• 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

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
597
Location
Bremerton, Washington
can this whole thread be considered OFF topic for the legal open carrying of firearms, if so lock it so it will stop drawing the pro and con posts and fall off the front page
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
Slavery and tarring and feathering have victims. Some dude smoking a doobie before listening to his favorite band some Saturday night has no victim(s).


The "victims" of tarring and fethering are criminals, Slavery definately did have victims, that I wont deny.

Some one getting high and slowing their reaction time and critical thinking skills and driving/handling a firearm doesnt have any victims?????
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I am a libertarian. My cause is freedom, in general. The right to keep and bear arms is one aspect of that cause, as is the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or refrain from wearing a seatbelt, or own a bar where patrons can smoke cigarettes, or marry someone of a different race, or worship whatever god(s) one follows, or put whatever substances into ones body that one sees fit. It's called being consistent.

And I support everything you just wrote, right up to the part where it places my life in jeopardy or I have to foot the bill for the consequences of other's actions.

Ride without a helmet, just don't expect me to pay for any extended care in a nursing home while being fed meals from a blender.
Don't wear a seatbelt but don't force me to pay for any insurance increases.
Smoke wherever you want just be sure that your smoke doesn't impact those who choose not to. Perhaps your own private vent hood? (BTW, I smoke cigars when I feel like one but I do only where others don't have to put up with the smoke. I usually do so when I want to relax so it's on the back deck with a good single-malt and a book.)
Marry whoever you want, just don't tell me what I have to think about it.
As for putting substances in your body, including smoking those that mind alter, fine with me as long as any behavior while doing so does not spill over into my world. I don't need anyone showing up on the road I'm driving on while not in control of their senses. On that note, the girl that was driving the blazer on Whidbey Island and killed three people is now charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and two of vehicular assault. Changing her sweater while driving. Police found Pot, Cocaine, and Heroin in the vehicle. No doubt one of those people that are expressing their idea of Freedom. Too bad it took away the feeedom of three others and left behind people that won't every enjoy life the same.

I am all for the Libertarian view but remember the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

"your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
Slavery and tarring and feathering have victims. Some dude smoking a doobie before listening to his favorite band some Saturday night has no victim(s).


This notion that smoking marijuana is harmless and is victimless is erroneous at best. How many law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty carrying out our laws and enforcing policy? How many human mules carrying bales of marijuana have died carrying your indiscretions across their backs in the middle of the Sonoran Desert? How many children have stood in the middle of the living room crying while one or both parents were carted off because they couldn't exercise self-control and leave the Wonder Years back at high school?
Then there are the health care/welfare costs where by we all are victims.
Think , people, think.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Slavery and tarring and feathering have victims. Some dude smoking a doobie before listening to his favorite band some Saturday night has no victim(s).

Unless he gets into his vehicle to either go get some chow to fight the munchies or tries to drive home from the concert.

If he gets $h!tfaced and stays on his couch with the band blasting in his earphones GREAT!

When this "dude" decides to leave in his car often there ARE victims.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
This notion that smoking marijuana is harmless and is victimless is erroneous at best. How many law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty carrying out our laws and enforcing policy? How many human mules carrying bales of marijuana have died carrying your indiscretions across their backs in the middle of the Sonoran Desert?.

You are using circular logic, which is a major fail. Prohibition itself causes the above scenarios, not the substance that is prohibited.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Unless he gets into his vehicle to either go get some chow to fight the munchies or tries to drive home from the concert.

If he gets $h!tfaced and stays on his couch with the band blasting in his earphones GREAT!

When this "dude" decides to leave in his car often there ARE victims.

Wait, so your saying that we should outlaw alcohol? After all, alcohol is one of the major causes of motor vehicle accidents.

You're surely right. It will work better this time around. It won't create any gangs, or any bootlegging. lol
 

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
So anyone who thinks the war on drugs is a failure and a violation of the human right to self-ownership must be a junkie?

I guess anyone who believes that gays should have the same rights as straight people must be queer.

And anyone who believes that the KKK has a right to have a parade, must be a bigot.

And anyone who thinks people shouldn't be stopped at government roadblocks/checkpoints must have something to hide.

After all, why would anyone ever support someone's right to do what they want with their own body and life unless they also wanted to do the same things?
 

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
Most people who say this and no offense to you but they totally forget alcohol, cigarettes, sniffing glue...and that many people who go down the path of hard drugs are determined to do so, and marijuana being illegal didn't stop him did it. I never buy this argument it is like saying guns are the path to becoming a murderer. I had a guy working for me who got hooked on heroin and he detested marijuana would never touch it.

Yes we are law abiding citizens, I don't smoke or endorse pot, I choose not to judge others who do (especially when the law is unconstitutional).

