Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

Status
Not open for further replies.
The pro-drug folks have made it their platform that any regulation of any behavior is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Now it's patently obvious that you haven't been paying attention. Implicit in your statement is that those who advocate decriminalization/legalization of drugs also support the same for murder, rape, fraud, assault, battery, and any other form of coercion.

My contention is that in any society no man is an island and society is responsible in one way or another for cleaning up the mess that people do to themselves and others as a result of their poor choices.
Click to expand...
That's pretty funny coming from a guy who's sig line reads "We Want Jack Daniels!" Also amusing is that you seem to have no problem with using force and coercion on the rest of "society" to clean up the mess that, to a large extent, is a direct result of the drug war in the first place. I mean, hey, if you want to go down to the bad neighborhoods and play Mother Teresa to the addicts, feel free. I just fail to see why you should be allowed to steal money and resources from me because you're serving some sort of "greater good."

A list of things The Rabbi evidently has no problem sacrificing for "The Greater Good"
 
Oh, but now you have to have agreement on what those rights not enumerated might be. I buy into the right of self defense because it is instinctive. I don't believe I have a problem with growing pot on your own property, except that currently its use is illegal. Growing it can fairly be interpreted as an intent to use it or sell it. You have some arguments to win (against the law) in logical succession.
 
Now it's patently obvious that you haven't been paying attention. Implicit in your statement is that those who advocate decriminalization/legalization of drugs also support the same for murder, rape, fraud, assault, battery, and any other form of coercion.
Click to expand...

It was only implicit to people lacking good will. I probably should have put in "behavior that does not obviously harm other people."
 
I'm for a free market in everything.
Click to expand...

Heck, I'll go you one better: I want everything just to be free period. Free beer, free liquor, free guns, free ammo, free peanut butter, free steaks etc etc.
 
Rabbi
The difference being that there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom to grow pot.
Click to expand...
Sure there are, in fact, there are two amendments in the Bill of Rights: 9 and 10.

Bringing us right back to the commerce clause argument...
 
Last edited:
Oh, but now you have to have agreement on what those rights not enumerated might be.
Click to expand...
It's real easy. You check to see which powers the federal government legitimately has, all the rest are those not enumerated.

You either believe in the big government, New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, or you do not. If you do, you're going to wind up supporting it when it comes to firearms as well as cannabis. See that cert petition again.
 
Sure there are, in fact, there are two amendments in the Bill of Rights: 9 and 10.
Click to expand...

Except that isnt my argument.

But no judicial authority has seen a right to grow dope anywhere in the Constitution. If you want to maintain one, go right ahead. I suggest growing it, turning yourself in, and then litigating the matter through the federal courts on a Constitutional question.
Powers are not what any man wants to make of them. There is a judicial process.
 
Rabbi,

The SCOTUS once thought that a black man was property, maybe it's not such a good idea to contract out our thinking to the courts when we can read what is right in front of us.
 
"Art, that's a pass you cant have. The pro-drug folks have made it their platform that any regulation of any behavior is unacceptable."

Rabbi, where have I ever said I'm right in there with the pro-drug folks? Where have I ever said that I'm against all regulating, and/or of all behavior? And why should I be bound in any way by what they believe?

IOW, don't put words in my mouth, or lump my ideas in with somebody else.

Again: What do you think is the actual, probable harm if marijuana were regulated as is alcohol?

FWIW: In the period of between 30 years ago and 40 years ago, I tried Ms Mary Jane maybe four or five times. Didn't care for it. I'd spent too much time learning where I got with Budweiser and bourbon to learn a new game. From some years in the night club business, I was around a lot of smokers--both the musicians and the customers. I know exactly what the typical behavior is. If they're not driving, if they're not going to work, they're harmless--in contrast to a lot of legally-drunks.

This thread is maybe the umpteenth on this subject. My call, usually, if for some sort of change in how the government deals with our drug problems. Nixon declared this "War on Drugs" in 1973. I really don't think we're winning.

With respect to "winning": Back around 1980, a gram of cocaine of about 15% to 20% cost $100. A brand-new Toyota 4WD PU was about $8,000. That same truck, today, is somewhere around $24,000 or more (Tacoma). What's a gram of coke going for? To me, "winning" means we've reduced the availability to the point where the price goes up. Just inflation means the price oughta go up.

So: Is a gram of coke above $100? Are we winning? And, if we're not winning, how long are we going to repeat the same old experiment while anticipating a different result?

Which is worse? Legalizing drugs, or winding up with no Bill of Rights worth noticing? The attacks on the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments stem mostly from the WOD...

All I really know is that the WAY we're going about dealing with the problem has--to my mind, anyway--proven out to be dumber'n hammered dirt.

Art
 
I'll bite..

