the level of anarchy that caused the withdrawal of Prohibition.

One insight might come from observing that even though it is legal to consume alcohol on Sunday, public bars may not be open on Sunday. This may vary by State. Whose law is that?

publius
May 24, 2005, 10:03 AM
Whose law is that?

Little blue men?

No, seriously, I think that's called showing due respect for an establishment of religion.

CAS700850
May 24, 2005, 10:52 AM
It's kind of funny, well, at least for me. WhenI started in prosecution, I was a staunch opponent of legalization, a staunch supporter of the death penalty, and a firm believer in RKBA. 10 years later, I'm beginning to think legalization and regulation of some drugs may be a good idea. SOME DRUGS, NOT ALL. And, I think the death penalty is greatly misapplied, in terms of some guy who commits one robbery that ends up in a fatal shooting, versus a predatory pedophile who systematically victimized 10 boys over the course of five years on a repeated an ongoing basis.

the onoy thing that has remained firm, and perhaps actually grown stronger given what I've seen, is my belief in RKBA. I now know what law enforcement is capable of doing for you in a crisis, and what a determined criminal can do in that period of time.

Oleg Volk
May 24, 2005, 11:48 AM
I am friends with many gun owners. I am also friends with many users of narcotics, legal and otherwise. I see undiminished mental capacity and really impressive accomplishments in science, politics and other work. Viewing DEA commercials which directly contradict my own observations gives me a feeling similar to viewing Communist propaganda -- false, self-serving and used to excuse horrendous abuses. Moreover, the abuses under the guise of fighting drug use are also perpetrated against everyone else in the form of reduced privacy and increased restrictions on everyday living.

I am about to add posters against WoD and authoritarian tendencies in general to my pro-RKBA work.

fjolnirsson
May 24, 2005, 12:09 PM
As long as there are those who are weak, irresponsible, or dishonorable, or those too ignorant or dysfunctional to make choices in their best interest, society as a whole will find a rationale to regulate and impose prior restraint. They have to do that, because there is no allowance for purging the gene pool or even insisting that everybody conform to a detailed standard. People have rights, sort of.(emphasis mine)

And the same could be used as justification for Gun Control. In fact, it is.

Oleg, I look forward to them.

The Rabbi
May 24, 2005, 12:11 PM
And the same could be used as justification for Gun Control. In fact, it is.

Does that nullify the argument?? Actually it strengthens it.

Justin
May 24, 2005, 12:29 PM
I've posted this before. Apologies for the length.

Reasons for why any rational human being should oppose the WoD:

1)Prescription drugs that are even mildly narcotic are controlled in such a manner as to drive up prices and limit supply to the average consumer.

2)Doctors are now becoming so worried by the feds' crackdown on supposedly "illegal" prescriptions of Schedule II and III narcotics that they are often times hesitant to prescribe proper dosage levels. In other words, medical practitioners are not free to set dosage levels of narcotic pain killers for someone suffering from terminal cancer, lest the feds think that they're dealing drugs.

Put another way: If you are injured or contract an illness that requires the use of such drugs, your dosage is likely to be set low because the doctor isn't the one making the ultimate decision as to what is a medically safe dosage level. That decision is now made by some gov't feeb with little or no medical background.

3)We have all lost civil rights due to the passage of asset forfeiture laws. Basically, even if you are ultimately found innocent of any wrongdoing in a court of law, that doesn't mean you're going to get your stuff back.

4)Abrogation of the spirit of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. For more info, see #3 above.

5)Increased crime. As a direct result of drug prohibition, those who deal in illegal narcotics are likely to engage in vicious turf wars. Were drugs legalized I seriously doubt that such shenanigans would continue. When was the last time you heard about representatives from Coors and Anheuser-Busch getting into territorial shootouts? Geeze, come to think of it, there are no less than four microbreweries within a 20 mile radius from where I sit, and I have yet to hear about those associated with the Bristol Brewing Company rolling up the street to bust caps at the Phantom Canyon brewery, or Il Vicino trying to muscle in on The Warehouse's action.

6)Increased tax burden to fund the so-called "War On Drugs." Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent prosecuting this utterly braindead attempt at modern puritanism, and absolutely none of it has kept Johnnie the 15 year old wasteoid from scoring a dimebag for a reasonable price.

7)Increased call for gun control. How many times have we seen politicians, talking heads, and self-appointed "experts" get in front of the cameras and blather on about how cheap and concealable handguns, expensive and large "assault rifles," "high capacity" magazines, Tec-9's, UZI's, AK47's etc. etc. ad naseum, ad infinitum are "the most popular weapon/item for criminals and drug dealers." How many gun control laws have been passed as a result of gang violence that is perpetuated by the illegal black market for recreational narcotics?

In essence, even as someone who does not engage in the illegal use of drugs, my civil rights have been reduced as a result of an idiotic, expensive, and obviously failed bureacratic attempt to legislate morality.

publius
May 24, 2005, 12:30 PM
One reason why there are drug laws which will remain is that to withdraw would be to condone the associated behavior.

Would withdrawal of the gun laws condone the "associated" behaviors that the gungrabbers like to use as excuses to attack gun rights?

Or do the gun laws themselves cause many of the very ills which are used to justify more gun laws?

Oleg Volk
May 24, 2005, 03:35 PM
One other thought:

Let's start with the assumption that drug trafficing is a big business. Somehow, end users manage to come up with a lot of money. Few of them do it by criminal means, or we'd see much higher rates of violent crime. Few do it by living through their savings fast and then dying off -- we'd see higher mortality rates and also that process can't be sustainable. So either drug users are being recruited at a brisk rate (which seems unlikely, as it would encompass mos tof the population quickly) or they are capable of living, working and earning enough to support stable habits. In short, the image of a meth-crazed junkie misrepresents the majority of drug users, same as the movie "Eternal Jew" misrepresented its subjects.

Ginger
May 24, 2005, 03:44 PM
The society of 1850 didnt have the distribution mechanisms of today. Furthermore, life expectencies were low enough that drug use was largely a self correcting problem.

It still is. Huge numbers of people use drugs from time to time either in high school or college. The vast majority don't get addicted (although we hear a lot about the ones that do). Eventually these people get real jobs and real lives and leave the drug culture behind. It's called "maturing out".

Society has always had a few people sunk into hopeless addiction. Trying to save the few from themselves at the expense of the many is probably not worth it.

The Rabbi
May 24, 2005, 04:15 PM
Let's start with the assumption that drug trafficing is a big business. Somehow, end users manage to come up with a lot of money. Few of them do it by criminal means, or we'd see much higher rates of violent crime. Few do it by living through their savings fast and then dying off -- we'd see higher mortality rates and also that process can't be sustainable. So either drug users are being recruited at a brisk rate (which seems unlikely, as it would encompass mos tof the population quickly) or they are capable of living, working and earning enough to support stable habits. In short, the image of a meth-crazed junkie misrepresents the majority of drug users, same as the movie "Eternal Jew" misrepresented its subjects.

There is so much wrong here it is hard to know where to start.
Many users are themselves dealers, subsidizing their habit by doing this. Areas with high levels of e.g. crack cocaine usage not surpirsingly have high rates of crime. I doubt this is an accident.
Further, I asked a public defender I know how many of his cases had involvement with drugs and/or alcohol. The answer was like 90%, and those arent possession/dealing cases. Those are robbery assault cases. In the 1950s when my father moved to NYC he thought nothing of standing in Harlem at 1AM waiting for the bus. By 1980 driving through in the daytime was hazardous. So, how high does the crime rate have to be for you say that "we'd see much higher crime rates"?
It takes a long time to die from drug use and addicts can have 10-15 year histories. Many of them dry out for a time before going back to it as well. But some drug habits, like crack, have shorter "half lives" so the user suffers far more physical damage than someone addicted to, e.g. Oxycontin.
Some drug users do hold jobs and support themselves. Some people drive under the influence and never have an accident. But I wouldnt use that fact to argue that enforcement of DUI laws represents an unwarranted intrusion on right and that DUI ought to be made legal.

DRZinn
May 24, 2005, 04:21 PM
I am about to add posters against WoD and authoritarian tendencies in general to my pro-RKBA work. :) I look forward to seeing them.

t.ebentheuer
May 24, 2005, 10:14 PM
I believe 100% in the legalization of drugs, it is to me quite obvious that the drug war has been a tremendous failure that has cost us billions of dollars. Most drugs truly are harmful, but some are really no worse than alcohol, and one, marijuana, is certainly less dangerous by far. It does not cause a PHYSICAL addiction like other drugs or the withdrawls associated with that. Also, it is impossible to die of marijuana overdose. Thousands die every year from alcohol poisoning, and thousands more are addicted. We tried to ban alcohol years ago but learned soon that it did nothing more than create a black market for organized crime. Why can't we figure out that the war on drugs is doing the same exact thing that alcohol prohibition did? But I suppose its like gun control, no matter how much it fails the gov't will just keep pushing more and more.

Now, just like many of you I do not want to pay for food stamps and welfare for drunks/drug addicts who either aren't willing to work or spend all their money on drugs. However, I also don't want to pay taxes to keep some guy in prison for having a bag of pot, or even the guy who was selling that bag of pot.

I say, if you want to get welfare you should have to take a drug test and a breathalizer, and if you fail, after one month, you should be tested again. If you haven't cleaned up you will receive no more money until you can prove that you are completely clean. I generally don't believe in government being that intrusive, but if you can't take care of yourself then I believe that the government has that right when people's hard earned tax money is at stake. :cuss:

publius
May 25, 2005, 06:14 AM
Some people drive under the influence and never have an accident. But I wouldnt use that fact to argue that enforcement of DUI laws represents an unwarranted intrusion on right and that DUI ought to be made legal.
And I wouldn't argue that if you went home and smoked a joint, that represents the same kind of threat to your fellow citizens as getting behind the wheel of your car when drunk.

Henry Bowman
May 25, 2005, 09:32 AM
Also, it is impossible to die of marijuana overdose. A young man locally did just that within in the last week. Police pulled him over for a traffic violation. He swallowed his stash of pot and soon was sweating profusely and acting strange. He got scared enough to tell the police what he had done. They called EMS immediately, but he died before they could get him to the hospital. He did not choke. He died of an overdose of the injested MJ.

mercedesrules
May 25, 2005, 10:29 AM
Some people drive under the influence and never have an accident. But I wouldnt use that fact to argue that enforcement of DUI laws represents an unwarranted intrusion on right and that DUI ought to be made legal.


I would. Until the drunk driver actually hurts someone he is no different from the otherwise uncoordinated, angry, half-blind, deaf, agoraphobic, phone-talking, nail-painting, burger-eating, nervous, radio-adjusting, ADD, rushed or otherwise-impaired driver.

Stalking, arresting and often searching so-called drunk drivers (based on an arbitrary % of alcohol) is prior restraint and police-state tactics. Just because we have been brainwashed into thinking of it favorably is no reason to use it as precedent. It is the same logic that would have mouths duct-taped or gun barrels welded closed to prevent future acts.

mercedesrules
May 25, 2005, 10:39 AM
A young man locally did just that within in the last week. Police pulled him over for a traffic violation. He swallowed his stash of pot and soon was sweating profusely and acting strange. He got scared enough to tell the police what he had done. They called EMS immediately, but he died before they could get him to the hospital. He did not choke. He died of an overdose of the injested MJ.

:rolleyes: Whatever, but that death doesn't "count". First, it was clearly caused by the war on drugs and, secondly, that is not how one doses marijuana. If someone drowned in a vat of tomato juice, one could not seriously say that he overdosed on deadly tomatoes.

I do admit that it, if true, disproves the earlier statement, but not in a meaningful way for this discussion.

The Rabbi
May 25, 2005, 10:53 AM
I would. Until the drunk driver actually hurts someone he is no different from the otherwise uncoordinated, angry, half-blind, deaf, agoraphobic, phone-talking, nail-painting, burger-eating, nervous, radio-adjusting, ADD, rushed or otherwise-impaired driver.

OK. So when you go to the range and some idiot is waving his gun around. Or you go down to fix your targets and he starts shooting in the next lane, then you are not going to object until he actually shoots you, right? :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
May 25, 2005, 11:48 AM
Arrrggghhh!

Stuff like the bit about swallowing a bunch of grass as evidence of its harmfulness, or comparing drunk driving to phoning/eating/etc. just isn't what I'd call rational discourse on the subject. The responses don't really help, either.

I've gotten where I hate these umpteenth repetitions on this subject. Folks bring out the most egregious anecdotal examples of horror stories as though that's a good way to support an opinion. Others respond with irrelevant "data" from "studies" to refute said opinions.

And then somebody gets mad...

And in the roughly seven years of TFL and THR, I don't think I've seen anybody's mind changed on this subject...

Rant mode off,

Art

Old Dog
May 25, 2005, 11:54 AM
First, it was clearly caused by the war on drugs and,
No, it was not. Death was caused because the individual made the choice to possess and use marijuana, a choice he made knowing that he was breaking the law. Bad law or not, it was the person's choice -- NOT the "war on drugs" that caused his death.

OK. So when you go to the range and some idiot is waving his gun around. Or you go down to fix your targets and he starts shooting in the next lane, then you are not going to object until he actually shoots you, right?
I tend to agree with Rabbi's thinking on this issue.
Just because we have been brainwashed into thinking of it favorably is no reason to use it as precedent. Brainwashed? Bah. No one has the right to drive drunk, and we all have the right to expect everyone on the road to be driving to the best of their ability, which does not include making a choice knowing that it endangers everyone else on the road with you. "Stalking" drunk drivers is hardly police state tactics; it's common sense.

Sindawe
May 25, 2005, 11:58 AM
He died of an overdose of the injested MJ. Is that the result of the autopsy, or your personal opinion? What was the weight of injested marjuana? Was just the vegetative matter consumed, or did the individual also consume the container holding the mj? that is not how one doses marijuana Some people DO eat mj mercedesrules, or have you never heard of mj brownies?

Henry Bowman
May 25, 2005, 12:19 PM
That was reported as the cause of death.


But it really matters not. I am very pro-freedom, but concerned that we cannot disassemble the WOD unless we also disassemble the welfare state at the same time.

