R.W.Dale
Member
So why would they listen to uncle sam?
Your children might not know right from wrong but mine do.
Legalzing guns and drugs
- Thread starter abrink
- Start date
- Status
So why would they listen to uncle sam?
Your children might not know right from wrong but mine do.
The fact is that drug addicts DEPRIVE OTHERS of life and/or property. Don't tell me it isn't so. My RURAL home was robbed by two crack addicts.
They robbed it because one lost his job and the other lost the family business. Neither had money, but did have a habit to feed.
It would not matter if drugs were legal and cheap or not. When you have NO MONEY to get the drugs, it doesn't matter what they cost. They will still rob to get it.
I've seen a number of good people destroy their lives and families because of drugs. Just this morning, I discovered that one of our family friends is getting a divorce. Her husband got hooked on crack. In an arguement last week, he knocked two of her teeth out. They were married almost 30 years, and you'll never convince me that he would have done such a thing if he were not under the influence of drugs.
But people DO have freedoms. I recognize that.
Here's a question for you guys that are FOR legalized drugs....
If we legalize them, would you agree that the taxpayer should pay ABSOLUTELY NOTHING by the way of rehab clinics and medical costs associated with drug use?
If people make a CHOICE to do such, should we be forced to pay for the consequences?
And if we are to legalize them, should there be wide berth for defending property/self-defense for those who WILL be the victims of drug users in their effort to feed that habit?
You see... Drug addiction is not something that simply harms the individual. The actions of those drug addicts affects everyone around them.
I have a cousin-- who was a multi-millionaire-- who has lost his family fortune to drugs. About two years ago, he was going to pick his son up at the New Orleans Municipal Airport. He was stoned while driving there, and on Hwy. 21 in Mandeville, LA he crossed the center line. He struck an on-coming car head on with a Chevy Tahoe, killing both the driver and his passenger.
Incidently, both the killed occupants had just retired the month before and had two kids in college. One had just had their first grandchild.
That family was destroyed-- because my cousin HAD to have his drugs.
And think about this.... he was stoned on his way to pick up his OWN son from the airport.
So PLEASE do not tell me that drug usage is simply a choice. I'd believe that if everyone who did them would stay home instead of moving through our society.
And PLEASE do not associate my Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Drug Usage. One is my RIGHT. The other is someone's choice.
-- John
White Horseradish
Member
The Fatal Glass of Beer. It's a W.C. Fields movie.Vern said:
We (as a society) seem to be handling the ill effects of alcohol quite well. Do you have a reasonable explanation for why that would not work with other intoxicants in the same way?
I have no problem with people cooking their brains on whatever disgusting chemical they like, provided they stay off the street. IMHO, opium dens were a good idea - the addicts could stay there and not be in anyone's way.
Drugs are destructive by their very nature. They are harmful to the person that uses them. If a society promotes drugs by legalizing them, they are only destroying themselves. I've seen first-hand what drug abuse (alcoholism) can do to a family and it is ugly. How does it make sense to promote such a behavior and still have the society's well-being in mind?
What you guys need to understand is that freedom does not mean doing whatever you want. That is called license (look up the definition if you don't know what I mean) Equating freedom with drug abuse is like equating freedom with robbery, suicide or any other inherently self-destructive behavior.
Don't kid yourself by saying that drugs aren't addictive or that you can control yourself once you start. That's how crack addicts get start.
What you guys need to understand is that freedom does not mean doing whatever you want. That is called license (look up the definition if you don't know what I mean) Equating freedom with drug abuse is like equating freedom with robbery, suicide or any other inherently self-destructive behavior.
Don't kid yourself by saying that drugs aren't addictive or that you can control yourself once you start. That's how crack addicts get start.
texas_rebel_1980
Member
i don't use drugs, wouldn't start because they were legal. i would start using full autos or suppressors if there weren't the pesky tax to go with it and finding places to shoot or whatever. like already said, you don't have to use drugs if they are legal.