Again: What do you think is the actual, probable harm if marijuana were regulated as is alcohol?
Click to expand...
Even thought the question was not asked of me. I'll wager (1 round of .308 Winchester FMJ) that Rabbi's response will involve NLT one of the following:

1. Its a "Gateway Drug", and drug addicted criminals get their start on the evil weed with is burning roots in "the hot place" (bonus points if you can name the movie that line is taken from).

2. It fosters disrespect for authority and a well ordered society, since those under its influence are unable to control their actions, and will harm someone else, or their family, or they will go on to use OTHER drugs that will lead to this end.

3. There is no "Right" to use any drug, since all rights flow from some governing body, somewhere.
 
Art, you should be the WoD "drug czar"......

;)
*********************************************************
"CHANGING how we deal with the world of drugs could easily be a step toward less violence, less death, less money from the taxpayer."
*********************************************************


Every time I get involved with one of these libertarian-incited "free the drugs"
threads, It seems that I neglect to remember to lay all the points out first....

And thus, I get mistaken for some sort of "supporter" of the WoD. :eek:

My take on this subject is that y'all are simply bonkers if you think society - ANY society - would be a "better place" with the unregulated possession and use of drugs.

I live in the middle of just such a society at the moment.

A fair number of Aborigines - children and adults, are whacking themselves out with alcohol, petrol, paint, solvents...anything that will raise a buzz.

The Aussie Federal Government is spending $10 million THIS YEAR to mandate the use of non-solvent petrol (Opal) in the communities. One result is that kids from the communities are turning up in Alice Springs and stealing petrol from cars to maintain their brain-damaging addiction.

Prohibition? C'mon...it's PETROL! :rolleyes:

Regulation? Right, put a secure lock on your petrol filler cap and they just puncture the tank. :banghead:

The N.T. Government - in desperation - is in the process of making the possession of petrol for sniffing illegal. :scrutiny:

(sarcasm mode on) Yeppers, that's sure gonna fix it! (sarcasm mode off)

See, publius' emphasis on the similarity of the U.S. Feds. approach to what amounts to unauthorized regulation of drugs and guns via the Commerce Clause is exactly spot-on correct.

That, in my opinion, is the ONLY similarity between the issues of recreational drug use and RKBA.

Responsible use of arms is protected by the Second Amendment.

It is a concept which is fundamental to individual and collective freedom.

"Responsible use of (recreational) drugs" is a nonsense - this use is an individual escape from responsibility - however temporary and to what degree is determined by the user. In no way is this a collective good, nor should it be a 'right' within a society which extends value to each member.
A privilege available to those who do not abust others...why not?

Why, good libertarians, do you suppose that you and our anti-gun nemesis George Soros and his Open Society Institute are on the same side when it comes to the concept of legalizing and - ultimately - encouraging the use of recreational drugs?

It is because Soros and his "One World" folks are striving for a global society with lots of docile, dependent folks who look to their rulers for everything, including a feed and a fix.

No guns allowed, and the elite make the rules....can't trust those dopers to think for themselves anyway. :rolleyes:

The current WoD is a disaster for individual rights, and Art done put it better'n I could:
*********************************************************
"Which is worse? Legalizing drugs, or winding up with no Bill of Rights worth noticing? The attacks on the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments stem mostly from the WOD...

All I really know is that the WAY we're going about dealing with the problem has--to my mind, anyway--proven out to be dumber'n hammered dirt."
*********************************************************


What I am advocating, and agreeing with The Rabbi and others on the nature of, is that a society permitting and ultimately encouraging the unregulated possession and consumption of intoxicating, mind alterering and responsibility diminishing substances is not one that I wish to be a part of.

Nor will such a society long remain 'free'.

Suggestions to preserve our RKBA and develop a responsible free society:

Fix the Commerce Clause. (yeah, easier said than done :( )

Stop the WoD...it ain't workin' too good and is costin' us too much in liberty and treasure.

Here's the tough one:

Reduce the demand for escapist substances by reducing the misery, desperation, alienation and sense of dislocation within the user -

Or just let 'em die?


Sindawe:
Ya' got it backwards...recreational drug users are much easier to control than those in full control of their faculties. :D
 
The pro-drug folks have made it their platform that any regulation of any behavior is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Try this: Any regulation of bahvior that does not harm anyone else is unacceptable.

The difference being that there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom to grow pot.
Click to expand...
The similarity being that I don't need a constitutional amendment in order to have a right to do anything that harms noone but (sometimes) me.
 
