# Drugs and guns should be legal



## DeLamar.J (Dec 11, 2003)

Answering the question of Should drugs be legal? is like answering the question of Should guns be legal? Whoever answers either question steps onto a minefield of passionate oppositionfrom conservatives if you say yes to drugs, and from liberals if you say yes to guns. Thats why its easier to recognize that both questions are really part of a much larger and more important question: Should government be controlled? And the answer to that question, as well as the other two, is yes. 

The illegalization of drugs gives government the excuse to trample our rights, under the guise of protecting us and our children from their effects, and the illegalization of guns will give government the ability to totally trample our rights because we would have no defense against it. 

What has the illegalization of drugs accomplished? 

 Prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing laws while violent offenders go free to make room. The result is the U.S. now has the highest incarceration rate in the world, made up mainly of people who have never committed a violent crimepretty incredible for a free country. 

 There is increased corruption in our police and judicial systems due to the large amount of money available for payoffs. The poorer you are the more likely you are to go to jail; monied drug lords with their high-priced lawyers have little to fear from the law. 

 Millions of Americans who suffer from chronic pain go undermedicated because doctors are afraid to prescribe pain killers for fear of being investigated (a number have already been sent to prison) by a drug enforcement agency. A U.S. health agency has called the suffering of these patients a national disgrace. 

 Seizure of property from citizens who have not been found guilty of any crime has gone sky-high, thanks to drug laws that give police the power to seize property suspected of being involved in a crime. Its up to the owner to prove his property is innocent.

 The War on Drugs is a repeat of Prohibition in the 30s. The amount of drugs consumed in America has not gone down appreciably, but the price of them has gone way up, making them even more attractive to sell. 

What will the illegalization of guns accomplish? 

 This is the classic history lesson of our century. Like all the communist and fascist states that outlawed guns before turning against their own people, we will be powerless to resist our government should it turn against us. And judging from our governments conduct in its War on Drugs, it already has. 

What about the arguments against making drugs legal and keeping guns legal? Both are essentially the same: drugs and guns lead to the destruction of our children, the former through destroying their physical and mental well being and the latter through killing them outright. 

Both arguments play on the publics desire to protect their children at all costs. Those who would keep drugs illegal would imprison our children rather than have them take drugs, and those who would make guns illegal would expose our children to the potential enslavement of a government turned tyrannical rather than let them be endangered by guns. (Another story is the fact that Justice Department statistics show that guns are used by private citizens to prevent violent crimes far more often than they are used to commit crimes, but the stories behind those statistics never make it into the newspapers. I wonder why?) 

People in government, especially the cadre of bureaucrats who think they know best how we should run our lives, find these excuses convenient to hide behind. The illegalization of drugs has given our government the excuse it needs to stop us on the street and make a warrantless search of our person, to invade our home on the suspicion we may be using drugs, and to send our children to prison for their own good. The illegalization of guns would allow the government to go even further because we would have no way to resist police in what appears to be our emerging police state. 

 Heres what I think of the government and their conservative and liberal supporters who want to protect my children against drugs and guns: Leave my children alone. They are my concern, not yours. I would rather they ran the risk of experimenting with drugs than have some government agent send them to prison to be gang raped by hard core criminals. And I would rather they risked being gunshot than have them live out their lives as servants to a tyrannical government without any chance to restore their freedom through armed resistance. 

Drugs and guns may be bad if used badly, but an all powerful Government is much worse. The illegalization of drugs may have sounded like a good idea in theory once, but it has given Government far too much power over us. And the proposed illegalization of guns may sound like a good idea in theory to some because it is supposed to help keep our children safe, but in reality it will take away our last and ultimate defense against government. And like our Founding Fathers I would rather live with freedom than live as the protected slave of government. 

The question is this: Do we want a powerful government that can come into our homes or stop us on the street at will and arrest us on the suspicion we may be guilty of a crime, that can seize our property on the suspicion it is guilty, and that sends our children to prison for their own good? Or do we want a government that dares not trample on our rights guaranteed in our Constitution? 

Drugs and guns must be legal.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

I think your statement is too broad. I don't want you to have to define all the laws and regulations that would be inplace if they were legal everywhere, butcertainly there has to be some restrictions.

You can't do drugs and drive.
You can't bring a gun into a courthouse.

I feel what you do in your own home is your own business however. As long as your not "hurting" yourself or anyone else.


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 12, 2003)

Being so libertarian I'm a half step away from being an anarchist I'm going to have to agree with you Mr DeLamar.


----------



## SenseiBear (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I think your statement is too broad. I don't want you to have to define all the laws and regulations that would be inplace if they were legal everywhere, butcertainly there has to be some restrictions.
> 
> You can't do drugs and drive.
> ...



