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

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.

Your right to self-determination.

Yea the right of self-determination has to do with the people of a nation being able to demonstrate sovereignty over themselves, and nothing to do with you as an individual being able to do whatever you want.

There is no amendment or clause that specifically pertains to drug use. There is one about keeping and bearing arms.

You should probably do some actual research before you start trying to make constitutional arguments about it. And this is coming from somebody who isn't a big fan of the war on drugs.

This is a remarkably reductive read. Of course in some contexts what you say about "self-determination" is true, but it is widely accepted to be an appropriate term for talking about personal sovereignty. Again, I think it's rather absurd to suggest that one does not enjoy a specific freedom if it was not delineated in the Constitution, and I think it's also absurd to suggest that one can't find alignment between rights codified in the Constitution and rights not so codified. To say that one would have to support other personal freedoms in order to, with intellectual consistency, support the second amendment is hardly a "Constitutional argument." Perhaps the issue here is not my lack of research but rather your mistaken framing of my position.

a reply to: Krakatoa

This is true. But I do have the right to privacy and the right to be secure in my own home and personal effects. So I should be able to do drugs in my own home without restriction. Right???

Also I think the OP is talking about the Principle here more than the actual law. Technically drugs aren't protected the same way guns are from Government screwing with them.

But in Principle, if we allow People to Possess Guns under the Assumption that they can be Responsible enough with them, then we should allow People to Possess Drugs as well and Assume they can be Responsible enough with them.

Of course, looking around I'd almost say we are wrong in assuming either of those things.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm just saying that I think trying to compare the two in importance is like comparing the importance of having a fully stocked DVD collection without actually having a DVD player. You cannot really enjoy the one without the other because the one just eclipses the other that much in importance.

Or you need to maintain your right to keep and bear in order to maintain any chance you have of ever wresting your right to dope yourself silly. Otherwise, you are simply asking your tyrants pretty please with sugar on top and have no real power of your own left to make them actually listen to you.

But the comparison of importance doesn't matter much at all, does it? I'm not asking which you would give up first. I'm saying you can't, with any real rigor of thought or philosophical honesty, support one without the other. You are presenting a false dilemma.

No, I am saying that the one provides the foundation for the other.

Look, you may or may not think that you have every right to pierce your tongue and dye your hair bright purple, but so long as you were living in your parents' home ... they had the final say as to whether or not you got to do it because you had no guarantee of your rights then. It was their home; they paid all the bills. You were beholden to what they allowed you to do.

You didn't actually get to exercise that privilege to pierce your tongue and dye your hair until you got out on your own.

This works the same.

You may want to dope yourself silly, but so long as the government has ultimate power over you, it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else believes about dope. And without the means to mount a serious rebellion to that ultimate authority to establish your independence and rights, whatever any of us believes about our privilege to dope ourselves silly doesn't matter.

If you will note, I have not said one thing or the other about what I ultimately believe about drug legalization on this thread. I have only said that your belief in legalization matters not one whit if you don't support guns and that your freedom to keep and bear is magnitudes more important and why. And what I think about your desire to dope yourself silly is quite aside from what I may or may not think about legalization.

I have noted that you've not made a clear statement with regard to the core point. Of course the government exercises force to control my spectrum of choice. And of course people sometimes agree with these policies and sometimes do not. I tend not to approve of them. The false dilemma I argue that you are presenting is that there is a binary either/or relationship between my freedom to ingest what I will and my freedom to stand prepared to defend my flesh with force. I don't have to make this choice. It doesn't matter to the argument. The argument is that, philosophically, one leads to the other: trust in others to exercise personal responsibility in a matter of such grave importance implies trust in others to exercise personal responsibility in matters of more restricted, personal consequence.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

That's fair to say, I think, but I would add the caveat that opposing drug prohibition does not mean opposing all regulation of drug markets. I think there should be room for nuance, there, just as I think there is room for nuance on the matter of bearing arms.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Krakatoa
But in Principle, if we allow People to Possess Guns under the Assumption that they can be Responsible enough with them, then we should allow People to Possess Drugs as well and Assume they can be Responsible enough with them.

Yes, that's the thrust of it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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

I appreciate the kind words.

I understand what you're saying pragmatically. There are no full decriminalization movements in the US with real legs under them. That said, I support the elimination of all prohibition and I am open to mitigating regulations intended to ensure the rate of social change is not too great so as to allow society to adapt to a new normal. I am also open to the entire bevy of regulations that exists around alcohol, intended to ensure consequences when a person's failure to exercise responsibility intrudes on the freedom of others and to control for bad actors in the market introducing unsafe substances or providing substances in obviously unsafe ways.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

Yes, that's the thrust of it.

I would completely agree with that idea as well.

It's a complete lie that we do actually trust anyone to be responsible however which we should admit to because it's that very lie which allows us to act in completely opposing ways.

We pretend that people can be trusted but we don't actually believe that other than when it's comfortable for us to believe it. Otherwise we assume that people are completely incapable of making even the most minor and insignificant decision correctly and so we must make it for them.

This leads to all kinds of hypocrisy and double standards in our lives.

We ban Lawn Darts (with pointed tips) because they're dangerous but encourage everyone to be armed with guns. We ban Heroin because it's too addictive but prescribe pharmaceutical opiates and expect people to be responsible with them as if the addiction isn't a factor. We have kids in the military who we assume are responsible enough to fight and die protecting our nation using the most advanced equipment known to man, but they can't buy a pack of cigarettes or a beer for another year because they're 20 years old.

originally posted by: daskakik

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.

Perhaps. Think of it like a motion in a debate - a sharply framed proposition, not a literal declaration of what people must and mustn't do.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

Yes, that's the thrust of it.

I would completely agree with that idea as well.

It's a complete lie that we do actually trust anyone to be responsible however which we should admit to because it's that very lie which allows us to act in completely opposing ways.

We pretend that people can be trusted but we don't actually believe that other than when it's comfortable for us to believe it. Otherwise we assume that people are completely incapable of making even the most minor and insignificant decision correctly and so we must make it for them.

This leads to all kinds of hypocrisy and double standards in our lives.

We ban Lawn Darts (with pointed tips) because they're dangerous but encourage everyone to be armed with guns. We ban Heroin because it's too addictive but prescribe pharmaceutical opiates and expect people to be responsible with them as if the addiction isn't a factor. We have kids in the military who we assume are responsible enough to fight and die protecting our nation using the most advanced equipment known to man, but they can't buy a pack of cigarettes or a beer for another year because they're 20 years old.

It does. I think these hypocritical positions are everywhere to be found in the political mix, but this particular one has been on my mind of late. To me is it abundantly clear that prohibition is a bad idea, has always been a bad idea, premised in all honesty on rather unsavory things. So to me it is particularly perplexing that someone can see the wisdom in the notion that the right to bear arms is sacred even though its social value is entirely abstract (hypothetical defense against tyranny) while its harms are so concrete (see: Orlando) while supporting drug prohibition, an expensive policy with a litany of harms against it all justified to squash an entirely abstract threat that our society will go to rot if we don't tell people what they can and can't consume. I have my own theories on how we got here as a society, but I'm trying to exercise some discipline in the scope of my argumentation.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

And to say that if one supports the second amendment one MUST oppose drug prohibition is not only absurd but completely illogical.

All the more so given the definition you use for self determination, being that one can determine what to do with one's own life. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there.

As for what you claim I suggested, I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Pointing out that recreational drug use isn't a right guaranteed to anybody isn't a suggestion, simply a fact.

In the end, you have the right to put whatever you wish to. And to suffer the consequences of doing so, whatever they may be. Much like those who support the second must suffer the consequences of misusing their right. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to shoot your neighbor for playing music late at night.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

And to say that if one supports the second amendment one MUST oppose drug prohibition is not only absurd but completely illogical.

All the more so given the definition you use for self determination, being that one can determine what to do with one's own life. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there.

Have you ever read a debate proposition? It is a strongly worded affirmative statement meant to provide a clear context for discussing an issue. A lot of folks around here pull this sort of thing dishonestly (deliberately misreading or misinterpreting words to create confusion and refocus the debate), but I have a feeling you really don't understand the meaning of "must" in this context.

As for what you claim I suggested, I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Pointing out that recreational drug use isn't a right guaranteed to anybody isn't a suggestion, simply a fact.

And has absolutely nothing of value to do with the proposition that prohibition is an irrational and inhumane violation of personal freedoms. I don't care one whit what you interpret to be my rights. If people had civic discussions about what policies should be embraced based on the premise that the status quo is the only meaningful measure of what rights ought to be protected, women still wouldn't be able to vote in the US.

In the end, you have the right to put whatever you wish to. And to suffer the consequences of doing so, whatever they may be. Much like those who support the second must suffer the consequences of misusing their right. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to shoot your neighbor for playing music late at night.

But in the United States citizens I do not have that right under current law, which you yourself just finished pointing out and suggesting it somehow meant my point had no merit.

Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

Really does power corrupt ?...Its not only drugs or alcohol that affects people minds and their rationality

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If you're responsible it shouldn't matter. We have a double standard as it is now anyway.

We warn of Drugs being deadly and destroying lives etc. etc. Which is sometimes true but then we advertise beer as if opening a can of bud makes your backyard into a party with half naked women who all love you. We also advertise medication so you "tell your doctor if you have" such and such symptoms like that isn't just like asking your dealer what all he's got in stock that you might enjoy.

