46 replies to this topic

[GarandFan]

From USA Today ... you can find lots more coverage via google news.

Part of me absolutely loves this issue, because it sets up a delightful conundrum that bothers certain liberals and conservatives alike.  The conundrum is enough to make pretty little partisan heads spin.  In very general terms, "conservatives" tend to oppose gun prohibition but favor drug prohibition.  Liberals tend to favor gun prohibition but oppose drug prohibition.  I wholly admit that I am painting with a broad brush, but at some level what I described matches the stereotypes.

This issue of guns and pot really (should) stimulate folks to think more deeply on these issues, to consider the basis for their various positions.

I, for one, tend to oppose both gun and drug prohibition (and largely on the grounds of individual freedom and choice).  I suspect there are many here who feel the same way.


http://www.usatoday....guns/50607606/1

[samy12386]

i agree 100% personal choice all the way. the main argument about marijuana is always "gate way drug" "driving high" ect, no one ever brings up what made it illegal in the first place back in the 30s, pure propoganda. VOTE RON PAUL!!!

[mrmagloo]

I tend to agree that pot smoking isn't that big of a deal to remain a criminal offense, but what does concern me is the prospects that by reducing the legal scruntiny of pot, what's next? Is coke and heroin possession then going to get the next push to be decriminalized as well? Where does it end?  It's not as cut and dry as small arms vs RPG's and tanks.

Regarding decriminalizing Pot, are you talking totally OK, like Denmark, where you have head shops, just like a grocery stores, and you can smoke it anywhere you can smoke a cigarette?  Or, by decriminalizing, are we talking just $50 fines (slap on the wrists) for less than an ounce?

[samy12386]

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

I tend to agree that pot smoking isn't that big of a deal to remain a criminal offense, but what does concern me is the prospects that by reducing the legal scruntiny of pot, what's next? Is coke and heroin possession then going to get the next push to be decriminalized as well? Where does it end?  It's not as cut and dry as small arms vs RPG's and tanks.

Regarding decriminalizing Pot, are you talking totally OK, like Denmark, where you have head shops, just like a grocery stores, and you can smoke it anywhere you can smoke a cigarette?  Or, by decriminalizing, are we talking just $50 fines (slap on the wrists) for less than an ounce?

Just get the federal government out of it. 18 states already said okay to medical pot which (don't get me wrong benefits allot of really sick people) but I can walk in say I get a headache now and then or trouble sleekly and get a card. It's a joke and is not the same thing as heroine and coke. Just completely un regulate it other than DUI and there won't be a problem.

[lockman]

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

I tend to agree that pot smoking isn't that big of a deal to remain a criminal offense, but what does concern me is the prospects that by reducing the legal scruntiny of pot, what's next? Is coke and heroin possession then going to get the next push to be decriminalized as well? Where does it end? It's not as cut and dry as small arms vs RPG's and tanks.

Regarding decriminalizing Pot, are you talking totally OK, like Denmark, where you have head shops, just like a grocery stores, and you can smoke it anywhere you can smoke a cigarette? Or, by decriminalizing, are we talking just $50 fines (slap on the wrists) for less than an ounce?

The only pot law we should have should be misuse, like DUI or public intoxication etc., and restrictions for those under 18 like tobacco.

[mrmagloo]

lockman, on 29 September 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

I tend to agree that pot smoking isn't that big of a deal to remain a criminal offense, but what does concern me is the prospects that by reducing the legal scruntiny of pot, what's next? Is coke and heroin possession then going to get the next push to be decriminalized as well? Where does it end? It's not as cut and dry as small arms vs RPG's and tanks.

Regarding decriminalizing Pot, are you talking totally OK, like Denmark, where you have head shops, just like a grocery stores, and you can smoke it anywhere you can smoke a cigarette? Or, by decriminalizing, are we talking just $50 fines (slap on the wrists) for less than an ounce?

The only pot law we should have should be misuse, like DUI or public intoxication etc., and restrictions for those under 18 like tobacco.

How does that effect the shift towards decriminalization of the rest of the class of 'recreational' drugs? I know that can be a pretty big conversation slitting hairs between coke and heroin, but I think there are many who think hash, opium, and the like are no different, even less intoxicating than pot? How would we establish what drugs now are OK, what drugs will be lowered in the 'criminality severity', and which needs to stay status quo? Mighty big Pandora's Box right around the first bend.

[sleepercaprice1]

The BATFE, the same agency that masterminded a brilliant scheme to send thousands of guns to the violent Mexican drug cartels, has now decided that it is in the country's best interest to eliminate medical marijuana users from possessing firearms. Why am I not surprised? Truly amazing.

[defaultdotxbe]

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

How does that effect the shift towards decriminalization of the rest of the class of 'recreational' drugs? I know that can be a pretty big conversation slitting hairs between coke and heroin, but I think there are many who think hash, opium, and the like are no different, even less intoxicating than pot? How would we establish what drugs now are OK, what drugs will be lowered in the 'criminality severity', and which needs to stay status quo? Mighty big Pandora's Box right around the first bend.

one could split the same hairs between pot and alcohol or nicotine, its an arbitrary line no matter where you draw it

[sleepercaprice1]

defaultdotxbe, on 29 September 2011 - 04:49 PM, said:

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

How does that effect the shift towards decriminalization of the rest of the class of 'recreational' drugs? I know that can be a pretty big conversation slitting hairs between coke and heroin, but I think there are many who think hash, opium, and the like are no different, even less intoxicating than pot? How would we establish what drugs now are OK, what drugs will be lowered in the 'criminality severity', and which needs to stay status quo? Mighty big Pandora's Box right around the first bend.

one could split the same hairs between pot and alcohol or nicotine, its an arbitrary line no matter where you draw it

IMO, no one has the right to decide for me what I put into my body, but if my ingestion of a foreign substance causes undesirable effects, such as anit-social criminal behavior or health issues, it's on me and nobody else. Of course, this thinking assumes a bit of personal responsibility, which seems to be less common every day.

[GarandFan]

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

...what's next? Is coke and heroin possession then going to get the next push to be decriminalized as well?

I would hope so.

[sleepercaprice1]

GarandFan, on 29 September 2011 - 05:11 PM, said:

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

...what's next? Is coke and heroin possession then going to get the next push to be decriminalized as well?

I would hope so.

It's not like prohibition has prevented their use. I think sometimes the "forbidden fruit" factor leads young people to indulge in the use of illicit substances.

[ChiShooter]

GarandFan, on 29 September 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

From USA Today ... you can find lots more coverage via google news.

Part of me absolutely loves this issue, because it sets up a delightful conundrum that bothers certain liberals and conservatives alike.  The conundrum is enough to make pretty little partisan heads spin.  In very general terms, "conservatives" tend to oppose gun prohibition but favor drug prohibition.  Liberals tend to favor gun prohibition but oppose drug prohibition.  I wholly admit that I am painting with a broad brush, but at some level what I described matches the stereotypes.

This issue of guns and pot really (should) stimulate folks to think more deeply on these issues, to consider the basis for their various positions.

I, for one, tend to oppose both gun and drug prohibition (and largely on the grounds of individual freedom and choice).  I suspect there are many here who feel the same way.


http://www.usatoday....guns/50607606/1

There's no issue for me there - I oppose both prohibitions (as well as a number of others).

[ChiShooter]

mrmagloo, on 29 September 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

Is coke and heroin possession then going to get the next push to be decriminalized as well?

Why not ? As a matter of fact I've read a year or so ago that , I think in Portugal though not sure, since they decriminalized drugs heroin acquired this status of an "old junkie's drug" and nobody cares for it (or at least very few). If someone is dumb enough to inject themselves with that s**t that's their call. And if you really want to help
them then have them go to rehab, or help them find their inner peace or whatever the heck they need. But throwing them in jail with murderers , rapists and other scum surely won't help them.

[defaultdotxbe]

sleepercaprice1, on 29 September 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

It's not like prohibition has prevented their use. I think sometimes the "forbidden fruit" factor leads young people to indulge in the use of illicit substances.

and prohibition leads to high black market prices, which can entice people to get into selling drugs for the quick money, and of course foreign gangs are all too happy to provide the supply


not to get too far off topic, but this is why drug enforcement is a joke, even if you can get 99.999% of drugs off the street, it just makes that .001% you didnt get worth 100,000 times more money (and criminals will be willing to go 100,000 times farther to obtain and protect it)

[Johnnybgood]

I say concealed carry with the Stand your ground law, then decriminalize the lot. It is not the governments job to tell me what I put in my body. That is called paternalism. I have no intention of using any of it but if someone else wants to ruin their lives with it so be it. However if they attack/try to rob somebody to get their next fix and get shot, too bad, so sad. I too believe when they decriminalize all this stuff many people won't want it anymore because the thrill is gone. All those taxpayers billions then can go toward paying off what we owe.

