• 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.

POT and Firearms... oh boy

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,

lol Your problem,cleverly disguised in lofty philosophy,is with the law. On the one hand you cite letter and verse as the highest measure of justice when confronted with the police concerning OC and weapons in general but when your line of thinking is derailed with "marijuana is illegal" somehow the law loses its potentcy and is even relegated as an antiquated piece of legislature.One could hold every law in contempt in this fashion as a simple measure of counterpoint. Simply legalizing a substance isn't a panacea to the actual drug use.Alcohol is a robust testament to this. Your zeal to start another fire is unnerving and even puzzling. However,for the record, I believe that some of the punishments dont fit the crime. I would rather leave those cells empty for the more immediate criminals.

Repeatedly saying "marijuana is illegal" is the true non sequitur in the discussion.

It is the very makeup of the debate and is logical to its core. You hold the police to a high standard yet make excuses and cherry pick which laws are viable and which are a matter of inconvience. If you believe the law to be sheer folly, then I venture to guess a considerable amount of your time is spent to reverse this agregious injustice. I mean we pretty much have it locked up here with the exception of a couple of rogue librarians and park officials making up illegal signs as they go along this OC stuff is pretty much locked up. Keep us posted on your fight to legalize marijuana goes.


Welcome to the political process. Political change starts via argumentation and advococy -- both of which are legal actions.

One can even argue and advocate for the legalization of a susbtance, action, or item that is currently illegal -- that is the nature of politics in a free society. It does not mean you condone criminal behavior, or you yourself are a criminal. It merely means you would like to see political and social change.

For instance, in Washington state we can argue and advocate for the legalizing Short Barreled Shotguns. It is currently illegal to own one in this state, but you sure can fight to make it legal.

One can even fight to make SBSs legal, when one has no intent to purchase or use one. Such a person might do so simply because they value freedom, because they believe the law is wrong.

They might believe the law is wrong, and yet the respect the law... and the legislative process). In fact, they might respect those things so much that they engage in them, in order to create legal and lawful change (working toward making something that is now illegal, legal in the future).

Having laws is not sheer folly, having laws that are simply wrong and not doing anything about it is.

Meanwhile in Mexico, newspapers have to stop reporting on drug gangs because their reporters keep getting killed. Government is incapable of stopping the drug gangs. It's like Chigaco or Detroit in the 1920s. Prohibition leads to gangs, gangs gain power and influence, politicians become corrupted, all thanks to the irrefutable fact that the black market will always fill a void.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100920/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_journalist_killed
 
Last edited:

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
If the constitutionality, effectiveness and its nessacity are in serious question why have the laws remained on the books? If the pro-marijuana side has such an articulate,concise and coherent argument then why the lack of change? Surely, if the numbers are on the pro side isn't a mere bill away from law?

There are many reasons. For example, "the right to consume THC" is not directly listed in the bill of rights. Although it should fall under constitutionally protected freedoms, it's a lot harder to get a verdict in favor. Just think of how long it took gun law reform to get a foothold when we have an entire amendment dedicated to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed".

Consider also if you will, the constant negative media coverage that firearms enjoy. Stereotypes and fear-mongering run rampant. The same thing happens with marijuana - everyone who smokes it is a puffy-eyed druggie retard, and it'll make your teenagers have babies and smoke meth.

While marijuana does not directly cause harm (assumption, and "harm" is considered relative to other substances like alcohol or tobacco), it also does not save lives in a direct and publicly visible manner (yet, pending the outcome of cancer research studies). The violence and scumbaggery that follows any black market is blamed on marijuana itself, rather than the dealer culture caused by prohibition.

As far as a logical, coherent argument - look at this thread. I see one or two people actually making a clear, concise, logical argument. I see a bunch of people paying attention quietly, and I see a bunch of people making jackass remarks using circular logic and emotional appeals.

It's hard to be taken seriously when there are so many ***holes in the mix.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
What is in question, then, is should it be illegal now. The means to evaluate that claim are by weighing its actual effects and the social effects of a policy which makes it illegal.

Couldn't agree more with what you are saying here. To "evaluate" will require a different mindset on both sides of the issue. If those who are "pro legalization" were to conduct their evaluation those who are against legalization, as well as some who are neutral, might dismiss their findings as "biased". The same pitfall faces the study conducted by those against legalization as an equal number of people will question their findings. That leaves the "Government" to conduct this evaluation and NOBODY trusts what the Government comes up with for any number of reasons.

In order for their to be a meaningful evaluation the "evaluation" Tawnos refers to has to be conducted using real science and by totally impartial parties. The question now is how does one fund such a study, vet those conducting it as to their impartiality as well as the science they will employ?

