gmerkt comment worthy of thread

[billdeserthills]

Did you read that article?

Unfortunately, I did

 

[baker3gun]

I'd take a slightly broader view. It's not so much left winning, right losing, or even about freedom to bear arms.
It's a decent into regulation of most people's daily lives. Restriction of all real freedom. You know, the good ol Nanny state.

I agree.

IMO, the American people need to work together to halt that trend.

It probably makes sense to pick specific issues and focus on each in turn. I started thus thread because I'm interested in hearing other people's views on a challenging aspect of our right to arms. And working towards some kind of consensus position that most people can live with.

Complete deregulation is the freest alternative, but it's not what we already have, and it's not where we are going, and it doesn't seem to be a viable political objective.

 

[baker3gun]

We know the mentally infirm should not be toting a gun but who's gonna check everybody?

Expanded: "We know murderers and the mentally infirm should not be toting a gun but who's gonna check everybody?"

That's the general question.

Who and how, without eroding the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Some days, I feel like asking that question.

On even fewer days, I feel like thinking about how to answer it.

 

[billdeserthills]

Expanded: "We know murderers and the mentally infirm should not be toting a gun but who's gonna check everybody?"

That's the general question.

Who and how, without eroding the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Some days, I feel like asking that question.

On even fewer days, I feel like thinking about how to answer it.

This seems to really work

U.S. Marshals Round up 106 Violent Gang Members - Liberty Nation News

During the operation, 106 fugitives were apprehended from 41 different gangs. Nine of those were national gangs, while 32 were native to New Mexico.

www.libertynation.com

 

[baker3gun]

There may be a trade-off at some point. A required psych exam in order to possess a firearm. In such a scenario, you would still be permitted to have a gun, but you'd have to demonstrate (to the practical extent possible) that you aren't crazy.

US Code 18 section 922 only covers known "crazy" people, and on the 4474, the government relies on the applicant to be truthful. Not always reliable. But the bigger problem are the unknown crazy people. Which a psych exam would expand knowledge of. I'm glad I don't have to decide any of this; I no longer have a dog in the fight because I won't be buying any more guns. But I sure as heck don't want to get shot by a crazy person.

It's a very real problem that many people on the left believe the only way to keep crazy people from having guns is to eliminate ownership for all.

Hello gmerkt.

In the 1780's, nearly all political discourse pertaining to the idea of a union of states or a national government addressed and acknowledged a well-known and widely-held belief: power corrupts, government always trends to abuse and oppression, tyrants always emerge.
They knew these things then, and they attempted to design a new system of government that would prevent it.

We know the same things now. The rule of law alone has never preserved freedom or human rights or equality anywhere in human history. Defenseless people are always either vanquished or subjugated.

The great object is that every citizen be armed. Else, the citizens will eventually be subjugated.

Informed people are rightfully suspicious and wary of government power. Our founders were. We are.

I cannot imagine a scenario in which a government empowered to control which citizens are permitted the right to arms, would not eventually abuse that power to disarm the people. History basically guarantees that is what would happen.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to alleviate public concerns about potential abuses of govt power, and thus invite broader public support for and public confidence in the fledgling national govt.
The purpose of 2A was to prevent the very thing you propose: a govt ability to control who has a right to arms.

Our founders very well knew how England had most recently accomplished that control: only people who were allowed to hunt were allowed to have guns, and only nobility was allowed to hunt. Simple and effective.

The above are historical facts.

Conclusion: the solution to crazy people shooting schools is NOT a government sanity test as a prerequisite to gun ownership.

It has to be something else.
We as a society can shoulder a large part of the burden. Rather than relying only on government systems to determine who is and is not crazy, we as a a people can take action on our own to develop citizen habits and systems for identification and management of mental illness. Referring to my OP, I mentioned a shared societal responsibility and duty, rather than a purely government responsibility and duty.
I also mentioned FIX NICS. If we develop good systems for identifying and managing crazy people, it does no good if their name doesn't go on a list of prohibited persons.

Prior to government intervention in healthcare, charity and citizen orgs helped poor people obtain healthcare. It wasn't perfect all day every day, but it worked well enough.
Today, govt is heavily involved, and the situation is not broadly better. It is broadly worse. Bankrupt system, less access, lowered quality standards, fraud, etc.