White Horseradish
Member
JWarren, my question still stands. Everything you said is applicable to alcohol. We are handling the legality of alcohol just fine. Why would we not be able to handle other drugs same as alcohol?
It isn't simply about who USES them. It is about the effects of them.
Has anyone bothered to look at the amount of our violent crime and property crime is drug-related.
As I said earlier. Legal or no, if you have lost your job and have no money, you WILL turn to crime if you have a drug addiction to feed.
And then there's those like my cousin who kills a family because he can't stay home while high....
We cannot escape the mental impairedness, family distruction, loss of life, and financial issues surrounding the choice to use drugs.
-- John
Fair enough. Let your question stand.
To answer it...
All drugs are NOT created equal. Anyone with half a brain can recognize that.
I do not support a ban on alcohol. Incidently, I also do not support a ban on marijuanna.
I do, however, support a ban on some other "designer" drugs.
Even if a guy stoned on marijuanna does go driving, he is going 4 miles an hour. Of course, he thinks that he is going 98 miles per hour and that everyone is watching him.
The kid that gets meth brewed in a highschool dropout's bathtub may lose her life if it is bad.
Even if it isn't, the drug affects a person MUCH differently.
I will never see this as a "black and white" issue. It isn't a case where it's all-or-none.
I could argue for the legalization of some, and the absolute ban on others.
And I do.
But understand this... Except for the consequences I have experienced at the hands of others, I have no dogs in this fight. I occasionally like a glass of wine, and that is the end of it.
I would not choose to use drugs. And although I was an Animal in my old Fraternity (alchohol, not drugs) in college, I choose not to become impaired by anything these days.
ADD:
I failed to mention this. I have always rejected the notion of 'Gateway" drugs. I do believe that once you get into a certain culture, you are more prone to try other drugs. But I haven't really seen that in most of the people that I know who have used marijuanna.
I know some old pot-heads that have basically been baking themselves for decades who never tried anything else. It seems that that crowd just simmers in their own juices.
-- John
Last edited:
Prince Yamato
Member
I would prefer if they "unrestricted" things like Penicillin, before they unrestricted crack and meth.
I like this question, however the poll takes a complex prob. and makes it too simple.
drugs are not created equally example nicotine is an addictive drug, but is not mind altering. it will kill you but nobody smokes a bunch of ciggarettes and drives into a bus(at least not related toi the cigs)
Take alcohol which is a mind altering drug but not as addictive as cigarettes, however alcohol does kill innocents yet because it is not very powerful and not as addictive millions of people partake and are completly normal.
Now look at mary jane, it's probably just as addictive as alcohol, yet more mind altering(though not too bad)
If you're talking Heroin, it's extremly addictive and extremly harmful in fact it has zero medical use(unlike cocaine or morphine) crack and meth are somewhere between MJ and H
IMO, I might be ok with marijuana but nothing stronger if you want an example of legalized drugs look at opium(basically morphine) in china in the 1800s The Brits introduced it to control the chinese and chinas society was in trouble because everyone was high all the time. Now as for the war on drugs they would behead everyone caught with them cleaned up the whole country in 3 years(I think could be a little longer or shorter) point is it's not the war on drugs it's the way we fight it (kinda of like soime other conflicts in our history)
Of course as we all know guns are not mind altering nor addictive and that to me is the difference
drugs are not created equally example nicotine is an addictive drug, but is not mind altering. it will kill you but nobody smokes a bunch of ciggarettes and drives into a bus(at least not related toi the cigs)
Take alcohol which is a mind altering drug but not as addictive as cigarettes, however alcohol does kill innocents yet because it is not very powerful and not as addictive millions of people partake and are completly normal.