So let's say that the above obstacles are met. We now have a study conducted by people with impeccable credentials, with adequate funding, peer review of the results, and a conclusion is reached. Again, who will accept it and who will reject it solely on their own prejudices built up over the years.

If you remember the old Uncle Remus story of "Br'er Rabbit"? This topic is a political "tar baby".

(from Wikipedia) "Using the phrase "tar baby" to refer to the idea of "a problem that gets worse the more one struggles against it" became part of the wider culture of the United States in the mid-20th century."

I became an adult in the 60's and lots of people back in those "summer of love" years thought that marijuana would be legal by the time their children's generation "took over". So here we are now and those "hippies" grandchildren are about to take over and we are still arguing as to whether marijuana should take its place with all the other legal substances that can be abused.

Puzzled about how things work today? Not me. Not anymore. Just today I read that Paris Hilton got probation for what would have been a felony possession charge for any "mortal" human being and Lindsey Lohan had a warrant issued for her because she flunked a "pee test". How many times did it take to finally PO the Judge to say Enough? For most of us it would have been a non=issue. Without the celebrity, we'd be "bunkin' with bubba".

For those that want their legal pot, I guess the route to that goal will be the same route that was taken to get it made illegal. Find the science that supports your position, line up the political support, and go for it.

Good Luck and Best wishes in you quest. Until then it will most likely remain illegal.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
There's been a lot said, I'll address what I can with what energy remains in me :).
In short: you have continually tried to justify what ought to be based on what is. This doesn't stand logical muster, as it simply reiterates the status quo as a justification for the status quo. In other words, Appeal to Tradition. Merely pointing out something is legal or illegal does not address the question of whether it should be legal or illegal, it simply states a tautology.

lol Your problem,cleverly disguised in lofty philosophy,is with the law. On the one hand you cite letter and verse as the highest measure of justice when confronted with the police concerning OC and weapons in general but when your line of thinking is derailed with "marijuana is illegal" somehow the law loses its potentcy and is even relegated as an antiquated piece of legislature.One could hold every law in contempt in this fashion as a simple measure of counterpoint. Simply legalizing a substance isn't a panacea to the actual drug use.Alcohol is a robust testament to this. Your zeal to start another fire is unnerving and even puzzling. However,for the record, I believe that some of the punishments dont fit the crime. I would rather leave those cells empty for the more immediate criminals.
Clearly, you hold the written letter of law to a much higher degree than I. The highest measure of justice is not merely what is written, but those fundamental truths that embody the absolute freedoms of a society not beholden to its rulers. That is to say, I believe in the fundamental rights to self-determination and its intrinsically tied self-defense implications. To deny one right is to lose the other. When the law supports our rights I will quote it as a means to uphold the ideal, but when the law loses sight of that ideal, I cannot in good faith say I support the law. Each law must be evaluated upon its own merit; rather than relying on the fact the law is codified, I reflect upon what the codified law represents.

I agree that simple legalization is not a panacea, and I even addressed that. However, I did so in context of the tradeoffs of the drug's effects while legal versus illegal. To put it simply, the cost of keeping it illegal far outweigh any harm that results from its legalization. Yes, there may be harm to a select few that would otherwise not experience such if the drug remained illegal. But(!), this number is orders of magnitude smaller than those who have been harmed, directly or indirectly, by our current legal stance.

Repeatedly saying "marijuana is illegal" is the true non sequitur in the discussion.

It is the very makeup of the debate and is logical to its core. You hold the police to a high standard yet make excuses and cherry pick which laws are viable and which are a matter of inconvience. If you believe the law to be sheer folly, then I venture to guess a considerable amount of your time is spent to reverse this agregious injustice. I mean we pretty much have it locked up here with the exception of a couple of rogue librarians and park officials making up illegal signs as they go along this OC stuff is pretty much locked up. Keep us posted on your fight to legalize marijuana goes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say when you say "you hold the police to a high standard yet make excuses and cherry pick which laws are viable and which are a mater of inconvience[sic]." I judge police on a case-by-case basis, though I cannot honestly say my view remains untainted by the numerous abuses that have occurred as police shifted from civil servants to revenue collection agents and paramilitary enforcers of potentially unconstitutional practices. As for my political aspirations, I do attempt to right those wrongs I find "agregious" [sic] (egregious). The most important means by which I could hope to influence the political status quo is education of those who don't know any better of the harms their pro-illegal stance brings upon their society. To that end, I engage in the best reasoned discourse I can with those who would have the means to listen and receive what I can present.