You can say the same thing about mental illness. The people need to take a more active role in some parts of management of mental illness, especially identifying and intervening with authorities before things spiral out of control.
When it comes to warehousing people unfit for society, that infrastructure is a govt responsibility. All societies have crazy people. All governments need to have a role in helping to warehouse them.
When it comes to rates of mental illness, we need to look in the mirror. As another poster already mentioned, we cause much of the mental illness that plagues us. The connection between mental illness and drug abuse is indisputable. The stress of toxic use of information systems and desensitization to violence are contributors. Etc.

I agree with your last sentence.

IMO - a solution to that problem is to counter lies with truth, to spread knowledge and truth. Getting rid of all guns will not reduce or prevent crime or sensational attacks by crazy people. It will only end freedom. Lose-Lose.

 

[baker3gun]

Oof .
Man , it's tough to say but I think everyone should be able to access any object or substance in the normal course of living their lives. Citizen is a big word that some just don't want to recognize.

Yup , full auto, cocaine and opiates, 200mph cars ,sex robots. Freedom is an absolute.

Send me the flames, I know they're on the way.

Multiple authors from the Enlightenment period disagreed with you. They defined freedom as the right and ability to do anything that doesn't harm other people.

Meth addiction harms society. No societal benefit arises from Meth addiction. Banning meth and punishing sellers and users doesn't meet the test of infringement on freedom.

Guns don't cause crime. Gun ownership does not cause crime. An armed citizenry is the only pillar of lasting freedom. Banning guns does meet the test of infringement on freedom.

As a proponent of the right to arms, I try to keep pure libertarian philosophy at arms length from my right to arms philosophy, because, as we discuss in this thread, the right to arms probably should not be an absolute guarantee for every person.

 

[baker3gun]

I know im not swaying anyome with that... But thats not my intent with the post...

But here among fellow shooters it should go without saying. There is no room for wishy washy gun owners in the pro-2A movement.

I get what you are saying, and I don't disagree.

One of the things that gun-forum members have never agreed on, and therefore never been able to unite behind, is the definition of a wishy-washy gun owner.

I've been a GOA member. They made a name for themselves: "No Compromise". It attracted talk and support. Many members of gun-forums like that simple idea.

GOA has never reached 500,000 members. They make some impact. They submitted some amicus curiae briefs.

But they never got big enough to create real political clout.

Neither did NRA. I don't think NRA ever reached 5 million members.

I don't have stats handy, but there are about 80 million old people in America and their largest advocacy org has 38 million members. Clout.

There are about 80 million gun owners in America, and our largest advocacy org has never reached 5 million.

Maybe we need to try again, and from a position that can attract 25 million members.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Would you want fleshlights guy hanging around the Girl Scouts meeting hall?

Echoing gmerkt - would you sell him a gun?

I'm not suggesting that bondage attire in a supermarket is "the line."

Rather, the general topic is this: should we draw a line as to who is allowed to keep and bear arms?
If so, where should we draw it?
Do you think criminals should be debarred the right to arms? Which ones?
Do you think crazy people should be debarred? Which ones?
Do you think citizens should decide where to tell govt to draw those lines, or just sit back and let govt draw them willy nilly wherever?

Answering the 2 questions, criminals (felons) and the mentally ill should and currently ARE prohibited from legally purchasing and owning firearms. So that line has been drawn, and drawn, on and on .
Were we as a society willing to completely scrap all restrictions on personal firearms ownership, and begin anew with laws restricting certain individuals from said rights, then yes.

How can we establish a line in the middle of a mess of intersecting lines?

Picture striping a highway after it's just been paved. I'm talkin fresh asphalt.
That's a conversation about "lines " I'd be interested in.

 

[Knobgoblin]

I have to say I'm loving the real discussion that's happening here.

It's nice to have people disagree, and still talk to one another without trying to convert the other party. Or worse yet, focus on the little things we say in jest or as an obvious exaggeration. Gmerkt and Baker3 , I'm glad you aren't the type to ignore those among us who are mildly abrasive.

 

[gmerkt]

The great object is that every citizen be armed. Else, the citizens will eventually be subjugated.

