If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

You seem to have missed the point in my reply, you are free to get high as balls on whatever you want, in your own home. My 2A means if your stoned to the bone ass wanders over to me and get weird, your stoned to the bone ass gets shot for creeping me the hell out. Let that settle in for a moment. (By the way, the sober dude will most likely walk on shooting the dude high as hell yay blood tests)

Unfortunately, you couldn't be more mistaken about the first part of your post. Drug prohibition means that I am not free to get "high as balls" in my own home or anywhere else with some limited exceptions in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. Fortunately, you're quite mistaken when it comes to the second half of your post. The right to bear arms most certainly does not mean that you can kill people who "creep you the hell out" without consequence. Let that sink in for a moment: should you choose to abuse your right to possess a weapon by murdering someone for the mere crime of giving you the willies, your rights will be stripped from you by people who are better armed and better trained than you. And if you lack the good judgement to surrender to law enforcement, the mechanism by which you lose your right to bear arms may be the end of you.

a reply to: SaturnFX

I can appreciate your concerns, but what gives us the right? People's lives are ruined, families destroyed by the state, for drug charges alone. No other crime but possessing an illegal substance with the intent to ingest it. That is not justice, in my opinion.

All of the terrible things that we say addicts do are crimes already. Child neglect, embezzling from the company fund, stealing cars, robbing people. I think a functional addict is a rare thing, but that people who are not victimizing others should have the freedom to ingest whatever they want, regardless of how distasteful or disturbing we might consider that behavior.

If a man is stealing cars to buy crack, bust him for stealing cars! I could care less whether he smokes crack or not. If he's a productive, responsible member of society, who cares? Why should we care? Why should it matter? Even if he's not as productive or responsible as we want him to be, isn't that his own personal decision ultimately as to how he wants to live his life? He's not hurting anyone else. Are we to judge him, then, for not being as successful as he should have been? What gives us the right? That is not justice.

People who victimize others to support their habit or as a symptom of their habit are a different story in my opinion. These things are already crimes, though.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: SaturnFX

I can appreciate your concerns, but what gives us the right? People's lives are ruined, families destroyed by the state, for drug charges alone. No other crime but possessing an illegal substance with the intent to ingest it. That is not justice, in my opinion.

its a national security issue

All of the terrible things that we say addicts do are crimes already.

Crimes of greed are not the same as crimes of addiction.

have the freedom to ingest whatever they want, regardless of how distasteful or disturbing we might consider that behavior.

every nation that has legal hard drugs is a failed nation with a barely functioning government, crime so overwhelming that a police force is typically just ceremonial, child slavery, etc.

If anything is so over the top dangerous for the public to have that it threatens the very structure of the nation, then that should not be allowed in just anyones hands.
its your right to own a gun, its not your right to own a ICBM regardless of how much you want one. national security must protect the people from themselves in some areas..class A drugs that are proven to destroy civilizations is certainly within that area.

I am 100% pro legalize the plant for rec purposes, and put every other drug crime caused by addiction as a medical issue verses a criminal issue, but anyone suggesting legalize opiates, meth, etc are simply insane. that is begging the nation to become one of the worst 3rd world nations. no..wont happen now, wont happen ever so long as there is even a degree of sanity left.

I also thought I should write another reply to the thread to say that I don't think it would necessarily follow that if everything were legal tomorrow, that everyone would go out and do it. I certainly wouldn't want to try a bunch of hard drugs just because they were legal. Awareness of drugs and addiction would not go away.

Quality control and safety in the drug world would improve, making the process slightly less unhealthy. Quality of life would surely improve in this country though, and one of the biggest reasons for that is this:

We have millions of people disaffected by the government by this issue in this country. People who will not call for help when they need it, for fear of getting busted. Drug prohibition is a large part of this problem of the disaffected public. Ending cannabis prohibition would do a lot to fix that, but the problem won't truly mostly go away until all drug prohibition is ended.

Millions of people in this country. The number could be ten percent or more even. Fifty percent. Who knows?

a reply to: SaturnFX

I wanted to say that I agree with you that many of these substances are a scourge on humanity. Just because I'm arguing for ending prohibition doesn't mean that I advocate for heavy drug use.

a reply to: SaturnFX

That is rather vague, assuming you would have any input in writing legislation to address the situation.

The fact is that this country got along quite well when drugs were legal, prior to 1914 and the passage of the Harrison Narcotic Act.

Since its passage things have gone downhill seriously, and less than a century after the passage of that law we have children bringing drugs to school, selling drugs on street corners, the existence of powerful and violent street gangs and drug cartels.

I fail to see how your vague suggestions would make anything better.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: SaturnFX

That is rather vague, assuming you would have any input in writing legislation to address the situation.

The fact is that this country got along quite well when drugs were legal, prior to 1914 and the passage of the Harrison Narcotic Act.

Since its passage things have gone downhill seriously, and less than a century after the passage of that law we have children bringing drugs to school, selling drugs on street corners, the existence of powerful and violent street gangs and drug cartels.

I fail to see how your vague suggestions would make anything better.

One of the worst outcomes about our drug culture is that low grade drugs are illegal. this has created a perfect gateway to harder and harder stuff in the mind of an adolescent..if they lied about this, etc..
I think a discussion about these laws that are being had is good, and should be legal across the us. this would free up resources, and make a much more sensible discussion about the few very dangerous hard drugs out there that destroy lives...suddenly when narcotics says this stuff is bad news, they aren't lying..and that in itself would lead to more trust in government, and less people trying the hard stuff since the soft stuff is legal.

