Taboo subject -- gun-owning pot-smokers?

[joab]

saying i don't care if this guy does drugs because it doesn't affect me is also idiotic, because it does affect you. maybe not directly but it indirectly affects us all.

Please explain how Joe Six-Pack or Mary Bong-Swat doing whatever they do in the privacy of their homes effects me or society.
Thinking that somebody else's action which in no way interact with your actions somehow affects you or your actions is not exactly bright IMHO.

 

[wasrjoe]

BTW, I'm sure everyone still loves you two guys. This is, however, a discussion forum, so don't be offended if people criticize your ideas.

 

[WEPS]

joab

because thinking that people are just going to do it in the privacy of their own homes is crazy. they said people could drink just don't do it and drive, could you believe it? people still drink and drive. i swear! i don't know what kind of screwed up lala land you think your living in. joe six-pac goes home get's drunk one night and get's in a fight with his neighbor or wife. out comes the weapon he misses and hit's a bystander. that doesn't affect anybody else? yes it is an extreme but im sure it has happened. how about he goes home drinks starts to make love to his wife, forgets the condoms. so he hops in his truck, off to the store to get some more(after all it's just right around the corner) and oops accidently kills a guy. like i said before, people are stupid and can't be trusted.

quote:
Thinking that somebody else's action which in no way interact with your actions somehow affects you or your actions is not exactly bright IMHO.

i never said it affects your actions, i said it affects you. if mr smith loses his job cause he's so doped up he can't make to work and has to get on wellfare, meanwhile driving up your taxes to pay for his broke ass, this doesn't affect you? oh i get it, this doesn't happen in lala land does it. this is just one situation but i could name more.

 

[White Horseradish]

because thinking that people are just going to do it in the privacy of their own homes is crazy. they said people could drink just don't do it and drive, could you believe it? people still drink and drive. i swear! i don't know what kind of screwed up lala land you think your living in. joe six-pac goes home get's drunk one night and get's in a fight with his neighbor or wife. out comes the weapon he misses and hit's a bystander. that doesn't affect anybody else? yes it is an extreme but im sure it has happened. how about he goes home drinks starts to make love to his wife, forgets the condoms. so he hops in his truck, off to the store to get some more(after all it's just right around the corner) and oops accidently kills a guy. like i said before, people are stupid and can't be trusted.

quote:
Thinking that somebody else's action which in no way interact with your actions somehow affects you or your actions is not exactly bright IMHO.

i never said it affects your actions, i said it affects you. if mr smith loses his job cause he's so doped up he can't make to work and has to get on wellfare, meanwhile driving up your taxes to pay for his broke ass, this doesn't affect you? oh i get it, this doesn't happen in lala land does it. this is just one situation but i could name more.

Capitals, spaces and line breaks are your friends. This caseless stream-of-consciousness stuff is a touch hard to read. I don't say this to insult you, I'm just stating a fact.

In general, random scenarios invented by you do not constitute proof of anything. In other words, if the Queen had bollocks, she'd be His Majesty.

 

[Ryan in the House]

So, you would be OK with the government imposing strict laws similair to those in Islamo-fascist countries banning "unmodest" dress and requiring all females to wear girkas? (spelling?)

Haha, no, not at all.

Sounds like you think I should either keep them completely clothed or should allow them to be completely naked.

Why is this such a black and white issue? A man can have clothes on, but not be showing his wang in the process. A woman can have clothes on, but not be showing her boobs in the process. You dont have to wrap them up like an enchilada to outlaw it. You have to come to a compromise, like I said. Politics is never "ALL OF A" or "ALL OF B." Compromise... or you'll wind up doing something irrational.

Wait wait wait, so you're trying to pass off the argument that the Constitution is null and void? Ok, well, I'm not going to even go near that right now.

No, but it's subject to different interpretations. Your strict interpretation might not be what the people (who are being governed) want, and my loose interpretation is definitely not what you want. The Constitution is not a void document, but it's a document which is way too vague to base our entire position on the issues that are popping up today that did not exist in the 1800s. In order to compensate for that, you need to look at the issue, and you need to look at the Constitution, and the only thing you can do is think "What would our Framers do?"

