In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Border guy,Do you ever see yourself winning this war?"Complaining about your friend doing time for having white powder. Try again after your best friends pregnant sister is hit and killed by a driver high on Meth or Cocaine. I've seen it. Again.....Where's the good in making drugs available to the public?"People are killed all the time by drivers. not drunk,stoned or anything else. Happens. Do you really think that there would be more people using drugs. They are everywhere. yet peoiple still make the choice not to do them. Yes, if you kill someone while wasted. Jail. but if that same person wants to go home and watch tv with his choice of fix, so be it. We all know I'm not looking to legalize DWI,murder or anything of the sort.But you have to see you are poissing in the wind after all this time on the drug war.Like I said. they sell crack 1/2 a block from the city police station.So come on. are you really doing that great a job?Scott
Not that far out Salzo.How about we ban caffeen.no more caffeen, I bet you'd buy your coffee beans from someone. I don't know of a gov't worker that wouldn't snap on someone without that coffee.One drug or another. it's a choice. Is it really all that far out on the cancer cure?We can make a few billion dollars on a cure, or we could string them along forever and make trillions.That's business. look at enron.when the walls came tumbling down. you see who made out like a bandit.We the top of the heap get all this money. you get gone.far out?I think not Scott
This is why pot will never be legal. http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0103/forfeiture.html Unconstitutional federal asset forfeiture laws have sealed our civil liberties in a cash cow for the enforcers of this B.S.What if we allowed this same type of thinking to apply to all crime? Forfeit your car for speeding?
To get a good glimpse of among other constitutional abuses, asett forfeiture laws, check out the book; THE TYRANNY OF GOOD INTENTIONS. Fascinating book that shows just out of hand the government has become.
Happiness is a warm gun
Scott,Why bother taxing people when you can take their money at gun point? Everyone gets mad when taxes are raised. But who cares if the government steals money from a few dope heads?
However, I would not use ASETT FORFEITURE LAWS to illustrate why drugs should be legal, or why the government does not want to make them illegal. The Assett forfeiturelaws clearly show how the government, and the people, have absolutely know regard for the constitution.
Happiness is a warm gun
Salzo. it's fiction but"unintended consequeses" is a good one too.Travelor had a good post above. And he was right in his comparisons. Drugs or guns. America is about freedom. Not having the king of England in our houses. Yet here we are?As long as you commit no crime while you are drunk of high. leave them alone. They aer only hurting themselves.And you are correct on the constitution. What is that? been gone for quite a few years. just a little chunk here and there. Scott
LMAO Smokey.I just like to get a kiss first.In the whole time I was out partying and stuff. I never broke any law.other than their "just say no" law. Which in my opinion was not illegal in my America.Scott
BTW Border. you might dislocate your shoulder from all that patting yourself on the back "Drug Users by definition are irresponible and I'm supposed to trust them to make resonable decisions? That's Moronic!!!" Is this your definition? or is this an actual fact?you know. they build the bridges you drive on, pick up your trash, clean up after us.and do all of the jobs we don't want to.Everyone I knew when I was out there getting high, worked.Some refuse of course. But do not speak in absolutes. like you've interviewed every person who has ever done drugs.that being said. back to the issues.the DEA,ATF,and many other in the enforcement end of this equasion act as if they have been there and done that. Well aparently you have not.a drug enforcement officer works with 2 things. threats of jail to some kid who got caught.and luck.They call it investigation.LMAO. Not hard to go out and find drugs to buy is it?So we use informants who are the same as the people you are going after.a lowball on the totem pole.except the informant has free reign.your job is at stake,well the DEAs anyway.the gov't will still have plenty of other rights to trample on when they are gone.Scott
Ghee Scott,I'm begining to think your high on something now, you've have actually answered every post on the thread.And you sound paranoid, this is a sure sign of someone on substance abuse, I hope I'm wrong.Anyhow, we are not going to get anywhere with this subject, its been nice kicking it around and stating the same ole positions, that weve all done before.But I assume your a libertarian, or from the Southern Party, cause both parties use their enshrined logo as their centerpiece for for stating their position of:"Everyone ought to be able to do what they want," and then insert " as long as they don't hurt anyone else"So, tell me what do we do with a person who has been arrested for possession in the past, who commits a felony while under the influence, again?? or the drunk that kills again driving drunk?I would rather they be in jail where they were to begin with, than to see them get out to cause another death.A death prevention is better than going easy on these irresponsible people.
true we will not agree.But you mention drunks. yet we still sell alcohol for them to go out and do it again. What's the difference? There is none!Scott
Oh yeah, About the answering all the replies. I asked for them to reply.Least I could do is answer. I'm at home on vacation. (busted my hip) I have nowhere to go Scott
Scott is keeping this on top because he very much wants to discuss the "injustice" of not legalizing heroin on our gun board. Give a man x amount of alocohol, and only a small percentage will become addicted alcoholics -- most will be able to remain social drinkers, because there is a genetic element that does not appear in everyone's DNA which plays a role in making certain individuals alcoholics. Give a man x amount of a drug -- crack or heroin -- and 100% will be physically addicted beyond the power of choice in a short time. These drugs are illegal for a very good reason. The man takes the drug, then the drug takes the drug, then the drug takes the man. Addicts (whether the alcoholic, allergic to alcohol, or the addict, on hard addictive drugs), do socially unacceptable things whether they choose to or not. Their behavior has many shades of variability in the details, but addicts on drugs or alcohol are antisocial in the extreme, destructively so. They may assault people (loves and/or strangers), or may they pass out and burn down a house with a cigarette, or they rob to live and/or feed the habit, or they prostitute and/or carry diseases, or they screw up important jobs when they can get them, or they wreck vehicles when they can drive at all, or they borrow their parents' money until they're in the poorhouse, or .... ad nauseum, ad infinitum. They're eventually always running, always insisting on their independence and intelligence, while always leeching and leaning for support on the effort and earnings of others, in and out of jails, free clinics, hospitals and mental health centers trying to figure out what's really "wrong" with them. And this they call freedom. Legalizing addictive drugs makes no more sense than cancelling all penalties for alcoholics and drunk drivers. If you take something that affects you "from the neck up" such that it produces behavior that should put you in handcuffs and maybe you or somebody else in an early grave, that something needs to be controlled and you need to be controlled. The truth is, addicts don't have any rights. Eventually, some cop, some judge, some doctor, some nurse, some jailer, or some payroll officer decides what they'll do and when they'll do it, where they'll spend the night, what they'll wear, whether they'll be tied down or in handcuffs, whether they'll have a surgery or not, and whether they can even make a phone call. Addicts give up their rights when they get hammered and lose the ability to control themselves, their behavior, their mouthes, their actions, their body fluids, or their hallucinations. I speak as someone who has spent a minimum of 35 years of my life involved in the matter, inside and out. Addicts have the only disease on the planet that actually claims out loud to the addict and everyone else in earshot that it isn't a disease. "I could stop if I wanted to; I just don't want to!" There is no such thing as social heroin use. There is only anti-social heroin abuse, and it is not victimless. If you're addicted, your head is not on your side, buddy. Don't believe a word it says, except when that little voice whispers, maybe I really should get some help....
"The 2nd Amendment is about security, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
A little clarity here...I do not try to compare guns to drugs....just dawned on me that the number of drug related crimes comitted with guns would drop drastically if there were no reason to commit them.southern thinking?I am a northerner, and you must be a racest or biggat to make such a statement. I didn't borrow that creed from anyone...I just know what it should mean to be free. I think you have admitted that you are against freedom by making such statements. And are acting like an agent of oppression to support such Illegal laws, just as those who are eroding away what few freedoms we are left to believe that still do exist.No, I am not a junkie. and contrary to popular belief, nerve (ie brain) cells have been shown to be regenative, albiet at a slower pace. I did not say that crimes against others should go unpunnished. AS LONG AS YOU DON"T HURT ANY OTHER PERSON WHILE DOING THAT THING.By all means punnish offenders of people according to their deeds.And encourage people to do drugs, so they can get financial aid for colledge? No, if you recall, I stated that drug taxes could be used to inspire youth to stay off drugs, by offering greater scholorship rewards to those who stay clean..You sure know how to twist a persons words around....do you take lessons from peta, or B Klinton? Or are you mostly just conserned for your employment changes mandated by a possible change in law...talk about paranoia....
