Drugs and Guns

Do you think people who admit to using drugs shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun?

  • Yes, anyone who uses drugs should be banned from buying a gun

    Votes: 39 17.8%
  • No, the RKBA should allow anyone to purchase a gun

    Votes: 85 38.8%
  • No, they should be allowed but there should be limitations\restrictions

    Votes: 33 15.1%
  • I'm staying away from this one

    Votes: 62 28.3%

  • Total voters
    219
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

brighamr

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
1,179
Location
somewhere between utah and canada
I'm curious what the THR community thinks of the current law (If you use any type of illegal drug, you can't own a gun).

Personally, I feel that drugs and alcohol should be treated the same way... restrictions and punishments. The poll is anonymous.

Thoughts?
 
I'm sure this has been discussed more times then you can count...

Anyway....as a person of libertarian bent...yes, drugs should be treated like alcohol.

I had a conversation with the aide of one of the PA reps trying to pass some foolish laws due to Philadelphia's murder rate. I asked why he thought going after guns ("illegal" guns) would solve the problem....after all, if they can smuggle in tons of coke, a few hundred or thousand guns wouldn't be a problem.
Anyway...the root cause of the murder rate in Philly is drug money...not guns.
So, remove the profit...the drug crime goes away.
The added advantage is most folks who are too stupid to use drugs responsibly would probably kill themselves off pretty quickly. To me, that's a win-win situation.

But as long as we have an established bureaucracy (DEA, both state and federal)...it's not going to happen.
 
Well I think it should depend on the drugs. If they are using Marijuana, Alcohol, and other widely used and accepted drugs than yes.
But if they are chronic users of drugs with side effects that include rapid mood swings, serous addiction, and psychotic episodes than of course not.
 
We definitely do not need more laws for gun restrictions... as it never works and always leads to more undesirable outcomes. But illegal or misused drugs (meth, cocain, ludes, etc) and anything dont mix. Including life.
 
Own guns? yes. Use them under the influence? Aren't there already many laws pertaining to endangerment, disorderly etc????
 
Here is another case where the laws are totally irrelevant. If someone is going to break the laws regarding drug usage then they will also break the law regarding guns.
 
My take on it is that drug use does not necessarily make you violent or a risk as a firearm owner. Option #2 got my vote.
 
The added advantage is most folks who are too stupid to use drugs responsibly would probably kill themselves off pretty quickly. To me, that's a win-win situation.

If only it were so easy:). Like drunk drivers, they tend to do damage to others, and are not always efficient in killing themselves. Do you like the prospect of paying (through taxes/higher health care costs) for lifetime treatment of the idiot who only maimed, vegetablized (new word!), and crippled himself? I don't.

I voted no because there's no clear cut, all encompassing good answer, and I'd prefer to err on the side of safety.

As a teenager of the 1970s, let's just say that I had a good time:cool:. That immature (and admittedly fun) time in my life is in the past. From the ripe old age of 45, I've got a different perspective (old fart, as my 12 year old consistently reminds me:D).

Am I worried about the middle aged, occasional occasional pot smoker owning guns- probably not. Do I care about the toasted 18-22 year year old owning guns- yes, I do. Do I care about crack and meth users/addicts having owning guns- YEP! The heroin folks don't tend to impress me with their safe gun handling skills and good judgement either:neener: And don't get me started on those funny little mushrooms:D

I absolutely agree that we should legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana (and maybe shrooms). Beyond that, the overall costs and risks of the bad behavior associated with meth, crack, heroin, etc are too high for my taste. The criminal activity associated with getting money for drugs is not the only cost to society. Remember "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll"? maybe the folks in Philly would be better off with effective birth control than more gun control. If their mommas and poppas weren't high 17 years ago, maybe we wouldn't have 16 year old miscreants running around killing folks.
 
More legislation doesn't work.

How are you going to know they do drugs when they buy a gun?

Are we going to make gun dealers have everyone pea in a cup and send it off to a lab now?
 
45Badger "The criminal activity associated with getting money for drugs is not the only cost to society. Remember "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll"? maybe the folks in Philly would be better off with effective birth control than more gun control. If their mommas and poppas weren't high 17 years ago, maybe we wouldn't have 16 year old miscreants running around killing folks."

I agree...but the elected idiots from Philadelphia aren't going to stop their attacks on gun owner's rights (although I expect them to tone it down when Rendell leaves office....he's the "push" behind this).
I'd just like to toss something back in their lap....put them on the defensive.

I was in my 20's in the 70's. I think I indulged....can't remember....
 
My quote about ATF summarizes my opinion that in general I disagree with trying to regulate objects and people's recreational time. If said individual harmed someone else either through the use of a gun or drugs or a car - whatever - there should (and already are) consequences. Any law that claims to try and prevent people from doing something bad are really just means of destrying liberty- ie PATRIOT ACT.
 
IIRC not too long ago the majority of THR condemned drinking beer while shooting, so I doubt this poll will be much different. But I've got to say that I've seen people just as loopy on legal drugs as I have illegal drugs. IMO impairment, regardless of cause, should be the overriding concern.
 
people who admit to using drugs
Legally or illegally? Past tense or present tense? To me, that makes a difference.