 

[WEPS]

Yes they are random situations created by me but that still doesn't change anything. Here is a Situation that has happened to a close friend. One night the Navy decides to throw a party, there is a designated driver so nobody has to drive drunk. Joe get's hammered and taken back to the base where he sleeps for a few hours. A few hours later he wakes up to pick his friend up from the airport. On the way to the airport he hits an 80yr old man out for an early morning walk and kills him. Joe gets a fellony D.U.I and goes to prison for 8 years.


You can't always trust somone to do the right thing. Saying i don't mind if someone abuses illegal substances in the privacy of their own home is a mistake. You know this just as well as i do. One person abusing might or might not have an influence on you or your family however, as the numbers increase so does the risk.

 

[Brian Dale]

Note to Ryan and WEPS:

You might not want to plan any trips to Alaska just now ...

It looks like they've just legalized it.

OH, THE HUMANITY!!!

 

[Brian Dale]

And by the way, WEPS,

You can't always trust somone to do the right thing. Saying i don't mind if someone abuses illegal substances in the privacy of their own home is a mistake.

You just argued for the prohibition of alcohol.

You know this just as well as i do.

Don't. You. Dare make that assertion.

Read the posts above in this thread, from the beginning. Your arguments have all been addressed above.

 

[WEPS]

You can crack jokes if you want to, just proves what caliber man you are.

 

[Brian Dale]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[WEPS]

I am sorry Bob i posted before i read. My argument isn't for the prohibition it's about the use of illegal substances, i just use alchohol as an example.

Unfortunately there are many people who can not drink smartly. If people were allowed to use/abuse other substances who is to say that they will persue that smartly? Alchohol and tobacco are among the leading killers in this country, if that doesn't tell you there is a problem i don't know what to tell you. We have 700 sailors on our ship and we average 8 to 12 D.U.I a month. Im not saying take away alchohol. im saying we need to find a better way.

What i have a problem with is people saying it doesn't affect them if people smoke weed,crack,meth what have you, as long as they do it in their home. That fact of the matter is people do not do it in their homes, atleast not all the time.

Another point which i think has been lost is, can you drink or smoke weed/crack whatever and still be able to use a firearm?

 

[WEPS]

What cracks me up is how some of you can sit here and pass yourself off as a freedom loving, gun owning law abiding citizens knowing full well you support the use of controlled substances and if that wasn't bad enough you think you have the right to pass judgment on other criminals when your no better than they are.

 

[Brian Dale]

Thanks. I appreciate your"posted before i read" post, especially because I don't have the same views about the best solution. Good on ya.

Another point which i think has been lost is, can you drink or smoke weed/crack whatever and still be able to use a firearm?

I worry about people's clumsiness if they've got THC in their bloodstream, but I don't have any hard data. I believe that I don't have the right to advocate preemptive laws prohibiting it "just in case." Still, I don't touch the stuff, and when I drink, I won't drive nor touch firearms.

 

[Brian Dale]

you support the use of controlled substances

I support changing the law.

 

[Ryan in the House]

What cracks me up is how some of you can sit here and pass yourself off as a freedom loving, gun owning law abiding citizens knowing full well you support the use of controlled substances and if that wasn't bad enough you think you have the right to pass judgment on other criminals when your no better than they are.

I am for some restrictions on freedom. If you think that is just taboo, then fine, but I support some restrictions.

Freedom is not an "all or nothing" issue, especially not in a diverse place like America. I can't believe how many times I've said you have to compromise when making freedom. Yet, the more I read, it's always ALL FREEDOM or NO FREEDOM.

What the crap is that about?

We're certainly a civilized enough society to come up with a compromise that will satisfy all parties concerned.

But if I say "I say put certain regulations on Marijuana," then I just hear a bunch of "You call that freedom!?" from here.

Jeez!

