Guns for Pot


PDA






maxwell636
April 25, 2007, 10:02 PM
I have been reading a lot of posts about gun control on this forum and I thought of a funny scenario. What would you say if the “anti’s” would make a deal stop with the gun control if “we” would stop fighting the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes? Methods of production, distribution, and sales of both would be subject to the similar regulations, taxes, and sold only through federally licensed dealers (an FML) and a background check would be required before purchasing. Maybe even a waiting period would work for people wanting to buy marijuana. For states that already have ridiculous gun control laws such as CA, NJ, HI, MA, NY etc. Perhaps a 21 day wait and a stipulation that you cannot be in possession of more than a few milligrams (or an amount proportional to a ten round magazine restriction) at one time. Also, for those states that are not “shall issue” it would seem appropriate that you must get approval of your county sheriff in order to carry the marijuana outside your house. Of course, if the marijuana was more than 50 years old and its primary value was due to its historical significance, citizens could obtain a C&R marijuana license (have to keep and bound book and agree to pre-scheduled inspections of their collection). In addition, I am sure both sides could think of several uses for the additional tax revenue.

I agree that we shouldn’t have to comprise or barter to exercise our second amendment rights but I thought this was just a funny idea and was curious what others thought. Also, I made the assumption that “anti’s” are pro marijuana and “we” are against it; this might not be 100% correct. Again, I am not saying this is a viable option; I am just interested what others would think of something like this.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns for Pot" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
spooney
April 25, 2007, 10:21 PM
I think you will be surprised to find quite a few people on here who are actually for the legalization of marijauna and the end to the "war on some drugs."

SoCalShooter
April 25, 2007, 10:22 PM
Two words that describe my position: NO COMPROMISE

Sunray
April 25, 2007, 10:31 PM
The people growing marijuana don't care if owning a firearm or growing marijuana is illegal or not. It's what makes them criminals.

CajunBass
April 25, 2007, 10:32 PM
I'm tired of "reasonable compromises." And unreasonable ones too. We've tried it. They always come back for more.

MattC
April 25, 2007, 10:42 PM
What would you say if the “anti’s” would make a deal stop with the gun control if “we” would stop fighting the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?

I would say this is not a deal at all, but rather a mutual eye-opening recognition of individual rights to body, property, and protection. And then, I would call the Libertarian party and congratulate them on wining a majority in the House and Senate, because I don't see this coming about any other way!

This isn't a compromise, it's an agreement on both sides to stop fighting for government control of individuals.

And Sunray, there are degrees of criminality. And many people who do grow marijuana, like many people in WI who carry concealed firearms, do care about the legality of it, and lament the injustice of it.

If someone wants to drug himself or herself for personal satisfaction, it is not my place nor yours to forbid them. All property rights begin with the premise that one's own body is individually owned and sacred, and the reason for RKBA is the protection of that body from those who wish to impose controls on it. When somebody's actions infringe on the property rights of another, that is when criminal law should become involved.

gotarheels03
April 25, 2007, 10:46 PM
I'm all for stopping the "War on Drugs" especially marijuana. I'd be pretty happy about this country if we stopped it and the "war on guns"

zahc
April 25, 2007, 10:51 PM
All drugs should be legal. Criminalization of drugs recreational or otherwise is a terrible infringement on a very basic level of personal liberty, with overtones of mind control and traces of religious persecution.

It is not possible to logically support criminalization of drugs while being against the criminalization of guns. Practically every pro-gun argument can also be used as a pro-drug argument.

Many, possibly most pro-gunners actually support gun rights because they happen to be shooters, not because they believe in freedom.

thedpp
April 25, 2007, 10:53 PM
That would work as well as gun control har har

chemist308
April 25, 2007, 10:55 PM
Fastest way to completely control the people:
Take their guns, then
Give them drugs...

That's exactly what a lot of liberals want. :fire:

jahwarrior
April 25, 2007, 11:07 PM
marijuana isn't drug. it's a flowering plant. how can a government criminalize something that grows in the wild? that's like outlawing dandelions. not that i hold with smoking pot, but it's just silliness, like criminalizing mushrooms and peyote. i'd criminalize acohol first, and we all know how well that worked out.

bottom line is, if you wanna smoke pot, it's none of my business. i never heard of a pothead robbing someone for pot money. and if you wanna smoke crack and try to rob my house, well, i got something for ya.

Im283
April 25, 2007, 11:13 PM
Marijuana should be controlled and taxed the same as alcohol is. There has never been a recorded case of a pot head going out and commiting a violent crime.

But look at alcohol use and tell me how many people in prison and or jail are there because they did something while drunk.
I am not an advocate of either, just expressing an honest opinion.

Trade pot laws for gun laws, no! Gun laws should be made on their own merit.

The biggest problem drugwise in the land is meth, now there is something the do gooder liberals ought to be focusing on.

Guns are a tool , same as a hammer

Cesiumsponge
April 25, 2007, 11:27 PM
Marijuana is a drug because drugs (the definition) alter the way your mind works. Peyote, mushrooms, and toxins/chemicals from many plants and some creatures (all natural) can give you a "trip". Its still a drug. I would say alcohol is a drug too but since it's legal, people just call it alcohol to seperate it from that "illegal" stigma word "drug".

People should be free to ruin or enhance their lives with whatever substance they want as long as they don't break any laws. I don't get the point of the post though. If you argue pro-marijuana, why would you suggest waiting periods or gun-like restrictions for marijuana? They don't have waiting periods for alcohol, tobacco, or pharmaceutical drugs.

wooderson
April 25, 2007, 11:29 PM
The people growing marijuana don't care if owning a firearm or growing marijuana is illegal or not. It's what makes them criminals.
It's not just growers, it's users. And many of them care if it's legal - many more don't smoke but would if it were.

I'm one of those people. I would happily smoke a joint once or twice a week rather than after-work or weekend drinks. Healthier, more enjoyable, fewer side/after-effects.

But I don't, not out of any particular respect for the law, but because I neither want nor can handle a drug case right now.

chemist308
April 25, 2007, 11:38 PM
marijuana isn't drug. it's a flowering plant.
...okay. I'll definitely acknowledge outlawing that is a bit overboard...that's one we should legallize.

Glockman17366
April 26, 2007, 12:32 AM
Nope...no compromise!
I am one of those who thinks the war on drugs is a total waste of time...and, yes I do think pot should be legalized...that's the libertarian in me.

But in no way, shape or form would I trade any rights so someone can smoke the dope.

Make your views known to your congressman and senator...not much use in posting them here.

buck00
April 26, 2007, 12:35 AM
You post assumes that liberals and antis are all hippies who love marijuana and would love to see this deal. That isn't true and paints Democrats in a very simple way. You should learn more about your enemy.

I know conservatives who are scared of guns and who want to "ban all AK's." I also know Dems who don't drink or do drugs. The political atmosphere isn't as Manichean (black/white) as you assume.


I don't do drugs, never had, but what do I care if they legalize marijuana? There once was a time when alcohol was banned because they thought it would end all crime- that didn't work. Neither is the ban on drugs. Our war on drugs is a failure- there are plenty of drugs reaching American streets today and we spend billions extra to stop it. It is a complete joke.

The last time I checked Amsterdam didn't become Compton over night due to legalizing marijuana. It simply ends persecution of something many people do anyway.


But to get back to your post- while the idea of legalizing marijuana is interesting (especially if the government could tax it) the assumption all Democrats would drop any anti-gun pressure lured by the promise of legalizing some drugs is problematic and inaccurate.

alucard0822
April 26, 2007, 12:38 AM
There is much that us firearms folks can learn from the history of marijuana criminalization. Like just about all drugs that are illegal now, there was once a time that marijuana was perfectly legal and fairly popular. A process was developed at the turn of the 20th century to make high quality paper on an industrial scale with hemp that was easily more renewable than wood pulp. William Randolp Hurst, the founder of most of our modern day news media and who has been credited with starting the spanish-american war owned large forest reserves, saw mills, and a large percentage of the nations paper producing companies. He saw this new process as a direct threat to his buisness interests and capitalized on the temperance movement, racism, and his media outlets to pursuade congress to heavily tax domestic hemp production. He would print senational stories of murders, robberies, and attacks on white people by "unruly black people" who would smoke reefer in jazz clubs untill all hours of the night. A relatively small number of wealthy people demanded that congress do something, an outright ban was not practical as hemp was used in many other products like rope, burlap, and oils, so they heavily taxed it. With the "sucess" of prohibition came increased support to levy impossibly high taxes on hemp, basically outlawing private hemp production (the government had and still has large hemp reserves for military production of strategic comodities). After the disatrous increase in crime prohibition was repealed, the less popular recreational use of hemp was not. Hemp was later completely criminalized as it is to this day.

I do not smoke pot, or really have any interest to, but I do belive strongly in personal freedom, and that it is not the goverments place to convict people for victimless crimes. You should be able to buy, posess, and use pot if thats what you are into. Firearm ownership should be similarly uninfringed, its the misuse, or use to harm an innocent person that should be dealt with.

pdowg881
April 26, 2007, 12:39 AM
It seems like all these stings on kids buying a dimebag are a waste of police resources. I remember watching cops where they would lean a bike on the wall outside of a supermarket and wait for someone to grab it. They had two separate teams, and they did it all night. They showed the briefing room and there was something like ten officers on the sting. It just seemed like they could have been doing much more useful things then putting ten cops on bike stings all night.

rudolf
April 26, 2007, 05:48 AM
What makes me wonder is that the US prohibited alcohol and should have learned something from this. All that alcohol prohibitation produced was large scale organized crime. Now you should think that with this experience they should drop the prohibitation on drugs, which also causes large scale organized crime in a very similar way.