I wonder how many contemporary citizens appreciate that right in America. We are now in the era of free everything courtesy of the government. Free rent, no danger of eviction, free money, endless unemployment benefits, free food, freedom to set your tent up anywhere you want, etc. Which is courtesy of the government. How can they see this benificence as a bad thing? How can they appreciate their need for constant vigilance against an institution that might want to fully dominate them?

Government, per se, isn't the root cause. Because the "government" as an insitution consists of people. But people can clan up, band together, call it what you will, to form groups. These groups then pursue their ideas and interests within the institution of government. Some people within the institution use it as a means of forcing their way of thought on others. In turn, they sway less powerful people to their point of view. The controlling elites don't even have to be on the actual government payroll; many pull strings in the institution of government without being a formal member of it.

So what happens with the gun ownership issue is that some groups within the institution of government want to ban guns. I suppose in part, because they view gun ownership as a threat to their power base. They want to use the tool of government to consolidate their hold on it.

What happens is that these mass shooting episodes give the elites in government (for lack of a better term) an excuse to bang the drum for more gun control. It might just be that requiring a psych evaluation for gun ownership would reduce the potential for mass shooting episodes. Which would then reduce the amount of propaganda that government elites could use to push for gun control. Or this might be wishful thinking. An abusive government might pervert the intent of the psych eval, turn it around and use it as another tool of oppression.

There are other political dangers for gun ownership lurking down the road. Taxation might be one of them.

 

[shibbershabber]

I get what you are saying, and I don't disagree.

One of the things that gun-forum members have never agreed on, and therefore never been able to unite behind, is the definition of a wishy-washy gun owner.

I've been a GOA member. They made a name for themselves: "No Compromise". It attracted talk and support. Many members of gun-forums like that simple idea.

GOA has never reached 500,000 members. They make some impact. They submitted some amicus curiae briefs.

But they never got big enough to create real political clout.

Neither did NRA. I don't think NRA ever reached 5 million members.

I don't have stats handy, but there are about 80 million old people in America and their largest advocacy org has 38 million members. Clout.

There are about 80 million gun owners in America, and our largest advocacy org has never reached 5 million.

Maybe we need to try again, and from a position that can attract 25 million members.

If attracting more gun owners means even more compromise... and when we say compromise, it really means caving in... Because a true compromise means both sides walk away with something...

When was the last time that happened?

Im not opposed to compromise... but it has to be meaningful. But thats not what the other side wants and not what "our side" has the balls to fight for.

So the idea of a gun rights advocacy group that stands for watering things down even more just to attract more "gun owners" who mostly fit the category of 'bought a gun but never takes it out' and wouldnt care if the .gov forcibly 'bought it back' just doesn't strike me as a great idea.

Lowering standards to attract disinterested sellouts is counter productive

 

[baker3gun]

I'll take a stab at the dilemma your proposing. To me its simple, I would be more open to regulations if the regulations were not based on a prohibition model.

So what line should exist is one that puts the responsibility on the person committing the crime, not the honest lawful gun owners. We can talk about preventing crazy people from getting guns when the anti-gun politicians stop passing laws that disarm the honest good guys with guns, eg: SB544.

By prohibition model, do you mean a system of regulations that prohibit certain things, or do you mean the ban mentality associated with Prohibition?

Responsibility - totally agree.

It may be a good idea to talk about how to prevent crazy people from getting guns while we stop our govt from enacting stupid policy.

***

Personally, I'm not open to many "regulations" at all.

All gun control laws are passed under the guise of crime prevention. Big words: "All" and "guise".

If our society didn't have a desperate need for crime prevention, anti-gunners would have a smaller support base.
The sad irony of course is that guns don't cause crime and gun control laws don't prevent crime.

The only gun control law ever passed that has any chance of impacting crime is the Brady Bill, which could actually help keep guns out of the wrong hands, if it was supported and enforced.

The left likes the Brady bill and wants to expand it, but they don't want it to actually work, which is probably why it is so poorly supported within government. They don't want the Brady bill or any other kind of law to actually reduce crime, because without crime, they don't have any other false pretense to lean on as justification for restricting your right to arms.

I guess this is how we end up in a situation where I get prosecuted for loaning my neighbor a deer rifle, but no one ever gets prosecuted for NICS denials and straw purchases. (I like to point out that a every denial is either a crime or a mistake, and the number of mistakes is very low.)