Again this is part where our elected representatives totally ignored the way this country was founded or how it is supposed to operate. They did not go about making marijuana illegal through proper channels they back doored it in using scare tactics and hysteria. (sound familiar, i.e, universal health care, stimulas plan) The men in black robes failed to uphold the constitution in this manner too. We are not a democracy where the majority get to just outlaw something they don't like, unfortunately it has been happening in way too many areas. I think the founding fathers would be disgusted with what they did and with the attitude of so many of the population who feel it is necessary to control what others do.

We fill our prisons with non violent victimless criminals, we cause a lot of violence and victims by this prohibition. Let's not forget the rise and strength of Organized Crime, came through prohibition of alcohol. ( a legal prohibition done through the proper channels, which again was largely ineffective, and ignored). Huge amount of tax dollars and uneccessary law agencies are spent on an uneffective "drug war", we have a huge border problem because of it, and people are needlessly being shot and killed because the government has upped the anti in the game, putting large amount of money and lives at risk.

Washington, California and other states are rightfully on a path of ignoring federal laws in these matters. I encourage them to continue, just like Montana, Utah and other states are on the righteous path of ignoring unconstitutional gun laws.

I apologize if I was unclear by my post. I didn't mean to make the argument about whether or not marijuana should be illegal.

I was arguing that, from my experience, I would advise people not to begin smoking marijuana for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with legality. If it was not illegal, I would still advise people not to smoke marijuana because I believe it had a small but still evident role in his demise.

There are good points to made that as of current, when you buy marijuana, you are supporting the very gangsters and business that is causing HELL for the people of states that border Mexico.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,952
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Wait, so your saying that we should outlaw alcohol? After all, alcohol is one of the major causes of motor vehicle accidents.

You're surely right. It will work better this time around. It won't create any gangs, or any bootlegging. lol

I must be getting old and my eyes are failing. Could you point out where I said or even suggested outlawing alcohol?

I believe the entire message I presented was that people have the right to just about anything until they take their stupidity into public and endanger others. I think people should be allowed to drink as much as they want just as long as they puke on their own floor/furniture, don't leave their houses when too drunk to use their brains, and stay away from guns and cars while their brain is "pickled". Too bad people that think getting stoned and drunk aren't always smart enough to figure that out for themselves. Of course if everyone was, would we need any laws at all?

For those that think society would be great without any laws at all that prevent them from just doing whatever they want, check out some of those real successful places in the world where that's the case. Somalia comes to mind. Maybe Zimbabwe and Liberia too?
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
You are using circular logic, which is a major fail. Prohibition itself causes the above scenarios, not the substance that is prohibited.

Nonsense. That is always the arguments of those that have a seemingly inability to control themselves and adhere to statues. Blaming the law is no recourse against the law. That is tantamount to speeders saying that the law is what is causing them to speed. Poppycock. Control yourself and stop giving law abiding gun owners a bad name and the antis ammunition to gather strength to pass even more laws.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
Nonsense. That is always the arguments of those that have a seemingly inability to control themselves and adhere to statues. Blaming the law is no recourse against the law. That is tantamount to speeders saying that the law is what is causing them to speed. Poppycock. Control yourself and stop giving law abiding gun owners a bad name and the antis ammunition to gather strength to pass even more laws.

Is this a subtle troll? All of the problems you cite are a direct result of cannabis being illegal. The trafficking, the arrests, the murders... they're all the direct outcome of prohibition.

Let's try and move past the is-ought status quo, and recognize what is currently, is not what ought to be.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
Is this a subtle troll? All of the problems you cite are a direct result of cannabis being illegal. The trafficking, the arrests, the murders... they're all the direct outcome of prohibition.

Let's try and move past the is-ought status quo, and recognize what is currently, is not what ought to be.

No troll here my friend. Am nothing more than a law abiding citizen. If that is the current timber and make up of a troll then I guess I am a troll. Smoke on.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
There are good points to made that as of current, when you buy marijuana, you are supporting the very gangsters and business that is causing HELL for the people of states that border Mexico.

I'm sorry for what has happened to your brother, drugs being illegal though still didn't prevent him from his actions. It's sad to see anyone destroy themselves with any addiction cigarrettes, alcohol, or drugs.

I would like to respectfully disagree with your last post people I know who smoked dislike crappy "dirt weed" from mexico. This might be true for border states along the south, but what I here around here is people like B.C. bud.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
can this whole thread be considered OFF topic for the legal open carrying of firearms, if so lock it so it will stop drawing the pro and con posts and fall off the front page

Why because it makes some uncomfortable? Because some right wing whackos who tout how they are for the constitution suddenly ignore it when comes to things they don't like. But bitch about how unconstitutional those left wing whackos are and how dare they touch our guns. So glad I don't affiliate myself with either set of close/narrow minded folks.

