Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

[mercedesrules]

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."

 

[Werewolf]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Henry Bowman]

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]

possession of Crack or meth harms all those around, heroin too.

Exactly how, Pete?

 

[javafiend]

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 by James P. Grey, a California Superior Court justice.

 

[Henry Bowman]

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]

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]

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

 

[Gordon Fink]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"...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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

1) Where do people find this crap?

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]

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.

 

[Justin]

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?