Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

[The Rabbi]

Let's start with the assumption that drug trafficing is a big business. Somehow, end users manage to come up with a lot of money. Few of them do it by criminal means, or we'd see much higher rates of violent crime. Few do it by living through their savings fast and then dying off -- we'd see higher mortality rates and also that process can't be sustainable. So either drug users are being recruited at a brisk rate (which seems unlikely, as it would encompass mos tof the population quickly) or they are capable of living, working and earning enough to support stable habits. In short, the image of a meth-crazed junkie misrepresents the majority of drug users, same as the movie "Eternal Jew" misrepresented its subjects.

There is so much wrong here it is hard to know where to start.
Many users are themselves dealers, subsidizing their habit by doing this. Areas with high levels of e.g. crack cocaine usage not surpirsingly have high rates of crime. I doubt this is an accident.
Further, I asked a public defender I know how many of his cases had involvement with drugs and/or alcohol. The answer was like 90%, and those arent possession/dealing cases. Those are robbery assault cases. In the 1950s when my father moved to NYC he thought nothing of standing in Harlem at 1AM waiting for the bus. By 1980 driving through in the daytime was hazardous. So, how high does the crime rate have to be for you say that "we'd see much higher crime rates"?
It takes a long time to die from drug use and addicts can have 10-15 year histories. Many of them dry out for a time before going back to it as well. But some drug habits, like crack, have shorter "half lives" so the user suffers far more physical damage than someone addicted to, e.g. Oxycontin.
Some drug users do hold jobs and support themselves. Some people drive under the influence and never have an accident. But I wouldnt use that fact to argue that enforcement of DUI laws represents an unwarranted intrusion on right and that DUI ought to be made legal.

 

[DRZinn]

I am about to add posters against WoD and authoritarian tendencies in general to my pro-RKBA work.

I look forward to seeing them.

 

[t.ebentheuer]

I believe 100% in the legalization of drugs, it is to me quite obvious that the drug war has been a tremendous failure that has cost us billions of dollars. Most drugs truly are harmful, but some are really no worse than alcohol, and one, marijuana, is certainly less dangerous by far. It does not cause a PHYSICAL addiction like other drugs or the withdrawls associated with that. Also, it is impossible to die of marijuana overdose. Thousands die every year from alcohol poisoning, and thousands more are addicted. We tried to ban alcohol years ago but learned soon that it did nothing more than create a black market for organized crime. Why can't we figure out that the war on drugs is doing the same exact thing that alcohol prohibition did? But I suppose its like gun control, no matter how much it fails the gov't will just keep pushing more and more.

Now, just like many of you I do not want to pay for food stamps and welfare for drunks/drug addicts who either aren't willing to work or spend all their money on drugs. However, I also don't want to pay taxes to keep some guy in prison for having a bag of pot, or even the guy who was selling that bag of pot.

I say, if you want to get welfare you should have to take a drug test and a breathalizer, and if you fail, after one month, you should be tested again. If you haven't cleaned up you will receive no more money until you can prove that you are completely clean. I generally don't believe in government being that intrusive, but if you can't take care of yourself then I believe that the government has that right when people's hard earned tax money is at stake.

 

[publius]

Some people drive under the influence and never have an accident. But I wouldnt use that fact to argue that enforcement of DUI laws represents an unwarranted intrusion on right and that DUI ought to be made legal.

And I wouldn't argue that if you went home and smoked a joint, that represents the same kind of threat to your fellow citizens as getting behind the wheel of your car when drunk.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Also, it is impossible to die of marijuana overdose.

A young man locally did just that within in the last week. Police pulled him over for a traffic violation. He swallowed his stash of pot and soon was sweating profusely and acting strange. He got scared enough to tell the police what he had done. They called EMS immediately, but he died before they could get him to the hospital. He did not choke. He died of an overdose of the injested MJ.

 

[mercedesrules]

Some people drive under the influence and never have an accident. But I wouldnt use that fact to argue that enforcement of DUI laws represents an unwarranted intrusion on right and that DUI ought to be made legal.

I would. Until the drunk driver actually hurts someone he is no different from the otherwise uncoordinated, angry, half-blind, deaf, agoraphobic, phone-talking, nail-painting, burger-eating, nervous, radio-adjusting, ADD, rushed or otherwise-impaired driver.

Stalking, arresting and often searching so-called drunk drivers (based on an arbitrary % of alcohol) is prior restraint and police-state tactics. Just because we have been brainwashed into thinking of it favorably is no reason to use it as precedent. It is the same logic that would have mouths duct-taped or gun barrels welded closed to prevent future acts.

 

[mercedesrules]

A young man locally did just that within in the last week. Police pulled him over for a traffic violation. He swallowed his stash of pot and soon was sweating profusely and acting strange. He got scared enough to tell the police what he had done. They called EMS immediately, but he died before they could get him to the hospital. He did not choke. He died of an overdose of the injested MJ.

Whatever, but that death doesn't "count". First, it was clearly caused by the war on drugs and, secondly, that is not how one doses marijuana. If someone drowned in a vat of tomato juice, one could not seriously say that he overdosed on deadly tomatoes.

I do admit that it, if true, disproves the earlier statement, but not in a meaningful way for this discussion.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would. Until the drunk driver actually hurts someone he is no different from the otherwise uncoordinated, angry, half-blind, deaf, agoraphobic, phone-talking, nail-painting, burger-eating, nervous, radio-adjusting, ADD, rushed or otherwise-impaired driver.

OK. So when you go to the range and some idiot is waving his gun around. Or you go down to fix your targets and he starts shooting in the next lane, then you are not going to object until he actually shoots you, right?

 

[Art Eatman]

Arrrggghhh!

Stuff like the bit about swallowing a bunch of grass as evidence of its harmfulness, or comparing drunk driving to phoning/eating/etc. just isn't what I'd call rational discourse on the subject. The responses don't really help, either.

I've gotten where I hate these umpteenth repetitions on this subject. Folks bring out the most egregious anecdotal examples of horror stories as though that's a good way to support an opinion. Others respond with irrelevant "data" from "studies" to refute said opinions.

And then somebody gets mad...

And in the roughly seven years of TFL and THR, I don't think I've seen anybody's mind changed on this subject...

Rant mode off,

Art

 

[Old Dog]

First, it was clearly caused by the war on drugs and,

No, it was not. Death was caused because the individual made the choice to possess and use marijuana, a choice he made knowing that he was breaking the law. Bad law or not, it was the person's choice -- NOT the "war on drugs" that caused his death.

OK. So when you go to the range and some idiot is waving his gun around. Or you go down to fix your targets and he starts shooting in the next lane, then you are not going to object until he actually shoots you, right?

I tend to agree with Rabbi's thinking on this issue.

Just because we have been brainwashed into thinking of it favorably is no reason to use it as precedent.

Brainwashed? Bah. No one has the right to drive drunk, and we all have the right to expect everyone on the road to be driving to the best of their ability, which does not include making a choice knowing that it endangers everyone else on the road with you. "Stalking" drunk drivers is hardly police state tactics; it's common sense.

 

[Sindawe]

He died of an overdose of the injested MJ.

Is that the result of the autopsy, or your personal opinion? What was the weight of injested marjuana? Was just the vegetative matter consumed, or did the individual also consume the container holding the mj?

that is not how one doses marijuana

Some people DO eat mj mercedesrules, or have you never heard of mj brownies?

 

[Henry Bowman]

That was reported as the cause of death.


But it really matters not. I am very pro-freedom, but concerned that we cannot disassemble the WOD unless we also disassemble the welfare state at the same time.

FWIW, my mind has changed significantly over the last few years with respect to the WOD. Much of that change has been as a direct result of reading and engaging in dialoge on THR.

 

[mercedesrules]

Some people DO eat mj mercedesrules, or have you never heard of mj brownies?

Oh, yeah. I forgot.

I wonder which is worse - the mj or the other ingredients?

 

[RealGun]

From a political perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for gun ownership, especially bearing a gun, to be associated with smoking dope or taking other recreational drugs. It concerns me that THR seems to have at least one anti-drug control thread going at all times. It reminds me of another news forum where there is a perpetual Iraq war thread. There is nothing constructive about it.

This might be appropriate on a libertarian forum, but THR is not libertarian. It is very possible that many subscribers are indeed libertarians, but they don't own the forum. It's about guns.

 

[Sindawe]

From a political perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for gun ownership, especially bearing a gun, to be associated with smoking dope or taking other recreational drugs. It concerns me that THR seems to have at least one anti-drug control thread going at all times. It reminds me of another news forum where there is a perpetual Iraq war thread. There is nothing constructive about it.

This might be appropriate on a libertarian forum, but THR is not libertarian. It is very possible that many subscribers are indeed libertarians, but they don't own the forum. It's about guns.

Quite possibly true. But that is a call for Oleg and his delegates the Moderators to make.

 

[t.ebentheuer]

"No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans. According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of tested rats, was 42 milligrams per kilogram of body weight with forced inhalation. As for oral consumption, the LD50 for rats was 1270 mg/kg and 730 mg/kg for males and females, respectively. It would be impossible for THC in blood plasma to reach such a level in human cannabis smokers. Only with intravenous administration, a method rarely used by humans, may such a level be possible. Also, some evidence suggests that toxic levels may be higher for humans than for rats." - Wikipedia

I don't believe that guy who ate his pot died from a THC overdose. He may have died from a heart attack or something, because it is obvious he was extremely scared/distressed. Marijuana is not a good thing if you are already scared. Even if somehow he did die from MJ overdose, that would be one very rare case. People die all the time from legal alcohol. I have seen a person stop breathing from drinking too much, and I've seen many puke and pass out. The MJ smokers tend to eat too many chips and get a stomach ache.

 

[pcf]

Guns aren't evil. People who own guns aren't made evil. Guns don't drive people to do evil things.

Drugs aren't evil. People who use drugs aren't evil. But, drugs do drive people to do evil things.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

mercedesrules - "Coercive, socialistic systems cannot be improved by adjustment, reform or fine-tuning; they must be repealed. Everyone should pay for his own medical treatments. "

This is on the very first page, and even though I'm sure the debate gone far away from this comment, I wanted to just laugh at it for a second.

When I was 21 I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease and since then I've had nothing but problems with the disease and (even moreso) from complications from the disease. I won't go into my health problems - but here is the rub of my post - within 2.5 to 3 years, I've already racked up over 2 MILLION dollars in medical care.

Read that again: Two M I L L I O N. $2,000,000.

With a good insurence provider, we've only had to eat maybe $30,000 in bills so far, but that's $30,000 I'll be paying off until the day that I die (which will probably be pretty soon...so the hospitals will be screwed...HA!!!!). But for the millions of people in this country without insurence, not only would they have not been able to have been given the care I have, but they would have to figure out some way to pay off foolishly large health care costs.

In your world where individuals pay their own way for health care, what is to become of families who have critically disabled family members who need continous care for YEARS? What about the elderly, most of the time the rack of horribly large bills? SHould they be thrown out into the street to die once the can't pay?

I hope your "idea" was a joke.

 

[mercedesrules]

I wanted to just laugh at it for a second.

Laugh all you want, but if you wouldn't go over to your neighbor's house with a gun and rob him to pay for your medical treatments, you shouldn't hire a government goon to do so.

 

[mercedesrules]

FWIW, my mind has changed significantly over the last few years with respect to the WOD. Much of that change has been as a direct result of reading and engaging in dialoge on THR.

Thank you! Your honest admission is worth a lot. Some people try to end the debate by complaining that it is discussed too much. The article I posted came out the day I posted it.

 

[publius]

From a political perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for gun ownership, especially bearing a gun, to be associated with smoking dope or taking other recreational drugs.

Good idea or not, associated they are, both in history and in the present.

It is not a bunch of Libertarians who wrote the cert petition in the Stewart case, it was the Bush Justice Dept.

 

[mercedesrules]

But, drugs do drive people to do evil things.

Like what, for instance?

I am asking for an example of a drug and exactly what evil act it always causes every user to commit.

Also, possession certainly can't cause anyone to commit evil but it is still outlawed. A drug laying on the table is just like the gun laying there. It is just some of one's private property.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

The problem with the War on the Bill of Rights/Drugs is this

There is no way to quantify the level of impairment of some drugs! Point? Where do you draw the line between,"user", and ,"addict," ....

If I use a cup of coffee every morning to get my day started, that is fine. I am a user of the DRUG caffeine, no problems. If I get home and decide I'd like a beer(or 3) to release stress, relax, or just 'cause, that is also fine and I would be a user of alcohol.

Where does the use of my Drug of choice(caffeine ord alcohol), cross over to the addiction side of the line of dependence? Who gets to decide FOR ME THAT I HAVE HAD ENOUGH of whatever :banghead: ?!!!! Especially when the use occurs away from the public !

Thanx Nanny Sam for holding my hand as I would surely be hooked on crack, meth, coke, xstacy, vicodin, or some hard narcotic right now if you hadn't made them all illegal !

P.S. Some people have a proclivity for violence. Some for good. Some for addiction. Banning items, weapons, drugs or activities that people want to do /use will NEVER EVER EVER change the make-up of the human soul, mind, and heart which government can't reach....Address the root of the problem the people! Give people too many choices and then give them logical reasoning why they should follow yours. If it was made legal tomorrow, how many of us would run out and start doing crack ! If you think about it this is what they are saying," Since enough of the population is too stupid or morally bankrupt to do what we want them to by choice(not smoke crack), we will make it illegal."

 

[DRZinn]

Death was caused because the individual made the choice to possess and use marijuana, a choice he made knowing that he was breaking the law. Bad law or not, it was the person's choice -- NOT the "war on drugs" that caused his death.

No, death was caused (presuming that biochemically the pot killed him)by having to hide the pot from the police, without which factor he would not have eaten it.

With a good insurence provider, we've only had to eat maybe $30,000 in bills so far

That's what insurance is for. You entered into a contract (or your parents did) involving certain monthly payments to the insurance company, in return for which they would pay your bills in case of x, y, or z. The problem is when an individual is not prudent enough to do so (or whatever may be the reason), so the government uses my money to do it.

Edited for spelling.

 

[publius]

No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans.

Well, OK, in thousands of years with millions of human users, there was this one guy who (the government said) ate his stash and died as a result. That's pretty believeable, and it's not like they'd be out looking for any old explanation as to why the person died in custody, right?