Legalzing guns and drugs

[CBS220]

As long as all the druggies agree to OD to celebrate, I'm all for legalization!

Until then, this pro-drug propaganda just makes me realize how hollow much of our pro-gun propaganda is! At least we have a constitutional right to bear arms. We don't have one to get hopped up on meth and go break into our neighbor's house...

Quite frankly, many of the pro-gun arguments that people use are very weak to begin with, and rely entirely on our (presumably correct) interpretation of the second amendment. With drugs, the arguments are often just as weak (the most common statement in this thread is "We can't stop it so why bother trying?"), but they have no constitutional basis unless you erroneously hold that you can do whatever the hell you want to just because you're an Ammurican.

There may be good arguments for the legalization of some drugs, but to simply display such apathy and assume that the legalization of "hard drugs" for recreational use will confer any benefit on society is just as bad as the antis who disarm citizens and then look away from the chaos that ensues...

Also, IBTL. Seems as if the pro-druggies get a little... excited over the concept here. I don't know about you, but I've seen a lot of good people get messed up on drugs. Even drugs that the interwebs assures me are perfectly safe, like pot.

 

[abrink]

All you guys who think all drugs should be legal do you think mustard gas should be legal or nuclear material or how about the equipment to manufacture insecticides?

Do you think anything should be legal?
Where do you think it should stop?

Also how many of you really understand addiction? the different receptors they act on depending on the drug?, the different effects?
I for one could handle MJ being legal but seriously your guys agrument of well they'll get it anyway only works in theory and too a certain point for example and you can look it up during prohibition car accidents do to drunks went to almost zero why do you think that was?

Legalizing drugs wouldn't make any peoples problems worse. The common people will still be smart enough to stay away from drugs. And just a question. Do you really think our war on drugs is working in any way?

 

[Soybomb]

We don't have one to get hopped up on meth and go break into our neighbor's house...

Why do you link a victimless crime to one that infringes on another person? This seems as bad to me as linking carrying a gun to commiting a crime against others. You may disapprove of someone's use of drugs, but it doesn't mean they're a danger to you. Someone may disapprove of you carrying a gun but it doesn't mean you're going to mug them.

unless you erroneously hold that you can do whatever the hell you want to just because you're an Ammurican.

Isn't the freedom to make dumb choices, even bad ones, something of a core american value? Don't we encourage people to practice whatever religion they want even it results in unsound medical decisions? Don't we encourage poeople to say whatever horrible hateful things they want that will make them hated by nearly all of society? Don't we encourage people to make their own decisions on sex, drinking, and smoking? Shouldn't killing yourself with heroin at home be as much of a choice as killing yourself with alcohol at home? Ideally everyone would make the "right" choice, but real freedom seems to mean that you can also do stupid things as long as you're only hurting yourself.

to simply display such apathy and assume that the legalization of "hard drugs" for recreational use will confer any benefit on society is just as bad as the antis who disarm citizens and then look away from the chaos that ensues...

I'm open to numbers or studies to the contrary but as far as I can tell people we haven't made it at all difficult for people to get drugs and have just created a violent black market. The violence from that black market is something that often used to attack our 2nd amendment rights. What benefit are we getting from our current plan of action?

I don't know about you, but I've seen a lot of good people get messed up on drugs.

Sounds like the same argument people who have lost someone to gun crime make.

 

[qwert65]

JesseL- I understand your position about, common things being dangerous I agree. However, I think you are missing the point for example guns even full automatic are ok. 500lb bombs are excessivly dangerous to the general population unless tightly regulated(think class 5 Rx meds like cocaine)
The problem with drugs is that they change your mind and become easily addictive(not everyone but a signifigant portion of the pop) read my previous post about china and opium or look it up yourself.

I think the war on drugs is stupid not the idea but the way it is being handled. for example, if I broke into your house to kill you and instead of shooting me you offered me money your intent(to stay alive would be correct, but your methods all wrong)

Please get your facts straight before you rebutt off the top of my head proibition was in the 1920s not the 30s(ended in 33) now imagine all those broke people with nasty coke habits think that woulda worked well?

 

[CBS220]

Why do you link a victimless crime to one that infringes on another person?

When a chemical causes someone to lose inhibitions towards an action like stealing or killing, it ceases being victimless.

For all the violent druggies out there, if you believe drug use is a "victimless crime", then you're deluding yourself. Their families go neglected, their neighbors and victims suffer...

Isn't the freedom to make dumb choices, even bad ones, something of a core american value? Don't we encourage people to practice whatever religion they want even it results in unsound medical decisions? Don't we encourage poeople to say whatever horrible hateful things they want that will make them hated by nearly all of society? Don't we encourage people to make their own decisions on sex, drinking, and smoking? Shouldn't killing yourself with heroin at home be as much of a choice as killing yourself with alcohol at home? Ideally everyone would make the "right" choice, but real freedom seems to mean that you can also do stupid things as long as you're only hurting yourself.