 

[thefitzvh]

Yet, the more I read, it's always ALL FREEDOM or NO FREEDOM.

in a perfect world...

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

Punish pot smokers AFTER they hurt someone not before

Sounds like your for prior restraint?

 

[joab]

You can crack jokes if you want to, just proves what caliber man you are.

And your comments about idiots living in LaLa land says what about you.


No I don't live in La La Land. Which is why I wear seat belts, lock my doors and watch my kids.

The world is full of people who think only of them selves and take no responsibility for their actions.

Too bad your friend got 8 years for murdering an old man, he should of got at least 20. Do you think his family feels anybetter that the weapon used was legal alcohol instead of illegal Pot

Pot is not the problem Beer is not the problem getting horned up without checking the Trojan box is not the problem. Lack of personal responsibility is the problem.
That can not be regulated or legislated. It has to be taught by parents who are not worried about what the Jones are doing but what they are doing and teaching their kids to do.
When the parents fail then the goverment takes over in the form of puinishment for real trangressions against society.

Legalize pot ( I'm not sure where I stand on all drugs) free up the prisons for the people who fail to act responsibly and kill an old men

Yet, the more I read, it's always ALL FREEDOM or NO FREEDOM.

It's freedom with responsibility.
Not freedom unless I think you might, maybe, possibly can't handle it


Sorry if I'm rambeling but I'm in a hurry to get to work

 

[joab]

joe six-pac goes home get's drunk one night and get's in a fight with his neighbor or wife. out comes the weapon he misses and hit's a bystander. that doesn't affect anybody else?

If we banned the gun instead of the beer all Joe could do is rant and pee on hisself.
But we can't do that because it be wrong to ban an object based on what some COULD do with it. So instead we punish Joe for his actions while in control of the object.
But that would be wrong to do with anything but guns wouldn't it.

 

[goon]

Goon.

when somebody kills your kid on the way home from school because he was high/drunk and didn't see him, you will wish you would have made it your buisiness. oh what am i saying your right, who cares if someone dies every 6 sec over a drunk driver, it doesn't affect us so it's none of our concern. well i have a news flash for you Goon, safety is everybodies concern not just the peace officers.





That isn't what I am saying.
Getting stoned or drunk and driving does put someone else at risk.
Where in any of my posts did you see me saying I support your right to endanger other people?

Someone could argue your point with gun ownership.
"When somebody kills your kid with their rifle because he didn't have a proper backstop and the bullet kept going and hit your kid on the way home from school, then you'll wish you had made it your business."

"When someone accidentally lights your kid on fire with gasoline, then you'll wish you had made it your business."

"When someone hits your kid with a baseball bat, then you'll wish you had made it your business."

Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it should be illegal to use it responsibly.

I have a "news flash" for you.
There isn't need to make guns, gasoline, baseball bats, or pot illegal. If you take any of those items and lay them down on a table and walk away, it isn't going to magically jump up and go hurt someone. The only way they cause anyone any harm is when they are used irresponsibly.

 

[TechBrute]

If you take any of those items and lay them down on a table and walk away, it isn't going to magically jump up and go hurt someone.

I don't know... I've heard that AKs and ARs do. That's why they were banned, don't cha know?

 

[Firethorn]

1) There are so many objects that can be used to harm yourself and others that trying to restrict them is useless. People will turn to other, often more destructive, objects. For example, the banning of cocaine is blamed for the development of crack cocaine. Methods to process the drugs into more easily transportable forms often increase the potency.

2) Just because an object can be used to harm yourself or others is not a reason to ban it, whether it be alchohol, cigarettes, guns, fatty foods, or the drugs that are currently illegal.

3) As the road system is public, I have no problem with removing people's privilages to drive on them for doing irresponsable things like driving while intoxiacted, whether it be with ethanol, THC, or cold medicene.

4) Standard liability for stupidity. If you're going to engage in recreational medication, be sure that you'll be sober before you need to do anything dangerous. I'm not going to use drugs anyways, because I don't want to deal with the loss of control, but each to one's own.

