Legalzing guns and drugs

[wally]

And isn't it interesting that alcohol prohibition took a constitutional amendment, but by the time the powers that be decided to focus on other substances they didn't feel nearly so constitutionally restrained?

Exactly, as they remain Constitutionally unrestrained when dreaming up more gun control. Fantasies about Heller, not withstanding.

Every "ruling" that makes the Constitution a "living" document moves us closer to being subjects rather than citizens.

--wally.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Legalizing drugs would dramatically lower the price and take the violence out of the drug trade. When was the last time you heard of a pitched machine gun battle between gangs over beer territory? Ever heard of Al Capone? It happened during prohibition. Criminal gangs don't shoot it out in the streets over beer anymore because you can go down to the corner 7-11 and buy it at competitive prices now. No one is going to knock you in the head and rob you over a $100 a day drinking habit. Booze is too cheap. Drug addicts would just crawl up an ally and die but it would not endanger you and me. Also, why should the public pay for treatment for people who poison themselves? If you want to do drugs, fine. Just don't expect me to pay for your treatment through taxes.

 

[JWarren]

White Horseradish wrote:

Essentially, what you are saying is that everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Very nice.

No, that was not my intent. But I SERIOUSLY hope that you are not going to tell me that designer drugs are equal to a glass of wine.

I know PLENTY of people who have a glass of wine occassionally with dinner.

I do NOT know anyone that has an occassional hit of meth.

The rest of your response isn't that much better. Completely unsubstantiated opinion, based on who knows what. Certainly not logic.

Perhaps as equally as yours.

If you are suggesting that the percentage of persons who have ever had a sip of alcohol that becomes an addict EVEN REMOTELY approaches the number of people who try-- say herion-- and become hooked then try again.

If I am not using logic, I'd say that I am in good company as long as we speak.

A kid can die from alcohol poisoning just as easily as from any other drug. If you think alcohol is somehow less harmful than, say, meth, I would say you probably lack the appropriate experience.

BS. Take a look at the percentage of people who get hooked on alcohol among those who have EVER used alcohol, and then take a look at the same with meth.

Then YOU tell me what you find and who is logical.

I have seen people completely destroyed by alcohol up close, and it's not that different.

Sure. So do I. I don't pretend that alcholol ISN'T destructive for some. I ALSO don't pretend that the addiction rate is anywhere near those of designer drugs.

It sounds to me that you have a personal attachment to this issue and perhaps a dog in this fight.

All I can say is this. In my college fraternity throughout my undergrad, we had approximately 120 members at any given time over the course of 4 years. Of those young men who came through, practically 100% of them bing drank upon occassion.

Off the top of my head, I can think of approximately 6 whose drinking got out of control and ended up in treatment-- and that is over 4 years. Scientific? Of course not. I will not even assert that the "6" I mentioned is even remotely inclusive.

But I know PLENTY of those guys who grew up, got married, got serious and has families now. I don't know ANY meth users that can say the same.

But I can think of 4 right now that lost their families over it without even trying.

By the same token, the stoned guy in a car is not less dangerous than a drunk driver. It has nothing to do with how fast he goes and everything to do with inability to concentrate and react. The biggest difference between marijuana and other drugs is that it can't kill you directly.

Give it a rest. Of course he is dangerous. I was lightening up what was an otherswise direly serious post with that. Next you'll be asking me to prove that a guy on mariujuanna will drive a car EXACTY 4 miles per hour.

How do you propose to separate chemicals into some and others? Where do you draw the line? The possibility of dying can't be it, since alcohol can kill you and is legal and marijuana can't and is illegal. So, what is it?

I told you. I don't support legalization of some drugs that have proven themselves to be menacing. I can live with some legalized that haven't shown themselves to be AS menacing.


I really don't give a rat's a$$ if:

alcohol can kill you and is legal and marijuana can't and is illegal

Plenty of things CAN kill you and are legal. I imagine if one shoves enough hot rocks up their butt it can be fatal. They are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned.

Plenty of things probably won't kill you that are illegal. Being a peeping tom probably won't kill you (It may at my house), but it's illegal. Why? Because it affects others.