[lockman]

It is possible to take heroin in doses to mitigate severe pain without being impaired as much as having a few beers. It is just like guns in that the whole of society suffers the prohibitions resulting from the minority that will abuse it. I am sure there is a medium somewhere but prohibition is not acceptable. We destroy tons of heroin, but allow synthetic versions to be marketed even though the toxicity and side effects are considerably higher than there more naturally sourced counterparts like heroine, morphine and codeine.  Marinol,   the FDA approved synthetic substitute for marijuana is much more toxic than the plant itself and can result in overdose.  An overdose from smoking or ingesting pot is virtually impossible.

[ChiShooter]

Quote

and prohibition leads to high black market prices, which can entice people to get into selling drugs for the quick money, and of course foreign gangs are all too happy to provide the supply

And high market prices combined with low costs of production make these cartels insanely rich. If anyone of you is subscribed to America's 1st Freedom there was an article a couple of months ago regarding ATF scandal with firearms, but one part of it talked about how cartels have these disposable planes and stuff like that. They have a massive airplane that they buy just so that they can transfer a ton of drugs, then when the plane lands they don't even bother to reuse it. They now have submarines too. And I've heard somewhere else that top bosses in cartels don't even count the money anymore when they do their transactions - they weigh it. I think 30 pounds of dollars is considered to be one million bucks, give or take. (not joking)

Quote

I say concealed carry with the Stand your ground law, then decriminalize the lot. It is not the governments job to tell me what I put in my body. That is called paternalism. I have no intention of using any of it but if someone else wants to ruin their lives with it so be it. However if they attack/try to rob somebody to get their next fix and get shot, too bad, so sad. I too believe when they decriminalize all this stuff many people won't want it anymore because the thrill is gone. All those taxpayers billions then can go toward paying off what we owe.

My thoughts exactly.

[belercous]

GarandFan; I see you're a Libertarian, or at least a civil libertarian. I'm a civil libertarian. I do not believe that anyone under the influence of any substance ought to have a loaded firearm near them, then it becomes a matter of public endangerment. Whatever someone does when they're not near a loaded firearm is none of my concern, just don't get behind a trigger or a steering wheel.

Leagalize LSD, Cocaine & Heroin. But if one commits a crime (or neglects their children) because of drugs; nail 'em for the actual crime, but allow them the option of treatment & probation on a first offense. Public intoxication of a substance is a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. But the mere act of using a drug, no matter what drug, ought not to be a crime; it only harms the user.

Legalizing something takes away the enormous profits and thus, out of the black market. We don't have gangs shooting people for the right to distribute alcohol anymore. Legalizing a drug will also make it harder for kids to get the substance. Kids have an easier time getting Heroin than alcohol (I'm not making this up or hyperbolizing, Heroin is a problem in High Schools today).

[samy12386]

belercous, on 29 September 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

GarandFan; I see you're a Libertarian, or at least a civil libertarian. I'm a civil libertarian. I do not believe that anyone under the influence of any substance ought to have a loaded firearm near them, then it becomes a matter of public endangerment. Whatever someone does when they're not near a loaded firearm is none of my concern, just don't get behind a trigger or a steering wheel.

Leagalize LSD, Cocaine & Heroin. But if one commits a crime (or neglects their children) because of drugs; nail 'em for the actual crime, but allow them the option of treatment & probation on a first offense. Public intoxication of a substance is a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. But the mere act of using a drug, no matter what drug, ought not to be a crime; it only harms the user.

Legalizing something takes away the enormous profits and thus, out of the black market. We don't have gangs shooting people for the right to distribute alcohol anymore. Legalizing a drug will also make it harder for kids to get the substance. Kids have an easier time getting Heroin than alcohol (I'm not making this up or hyperbolizing, Heroin is a problem in High Schools today).

