Taboo subject -- gun-owning pot-smokers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marijuana is so common on a highschool campus that you wouldn't think that it is illeagal. It would be easier for me (a minor) to get weed than alcohal or cigarrettes. I choose to avoid all three because I've got way too much to loose (especially my gun rights!) and nothing to gain.
 
Pot is currently illegal in the US....

and I do not associate with people that do illegal things. I do not wish to place in jeopardy my freedom, RKBA and even my chosen profession by gettig caught using or possessing drugs. Whether or not I approve of pot or drug laws, it simply is not worth it to me.

If someone wants to smoke pot, have at it. Just don't come around me while smoking, possessing or under the influence.
 
Personal decision component:

Do you want to run the risk of getting caught and possibly losing the right to own guns? This is up to you and you alone. It makes very little difference to anyone else.

Responsibility Issues:

Do you want to run the risk of getting caught and possibly losing the right to the best means to protect your family?

Societal concern component:

Can you tell when your physical and mental impairment is completely gone and you are ready to handle your firearms again? This is what concerns me, and this is ultimately why some drugs are illegal. Inevitably the first symptom of drug usage is impaired judgement--in other words the user is no longer able to accurately assess his ability to function safely. Who cares if someone can't stand up as long as that inebriated person realized fully that there is no WAY they can safely drive/handle firearms/fly airplanes in that condition. I'm not talking about whether or not they comprehend that drugs impair abilities, I'm talking about RIGHT THEN AND THERE, while drunk/stoned do they understand what they can and can't safely do? IF, and that's a BIG IF, IF they do, do they then have the judgement to make the proper decision in light of their condition?

In my experience VERY FEW people advocate drunk driving or the use of firearms while stoned. But once drunk or stoned that good judgement goes away and then bad decisions are made and bad things happen.

BTW, I don't think this question really a great time to get into civil liberties. Why not address the practical issues up front and beat the more esoteric concerns to death in the Round Table or Legal & Political?

The bottom line is that you have no business using drugs that can impair mental and physical abilities (legal or not) while you have access to firearms. Whether or not drugs should be legal is another question entirely.
 
I dont have a probem with weed, although I dont smoke, havent since I was 17. I feel the same about alcohol, if someone can use it responsably, have at it. For the record, I dont drink either. I did enough of both in high school to last me a while.

While I know some people that smoke, they're responsable with their irresponsabilty, so to speak.
 
I haven't smoked a joint since the summer of 1972.

That said™, it's nobody's business whether I smoke dope—assuming I'm not toking and driving, of course—wear red socks, own firearms, wear glasses, have a cat, or eat beans for supper.
 
On pot smoking and driving...

I recall a study done by the California Highway Patrol some years back to examine the effect of smoking C. sativa and driving skills. From what I recall, the study found that smoking marijuana had little to no impact on actual driving performance of the subjects in the test, even though the test subjects felt it did and acted to compensate.

Here's a similar study/write up:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Note: In no way do I advocate one being stoned and going for a drive. If one MUST get stoned and drive, do it at home with a race type video game.

Alaska eh? Hmmmm...what kind of arachnids you folks got up there?
 
Pax, as a matter of fact, I do agree with what you'd said previously in that old post. What we may not agree upon is whether in fact we are to that point yet ... Are there signs pointing that our system is being perverted and our civil rights may be in jeopardy? Of course ... And -- obviously, bad government (dictatorship, autocracy, fascism, genocidal/ethnic cleansing, etc.) is another issue.

When I originally posted, I'd had more in mind the practical aspects of the question -- as JohnKSa has so succinctly clarified for us ... although I certainly enjoy hearing the philosophical aspects of the legal issues involved and resultant ramifications on civil rights ...
 
WRT to alcohol vs marijuana, though, I would say that alcohol is far more 'benign', simply because though one can consume a moderate amount of alcohol in, say, a social setting, and still function quite normally, the same can't be said of pot.
Click to expand...

no way is alcohol more benign than pot.

I've worked in nightclubs for some time now, and I've dealt with people who are stoned, and people who are drunk. First of all, confrontations. Alcohol makes many people belligerent, angry, and prone to fighting. Typical exchanges when i'm checking on someone who's intoxicated :

Me: Hey, man, you alright? want me to get you some water?

