Should both drugs and guns be legal?

[DeLamar.J]

lets discuss this article. I completely agree and would vote for Mr.Dave Duffy for president, I would even be willing to give my left nut for this guy to be president. What do all of you think??

:rtfm:


Should both drugs and guns be legal?


by Dave Duffy


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. Orwellian?

• 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.

I am the father of four children and 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 free with some peril 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?

If the latter, then both drugs and guns must be legal.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Hmmm. I hadn't read something like that before: it has a different angle on the issue.

I think both guns and drugs should be legal, but regulated by the government. I feel the same way about prostitution, actually, for similar reasons. Although some might see the federal government as a kind of organized crime I would rather have governement regulations in place for these things.

Having said that, I would also change the legal system in this country - and make violent assault or homicide more severely punished than destuction of property. And if drug use were no longer illegal (some drugs I still think should be - like crystal meth. That will burn you permanently.), then all the people in prison right now for smoking pot would be out of there and napping at home.

Thanks for the post - that was interesting.

 

[DeLamar.J]

no prob. Im trying to get the word out there. Its time for a revolution! :mp5:

 

[Cruentus]

It boils down to this simple premise for me:

You can't regulate what someone wants to do with their own body; nor should you try to in a "free" country.

Guns are a different issue, but this applies to a lot of things, particularly drugs. You can't tell people what they can or can't do with their bodies. You can't regulate obesiety, drug use, alcahol and tabacco use, prostitution, suicide (not assisted but attempted), and so on. If you try, you will fail.

In terms of substances, you can regulate the distribution of unpure products, or even unsafe products.

You can regulate distribution to minors.

Hell, there is a lot of things that can be regulated, but what people do or put in to their bodies is not one of them.

Heck...and not to change the subject but it does apply, you can't regulate abortion. For the record, I hate abortion, and I think that it's kid killing regardless of what stage in the pregnancy. However, you can't regulate it because then you are regulating what a woman does with her body.

What happends when you try to regulate what people can/cannot do with their bodies?

If you try to regulate what people can/can't do, you will fail. Period. The reason is because control over ones own bodies is a basic human right which will be excersied regardless of what any entity tries to say. People will excersise this right, regardless of the costs.

So, what happenes when you DO try to regulate what one can or cannot do with ones body? For one, you violate basic human rights. For two, a black market is created to facilitate whatever has become illegal. Prohibition, our current drug war, and underground abortion clinics are examples of a black market. The problem with the black market is it can only be regulated by chaotic rule and violence. So, more people are harmed by a product of poor quality. And, like our "Drug war," more violence is created by the sheer fact that the substances are illegal.

So that covers that rule. You can't regulate what people can or can't do with their bodies, and if you try too you'll fail.

Now on to guns...

 

[pete]

that would be like selling guns and whiskey to the indians...

 

[Flatlander]

As long as people don't get high and go hunting...

 

[DeLamar.J]

As long as people don't get high and go hunting...

But that would be the best part, imagine vaporising a bear with an uzi :mp5:
:lol: just kidding

 

[Cruentus]

Guns...

Another basic human right is the right to self-defense. You can't take away this right no matter how hard you try. Well, if a criminal trys to rob you with a 7 inch combat knife and all you can carry is a 1/2 inch nail clipper because thats what legal, I am sorry, but your rights to self defense has been taken away. If the criminal can get a gun on the black market, and your not allowed to carry one, then your right to self defense no longer exists.

Furthermore, the second amendment allows us to do a few things. We were allowed to bear arms for self defense. We were also allowed to create our own militia so that states and locals could defend themselves. We were also allowed to bear arms so we could revolt if our government turned tyranical.

Taking away our rights to bear arms takes away our rights to self-defense, whether it be against our government, or against the criminals who will carry no matter what the law is.
:mp5:
PAUL

 

[DeLamar.J]

You are my kind of person man. I agree with you all the way.

 

[lonecoyote]

It sounds great, and sign me up, except that I think it's too late. The main function of our government it seems, is to perpetuate itself and grow more powerful. We are in a situation where every special interest group thinks that the answer to its problems is legislation, and more legislation.

 

[Flatlander]

In Canada, it's illegal to carry a sidearm. From a report by the Fraser Institute here: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

​

This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs 2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a), the history of gun control in both Canada and the Commonwealth demonstrates the slippery slope of accepting even the most benign appearing gun control measures. At each stage, the government either restricted access to firearms or prohibited and confiscated arbitrary types of ordinary firearms. In Canada, registration has been shown to mean eventual confiscation. As well, police search powers have been increased. The expansion of the state’s search and seizure powers should be taken very seriously by all civil libertarians concerned about the erosion of Canadians’ individual rights. Canada’s democratic institutions may also have been damaged by the transfer of what many would consider legislative powers to both the police and cabinet under firearm legislation.
​

​

​

​

​

​

We also seem to be revisiting the decriminalization of marijuana:​

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040721.wmarij0721/BNStory/Front/

I don't see a problem with that at all, in fact I think that it might free up some police resources to deal with more serious crime. In today's Globe and Mail online poll, the question was: Have you used marijuana in the last 5 years?

45% said yes, 55% said no - remember that these are news readers! I expected fewer newsreading pot smokers.

 

[Kane]

I don't think drugs should be legalized just because of a lot of people in prison. That is like people saying that there are too many people in prison for stealing instead of murdering people. A prison is for people who have committed all crimes, not just one type of crime like killing.

And about the guns issue. It’s true that there are more crimes with guns. Even though the argument for that is that once guns are banned people will find something else. It actually doesn’t work that way. Because using a gun is much simpler way to kill than taking a baseball bat and beating them. Physiologically it’s hard to go through with killing someone slowly. With a gun it’s much easier, and much easier on your head in the beginning.

However I think it is a basic human right to have weapons and self defense tools. Banning guns is like saying that more lives will be saved if we ban cars since accidents always happen and more people will be alive if there wasn’t cars. Many people die everyday from car accidents all over the nation. Does it mean we have to ban cars? Same thing with guns and the murders it can produce. Anyway it's our right to bare arms, as it's one of our amendments in the constitution.

=

 

[Phoenix44]

Should both drugs and guns be legal?

Yes. That way stoners would be armed.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

If the concern is somehow the two being mixed (drugs and weapons)...

a) that's already occuring

b) I'd rather face a stoner any day of the week rather than a drunk or someone whacked out on meth.

 

[MisterMike]

Guns...

Another basic human right is the right to self-defense. You can't take away this right no matter how hard you try. Well, if a criminal trys to rob you with a 7 inch combat knife and all you can carry is a 1/2 inch nail clipper because thats what legal, I am sorry, but your rights to self defense has been taken away. If the criminal can get a gun on the black market, and your not allowed to carry one, then your right to self defense no longer exists.

Furthermore, the second amendment allows us to do a few things. We were allowed to bear arms for self defense. We were also allowed to create our own militia so that states and locals could defend themselves. We were also allowed to bear arms so we could revolt if our government turned tyranical.

Taking away our rights to bear arms takes away our rights to self-defense, whether it be against our government, or against the criminals who will carry no matter what the law is.
:mp5:
PAUL

Woohoo!

:biggun: :lasma: :shooter: :apv: :sig: :enfo: :armed: :snipe: :rockets: :uzi: :ak47: :mp5:

 

[lvwhitebir]

Both guns and drugs should have some form of government control.

Drugs:
Just because we have trouble fighting it doesn't mean it should be legal. And it's not just an issue of your own body. People on drugs do all sorts of crazy things that affect others, such as driving. They also do a lot of crazy things in order to get their next hit. They also use drugs to prey on other people (eg Rohypnol). Should that all be allowed? Drugs also affect people later in life, well beyond last night's party. I'd hate to wake up in 10 years to find that over half the population is nearly brain dead because we let them have or do whatever they wanted.

Guns:
Yep, bad guys get guns. But we *can* limit that. I do think that you should be able to get one if you meet certain criteria, so what you have to wait a week a two. I personally hate guns, but I respect your right to own one. I don't want to respect the rights of a veteran criminal to own one.

WhiteBirch

 

[OULobo]

lets discuss this article. I completely agree and would vote for Mr.Dave Duffy for president, I would even be willing to give my left nut for this guy to be president. What do all of you think??

:rtfm:


Should both drugs and guns be legal?


by Dave Duffy


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. Orwellian?

• 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.

I am the father of four children and 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 free with some peril 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?

If the latter, then both drugs and guns must be legal.

I agree with the majority of what you passed along and I certainly agree with the general premise, but I don't think that the general public is in any way undermedicated, infact I would propose that we are very over medicated. Doctors hand out perscriptions for pain killers at the drop of a hat and only recently has the government even looked at the doctors as a cause. Most docs will give you codine or demerol for a head ache, because many want to promote the pharmacutical companies who want nothing more than to sell as much as possible. I also don't agree the idea the drugs on the black market promote use and sales, even with the increased drive to sell at higher prices. The possibility of criminal charges and the inflated cost are deterants as junkies can't afford to go on too many binges. The rest of the post sounds like the sound reasoning to me, and I'd buy into it.