I fail to see how becoming Afghanistan would make things better. the drugs we have today are not even in the same universe as the stuff we had in 1914
We didn't have many traffic laws pre 1914 either...and hardly any traffic accidents..doesn't mean we should roll back all traffic laws now because of that.

a reply to: SaturnFX

I think your suggestion that we would turn into Afghanistan if drug prohibition were ended is laughable. I also think that just because drug abuse can ruin a person's life, does not justify the state ruining a person's life for using drugs.

Lots of people get busted for drugs, and absolutely nothing else. They are doing nothing else wrong other than possessing and using an illegal substance. These people lose their right to vote, their right to own a gun, and either go to prison for years or volunteer for brainwashing to avoid prison. It's not right!

I've seen the horrors of drug addiction firsthand, and in plenty. Imprisoning people for it is not the answer to those problems.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Quite right, the damage done to all of society by prohibition, users and non-users alike, is far greater than the damage done to any individual or groups by their drug use.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
There is no sane world in which you can believe that we should trust the independent judgement of a gun-owner to use an item built for dealing death to consistently make a rational judgement with regard to their power and responsibility as a gun-owner while also believing that a person cannot make a rational judgement to use a mind-altering substance.

By that argument, who is supposed to be trusted with enforcing the law?

A government that behaves collectively as one and owns guns is a gun owner. So in a world in which we cannot trust the judgment of a gun owner, we can't trust the government to own guns any more than we can anyone else. Therefore, we would end up in a world without guns. Any conflict that would arise would ultimately end up being settled by the next worst thing. Which is what?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Breakdancing battles.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: BrianFlanders
(Empty space)

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Breakdancing battles in empty space?

Those headspins would go on forever, or at least until Niburu comes around.

In the event that you thought my post was just a snarky remark, it was but, back in the 80's the idea that gangs in the Bronx would stop fighting and instead do battle by dancing was a thing.

Often, the best Breakers in opposing gangs would battle dancewise instead of fighting. They would battle over turf. Or because someone stepped on someone else's shoes. They might battle prove that their gang was better than the other gang. Sometimes they would make a contract that the loser would not go around to the winner's neighborhood anymore. Sometimes they battled just to gain each other's respect. Unfortunately, these Breaking battles did not always stop fight. In fact, they often would cause a fight, since dancers would sometimes get physical when they couldn't win dancewise. No one likes to lose. But today Breaking battles have, to a large extent, replaced fighting in the Bronx.

I think that last bit might be a last sliver of hope.

So, we were talking guns and drugs. You were talking about trusting government having guns. You don't need the 2nd, not that I am against it, to have a revolution. It's war. You make or get weapons from whoever will sell them to you and march forward.

Maybe the 2nd served as a deterrent for some time. Today, I think that complacency has undone the 2nd's purpose.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Breakdancing battles in empty space?

Those headspins would go on forever, or at least until Niburu comes around.

In the event that you thought my post was just a snarky remark, it was but, back in the 80's the idea that gangs in the Bronx would stop fighting and instead do battle by dancing was a thing.

Often, the best Breakers in opposing gangs would battle dancewise instead of fighting. They would battle over turf. Or because someone stepped on someone else's shoes. They might battle prove that their gang was better than the other gang. Sometimes they would make a contract that the loser would not go around to the winner's neighborhood anymore. Sometimes they battled just to gain each other's respect. Unfortunately, these Breaking battles did not always stop fight. In fact, they often would cause a fight, since dancers would sometimes get physical when they couldn't win dancewise. No one likes to lose. But today Breaking battles have, to a large extent, replaced fighting in the Bronx.

I think that last bit might be a last sliver of hope.

So, we were talking guns and drugs. You were talking about trusting government having guns. You don't need the 2nd, not that I am against it, to have a revolution. It's war. You make or get weapons from whoever will sell them to you and march forward.

Maybe the 2nd served as a deterrent for some time. Today, I think that complacency has undone the 2nd's purpose.

All of that to avoid the fact that the OP is talking nonsense. Which, by the way, you also seem to be.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
All of that to avoid the fact that the OP is talking nonsense. Which, by the way, you also seem to be.

Of course I am but "A government that behaves collectively as one and owns guns is a gun owner." is a little nonsensical as well.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
There is no sane world in which you can believe that we should trust the independent judgement of a gun-owner to use an item built for dealing death to consistently make a rational judgement with regard to their power and responsibility as a gun-owner while also believing that a person cannot make a rational judgement to use a mind-altering substance.

By that argument, who is supposed to be trusted with enforcing the law?

A government that behaves collectively as one and owns guns is a gun owner. So in a world in which we cannot trust the judgment of a gun owner, we can't trust the government to own guns any more than we can anyone else. Therefore, we would end up in a world without guns. Any conflict that would arise would ultimately end up being settled by the next worst thing. Which is what?

You've misunderstood the argument. This is a 2A reference, not a reference to force wielded by authorized representatives of the state. The point is that if we accept that we must endure a life-ending power being a guaranteed right to all, so too must we accept that everyone can choose what to put in their own bodies. To suggest otherwise based on the popular arguments is to endorse what is often called here "social engineering": the notion that we should police for specific character traits and behaviors to maximize a desired social outcome.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Alternatively, it could simply be that you're wrong to advocate for controlling the behaviors of others to create a conformist society in the image that you prefer.