Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

[The Rabbi]

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...

See, this is where we disagree. It is a fact of economics that if you lower the price of something there will be more of it consumed. Legalization is a way to lower the price because using it comes without the risk of getting caught. In order for you to believe the opposte you would have to believe that laws have no effect on behavior. I am not claiming they perfectly affect behavior but your argument is that they do not affect it at all.
As far as making big bucks, this seems contradictory to a lot of what's been posted. Most people here have maintained that the government has SPENT big bucks doing this. So which is it?

 

[DRZinn]

Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?

Why do you think you have a right to stop me? You have no right to inhibit any action I choose to take unless it's to stop me from harming someone else by taking that action. If it is an act that harms only me, than of course by acting I am accepting the consequences.

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.

So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, than it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[Old Dog]

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...

This surely doesn't seem to me to be a good argument against the WoD ... with legalization, the government would then be making its big bucks by taxing the hell out drugs (as with cigarettes and alcohol). As far as the violence ... perhaps the violence stemming from drug dealer vs. dealer vs. law enforcement ... but I suspect you'd see more violent crime on the part of the end users, since drugs would presumably be more readily consumed, meaning users would still need cash to buy their drugs ... unless -- the government was subsidizing all the addicts' use -- hey now, there's an idea: let's just let the government spend money to provide drugs to users. Surely that'd be far cheaper than fighting an unwinnable war on drugs.

Some of the posters here don't see the irony present: advocating legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, which would surely result in a far greater outlaying of taxpayer expenditures to regulate and tax the drug trade -- while on other threads, these same folks get totally riled up about the government's expansion and increasing taxation.

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".

Now we've heard everything. Drug users more likely to disagree with the MSM and thinking more clearly than non-drug users?

 

[2nd Amendment]

So if drugs were legal and cheap would YOU use them? Do you drink yourself into a stupor because booze is legal and cheap? I wouldn't and I don't Most of the rest of the US doesn't abuse booze. In fact, the percentage of drinkers has gone down. I'd posit that we would indeed see a spike in drug use after legalization. A fair number of people would want to try it, just as they want to hit the bar once when they are 21.

I STOPPED drinking when I was 21. There was no fun in it. No challenge. Most people who hit the bar at 21 don't become barflies. Likewise most who try drugs upon legalization won't become druggies. There's no reason to think otherwise.

And the government has spent billions, of course. Money it has recouped in higher taxes and fees and then there is the profit to various law enforcement agencies via Asset Frofeiture. But even if there was no percentage in it, the money SPENT is coming out of our pockets for no effect at all.

 

[Ivy Mike]

We would see a jump in drug use, then it would drop back down to where it is now...maybe a bit more. The only difference is that we won't have people killing each other over deals gone bad. We'd see far less of it anyway, at least as the softer, party drugs are concerned.

If drugs became legal, I'd probably partake every so often. I do the same thing with alcohol now. I'm an adult, capable of bearing the responsibility my actions carry. If I choose to go out and destroy myself with drink or drug, I've got no one to blame but myself.

 

[mercedesrules]

As far as making big bucks, this seems contradictory to a lot of what's been posted. Most people here have maintained that the government has SPENT big bucks doing this. So which is it?

The government has no money of its own. For the drug war, it takes tax money from citizens by force and gives it to itself/government workers/the police. Then it confiscates property and gives it to other government workers - often the police again. It is all a huge transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.

 

[The Rabbi]

DocZinn, since you wont answer my question on why you think you have a right to harm yourself, let me say this:

So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, than it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Yes, thats correct. That is my position.

So if drugs were legal and cheap would YOU use them? Do you drink yourself into a stupor because booze is legal and cheap? I wouldn't and I don't Most of the rest of the US doesn't abuse booze. In fact, the percentage of drinkers has gone down. I'd posit that we would indeed see a spike in drug use after legalization. A fair number of people would want to try it, just as they want to hit the bar once when they are 21.

2nd Amendment, you are ducking the point. I wouldnt buy an SUV if they were half as expensive as they are. But plenty of people would. I wouldnt use drugs if they were cheap and available, but economics suggests a lot of people would. Why do you think the economic argument is invalid?

 

[mercedesrules]

This surely doesn't seem to me to be a good argument against the WoD ... with legalization, the government would then be making its big bucks by taxing the hell out drugs (as with cigarettes and alcohol).

Of course, I'm against taxing these things, but it is not a good argument for the war on drugs that "if they legalize drugs, they'll just tax them to death". That would still be a "war on drugs". I consider the high taxes on tobacco and alcohol to be a war on those things.

As far as the violence ... perhaps the violence stemming from drug dealer vs. dealer vs. law enforcement ... but I suspect you'd see more violent crime on the part of the end users, since drugs would presumably be more readily consumed, meaning users would still need cash to buy their drugs ... unless -- the government was subsidizing all the addicts' use -- hey now, there's an idea: let's just let the government spend money to provide drugs to users. Surely that'd be far cheaper than fighting an unwinnable war on drugs.

Many have tried this type of sarcasm...and many have failed. Is there violence over the price of tomatoes? Most drugs are merely plants - produce. Why would people have to steal to raise cash for produce? Look how fat everyone is! And again, the government has no money of its own. I don't want my stolen tax money used to buy drugs for addicts, period.

Some of the posters here don't see the irony present: advocating legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, which would surely result in a far greater outlaying of taxpayer expenditures to regulate and tax the drug trade -- while on other threads, these same folks get totally riled up about the government's expansion and increasing taxation.

I want all drugs re-legalized. I don't want them taxed or regulated! :banghead:

 

[Sindawe]

Old Dog: You took my words out of context. Let me repeat them for you in full.

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".

During my years in the Bloodmines of Boulder (Baxter Hemoglobin Therapeutics) I worked directly with close to 100 individuals, from a wide range of ages, educational and economic backgrounds. I observed that those individuals who were "recreational drug users" either of the legal stripe or not were more inclined to be questioning of the status quo, more likely to search for information on current events than fed to them by the MSM, were better able to think outside the box and on their feet than those who held the opinion that "drugs are bad" without question. Its a very small sample set, and the observation is just that, an observation.

Do not make the mistake that I am implying that drug use leads to better critical thinking skills. Personally, I think that the converse is more often the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

Many have tried this type of sarcasm...and many have failed. Is there violence over the price of tomatoes? Most drugs are merely plants - produce. Why would people have to steal to raise cash for produce? Look how fat everyone is! And again, the government has no money of its own. I don't want my stolen tax money used to buy drugs for addicts, period.

We have a winner.
I am not sure how to categorize this response but it wins some kind of award for the most nonsensical. By that logic let's try the following:
Paper money is just paper. You dont see people mugging each other for their notecards or 8 1/2x11s do you?
Yes drugs are plants in the same way that paper money is paper.

 

[mercedesrules]

Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?

Because to think otherwise, I would have to believe that I have an obligation to someone else not to harm myself. To whom would that be?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because to think otherwise, I would have to believe that I have an obligation to someone else not to harm myself. To whom would that be?

By that logic, you have no right to vote because you have no obligation to anyone to vote.
You have no right to own guns because you have no obligation to anyone to do so.

 

[RealGun]

So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, then it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

The law can, has, and will take that position, directly or indirectly. The question is whether it will be at the federal, state, or local level. Of course, there are differences among claiming a right, having a right, and being free to exercise a right.

By not enumerating all rights, the Constitution merely leaves those not enumerated open to question. The rule of law says that the Courts get to decide any legal question in regard to rights. Whether we respect Court rulings is a different question and problem. Unfortunately we cannot favor the rule of law only for the laws with which we agree.

Before I got too upset with some law, I would examine who passed the law and why.

It all comes down to how poorly the bar has served this country. Legal precedent is treated as more important than the Constitution, and heaven forbid that they would overturn some ruling by a colleague, present or historic. Exceptions are refreshing rather than the rule.

 

[mercedesrules]

Yes drugs are plants in the same way that paper money is paper

No. Most illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana) can be proven scientifically to be (from) plants; one can chew a coca leaf and get a mild version of the same effect as with "crack". In mountainous areas of South America they do just that, and also drink the tea to prevent breathing problems at high altitudes and prolong the workday. BTW, drug wars cause people to invent stronger drugs than they would otherwise so as to better smuggle them.

Paper (fiat) money is only different from other paper because a state pronounced it to be...under threat of violence.

Actually, you are making my point: if the state removed their special sanctions against certain drugs, no one would mug anyone over them. They would be like the notecards again.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Why do you think you have a right to harm yourself?

Because I own my body and it is not owned by anyon else. Some may argue that I am causeing a small amount of hearing damage every time I shoot, does that man I may not do it?

What about drinking Jack Daniels or eating McDonalds?

What about dating that girl that is trouble?

What about skydiving, or joining the military?

What about kickboxing?

I could make a very long list of activities that most definately cause damage to oneself, does that mean thy should all be banned?

 

[mercedesrules]

By that logic, you have no right to vote because you have no obligation to anyone to vote.
You have no right to own guns because you have no obligation to anyone to do so.

Original argument:
I have a right to harm myself because I don't have any obligation to anyone to not do so.

Gun ownership:

I have a right to own a gun because I don't have any obligation to anyone to not own one.

Voting:

Bad example; implies an obligation for someone else to hold an election.

 

[DRZinn]

So, by that rationale, if the state says something is not a right, than it isn't, as long as it isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Yes, thats correct. That is my position.

Just wanted to get that out in the open.

By that logic, you have no right to vote because you have no obligation to anyone to vote.
You have no right to own guns because you have no obligation to anyone to do so.

Wrong again.

1. The argument was made that an individual has no OBLIGATION to refrain from harming himself.

2. You twisted that into the same thing as no RIGHT to do someting (harm oneself/vote/own guns) because there's no obligation.

3. :banghead:

 

[Gordon Fink]

Any group for whom the final argument is “let them die in the streets for all I care” is not one that can be swayed.

Actually, fewer people would die in the streets if drugs were decriminalized. Regulation (public or private) would ensure that drugs were sold at uniform dosages and qualities, which would greatly reduce overdoses and adverse reactions. Tax revenues from sales or even a tiny fraction of the funds formerly wasted on interdiction efforts would pay for treatment of addicts and abusers.

After decriminalization, drug use would almost certainly rise. However, I’m not sure that addiction rates would change very much. I suspect that alcoholism already soaks up the pool of potential addicts, though there would probably be some change in the addicts’ intoxicants of choice.

There is the question of unintended consequences. What would happen to the criminal enterprises built around the illegal drug trade? A few would probably legitimize themselves, but most would look for new black-market opportunities. Of course, we can always continue to eliminate black markets.

~G. Fink

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Just to add more fuel to the conflagration ...

There are no laws against any type of self-mutilation that I have ever heard of State or Federal. This however does not mean they don't exist, but if they do they are unConstitutional. If I sit at home and decide to chop off, lets say the tip of a finger on my left hand(like a moron would ), I don't see why it would be any business of a neighbor, the police, or the ems :banghead: !! I cut off my finger, and if I can't stop the bleeding and die, oh well. Suicide by stupidity!! Darwin at his best...

I have asked this before and never got an answer from the Rabbi, so here it is again....IF MY BODY DOES NOT BELONG TO ME THEN WHO DOES IT BEOLONG TO? THE STATE? THE FEDS? OR ME?

I don't want ANYONE telling me what I can or can't place, on or in my own body when it harms no one. I am sure that if the American people wouldn't kick some Congress a** for them trying, Congress would attempt to pass a no mutilation law of some sort, regulating what can and cant' be pierced(ex. genitalia) !

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

After decriminalization of course usage would spike,Duh!

Just look at the death of the so-called,"Assault Weapons Ban". It caused a spike in the market of these firearms, but nowhere near the blood in the streets that the media tried to sell us ! Why would this be any different ? Individuals are not stupid fot the most part, it is that rare case of BTL(born to lose) that brings down the collective IQ :banghead:

 

[publius]

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?

1. You're still ignoring amendments 9 and 10. I don't have to find a Constitutionally protected right in order to be free from federal regulation in any given area. The burden of proof here works exactly the opposite way: drug warriors must find the enumerated power. There is a short and incomplete list of enumerated rights, and the Bill of Rights says that the list is incomplete, and there may be other rights. There is also an explicit and complete list of enumerated powers, and if you don't find the power you seek on that list, it cannot be found.

2. Do you think the feds have the power to regulate drugs under the old reasoning (a regulatory power grab put forth as a tax), or under the New Deal reasoning (a regulatory power grab put forth as an effort to promote interstate commerce)? If the latter, how do you feel about the fact that the very reasoning you are promoting is now being used against our firearms rights?

State level prohibition would continue to be a bad idea, making dangerous drugs more dangerous and causing crime and corruption, but I would not call it unconstitutional in general. Specific laws aimed at creating trade barriers would be unconstitutional (that's the kind of thing the commerce clause was intended to be about).

3. My point was that God clearly does not want us to kill ourselves. God is all-powerful, and therefore could stop it. He does not.

My point in citing Silviera was a bit too obvious: the court wouldn't hear it. That's the whole point. I wish, along with you, that the courts would respect the second, but they won't, and absent that respect, we're going to talk about the source of federal regulatory power: the commerce clause.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because I own my body and it is not owned by anyon else. Some may argue that I am causeing a small amount of hearing damage every time I shoot, does that man I may not do it?

You own your car too yet you cant do whatever you want with it.
But I am still waiting for an answer as to where the right to harm yourself comes from.

You twisted that into the same thing as no RIGHT to do someting (harm oneself/vote/own guns) because there's no obligation.

Actually I didnt do that, the poster responding did. He framed it in terms of obligations while I framed the question in terms of rights.

 

[publius]

I wouldnt use drugs if they were cheap and available, but economics suggests a lot of people would. Why do you think the economic argument is invalid?

I think it is invalid because history shows it to be. The only drug law which has had a noticeable effect on addictions and abuse was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1903. That worked, Constitutional or not (another debate). But it worked.

Alcohol prohibition did not reduce alcoholism. Drug prohibition has gone through many phases, with very lax enforcement at times, very stringent enforcement at other times. For decades now, our levels of drug abuse and addiction have fluctuated right around the same level: the level to which they fell just after the Pure Food and Drug Act.

More here.

 

[The Rabbi]

3. My point was that God clearly does not want us to kill ourselves. God is all-powerful, and therefore could stop it. He does not.

That of course ignores Free Will, something Jefferson was intimately familiar with.

Alcohol prohibition did not reduce alcoholism.

How do you know that? And there is alcoholism and alcohol consumption, which are very different things.

 

[publius]

I was really more interested in your response to points 1 and 2. I'm not going to debate theology with a Rabbi!

I know about alcohol prohibition because I've researched it. I'll find sources again, if you can't find your own.

But what I found was that only one study concluded that alcoholism went down during Prohibition. Some concluded that it went up, and I don't believe those either. I don't think it had much effect, other than to enrich gangsters and make otherwise law-abiding people into criminals.

The one study didn't actually track alcoholism, it used instances of cirrhosis (sp?) of the liver as a proxy indicator. Problem with that is, those instances of liver disease fluctuate naturally, for reasons not well understood. The fluctuation which coincided with Prohibition was within the norm, so it really didn't prove anything.