My point was NEVER particularly what it doesn't to a consenting person who chooses to do it. I just care that I don't have to deal with them -- individually or as a taxpayer.

I have ZERO interest in "saving" anyone that doesn't want to be saved.


Are we done here?



-- John

 

[Chris Rhines]

The most annoying thing about the pro-gun community is the widespread support for the drug war.

It is this simple: What I put into my body is my business. Not yours. And certainly not that of the government.

If my drug habit hurts my family, it is the business of my family. Not you. And not the government.

If I steal to support my drug habit, or kill while all hopped up on goofballs, I should go to prison for stealing or killing. Not for ingesting chemicals.

Quit fooling yourself about how pro-freedom you are - if you support the drug war, you're as bad as the Bradys and the VPC.

- Chris

 

[abrink]

But locking them up puts them where they can't commit crimes and push their drugs onto your kids.

Well why waste the money doing that when everyone knows that these people will just get out again and start using and dealing. And if we legalized drugs there would be no need for drug dealers. We could have trained professionals distribute these drugs. And of course then we put taxes on them and our economy rises.

 

[JWarren]

Chris,

I agree with you in theory.

I am, however, not in favor of "endorsing" certain drugs. I also don't endorse tainted dog food from China.

We cannot deny that a great deal of crime against innocents is directly related to the drug trade, but equally so can we not deny that prohibition of said drugs will reduce that reality in any way.

In the end, I simply don't care one way or the other about what happens to drug users.

I DO care that we are allowed the provisions to protect ourselves, our families, and our property from said drug users.

I really am NOT satisfied if a drug user kills to get drug money and then goes to prison for it. How exactly is that consolation to the person who WAS killed. Try telling a kid whose mother isn't coming home that its OK because the guy who killed her is going to prison.

In the end, I maintain my "Savage Garden" worldview. Whatever we do, it will change nothing. But I have no interest in endorsing certain drugs.

And I have no interest in paying for treatment of addicts that said "endorsement" would legitimize.


-- John

 

[qwert65]

The reason for gun laws, drug laws, driving laws, all laws is for the goverment to protect the people ie these laws protect the community. Now whether they work are right or whatever is what this republic is about.

Safe drivers benefit the community, druggies do not, guns well thats in debate(not on this board but it is a debate)

If we're doing the whole none of your business thing it is really your business if I want to kill my mother?

 

[MICHAEL T]

Both were legal and not restricted till early 1900's on drugs "Wilson "and 1934 on guns."Roosevelt " Gee a Dem was president both times . See nothing chages They wanted to control you life even then.

Wilson imposed an income tax, enacted the first federal drug prohibition Got a lot to thank him for.

 

[Chris Rhines]

I am, however, not in favor of "endorsing" certain drugs.

"Endorsing?" I'm not sure how insisting upon self-determination and personal responsibility counts as "endorsing" drug use. It should go without saying that I don't use drugs and don't associate with those who do.

I really am NOT satisfied if a drug user kills to get drug money and then goes to prison for it.

This frankly smacks of prior restraint. We could say the same about any number of groups, who statistically commit more crimes than drug users.

And I have no interest in paying for treatment of addicts that said "endorsement" would legitimize.

Nor do I.

- Chris

 

[JWarren]

Endorsing?" I'm not sure how insisting upon self-determination and personal responsibility counts as "endorsing" drug use. It should go without saying that I don't use drugs and don't associate with those who do.


Of course I am not suggesting that you do use anything. By the statement "endorsing," I mean it legitimizes usage of them. The effects of that is debateable. However, I am concerned with such ligitimacy, there will be a stronger push towards society to subsidize the derivatives of usage.

I should not have used the word "endorse." Legitimize is a more appropriate word.

This frankly smacks of prior restraint.

What do you mean about prior restraint? I think you left out a big part of my quote-- the part about how an innocent person dies.

We could say the same about any number of groups, who statistically commit more crimes than drug users.

Such as? In the US, I am drawning a blank who commits more property crime against innocents than drug users. I may be willing to concede that violent crime may be higher among other groups if domestic violence is included. However, I've seen those domestic calls on COPS. You can't tell me that drugs are not a big part of many of those folks lives.