To me this is a good topic and appropriate. If we can so easily trample on someone's constitutional rights and label them in derrogatory ways, how can we not expect the same from people who are anti gun. It's hipocritical.

No one here is advocating "breaking the law" they are simply discussing why prohibition is a stupid unconstitutional law. So stop bringing that up in the discussion it simply isn't true and is a poorly veiled attempt at trying to demonize people's viewpoints.

I don't smoke, I support the right for smokers to be addicted to that substance and kill themselves to the tune of almost 450,000 deaths a year in U.S. (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm).
This doesn't make me a smoker I am curious how much does this cost tax payers?

I agree with Amlevin that yes if you are harmed by someone else's actions you have a right to grievance but only after you can prove it will or has caused you damage. That is how our legal system was designed. (Roger Roots-Are Cops Constitutional, a great read)
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Sarcasm On.
Oh yeah that's right our Fore Fathers left England to come to America to Grow and Smoke Pot and many lost their lives in doing so, oh the smoke is clearing now :lol:
Sarcasm Off.
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
705
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
Let's tie this thread back into Open Carry, OK? :)

I'm going to ignore the pot smoking question (I personally don't), and I'm even going to ignore the alcohol question (my personal limit is a drink with a meal).

What I'm going to address is those who apparently do not think things through all the way.

How many of those who are insisting that all government rules (laws, regulations, "code," whatever) must be followed, even if they are wrong, will at the same time not recognize they often applaud just that action when open or concealed carriers carry despite local city or county rules that say we must not?

We believe those laws (rules, regulations, codes, etc.) to be incorrect (due to state preemption), but until they are changed, they are indeed laws that are on the books...

It is oft repeated that if one does not like a law, or thinks a law is "incorrect", one should get the law changed, but until it is, to follow the law.

What makes it different if that law you believe is incorrect is against your desire to carry? Why is it felt by some here that it is OK to ignore THOSE laws, but to rail against anyone else who might think any other law is wrong?

Remember how many things, legal now because of protests or even war, were not legal not all that long ago.

"Let he who is without sin..."

OK, I'll shut up now. I'm not saying that anything should be legal or illegal, I'm not claiming that I am without my own personal faults, I'm just trying to get folks to think a bit more about what they are saying, and why so many seem to believe a personal exception exists for their pet rule breaking. :D

(How many here regularly break traffic laws? Honestly.)
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
No troll here my friend. Am nothing more than a law abiding citizen. If that is the current timber and make up of a troll then I guess I am a troll. Smoke on.

Then perhaps we should go through your post:

This notion that smoking marijuana is harmless and is victimless is erroneous at best. How many law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty carrying out our laws and enforcing policy?
This total would be 0 if the policy didn't exist.

How many human mules carrying bales of marijuana have died carrying your indiscretions across their backs in the middle of the Sonoran Desert?
This total would be 0 if the policy didn't exist. Instead, you'd have "Marlboro Greens" and regions like the Napa valley, but for cannabis instead of wine. Large companies and small entrepreneurs could all take part in the market if it weren't illegal, instead of forcing it to be transported by people the drug gangsters care nothing about.

How many children have stood in the middle of the living room crying while one or both parents were carted off
This total would be 0 if the policy didn't exist. The group doing the carting off is the state. That's right, you're saying "hey, totally cool to take parents away from kids because those parents want to use a mild intoxicant."

Then there are the health care/welfare costs where by we all are victims.
I'd have to see your sources, but I'll bring my own:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4350642.stm said:
cannabis may inhibit cancer because of the presence of the chemical THC.

http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_sep_1975.htm said:
Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabinol (CBN), but not cannabidiol (CBD). Animals treated for 10 consecutive days with delta-9-THC, beginning the day after tumor implantation, demonstrated a dose-dependent action of retarded tumor growth. Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with delta-8-THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size.

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/full/1210641a.html said:
Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivoTHC inhibits NSCLC metastasis and growth

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360617/?tool=pmcentrez said:
The hemp plant Cannabis sativa L. produces approximately 60 unique compounds known as cannabinoids, of which Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the most important ...
Remarkably, this antiproliferative effect seems to be selective for brain-tumour cells as the survival of normal brain cells (astrocytes (Gómez del Pulgar et al, 2002), oligodendrocytes (Molina-Holgado et al, 2002) and neurons (Mechoulam et al, 2002)) is unaffected or even favoured by cannabinoid challenge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html said:
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

So... what effects?

Think , people, think.
I urge you to do the same and not follow the years of scare-tactics that aren't based in fact...
 
Top