guns and weed

[U201491]

Except for instant death to anyone selling any drugs, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem is, if we are to be free, we are to be all the way free. We can't allow the .gov to outlaw drugs and expect them to keep their hands off guns. They have no place in either.

Without government intervention, drug problems fix themselves. Those that can cope will, those that can't, won't. Why is it that gun owner's are all for a "survival of the fittest" scenario and want the government to buttout of everything except drugs? We cite The Constitution to protect our guns and then want unconstitutional and BS "laws" to protect us from drugs. I protect myself and my family from all things. Believe it or not, I do not need the governments help to keep me or mine safe.

It simply cannot be both ways. The government either gets out of your and my business, or they dive all the way in. I have no intention of opening any doors to allow more government intrusions. Whether that door is marked "firearms", "narcotics" or "child welfare", their involvement is never good for any American.

To some degree you are right, but the majority of shootings are done by criminals, gang members over drugs, money and turf. Without those the left has very little ammo to push their agenda.
Also people might clear their minds enough to stop voting in the leftist wack jobs.

 

[unklekippy]

To some degree you are right, but the majority of shootings are done by criminals, gang members over drugs, money and turf. Without those the left has very little ammo to push their agenda.
Also people might clear their minds enough to stop voting in the leftist wack jobs.

Again, I agree with everything you say there. I'm sure you will agree with the danger of the Left making your comment look something like this: "...the majority of the shootings are done by criminals, gang members over drugs, money and turf. If we outlawed firearms and legalized drugs, the right has very little ammo to push their agenda. Also(without the NRA) people might clear their minds enough to stop voting in Right wing wack jobs."

That is exactly why I am not OK with any laws pertaining to either. The case can always be made "for the children" in a country of 300 million. Chances are, a child is "endangered" by all sorts of things daily in America. A law to prevent them all would have us all in protective bubbles from birth.

Who is anyone else to tell a lovesick man how to mend his broken heart? Who is anyone else to tell an individual in chronic pain how to cope? Who is anyone else to let alcohol flow freely, but restrict narcotics(which, upon fermentation, booze of any kind becomes by definition.), even in the name of "recreation" or "relaxation"?

In the end, if we outlawed money, what would gangs have to fight over? I am much more fed up with the gang member than I am the drug. They shoot each other over cars and fancy rims, but no one wants those outlawed(anyone for outlawing the colors blue and red? How much blood has been shed over that?). The idea that America is responsible for drugs is exactly akin to blaming the crack addict while calling the dope pusher an "innocent victim of the addicts lust for dope.". How is it that the pusher is guilty in Chicago, but America is guilty for the dope pushed down our throats by the Colombian government? That double standard is baffling. Maybe Colombia should find a viable market that doesn't lead to their most famous and revered citizen laying dead on rooftop.

Coddling the addict on the local level and punishing him on the international level is still quite the contradiction. No matter the case, my life is and always will be better while I live like I'm free, accountable only for my own actions, no matter the blame someone like my own President tries to tie me down with.

 

[NoOne]

You cannot effectively legislate morality, whether it is drugs, prostitution, alcohol use, firearms ownership or prohibition, church attendance, abortion, or whatever. You can legislate all you want, but human nature being what it is, as long as there is someone wanting something, there will be someone willing to smuggle and provide whatever they want.

Even countries with very strict death sentences for drug smuggling still have drug smugglers and users. It is simple supply and demand.

I think a far more intelligent and effective method to saying "don't do that", is to educate people about why something is not in their best interest. Then, if they choose bad behavior, they own ALL the consequences, and it isn't on anyone to bail them out whether they overdose on drugs, or shoot themself from poor firearms safety. People have been questioning, and ignoring the "don't do it because we said so" for a very long time.

Prohibitions have been historically ineffective, whether that is drug use, alcohol use, prostitution, or firearms ownership. I find it interesting that even though prohibitions are known to be ineffective, there is always some legislator willing to pass another law in a futile attempt to bend someone's behavior to their interpretation of what is "proper".