Here's the fact of the matter.

Contrary to whatever your ideal of freedom is, we do not have absolute freedom. That's a pipe dream. And it's something that people can't seem to get past. When a person's choices infringe on those of another- such as the shockingly disproportionate number of say, crackheads in relation to normal people who commit murder, it is more than a simple case of "freedom".

I'm open to numbers or studies to the contrary but as far as I can tell people we haven't made it at all difficult for people to get drugs and have just created a violent black market. The violence from that black market is something that often used to attack our 2nd amendment rights. What benefit are we getting from our current plan of action?

Fact is, there were huge amounts of morphine addicts after the civil war. What did we do to stop these addicts? Was in something in the culture? Government directives? Laws? Restrictions? Did it fade in time? Drug use has been heavy, and then waned in this country before. Why can that not happen again?

Sounds like the same argument people who have lost someone to gun crime make.

A nice excuse to avoid a valid point, I see. Simply contrasting with anti-gunners does nothing. Many antis do have valid points- and there are- as radical and earthbreaking as it may seem anti-gun statistics out there that are correct!

Legalizing drugs wouldn't make any peoples problems worse. The common people will still be smart enough to stay away from drugs. And just a question.

You say it wouldn't. I don't believe that for a heartbeat. Saying that making weed legal to use wouldn't lead to more potheads is simply stupid. Declaring "yeah, this substance is safe, go ahead and use it" is going to entice plenty of people into starting.

Regardless of what you may say, I have seen people progress from pot to harder drugs. It is not a rare occurence by any means! So much of the pro-drug lobby seems to be just as bad as the antis... their statistics and so-called "facts" just don't seem to hold water in the real world.

Do you really think our war on drugs is working in any way?

I think certain aspects have been positive. Despite attempts to make it seem entirely like a police-state takeover plan, to say that the war on drugs has dissuaded no one from trying drugs is simply stupid. Harsher sentencing, crackdowns on dealers and users, etc, etc, is bound to keep some some-what right thinking individuals off of them.

In any case, drug usage in this country is not a problem that can simply be ignored, as some of you seem to suggest. To do that is less than shortsighted- it is ignorant and conceited.

 

[JWarren]

I've decided that this discussion has long gone past "guns" and is really only talking about drugs.

Arguing this any futher is about as effective as nailing jello to a wall.


Have fun.


-- John

 

[buck00]

I'd be wary of linking the two topics (guns and drugs) together in a political cause or even compare them during a debate.

That is a great way to "taint the well" and sour things. Even if you mean well, you end up turning people off to the pro-2nd amendment cause.

 

[wristtwister]

This whole thread makes you realize that stupid comes in all sizes.

Firearms and drugs shouldn't even be mentioned in the same conversation... much less in the context of being parallel issues regarding "freedom". Being "free" to own a howitzer doesn't mean its a good idea for me to have one in the community, and if drugs were legal, the damage that it would cause can't even be imagined.

Drugs are illegal for a reason, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money. While liquor and alcoholic drinks are legal and are considered drugs, the rate and levels of intoxication is a factor in whether or not they are legalized. If they're going to make guns and drugs legal, they might as well make drunk driving legal as well... they're all combining weapons and shutting down brain cells as a formula for disaster... so why stop with making just guns and drugs legal?

I can hear it now... "Let's all get drunk and go driving around shooting up the neighborhood".... Oh, yeah, that makes sense...:banghead:

WT

 

[R.W.Dale]

Drugs are illegal for a reason,

YEP! if you'll brush up on your history I think you'll find that racism was one of the biggest reasons. Good ol J Edgar Hoover at work!

 

[CBS220]

Regardless of the cause, drug laws today are not passed with overt racism in mind. However, they may happen to target specific demographics disproportionately due to the rate of use inherent in those groups...

(I think that's the nicest way to put it)

 

[rainbowbob]

Good ol J Edgar Hoover at work!

What did Hoover have to do with it?

 

[.38 Special]

You either own your body or you do not. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[JWarren]

You either own your body or you do not. Everything else is irrelevant.

You own your body, but you do not have the right to commit rape with it.

Some could argue that the effects of serious drug addiction is nothing more than rape of our society.


-- John

 

[Sans Authoritas]

JWarren wrote:

You own your body, but you do not have the right to commit rape with it.

No. You can't commit rape because the act itself violates someone else's body.

JWarren wrote:

Some could argue that the effects of serious drug addiction is nothing more than rape of our society.

I'm pretty sure you do not want to throw an alcoholic in prison for "societal rape?"

-Sans Authoritas

 

[JWarren]

Sans,

If you are so sure, why mention it?

Read my posts on this thread, and there would be no question in your mind what my point is. There's little to be gained by repeating myself.


-- John

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

OK, lets legalize all drugs. But can we shoot the people who do things like use their children's college fund to buy crack?