Now look at mary jane, it's probably just as addictive as alcohol, yet more mind altering(though not too bad)
If you're talking Heroin, it's extremly addictive and extremly harmful in fact it has zero medical use(unlike cocaine or morphine) crack and meth are somewhere between MJ and H
IMO, I might be ok with marijuana but nothing stronger if you want an example of legalized drugs look at opium(basically morphine) in china in the 1800s The Brits introduced it to control the chinese and chinas society was in trouble because everyone was high all the time. Now as for the war on drugs they would behead everyone caught with them cleaned up the whole country in 3 years(I think could be a little longer or shorter) point is it's not the war on drugs it's the way we fight it (kinda of like soime other conflicts in our history)
Of course as we all know guns are not mind altering nor addictive and that to me is the difference
Bullzaye
Member
"What about the work area? Do you want a surgeon legally operating on you thats on shrooms?
Its not the drug addicts you should be worried about, its all the people that will start doing drugs if they are legalized. "Oh, my druggy friend told me to try it and now im addicted to crack, I quit my job making millions on wallstreet because my boss questioned me and im not havin' any of that ****, IM SPECIAL".
Imagine where the fast-food industry would go.
Ordertaker: May I take your order?
Citizen: Yes, I would like a #3, no pickles, with some crack, I love crack.
Ordertaker: Me too, pick me up when I get off work and lets go get some mentally undeveloped school kids hooked on it."
You're making some strong assumptions here, and glossing over a few facts. We're talking about making drugs legally available, not making it legal to be "high" at any time, any place. Do you want a surgeon legally operating on you thats drunk? It's the same thing...while the substance is legal, it's still necessary to use it along legally accepted boundaries
As to entire segments of the population becoming drug addicts...are you addicted to alcohol merely because it's legal? This is the same ill-logic that anti-gunners apply to CCW laws..."If everyone's carrying guns, people will shoot each other over small disagreements!" Sorry...the ready availability of guns will no more cause me to become homicidal than the ready availability of alcohol has caused me to become an alcoholic, nor will the ready availability of drugs cause me to become an addict. Further, if history is any indication, people became more interested in having a drink during prohibition mainly because the Government didn't want them to have it, just as people who'd never had any interest beforehand suddenly pondered buying an "assault rifle' after the Government banned them.
Tim
Its not the drug addicts you should be worried about, its all the people that will start doing drugs if they are legalized. "Oh, my druggy friend told me to try it and now im addicted to crack, I quit my job making millions on wallstreet because my boss questioned me and im not havin' any of that ****, IM SPECIAL".
Imagine where the fast-food industry would go.
Ordertaker: May I take your order?
Citizen: Yes, I would like a #3, no pickles, with some crack, I love crack.
Ordertaker: Me too, pick me up when I get off work and lets go get some mentally undeveloped school kids hooked on it."
You're making some strong assumptions here, and glossing over a few facts. We're talking about making drugs legally available, not making it legal to be "high" at any time, any place. Do you want a surgeon legally operating on you thats drunk? It's the same thing...while the substance is legal, it's still necessary to use it along legally accepted boundaries
As to entire segments of the population becoming drug addicts...are you addicted to alcohol merely because it's legal? This is the same ill-logic that anti-gunners apply to CCW laws..."If everyone's carrying guns, people will shoot each other over small disagreements!" Sorry...the ready availability of guns will no more cause me to become homicidal than the ready availability of alcohol has caused me to become an alcoholic, nor will the ready availability of drugs cause me to become an addict. Further, if history is any indication, people became more interested in having a drink during prohibition mainly because the Government didn't want them to have it, just as people who'd never had any interest beforehand suddenly pondered buying an "assault rifle' after the Government banned them.
Tim
wally
Member
The "war on drugs" had been the biggest assault on our Freedoms prior to the "war on terror".
--wally.
--wally.
Living on campus, the fact that alcohol is legal, yet still "illegal" for those under 21, is a huge reason why it's so popular. I can't imagine how quickly our country would get screwed up if more powerful drugs were legal. Of course they are still used, but it is kept low because people are afraid to do illegal things.
legalizing drugs will only lead to problems, more strung out addicts depending on state assistance for medical care. Where will these junkies go when they loose their houses because they are too strung out to go to work or effectively preform their jobs? Poor plan. I dare say drugs lead to more problem than guns do.