I am not sure I agree - I think you should punish crimes with victims.  It may not work, but I doubt it can work worse than the current system.  If a person drinks or does drugs and drives safely, no harm - However, since it is clearly demonstrated that drinking or doing drugs increases the chance of a wreck, if I destroy property, it is the deliberate, premeditated destruction of property we are talking about.  If I injure or kill someone, it is deliberate or premeditated assault or murder...  and put the mandatory sentencing here.  If every drunk driver who killed or injured another spent their life behind bars, I bet it happens less....  Or maybe I go too far, perhaps if you are pulled over for something else and are obviously intoxicated, there should be public endangerment charges as well...

As for guns in a court house, this is public property, owned in part by me, and the government restricting my constitutional rights on public property really bugs me...  There are already laws against unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, intimidation, murder, etc...  Use those to punish people who bring guns into the court house for diabolical purposes.  And those things might happen less if the perp thought there was a good chance that half the court room was armed...


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by SenseiBear _
> *If a person drinks or does drugs and drives safely, no harm - However, ... if I destroy property, it is the deliberate, premeditated destruction of property we are talking about.  If I injure or kill someone, it is deliberate or premeditated assault or murder...  and put the mandatory sentencing here.
> *



Unfortunately then it's a little late for the victims.  I'd rather people not do it at all and I'm all for keeping them illegal.  With them being illegal, the police have the ability of stopping someone *before* their actions get someone hurt.  If someone's driving erratically, do the police just wait until he hurts/kills someone before pulling him off the road?

Is it really necessary for the average Joe to have a gun on him at all times.  Do you really think that would stop the government if they wanted to take you?  I have no problem with people owning guns (although I myself wouldn't).  I have a problem with people walking the street with one, thinking that they can use it to solve all of their problems.  People use their fists often enough to kill others over stupid reasons.  How easy would it be for them to use their gun?

Most of the laws have provisions that if you committed the act under the influence of drugs or with a weapon, you get more time.  How would your alternative give any better results AND not give more people the ability to commit more crimes?



> _Originally posted by SenseiBear _
> *There are already laws against unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, intimidation, murder, etc...  Use those to punish people who bring guns into the court house for diabolical purposes.  And those things might happen less if the perp thought there was a good chance that half the court room was armed... *



Again, it's a little late to just punish them after the fact.  You can't follow them around waiting for something to happen.

Also, wasn't a politician murdered recently while in the session.  And, by the way he was known to carry and gun AND had one on him at the time.  It didn't stop his killer...

The laws are meant to protect people.  I'd rather have a better chance of stopping someone from commiting the crime in the first place than to wait until it's done.  In these cases, it's easy to have the law in place and to me is reasonable.  If you have drugs in your possession, you broke the law.  

As far as guns are concerned, local laws dictate what you can have and if you can carry it on your person.  That's the people speaking for themselves.

Yep, I would think my children would be responsible enough to not try drugs and to stay away from guns.  That is my responsibility to instill that in them.  But I can't protect them from somebody else's son who thinks it's OK to snort and bring a gun to school.  I want the government (the people) to help protect my kids from that.

Just my .02.

WhiteBirch


----------



## SenseiBear (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by lvwhitebir _
> *Unfortunately then it's a little late for the victims.  I'd rather people not do it at all and I'm all for keeping them illegal....
> 
> The laws are meant to protect people.  *



The laws are supposed to protect our rights, not people.  Freedom is dangerous.  Every law enacted to make someone "safe" (which is rarely the effect, regardless of the intent) removes some of the freedoms that the US is about.  In the choice between freedom and safety, I choose freedom.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 15, 2003)

Well, I just think it's a little unfair to allow one substance and not another. There's too many people killed on the roads from alcohol related accidents. But that won't stop someone from becoming an elected official, right Mr. Kennedy?

But find a joint on a person, and whoa, lock 'em up for 2-10.


----------



## Ender (Dec 15, 2003)

just putting in an interesting thought.....in talking to several doctors, they all have told me the drugs, alchohol and tobacco use account for 50-66% of the people in a the hopsital at amy given time. Think about that....that money there could finance a health care system just from the savings.....hmmmmm


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Well, I just think it's a little unfair to allow one substance and not another. There's too many people killed on the roads from alcohol related accidents. But that won't stop someone from becoming an elected official, right Mr. Kennedy?
> 
> But find a joint on a person, and whoa, lock 'em up for 2-10. *



Can't argue with you there.  I'm for banning alcohol too...

WhiteBirch


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 17, 2003)

Well, isn't it obvious? We're a danger to ourselves and each other. We can't have these freedoms. What we need then is more legislation.

Oh, there's a new disease out there as of todays news. Check-out Rage. We need a law against that too. I guess it doesn't fall under anything existing on the books.


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 17, 2003)

Wasn't prohibition a model of social engineering for the rest of the world to emmulate?
"Sometimes the good is the enemy of the best."