 

[U201491]

Again, I agree with everything you say there. I'm sure you will agree with the danger of the Left making your comment look something like this: "...the majority of the shootings are done by criminals, gang members over drugs, money and turf. If we outlawed firearms and legalized drugs, the right has very little ammo to push their agenda. Also(without the NRA) people might clear their minds enough to stop voting in Right wing wack jobs."

That is exactly why I am not OK with any laws pertaining to either. The case can always be made "for the children" in a country of 300 million. Chances are, a child is "endangered" by all sorts of things daily in America. A law to prevent them all would have us all in protective bubbles from birth.

Who is anyone else to tell a lovesick man how to mend his broken heart? Who is anyone else to tell an individual in chronic pain how to cope? Who is anyone else to let alcohol flow freely, but restrict narcotics(which, upon fermentation, booze of any kind becomes by definition.), even in the name of "recreation" or "relaxation"?

In the end, if we outlawed money, what would gangs have to fight over? I am much more fed up with the gang member than I am the drug. They shoot each other over cars and fancy rims, but no one wants those outlawed(anyone for outlawing the colors blue and red? How much blood has been shed over that?). The idea that America is responsible for drugs is exactly akin to blaming the crack addict while calling the dope pusher an "innocent victim of the addicts lust for dope.". How is it that the pusher is guilty in Chicago, but America is guilty for the dope pushed down our throats by the Colombian government? That double standard is baffling. Maybe Colombia should find a viable market that doesn't lead to their most famous and revered citizen laying dead on rooftop.

Coddling the addict on the local level and punishing him on the international level is still quite the contradiction. No matter the case, my life is and always will be better while I live like I'm free, accountable only for my own actions, no matter the blame someone like my own President tries to tie me down with.

Yeah in many ways you are right.
I am against the drugs. I watched two people totally throw their lives away over them and to this day wish the person that supplied the the worst evil imaginable.
Legislation doesn't help.
That wasn't what I advocated.
We need a law reduction bill.
There is already hundreds of laws on every conceivable thing you can imagine and most are redundant.
Just busywork for legislators and attorneys.
As for those that distribute and smuggle drugs here I still feel the same way. Damn all of them.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

To some degree you are right, but the majority of shootings are done by criminals, gang members over drugs, money and turf. Without those the left has very little ammo to push their agenda.

Wait, you mean prohibition is creating a seedy underground of organized crime that bypasses laws and uses violence to maintain their illegal empires?

Remind me, what happened when they outlawed booze? Also, remind me how many gangs are still shooting each other over their bathtub gin?
Didn't they use that violence created by prohibition to push new gun laws? Something about 1934?

If you're worried about giving the "left" more ammo, you've got your strategy bass ackwards.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

"In the midst of this endless variety of opinion, what man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, "We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it? We have determined it, not only for ourselves, but for all others? And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion? We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by any one, and, consequently, no further acquisition of knowledge by anybody?"

Who are the men who have the right to say this? Certainly there none such. The men who really do say it, are either shameless impostors and tyrants, who would stop the progress of knowledge, and usurp absolute control over the minds and bodies of their fellow men; and are therefore to resisted instantly, and to the last extent; or they are themselves too ignorant of their own weaknesses, and of their true relations to other men, to be entitled to any other consideration than sheer pity or contempt."

Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes, 1875

 

[dmancornell]

Personally I wish everyone caught selling and smuggling drugs would get an instant death sentence.

Statist pls go.

The left has used drugs to demoralize, corrupt, make people into mindless sheep, or totally oblivious to self respect or respect for anything and have been a tool of Americas enemies since the 50's.

Meanwhile 6-packs of American piss beer are packaged in the red, white and blue. Selective morality for the win.

To intentionally damage or warp your mind with any of it is about the MOST ignorant thing anyone can do. Most countries that freely push this crap on America have severe punishment for posession and use within their own borders.
They make people unproductive, incoherent and do absolutely zero good for any society.
They have done a good job of destroying this country.

The average junkie has more net productivity for society than the average government "employee". Let me know when there is a war on government employees (one can dream).

I warped my mind with some caffeine this morning, admittedly I couldn't shoot any groups worth a damn afterwards.

 

[Stomper]

I warped my mind with some caffeine this morning, admittedly I couldn't shoot any groups worth a damn afterwards.

LMAO!!

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

^^This is so spot on.

