Taboo subject -- gun-owning pot-smokers?

[Mr. Clark]

Who, then, decides which laws are unjust?

The same people who decide which laws are just. Each individual. It is an individual decision and there is no way to escape that responsibility. You and you alone are responsible for everything you do, good or bad, and the consequences.

The thug breaking into your house in the middle of the night is absolutely convinced that laws against his behavior are unjust, and his moral code justifies his actions.

Bad choice of example. No one is saying that there should not be laws against breaking into someone's house or stealing their property or that there shouldn’t be ways of dealing with those that do. Stealing stuff violates the rights of others. Sitting on your couch smoking a joint, although something I don’t do and encourage others not do as well, does not violate my rights or hurt me in any way and is none of my business or anyone else’s. Same thing goes with all of the other laws that attempt to control actions that don’t violate rights or harm others.

I have a hard time coming up with an argument that doesn’t sound patronizing. This seems self evident to me. I am sure some one more articulate than me will drop by and fill in the gaps.

 

[Ryan in the House]

It seems a lot of people are attacking my code of morals. I'll use the child sex thing to counter that.

If you could say that, you can say restricting adult/child sexual relationships ...

Foul! No, you can't. It's still a straw man, even when you set the straw on fire.

I dont get your straw man analogy, but I do know that you could only tell me an adult/child sex relationship would be wrong because of morals.

If you want to see how the public views smoking weed as immoral, then light up a joint in a public park, and see how many people rush over to praise your expression of freedom. Preferably, do it in a park where there are lots of little kids around. Then, stumble around high. That should higher your approval rating even MORE. Kind of like how the public views drunkenness as immoral. If being drunk in your own house is taking an immoral image and confining it to your property, surely being high in your house is no different.

I don't think that anyone here is arguing for NO laws whatsoever, just that there are differences in laws laws that punish behavior that infringe other's rights and that punish behavior that doesn't infringe other's rights.

I'll go along and bring in my previous argument. So to your standards (as I understand them?), the people here should be pro-legalization of child/adult sex relationships because they don't infrige other people's rights? These kind of relationships are secretive, yet illegal, and are done in the privacy of someone's home. Kind of like smoking weed, yeah?

Alright everyone, I gotta admit that I can't push my morals on you. If you think smoking MJ is a part of our freedom, then you're obviously going to feel that; but you should feel the same about child/adult sex relationships. By the attitudes I see here, it should be ok for Michael Jackson to touch little boys (from the 1993 report, he was not molesting them, because the kid went along with it). Please don't say "It's immoral and should be illegal." because you've all been attacking me for using that argument all along. If smoking MJ in the privacy of your own home should be legal, then everything Michael Jackson does in the privacy of his home is ok, too, as long as it does not impose on our rights - and it doesn't. By the standards I am seeing here, illegalizing these kind of relationships only imposes on someone's sexual orientations - just as laws against Marijuana impose on one's drug preferences. As for Marijuana not always being immoral, well remember, adult/child love relationships have not always been immoral, either.

From an ethical standpoint, those two aren't so different.

 

[Mr. Clark]

I'll go along and bring in my previous argument. So to your standards (as I understand them?), the people here should be pro-legalization of child/adult sex relationships because they don't infringe other people's rights? These kind of relationships are secretive, yet illegal, and are done in the privacy of someone's home. Kind of like smoking weed, yeah?

You obviously aren't paying attention. This was explained in other posts. Having sex with children does violate other's rights, namely THE CHILD!. Your post is offensive and shows that you have not even tried to understand anything said this thread.

 

[joab]

Your comparison of child molestation to pot smoking is about as deep and relevant as comparing the taste of apples to the vitamin C content of oranges.

it should be ok for Michael Jackson to touch little boys (from the 1993 report, he was not molesting them, because the kid went along with it)

By your definition it would be OK to haverelations with a 3 year old if they did not tell mom.
Pedophilia has nothing to do with whether the victim consent or complains. It just makes it easier if you can get a compliant victim or one that has parents willing to sttle out of court.
These predators are very good at finding easily intimidated subjects. For every one they take they pass on ten.

To even compare pot or alcohol to pedophelia shows a complete lack of understanding of the victimization process. To stand by the comparison shows a lack willingness to educate yourself on the matter.

I have known many pot smokers, alcoholics and molested children and more than a few child molesters. The conditions may overlap from person to person but they are in no way interchangeable or comparable.

I would suggest that you familarize your self a little more with the actions and repercussions of the acts before you make simplistic statements like this that have absolutly no bearing to real life

 

[White Horseradish]

Marijuana has been in the unfavorable public eye for a long time; since 1937. To expand on that, the majority doesn't want their impressionable young kids to see other people lighting up joints. If it's legalized, it's likely to be socialized. People won't be hiding it, or doing it in their bedroom when their parents leave the house. They're going to be in our parks, in our streets... lighting up a joint and getting high.

Here's a question I'd really like you to answer. So what?

I don't find that very appealing, and I doubt that I ever will.

Who cares what you find appealing? I find boy bands and reality TV to be unappealing. Should we ban them? Laws do not exist to please you. You do not have the right to not be offended.

I dont get your straw man analogy

Look it up. "Straw man" is not an analogy. It is a term used to describe a particular type of logical fallacy used in debate.

If you want to see how the public views smoking weed as immoral, then light up a joint in a public park, and see how many people rush over to praise your expression of freedom. Preferably, do it in a park where there are lots of little kids around. Then, stumble around high. That should higher your approval rating even MORE. Kind of like how the public views drunkenness as immoral.

In certain places the public views a black-skinned man walking hand in hand with a light-skinned woman as immoral. The public is not always right.

I'll go along and bring in my previous argument. So to your standards (as I understand them?), the people here should be pro-legalization of child/adult sex relationships because they don't infrige other people's rights?

First, you do not understand our position. Second, I could explain how such relationships do in fact infringe on other people's rights, but I believe Mr. Clark's explanation is quite sufficient.

 

[goon]

But, if you were inclined to harm others and were willing to pay the penalty, I would have to wonder if you had a moral code in the first place, let alone one which could stop you.



So if I have a gun to a murder/rapist's head....
I am inclined to harm him and there is no doubt that he would deserve it.
Suppose I am willing to end up facing the death penalty for killing him.
Maybe he has raped and killed my daughter.
Am I justified in killing him?
Would it be immoral to blow his head off?

One could argue that you have moral responsibility to remove a person like that from society.
IMO, one can have a moral code and still be willing to harm someone else and suffer the legal consequences.

"The law is not always just, nor is justice always legal."


But we are getting way off the topic of pot smoking gunowners (It's my fault as much as anyone else's.)

I do know a guy who used to grow pot in his basement (late 80's to early 90's). He is one of the coolest guys I know. He is a gunowner and a hardworking guy. He is the kind of guy who would pull over and help you change a tire in the rain.
IMO, he has a very strong moral code, and the fact that he smoked pot has no bearing on that.

IMO, no one has the right to tell you that you can't live your life the way you want as long as you aren't harming anyone other than yourself. If you want to use drugs and harm yourself that is your problem. It isn't my business and it isn't the government's business.

Remember that we shooters are a minority too. There are lots of people who would gladly pass laws to remove our right to own firearms.
If that were to happen, and you kept your guns in violation of the law, would that mean that you had done something immoral?

 

[JohnKSa]

Do some digging into the early history of drug prohibition and you will see that its early days are intertwined with racism and bigotry.

That may be--but that's not why drug prohibition exists today.

And BTW, how the heck does this post rate staying in General discussion? There haven't been 5 posts related to firearms in 4 pages...

 

[Yooper]

goon

If you have a gun to a rapist/murder's head according to the scenario you described, and that this is not a "caught in the act" analogy, only you could determine whether he's worth the effort. You would have to face the penalties yourself. I can't make that decision for anyone but myself. Most places, society says that you would be subject to penalties for your actions if you killed the scumbag. That is unfortunate, but I can see your point, I don't know for certain what I would do under the circumstances. If we keep our firearms in spite of a confiscation order, we have commited an illegal act, the existence of which was the result of legislation passed by those with different moral values than we share.

Mr Clark

We agree on one point, if someone is engaged in an illegal activity which harms no one but himself, I wouldn't blow the whistle on him. Its his choice and he pays the penalties if he is caught.

 

[LeonCarr]

I prefer to spend my hobby money on guns and ammo instead of wacky weed. I have seen many times what happens when you bring a joint to a gunfight.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Ryan in the House]

Maybe I've been looking at it wrong.

I certainly dont condore or endorse it's use, and I still think it's immoral, but maybe there can be legal sanctions that serve as a serious hindrance to it's use... such as taxing the hell out of it, increasing the harshness of sentencing against people who commit crimes while under the influence of Marijuana, allowing public places to ban it and prosecute those who do not follow their rules.

Seems better if I look at it that way.

 

[White Horseradish]

I certainly dont condore or endorse it's use, and I still think it's immoral, but maybe there can be legal sanctions that serve as a serious hindrance to it's use... such as taxing the hell out of it, increasing the harshness of sentencing against people who commit crimes while under the influence of Marijuana, allowing public places to ban it and prosecute those who do not follow their rules.

Hoo boy. With an attitude like that you just might have a future in politics. Can't get in the front door, so let's try the back door and maybe a wiindow. Also, you have not answered my questions.

Let me ask a couple more.

Why do you think consumption of intoxicating substances is immoral?
Do you think it is the job of the government to tell you what is moral and what is not?

 

[thefitzvh]

Typical nanny-state american attitude.

 

[Desert Dog]

Wow. I read this thread a few days ago and it was just barely a page and a half... Interesting thread.

I do not think pot should be illegal. The effects on the human body from it are no worse than the effects from alcohol. In fact, I think alcohol is a much more devastating drug regarding dependency on it. As some others have said, people die from alcohol poisoning. I have yet to see anyone die from THC poisoning...

Regarding the folks who consider pot "immoral". Replace the word pot in your statements with "beer" or "hard liquor", and that would be the topic of conversation during Prohibition...

I personally have smoked pot on occasion in the past. I have not smoked it for several years though because I do not like the way it limits your short term memory. Many, many, friends of mine smoke pot, and they do so in their own home behind closed doors. I doubt that making it legal would change that at all.

Regarding guns and pot smoking? NOPE, the guns go in the safe and the dial gets spun... No different than alcohol... or prescription pain killers or muscle relaxers, etc... ANYTHING that affects your thought process in any way...

 

[Harry Tuttle]

lets also ban that evil drug caffine

 

[Redlg155]

I guess I'll add my .02 here.

I don't smoke pot. Never had an inclination to do so nor will my current professsion allow me to do so even if I was so inclined.

I'm torn somewhat between the legalization issue. Many compare the effects of Marijuana to be no greater than alcohol. Others also argue the merits of legalization based on individual freedoms and other factors. All are valid arguements.

The only problem I see with legalization would be that non users are subjected to second hand smoke. Sure, one could move away, but there is always that one uncurteous SOB that insists on firing one up right in front of your children. I definitely do not want my children nor myself involuntarily exposed to marijuana use by second hand smoke.

I could live with a law that stated if you use Marijuana, then you must stay within the cofines of your home or away from any public place. Smoke all you want...just don't expose my kids to THC.

Good Shooting
Red

 

[Ryan in the House]

Hoo boy. With an attitude like that you just might have a future in politics. Can't get in the front door, so let's try the back door and maybe a wiindow. Also, you have not answered my questions.

Let me ask a couple more.

Why do you think consumption of intoxicating substances is immoral?
Do you think it is the job of the government to tell you what is moral and what is not?

Why do I think consumption of intoxicating substances is immoral? I think of the effects. It puts them in a position where their behavior and judgement is altered, and where they are at a danger to not only themselves, but a danger to people around them. You smoke weed and drive, you drink beer you drive, you're endangering people around you. Being high is NOT a positive image, I hope you know. It has never been a positive image; not in society's eye. Why dont you take a poll, and see how many responsible adults want to take their kids to parks where people are hitting up joints and getting high, or taking them to places where people are so drunk they're pissing their pants and vomiting all over the place. Any responsible parent, and I'm not talking about parents who smokes weed with their 15 year old kid, would agree that they dont want those images to become etched into their child's mind as a prominent and acceptable part of our society.

I hope the government would recognize the popular standards. For example, I'd want a government that recognizes abortion as immoral, and that would take action against it's absolute legalization. I dont know... if you want robots and computers to run our government off of theory, then that's fine for you. I want human beings that recognize what people want taken off the streets, and that is not afraid to step in on controversial subjects.

 

[thefitzvh]

Why do I think consumption of intoxicating substances is immoral? I think of the effects. It puts them in a position where their behavior and judgement is altered, and where they are at a danger to not only themselves, but a danger to people around them.

...

Being high is NOT a positive image, I hope you know. It has never been a positive image; not in society's eye. Why dont you take a poll, and see how many responsible adults want to take their kids to parks where people are hitting up joints and getting high, .

The effects are minimal. if you're talking about effects, then lets ban alcohol as well

And since when is "society's view" so damn good anyway? Society, at least much of it, thinks you're weird for liking guns. Does that mean they should take them from you? Popular media and LIEberals have demonized our hobby, and that doesn't make it bad.

The simple fact is: some rich bastard decided pot was bad, so it's illegal. It could just as easily been nicotine, or caffiene.

James

 

[Ryan in the House]

You might think my idea of what is appealing and not is wrong. You might think that a bunch of high wandering fools is a good thing to invision in America; or you might not care. You might not care if your children see drunks in public parks who are barfing up their balogne sandwiches all over the ground. But I do. I don't look at guns the same way I look at judgement-impeding drugs (that can and often times lead to accidents) or alcohol. Guns exist to keep the peace (and yes, they're around to kill, but I won't protest that), and they exist for defense, and even sport. Marijuana and alcohol are for social enjoyment. The only similarities I see is that misusing them is a crime, just as misusing guns is a crime. It's unappealing when people misuse things like that, and especially when it has an impact on society. You might not think it does, but just ask parents what they want their kids to see in a park. Ask them if they mind watching a bunch of drunken idiots falling all over the place, making loud and obscene noises. Ask them if they want their kids to experience a group of high pot-smokers first hand. If the majority of the parents say "No... I don't want my kid to see any of that." then you KNOW this kind of thing has an impact on society. It's not just Liberals either; go ahead and ask the Conservative parents. Ask ANY parent, regardless of their political bias.

And actually, more Liberals I know want to legalize pot, because they feel it is their right. Yet they have no problem on banning guns, because they "kill people."

 

[wasrjoe]

I want human beings that recognize what people want taken off the streets, and that is not afraid to step in on controversial subjects.

You want big government, huh? No thanks. I want freedom. I don't want to be told what I can and cannot do because it doesn't "appeal" to society. Isn't that called facism? Forcing others to do only what you want to do? Tyranny of the mob is something I've heard it called, too.

Do you think swearing should be illegal?

 

[Ryan in the House]

You want big government, huh? No thanks. I want freedom. I don't want to be told what I can and cannot do because it doesn't "appeal" to society. Isn't that called facism? Forcing others to do only what you want to do? Tyranny of the mob is something I've heard it called, too.

Do you think swearing should be illegal?

"Screw the population, I'll live how I want." sounds like your philosophy.

You have freedom. Here's a hint: I said that maybe I was looking at the legalization wrong, and I said that I still viewed it as immoral, but I would be for legalizing it if it was carried out the correct way. So now, people are jumping on me because I find it immoral? So now, people are jumping on me because society does not like it? Do you all just want to argue? For Christ's sake!

Fascism is, all sub-definitions put aside, "forcing" something upon people. I think it's rather fascist that you want to force Marijuana on people; that you want to force it on the people who don't want to see that in their parks or in their streets; then you complain about them having feelings against it. No, it's not facsism to feel strongly against something, and to expel it from society if enough people agree that it makes them uneasy. That is democracy. If enough people complain to their state government about it, and state gov't passes legislation outlawing certain uses and misuses of Marijuana... that's democracy in action.

By the way, I do not think swearing should be illegal, but I'm not going to stand up and get in someone's face about how it's my Constitutional right to cuss like a sailor when they complain about me teaching their children the 13 naughtiest words in the world.

 

[pax]

I hope the government would recognize the popular standards.

Ryan, in many parts of the world, following the "popular standards" for moral behavior means that there are some very bad laws.

In some places, by law, a woman can not go outside her own home unescorted by an adult male -- not even to the doctor's office with her child in a life-threatening emergency. In such places, women are usually nothing but property, and it is illegal to educate them or allow them to become educated.

In some parts of the world, the popular standards force women to be circumcised. (Female circumcision, for the uninformed, means they cut off the only dangly bit a female has, and it affects her ability to enjoy sex in about the same way that cutting off your feet would affect your ability to enjoy polka dancing.)

In the antebellum American south, the popular standards made slavery not just acceptable but necessary if one was going to run a successful family farm.

In colonial America, the popular standards led to burning women suspected of witchcraft -- who had usually done nothing more wrong than to be unpopular in a viciously legalistic society.

In America a century ago, the popular standards led to Jim Crow laws and lynchings of 'uppity niggras.

Are all of these things right? Should each and every one of these things have been legal (or even required by law), since the governments involved all used the popular standards when they decided to pass such laws?

Some people would say that it is moral for women to be forcibly circumcised and for blacks to be forced into slavery or for women to be forced to remain in their own homes unless an adult male escorts them or for Jews to be forcibly herded into concentration camps or ...

After all, these things are morally required by the standards of the communities they happen in, aren't they? All these horrids appealed to the "popular standards" at the time and place they were enacted.

Either the "popular standards" for morals is a valid and reasonable way to decide what should be legal, or it is not. I say that it is not a reasonable method of deciding what should be legal, and I call for my witnesses all the people who have ever been murdered by their neighbors simply for being the wrong color, having the wrong gender, worshipping the wrong god, or loving the wrong person and thus offending the popular standards of their societies.

That, btw, was one reason why the Founders ended up insisting upon a Bill of Rights. Most of them really believed that they'd created a near-ironclad system of gov't wherein individual rights were inviolate. BUT they were realists, even cynics, and wanted to be sure.

So they tacked on the Bill of Rights, which many of them thought unnecessary, but which also made it perfectly plain that the will of the majority was not the standard by which we judge new laws.

My point is that the entire reason for governments to exist is because there are certain rights, rights that a human being is born with, rights which cannot morally be denied to him. Among these are the right to life (you cannot kill or maim me), liberty (you may not imprison or enslave me), and the pursuit of happiness (you may not stop me from doing what I would like to do, so long as I am not harming others).

All laws which violate these basic rights are bad laws. Not coincidentally, laws which attempt to enforce the "popular standards" usually manage to violate some or all of these basic rights.

You'll have to find a more solid ground to stand upon than simply "popular standards" if you want to convince me that you have a right to dictate what your neighbors smoke.

pax

A desire not to butt into other people's business is at least eighty percent of all human wisdom . . . and the other twenty percent isn't very important. -- Robert Heinlein

 

[Sindawe]

Ryan

that's democracy in action

This nation is NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. There is a difference. It is left an an exercise to the student to research and discover the difference.

 

[Ryan in the House]

People develop certain reactions to things over time. If a drunk guy is hwarfing his guts in a public park, I'm going to request that he be taken out of my sight, because it's nasty and my kids are around. If someone is getting high and lighting up their Marijuana in a public park, using mind-altering substances, I'm going to FEEL a certain way about it. There's no possible way for me to feel any differently about it, and in fact, many other people feel the same way.

America is not an Anarchy, it's a Democracy, and you all are right, in a Democracy, the majority rules. If the majority favors something, then the government is called upon to do something. That's the way it is, and that's the way we like it. I am willing to compromise, as most are, to confine Marijuana to their own homes and not in my parks and picnic areas. But, they must realize that by doing it in public, they're in the minority, and the majority find it highly unfavorable.

As for compromising, that also comes to play with guns. Someone just reading the Constitution could think "Right to keep and bear arms. Got it. I'll buy a fully operational AK-47 first thing in the morning." But, laws created after the Constitution are added as the situations arise, and as the issues become popular.

The Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" and we obey it, but politicians interpret it in different ways. People interpret it in different ways. Those who view it loosely, and those who view it strictly. I have a moderately loose view on it.

You'll have to find a more solid ground to stand upon than simply "popular standards" if you want to convince me that you have a right to dictate what your neighbors smoke.

You come to a compromise with them. If the public doesn't want to see them smoking weed in a public park, then it should be confined to their houses; that's how you compromise. Just as there is nothing in the Constitution saying "You must be clothed when in the general public (when not confined to a nudist beach)." Does that mean we should be expected to respect the rights of those who walk around naked? I don't want to see people expressing their "persuit of happiness" by letting it all hang out.

 

[Sindawe]

America is not an Anarchy, it's a Democracy, and you all are right, in a Democracy, the majority rules.

The Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" and we obey it,

And that my friends, is the sad result of Civics education in our land today.

 

[thefitzvh]

"Screw the population, I'll live how I want." sounds like your philosophy.

Exactly. The constitutional republic exists to prevent tyranny of the majority.


James