Anyway, I don't want gun regulations, I want people regulations. We already have most of what we need in place, we just need to start enforcing, and warehousing.

 

[The Heretic]

Answering the 2 questions, criminals (felons) and the mentally ill should and currently ARE prohibited from legally purchasing and owning firearms. So that line has been drawn, and drawn, on and on .

Define "mentally ill". A very wide blanket statement.

I am borderline Aspergers. Up until 2013 Asperger's Syndrome was still in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

IIRC, there was some shrink who said people who own guns are mentally ill by definition.

Most people who are mentally ill are not dangerous.

 

[baker3gun]

You cannot legislate personal responsibility. Period. This is a purely factual statement.

Personal responsibility is something I take for my own actions. You or I cannot force anyone to be responsible.
Punishment for lack of responsibility doesn't reverse the irresponsible actions.

Sure you can, we are all held responsible to follow the laws. You cannot legislate common sense but you can make someone accountable to any law. I don't really care how we philosophically look at the subject, as long as the law doesn't affect the lawful person.

Yah, parsing.

Try "Accountable."
Think "Accountability."

Punishment is a price and a disincentive and a deterrent.
You can punish anything you want. You can punish good behavior.

In America, we don't hold people accountable for their actions, instead, we tell them it's okay because they are a victim of something, usually racism.
In America, we don't punish criminals. We avoid arresting them, we plead them down, we warehouse them in crime schools, and we early-release them.

You can legislate the living snot out of those two issues, and we need to, soon.

If Knob and Koda represent opposing views, I'm totally with Koda on this one.

I have no problem at all locking criminals up for decades in a regimented system of labor camps with mandatory education and training programs and a long list of conditional release requirements.
I love the idea of unfailingly holding people accountable for their actions.

 

[baker3gun]

The OP said:

My goal would be to make Brady/NICS work now, and spend ~20 years effectively improving management of crime and mental illness, and then scale back or eliminate background check requirements after we bring crime and mental illness under more effective control.
I should say this: I am interested in solutions that are politically viable. I like the idea of nullifying Brady over night, but I don't think that is a politically viable solution.

The problem with this is that the Government never backs off on any authority it has been given. There are instances where they have been forced to back off by the courts, but never willingly.

For example, look at the policy of not enforcing shoplifting laws. This is not the government "backing off." It is the government modifying policy to achieve a goal (the eventual imposition of totalitarian rule) by using that particular power. Call it "passive-aggressive."

The best we could hope for is holding the line at the current level of background checks, while pushing for improvements in mental health and holding criminals accountable.

Thanks for your response.

We are self-governed. We retain the power, but only if we organize it and apply it.

Not to be offensive, but I find your outlook sad and weak. "The best we could hope for is holding the line now and hoping they don't take more from us."

I disagree.

I say we gang up on our govt and make them fix nics under threat of termination without pension, and make them stop welfare, and start building courtrooms and prisons and mental hospitals.

 

[baker3gun]

How you present yourself when in public in regards to firearms ( or knives ) is a important consideration.
As seen from the thread that was closed ....you will be judged.
When doing anything in public with firearms , like it or not...you now represent all gun owners in many viewer's eyes.

Perception is also something to consider..how you see what you are doing...how you mean for it to come across....may be completely different to how another person views it.

Plus since almost everyone nowadays has a cell phone with a camera...
Your picture may become the next internet meme..and with clever use of photo shop...it could easily be spun or made to look like something other that what you intended.

Having to take and pass a psych eval , before buying a firearm...is wrong.
Too easy to be abused and the questions can be tailored for a certain result.
And...if that is required for one Right...what is to stop it from becoming required for all of our Rights...?
Andy

Thanks.

Succinct.

I appreciate your response.

 

[baker3gun]

...As for the second amendment to the Bill of Rights:

I have often made it clear that I believe the Second Amendment applies to "arms" - in short, everything the government has with regards to "arms", then every "consenting adult" has the right the "bear" those "arms".

In 1780, yes.