If the pro-marijuana movement was serious and ceased to be caricuture of itself then it would be a conduit to enact laws that reflect thier views. Are thier viable candidates that reflect NORML's views? Is the pro-marijuana movement willing to put blood,sweat and tears into the cause? etc
Answer me this (I dont know the answer):
You make stereotypes about the pro-marijuana movement, but fail to spell numerous words correctly. For example: sequitur, potency, egregious, caricature, their, necessity... The point is: you try to paint those who support legalization as illegitimate, stupid, or ill-informed, yet show yourself incapable of even wielding English appropriately. As for the question of blood, sweat, and tears... I must first inquire as to what you think should be the required level of commitment to enact what should be a self-deterministic right, and then ask why you presume those who are pro-freedom would not be so willing. The only reason I could think is that those who are pro-legalization tend to be, generally, better educated and more willing to solve their problems with words instead of weapons where possible, hence the concept of shedding blood, sweat, and tears is seen as counter-productive to the overall goals of the supporters.

If the constitutionality, effectiveness and its nessacity are in serious question why have the laws remained on the books? If the pro-marijuana side has such an articulate,concise and coherent argument then why the lack of change? Surely, if the numbers are on the pro side isn't a mere bill away from law?
There is momentum in politics. Many of the older generation are, to put it quite frankly, willfully ignorant. They bought the political lies of the drug war, and have failed to move behind the notions they have held for many years. These same people have been there to appoint judges, vote for policies, and ultimately establish a system under which the concept of legalization was anathematic without significant sociopolitical progress. In the past decade, that progress has begun, but it has been a slow process, much the same way the plight of slavery took decades of policies and decisions before the ills wrought by Dred Scott v. Sanford were unwound. Especially, consider the revitalized second amendment, long since restrained by a poorly written Miller decision. Without the slow but inexorable steps made by those who support the right to self-defense via the keeping and bearing of arms, we may still be living with the onus of "collective rights". So, too, is the slow but inevitable revision of the war on (some) drugs.

You ask if we're a mere bill away from law, but I don't think that's the case, regardless of public sentiment. Ultimately, one must weigh the political capital required to put forth a policy that could galvanize the modern temperance movement to action. To operate under such a system, those of us who support legalization as a means to reduce harm, increase freedom, and restore constitutional law must do so piecewise. Show that the threat comes not from a free people, but from the government trying to crack down on that freedom. At the point the majority of the populace realizes this, this issue will be settled and we'll be onto our next debate pitting the free people versus the controlling government. Ah, history, you never cease to Ah, history, you never cease to Ah, history, you never cease to find a good time to stop repeating yourself.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
581
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
What a topic for a 2nd Amendment Group that keeps telling the public they are law abiding and responsible in society and yet SOME promote partaking in illegal drugs.

FRIGGIN STUPID :banghead:

Thankfully there are more here that do not promote this stupidity.

IIRC, this recently came up in the context of the legality or not of firearm possession by those with a valid medical marijuana authorization. That discussion went way off the rails but I don't think the question was any kind of stupid.

Whether you think it should be that way or not, for those with proper authorization partaking in the use of marijuana is not unlawful in this state and in several others. I don't think anyone would argue that there would be no issue with being in possession of lawfully prescribed hydrocodone and being in possession of a firearm as hydrocodone is universally recognized as lawful to prescribe (it is also subject to severe abuse but that's another story). The question from the other thread was legitimate due to conflicting state v. federal laws regarding marijuana.
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Discussing the two different items together will not and does not promote a positive view of the law abiding gun owner.
There are already enough bad press and assumptions as it is to add yet another negative view to the bear arms cause.

What to argue the legality or if it should not should not be legalize, there are forums better suited for it, why not take it there?

As to handling firearms it is my view and has always been if you are partaking in any legal or illegal drug that alters one ability to respond as they would normally then make your choice one or the other.

As for myself I do not do any Illegal Drugs Period and my medicines are heart trouble related and when it comes to alcohol I will have a drink once in a while at home (I have a pint of rum that I bought 1 1/2 years ago and it is still over half full)
You could say I talk the talk and walk the walk.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
IIRC, this recently came up in the context of the legality or not of firearm possession by those with a valid medical marijuana authorization. That discussion went way off the rails but I don't think the question was any kind of stupid.

Whether you think it should be that way or not, for those with proper authorization partaking in the use of marijuana is not unlawful in this state and in several others. I don't think anyone would argue that there would be no issue with being in possession of lawfully prescribed hydrocodone and being in possession of a firearm as hydrocodone is universally recognized as lawful to prescribe (it is also subject to severe abuse but that's another story). The question from the other thread was legitimate due to conflicting state v. federal laws regarding marijuana.

It'd be interesting if gun laws went this way, with the federal being more restrictive than states/cities. Would we have federal agents raiding the homes of open carriers, destroying gun shops and confiscating all their merchandise, etc.?
 
Top