Quantcast

Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

Discussion in 'Legal' started by mercedesrules, May 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    California
    The Rabbi has previously stated that he believes rights are granted by government authority. Therefore, if the government doesn’t want its subjects to have guns/drugs/oxygen/etc., that is its prerogative. I know he is wrong, but I respect his honesty on the matter.

    ~G. Fink
     
  2. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    DOH! Now I KNOW I've been away from the Biosciences for too long. I wonder how the HOA where I live will take to my keeping bees on the patio. :evil:
     
  3. Byron Quick

    Byron Quick Moderator In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,482
    Location:
    Waynesboro, Georgia
    If I use drugs, including the drug alcohol, there is no victim but, possibly, myself. I own myself. You do not. If you think you do then I have an invitation for you: come to my house and make me do right. See what happens.

    Child pornography? A ridiculous and laughable analogy. Child pornography has clear and unmistakable victims who are directly harmed by its production.

    Some people here just need to admit who and what they are: statists. Hypocritical statists are folk who think that the government should stay out of their business but when the folks down the road do something that harms no one...then they holler,"There oughta be a law."

    :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

    If the Constitution grants the government the power to pass and to enforce such laws then the Constitution needs to be changed.
     
  4. Alex45ACP

    Alex45ACP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    USA
    I was wondering the same thing...
     
  5. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,582
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    If drugs where legal, would more people want to buy them from a shady guy on the street, or from a large name brand store? Assuming the price is cheap at both places.

    Why don't criminals go to the police when a rival drug dealer threatens them with, or commits violence? Wouldn't that change if their trade was legal?

    Drug dealers would go out of business overnight if drugs where legalized. The only possible exception would be if drugs where taxed to over 500% of their market price. This would depend on how heavy enforcement was.

    Organized crime would not exist without black markets. Organized crime rings launder money mostly from other black markets, run protection rackets which again are for other black markets, deal cigarets in states where the taxes cause the price to be over four times the price at neighboring states, drugs, gambling, and other stuff that should be legal. Organized crime is a government created and sponsored problem that would go away if we stopped feeding it.

    Even if we did not want to go for full legalization, if we allowed opium based products in limited dosages we could reduce the demand for more dangerous drugs like crack and cocaine.
     
  6. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    You guys must have missed it, but I came pretty close here:

    OK, so there is an unexplained conditional on the end of it. Still looks to me like an honest embrace of the New Deal interpretation of the Constitution exemplified in the Wickard case, which is now being used as precedent in the Stewart and Raich cases.

    You've gotta give the guy credit for admitting adherence to that interpretation on a conservative board, especially knowing that the interpretation is right now "probably" being applied to gun laws at the Supreme Court to overturn this excellent opinion.

    Few who hold that view are willing to admit to it in a place like this one. I've been around here and TFL long enough to know who many of the other adherents of New Deal Constitutionality are, and none of them seem to want to touch this topic with a ten foot pole.
     
  7. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    8,100
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    I figure that, in the absence of prohibition, a heavy sin tax would sustain the black market for a long time. The religious folks or just plain moralists will have their say, somehow avoiding endorsement of drug use and happily accepting a revenue opportunity.

    I really doubt that drug use would become endemic to the same level as alcohol. For example, Christians don't pass around a joint as part of Communion. Like me, some ask for juice or just pass on the wine.

    Part of drug enforcement is avoiding endorsement of loser behavior. To me the really debatble issue is mostly the grouping of addictive and nonaddictive, harmful and essentially benign substances. Those loser types, free to abuse themselves, just become tax burdens, contributing nothing to society. It's not so much infringement of rights traceable to specific individuals as it is the grander voice of society as a whole.

    A tax is a more realistic disincentive than futile criminalizing of use. Yet I am reminded of my sister the social worker commenting that her clients' first priority with their assistance checks is buying cigarettes at $40 a carton. She tries to keep them supplied with discount coupons. In my State, a bright leaf tobacco grower state, cigs cost $20 a carton, yet as a state is as red as they come. Sounds like hypocrisy, right?

    Responding to the issue of Rabbi not providing a straight answer, he is tedious about making statements one is prepared to back up. Perhaps he is abiding by his own standard when saying "probably".

    The government, by legal procedure invoked by elected representatives, seems to have the power to do as it sees fit. The issue is the integrity of the procedure. For example, a Constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment is not impossible and would not necessarily be an abuse of the law. We have RKBA because the government (Constitution) says we do, and the Feds, States, and Courts have not completely fabricated why we don't. My sense of entitlement has little to do with it in practical terms until they ask for my guns.

    In my opinion, a consensus of what the right thing to do might be determines what laws are passed, so it is extremely important that our government not be dominated by headstrong religious or for-the-children people who aren't particularly concerned about representing everyone or respecting diversity. Controlling behavior and tax burdens is more important to them than anyone's claim to rights. All we are talking about here is when that effort becomes futile or is misdirected. Of course you can trade a right wing government for a liberal one and simply get different reasons for wanting to control and to nullify rights, real or perceived. Mention of freedom and liberty is too often just hollow rhetoric. Everything is conditional it would seem.
     
  8. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    24,336
    are you serious?


    "The number of U.S. traffic fatalies hit a 13-year high in 2003, with a total of 43,220 deaths on U.S. highways and 40 percent of those were alcohol-related, according to preliminary National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures" link


    "Ninety-two percent of the domestic abuse assailants reported use of alcohol or other drugs on the day of the assault, according to a recent JAMA report.

    Another study shows that the percentage of batterers who are under the influence of alcohol when they assault their partners ranges from 48 percent to 87 percent, with most research indicating a 60 to 70 percent rate of alcohol abuse and a 13 to 20 percent rate of drug abuse." link
     
  9. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    The majority of gunshot deaths are caused by firearms. Is that because people can own and use guns?
     
  10. The Rabbi

    The Rabbi member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,532
    Location:
    TN
    Oh come on, Taliv, you are blaming the substance when we all know it is the person responsible. Yeah, thats it.

    I have given very straight and consistent answers. It is the board posters who insist on screwing things up by bringing up bizarre theories and extreme positions (who said drunks ought to be allowed on the road?)

    I agree you can do those things presently without getting prosecuted. My question was why do you think you have a *right* to do those things? Gordon Fink has rightly identified my position. When challenged in the past people who say otherwise come up with the silliest statements, "I just know", "by virtue of being human" etc or they quote that great philosopher Robert Heinlein or maybe Ayn Rand. The truth is they have no idea but it sounds good and substitutes for serious argumentation.

    Justin, I agree with one of your points: the government at all levels has shown an increasing propensity to confiscate assets first and ask questions later. That is disturbing and needs to stop. It grew out of the RICO law, which was in fact very effective at stopping organized crime. But again, there is the law of unintended consequences.

    This is the kind of false reasoning that ruins threads. First, all gun shot deaths are caused by firearms. But it is not analogous to drugs/alcohol because no one suddenly loses his inhibitions or has his judgement altered by holding a gun.
     
  11. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    You're right, but you've also just described a democracy, not a democratic republic. Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, even in the face of a consensus that those rights must be sacrificed to some majority desire. Unfortunately, the anti-federalists appear to have been right. There were flaws in the design.
     
  12. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    When making a conscious decision to use alcohol in excess. Most folks quit drinking before they get to that point. Should all people be denied liquor because a minority abuse it?
     
  13. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    I agree with you there, but go visit the DU forum or some such place and say the same thing. They'll tell you that the presence of a gun makes anyone feel like John Wayne with a bunch of bad guys in front of him. They'll tell you it escalates violent situations. They'll generally infer behavior which sometimes happens to be what happens ALL the time.

    Like when people say a heroin addict can't be a contributing member of society. It's just not true. It's frequently the case, but there are counter examples. Similarly, contrary to Reefer Madness propaganda, I have known many cannabis users who are contributing, otherwise law-abiding citizens. Doctors, lawyers, realtors, technicians and construction workers of all kinds. This myth that drug use always produces theiving welfare cases is just that: a myth. A much stronger drug than cannabis did not make a theiving welfare case out of Rush Limbaugh. He continued to function and succeed while addicted. Others do it all the time as well.
     
  14. The Rabbi

    The Rabbi member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,532
    Location:
    TN
    This is just the point. Even a relatively small amount of alcohol affects people's judgement. The answer to your second question is no.

    Sigmund Freud used cocaine. But he is not a typical cocaine user. Sure some people can do almost anything and remain alert and productive. But that is hardly the majority or even the typical case.
    My first cousin is an alcoholic and crack user. He works on the LIRR and has for some time. Sure he holds down the job but I wouldnt want to ride on any track he's laid.
     
  15. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    So he's not a welfare case. What accidents have happened as a result of his drunken track laying? Or does he work sober?
     
  16. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    I'd say it's a majority. I base that on the most recent numbers I've heard, which say 70 to 80 million Americans have used illegal drugs. If we had 70 to 80 million theiving welfare cases running around addicted, we'd be in serious trouble. We don't. The number is a tiny minority of that 70 to 80 million.
     
  17. The Rabbi

    The Rabbi member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,532
    Location:
    TN
    I suspect he works sober about half the time. And the other guys with him work sober about half the time. But not the same half.
    I havent heard of any accidents directly attributable to his behavior. But the question begs others.

    That's inapposite reasoning. Bill Clinton used illegal drugs (w/out inhaling of course) but that is very different from being a current user. You also have to distinguish by type and frequency. Someone who smoke dope at a party twice a year is not the same as someone who smokes crack twice a day.
     
  18. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,010
    What, exactly, does each person owe "society"?
     
  19. Glock Glockler

    Glock Glockler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,279
    Location:
    Southern NH
    Those loser types, free to abuse themselves, just become tax burdens, contributing nothing to society

    What amount of production should every person be required to fulfill? If my girlfriend no longer wants to work and I agree to support her, what does she contribute?

    What if she's an alcoholic and I support her, what does she then contribute?

    Actually, if you jail her, I can garantee that society will now bear a heavy burden to incarcerate her.
     
  20. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    You answer yourself. Only a small minority of drinkers continue to drink after they feel the effects starting.
     
  21. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Well, the other drug warriors around here seem to lack your courage of conviction, and don't wish to enter a thread in which they'll wind up admitting that they favor a New Deal big-government interpretation of the Constitution, even if it adversely affects gun rights. BUT, if they were here, they'd happily tell you, as they've told me over and over, that there is no such thing as a "responsible" drug user, and that therefore there really isn't much difference between the occasional cannabis smoker and the crack head. They'd also tell you about the Gateway Theory, which posits that today's occasional cannabis smokers are tomorrow's crack heads.

    That is why, they have told me, we must treat cannabis users the same as we treat crack users. That is why, they have told me, we have classified cannabis as more dangerous than cocaine and morphine when it comes to drug scheduling. That is why such a large amount of the drug war budget from government at all levels goes into the futile fight against cannabis.

    Of course, if all of what they have told me were true, we'd see those 70 to 80 million theiving addicts on welfare. Glad you'll be here next time to help me explain to them that they're wrong.
     
  22. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    California
    Precisely! In fact, I used to be such a statist, but then I shed my historical chauvinism, realized that even the modern United States makes mistakes and that it can happen here, and accepted that if I want to enjoy the freedoms I value, I have to let others enjoy the freedoms they value, so long as we don’t harm one another. In other words, I became ideologically consistent. I became a libertarian.

    ~G. Fink
     
  23. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    24,336
  24. The Rabbi

    The Rabbi member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,532
    Location:
    TN
    Talk about Straw Man argument.
     
  25. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    8,100
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Interesting question, but any "requirement" is your issue, not mine. Let's not defy common sense here. What's wrong with promoting productivity and independence and discouraging lack of productivity, both within debatable boundaries and without defying the Constitution?

    I believe that "for the common good" is a reasonable concern for society. The problem is always abuse of discretion or the process, not to mention the possibility of corruption. That is what oversight and accountability are all about.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice