Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most of the normal arguments pro/con to legalizing recreational drugs are being addressed here so I would like to make a point about the stance:

"The current welfare state must be done away with before I support legalizing drugs because I don't want to pay for junkies medical care/food/housing"

Regardless if drug addicts can live reponsible/productive lives (which my first hand experience is they can but many don't mainly because they would be irresponsible/nonproductive without drug addiction due to other mental problems), you are ALREADY paying for their care/support.

Does it make sense to pile on the cost of fighting the drug war (economic to support police/courts/prisons and civil rights curtailment) on top of what society already pays to take care of the disenfranchised?

Personally, I think they should provide drug of choice right along with welfare. It would be cheaper directly (no major drug cartel making obscene profits because the product is illegal (Cost of legal cocaine Aprox $1.25 street cost aprox $100)) and indirectly (druggies don't need to break into my house to steal my possessions for pennies on the dollar to support their habit)
 
I think I have the perfect solution to make everyone happy:
Drop the tax on cigarettes.

Most addicts also smoke. A lot of non-addicts smoke too of course. Smoking reduces life expectancy considerably and makes for short intensive final illnesses. If we make cigarettes cheap and plentiful then addicts will go for them, taking themselves out of the equation.
It lowers the overall tax burden
It is Libertarian.

Lets go for it!
 
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.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for the cite. If this highly dubious claim turned out to be true, it would be the very first instance of human death from overdose of marijuana in recorded history.

****


"Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances know to man." -- D.E.A. Administrative Law Judge Francis J. Young, Sept. 6 1988.
 
My $.02

Hospitals already have a problem with drug users taking up valuable space in the ICU. The whole "War on drugs" is a cure that is unfortunatly worse than the disease. Billions of dollars wasted and drugs are as plentifull and easy to get. When I was in high school you could get enything you wanted and there wasn't a dammed thing that anyone could do about it. They bust one person, next day someone else has taken their place. The "War on drugs" never was a viable solution and the sooner people realise that, the better.
 
javafiend,

There is actually another recent instance, over in jolly old England.

It was reported by a coroner there that a man died of acute cannabis toxicity. Some believe it. I don't. First, it didn't specify exactly what the toxicity caused, except death. Death by what? What failed? Oddly, the coroner doesn't say. Also oddly, the case occurred at a time when they were rescheduling drugs over there, amidst the predictable political heat. Also oddly, the coroner in question has a history of being active in that fight, on the big government side of the issue.

So, maybe there have been two cannabis toxicity deaths in human history, but I still don't believe either one. I think that if it were possible, more idiots would do it.
 
I am about to add posters against WoD and authoritarian tendencies in general to my pro-RKBA work.

Because, nothing goes together quite so well as firearms and illegal drugs.
 
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.

So, the public has no right to protect themselves from drunk drivers until after they have already killed or seriously injured someone and it is too late?

You're right, though, in that if you believe the above policy is a good one, you are being consistent in thinking drugs should be legalized and no one should be charged with any drug crime until after they have done their damage.

I guess we should do away with solicitation of murder as a crime too, because you really haven't done anything wrong until after the person has bee murdered.

I guess if you need to use illegal drugs badly enough, you don't care.
 
I guess we should do away with solicitation of murder as a crime too, because you really haven't done anything wrong until after the person has been murdered

Nice try, but solicitation is an act just as making any contract to do something is an act. By your rationale we should get rid of attempted murder, even though someone tried to kill someone else the fact that it was not carried out should not warrent a legal charge, is that it? :rolleyes:

Because, nothing goes together quite so well as firearms and illegal drugs

Not that Oleg needs me to speak in his defense but his actions would seem very logical given the fact that the WoD causes violence which is then blamed on guns. Welfare, Govt. schooling, and regulation of the economy are also factors which fuel crime but I don't quite know how to make posters for them.
 
The "War on drugs" never was a viable solution and the sooner people realise that, the better.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is a good solution, but to a different "problem" - the problem of the government not being able to track, stop, hassle, search, detain, rob, confine, steal-from and kill people easily enough?
 
(Group9) So, the public has no right to protect themselves from drunk drivers until after they have already killed or seriously injured someone and it is too late?
Click to expand...

"The public" is an abstraction and doesn't have "rights".

You're right, though, in that if you believe the above policy is a good one, you are being consistent in thinking drugs should be legalized and no one should be charged with any drug crime until after they have done their damage.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
"The right of the people/public" is a catchphrase. It has no meaning in real life.

Only individuals are capable of moral action, so only individuals have rights. Collective organizations have only the rights of the individuals that make up the organization.

- Chris
 
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We like to think The People means something.
 
So, Publius....y'all survived?
Click to expand...
So far, so good, though an encounter with Tequila did cause my neighbor, Captain Chaos, to sink his boat last night. Other than that, all is going well. Some shooting yesterday and today, also paintball and tater cannons (which make a fair paintball shotgun). :D
 
We like to think The People means something.

Do you or I have the right to bear arms? If so it would follow that many of us together would also have that right.

If I do not have the right to attack you for refusing to stop drinking your beer on your porch then it would not follow that the govt would have that right, regardless of what the 18th amendment and the Volstead act said.
 
Tell that to the 9th Circuit:
Or the USSC:
Or even Ordnances of the city of Tucson:
Or the NY Court of Appeals:
Click to expand...
Certainly.

To all the aforementioned organizations - you all are incorrect in your use and interpretation of the term, 'The People.' Have a nice day.

Just because some putz judges not competent to maintain a private practice say the sky is lime green, don't make it true.

- Chris
 
jnojr said:
What would be the point of legalizing possession of a drug, but not its use?
Click to expand...
(appeared toward the beginning of the thread)

Legalizing possession would mean legalizing drug dealing (or at least it would be very difficult to prosecute). No-risk drug dealing would put violent criminal gangs out of business and leave only drug addicts stealing (and less than they did before) to pay for their next fix.

Even if both drug use and drug dealing remained illegal, legalizing drug possession would prevent much trampling on the 4th amendment. That alone would be worthwhile, and it would drive down risk. Lower risk results in lower street cost, which reduces drug supplier tensions and the thefts, robberies, and burglaries that some addicts commit to fund their habits.
 
To all the aforementioned organizations - you all are incorrect in your use and interpretation of the term, 'The People.' Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Boy, talk about an inability to admit one's mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Drug War necessary for Gun Control!
Replies
9
Views
321
dustind
D
W
  • Locked
Dean Losing Left's Support with Gun-Control, Drugs Stance
Replies
16
Views
827
Futo Inu
F
W
  • Locked
House Bill to Censor American Citizens from Voicing Opposition to U.S. War on Drugs
Replies
3
Views
460
clubsoda22
C
R
  • Locked
Thoughts on Gun Control and the War on Drugs
Replies
6
Views
411
beerslurpy
B
A
  • Locked
item from today's Cato Daily Dispatch(www.cato.org)
Replies
0
Views
359
alan
A
Back
Top