But oviously, the same stubborness that lets people 'know' that guns need to be banned lets them also 'know' drugs must be illegal.

PennsyPlinker
April 26, 2007, 09:28 AM
Hey guys, lighten up! He proposes a novel idea, and some of you are taking, uhhh, pot shots at him! :neener: :neener: :neener:

30 cal slob
April 26, 2007, 09:35 AM
i don't touch the stuff.

however, i personally don't see legalization of cannabis sativa (and maybe some other mind-altering substances) as a legal problem so much as a health issue.

problem is, libs don't think in terms of tradeoffs. some will continue to hate guns even if weed is legalized.

on a side note, my mom would tell me stories about how my grand-pappy (a trained wartime MD) would grow cannabis in his garden for use in medicinal herbs and infusions. heck, if you visit this foreign country today, you'll STILL find it being grown without much gov't interference. people there just don't use it like some people here do.

Radjxf
April 26, 2007, 09:36 AM
You post assumes that liberals and antis are all hippies who love marijuana and would love to see this deal.

...you mean there really are liberals that don't smoke dope?:scrutiny:

RIDE
April 26, 2007, 09:36 AM
marijuana isn't drug. it's a flowering plant. how can a government criminalize something that grows in the wild? that's like outlawing dandelions. not that i hold with smoking pot, but it's just silliness, like criminalizing mushrooms and peyote. i'd criminalize acohol first, and we all know how well that worked out.

This is the worst "pro-drug" argument I have ever heard.

ozwyn
April 26, 2007, 09:39 AM
I have no problem with it. Legalize it, tax it, make the ATF regulate it like smokes and turn them into ATM and drop the F

set standards for driving/machine use like alcohol and such and control additives and potency for safety. And tax it. Did I mention tax it? Because instead of making it a gateway drug, with large law enforcement expenses, we turn it into a regulated substance, with a revenue stream attached to it.

then let the lawyer activists 20 years down the road play round 2 with big tobacco after big tobacco takes over the pot business. (which would be almost guarenteed to happen if pot was legalized)

sansone
April 26, 2007, 09:45 AM
I have a slight problem with the connection implied with guns+pot. I do agree we need to relax current marijuna laws like the rest of the civilized world. I also think some plants like tobacco & pot should be legal to grow on your own property in very small amounts(private use only, not for sale)

Biker
April 26, 2007, 09:48 AM
Think of all the gunnies with cataracts!;)

Biker

SamTuckerMTNMAN
April 26, 2007, 09:56 AM
I can't grow a plant at my house for myself that threatens industry, can't own a gun that threatens politicians and criminals. Sound like they go in the same bag to me.

st

floridaboy
April 26, 2007, 10:14 AM
I can't see any logical reason for gun control, or pot control. In both cases it is merely a case of others deciding what they think is best for you. Or, more accurately, deciding that since they don't like something that you do like, you can't have it. After all, who are we to decide for ourselves?

Owen
April 26, 2007, 11:10 AM
The democrats are just as vested in the (Profitable) War on (Some) Drugs

Chad
April 26, 2007, 11:13 AM
A compromise that crossed my mind once, when wiretapping and surveillance were all over the news...

In exchange for the citizens allowing the gov to have all the wiretapping and surveillance technology and authority it wants, the gov would remove all firearms restrictions and allow the citizens to own any and all the firearms they wanted.

With the caveat, of course, that if the gov abused the authority the citizens would be in a well-armed position to deal with the infraction.

Fantasy, but I thought it was an interesting idea.

MrDig
April 26, 2007, 11:37 AM
"There has never been a recorded case of a pot head going out and commiting a violent crime. "

This is a blanket statement that has no documentation.
Violent Crimes are in fact committed by people using and trafficking in "Controlled Substances", and you can't say that Pot users are any less prone to Violent acts than Drunks were during the Prohibition.
That being said I think that this country is wasting a significant amount of revenue on the "War on Drugs" and sacrificing more revenue by not Taxing Marijuanna.

tasco 74
April 26, 2007, 12:00 PM
never tried pot so i really don't care if it's deregulated or not... but i guess i've never seen an amendment to constitution that said "the right to grow and smoke marjuana shall not be infringed".....................from what i understand most pot users just get tired and hungry from smoking it..... i spose someone might try to rob ya for some hambuger money or something:D ............