keep lots of extra uppers for your ar..you can change often enough to keep the thing from over heating...what ever caliber fits the moment..~Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
Give a man x amount of a drug -- crack or heroin -- and 100% will be physically addicted beyond the power of choice in a short time. These drugs are illegal for a very good reason. Sir. Have you ever tried heroin or crack. If you are weak minded enough to not let it grab you. You are just an addict. and something will grab you. I smoked crack. I didn't get hooked. I still worked a 50 hr a week job. and took care of all of my resposabilities.Unless you have for yourself tried any of these. you have no clue as to their effects.per -se."Addicts (whether the alcoholic, allergic to alcohol, or the addict, on hard addictive drugs), do socially unacceptable things whether they choose to or not. Their behavior has many shades of variability in the details, but addicts on drugs or alcohol are antisocial in the extreme, destructively so."Have you ever thought that maybe they are anti social because of this witch hunt?all of the rest of your statment sounds like you are assuming I'm talking about no laws at all. Come on.I give you more credit than I should have.We all know what happens when you kill,hurt,rob,rape,shoplift,and on down the line.What would having the drugs regulated and not MOB run accomplish?CONTROL!it's pretty simple to see.My generation and some of the elders out there are killing this country in the name of saving it.It's just a matter of when all will understand.Prohibition breed violence!Scott
This issue should be of some concern to gun owners. When your private ownership of firearms is deemed "socially unacceptable" by the majority and the guys with the "black helicoptors" come to our houses to seize them along with the rest of our property, maybe then we'll all see the correlation. But by then it just won't matter anymore, now will it?
yes, they should. what will they decide to prohibit next?one right is just as important as any other.All we have here with this war is losing them.they came for the .......then there was noone left to speak for me, comes to mind.Scott
offeror,Heroin is physically addictive, cocaine in not.But even with a heroin addiction, people can live productive lives. Great Britian used to have a program (I don't know if it's still in place) where heroin addicts could get a doctor's prescription for the drug--such people live lives NOT consistent with your view of addicts.Your argument indicates that you think "drug abuse" is caused by "drugs".This is the same type of absurdity I hear from those who argue that guns should be illegal--they suggest that somehow the "gun" causes criminal behavior. They argue the same as you: "People cannot be trusted; the GOVERNMENT must tell people what "stuff" they can posses and what "stuff" they are incapable of handling."
competent(?)one --Rats in a lab given the choice between cocaine drip, food and water will go after the coke ceaselessly, to the exclusion of the other options, until they shrivel up and drop dead. Humans do the human version of the same thing. One fellow of my acquaintance smoked coke for 3 days straight without ever moving from the center of his living room carpet, even to relieve himself -- at the end of the binge he was rescued from the spot wherein he was surrounded by an almost perfect circle of fast food crumbs, trash and plastic baggies and bottles of his own excrement. If coke is not addictive and I don't have a clue, the world is flat and man will never fly, not to mention that the founders of CA (Cocaine Anonymous) must be victims of the mother of all misunderstandings. Addiction is a disease that tells people they don't have it. It robs people of the ability to differentiate the true from the false. Hence the old joke, "how can you tell when an addict is lying? His lips are moving." The other old joke that comes to mind: "How do you tell the difference between an alocholic and a coke or heroin addict? Answer: The alcholic will steal your wallet; the addict will steal your wallet and come back and help you look for it." The third and final old joke (these survive because of the truths recognized within them): "A lady is in the funeral home where her husband is laid out in a coffin. A guy comes up and says, 'what did he die of?' She says, he was an addict. The guy says, did he ever try AA or NA? She says, looking shocked: 'Oh nooo -- he wasn't THAT bad.'" If you ever have a friend with one of those friendly little non-addictive cocaine habits, you can tell them authoritatively that if they ever get to Fort Wayne, Indiana, you know someone who knows where they can get some help for that.I give scott credit for pointing out he was only talking about the possibility that decriminalization might improve things, but given that a substance is for all intents and purposes 100% addictive (and causes mental impairment) to the point that the user must near-overdose just to get high, it's unlikely that easier access would do anything other than increase the size of the addicted population, a miserable prospect. At least for all the addictive qualities of cigarettes, smokers won't be in handcuffs or the ER at the end of every night. Neither will social drinkers. Alcoholics and addicts, on the other hand, can guarantee no such thing, and often quite the opposite. In fact, they will have little or no control of how the night ends. Want to legalize that?As for this issue being "the nose of the camel" regarding gun control, there is no correlation. It is interesting that the DEA is a separate organization from the BATF, isn't it? Controlled substances have properties that guns, tobacco, and alcohol simply don't have -- hence the difference in handling. Many law abiding citizens are able to make responsible, socially appropriate choices to use guns, booze and tobacco for recreation. Government regulation is a fact of our existence, but all are deemed reasonable for the law abiding citizen. Hard drugs, on the other hand, outside of prescription use, have no place in recreation, because recreational use is largely a myth. There is no real body of evidence that the majority, or even a large minority of users can remain social users. The drugs are heavily addictive -- as much or moreso than tobacco -- and they screw up the mind until the drug wears off, making those under the influence a danger to themselves and society. Responsible gun owners, tobacco users, and social drinkers don't exhibit those traits. Trust me on this one folks. Those who try to make drug law on a par with gun law in terms of danger to American freedom are guilty of nothing more or less than fuzzy logic -- not fatal, but not rational either. [This message has been edited by offeror (edited 04-03-2002).]
Again I will point out. it is happening every night just as it is.I am not saying that the death of these people won't happen. they can't guarentee it now. right?Surely the swing in the addicted population would go up for a while. just as alcohol did when prohibition was repealed.Then it would drop and level out to a controlable problem. Just as alcohol.Fact is.it would stop all of the violence associated with the dealing of the product.Make trillions in tax money we have not seen a dime of,And hopefully have enough for all these pie in the sky star wars crap. all without me. the non drug addict paying more and more in taxes for them to piss away.I'd rather see these people get help if they get hooked,I'd like to see 4 yr old kids not being shot through walls for some guys $5 debt .I'd like to see the kids out here actually have an education with a diploma and actually be able to read. I'm tired of all the taxes I have to pay, and you too. All for nothing.Scott
Civil Libertarians Must Oppose Drug Prohibition AND Disarmamentby Ari ArmstrongAs Martin Luther King, Jr. once put it, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." One cannot attack some civil rights and hope to retain others. Our civil liberties are interdependent. When one article of the Bill of Rights is threatened, all are threatened.Unfortunately, power elitists have effectively divided the American civil rights movement into two warring factions. Those on the traditional "left," such as the American Civil Liberties Union, denigrate the civil right to keep and bear small arms, while those on the "right," such as the National Rifle Association, demand that ever more non-violent drug offenders be warehoused in America's prison system.The only winners in this conflict are those who control the machinery of the expansive state. The losers are the Bill of Rights and the people it was intended to protect. If the civil rights movement in America remains fractured, with various factions constantly ripping each other to shreds, it ultimately will be conquered and replaced by those who clamor for authoritarianism.Blinded by dogma and bigotry, representatives of both sides of the civil rights divide demonize each other and compete in advocating stiffer laws infringing the favored rights of the other side. Too many civil arms advocates blame social ills on drug users and stigmatize those who call for an end to drug prohibition. Meanwhile, many who favor a repeal of drug prohibition demonize gun owners and propagate flagrant lies about civil arms.Yet both sides are ultimately fighting for the same cause: to restore civil liberties and return to a more peaceful, less corrupt society.Those who oppose prohibition realize that anti-drug laws don't achieve the desired results. The drug war has not made American streets safe from drugs; instead it has made drugs more dangerous and it has perpetuated gang warfare. The unintended consequences of drug prohibition have taken a heavy toll on American society. Yet many who oppose drug prohi-bition adopt the utopian dream that gun prohibition will somehow work to the betterment of society.Those who oppose disarmament laws realize such laws don't stop criminals, but instead empower police agencies to harass innocent citizens and diminish the civil right of self-defense. Yet many who oppose disarmament laws blindly call for harsher drug laws, even though both types of laws result in unintended bad consequences. The Constitution is in tatters because of the war on drugs and the associated war on guns. Nowhere does the federal Constitution empower Congress to restrict either drugs or civil arms. Because of drug prohibition and the resulting war on guns, eight of the ten articles of the Bill of Rights have been flagrantly violated.The First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion has been overturned, insofar as a religion wishes to use a non-legal drug in its sacraments. The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms has been all but ignored. The Fourth Amendment right to secure property is smashed as militarized police forces bust down doors in the middle of the night to find "illegal drugs" and "illegal guns."The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process has been overrun as drug and gun warriors seize property without so much as filing charges. The Sixth Amendment right of a jury trial is similarly voided. The Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel punishment is abrogated when non-violent drug and gun offenders are locked away to be gang-raped in prison for sentences exceeding those meted out to many murderers.The Ninth Amendment no longer protects other rights "retained by the people;" the Tenth Amendment no longer delimits the scope of the federal government. The command-and-control policies of Washington, D.C. reign