Guns for Pot

[maxwell636]

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.

 

[spooney]

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]

Two words that describe my position: NO COMPROMISE

 

[Sunray]

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]

I'm tired of "reasonable compromises." And unreasonable ones too. We've tried it. They always come back for more.

 

[MattC]

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]

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]

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]

That would work as well as gun control har har

 

[chemist308]

Fastest way to completely control the people:
Take their guns, then
Give them drugs...

That's exactly what a lot of liberals want.

 

[jahwarrior]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hey guys, lighten up! He proposes a novel idea, and some of you are taking, uhhh, pot shots at him!

 

[30 cal slob]

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]

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?

 

[RIDE]

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]

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)