Nor do I.

-- John

 

[Nolo]

YES!!!
And I quote:

YES!!!

 

[tkkr]

http://www.drug-rehabs.org/people-on-drugs.htm

 

[SeanSw]

A lot of people are using the same defense against drugs that anti-gunners use against guns. You don't believe people can be trusted to use drugs responsibly, and they don't believe you can be trusted to use firearms responsibly. I fail to see a difference in either position.

 

[tkkr]

Except a gun doesnt **** you up in the head by itself.

 

[JWarren]

A lot of people are using the same defense against drugs that anti-gunners use against guns.

True. However, there is a difference between what we would legislate and our opinions.

I believe that if we lived in an absolute police state with no rights and extreme controls, we may have a reduced instance of certain baneful aspects of our society.

But I would not want to live in that society.

You don't believe people can be trusted to use drugs responsibly, and they don't believe you can be trusted to use firearms responsibly.

True. I really don't have a lot of confidence in people who are on a substance that-- practically by definition-- impairs JUDGEMENT.

Firearms do not do that.

I fail to see a difference in either position.

I just explained it.


-- John

 

[theotherwaldo]

I don't see the connection between guns and drugs in this poll unless the guns in question are full-auto or NFA in some other way.

I am for decriminalizing most illegal drugs. Not making them legal, but reducing the penalties for their use.

It would allow for more frequent and more casual testing of those people that hold responsible positions, especially those that put other people's lives in danger by doing whatever they do while being impaired.

Do what you want to your body and your brain. Don't harm others.

"Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose."

 

[Picard]

The thing is though that doing something to your body does or may harm others (i.e. your family, people you come in contact with).

It's not that simple since out lives affect many others.

A gun is a tool, a drug is not.

 

[RP88]

hardcore drugs should never be legal. They are a systematic plague on society, fair and simple. The problem isnt the illegality of them as it is what it does to you. I've seen what happens when you do meth. my cousin lost his car, girlfriend, got demoted in his job, got his license suspended, fell into about 15,000 in debt, and looked like Gollum from Lord of the Rings after about six months. He tried it at a party once, then just needed to always do it. Crime problem be damned... the last thing we need is to have everyone be able to try the drug out with no legal trouble to worry of and end up like my cousin did. And then what happens if someone needs to get help? Then, you have a poor drug addict who not only needs to afford drugs, but now needs to afford rehab.

Guns don't run down a neighborhood, automatically ruin a life, etc. etc. So there is really no way to really compare them to drugs.

 

[Cel]

I had to chime here. The so called "War On Drugs" as many of you have already stated is a LOST cause. It's over. It's done with. This "War" was lost before it started. You CANNOT control what people want to do. You cannot legislate morality or ethics because your morals or ethics may not coincide with someone else's. This "War On Drugs" has to be the largest example of wasteful spending in this country. This "War" persists because of profit. I'm pretty sure that if drugs were legalized, dealers would be hit in the pockets so hard that they would be forced to find another career. The flood of drugs in this country over the past decades has LOWERED the price of drugs.

It's obvious most of the violence in this country is a result of drug prohibition. Once again, this is not about doing what is right. It is about profit. Do you think this country really wants to do away with drugs with all of the funding various agencies receive to "fight" drugs? This is a industry worth BILLIONS of dollars. Legalizing would remove the PROFIT which equals the MOTIVE for most of the dealers. Of course, that is not going to stop people from WANTING drugs. Sadly, .gov knows this and they will continue to let this "war" persist. Like someone mentioned in an earlier post this very "war" has led to the militarization of the police and some very draconian laws. You can easily get more time for drug possession than murder. And for what? You remove one dealer or addict and two or three more pop up in their place. It's a lost cause.

Everything ties in together and that's why this "war" will be allowed to persist. (1) Keep the prohibition going. (2) Feed the prison industrial complex. (3) Repeat. You will never stop the addicts from wanting these drugs. Forget about it. People are either going to do it or not. The thing is taking certain elements out of the equation. The largest element once again is PROFIT MOTIVE. Take that very important element out and you will see something change. I have seen people turn to "legit" careers with my own eyes when market forces dictated it I am speaking from a very unique perspective.