Agreed. When I was in high school a bag of weed was much easier than a case of beer.

[Jeffrey]

samy12386, on 30 September 2011 - 10:10 AM, said:

belercous, on 29 September 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

GarandFan; I see you're a Libertarian, or at least a civil libertarian. I'm a civil libertarian. I do not believe that anyone under the influence of any substance ought to have a loaded firearm near them, then it becomes a matter of public endangerment. Whatever someone does when they're not near a loaded firearm is none of my concern, just don't get behind a trigger or a steering wheel.

Leagalize LSD, Cocaine & Heroin. But if one commits a crime (or neglects their children) because of drugs; nail 'em for the actual crime, but allow them the option of treatment & probation on a first offense. Public intoxication of a substance is a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. But the mere act of using a drug, no matter what drug, ought not to be a crime; it only harms the user.

Legalizing something takes away the enormous profits and thus, out of the black market. We don't have gangs shooting people for the right to distribute alcohol anymore. Legalizing a drug will also make it harder for kids to get the substance. Kids have an easier time getting Heroin than alcohol (I'm not making this up or hyperbolizing, Heroin is a problem in High Schools today).

Agreed. When I was in high school a bag of weed was much easier than a case of beer.

Ditto.  It's probably still the same too.  IMO less likely to kill a kid as well.

[GarandFan]

belercous, on 29 September 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

GarandFan; I see you're a Libertarian, or at least a civil libertarian. I'm a civil libertarian. I do not believe that anyone under the influence of any substance ought to have a loaded firearm near them, then it becomes a matter of public endangerment. Whatever someone does when they're not near a loaded firearm is none of my concern, just don't get behind a trigger or a steering wheel.

Regarding the drug issue, we agree.

But I wanted to clarify the "under the influence with a loaded firearm nearby" statement.  I don't often drink to intoxication, but now and then still do.  Almost always, it's in my own home.  While inside my own home, I choose to keep a loaded firearm (or arms) nearby.  I choose not to unload such firearm(s) even when I have a drink or three.  I trust you aren't saying that my personal choice on this matter should be unlawful.

[samy12386]

GarandFan, on 30 September 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

belercous, on 29 September 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

GarandFan; I see you're a Libertarian, or at least a civil libertarian. I'm a civil libertarian. I do not believe that anyone under the influence of any substance ought to have a loaded firearm near them, then it becomes a matter of public endangerment. Whatever someone does when they're not near a loaded firearm is none of my concern, just don't get behind a trigger or a steering wheel.

Regarding the drug issue, we agree.

But I wanted to clarify the "under the influence with a loaded firearm nearby" statement.  I don't often drink to intoxication, but now and then still do.  Almost always, it's in my own home.  While inside my own home, I choose to keep a loaded firearm (or arms) nearby.  I choose not to unload such firearm(s) even when I have a drink or three.  I trust you aren't saying that my personal choice on this matter should be unlawful.

There should never be a law enacted to mandate how your firearms are stored. You are ultimately responsible for how they are used regarless of you level of sobriety.

[belercous]

GarandFan; I should have qualified my statement with the exemption of intoxication in one's own home vs. the public sphere. I was peaking a bit too broadly and didn't qualify my remark, good catch, we're in agreement.

Samy; I don't believe any law should prevent an intoxicated person from having access to a firearm in his/her own home. Sometimes a drunkard may need to protect his/her dwelling. Outside of the home, including the curtilage is different, we get into public endangerment issues there. I'm on the fence about young children having open access to loaded fireams even in one's home. I know it's a personal responsibility thing, but not everyone is responsible. And most children are not responsible. I'm open to arguments on both sides of the issue.

[bob]

samy12386, on 30 September 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

There should never be a law enacted to mandate how your firearms are stored. You are ultimately responsible for how they are used regarless of you level of sobriety.

I am inclined to agree, at least about the responsibility side of things. This is a lot like people with swimming pools. We often require them to take some common sense steps to prevent tragedies.

Swimming pools are no more inherently dangerous than guns. They are both inanimate objects, with no evil intent.

The people that claim that fire arms education and training of children is enough to ensure they don't do something stupid around unsecured firearms are just dreaming, and they know it. It is certainly true that hunter safety and other firearms education for children and adults has improved gun safety over the years. But, I suspect that the trend toward more security over firearms is also a factor.