FWIW, my mind has changed significantly over the last few years with respect to the WOD. Much of that change has been as a direct result of reading and engaging in dialoge on THR.

mercedesrules
May 25, 2005, 12:23 PM
Some people DO eat mj mercedesrules, or have you never heard of mj brownies?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. :o

I wonder which is worse - the mj or the other ingredients? :D

RealGun
May 25, 2005, 01:06 PM
From a political perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for gun ownership, especially bearing a gun, to be associated with smoking dope or taking other recreational drugs. It concerns me that THR seems to have at least one anti-drug control thread going at all times. It reminds me of another news forum where there is a perpetual Iraq war thread. There is nothing constructive about it.

This might be appropriate on a libertarian forum, but THR is not libertarian. It is very possible that many subscribers are indeed libertarians, but they don't own the forum. It's about guns.

Sindawe
May 25, 2005, 01:11 PM
From a political perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for gun ownership, especially bearing a gun, to be associated with smoking dope or taking other recreational drugs. It concerns me that THR seems to have at least one anti-drug control thread going at all times. It reminds me of another news forum where there is a perpetual Iraq war thread. There is nothing constructive about it.

This might be appropriate on a libertarian forum, but THR is not libertarian. It is very possible that many subscribers are indeed libertarians, but they don't own the forum. It's about guns. Quite possibly true. But that is a call for Oleg and his delegates the Moderators to make.

t.ebentheuer
May 25, 2005, 01:12 PM
"No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans. According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of tested rats, was 42 milligrams per kilogram of body weight with forced inhalation. As for oral consumption, the LD50 for rats was 1270 mg/kg and 730 mg/kg for males and females, respectively. It would be impossible for THC in blood plasma to reach such a level in human cannabis smokers. Only with intravenous administration, a method rarely used by humans, may such a level be possible. Also, some evidence suggests that toxic levels may be higher for humans than for rats." - Wikipedia

I don't believe that guy who ate his pot died from a THC overdose. He may have died from a heart attack or something, because it is obvious he was extremely scared/distressed. Marijuana is not a good thing if you are already scared. Even if somehow he did die from MJ overdose, that would be one very rare case. People die all the time from legal alcohol. I have seen a person stop breathing from drinking too much, and I've seen many puke and pass out. The MJ smokers tend to eat too many chips and get a stomach ache.

pcf
May 25, 2005, 01:24 PM
Guns aren't evil. People who own guns aren't made evil. Guns don't drive people to do evil things.

Drugs aren't evil. People who use drugs aren't evil. But, drugs do drive people to do evil things.

The Grand Inquisitor
May 25, 2005, 01:25 PM
mercedesrules - "Coercive, socialistic systems cannot be improved by adjustment, reform or fine-tuning; they must be repealed. Everyone should pay for his own medical treatments. "

This is on the very first page, and even though I'm sure the debate gone far away from this comment, I wanted to just laugh at it for a second.

When I was 21 I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease and since then I've had nothing but problems with the disease and (even moreso) from complications from the disease. I won't go into my health problems - but here is the rub of my post - within 2.5 to 3 years, I've already racked up over 2 MILLION dollars in medical care.

Read that again: Two M I L L I O N. $2,000,000.

With a good insurence provider, we've only had to eat maybe $30,000 in bills so far, but that's $30,000 I'll be paying off until the day that I die (which will probably be pretty soon...so the hospitals will be screwed...HA!!!!). But for the millions of people in this country without insurence, not only would they have not been able to have been given the care I have, but they would have to figure out some way to pay off foolishly large health care costs.

In your world where individuals pay their own way for health care, what is to become of families who have critically disabled family members who need continous care for YEARS? What about the elderly, most of the time the rack of horribly large bills? SHould they be thrown out into the street to die once the can't pay?

I hope your "idea" was a joke.

mercedesrules
May 25, 2005, 01:52 PM
I wanted to just laugh at it for a second.
Laugh all you want, but if you wouldn't go over to your neighbor's house with a gun and rob him to pay for your medical treatments, you shouldn't hire a government goon to do so.

mercedesrules
May 25, 2005, 02:03 PM
FWIW, my mind has changed significantly over the last few years with respect to the WOD. Much of that change has been as a direct result of reading and engaging in dialoge on THR.

Thank you! Your honest admission is worth a lot. Some people try to end the debate by complaining that it is discussed too much. The article I posted came out the day I posted it.

publius
May 25, 2005, 02:17 PM
From a political perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for gun ownership, especially bearing a gun, to be associated with smoking dope or taking other recreational drugs.

Good idea or not, associated they are, both in history and in the present.

It is not a bunch of Libertarians who wrote the cert petition in the Stewart case (http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf), it was the Bush Justice Dept.

mercedesrules
May 25, 2005, 02:20 PM
But, drugs do drive people to do evil things.
Like what, for instance?

I am asking for an example of a drug and exactly what evil act it always causes every user to commit.

Also, possession certainly can't cause anyone to commit evil but it is still outlawed. A drug laying on the table is just like the gun laying there. It is just some of one's private property.

Too Many Choices!?
May 25, 2005, 02:53 PM
There is no way to quantify the level of impairment of some drugs! Point? Where do you draw the line between,"user", and ,"addict," :scrutiny: ....

If I use a cup of coffee every morning to get my day started, that is fine. I am a user of the DRUG caffeine, no problems. If I get home and decide I'd like a beer(or 3) to release stress, relax, or just 'cause, that is also fine and I would be a user of alcohol.

Where does the use of my Drug of choice(caffeine ord alcohol), cross over to the addiction side of the line of dependence? Who gets to decide FOR ME THAT I HAVE HAD ENOUGH of whatever :banghead: ?!!!! Especially when the use occurs away from the public :eek: !

Thanx Nanny Sam for holding my hand as I would surely be hooked on crack, meth, coke, xstacy, vicodin, or some hard narcotic right now if you hadn't made them all illegal :barf:!

P.S. Some people have a proclivity for violence. Some for good. Some for addiction. Banning items, weapons, drugs or activities that people want to do /use will NEVER EVER EVER change the make-up of the human soul, mind, and heart which government can't reach....Address the root of the problem the people! Give people too many choices and then give them logical reasoning why they should follow yours. If it was made legal tomorrow, how many of us would run out and start doing crack :mad: ! If you think about it this is what they are saying," Since enough of the population is too stupid or morally bankrupt to do what we want them to by choice(not smoke crack), we will make it illegal."

DRZinn
May 25, 2005, 09:05 PM
Death was caused because the individual made the choice to possess and use marijuana, a choice he made knowing that he was breaking the law. Bad law or not, it was the person's choice -- NOT the "war on drugs" that caused his death.No, death was caused (presuming that biochemically the pot killed him)by having to hide the pot from the police, without which factor he would not have eaten it.

With a good insurence provider, we've only had to eat maybe $30,000 in bills so farThat's what insurance is for. You entered into a contract (or your parents did) involving certain monthly payments to the insurance company, in return for which they would pay your bills in case of x, y, or z. The problem is when an individual is not prudent enough to do so (or whatever may be the reason), so the government uses my money to do it.

Edited for spelling.

publius
May 27, 2005, 05:41 AM
No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans.

Well, OK, in thousands of years with millions of human users, there was this one guy who (the government said) ate his stash and died as a result. That's pretty believeable, and it's not like they'd be out looking for any old explanation as to why the person died in custody, right?

Jeremae
May 27, 2005, 04:39 PM
Most of the normal arguments pro/con to legalizing recreational drugs are being addressed here so I would like to make a point about the stance:

"The current welfare state must be done away with before I support legalizing drugs because I don't want to pay for junkies medical care/food/housing"

Regardless if drug addicts can live reponsible/productive lives (which my first hand experience is they can but many don't mainly because they would be irresponsible/nonproductive without drug addiction due to other mental problems), you are ALREADY paying for their care/support.

Does it make sense to pile on the cost of fighting the drug war (economic to support police/courts/prisons and civil rights curtailment) on top of what society already pays to take care of the disenfranchised?

Personally, I think they should provide drug of choice right along with welfare. It would be cheaper directly (no major drug cartel making obscene profits because the product is illegal (Cost of legal cocaine Aprox $1.25 street cost aprox $100)) and indirectly (druggies don't need to break into my house to steal my possessions for pennies on the dollar to support their habit)

Glock Glockler
May 27, 2005, 05:20 PM
The Grand Inquisitor,

Why is it that you feel we all owe you and that we should be forced to pick up the tab on your bills?

The Rabbi
May 27, 2005, 05:26 PM
I think I have the perfect solution to make everyone happy:
Drop the tax on cigarettes.

Most addicts also smoke. A lot of non-addicts smoke too of course. Smoking reduces life expectancy considerably and makes for short intensive final illnesses. If we make cigarettes cheap and plentiful then addicts will go for them, taking themselves out of the equation.
It lowers the overall tax burden
It is Libertarian.

Lets go for it!

Justin
May 27, 2005, 06:52 PM
That's about the most sensible thing you've ever posted.

Sindawe
May 27, 2005, 07:02 PM
Shoot, ya beat me too it Justin. :D

javafiend
May 27, 2005, 11:45 PM
Well, OK, in thousands of years with millions of human users, there was this one guy who (the government said) ate his stash and died as a result.

I'm still waiting for the cite. If this highly dubious claim turned out to be true, it would be the very first instance of human death from overdose of marijuana in recorded history.

****


"Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances know to man." -- D.E.A. Administrative Law Judge Francis J. Young, Sept. 6 1988.

Crosshair
May 28, 2005, 12:21 AM
My $.02

Hospitals already have a problem with drug users taking up valuable space in the ICU. The whole "War on drugs" is a cure that is unfortunatly worse than the disease. Billions of dollars wasted and drugs are as plentifull and easy to get. When I was in high school you could get enything you wanted and there wasn't a dammed thing that anyone could do about it. They bust one person, next day someone else has taken their place. The "War on drugs" never was a viable solution and the sooner people realise that, the better.

publius
May 29, 2005, 07:55 AM
javafiend,

There is actually another recent instance, over in jolly old England.

It was reported by a coroner there that a man died of acute cannabis toxicity. Some believe it. I don't. First, it didn't specify exactly what the toxicity caused, except death. Death by what? What failed? Oddly, the coroner doesn't say. Also oddly, the case occurred at a time when they were rescheduling drugs over there, amidst the predictable political heat. Also oddly, the coroner in question has a history of being active in that fight, on the big government side of the issue.

So, maybe there have been two cannabis toxicity deaths in human history, but I still don't believe either one. I think that if it were possible, more idiots would do it.

Group9
May 29, 2005, 01:20 PM
I am about to add posters against WoD and authoritarian tendencies in general to my pro-RKBA work.

Because, nothing goes together quite so well as firearms and illegal drugs.

Group9
May 29, 2005, 01:27 PM
Stalking, arresting and often searching so-called drunk drivers (based on an arbitrary % of alcohol) is prior restraint and police-state tactics. Just because we have been brainwashed into thinking of it favorably is no reason to use it as precedent. It is the same logic that would have mouths duct-taped or gun barrels welded closed to prevent future acts.

So, the public has no right to protect themselves from drunk drivers until after they have already killed or seriously injured someone and it is too late?

You're right, though, in that if you believe the above policy is a good one, you are being consistent in thinking drugs should be legalized and no one should be charged with any drug crime until after they have done their damage.

I guess we should do away with solicitation of murder as a crime too, because you really haven't done anything wrong until after the person has bee murdered.

I guess if you need to use illegal drugs badly enough, you don't care.

t.ebentheuer
May 29, 2005, 03:24 PM
I don't think anyone here is advocating getting stoned before a trip to the range.

Glock Glockler
May 29, 2005, 03:41 PM
I guess we should do away with solicitation of murder as a crime too, because you really haven't done anything wrong until after the person has been murdered

Nice try, but solicitation is an act just as making any contract to do something is an act. By your rationale we should get rid of attempted murder, even though someone tried to kill someone else the fact that it was not carried out should not warrent a legal charge, is that it? :rolleyes:

Because, nothing goes together quite so well as firearms and illegal drugs

Not that Oleg needs me to speak in his defense but his actions would seem very logical given the fact that the WoD causes violence which is then blamed on guns. Welfare, Govt. schooling, and regulation of the economy are also factors which fuel crime but I don't quite know how to make posters for them.

mercedesrules
May 29, 2005, 06:49 PM
The "War on drugs" never was a viable solution and the sooner people realise that, the better.
Maybe it is a good solution, but to a different "problem" - the problem of the government not being able to track, stop, hassle, search, detain, rob, confine, steal-from and kill people easily enough?

mercedesrules
May 29, 2005, 06:54 PM
(Group9) So, the public has no right to protect themselves from drunk drivers until after they have already killed or seriously injured someone and it is too late?

"The public" is an abstraction and doesn't have "rights".

You're right, though, in that if you believe the above policy is a good one, you are being consistent in thinking drugs should be legalized and no one should be charged with any drug crime until after they have done their damage.

Thank you.

The Rabbi
May 29, 2005, 07:46 PM
"The public" is an abstraction and doesn't have "rights".

Read: "The People".

The right of the people/public is a well-enshrined principle.

Chris Rhines
May 29, 2005, 08:01 PM
"The right of the people/public" is a catchphrase. It has no meaning in real life.

Only individuals are capable of moral action, so only individuals have rights. Collective organizations have only the rights of the individuals that make up the organization.

- Chris

fallingblock
May 29, 2005, 08:09 PM
"It's bound to make us less responsible, so we'll start after we get done shooting, but irresponsible we shall be."
*********************************************************

:D

The Rabbi
May 29, 2005, 08:10 PM
"The right of the people/public" is a catchphrase. It has no meaning in real life.
Tell that to the 9th Circuit:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20020808.html

Or the USSC:

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/access_information/United%20States/Richmond.htm

Or even Ordnances of the city of Tucson:

http://www.lib.ci.tucson.az.us/behavior.htm

Or the NY Court of Appeals:

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/waterway.html

RealGun
May 29, 2005, 08:22 PM
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We like to think The People means something.

publius
May 29, 2005, 09:19 PM
So, Publius....y'all survived?
So far, so good, though an encounter with Tequila did cause my neighbor, Captain Chaos, to sink his boat last night. Other than that, all is going well. Some shooting yesterday and today, also paintball and tater cannons (which make a fair paintball shotgun). :D

Glock Glockler
May 29, 2005, 09:22 PM
We like to think The People means something.