A fair number of Aborigines - children and adults, are whacking themselves out with alcohol, petrol, paint, solvents...anything that will raise a buzz.
Click to expand...
I must ask, WHY is that? Are the "less damaging" intoxicants too difficult to obtain? As far as those poor fools who chose to rot their brains with solvents, well...some folks are just too dumb to survive.
My take on this subject is that y'all are simply bonkers if you think society - ANY society - would be a "better place" with the unregulated possession and use of drugs.
Click to expand...
Funny, my society survived rather well when possesion and use of Cannabis species and its extracts, extract of Poppies, extract of the Coca plant and several forms of pscycoactive fungi were unregulated. Sure, some people died as a result of uncontrolled use of such (see "too dumb to survive" above), just as some folks died as a result of careless handling of large farm animals, black powder and Professor Nobel's invention, dynamite.
Ya' got it backwards...recreational drug users are much easier to control than those in full control of their faculties.
Click to expand...
Well, based soley on my first hand experience, those who are "recreational drug users" are given to question the information presented to them by the MSM, the dictates from their social "betters" and to think & reason for themselves with more frequency than my friends and aquantances who are not "recreational drug users".

You are free to differ in opion. Just don't come between me and my java beans (a recreational drug), or there will be...trouble. :evil: :evil: :evil:
 
The similarity being that I don't need a constitutional amendment in order to have a right to do anything that harms noone but (sometimes) me.
Click to expand...

Really? How do you know that? Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?
 
Except that isnt my argument.

But no judicial authority has seen a right to grow dope anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

1. Note that I said SALIENT point. The courts don't wish to hear your argument, though I would agree that, in addition to the fact that a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption is not interstate commerce, it is also Constitutionally protected from federal infringement. See Silviera v Lockyer. When they want to hear it, it'll become salient. I'll cheer.

2. Are you hard of reading? Amendments 9 and 10. There does not have to be some "right to grow dope" (when the Founders grew it, they called it by the proper name: cannabis or hemp).

If it is going to be federally regulated, you'll have to find the authority in the Constitution. They first found it in the power to tax. Later, the Constitution grew, and now it can be found in the commerce clause power, the same place they find the authority to regulate guns.

This idea that in order to be free from federal regulation, you have to have some explicitly stated Constitutional right to be free from that regulation is nonsense, it's the opposite of what was intended when our government was created, and it's plainly contrary to the language of amendments 9 and 10.
 
Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?
Click to expand...

I stole the idea from Thomas Jefferson. Why do you think I do not?
“Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God Himself will not save men against their wills.” Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
I think Jefferson got the idea from God, who seems to let people commit suicide, despite His feelings on the subject, and the harm it does to those around them.
 
Last edited:
1) Just because YOU see a right in the Constitution doesnt mean it's there. If you want to dispute that I suggest you go grow marijuana in your front yard and see what happens.
2) Even if the Feds have no power to regulate illicit drugs (and I think they do) most drug cases stem from state and local laws. Are you going to argue that states also do not have the right to make these things illegal?
3) Your reading of Jefferson is absurd and illogical and I suspect the quote was taken out of context. He (and you) sure didnt get the idea of individual harm being permitted from the Bible. Im not sure about yours, but mine clearly states "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

I dont understand your cite of Silveira. The court threw out all the plaintiffs' arguments. The SC refused to hear it. What point are you trying to make?
 
from Glock Glockler:

The SCOTUS once thought that a black man was property, maybe it's not such a good idea to contract out our thinking to the courts when we can read what is right in front of us.
Click to expand...

Thats the most downright ignorant summary of Dredd Scott or any other case I have ever seen. They didnt say that. They didnt say anything close to that. And if you had spent 3 minutes looking for the case you would have known that.
 
OK, I'm curious, Rabs. Why the desperation on this subject? In the end the fact is there would be very little difference in total number of people using drugs than there is now under the utter failure(unless you define success by how much money the government makes from it) that is the WoD. We simply wouldn't have the government making big bucks by stealing people's property and we wouldn't have the level of organized violence since the money would also be gone from the drug trade itself...

So what don't you like about that, since that's really all there is to it no matter how much silliness people try to add to the discussion.

And here's some goodies regarding Dredd Scott, for the unfamilar. If the SCOTUS did not in fact endorse slavery then there's some interesting Spin going on. Of course we've been hearing that throughout this WoD discussion...

http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/dredsupp.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Drug War necessary for Gun Control!
Replies
9
Views
325
dustind
D
W
  • Locked
Dean Losing Left's Support with Gun-Control, Drugs Stance
Replies
16
Views
829
Futo Inu
F
W
  • Locked
House Bill to Censor American Citizens from Voicing Opposition to U.S. War on Drugs
Replies
3
Views
464
clubsoda22
C
R
  • Locked
Thoughts on Gun Control and the War on Drugs
Replies
6
Views
415
beerslurpy
B
A
  • Locked
item from today's Cato Daily Dispatch(www.cato.org)
Replies
0
Views
366
alan
A
Back
Top