CA residents keep a look out.

imported post

nukechaser wrote:

Hmm...

The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

The right to use drugs: not so much.

Click to expand...

How is the cognitive dissonance not physically painful? I don't have the right to put stuff in my own body, even if it could hurt me? How far can that be taken? Should big greasy burgers be regulated?

imported post

FogRider wrote:

nukechaser wrote:

Hmm...

The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

The right to use drugs: not so much.

Click to expand...

How is the cognitive dissonance not physically painful? I don't have the right to put stuff in my own body, even if it could hurt me? How far can that be taken? Should big greasy burgers be regulated?

Click to expand...

Absolutely! And I will personally see to it that all the burgers are confiscated and disposed of properly!

IMHO, drugs are a victimless crime, until they aren't. Unfortunately, we don't always know when that lineis crossed. For example, see some of the videos showing parents giving their little 2-3 year olds hits on joints. That's just flat out wrong and the defenseless need defending, even in one's private residence. And I make absolutely no apologies about that. I will say that mariguana isn't that big of a deal, and can kind of see some legitimacy towards lienency, except when kids are involved, and unlike wine or alcohol, its in the air so containment is an issue.

So here's my 3 strikessolution in lieu of jail(tied in with UOC to stay legit, guns and drugs aren't a good combination...unless it's my drug...caffeine):

1st Offense:Mandatory10 day outpatient drug rehab,random testing for 6 months,temporary loss of OC and CCW for30days

2nd Offense: Mandatory 30 dayresident drug rehab (cannot go home), 1 year probation with monthly random testing, temporary loss of OC and CCW for 1 year

3rd Offense: Mandatory180 day resident drug rehab, work program, community service, then3 years probation with monthly random drug testing dates, temporary loss of UOC and CCW for 3 years

Special Circumstances: if under the influence and injures someone and has been either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time offender then no mercy. And by the 3rd offense, if a child is in the home then special care of the child needs to be arranged, not loss of child but maybe spouse or grandparent or something along those lines. If child is physically or emotionally harmed then again no mercy. A total loss of UOC and CCW permits.

Note: in all instances personal protection RKBA is still intact, just not with guns, they'll have to resort to knives or clubs or something along those lines.

imported post

nukechaser wrote:

FogRider wrote:

It's kind of amazing how fast gun owners will refute arguments against gun control and then turn around and use the exact same arguments for drug control.

Click to expand...

Hmm...

The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

The right to use drugs: not so much.

Click to expand...

The Constitution does not grant rights.... it limits what the government may do, and enumerates certain specific authorities it does possess.

Please cite the clause where the government was granted the authority to abrogate the individual's right to medical freedom?

And make no mistake -- that's exactly what we're talking about here. Most of the drugs which are illegal have legal medicinal analogues, and marijuana remains one of the few which -- despite being the best treatment for certain afflictions -- the government pretends has no medical value whatsoever. So, we're quite patently talking about the right to freedom of medical choice here.

When you discount all "drugs" which may be used at medicine, what's left? LSD? MDMA? Oh noes, acid is still trendy, and it's tearing out country apart!

Meth, cocaine, opiates, marijuana all are used medically.

Edit: I shouldn't even malign LSD so; it's creator, a man named Albert Hofmann, was to his death convinced in the drug's utility in psychiatric treatment. He was rather upset with the Learys of the world giving what he saw as a bad name to a useful tool.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

IMHO, drugs are a victimless crime, until they aren't.  Unfortunately, we don't always know when that line is crossed. 

Click to expand...

IMHO, carrying a gun for self-defense is a victimless crime, until it isn't. Unfortunately, we don't always know when that line is crossed.

My friend, may I politely I suggest you study the principle of non-aggression. It provides a system by which we can rationally make these determinations, and pinpoint the initiation of force.

It isn't always easy, but with drugs it's pretty cut and dry.

Is a minor capable of making informed decisions? Then no aggression is entailed. Is the minor incapable of such? Then pushing drugs becomes an act of aggression.

imported post

Looks like I missed a lot of lively discussion on drugs being a victimless crime (or not).