It was and never has been about gun control or drug control, just control.

DING, DING, DING. We have a winner!!!

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"

From "The Demolition Man"

 

[U201491]

I definitly understand peoples opinions on freedom and I agree 100%.
On that note, anyone selling any of that crap to my kids or grandkids, your azz is mine ! That is my stand on the issue. Yes you can choose to do whatever you wish, but not push it onto those not old enough to comprehend the consequences.
Backhoes were made for people like that.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Exactly on target, Taku. My remarks are about consenting ADULTS, not people under age.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"

From "The Demolition Man"

That movie is great. Edgar Friendly is my hero.

I've seen the future, you know what it is. It's made by a 47 year-old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath, drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener".

 

[jluck]

Are we really putting marijuana (weed, pot whatever) in same category as meth, heroin, crack etc.? ("Hard drugs")

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Are we really putting marijuana (weed, pot whatever) in same category as meth, heroin, crack etc.? ("Hard drugs")

Crack, heroin and marijuana are all schedule one drugs, meaning that our elected officials have decided that weed is WORSE than meth. I didn't put it in that category, but we've been forced to defend it from that position.

Meanwhile:

While our federal government and most state governments continue to fight the use of cannabis for medical and recreational uses, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that overdoses on drugs not called cannabis accounted for 38,329 deaths in 2010, making it the leading cause of injury death in the United States. For people aged 25-64, more die from drug overdose than car crashes.

So, drug crime is increasing, drug overdoses are skyrocketing, and now I have to jump through hoops to buy allergy medicine that won't put me to sleep. As far as i'm concerned, they can shove this "war" where the sun don't shine.


I really feel like we're living in the dark ages of common sense in some regards.

 

[Redcap]

I read this thread while smoking a joint. Some of you are just hilarious.

 

[Kevinkris]

 

[kenboy]

Not sure it was a good idea for the BEAVERS to indulge in weed before their game yesterday....

 

[U201491]

I miss the days you could walk into about any hardware store and grab a surplus rifle out of the garbage cab display rack, walk to the clerk and slap down $5 to $15 and walk out the door......................

 

[unklekippy]

Anyone thinking that marijuana isn't a drug or isn't the same as "hard" drugs helps to sustain the stigma. Honesty is what is needed. On the anti side of things, please stop lying and telling people that drugs kill. People that can't control themselves kill. Anyone "addicted" to something can over do it. It's no different than people that drink too much Coca-Cola, coffee or alcohol. On the pro side, the denial of pot being a "gateway drug" is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. And I don't want to hear from people that say "I smoke(d) pot and didn't become a junkie, so your whole theory is blown out of the water.". Not only wrong, but stupid is that stance. Simply answer one question ad answer it honestly. How many people do you know hat started using meth, heroin, cocaine or whatever BEFORE they eve smoked pot? The startling answer(unless you are simply a bald-faced liar) is absolutely no one, with very rare and few exceptions.

The idea that it isn't even a drug is beyond absurd. Tylenol is a drug. Caffeine is a drug. Cocaine is a drug. Tetrahydrocannabinol is in fact a drug. In the case of all narcotics, the poison's(it actually is poison, no matter how much you enjoy it. I'm not an anti, but I'm also not a liar.) interaction with your brain is what creates the effect. Whether it is sugar, caffeine, THC, cocaine or heroin, they follow a lot of the same processes in your brain(or your interaction with your blood-brain barrier. Without that, very small doses of THC would be fatal.). Denying it or trying to change reality simply loosens your stance and position and makes even the good parts of your argument null and void.

Finally, my son will be 10 in about 2 weeks. At this point, if someone gave him pot, they would answer to me. Not me calling the cops. Me, myself and I. I haven't killed anybody since 2003, but that would give me purpose and drive to do so. Once the boy is 15 or 16, he needs to make his own decisions and live with the results of those decisions. At that point, if the boy chooses drugs with the ammo he has been given by his mother and I, so be it. At that point I believe he is responsible for his own actions and I would seek no recourse with the "dealer".

Pot is pot is pot is pot.....It really isn't a big deal, but we do eed to call it what it is and stop pretending that lies will help perception. It will only hurt it.