Do you or I have the right to bear arms? If so it would follow that many of us together would also have that right.

If I do not have the right to attack you for refusing to stop drinking your beer on your porch then it would not follow that the govt would have that right, regardless of what the 18th amendment and the Volstead act said.

Chris Rhines
May 29, 2005, 09:43 PM
Tell that to the 9th Circuit:
Or the USSC:
Or even Ordnances of the city of Tucson:
Or the NY Court of Appeals:Certainly.

To all the aforementioned organizations - you all are incorrect in your use and interpretation of the term, 'The People.' Have a nice day.

Just because some putz judges not competent to maintain a private practice say the sky is lime green, don't make it true.

- Chris

tyme
May 29, 2005, 10:23 PM
What would be the point of legalizing possession of a drug, but not its use?
(appeared toward the beginning of the thread)

Legalizing possession would mean legalizing drug dealing (or at least it would be very difficult to prosecute). No-risk drug dealing would put violent criminal gangs out of business and leave only drug addicts stealing (and less than they did before) to pay for their next fix.

Even if both drug use and drug dealing remained illegal, legalizing drug possession would prevent much trampling on the 4th amendment. That alone would be worthwhile, and it would drive down risk. Lower risk results in lower street cost, which reduces drug supplier tensions and the thefts, robberies, and burglaries that some addicts commit to fund their habits.

The Rabbi
May 29, 2005, 11:31 PM
To all the aforementioned organizations - you all are incorrect in your use and interpretation of the term, 'The People.' Have a nice day.

Boy, talk about an inability to admit one's mistake.

Glock Glockler
May 30, 2005, 02:02 AM
Rabbi,

Ever hear of Dred Scott?

fallingblock
May 30, 2005, 02:29 AM
"Legalizing possession would mean legalizing drug dealing (or at least it would be very difficult to prosecute)."
*********************************************************


And how is this is a worthwhile development? :scrutiny:


*********************************************************
No-risk drug dealing would put violent criminal gangs out of business and leave only drug addicts stealing (and less than they did before) to pay for their next fix."
*********************************************************


So the 'violent criminal gangs' would quietly retire from their drug trade and cede business to the 'legal' dealers? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't you think there'd be quite a hefty casualty toll involved for those taking up the business?

No doubt a lot more addicts (assuming that there is at least some deterrence effect linked to illegality) and each stealing less than they did before.

:confused: That's an improvement?

Justin
May 30, 2005, 03:00 AM
So the 'violent criminal gangs' would quietly retire from their drug trade and cede business to the 'legal' dealers? :rolleyes: Oh yeah, I totally agree. I mean, after prohibition ended, the violence among brewers and distillers only increased. Because there are so many microbreweries in this city, the level of violence is unbelievable. I mean, just last week, The Bristol Brewing Co. (http://www.bristolbrewing.com/) rolled north up into The Phantom Canyon Brewing Co's (http://www.phantomcanyon.com/) territory. Things seemed tense until the brewers from Il Vicino (http://www.ilvicino.com/ilvicino/springs.asp) heard what was going on, and rolled a couple of blocks over. Of course, all Hell broke loose when the hooligans from The Warehouse Restaurant & Brewing (http://www.thewarehouserestaurant.com/brewery.html) showed up. The gunfight to end all gunfights ensued. Reports have it that there were 300+ dead brewers and that they recovered some 900 assault weapons ranging from UZI's to TEC-9's, AK47's and at least a couple of Barrett M82A1's. The city has claimed that it will be weeks before they're able to get all of the brass picked up off of the street.

Man, I wish that they'd never have repealed the Volstead act.

fallingblock
May 30, 2005, 03:33 AM
Your hyperbole does not alter the fact that illegal operations are not necessarily curtailed by the presence of legal alternatives, especially when the illegal operators are willing to resort to violence to hold the trade.

Organized crime involvement in tobacco movement and sales as well as the various 'syndicates' the large U.S. cities serve as examples. Criminals will not simply stop being criminals because their product is legally sold.

Hear of any 'straw purchases' of firearms lately? :D

However, your zeal in pursuit of a "recreational drug use golden age" is commendable. :rolleyes:

Justin
May 30, 2005, 04:14 AM
Hear of any 'straw purchases' of firearms lately?

So by your logic we should ban firearms. After all, if legalizing drugs would only lead to more violent criminals entering the trade then it stands to reason that outlawing guns would drive violent criminals out of the gun trade.

However, your zeal in pursuit of a "recreational drug use golden age" is commendable. Thanks. I always love it when my belief in personal liberty is used as a backhanded way to accuse me of being a drug user. That's awesome. No, really, it is. :rolleyes:

Yeah, my objections to the drug war would have nothing to do with any of the points that I brought up here. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1708520&postcount=47) Nope, none at all.
:rolleyes:

tyme
May 30, 2005, 06:55 AM
Organized crime involvement in tobacco movement and sales as well as the various 'syndicates' the large U.S. cities serve as examples. Criminals will not simply stop being criminals because their product is legally sold.
Thanks to heavy taxes on tobacco products in various jurisdictions, much money can be made smuggling. High profits provide incentive to break the law (realization that the law is stupid probably contributes a little bit, too). Once a criminal enterprise is already facing serious penalties for smuggling, using violence to protect themselves from the executive branch and from competitors is a no-brainer.

Cost/benefit of using violence tends to turn upside-down when high profit potential disappears.

Why would there be a lot more addicts? Are there addicts waiting in the wings for the government to say drugs are okay before the become users? I recall stats showing the vast majority of highschool students have tried drugs. I'd imagine the numbers at age 22 or 25 are even "worse." You're saying that a small minority of abstainers contains a disproportionately high number of potential addicts, if only they once snort/inject/inhale/eat/whatever a particular drug?

publius
May 30, 2005, 07:23 AM
Your hyperbole does not alter the fact that illegal operations are not necessarily curtailed by the presence of legal alternatives, especially when the illegal operators are willing to resort to violence to hold the trade.

Not necessarily, but it does happen.

I arrived in Jamaica for a week's vacation some years back. When I got to the airport, I had the opportunity to legally exchange some money. I didn't. I went to a street thug, who would give me more Jamaican dollars for each American dollar than the Jamaican government would authorize. (A futile effort to prop up the currency).

Needless to say, the people who engaged in the currency trade were not so savory, and many American tourists were robbed, etc. in trying to change money at a market rate instead of a government-dictated rate.

During the week I was there, the government decided to let the market decide what the currency was worth. All the tourists like me went to banks (where things like security and a receipt were available), and the black market in currency disappeared completely. Overnight. No violence involved, and actually the violence and theft against tourists dropped dramatically when legal businesses took over the currency trade.

RealGun
May 30, 2005, 09:31 AM
Any "legalizing" desired will not overturn the precedents of controlling alcohol. Were it to occur, expect the same control and tax structure. Legalizing alcohol consumption did not mean that bootleggers were suddenly legal. Dealers would be out of luck. You would probably buy drugs in a State liquor store, since that infrastructure already exists.

Total, unequivocal legalizing is a complete fantasy.

Glock Glockler
May 30, 2005, 09:36 AM
RealGun,

I highly doubt anyone here would be dissatisfied if drugs were treated like alcohol. The black market would effectively be removed and all the problems that spring from that would go away as well. I know some people who make their own wine and while it would technically illegal for them to sell it I dont see problems today like we had in Al Capone's day.

With that in mind, it is rather pathetic that the Canadians have stronger beer than we do because of the way our gov. regulates beer production, as Americans we should have the strongest beer in the world.

RealGun
May 30, 2005, 09:46 AM
I highly doubt anyone here would be dissatisfied if drugs were treated like alcohol.

Except those who were under age. That would be a battle of its own.

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 10:57 AM
Rabbi,

Ever hear of Dred Scott?

Only in connection with canteloupes.


RealGun,
The pro-legalizing people are so committed to their little view of things that nothing will change it. Any group for whom the final argument is "let them die in the streets for all I care" is not one that can be swayed.

Group9
May 30, 2005, 11:11 AM
The problem with treating all illegal drugs like alcohol is that alcohol is one product with one set of characteristics. There is a vast difference in the effects of different illegal drugs and part of the problem with legalization is deciding how to separate them. There has never been a point in our history where such a large array of mind altering substances have been in existence and available. You might be able to legitimately compare some illegal drugs to alcohol, but who here is going to say that methamphetamine use, for instance, has any relationship and common charateristics with alcohol use?

So are you going to legalize everything? Or just some drugs? Which ones are you going to legalize and if you don't legalize them all, how are you going to regulate the ones you don't legalize?

And, for the ones that you do legalize, are you going to dispense them to addicts, or make them pay for it? What do you do with people who want more than you dispense if you decide on that? Now that drugs are legal, what are we going to do with addicts who want help?

And, it is pollyanna reasoning in the extreme to think that legalizing drugs is going to end crime, or even reduce it. The mafia existed before Prohibition and it existed after it, they just committed, and commit, different crimes.

Hey, but, maybe all of the drug dealers would go get 9 to 5 jobs and become good taxpaying citizens. Like the mafia did.

A lot of people who advocate a more lawless society have the mistaken impression that they would be at the top of the food chain.

mercedesrules
May 30, 2005, 11:17 AM
I mean, just last week, The Bristol Brewing Co. rolled north up into The Phantom Canyon Brewing Co's territory. ...etc.
Haha! :D :D

mercedesrules
May 30, 2005, 11:32 AM
Fellers, when a market is free, only one market will exist. It is coercion, regulations and econnomic distortions that create a "black market". When the price for a good or service is allowed to float according to supply and demand in a given area, only one price will exist - leaving no room for a second market.

Any group for whom the final argument is "let them die in the streets for all I care" is not one that can be swayed.
And any person for whom the answer to every perceived problem is, "Steal more money from this guy and give it to that one.", is beyond logic, also.

mercedesrules
May 30, 2005, 11:54 AM
Any "legalizing" desired will not overturn the precedents of controlling alcohol.
That is why the state "treating drugs like alcohol" is not acceptable to me. To have the maximum harm-reducing and liberty-enhancing effects I envision, all drugs (including alcohol) have to be treated just like the most benign goods - say, corn.

If there is any tax, age limit, regulation, prohibition, manufacturing control, differentiation between drugs, or other distortions, a black market, and all of its negative properties, will survive.

Since I can recognize corn, I can buy it without council. I can't recognize metoprolol or powdered cocaine, so I would need advice if purchasing them in a free market. I would use the same methods I use now for diamonds; going only to the most reputable vendors, getting a professional's advice or maybe reading Consumer Guide.

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 11:54 AM
Fellers, when a market is free, only one market will exist. It is coercion, regulations and econnomic distortions that create a "black market". When the price for a good or service is allowed to float according to supply and demand in a given area, only one price will exist - leaving no room for a second market.

That statement implies that there will be less regulation on, say, methamphetamine than on peanut butter.

2nd Amendment
May 30, 2005, 11:59 AM
A consistent item through this thread: The antis appeal to emotion and "what might happen". The pros appeal to facts, statistics and accepting reality. Does this sound familar to anyone else?

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 12:01 PM
A consistent item through this thread: The antis appeal to emotion and "what might happen". The pros appeal to facts, statistics and accepting reality. Does this sound familar to anyone else?

:rolleyes:

Art Eatman
May 30, 2005, 12:06 PM
Re "people dying in the streets": From using the drugs, or from behavior after becoming addled by the drugs, or from violence associated with the "drug world"?

Medically, drugs are a relatively small health factor, whether with regard to illnesses or to dying. Tobacco and alcohol are ten times deadlier, as to cause of death.

Behavior? I note that a high percentage of all violence stems from actions taken while drunk on alcohol. We already know about DUI and traffic.

As for the direct violence associated with the world of drugs, I note that there are two main causes: Acquisition of the money to buy; and protection of the supply lines and distribution points.

Without regard to the difference between "good" Bad Drugs and "bad" Bad Drugs: If drugs were available for roughly the price of beer--and they could be produced and sold at those prices--there would be little or no need for a would-be purchaser to hit Mama's Stop'n'Rob. Therefore, no black market requirement for protecting itself via violence. (Or, at worst, a notable reduction in the amount of black market.)

My observation over the last 30+ years is that much of the anti-gun hysteria stems from drug-related shootings. Stop'n'robs, of course; and the shooters in drive-by shootings are so poorly qualified that they kill unassociated people who happen to be within range.

IOW, CHANGING how we deal with the world of drugs could easily be a step toward less violence, less death, less money from the taxpayer.

Asuming we treat marijuana sales and behavior after usage as we now treat alcohol: What's wrong with that? Marijuana is a tranquilizer. It tends mostly to make folks feel real peaceful, which is the primary reason it was a cult thing in the Hippie era. (Legal beer, on the other hand, tends to create "War-thirty" on Friday and Saturday nights.)

Seems to me that the only change in the laws might include, "Thou shalt not drive while stoned," and, "Thou shalt not displease thy boss by showing up stoned." IOW, no big deal.

For the moment, please, don't come on to me about speed and horse and crack. I'm only talking here about grass.

Art

2nd Amendment
May 30, 2005, 12:08 PM
Yeah, thats another thing I forgot to mention, scorn. The same stance lefties have: "If you just really knew the facts" and when someone points out the methodology out comes the dismissal. Thx for reminding me, Rabs.

RealGun
May 30, 2005, 01:34 PM
but who here is going to say that methamphetamine use, for instance, has any relationship and common charateristics with alcohol use?

Both are addictive and both destroy lives or certainly create major setbacks. I have personal knowledge of each.

The whole reason for rule of law is to mandate accepted norms of behavior considered essential for a stable society. I think one would have to work on the acceptance part before supposing that the law could be changed.

The rise of the right is not a good time to get serious about legalizing drug use. I think the best argument is against the futility of enforcement or in favor of breaking out certain substances that are not truly harmful. What is a waste of time is trying to justify indulging in the drugs. One might have some right to abuse themselves privately but cannot expect approval, direct or indirect. The country is not ruled by anarchists.