 

[theotherwaldo]

The drug problem has several layers.

First, getting people close to you addicted to drugs and then feeding the addiction is currently profitable. If an addicted person could get a maintainance dose without feeding the dealers I'd call that a positive good. Current law just provides price supports for drug dealers.

Second, if an ordinary person could enter drug treatment without effectively admitting to a felony and then go on to end that addiction without further legal or social repercussions, I'd call that another positive good. Current policy traps folks under the druggie label for life.

Finally, it is insane (in the clinical sense) to repeatedly do something that doesn't work. The war on drugs doesn't work.
We need to try something else.

Drug testing is currently unconstitutional, because it is functionally a form of self-incrimination.

(Yes, I know it's done anyway. Many unconstitutional things are still being done. Every time the constitution gets broken it gets weaker.)

If drug use were not a felony, drug testing would be constitutional.

I despise drugs, but I want to decriminalize drug use.

It's the proper and the constitutional thing to do.

 

[rainbowbob]

From what I understand, MOST meth and crack users quickly become hopelessly addicted, paranoid psychotics whose behavior is unpredictable and often violent.

Heroin addicts are more likely to hurt themselves by ODing.

Pot is probably in the same league as alcohol. Don't try to work, or drive, or learn anything while using either.

So I would say NO to meth and crack, MAYBE to heroin, and YES to pot.

But NONE of this has anything to do with gun rights.

 

[cpttango30]

The last time I looked, If I went to the shooing range then drove home I did not make the risk of driving any higher. On the other hand, If I go to a bar and drink then drive I raise the risk to myself and others same goes for crack, crank, pot, Heroin, ect.....

The last time I looked most of the people who legally own gun are not a drain on society as a whole. Drug users, dealers and manufactures are a drain on society as a whole.

I feel that you do have the right to do what you want to yourself. But when does that stop and hurting other people start. If you are on drugs are you not hurting your family? If you are wasting all your money of drugs are you not hurting your family and the local economy?

The last poll I seen on here about education resulted in the fact that everyone had at least a high school diploma, with many of THR's members are in fact holding BS/BA degrees or higher. So unless educated people are a drain on society I do not understand your thinking about drugs and guns.

To me drugs and the users, dealers and manufactures are in about the same class as Ground squirrels, P Dogs, Ground Hogs ect... and should be treated as such. I have seen to many lives totally washed down the tubes because of drugs.

The last time I looked if the government were to make say pot legal what do you think they are going to do to it? They are going to tax the snot out of it. Then to top it off they will regulate how much THC it can have in it. So you will end up week filtered pot cigs that are like $15 a pack or more. Then you are going to have to have the Bureau of Pot control that will have guards posted at all government authorized growers. So in reality it would cause more government cost not less.

The DEA does a whole lot more than just busting brug rings. Who do you think over sees the manufacuter of all OTC and rx drugs? THE DEA.

 

[typevx]

very interesting views here... I think that drugs should be legalized and we should focus our efforts on educating the public without lies on the dangers so they can make an educated decison. the money we save can be used for better schools, and treatment rograms for those who willingly want to kick their habits.

the drug war has been a failure, and who am I and who is the government to dictate what others want to put into their bodies... as long as they stay in their own houses and don't bother the rest of us I see no problem.. oh and don't drive impaired.
peace

 

[typevx]

meth is a different story completely at the very least they shoud legalize weed... but I do believe if other less destructive amphetamines were readily avalable peole would abandon meth for cleaner, better, phamaceutical grade amphetamine... just my opinion. meth is crap, I know user who kicked it and ow their teeth are allmessed up, defnately a BAD drug.

 

[Picard]

One goal of a good government is to work towards the well-being of the governed. That is why we have public schools, public programs for the youth, etc. Drugs, as many of you understand, are not a good, and should therefore remain being banned.

Laws like this should not be changed because there is an existing strong push for a bad thing. Bad things don't all of a sudden become good if enough people agree with them.

I just had a thought. In a democracy, we all affect one another through our votes. There is no such thing as sitting at home and doing your own thing because even the impaired crackheads can vote. It is in all of our best interests to care for the well-being of all members of society.