I stick to my drugs of choice brass powder primers and bullets........and who can forget malt hops yeast and water?
there fore because guns are linked with drugs in your question I must strongly disagree.
I stick to my drugs of choice brass powder primers and bullets........and who can forget malt hops yeast and water?
there fore because guns are linked with drugs in your question I must strongly disagree.
JesseL
Member
Which planet are you living on again?
All the people inclined to abuse drugs are getting them, illegal or not, right now. They are also paying black market prices for products that have virtually no quality control or safeguards.
Attempts to fight the illegal drug trade have gained us nothing better than gang wars, no knock warrants, and seizures of money and property without due process.
brighamr
Member
strongly agree, to a point. Most drugs and most guns should be legal... biochemicle weapons and extremely addictive drugs should be somewhat regulated IMO.
R.W.Dale
Member
I would find the arguements against legalization more valid if we didn't already have the problems we're warning about in spades. Where has the past 40 years gotten us? NOWHERE.
I would rather end the stupid failure that is the war on drugs tomorrow and spend all that wasted money on education and treatment.
Of course then what would communities of 10,000 need their SWAT teams for then? Think of all the poor OPERATORS who would be out of work
I would rather end the stupid failure that is the war on drugs tomorrow and spend all that wasted money on education and treatment.
Of course then what would communities of 10,000 need their SWAT teams for then? Think of all the poor OPERATORS who would be out of work
White Horseradish
Member
Essentially, what you are saying is that everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Very nice.JWarren said:
The rest of your response isn't that much better. Completely unsubstantiated opinion, based on who knows what. Certainly not logic.
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. I have seen people completely destroyed by alcohol up close, and it's not that different.
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.
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?
qajaq59
Member
What exactly has legalized drugs have to do with guns? Guns are already legal for those that haven't committed a felony by using drugs.
Dorryn
Member
I am as pro-gun as I am anti-drug.
In fact, I think I hate drug users more than I hate antis.
In fact, I think I hate drug users more than I hate antis.
anygunanywhere
Member
If the government was to get out of the war on drups and allow the private sector to continue with drug testin as it is now then we would certainly be no worse off than we are now. Many folks are drug tested as a condition of employment. Employment is a privelidge, not a right. Drug test to drive a car. Drug test to get your plates. I can pee in a cup all day long.
The gubmint can then dispense drugs to all the dopers. Confine them up behind walls and let them shoot up all they want.
Anygunanywhere
The gubmint can then dispense drugs to all the dopers. Confine them up behind walls and let them shoot up all they want.
Anygunanywhere
JesseL
Member
It's funny how people can clearly see that alcohol prohibition in the 1920s-early 30s led to rampant alcoholism, gang warfare, people going blind or dieing from drinking wood alcohol, the inception of what would become the BATF, the worst crime wave our nation had ever seen, and all kinds of horrors; but some can't see the parallels with the current war on drugs?:banghead:
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?
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?
Sistema1927
Member
Yep, my thoughts exactly.
I got to post 17 before someone brought that up. Guns and drugs are not the same type commodity - not even close !
As far as legalizing drugs - absolutely ! What a waste of money going on to support the so called war on drugs. A crime should be limited to an act that harms another person in some way. Drugs do NOT harm anyone but the user who abuses them (notice I didn't say "uses" - there are a lot of ligitimate uses for what are now illegal drugs) .
If that same person who uses drugs, then trys to rob you to get drug money, then of course that is a crime . If they drive under the influence of drugs that impair them, of course it can be a crime, just like being impaired by alcohol . If someone trys selling the drugs to people under age, again a crime.
No reasonable connection exists between legalization of drugs, and the legal gun market. I did not vote in the poll.
- Status
Similar threads
