If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

Decriminalize all drugs! We have a RIGHT to medicate ourselves any way we want to!

a reply to: Informer1958

Perhaps we should end the mind altering drugs from the worlds larges pharmaceuticals corporations that has been tied to many mass shootings in America.

Guns are not the problem period. Mentally ill people are. Yet, I don't see our Representatives addressing this issue do you?

Mental illness is the problem, you are correct. And therefore, guns are a problem. Because mental illness, guns are a problem.

Yes, there are people calling for Mental Health care. The GOP doesn't want any. Reagan was the one who shut the state hospitals and turned out the mentally ill, expecting the "communities" to care for them. Those communities were not prepared at the time, and due to "budget cuts" of social services, the few clinics that managed to take root are sorely underfunded now.

As for the pharma industry - it is a racket.
I recently asked a GP a hypothetical question about CBD/cannabis as a PTSD treatment - Mr Wigs has PTSD, and CBD oil is shown effective in treating it. She said, "Well, it's illegal."

I said, "I know, but we could move to Colo------" and she interrupted, "Yep! You could!"

"So what if we did, would you recommend trying it?"

"I think you'd just be trading one addiction for another." And nearly in the same breath: "Here, I'm going to prescribe some Remeron for you." Adding it to the other prescriptions he already takes.....

I didn't bother to say, "What difference does it make whether he's addicted to the stuff you sell or the stuff the Colorado dispensaries sell? It's not like you doctors don't have him addicted to your Drugs of Choice..."

Anyway -
mental illness is problem number one. Inadequate gun-ownership monitoring (similar to licensed driving) is another problem. But drugs did not cause Omar Mateen to go berserk and kill 49 innocent people.
They did not cause 26 children's deaths in Sandy Hook,
or movie-goers or Virginia Tech people's deaths either.

MENTAL ILLNESS IS THE PROBLEM.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I think the difference is in how you look at it. For you our Freedoms must be specifically noted and defined for them to exist. So your Freedom to own Guns must be listed and then it's real.

My way of seeing it is that our Freedoms are all included unless they are specifically noted as not being included. In other words just the fact that I'm free means I'm already free to do drugs unless otherwise noted.

Otherwise you have to list every possible thing that there is as being ok. Much easier to simply restrict the things that aren't ok and assuming if it's not listed you're free to do it.

The constitution is there to Tell the Government how to act and what to do. Not People. People are Free.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Johnny, remember that many of the people who respond here have never ever tried recreational drugs. Fewer still know anything about prescription mental-health meds and what they actually do. I am with you 100%, just wanted to let you know that.

You're talking to people who are ignorant about what prescriptions actually do, ignorant about what street drugs actually do, and unaware of anything but the "Reefer Madness" illusions they are fed.

When it comes to harder things - yeah, only a specific one or two of them cause violent outbursts. Most recreational stuff just mellows people out. But don't expect lay-people to know this. They don't know what they're talking about. Heroin and "Oxycodone" are horrible. Meth is different. Breaking Bad was an excellent program about it. But no one is talking about decriminalizing meth. Or crack coc aine, or heroin. Just weed. That is all.


I'm leaving before the bombs head my way, but just know that I am actually very knowledgeable in this area, both personally and professionally.

Take care. S/F

Personally, I couldn't care less what people want to put in their bodies. Make all drugs legal for all I care. Put a heroin dispensary on every corner, frankly it'd probably put a lot of drug dealers out of business which is fine by me. The prison roles would drop by hundreds of thousands if not millions. Murder rates would drop, gangs would no longer have much reason for existence. I can see lots of up sides to this idea.

Now take away my right to bear arms...and we're gonna' have a serious problem!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry, the proposition was that you have to support legalization of drugs in order to support right to keep and bear ... not support the legalization of only certain drugs ... you know, the ones you approve of and/or deem harmless.

So you can't cop out by:

1.) Claiming that everyone else is fully ignorant.

2.) Claiming that you know *wink, wink*; nudge, nudge* what was really meant when that was not stated in the OP.

Either you must support right to keep and bear AND full legalization of drugs, not just a few but all, or you don't.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Ladies and gentleman I present you the most dangerous drug known to mankind...


Lets be realistic...
There are probably more gun related incidents associated to alcohol than all others drugs combined.
I never see anyone really address this problem. Don't expect to see it anytime soon either. Because it would require regulating one of our national pastimes(drinking).

a reply to: ketsuko

Was not talking to you.
Fully aware that you can't comprehend my point.

And am not obligated to address your effort to "correct" my response.

a reply to: JAY1980

Honestly, there are more traffic related deaths too. It used to be an excellent point, but with fully automatic cars on the rise, we can soon expect them to start using THAT against our freedom to drive ourselves pretty soon.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

Was not talking to you.
I know you can't comprehend my point.

What you actually know about me could fill the dimple on a golf ball.

Believe it or not, I have a fairly comprehensive history with drugs at least on the prescription side, including quite a range of opiods for pain control and a close relative of L S D.

My comment stands.

a reply to: ketsuko

Was not talking to you. Did not address you.
Not your place to judge my knowledge, expertise, experience, posts in thread, and contributions to society.
Your comment was unsolicited, and will remain disregarded.



I agree with the OP. End of participation.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Good Christ that's one of the biggest applications of the broad brush tactic I've ever seen on here. And frankly I don't give a damn who you're talking to when you use it, it's a public board. If you don't want anybody but one member to acknowledge or respond to a comment, send a u2u.