Glock Glockler
May 30, 2005, 01:41 PM
The rise of the right is not a good time to get serious about legalizing drug use. I think the best argument is against the futility of enforcement or in favor of breaking out certain substances that are not truly harmful. What is a waste of time is trying to justify indulging in the drugs. One might have some right to abuse themselves privately but cannot expect approval, direct or indirect. The country is not ruled by anarchists.

Agreed 100%

In order for any progess to be made there must be arguments based on pure utility.

Sindawe
May 30, 2005, 01:52 PM
The country is not ruled by anarchists. Not that we'd accept in the first place. "Rule by Anarchists" is another oxymoron, like "Federal Budget" or "Tame Cat". In order for any progess to be made there must be arguments based on pure utility. 1. Drug prohibition greatly increases the profit in the trade to crimminal gangs, providing them with huge amounts of money.

2. Huge amounts of money are to politicians what honey is to bees. If they smell it, they will come.

3. Given access to the huge amounts of money, politicians will do whatever they must, and vote however they must, in order to continue access to that huge amount of money. Their oath of office, responsibility to their constituency and fabric of our society be damned.

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 02:01 PM
For the moment, please, don't come on to me about speed and horse and crack. I'm only talking here about grass.

Art, that's a pass you cant have. The pro-drug folks have made it their platform that any regulation of any behavior is unacceptable. My contention is that in any society no man is an island and society is responsible in one way or another for cleaning up the mess that people do to themselves and others as a result of their poor choices. That is a contention not shared by the pro side. So if you want to maintain that cheap drugs will solve the crime problem then go right ahead. I dont think thats a tenable view.

publius
May 30, 2005, 02:45 PM
My contention is that in any society no man is an island and society is responsible in one way or another for cleaning up the mess that people do to themselves and others as a result of their poor choices.
At the risk of dragging this thread back on topic, I'd like to point out that this kind of groupthink is very similar to the reasoning in the Wickard case, on which drug and firearms laws now depend in the pending cases at the Supreme Court. (Anyone remember those?) ;)

Wickard grew his own wheat on his farm, and the feds said he could not because, if everyone did it, we could expect bad overall effects. If only he did it, not really a problem, but subsumed into the group, he got regulated with the group.

Here's the salient fact today: if you believe that the feds should have the authority under the commerce clause to regulate private production, possession, and use of cannabis, you are on the anti-gun side of the debate about federal power. Doubt it? Reread the cert petition in the Stewart case (http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf).

RealGun
May 30, 2005, 02:55 PM
Here's the salient fact today: if you believe that the feds should have the authority under the commerce clause to regulate private production, possession, and use of cannabis, you are on the anti-gun side of the debate about federal power. Doubt it? Reread the cert petition in the Stewart case.

The difference being that there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom to grow pot.

Justin
May 30, 2005, 02:56 PM
The pro-drug folks have made it their platform that any regulation of any behavior is unacceptable. Now it's patently obvious that you haven't been paying attention. Implicit in your statement is that those who advocate decriminalization/legalization of drugs also support the same for murder, rape, fraud, assault, battery, and any other form of coercion.

My contention is that in any society no man is an island and society is responsible in one way or another for cleaning up the mess that people do to themselves and others as a result of their poor choices. That's pretty funny coming from a guy who's sig line reads "We Want Jack Daniels!" Also amusing is that you seem to have no problem with using force and coercion on the rest of "society" to clean up the mess that, to a large extent, is a direct result of the drug war in the first place. I mean, hey, if you want to go down to the bad neighborhoods and play Mother Teresa to the addicts, feel free. I just fail to see why you should be allowed to steal money and resources from me because you're serving some sort of "greater good."

A list of things The Rabbi evidently has no problem sacrificing for "The Greater Good" (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1708520&postcount=47)

Justin
May 30, 2005, 03:00 PM
The difference being that there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom to grow pot.

Really?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Evidently George Washington grew hemp, too.

RealGun
May 30, 2005, 03:18 PM
Oh, but now you have to have agreement on what those rights not enumerated might be. I buy into the right of self defense because it is instinctive. I don't believe I have a problem with growing pot on your own property, except that currently its use is illegal. Growing it can fairly be interpreted as an intent to use it or sell it. You have some arguments to win (against the law) in logical succession.

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 05:18 PM
Now it's patently obvious that you haven't been paying attention. Implicit in your statement is that those who advocate decriminalization/legalization of drugs also support the same for murder, rape, fraud, assault, battery, and any other form of coercion.

It was only implicit to people lacking good will. I probably should have put in "behavior that does not obviously harm other people."

mercedesrules
May 30, 2005, 06:35 PM
That statement implies that there will be less regulation on, say, methamphetamine than on peanut butter.

No, just the same...none.

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 07:07 PM
No, just the same...none.

If you think that then you ought to go ask someone.

mercedesrules
May 30, 2005, 07:43 PM
I'm for a free market in everything.

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 07:49 PM
I'm for a free market in everything.

Heck, I'll go you one better: I want everything just to be free period. Free beer, free liquor, free guns, free ammo, free peanut butter, free steaks etc etc.

Sindawe
May 30, 2005, 07:56 PM
Heck, I'll go you one better: I want everything just to be free period. Free beer, free liquor, free guns, free ammo, free peanut butter, free steaks etc etc. Master of sarcasm at work. At least you've learned to spell the words correctly. :D

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 08:25 PM
Master of sarcasm at work. At least you've learned to spell the words correctly.

I had to use spell-check for the ones with more than one syllable.

publius
May 30, 2005, 08:40 PM
Rabbi
The difference being that there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom to grow pot.
Sure there are, in fact, there are two amendments in the Bill of Rights: 9 and 10.

Bringing us right back to the commerce clause argument...

publius
May 30, 2005, 08:48 PM
Oh, but now you have to have agreement on what those rights not enumerated might be.
It's real easy. You check to see which powers the federal government legitimately has, all the rest are those not enumerated.

You either believe in the big government, New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, or you do not. If you do, you're going to wind up supporting it when it comes to firearms as well as cannabis. See that cert petition (http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf) again.

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 09:57 PM
Sure there are, in fact, there are two amendments in the Bill of Rights: 9 and 10.

Except that isnt my argument.

But no judicial authority has seen a right to grow dope anywhere in the Constitution. If you want to maintain one, go right ahead. I suggest growing it, turning yourself in, and then litigating the matter through the federal courts on a Constitutional question.
Powers are not what any man wants to make of them. There is a judicial process.

Glock Glockler
May 30, 2005, 10:08 PM
Rabbi,

The SCOTUS once thought that a black man was property, maybe it's not such a good idea to contract out our thinking to the courts when we can read what is right in front of us.

Art Eatman
May 30, 2005, 11:23 PM
"Art, that's a pass you cant have. The pro-drug folks have made it their platform that any regulation of any behavior is unacceptable."

Rabbi, where have I ever said I'm right in there with the pro-drug folks? Where have I ever said that I'm against all regulating, and/or of all behavior? And why should I be bound in any way by what they believe?

IOW, don't put words in my mouth, or lump my ideas in with somebody else.

Again: What do you think is the actual, probable harm if marijuana were regulated as is alcohol?

FWIW: In the period of between 30 years ago and 40 years ago, I tried Ms Mary Jane maybe four or five times. Didn't care for it. I'd spent too much time learning where I got with Budweiser and bourbon to learn a new game. From some years in the night club business, I was around a lot of smokers--both the musicians and the customers. I know exactly what the typical behavior is. If they're not driving, if they're not going to work, they're harmless--in contrast to a lot of legally-drunks.

This thread is maybe the umpteenth on this subject. My call, usually, if for some sort of change in how the government deals with our drug problems. Nixon declared this "War on Drugs" in 1973. I really don't think we're winning.

With respect to "winning": Back around 1980, a gram of cocaine of about 15% to 20% cost $100. A brand-new Toyota 4WD PU was about $8,000. That same truck, today, is somewhere around $24,000 or more (Tacoma). What's a gram of coke going for? To me, "winning" means we've reduced the availability to the point where the price goes up. Just inflation means the price oughta go up.

So: Is a gram of coke above $100? Are we winning? And, if we're not winning, how long are we going to repeat the same old experiment while anticipating a different result?

Which is worse? Legalizing drugs, or winding up with no Bill of Rights worth noticing? The attacks on the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments stem mostly from the WOD...

All I really know is that the WAY we're going about dealing with the problem has--to my mind, anyway--proven out to be dumber'n hammered dirt.

Art

Sindawe
May 31, 2005, 12:02 AM
Again: What do you think is the actual, probable harm if marijuana were regulated as is alcohol? Even thought the question was not asked of me. I'll wager (1 round of .308 Winchester FMJ) that Rabbi's response will involve NLT one of the following:

1. Its a "Gateway Drug", and drug addicted criminals get their start on the evil weed with is burning roots in "the hot place" (bonus points if you can name the movie that line is taken from).

2. It fosters disrespect for authority and a well ordered society, since those under its influence are unable to control their actions, and will harm someone else, or their family, or they will go on to use OTHER drugs that will lead to this end.

3. There is no "Right" to use any drug, since all rights flow from some governing body, somewhere.

fallingblock
May 31, 2005, 12:37 AM
;)
*********************************************************
"CHANGING how we deal with the world of drugs could easily be a step toward less violence, less death, less money from the taxpayer."
*********************************************************


Every time I get involved with one of these libertarian-incited "free the drugs"
threads, It seems that I neglect to remember to lay all the points out first....

And thus, I get mistaken for some sort of "supporter" of the WoD. :eek:

My take on this subject is that y'all are simply bonkers if you think society - ANY society - would be a "better place" with the unregulated possession and use of drugs.

I live in the middle of just such a society at the moment.

A fair number of Aborigines - children and adults, are whacking themselves out with alcohol, petrol, paint, solvents...anything that will raise a buzz.

The Aussie Federal Government is spending $10 million THIS YEAR to mandate the use of non-solvent petrol (Opal) in the communities. One result is that kids from the communities are turning up in Alice Springs and stealing petrol from cars to maintain their brain-damaging addiction.

Prohibition? C'mon...it's PETROL! :rolleyes:

Regulation? Right, put a secure lock on your petrol filler cap and they just puncture the tank. :banghead:

The N.T. Government - in desperation - is in the process of making the possession of petrol for sniffing illegal. :scrutiny:

(sarcasm mode on) Yeppers, that's sure gonna fix it! (sarcasm mode off)

See, publius' emphasis on the similarity of the U.S. Feds. approach to what amounts to unauthorized regulation of drugs and guns via the Commerce Clause is exactly spot-on correct.

That, in my opinion, is the ONLY similarity between the issues of recreational drug use and RKBA.

Responsible use of arms is protected by the Second Amendment.

It is a concept which is fundamental to individual and collective freedom.

"Responsible use of (recreational) drugs" is a nonsense - this use is an individual escape from responsibility - however temporary and to what degree is determined by the user. In no way is this a collective good, nor should it be a 'right' within a society which extends value to each member.
A privilege available to those who do not abust others...why not?

Why, good libertarians, do you suppose that you and our anti-gun nemesis George Soros and his Open Society Institute are on the same side when it comes to the concept of legalizing and - ultimately - encouraging the use of recreational drugs?

It is because Soros and his "One World" folks are striving for a global society with lots of docile, dependent folks who look to their rulers for everything, including a feed and a fix.

No guns allowed, and the elite make the rules....can't trust those dopers to think for themselves anyway. :rolleyes:

The current WoD is a disaster for individual rights, and Art done put it better'n I could:
*********************************************************
"Which is worse? Legalizing drugs, or winding up with no Bill of Rights worth noticing? The attacks on the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments stem mostly from the WOD...

All I really know is that the WAY we're going about dealing with the problem has--to my mind, anyway--proven out to be dumber'n hammered dirt."
*********************************************************


What I am advocating, and agreeing with The Rabbi and others on the nature of, is that a society permitting and ultimately encouraging the unregulated possession and consumption of intoxicating, mind alterering and responsibility diminishing substances is not one that I wish to be a part of.

Nor will such a society long remain 'free'.

Suggestions to preserve our RKBA and develop a responsible free society:

Fix the Commerce Clause. (yeah, easier said than done :( )

Stop the WoD...it ain't workin' too good and is costin' us too much in liberty and treasure.

Here's the tough one:

Reduce the demand for escapist substances by reducing the misery, desperation, alienation and sense of dislocation within the user -

Or just let 'em die?


Sindawe:
Ya' got it backwards...recreational drug users are much easier to control than those in full control of their faculties. :D

DRZinn
May 31, 2005, 01:12 AM
The pro-drug folks have made it their platform that any regulation of any behavior is unacceptable.Wrong. Try this: Any regulation of bahvior that does not harm anyone else is unacceptable.

The difference being that there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom to grow pot.The similarity being that I don't need a constitutional amendment in order to have a right to do anything that harms noone but (sometimes) me.

Sindawe
May 31, 2005, 02:37 AM
A fair number of Aborigines - children and adults, are whacking themselves out with alcohol, petrol, paint, solvents...anything that will raise a buzz. I must ask, WHY is that? Are the "less damaging" intoxicants too difficult to obtain? As far as those poor fools who chose to rot their brains with solvents, well...some folks are just too dumb to survive. My take on this subject is that y'all are simply bonkers if you think society - ANY society - would be a "better place" with the unregulated possession and use of drugs. Funny, my society survived rather well when possesion and use of Cannabis species and its extracts, extract of Poppies, extract of the Coca plant and several forms of pscycoactive fungi were unregulated. Sure, some people died as a result of uncontrolled use of such (see "too dumb to survive" above), just as some folks died as a result of careless handling of large farm animals, black powder and Professor Nobel's invention, dynamite.Ya' got it backwards...recreational drug users are much easier to control than those in full control of their faculties. Well, based soley on my first hand experience, those who are "recreational drug users" are given to question the information presented to them by the MSM, the dictates from their social "betters" and to think & reason for themselves with more frequency than my friends and aquantances who are not "recreational drug users".

You are free to differ in opion. Just don't come between me and my java beans (a recreational drug), or there will be...trouble. :evil: :evil: :evil:

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 05:46 AM
The similarity being that I don't need a constitutional amendment in order to have a right to do anything that harms noone but (sometimes) me.

Really? How do you know that? Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?

publius
May 31, 2005, 06:27 AM
Except that isnt my argument.

But no judicial authority has seen a right to grow dope anywhere in the Constitution.

1. Note that I said SALIENT point. The courts don't wish to hear your argument, though I would agree that, in addition to the fact that a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption is not interstate commerce, it is also Constitutionally protected from federal infringement. See Silviera v Lockyer. When they want to hear it, it'll become salient. I'll cheer.

2. Are you hard of reading? Amendments 9 and 10. There does not have to be some "right to grow dope" (when the Founders grew it, they called it by the proper name: cannabis or hemp).

If it is going to be federally regulated, you'll have to find the authority in the Constitution. They first found it in the power to tax. Later, the Constitution grew, and now it can be found in the commerce clause power, the same place they find the authority to regulate guns.

This idea that in order to be free from federal regulation, you have to have some explicitly stated Constitutional right to be free from that regulation is nonsense, it's the opposite of what was intended when our government was created, and it's plainly contrary to the language of amendments 9 and 10.

publius
May 31, 2005, 06:33 AM
Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?

I stole the idea from Thomas Jefferson. Why do you think I do not?

“Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God Himself will not save men against their wills.” Thomas Jefferson
I think Jefferson got the idea from God, who seems to let people commit suicide, despite His feelings on the subject, and the harm it does to those around them.

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 10:51 AM
1) Just because YOU see a right in the Constitution doesnt mean it's there. If you want to dispute that I suggest you go grow marijuana in your front yard and see what happens.
2) Even if the Feds have no power to regulate illicit drugs (and I think they do) most drug cases stem from state and local laws. Are you going to argue that states also do not have the right to make these things illegal?
3) Your reading of Jefferson is absurd and illogical and I suspect the quote was taken out of context. He (and you) sure didnt get the idea of individual harm being permitted from the Bible. Im not sure about yours, but mine clearly states "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

I dont understand your cite of Silveira. The court threw out all the plaintiffs' arguments. The SC refused to hear it. What point are you trying to make?

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 11:00 AM
from Glock Glockler:

The SCOTUS once thought that a black man was property, maybe it's not such a good idea to contract out our thinking to the courts when we can read what is right in front of us.

Thats the most downright ignorant summary of Dredd Scott or any other case I have ever seen. They didnt say that. They didnt say anything close to that. And if you had spent 3 minutes looking for the case you would have known that.

2nd Amendment
May 31, 2005, 11:46 AM
OK, I'm curious, Rabs. Why the desperation on this subject? In the end the fact is there would be very little difference in total number of people using drugs than there is now under the utter failure(unless you define success by how much money the government makes from it) that is the WoD. We simply wouldn't have the government making big bucks by stealing people's property and we wouldn't have the level of organized violence since the money would also be gone from the drug trade itself...

So what don't you like about that, since that's really all there is to it no matter how much silliness people try to add to the discussion.

And here's some goodies regarding Dredd Scott, for the unfamilar. If the SCOTUS did not in fact endorse slavery then there's some interesting Spin going on. Of course we've been hearing that throughout this WoD discussion...

http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/dredsupp.html

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 12:00 PM
OK, I'm curious, Rabs. Why the desperation on this subject? In the end the fact is there would be very little difference in total number of people using drugs than there is now under the utter failure(unless you define success by how much money the government makes from it) that is the WoD. We simply wouldn't have the government making big bucks by stealing people's property and we wouldn't have the level of organized violence since the money would also be gone from the drug trade itself...

See, this is where we disagree. It is a fact of economics that if you lower the price of something there will be more of it consumed. Legalization is a way to lower the price because using it comes without the risk of getting caught. In order for you to believe the opposte you would have to believe that laws have no effect on behavior. I am not claiming they perfectly affect behavior but your argument is that they do not affect it at all.
As far as making big bucks, this seems contradictory to a lot of what's been posted. Most people here have maintained that the government has SPENT big bucks doing this. So which is it?

DRZinn
May 31, 2005, 12:19 PM
Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself? Why do you think you have a right to stop me? You have no right to inhibit any action I choose to take unless it's to stop me from harming someone else by taking that action. If it is an act that harms only me, than of course by acting I am accepting the consequences.

Just because YOU see a right in the Constitution doesnt mean it's there. If you want to dispute that I suggest you go grow marijuana in your front yard and see what happens.So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, than it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Old Dog
May 31, 2005, 12:29 PM
We simply wouldn't have the government making big bucks by stealing people's property and we wouldn't have the level of organized violence since the money would also be gone from the drug trade itself...
This surely doesn't seem to me to be a good argument against the WoD ... with legalization, the government would then be making its big bucks by taxing the hell out drugs (as with cigarettes and alcohol). As far as the violence ... perhaps the violence stemming from drug dealer vs. dealer vs. law enforcement ... but I suspect you'd see more violent crime on the part of the end users, since drugs would presumably be more readily consumed, meaning users would still need cash to buy their drugs ... unless -- the government was subsidizing all the addicts' use -- hey now, there's an idea: let's just let the government spend money to provide drugs to users. Surely that'd be far cheaper than fighting an unwinnable war on drugs.

Some of the posters here don't see the irony present: advocating legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, which would surely result in a far greater outlaying of taxpayer expenditures to regulate and tax the drug trade -- while on other threads, these same folks get totally riled up about the government's expansion and increasing taxation.

those who are "recreational drug users" are given to question the information presented to them by the MSM, the dictates from their social "betters" and to think & reason for themselves with more frequency than my friends and aquantances who are not "recreational drug users".
Now we've heard everything. Drug users more likely to disagree with the MSM and thinking more clearly than non-drug users?

2nd Amendment
May 31, 2005, 12:36 PM
So if drugs were legal and cheap would YOU use them? Do you drink yourself into a stupor because booze is legal and cheap? I wouldn't and I don't Most of the rest of the US doesn't abuse booze. In fact, the percentage of drinkers has gone down. I'd posit that we would indeed see a spike in drug use after legalization. A fair number of people would want to try it, just as they want to hit the bar once when they are 21.

I STOPPED drinking when I was 21. There was no fun in it. No challenge. Most people who hit the bar at 21 don't become barflies. Likewise most who try drugs upon legalization won't become druggies. There's no reason to think otherwise.

And the government has spent billions, of course. Money it has recouped in higher taxes and fees and then there is the profit to various law enforcement agencies via Asset Frofeiture. But even if there was no percentage in it, the money SPENT is coming out of our pockets for no effect at all.

Clean97GTI
May 31, 2005, 12:46 PM
We would see a jump in drug use, then it would drop back down to where it is now...maybe a bit more. The only difference is that we won't have people killing each other over deals gone bad. We'd see far less of it anyway, at least as the softer, party drugs are concerned.

If drugs became legal, I'd probably partake every so often. I do the same thing with alcohol now. I'm an adult, capable of bearing the responsibility my actions carry. If I choose to go out and destroy myself with drink or drug, I've got no one to blame but myself.

mercedesrules
May 31, 2005, 12:58 PM
As far as making big bucks, this seems contradictory to a lot of what's been posted. Most people here have maintained that the government has SPENT big bucks doing this. So which is it?
The government has no money of its own. For the drug war, it takes tax money from citizens by force and gives it to itself/government workers/the police. Then it confiscates property and gives it to other government workers - often the police again. It is all a huge transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 01:06 PM
DocZinn, since you wont answer my question on why you think you have a right to harm yourself, let me say this:
So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, than it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Yes, thats correct. That is my position.

So if drugs were legal and cheap would YOU use them? Do you drink yourself into a stupor because booze is legal and cheap? I wouldn't and I don't Most of the rest of the US doesn't abuse booze. In fact, the percentage of drinkers has gone down. I'd posit that we would indeed see a spike in drug use after legalization. A fair number of people would want to try it, just as they want to hit the bar once when they are 21.

2nd Amendment, you are ducking the point. I wouldnt buy an SUV if they were half as expensive as they are. But plenty of people would. I wouldnt use drugs if they were cheap and available, but economics suggests a lot of people would. Why do you think the economic argument is invalid?

mercedesrules
May 31, 2005, 01:13 PM
This surely doesn't seem to me to be a good argument against the WoD ... with legalization, the government would then be making its big bucks by taxing the hell out drugs (as with cigarettes and alcohol).

Of course, I'm against taxing these things, but it is not a good argument for the war on drugs that "if they legalize drugs, they'll just tax them to death". That would still be a "war on drugs". I consider the high taxes on tobacco and alcohol to be a war on those things.

As far as the violence ... perhaps the violence stemming from drug dealer vs. dealer vs. law enforcement ... but I suspect you'd see more violent crime on the part of the end users, since drugs would presumably be more readily consumed, meaning users would still need cash to buy their drugs ... unless -- the government was subsidizing all the addicts' use -- hey now, there's an idea: let's just let the government spend money to provide drugs to users. Surely that'd be far cheaper than fighting an unwinnable war on drugs.

Many have tried this type of sarcasm...and many have failed. Is there violence over the price of tomatoes? Most drugs are merely plants - produce. Why would people have to steal to raise cash for produce? Look how fat everyone is! And again, the government has no money of its own. I don't want my stolen tax money used to buy drugs for addicts, period.

Some of the posters here don't see the irony present: advocating legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, which would surely result in a far greater outlaying of taxpayer expenditures to regulate and tax the drug trade -- while on other threads, these same folks get totally riled up about the government's expansion and increasing taxation.

I want all drugs re-legalized. I don't want them taxed or regulated! :banghead:

Sindawe
May 31, 2005, 01:18 PM
Old Dog: You took my words out of context. Let me repeat them for you in full. Well, based soley on my first hand experience, those who are "recreational drug users" are given to question the information presented to them by the MSM, the dictates from their social "betters" and to think & reason for themselves with more frequency than my friends and aquantances who are not "recreational drug users". During my years in the Bloodmines of Boulder (Baxter Hemoglobin Therapeutics (http://www.bostonsearch.com/profile.asp?cno=895)) I worked directly with close to 100 individuals, from a wide range of ages, educational and economic backgrounds. I observed that those individuals who were "recreational drug users" either of the legal stripe or not were more inclined to be questioning of the status quo, more likely to search for information on current events than fed to them by the MSM, were better able to think outside the box and on their feet than those who held the opinion that "drugs are bad" without question. Its a very small sample set, and the observation is just that, an observation.

Do not make the mistake that I am implying that drug use leads to better critical thinking skills. Personally, I think that the converse is more often the case.

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 01:19 PM
Many have tried this type of sarcasm...and many have failed. Is there violence over the price of tomatoes? Most drugs are merely plants - produce. Why would people have to steal to raise cash for produce? Look how fat everyone is! And again, the government has no money of its own. I don't want my stolen tax money used to buy drugs for addicts, period.

We have a winner.
I am not sure how to categorize this response but it wins some kind of award for the most nonsensical. By that logic let's try the following:
Paper money is just paper. You dont see people mugging each other for their notecards or 8 1/2x11s do you?
Yes drugs are plants in the same way that paper money is paper. :rolleyes:

mercedesrules
May 31, 2005, 01:22 PM
Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?
Because to think otherwise, I would have to believe that I have an obligation to someone else not to harm myself. To whom would that be?

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 01:28 PM
Because to think otherwise, I would have to believe that I have an obligation to someone else not to harm myself. To whom would that be?

By that logic, you have no right to vote because you have no obligation to anyone to vote.
You have no right to own guns because you have no obligation to anyone to do so.

RealGun
May 31, 2005, 01:32 PM
So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, then it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

The law can, has, and will take that position, directly or indirectly. The question is whether it will be at the federal, state, or local level. Of course, there are differences among claiming a right, having a right, and being free to exercise a right.

By not enumerating all rights, the Constitution merely leaves those not enumerated open to question. The rule of law says that the Courts get to decide any legal question in regard to rights. Whether we respect Court rulings is a different question and problem. Unfortunately we cannot favor the rule of law only for the laws with which we agree.

Before I got too upset with some law, I would examine who passed the law and why.

It all comes down to how poorly the bar has served this country. Legal precedent is treated as more important than the Constitution, and heaven forbid that they would overturn some ruling by a colleague, present or historic. Exceptions are refreshing rather than the rule.

mercedesrules
May 31, 2005, 01:38 PM
Yes drugs are plants in the same way that paper money is paper
No. Most illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana) can be proven scientifically to be (from) plants; one can chew a coca leaf and get a mild version of the same effect as with "crack". In mountainous areas of South America they do just that, and also drink the tea to prevent breathing problems at high altitudes and prolong the workday. BTW, drug wars cause people to invent stronger drugs than they would otherwise so as to better smuggle them.

Paper (fiat) money is only different from other paper because a state pronounced it to be...under threat of violence.

Actually, you are making my point: if the state removed their special sanctions against certain drugs, no one would mug anyone over them. They would be like the notecards again.

Glock Glockler
May 31, 2005, 01:45 PM
Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?

Because I own my body and it is not owned by anyon else. Some may argue that I am causeing a small amount of hearing damage every time I shoot, does that man I may not do it?

What about drinking Jack Daniels or eating McDonalds?

What about dating that girl that is trouble?

What about skydiving, or joining the military?

What about kickboxing?

I could make a very long list of activities that most definately cause damage to oneself, does that mean thy should all be banned?

mercedesrules
May 31, 2005, 01:50 PM
By that logic, you have no right to vote because you have no obligation to anyone to vote.
You have no right to own guns because you have no obligation to anyone to do so.

:what:

Original argument:
I have a right to harm myself because I don't have any obligation to anyone to not do so.

Gun ownership:

I have a right to own a gun because I don't have any obligation to anyone to not own one.

Voting:

Bad example; implies an obligation for someone else to hold an election.

DRZinn
May 31, 2005, 01:56 PM
So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, than it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Yes, thats correct. That is my position.Just wanted to get that out in the open.

By that logic, you have no right to vote because you have no obligation to anyone to vote.
You have no right to own guns because you have no obligation to anyone to do so.Wrong again.

1. The argument was made that an individual has no OBLIGATION to refrain from harming himself.

2. You twisted that into the same thing as no RIGHT to do someting (harm oneself/vote/own guns) because there's no obligation.

3. :banghead:

Gordon Fink
May 31, 2005, 02:21 PM
Any group for whom the final argument is “let them die in the streets for all I care” is not one that can be swayed.

Actually, fewer people would die in the streets if drugs were decriminalized. Regulation (public or private) would ensure that drugs were sold at uniform dosages and qualities, which would greatly reduce overdoses and adverse reactions. Tax revenues from sales or even a tiny fraction of the funds formerly wasted on interdiction efforts would pay for treatment of addicts and abusers.

After decriminalization, drug use would almost certainly rise. However, I’m not sure that addiction rates would change very much. I suspect that alcoholism already soaks up the pool of potential addicts, though there would probably be some change in the addicts’ intoxicants of choice.

There is the question of unintended consequences. What would happen to the criminal enterprises built around the illegal drug trade? A few would probably legitimize themselves, but most would look for new black-market opportunities. Of course, we can always continue to eliminate black markets.

~G. Fink

Too Many Choices!?
May 31, 2005, 02:23 PM
There are no laws against any type of self-mutilation that I have ever heard of State or Federal. This however does not mean they don't exist, but if they do they are unConstitutional. If I sit at home and decide to chop off, lets say the tip of a finger on my left hand(like a moron would :neener: ), I don't see why it would be any business of a neighbor, the police, or the ems :banghead: !! I cut off my finger, and if I can't stop the bleeding and die, oh well. Suicide by stupidity!! Darwin at his best...

I have asked this before and never got an answer from the Rabbi, so here it is again....IF MY BODY DOES NOT BELONG TO ME THEN WHO DOES IT BEOLONG TO? THE STATE? THE FEDS? OR ME?

I don't want ANYONE telling me what I can or can't place, on or in my own body when it harms no one. I am sure that if the American people wouldn't kick some Congress a** for them trying, Congress would attempt to pass a no mutilation law of some sort, regulating what can and cant' be pierced(ex. genitalia) :what: :uhoh: !

Too Many Choices!?
May 31, 2005, 02:31 PM
Just look at the death of the so-called,"Assault Weapons Ban". It caused a spike in the market of these firearms, but nowhere near the blood in the streets that the media tried to sell us :scrutiny:! Why would this be any different :confused: ? Individuals are not stupid fot the most part, it is that rare case of BTL(born to lose) that brings down the collective IQ :banghead: :barf:

publius
May 31, 2005, 02:33 PM
1) Just because YOU see a right in the Constitution doesnt mean it's there. If you want to dispute that I suggest you go grow marijuana in your front yard and see what happens.
2) Even if the Feds have no power to regulate illicit drugs (and I think they do) most drug cases stem from state and local laws. Are you going to argue that states also do not have the right to make these things illegal?
3) Your reading of Jefferson is absurd and illogical and I suspect the quote was taken out of context. He (and you) sure didnt get the idea of individual harm being permitted from the Bible. Im not sure about yours, but mine clearly states "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

I dont understand your cite of Silveira. The court threw out all the plaintiffs' arguments. The SC refused to hear it. What point are you trying to make?

1. You're still ignoring amendments 9 and 10. I don't have to find a Constitutionally protected right in order to be free from federal regulation in any given area. The burden of proof here works exactly the opposite way: drug warriors must find the enumerated power. There is a short and incomplete list of enumerated rights, and the Bill of Rights says that the list is incomplete, and there may be other rights. There is also an explicit and complete list of enumerated powers, and if you don't find the power you seek on that list, it cannot be found.

2. Do you think the feds have the power to regulate drugs under the old reasoning (a regulatory power grab put forth as a tax), or under the New Deal reasoning (a regulatory power grab put forth as an effort to promote interstate commerce)? If the latter, how do you feel about the fact that the very reasoning you are promoting is now being used against our firearms rights?

State level prohibition would continue to be a bad idea, making dangerous drugs more dangerous and causing crime and corruption, but I would not call it unconstitutional in general. Specific laws aimed at creating trade barriers would be unconstitutional (that's the kind of thing the commerce clause was intended to be about).

3. My point was that God clearly does not want us to kill ourselves. God is all-powerful, and therefore could stop it. He does not.

My point in citing Silviera was a bit too obvious: the court wouldn't hear it. That's the whole point. I wish, along with you, that the courts would respect the second, but they won't, and absent that respect, we're going to talk about the source of federal regulatory power: the commerce clause.

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 02:34 PM
Because I own my body and it is not owned by anyon else. Some may argue that I am causeing a small amount of hearing damage every time I shoot, does that man I may not do it?

You own your car too yet you cant do whatever you want with it.
But I am still waiting for an answer as to where the right to harm yourself comes from.

You twisted that into the same thing as no RIGHT to do someting (harm oneself/vote/own guns) because there's no obligation.

Actually I didnt do that, the poster responding did. He framed it in terms of obligations while I framed the question in terms of rights.

publius
May 31, 2005, 02:37 PM
I wouldnt use drugs if they were cheap and available, but economics suggests a lot of people would. Why do you think the economic argument is invalid?

I think it is invalid because history shows it to be. The only drug law which has had a noticeable effect on addictions and abuse was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1903. That worked, Constitutional or not (another debate). But it worked.

Alcohol prohibition did not reduce alcoholism. Drug prohibition has gone through many phases, with very lax enforcement at times, very stringent enforcement at other times. For decades now, our levels of drug abuse and addiction have fluctuated right around the same level: the level to which they fell just after the Pure Food and Drug Act.

More here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm).

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 02:40 PM
3. My point was that God clearly does not want us to kill ourselves. God is all-powerful, and therefore could stop it. He does not.

That of course ignores Free Will, something Jefferson was intimately familiar with.

Alcohol prohibition did not reduce alcoholism.

How do you know that? And there is alcoholism and alcohol consumption, which are very different things.

publius
May 31, 2005, 02:45 PM
I was really more interested in your response to points 1 and 2. I'm not going to debate theology with a Rabbi! ;)

I know about alcohol prohibition because I've researched it. I'll find sources again, if you can't find your own.

But what I found was that only one study concluded that alcoholism went down during Prohibition. Some concluded that it went up, and I don't believe those either. I don't think it had much effect, other than to enrich gangsters and make otherwise law-abiding people into criminals.

The one study didn't actually track alcoholism, it used instances of cirrhosis (sp?) of the liver as a proxy indicator. Problem with that is, those instances of liver disease fluctuate naturally, for reasons not well understood. The fluctuation which coincided with Prohibition was within the norm, so it really didn't prove anything.

Glock Glockler
May 31, 2005, 03:12 PM
Rabbi,

So long as I don't infringe on the rights of anyone else I can do whatever I like to my car.

I can hit my car with a baseball bat, I can shoot it, and can have my dog scent mark it, I can invite Hillary Clinton over to sleep in it after doing all of the above.

My right to harm myself comes from that fact that I won my body and no one else owns it.

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 03:30 PM
But what I found was that only one study concluded that alcoholism went down during Prohibition. Some concluded that it went up, and I don't believe those either. I don't think it had much effect, other than to enrich gangsters and make otherwise law-abiding people into criminals.

I dont know about alcohol use. I dont think it is a good comparison for the WoD because alcohol was legal, and a deeply embedded part of life, in the country for hundreds of years prior. George Washington handed out rum and beer in his campaign. Narcotics have never had that same status. Thats probably why I dont see marijuana getting legalized or even decriminalized any time soon.

As far as the government's right to regulate: they obviously think they have the justification and no court has disagreed.

publius
May 31, 2005, 03:58 PM
The 9th disagreed in Stewart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf), and in Raich (http://federalism.typepad.com/ashcroft_v_raich). Those cases are before the Supreme Court.

Are you on the side of the big government gun grabbers, or on the side of the cannabis growers? There are no other viable sides, so you've got to pick one.

davec
May 31, 2005, 03:59 PM
I dont know about alcohol use. I dont think it is a good comparison for the WoD because alcohol was legal, and a deeply embedded part of life, in the country for hundreds of years prior. George Washington handed out rum and beer in his campaign. Narcotics have never had that same status. Thats probably why I dont see marijuana getting legalized or even decriminalized any time soon.

What are you talking about? Narcotics were just as much a part of everyday life in America as liquor was.


http://www.bolender.com/Dr.%20Ron/SOC1023G%20Social%20Problems/Units/Unit%2011%20Substance%20Abuse%20Legal%20and%20Otherwise/Bayer%20Heroin%20Ad.jpg

http://www.polizeros.com/images/2002/12/31/Bayer-heroin.jpg

http://www.ilexikon.com/images/thumb/1/19/180px-Heroin_o-packung.jpg

http://cocaine.org/coca-cola/cocacola-advert.gif

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/CokeDrops.gif

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/coca-ad.jpg

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/vapo-opium.jpg

And George Washington and Thomas Jefferon both grew a hemp crop. While their use was mainly industrial, i think we'd just be self delisional if we pretend they didnt know about or understand the...more madicinal uses...of the plant. In fact they talk about it in some of their writings.

Yowza
May 31, 2005, 04:04 PM
Quote:
3. My point was that God clearly does not want us to kill ourselves. God is all-powerful, and therefore could stop it. He does not.


That of course ignores Free Will, something Jefferson was intimately familiar with. Now I've heard everything. That's not ignoring free will, that IS free will, Rabbi.

Rick

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 04:13 PM
Are you on the side of the big government gun grabbers, or on the side of the cannabis growers? There are no other viable sides, so you've got to pick one.

Are you on the side of the government or on the side of the child pornographers? You've got to pick.

Gordon Fink
May 31, 2005, 04:13 PM
And there is alcoholism and alcohol consumption, which are very different things.

Much like how drug abuse and drug use are very different things. :D

~G. Fink

Notice how Coca-Cola was a “temperance” drink?

publius
May 31, 2005, 04:23 PM
Are you on the side of the government or on the side of the child pornographers?

That's not an answer, it's a question. If you'll cite the case(s) you are talking about, and how they are relevant to gun/drug laws, I'll answer your question. Since I've already done those things, how about answering mine?

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 04:26 PM
If you'll cite the case(s) you are talking about, and how they are relevant to gun/drug laws, I'll answer your question.

US vs. McCoy. It was in the link to Stewart you provided.

publius
May 31, 2005, 04:39 PM
Oh, so you're asking if I think that the possession of child porn substantially affects interstate commerce? No, I don't. I don't think that kind of censorship should be on the federal agenda. I've got no problem with states protecting children by making that stuff illegal, but I don't think that it is wise or necessary to leave that sort of police power in the hands of the feds.

Madison, from Federalist 14:

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity.

Is child porn necessarily a national issue, where we must have one size fit all, or can it be handled by the states? Is the possession of child porn something which can substantially affect interstate commerce, triggering the need for Congressional authority in that area?

I don't think so, any more than I think that a homegrown machine gun (or cannabis plant) for personal consumption has that kind of effect on interstate commerce.

Now that I've answered, will you?

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 05:03 PM
Do I think the Federal gov't has the power to regulate these things? Yes, probably. Do they have an obligation to do so? Not necessarily.

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 05:04 PM
What are you talking about? Narcotics were just as much a part of everyday life in America as liquor was.

Yes, I remember reading about Jefferson handing around joints at his inauguration. :rolleyes:

Glock Glockler
May 31, 2005, 05:14 PM
Rabbi,

I answered your comment about my car, feel free to respond any time.

Sindawe
May 31, 2005, 05:37 PM
Yes, I remember reading about Jefferson handing around joints at his inauguration.

I direction your attention to the diary of one Mr. George Washington, dated Aug 7, 1765. 7. Began to separate the Male from the Female hemp at Do--rather too late.
- http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(mgw1b651))

The only reason that one would separate male from female hemp plants is to keep the females from becoming fertilized by the male flowers and going to seed, thereby improving the yield and quality of the female flowers. When growing for seed or its oil, fertilization is required. When grown for fiber, hemp is generally planted close together to insure a tall lanky plant with long fibers in the main stalk. Seperation of male and female plants is generally not required, although some hold that male plants are better for fiber production.

Joints? I doubt that, IIRC the principal means of tobacco consumption at the time was in clay pipes and the like. I rather suspect that those learned men were well aware of all the properties of the hemp plant, and the utilization of them.

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 05:39 PM
Joints? I doubt that, IIRC the principal means of tobacco consumption at the time was in clay pipes and the like. I rather suspect that those learned men were well aware of all the properties of the hemp plant, and utilized them.

Do you have any refs to this?

mercedesrules
May 31, 2005, 05:45 PM
BTW, they felt it necessary to amend the constitution to outlaw "the manufacture, sale, or transportation" of alcohol.

(Purchase and most possession was not criminal.)

Sindawe
May 31, 2005, 05:48 PM
Do you have any refs to this?

Certainly

http://www.keyschool.org/londontown/Pages/Pages/pipe.html

http://www.apva.org/exhibit/pipedate.html

mercedesrules
May 31, 2005, 05:50 PM
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
(http://www.bible.com/bible/Bcreate.html)

publius
May 31, 2005, 05:53 PM
Do I think the Federal gov't has the power to regulate these things? Yes, probably. Do they have an obligation to do so? Not necessarily.

Actually, they must have both the power AND the necessity to act. See Article 1, Section 8, toward the end (the "necessary and proper" clause). That means that if a law is not necessary, they should not make it.

In any case, if they "probably" have the power to regulate cannabis under the commerce clause, that precedent will "probably" be carried over to the regulation of firearms, per the Justice Department's request in the Stewart cert petition. Funny how gun grabbers are always following in the trails blazed by drug warriors, isn't it? On the use of tax authority to create a new police power, on the use of commerce authority to do the same, and more recently (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=138275), on the use of civil asset forfeiture laws to punish crimes, it's the same old story. Wait for the drug warriors to establish a precedent, then turn it against guns.

When are you guys going to stop handing the enemy ammunition?

Justin
May 31, 2005, 05:56 PM
I answered your comment about my car, feel free to respond any time. Glock Glockler, that's not very likely. After all I have, thus far, posted more than once in this thread seven points with regard to how the WoD specifically affects those who do not partake in the use of illicit recreational drugs. Despite being posted and linked multiple times The Rabbi, nor anyone else, has seen fit to try to refute those points or even justify why they aren't that big of a deal.

I will, once again, put a link in this post.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1708520&postcount=47

The Rabbi
May 31, 2005, 06:31 PM
Some folks just wont be persuaded, Justin. Your points are wrong factually and logically and negligible. Might as well talk to my keyboard.

Sindawe, very cute. About the level I would expect.

Sindawe
May 31, 2005, 06:36 PM
Excuse me? Did you NOT ask for references to clay pipes in Colonial America?

On Edit: I think I see what you were asking about Rabbi. I had typed "utilized them" when I was thinking "utilization of them". I was not implying that they consumed hemp flowers. I've corrected the original post.

Of course, if you are willing to investigate the possibility of such, here is a starting point for ya, http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/highsociety.html#38

publius
May 31, 2005, 08:37 PM
The only reason that one would separate male from female hemp plants is to keep the females from becoming fertilized by the male flowers and going to seed, thereby improving the yield and quality of the female flowers.

Not true. There is another reason one might do that. To control which plants get to breed with which others. There may even be other reasons, I don't know. I'm not a hemp farmer, but I am a farmer, and we're very interested in controlling all aspects of breeding in virtually all plants (and animals).

Justin
May 31, 2005, 11:30 PM
Some folks just wont be persuaded, Justin. Do tell.

Your points are wrong factually and logically and negligible. Might as well talk to my keyboard. Really? How so? Perhaps you should enlighten me. Or at the very least you could always crush me in rational debate, and point out how you used your |_337 skillz to totally pwn me.

Too Many Choices!?
June 1, 2005, 12:27 AM
Can anyone get a straight answer from the Rabbi :uhoh: ? Mods if that's outta line, I understand but 'tis true...

Besides not being able to tell if the Rabbi is playing devil's advocate or not, I have learned heap in this one! Guys keep it comin':)

Gordon Fink
June 1, 2005, 12:35 AM
The Rabbi has previously stated that he believes rights are granted by government authority. Therefore, if the government doesn’t want its subjects to have guns/drugs/oxygen/etc., that is its prerogative. I know he is wrong, but I respect his honesty on the matter.

~G. Fink

Sindawe
June 1, 2005, 01:31 AM
Not true. There is another reason one might do that. To control which plants get to breed with which others. DOH! Now I KNOW I've been away from the Biosciences for too long. I wonder how the HOA where I live will take to my keeping bees on the patio. :evil:

Byron Quick
June 1, 2005, 02:46 AM
If I use drugs, including the drug alcohol, there is no victim but, possibly, myself. I own myself. You do not. If you think you do then I have an invitation for you: come to my house and make me do right. See what happens.

Child pornography? A ridiculous and laughable analogy. Child pornography has clear and unmistakable victims who are directly harmed by its production.

Some people here just need to admit who and what they are: statists. Hypocritical statists are folk who think that the government should stay out of their business but when the folks down the road do something that harms no one...then they holler,"There oughta be a law."

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

If the Constitution grants the government the power to pass and to enforce such laws then the Constitution needs to be changed.

Alex45ACP
June 1, 2005, 04:09 AM
Can anyone get a straight answer from the Rabbi?

I was wondering the same thing...

dustind
June 1, 2005, 06:33 AM
If drugs where legal, would more people want to buy them from a shady guy on the street, or from a large name brand store? Assuming the price is cheap at both places.

Why don't criminals go to the police when a rival drug dealer threatens them with, or commits violence? Wouldn't that change if their trade was legal?

Drug dealers would go out of business overnight if drugs where legalized. The only possible exception would be if drugs where taxed to over 500% of their market price. This would depend on how heavy enforcement was.

Organized crime would not exist without black markets. Organized crime rings launder money mostly from other black markets, run protection rackets which again are for other black markets, deal cigarets in states where the taxes cause the price to be over four times the price at neighboring states, drugs, gambling, and other stuff that should be legal. Organized crime is a government created and sponsored problem that would go away if we stopped feeding it.

Even if we did not want to go for full legalization, if we allowed opium based products in limited dosages we could reduce the demand for more dangerous drugs like crack and cocaine.

publius
June 1, 2005, 07:12 AM
Can anyone get a straight answer from the Rabbi?

You guys must have missed it, but I came pretty close here:

Do I think the Federal gov't has the power to regulate these things? Yes, probably.

OK, so there is an unexplained conditional on the end of it. Still looks to me like an honest embrace of the New Deal interpretation of the Constitution exemplified in the Wickard case, which is now being used as precedent in the Stewart and Raich cases.

You've gotta give the guy credit for admitting adherence to that interpretation on a conservative board, especially knowing that the interpretation is right now "probably" being applied to gun laws at the Supreme Court to overturn this excellent opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf).

Few who hold that view are willing to admit to it in a place like this one. I've been around here and TFL long enough to know who many of the other adherents of New Deal Constitutionality are, and none of them seem to want to touch this topic with a ten foot pole.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 09:16 AM
Drug dealers would go out of business overnight if drugs where legalized. The only possible exception would be if drugs where taxed to over 500% of their market price.

I figure that, in the absence of prohibition, a heavy sin tax would sustain the black market for a long time. The religious folks or just plain moralists will have their say, somehow avoiding endorsement of drug use and happily accepting a revenue opportunity.

I really doubt that drug use would become endemic to the same level as alcohol. For example, Christians don't pass around a joint as part of Communion. Like me, some ask for juice or just pass on the wine.

Part of drug enforcement is avoiding endorsement of loser behavior. To me the really debatble issue is mostly the grouping of addictive and nonaddictive, harmful and essentially benign substances. Those loser types, free to abuse themselves, just become tax burdens, contributing nothing to society. It's not so much infringement of rights traceable to specific individuals as it is the grander voice of society as a whole.

A tax is a more realistic disincentive than futile criminalizing of use. Yet I am reminded of my sister the social worker commenting that her clients' first priority with their assistance checks is buying cigarettes at $40 a carton. She tries to keep them supplied with discount coupons. In my State, a bright leaf tobacco grower state, cigs cost $20 a carton, yet as a state is as red as they come. Sounds like hypocrisy, right?

Responding to the issue of Rabbi not providing a straight answer, he is tedious about making statements one is prepared to back up. Perhaps he is abiding by his own standard when saying "probably".

The government, by legal procedure invoked by elected representatives, seems to have the power to do as it sees fit. The issue is the integrity of the procedure. For example, a Constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment is not impossible and would not necessarily be an abuse of the law. We have RKBA because the government (Constitution) says we do, and the Feds, States, and Courts have not completely fabricated why we don't. My sense of entitlement has little to do with it in practical terms until they ask for my guns.

In my opinion, a consensus of what the right thing to do might be determines what laws are passed, so it is extremely important that our government not be dominated by headstrong religious or for-the-children people who aren't particularly concerned about representing everyone or respecting diversity. Controlling behavior and tax burdens is more important to them than anyone's claim to rights. All we are talking about here is when that effort becomes futile or is misdirected. Of course you can trade a right wing government for a liberal one and simply get different reasons for wanting to control and to nullify rights, real or perceived. Mention of freedom and liberty is too often just hollow rhetoric. Everything is conditional it would seem.

taliv
June 1, 2005, 09:45 AM
If I use drugs, including the drug alcohol, there is no victim but, possibly, myself. I own myself. You do not. If you think you do then I have an invitation for you: come to my house and make me do right. See what happens.

are you serious?


"The number of U.S. traffic fatalies hit a 13-year high in 2003, with a total of 43,220 deaths on U.S. highways and 40 percent of those were alcohol-related, according to preliminary National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures" link (http://alcoholism.about.com/b/a/082337.htm)


"Ninety-two percent of the domestic abuse assailants reported use of alcohol or other drugs on the day of the assault, according to a recent JAMA report.

Another study shows that the percentage of batterers who are under the influence of alcohol when they assault their partners ranges from 48 percent to 87 percent, with most research indicating a 60 to 70 percent rate of alcohol abuse and a 13 to 20 percent rate of drug abuse." link (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/aa990331.htm)

Derby FALs
June 1, 2005, 09:58 AM
The majority of gunshot deaths are caused by firearms. Is that because people can own and use guns?

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 09:58 AM
"Ninety-two percent of the domestic abuse assailants reported use of alcohol or other drugs on the day of the assault, according to a recent JAMA report.

Oh come on, Taliv, you are blaming the substance when we all know it is the person responsible. Yeah, thats it.

I have given very straight and consistent answers. It is the board posters who insist on screwing things up by bringing up bizarre theories and extreme positions (who said drunks ought to be allowed on the road?)

I can hit my car with a baseball bat, I can shoot it, and can have my dog scent mark it, I can invite Hillary Clinton over to sleep in it after doing all of the above.

I agree you can do those things presently without getting prosecuted. My question was why do you think you have a *right* to do those things? Gordon Fink has rightly identified my position. When challenged in the past people who say otherwise come up with the silliest statements, "I just know", "by virtue of being human" etc or they quote that great philosopher Robert Heinlein or maybe Ayn Rand. The truth is they have no idea but it sounds good and substitutes for serious argumentation.

Justin, I agree with one of your points: the government at all levels has shown an increasing propensity to confiscate assets first and ask questions later. That is disturbing and needs to stop. It grew out of the RICO law, which was in fact very effective at stopping organized crime. But again, there is the law of unintended consequences.

The majority of gunshot deaths are caused by firearms. Is that because people can own and use guns?

This is the kind of false reasoning that ruins threads. First, all gun shot deaths are caused by firearms. But it is not analogous to drugs/alcohol because no one suddenly loses his inhibitions or has his judgement altered by holding a gun.

publius
June 1, 2005, 10:14 AM
In my opinion, a consensus of what the right thing to do might be determines what laws are passed, so it is extremely important that our government not be dominated by headstrong religious or for-the-children people who aren't particularly concerned about representing everyone or respecting diversity.

You're right, but you've also just described a democracy, not a democratic republic. Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, even in the face of a consensus that those rights must be sacrificed to some majority desire. Unfortunately, the anti-federalists appear to have been right. There were flaws in the design.

Derby FALs
June 1, 2005, 10:22 AM
This is the kind of false reasoning that ruins threads. First, all gun shot deaths are caused by firearms. But it is not analogous to drugs/alcohol because no one suddenly loses his inhibitions or has his judgment altered by holding a gun.

When making a conscious decision to use alcohol in excess. Most folks quit drinking before they get to that point. Should all people be denied liquor because a minority abuse it?

publius
June 1, 2005, 10:27 AM
First, all gun shot deaths are caused by firearms. But it is not analogous to drugs/alcohol because no one suddenly loses his inhibitions or has his judgement altered by holding a gun.
I agree with you there, but go visit the DU forum or some such place and say the same thing. They'll tell you that the presence of a gun makes anyone feel like John Wayne with a bunch of bad guys in front of him. They'll tell you it escalates violent situations. They'll generally infer behavior which sometimes happens to be what happens ALL the time.

Like when people say a heroin addict can't be a contributing member of society. It's just not true. It's frequently the case, but there are counter examples (http://www.reason.com/0306/fe.js.h.shtml). Similarly, contrary to Reefer Madness propaganda, I have known many cannabis users who are contributing, otherwise law-abiding citizens. Doctors, lawyers, realtors, technicians and construction workers of all kinds. This myth that drug use always produces theiving welfare cases is just that: a myth. A much stronger drug than cannabis did not make a theiving welfare case out of Rush Limbaugh. He continued to function and succeed while addicted. Others do it all the time as well.

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 10:38 AM
When making a conscious decision to use alcohol in excess. Most folks quit drinking before they get to that point. Should all people be denied liquor because a minority abuse it?

This is just the point. Even a relatively small amount of alcohol affects people's judgement. The answer to your second question is no.

Like when people say a heroin addict can't be a contributing member of society. It's just not true. It's frequently the case, but there are counter examples. Similarly, contrary to Reefer Madness propaganda, I have known many cannabis users who are contributing, otherwise law-abiding citizens. Doctors, lawyers, realtors, technicians and construction workers of all kinds. This myth that drug use always produces theiving welfare cases is just that: a myth. A much stronger drug than cannabis did not make a theiving welfare case out of Rush Limbaugh. He continued to function and succeed while addicted. Others do it all the time as well.

Sigmund Freud used cocaine. But he is not a typical cocaine user. Sure some people can do almost anything and remain alert and productive. But that is hardly the majority or even the typical case.
My first cousin is an alcoholic and crack user. He works on the LIRR and has for some time. Sure he holds down the job but I wouldnt want to ride on any track he's laid.

publius
June 1, 2005, 10:44 AM
So he's not a welfare case. What accidents have happened as a result of his drunken track laying? Or does he work sober?

publius
June 1, 2005, 10:46 AM
But that is hardly the majority or even the typical case.

I'd say it's a majority. I base that on the most recent numbers I've heard, which say 70 to 80 million Americans have used illegal drugs. If we had 70 to 80 million theiving welfare cases running around addicted, we'd be in serious trouble. We don't. The number is a tiny minority of that 70 to 80 million.

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 10:47 AM
I suspect he works sober about half the time. And the other guys with him work sober about half the time. But not the same half.
I havent heard of any accidents directly attributable to his behavior. But the question begs others.

I'd say it's a majority. I base that on the most recent numbers I've heard, which say 70 to 80 million Americans have used illegal drugs. If we had 70 to 80 million theiving welfare cases running around addicted, we'd be in serious trouble. We don't. The number is a tiny minority of that 70 to 80 million.

That's inapposite reasoning. Bill Clinton used illegal drugs (w/out inhaling of course) but that is very different from being a current user. You also have to distinguish by type and frequency. Someone who smoke dope at a party twice a year is not the same as someone who smokes crack twice a day.

mercedesrules
June 1, 2005, 11:14 AM
Those loser types, free to abuse themselves, just become tax burdens, contributing nothing to society.
What, exactly, does each person owe "society"?

Glock Glockler
June 1, 2005, 11:36 AM
Those loser types, free to abuse themselves, just become tax burdens, contributing nothing to society

What amount of production should every person be required to fulfill? If my girlfriend no longer wants to work and I agree to support her, what does she contribute?

What if she's an alcoholic and I support her, what does she then contribute?

Actually, if you jail her, I can garantee that society will now bear a heavy burden to incarcerate her.

Derby FALs
June 1, 2005, 11:45 AM
This is just the point. Even a relatively small amount of alcohol affects people's judgement. The answer to your second question is no.