Alcohol is a drug. My father and my dad (step-father) were both alcohol addicts during my childhood. (Luckily dad got his life straightened out eventually; wish I could say the same for my 24-pack-a-day father.) I won't go into details, but let's just say that my first 16 years could have been much better.

People will do drugs whether they are legal or not (e.g Prohibition had no deterrent effect on alcohol consumption). The problem is that most of the damage done to the person and their families is a result of the justice system. First, the justice system creates "systemic violence" (discussed further below). The other injustice created is that a medical condition is treated as a criminal activity. We're throwing people in jail when they really just need medical and psychiatric care.


Systemic Violence:

At one time our country made this drug illicit. What happened during "Prohibition"? Bootlegging crime rings were born - at the time they were called "the mafia" or "mobsters"; now we call them street gangs. These violent groups (past and present) rely heavily on the illicit trade of drugs, firearms, and sex. To increase business, they did and do fight for territory, committing arson, murder, and other collateral damage to innocent bystanders.

One drug you will probably never find a gang member selling these days is alcohol. Why? There's no profit in it since Prohibition was repealed.

The War on Drugs is directly responsible for nearly all of the adverse effects of drug abuse. It's conscionable for it to continue. We're throwing peaceful people into prison, and funding the gangs that ravage our communities. The government's solution only inflames the problem.

Just say, "no," to the War on Drugs.

imported post

To try to steer this back on topic... this IS directly analogous to gun control!

CA has made several rifles illegal to possess. Gangs get these guns, and sell them on the street. Much like drugs, this illicit trade funds the gangs.

Also similar to drug prohibitions, gun laws land peaceful people in jail or prison. (Though maybe not to the same extent as drug addiction will, unless you have a gun addiction...)

The bottom line is that any ban - whether it be on drugs or guns - leads to systemic violence, illicit trade, and peaceful people being violated by the government.

No matter the subject - gun control, drug control, prostitution - we have to open our minds. Don't be afraid to question everything you have been told to accept as fact.

Free your mind.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

IMHO, drugs are a victimless crime, until they aren't. Unfortunately, we don't always know when that lineis crossed.

Click to expand...

IMHO, carrying a gun for self-defense is a victimless crime, until it isn't. Unfortunately, we don't always know when that line is crossed.

My friend, may I politely I suggest you study the principle of non-aggression. It provides a system by which we can rationally make these determinations, and pinpoint the initiation of force.

It isn't always easy, but with drugs it's pretty cut and dry.

Is a minor capable of making informed decisions? Then no aggression is entailed. Is the minor incapable of such? Then pushing drugs becomes an act of aggression.

Click to expand...

Carrying a gun for self-defense isn't a crime. Unless you're referring to the school carnage zones and the politicians fear radius (gov bldgs). And I think we'd both agree those are unconstitutional.

Thanks for the link, I read it.I believe that an adult should be allowed to do whatever they want when in the privacy of their own home as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. So if this is on some level the same as your principle of non-agression (and I think it is) then we agree.

However, when referring to minors as decision makers, lets look at that one. A minor is defined as: "under the legal age of full responsibility" (dictionary.com) therefore it isn't a big leap to say a minor is never capable of making informed decisions requiring full responsibility. That's why we call them minors. Now we can argue the age point of minors, but that's another discussion. And no, I never agree with prosecuting minors as adults, never...because they are minors. It's "having your cake and eating it to" law, and I don't agree with it.

I don't agree with laws that punish the law-abiding, and I hate policies enacted because one person screws it up for everyone else. Punish that person and leave everyone else alone. But I can have a beer, or glass of wine and not be completely under its influence. I suspect you can't say the same for certain drugs. (don't know for sure I'm not a drug user or pharmacist). However, if you could enjoy certain drugs (like alcohol) responsibly then I wouldn't be against it.

As far as medicinal use, I've been saying this forever (don't remember if I heard or read it somewhere)...a rich man's drug is medicine...a poor man's drug is illegal.

imported post

In any form of government where people can control power and influence you will run into people with hidden agendas.

Our police, security and law enforcement agencies need the problem to get worst, because what is the point of government agencies and their managers? To get more people and a larger budget.

The rights of people are always subject to limitation when they try to justify it.

Addicts will be addicted to something. For some it is pornography, others alcohol, and others heroin or gambling.

Having the right to decide and have it out in the open allows us to properly protect instead of sweeping it under the rug where it turns into a festering problem with larger ramifications.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

Carrying a gun for self-defense isn't a crime.  Unless you're referring to the school carnage zones and the politicians fear radius (gov bldgs).  And I think we'd both agree those are unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Well, I also think drug laws are unconstitutional.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Hiredgun30 wrote:

i dont agree with drug abuse is a victimless crime... if it was, there would be drug cartel voilence in mexico right now.. there would be law enforcement officers being killed by drug smugglers, there wouldnt be junkies o.d.ing,there wouldnt be junkies commiting street crimes to score drugs. there wouldnt be gang members killing people over drug turf. i really enjoy how their actions are because of a "disease"

what ever happened to personal responsibility??

the funniest one is what i hear from what i call "the marijuana scholars"...

no one has ever died of cancer from smoking marijuana...

Click to expand...

If drugs were legalized, there wouldn't be drug cartel violence in mexico right now... there wouldn't be law enforcement officers being killed by drug smugglers, there wouldn't be junkies o.d.ing (as frequently), there wouldn't be junkies committing street crimes to score drugs (this is a myth anyway; thieves steal, to pay for drugs or just new clothes, and non-thieves don't steal, whether they are addicted to drugs or not. Studies back this up.), and there wouldn't be gang members killing each other over drug turf.

And, the best of all, people wouldn't be able to blame inanimate objects for their own failings and utter lack of control.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

(BTW, I love how people talk about "personal responsibility" in the context of using the state to make responsibility irrelevant. All you prohibitionists want to turn this into a nation of children, and you're succeeding far faster than the leftists could ever dream. :quirky)

Edit: semicolon

Click to expand...

Lol if drugs were legalized there would be no drug cartel violence? Your right, those murderers would drive up at the same spot to a purchaser and say "Oh sorry, you can have this sale, we will take the next million dollar sale when it comes by, Ill just be moving on then.. maybe we can meet up for lunch next week fellow rival!"

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

My mom was hooked on drugs and it destroyed our family and we lost millions.

Click to expand...

The drugs didn't do that, your mom did it.

And selling drugs is a commercial transaction between two consenting adults. Any crimes associated with such an act are a product of prohibition, not something for which prohibition is a potential fix.

Edit: Oh, and +100 to CA_Libertarian, as usual.

-1000 to those who support government-initiated aggression.

Click to expand...

Well dont stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and pretend drugs arent sold to kids. K? thats all I really have to say about that.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

To try to steer this back on topic... this IS directly analogous to gun control!

CA has made several rifles illegal to possess. Gangs get these guns, and sell them on the street. Much like drugs, this illicit trade funds the gangs.

Also similar to drug prohibitions, gun laws land peaceful people in jail or prison. (Though maybe not to the same extent as drug addiction will, unless you have a gun addiction...)

The bottom line is that any ban - whether it be on drugs or guns - leads to systemic violence, illicit trade, and peaceful people being violated by the government.

No matter the subject - gun control, drug control, prostitution - we have to open our minds. Don't be afraid to question everything you have been told to accept as fact.

Free your mind.

Click to expand...

Take a step back.

Many people here with different opinions and I don't want to step on any toes though many here are here for the simple reason that we understand.. 'Guns in the hands of the righteous can stop the actions ofguns in the hands of thelawless'. Many are not here to debate the what if's of drug legalization.

They are not directly analagous as you say because..

Guns - bad part= choice to murder

Drugs- bad part= choice to abuse

We here agree that..

legalizing guns to law abiding citizens= raise chances to stop the bad choosers of murder

So with your direct analagy would mean...

legalizing drugs= raise chances to stop bad choosers to abuse the drug.

is that true? I don't believe so, butI could be wrong.

Although I don't do drugs, I don't agree with cops arresting individuals with drugs they were going to use personally. They were not caught in a crime of selling to a minor so let them go... unless they have previous offenses of course.

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

My mom was hooked on drugs and it destroyed our family and we lost millions.

Click to expand...

The drugs didn't do that, your mom did it.

And selling drugs is a commercial transaction between two consenting adults. Any crimes associated with such an act are a product of prohibition, not something for which prohibition is a potential fix.

Edit: Oh, and +100 to CA_Libertarian, as usual.

-1000 to those who support government-initiated aggression.

Click to expand...

Well dont stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and pretend drugs arent sold to kids. K? thats all I really have to say about that.

Click to expand...

I didn't. In fact, the rest of my argument goes something along the lines of that, when I was in high school, I had an easier time getting pot than alcohol. So, if there is really a problem with the pusher pushing drugs on kids, put the drugs in a liquor store, or a pharmacy.

How many liquor stores do you know who get away with pushing whiskey on children? How many pharmacies push cough syrup as a way to get f'ed up on 12 year olds?

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

legalizing drugs= raise chances to stop bad choosers to abuse the drug.

is that true? I don't believe so, butI could be wrong.

Click to expand...

It is true.

Right now, addicts are afraid to get help because their medical condition could land them in jail. They can lose their liberty, their property, not to mention being stripped from their family life.

When we stop treating drug abuse/addiction like a crime, we can start treating it medically.

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Lol if drugs were legalized there would be no drug cartel violence? Your right, those murderers would drive up at the same spot to a purchaser and say "Oh sorry, you can have this sale, we will take the next million dollar sale when it comes by, Ill just be moving on then.. maybe we can meet up for lunch next week fellow rival!"

Click to expand...

CVS and Bevmo sure do have a reputation for defending their markets using tactics such as these, don't they?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Lol if drugs were legalized there would be no drug cartel violence? Your right, those murderers would drive up at the same spot to a purchaser and say "Oh sorry, you can have this sale, we will take the next million dollar sale when it comes by, Ill just be moving on then.. maybe we can meet up for lunch next week fellow rival!"

Click to expand...

CVS and Bevmo sure do have a reputation for defending their markets using tactics such as these, don't they?

Click to expand...

CVS and Bevmo are not run by psychopaths, torturers, and mass murderers with little to no humanity, ethics, and soul... as far as we know.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Lol if drugs were legalized there would be no drug cartel violence? Your right, those murderers would drive up at the same spot to a purchaser and say "Oh sorry, you can have this sale, we will take the next million dollar sale when it comes by, Ill just be moving on then.. maybe we can meet up for lunch next week fellow rival!"

Click to expand...

CVS and Bevmo sure do have a reputation for defending their markets using tactics such as these, don't they?

Click to expand...

CVS and Bevmo are not run by psychopaths, torturers, and mass murderers with little to no humanity, ethics, and soul... as far as we know.

Click to expand...

Right, that's the point. But during prohibition, alcohol wasn't sold by bevmo, it was sold by Al Capone, who happened to be a psychopathic mass murderer.

And during prohibition today, illicit drugs are not sold in CVS, they are sold by psychopathic criminals.

See the parallels yet?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Lol if drugs were legalized there would be no drug cartel violence? Your right, those murderers would drive up at the same spot to a purchaser and say "Oh sorry, you can have this sale, we will take the next million dollar sale when it comes by, Ill just be moving on then.. maybe we can meet up for lunch next week fellow rival!"

Click to expand...

CVS and Bevmo sure do have a reputation for defending their markets using tactics such as these, don't they?

Click to expand...

CVS and Bevmo are not run by psychopaths, torturers, and mass murderers with little to no humanity, ethics, and soul... as far as we know.

Click to expand...

Right, that's the point. But during prohibition, alcohol wasn't sold by bevmo, it was sold by Al Capone, who happened to be a psychopathic mass murderer.

And during prohibition today, illicit drugs are not sold in CVS, they are sold by psychopathic criminals.

See the parallels yet?

Click to expand...

Not really. Al Capone: January 17, 1899 – January 25, 1947. Prohibition: 1919 to 1933. Capone didn't live and die by Prohibition. He was alive before it, he was alive after it (and after his imprisonment). Psychopathic criminals today have never lived when there wasn't a drug war.

Suddenly the war ends, and a bunch of historically lawful capitalists take over under a regulatory scheme? Will the criminals commit suicide? Will they immediately surrender themselves to the police and military for their countless violent crimes? No. They will destroy their competition in the only way they know how, because their career, and survival are at stake.

imported post

I see. So because criminals won't disappear instantly, we should perpetuate the system which fosters, and even engenders, gangsterism?

And you missed the point anyway. The duration of Capone's time as a bootlegger is relevant; his lifespan not. As you yourself rightfully noted, Al Capone continued to live, but was no longer a bootlegger, once prohibition ended.

This was the whole point. Sure, those criminals will still be around, but they won't have the benefit of possessing a de facto monopoly on the illicit.

This is still positive change. Taking the income away from gangs won't be a bad thing. Even if they consider moving to home invasions to sustain a raison d'être, a well-armed citizenry will eventually deter (or eliminate) the stragglers.

Gangs propagate because they offer participants easy money. What I propose is an end to this nightmare.

Edit: As for "destroying the opposition" any way they can, your suggestion displays serious ignorance about the relevant historical precedent.

Think about Las Vegas. Notice how the mafia weren't able to merely bomb their opposition into submission. Why? Their opposition possessed a far more powerful weapon: legitimacy (and litigation -- and the FBI). Who runs Vegas today? Is it the corporations? Or do gangs still run the city, all because they did once?

By your logic, Vegas never should have been changed, because, after all, "it's not going to actually kill the criminals or anything".

I get the impression you're quite the statist beneath your veneer. It isn't sufficient to work towards peaceable society; you aren't satisfied with options that don't directly and punitively end the physical existence of criminals. Correct me if I've misjudged.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I see. So because criminals won't disappear instantly, we should perpetuate the system which fosters, and even engenders, gangsterism?

Criminals will never disappear as long as humanity exists.

And you missed the point anyway. The duration of Capone's time as a bootlegger is relevant; his lifespan not. As you yourself rightfully noted, Al Capone continued to live, but was no longer a bootlegger, once prohibition ended.

Because he had a life before bootlegging, he could have a life after bootlegging.

This was the whole point. Sure, those criminals will still be around, but they won't have the benefit of possessing a de facto monopoly on the illicit.

This is still positive change. Taking the income away from gangs won't be a bad thing. Even if they consider moving to home invasions to sustain a raison d'être, a well-armed citizenry will eventually deter (or eliminate) the stragglers.

Gangs propagate because they offer participants easy money. What I propose is an end to this nightmare.

A well-armed citizenry? An end to this nightmare? That's more optimism for the future than I can muster.

Edit: As for "destroying the opposition" any way they can, your suggestion displays serious ignorance about the relevant historical precedent.

Illicit drugs prop up the economy of far too many countries, and have for decades, if not lifespans. For them to do anything but continue the "war" even after it is optimistically declared over...

Think about Las Vegas. Notice how the mafia weren't able to merely bomb their opposition into submission. Why? Their opposition possessed a far more powerful weapon: legitimacy (and litigation -- and the FBI). Who runs Vegas today? Is it the corporations? Or do gangs still run the city, all because they did once?

By your logic, Vegas never should have been changed, because, after all, "it's not going to actually kill the criminals or anything".

I get the impression you're quite the statist beneath your veneer. It isn't sufficient to work towards peaceable society; you aren't satisfied with options that don't directly and punitively end the physical existence of criminals. Correct me if I've misjudged.

Click to expand...

Funny you mention bombing. I am not for the drug "war" as it exists - because it is designed to be a constant failure, and it's not even a real war. If it were a real war, we would be bombing and shooting the hell out of everyone involved in the drug supply instead of trying to preserve life via arresting them, trying to flip them, putting them in prison, trying to avoid getting killed ourselves, etc...

So if the government ended the mafia's reign as we are supposed to believe, why won't they end the drug war in the same legalistic manner? Because it's designed to fail; they know that after all these years that they cannot change the participants' lives back to where they were - they would rather minimize the casualties on the guilty side, and maximize the deaths of the innocents.

The nightmare exists because evil is allowed to live, and innocents are simultaneously disarmed by our government.

The state should not exist if its sole purpose is to harm its citizens.