supreme.Drug prohibition has always been the prime cause of the war on guns. Following alcohol prohibition in the early 1900s, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, the first piece of federal legislation limiting civil arms, explicitly because of the gang violence caused by prohibition. (The need to reassign prohibition agents to other tasks also may have played a role in the passage of that 1934 Act.) More recently, Bill Bennett and George Bush banned the importation of certain rifles explicitly because of the violent black market caused by drug prohibition. Today, a leading cause of homicide and street violence is drug prohibition, problems which will not be solved by passing even more prohibition laws on guns.Both the drug war and the gun war have always hurt minorities and the poor the most. The NAACP used to urge its members to bear arms in order to defend against the violent racists of the KKK. The Jim Crow laws against blacks included disarmament laws that left black people defenseless against violent racists. Indeed, one motive for passing the 14th Amendment was to overturn disarmament laws aimed at blacks. Other disarmament laws intentionally hurt other immigrant groups.Today, minorities in the highest crime areas, where police protection is often weakest, most urgently need their civil rights of self-defense. Yet disarmament laws and the additional costs and legal hurdles they bring hurt poor communities especially.Because of drug prohibition, America incarcerates a greater percentage of the population than any other nation on earth. Violent felons walk free in order to make room for more non-violent drug offenders. Police are more likely to bust a black drug offender than a white drug offender, and the courts are more likely to put the black person in prison for longer sentences. Drug prohibition exacerbates the already difficult problems of poor and minority neighborhoods.If civil libertarians of the left and civil libertarians of the right will stop demonizing one another and join forces for the betterment of all people, the resulting political movement will be unstoppable. We will restore America to its rightful place as the defender of minorities < all minorities < and of individual civil rights. If the sides continue in their myopic and mutually destructive struggles, both may lose to the police state. It's time to stand together.
offeror,You are again assuming that the "drugs" are making people behave irrationally. I would argue that those who turn to drugs for "recreation" are ALREADY cognitively "dysfunctional" in the first place--BEFORE they ingest the poison. (NOT to imply that the drugs aren't also affecting their brain/behavior.)Drug abuse is DUMB and the behavior only makes one DUMBER--but you are still confusing "cause and effect"; and also apparently do not understand the difference between a "psychological addiction" with a drug like cocaine and the "physical addiction" that takes place with a drug like heroin.And you are ONLY considering the extreme concentrations of drugs as ingested by abusers. In the case of cocaine, I have to think of how sick it is that our society does not even allow the terminally ill and/or extremely elderly to get prescriptions for either coca leaves or time-released cocaine.But I guess a drug that would cost pennies per dose, has fantastic pain-killing abilities with virtually no side-effects (for the terminally ill/elderly--who cares about "addictions" with this group) wouldn't be embraced by our pharmaceutical/medical "industry"--legal cocaine would put a lot of drug companies out-of-business!Of course it still comes down to the question of "Who owns you?" I come from the position that every person "owns him/herself." And from that position, people can do with their bodies as they choose--even if their behavior is "self-destructive", so long as their "self-destructive quest" does not endanger others.I think it is foolish to expect that banning certain plants and plant derivatives will somehow stop self-destructive people and keep the rest of us "safe".And isn't that the same (foolish) argument the "gun controlers" make? They argue, "Destructive people might get a gun and hurt us, therefore we must make guns illegal so that we can be 'safe'."[This message has been edited by competentone (edited 04-03-2002).]
That article was pretty absurd. Could one of you "legalize drugs" fellows explain how drug use is a right, that cannot be infringed upon? That article made quite a corrolation between the right to bear arms, and legalizing drugs. Can someone explain to me where in the constitution is the right to do drugs written. I am being serious-can you justify legalizing drugs by refering to the constitution?And please explain how denying someone the ability to do illegal drugs is an infringement on your civil liberties.
Happiness is a warm gun
salzo,"Nowhere does the federal Constitution empower Congress to restrict either drugs or civil arms. Because of drug prohibition and the resulting war on guns, eight of the ten articles of the Bill of Rights have been flagrantly violated."I believe this is the juxtaposition the author is making between guns and the war on drugs.Nowhere have I suggested that it is a right to do drugs. It is simply something that is outside the scope of the federal government.Can you show me in the constitution where congress was granted the power to regulate such things?
in my personal opinion anyone who uses drugs for recreational purposes is a drain (either present or future) on the recources of this country. ive seen to many meth-heads in the small (village) town i live in doing things that cost ME money to believe otherwise.and as for this * about not harming anyone else, they had better be damn sure they keep it that way towards me & mine or heads will SURELY roll
the hard stuff we do right away - the impossible takes a little longer
smokey- I cannot find anywhere in the constitution where the Federal government has the authority to regulate drugs. But at the same time, I find nowhere in the constitution an absolute right to do drugs. Do not sit here quoting the bill of rights, as some guarantee to do whatever you want "as long as no one gets hurt". That concept is nowhere in the bill of rights or the constitution. I know it is a popular misconception of the "libertarian" types that the founders envisioned guaranteeing rights to all citizens of the United States "as long as no one gets hurt", but that is simply not true, and it is not in anyway "guaranteed" by the bill of rights. That concept is "revisionist, libertarian history".There is an amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS numbered ten, which states THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.- That amendment right there explains why prohibiting drug use is not unconstitutional. I agree, that FEDERAL laws outlawing drug use, is probably unconstitutional. But if a state decides to have laws making drug use illegal, nothing in the constitution can be construed to prevent a state from doing so. I know that the "libertarian types" would probably use the ninth amendment, as a guarantee of the right to do drugs, as they do with their so called "right to choose" or "right to abort". But using the ninth to justify this belief that prohibiting drug usage is unconstitutional, clearly illustrates the "libertarian" and leftist total disregard for the intent of the bill of rights, and the constitution. The federal government, and the bill of rights was not set up as a "protector" of the individuals rights from the states; It was set up to prevent federal interference in those areas outlined in the bill of rights. It does not bar the states from making laws that might contradict what is guaranteed to be guarded from FEDERAL interference.I say make it a state issue. Most states would make drug use illegal. But if states like NY, CA, NJ, OR, MS, want to make drug use legal, then by all menas do so. But when the legalization of drugs in those states, cause those states to fall into the abyss, and to decay, do not come crying to some federal government, and federal tax dollars to bail youer * out of the self induced carnage that your precious "right to do whatever the hell you want as long as no one gets hurt", is sure to create.
Happiness is a warm gun
smokey-sorry. I did adress that last post to you, but it was only the beginning that was for your eyes. The rest of the post was for everyone else to enjoy.
Happiness is a warm gun
Get high on life, try it sometime, it's great. My family has been a victim of a drunk driver, my son almost died because somebody decided it was legal and ok to get into a car drunk. I can post the pictures again so you may see what happens to the other person when you get bombed and drive. I had an uncle who decided after a night of taking acid that the voices in his head he claimed to hear told him to ventilate his head with a .357 to place a loaded revolver in his mouth and squeeze the trigger. My mother used to work for an agency called Tri County Drug And Alcohol Abuse Commission. When I was little I used to go to work with her when school was out. I used to the druggies and drunks every day and they werent impressive. They was bums, on welfare and using tax dollars and court orders to come in for counseling. As a teenager I tried pot, didnt like it. Why do I want to smoke something that makes me paranoid and feel like I have been eating peanut butter sandwiches. I have seen the effects of drugs and booze. While I condone niether in my house you may do what you wish as long as you stay yhe hell away from me. I think public programs should have drug and alcohol testing. If you apply for welfare you should have to take a test. You will hollar about about illegal search and seziure, bullcrap. The state is not required to give welfare or any other handout programs therefore you are voluntarily applying for benifits and one of the requirements is you pass a test. If you are found positive, no benifits. In my own experiance, chronic abusers and addicts are not productive, therefore needing a handout and I do not want my tax dollars going to someone for buying thier dope or booze. I have strong feeling about this but I do not want to sound like a prude. Do what you want, stay away from me and any public assistance programs. One more thing, if I ever catch anybody trying to justify that junk to my kids, if I ever catch anybody trying to give or sell my kids that junk, you will find out why Sarah Brady is after us. I guarantee a short life for anybody pushing that garbage on my children. And also, how many kids read the threads on this site? Is it really a good thing to talk about on a pro second ammendment site? What if the powers that be see people wanting dope legalized on a site such as this? I didnt want to post on this thread but I decided to put in my two cents. Whether I made any sense to you or not, or if I came off as a biggot I don't care. There are some things I will not tolerate. I put up with a lot of crap I don't like but people numbing themselves into an existance that is niether produvtive or healthy for the rest of the people they come into contact with. You will also not get pity from me for any of the BUMS that have fried themselves into another world.
salzo,The United States Constitution doesn't "give us our rights". Our rights are inherent in us by our nature as human beings.Because you cannot find reference to "drugs" in the Constitution does not then mean that the government can control them.You have to remember what "rights" are; in simpliest terms a "right" is a "just claim"--it designates "ownership". When I say "I have a right to my own life" I am saying "I own myself". If I own myself, I can do to my body as I choose.By your logic, you are giving control of your body to the government. You are letting the government tell you what plants you can cultivate and what plant derivatives you can put into your body.barto,Ok, so drug abusers are harming you in an indirect way--they are costing you money. The same argument can be made with alcohol--so why not make alcohol illegal again?Or what about "fatty food"? People with heart disease are costing you money, maybe the government should regulate the fat content in food?Where does your call for the government to intrude in other people's private lives stop?
to each their own. Live and let live.one right taken away is an open door for us to lose more. In the constitution it says, life libert and the pursuit of happyness.Who gave the federal gov't the right to choose my happyness and liberty.One right is as important as another.If not, you are part of the problem in the police state of america. and when you get shot by the overzeolous cop or the dealer shooting 3 blocks away.Know that you help make it this way.Scott
competentone- I understand the Lockeian concept of being born with rights versus being granted rights by government.And I am completely aware that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights at all, but only guarantees rights that we are born with.However, I do believe that we the people put governments in place(via voting) to decide what limitations will be placed on the individual, and society in genenral. And those societies, are state and local societies. I think the bill of rights is a bill of prohibitions from federal interference. If a majority of people in a state decide that abortion should be illegal, either through popular vote, or Republican vote(however a state deems voting is appropriate),then that state has the right to make laws making abortion illegal. If a state decides that drug use is illegal via voting on that isuue, either through a representative government or popular vote, than that state has a right to have laws that make drug use illegal. I think some states would vote for legal drug use, though most would vote to make drug use illegal. Either choice is fine with me. But to have a federal law that syas that states MUST make drug use legal, is as absurd to me as having a federal law that requires abortion to be legal. I am perfectly willing to accept federaL LIMITATIONS ON THOSE RIGHTS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS(WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST PART of the 1st amendment that deals specifically with congress), but I think it is unconstitutional for a frderal government to decide what rights the states have to be forced to abide by(the right to take drugs, the right to smoke, the right to drink, the right to kill yourself, etc). The position of limiting rights(with the exception of those in the bill of rights via 14th amendment)is for the state to decide.
Happiness is a warm gun
7mm,If you really hate drug "pushers" as you claim, then try to put them out of business--fight to legalize drugs.There are literally dozens of legal chemicals that will alter the functioning of the human brain--the fact that people primarily use those chemicals that are illegal is because the illegal ones are "marketed" by "pushers". They are "pushed" because there are profits to be made when the supply is artificially limited by their illegality.Perfect example: caffeine can be concentrated and ingested in such a way that it can cause a "rush" similiar to (and as dangerous as) cocaine, but when was the last time some kid did it? Nobody has bothered to show kids how to do it since someone "pushing" caffeine can't "profit" from it. Drug pushers rely on the extreme profits they can make with the artificial limited supply of the illegal substances; legalize drugs and you take the profit out of them--and the drug pushers go away.(And in the "drug war" rhetoric, pay close attention; some of the loudest crys to keep drugs illegal are actually made by some very powerful drug "kingpins".)
salzo,Sounds like you are a democrat--you are arguing that the "majority rules" and can vote away the rights of another individual--just as long as that "majority" is a State or local majority and not a "Federal" one.
Comments
Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun
"The 2nd Amendment is about security, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
keep lots of extra uppers for your ar..you can change often enough to keep the thing from over heating...what ever caliber fits the moment..~Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
Happiness is a warm gun
the hard stuff we do right away - the impossible takes a little longer
Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun