• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gunshot Demographics. The ugly underbelly of the anti-gun-rights position - LOUNGE

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
There is an old saying that goes: If we are not willing to study history, and learn from it, we are bound to repeat it.

What history? The XVIII ammendment, that is: prohibition. What did prohibition do? It made a lot of 2 bit crooks very wealthy, it brought us mass gang violence, a lot of people died, a lot went to jail...for what reason???? because some do gooder decided that because he thought alcohol was bad for people, he would save the world by banning alcohol...oh yes, and let's not forget, Prohibition also brought US the NFA 1934..... Yes, and Canada's stupid gun laws started then too.

Tell me how the "war on drugs" is any different? or the outcome will be any different. grow up America, read your history books and then tell me what good is being done by this stupid "war".

I can balance the budget tomorrow, call a cease fire on the "war", make any drug misuse a medical problem (which is what it is for the abusers) no crimminal penality. repeal all the anti-drug and anti-gun laws and send the ATF and the DEA to the unemployment line,.

And yes I know, Ron Paul is the politico that does not think I'm crazy.,

I don't think you're crazy, I concur
 
Last edited:

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Waiting for someone to chime in and throw the race card & say that article is Racist.. Funny how that article & those numbers are not news to me, but then again I am not a Brainwashed Lib... Glad my sister lives well outside the Black Zone of death in Chicago...
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
There is an old saying that goes: If we are not willing to study history, and learn from it, we are bound to repeat it.

What history? The XVIII ammendment, that is: prohibition. What did prohibition do? It made a lot of 2 bit crooks very wealthy, it brought us mass gang violence, a lot of people died, a lot went to jail...for what reason???? because some do gooder decided that because he thought alcohol was bad for people, he would save the world by banning alcohol...oh yes, and let's not forget, Prohibition also brought US the NFA 1934..... Yes, and Canada's stupid gun laws started then too.

Tell me how the "war on drugs" is any different? or the outcome will be any different. grow up America, read your history books and then tell me what good is being done by this stupid "war".

I think this demographic analysis of alcohol use is very revealing. Most of the results show slight differences between various groups. The differences that do stand out are the totals of those who've recently used alcohol (66.1%) as compared to other identifiers:

Males: 70.7%
Females: 61.8%

Whites: 70%
Blacks: 55%
Hispanics: 60%

Less than HS: 52%
High School: 68%
Some College: 75%
College Grad: 80%

I also found interesting the demographics that don't seem to have much effect: Where they live (metro to rural) and employment status.

What this tells me is that people who're more driven are more likely to use alcohol. By inference, they're probably more likely to abuse alcohol and use illegal drugs, as well.

Therefore, hermannr, legalizing drugs will only increase problems here in America, as more use will result in decreased productivity, particularly among those who have more education, as they're the least likely to engage in unlawful behavior. This is not a recipe for success, either for the individuals or for the country as a whole.

Making drug use a "medical problem" however, isn't a bad idea. Like the commercial says, drug courts focus on getting alcohol and drug abusers/addicts the help they need instead of incarceration, which is less helpful and far more expensive to society. Incarceration also serves to introduce them to the worst elements of society while giving them a black mark from which it's difficult to recover.

As for the "war" on drugs, several countries have successfully minimized drug production and/or use within their borders. Columbia's drug cartels, for example, were largely eradicated. "Sweden's Drug Control Policies combine balanced public health approach and opposition to drug legalization. The prevalence rates for cocaine use in Sweden are barely one-fifth of European neighbors such as the United Kingdom and Spain. - Source

According to the self-appointed Global Commission on Drug Policy, "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed."

Legalization of psychoactive drugs aren't the answer. The answer lies in examining why Sweden's approach works while the U.S. approach has not:

1. What is Sweden doing that we're not doing? We should adopt those measures to the maximum extent possible.

2. What is the U.S. doing that Sweden is not doing? We should drop those measures to the maximum extent possible.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
[snip]Legalization of psychoactive drugs aren't the answer.[snip]

Psychoactive drugs? What? Like alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? :rolleyes: It'll be awesome when I'm arrested for sipping on my $50, black-market morning joe. Oh wait, that won't happen because we tired it once with alcohol, nicotine makes too much money in taxes and caffeine leads to too much productivity. Then again, those prisons need inmates. :banghead:

What gives anyone the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body? Heck, I don't even drink anymore and can still see the folly with regulation of other things that I don't do.

The "war on SOME drugs" would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that WE are the punchline.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Yes, but you should know better than to intentionally obfuscate the issue by lumping mild and natural substances like these three with the more potent ones which are appropriately controlled substances. Here's a refresher.

I'm not really trying to bewilder anyone but trying to highlight the absurdity of the war on SOME drugs.

I could make the argument that the numbers show the number one cause of death in this country is heart disease and that recreational drugs don't even make a dent in the CDC's list. I could make the argument that we should instead outlaw nicotine because it's in the cigarettes that are the leading cause for the top two causes of death; heart disease, and cancer. I could even make the case that we should outlaw fatty foods since they are the other biggest contributing factor in heart disease. I could say that guns, and the war on drugs BOTH kill more people every year than the drugs themselves. But instead I'll make what I see as the most important argument.

It dumbfounds me when someone around here derides an anti-gunner because they want to outlaw something that is related to hundreds of thousands of deaths every year but out of that same mouth talks of outlawing a personal habit; the very regulation of which causes astronomically more deaths than the habit itself, because "drugs are bad mmmkay." The hypocrisy knows no bounds. Both the anti-gunner and the prohibitionist are wrong; but not only because gun laws don't work; the same as prohibition doesn't work but because both postitions are anti-liberty.

I have a right to defend myself the same as I have a right to do whatever else I choose; especially with my own body, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. If I hurt someone with my behavior IN EITHER CASE I must suffer the consequences of my actions. If more people could see through their personal feelings and respect everyones rights we could really start to fix things in this country.
 
Last edited:

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Yes, but you should know better than to intentionally obfuscate the issue by lumping mild and natural substances like these three with the more potent ones which are appropriately controlled substances. Here's a refresher.

And what gives the government the right to ban certain drugs? And just how well is it working for them? Also you saw an increase in alcohol use during the ban, so what's to say that we wouldn't see a decrease in use after it was legalized and properly regulated. There's also nothing preventing companies from banning the use of various drugs as part of working there.

But ultimately it is really about why is the government trying to dictate what I can and can't do so long as it doesn't affect other people? Especially in a country that is supposed to be about freedom and liberty.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Read about Portugal.

Remove the impetus to crime. Less reason to cause crime. Less profit in leading others to addiction.

I remember when the stats about lower drug crime there came out and people tried to say that they are an exception and that that wouldn't be the norm in other places like the US. The denials just sound like people trying to keep control over others.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
Yes, but you should know better than to intentionally obfuscate the issue by lumping mild and natural substances like these three with the more potent ones which are appropriately controlled substances. Here's a refresher.

Alcohol may be ubiquitous but it is not mild. It causes more death and disease than any other drug. I watched my former long-term girl friend go through withdrawal and was told by the staff that alcohol withdrawal is worse than coke or meth withdrawal.

The US' addiction rate was the same 50 years ago as it is now; despite many billions of dollars, a staggering incarceration rate, heavily militarized police forces, and crumbling fourth and fifth amendment rights.

Weird, its almost like a piece of paper (legislation in this case) does not automatically stop all people from making bad choices. Much like a protection order, or a guns-free sign.

Remove that paper (law) and the high profit margins disappear. At least as long as we don't create high profit potential through other dumb legislation by creating high "sin" taxes. Thus spawning a new round smuggling, counterfeiting and bribery to avoid the tax like we now have with cigarettes.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Yes, but you should know better than to intentionally obfuscate the issue by lumping mild and natural substances like these three with the more potent ones which are appropriately controlled substances. Here's a refresher.

Actually, if you click on the photo of the 'psychoactive drugs' here is the caption:

Image taken from English Wikipedia, originally uploaded by Thoric.
An arrangement of pyschoactive drugs including (counter-clockwise from top left): cocaine, crack, methylphenidate (Ritalin), ephedrine, MDMA (Ecstasy - lavender pill with smile), mescaline (green dried cactus flesh), LSD (2x2 blotter in tiny baggie), psilocybin (dried Psilocybe cubensis mushroom), Salvia divinorum (10X extract in small baggie), diphenhydramine (Benadryl - pink pill), Amanita muscaria (red dried mushroom cap piece), Tylenol #3 (contains codeine), codeine containing muscle relaxant, pipe tobacco (top), bupropion (Zyban - brownish-purple pill), cannabis (green bud center), hashish (brown rectangle)

Note, they (wikipedia) lumps tobacco, cannabis, and hashish with the other pyschoactive drugs of cocaine, crack, etc.

Now, as I recall the evolution of the war on drugs, it was first and foremost against pot. Once the government began spraying the pot fields in Mexico with Paraquat source it didn't take long for folks to find out that was a death sentence. So, the next readily available recreational drug was cocaine. Once that was interdicted to the point that the price was astronimical, the crack and other designer drugs became more common.

Then, when the government got ahold of those statistics, pot became a 'gateway' drug. Yeah, right. Now, they have pot listed as a Schedule 1 drug along with LSD, Meth, etc. Are they kidding?

Pot is not a gateway drug to anything, but up until recently, the THC was not easily managed, so was not regulatable. Now, it is, and despite the government's claims of 'no medical efficacy' over the decades, there is a demonstrable medical use for the drug.

As for the claims of dependancy and withdrawl symptoms, they are far and away less than what are experienced in alcohol and tobacco users. Pot also has far fewer side effects than other prescription drugs used to treat pain.

But then, asprin would not get USDA approval if brought to the market today.
 

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
Yes, but you should know better than to intentionally obfuscate the issue by lumping mild and natural substances like these three with the more potent ones which are appropriately controlled substances. Here's a refresher.

mild?

first of all, nicotine is right at the top of the list of addictive drugs which contributes to the deaths of 400,000 people a year.

second of all, alcohol is not only powerful, but its one of the very few drugs with withdrawal symptoms that can be fatal. not even heroin nor cocaine can claim that distinction.

alcohol contributes to about 75,000 deaths a year in this country. prescription drugs? around 15 to 20,000

heroin and cocaine combine for a total of under 20,000 deaths per year.

marijuana deaths? just as it has been true throughout history, ZERO deaths. LSD? not fatal (laboratory manufactured LSD isn't even toxic at any dosage). Mescaline? not fatal at theraputic doses. MDMA? not fatal at theraputic doses. Psilocybin? not fatal at theraputic doses. DMT? not fatal. Ibogaine? not fatal at theraputic doses.

the toxicity of a drug should be considered when you go on talking about the difference between a mild and a powerful psychoactive drug, as well as the propensity of the drug to cause extreme anti social behavior, as is definitely the case with alcohol but is arguably not the typical case for MDMA, Ibogaine, DMT, Psilocybin, or Mescaline. It's possible with LSD, but extremely unlikely. Heroin and Cocaine are about equal with alcohol in this aspect.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
Bomber

MJ not dangerous. Too many "accidental deaths" attributed to being under the influence of MJ for that to not be laughed right out of the house. Same with LSD. Anything that morphs your version of reality that much is dangerous. Tell Art Linkletter's child that. The one that had a flashback and jumped off a building. Directly toxic, no, dangerous effects and side effects, you bet your sweet bippy.:mad:
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Sounds to me like you ought to create a thread focusing on your particular issues. In the meantime, let's Just Say No to Drugs and get back to Gun Demographics.

Although I agree that we've went a little too far astray; drug prohibition, gun control, and the crime surrounding them are so intertwined as to make a conversation about the demographics alone moot. I mean, we can point at the maps all day and pat each other on the back that guns aren't the problem but without addressing the real issue it's just a group excercise in circle-___ing.

So, to get back on topic, what would fix the problem? I think legalizing or decriminalizing drugs is a legitimate solution. I think further gun control is not a legitimate solution. I think futhering the idea that people are individuals and not part of a collective group may be part of a solution.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Although I agree that we've went a little too far astray; drug prohibition, gun control, and the crime surrounding them are so intertwined as to make a conversation about the demographics alone moot. I mean, we can point at the maps all day and pat each other on the back that guns aren't the problem but without addressing the real issue it's just a group excercise in circle-___ing.

So, to get back on topic, what would fix the problem? I think legalizing or decriminalizing drugs is a legitimate solution. I think further gun control is not a legitimate solution. I think futhering the idea that people are individuals and not part of a collective group may be part of a solution.

Let's not forget about social programs like food stamps etc... Removing people's personal responsibility towards the most basic things like food and shelter "eats" at the values of a traditional family like a cancer. The destruction of the family leads to generations of undisciplined young people. Our US Department of Education makes sure they gain NOTHING in the way of usefull knowledge and then we wonder why the drug trade looks so appealing.

It appears that whenever the government touches something the problem gets exponentially worse. We've got about a hundred years of failed social experiments in the US. When will we learn?
 

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
So, to get back on topic, what would fix the problem? I think legalizing or decriminalizing drugs is a legitimate solution.

exactly.

and dispelling government and media created myths about the effects of drugs is part of that process. just like dispelling myths the government and media created about guns is the key to promoting not only personal freedom, but responsible freedom when it comes to guns (and drug use)



and yeah, people have died while under the influence of marijuana and other psychedelic drugs. but these numbers are so remotely low as to be almost statistically irrelevant. on top of that, there are legitimate medical uses for all of these drugs. which can't be said for alcohol (other than a clumsy sedative), yet alcohol is both legal and also responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year, both from direct use as well as deaths caused by people under the influence. to site a story about one guy jumping off a roof while on LSD as a reason to keep it illegal while not paying any mind to the thousands of drunk driving deaths each year is absolutely ridiculous.
 

ElectricianLU58

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
228
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
death demographics are old news. we all know this stuff. pretty much no deaths from MJ and psychotropics/psychedelics... overdoses from speed, cocaine and opiates... tons of death from cigarettes and alcohol... nothing new here. like i said, we all know this.

forget the problems legalization would cause for a minute. tax drugs and ***** to deal with the financial issues. there will still be social issues. junkies will still OD...

if you legalized drugs and *****, you would take away a TON of money from mexican cartels, street gangs, the various organized crime families of all nationalities. that alone would make it worth it.

government created all these criminals with our prohibitions. we can take away their revenue by ending the prohibitions. that, in and of itself, makes it worth it.

i do believe that it would create a vacuum. they would need other forms of revenue (identity theft, pizzo...) to keep the doors open. the manpower used to stop drugs and ***** could be used to control whatever criminals turn to to replace drugs and *****.
 
Top