Fine, it's your body, do what you want with it. But the second you let your habit affect anyone else, there should be a grave with your name on it.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

People do not refrain from committing suicide because there is a civil regulation against it. They refrain from suicide because they value their lives, or they at least recognize that there is an important law above and beyond any regulation created by men.

Similarly, people will not start using drugs on a mass scale when they are legalized. They will abstain from drugs for the same reason they abstain now: you can't live a good life strung out on meth, coke, or heroin. As a friend of mine pointed out, people only use drugs because they have a hole to fill in their lives. He was given a very strong prescription opiate for ongoing procedures he had to undergo. When the pain was no longer an issue, he was able to stop using it without any problem whatsoever. Someone with a hole in their lives might have had a hard time, just like alcoholics.

Most people don't use drugs because they have no desire to. Some people will always have that desire, and they will always get it met. They can get that desire met with inexpensive drugs that are so cheap they will overdose themselves, or they can meet that desire with very expensive illegal drugs that have a high collateral of violence. Your choice.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[JWarren]

They can get that desire met with inexpensive drugs that are so cheap they would OD, or they can meet that desire with very expensive illegal drugs that have a high collateral of violence. Your choice.

You fail to grasp the point that a meth addict or crack addict doesn't HAVE a job. They lost it along with their nest egg, their spouse, and their teeth.

It couldn't matter what it would cost. If you don't have ANY money to buy it, you have to get money to feed it somewhere.

That's why my father's long-time friend comes by and asks for money periodically. He's burned every bridge he has. That's why he is running with a girl that sells her body for drugs. That's why my home was broken into in Dec. 2006.

If a happy meal is $3.00 and you have $0.15 in your pocket-- but you NEED a happy meal, you will do what you have to do to get it-- if it rules your life.

Thus I reject the "cheap drugs" notion.



-- John

 

[Nate C.]

It's been said before, but this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Having said, I don't think absolute lack of regulation on either count is in our nation's best interests.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

JWarren, and so you blame the chemical, not the person himself and those who subsidize him?

He doesn't do it because of the chemical. He does it because he wants to. It comes down to his will, as chemically impaired as it may be. You can't force someone's will. And you'll never destroy a demand by taking away the supply. Simple economics.

That Happy Meal becomes a lot less happy when it takes the form of breaking into someone's house, violently attacking someone, and getting shot.

There are a lot of homeless drunkards out there, too. All the alcohol regulations in the world wouldn't stop them.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[JWarren]

Sans,

I blame the person. And I have no illusions about what addiction to a chemical can transform that person into.

It isn't an either-or.


-- John

 

[JesseL]

OK, lets legalize all drugs. But can we shoot the people who do things like use their children's college fund to buy crack?

Should we shoot people who use their children's college fund to buy alcohol/designer shoes/marshmallow peeps/junk bonds/Hi-Point pistols?

People make stupid choices that affect other people for all kinds of reasons. Are bad choices so much worse when they're precipitated by drug abuse?

That's why my father's long-time friend comes by and asks for money periodically. He's burned every bridge he has. That's why he is running with a girl that sells her body for drugs. That's why my home was broken into in Dec. 2006.

Glad to hear this kind of success story with the war on drugs. Thank goodness drugs are illegal, or this guy could have turned his life into a real mess.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

What we especially need to remember in this case is the prohibition of alcohol. The so-called "temperance" movement was started to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the purchase and consumption of alcohol. Then they banned it. Why? Because the "demon rum," not the husbands, or the employers and women who put up with drunk husbands, was causing people to act immorally, and neglect their families and and business. The chemical was blamed, not the criminal behavior. If I got drunk and beat someone up, would you blame me, or the alcohol?

Now, picture the link between the "temperance" (read, "reasonable gun-control laws") movement and the victim disarmament movement. And the drug control movement. They all focus on the same thing: the physical entity, not criminal behavior.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Cel]

The black market created by drug prohibition is the driving force behind a lot of crime in this nation. If you choose not to acknowledge that then I'm sorry for you. As more laws get passed as a result of this lost "War" the more WE will be affected. WHY? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS. So when your door "accidently" gets kicked in one day or night with no warning be wary of what you are supporting. When your guns are snatched away from you because a new law to "get guns off the street" is passed be wary of what you are supporting. Like it or not, people are going to do what they want to do. The fact remains, the drug trade thrives off of PROFIT. That is it. I have seen people act more violent from alcohol than under other drugs and believe me I have stayed in a rough neighborhood before and know from first hand experience. I am not speaking from statistics from news reports I am speaking from what I have seen with my own eyes. I have seen people switch to legit careers when enough money was not being made from the drug trade. The motive is PROFIT. These are the facts. We are WASTING money on this "War". Like someone posted earlier, whatever we are doing now is clearly not working.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

JWarren, the chemical didn't destroy your father's friend. He could've committed suicide with a firearm, and it wouldn't have been the firearm's fault, either.

-Sans Authoritas