Mr White
April 26, 2007, 12:05 PM
It's well known that pot use generally doesn't lead to violent behavior. Crack and meth are a whole different story.

An old story I remember from long ago, back in my tokin' days:

3 men came to the closed gates of a walled city and wanted to get in. One was tripping on acid, one was drunk and one was high on pot. The drunk said, "Lets smash down the gates and break in". The tripper said "No, lets just fly over the wall". The pothead said "Why don't we just sit here and wait til they open the gates?"

While oversimplified, its pretty spot on. The violence and crime associated with pot use comes as a direct result of its illegality and the types or people who are drawn to it to make a buck, not from the drug itself.

It all comes back to my basic belief that I don't like the government telling me what I can and cannot do in my home, with my body, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.

joshk-k
April 26, 2007, 12:07 PM
The War on Drugs has created a huge population of people (disproportionately young men of color) who have convictions on their records for what are basically bull**** crimes. They, in turn, lose their rights to vote and to keep and bear arms. That's no good, and could be called racist.

Josh

glockman19
April 26, 2007, 12:17 PM
California already works that way.:eek: You can get a Dr. note and go down to the local dispensery and pick up your bag. You can also cultivate up to 6 plants for personal use.:confused:

Guns however...one per 30 days, AWB, possible future microstamping, ammo restrictions, and a bunch of other stupid laws. YET...carrying a concealed loaded handgun, if not a gang member, There is a defination, is a $200 misdemenor while carrying a knife concealed is a felony.:confused: :eek:

Californian politicians have it upside down and backwards. Instead of allowing free thinking, self protecting, responsible citizens. They'd rather have a populace of mind altered, non-thinking, easy to manipulate individuals. What's wrong with this picture?:confused: :confused:

It's sad that a responsible law abiding adult cannot CCW or protect themselves out of the home but... can get high even in public if they posess a Dr.s note/prescription for marijuana:( :rolleyes:

Justin
April 26, 2007, 12:24 PM
The democrats are just as vested in the (Profitable) War on (Some) Drugs

Bingo.

never tried pot so i really don't care if it's deregulated or not... but i guess i've never seen an amendment to constitution that said "the right to grow and smoke marjuana shall not be infringed"

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

* Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Seancass
April 26, 2007, 12:54 PM
i really think it'd be a good idea to legalize marajuana. how many people are currently making and selling guns illegally? now, how many are making and selling marajuana? if you legalize it, farm it, manufacture it and regulate it you will drive out the illegal drug lords. could even keep it cheap at first to undercut their prices(and build addicts, er customers), then tax the bejeebus out of it and build better schools, hire more (good) cops, do all the other stuff the govt. currently sucks at doing, like enforcing the laws on the books.

other than similarites in execution, this matter is in no way related to the right to bear arms.

MrDig
April 26, 2007, 12:57 PM
It is a well known Generalization that Pot does not lead to Violent behavior.
It is akin to the Antis using Age filters for firearms death without using Criminal filters when saying Children are dying from guns.

General Geoff
April 26, 2007, 01:07 PM
Bottom line: Drugs should be legal, just like guns.

Consuming drugs is a victimless crime, just like prostitution. There's absolutely no reason for either to be illegal.

NM234
April 26, 2007, 01:15 PM
I agree that drugs should be legal due to reasons of personal liberty. But the "it grows out of the ground" thing is sorta a stupid excuse. Opium is a flower, and coke comes from a plant too. Now I think all these things should be legal, but not cause they grow out ground.

yhtomit
April 26, 2007, 01:21 PM
I think (in agreement with many others who have posted) that this thread starts out with a false premise.

I don't do drugs, and don't drink*, but certainly think that the State has *no business* (including the often dragged out "heavily regulated and taxed" kind of business) telling people what they can't smoke, snort or rub into their bellies, to the extent that they do these things without infringing on other people's rights / liberty / safety.

Do you have the right to enjoy a fine whiskey, if there is such a thing? Sure. But you don't have the right to do that while you're operating a train full of commuters.

Marijuana, likewise. (Etc, etc.)

I guess another way to think of things would be to put yourself in the shoes of Brer Rabbit -- for the various for-your-own-safety prohibitionists to each trade in their bannin' hammers for some common sense? Oh, no! Don't throw me in that briar patch!

timothy

* Depending on how you define things. I have an occasional bottle of Woodchuck cider, which is similar in alco-content to beer; however, I've never been drunk. Whether that's "drinking" in your mind, eh, well, that's in your mind :)

benEzra
April 26, 2007, 03:47 PM
Who is fighting the War on Non-Approved Herbs?

I used to be a convinced anti on the drug issue, but after looking into the science, came to the conclusion that the war on cannabinoids is a bunch of bovine scatology.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns for Pot" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!