I'm in total agreement with the whole gun issue. Viva La Revolution!!!

I personally think that a mild form of regulation on both issues is okay, like not allowing open sales of excessive weapons like RPGs or tanks and regulating drugs much like we do with alcohol.

Both guns and drugs should have some form of government control.

Drugs:
Just because we have trouble fighting it doesn't mean it should be legal. And it's not just an issue of your own body. People on drugs do all sorts of crazy things that affect others, such as driving. They also do a lot of crazy things in order to get their next hit. They also use drugs to prey on other people (eg Rohypnol). Should that all be allowed? Drugs also affect people later in life, well beyond last night's party. I'd hate to wake up in 10 years to find that over half the population is nearly brain dead because we let them have or do whatever they wanted.

Guns:
Yep, bad guys get guns. But we *can* limit that. I do think that you should be able to get one if you meet certain criteria, so what you have to wait a week a two. I personally hate guns, but I respect your right to own one. I don't want to respect the rights of a veteran criminal to own one.

WhiteBirch

All the "crazy things that people do on drugs", other crazy people do when not on drugs; violent crime, crazy driving, ect. Just because you make it illegal doesn't mean its going to stop. Law is only effective if you know it, understand it, and choose to follow it. If you put a restrictive law on the books, all you are doing is restricting the folks that choose to follow the law. Meanwhile those folks are hindered in two ways, 1) there conscience is restricting their freedom in following a law that they may or may not agree with and 2) their neibors who don't follow the law may choose to use that advantage against them. Using drugs as a weapon or a tool to prey on others is no different than using a hammer to do the same thing, but we won't outlaw hammers. Don't regulate or restrict the method, because they will find a new method; instead regulate or restrict the action. Don't make buying Rufinol illegal, instead make it illegal to give it to someone without their knowledge. As for a braindead public, welcome to Darwin's world, most sheeple are braindead already, something about the seventies. If you are stupid enough to choose addiction and not ever get help, then you pay the price for your actions.

As to guns, there is no real limit on it now. Veteran criminals can get guns cheaper and easier than ever, and any person who is legit can't. I recently posted an article here on MT chronicalling the situation a woman here in Cleveland was in, where her daughter was murdered and the murderer was coming after the mother. He was loose, and the police found out that he downloaded directions to the mother's house and he was spotted enroute to OH. If I was this lady, I would be pretty miffed if I couldn't get a gun for my protection for a week or two. Again I see the need for limits, I just think that those limits should only apply to people that have proven they don't deserve the right to own a gun.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14877

 

[DeLamar.J]

Hey, cleveland. Were close. mayby we will run into each other one day.

 

[Trent]

Nice discussions above. Neither guns nor drugs were regulated until the late 40's. The little "regulation" of automatic weapons back in 1932 was only for tax purposes. Pay your $200 to the Dept. of Treasury and you can own a machine gun. Anyone could walk into a pharmacy, no prescription, tell the pharmacist what their symptoms were and walk off with a cocaine solution or tincture of laudenum to ease the pain should the pharmacist deem it appropriate. Our way of life was not in danger, and I believe we did pretty well during that period preceding the prohibitory laws that were enacted if previous life and history has any real substance. Now, the people and documentation speaks of the mid and late 40's as the halcyon days of our country-- low crime, very few drug problems. Much like Prohibition, there wasn't a real problem with alcohol that affected society significantly as a whole until they made it illegal. At that time congress critters were a little more genuine, and individuals had more sense of freedom and "self" resulting in the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment eliminating the violence associated with alcohol as related to society in total.

It could very well be that the only reasons there are problems with "illegal guns and drugs" is simply because they have made them illegal. The real problems are with the individuals who harm others or others' property. A free society does not imprison folks for the pursuit of happiness regardless of the path should in not infringe upon others' rights of existance. A free society does not imprison folks for what they "may do" to others or the "potential" for harm. Life is fraught with risk and the potential for harm. Welcome to it.

What's more immoral, or "wrong?" Smoking a joint in your home with a .38 in the closet for defense, or kicking in the door of that person, seizing all there assets, placing the entire occupancy in cuffs on the floor prone (women, children) and imprisoning the adults under threat of death because somebody had illegal drugs and guns in the home?

 

[OULobo]

Hey, cleveland. Were close. mayby we will run into each other one day.

PM me and we can set up a lunch or you can come check out our school.