You answer yourself. Only a small minority of drinkers continue to drink after they feel the effects starting.

publius
June 1, 2005, 12:06 PM
That's inapposite reasoning. Bill Clinton used illegal drugs (w/out inhaling of course) but that is very different from being a current user. You also have to distinguish by type and frequency. Someone who smoke dope at a party twice a year is not the same as someone who smokes crack twice a day.

Well, the other drug warriors around here seem to lack your courage of conviction, and don't wish to enter a thread in which they'll wind up admitting that they favor a New Deal big-government interpretation of the Constitution, even if it adversely affects gun rights. BUT, if they were here, they'd happily tell you, as they've told me over and over, that there is no such thing as a "responsible" drug user, and that therefore there really isn't much difference between the occasional cannabis smoker and the crack head. They'd also tell you about the Gateway Theory, which posits that today's occasional cannabis smokers are tomorrow's crack heads.

That is why, they have told me, we must treat cannabis users the same as we treat crack users. That is why, they have told me, we have classified cannabis as more dangerous than cocaine and morphine when it comes to drug scheduling. That is why such a large amount of the drug war budget from government at all levels goes into the futile fight against cannabis.

Of course, if all of what they have told me were true, we'd see those 70 to 80 million theiving addicts on welfare. Glad you'll be here next time to help me explain to them that they're wrong.

Gordon Fink
June 1, 2005, 12:09 PM
Some people here just need to admit who and what they are: statists. Hypocritical statists are folk who think that the government should stay out of their business but when the folks down the road do something that harms no one … then they holler, “There oughta be a law.”

Precisely! In fact, I used to be such a statist, but then I shed my historical chauvinism, realized that even the modern United States makes mistakes and that it can happen here, and accepted that if I want to enjoy the freedoms I value, I have to let others enjoy the freedoms they value, so long as we don’t harm one another. In other words, I became ideologically consistent. I became a libertarian.

~G. Fink

taliv
June 1, 2005, 12:20 PM
nothing new under the sun (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=115632&highlight=drugs)

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 12:44 PM
That is why, they have told me, we must treat cannabis users the same as we treat crack users. That is why, they have told me, we have classified cannabis as more dangerous than cocaine and morphine when it comes to drug scheduling. That is why such a large amount of the drug war budget from government at all levels goes into the futile fight against cannabis.
Talk about Straw Man argument.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 12:54 PM
What amount of production should every person be required to fulfill? - Glock Glocker

Interesting question, but any "requirement" is your issue, not mine. Let's not defy common sense here. What's wrong with promoting productivity and independence and discouraging lack of productivity, both within debatable boundaries and without defying the Constitution?

I believe that "for the common good" is a reasonable concern for society. The problem is always abuse of discretion or the process, not to mention the possibility of corruption. That is what oversight and accountability are all about.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 12:56 PM
In other words, I became ideologically consistent. I became a libertarian.

Gordon, is that ideologically inflexible? Is there never any pragmatism?

Sindawe
June 1, 2005, 01:02 PM
What's wrong with promoting productivity and independence and discouraging lack of productivity Absolutely nothing. IMAO we as a society would be well served by following the example set by Captain Smith the Jamestown settlement. For all able bodied persons, the follow policy applies.

No work. No food.

Ya wanna lay about in the sun all day, getting wasted and enjoying the vibe, fine. You should last about 60-90 days before you expire of hunger. Try to STEAL the food, and you'll expire in a much shorter time frame.

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 01:05 PM
Quote:
In other words, I became ideologically consistent. I became a libertarian.


Gordon, is that ideologically inflexible? Is there never any pragmatism?

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I dont remember who said that. Hobbs? Nietsche?

Sindawe, I agree with you fundamentally on this. There are some people who really are incapable of working but that isnt the majority by any means.

Sindawe
June 1, 2005, 01:11 PM
There are some people who really are incapable of working but that isnt the majority by any means. That is why I qualified it by referring to the able bodied. Heck, even the unable bodied can work and contribute in some fashion to their self support. IT helpdesk on the phone, coding, stuff like that. Look at Dr. Hawking, the guy is about as physically disabled as they come, and he is STILL working.

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 01:16 PM
You'll admit Hawking is a little unusual. But yes, there are plenty of severly disabled people who go to work every day. And plenty of others who could.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 01:22 PM
Ya wanna lay about in the sun all day, getting wasted and enjoying the vibe, fine. You should last about 60-90 days before you expire of hunger. Try to STEAL the food, and you'll expire in a much shorter time frame.

You can propose mandatory productivity, but I didn't. It's not that simple IMO. All I would do is discourage freeloading among the capable but can well see how some compassion will always be needed. Some people just don't cut it, have been unfortunate, or truly are underprivileged and don't find a way out. Some make bad decisions from which it is difficult to recover. Overcoming obstacles is a great test of character, but it is a lot to expect of literally everyone. Some people just coast from an advantaged position, better parenting, or with extraordinary capabilities. Are they really special?

DRZinn
June 1, 2005, 01:31 PM
Actually I didnt do that, the poster responding did. He framed it in terms of obligations while I framed the question in terms of rights.Ok, let me try again: If there is no obligation NOT to do something (which arises only if that act would harm someone else), then I have a right TO do it.

As far as the government's right to regulate: they obviously think they have the justification and no court has disagreed. :banghead: That makes it right?

publius
June 1, 2005, 01:34 PM
Talk about Straw Man argument.

How so? I just reported what drug warriors have told me for years. Search for threads in which I've posted here and on TFL, you'll find examples. Not so many since Stewart and Raich came around, since so few drug warriors want to talk to me about interstate commerce, but the examples are there.

They say certain outcomes are typical of drug use. I'm just saying that with at least 70 million who have used illegal drugs, if those outcomes were typical, we'd see more of them than we do. We don't. They're not.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 01:46 PM
Ok, let me try again: If there is no obligation NOT to do something (which arises only if that act would harm someone else), then I have a right TO do it.

The seatbelt argument is that lack of compliance ultimately becomes a burden to society. How about (which arises only if that act would harm someone else, or ultimately result in a burden to society). We'll have to trust reasonable judgment here and ultimately abide by the rule of law (apologies to any anarchists).

DRZinn
June 1, 2005, 02:00 PM
which arises only if that act would harm someone else, or ultimately result in a burden to societyIf you choose not to wear your seat belt, and sustain worse injuries than you would have if you had worn it, society has no obligation to provide even emergency care. IOW, if you sustain injuries as a result of a decision you made, you shouldn't be a burden to anyone.

I'll grant that if you accept that society has a responsibility to provide health care, it logically follows that they have not only a right, but an obligation (since they pay with my money) to minimize their financial risk. But then, as other have pointed out, where do you draw the line? Ban skydiving? Rodeo riding? Driving without a seat belt? Running? Eating fatty foods? The only logical conclusion is that they must allow ALL these activities, and not pay for the consequences to the individual that makes a choice to engage in them.

Gordon Fink
June 1, 2005, 02:13 PM
Gordon, is that ideologically inflexible? Is there never any pragmatism?

Of course there is pragmatism? What’s your point?

~G. Fink :confused:

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 02:14 PM
If you choose not to wear your seat belt, and sustain worse injuries than you would have if you had worn it, society has no obligation to provide even emergency care. - DocZinn

I am having a hard time with this statement. How would you substantiate it? Who cleans up the mess and often pays for it? I am not aware that critically injured people are ignored, either by ambulances or hospitals.

Now I wonder about whether mandated safety standards and devices required of vehicle manufacturers is appropriate. What is appropriate? I see these things as consumer protection measures, because industry will too often be responsible only when coerced...FDA and all that.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 02:17 PM
Of course there is pragmatism? What’s your point? - Gordon Fink

My point was that I was not aware of any pragmatism by libertarians, seemingly uncompromising by definition.

Gordon Fink
June 1, 2005, 02:22 PM
RealGun, you’ve seen some examples of compromise in this very thread.… :rolleyes:

~G. Fink

roo_ster
June 1, 2005, 02:40 PM
RealGun:

The fact that libertarian-types acknowledge the role of government in enforcing contract law, protecting private property from theft, and protecting the citizenry from murder is a pragmatic stance.

I suspect that you confuse libertarian with anarchist. They are not the same.

RealGun
June 1, 2005, 03:01 PM
RealGun, you’ve seen some examples of compromise in this very thread.… Gordon Fink

If I had, I wouldn't have asked. Help me out, if you don't mind. Tyring to learn something here, not be a putz.

The fact that libertarian-types acknowledge the role of government in enforcing contract law, protecting private property from theft, and protecting the citizenry from murder is a pragmatic stance. - jfruser

Gee, I hope that wasn't too painful for them, but I appreciate the help in understanding the philosophy. All I know is that my interest in libertarian thought was killed by the RLC's inability to assimilate with the GOP in the slightest. Their platform reads EXACTLY like the LP.

I don't mean to create a thread diversion here but might challenge something another threw in.

publius
June 1, 2005, 03:01 PM
As far as the government's right to regulate: they obviously think they have the justification and no court has disagreed.

That makes it right?
I think his point was that, right or wrong, it makes it law of the land.

Of course, the statement itself is not true, as I pointed out. In Raich (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0315481p.pdf) and again in Stewart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf), the justification for federal regulatory authority was found to be lacking by the 9th circuit court.

Too Many Choices!?
June 1, 2005, 03:01 PM
If I don't wear a seat belt I hurt no one!!! The Fed gov. is supposed to regulate indusriies and not the public:cuss:!!!! Mandate seatbelts in every car SOLD and you have regulated an industry. Mandate all people wear a seatbelt and you just set public policy that is not in the Fed governments granted power. Not wearing a seat belt is not a public risk it is a private one :uhoh: ! Just like drinking or smoking:banghead:!

Publius: You came the closest to a straight answer from the Rabbi but I really wanted him to answer your question on whose side he was on....
But he performed a matrix-esque dodge with the Child Porn :rolleyes: red herring :( !!

Last-to the Rabbi- As was stated, child porn violates a childs right not to be violated as they can not legally give consent to have sex or be involved in any kind of business contract....

Also, any sentient being has these rights by virtue of being,period. I have a right to self defense. I have a right to shoot myself. I do not have a right to shoot anyone else. See the consistency? :banghead:

publius
June 1, 2005, 03:03 PM
I don't mean to create a thread diversion here but might challenge something another threw in.

Quite all right. There is a socialized medicine thread for the seat belt argument, but don't worry. I'll be around to see that Raich and Stewart get mentioned and linked on every page of this thread, for as long as it lasts, so we'll never get too far off topic. :D

publius
June 1, 2005, 03:06 PM
Publius: You came the closest to a straight answer from the Rabbi but I really wanted him to answer your question on whose side he was on....
But he performed a matrix-esque dodge with the Child Porn red herring !!

Yeah, I'm still kind of waiting to hear what a bad person I am for thinking that possession of kiddie porn is NOT interstate commerce, but I guess he dropped that line of argument.

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 03:07 PM
If you choose not to wear your seat belt, and sustain worse injuries than you would have if you had worn it, society has no obligation to provide even emergency care. IOW, if you sustain injuries as a result of a decision you made, you shouldn't be a burden to anyone.

I knew the "Let 'em die in the street" argument was right around the corner.

Such people have always been a burden to someone. It might be family, it might be private philanthropy, it might be religious orgs. But whoever pays for it, society as a whole pays for it.

They say certain outcomes are typical of drug use. I'm just saying that with at least 70 million who have used illegal drugs, if those outcomes were typical, we'd see more of them than we do. We don't. They're not.

That is the worst argument ever, and you know it. As I said, 70 million people who have used drugs is not the same as 70M drug users. You would need to show a clinical study of drug users broken down by type(s) of drug, length of abuse, severity of abuse, and physiological and economic results. I dont know whether such a study exists.

Last-to the Rabbi- As was stated, child porn violates a childs right not to be violated as they can not legally give consent to have sex or be involved in any kind of business contract....

And children don't have any rights either. That is why they cannot legally give consent or be legally bound by any contract.

publius
June 1, 2005, 03:27 PM
As I said, 70 million people who have used drugs is not the same as 70M drug users.
It's not the same, but it's the outcome predicted by drug warriors over and over again, despite the lack of evidence.

This all started because you started in saying that high achievers are hardly typical of drug users, and in fact, loser behavior like stealing and ending up on welfare is typical. Well, I agree that high achievers are not typical, but if drug use predictably and consistently led to personal disaster and social costs for everyone and crime and corruption and all those horrible things, why haven't I seen more of those outcomes among people I know? Why haven't we seen more of those outcomes among the 70 million or more who have tried illegal drugs?

I think the reason is because drug use does not typically lead to disaster, as the drug warriors keep saying it almost inevitably will.

This is getting a bit like trying to convince a gungrabber that 50 cal rifles are OK for ordinary citizens like my brother to own. "Oh, but they're so dangerous!" So list the crimes committed using one. "Oh, but they can shoot so far, stray rounds will be raining down around us!" When and where has that ever happened? "I don't care, they're really, really dangerous, even if most people are like your brother and just blow up the occasional malfunctioning appliance or watermelon!" How is that dangerous? "Well, any fool can see that the gun is really dangerous, and can shoot really far!" Well, yes, it is, and yes, it can, but that doesn't mean that people will abuse those capabilities. "Oh, but they could, and it's just really dangerous, and we've just got to protect the cheeruns!"

publius
June 1, 2005, 03:29 PM
And children don't have any rights either. That is why they cannot legally give consent or be legally bound by any contract.
WHOA! Two totally different things there. Did you really say that?

Children can and do have a right to life, long before they actually have the mental capacity to make informed decisions on legal matters. Elderly people retain that right after they lose that ability. Where the heck did you get the idea that you need to be legally competent to sign a contract in order to have rights?

Henry Bowman
June 1, 2005, 03:31 PM
And children don't have any rights either. That is why they cannot legally give consent or be legally bound by any contract. The reason for the latter is that the children DO have rights (not to be taken advantage of) and we are protecting those rights. I don't think your logic holds on this point, Rabbi.

The Rabbi
June 1, 2005, 03:33 PM
Really? Where is this right to life found?

No, I suspect if you research English Common Law you'll find that children are basically chattel, legally speaking.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!