----------



## don bohrer (Dec 17, 2003)

If every person was responsible, level headed, and always looking out for the best interest of others we wouldn't need barriers against behavior considered unacceptable. Drug use being legal or not has its own issues. Laws do not prevent unacceptable behavior, but enforce values put in place by like minded individuals. Those same elected individuals represent us in passing legislation that binds our collective values into society. 


don


----------



## bug (Dec 18, 2003)

"Laws do not prevent unacceptable behavior, but enforce values put in place by like minded individuals"

True, but aren't we just talking about the tyrrany of the masses?  If society were made up of 3 people for example and two "like minded individuals" got together and decided it was in societies "collective interest" to kill the third and passed the appropriate law. Would that be OK ?b/c that is what you are essentially saying.  This is mob rule, what gives the majority the right to trample on the rights of others?  I would say you are violating the rights of the 3rd person and that the function of the law is to protect individual rights.  As Ayn Rand said, "the smallest minority in the world is the individual"  It is the rights of the individual we must protect, and those rights include anything with the exception of infringing on the rights of others. (ex the right to do stupid things like drugs provided we are only damaging ourselves)

Good topic, lots of good posts


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 18, 2003)

Well, first of all--basing your arguments on Ayn Rand is exactly a case of the famous building your house upon sand.

We have many rights that are blanced against others, and against the rights of the community as a whole.

But the nice thing is, one needn't get into the politics, nutbar libertarian or otherwise.

Our drug policies are based on truly laughable science, 1930s witch hunts, people scrabbling for political advantage, and vindictive ignorance from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. So, all ya gots to do is to get at the lousy science and explain this madness in its historical context. 

regrettably, then the vindictive ignorance kicks in--and i's unclear whether things will ever really get changed...


----------



## bug (Dec 18, 2003)

Mcrobertson,

My argument is not based on Ayn Rand.  I used that particular quote b/c it communicated efficiently what I was getting at.  Jefferson and Madison came along long before Rand.  But you are right this is not a debate about politics or Ayn Rand.  I sense that you may not have a good grasp of Rand's ideas but that is another disscusion for another thread on another day.

I must agree with you about drug policy though It is and has been a witch hunt driven by holier than thou folks and nanny state advocates trying to tell everyone how to live their lives.  and it is madness!  You make a good point, look at the history.  We look back at prohibition and the violence and bloodshead it caused and say what a dumb idea.  Hopefully at somepoint we will look back at drug prohibition the same way.

Appreciate the feedback


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *But that won't stop someone from becoming an elected official, right Mr. Kennedy?*



Or Mr. Bush.  Be fair.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Or Mr. Bush.  Be fair. *



I am. Pres. Bush didn't kill anyone driving drunk.


----------



## don bohrer (Dec 18, 2003)

> This is mob rule, what gives the majority the right to trample on the rights of others?



I guess I am one of those ultra conservatives that step all over the rights of an individual when it comes to illegal substance use. 

I do this by voting for individuals that I think will represent my views. 



> We have many rights that are balanced against others, and against the rights of the community as a whole.



I think Robert hit the nail on the head with this. 

don


----------



## SenseiBear (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bug _
> *But you are right this is not a debate about politics or Ayn Rand.  I sense that you may not have a good grasp of Rand's ideas but that is another disscusion for another thread on another day.*



Oh, I think he'll give ya a pretty good Ayn Rand discussion...


----------



## SenseiBear (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bug _
> [BThis is mob rule, what gives the majority the right to trample on the rights of others?  I would say you are violating the rights of the 3rd person and that the function of the law is to protect individual rights.[/B]



Exactly - which is why it is a good thing we don't live in a Democracy, I think our Constitutional Republic is a much better idea.  We have rights.  They are enunciated.  They must be protected from the majority whim.


----------



## SenseiBear (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I am. Pres. Bush didn't kill anyone driving drunk.  *



Actually, I think he did...  I don't have hard info on it though - but didn't he get arrested in the 70's because he hit and killed someone with his car while drunk?  Then the record got expunged... (thanks dad, if true)..

I could be wrong (once in a psych class I referenced some study I'd read... then years later re-read Stephen King's The Dead Zone, and realized THAT was my source... oops ), so I'll have to go see what I can find...


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by SenseiBear _
> *Actually, I think he did...  I don't have hard info on it though - but didn't he get arrested in the 70's because he hit and killed someone with his car while drunk?  Then the record got expunged... (thanks dad, if true)..
> 
> I could be wrong (once in a psych class I referenced some study I'd read... then years later re-read Stephen King's The Dead Zone, and realized THAT was my source... oops ), so I'll have to go see what I can find... *



Hehe..quite possible. Or maybe you've watched the Toxic Avenger one too many times?


----------



## bug (Dec 19, 2003)

> We have many rights that are balanced against others, and against the rights of the community as a whole



Yes, our rights are balanced against the rights of others.  "the community" in its  self does not have rights, It is merely the amalgamation of many individuals.  That's why I always cringe when I hear politicians say something is for "the common good" or "the good of society"  when they are advocating something that will erode individual liberties.
Sensei Bear has got it right on,  a true democracy does indeed make our rights beholden to the whim of the majority.  Unfortunately this "war on drugs" has been popular, so lawmakers jump on the band wagon and you get compliant courts and suddenly, what every happened to the 4th ammendment?

And mabey libertarianism is "nutbar"  but some called our founding fathers nutty too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I am. Pres. Bush didn't kill anyone driving drunk.  *



...that you are sure about...

The Bushes are very good at covering up their pasts.  For instance when they had certain parts of National Archives burned to "save room."


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bug _
> *And mabey libertarianism is "nutbar"  but some called our founding fathers nutty too. *



I don't think that libertarianism is nutbar.  I wouldn't implement all of that philosophy, but some of it makes sense.  For instance, have the smallest government possible in order to cut big money and corruption out of the picture.  If you look at a grand majority of what our government does, its nothing but give away after give away to the rich.  I'd rather keep my tax money then see it go to them.  

With that being said, the "War on Drugs" is totally corrupt.  Follow the money to the source and take a look at side businesses that our brutal corporate dicator friends in third world countries are running.  Drug money is pouring into the country all of the time and it ends up in surprising pockets.  I think we need to stop this "war on drugs" and kill the cash cow.  Only education and opportunity will keep our citizens on drugs and out of the trade.  Most of the ex-dealers (locked up) that I've dealt with at my job, none of them wanted to sell drugs.  They did it because there was no other way for them to get ahead.

This may be an urban legend, but I heard that every 100 dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it.


----------



## bug (Dec 19, 2003)

Upnorthkyosa,

I strongly agree with you about having the smallest govt possible.  I would take issue with the assertion that all govt does is give away to the rich.  If you mean that the govt gives subsidies to special interest groups and corporations also pork barrel spending for rich interests. I agee and you are correct.  But most of the give away is the redistribution of wealth from "the rich" to everyone else.  Remember for gov't to give it must first take.  Just look at the progressive  tax code and and the huge entitlement bureracracy we have (talk about corruption)  But again another topic for another thread.  

I am with you 100% about the war on drugs.  Just think of the waste of your money and mine, also all the lives ruined from it, not to mention how it is used to usurp our liberties.  Drugs are a symptom of underlying socio/economic issues, we treat them as a root cause.  This is a good topic for liberals, libertarians and conservatives (at least the ones who want govt out of our private lives) to find some common ground.  kind of nice for a change.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bug _
> *Upnorthkyosa,
> 
> I strongly agree with you about having the smallest govt possible.  I would take issue with the assertion that all govt does is give away to the rich.  If you mean that the govt gives subsidies to special interest groups and corporations also pork barrel spending for rich interests. I agee and you are correct.  But most of the give away is the redistribution of wealth from "the rich" to everyone else.  Remember for gov't to give it must first take.  Just look at the progressive  tax code and and the huge entitlement bureracracy we have (talk about corruption)  But again another topic for another thread.  *



Have you look at the latest appropriations bill?  Have you read about corporate welfare?


----------



## bug (Dec 19, 2003)

> Have you look at the latest appropriations bill? Have you read about corporate welfare?



Absolutely, I have no argument with you there at all.  The subsidies and corporate wellfare is shameful.  But entitlements and social programs as a percentage of gov't expedatures are larger than corporate wellfare.  It is all just wealth redistribution and I oppose it either way.  The bottom line is the federal government is getting into all these different areas for which it has no constitutional mandate.
To try to stay on topic though, shouldnt drug laws be up to the states and not the federal govt? Should the DEA even exist?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bug _
> *But entitlements and social programs as a percentage of gov't expedatures are larger than corporate wellfare.  *



I think this discussion is on topic.  It's tangental, but related.  Entitlements and social programs include a lot of things that have nothing to do "wellfare"  for instance many conservative pundits consider the EPA to be a "social program."  As far as corporate welfare is defined, many give aways are not included under that lable.  Spin spin spin.  I hate politics.


----------



## bug (Dec 19, 2003)

I have heard many conservatives bash many agencies and bueracracies like the EPA but never have heard them refer to them as entitlements   That's a stretch dont' you think.? But you are right,  politics is all about mis labeling and spin.And I do agree about corp wellfare, it takes many sneaky forms not always called corporate wellfare.  But to my earilier point, as a % of total govt expendatures, real entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Wellfare, etc...) are a much greater percentage than corporate wellfare of any description. But that aside they are both big problems.  I hate politics too!  I like an open honest discussion of the issues but politics intentionally clouds or spins the issues and facts to comply with a certan agenda. The're all bums vote em out!


----------