My guess is that a de facto minimum level of responsibility is going to be eventually be determined by the courts if it is not enacted by law. I think I would prefer a law that could be tweaked along the way a lot easier than case law that is very hard to change.

Is there any real downside to requiring that guns that are not in use be secured in some way to reduce the risk of children messing with them?  I am not even suggesting any special requirements here. Just that we all take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people of all ages that are not responsible enough to be handling them. Quite frankly, there are very, very few children who are responsible enough to be allowed unsupervised access to firearms. The question ought to be how best to reduce their chances of coming in contact with firearms while unsupervised and educating them on how to handle a situation where they inadvertently do come in contact with one.

[samy12386]

Im pretty sure you are already responsible for what happens if a child gets ahold of your loaded gun and does something with it. Making a law about how you store them just seems to far for me and it's only enforceable by police checking your house. I don't want to be taken out of text on my above comment I DO NOT agree with anyone carrying outside the home drunk. Part of me likes how Utah allows you to actually have a beer while carrying just not going over 0.08 like for driving a car. That keeps the responsibiliy on you but that's also something I'm not keeping my fingers crossed about. I guess I'm just a firm believer that the govt is not a substitute for a responsible adult and history shows that when they try it gets really screwy. In regards to medical marijuana if the Feds are going to "turn a blind eye" to medical issue of something they should treat it like anything else. You don't loose you right to own a gun when you get a prescription for vikadin I think it should be the same. Abuse of illegal or legal drugs already prevents you from gun purchases, the key word there is ABUSE not use.

[bob]

samy12386, on 03 October 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

Im pretty sure you are already responsible for what happens if a child gets ahold of your loaded gun and does something with it. Making a law about how you store them just seems to far for me and it's only enforceable by police checking your house. I don't want to be taken out of text on my above comment I DO NOT agree with anyone carrying outside the home drunk. Part of me likes how Utah allows you to actually have a beer while carrying just not going over 0.08 like for driving a car. That keeps the responsibiliy on you but that's also something I'm not keeping my fingers crossed about. I guess I'm just a firm believer that the govt is not a substitute for a responsible adult and history shows that when they try it gets really screwy. In regards to medical marijuana if the Feds are going to "turn a blind eye" to medical issue of something they should treat it like anything else. You don't loose you right to own a gun when you get a prescription for vikadin I think it should be the same. Abuse of illegal or legal drugs already prevents you from gun purchases, the key word there is ABUSE not use.

The key word being adult here. Children are inherently not responsible adults.

I am not fond of government deciding what level of security for your firearms is appropriate, but at least if government were to come up with something you would have a pretty good defense if something bad happened and you had followed the rules. That might even be part of any sugegsted legislation.

Chances are we are not going to be able to prevent this kind of legislation as no court is ever going to say that we have some kind of right to endanger children or other people in some way. So it may well be better for us to come up with ways to keep our guns out of the hands of those who are not responsible that negatively impact our ability to use them for self defense in the most limited ways. The thing is that most of us already do this, so it is not as if it is some kind of major imposition.

[ChiShooter]

samy12386, on 03 October 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

...I'm just a firm believer that the govt is not a substitute for a responsible adult and history shows that when they try it gets really screwy...

+1

[Hossua]

Prohibition doesn't work. Marijuana prohibition was spun off of a yellow journalism hit job to protect the forestry industry from superior hemp paper.
There is NO reason industrial hemp should have been prohibited, but the "journalists" of the day were able to sway public opinion. Not much different from the way our media sways public opinion today.

[highspeed]

I find it hard to believe our gov`t officials who certainly know more than us  haven`t legalized it and taxed the hell out of it, like they do cigarettes.

[mikew]

Hossua, on 19 November 2011 - 09:11 AM, said:

Marijuana prohibition was spun off of a yellow journalism hit job to protect the forestry industry from superior hemp paper.

I've not heard that before, but that does not mean that it's not a real possibility or a contributing factor.

I learned that real efforts started right after the repeal of prohibition, giving a fresh mission and guaranteed utilization to an endangered bureaucracy designed to seek and destroy a family of illegal goods and those in the distribution of it.