It's such BS and it's mixed messages. But of course it's fine to promote destructive addictive habits when corporate wealth is profiting from it. But if they can't get their hands on the money to be made we criminalize it. Alcohol is one of the most destructive substance abuse issues we have but it's a party in a can everyone. Weed is now used as a medicine and is one of the most non harmful substances out of all of them and it's just barely being accepted openly.

We've been played. Lied to and deceived and it's still happening. We've wasted Trillions of dollars and have got nothing to show for it other than more of what we were fighting, more powerful cartels, military for police and an even worse substance abuse problem than ever. Maybe it's time we admit we aren't addressing this correctly.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

Really does power corrupt ?...Its not only drugs or alcohol that affects people minds and their rationality

I agree. But the OP didn't mention power corruption. It compared rational judgement and drug use. One of which negates the other.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

Really does power corrupt ?...Its not only drugs or alcohol that affects people minds and their rationality

It compared rational judgement and drug use. One of which negates the other.

Absolutely i just wanted to point that out...i would imagine there have been many shootings in which the shooter was drunk on power, and that power was created by the gun itself....I believe this is what the OP was alluding to...perhaps not articulated so well

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Vroomfondel

If you're responsible it shouldn't matter. We have a double standard as it is now anyway.

We warn of Drugs being deadly and destroying lives etc. etc. Which is sometimes true but then we advertise beer as if opening a can of bud makes your backyard into a party with half naked women who all love you. We also advertise medication so you "tell your doctor if you have" such and such symptoms like that isn't just like asking your dealer what all he's got in stock that you might enjoy.

It's such BS and it's mixed messages. But of course it's fine to promote destructive addictive habits when corporate wealth is profiting from it. But if they can't get their hands on the money to be made we criminalize it. Alcohol is one of the most destructive substance abuse issues we have but it's a party in a can everyone. Weed is now used as a medicine and is one of the most non harmful substances out of all of them and it's just barely being accepted openly.

We've been played. Lied to and deceived and it's still happening. We've wasted Trillions of dollars and have got nothing to show for it other than more of what we were fighting, more powerful cartels, military for police and an even worse substance abuse problem than ever. Maybe it's time we admit we aren't addressing this correctly.

Being responsible with prescription drugs is one thing. But to expect people with illegal drugs to be responsible is a bit disingenuous. The fact that they are doing illegal drugs is already irresponsible. I do agree with you regarding the double standard where alcohol is concerned. And I agree that weed is less harmful and has medicinal qualities we should not ignore.

The war on drugs is a perfect example of why banning guns is a failed experiment. If banning something made it go away, we wouldn't have a drug problem. But we do. Banning only makes it more profitable for the dealers. With a porous border there isn't even an illusion of control.

All of this is why I believe we need less government and more freedom to protect ourselves. More government means more restriction, more ineffective legislation than cant or wont be enforced, more expense and less results, more interference and less freedom. If someone breaks in to my home I need to be able to protect my family. I don't need a committee to spend a year deciding if I did it right or if I even had the right to do it in the first place. Especially when the members of that committee have armed guards and live in gated communities.

drug laws are used as a deterrent effect. There are large populations who are simply law followers, it keeps this population from using.
Once first use happens a subset of the population will get addicted.

That said I am for weed legalization and full decriminalization but not legalization of narcotics.

If the average IQ was 115 or 130, maybe.

Heroin marketed by Bayer in the early 20th century and approved by the AMA in 1906 lead to 200,000 addicts in New York city alone around 1910 in a population of 4.7 million so 1/25 people or so. Some laws were then put in place around 1914.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

Really does power corrupt ?...Its not only drugs or alcohol that affects people minds and their rationality

It compared rational judgement and drug use. One of which negates the other.

Absolutely i just wanted to point that out...i would imagine there have been many shootings in which the shooter was drunk on power, and that power was created by the gun itself....I believe this is what the OP was alluding to...perhaps not articulated so well

Okay, I see your point. A wolf in a hen house can be as cocky as he wants. But a wolf in a lion den would be a timid creature at best. It isn't the teeth (weapon) as much as the surroundings. If you are the only one with a gun, you just might act any way you please. But when any one of the people around you might have a gun too, you best mind your manners.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

Really does power corrupt ?...Its not only drugs or alcohol that affects people minds and their rationality

It compared rational judgement and drug use. One of which negates the other.

Absolutely i just wanted to point that out...i would imagine there have been many shootings in which the shooter was drunk on power, and that power was created by the gun itself....I believe this is what the OP was alluding to...perhaps not articulated so well

Okay, I see your point. A wolf in a hen house can be as cocky as he wants. But a wolf in a lion den would be a timid creature at best. It isn't the teeth (weapon) as much as the surroundings. If you are the only one with a gun, you just might act any way you please. But when any one of the people around you might have a gun too, you best mind your manners.

Sure i see your point as well, it does not allow however for the mentally ill person that has no care or ability to think in terms of self preservation.........