You have no idea as to the life outside of ats of the overwhelming majority of members of this site. The presumption otherwise is mind boggling.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Krakatoa

I think the difference is in how you look at it. For you our Freedoms must be specifically noted and defined for them to exist. So your Freedom to own Guns must be listed and then it's real.

My way of seeing it is that our Freedoms are all included unless they are specifically noted as not being included. In other words just the fact that I'm free means I'm already free to do drugs unless otherwise noted.

Otherwise you have to list every possible thing that there is as being ok. Much easier to simply restrict the things that aren't ok and assuming if it's not listed you're free to do it.

The constitution is there to Tell the Government how to act and what to do. Not People. People are Free.

You misunderstand my position, and the reason for the constitution. As I stated previously, it does NOT grant these rights (or any rights for that matter). It provides PROTECTION of those rights from government intervention. You may (and likely do) have more natural rights than that outlined in the constitution. However, if they are not listed as protected from the government, then the government is free to interfere with you, personally, when trying to express those rights. If the 2nd Amendment did not exist, we would still have the right to keep and bear arms for our own protection or survival. However (and this is the important part), we would NOT have the protection from the government preventing us from expressing or exercising that right. See the difference? So, the government, in that scenario could prevent us from having any firearms, for any reason. We still have the right, but we could not exercise that right without fear of the government stepping in and stripping it from us wholesale.


I hope that explains it s bit better.

a reply to: Shamrock6

What the hell are you talking about? I am not presuming anything, I am willing to accept any obviously educated rebuttals to my statements. I've been here long enough to "get" the overwhelming majority ebb and flow on this site.

The fact is that the large majority of people are not educated at advanced levels in the administration of specific substances as applied to specific maladies. They are equally unaware of what the chemical make-up and intention of those substances are, and how they work on the brain.

Don't jump on my case -- all I did was mention to the OP that he's talking above the heads of many readers.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Uh...your first two paragraphs that you spent dismantling any opposition to your comment by saying nobody here has a clue what drugs do to people?

I would wager most people here aren't constitutional scholars or students, but instead of casually dismissing anything those folks have to say, the ones that ARE students and scholars of it generally try to throw down some education on whatever the subject is. Whether people choose to take it to heart or not is up to them.

Point is, information and well constructed commentary helps "deny ignorance" a whole lot more than "these people don't have a clue but I know and you know!"

a reply to: Shamrock6

I did not say "nobody has a clue."

I said that many readers and also responders (and you know this: this is a public forum...guests are reading, members are lurking) are not aware of the details about the two topics.

I did not challenge anyone's specific knowledge.
No offense intended. Just pointing out a "confirmation bias" that is likely to be present.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Uh...your first two paragraphs that you spent dismantling any opposition to your comment by saying nobody here has a clue what drugs do to people?

"many of the people who respond here have never ever tried recreational drugs. Fewer still know anything about prescription mental-health meds and what they actually do." =/= "nobody here has a clue".


ETA: As for the OP. I think the use of "must" is what made people get defensive.

I grew up in the worst ghetto in America at the time. Detroit hasn't improved much since then, people have just moved away and our murder rates have dropped as a result.

I have seen what guns can do to families. The loss of loved ones to prison or the grave. The youth that have been consigned to wheelchairs for however long their lives last.

I have seen what drugs can do to families. The loss of loved ones to prison or the grave. The youth consigned to corners to earn a fix for as long as their lives may last.

I have never seen drugs save a life (other than medications, but I doubt the OP was about antibiotics). I've seen guns save lives more times than I can count (legal or otherwise).

For those that say "weed should be legal", it's just arguing for you favorite rather than arguing for a moral philosophy. I personally think all narcotics should be legal, but B&E should be a capitol offense. Drugs don't pay for themselves and making them legal only solves half the problem.

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
no one has a right to use a gun to tell me what I can put in my own body. And I am definitely arguing that this right is at least as sacred as my right to defend myself with deadly force.

I agree that no one has a right to tell you what you can/can't put in your body. I disagree with many laws. I think the seat belt laws are also invasions of individual freedom. However, the freedom to ingest substances is not comparable to the right to keep and bear arms

No? Food is a substance. Water is a substance. It's hard to bear arms when you're too weak to lift them.

Again, weak comparison and weak argument. Besides, you have the right to food. No one is allowed to prevent you from feeding yourselves.

And should I choose to feed myself psilocybin mushrooms? I should be locked up? How do you figure? I think it's your argument that is weak.

I'm not the one making an argument, you are. You've yet to provide a decent one at that. You think that gun owners are hypocrites if they don't think drugs should be legal.

You will never have the right to use hallucinogens publicly. Ever. Addictive substances will never be socially acceptable either. It shouldn't be criminal to be an addict, but don't expect anyone reasonable to ever agree that crack should be free to use by anyone in modern society.

Psilocybin is a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

Prove this wrong and you still won't have a case because there are obvious reasons why the second amendment exists and "right to get high" doesn't.

This strikes me as hand-waving. I'm not arguing that prohibition does not exist now, I am arguing that it's logically incoherent to trust personal responsibility in the case of things that can have disastrous consequences for others if misused while supporting the argument that it's appropriate to restrict what an individual can put in their own body under the weight of an abstract appeal to the greater good. I can think of no such appeal that could not be made more forcefully to oppose the second. Clearly I do support the second amendment, though I'm not a purist. I also oppose prohibition, and I'm not a purist about that, either. On a philosophical level we are talking about regulating what people can put in their own bodies. Marijuana having found several legitimate medical applications suggests that distilling the issue to a "right to get high" as a gross oversimplification of the matter.

a reply to: ketsuko

Which power does government have giving it authority over what the citizen puts in his body?