1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

Discussion in 'Legal' started by mercedesrules, May 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Well-Known Member

    Gun Control and the War on Drugs
    by Anthony Gregory

    "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."
  2. Werewolf

    Werewolf Well-Known Member

    The author is a day late and a dollar short. Most THR's figured this out ages ago...
    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.
  3. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    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.
  4. javafiend

    javafiend member

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

    pete f Well-Known Member

    possession of Crack or meth harms all those around, heroin too. If yolu think not then you living a dream.
  6. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    How so? We are talking possession, not production or use.

    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?
  7. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Well-Known Member

    Exactly how, Pete? :confused:
  8. javafiend

    javafiend member

  9. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    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.)
  10. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Well-Known Member

    Coercive, socialistic systems cannot be improved by adjustment, reform or fine-tuning; they must be repealed.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

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Or have his/her medical treatment covered by insurance coverage, family members, or chartible/religious organizations.
  12. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Well-Known Member

    “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
  13. Old Dog

    Old Dog Well-Known Member


    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.
  14. jnojr

    jnojr Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    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...

  16. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Well-Known Member

    Does everyone owe "society" a certain number of children or amount of participation and production?
  17. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    "...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...

  18. Matthew748

    Matthew748 Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. centac

    centac member

    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.
  20. rdbrowning

    rdbrowning Well-Known Member

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page