In 2020, the people have a secondary (as opposed to primary) role in national defense, and the concept of short-term, non-tyrannical standing armies has been proved out, and weapons technology has advanced, and I'm not sure I want the "hip-hop is Satan" farmer who lives next to the softball fields to be able to buy an Abrams or a Phalanx or a TOW or a daisy cutter.
IMO, maybe the citizen right to arms shouldn't be protected for every arm available to modern govt.
IMO, the line exists somewhere around man-portable and man-deployable.
I'm a believer in the merits of 100 million riflemen. Even if only 20% of them are competent, no govt in the world can even begin to survive the time, expense, effort, and attrition required to take them out.
In the future, i want this level of capability to extend to the new technology necessary to take out armored bots.
The great object is that the people be armed. Effectively.
If all we had access to today was slingshots, we'd already be subjects of the socialist left.

The exception I would make would be NBC (Nuclear/Biolgical/Chemical) arms, and for those I believe the government should not have those either.

China is bad. They are an authoritarian regime with zero concern for liberty, rights, or equality of their own people. They have nukes. They want more ground and more power.
A good society should be armed with nukes to serve as a deterrent to China and other bad nations. Otherwise, they will make us their bidges.

Now for the grey areas: convicted felons, mentally incompetent, persons who have threatened others.

Convicted felons who have served their time (not including those on parole - they are still serving time), a good case has been made for their right to defend themselves too, including in the case of an unjust tyrannical government. This is especially true of those felons who were not convicted of violent crimes against persons or property (violent crimes against property would be like blowing up a building with nobody in it).

Mentally incompetent - if a person is so mentally disturbed we can't trust them with guns, then we can't trust them with a car or knives or many other things either - they should probably be held in a facility where they cannot harm the general public. Most people who have mental health problems are not violent towards others. That said, it is a grey area.

I agree with all of that. My suggestion: get a new classification system for crimes.

---

The fourth amendment to the Bill of rights:

"It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail" - Thomas Jefferson

---

As the OP of the referenced thread. I did not originally intend to question the person's right to bear arms - even though when such was brought up, I did indeed to that. But that was just my speculation that does not carry the weight of law, and I did not intend that the individual's appearance should carry the weight of law.

OTOH, would I sell a firearm to a person with that appearance? Probably not. There is no law that says I must, even if I was an FFL and a proprietor of a firearms store.

Well said. Well done.

The personal judgment of wise men is an undervalued commodity in modern society. The freedom to exercise that judgement is important to preserve.

I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Define "mentally ill". A very wide blanket statement.

I am borderline Aspergers. Up until 2013 Asperger's Syndrome was still in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

IIRC, there was some shrink who said people who own guns are mentally ill by definition.

Most people who are mentally ill are not dangerous.

Question 11.f on form 4473.
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective, or been committed.
..

Not sure what happens if you answer "yes" , because I've only ever truthfully answered no.

I assume that answering yes halts your purchase of firearm. I could be incorrect.

 

[baker3gun]

This is an interesting topic. I think the broad issue is an ongoing societal decay wherein human life is cheapened to the point where 54 people are shot in one weekend in one American city and now let's check in with Sally for the weather.

Check. Where is the outrage?

We have replaced a social contract that at once required civility, personal responsibility, and self sufficiency with one that now enables extreme narcissism, blame shifting, and boundless entitlement.

Not just "Check." I am definitely going to plagiarize this somewhere. Excellent! Thanks!

In my view this sea change in societal mores has enabled a generation or two who are permitted to remain in Freud's anal stage well into adulthood: The genesis of both cancel culture and Karen culture in the context of helicopter/lawnmower parenting has created a culture in which young adults attending institutions of higher learning, for example, cannot even handle being exposed to ideas that challenge their myopic little world view and whom require safe spaces where they literally are issued Play-Doh should they inadvertently have been triggered by a lecture that challenged their delicate egos.

LOL!
Anecdotally, my wife and I were not full-on helicopter parents, but we were probably smallishly whirly-bird parents. We homeschooled. Our kids went to good colleges. The girl is presently mid-20's living the life of a person who wants to embrace peer perspective and the leftist garbage that accompanied her engineering degree, and experiencing the mild personal stress of repeatedly recognizing (on her own) that it all crumbles against the foundation and fact-based knowledge and awareness that we imparted to her as she grew up. By 30, I expect she will be a full-bore force of truth and integrity and applicable knowledge, even if that's not exactly what she wants right now.