Pot User: uh..... *stupid look* yeah man, that's cool. Thanks

OR

Drunk: WHAT? WHAT DID I DO! YOU KICKIN ME OUT! F*** YOU MAN! *fight ensues*



How many people have killed a carful of kids while stoned?


Alcohol is WAY more dangerous
 
Can you tell when your physical and mental impairment is completely gone and you are ready to handle your firearms again? This is what concerns me...
Click to expand...

I imagine this would be done the same way it is with alcohol. In drivers' ed (IIRC) they showed me a handy equation to determine when it was safe to drive after drinking. Something like 1 hour per drink from the time the last drink was consumed. I'm sure a similar formula exists for THC influence (if it weren't illegal, we might be aware of such safety information).

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your worry there, though. Are you suggesting that the first taste of a narcotic destroys all memory or judgement? Clearly this is not the case with alcohol, and it's not the case with THC either.

...and this is ultimately why some drugs are illegal.
Click to expand...

Heh...no it's not. "Some" drugs are illegal because they make you homicidally insane, play satanic jazz music, and assault delicate white women. Drugs that just make you a dangerous driver have a little warning on the bottle saying so.
 
Old Dog ~

Pax, as a matter of fact, I do agree with what you'd said previously in that old post. What we may not agree upon is whether in fact we are to that point yet ... Are there signs pointing that our system is being perverted and our civil rights may be in jeopardy? Of course ... And -- obviously, bad government (dictatorship, autocracy, fascism, genocidal/ethnic cleansing, etc.) is another issue.
Click to expand...
Well, all experience has shown that it's human nature to stick with the form we've got for as long as we can -- even after we've seen that it's not doing what it's supposed to do anymore. (If I wanted to, at this point I could show that passing laws prohibiting adult persons from ingesting whatever they want to ingest, as long as they harm no other person in doing so, is a clear violation of at least one basic human right, proving that the government we have now is, in fact, destructive of the very purpose of government. But, while true, that is not the main thrust of my argument.)

All I really want to do is to point out that if you agreed with the argument presented in that post, it therefore follows that you believe yourself to be above the law. That is, you believe you are able to judge whether the law is good or bad, and are morally responsible for your choice whether to do so.

Having conceded that much, it is no big step to acknowledge that there's nothing magic about the words "legal" or "illegal." The rightness or wrongness of an act is in the thing itself, not in what the gubmint says about it.

pax

One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty in finding someone to blame your troubles on. And when you do find someone, it's remarkable how often their picture turns up on your driver's license. -- P. J. O'Rourke
 
On another forum the matter of legalization was being discussed, and it was generally agreed:
People high on "simple" grass tend to be very mellow, non-confrontatonal or -combative and overall generally cautious.

Police officers will tell you that this is the main thing that generally gives them away in casual observation. The comparison was that a drunk driver will do 55 MPH in a 35 and not see any of the stoplights or signs, while a person high will do 25 in a 35 and stop 30 feet before each stop sign or light, and hesitate for five seconds when the light turns green, because they're checking left and right for cars trying to run the yellow light.

Driving stoned is hardly the brightest idea you can come up with, but pot is about the mildest narcotic there is in widespread use. Milder even than alcohol. I don't think it's a good idea to get into it, because it is bad for your lungs--but knowing the typical reactions you get out of pot and alcohol, it's worth asking if keeping pot illegal is really worth the bother.

As to the legal aspects--that is a fact of current law--but it is something of an irrational fact that some of us have to follow for practical reasons anyway.
You own your body more than anything else; as long as you are not posing a risk to others, the government really has no business telling you what you can or can't put into it, really.
~
 
It is difficult for almost anyone to say to themselves, "I am above the law," and really mean it. Most human beings have a strong tendency to obey rules, adhere to laws, and go along with societal trends. Comes from being a social animal.

But the fact remains - everybody is above the law. Even the most brainwashed commie or goose-stepping authoritarian makes a moral choice with every action they take.

- Chris
 
Handling of firearms while intoxicated is illegal under NV law. Whether or not people follow this is the issue. One would hope that people would stow firearms safely before partaking in whatever substance they desire. Sadly, it doesn't always happen like that.

How many people have killed a carful of kids while stoned?
Click to expand...
There was a recent trial (and conviction) here in NV. A woman who was stoned (on more than one substance) was found guilty of vehicular homicide when she lost control of the vehicle and mowed down about 6 high school kids doing volunteer community service. They were picking up trash next to a road.
Intoxication is fine as long as it doesn't harm anyone else or infringe on their rights. She violated their right to life and is now living a somber life in prison.

I personally smoke marijuana on occasion and drink more than I should. I NEVER EVER EVER handle my firearms nor allow anyone else to in that state of mind. I don't carry after drinking (the gun goes in the trunk unloaded) It's about personal responsibility. Some want to take responsibility for their own actions. Others want the government to do it for them. I think we've established what type of person this is.
 
Ian, Read the last paragraph of this post first...
Are you suggesting that the first taste of a narcotic destroys all memory or judgement?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I'm not really suggesting anything. Impaired judgement is a well-known and nearly universal effect of inebriation (whatever the chemical agent.) Clearly the first taste doesn't destroy all memory or judgement. I didn't say anything of the sort nor is that even implied in my post. In fact, if you read it again you will see that I am ASKING if this hypothetical drug/alcohol user can TELL when his judgement begins to be significantly impaired and when it ceases to be significantly impaired. I would think that makes it painfully plain that I realize it's a gradual process.

Clearly ALONG WITH the physical effects, there are also mental effects, and one of those is impaired judgement.

As I said before. VERY few if any people endorse drunk driving or driving while stoned, or handling firearms while on heavy pain medication (to name a few examples). BUT, clearly these things do happen--some of them happen FREQUENTLY.

Why is that? Simply because the people who do it are operating with impaired judgement due to their chemical content. THAT is the point. If your judgement is impaired then it doesn't matter what you know is smart WHEN YOU'RE SOBER because you may very well rethink your decision once you are inebriated and fail to see what was once clear. The same person who, when sober, can plainly lay out the reasons that drunk drivers are dangerous and drunk driving is a plague on society, after having several beers might very well hop in the car and weave down to the 7/11 to pick up another case of beer when the party runs low. Have his convictions changed? No, but his judgement has...

Which gets me back to my statement. A person has no business doing anything that significantly impairs judgement while they have access to firearms.

Ooops, I just read the last paragraph of your post and realized that I've just wasted my time posting a well-reasoned response to your questions. Sorry about that--don't bother reading the rest of the post--it will only annoy you.
 
I'm another who has met quite a few mellow pot-smokers (some years back, in states other than this one) and plenty of belligerent drunks (over the years). Good illustration, thefitzvh; thanks.

I don't smoke weed because I don't want to -- a reason that doesn't get much publicity -- and because I wouldn't be willing to deal with the legal consequences even if I otherwise did want to. Furthermore, I'm about to quit cigarettes because they hurt me physically; I'll be damned if I'll start smoking something else. I speak only for myself and my body.

On prohibition, I'm with Justin:
There is no functional difference between the arguments in favor of banning drugs and banning guns.
Click to expand...
How much is too much? In driver's training, long ago, they gave us data on tests of people's reaction times and such. The conclusion was that you can't have any before your body and mind respond to the presence of the drug -- in that case, it was alcohol. That's the source of my rule: the specific rate of degradation in judgment be damned; I won't touch firearms at all if I have ANY alcohol in my system, nor did I touch firearms when I was on meds under surgeon's orders after a tendon repair a few years back. I don't have the same policy for caffeine or nicotine.

My emphasis is a little different than JohnKSa's
A person has no business doing anything that significantly impairs judgement while they have access to firearms.
Click to expand...
I won't touch firearms when I've consumed any quantity of a thing that can impair judgment. The difference is real, but very slight in practice, for me. joab, I agree with your comment about "the gateway crowd."

DougCxx, thanks for that illustration, too. When I was young and stupid, I rode in cars at least once with each of those types. Saw the same behavior. Drunks are out there killing people.
 
I choose to not smoke pot, it doesn't matter if it is legal or illegal to do so. I also choose to not use alcohol, legal or not. I tried both many years ago and found neither worth the effort.
Both pot and alcohol impair judgment, and automobiles, firearms, power tools, anything which requires good judgment in it's use, will probably not be used well while an individual is high or drunk.

I am not content to accept the government as an entity unto itself, I consider it an extension of the people. I don't necessarily agree with all the laws on the books, but I choose to live within them and try to change those which I consider unjust. I don't believe that anyone is in total agreement with all laws at any given time and I don't expect everyone to look at things the same as I do. I accept responsibility for my actions and don't complain if I make a mistake and have to pay for it.

In my arrogant and highly abrasive opinion, we should comply with the laws which we have made under our present form of government, or abandon the protection they provide.
 
There was a recent trial (and conviction) here in NV. A woman who was stoned (on more than one substance) was found guilty of vehicular homicide when she lost control of the vehicle and mowed down about 6 high school kids doing volunteer community service. They were picking up trash next to a road.
Click to expand...


My point wasn't that it never happens, my point was that it's WAY less likely, due to the reasons given above.

It's my opinion that alcohol is infinately more harmful than pot. The number of out-of-control brawls that alcohol causes at my bar alone is mind boggling.

Beer makes you strong, i guess.


James
 
I support legalizing all drugs, not just pot. Intelligent people will recognize the dangers of the drugs and not do them. Stupid people will continue to destroy themselves, laws or no. At least we wouldn't have to house them in prison, too.

I'm not sure where we're going with the whole smoking pot while shooting thing. Common sense would dictate it's along the lines of drinking and shooting. Dumb.
 
I believe that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. I have no problem with an individual smoking pot that they themselves grew, but supporting an underground drug trade with all the associated violence and corruption is something entirely different. Users of the latter supply DO in fact affect the lives of a great many other folks.
 
Personally, my "moral compass" isn't necessarily guided by the law. If a law is unconstitutional, stupid, or inhumane, I don't feel any obligation to follow said law.
I am not in the habit of breaking laws just to make a point, but I could really care less about what other people do. If you want to smoke pot out on your front porch and you aren't hurting anyone doing it, I sure as h@ll ain't gonna call the cops on you.

Laws are a strange concept to me. All they really do is outline the possible penalty if you get caught. If you are willing to pay the price, you really can do just about anything you want.
For example, nothing is stopping you from walking out into the middle of the sidewalk and mowing people down with a weedeater. I am sure that if you were to mow people down with your weedeater you would recieve a visit from the police and end up charged with something, but does that really stop you from doing it? You could still do it if you were willing to accept the consequences.
What is really stopping you?
Is it the law (legal consequences), or is it just the fact that you have no inclination to harm anyone with your weedeater?

In general, this is how I feel about laws.
We do need a few, but come on ...
 
Users of the latter supply DO in fact affect the lives of a great many other folks.
Click to expand...
The test isn't that it not affect the lives of others, it is that it not interfere with the basic rights of others. Everything you do has an effect on someone, not everything you do affects the rights of others, though. And if it doesn't affect the rights of others it is no one's business. thefitzvh took care of the rest.

The fact that someone could harm others due to drug use is irrelevant unless that person actually harms others or does something inherently dangerous to others. After all, you could kill me with your gun, either on purpose or by accident or negligence, easier than with almost any other object. But the arguments against banning guns for that reason are understood here to be completely fallacious, and correctly so. Those arguments are just as fallacious applied to drugs.

There is no functional difference between the arguments in favor of banning drugs and banning guns.
Click to expand...
Completely correct.

So Pax, are you then saying that we all should just pick and choose which laws we shall obey? Or that we all should simply live by our own moral code, and not worry about the silly laws forced on us by our government?
Click to expand...
This is what everyone does. Every one of us. I don't murder, rob, or rape for reasons entirely entirely unrelated to what the law may be. I don't do drugs for reason entrirely unrelated to what the law may be. I own guns, and will continue to, for reasons entirely unrelated to what the law may be.


For those in favor of drug prohibition:
Are you in favor of the prohibition of alcohol? If not, why not? And why does that reason not apply to the prohibition of other drugs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Pot grown in National Forrest by violent Mexican gangs
Replies
9
Views
639
Mot45acp
Mot45acp
SSN Vet
  • Locked
arguing gun control...an analogy used
Replies
4
Views
715
El Tejon
E
M
  • Locked
Commerce Clause Challenge
Replies
23
Views
1K
another okie
A
Old Hobo
  • Locked
Medical cannabis + gun ownership = Fed felony
Replies
23
Views
1K
hso
hso
I
  • Locked
If certain states.....
Replies
19
Views
693
splithoof
S
Back
Top