Someone using copious amounts of cocaine :eek: probably should not be in possession of a firearm. However, if that person wanted to legally purchase a gun, they'd be forced to lie and break the law. Then again, if they are using copious amounts of cocaine, they are already breaking the law and probably not too concerned about lying anyway.

;)
 
To provide some clarification for what I was going for with this poll: I am trying to find out if someone told you "I use MJ occasionally for X reason, but I still go shooting with my Dad when I am sober" would you care? Would you tell the person to immediately get rid of all of his guns because he occasionally uses a controlled substance?

I have a strong feeling that whatever someone wants to do while they're alone in their home should be at their own discretion. Using Guns while under the influence of anything is a bad idea (anything= drugs, alcohol, angry mood, depressed, etc, etc). BUT these should all be personal discretion and not a basis for banning one from owning a firearm.

I am pretty sure 99% of THR members have been sad, mad, drank alcohol, or used prescription drugs at least once in their lives... :scrutiny: BUT most likely used good enough sense not to go out shooting during that time.

I would like to see this question removed from the DROS, which wont happen in my lifetime, but it'd be nice to see others feel the same.

Also, isn't it ironic that out of 91 voters, 22 didn't even want to discuss the topic? ;)
 
I've been wondering about how medical marijuana would effect someones RKBA.....
 
I see it exactly as I see driving, operating under the influence lands you in jail as it should.
As long as someone doesnt handle or shoot under the influence of something they have no problems with me, if I hear of them being irresponsible however I have a big problem. The public image of gun owners is always under scrutiny and I have no tolerance for those that make us look bad.
 
The Drug War

The Drug War has grown US and state government and its intrusiveness.

The Drug war has eroded if not destroyed the Bill of Rights.

The US Drug War has dissolved most of the governments and nations to the south of us. (Mexican government, police and armed forces are partially or wholly owned subsideraries of the Drug businessmen.)

The Drug War has created a weathy and effective criminal class in the US and other nations.

The Drug War has destroyed US Border security. (Notice: not one politician in the many debates so far, has linked the drug war and US immigration problems.)

The Drug War has reduced the respect for LEOs and law and order on every level.

The Drug War has destroyed families and filled prisons until the US prison population per capita and by number outranks most other nations...combined.

And so far the answer is....let's have a bigger drug war!!!!
 
Man i havent heard "ludes" in a long time.

Pardon my ignorance, but what are "ludes"? Seriously...

And my two cents...
I feel that one cannot make generalizations on this matter. Each person should be judged individually according to his or her actions while under the influence. What are drugs? If you ask me I feel that perhaps the most dangerous and overlooked drug is Alcohol. It is probably one of the most socially accepted and tolerated drugs in civilized society, but that does not mean that it is completely safe and innocent. It can and is used responsibly by millions upon millions but this drug, and yes it is a drug just as any other substance that causes change in your "normal" function, is responsible for a great deal of grief in many many lives.

So, that being said, who here is not a drug user? Even if they are used seldomly and in a responsible matter, I would dare say that if you catch a few cold ones on the weekend, you could still qualify as a drug user if a "Drugs & Guns Law" is passed. It is a very slippery slope, and if you support the idea, you may very well find it backfiring on you.

However, medically speaking there are some substances out there that are neigh on impossible to use responsibly. Those should be kept in close view, but even so should never be used as an excuse to take away your Constitutional Rights.

Why give the Government yet another rope to tie around our necks?
 
You really worded your questions poorly. I wasn't sure how to vote, because I wasn't sure what qualified as "drugs".

Over-the-counter drugs, particularly the ones which say "don't drive or operate heavy machinery while using"? Alcohol and tobacco? Marijuana? Ecstasy? Hallucinogenic mushrooms? LSD? Street narcotics (speed, meth, etc.)? What qualifies as a "drug" in this case?

Personally, I say narcotics, LSD and the like qualify a person for no firearm ownership - but that's already the case, what with it being a felony to possess any of them. For everything else, it should be similar to alcohol: no public intoxication, no driving under the influence, etc. - and if you break those rules, you're surrendering your rights and freedoms.
 
I'm of the mind that what drugs someone uses or what guns they own aren't anyone's business but theirs.

Since when did it become a legitimate function of government to decide who can own and use what?
 
If you truly value your RKBA you will not use illegal drugs.If you truly value your family you will not use illegal drugs. If you value being a law abiding citizen of the greatest nation in the world you will not use illegal drugs. It's your choice. If you are convicted of illegal drug use ,possession , or distribution you are now convicted of most likely a felony and no longer have the right to keep and bear arms ,keep your freedom and take care of your family nor are you any longer a law abiding citizen. Until your sentence and/or parole for your crime are paid to society and you have asked to have your rights restored and it has been granted you are a part of the problem and not a help to the solution of the problem. Whether you are convicted or not you are still a part of the problem. Enough rambling- just the way I see it.
 
"Pardon my ignorance, but what are "ludes"? Seriously..."

The correct name is Qualudes. I guess they were popular in the 70's or 80's.
Never saw one myself, but I'm pretty sure they were barbituates.
 
I quit doing it years ago, honestly. But if a person smokes a little weed on the weekends it should in no way exclude him from gun ownership.
Especially if dyed-in-the-wool alcoholics can still own and carry guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top