Have faith! Quite a few of them emerge shiny, to take up the gauntlet of freedom and carry it forth. Amen !

The mere thought of another person acting out of compliance with their rigidly-defined outlook is literally impossible for them to process and in turn they act out. Acknowledging a vast oversimplification, the spectrum of this acting out runs from passive aggressive Karening to shooting up a school. When social derision meets extreme narcissism, sparks are guaranteed to fly.

Look at me! Look at me!

Social media is a direct outgrowth of this phenomenon. It posits that the world deserves my brilliance and I deserve to be loved for sharing it. And in the process, it enables the worst elements of extreme narcissism to take hold. And what happens when I post a picture of my dinner and only get six likes? Well, naturally, I go shoot up a school.

Again, well said! Thanks! Good language, useful consideration.

So now add easy access to firearms to the mix. While it is true that a firearm is a very efficient means of delivering lethal force, it is still an inanimate object, inert until activated by a conscious being who decides to activate it. The good news is the vast vast majority of responsible adult gun owners will never use a firearm for nefarious purposes. The bad news is it only takes one to cause a really bad day. I'd like to think every single member of this forum is in the former group. These machines of which we on this forum are so enamored are amazing feats of engineering, able to concentrate kinetic energy on a specified vector to meet the objective of destroying our intended target — and from quite some distance! These tools in fact can liberate the oppressed, feed our families, and even build nations. And they can also be used to murder 54 innocent people at a country music festival in 45 seconds (one of whom happened to be the daughter of a friend and colleague).

But even if the magical gun fairy came down and turned every firearm on Earth into a bouquet of flowers and erased all knowledge of firearms ftom human memory, we're still stuck with the twisted hearts of two generations of feral hominids who've never been told "no." They can still go down to Home Depot and rent a delivery truck to mow down dozens of innocent strangers like the guy in New York... who was only stopped by — wait for it — a good guy with a gun.

To this I add the following: the fastest way for Lanza to perpetrate his crime against those victims was a knife and a backpack with 5 ziplock bags of gasoline. Stab the teacher, throw the bags, light a match, every kid in that room would have been dead much faster than him walking around shooting each of them in turn.

The gun is not the problem. Lanza and his parents and all the people in that community who knew for years that Lanza was a whackjob: they are all collectively the real problem.

I'm always an advocate for more guns in the hands of good guys, and no guns in the hands of bad guys. The challenge is the bad guys are just that. Since they've demonstrated their unwillingness or incapacity to follow the rules, removal from society until they are no longer capable of posing a threat to the innocent is the only way I can think of to insure bad guys don't have guns. Since that seems unlikely as our so-called leaders are now doubling down on woke narcissism, I suppose the best course of action now is to make sure there are more of us than there are of them and that we are equipped — morally, ethically, legally — to respond if god forbid it is ever necessary.

I suggest the smartest action is to unite. Not unite with guns and kill the oppressors and their stupid supporters. Unite much earlier with ideas and numbers, and peacefully defeat the morons using the mechanism we have been gifted with: self-governance. The vote.

Thanks.

Obviously I agree with your perspective, but importantly, I truly value your ability to communicate it effectively.

Truth is a massive weapon when wielded by someone who can articulate it.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Yah, parsing.

Try "Accountable."
Think "Accountability."

Punishment is a price and a disincentive and a deterrent.
You can punish anything you want. You can punish good behavior.

In America, we don't hold people accountable for their actions, instead, we tell them it's okay because they are a victim of something, usually racism.
In America, we don't punish criminals. We avoid arresting them, we plead them down, we warehouse them in crime schools, and we early-release them.

You can legislate the living snot out of those two issues, and we need to, soon.

If Knob and Koda represent opposing views, I'm totally with Koda on this one.

I have no problem at all locking criminals up for decades in a regimented system of labor camps with mandatory education and training programs and a long list of conditional release requirements.
I love the idea of unfailingly holding people accountable for their actions.

I have over used my favorite Duterte photo , but he is here again.
If you agree that it's possible to punish good behavior than you ought to expect it to happen. Extra judicial murders of suspected drug users (not just dealers)
is normal in Philippine cities. Police death squads at midnight are a very real, documented offshoot of hardline, zero tolerance drug policies.