 

[sigmaman]

wow nice thread

i have only heard 1 good argument
and that is the argument that freedom is non restricted anything else is not freedom
whatever i you some one else chooses to do with there own body is there responsibilty
whether that is alchohol marijuana cocaine or a bullet
as long as your not driving buring down the house with a lighter or the bullets'exit hits some one else its your business
jesse ventura said "drugs are gods way of culling the stupid"
after reading 5 pages of this thread i have come to appreciate most of your points of view

big money in drug money
im talking about asset seizures
here is a good link although older the laws have become even more against your civil rights

http://www.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/

 

[Justin]

because thinking that people are just going to do it in the privacy of their own homes is crazy. they said people could drink just don't do it and drive, could you believe it? people still drink and drive.

So, by logical extension, you are therefore advocating the reinstatement of prohibition? Here's a quick newsflash: people drank and drove even when it was illegal to do so!

i never said it affects your actions, i said it affects you. if mr smith loses his job cause he's so doped up he can't make to work and has to get on wellfare, meanwhile driving up your taxes to pay for his broke ass, this doesn't affect you? oh i get it, this doesn't happen in lala land does it. this is just one situation but i could name more.

This is so amazingly far from a good debating tactic that I'm really quite loathe to even address it. However, I will note that right now, this very second my taxes are exorbitantly high because the Mrs. Kravitz Goosestep Brigade is so afraid that someone might toke up that they've convinced the federal government to spend quite literally tens of billions of taxpayer dollars annually on militarizing the police, international drug interdiction, to say nothing of their often strikingly fallacious and downright condescending "education" campaigns.

On top of it all, even though I am not a recreational drug user, my Fourth amendment rights have most obviously been abrogated, to say nothing of the government's flagrant use of asset forfeiture laws.

But you know what's really strikingly ironic about the whole mess?
No matter how tight the laws...
No matter how scary looking the fed ninja squads...
No matter how screechy and alarmist the federal propaganda machine is...

Aboslutely none of it stops Johnny the fifteen year-old wastoid from getting himself a dimebag.

And yet people like WEPS and Ryan in the House continue to advocate the same idiotic, anti-freedom platform that has so obviously failed.

I mean, for crying out loud, even National Review admitted that the entire Drug War has been one massive socioeconomic black hole of utter, contemptible failure.

But hey, maybe you have a plan to win The War on Drugs without stomping all over my civil rights.

 

[Justin]

Your strict interpretation might not be what the people (who are being governed) want, and my loose interpretation is definitely not what you want. The Constitution is not a void document, but it's a document which is way too vague to base our entire position on the issues that are popping up today that did not exist in the 1800s. In order to compensate for that, you need to look at the issue, and you need to look at the Constitution, and the only thing you can do is think "What would our Framers do?"

Given that both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp on their farms, something which would get them locked up PDQ these days, I'd say that they would quite obviously side with the ideals of liberty and personal responsibility.

Regardless, this is complete and utter conjecture on your part. The bottom line is that you advocate increased levels of statism to battle what is, in many places (Alaska, Amsterdam) a complete and total non-issue. I might also point out that until the 1910's, drugs such as cocaine and morphine were quite legal and readily available in many nations, including the USA.

You can't always trust somone to do the right thing. Saying i don't mind if someone abuses illegal substances in the privacy of their own home is a mistake. You know this just as well as i do. One person abusing might or might not have an influence on you or your family however, as the numbers increase so does the risk.

So since no one can be trusted to do the right thing, the .gov is going to force everyone to do it at gunpoint?

I am going to play a little game and do some judicious editing with WEPS above statement:

You can't always trust somone to do the right thing. Saying i don't mind if someone *shoots a pistol at a safe indoor range* is a mistake. You know this just as well as i do. One person *owning a gun* might or might not have an influence on you or your family however, as the numbers increase so does the risk.

HMMMMMMM...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there is absolutely no functional difference between gun prohibitionists and drug prohibitionists.